if we want to create a global culture of peace – to try and find out why throughout history there were so few women warriors compared to men. This can be seen from the times of the ancient history of Egypt and Mesopotamia till today. In other words, why don't women take an active part in wars? Is this related with the physiological difference between men and women or there is another reason? Medically speaking, the brains of human beings – like those of other animals – do not differ very much from one gender to the other, except in the control of hormone production. There is no doubt, however, that hormones affect our behavior in different ways. Hormone differences, however, do not explain why there are so few women warriors. Edward O. Wilson of Harvard University told us that human females tend to be higher than males in empathy, verbal skills, social skills and security-seeking, among other characteristics, while men tend to be higher in independence, dominance, spatial and mathematical skills, rank-related aggression, and other characteristics. But what is the reason behind such differences? I think physiology can not give us the answer. However, if this is the case with physiology, cross-cultural methodology cannot answer our question. David Adams concludes his paper “Why There Are So Few Women Warriors,” published in Behavior Science Research in 1983, by saying: “From the available evidence there is no reason to suggest that the absence of women from active warfare reflects sex differences in a “so-called aggressive instinct” that is critical for warfare. Instead, cross-cultural data support a different hypothesis. Under conditions of warfare against neighboring communities, many cultures have adopted a marital residency system in which the bride comes from a different community and lives with the family of the husband. This produces a situation in which the wife is faced with the contradiction that her husband may go forth to make war against her brothers and father. Historically, the contradiction has been resolved most often by totally excluding women from any participation in warfare. Although this probably occurred early in human prehistory, and is documented only for stateless cultures in the present analysis, it would seem likely that it has had profound consequences for sex roles in subsequent history, including all recent civilizations.” However, even David Adams's paper does not explain the absence of women from modern wars. Or to put in another way, it does not explain why the majority of women hate wars and prefer peace instead. In my opinion women do not like wars solely as a result of their upbringing. From an early age, they are taught to be good beings and not to harm others. They are also taught to be considerate while taking any action, where as males are taught and encouraged to do what they want because they are “men”. It is the social and cultural expectations from women that they grow up with so many exceptions. For example, in most countries women are expected to be far from aggressiveness and involvement in wars. Therefore, if a women doesn't live up to her expectations she is considered a “bad woman” or not a woman at all. While studying in England, I traveled from Manchester to London by train. In London, I saw an Asian taxi driver shouting at a polite English woman though she was talking politely. I enquired about the matter and found out that she was in fact right. So I asked her why she did not shout back at him, as he did? Her answer was: I cannot as I am a woman. The main question which I hope my readers will try to answer is: If we taught our boys to be less aggressive and not to harm others, can we have less men warriors? If the answer is yes, then can we have a safer world? – SG The writer can be reached at [email protected] __
