The “Real Man” and National Security

Abstract: This article explores the relationship between masculinity and national security. There may be a reluctance to view the values, attitudes, and beliefs associated with a particular version of masculinity as a driver for violence. Yet, the “real man” version of masculinity is consistently correlated with those who in engage in mass violence, mobilized violence, and violent extremism which present a threat to national security. The “real man” identity is also correlated with significant gender disparities in quality of life including income, health, happiness, and mortality for men. Such grievances represent yet another driver of discontent and violence. National security requires that we recognize and understand potential threats and subsequently work to mitigate those threats. Men in the US military have traditionally been viewed as prototypical of masculine identity and its associated values, attitudes, and beliefs. As such, this version of masculinity represents a unique institutional context to examine the “real man” version of masculinity, and to advance gender equality and overcome the harms that rigid gender roles present to national security.

Questions of national security are not limited to planned, initiated, or executed actions of aggression, violence, or conflict against the United States, the people, or its infrastructure. Rather, national security is predicated on the ability of the USG to identify and mitigate all threats to the safety, security, and functioning of the United States, great and small, domestic and foreign.

In January 2023, three active-duty Marines were charged with participating in the January 6, 2021 riots at the US Capitol. One of them, Micah Coomer, an intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance system engineer at Camp Pendleton, California, posted on his social media page, “Glad to be part of history . . . I’m waiting for the boogaloo” (a term used to reference support for a Civil War 2 to overthrow democracy). A disproportionate 20 percent of the defendants in the Capitol riot cases served in the military, while only about 7 percent of American adults are veterans. This list of defendants includes individuals currently serving in the military, veterans, and members of the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys, groups made up primarily of military veterans and former police officers, convicted for seditious conspiracy (the plan or effort to overthrow the government). This reveals a small yet potentially significant threat to national security within the US military as well as the American public.

Even while the mission of the military is euphemistically referred to, is to “kill people and break things,” we know that is not the sum of it. Indeed, modern wars and complex crises have extended the military mission far beyond lethality, even if that remains a part of preparing “to prevail in great power conflict,” as stated in the 2022 National Military Strategy. Executing lethal missions requires a certain amount of aggression, as aggression can be an effective means of emotion-regulation. Yet studies conducted during or since America’s decades long experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan on soldiers suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) have shown military service both attracts aggressive individuals and exacerbates aggressive tendencies and a hyper-masculinized version of masculinity, including after individuals leave military service. The problem then is that the hyper-masculinized traits—aggression, social respect, toughness, strength, heterosexism, sexual potency, and stoicism—that are perceived to make soldiers effective in battle can be turned against fellow soldiers, democratic principles, the Constitution, and the nation itself through mass and mobilized violence.

Outside the military service we also see signs of a growing, or at least more visible, version of this form of masculinity. This is evidenced by the growth in the militia movement, anti-government movement, and alt-right or hate group movement. Indeed, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence identified militia violent extremists alongside racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists as the most lethal domestic extremist threat in March 2021.

This article seeks to examine how a version of masculinity informs collective values, attitudes, and beliefs within the military and the general population with the potential to translate into behaviors and actions that present a threat to national security. This article aims to contribute to a growing body of research that reveals how a specific set of values, attitudes, and beliefs surrounding masculinity can create enabling conditions for mass violence and serve as a primer for mobilized violence. These are significant questions for American culture as well as the military. However, given that many of the attributes associated with this version of masculinity are also associated with military organizational culture, the military represents a critical point of analysis as well as entry point for policy action and practice.

Still, it is important to state unequivocally that even while this version of masculinity represents an important correlation to mass and mobilized violence, it does not cause violence. Nonetheless, it is increasingly rare for those who commit mass or mobilized violence to not be men (and women) who are drawn to the narrative of this version of masculinity.

A Real Man Or a Good Man

In December 2017, Michael Kimmel, then Distinguished Professor of Sociology and Gender Studies at Stonybrook University, delivered the annual sexual assault awareness lecture at West Point. He described a plenary interaction with the cadets, summarized below:

I asked, “What does it mean to be a good man? Imagine your funeral, and you want it to be said of you, ‘He was a good man.’ So, what does that mean?”

The West Point cadets said, “Honor, duty, integrity, sacrifice, do the right thing, stand up for the little guy, be a provider, be a protector, give to others, be generous, responsible.” I would say, that’s what it means to be a good person, however, those guys, experienced it as gendered.

