Advertisement

Systemic Silencing: Addressing Sexual Violence against Men and Boys in Armed Conflict and its Aftermath

  • Chloé Lewis
Part of the Thinking Gender in Transnational Times book series (THINKGEN)

Abstract

Feminist international legal scholarship is conventionally aimed at addressing the androcentric bias of international law. Its starting point, therefore, is that women have been and continue to be excluded from international law vis-à-vis both its emancipatory and protective potential. As Elisabeth Evatt states in her foreword to Hilary Charlesworth and Christine Chinkin’s seminal treatise, The Boundaries of International Law, international law ‘shows little concern for women, their interests and their special vulnerabilities’.1 However, in light of the proliferation of international laws, policies and programmes addressing conflict-related sexual violence over the course of the last two decades, this chapter seeks to add nuance to this claim. More specifically and towards this end, this chapter explores the silencing of male ‘victimhood’2 within mainstream international sexual violence discourse.

Keywords

United Nations Sexual Violence Armed Conflict Systemic Silence Male Victim 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    E. Evatt, ‘Foreword’, in H. Charlesworth and C. Chinkin, The Boundaries of International Law: A Feminist Analysis (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2000), p. x.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    The term ‘victim’ ‘connotes powerlessness and stigmatisation’: UNHCR, ‘Sexual and gender-based violence against refugees, returnees and internally displaced persons: Guidelines for prevention and response’ (UNHCR, May 2003), p. 6. Thus, I generally use the term ‘survivor’ in recognition of the agency and resilience of individuals who have experienced sexual violence. However, I use the term ‘victim’ vis-à-vis the under-representation of male survivors, as it is the idea of perceiving men as ‘victims’ that appears to jar. I place the term in quotation marks not to ‘call into question the urgency or credibility of [male “victimhood”] as a political issue, but rather to show that the way [its] materiality is circumscribed is fully political’: J. Butler, ‘Contingent foundations: Feminism and the question of “postmodernism”’, in S. Seidman (ed.), The Postmodern Turn: New Perspectives on Social Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994) 153, p. 170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    L. Stemple, ‘Male rape and human rights’, Hastings Law Journal, Vol. 60, No. 3 (2009) 605, p. 635.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    See, for example, African Rights, Rwanda: Not So Innocent — When Women Become Killers (London: African Rights, 1995);Google Scholar
  5. M. Alison, Women and Political Violence: Female Combatants in Ethno-National Conflict (Abingdon: Routledge, 2009);Google Scholar
  6. and C.O.N. Moser and C.F. Clark (eds), Victims, Perpetrators or Actors? Gender, Armed Conflict, and Political Violence (London: Zed Books, 2001).Google Scholar
  7. 6.
    This concept is borrowed from E. Fiddian-Qasmiyeh, ‘Concealing violence against women in Sahrawi refugee camps: The politicisation of victimhood’, in H. Bradby and G.L. Hundt (eds), Global Perspectives on War, Gender and Health: The Sociology and Anthropology of Suffering (Farnham: Ashgate, 2010) 99.Google Scholar
  8. 9.
    According to Said, these form four core components of all discourses: E.W. Said, Orientalism (London: Penguin Books, first published 1978, 2003 ed.), p. 2.Google Scholar
  9. 11.
    R.C. Carpenter, ‘Recognizing gender-based violence against civilian men and boys in conflict situations’, Security Dialogue, Vol. 37, No. 1 (2006) 83, p. 85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 15.
    E. Rowley, C. Garcia-Moreno and E. Dartnall, ‘Executive summary: Research themes and questions to guide research on sexual violence in conflict and post-conflict settings’ (Sexual Violence Research Initiative, 2012), p. 2.Google Scholar
  11. 16.
    United Nation Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), ‘Discussion Paper 2: The nature, scope and motivation for sexual violence against men and boys in armed conflict’ (Paper presented at the UN OCHA Research Meeting on the Use of Sexual Violence in Armed Conflict: Identifying Gaps in Research to Inform More Effective Interventions, 26 June 2008), p. 1.Google Scholar
  12. 17.
