Women and Peace Hypothesis

Women and Peace Hypothesis

The Women and Peace Hypothesis is a shorthand for the assumption that women are more peace-loving than men in the context of inter-state disputes. It falls apart in a few more sophisticated hypotheses, notably:

• At the level of the public opinion – i.e. the masses – women are more peace-loving than men.
• Female top decision-makers in foreign and defence policy (incl. heads of government, top ministers), are more peace-loving than male leaders.
• Gender-equal societies are more peace-loving.

Public opinion research
A vast amount of public opinion research has found that, on average, women are indeed more pacific and more opposed to the use of military force than men. This big question is operationalized through more specific questions in surveys that interrogate respondents on aspects, such as

• approval of military action in the context of an international crisis
• approval of military action to topple a foreign regime
• preparedness to back down when a threat has been made, or during a conflict
• preparedness to make compromises with the adversary, etc

To explain the gap between women and men, scholars refer to how over generations and centuries people have been socialized into gendered roles that go with either ‘feminine’ or ‘masculine’ value sets. Women are supposed to be mothers, to care, to be more in favor of dialogue and cooperation. The less pacifist men, in contrast, are the ones who have to protect the women and children, the territory and the honor of the nation, and therefore are more ready to fight (Lizotte, 2019).

Some authors trace this gender socialization back to prehistorical times, when humans shifted from being hunters and gatherers to shepherds and farmers. This Neolithic revolution from about 10,000 BC onwards (much later in Western Europe) introduced notions of property and territory, which needed to be defended against external competitors. In this process the physically stronger men assumed the role of soldiers. As such they took the upper hand politically, and established the patriarchate. From then we also saw a dramatic increase in the incidence of inter-group violence or war. Most earlier societies were more gender-equal and peaceful. Hence, biological essentialism does not help us to explain the difference; nurture matters more than nature (Fuentes, 2021; Furholt, 2021; Mertens, 2022).

Other, contemporaneous explanations in accordance with the more recent times in which public opinion surveys were taken, perceive a link between the weaker social-economic status of women and their inclination to more progressive policies, including pacificism (Lizotte, 2019).

Several publications have questioned the universal validity of this gender gap. In specific countries and specific conflicts, the gender gap appeared to be absent. This shows that elements intrinsic to the specific context of the conflict and the countries involved, or the ways women are affected by the conflict, override the gender differences (Aharoni, 2017; Tessler, Nachtwey, & Grant, 1999). Research also shows that the gender gap disappears if a government decides to war for humanitarian reasons, or if the military action is approved by the UN. In those cases women can even be more supportive to war than men (Brooks & Valentino, 2011).

Female leaders
There is hardly any evidence that female executive leaders in charge of foreign policy decision-making (i.e. government leaders and top ministers) are more pacific (Dube & Harish, 2017; Koch & Fulton, 2011).

To begin with, there is the methodological problem that throughout history that have not been sufficient female leaders to draw stark conclusions.

Furthermore, selection processes may cause a substantial disconnect between female public opinion and female leaders. Here the hypothesis is that male-dominated political elites, as gatekeepers, tend to only allow women in office that meet typical ‘masculine’ values more tolerant to the use of force. In addition, voters play a role in selection as they tend to be more in favor of hawkish leaders (Reiter, 2015).

Finally, female leaders may want to make an extra effort to look tougher in the eyes of foreign (male) adversaries and domestic opponents. Conversely, sexist male adversaries can also be more war-prone when confronted with a female leader, as they do not want to be seen as weaker than a woman (Reiter & Wolford, 2022).

Classic examples of such ‘hawkisk’ female leaders are India’s Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, who decided to intervene militarily against Pakistan for its brutal crackdown on Bengali separatism in 1971, and won that war; Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir, who went on an impressive counteroffensive after being attacked by Egypt and Syria in the 1973 Yom Kippur War; and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher who responded with force to the Argentinian invasion on the British Falkland Islands – claimed by Argentina as Islas Malvinas – in 1982.

Gender-equal societies
Quantitative research established a positive correlation between the degree of gender equality within societies and more peaceful foreign policy. Indicators of gender equality are for example female suffrage or equal numbers of women and men in parliament (Caprioli, 2003; Caprioli & Boyer, 2001; Koch & Fulton, 2011). Based on their findings, scholars even challenge the democratic peace theory, by stating that gender equality is a more important factor for peace than democracy (Barnhart, Trager, Saunders, & Dafoe, 2020).