Lessons from History
History demonstrates that both women and men have adapted their behavior to fit the roles they were permitted or expected to occupy, shaped by systemic constraints and social structures. This does not reflect inherent differences in behavior but rather the influence of societal expectations and power dynamics on both genders. It is not evidence of intrinsic peacefulness or gentleness in women but a reflection of the limitations imposed by these systems. There is no concrete proof that women are less aggressive or cruel than men. On the contrary, women have led wars, commanded armies, and exercised power with the same determination and ruthlessness as men when given the opportunity.
For example, during the medieval and early modern periods, figures such as Zheng Yi Sao or Isabella of Castile profoundly influenced military and political landscapes. However, as militaries became larger and more bureaucratic in later centuries, women's participation diminished—not because they were inherently unfit for these roles, but because evolving social and political norms excluded them.
John A. Lynn II’s Women, Armies, and Warfare in Early Modern Europe provides valuable insights, aligning with my own research from 2009–2015, which revealed how the professionalization of armies systematically sidelined women. Bureaucratic efficiency, extending into today’s AI-driven surveillance, has concentrated control over war and peace within the state apparatus, with significant implications for gender roles.
Another key takeaway is the evolving role of women in light of the commodified soldier and the outlook this suggests for modern hybrid wars. Women were actively excluded from warfare to make it appear more "rational" and "civilized," a process that redefined both the practice of war and the social roles of women.
Contradictions in Modern Warfare
It is worth questioning whether we truly face more wars today than in the past. The scale and nature of warfare have changed, but conflict has always been part of human society. Interestingly, as militaries became larger and more industrialized, women's direct involvement decreased. Lynn’s work highlights how the professionalization of armies in the 17th and 18th centuries systematically excluded women, phasing out roles such as combatants, camp followers, and logistical organizers. These exclusions were part of an effort to make warfare seem more "rational" and "civilized."
In contrast, the modern reintroduction of women into military roles, such as the high percentage of female soldiers in the Israeli Defense Forces, challenges the stereotype of women as inherently peaceful. It demonstrates that, when given the opportunity, women assume roles traditionally associated with aggression and conflict, just as men do.
Israel offers a particularly revealing example, though I wish to avoid discussions of genocide and focus on strategic-economic aspects instead. Israeli soldiers openly celebrate their acts of domination, contrasting sharply with the behavior of U.S. soldiers during the Iraq War, who were still expected to hide actions deemed inappropriate. This overt glorification of domination, supported by countries like the U.S.—a champion of the "rule of law" that frequently disregards the rules it imposes on others—closes a troubling circle.
The era of large standing armies and nuclear deterrence is clearly waning. Instead, a reformed version of mercenary and slave markets is already shaping global economics. While these practices are not new, the loss of any remaining sense of shame is striking. Even Switzerland, traditionally neutral, is reevaluating its stance—returning to a business it knows best: logistics, communication, and human resources in an increasingly polycentric world.
Visibility and Empirical Facts
One of the most pressing issues is the visibility of women in leadership—not just as symbolic figures or idealized models of "peaceful" governance, but as empirical realities. For instance, the GEGI report presents compelling data showing that women’s participation in peace processes leads to more sustainable outcomes, with studies indicating that peace agreements involving women are 35% more likely to last 15 years or longer. Similarly, John A. Lynn II’s historical analyses reveal how women’s leadership during early modern warfare directly shaped both strategic outcomes and societal dynamics. These examples highlight the tangible and measurable impact of women’s leadership throughout history and in modern governance.
Women lead across all sectors of society, yet their contributions are frequently overlooked or undervalued. It’s essential to showcase women’s leadership in its full complexity, including aspects that challenge traditional notions of femininity. Leaders like Ursula von der Leyen, Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh, and Lina Khan exemplify the diversity of leadership styles and roles that women occupy. These figures remind us that leadership is not about conforming to stereotypes, but about navigating and challenging the systems in which we operate.
The Danger of Simplistic Narratives
The narrative that women are inherently more peaceful risks perpetuating gender stereotypes. As Joan Scott cautions, essentializing women in this way undermines their leadership by confining it to certain “acceptable” traits. Instead, the focus should be on the systems that shape behavior and outcomes, rather than attributing differences solely to gender.
Leadership Beyond Gender
To truly understand women’s roles in leadership, we need to ask better questions. How do systems of power shape behavior and outcomes? Too often, the roles publicly recognized as leadership are far less influential than those that quietly wield real power. I am more concerned about the absence of female tech billionaires or corporate presidents in fields like logistics and chemistry than about the gender composition of parliaments or whether a country has a female head of state.
When will we see the first condottiere on the scale of Larry Fink or Ray Dalio? It’s curious that society fixates on loud and domineering men while overlooking women with real power—figures like Ursula von der Leyen, Christine Lagarde, Claudia Sheinbaum, Condoleezza Rice, or Madeleine Albright. These women demonstrate that power can and does reside with women, but their visibility and recognition remain insufficient. Women currently serve as heads of government in just 13 of the 193 United Nations member states. Moreover, only 60 UN member states (31%) have ever had a woman as head of government. This disparity has nothing to do with cultural stereotypes about "masculine" dominance and "US-boy steroids."
We need to ask the tough questions.
As long as we expect women to fix the world’s problems, there will be no equality.
Let women mess up. You don’t need to encourage boldness—but, why not? Let the men clean up. This isn’t just a sociopolitical opinion; it’s my experience as a wife and mother of four: forget your husband's agenda, lose your composure, and you’ll see how quickly men step up to restore good behavior, civilizational norms, and culture—for the benefit of everyone.
Bibliography
