Strife

The Academic Blog of the Department of War Studies, King's College London

You are here: Home / Archives for Gender

Gender

Feminist Foreign Policy and South Asia: A scuffle between values and change

by

Nepalese Battalion received UN Medal.
Photo Credit: United Nations, licensed under Creative Commons.

‘The personal is political.’

The above sentence, coined by Carol Hanisch, encapsulates a simple yet pervasive truth about women and their struggles. Women’s lives in the public domain have for a long time been affected directly by gendered power hierarchies and beliefs. Their participation and inclusion in the public domain are determined by the norms and beliefs laid out in the society. However, this politics of domination and subjugation do not exist only in the public domain but also affect the personal lives of people. Personal spaces and family lives are governed by gendered notions that put men in a higher pedestal than women. The personal and political are intrinsically linked, for one, the values imbibed in the personal also influence the political behaviour of women.

South Asian women, have been historically marginalised and excluded from active participation in the political sphere. In recent times, multiple developmental programs have attempted to decrease the regional gender gap in education, employment and political participation by focusing on women centric development, however, the Global Gender Gap Report 2020, highlights that South Asia has the second largest gender gap among the eight other regions of the world.

The gender gap, visible in the education, social and employment sector, is also reflected in the foreign policy and diplomatic decisions of the countries in the region. Female representation remains scarce in important positions in the international arena. Diplomacy as such is a gender-neutral term that does not differentiate between male and female participants, however, the hierarchies established in these societies makes it a male-dominant field. Without proper representation of female voices remain unheard and neglected in internal and international spaces. Female political agency in most South Asian countries is scarce. Female parliamentarians make up only 13% of parliamentarians in India, 21 % in Bangladesh, and Nepal tops the list with women comprising 33.5 % of the federal parliament. Though these statistics show a considerable improvement from previous years , they are not proportional to the female population living in these countries.

Despite improvement in terms of the political representation of women in various South Asian countries, ground level problems remain which need to be addressed to ensure feminist outlooks are taken into context when making international decisions. Complex patriarchal power structures in these countries limit the participation of women. In Nepal, for example, the 2015 constitution prevents women from providing their child with the right to citizenship. The only parent able to confer Nepalese citizenship is a ‘male’ member of society. This prejudicial notion limits women’s participation in society. Their participation becomes directly linked to a male member of society and they their roles are confined as just daughters and wives This limitation in role also manifests in the political decision-making process in times of war and conflict where a similar binary between the genders is adopted, labelling men as the protectors while women are the objects that are need of protection.

In a similar vein, in India, through protests like that of Shaheen Bagh, political representation and inclusivity has improved , with more women asserting themselves in the public sphere. However, international and diplomatic decision-making persists in excluding women from senior positions. As Khullar highlights, a false hard-soft diplomatic dichotomy has been created where defence, military, power and security are reserved as male domains and diplomatic decision-making surrounding topics of international trafficking, migration, women empowerment and human rights are labelled as soft-domains. An outlook that women rely on emotions and focus on soft-issues is still prevalent in many countries in the region and women ministers are often assigned positions based on the same assumption while diplomatic decision-making remain dominated by male leaders. Therefore, the diplomatic and foreign policy structure that has been monopolised by men does not allow space for feminist voices.

Allowing women more representation not just in internal but also international politics will open up new avenues for countries to make way for a more inclusive society. A feminist foreign policy will ensure that women who are confined to the domestic spheres are also represented in the decision-making process. A feminist foreign policy (FFP) agenda can act as a fresh perspective and opportunity to view war and peace from a different lens. FFP emphasises that gender is not an accidental but an intrinsic part of military, economic and diplomatic relations between nations. It allows countries to develop a holistic outlook towards decision-making in the international security arena by incorporating the voices of women and other marginalised communities.

Women’s issues in many societies are viewed through a cultural lens of culture while issues surrounding men are considered political. These traditional notions bar women from being active participants in the political arena. The responsibility to protect and various international agendas are also used patriarchal tools to advance strategic interests in interventionist wars across the world where men are responsible for the protection of women. In the light of this underrepresentation and exclusion from the mainstream international agenda, the inclusion of women in negotiation tables and their decisions should be taken into consideration. Hearing the voices of people from traditionally underrepresented groups in society will shed light upon the intersectional impact of any decision-making process.

