Content uploaded by Jacqui True
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jacqui True on Dec 30, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
CHAPTER 3
Global Violence and Security
from a Gendered Perspective
Jacqui True and Maria Tanyag
More than 15 years since the adoption of UN Security Council Resolution
1325 (UNSCR 1325) on Women, Peace and Security (WPS), considerable
challenges and gaps remain in implementing the resolution’s core pillars on
prevention, protection, participation, and peace-building and recovery (UN
Women 2015). The UN-commissioned global review of UNSCR 1325
underscores the staggering exclusion of women from peace processes in the
face of statistical data suggesting that their presence as witnesses, signatories,
mediators, and/or negotiators makes it 20 per cent more likely that a peace
agreement will last at least two years and 35 per cent more likely it will last
15 years (UN Women 2015;Paffenholzetal.2016). However, between
1990 and 2011 across 31 peace processes that the UN was involved in, and
women represented just 2 per cent of chief mediators, 4 per cent of witnesses
and signatories, and 9 per cent of negotiators (UN Women 2015, p. 45; see
also Davies and True 2015a,b). That the WPS agenda remains to be fully
realised points to the systemic challenges it raises for how we understand
J. True (*)
School of Social Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
e-mail: jacqui.true@monash.edu
M. Tanyag
Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
e-mail: maria.tanyag@monash.edu
© The Author(s) 2017
A. Burke, R. Parker (eds.), Global Insecurity,
DOI 10.1057/978-1-349-95145-1_3
43
global violence and insecurity. It is a major paradox that as gender has
become more de rigeur in international peace and security policy-making
it is been less able to challenge unequal political and economic power
structures such as men’s dominance of peace negotiations and pervasive
militarisation leading to militarised responses to conflict and insecurity.
Applying a feminist political economy framework to the WPS agenda
brings back the fundamental focus on social and economic justice, dis-
armament and comprehensive security that catalysed the transnational
movement that pushed for UNSCR 1325 two decades ago.
Studies have shown that women’s inclusion in peace and transition
processes also translates to more responsive conflict prevention (see
Paffenholz et al. 2016;O’Reilly et al. 2015; Arnado 2012; Pruitt 2013).
Increasing platforms for women in all stages matters ‘because they repre-
sent at least half of the population, and their participation and progress is
essential to achieve peace and security from the community to the inter-
national level’(Davies and True 2015a). However, rather than mere
inclusion in decision-making, substantive peace and security especially
for women and girls is contingent on restructuring gendered inequalities
that go beyond crisis situations such as armed conflicts and environmental
disasters but are also rooted in everyday political economy. Indeed, echo-
ing recommendations for advancing the WPS agenda more productively,
this requires concerted efforts that cut across different dimensions to peace
and security such as by strengthening the integrated implementation of
WPS alongside the sustainable development goals and the Convention on
the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women
(CEDAW) (Shepherd 2014; UN Women 2015). Finally, it poses us to
rethink what global violence and security mean and their implications for
how we view governance challenges in the twenty-first century.
In this chapter, we reconceptualise global violence and insecurity
through a feminist political economy framework. First, we begin by pro-
viding an overview of the key implications of feminist international rela-
tions scholarship for rethinking global violence, peace, and security by
drawing attention to the continuum of violence. Feminist theorising
challenges mainstream approaches to security and violence, which artifi-
cially severs the connections between public and private spheres, produc-
tive and reproductive activities, and war with peace. Second, we then
outline the components of feminist political economy analysis which we
argue provides the analytical tools for understanding the underlying
unequal political and economic power relations within processes of
44 J. TRUE AND M. TANYAG
globalisation that disproportionately undermine the security and freedom
of women and girls as well as individuals and communities more generally.
Third, to illustrate this framework we identify issues of global gendered
violence and insecurities in the context of the deepening ‘siloed’treatment
between the political-military and the socio-economic pillars in interna-
tional security agendas. We thus, critique current modes of gender main-
streaming for substantively achieving women’s rights to protection and
participation. We conclude by emphasising fundamental change in global
security governance that involves transforming the underlying structures
of political, social, and economic inequality rather than prescribing more
‘good governance’, and ‘gender mainstreaming’grafted onto security and
humanitarian interventions.
‘VIOLENCE AS A CONTINUUM’:FEMINIST THEORISING
ON GENDER,PEACE,AND SECURITY
Feminist political economy analysis of global violence and insecurity builds
on feminist contributions to international relations (IR) and international
political economy (IPE). Feminist theorising in these disciplines inform a
rethinking of global violence as occurring in a continuum. Using the
concept of violence as a continuum enables us to render visible first, the
connections between physical insecurity and structural and symbolic forms
of violence (Galtung 1969). Structural violence was theorised by the peace
researcher, Johan Galtung as built into the social structure, emerging as
unequal power and unequal life chances: ‘Structural violence is silent, it
does not show –it is essentially static, it is tranquil waters’(p. 173).
Second, violence in its many forms can manifest as perpetrated upon an
individual body, in the home, against minority communities and by states.
Third and crucially, violence as a continuum underscores that violence in
war and conflict contexts is structurally connected to violence, discrimina-
tion, and marginalisation in apparently peaceful contexts (True 2012).
IR feminists have shown that traditionally predominant understandings
of war, peace and security have been exclusively drawn from a male
perspective and as such reward masculine traits and activities. Moreover,
this male and masculine bias serves the interests of men more than women.
By ignoring gender, mainstream IR obscures particular sets of hierarchical
relationships that underpin and are reproduced by global policy-making.
