GENDER AWARENESS IN RESEARCH AND POLICY MAKING

---

Vanessa Farr
With the African Women's Anti-War Coalition

Published in African Security Review Vol 12 No 1, 2003

Introduction

The idea of incorporating a gender perspective in human security research and policy making is not entirely new. However, the existing dialogue tends to trumpet the importance of gender while skirting the more practical issues of how to use it. What does it actually mean to design a research instrument that is gender aware? How can we conduct research that takes the effects of gender ideologies into consideration? How will this research be meaningful for the creation of policy?

Why do we need gender perspectives on violence?

Until very recently, human security studies overlooked the fact that women and men were equally—albeit differently—affected by organised violence. While discussions of war have focused on the experiences of men, conversations on peacebuilding have concentrated on women. Often, women are referenced for their capability to make peace as a supposed organic by-product of their ability to mother and nurture. These lines of discourse have tended to promote a simple women=peace: men=war dichotomy, an argument which is difficult to debunk because it seems so easy to support. Most observations of the pathways and effects of violent conflict offer renewed evidence of what constitutes ‘innate’ (if extreme) forms of masculine and feminine behaviour.

On the surface, armed conflict shores up gender stereotypes that claim men as aggressive, powerful actors while casting women as defenceless, passive victims. We watch male combatants and political and military leaders take the most prominent and visible roles in political movements and violent conflict. These men then determine the kind of settlement that will follow these struggles.¹ We see the victimisation of women follow a horribly repetitive script; in wartime, women, far more than men, are subjected to systematic sexualised violence, displacement and other suffering. They are then barred from attending peace talks, despite the rhetoric that glorifies them as bringers of peace.

The challenge facing gender-aware theorists on human security is to determine strategies to overcome the impasse which results from the dichotomy described above. To move forward, we have to show that war exists on the extreme end of a continuum of violence. We must also observe and describe the complex range of identity positions occupied by men and women in times of war—and in the absence of war. Gender research in a peacebuilding context requires us to interrogate the assertion that for women, there is a difference between wartime and peacetime in contexts where both states are characterised by high levels of violence (South Africa is a case in point).

We have to question the idea that women are always and only victims and men always and only perpetrators of violence. This does not mean searching for instances of women-perpetrated aggression, or finding examples of how men have promoted peace (although evidence of both types of behaviour abounds). Instead, we should find means to identify how individuals, in part through their gender identity, are deliberately mobilised to support the rise of organised violence. If we can describe how gender ideologies are manipulated, we can begin to understand how individuals learn to view violence as a strategy for resolving conflict, and why people choose to support (or oppose) various forms of brutality.

Frames of reference that fail to interrogate the complex roles played by women, children, and non-combatant men in times of war show an incomplete picture of violent conflict. This leads to an equally incomplete understanding of how peacemaking should work; as a result, all too many reconstruction and peacebuilding efforts result in lamentable failure.

Following are some concrete examples of how women and men are differently impacted by the mechanisms of war, and suggestions for how to interrogate these differences.

Women’s work in war and peacetime

Women’s contribution to the economy is often overlooked, particularly when work such as caregiving is ‘naturalised’ as (unpaid) women’s work. In conflict periods, the loss of able-bodied men to wartime activities has frequently offered women opportunities to learn ‘non-traditional’ skills. When men return, however, women may be expected to return to forms of labour they undertook before the war. They will be especially marginalised if they are not offered formal accreditation for skills gained during the period of armed struggle. They are ‘ghettoised’ into unpaid or poorly paid and unprotected work, and their unrecognised skills are wasted. This type of exclusion represents a huge post-conflict economic and social loss.

Gender-aware research tools must explicitly aim to recognise what women do in wartime and the aftermath, why they do it, and how their contribution can be most accurately measured. When women’s labour in the home (such as caregiving work) is overlooked and when their labour outside the home (such as food production or volunteer work) is seen as merely an extension of their domestic duties, perceptions of women as dependent on male wage earners are reinforced. On the other hand, women who do achieve a measure of economic success may experience increased violence from less successful male partners. They may also become the targets of community resentment. While women’s access to economic independence should be emphasised, reconstruction activities must aim for the rehabilitation of the whole society.

