There is debate about whether international policy frameworks on gender and conflict reinforce stereotypes of the roles of men and women. Some experts argue that certain laws generalise women as victims and focus excessively on the protection of women (Barrow, 2010). There is also a critique that the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda’s focus on engaging with and supporting women, more generally, undermines the adoption of a gender-relational approach (that defines masculinities and femininities in relation to one another, and acknowledges men as gendered subjects) (Myrttinen, Naujoks & El-Bushra, 2014; Sudhakar & Kuehnast, 2011). Others argue instead that exclusive attention to women is necessary to counter the male point of view that traditionally dominates conflict and security discourse (Myrttinen et al., 2014).
International gender commitments may also clash with pragmatic, power based approaches. Some argue that the focus on elites at the outset in political settlement processes undermines UNSCR 1325, which calls for women’s equal and full participation at all stages of the promotion and maintenance of peace and security (Castillejo, 2011). This provision can also be undermined by the view that other forms of identity, such as ethnicity, are more important fault lines for conflict. There is debate about whether it is better to wait for specific points in the conflict and peace cycle that will serve as more effective entry points for women’s issues (Aker & Noma, 2012), or whether it is essential for women to be included in peace processes and for gender equality goals to be considered from the outset (Domingo, Holmes, Rocha Menocal, & Jones, 2013).
Debate around gender-sensitive conflict analysis often centres on the need to consider men alongside women rather than equating ‘gender’ with ‘women’. It is argued that a gender relational approach enables more comprehensive and robust gender and conflict analysis. It can also enable exploration of how gender intersects with other identities, which could improve identification and targeting of vulnerable groups (rather than focusing automatically on women and children as a generic whole) (Myrttinen et al., 2014; Sudhakar & Kuehnast, 2011; El Bushra & Sahl, 2005).
The relationship between conflict and gender is widely discussed. There are assertions that while women and girls are more likely to be victims of sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV), SGBV against men and boys and against sexual and gender minorities is also prevalent and should be acknowledged and addressed (Sivakumaran, 2010). The relative neglect of SGBV against men and boys is often attributed to stereotypes of women and girls as victims and men and boys as perpetrators (Linos, 2009).
There is also growing exploration of the persistence of high levels of SGBV in the aftermath of armed conflict. Some experts argue that this is tied to issues of masculinities and identity: former male combatants feel emasculated, due to disarmament, few economic opportunities and altered gender roles during conflict, and seek to reassert male domination through violence (Schäfer, 2013; Specht, 2013; Sudhakar & Kuehnast, 2011).
Much of the literature emphasises, however, that although gender roles may be altered during conflict, with women taking on increased responsibilities and gaining economic independence, these changes are short-lived and do not translate into lasting economic and political gains (Domingo et al., 2013; Justino, Cardona, Mitchell, & Müller, 2012). They advocate for ensuring that women gain power alongside responsibility, and that men’s roles are re-envisioned. An emerging approach to changing social norms and behaviours is involving men and boys as ‘change agents’ – helping them to understand the causes and consequences of their behaviour to promote change (Myrttinen et el., 2014). Addressing issues of masculinity in post-conflict programming has the potential to contribute to changes in individual attitudes and behaviours (Sudhakar & Kuehnast, 2011).
There is a growing debate about the effectiveness of quotas for women’s representation in solidifying and advancing political gains for women after conflict. This period provides a unique opportunity for the transformation of political systems. While much of the literature points to the effectiveness of the tool in increasing the percentage of women in parliament, there is another view that quotas alone are not sufficient. They may not translate into greater decision-making powers for women or an increase in gender-sensitive policies. This may be due in part to exclusion of women from informal networks and relationships, which are particularly prevalent in FCAS (Domingo et al, 2013; Anderlini, 2011; Castillejo, 2011).
- Aker, D., & Noma, E. (2012). Gender platforms for conflict transformation (Conference Paper). International Political Science Association.
See full text - Anderlini, S. (2011). World development report gender background paper. Washington DC: World Bank
See full text - Barrow, A. (2010). UN Security Resolutions 1325 and 1820: Constructing gender in armed conflict and international humanitarian law. International Review of the Red Cross, 92(877).
See full text - Castillejo, C. (2011). Building a state that works for women: Integrating gender into post-conflict state building. Madrid: FRIDE.
See full text - Domingo, P., Holmes, R., Rocha Menocal, A. & Jones, N. (with Bhuvanendra, D., & Wood, J). (2013). Assessment of the evidence of links between gender equality, peacebuilding and statebuilding: Literature review. London: ODI.
See full text - El-Bushra, J. & Sahl, I. (2005). Cycles of violence: Gender relations and armed conflict. Nairobi: ACCORD.
See full text - Justino, P., Cardona, I., Mitchell, R., & Müller, C. (2012). Quantifying the impact of women’s participation in post-conflict economic recovery (HiCN Working Paper 131). Brighton: IDS.
See full text - Linos, N. (2009). Rethinking gender-based violence during war: Is violence against civilian men a problem worth addressing? Social Science & Medicine, 68(8), 1548–1551.
See full text - Myrttinen, H., Naujoks, J., & El-Bushra, J. (2014). Rethinking gender in peacebuilding. London: International Alert
See full text - Schäfer, R. (2013). Men as perpetrators and victims of armed conflicts: Innovative projects aimed at overcoming male violence. Vienna: Vienna Institute for International Dialogue and Cooperation.
See full text - Sivakumaran, S. (2010). Lost in translation: UN responses to sexual violence against men and boys in situations of armed conflict. International Review of the Red Cross, 92(877).
See full text - Specht, I. (2013). Gender, Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration and violent masculinities. Cadernos, 61.
See full text - Sudhakar, N., & Kuehnast, K. (2011). The other side of gender: Including masculinity concerns in conflict and peacebuilding. Washington DC: United States Institute of Peace.
See full text