Why are so many terrorists male?

Class on Thursday was pretty intense. We watched a part of a video on Hindu-Muslim violence in India which featured speakers at a Hindu rally. The speakers addressed a seemingly all-male audience, referring to their Muslim adversaries as "the eunuchs", "the cut," and "those who have been shortened," referencing the Muslim practice of circumcision. By symbolically emasculating their opponents, they weakened them and also made them less than men. As someone suggested (and then withdrew) in class, this emasculating discourse served as a way to dehumanize their opponents.

While there is definitely an impassioned discussion to be had about the idea that "loss of masculinity = loss of humanity", that's not the point that I'd like to make today. The big thing for me that after all these weeks of examining case studies of religious violence, this was the first time we talked about the majority of these violent actors being men. I mean, yikes, is it something we took for granted? And if so, why is this seen as normal? Do we assume that men are by nature more violent than women? I don't think that's a good assumption to make, and there are more reasonable ways to explain this phenomenon.

Societal roles seem to play a big part. We live in a world where it is men who go to war and where men are the ones traditionally asked to mobilize and fight for a cause. There are exceptions, but as a rule men are the ones who make up our armies and militias. The same logic seems to apply to cosmic war. Perhaps the imagery of the armies of Good battling the armies of Evil appeals more to men who are expected to step up into their Man-as-Soldier role.