Easily available small arms and light weapons

While far more men than women die at the point of a gun,² the easy availability of small arms and light weapons (SALW) plays an egregious role in maintaining male dominance. It is not an exaggeration to say that almost every form of violence perpetrated against women in conflict zones is facilitated by the widespread presence of firearms, both legal and illicit.

As a result, existing discussions on SALW tend to consider the impact of gun proliferation on women in terms of the ‘women as victims’ and ‘men as perpetrators’ dichotomy, rather than analysing the complex ways in which the widespread presence of guns support ideologies of masculinity and femininity. In many societies, bearing arms is seen as a right. For men, carrying a weapon is interwoven with social rituals such as coming of age. Women’s role in such societies is to support the bearing of arms, an idea which requires careful interrogation.³ This role may draw women into the proliferation and normalisation of guns, either because they carry and use light weapons, or because they smuggle arms and ammunition or hide weapons and their bearers. In some societies, such as the cattle-raiding Karamojong of Uganda, women actively encourage men to use arms in raids since their increased success improves the economic position of the family unit.⁴

Demobilisation, disarmament, retraining, rehabilitation and reintegration

One of the most widely accepted stereotypes of women is that they are less aggressive and more willing to work towards peace than are men. This means that women who contradict the stereotype of appropriate female behaviour through active participation in armed combat “are often regarded as more deviant or unnatural than men”.⁵ As a result, women in the military pose a unique set of challenges in the demobilisation phase. In the past, deeply held beliefs about who does the work of fighting have been so powerful that, when the time comes to demobilise, military women have simply disappeared from view.⁶

Careful demobilisation is considered to be one of the most powerful means by which to set a society on the road to peace. Instruments designed to facilitate demobilisation and reintegration must address the different needs of male and female ex-combatants and military supporters. Those that do not run the risk of re-establishing or reinforcing unequal gender relations and contributing to the perpetuation of pro-war social constructions.

Women and peacebuilding

Countries emerging from situations of violent conflict are often seen as a potential site of positive change. Some theorists argue that war and its aftermath present opportunities for women to influence social and political structures which were beyond their purview in peacetime.

One way to protect women is to ensure that they have opportunities to make significant contributions to political reconstruction after war. This requires a commitment to ensuring women’s representation in peace talks; putting in place mechanisms to ensure their access to, and participation in, democratic civil and governmental structures; and the provision of support for their political activities, including the promotion of women leaders. By refusing to leave women out of the equation, gender-aware researchers can make a useful contribution to every aspect of the inclusion process.

Conclusion

As this commentary has shown, women, just like men, have a complex and often contradictory relationship to the structures that promote war or peace. Although women are responsible for managing much of the human tragedy of armed conflict, they are frequently barred from significant participation in leadership and decision-making structures. The challenge is to find ways to incorporate women’s experience and concerns (and those of other marginalised actors) at a level where their input can influence peacebuilding and reconstruction activities.

The gender values of a society are one of its most pervasive structures, colouring the ways in which all other aspects of life are organised. No feature of war or peace is gender ‘neutral’. Researchers must interrogate all social actors, however peripheral they may appear, to promote effective, inclusive social change and long-term opportunities for development.

Gender-aware research observes and interrogates the absence of the least powerful members of society; commits to research protocols that are accessible to these people; and co-operates with existing structures that organise those who are made most vulnerable by armed conflict.

Most of all, gender-aware peace research is committed to making the world safer for those who currently bear the brunt of violence, whether it takes place in times of peace or of war. It is not politically neutral; it starts from the assumption that the underpinnings of current social structures lend themselves to violence by making it easy for men to violate each other, as well as women and children. By questioning boundaries and processes that preserve inequality, it strives to achieve lasting political, social and cultural change.

Notes