    It is important to note that until the 1990s, concrete data on sexual violence perpetrated against women and girls in armed conflicts was similarly sparse. As noted by Carol Harrington, 1989 marked a ‘striking change in documentation and analysis of the problem’: C. Harrington, The Politicization of Sexual Violence: From Abolitionism to Peacekeeping (Farnham: Ashgate, 2010), p. 1. Susan Brownmiller remarks that ‘serious historians have rarely bothered to document specific acts of rape in warfare’:Google Scholar
  13. S. Brownmiller, Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1975), p. 40.Google Scholar
  14. 19.
    See, for example, C. Clark, ‘Gender-based violence research initiatives in refugee, internally displaced, and post-conflict settings: Lessons learned’ (Rosemarie Rogers Working Paper No. 17, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, April 2003), p. 23;Google Scholar
  15. F. Roth, T. Guberek and A.H. Green, ‘Using quantitative data to assess conflict-related sexual violence in Colombia: Challenges and opportunities’ (Corporación Punto de Vista and Benetech, 2011), p. 56.Google Scholar
  16. 20.
    K. Johnson, J. Asher, M. Kisielewski, L. Lawry, R. Ong, B. Rughita and J. Scott, ‘Association of sexual violence and human rights violations with physical and mental health in territories of the Eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo’, Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 304, No. 5 (2010) 553, p. 557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. For further quantitative data on levels of male sexual violence in conflict and post-conflict settings, see, for example, M. Nagai, G. Burnham, U. Karunakara and E. Rowley, ‘Violence against refugees, non-refugees and host populations in Southern Sudan and Northern Uganda’, Global Public Health, Vol. 3, No. 3 (2008) 249; Stemple, ‘Male rape and human rights’; and Conflict-Related Sexual Violence: Report of the Secretary-General, UN Doc. A/66/657-S/2012/33 (13 January 2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 21.
    M. Christian, G. Burnham, N. Glass, S. Octave and P. Ramazani, ‘Sexual and gender based violence against men in the Democratic Republic of the Congo: Effects on survivors, the families and the community’, Medicine, Conflict and Survival, Vol. 27, No. 4 (2011) 227, p. 242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 23.
    A. Mack (ed.), Human Security Report 2012: Sexual Violence, Education, and War — Beyond the Mainstream Narrative (Vancouver: Human Security Press, 2012), p. 44.Google Scholar
  20. 25.
    S. Rothkegel, E. Engelhardt-Wendt, R. Hennig, J. Papy, J. Poluda, B. Weyermann and C. Wonani, ‘Evaluation of UNHCR’s efforts to prevent and respond to sexual and gender-based violence in situations of forced displacement’ (UNHCR, 2008), p. 8.Google Scholar
  21. 28.
    UNHCR, ‘Working with men and boy survivors of sexual and gender-based violence in forced displacement’ (Need to Know Guidance No. 4, UNHCR, 2012).Google Scholar
  22. 30.
    V. Munro, Law and Politics at the Perimeter: Re-Evaluating Key Feminist Debates in Feminist Theory (Oxford: Hart, 2007), p. 12, quoted inGoogle Scholar
  23. A. Edwards, Violence against Women under International Human Rights Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), pp. 2–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 31.
    See, for example, N.E. Dowd, ‘Masculinities and feminist legal theory’, Wisconsin Journal of Law, Gender & Society, Vol. 23, No. 2 (2008) 201;Google Scholar
  25. N. Levit, ‘Feminism for men: Legal ideology and the construction of maleness’, UCLA Law Review, Vol. 43, No. 4 (1996) 1037;Google Scholar
  26. D. Otto, ‘Disconcerting “masculinities”: Reinventing the gendered subject(s) of international human rights law’, in D. Buss and A. Manji (eds), International Law: Modern Feminist Approaches (Oxford: Hart, 2005) 105.Google Scholar
  27. 32.
    D. Otto, ‘Lost in translation: Re-scripting the sexed subjects of international human rights law’, in A. Orford (ed.), International Law and its Others (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006) 318, p. 354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 40.
    R.W. Connell, The Role of Men and Boys in Achieving Gender Equality, UN Doc. EGM/Men-Boys-GE/2003/BP (17 October 2003), p. 11.Google Scholar
  29. 42.
    See, for example, A. Barrow, ‘UN Security Council Resolutions 1325 and 1820: Constructing gender in armed conflict and international humanitarian law’, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 92, No. 877 (2010) 221;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. and P. Scully, ‘Vulnerable women: A critical reflection on human rights discourse and sexual violence’, Emory International Law Review, Vol. 23, No. 1 (2009) 113, p. 118.Google Scholar