The corresponding definitions of peace and security are thus inadequate in
3 GLOBAL VIOLENCE AND SECURITY FROM A GENDERED PERSPECTIVE 45
encompassing women’s experiences of violence. By contrast, feminist
theorising and empirical research emphasise that women’s lives offer
unique standpoints for understanding war and militarism as well as peace
and security (Cockburn 2004,2010; Tickner 1992; Enloe 1989).
Women’s standpoints or ‘situated knowledges’inform us that concepts
such as violence, peace, and security are multidimensional (Haraway 1988;
Cockburn 2010). This is clearly seen, for example, in the targeting of
gender and ethnic minorities for sexual and gender-based violence
(SGBV) in conflict. Citing the case of conflict-related SGBV against
Colombian women, especially Afro-Colombian and indigenous women
and girls, Sara Davies and Jacqui True (2015b) demonstrate the com-
pounded violence these women experience as minority women margin-
alised from state structures of protection prior to and after armed conflicts.
At the same time, their experience points to the symbolic violence of the
Columbian state against them as they embody minority ethnic group
identity.
The privileging of masculinist norms foster a gendered division of
public/private spheres, of production/reproduction activities, and of
war/peace. Feminist scholars argue that women’s experiences of insecurity
do not end with the absence of war, but continues on even after conflicts
have ceased as they disproportionately deal with the indirect consequences
of war such as poverty and violence in their households (Tickner 1992;
True 2012). Hence, these boundaries are in fact permeable and interre-
lated. For example, studies have shown that internally displaced and
refugee women and girls residing in camps experience heightened vulner-
ability to SGBV in the performance of their caregiving and familial obliga-
tions (The Brookings-LSE Project 2014; True 2012). Women and girls,
whether by risking themselves to sexual violence in order to collect water
or engaging in sex work in exchange for relief goods and protection,
commit self-sacrifice which is justified by culturally informed set of gen-
dered expectations. This theme of female altruism, however, is increasingly
defining women’s and girls’lives even outside of armed conflicts as a result
of neoliberal economic policies that heavily rely on women’s social repro-
ductive labour while keeping this labour economically devalued by the
state (see Molyneux 2007; Chant 2010; Rai et al. 2014).
Similarly, the intensification of transnational movements of migrant
women to take up employment as domestic workers –a process driven
in many contexts by structural violence in home countries –exposes
women to other forms of SGBV in the hands of employers and states in
46 J. TRUE AND M. TANYAG
receiving countries (Elias 2013; Elias and Rai 2015). But as many studies
document, the decision to seek employment overseas is strongly influ-
enced by gendered expectations that these women need to fulfilsoasto
ensure that their families survive economically (see, for example, Parreñas
2003; Yeates 2009). And yet, hegemonic norms on masculinities particu-
larly ideals of men as protectors and breadwinners underpin men’s and
boy’s experiences of violence and insecurity too. For instance, the male
breadwinner stereotype is rendered fragile through neoliberal restructuring
processes, and in crisis contexts in many states. Economic changes may
mean that ‘men may be unable to find alternative employment to provide
incomes that fulfill their visions of themselves as breadwinners. They may
react violently against women and children in the home and in public
spaces, compensating for the loss of economic control’(True 2012, p. 41).
Finally, feminist reconceptualisation of the continuum of violence from
the standpoint of women reveals the workings of patriarchal structures
that engender insecurities from the household to international politics
(Enloe 1989,2000; True 2012). Cynthia Cockburn (2010, p. 140)
argues that
[P]atriarchal gender relations predispose our societies to war. They are a
driving force perpetuating war. They are among the causes of war. This is
not, of course, to say that gender is the only dimension of power implicated
in war. It is not to diminish the commonly understood importance of
economic factors (particularly an ever-expansive capitalism) and antagon-
isms between ethnic communities, states and blocs (particularly the institu-
tion of the nation-state) as causes of war.
Interrogating patriarchy involves rendering visible ‘how and why mascu-
linity is privileged –and how much of that privileging depends on con-
trolling women or drawing them into complicity’(Enloe 2004, p. 7).
However, the global attention to sexual violence through the WPS
agenda, as an example, tends to isolate sexual violence within conflict
and crisis settings and therefore fail to grasp security as a multidimensional
concept that encompasses various threats to human life (True 2016).
Furthermore, this disproportionate focus on securitised settings directs
attention away from the broader political economy context where struc-
tural gendered inequalities between men and women are reinforced (True
2013a,2015a). Neglecting women’s contributions in the informal econ-
omy prior to and after conflict, or issues of economic exploitation created
3 GLOBAL VIOLENCE AND SECURITY FROM A GENDERED PERSPECTIVE 47
by international peace operations represents a major setback for establish-
ing long-term recovery and sustainable peace.
FEMINIST POLITICAL ECONOMY ANALYSIS OF GLOBAL
GENDERED VIOLENCE AND INSECURITIES
In this section we outline the components to a feminist political economy
framework that can be employed to understand the underlying unequal
political and economic power relations that both generate and exacerbate
global gendered violence and insecurities. Feminist political economy
specifically reconceptualises violence as a form of power that has ‘a material
basis, often founded on material relations of inequality within and across
societies and cultures’and thus not just its consequence (True 2012,
p. 30). That is, ‘power operates not only through direct coercion but
also through the structured relations of production and reproduction that
govern the distribution of resources, benefits, privileges and authority’
(True 2012). Unequal structures and processes of political economy are
increasingly globalised and encompassing all aspects of everyday life from
health and well-being to political and economic decision-making.
Consequently, gendered inequalities between men and women must be
part of the same global frameworks for bringing about lasting peace and
security.
