On October 23, the Reaching Critical Will and Peacewomen projects of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, and Global Action to Prevent War hosted a parallel event at the First Committee entitled “Gender and Weapons”. They discussed gender perceptions about security and the relative value of weapons, from weapons of mass destruction to small arms and light weapons. Featured speakers Dr. Carol Cohn and Rebecca Peters discussed the ways in which ideas about gender roles affect weapons policy concerned with both weapons of mass destruction and small arms and light weapons. Both presentations addressed the way in which a gendered analysis of weapons discourse and policy facilitates disarmament. These presentations were followed by comments from Reaching Critical Will, Peacewomen, and Global Action to Prevent War.

Dr. Carol Cohn, of the Boston Consortium on Gender, Security and Human Rights, addressed how ideas and expectations of gender are embedded in the political discourses of weapons of mass destruction. Using material she presented to the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission, she discussed how disarmament is influenced by ideas about masculinity and femininity. According to Cohn, gender is a symbolic system that shapes and permeates every aspect of society, including political discourse and policy on weapons. In this discourse, masculine-coded actions and attitudes of strength, militarization, and immediate responsive action are valued over those that are coded as feminine, such as compromise, dialogue, and even diplomacy. Cohn described how this symbolic gender coding extends to all fora in which weapons of mass destruction, as political objects, are discussed. In this way, masculinity is linked with the preparedness to develop, acquire, and use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction.

Cohn went on to discuss the ways in which the production of symbolic images relies on the production of political power behind such images. The perception that it is natural for leaders to acquire advanced military capacity is a prime example of the gendered nature of weapons policy and proliferation. Because nuclear weapons have become the ultimate marker of power and masculinity in this discourse, nations without such weapons are coded as less masculine and less powerful, which provides incentives for proliferation. Cohn repeated the example of the Indian Prime Minister explaining India's 1998 nuclear weapons test by saying, “we had to prove we are no longer a land of eunuchs.”

Rebecca Peters, of the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA), discussed how ideas about gender affect conventional weapons use, proliferation and policy. She spoke of how women are disproportionately affected by the use of small arms. Peters argued that while men are most often the owners of guns and are more often injured by gun violence; women are victims of small arms violence even though they are rarely involved in decisions surrounding small arms and light weapons. She added that gun violence against women is not limited to being shot; women more regularly experience gun violence in the home and rape at gunpoint, examples of gender-specific non-lethal small arms violence.

Peters went on to discuss how women also suffer more from the socio-economic repercussions of gun violence. According to Peters, peace agreements often do not reflect what women and children need in terms of disarmament and their suffering is rarely addressed. Guns and the surge of violence in homes in a post-conflict setting are not often handled in the peace process. Peters also noted that most people injured and killed by gunshot are affected in the context of crime rather than conflict or war. Los Angeles, for instance, has the largest proportion of deaths from guns in the world. Peters also pointed to the connection between domestic violence and gun use in the home. She noted that very few countries have laws prohibiting domestic violence offenders from owning guns. Finally, Peters lamented the poor implementation of Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security to date.

Jennifer Nordstrom of Reaching Critical Will responded to the overall way in which masculinity is used in political discourse. In that respect, she responded to the dichotomies positioned by Cohn in her discussion of highly valued masculine political traits versus under-appreciated and stigmatized female traits. Nordstrom added that in the binary understanding of dichotomies, civil society, as the supposed opposite of government, is coded as feminine and thus under-appreciated and already outside of the legitimate political discourse. Also, civil society often addresses issues that are similarly coded as feminine or “soft-security,” such as human security, human rights, and gender. She reasserted that if we are going to make progress in disarmament, peace, and security, we constantly need to bring a gender perspective into the discussion. Nordstrom also problematized the commonly held assumption by the nuclear weapons states that the only way that we can be safe is to have absolute control and the ability to physically dominate those who would be our “enemies”. She argued, instead, that the international community must work towards building trust and confidence in one another in order to move forward on disarmament.

Waverly de Bruijn of Global Action to Prevent War argued that civil society needs to improve incorporating a gender perspective on weapons when working for social and political change. She pointed out that even progressives often fail to incorporate gender into their analysis, citing Michael Moore’s film “Bowling for Columbine”. In his analysis of the origin of wide-spread American violence, Moore failed to address gender or ideas about masculinity at all. It is therefore important for civil society to remain vigilant in their incorporation of a gendered analysis on weapons proliferation, disarmament, and international policy.

Milkah Kihunah of PeaceWomen argued that UN peacebuiling efforts, including the newly formed Peacebuilding Commission and disarmament programs, have often ignored or side-lined issues of gender in post-conflict reconstruction and disarmament. Most often, the focus of such efforts is on young men with guns, as they are seen as the legitimate combatants of the conflict who need to be immediately disarmed. Kihunah has found it difficult to dispel the false notion that women are not combatants, because of commonly held notions of men as primary combatants and women as nurturers and reproducers. Women are often combatants themselves or material supporters of combatants. However, there is little thought given to the best ways to disarm, demobilize and reintegrate women as well as men into a peaceful post-conflict society. Nor is much thought given to the family that will reintegrate combatants, and violence is often redirected at the family once the actual fighting in the region is over.

The challenge that lies before us, then, is to reintegrate discussions of the gendered nature of international policy, weapons and security into the mainstream. In doing so, we may be able to facilitate the rethinking of the valuing of the masculine and the feminine. In order to address the ways in which these values both code and concretely affect the material, everyday circumstances of life that emanate from international weapons policy, we must insist on the integration of a gendered perspective into discussions of international disarmament fora, including the UN First Committee.

777 UN Plaza - 6th Floor - New York, NY - 10017 - Ph: 212.682.1265 - Fax: 212.286.8211 - info@reachingcriticalwill.org
This site was created by Kache Productions ©2008