Megan MacKenzie Victoria University

of Wellington, New Zealand

Why, if women participated as soldiers, were they largely ignored in mainstream accounts of the conflict and overlooked in the DDR process?

What gendered stereotypes might influence post-conflict policy-making?

Is post-conflict a good time to address gender inequality?

Why does gender sensitivity matter when it comes to conflict and post-conflict policy-making?

How can we improve conflict programs by acknowledging gender?

1. Women are not major actors in war

2. When war is over, women are happy to ‘return to normal’

1. Sexual violence emphasis.

2. Women removed from policy-making process.

3. Literature and research: Women as naturally peaceful and averse to risk.

4. Violent women are typically seen as exceptions or even monsters. (Sjoberg 2007)

Challenge a particular understanding of social and gender order

-power, marriage, children, ‘legitimate’ relationships

Disrupt gendered binaries associated with war (male warrior/female victim) and dominant myths about war (peaceful women, violent men)

the number of females soldiers was much higher than existing estimations. 30-50% multiple and diverse roles female soldiers were often perpetrators

and victims Distinction between combat and support

roles (combatants as ‘real’ soldiers) Sexual violence rates extremely high

amongst female soldiers

“leading lethal attacks” “screening and killing

pro-rebel civilians” “combatant” “poison/inject captured

war prisoners with either lethal injection or acid”

“I trained with [the AFRC] bush camp how to shoot a gun”

“fighting”

“killing and maiming pro-government forces and civilians”

“gun trafficking” “killing” “planning and carrying

out attacks on public places”

“do execution on commanders of my age group”

“murdered children”

Various titles given to female soldiers:

‘camp followers,’ ‘abductees,’ ‘sex slaves,’ ‘domestic slaves,’ or ‘girls and women associated with the fighting forces’ and ‘vulnerable groups associated with armed movements’

The importance of combat duty to the soldier title

Reclassification of female soldiers as some form of victim: abductees, camp followers, bush wives

Ignoring/prioritizing diverse labor required to sustain warfare

Ignoring sexual slavery as a wartime currency and required duty for many women

This lack of attention to gender resulted in inefficient DDR policy-making

Depoliticization of women’s activities and labor during war

Ignoring or re-categorizing female soldiers reinforces gendered assumptions about what women do, or should do during war

Excluding women from post-conflict reintegration programs for soldiers

Grossly under-funded Underestimated

participants by about 20,000

Over 75,000 soldiers participated

Of the 75,000 disarmed only 5000 were women

Children’s DDR girls accounted for 8% of the disarmed

Emphasis on the first D

Reintegration programs offered limited training options

Reintegration for females more generally seen as a “social” process that would happen naturally over time (NCDDR)

Returning to “normal” emphasized, including marriage.

Little local input on training Post-conflict is an ideal time to address

gender (reconstructing order)

Sexual Violence70-90% ‘War Babies’Over 20,000 in Sierra Leone StigmaFemale soldiers are aberrations, not

heroes

Statistics Strategic Use Stigma

Dialogue between scholars and practitioners/ between beneficiaries and practitioners

We need to think about gender consistently and before the implementation phase

Recognize the gendered impacts of securitizing post-conflict (DDR, idle men)

Recognize sexual violence as a currency of war not just an impact of war

Need to rethink the meaning of post-conflictPositive transitionOpportunity for womenGender neutralLimited time frame (sexual violence impacts,

reintegration for women)