What do you think?
Rate this book
War and Gender: How Gender Shapes the War System and Vice Versa
Gender roles are nowhere more prominent than in war, yet our understanding of the relationship between gender and war is confused. Joshua Goldstein analyzes the near-total exclusion of women from combat forces, through history and across cultures. He concludes that killing in war does not come naturally for either gender, and that gender norms often mold men, women, and children to the needs of the war system.
540 pages, Paperback
First published September 27, 2001
6 people are currently reading
380 people want to read
About the author
Joshua S. Goldstein
28 books31 followersJoshua S. Goldstein is an International Relations professor who writes about the big issues facing humanity. He is the author of six books about war, peace, diplomacy, and economic history, and a bestselling college textbook, International Relations. Among other awards, his book War and Gender (2001) won the International Studies Association's "Book of the Decade Award" in 2010. Goldstein has a B.A. from Stanford and a Ph.D. from M.I.T. He is professor emeritus at American University in Washington, DC, and research scholar at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, where he lives.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
October 4, 2015
This book lives up to its ambitiously broad title, and overall I was really impressed with how it managed to tackle so many different aspects of the relationship between war and gender without losing depth. Goldstein's book is an attempt to gather a lot of knowledge about this relationship that has been scattered between disciplines (mostly Biology, Anthropology, History and International Relations) and organize it in a way that allows him to answer the question: why is it that, "despite the diversity of gender and of war separately, gender roles in war are very consistent"?
Though some portions of the book aren't particularly important for my thesis, I couldn't bring myself to skip those parts because it was all so gripping. Though the book is very well researched (there are 65 pages of references at the end, all relevant), it is written in a clear and logical way that allows you to follow his line of thought perfectly. Even the way he went about debunking some myths most of us want to believe in (sorry everyone, there is no evidence of matriarchies or Amazons), his measured untangling of evidence is so fascinating I couldn't stay mad.
Most important of all, Goldstein managed to convince me of his main conclusion, and I think it's a pretty game-changing one: though this is a complex system that goes both ways, gender is more an effect of the war system than a cause of it. Although some biological differences assure that men, on average, are stronger than women, that in itself would not explain such a strict division as we see in virtually all cultures. So a division is created where boys are toughened up, and taught that manhood is something to be earned (a man card, if you will), and cowardice is a surefire way to lose it and get tossed into the "other" group: women. So men are taught that there is a fate worse than death: to be a "pussy". It's a great way to convince them to go to war, because let's face it: war sucks. You have to convince a bunch of boys that it's worth it, that "cowardice" is an awful thing. And so cowardice is equated to "failed manhood", which is equated to being a woman, which is, in every society, not as good as being a man. And so gender becomes the greatest code of domination, both at home and at war, where the enemy is feminized. Even though most men don't fight wars, all boys and girls are socialized in accordance to this system, because the possibility of war is a constant.
Anyway, I thought it was pretty genius. The one criticism I have is that it's too American. I mean this in two ways: (i) most examples from the 19th century onward are focused on the US (and to a lesser extent, Europe); this is particularly noticeable on the subject of the world wars, where not enough attention is given to the Pacific War; (ii) the methodology is very American in the way he lays out clear hypotheses separated by chapter, and with a neat table at the end of the book ranking the status of each hypothesis. Though this makes for an elegant system, his fixation on trying to answer his question in a neat way made for unnecessarily timid conclusions. Thankfully, on his way to answering the question, he goes deep enough that we can draw our own conclusions.
Though some portions of the book aren't particularly important for my thesis, I couldn't bring myself to skip those parts because it was all so gripping. Though the book is very well researched (there are 65 pages of references at the end, all relevant), it is written in a clear and logical way that allows you to follow his line of thought perfectly. Even the way he went about debunking some myths most of us want to believe in (sorry everyone, there is no evidence of matriarchies or Amazons), his measured untangling of evidence is so fascinating I couldn't stay mad.
Most important of all, Goldstein managed to convince me of his main conclusion, and I think it's a pretty game-changing one: though this is a complex system that goes both ways, gender is more an effect of the war system than a cause of it. Although some biological differences assure that men, on average, are stronger than women, that in itself would not explain such a strict division as we see in virtually all cultures. So a division is created where boys are toughened up, and taught that manhood is something to be earned (a man card, if you will), and cowardice is a surefire way to lose it and get tossed into the "other" group: women. So men are taught that there is a fate worse than death: to be a "pussy". It's a great way to convince them to go to war, because let's face it: war sucks. You have to convince a bunch of boys that it's worth it, that "cowardice" is an awful thing. And so cowardice is equated to "failed manhood", which is equated to being a woman, which is, in every society, not as good as being a man. And so gender becomes the greatest code of domination, both at home and at war, where the enemy is feminized. Even though most men don't fight wars, all boys and girls are socialized in accordance to this system, because the possibility of war is a constant.