  31. 45.
    Connell, The Role of Men and Boys in Achieving Gender Equality. See also A. Greig and J. Edström, ‘Mobilising men in practice: Challenging sexual and gender-based violence in institutional settings — Tools, stories, lessons’ (Institute of Development Studies, January 2012);Google Scholar
  32. M. Kaufman, ‘Sexual violence in conflict and post-conflict: Engaging men and boys’ (Advocacy Brief, MenEngage and United Nations Population Fund, July 2012); and Buscher, ‘Masculinities’.Google Scholar
  33. 53.
    A. Guedes, ‘Men and Boys’ (Knowledge Module, United Nations Development Fund for Women and Men Engage, January 2012), p. 4.Google Scholar
  34. 60.
    S. Sivakumaran, ‘Lost in translation: UN responses to sexual violence against men and boys in situations of armed conflict’, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 92, No. 877 (2010) 259, p. 267. For an alternative analysis, see Engle, ‘The Grip of Sexual Violence’.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 67.
    E. Pirovolakis, Reading Derrida and Ricoeur: Improbable Encounters between Deconstruction and Hermeneutics (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2010), p. 88.Google Scholar
  36. 72.
    G.C. Spivak, ‘Translator’s preface’, in J. Derrida, Of Grammatology (G.C. Spivak trans., Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997) ix, p. xvi [trans. of De la grammatologie (first published 1967)].Google Scholar
  37. 73.
    J. Derrida, Writing and Difference (A. Bass trans., London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1997), p. 69 [trans. of L’écriture et la différence (first published 1967)].Google Scholar
  38. 75.
    Term borrowed from T. Shand, M. Herstad, P. Pawlak, T. Paine, J. Khanyile and S. Tall, Good Practice Brief on Male Involvement in GBV Prevention and Response in Conflict, Post-Conflict and Humanitarian Crisis Settings in Sub-Saharan Africa (Cape Town: Sonke Gender Justice Network, 2013), p. 19.Google Scholar
  39. 78.
    H. Durham and K. O’Byrne, ‘The dialogue of difference: Gender perspectives on international humanitarian law’, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 81. See, for example, V. Oosterveld, ‘Prosecution of gender-based crimes in international law’, in D. Mazurana, A. Raven-Roberts and J. Parpart (eds), Gender, Conflict, and Peacekeeping (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2005) 67, p. 73.Google Scholar
  40. 83.
    R.C. Carpenter, ‘Innocent Women and Children’: Gender Norms and the Protection of Civilians (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006), p. 2. See also Sivakumaran, ‘UN responses to sexual violence against men and boys in situations of armed conflict’, p. 270.Google Scholar
  41. 84.
    N.N.R. Quénivet, Sexual Offenses in Armed Conflict & International Law (Ardsley: Transnational Publishers, 2005), p. 15. See also, for example,Google Scholar
  42. T. Gillespie, ‘Rape crisis centres and “male rape”: A face of the backlash’, in M. Hester, L. Kelly and J. Radford (eds), Women, Violence and Male Power: Feminist Activism, Research and Practice (Buckingham: Open University Press, 1996) 148.Google Scholar
  43. 85.
    D. Lewis, ‘Unrecognized victims: Sexual violence against men in conflict settings under international law’, Wisconsin International Law Journal, Vol. 27, No. 1 (2009) 1, p. 48.Google Scholar
  44. 90.
    S. Sivakumaran, ‘Male/male rape and the “taint” of homosexuality’, Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 27, No. 4 (2005) 1274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 91.
    Discussions beginning to address some of these questions include, A. del Zotto and A. Jones, ‘Male-on-male sexual violence in wartime: Human rights’ last taboo?’ (Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the International Studies Association, New Orleans, 23–27 March 2002); Sivakumaran, ‘Male/male rape and the “taint” of homosexuality’; and Sivakumaran, ‘UN responses to sexual violence against men and boys in situations of armed conflict’.Google Scholar
  46. 93.
    R. Kapur, ‘The tragedy of victimization rhetoric: Resurrecting the “native” subject in international/post-colonial feminist legal politics’, Harvard Human Rights Journal, Vol. 15 (2002) 1, p. 32, cited in Otto, ‘Lost in translation’, p. 356.Google Scholar
  47. 94.
    C. Enloe, The Curious Feminist: Searching for Women in a New Age of Empire (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004), pp. 19–42.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Chloé Lewis 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chloé Lewis

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations