Would our world be more peaceful if women were on top?

Would our world be more peaceful if women were on top? That’s a question a number of people have asked in recent times. Given the New Zealand Labour Party's recent controversy on equalising the representation of women within their party, the question seems like it might be particularly topical in New Zealand right now. Men are aggressive, impulsive, and love a good fistfight, while women are caring nurturers who value relationship...or so the stereotypes tell us. Stephen Pinker in his book The Better Angels of Our Nature notes that more violent areas of the world happen to be those which lag behind others in the empowerment of women. Micah Zenko at foreignpolicy.com thinks women are less inclined to start wars, but Rosa Brooks at the same site thinks women can get tough and aggressive just like men can. In this post I outline some of the more general knowledge gathered about what ordinary women and men think about war, and then make a little preliminary analysis on what men and women in power think about war – which might be the real determining factor here.

This Pew Research study got people talking about the issue recently. Pew Research asked men and women all around the world whether or not they approved of Obama’s drone strike program. There was a large difference between countries. 61% of Americans approved of the program, but only 43% of Ugandans and 21% of Spaniards. But there was also a large and consistent gender gap. Of the countries listed in Pew’s report, the discrepancy was largest in Japan, where 41% of men but only 10% of women approved of drone attacks. But the gap was everywhere – in Australia, almost twice as many men (58%) as women (30%) approved of drone strikes, and in the US, where approval was the highest, a staggering 70% of men approved of the strikes, though only just over half (53%) of women did.

Looking at that gender difference on military force more generally, Micah Zenko’s article enumerated an impressive list of how often men in the USA as well as around the world seemed to be particularly fond of use of force in pretty much all the major wars the US has fought over the last 20 years. Eichenberg [1] published a comprehensive study looking at gender differences in use of force in 486 different survey questions in the US from 1990 to 2003. He found that American men are more likely to support military force for any purpose more than American women are. Looking at the justifications that were given for each military intervention in question and the kind of military force, men didn’t seem to be so concerned about humanitarian issues and loss of life.

Despite all this research into what ordinary men and women think, gender differences in the ordinary population mightn’t tell us anything about what women and men in power do with their power. Just as the surveys found that the gender gap between men and women wasn’t the same right across the world – it seems to be stronger in some countries than others – groups of women and men within a country might differ. The kind of people who get selected to be politicians might be the more aggressive, bellicose types we associate with masculinity rather than feminity. Maybe that kind of aggressive, bold personality is just the type needed to succeed in politics and gain positions of power. If women eventually get to make up 50% of the US Congress, of Parliaments around the world, it might be because women manage to catch up and become just as aggressive as men already are. If that’s the case, then more women in power through more aggressiveness isn’t going to make the world any more peaceful. Maybe there’s a simple psychological trait called something like ‘aggression’, which men have more of, which makes men more likely to support war and more likely to get political power than women. In that case, we could expect the few women who make it into politics are the kind of women who have more aggressive, masculine attitudes and consequently, women in power already are no more aggressive than men in power.

Men and women in power

To test this, I took a look voting records of men and women in the US Congress and how they voted on authorization for the US war in Iraq in 2002, and for supporting the use of force in Libya in 2011. When I looked at Iraq, the difference seemed to be clear. There were only 12 out of 100 senators who were woman at the time, so it’s not even worth looking at data in the Senate. But in the house, the data were interesting and seemingly clear:

Men vs. women in Congress voting for military action against Iraq in 2002

Percentage of men and women in the House of Representatives who voted to pass the Bill To Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq. Voting records: Clerk of the House of Representatives.

But the first thing to remember is that US Democrats tended to oppose the war, not only on ideological reasons but also because it was the opposing Republican President, George W. Bush, who was advocating for war. That could skew the results, because while just 20% of congressional representatives in the Democratic Party were women, just a tiny 7% of Republican representatives were women. So it’s worth looking at those differences for each party:

Men vs. women in Congress voting for military action in Iraq in 2002, by party

Percentage of men and women Democrats and Republicans in the House of Representatives who voted to pass the Bill To Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq. Voting records: Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Although there were large differences between each party, certainly a larger proportion of male Democrats (44%) than female Democrats (20%) voted to authorize force. The sample of female Republicans – just 15 – is really too small to make any statement. Thinking back to our original question – what if women were in charge? – it might be interesting to see what would have happened if all men voted along the same proportions that women did:

Military action	No military action
169	260

 In this comparison, “No military action” wins, 260 votes to 169. If, in 2002, men in congress had voted the way women in congress did, the Iraq war would never have happened! But we need to remember the difference between the parties reflects how the wider population choose their leaders. Presumably the vote that determined who got into Congress also chose Republicans for their policies, and Democrats for theirs. So we could look at how the vote would have been if men overall had voted the same way women in their own party did:

	Military action	No military action
Republicans	204	15
Democrats	41	167
Total	245	182

In that case, military action would still have won out, 245 votes to 182, though the margin would be slimmer (57% to 43%) than it actually was in history (73% to 39%). When we consider the way that people voted for political parties, and that party membership probably tells us as much or more about the way a congressperson votes than their gender, it looks like that there’d still be enough bellicose women around to join with the men in taking the US to war.

Results were even more mixed when the US Congress came to vote on supporting Obama in an air strike on Libya:

Men vs. women in Congress voting for military action in Libya in 2011

 Percentage of men and women in the House of Representatives who voted for the Bill Authorizing the limited use of the United States Armed Forces in support of the NATO mission in Libya. Voting records: Clerk of the House of Representatives.

This time, it appears superficially that women (42%) actually appeared to be more likely than men (27%) to support military action. But as before, the more meaningful figures seem to be tied up with party membership:

Men vs. women in Congress voting for military action in Libya in 2011, by party

Percentage of men and women Democrats and Republicans in the House of Representatives who voted for the Bill Authorizing the limited use of the United States Armed Forces in support of the NATO mission in Libya. Voting records: Clerk of the House of Representatives.

It seems like the reversal had a lot to do with party membership. When a Republican President wanted to go to war in 2002, the Republican party were more likely to endorse the war. Similarly, when a Democratic President wanted to go to war in 2011, the Democrats were more likely to support him. The majority of Congresswomen are Democrats, so that made women appear to be more supportive of war. Looking at the difference between men and women Democrats (again, there are too few Congressional Republican women to really make a judgment), there was very little difference between male and female.

So would the world be more peaceful if women were on top?

Women tended to more strongly oppose the War on Iraq in 2002 than men did. But there could be a number of explanations for that. Maybe more liberal congressional districts were more likely to elect female Congressional representatives, and also – independently - more likely to elect doveish representatives. To test this, we’d need to somehow measure how liberal each district is. Dividing Congress into Democrats and Republicans is a good start, but since there’s a lot of variation in each party, we should look more carefully at the attitudes toward war that Congressional Districts who elect Congressmen and Congresswomen have.

Women were also at least as likely to support the use of military force to support the NATO mission in Libya in 2011.  That might hint at the difference Eichenberg found in women’s support for causes justified on more humanitarian grounds.

This seems like a good start. Of course there were a whole lot of wars fought over the last 20 years, and not only the US Congress but legislative bodies around the world voted on them. If we take a larger look at those voting records, we might see a pattern emerge, where at least for a certain kind of war, women tend to be a lot more peaceful than men.

One of the main objections to the argument that more women in power would make the world more peaceful is that, if more women were voted in, it would be because women somehow became more like men, in becoming more aggressive or masculine or taking on other traits that make them more likely to survive in politics and more likely to support war. But when we consider a quota system like the New Zealand Labour Party has sought to introduce, the effect might be quite different. Under a quota system in present-day society, even though women would make up 50% of representation, we still live in a society where the data seem to suggest women in general show greater concern for loss of human life and humanitarian concerns [1]. Although a quota system has been derisively labelled as a 'man-ban' by critics and the media, it might actually - in some limited ways - produce a better outcome than if women representatives changed so that electorates voted in 50% of them even without a quota.

---

[1] Eichenberg, R. C. (2003). Gender differences in Public Attitudes toward the Use of Force by the United States, 1990-2003. International Security 28(1): 110-141.