Anyway, I thought it was pretty genius. The one criticism I have is that it's too American. I mean this in two ways: (i) most examples from the 19th century onward are focused on the US (and to a lesser extent, Europe); this is particularly noticeable on the subject of the world wars, where not enough attention is given to the Pacific War; (ii) the methodology is very American in the way he lays out clear hypotheses separated by chapter, and with a neat table at the end of the book ranking the status of each hypothesis. Though this makes for an elegant system, his fixation on trying to answer his question in a neat way made for unnecessarily timid conclusions. Thankfully, on his way to answering the question, he goes deep enough that we can draw our own conclusions.
March 27, 2011
Overall I thought this was very well researched and comprehensive, including tons of biological, sociological, and psychological background. I really appreciated his critical and honest perspective, and I think this approach to gender issues should be explored in other contexts.
One (totally shallow) specific criticism: I really disliked the cover art. I know I shouldn't judge a book by its cover-- and I'm glad I didn't because otherwise I would not have picked this up and read it-- but I think the photograph smacks of white elitist systems, which is not at all the tone or viewpoint of the book. The cover art felt like an unfortunate misrepresentation of a more global and holistic analysis.
One (totally shallow) specific criticism: I really disliked the cover art. I know I shouldn't judge a book by its cover-- and I'm glad I didn't because otherwise I would not have picked this up and read it-- but I think the photograph smacks of white elitist systems, which is not at all the tone or viewpoint of the book. The cover art felt like an unfortunate misrepresentation of a more global and holistic analysis.
January 18, 2015
Highly recommended. More of an encyclopedic scholarly review of the history and literature of war and gender studies down through the ages, this book is superbly written and excellently documented and will quickly become a go-to reference for any war and gender studies scholar's research. Really, it's a gem!
November 29, 2008
Possibly my first introduction to modern feminism. He provides a very clear and brutal interpretations of war as they effect women. Probably the most important point to me was how he related the standard attitude towards women as the same attitude taken towards the "enemy" in a war - as weak and therefore justifiably abused and/or exterminated. An excellent read for anyone, but particularly for anyone in the military.
June 12, 2014
This book isn't for me. Written by an anthropologist, War and Gender attempts to combine biology, social science, and cultural analysis. The scope of the book is enormous-- Goldstein covers everything from Bonobos to ancient Greeks to today's combat operations. The book provides a quick overview of various strains of gender theory and war/peace studies. However, given how much falls under Goldstein's purview, the book feels scattered (at best).
March 30, 2015
This is a must read for anybody who is interested in or studies gender relations and politics - especially with regard to international relations and conflict.
October 26, 2007
Highly recommended.
February 27, 2011
For most of my life, I wasn't able to read nonfiction books. I did all my reading before bed and that's not a time when I have the energy for intellectually challenging works.
When I read my first nonfiction book, I was sorely disappointed. All this time I had imagined that nonfictions books were dense with rigorously verified facts, a broad spectrum of knowledge gathered and honed by experts down to potent nuggets of enlightenment. And what did I find? The uncritical prattle of any old schmuck with access to a keyboard! Why, I had rss feeds for that!
War and Gender is what I had naively imagined all nonfictions book to be. It takes the question of the influences of war on gender and vice versa through a broad array of disciplines, delving deeply into each. It delivers rich facts with coherent analysis. I learned a lot about gender as it applies to biology, neurology, anthropology, sociology, and more.
In spite of being a thick, dry academic and scientific text, I found it pretty easy to read. It was well written and sprinkled with an intelligent wit that, when encountered, was always a delight.
I don't know that I agree with all of the conclusions, but it certainly gave me a lot to think about, and changed my perspective on a number of things.
When I read my first nonfiction book, I was sorely disappointed. All this time I had imagined that nonfictions books were dense with rigorously verified facts, a broad spectrum of knowledge gathered and honed by experts down to potent nuggets of enlightenment. And what did I find? The uncritical prattle of any old schmuck with access to a keyboard! Why, I had rss feeds for that!
War and Gender is what I had naively imagined all nonfictions book to be. It takes the question of the influences of war on gender and vice versa through a broad array of disciplines, delving deeply into each. It delivers rich facts with coherent analysis. I learned a lot about gender as it applies to biology, neurology, anthropology, sociology, and more.
In spite of being a thick, dry academic and scientific text, I found it pretty easy to read. It was well written and sprinkled with an intelligent wit that, when encountered, was always a delight.
I don't know that I agree with all of the conclusions, but it certainly gave me a lot to think about, and changed my perspective on a number of things.
August 6, 2016
Excellent overview, but his biological review lacks the 'ultimate' causal perspective.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews