War, Gender & Society: Marginalisation of women in post-conflict peacebuilding

This briefing examines the historical roots of gendered protection myths, contemporary conflicts and the politics of victimhood, and the post-conflict expectations placed on women. This article was written by Vrinda Rastogi, and edited by Tanvi Sureka.

---

The longstanding portrayal of women as ‘weak’ and ‘vulnerable’ has shaped how the world reacts to conflict and atrocity. Women have been systemically treated as a group that always needs protection from the masculine men cast as their saviours. Most of the time, this translates into women’s exclusion from the decisions of wars altogether. However, we must not forget the irony of how women are made to face the repercussions of devastation and wars and are frequently left to rebuild societies from the ruins.

Historical Roots of Gendered Protection Myths

This article examines how women have historically been marginalised, publicly sympathised with, and still haven’t been given tangible credit or decision-making power in rebuilding society, creating a vicious cycle that has been existing for years now. Women were often pedestalized to a level where their glory masked the brutality of war. This appears in narratives ranging from the Trojan war and the Sabine War to the Mahabharata, where the warriors claimed to “protect” women and their “bodies” from the violence of “other” men. This conception that women always needed to be “protected” from an external force has persisted in the way society thinks and reacts. This often leads to women being portrayed as helpless and defenceless. Hence, placing the power to initiate and fight wars into the hands of men. Historically, wars between nations were seen to have been based on sentiment to save their women from the potential atrocities of men on the other side. Violence is often disguised under the name of women’s safety.

Contemporary Conflicts and the Politics of Victimhood

However, over the years, the pattern of portrayal of women hasn’t changed. In some of the recent horrific events, such as the partition of India and Pakistan, the Rwandan Genocide and the Gaza Genocide, women are pictured as quintessential victims. With the modern technologies and use of media narratives, women are framed as victims to a level where they lose their agency to make choices for themselves. Hence, the big powers step in reflecting their “saviour complex.” The essential issue with this portrayal is that women have no say in this; they are neither considered independent actors nor given the choice to make decisions during or in post-war reconstruction. This commodification of women as objects of war rather than subjects who are actively impacted and affected by its horrors is deeply problematic. This distinction between women being on the receiving end of the barbarities and then bearing the burden of societal reconstruction is blurred.

Wars are often seen to shake not just the society but also the international system to its core. Its impacts are multi-fold, which can be felt for years. However, one aspect that gets sidelined is how women become the silent bearers and living stories of those grievous times. During the India-Pakistan partition of 1947, honour killing was romanticised in the name of ‘protection’ from male violence. During this time, thousands of women were abducted, forced into marriages, and even into prostitution. Apart from the sheer horrors of sexual violence, many also had to endure severe physical harm, as women’s bodies were carved and mutilated with religious symbols and slogans. Something similar could be seen in Afghanistan, where mutilation was forced on women, not just as a system of oppression but as a sign of control and power.

Structural Failures: Legal Recognition, Representation, and Unrealised Change

Women are often underrepresented in numbers and statistics of war crimes; an estimated 676 million women live within 50 kilometres of a deadly conflict zone. This not only shows our systemic failure but also reflects the duality of our world. Even while reporting a crime, their suffering is used to draw global attention rather than working on the actual issue, i.e., to end war and punish the perpetrators of war crimes. The United Nations, in its resolution 96 (I) dated 11 December 1946, states that genocide is a crime under international law. United Nations Security Council Resolution 1820, passed in 2008, formally recognised sexual violence as a tactic of war used against women. The resolution emphasised member states’ obligations to investigate and prosecute people involved and responsible for such acts.

Even though such acts do bring international attention to women’s continuous sufferings and conditions, this does not dissociate women’s misery with just mourning and their portrayal as someone who needs external help. Sympathy rarely translates into action and firm changes; it is often superficial and administrative, ignoring how deep the issue is. This is commonly noticed as foreign aid packages, roundtable conferences, and big bills to show support to women who are on the battlefield struggling; this rarely reaches the person who needs action at utmost urgency.

The Post-Conflict Burden and Expectations Placed on Women

Several scholars, like Amartya Sen, argue that women are mostly seen as a means rather than an end to reach a preferred goal. Hence, while trying to find a solution to the issue of false portrayal of women in media reporting wars and crimes, or how the international system looks upon them, we need to acknowledge this irony where most of the international laws that were enacted for the betterment of women and their upliftment, only looked good on paper. States like Rwanda, post-genocide, often use women and their struggles as a means to achieve their economic growth and a perfect tag of pro-gender equality nation in the African continent. Countries often rely on women for post-war reconstruction, where this dependence often leads to women struggling to rebuild a nation in its ruins from scratch. This sudden shift of responsibilities is noticed, mostly because the majority of the men either die in wars or migrate, leaving women behind to not only re-construct the structure of the state but also to bear children and be the sole breadwinners.

This somewhat accidental shift of powers post-conflict or in post-war periods holds strong irony and mirrors the reality of our society, where women are often not only perceived as “peaceful” beings but also it is assumed that they would ensure that the peace is re-established in the state. This double burden on women not only impacts how they apprehend conflicts but also makes them more fearful of its repercussions. In certain examples of northwestern states of India, after every local coup, women were believed to work towards total reconstruction and establish peace on the land. They are expected to perform peaceful marches to demand the end of the war.

This overgeneralisation of female behaviour or femininity in international structure is what is most concerning. The idea of women militarising against the ongoing conflicts and insisting upon a ceasefire would not be seen as a possibility, but rather as them silently protesting and being part of establishing a state from its ruins. This is not stating that violence should be the counter to the already recurring crimes; however, this also does not mean that women should be referred to as objects to achieve ends that don’t even include their true “empowerment.” It is essential to understand that women's rights are often sugar-coated by the leaders and international agencies to put a label of gender agenda; however, it is rare that it covers the real upliftment of women in society.

This puts women at the centre of any crucial global event that takes place. They are not only oppressed by the war crimes but also have to bear the burden of post-war reconstruction. However, there is rarely any focus on how women struggle with post-traumatic stress disorders (PTSD), double burden, and false empowerment goals.

Therefore, it is important for us as a society to shift our lens from portraying women as being helpless and weak in times of war. Yes, women deserve urgent attention and action, but that action must be tangible and prioritise their agency, and not be dictated by power and oppression.