In Bryne's article she attempts to utilize feminist thought in order to execute a gender analysis of conflict. She objects the essentialist views and suggests ways in which conflict redefines masculinity and femininity.
She points out how men and women are not only both victims of war but they are also actively involved in either supporting or protesting violence. I think a lot of people probably overlook this and simply equate war with men. Women can be victims of sexual violence in war but they can also partake in the violence. Furthermore, not all men choose to participate in war nor are they all inherently aggressive. These facts contradict an essentialist view of males and females.
Although there are men and women that go against the norm in war situations, they are faced with consequences. Women are often "de-sexed" when they take active roles in war whereas men are harrassed or even killed for not fighting because they are not being manly enough. As we have stated before in class, the worst thing a man can be is a woman and in this case not fighting is typical of women thus it is unacceptable for a man to make that choice. Also in class we said the worst thing that a woman can be is a woman. Although I am sure women are not always easily accepted into these positions in war, it becomes more acceptable if they are "de-sexed" losing their femininity.
Gender plays a role in interventions in conflict situations which the author makes clear stating that "no intervention can be regarded as gender-neutral." For instance, distribution of resources will affect gender relations and ultimately reinforces where men and women stand. In analyzing intervention situations it becomes clear that women are often excluded such as in decision-making. Because conflicts are a time of change, it is possible that positions of women could worsen. However, a gender analysis can help prevent that from happening.
No comments:
Post a Comment