To what extent does the status of women in society influence the likelihood of resolution in an intrastate dispute? I develop and test the argument that gendered inequality influences both the form of conflict management adopted by disputants and ultimately the likelihood of resolution. Building on a constructivist framework I argue that societies that idealize masculinity and promote associated practices of son preference (e.g. sex selective abortion, female infanticide) in effect legitimise and institutionalise violent subordination of ‘others’. These practices foster the use of force while hampering nonviolent alternatives. The observable implication is that societies in which women are afforded a more equal status are more likely to rely on, and successfully deploy, nonviolent conflict management methods. Extending existing data from the WomanStats project I test this argument on all civil conflict episodes between 1980 and 2014, using (i) the level of son preference, and (ii) women’s political representation to capture gender inequality. The results provide strong support for my theoretical claims, and have implications for both the study and practice of civil war resolution.