The war-peace dichotomy, a fixture of traditional foreign policy, can be overcome by addressing issues surrounding migration, border policing and increased securitisation through a feminist lens. South Asia has an admirable history in terms of women residing in positions of power with Sri Lanka, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Myanmar and Nepal electing female leaders. However, despite such headline progress women in parts of South Asia are still subjected to discriminatory practices and are excluded from social and political participation. Adopting a feminist foreign policy in such a situation will allow countries in South Asia to assert their commitment to gender equality by addressing intersectional issues in both internal and international arena. Commitment towards a feminist foreign policy can also impact the global standing of countries and can help strengthen diplomatic ties.

Intersectionality in Crimmigration: Gender, Race and Crossing Borders

by

By Jasmin Lilian Diab

Source: American Progress, 2019

The last decade has witnessed a great deal of insight and contribution by scholars and practitioners into the push factors, quality, and contextualization of the forced migration experience. Discourse in areas of forced migration has developed exponentially, and even more so as intersectional layers add to the burden of the forced migration crises around the world. Perhaps one of the most ongoing debates along these lines is the relationship between forced migration and crime – often developing into debates surrounding national security concerns and anti-immigrant rhetoric. Moreover, although findings on the intersection between forced migration and crime have discredited much of the negativity surrounding migrant communities, popular perceptions, anti-immigrant policies, and stereotypes continue to taint this area of study and the policies it yields. As administrations and governments around the world insist on circulating anti-immigrant sentiments, close off their borders, and promote the falsehood that immigrants are more likely to engage in crime than “citizens,” public perception has generally been divisive over the extent to which this is true.

Research into the political economy of the migration-crime intersection is needed today more than ever as current understandings of this intersection develop rapidly with respect to ongoing political, economic, social and cultural realities. One of the most important and at times, neglected of these realities is Gender. The Oxford Handbook of Gender, Sex, and Crime insists that gender impacts the intersection between migration and crime drastically. Not only can it influence public perceptions of immigrant criminality but it is also a determining factor in governmental policy on immigration. Furthermore, The Handbook outlines that Gender affects both domestic violence crime rates and official awareness of those rates and can encourage social solidarity and political involvement – both of which may reduce criminal behaviors.

On Migration and Crime

The majority of anti-immigrant sentiments worldwide are deeply rooted in the notion that immigrants commit crimes at a higher rate than citizens or nationals. Supporters of anti-immigrant administrations and candidates continue to believe that forced migration and crime are an inevitable connection. In his study of the 2018 U.S. General Social Survey on the Attitude of Citizens’ toward immigrants and immigration, Daniel K. Pryce tested the effects of patriotism, nationalism, xenophobia, and global citizenship on pro- and anti-immigration attitudes. Drivers of anti-immigrant attitudes include the belief that immigrants increase the crime rates, immigrants undermine American culture, and that immigrants take jobs away from citizens. The study additionally found that female respondents with higher education were more likely to hold pro‐immigrant sentiments, and found that more than 38% of the sample expressed some form of anti-immigrant sentiments (xenophobia, American superiority, immigrants taking away jobs, etc.).

Contrary to these sentiments and their existence across the “developed” world, studies from the United States, Canada, and European nations conclude that immigrants have lower violent and nonviolent crime, arrest, and incarceration rates than their citizen or native-born counterparts. A study conducted by Michael T. Light, Jingying He, and Jason P. Robey that compared crime rates between immigrants and native-born US citizens in Texas compared violent, property, drug, and traffic arrest rates between both categories. In comparison to native-born citizens and legal immigrants, undocumented immigrants showed the lowest felony arrest rates across all four categories of crime. For violent, property, and drug offenses, legal immigrants occupy a middle position between undocumented immigrants and US-born citizens. The discrepancies between native-born citizens and undocumented immigrants are considerable. According to the study, US-born citizens are over two times more likely to be arrested for violent crimes, 2.5 times more likely to be arrested for drug crimes, and over four times more likely to be arrested for property crimes.

Although the overwhelming evidence points to the fact that immigration is not directly linked to higher crime rates, and that immigrants are less likely to be criminals than the citizens or native-born individuals, governments and administrations continue to manipulate public sentiments, fears, stereotypes, and prejudices about what some perceive immigrants to be. Moreover, global immigration and asylum policies have been developed based on these preconceived notions rather than realities on the ground.

