Are Women Peaceful? – An Article Review

Are Women Peaceful? – An Article Review

In the article, Are women peaceful? Reflections on the role of women in peacebuilding, Hilary Charlesworth deeply analyses the roles played by women in creating conflict and negotiating for peace. The writer uses numerous research channels, as well as his evaluation of Bougainville, East Timor, and the Solomon Islands, to derive logical conclusions. These channels include the use of descriptive designs, a case study methodology, and ethnographic styles. The article primarily focuses on international perspectives on women and the misconstrued identities of the female gender. According to Charlesworth, women play a significant role in peacemaking because of their utility to calmness and womanly instincts. Most women suffer due to domestic or national conflict, hence strive to create peaceful environments.

Charlesworth uses the work of Francis Fukuyama, a researcher who linked the behaviors of chimpanzees to those of human beings. He used two groups of the animals, one in Tanzania and another in the Netherlands, to investigate ways chimpanzees form coalitions to attain dominance. Both groups exhibited different natures of coalition-building among male and female chimpanzees. While males achieved power through extreme violence, females were less violent but demonstrated cruelty and high competitiveness. Fukuyama’s article tries to prove that biological differences are visible in human actions and politics. He asserts that women are less prone to conflict even though they are competitive (Charlesworth, 2008).

Charlesworth’s article gives international instances where women have led to conflict resolutions. Conflicts caused by political and economic tensions between Papua New Guinea (PNG) and Bougainville led to long periods of war (1988-1998). Women in Bougainville stepped up to eradicate the wars through forming the Church Women’s Forum. The forum attracted many Bougainville women and initiated peace talks between their country and PNG and gradually ended the conflicts. Although women played an essential role in establishing harmonious relations, they were marginalized in leadership positions.

In East Timor and the Solomon Islands, women had insignificant power in conflict resolutions. Both countries are highly patriarchal and conservative. Their traditional views of women as homemakers and wives restricted the female gender from initialing any radical peacemaking incentives. In East Timor, society forces women to play lesser roles in conflict resolution. The United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET), however, brought hope to Timor women because it purposed to take their opinions seriously and include them in vital decisions. Due to financial constraints and male dominance, few women became part of the state-building process. Solomon Island women also faced hardships in negotiating for peace because the country’s men associated women with bride price; thus, treated them like property or slaves.

Article’s Methodology

Descriptive Design

The objective of Charlesworth’s article is to examine the relationship between women and peace as constructed in international laws and institutions. The descriptive research design helps provide answers to questions on how, who, what, and when something occurred. Using this design is highly effective because the researcher does not manipulate the research variables in any way, thus obtains substantial results. The downside to descriptive designs however, is that it is difficult to conclusively answer the question ‘why’.

Charlesworth’s results therefore, were unable to derive a definitive answer.

The researcher’s observations and analysis of Bougainville, East Timor, and the Solomon Islands depended on news and demographics of activities that occurred before the study. For example, Bougainville’s conflict and the participation by women in the peace and reconciliation process occurred from 1988 to around 2005. Therefore, Charlesworth could not have witnesses or observed the country through the entire period. Since the study analyses a prevalent and widely-known issue, it was easier for him to attain unbiased information from different sources. The descriptive research design makes use of different methodologies. Charlesworth uses the case study method because it provides a wider range of resource categories.

Case Study Method

Charlesworth uses public records, books, and other articles to derive an extensive research study. In explaining the impact UNTAET made on Timor women, the researcher cites viable resources like the International alert records. Case studies are often used in small groups of people. However, since Charlesworth’s task was simply to gather research and data on the occurrences in Timor, the Solomon Islands, and Bougainville, the case study method provided detailed descriptive data on women’s role in these areas.

Ethnographic Research Style

The ethnographic method goes hand in hand with the descriptive design because both do not interfere with the case group’s natural setting. The method also supports the design and facilitates a deeper understanding of the design problem. Charlesworth used this method because it observes social procedures and interactions. To understand cultural reasons that impede or encourage women’s participation in peacemaking, the researcher uses three ethnically diverse islands. In East Timor, men separate women from any activities that are not deemed as womanly. During the war, however, women served as commanders, combatants, and facilitators in guerilla groups (Charlesworth, 2008). They also underwent mass rapes and abductions while fighting for their independence from Indonesia. Nonetheless, the East Timorese culture overlooks all these efforts and denies them of their rights. After the war, these women advocated for better education, employment, and increased representation in governments, but their woes went unheard. Similarly, the Solomon islands have traditions that completely restrict women freedom.

In Bougainville, traditions are flexible and favor women more than both Timor and the Solomon island. When men opposed to women’s involvement in peace initiatives, Bougainville women did not relent because their culture places them as the owners of land. The country uses matrilineal traditions; thus, women can hold more power and make choices (Charlesworth, 2008). These women, hence took part in attacks against PNG troops and succeeded in their ambush.

Charlesworth’s use of ethnography aided in understanding the cultures and traditions in these case studies. However, his research was biased because it only focused on Islands whose occupants are primarily black. The readers therefore may not understand the impact women have in peace and conflict globally. Moreover, his research only focuses on two areas; Asia and Oceania and is therefore, not extensive.