The first component in the analysis begins with the gendered division of
labour within the family and household economy. Across various historical
and geographical contexts, women through culture and biology are
expected to be primary caregivers. Feminist political economy framework
draws the connections between violence and insecurity, and women’s
social reproductive labour or the range of unpaid domestic and affective
labour at the household. This is done ‘by showing how macro level non-
recognition of socially reproductive work is intimately connected to every-
day depletion of individuals, households, and communities’(Elias and Rai
2015, p. 427). According to Catherine Hoskyns and Shirin Rai (2007),
‘the fact that unpaid service work in the home is seen to be outside the
production boundary is particularly important, since this renders it invi-
sible and severs the link between domestic labour and other economic
processes’(301). And yet, the continued exclusion of social reproduction
and unpaid domestic work in particular has been due to the structural
constraints in economic institutions as well as economics as a discipline
48 J. TRUE AND M. TANYAG
which allow labour to be only valued in certain respects and not others
(Hoskyns and Rai 2007, p. 315).
The devaluing of social reproduction also casts women as not consti-
tuting ‘real’workers which places them in precarious employment as
‘cheap labour’in the global economy. Women especially factory and
domestic workers have been among the most vulnerable to violence and
exploitation (Elias 2013; Parreñas 2003; Yeates 2009). Similarly, occupa-
tions associated with social reproduction are either not considered ‘work’
or looked down upon because it is represented as not requiring skills or
‘technical’knowledge (Safri and Graham 2010; Barber 2011; Chin 1998).
Such devalued conditions, which feminist political economy analysis
reveals, gradually harm the health and well-being of women including
the households and communities which depend on their labour. The
human costs are exacerbated under situations of crisis but are nevertheless
engendered in everyday life (Elias and Rai 2015).
The second component relates to unpacking the causal role of the
contemporary global political economy –particularly neoliberal political
economic state transformations –in engendering violence. This involves
critically examining the contextual ways by which neoliberal globalisation is
(re)structuring the household, and how the household is co-constructing
the global economic order (Waylen 2006; Bedford and Rai 2010; Peterson
2003). For instance, gender is increasingly a focal point for global govern-
ance given how gender balance serves as an indicator of economic competi-
tiveness, and state modernisation (Prügl and True 2014;Towns2010).
This is evident in the recognition of women as key economic actors by the
World Bank and multinational corporations such as Nike (see Calkin 2016).
And yet, the co-optation of women is juxtaposed against their continued
exclusion from key economic decision-making bodies such as in corporate
boardrooms, national economic bodies on macro-economic policy, foreign
investment, trade, and taxation (Prügl and True 2014). Their absence in
these key areas consequently underpins the lack of economic contributions
to support social reproduction, which is the basis for sustaining women’s
health and well-being at the household and community levels. The relation-
ship between the state and economy as a site for oppression and insecurity is
relevant for reconceptualising global violence because ‘gendered economic
structures determine the limits and the possibilities of politics, including
security politics, whereas politics is the principal means through which
markets are established and transformed’(True 2015a,p.423).Thestate
and global economy, thus, reinforce one another in the production of
3 GLOBAL VIOLENCE AND SECURITY FROM A GENDERED PERSPECTIVE 49
gendered relations of power even as restructuring processes have shifted
power away from state actors towards non-state actors such as corporations
and public–private partnerships (True 2013b).
Feminist political economy analysis interrogates the contradictory
impacts global economic restructuring has for different groups of women
particularly the paradoxical trend of bringing certain groups of women in
while keeping others out. Taking account of the gendered division of labour
at the household uncovers the social structure of gender. However, in
linking the household with the global economy, such an approach effec-
tively draws under scrutiny how gender intersects with other relationships of
power based on class, race, ethnicity, sexuality, and so forth. Indeed, in the
Global South, women particularly through motherhood are fashioned as
key to a country’s development success (Roy 2010;Molyneux2007).
Ananya Roy observes that in the Millennium Development Agenda, the
‘Third World Woman’was no longer represented as a victim; rather she was
presented as a heroic entrepreneur and selfless altruist (2010, p. 548). The
strategic shift in discourse from victimhood to empowerment –without of
course significant structural changes in the economic status of women in
both developed and developing countries in terms of access to economic
and political decision-making –serves to obscure the material inequalities
that continue to define women’s insecurities in everyday life. Thus, women
continue being primary caregivers in households and communities, and on
whose backs economies are violently built upon (Sassen 2000). Indeed,
following Nancy Fraser’s critique, recognition without redistribution and
representation fails to address the full range of gender injustices in a globa-
lising world (2005, p. 306).
The third component consists of gendered dichotomies between mascu-
line protector and feminine protected as well as other gendered identities.
Gendered symbols and narratives inform crisis interventions by states and
the international community, whether in armed conflicts or natural disas-
ters. They also serve to normalise and/or reinforce gendered expectations in
the aftermath of crisis. A feminist political economy critique uncovers the
material basis to cultural discourses and how they are employed to legitimise
the exclusion and subordination of women in international politics. In so
doing, we also sharpen the focus on how gender is interconnected with
ethnic, religious and/or national identities. Throughout history, women’s
bodies have served as markers of difference, which makes them sites of
political contestations belying the assumption of separate public and private
spheres. As feminist scholars point out, the control of women’s bodies has
50 J. TRUE AND M. TANYAG
been at the heart of authoritative struggles over claims on how society and
the roles and relationships within it ought to be (Yuval-Davis and Anthias
1989; Yuval-Davis 1997). As Nira Yuval-Davis argues, ‘gender relations are
at the heart of cultural constructions of social identities and collectivities as
well as in most cultural conflicts and contestations’(1997, p. 39).