On Migration, Gender, and Crime

Criminology has largely suggested that masculinity and constructed gender roles are capable of both shaping a community’s social dynamics and encouraging criminal and social behaviors. Criminological discourse further highlights that law enforcement typically responds to community members based on gendered and racialized misconceptions and preconceived notions. Though scholars across the United States, #BlackLivesMatter advocates and activists, and human rights defenders have argued repeatedly that negative media depictions of the violent masculinity of young black men encourage hostile policing activity in low-income and minority communities, the intersection between gender, immigration, and criminality remains understudied. Gender constructions, stereotypes and pre-dispositioned roles are relevant to both social dynamics as well as the relationship between immigration and crime in a number of contexts. Subsequently, research on gendered behavior may ultimately produce new understandings into the layered relationship between immigration and crime.

In her commentary “Gendering Crimmigration: The Intersection of Gender, Immigration, and the Criminal Justice System,” Allison S. Hartry insists that although discussions of race and nativism have played a large part in analysis between immigration and crime, the same cannot be said for the connection between crimmigration and gender. Understanding the connection between gender and crimmigration will assist in the comprehension realities such as community perceptions of immigrant criminality, the implementation of restrictive immigration policies and practices, intimate-partner and gender-based violence in immigrant communities, and the victimization of immigrant employees. Elaborating on the literature in these areas will not only assist in shedding light on crimmigration realities, but will also assist in grasping the impact of these policies on gendered realities.

The management of global migration flows is now tainted with a need to control – more specifically, a need to preserve false notions of “national security.” With this logic, notions such as race and gender not only shape public perceptions of immigration, but also shape stringent policies on cross border movements and immigrant flows. Crimmigration has propagated a very gendered and racialized legal system and framework. Additionally, racism has been associated with mobility restrictions as immigration policies continue to discriminate against non-white immigrants actively.

On Migration, Race, Gender, and Crime

The study of the intersections between immigration and crime has largely disregarded gender as a unit of analysis and has additionally failed to create connections with ethnicity, race, and class. A clear example of this is that migratory experiences are considerably different for women of color at every stage of their immigration process. Their experiences merit exploration and inquiry into the many layers at play in these experiences.

Women continue to be most affected by direct violence throughout forced migration experiences, which is aggravated by the militarization of the physical border. Women encounter situations where sex is demanded of them to facilitate their crossing and multiple studies have found that that border rapes are not random or isolated incidents. In his article, “‘You Have to Pay With Your Body’: The Hidden Nightmare of Sexual Violence on the Border,” Manny Fernandez documents incident after incident of sexual assault at the US-Mexico border, insisting that migrant women and girls of color are the victims of sexual assaults that most often go unreported, uninvestigated and unprosecuted.

As it stands today, the policing of migration sanctions an evident gendered and racialized hierarchy the developed world abuses. This unfortunate reality and blatant violation of human rights render women of color uniquely affected by crimmigration as they continue to endure violence and assault throughout their journeys, preconceived notions about their sexuality, gender-based violence (GBV), and abusive relationships throughout their immigration processes. The international community and international migration frameworks must move away from punishing people for fleeing persecution while allowing discrimination, dominance, and coercion to govern their search for safety. A deeper interrogation into perceptions of criminality, gender, race and immigration will assist in shifting attitudes and engaging people in the discussion on who is allowed to go where – and more importantly, how?

 

Jasmin is a Canadian-Lebanese researcher, writer, editor, reviewer, instructor and consultant in the areas of Forced Migration, Gender and Conflict Studies. She is the Refugee Health Program Coordinator at the American University of Beirut’s Global Health Institute, as well as a Research Associate on the Political Economy of Health in Conflict under its Conflict Medicine Program. Jasmin is a Research Affiliate at the Centre for Refugee Studies at York University, an Adjunct Professor of Gender and Migration at the Fatima Al-Fihri Open University, and a Pre-doctoral Fellow and Program Lead at the ‘War, Conflict and Global Migration’ Think Tank of the Global Research Network. In other roles, she serves as the MENA Regional Focal Point on Migration of the United Nations General Assembly-mandated UN Major Group for Children and Youth and as a Senior Consultant on Refugee and Gender Studies at Cambridge Consulting Services.

Gendered Partition of India: An Untold Story

by

By Akshara Goel

Women during the partition. Source - Sabrang India.

‘Partition has caused the politics of the belly’ - Francois Bayart.

On 15th August 1947 India attained independence from the two hundred years of British rule, but, witnessed its secondly, partition into present-day Pakistan and subsequently Bangladesh. The date, 15th August, is chiefly remembered as the victory from colonial domination? achieved through non-violence. Concurrently, its bemoaned for partition the narratives which are limited to national leaders, political causes and high politics dominated by the upper-class male perspective leaders. However, Indian feminist scholarships have argued that this recollection has disregarded the gendered understanding of wide spread communal violence – the story of displacement and dispossession and, the process of realignment of family, community and national identities. Women survivors of partitioned India occupied a distinctly marginalised space in the partition violence. They were not only subjected to barbarity from men of the ‘other’ community but also from their family members and community which began in the pre-partition period (before 1947), and carried on until the 1950s. The ‘other’ here refers to ‘enemy community’ who were not part of the dominant ethnic community of India or then West Pakistan or Pakistan.

Women partition survivors were made attached to their male family member or community as they were assumed incapable of making their decisions on migrating to the other side of the border. Consequently, theywere compelled to agree with the twin concept of ‘Azadi’ - translated as Freedom - that was the loss of community, networks, identity and more or less stable inter and intra-personal relationships . Simultaneously, they witnessed double jeopardy. Firstly, by many human right discourses that were packed up recognize them as victims during the conflict occurred at the time of partition. Secondly, since males couldn’t perform their “role of protector” or unable to participate in “income generation activities” it drove to the domestic violence or resurgence of religious practices. This resulted in re-composition of the patriarchal structure which got disintegrated under the partition conflict, wherein, it led to greater control of women rather than, letting providing them with a mechanism to create their agency otherwise their agency was limited to the act of producing or reproducing the nation, according to the Indian government.

The predominant memory of partition for these destitute women consisted of confusion, dislocation and severing roots. The day-to-day violence caused by the partition formed the everyday experience for these women. They were exposed to distinct forms of sexual violence that carried the symbolic meaning designated to their status in the male dominated -patriarchal society where gender relations are arranged along the beliefs and traditions of the religious and ethnic communities. The most predictable form of violence was sexual assault inflicted the men of one community upon the women of the ‘other’ community to assert their own identity and ‘subduing the other by dishonouring their women’. However, the most notorious action was the sadistic pleasure these perpetrators sought from the humiliation of women.

According to anecdotes by the women partition survivor, they were raped in front of their male family members and some of them were paraded naked in the market or danced in gurudwaras (holy shrine of Sikhs). For the stigmatization purpose and its legacy onto the future generation, the perpetrators sexually appropriated these women by desexualizing her as wife or mother through mutilating or disfiguring her breasts and genitalia (tattooing-branding on their breasts and genitalia with triumphant slogans like a crescent moon or trident) so that they no longer remain a nurturer. The motivation was to make her an inauspicious figure by degrading into an unproductive woman. These barbarian acts reflected the thinking of the patriarchal community wherein women are just considered objects of honour constructed by the male. Women survivors of Partition encountered or witnessed the episodes of violence from their family members and community as well. The latter, coerced their women to death, in some cases women were forced to kill themselves, to avoid being sexually offended and to preserve their chastity along with the shielding the honour of individual, family and community. According to the anecdote by Taran, a partition survivor who successfully came to India in 1947- “We girls would often talk about death – some were afraid, others thought of it as a glorious death – dying for an end, for freedom, for an honour. For me everything was related to freedom (from British colonial rule), I was dying for freedom”. Fortunately, she didn’t have to go through the ‘choice’ of death while her women friends were planning how to prepare for their death- an interview was taken by the Ritu Menon and Kamala Bhasin – Indian feminist writer and activist, respectively. However, women were made to ‘volunteer’ for death coerced to poison, put to the sword or drowned or set ablaze individually or collectively that is with other younger women or women and children (Butalia 1998 cited in Chakraborty, 2014, pg. 41-43) .

Some of the partition survivors were women who got abducted by ‘others’ and went through the identity crisis concerning the dominant ethnic community. They were abducted as Hindu (dominant community of India) married as Muslim (dominant community of Pakistan) and again recovered as Hindus and eventually had to go through a lot of bitter and painful “choices”. Women who were brought back ‘home’ after getting abducted, following the 1947 partition period with Pakistan, weren’t given choice to decide their home. It was assumed that Hindu women will retreat to India while Muslim women will be transmitted to Pakistan (during 1947 partition). Their space of home could have changed wasn’t given consideration. It wasn’t the boundary of domestic that defined home but it was the boundary of a nation, yet, they met the fate of non-acceptance from their natal families. In theory, everyone had a choice to move or stay but in practice staying on was virtually impossible. The ‘choice’ of whether to move, stay or return was a decision being made for women, by the patriarchal nation-state and their families. Women’s agency wasn’t a principal concern in any of the conflicts and its aftermath .

