Culture and diversity can have a significant impact on gender differences across cultures. Firstly, culture has a direct effect on gender roles by dictating which activities are deemed appropriate for individuals based on their sex. For example, in some societies women are expected to take care of the home and children while men are seen as the breadwinners (Rudman & Kilianski, 2013). This type of gendered division of labor can lead to unequal access to resources such as education or career opportunities depending on one’s gender.
Secondly, cultural norms also shape how people think about certain traits associated with either male or female genders. For instance, in many parts of the world aggressiveness is seen as more acceptable behavior for men than it is for women (Rudman & Kilianski, 2013). These types of stereotypes then make it harder for individuals who want to break away from traditional expectations because they may be perceived unfavorably if they do not adhere to accepted social conventions.
Finally, diversity—or lack thereof—can also influence gender differences by creating an environment where certain voices dominate discourse at the expense of others (Luzzi et al., 2015). Thus when there is homogeneity in terms of beliefs and values this can lead to individuals feeling like their own experiences are not represented within these circles; resulting in them being excluded from taking part in decision-making processes due simply to their identity rather than any other factor. Therefore it can be seen that although culture and diversity do have an indirect effect on gender differences across cultures; both also have a direct influence which should not be ignored.
bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, ending the Second World War, where millions were intently killed, just to secure the aim of war. However, sometimes civilians are accidentally killed through wars to achieve their goal of peace and security. This is supported by Vittola, who implies proportionality again to justify action: ‘care must be taken where evil doesn’t outweigh the possible benefits (Begby et al (2006b), Page 325).’ This is further supported by Frowe who explains it is lawful to unintentionally kill, whenever the combatant has full knowledge of his actions and seeks to complete his aim, but it would come at a cost. However, this does not hide the fact the unintended still killed innocent people, showing immorality in their actions. Thus, it depends again on proportionality as Thomson argues (Frowe (2011), Page 141).
This leads to question of what qualifies to be a combatant, and whether it is lawful to kill each other as combatants. Combatants are people who are involved directly or indirectly with the war and it is lawful to kill ‘to shelter the innocent from harm…punish evildoers (Begby et al (2006b), Page 290).However, as mentioned above civilian cannot be harmed, showing combatants as the only legitimate targets, another condition of jus in bello, as ‘we may not use the sword against those who have not harmed us (Begby et al (2006b), Page 314).’ In addition, Frowe suggested combatants must be identified as combatants, to avoid the presence of guerrilla warfare which can end up in a higher death count, for example, the Vietnam War. Moreover, he argued they must be part of the army, bear arms and apply to the rules of jus in bello. (Frowe (2011), Page 101-3). This suggests Frowe seeks a fair, just war between two participants avoiding non-combatant deaths, but wouldn’t this lead to higher death rate for combatants, as both sides have relatively equal chance to win since both use similar tactics? Nevertheless, arguably Frowe will argue that combatant can lawfully kill each other, showing this is just, which is also supported by Vittola, who states: ‘it is lawful to draw the sword and use it against malefactors (Begby et al (2006b), Page 309).’
In addition, Vittola expresses the extent of military tactics used, but never reaches a conclusion whether it’s lawful or not to proceed these actions, as he constantly found a middle ground, where it can be lawful to do such things but never always (Begby et al (2006b), Page 326-31). This is supported by Frowe, who measures the legitimate tactics according to proportionality and military necessity. It depends on the magnitude of how much damage done to one another, in order to judge the actions after a war. For example, one cannot simply nuke the terrorist groups throughout the middle-east, because it is not only proportional, it will damage the whole population, an unintended consequence. More importantly, the soldiers must have the right intention in what they are going to achieve, sacrificing the costs to their actions. For example: if soldiers wan