Drawing once again the connections across different levels of analysis,
feminist political economy reveals how individuals, states and other collec-
tivities are gendered. As Cynthia Enloe puts it, ‘to operate in the interna-
tional arena, governments depend on ideas of masculinised dignity and
feminised sacrifice to sustain their sovereignty’(1989, p. 197). Processes of
war and militarism constantly rely on and mobilise gendered discourses to
ensure the complicity of men and women. Furthermore, the state especially
in situations of crisis is constructed as and legitimated through its projected
image of masculine roles such as the patriarchal provider of the family and
protector writ large to citizens especially women and children within and
outside of its borders (True 2015a, p. 420). Masculinities and femininities
are also deeply implicated in SGBV as these discourses serve to enforce
relations of domination and subordination. Sexual violence has been stra-
tegically used to subjugate enemies as a way of rendering them symbolically
‘feminine’, weak or inferior (Enloe 2000; Yuval-Davis 1997). Indeed, the
significant under-reporting of rape and sexual violence for men and boys
indicates how effectively traumatising and degrading such acts especially in
violating their masculine agency and political identity (Davies and True
2015b, p. 8; Cockburn 2010). Lastly, in the context of humanitarian crises,
these discourses taint relief efforts in terms of gendered assumptions per-
taining to the ‘head of household’or ‘ideal aid recipients’. Privileging male
members of the family unquestioningly assume that they are innate pro-
tectors of the family. Still, in some cases when female members are con-
sidered primary recipients but without taking into account how this
treatment alienates and threatens the masculinity of male members,
women’s vulnerability to violence may be further exacerbated (True 2012).
GLOBAL VIOLENCE AND INSECURITIES:THE UN WOMEN,
PEACE AND SECURITY AGENDA
Feminist political economy analysis reveals how gender identities and
inequalities structure institutions from the household to the global econ-
omy creating violent reactions and heightening vulnerabilities to violence.
Here we illustrate the analytical contribution of this framework in the
3 GLOBAL VIOLENCE AND SECURITY FROM A GENDERED PERSPECTIVE 51
context of the division of political-military and the socio-economic pillars
in international peace and security agendas. The lack of integration of
political-military security from socio-economic security, especially after
conflict, has particularly detrimental consequences for women’s rights to
protection from violence and to participation in peace-building. We begin
by examining how gender has been mainstreamed in international peace
and security policy-making foregrounding the failure to prevent SGBV in
crisis contexts and to address gender inequalities during humanitarian
responses.
Gender mainstreaming in policy began with the 1995 Beijing
Declaration and Platform for Action, which demanded the integration of
a gender perspective into all programs and policies (see True 2003; Krook
and True 2012). In the last two decades, gender mainstreaming has been
adopted in a variety of forms including in the area of security policies
within the UN system. The WPS agenda is a prominent example. It took
shape as a result of the global recognition of the disproportionate con-
sequences of wars and conflicts on women, and consequently, the vital
importance they play for achieving sustainable peace and security (UN
Women 2013). Through the foundational UNSCR 1325 and seven sub-
sequent UNSC resolutions, the WPS agenda identifies three priority
issues: the representation of women at all levels of peace and security
governance; the meaningful participation of women in peace and security
governance; and the protection of women’s rights and bodies in conflict
and post-conflict situations (Shepherd 2014). The WPS agenda, as a
defining international normative framework, establishes the obligations
of states and international actors for women’s protection against SGBV,
the promotion of their participation in peace and security processes, as well
as broadening the provided support for women’s roles in peace-building
and conflict prevention (True 2013a). Gender mainstreaming, however,
creates both opportunities and risks for advancing women’s rights and
gender equality (True 2016). In practice, gender mainstreaming in secur-
ity and peace frameworks such as the WPS has often either detracted
from, or served to depoliticise, comprehensive gender equality goals and
outcomes.
First, gender mainstreaming in national and international peace and
security processes is often translated in practice in the form of a checklist to
satisfy external actors rather than to substantively achieve gender equality
goals. Without a comprehensive understanding of how gender operates
to exclude and subjugate, policies in effect contribute and create SGBV.
52 J. TRUE AND M. TANYAG
We see this in many liberal democratic states where as part of gender-
mainstreaming policy, women are integrated into armed forces without
necessarily reforming the masculinist norms in military training and socia-
lisation that continue to ignore and thus legitimise the rampant discrimi-
nation, and SGBV within defence institutions (see Kronsell 2012; True
2015b). For example, while Australia’sfirst Women, Peace and Security
National Action Plan (2012–2018) formally encompasses mainstreaming
gender equality objectives into many domestic and international peace and
security actions and commitments but implementation has largely focused
on increasing the number of women in security sector institutions, espe-
cially the Australian Defence Force (Australian Council for International
Development 2014).
Second, gender-mainstreaming practices often neglect or underesti-
mate the complexity of gender relations in different contexts. Gender
relations are mutable, but at the same time historically contingent and
intersecting within a given society’s class, race/ethnicity, religious hierar-
chies (see McCall 2005; Weldon 2006). In peace and security operations,
gender is commonly used a synonym for women, and women’s experi-
ences are primarily viewed through feminised narratives of victimhood and
protection. This leads not only to homogenising women as a group but
also to obscuring the diversity of gender and sexual identities in need of
protection in crisis situations. It also means that the range of structural and
institutional, rather than just individual or attitudinal, factors that con-
tribute to gender inequalities are ignored. And yet, studies show that
experiences of conflict-related SGBV are strongly mediated by the ethnic,
religious, minority status of women and girls (Davies and True 2015a,b;
Baaz and Stern 2009). Moreover, gender mainstreaming in practice main-
tains women in a subordinated position when the goal of gender equality
is sacrificed for other institutional ends.