The partition of violence affected the everyday world and the lives of women. This concept of the “everyday world” was promulgated by Dorothy Smith (1987). She maintains that “everyday world” refers to lived reality in the private sphere in which women’s representation and gendered lives on the domestic space gets effected and affected by the major events in the political sphere – “the domain of men”. The primary meaning of “everyday world” is to connect the political space with domestic (private) lives of women in a given historical instance. In other words, women survivors of partition have illustrated that there is a definite continuity between the “everyday world” and “extraordinary historical times” of the partition era. This everyday world consists of the private/domestic space in which a woman identifies herself’ and a ‘safe space’ as assumed by the patriarchal structure. However, in the partition violence, their ‘safe space’ gets threatened and compromised as they get dragged into the turmoil of public/political space where their male counterparts take an authoritative position but with no or negligible space for women. The patriarchal mechanisms decided everyday belonging of these women survivors. The fate of these women become tied to that of the nation-state or family and community which dictated how the women should live their life in post-partitioned independent India.

The partition violence and Indian nation-state – their efforts and narratives towards the women survivors- have played a crucial role in deconstruction and reconstruction of the women’s identity, space and role. It can be observed that the national belonging for all the partition women survivors was meditated through the institution of the heterosexual and patrilineal nuclear family and community concurrently they were disenfranchised as sexual commodities, patriarchal properties and communal commodities by the nation-state and their respective community and family. After partition, the Indian patriarchal state has explicitly infantilized women survivors by denying them to represent themselves and this process eventually has caused their disenfranchisement.

 

Akshara is a prospective PhD candidate and has completed her Master of Arts in Diplomacy, Law and Business (2020) from Jindal School of International Affairs, O.P. Jindal Global University, Delhi-NCR, India. Presently, she is a Commissioning Editor in E-International Relations and Associate Editor of Law & Order.

Gender in Politics: Female leadership in times of the Covid-19 pandemic

by

By Rixa Riess

New Zealand’s Prime Minister Jacinda Arden (https://images.app.goo.gl/28n8hZgHptbh4RdA8)

The Coronavirus crisis amplified the grievances of society through a burning glass. Women’s relapse into the traditional role as caretaker and housewife during the lockdowns received a lot of attention. It confirms that gender equality isn’t reality yet.

At the same time, however, a more encouraging scientific finding seems to be proved: Women in government contribute more to security and prosperity. During the pandemic female stateswomen showed outstanding crisis management at the top of governments. ,

First and foremost: New Zealand. Right at the beginning of the pandemic, on March 21st, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern introduced a clear guideline with a country-wide alert system. Four days later the country was put into a nationwide lockdown and by May didn’t record new cases. ‘Going hard and going early’, was the Prime Minister’s motto. She stood out for defensive action and honest communication. Although at this point New Zealand isn’t Coronavirus-free just yet, the style of governance gained respect internationally. It proved successful, besides having a low population density of 18 people per square kilometre. In comparison, the population density of the UK amounts to around 275 people per square kilometre. But, as the example of Taiwan shows (673 people per square kilometre), low population density does not always correlate with the success of virus control. Taiwan’s success story is also not only linked to its geographical advantage of being an island only, but to its rigorous and early actions. Under President Tsai Ing-wen, the government rigorously tracked travel and contact history and independently produced masks to prevent panic buys.

Finland also managed the pandemic well. Under Prime Minister Sanna Marin, the government drove public life down to a minimum in spring, unlike their much-discussed Swedish neighbours. On May 16th, with less than 300 recorded cases, the country went into lockdown. The interior minister, Maria Ohisalo, outlined the importance of sensitive communication and cooperation within the government to successfully master the crisis.

Now, the successes at the beginning of the pandemic have been forgotten: Voices are raised criticising the inadequate measures after the first lockdown. Even though now, most heads of state can be accused of underestimating the tenacity of the virus, the initial reactions to the outbreak of Covid-19 is of enormous importance in assessing leadership: Dealing with and assessing a new acute emergency is the starting point of crisis management. With regards to this, the female-led countries performed better.

