Gender-Based Assumptions of War Victims

Gender-Based Assumptions of War VictimsIS THE VIEW OF WOMEN AND CHILDREN MERELY AS VICTIMS OF state of contend TOO SIMPLISTIC?International actors faced numerous Humanitarian crises throughout the 1990s, ahead(p) to a sensitive War thesis, made particularly prominent by Mary Kaldor. Whilst wars beget historically been concerned with force-out against the nigh vulnerable, only recently bring studies focused on massive elegantian casualties, generally wo custody and barbarianren (Kaldor 2013 133). In mainstream thinking, war remains an exclusively phallic issue where men atomic number 18 naturally those who perpetrate violence meanwhile, women and sisterren ar seen only as victims. Empirical data, however, reported that men as potential fighters ar most likely to be targeted in fortify conflict, including internal aggression ( work 2006 88). Wars create all sorts of victims and perpetrators, spanning gender and federal climb onncys. Thus, is the role of women and children merely as victims too simplistic? WantThis paper examines how harsh gender-based assumptions and unclear victim-related terminuss direct observers to consider victimization as intrinsic and gender specific. As Cynthia Enloe (2004 10) stated, naturally is a dangerous caprice that depicts women as life-giving versus men as life-taking (Coulter, Persson and Utas 2008 7). However, men, women and childrens roles ar much more(prenominal) diverse and complex. Analysis of the Syrian crisis illustrates this argument and provides evidence that men, women and children may be victims, perpetrators, or even both.Women and Children First.The necessity to have a victim.Thinking astir(predicate) armed conflict and human security, victims are often at the meaning of leaders decision-making and civil societys policies. The search for adequate victims and humanitarian programs raised the compete about which side or communities should be acknowledged as victims and revealed the many fa ces of victimhood (Huyse 2003 54). Part of the dilemma comes from the political-biased con nonations and the legal definition(s) of the term victim. To discuss the occasion argument, we choose to use the definition provided by the 1985 UN Declaration, which defined a victim asa person who, individually or collectively, have persisted harm, including corporal or mental injury, emotional bringing, economical loss or substantial impairment of their fundamental rights, through acts or omissions that are in impingement of criminal laws operative within Member States (UN 1985).Women and gender-based violence.Gender-based violence, especially wartime baffle, is as old as war itself. For a long time in history, the inferior position of women or certain ethnic or racial minorities was considered as natural, following Browmillers thesis that War provides men with the perfect psychological backdrop to let up vent to their contempt for women and became inherent to territorial advance (B rownmiller 1975, 32). During the liberation of Europe in 1945, the Russian soldiery raped over two meg German women (Beevor 2007).However, women had to wait fifty years with the atrocities of Bosnian, Sierra Leone and Rwandan reports on rape camps to finally obtain the ear of the International community. The mediatization of armed groups using the enemys women to grasp ethnic cleansing, genocide and occupation goals upon the enemy raised awareness about the use of rape as a weapon (The Economist 2001, Farwell 2004). Pressures by feminist lobbies and academics led to an attempt by the UN to reinforce the safeguard of women and girls from gender-based violence, recognizing this regrettable aspect of the war as a crime against humanity (Farwell 2004 389, Erturk 2008 1, DEDAW 1993).Nonetheless, sexual violence is not the only form of conflict-related victimization of women. The over-classification of women as bush wives, camp followers, and sex slaves undoubtedly raised the cosmoss awareness on gender-based violence but also diverted policy makers to address and pay efficient policies for all the lay out of victims (Coulter, Persson and Utas 2008 8). For physical exertion, concerns about the health needs of women in conflict-zones especially pregnant mothers and their children are annually expressed. In 2009 the Red Cross reported the highest rates of maternal deaths happen in destroyed countries (Puechguirbal 2009). Besides physical sequels, women suffer also from long-term and indirect psychological, social, and economical related-forms of violence. For example, women injured by sexual violence endure physical sufferings but also psychological pressures such as shame when they are back in their communities or economic deprivations and sanctions. Those issues are particularly contentious in cases where women are culturally dependent and subjected to their husbands. (Puechguirbal 2009, Erturk 2008, Tickner 1997 628).Children as victimsThe same reasoning o ccurs with children. UNICEF recently alleged the number of children affected by civil wars has more than doubled over the past years, exceeding more than 5.5 million (UNICEF 2014 3). However, the numbers do not reflect the form of violence and oppression nor do they specify a time distinction. Children are in the main described as direct victims suffering from the direct effects of violence. Nevertheless, more attention should be accustomed to the many other in palpable victims, such as those children who lost one or more family members and suffer from the aftereffects of the violence they witnessed (Huyse 2003 57, Worldvision 2014). Usually defenceless and vulnerable, children are killed, physically abused, kidnapped, recruited as soldiers, and/or displaced.In Syria, more than 1.2 million children have fled their homes, most of them are under 12 (UNICEF 2014 18). In refugee camps, children are particularly exposed to malnutrition and unhealthy conditions, leading to all kinds o f disease. Separated from their family, and/or without support from parents who could barely afford to feed and protect them, children suffer socio-economic deprivation and usually have no access to basic necessities. They are prevented from going to schools and are either enrolled as child labour and/or forced into sexual slavery, or in the case of one-year-old women, married off to older men to supplement their familys meagre income (Shivakumaran 2014).In addition to physical abuses, children suffer from long-term psychological traumas from their experiences. In Syrian refugee camps, psychologists noticed unusual level of distress and visible signs social and physical dysfunction among displaced children (Atlas 2014, Winter 2014). Isolated and socially rejected, children who have been traumatized during the conflict develop sequels that screwing lead to new forms of violence child soldiers, street gangs, juvenile delinquency or vendetta (Boyden 2006 4). In war-torn societies, the observations can generally be extended to second-generation victims from children who suffered high levels of stress from the adults near them and children born(p) in camps1, to the grandchildren who carry memories from elder generations (Huyse 2004 54, 57).Victims of Mans warFor a long time, there was a printing that men fight wars to protect vulnerable mint, defy their familys wealth, and the interests of the nation. This stereotypical role of the active male person protector naturally defined women and children as passive-protected actors. Nevertheless, this common understanding about women and childrens victimization largely diverted the international debate from other under-acknowledged realities (Tickner 1997 627, Enloe 2012 7, Rygiel 2006 150)First, armed groups are not always protecting the vague second, the assumption that victimization is gender specific overlooks the presence of egg-producing(prenominal) fighters among armies (Goldstein 2001 59). Finally, keep ing in mind the batch of children as victims, recent researches indicate empirical evidence about childrens contribution to armed violence, including child soldiering.From victims to active participantsViolence committed by children or women has an important symbolic causality on quite a littles minds, because it challenges traditional social constructions that women and children are the most vulnerable (Hunt and Rygiel 2006 2).Children as weaponsChild soldiers have been in use for a long time regular armies beforehand the Geneva agreements made use of children. As a result of changing societal values and greater awareness of the issue, child soldiering more and more gained political salience over the last decades of civil wars intensification. Images of tens of thousands small boys with an AK-47 considered as a cheap and available goods by African War-lords (Rosen 2005) created terrifying damages worldwide (Erwin 2002, Hoge 2014). However, child soldiers are generally portra yed as direct or indirect victims, forced and pressured by adults to commit brutal atrocities.Numerous testimonies by former child soldiers show the dilemma for those children who killed to defend themselves, either from their captor or an opposing armed conspiracy (BBC 2005). The recent video released by the Islamic State (IS) shows the process of indoctrination and militarization children carry guns as largish as them, and are trained in radical ideology (Vinograd, Balkiz and Omar 2014). Many of those children are around 12-13 and do not actually have a choice, but some of them are already adults. This also leads to the debate around the capacity of youth to exercise a measure of personal autonomy in their decisions and actions (Maclure and Denov 2006 120).Since 2002, child soldiers definition relies the UN straight 18 principle and outlaws all major forms of children