Women, for instance, are included at the peace table not because they
have an equal democratic right to be there (Dahl 1998), but because they
are expected to contribute ‘uniquely’feminine qualities such as nurturing,
empathy, cooperation, non-violence with a focus on community well-
being rather individual interests. However, gendered expectations such
that ‘women devote a greater proportion of their income than men do to
expenditures that benefit families –their own children and members of
extended kinship networks’when instituted within global agendas serve to
globally reinforce or ‘normalise’the already problematic norms around
altruism and sacrifice which underpin many women’s experiences of
3 GLOBAL VIOLENCE AND SECURITY FROM A GENDERED PERSPECTIVE 53
insecurities in conflict and post-conflict situations (see UNGA 2010, p. 3).
The effectiveness of gender mainstreaming in undoing gender stereotypes
is thus limited.
Here we can see the failure of gender mainstreaming in international
peace and security policy-making to address underlying, unequal political
and economic relations that are root causes of conflict and insecurity (True
2016). The shortcomings associated with gender mainstreaming are
rooted in the ‘siloed’treatment of the political-military and the socio-
economic dimensions of security in international agendas and operations
on the ground. Within peace and security policies, gender is not and
should not be reduced to a single-issue focus either on protection from
sexual violence in conflict or on the women’s economic empowerment
during the peace-building phase. Rather, gender must be constituted
within an overall approach to practicing foreign and national policies
that addresses gender justice and equality outcomes (True 2015b).
The severing of political-military and socio-economic concerns is detri-
mental to women and girls in post-conflict situations. The study by
political scientists Quan Li and Ming Wen (2005) suggests that over
time, women’s mortality in war is as high as men’s largely due to the
long-term socio-economic effects of war. The case of international peace-
keeping missions demonstrates this problem particularly as they indirectly
create both economic opportunities and exploitation (True 2014;
Jennings 2014; Enloe 2000). UN peace operations typically prioritise
military security and reinstating political order without due regard and
planning in terms of the socio-economic dimensions of security. That is,
restoring men and women’s livelihoods, which are crucial for household
and societal security, takes a back seat to re-establishing law and order.
Even worse, the UN has been under fire for its own misconduct concern-
ing an investigation into sexual crimes by peacekeepers against civilians
(Davies and True 2015a).
Given women and girls’disproportionate vulnerability to the long-term
effects of conflict, they are at the losing end when interventions fail to
seriously deliberate the long-term, socio-economic conditions to sustain
peace. Both pillars are interdependent for survivors of SGBV in particular.
For these women the capacity to access justice and physical security is
dependent on their access to economic resources during and after conflict.
As a direct result of conflict however, they may have lost their partners,
become simultaneously breadwinners and carers for dependent children
and elder family members, and/or have been shunned by their family or
54 J. TRUE AND M. TANYAG
community as survivors of SGBV (True 2014). For instance, women’s
ability to protect themselves and their families from future violence is
affected by their material situation; whether they have a choice over their
residence, their mobility or means of travel, their workplace, their time to
collectively organise and influence community leaders and services, and
whether they can cover costs including the opportunity costs (of their time
away from income earning or caring) of seeking legal justice. Therefore,
addressing pre-existing gendered inequalities must form part of the mandate
of UN peace operations. Interventions must equally secure peace through
cessation of conflict-related violence as well as do more to create sustainable
livelihoods and economic opportunities to address structural forms of vio-
lence as an ‘avoidable impairment of fundamental human needs’(Galtung
1990, p. 291) that are themselves precursors to gender-based violence (True
2012) and also future civil conflict (see Cederman et al. 2013).
Such an integrated approach is imperative for the prevention of SGBV
against women and girls in conflict and disasters. Using existing indicators
of gender discrimination and the UN Secretary-General annual reports
(2012–2015) on situations of concern for sexual violence, Davies and
True (2015b) reveal the strong empirical relationship between normalised
and systemic gender discrimination. For instance, in the protection of
physical integrity, access to economic resources, to public space and
mobility and other civil and political liberties in a society and the occur-
rence of mass SGBV (Davies and True 2015b). Gendered inequalities
characterise relationships between and within groups. And though they
exist in all countries, gender inequalities vary significantly across them and
are particularly heightened in high-risk situations. Contextualised analysis
of which groups are most marginalised and subject to institutional and
structural discrimination socially, politically, and economically can isolate
who are the most vulnerable to being targeted for SGBV and bolster their
self-protection capacities. Such feminist political economy informed ana-
lysis can also highlight the political, social, and cultural barriers to report-
ing for SGBV crimes. Taken together, this knowledge of structural
gendered inequalities affecting vulnerability to and reporting of violence
can significantly improve local and international conflict prevention and
human protection strategies (Davies and True 2015b, p. 3).
As well as during conflict, we see the impact of the separation of
political-military and socio-economic pillars of security in the context of
humanitarian ‘rapid responses’to crises with gender-specific consequences
(see Higelin and Yermo 2015). The reality of women giving birth amidst
3 GLOBAL VIOLENCE AND SECURITY FROM A GENDERED PERSPECTIVE 55
war-torn or disaster contexts without assistance, often used to highlight
the need for humanitarian protection by international organisations, is
illustrative here of the collision of a conflict situation with pervasive
gender-based structural violence (lack of reproductive health care services
and access) that results in preventable physical insecurity and violence
(maternal mortality). UNFPA (2015) in its 2015 State of the World
Population report noted that 25 per cent of the more than 100 million
displaced people in need of humanitarian assistance are women and girls
aged 15 to 49 whose sexual and reproductive rights are threatened. They
face heightened risks of SGBV including sexually transmitted infections
and HIV/AIDS, maternal mortality, and forced or unwanted pregnancies.
The report further noted that although there has been remarkable pro-
gress in targeting humanitarian services to women and girls over the past
decade, large gaps remain in transformative actions beyond the crisis or
emergency phase to address gender inequalities, as well as in the gender-
equitable distribution of resources during crises.
