Gender Equality and Intrastate Armed Conflict

Abstract

In this article, I examine to what extent gender equality is associated with lower levels of intrastate armed conflict. I use three measures of gender equality: (1) a dichotomous indicator of whether the highest leader of a state is a woman; (2) the percentage of women in parliament; and (3) the female-to-male higher education attainment ratio. I argue that the first two measures in particular capture the extent to which women hold positions that allow them to influence matters of war and peace within a state. I further argue that all three measures, but especially the last two, capture how women are valued relative to men in a society, that is, the relative degree of subordination of women. Whereas female state leadership has no statistically significant effect, more equal societies, measured either in terms of female representation in parliament or the ratio of female-to-male higher education attainment, are associated with lower levels of intrastate armed conflict. The pacifying impact of gender equality is not only statistically significant in the presence of a comprehensive set of controls but also is strong in substantive terms.The claim developed in feminist theory that societies based to a lesser extent on gender hierarchies are less beset by collective violence bears directly on some of the most central questions in the study of International Relations. Following a debate about the relationship between this field of research and feminist scholarship

Honor and political violence

“…Previous research has established that the level of gender equality within a country correlates to the peacefulness of the state (Caprioli 2005, Melander 2005, Hudson et al 2009, Gleditsch et al 2011, Reiter 2014. This study provides unique micro-level evidence that links misogynist attitudes with self-reported participation in political violence among political activists.…”

Disentangling gender, peace and democratization: the negative effects of militarized masculinity

“…iv The data on armed conflict comes from the UCDP/PRIO Armed Conflict Dataset (www.ucdp.uu.se), presented in Gleditsch et al 2002. v This interaction effect was theoretically deduced and empirically corroborated by Melander (2005a) .…”

“…Moreover, when militarized masculinity is strongly present it is likely that violence is viewed as an acceptable means of imposing and maintaining domination. The more widespread and pervasive militarized masculinity is, the more likely it is that conflict will be dealt with violently ( Pin-Fat and Stern 1992, 2005, Enloe 1993, Gibson 1994, Gill 1997, Kimmel 1997, Fone 2000, Hooper 2000, Caprioli 2000, 2005, Goldstein 2001, Tickner 2001, Micheler 2002, Kimmel and Mahler 2003, Melander 2005a, 2005b ii .…”

“…Moreover, among semi-democracies, states with a larger dominance of men in parliament are more likely to be involved in intrastate armed conflict. This tendency (that less equitable societies are more beset by intrastate armed conflict and other forms of collective violence) is a widespread phenomenon (Caprioli 2000, 2005, Melander 2005a, 2005b. As illustrated in the top half of Table 5 (below), less equitable societies are more involved in intrastate armed conflict than authoritarian states, and than full democracies.…”

Polygyny or Misogyny? Reexamining the “First Law of Intergroup Conflict”

“…For example, Melander (2005) emphasizes the commonality between gender roles that legitimize the subordination of women and the dominant warlike role of men (see also Goldstein 2001;Caprioli 2000). Since the emergence of more equal gender roles also strengthens norms of respect and individual inviolability, and extend social norms that reject abuse and violence to a wider sphere, higher gender equality should be associated with less collective violence, including both civil war and interstate war.…”