involvement in hostilities under that age (OPAC 2007). However, this strict definition tends to obscure the wei ght of experience, social-context and environment in which youth are evolving (Boyden 2006, Maclure and Denov 2006) Latest psychological analyses demonstrate the necessity to differentiate childhood and adolescence much of the analysis so far has infantilized the young people as receptors of environmental stimuli, or of adult pressures, often disregarding particular cognitive and behavioural kinetics (Boyden 2006 1).In some cases, children join for ideological reasons or for other advantages and opportunities war can bring e.g. money, resources and power to name a few reasons. The prospect of getting a better life is worth war, leading young people to join the rebellion for the same reasons as adults (Hoeffler and Collier 2001, Boyden 2006 4). Moreover, some pupils tend to pardon instability in certain region as a consequence of demographic changes and increasing quite a little of youth. Post-conflict zones are primarily addressed taking into consideration the limited capacity of war-torn states to handle juvenility (Maclure and Denov 2006, Boyden 2006 10). For example, re-recruitment of child soldiers into war is particularly difficult to address (Hoge 2014). In response to evidence of child soldiering by the Kurdish rebel group, the International Criminal Court signed an agreement with the YGP establishing a non-combatant social class for children between 16 and 18. However and despite Demobilization, Demilitarization and rehabilitation (DDR) programs, dozens of children have tried to re-join local Kurdish military unites on their own (Geneval Call 2014).Women and Men on the moral continuum.From Antigone2 to the Ozalp3, women have actively participated in all aspects of war. Historical records show that women perform successfully in war sometimes even more than their male colleagues. The quasi-exclusion of women as combatants, refers to the gender constructed discourse and dichotomy between women (peaceful) and men (warlike) which denied the active pa rticipation of women as individual perpetrators of violence (Hunt and Rygiel 2006). For example, in 2003, when were released the images of Lynndie England abusing Iraqi prisoner at Abu Ghraib surfaced, the first comments were not related to the atrocities perpetrated on the Iraqi prisoners nor the executors no one knew, knows, or remembers the names of the other U.S. guards (Brittain 2006 84). The shock was particularly focused around the picture of the little white woman holding a leash tethered to the prisoners neck (Struckman 2010, Brittain 2006 84) Consequently, it has become necessary to critically analyse womens role as perpetrators and perpetuators, regarding the estimated number of women set-aside(p) today in unwomanly behaviour worldwide, including Western armies (Goldstein 2001, Cohen and al. 2013).Fighting for freedom The case of Kurdish feminine fightersThe recent growing progress of IS has given particular attention to the fighters for freedom, which fight to prevent the expansion of the Islamic caliphate. In reporting on Kobani attacks by IS, media have begun focusing specifically on the increasing symmetricalness of feminine fighters who joined the Kurdish movements under the banner of the Womens Protection Unit (YPJ). Never before has such international concern been given to female person combatants and the role they can play in a major combat zone. In the region of Kobani, one in three of the city defenders are female (Pratt 2014, Mezzofiore 2014).From passive protected to active protector, Kurdish female fighters represent a category of women that start from the one previously encoded in the society. Besides their abilities to shoot multiple types of weapons, they developed a full range of other skills based on physical and cognitive differences between men and women. For instance, they are mostly marksmen and snipers, as it requires calm, patience and finesse, a typically female trait (Pratt 2014). Contrary to the images of vulnerable women, YPJ soldiers almost reveal signs of masculinity by accepting death as a sacrifice that is part of the life choice they have made (Pratt 2014). And yet, motivations could be almost identified as feminist ones. IS treat women as objects, giving female fighters even more power against ISIS some say that Islamic rebels are more terrified of being killed by women because if they do they cannot go to heaven (Mezzofiore 2014)The Kurdish example raises many concerns among scholars since it contrasts the common perception of womens role. The YPJs struggle proves that women can be perfectly capable and willing of performing violent acts to defend the Kurdish people against all evil (Pratt 2014). Some suggest that this could lead to the empowerment of women in the region, since female fighters are being taken much more