Are Women Peaceful? -Article Review

Are Women Peaceful? -Article Review

In the article Are women peaceful? Reflections on the role of women in peace-building, 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 Solomon Islands to derive to logical conclusions. The article primarily focuses on international laws in relation to 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 Netherlands to investigate on ways chimpanzees form coalitions to attain dominance. Both groups exhibited different natures of coalition-building among male and female chimpanzees. While males attained power through extreme violence, females were less violent but demonstrated cruelty and high competitiveness. Also, the female chimpanzees bonded emotionally while the males only bonded for instrumental and tact purposes. Fukuyama’s article tries to prove that biological differences are visible in human actions and politics. He asserts that men are more aggressive and women are less prone to conflict even though they are competitive (Charlesworth, 2008). Although Fukuyama believed that women leadership would bring more peace internationally, he also stated that some female leaders shed their femininity and take on masculine characters in leadership.

The idea that women are peaceful is heavily countered by feminist theorists who state that women are often on the frontlines during war. Also, theorists contest this idea by stating that calling women ‘peaceful’ limits both their character and biology to a one-dimensional view. However, Charlesworth’s article gives international instances where women have led to conflict resolutions. For instance, an Aristophanes play demonstrates the power women have over men. These women denied their husband of conjugal rights until they ceased their wars between Sparta and Athens.

Moreover, conflicts caused by political and economic tensions between Papua New Guinea (PNG) and Bougainville led to long periods of war (188-1998). Women in Bougainville stepped up to eradicate the wars through hosting meetings in their villages, approaching young fighters and convincing them to go back home, and 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 still marginalized in leadership positions. Bougainville women lobbied for 12 seats in the new Constitution but only got 3.

In East Timor and 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. Only 11% of Timor women were allowed seats in the UNTAET counsel and therefore, achieved limited gains. Many Timor girls and women had been assaulted and raped by Indonesian fighters but the UNTAET did little to remedy this damage. Solomon Island women also faced hardships in negotiating for peace. Due to Portuguese influence, the country’s men associated women with bride price thus, treated them like property or slaves. There are numerous cases of domestic violence in the Islands. Peacekeeping initiatives like the Regional Assistance Mission to the Solomon Islands (RAMSI) made no efforts in involving women.

Charlesworth therefore states that in nations where women are highly marginalized, peacekeeping initiatives do not end violence against them. In Solomon Islands, for instance, domestic violence prevailed even after successful peacekeeping initiatives. Women in such countries thrive better in times of conflict since the unofficially become the family head because their spouses spend time or die in wars. Also, conflicts in these nations allow women to speak up and make decisions without fear of repercussions.

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. 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 foe 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.

Norville (2011) also gives examples of women who, against all odds, participate and succeed in peace reforms. 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 destructions. 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 give console to Ugandan peace NGOs as they negotiated for the lives of the abducted children. The Ugandan women lacked 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 negotiation 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.

“When you have a critical mass of women in power, legislation tends to get passed that favors women” (Norville, 2011). This statement contends to Charlesworth’s article which describes the world as a male-dominated place with no allowance for women. For example, during the Bougainville peace negotiations, women were at the forefront to ensure peace. They succeeded in bringing peace with PNG but their work still faced resistance by Bougainville men. Regardless of their positive impact on society, Charlesworth states that women go through constant denial in peacemaking and governance positions. Also, in Solomon Islands, women created a Women for Peace group to initiate negotiations between warrying groups. These women were also denied of opportunities to attend to peace talks in Townsville (Charlesworth, 2008).

Smith (2018) also agrees with Charlesworth’s view that women are essential to international piece 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 its 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.

Furthermore, Smith states that the term ‘gender’ is weaponized by patriarchal governments to ensure that women do not distort the authoritarian and centralized regimes already in place. Charlesworth, however, offers a different point of view as he states that the UN Peace Building Commission (PBC), UN Security Council Resolutions (UNSCR), and other organizations that advocate for women’s rights use the term gender to only refer to women. All these organizations use “gender perspectives” in their reforms while referring only to women (Charlesworth, 2008). Gender, to Charlesworth is therefore, a synonym to femininity and has no connection to masculinity. Further, the UNSCR describes gender as “women and children” while rallying for their rights and ensuring their security.

The United States Institute of Peace (2020) asserts that the UNSCR plays a vital role in the protection and preservation of woman rights. The organization urges all member states to increase female representation in all decision-making activities, appoint women as special representatives to member states in times of international negotiations, protect the rights of all women and children at regional, state, and national levels, and increase international humanitarian rights to assist women attain justice after conflict. The UNSCR also recognizes that women should have equal treatment to men in all aspects of political, social, and economic decisions.

Charlesworth’s work reinforces UNSCR’s objectives as he gives four objectives necessary for 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 greater 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 own 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 final 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 care takers and child bearers in a patriarchal society, their spouses would rebuke them for wanting to fight for their country’s peace. Therefore, 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 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, the have vastly different leadership styles. While Margaret Thatcher took to a masculine way of rule, Robinson is more peaceful and liberal.

In conclusion, women play an integral role in international peace making. However, Charleston theory that women are naturally peaceful gives a narrow view of the female gender’s capabilities. Therefore, organizations and countries ought to strive to understand the complexities of womanhood by expounding on Charleston’s research. Women have power over men in some issues as illustrated by Aristophanes’ play and thus, society should embrace their input in peacemaking.

References

CFR (2008). Women’s role in peace processes. 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. 10.1007/s10691-008-9101-6

Norville, V. (2011). The role of women in global security. United states institute of peace, 1-16. 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, https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/gender/2018/09/18/anti-gender-and-international-relations/.

United States Institute of Peace. (2020). What is UNSCR 1325? https://www.usip.org/gender_peacebuilding/about_UNSCR_1325.