A recent study found that female-led nations suffered fewer Coronavirus deaths than their male-led neighbours: In the face of potential fatalities, female leaders made risk-averse decisions and were willing to take more economic risks at the same time. Other male-led countries claimed to have everything under control or actually denied the existence of the virus. Among them the United States, the UK, Russia, and India. Making false statements to promote their own governance turned out to be fatal. They downplayed the threat and waited for a clearer picture to make decisions. The fear of economic damage and its political consequences appeared to be bigger than the fear of the virus. In times of a pandemic, slow actions mean deaths. They undeniably reveal any faked control. Now, the named countries lament an above-average number of fatalities and additionally experienced a significant economic decline.

One could argue that the subject of a crisis shouldn’t be gender or sex but rather about finding an efficient solution to the problem, especially when the theatre of horrors has not yet reached its final act. At least for once, one could sarcastically add, no one is doubting the person in charge for their suitability for the position because of her sex.

Some argue, that connecting good leadership to women is in itself sexist, and that female leadership is a symptom of a successful political system. An important argument, but it falls short in view of the fact that there are only 16 women globally leading a country. Now, humanity is (once again) asking itself the fundamental question of how it weighs central things like the economic system, the environment, or social division. So why not put female leadership in politics up for debate as a fundamental necessity for society?

Research perceives politics as a ‘gendered legacy’ (Lockhart & Mollick, 2013), which has been male dominated. It seems like the pandemic breaks traditional leadership approaches open. It lies within the nature of a crisis that society and politics face a new disastrous event of which the outcome can’t yet be grasped to its full extent. Long-term considerations must be made. The Coronavirus crisis has shown: basic human concerns must be taken just as seriously as the fact that a crisis needs clear decisions to be taken by the leadership. The German Chancellor’s unusual emotional plea for an understanding of the situation was exemplary. She connected the necessary enforcement and empathy. It is therefore not surprising that scholars attribute a more transformational leadership style to women. This includes concern, respect, demonstrating compassion, care and equality. Men tend to have a transactional style, which is more direct and achievement-oriented. A report from 2009 shows that women tend to demonstrate more often than men essential leadership behaviour that improves organizational performance. Regarding the financial crisis in 2008, the research found that women more frequently adopt certain leadership behaviour seen as most important in and after the crisis, e.g. motivate action and inventiveness. These skills will be needed during the recovery of the pandemic, too.

The Coronavirus crisis could be a door opener to follow up on the discussion regarding too few women in politics with action. Societies must ask themselves if there has been a fundamental misinterpretation of which characteristics determine good leadership and to whom they are attributed. Since the beginning of statehood, men are associated with leadership. Women often have been overlooked, even though they have the same necessary skills to lead. Thus, new challenges require us to question our traditional associations once again – especially because in states of emergency societies tend to stick to familiar, often traditional patterns.

However, the re-election of some stateswomen, e.g. Tsai Ing-wen, Angela Merkel or Jacinda Ardern, speaks for itself indeed, and yet society and academia, especially after this crisis, need to contribute to this specific discourse in order to effectively promote this modern political and female leadership in the minds and in practice.

 

Rixa Riess holds a Bachelor in Culture and Economy from the University of Mannheim and is currently studying towards a Master degree in International Relations at KCL. Find her on Twitter @Rixariess.

Women and children first: how the Myth of Protection is harming… men

by

By Amber Holland

A refugee appears exhausted while swimming towards the shore after a dinghy carrying Syrian and Afghan refugees deflated about 100 meters before reaching the Greek island of Lesbos, Sept. 13, 2015. (Credit: Alkis Konstantinidis/Reuters)

Since the start of the refugee crisis, multiple media outlets have consistently portrayed male refugees as deceitful economic migrants, whilst only women and children are deemed to be fleeing violence. Although an attractive narrative due to the simplicity it involves, our collective failure to recognise men as victims of violent conflict potentially endangers the lives of many, whilst characterising women as eternal victims simultaneously robs them of their agency. Luckily, Feminist International Relations (IR) Theory offers both an explanation and a route to solving this, namely through deconstructing the Myth of Protection.

