GRACE Under Pressure
We urgently need more balance, harmony and equanimity. When will we demand it?
Listening to BBC Radio 4’s satirical news comedy, ‘Deadringers’, this morning prompted my wife, Tina Bettison, to ask a brilliant series of questions of ChatGPT.
We were both curious to know the proportion of men and women leaders over the last 500 years of history who have been instrumental in inciting or beginning a military conflict either in someone else’s country or their own.
Whilst there are nuances as to :
📣 How the term leader is defined,
📣 What constitutes a military conflict
📣 The recency and accuracy of ChatGPT’s LLMs
The numbers are equally unsurprising and jaw-dropping at the same time.
Out of an estimated ~3,600–4,200 total national leaders over the last 500 years:
✅ ~1,200–1,500 male leaders are credibly documented as having initiated or escalated a war, either within their own country (civil war, repression, coups) or with another country (offensive war, invasion, conquest).
✅ For female leaders, only 3–5 are historically confirmed to have initiated a war as the aggressor (e.g. Elizabeth I, Catherine the Great, Indira Gandhi).
It’s worth pausing and reading those numbers again.
It’s a punch to the gut.
Whilst wrapped in gnarly problems and seemingly unfathomable complexity, the need for different answers and approaches stands out as clearly as the Bat Signal on a dark night in Gotham City.
The answer that we need fewer men in power and more women misses the point.
It’s too simplistic and only part of the answer.
What is clear is that we are lacking a sufficient balance between masculine and feminine behaviours within the people - men and women - in the corridors of decision-making and power in our organisations, communities and families.
If we are to end current and impending conflicts, there has never been a more urgent need for compassion, empathy, and courage.
In short, we need more balance, harmony, equanimity and reverence for life.
Will we learn?
Will we choose to change?
A reckoning may be closer than any of us would wish for.
"The wars outside us begin with the wars inside us."
Perhaps we need to start there first.
Digging further
Across the past five centuries, male heads of state and government have been significantly more likely than female leaders to initiate or escalate war.
Of the estimated 3,400 to 4,000 men who have held national leadership roles during this period, approximately 30–45% are documented as having started military conflicts either domestically or internationally. In contrast, among the 200 to 250 women who have held similar positions, only three to five have done so, yielding a rate of around 1.5–2.5%.
Statistically, this means male leaders have been at least 15 times more likely to start a war than their female counterparts.
While this disparity is striking, it reflects more than personal disposition; it is shaped by centuries of unequal access to power, differing leadership styles, and the historical structures that have socialised men and women into distinct roles and responsibilities.
Nonetheless, the data suggest that when women lead, war is far less likely to be the chosen path.
There is an issue of sample size for women. That may be true but misses the point. The figures for male incitement should disturb not be a cause for resorting to mathematics.