And then there's war. The basic format, long established, continues to be mostly men being required to kill mostly other men. In 2009, the International Peace Research Institute, Oslo, published a report, Armed Conflict Deaths Disaggregated by Gender, which found that the number of men who are killed directly - that last word mattering - far outstrips the deaths of women. Women do die and suffer, of course, whether in acts of insurgency, or attacks, including rape, on the civilian population, or from secondary effects, such as diminished hygiene or healthcare. Men, meanwhile, combatants or no, are considered to be legitimate objects of violence. Just consider the values at play when the media reports on terrorist attacks with phrases such as '20 people were killed, including women and children'. Conscription in times of war has been almost exclusively of men, century after century, and only a small handful of countries, including North Korea, currently conscript women – this may go some way to explaining the IPRI’s findings. Is this bias because we collectively expect men to be good at violence, or because it is their cultural role to die?