seriously today than in the past (Mezzofiore 2014, Gatehouse 2014). at a lower place fire All victims?The institution of war has never been good for women and childre n (Farwell 2004). To a larger extend, war has never been good for anybody. Even if women and children are among the worst victims, they are not the only ones. The held nous that women and children are most likely to be displaced is not always giving justice to the data. Regarding the statistics about Registered Syrian Refugees, Males represent 48.7% and womanly 51.3% of exiles. Refugees also include elderly persons, wounded warriors, minorities, people with disabilities, etc (UNRHC 2014). By qualifying women and children only as victims or combatants, scholars conceal the large range of positions they can occupy during a conflict.The mobilization of the society in the war effort has existed as long as war itself. During the First World War, the Munitionettes4 and their children worked in factories to provide for men at war. They have been enrolled in offices, communications, intelligence, maintenance and many other under-acknowledged ways (Goldstein 2001 78). Partly victimized, pa rtly victimizing, women are often considered as those who sacrifice the most during war (Huyse 2003 56) In Africa, women who must fight in armed groups have often been doubly victimized forced to join the rebellion and raped by enemies and comrades. Consequently, it is hopeless to draw a sharp line between the two categories, preventing the implementation of programs to address these women and girls actual lived experiences (Coulter and al. 2008 XXX).For example in post-reconstruction policies, they have failed to include women and young girls in DDR programs. Part of it is due to policy-makers refusal to recognize woman as combatants (Coulter and al 2008 P). Thus, depending on the policies implemented, women can suffer from deeper discrimination mainly related to the structural roots accustomed in society before the conflict (Cohen and al 20135) Porters study about rape in Uganda found that rapists are more often husbands/boyfriends or men from the same community kind of than e nemies (Porter 2013, Utas 2005). Or they can expect better positions with regard to equality between women and men. For example women were generally minded(p) the right to vote after World War Two.Moreover, by emphasizing on the large proportion of women who have been abused, the debate on gender-based violence on men has been overlaid. Barring a few exceptions, the literature does not pay attention to the fact that men are also victims of poor treatment, thereby hagridden more violently. Sexual violence is an issue commonly defined as affecting women and young females and yet, male rape, genital mutilation and other forms of emasculation have an important impact on men that should be attested (Cohen and al 2013 7, Sivakumaran 2013). Aggressors often abuse male enemies or political prisoners intentionally dehumanize and humiliate them (Sivakumaran 2013, Carpenter 2006). Nevertheless, because of the psychological and social implications of male victimization, less attention is giv en to male adults and adolescents who have been oppressed and/or forced to commit crimes (rape, mass killings, kidnapping), leading to a bias in human security studies (Carpenter 2006).From Women and Children to Women and ChildrenGender-based common assumptions have largely shaped the way people perceive men, women and childrens roles in war. The persistent idea of a masculine monopoly on force promotes a simplistic view of war as the protraction of politics, where men are the main actors (Enloe 2004). By categorizing men as life-taking, women as live-giving and children as the next generation, it appears that scholars have misjudged the role of women and children, especially during wars. After the mediatisation of the Bosnia Civil War and the Genocide in Rwanda, policy-makers and NGOs mainly focused on those visible atrocities that reduce the role of women and children to mere victimhood. The proportion of women and children suffering from conflicts is substantial. However, the am algamation of Women and Children under a unparalleled category because of their relative vulnerability, diverted attention away from existing structural realities. Following this myth, scholars researches have exacerbated the idea of tough men dying to protect tender women and children and failed to question if women and children are merely victims of war.11 The huge number of child refugees is not only driven by the recent Syrian conflict but also by the growing number of Syrian, Afghan and Somali children that were born in refugee camps. (UNHCR 2014)2 Antigone (Anouillh3 With a lack of ammunition and in a hopeless situation, Ozalp killed herself not to fall into the workforce of the rapists (Mezzofiore 2014)4 Women working in munitions factories during WWI.