What men and women see differently in global security

‘One of the criticisms I’ve faced over the years is that I’m not aggressive enough or assertive enough, or maybe somehow because I’m empathetic, it means I’m weak. I totally rebel against that’, said then New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern in 2018. Her words challenge traditional leadership norms, especially in an era of rising nationalism and geopolitical rivalry, in which international cooperation and soft power are increasingly framed as zero-sum. Nations now prioritise alliances based on binary alignments, while economic decoupling and security concerns drive foreign policymaking.

But Brand Finance's Global Soft Power Index (2020) shows that while male-led nations dominate in terms of hard power, female-led nations consistently excel in soft power, outperforming their counterparts in net positive influence, reputation, security, economic stability, trustworthiness and fostering strong international relations.

Building on this contrast, our latest Security Radar survey of 13 countries – Georgia, Germany, France, Italy, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Poland, Serbia, Sweden, Turkey, Ukraine, the United Kingdom and the United States – explores whether similar patterns are emerging in public opinion on global security and foreign policy. Do men and women respond differently to global challenges? Do their views reflect the hard versus soft power trends observed among national leaders? The study also included an 'Other gender' option, but because of the limited sample size the relevant answers were not included in this analysis.

More restraint

In general, the women in our sample are once again more likely than men to answer 'don't know', particularly when asked to predict the future of peace and security in Europe and globally. However, their uncertainty decreases when it comes to personal security and individual concerns, suggesting that they feel more comfortable assessing their own circumstances while remaining cautious about making definitive statements about broader geopolitical developments. The more unequivocal and speculative a statement – such as predicting a new Cold War between China and the United States – the wider the gender gap in 'don't know' rates. Even when 'don't know' responses are excluded, men tend to express stronger, more polarised opinions, choosing 'strongly agree/disagree', while women often opt for the more moderate 'somewhat agree/disagree' positions.

More concerned

Women are more concerned than men about almost every major issue. Their top concerns include inflation and the rising cost of living, wars and conflicts, economic crises, international terrorism and climate change (which gives rise to the largest gender gap). A notable exception is uncontrolled immigration, on which both genders express similar levels of concern.

When putting international foreign and security policy issues in order of priority, women strongly emphasise human rights violations and climate change, ranking these concerns second and third after terrorism and extremism, while men put climate change fourth. In addition, women are less inclined to endorse inaction and the discrepancy in the 'don't know' rate between men and women becomes less pronounced in the context of climate change action.

Women also show greater support for the idea that international organisations should play a greater role in global security and reject the notion that international laws and rules have become irrelevant. They favour intensifying diplomatic efforts and strengthening international institutions as key strategies for promoting peace.

Less support for all things military

Interestingly, while women are more concerned than men about conflicts that may affect their own country and are more likely to worry about the possibility of escalating tensions in Europe, they are still in favour of cutting military spending. They are less supportive of military intervention and strongly opposed to the use of nuclear weapons, arguing that they should never be used, not even as a last resort.

A similar pattern emerges in attitudes to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Women are more likely to fear nuclear escalation, which may explain their lower support for a policy of continued arms supplies until Ukraine prevails. Instead, they are more likely to favour diplomatic solutions or even neutrality in the conflict. While both genders support military aid to Ukraine, women show a stronger preference for humanitarian aid.

Overall, women have a keen awareness of current global challenges. Their approach to possible solutions is more nuanced and multifaceted, however. They tend to prefer the application of a broader set of tools, including human rights, humanitarian aid, climate action and diplomacy over military intervention. While leadership and decision-making styles are not solely determined by gender, ‘soft’ qualities, such as collaboration and empathy, are more readily accepted in female leaders, while men may still feel constrained by ideals of dominance and assertiveness. The different response patterns observed between women and men reflect the effects of this differentiation between ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ power on perceptions of international security.

In an era of rising nationalism and aggressive foreign policies, it is time to move beyond rigid gender stereotypes in leadership, decision-making and education. Despite making up half the population, women's concerns about escalation and their consequent preference for more cautious and measured approaches remain unheeded. Embracing diverse perspectives can pave the way for more balanced and effective solutions to global challenges.