Rаре as a weapon of war. Part 3/3 ⚖️ The structure and trai..

Rаре as a weapon of war. Part 3/3 ⚖️ The structure and training of the armed forces undoubtedly has an impact on the growth of sexualized violence. The Salvadoran rebels were one of Latin America's largest guerrilla armies during the Civil War, yet only a small number of sexualized assault cases were associated to their operations. This, according to researchers, is a result of armed organizations worldviews. In the example above, rebels sought revolution for the sake of a better future, perceived themselves as more disciplined and conscious than the proponents of the "old order," and wanted to spread their ideals of a more fair society to the majority of natives. Thus, sexualized violence strongly ran counter to their goals. Military personnel's qualities have a significant impact on the spread of rаре. Coercion and violence in their activities will be severely restricted if they are voluntary soldiers fighting voluntarily, for instance, to defend their motherland. In contrast, if the army recruits opportunists using force or certain material values, such as money, we will more frequently witness the rise of not only robbery but also sexualized violence against civilians and other war crimes. 🧬 I would also draw attention to the purported "biological factors" for why men are more likely to use violence. Some biologists have put forth such theories, for instance in the book "A Natural History of Rаре." The truth is that they were created under the context of what is known as "biological reductionism," in which the phenomenon is only described by a biological perspective, ignoring all other factors. The way insects behave cannot be transferred to human society. Because of the "evolutionary approval" of the propensity for violence, which "contributes to reproductive success," it is impossible to explain either rареs of non-reproductive women, or group rареs, or violent cases. Furthermore, since almost anything in human society can be explained by "evolutionary approval," such an explanation of this crime is meaningless. Therefore, other researchers consider the biological reductionist approach to be pseudoscientific and even harmful because it diverts focus away from the actual solutions to problems.