I asked, “where did you learn that?”

They said, “Well, it’s everywhere. It’s our culture, it’s Homeric, it’s Shakespearean, it’s the Judeo-Christian heritage.”

Then I asked, “Do all of those traits—integrity and honor and responsibility and sacrifice—do they show up for you when I say this: ‘Man the F*ck up, be a real man.’”

And they told me it’s completely different. So, I asked why.

The cadets said, “Tough, strong, never show weakness, win at all costs, suck it up, play through pain, be competitive, get rich, get laid”—that’s what it means to be a real man.

They told me they learned it, in order, from, “My father, my coach, my guy friends, my older brother.”

I think they were telling me that the real man is the part that must be performed for others, in order to validate their masculinity. The real man interacts with and relates to other men. In contrast, the good man is abstract or conceptual, not necessarily inter/active.

I told them, “There’s going to be a time in your life, if there hasn't already, when you are going to be asked to betray your own values, your own ethics, your own idea of what it means to be a good man, to prove to others that you’re a real man. You’re going to be asked to not see what you see. You’re going to be able to not do anything about what you see even if you know it’s wrong. You’re going to be asked to not speak about something that you see. You are going to be asked to betray your own values.”

This anecdote reveals the conflicting and competing values, attitudes, and beliefs surrounding masculinity—what it means to be a man in the United States in general and within the military specifically. The values associated with the real man highlight how masculine identity can function

as a driver for a specific set of behaviors, actions, and practices. Military slogans are emblematic of the real man military culture. The Army used “Army Strong” from 2006 to 2018 and, since 2018, an even more direct real man recruitment slogan—“Warriors Wanted.” Most Navy personnel and veterans hated the slogan debuted in 2009 —“America’s Navy—a Global Force for Good”—as not capturing the reason that individuals join the military, to protect hearth and home as warriors. Today’s Navy slogan is “Forged by the Sea.” Most critically, Kimmel’s anecdote reveals that the real man has primacy over the good man in the US military and beyond. The question is, what is the implication of the primacy of the real man value on military culture, the readiness of the US Armed Forces, and US national security?

There have been longstanding academic inquiries and social debates surrounding the real man narrative of masculinity (also referred to as toxic, hegemonic, patriarchal, and harmful masculinity) and its role in driving interpersonal violence, including domestic violence, child abuse. and sexual assault. In sum, studies have tried to evaluate how this narrative contributes to social instability and thus threats to national security. More recent research has identified a correlation between masculinities and 1) violent extremism, 2) mass violence, and 3) mobilized violence. These forms of violence represent a current and growing threat to national security, as evidenced by the 9/11 attacks, mass shooting incidents across the United States, and the attack on the US capitol in January 2020.

As the West Point cadets described, the real man version of masculinity, which idealizes aggression, social respect, toughness, strength, heterosexism, sexual potency, and stoicism, quite literally dominates the representation of masculinity in the United States. In the context of the US military this version of masculine identity serves to create and reinforce political and societal support—including recruitment for and deployment to war zones. We tell ourselves we need the real man, who is immeasurably strong, and also ruthless enough to do the “dirty work” to protect the nation. This work that most of us believe is necessary, but don’t have the stomach to do. Actor Jack Nicholson vividly personified the real man version of a soldier as Marine Colonel Jessup in the 1992 movie A Few Good Men with his expletive “you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall.” US society largely valorizes this notion of masculinity within the US military, only briefly tittering about abuses, war crimes, and other transgressions that are often framed as a problem of a few bad apples. But according to the Pentagon, there was a rise in sexual assault committed against service personnel, by service personnel, in 2021. This finding includes sexual assault against men. By the middle of 2022, more than 2,550 male veterans filed complaints—almost double the number from 2011.

Yet, the real man notion that military personnel must be immeasurably strong, and ruthless enough to do the “dirty work,” compromises military operational effectiveness. It does so by eroding unit cohesion, for example when some personnel abuse and assault other personnel, and an even larger number are aware but feel powerless to intervene lest they also become targets. It also compromises operational effectiveness by eroding the trust and confidence of partner and beneficiary nations. Indeed, misconduct, violence, abuse, and war crimes committed in theater against armed combatants and civilian members of the population themselves are also linked to the real man value. Consider the “kill trophy” photos taken by the 5th Stryker Brigade in Afghanistan, “torture trophy” photos taken at Abu Ghraib, and the many documented abuses committed by US soldiers abroad.