The Myth of Protection is one of the core philosophies of Feminist IR Theory. Intrinsically linking conflict and gender, it rests on the repeated lie that wars are fought to primarily protect women, children and the extremely vulnerable. This directly contradicts the shocking statistic that 90% of all casualties are civilian, the majority of whom are women and children. From this Myth, comes other fallacies, such as women playing little to no active role in conflict and the idea that inside a state’s borders, women are automatically considered ‘safe’. Both these concepts have been proven false, from the 40% female personnel rate in the Kurdish YPG, to the use of rape as a weapon of war in the DRC earning the grim title of the “rape capital of the world”.

Beyond robbing women of their agency, the Myth of Protection has also resulted in a worrying trend of discounting male victims of violent conflict. This is due to them not falling into the socially acceptable category of ‘vulnerable’, tied to traditional masculine and feminine gender roles. Perhaps the most visceral example of this is seen in the reaction of news outlets to the ongoing refugee crisis. Britain’s newly crowned best-selling newspaper, The Daily Mail, has regularly covered its front page with pictures and news relating to boats crossing The English Channel, although its reaction to stories involving men and children has been quite different. Whereas as harrowing pictures of three year old Aylan Kurdi dead on a beach in Turkey should make readers “shudder in collective horror”, males crossing in the same manner are described as an “influx”, which should make Britain “worried”. As unaccompanied men are portrayed as making the treacherous journey for economic reasons, they are judged as undeserving of our empathy and assistance just by virtue of their gender. Contrastingly, media outlets consistently highlight in their article titles instances that involve the deaths of women and children refugees, implying they are more deserving of our sympathy. When it comes to the continuing exemption of men as victims of violent conflict, the zeitgeist has remained quiet.

Unfortunately, this characterisation of male refugees as economic migrants is observable in influencing both national government and multinational organisation’s policies. Canada, a nation traditionally known for its welcoming attitude towards refugees, decided to exclude unaccompanied men from its fast track programme for 25,000 refugees in 2015. Although later confirming that men could still apply through other routes, it has been suggested that the discounting of lone males from this flagship policy, resulted in many being forced to pick up arms in the Syrian war and exacerbating the conflict. The demonisation of the ‘Other’ male refugee, built in part off the isolated (but nonetheless horrific) case of the Cologne New Year’s assaults on women, has resulted in the assumption that male victims of conflict are something to be feared, even in the upper echelons of power. In the UN’s 2008 Handbook for the Protection of Women and Girls, this dichotomised and gendered view of victims is present, with men characterised as the perpetrators of violence regardless of their refugee status.

Of course, some nuance is needed here. It is important to remember that 35% of women globally have experienced physical and/or sexual violence, and that 38% of all murders of women are committed by their partners. Across the globe, being a woman is still incredibly dangerous. Moreover, it could be argued that the prioritising of female victims of violent conflict is indeed necessary, especially when coming from nations where they lack the political, social and economic agency to protect themselves. However, this gender-differentiated policy can result in paternalistic and infantizing programmes, conceptualising women through virtue of their womb, as opposed to their humanity.

Fortunately, possible solutions to the Myth of Protection can be found by returning to Feminist IR theory, and feminism in general. At the core of the Myth of Protection, are the gendered values that are rife in a patriarchal society. Far from helping, the prizing of men as brave fighters, who hold the traits of aggression and force, has resulted in an inability to view them as victims of violent conflict. Instead, there is an expectation that men do not flee from violence, rather staying to fight and protect their values (I refer you to the Pub Brawl Analogy for an excellent deconstruction of this reductionist view). However, anyone can feel terror, and no one is invincible against the barrel of a gun. More importantly, more violence is not the answer to these conflicts.

Feminism, through deconstructing gender and unburdening individuals from the stereotypes they feel they must conform to, offers a route to accepting men as victims of violent conflict worthy of our support. Beyond liberating women and girls, destroying patriarchal norms is also beneficial to men and boys, with a direct correlation observable between the state of gender equality in a nation and lower rates of male mental health issues and suicide.

Under the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol, it is established in customary international law, that refugees should not face discrimination by virtue of their sex. By consigning the Myth of Protection to IR history books, this can finally become a reality. With the rate of male refugees steadily increasing, due to their ability to survive the treacherous journey to safety, this cannot come soon enough.

 

 

Amber is an MA Conflict, Security and Development student at King’s College London. Her research interests include the relationship between environmental scarcity and international development, and feminist solutions to conflict.