Research has highlighted some risks – or potential unintended consequences – that are associated with incorporating gender into conflict-related work. One is a backlash against women and girls where donors fail to take into account the impact of gender equality programmes on men (OECD, 2013a). In addition, collecting gender equality data in FCAS can present risks. Female activists, researchers, and informants are vulnerable in conflict settings because of the security risks associated with such environments and because these women can be perceived to be stepping outside of their traditional gender roles (Anderson & Olsen, 2003, cited in Moser, 2007).
When women’s economic empowerment is not prioritised, peacebuilding processes can lead to new forms of gendered exploitation, such as early marriage and sex trafficking, because women in post-conflict countries often have few-income generating alternatives (True, 2013). Due to the weakness of civil society in post-conflict settings, there are calls for donors to support women’s civil society without dictating agendas (Castillejo, 2011).
- Castillejo, C. (2011). Building a state that works for women: Integrating gender into post-conflict state building. Madrid: FRIDE.
See full text - Moser, A. (2007). Gender and indicators (Overview Report). Brighton: BRIDGE – Institute of Development Studies.
See full text - OECD. (2013a). Why integrate a gender perspective into state-building? In Gender and statebuilding in fragile and conflict-affected states (chapter 1). Paris: OECD Publishing.
See full text - True. J. (2013). Women, peace and security in post-conflict and peacebuilding contexts (Policy Brief). Oslo: Norwegian Peacebuilding Resource Centre.
See full text
