Sex Roles, Vol. 50, Nos.

1/2, January 2004 ( C 2004)

Book Review
War and Gender: How Gender Shapes the War System and Vice Versa. Joshua S. Goldstein, Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press; 2001. 523 pp. $39.95. cieties, when differences in size and physical strength are no longer as important? Goldstein outlines the cultural factors that promote the gendering of war, such as the construction of norms that link mens identity as masculine with their willingness to ght. To claim the status of manhood, men have to be willing to endure the trauma of war; those who refuse to do so are castigated with demeaning epithets and are accused of not being real men. To wage war effectively, men have to learn to suppress their emotions, especially fear and grief. Those who fail the tests of manhood are often publicly shamed and humiliated. Men who are unable to ght because of shell shock or posttraumatic stress disorder are frequently castigated as failing to meet the masculine ideals of independence and self-condence. The link between masculine identity and the role of soldier contributes to mens resistance to women in combat. If masculine identity is linked with soldiering, then allowing women to serve in combat undermines one of the major motivations for men to undergo the trauma of serving as soldier. Womens identity is also linked with war by cultural norms, but only in an ancillary, nurturing role, such as nurse or sweetheart. Goldsteins discussion of the cultural reinforcement of gender-segregated roles in wartime is thorough and informative. He does not take the additional step, however, of exploring the function that gender-segregated roles have served throughout history. His perspective is a modern one in which gender-segregated roles no longer serve an important purpose. Through most of history, womens lives have been biologically determined and have centered around child-bearing and childcare. It simply would not have been functional for the society as a whole, or for most women as individuals, to take a primary role in waging war. Societies ensured their own survival by developing norms that excluded women from combat, thereby enabling women to raise the next generation. This is not to deny that women sometimes have played important roles in war. Figures such as Joan of Arc immediately come to mind. However, as Goldstein estimates, women have comprised only 1% of the total number of soldiers over the course of history. But contrary to popular opinion, when women 141

Throughout the ages, war has been waged primarily by men. One can point to exceptions in which women have been active combatants in war, but most societies have restricted the role of warrior to men. This raises the question of why the warrior role has been designated as male and why women have been relegated to ancillary roles. In his new book, War and Gender: How Gender Shapes the War System and Vice Versa, Joshua S. Goldstein draws on various disciplines to examine the interconnections between war and gender. These range from biology and psychology to history and international relations. His purpose is to examine the evidence in support of various hypotheses for the gendering of war. For example, are men better equipped to serve as soldiers because of their superior size and strength? Although each of the hypotheses he explores is supported by some evidence, he concludes that none is sufcient to explain the sharp division of roles for men and women in wartime. Certainly there are differences in mens and womens biology, particularly in physical strength, but Goldstein maintains that these small differences are not extreme enough to explain the strict allocation of war-related roles along gender lines. The problem here is that some factors, such as physical strength, may have been important at an earlier point in time, but are no longer relevant. Until very recently in modern technological societies, physical strength was crucial in waging war. Soldiers frequently had to use heavy weapons in hand-to-hand combat. Such physical combat advantages men in comparison to women because differences in strength, particularly upper body strength, are critical. Only recently, with technological advances that have made physical strength less relevant, has active combat become feasible for most women. Consequently, a more pertinent question is: Why do combat roles continue to be dichotomized according to gender, even in highly technological so-

0360-0025/04/0100-0141/0

2004 Plenum Publishing Corporation

142 have played a role in combat, they have been effective and generally have performed as well as most men. Other issues that Goldstein addresses include the use of gender as a code for domination in which soldiers assume a masculine dominant position in relation to a feminine subordinate enemy, the rape of women as an instrument of territorial control, and war as a cause of gender in which men and women are socialized to develop the personal attributes that will enable them to enact their culturally assigned roles in war. The latter issue promises to be a provocative and controversial one. Certainly war has been and continues to be an important aspect of human life and has some impact on the gender system, but it overstates the case to postulate that war inuences the socialization of children into all of their gender roles (p. 410). In summary, this is a well-written and readable book. Scholars in the eld will welcome the wealth of encyclopedic detail throughout the book, particularly

Book Review in the accounts of the roles played by men and women in relation to war throughout history. In our current technological society, with many barriers to womens participation in combat removed, the question we now need to address is: What are the cultural restraints that continue to maintain gendersegregated roles that relate to war and how can they be changed? At times it becomes necessary to defend ones society, ones values, and ones way of life. To ensure our most effective response to outside threats for all of our citizens, we need to determine what we can do to remove the barriers to womens full participation in all of the roles that are available in our society, including those related to war and active combat. Gwendolyn L. Gerber John Jay College of Criminal Justice and The Graduate Center City University of New York