The disproportionate association of retired veterans with militias and right-wing or alt-right groups, among other examples, reveals the presence of real man values among some military members. This correlation presents a threat within the US military to military personnel, alongside a threat to the United States itself in mass and mobilized violence and compromised military readiness. It demonstrates that this approach—a ruthless real man approach—is simply not effective. Even while there are clear challenges associated with training and capacitating soldiers to defend the United States with their very lives, the current complexity of warfare requires better analytical, problem-solving, and critical thinking skills—not a version of masculinity that glorifies dominance, defilement, and destruction as proof of being a real man. We are talking about operational effectiveness and the ability of the military to maintain strategic, operational, and tactical continuity with each mission. How is this possible in a context when personnel are (increasingly) assaulting each other, participating in mass and mobilized violence domestically, and committing abuses against foreign combatants and civilians?

The Real Man and Mass Violence

Adherence to the real man narrative and a belief in the primacy of men over women is correlated with mass violence, as noted in the 2022 media headline, “Secret Service’s Latest Research Highlights Mass Violence Motived by Misogyny.” Indeed, misogyny has been called “the glue” that binds together right-wing extremists. This Secret Service case study examines a 2018 shooting in Florida where the attacker’s background included decades of concerning criminal behavior directed primarily at women despite his participation in higher education, military service, and highly regarded professional positions of trust. A summary of the analysis noted that:

[The] attacker’s history highlights the specific threat posed by misogynistic extremism. . . . “male supremacy,” has received increased attention in recent years from researchers, government agencies, and advocacy groups due to its association with high-profile incidents of mass violence. Some of these attacks were perpetrated by individuals who espoused specific types of misogynistic extremism, including “anti feminists” and “[Incels]”. The . . . Tallahassee attacker did not appear to adopt any of these specific ideological labels, but his behaviour and beliefs aligned with many who do.

Mass violence correlated with an adherence to the real man value is not limited to those who explicitly target women. The 2017 Las Vegas shooter who killed fifty-eight people and injured approximately 500 others at a music festival was status driven and felt entitled to demonstrations of social respect. Research shows that when such expectations or entitlements are challenged or ignored, the individual may experience a threat to their idea of being a real man and as such, double down to demonstrate their masculinity. Indeed, those who adhere to the real man version of masculinity are also more likely to support violence and generally to be more supportive of war as a solution to national disputes.

Similarly, attacks at two gay night-clubs in Colorado (2022) and Orlando (2016) where more than fifty people were killed are generally understood to be motivated by the primacy of heterosexism, and homophobic sentiment rooted in the belief that the worst thing a man can be is feminine—in other words, “gay.” In the Orlando case, the shooter was abusive to women and openly homophobic. He directed violence at forms of masculinity not consistent with a real man narrative.

The threat of the real man version of masculinity can also be seen in the planned 2020 kidnapping of Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer. In response to COVID-19 lock-down measures, the self-described “Wolverine Watchmen” made a targeted plan to kidnap Governor Whitmer, a so-called “tyrant bitch” who had no right as a woman to tell people what to do. Two of the thirteen men originally arrested were Marine veterans. This case is also an example of how women in politics are specifically targeted with abuse and threats of violence, including murder, as a means of discouraging them from leadership in the public space. Likewise, “The Chilling: A global study of violence against women journalists” reveals an alarming connection between online threats to women journalists and offline attacks – entirely disproportionate to what men in journalism experience.

White supremacist violence is also correlated with support for the real man version of masculinity. The 2015 shooter who killed nine parishioners at the Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina wrote, “I have noticed a great disdain for race mixing White women within the White nationalist’s community, bordering on insanity it [sic]. These women are victims, and they can be saved. Stop.” The quote reveals a competing vision of women’s status and subordination in the context of the real man narrative and the white nationalist community. Women are either the subject of a protective patriarchal strategy to prevent sexual access to non-white men, protect genetic purity, and maintain social hierarchy between white men and white women. Or in contrast, women are viewed as a primary enemy of men for not providing sexual access, attempting to gain and maintain socio-economic independence, and enjoying reproductive autonomy. Similarly, the 2022 shooter who killed ten black shoppers in Buffalo noted his belief that organized efforts are being made to “weaken” the existing white race by promoting sexual and gender diversity that discourages white people from settling into a family structure that is focused on producing children.

The Real Man, Violent Extremism, and Mobilized Violence

The real man version of masculinity is also correlated with mobilized violence. This term is used to generally refer to violence committed by a group as a show of force in protest of or support for something. As such, mobilized violence includes violent extremism to the extent that the violence is committed by a group of mobilized extremists wishing to demonstrate power and force.

Political, economic, and cultural changes in the US landscape have abetted the proclivity of real man security risks. University of Oregon professor Bonnie Mann’s 2013 book Sovereign Masculinity argues that nations can take on a gendered identity, and that the 9/11 attacks on the US mainland challenged America’s manhood, thereby requiring America to “man up.” More recently, the United States has been engaged in great power competition, specifically with countries with “strongman” leaders like Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping. The perceived need to respond to bullishness in kind has sometimes driven “manly” policies, such as with US nuclear strategy toward Iran, regardless of its effectiveness. As such, the real man version of masculinity is correlated with violent extremism and mobilized violence alongside national security policy and practice.

The real man attitude is well evidenced within violent extremism, particularly right-wing extremism. This is perhaps most readily identified in the context of al-Qaeda, ISIS, and the Taliban. In these cases, women (among other groups) have an explicitly lower status in the society. They are subject to sanctioned violence and limited in their de jure and de facto rights whether that is walking on the street, accessing an education, having a job, choosing who they marry, or controlling their own reproduction. These versions of violent extremism are centered around a real man narrative where men always have primacy over women, and gender roles are strictly enforced for both women and men.

While less overt, but no less of a threat, some right-wing populist/nationalist movements also illustrate the intersection between the real man narrative and the use of rhetorical or objective violence. Right-wing populist/nationalist leaders use language to demonize opponents as feminine/inferior/anti-national, and some democratically elected right-wing “strongmen” leaders have openly advocated gender-based violence. Former Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro told a female Brazilian lawmaker that he would not rape her because she was not worthy of it. He also transferred his vote to impeach Brazil’s first woman president, Dilma Rousseff, who was tortured as a political prisoner in the 1970s, to one of her torturers.15 The former president of the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte, told his soldiers in 2017 that they could each rape up to three women with impunity on the island of Mindanao where he had declared martial law and followed that in

2018 with directions to soldiers to shoot female rebels “in the vagina” to render them useless. The events of January 6th in the United States and notably similar events in Brazil both featured rhetoric intended to mobilize intersecting groups of protestors using real man and nationalist narratives alongside lies and propaganda about the stolen election. In the United States this included language imploring tens of thousands of protestors to “be strong,” “fight like hell,” and “take back our country.” The January 6 attack reinforces the connection between the real man version of masculinity and a variety of right-wing groups in the United States. This includes anti-

government militias that are not necessarily ideologically antisemitic or racist alongside expressly racist groups within the white nationalist and alt-right movements. These groups are a threat to cohesive military culture and thus operational readiness and national security. Research documents how “hypermasculine posturing and appealing to male anxieties [i]s integral to the wider purchase of . . . narratives that fuel anti-democratic sentiments and demand a radical transformation of politics and society” or a return to a time when women, and minorities, had limited rights. Indeed, “far-right extremism in the United States has tapped into misogyny, encouraging generally white men to demonstrate their masculinity by engaging in violent confrontations with those institutions, movements, and people that would dislodge them from their position in the social, political, and economic hierarchy.”

It is also worth noting that “women have often served to soften and mainstream the image of far-right extremist groups in the United States . . . by leveraging their identities as mothers, daughters, and citizens in need of protection.” Women’s engagement in extremism serves as an important reminder that the real man version of masculinity prevails with the support of both men and women. Indeed, the only rioter killed on January 6th was a woman, Ashley Babbit, shot by a Capitol Police officer as she and others smashed a window while trying to gain access to the Speaker’s Lobby. Ashley Babbit was a fourteen-year veteran of the Air Force.

To be clear, support for the real man narrative did not cause the attack on the Capitol. However, the real man narrative did provide the necessary conditions to mobilize a broad group of protestors to initiate violence. Roger Eatwell and Matthew Goodwin, in their book, National Populism: The Revolt Against Liberal Democracy, note that, “[t]hose who felt that the hierarchy was being upended—with whites discriminated against more than blacks, Christians discriminated against more than Muslims, and men discriminated against more than women” were more significant factors in support for Donald Trump than the economy. Thus, we can see how the real man narrative represented a unifying value that was called on to mobilize action.

The Real Man Is Also Bad for Men

The real man version of masculinity is not just a direct threat to national security but is also bad for men. Tony Porter’s 2016 book Breaking Out of the Man Box: The Next Generation of Manhood encourages men to reject the constraining real man mentality often drummed into them since childhood. It can lead to disrespect, mistreatment, and abuse of not just women, but of each other.

The fact is there is strong and consistent evidence that promoting gender equality leads to greater subjective well-being for men as well as women. For example, policies promoting gender equality generally improve the quality of life for everyone, not just women. This includes childcare, stereotypically thought of as a “women’s issue” until COVID-19 pointedly demonstrated to many families that this is a “family issue.” As a Naval War College professor teaching on Zoom during the pandemic, this author viewed a fair number of male military students attending class with children on their laps. Yet, we continue to deny a basic truth, that relationship quality with partners and children, including sharing home and care responsibilities, has important consequences for individual well-being including mental health, life satisfaction, physical health, and mortality.

Men’s continuing decline in life expectancy in the United States is also correlated with the real man version of masculinity (among other factors like greater exposure to occupational risks/hazards). This trend includes avoiding healthcare interventions in lieu of stoicism and strength and not addressing mental health needs as a result of difficulty confiding in others or an explicit desire to be an “independent guy” or real man. Within the military, this attitude is a problem; about one in five personnel faced with mental health concerns, while only 30-40 percent seek help. Research suggests that this disparity is largely informed by the real man version of masculinity within the military that is not viewed as consistent with help seeking, particularly for psychological or emotional health needs. As such, it should not be surprising that many more men than women continue to die of suicide and substance abuse or “deaths of despair.” We should be alarmed, however, that there has been a progressive increase in deaths of despair, particularly among men, since the 2000s.

Similarly, support for the real man narrative has profoundly negative consequences for the realities of the labor market, where traditionally male-dominated jobs have significantly contracted while the demand for work typically held by women has increased. This reality is well summarized by the Economist in an article entitled, “Men Adrift: Badly Educated Men in Rich Countries Have Not Adapted Well to Trade, Technology or Feminism.” The article’s title highlights how one of the problems is that men have not been very interested in or successful at entering female-dominated areas of work due to experiencing “challenges to their masculine identity.”

Broken Bargains: No Place for the Real Man

Domestically, men are confronted with two broken bargains that have turned their economic and social status upside down—many are rightly alarmed, worried, and indeed, angry. The first involves the evolutionary nature of capitalism, from “Fordism” to globalization. During Fordism, a man could be hired into and retain a manufacturing job forever, a job that could support a family but was limited in potential advancement. That was the bargain. Automation and manufacturers’ realization that there’s always cheaper labor to be found broke that bargain. Furthermore “creative destruction”—the abolishment of some fields but the opening of others—was accelerated by the influx of information technology that accompanied the wave of globalization that swept the globe at the turn of the millennium. Goodbye mining sector, hello information technology.

Second, both ambition and economic need during the second wave of feminism drove more women into the workforce to compete for what were then considered “men’s jobs.” This trend also reduced women’s economic dependence on men. Women now make up 41 percent of all primary breadwinners in the United States. As such, the nuclear family model with working-class men as providers has become the exception rather than the rule. Yet, part of the real man version of masculinity is centered on the belief that men are the head of the household, the breadwinner, and the provider (alongside being the protector of women, children, and the family).

Moving Forward: The Good Man, Good Person, and Good Soldier

While the real man version of masculinity may not be viewed as an imminent threat to military readiness and national security in the same way we view foreign terrorism, it is arguably a current and, indeed, growing threat in the United States. It represents a slowly spreading cancer that erodes our nation’s ability to (co)operate with the agility and dynamism the current context demands. There is no room for the real man version of masculinity and its increasingly unapologetic assertion of the primacy of men over women and the importance of rigid gender roles, where women must be feminine and men must be masculine. National security is compromised by a value, attitude, and belief that men must “man up” and women must support them, and everyone knows their place. The reality is that this version of the US and the world does not exist any longer.

