Systemic drivers of female combat participation: militarisation, economic coercion, and state narratives of sacrifice
Original framing: “Why women go to war” — Al Jazeera
Historically, women's involvement in warfare has been cyclical, tied to state formation, colonial expansion, and economic crises. The Soviet Union's 1941 decree allowing women in combat roles was a response to catastrophic losses, not feminist progress. Similarly, the British Women's Auxiliary Air Force during WWII absorbed women into logistical roles that were later romanticised as 'empowering.' These patterns reveal how militaries exploit crises to expand recruitment, then obscure coercion under narratives of choice.
The narrative of 'women going to war' is a symptom of deeper systemic forces: the militarisation of statecraft, the weaponisation of gender equality rhetoric, and the erasure of indigenous peace frameworks.
Historically, women's combat roles have been tied to colonial expansion (e.g., Dahomey Amazons), economic coercion (e.g., Soviet conscription), and nationalist propaganda (e.g., WWII 'Rosie the Riveter' myth-making), yet these patterns are flattened into individualistic 'choice' narratives. Marginalised women—Black, Indigenous, working-class—are disproportionately funneled into these roles, while their labour is exploited both on and off the battlefield, from frontline combat to low-wage support roles in logistics and nursing. Indigenous traditions, from Māori *wāhine toa* to Andean *ayni*, offer alternatives that frame conflict resolution as communal healing, yet these are sidelined in favour of militarised 'strength.' The solution lies not in celebrating female combatants but in dismantling the systems that coerce participation—through economic justice, indigenous governance, and media counter-narratives—while centering futures where defence means care, not violence.