The problem lies in the prioritisation of restoring political order in the
aftermath of the disaster particularly through military presence, at the cost
of neglecting the gendered socio-economic inequalities that define women
and girls immediate and long-term vulnerability to violence. For example,
sexual and reproductive health needs of women and girls in times of crisis
continue to be undermined by inadequate supplies. But barriers to accessing
sexual and reproductive health services and supplies especially on the basis of
resource scarcity exist before, during, and after crises. Indeed, as Rosalind
Petchesky (2005, p. 303) points out, ‘in the reality of a world governed by
neo-liberal capitalist regimes, sexual and reproductive health and rights and
the right to the highest attainable standard of health care are entirely subject
to resource availability and held hostage to inequitable patterns of resource
distribution that belie the myths of scarcity’. Moreover, the promotion of
sexual and reproductive health remains greatly impeded by institutional
barriers within a society particularly the influence of conservative religious
elites in national policy-making and deeply entrenched traditional beliefs on
sex and reproduction (see Tanyag 2015). Indeed, General Comment no. 22
of the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (2016)
emphasises that
States must recognize and take measures to rectify entrenched social norms
and power structures that impair the equal exercise of their right, such as the
impact that gender roles have on the social determinants of health. Such
56 J. TRUE AND M. TANYAG
measures must address and eliminate discriminatory stereotypes, assump-
tions and norms concerning sexuality and reproduction, which underlie
restrictive laws and undermine the realization of sexual and reproductive
health. (E/C.12/GC/22)
The status of sexual and reproductive health in crisis situations is also a
strong indictment of women’s exclusion from participating in decision-
making concerning climate change and post-disaster reconstruction
(UNFPA 2015; Ivanova 2015; Lee-Koo 2012; True 2012). In the Asia
Pacific, a region highly vulnerable to climate change risks, three countries
–Bangladesh, Indonesia, and the Philippines –are leading climate change
policy reform through the adoption of national adaptation plans of action.
And yet, gender equality interventions proposed in these plans do not
adequately address issues of sexual and reproductive health in and after
environmental disasters (ARROW 2014).
Integrating both political-military and the socio-economic pillars works
towards long-term prevention and sustainable peace. Existing challenges
are evident in peacekeeping and post-disaster reconstruction. Both must
seriously address pre-existing gender inequalities and incorporate contin-
gencies for how the presence of peacekeepers and humanitarian workers
co-constitutes gender relations in the long run. The interdependent and
indivisible steps to achieving security and peace, which is the aspiration of
human rights, are not only rendered visible through feminist political
economy analysis, they are able to be practically implemented.
CONCLUSION
In this chapter, we have reconceptualised global security by emphasising
the gendered structural inequalities underlying vulnerabilities to violence
and conflict, often referred to as ‘the continuum of violence’across peace
and war or conflict. Drawing upon the critical work by feminist scholars
and activists, the chapter offers an alternative framework for how we might
view and assess the gendered insecurities affecting women and girls but
also men and boys, though not addressed fully here. Our discussion
emphasises a transformative agenda, which illuminates upon the connec-
tions between women’s health and well-being in the household, their
ability to fully participate in political and economic decision-making out-
side the household and the achievement of sustainable peace and security
at community, national, and global levels. Crucially, feminist political
3 GLOBAL VIOLENCE AND SECURITY FROM A GENDERED PERSPECTIVE 57
economy analysis of global violence and insecurity points to the imperative
to challenge and overhaul underlying structures of political, social, and
economic inequalities. We argue that to be effective, global policy agendas
such as the WPS agenda must join up the political-military and socio-
economic dimensions of peace and security starting at the point of peace
operations and humanitarian interventions. Efforts at mainstreaming gender
must be guided by critical reflections around the kind of gendered assump-
tions and expectations that inform policies and their implementation.
Taking gender seriously within peace and security frameworks must involve
at a minimum examining the intersection of relationships of power based
among others on gender, class, race/ethnicity, religion, and sexuality. The
central goal of this examination and reconceptualisation of security must be
the long-term prevention of conflict and violence through investment in
people-centred socio-economic development and justice enabled (and
resourced) by a shift to demilitarisation and disarmament.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Arnado, M. (2012), Women’s involvement in conflict early warning systems: Moving
from rhetoric to reality in Mindanao. (Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue).
http://www.hdcentre.org/uploads/tx_news/77Womensinvolvement
inconflictearlywarningsystemsFINAL_2.pdf.
Asian-Pacific Resource and Research Centre for Women (ARROW). (2014).
Identifying opportunities for action on climate change and sexual and reproduc-
tive health and rights in Bangladesh, Indonesia, and the Philippines. Kuala
Lumpur: ARROW. www.arrow.org.my.
Australian Council for International Development (2014) The second annual civil
society report card on Australia’s national action plan on women, peace and
security. Canberra:Australian Council for International Development.
Baaz, M., & Stern, M. (2009). Why do soldiers rape? Masculinities, violence and
sexuality in the armed forces of the Congo. International Studies Quarterly,
53(2), 495–518.
Barber, P. (2011). Women’s work unbound: Philippine development and
global restructuring. In M. Marchand & A. Runyan (Eds.), Gender and
global restructuring: Sightings, sites and resistances (2nd ed., pp. 143–162).
London; New York: Routledge.
Bedford, K., & Rai, S. (2010). Feminists theorize international political economy.
Signs, 36(1), 1–18.
Calkin, S. (2016). Globalizing ‘girl power’: Corporate social responsibility and trans-
national business initiatives for gender equal. Globalizations,13(2), 158–172.