Real man masculinity, even thuggery, seems in vogue not just in the US but in other democracies as well. “Racist thuggery” was blamed when far-right protesters clashed with anti-racist demonstrators in London in 2020, and again in 2023 in connection with violence at pro-Palestinian marches in London. Football/soccer matches in Latin America have long been plagued by thuggery as well, from Mexico to Argentina. In the United States, real man masculinity has crept into too many organizations, including the US Senate, with Oklahoma Senator Markwayne Mullin challenging the Teamster president to a fight during a November 2023 Congressional hearing. Organizational culture is defined by the worst behavior allowed by leadership. Until the dangers of real man masculinity are recognized, acknowledged, and addressed by leadership, it will continue to present a threat to individuals, organizations, and nations.

What we need, as Richard Reeves writes in his recent book, Of Boys and Men: Why the Modern Male is Struggling, Why It Matters, and What To Do About It, is a positive version of masculinity that is compatible with gender equality. We must recognize and address the ways in which men and boys, alongside women, girls, and non-binary individuals, are harmed by gender inequality. We need the values of our nation and our military organizational culture to avoid the promotion of real man masculinity that scapegoats’ women (and minorities) and positions men as victims of feminist (and minority) usurpers—and demands with threats and violence for a return to rigid gender roles. We need soldiers to be “strong” enough not to betray their own values, ethics, and ideas of what it means to be a good man/soldier in order to prove to others that they’re a real man.

It is therefore incumbent upon the military to advance an organizational culture that is fit-for-purpose for the twenty-first century—not the twentieth century. This means, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley put it, “[e]quality and opportunity are matters of

military readiness, not just political correctness.” As such, there are several opportunities to move forward with proactive changes:

1. Organizational Culture Reboot: enhance group solidarity and loyalty based on shared values and approaches to advancing trust and cooperation and reducing conflict and exclusion. Promotion of the “good soldier” value, attitude, and belief to which members of the military are expected to translate into behaviors, actions, and practices during their military service.

2. Recognition of Threat Indicators: misogyny, racism, social disrespect, homophobia, abuse of power, hazing, etc. must not be tolerated. These behaviors must be recognized for what they are, blinking red lights that indicate an individual or group represent a credible threat to security.

3. Bystander Intervention: develop and maintain the skills necessary to intervene and interrupt conduct that undermines trust, cooperation, social cohesion, and inclusion. Such conduct may not meet a higher standard of policy violation but may nonetheless represent “testing” behavior. Creating and maintaining a “good soldier” culture requires personnel at all levels to play a role—and this requires social and communication skills that may not be adequately present.

4. Leadership Role Modeling: failure to hold individuals to account for misconduct as well as counterproductive behavior creates a permissive organizational culture with social license for jokes, comments, and conduct that is in conflict with the “good soldier” value.

Indeed, working to advance gender equality has benefits for men and boys alongside women and girls – whether in the family, the institution, or society at large. Consider the links identified between economic well-being, inclusive and diverse leadership, and gender equality on a global scale by the Gender Equality and Governance Index (GEGI). Most notably, the top three ranked countries (Iceland, Norway, and Germany) are established democracies with evidenced levels of gender equality throughout their social, political, and economic systems, while two-thirds of the fifty lowest ranking countries are authoritarian with little to no gender equality indicators. Similarly, the International Labour Organization (ILO) asserts that advancing gender equality in the labor market could increase global employment by 189 million or 5.3 percent by 2025. Not surprising, education and literacy are positively correlated with intergenerational increases in economic productivity, higher earnings, and improved societal health and well-being. Moreover, gender equality in the labor market and in the context of education leads to better health outcomes for men and women, including reductions in mortality, morbidity, alcohol consumption, mental health illness, and intimate partner violence. While gender equality is not a silver bullet, it is nonetheless a critical factor to achieve political, economic, and social stability in the United States

and the world beyond. Given the rapidly changing global context, including advancements in science and technology and changes to how war is conducted, there is an increasing need to look forward rather than looking backward. Gender equality is one element of a forward-looking approach to tackle the challenges of today . . . and tomorrow.

Heather Huhtanen is a Gender Equality, Security and Justice Development Consultant, based in Geneva, Switzerland. Joan Johnson-Freese is a Senior Fellow with Women in International Security (WIIS).

View Original Article Source