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 policymaking?
How can we improve conflict programs by
acknowledging gender?
1.
2.
Women are not major
actors in war
When war is over, women
are happy to ‘return to
normal’
1.
2.
3.
4.
Sexual violence emphasis.
Women removed from
policy-making process.
Literature and research:
Women as naturally
peaceful and averse to
risk.
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 prorebel 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 progovernment 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 Violence
70-90%
 ‘War Babies’
Over 20,000 in Sierra Leone
 Stigma
Female 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-conflict
Positive transition
Opportunity for women
Gender neutral
Limited time frame (sexual violence impacts, reintegration for
women)