58 J. TRUE AND M. TANYAG
Cederman, L. E., Gleditsch, K. S., & Buhaug, H. (2013). Inequality, grievances
and civil war. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
Chant, S. (2010). Towards a (re)conceptualisation of the ‘feminisation of pov-
erty’:Reflections on gender-differentiated poverty from The Gambia,
Philippines and Costa Rica. In S. Chant (Eds.), The International Handbook
of Gender and Poverty: Concepts, Research, Policy (pp. 111–116). Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar.
Chin, C. (1998). In service and servitude: Foreign female domestic worker and the
Malaysian ‘Modernity’project. New York: Columbia University Press.
Cockburn, C. (2004). The continuum of violence: A gender perspective on war
and peace. In W. Giles (Ed.), Sites of violence: Gender and conflict zones.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Cockburn, C. (2010). Gender relations as causal in militarization and war.
International Feminist Journal of Politics,12(2), 139–157.
Dahl, R. (1998). On Democracy. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press.
Davies, S., & True, J. (2015a), ‘The UN, women, peace and security: 15 years on,
women’s participation in peace and security is more urgent than ever,’
Australian Institute of International Affairs, October 16. http://www.inter
nationalaffairs.org.au/australian_outlook/the-un-women-peace-and-security-
15-years-on-womens-participation-in-peace-and-security-is-more-urgent-
than-ever/.
Davies, S., & True, J. (2015b). Reframing conflict-related sexual and gender-
based violence: Bringing gender analysis back in. Security Dialogue,46(6),
495–512.
Elias, J. (2013). Foreign policy and the domestic worker: The Malaysia-Indonesia
domestic worker dispute. International Feminist Journal of Politics,15(3),
391–410.
Elias, J., & Rai, S. (2015). The everyday gendered political economy of violence.
Politics & Gender,11(2), 424–429.
Enloe, C. (1989). Bananas, beaches and bases: Making feminist sense of interna-
tional politics. Berkeley/London: University of California Press.
Enloe, C. (2000). Maneuvers: The international politics of militarizing women’s
lives. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Enloe, C. (2004). The curious feminist: Searching for women in a new age of
empire. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Galtung, J. (1969). Violence, peace, and peace research. Journal of Peace Research,
6(3), 167–191.
Galtung, J. (1990). Cultural violence. Journal of Peace Research,27(3), 291–305.
Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledge: The science question in feminism and
the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies,14(3), 575–599.
Higelin, M., & Yermo, F. (2015) ‘Transforming disaster into opportunity:
Shifting the power’.World Humanitarian Summit 2016 Paper. Action Aid.
3 GLOBAL VIOLENCE AND SECURITY FROM A GENDERED PERSPECTIVE 59
Hoskyns, C. & Rai, S. (2007). Recasting the global political economy: Counting
women’s unpaid work. New Political Economy,12(3), 297–317.
Ivanova, M. (2015), ‘Paris climate summit: Why more women need seats at the
table,’The Conversation, November 20. https://theconversation.com/paris-
climate-summit-why-more-women-need-seats-at-the-table-50116.
Jennings, K. M. (2014). Service, sex, and security: Gendered peacekeeping econo-
mies in Liberia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Security Dialogue,
45(4), 313–330.
Kronsell, A. (2012). Gender, sex and postnational defense: Militarism and peace-
keeping. New York: Oxford University Press.
Krook, M. L., & True, J. (2012). Rethinking the life cycles of international norms:
The United Nations and the global promotion of gender equality. European
Journal of International Relations,18(1), 103–127.
Lee-Koo, K. (2012). Gender at the crossroad of conflict: Tsunami and peace in
post-2005 Aceh. Feminist Review,101,59–77.
Li, Q., & Wen, M. (2005). The immediate and lingering effects of armed conflict
on adult mortality: A time-series cross-national analysis. Journal of Peace
Research,42(4), 471–492.
McCall, L. (2005). The complexity of intersectionality. Signs: Journal of Women,
Culture and Society,30(3), 1771–1800.
Molyneux, M. (2007). Change and Continuity in Social Protection in Latin
America: Mothers at the Service of the State. Gender and Development Paper
1. Geneva: UNRISD.
O’Reilly, M., Suilleabhain, A., & Paffenholz, T. (2015), Reimagining peacemak-
ing: Women’s roles in peace processes. International Peace Institute. http://
www.ipinst.org/wpcontent/uploads/2015/06/IPI-E-pub-Reimagining-
Peacemaking-rev.pdf.
Paffenholz, T., Ross, N., Dixon, S., Schluchter, A.-L., & True, J. (2016). Making
Women Count –Not just counting women: Assessing women’s inclusion and
influence on peace negotiations. Geneva/New York: Inclusive Peace and
Transition Initiative and UN Women.
Parreñas, R. (2003). At the cost of women. Interventions: International Journal of
Postcolonial Studies,5(1), 29–44.
Petchesky, R. (2005). Rights of the body and perversions of war: Sexual rights and
wrongs ten years past Beijing. International Social Science Journal,57(184),
301–318.
Peterson, V. S. (2003). A critical rewriting of global political economy: Integrating
reproductive, productive and virtual economies. London: Routledge.
Prügl, E., & True, J. (2014). Equality means business? Governing gender through
transnational public-private partnerships. Review of International Political
Economy,21(6), 1137–1169.
60 J. TRUE AND M. TANYAG
Pruitt, L. (2013). All female police contingents: Feminism and the discourse of
armed protection. International Peacekeeping,20(1), 67–79.
Rai, S., Hoskyns, C., & Thomas, D. (2014). Depletion: The social cost of
reproduction. International Feminist Journal of Politics,16(1), 86–105.