Similar to Charlesworth’s article, Norville’s essay The role of women in global security, asserts that women are not involved in peaceful negotiations due to lack of desire. Their marginalization is due to patriarchal and masculine societies. Norville (2011) gives examples of African women who against all odds participate and succeed in peace reforms, hence providing a more globalized view of women and their roles. In Uganda, conflicts between the government and the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) led to the abductions of over a thousand children. The conflict also caused significant levels of assault, displacement, and destruction. Women played a revolutionary role in this case by creating peacebuilding initiatives both at community and international levels. They also walked thousands of miles from Uganda to Juba, to observe and console Ugandan peace NGOs as they negotiated for the lives of the abducted children. The Ugandan women lacked the power to initiate the negotiations themselves due to patriarchal systems. Similarly, Liberian women, shunned from peace negotiation during talks with rebel groups, demonstrated their resilience and desire for peace by marching, singing, and praying at the consultation cites (Norville, 2011). Liberian women, even in difficulties of campsites, showed their organization, leadership, and communication skills through reaching out to humanitarian groups and the government about the needs of their fellow women.

The Charleworth article also fails in providing statistics on the roles of women in peacemaking. According to UN statistics, less than 3% of signatories for peace agreements are women (Norville, 2011). Consequently, CFR (2008) reports state that countries like Nepal, Uganda, Central African Republic, and Sudan had no negotiating roles for women in 2008. Furthermore, the countries that include women in their negotiation processes offer very few opportunities for women despite the proven statistics that women have better chances at conflict resolution than men. In Afghanistan, Mali, Yemen, Macedonia, and PNG, less than 6% of women take part in peace negotiations. Few countries like the Philippines and Columbia offer more than a 30% role to women in peace boards. Equality, however, is not realized in any part of the globe as more men get opportunities in making peace negotiations than women.

Regardless of the shortcomings of Charlesworth’s article, he uses feasible quantitative research. Smith (2018) backs the researcher’s view that women are essential to international peace but will always face contention. She gives an example of Hungary, where the government banned gender studies, claiming that they teach ideologies more than science. The government moved to ban these studies due to fear of change. Eradicating female illiteracy and educating them of the power they hold would undoubtedly cause a paradigm shift in international governance. Numerous male-dominated countries would face a revolution in their economies, polities, and even family make-ups. Smith, therefore, states that the Hungarian gender studies ban was to defend a patriarchal, heteronormative, and binary view shared by men globally.

Charlesworth’s descriptive research concludes with four goals necessary in understanding where women stand in international relations. Charlesworth’s four elements of international law orthodoxy show that women are both empowered and disempowered by conflict. His first element, the assumption that women have higher interests in peace than men, is backed by Fukuyama’s experiment using chimpanzees.

However, Charlesworth’s examples show that women take part in peace talks mainly for their protection and that of their children. Moreover, although organizations like the UNSCR aim to protect the female gender from harm, they hit numerous blocks imposed by patriarchal leaders. Therefore, women may negotiate for peace only because they lack other protective measures against the demerits of war and conflict such as assault, death, and loss. Although women’s instincts make them calmer and more peaceful than men during conflict, the one-dimensional view that they are peaceful may not suffice in understanding female nature. Furthermore, the belief that women are peaceful by nature undermines their abilities and portrays them as the meeker gender.

The second element in Charlesworth’s argument is competitive vulnerability. The writer explains this term by analyzing the losses incurred by both sexes during war. When men participate in wars, they suffer from injuries and, in extreme cases, death. Women, on the other hand, may undergo torture in the hands of their enemies. For instance, Timor women who fought for their independence were abducted and stripped of their dignity. These women faced sterilization and sexual slavery. Further, since women are only seen as the caretakers and child-bearers in a patriarchal society, their spouses would rebuke them for wanting to fight for their country’s peace. Therefore, they have more to lose from wars and conflicts than men.

The third element calls for the participation of women in peace negotiations internationally. Here, Charlesworth arrives at a standstill in trying to understand why governments and international organizations rally for women’s involvement during peace talks. However, as Norville (2011) explains, countries slowly embrace the integration of women in peace negotiations both because of the need for gender equality and due to their exemplary peace-making skills.

The fourth element is the elision of the term gender and woman. As explained earlier, numerous woman-oriented institutions use the term gender only to demonstrate females. Moreover, researchers mostly link gender to biology, stating that gender is a fixed characteristic that defines a person. This assumption is wrong, as illustrated by Fukuyama in his research as he compares Margaret Thatcher and Mary Robinson (Charlesworth, 2008). Although both women have the same biological make-up, they have vastly different leadership styles. While Margaret Thatcher took to a masculine way of rule, Robinson is more peaceful and liberal.

The article uses more qualitative than quantitative methods of research. Charlesworth’s utilization of the descriptive design coupled with ethnographic methods diversifies one’s understanding of women and their roles in international relations. His methods answer questions on cultural diversities and their impact on women’s lives. Through his case studies and use of Fukuyama’s research, the reader can understand that patriarchal and masculinity in society are the primary cause of female marginalization. However, the descriptive design used failed to give a viable solution to women’s influence in peace and conflict.

References

CFR (2008). Women’s role in peace processes. Retrieved from https://www.cfr.org/interactive/womens-participation-in-peace-processes/explore-the-data.

Charlesworth, H. (2008). Are women peaceful? Reflections on the role of women in peace-building. Feminist Legal Studies, 16:347–361. doi. 10.1007/s10691-008-9101-6

Norville, V. (2011). The role of women in global security. United states institute of peace, 1-16. Retrieved from https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/SR264-The_role_of_Women_in_Global_Security.pdf.

Smith, S. (2018). (Anti-)Gender and international relations. London School of Economics and Political Science, Retrieved from https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/gender/2018/09/18/anti-gender-and-international-relations/.