Roy, A. (2010). Millennial woman: The gender order of development. In S. Chant
(Eds.), The international handbook of gender and poverty: Concepts, research,
policy (pp. 548–553). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Safri, M., & Graham, J. (2010). The global household: Toward a feminist post-
capitalist international political economy. Signs,36(1), 99–125.
Sassen, S. (2000). Women’s burden: Counter-geographies of globalization and
the feminization of survival. Journal of International Affairs,53(2), 503–524.
Shepherd, L. (2014), ‘Advancing the women, peace and security agenda: 2015
and beyond,’Norwegian Peacebuilding Resource Centre Expert Analysis,
August 28. http://www.peacebuilding.no/Themes/Inclusivity-and-gender/
Publications/Advancing-the-Women-Peace-and-Security-agenda-2015-and-
beyond.
SRVAW. (2011), Report of the Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, its
Causes and Consequences, A/HRC/17/26.
Tanyag, M. (2015), ‘Unravelling the intersections of power: The case of sexual
and reproductive freedom in the Philippines,’Women’s Studies International
Forum 53: 63–72.
The Brookings-LSE Project on Internal Displacement (The Brookings-LSE
Project). 2014. Improving the Protection of Internally Displaced Women:
Assessment of Progress and Challenges. Washington, D.C.: Brookings
Institution. http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/
2014/10/un-idps-women/improving-the-protection-of-internally-displace
ment-women-october-10-2014.pdf.
Tickner, J. (1992). Gender in international relations: Feminist perspectives on
achieving global security. New York: Columbia University Press.
Towns, A. (2010). Women and states: norms and hierarchies in international
society. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
True, J. (2003). Mainstreaming gender in global public policy. International
Feminist Journal of Politics,5(3), 368–396.
True, J. (2012). The political economy of violence against women. New York:
Oxford University Press.
True, J. (2013a), ‘Women, peace, and security in post-conflict and peacebuilding
contexts,’Norwegian Peacebuilding Resource Centre Expert Analysis, March 14.
http://www.peacebuilding.no/Themes/Inclusivity-and-gender/Publications/
Women-peace-and-security-in-post-conflict-and-peacebuilding-contexts.
True, J. (2013b). Counting women and balancing gender: Increasing women’s
participation in governance. Politics & Gender,9(3), 351–359.
3 GLOBAL VIOLENCE AND SECURITY FROM A GENDERED PERSPECTIVE 61
True, J. (2014). The Political economy of gender in UN peacekeeping. In
G. Heathcote & D. Otto (Eds.), Rethinking peacekeeping, gender equality
and collective security. London: Palgrave.
True, J. (2015a). A tale of two feminisms in international relations? Feminist
political economy and the women, peace and security Agenda. Politics &
Gender,11(2), 419–424.
True, J. (2015b), ‘Why we need a feminist foreign policy to stop war,’Open
Democracy, April 20. https://www.opendemocracy.net/5050/jacqui-true/
why-we-need-feminist-foreign-policy-to-stop-war.
True, J. (2016). Is Gender mainstreaming in peace and security effective? In
J. Steans & D. Tepe-Belfrage (eds.), Handbook on gender and world politics.
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. (2016). General
Comment No. 22 (2016) on the Right to sexual and reproductive health
(article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights). 4 March. E/C.12/GC/22.
UN General Assembly (UNGA). (2010), Women’s participation in peacebuilding:
Report of the Secretary-General. Sixty-fifth session, 7 September. A/65/354–
S/2010/466.
UN Women. (2013), Peace and security: In brief. New York. http://www.
unwomen.org/en/what-we-do/peace-and-security. Accessed 18 February,
2016.
UN Women. (2015), Preventing conflict, transforming justice, securing the peace:
A global study on the implementation of United Nations security council resolu-
tion 1325. New York. http://wps.unwomen.org/en. Accessed 12 February,
2016.
UNFPA. (2015), The State of the World Population 2015. ‘Shelter from the
Storm: A transformative agenda for women and girls in a crisis prone world,’
(New York: UNFPA). http://www.unfpa.org/swop, Accessed 12 February,
2016.
Waylen, G. (2006). You still don’t understand: Why troubled engagements con-
tinue between feminists and (critical) IPE. Review of International Studies,
32(1), 145–164.
Weldon, L. (2006). The structure of intersectionality: A comparative politics of
gender. Politics & Gender,2(2), 235–248.
Yeates, N. (2009). Globalizing care economies and migrant workers: Explorations in
global care chains. New York: Palgrave Macmillan,1999.
Yuval-Davis, N. (1997). Gender and nation. London: Sage.
Yuval-Davis, N., & Anthias, F., (Eds). (1989). Woman, nation, state. Houndmills,
Basingstoke, Hampshire: Macmillan.
62 J. TRUE AND M. TANYAG
Jacqui True is a professor of Politics and International Relations in the School of
Social Sciences, Monash University, Australia. She is a specialist in gender and
international relations, women, peace and security with a focus on the political
economy dimensions of peace-building and the long-term prevention of violence.
She is also specialist in feminist research methodologies. Recent publications
include The Political Economy of Violence Against Women (2012, Oxford
University Press), Doing Feminist Research in the Political and Social Sciences
(co-authored, 2010, Palgrave), and ‘Increasing Women’s Participation in
Governance’in Politics & Gender (2012). Professor True is also a member of
the editorial board of Palgrave Macmillan Politics & Gender Series.
Maria Tanyag is a doctoral candidate in Politics and International Relations at
Monash University, Australia. Her research interests are in the global politics of
sexual and reproductive rights, political economy of sexual and gender-based
violence in crisis situations, and transnational religious fundamentalisms. She has
published in Women’s Studies International Forum and the International Feminist
Journal of Politics.
3 GLOBAL VIOLENCE AND SECURITY FROM A GENDERED PERSPECTIVE 63
