Why Is Much of the Violence Experienced by Women During Interstate Conflict of a Sexual Nature?

According to former UN Peacekeeping Operation commander Major General Patrick Carnmaert, “it is now more dangerous to be a woman than to be a soldier in conflict”. This statement holds truth in the fact that rape has come to be no longer solely a by-product of conflict, but instead somewhat instrumental to its outcome. Whilst this phenomenon does not exclusively target women, domestic collapses of the rule of law and diminished security subject primarily women, who are perceived as the “reproducers and carers of the community”, to the advances of various armed groups. It is also for this reason this essay’s main focus will explore cases of sexual violence towards women and the disproportionate ways in which systemic rape is inflicted on female populations. This is not to trivialise the experiences of men. Furthermore, the prevalence of sexual violence in conflict constitutes a puzzle as, in this context, one could assume a soldier’s priorities would lie with combat itself as opposed to seeking sexual gratification from the enemy, particularly during war when much is at stake. This suggests sexual violence in these instances is not as sexually motivated as one would assume. Subsequently, if the nature of sexual violence is more violent than sexual, it can also be assumed that men would be targeted evenly, if not more, than woman as male populations are conventionally more involved with interstate conflict. Explanations for this phenomenon are naturally dominated by feminist theory, but notions put forth by the postcolonialist school contribute valuable observations pertaining to racially motivated attacks and cases of ethnic cleansing. Consequently, the hypothesis will be put forth that feminist thought best explains why the violence experienced by women during interstate conflict is of a more sexual nature than the violence experienced by men as its propositions can be universally applied to all forms of conflict (war, genocide, colonialism, etc), and account for the predominant motivating factors, which are mostly empowered by cultural dynamics. This does not discount the strength of the postcolonialist school however which effectively accounts for uneven victimisation rates, particularly in cases of colonialism and civil war, and enhances understandings of the interplay between racial and gender hierarchies as it defines rape as a tool employed to exterminate native populations. Feminist theory should thus be predominantly applied whilst factoring in the fundamentals of postcolonialism if the occurrence is to be somewhat understood.

When assessing the question through a feminist paradigm, two explanations can be employed to explain why the violence experienced by women during interstate conflict is of a more sexual nature than the violence experienced by men. The first argument put forth asserts that rape can be exercised as a trophy of war, rendering women of the enemy state rewards that can be won by soldiers of the opposing side in their pursuit of military victory. According to international relations journalist Larissa Peltola, this practice is enabled by two elements; male ‘superiority’ and cultures of impunity. Through the socially constructed connotations masculinity projects, such as authority and supremacy, and the culture of ‘boys protecting boys’ present in aggressive, male-dominated contexts women of the enemy state become vulnerable to the exertion of a gendered power. This notion was summarised by feminist Susan Brownmiller who stated, “men who rape are ordinary Joes, made unordinary by entry into the most exclusive male-only club in the world”, and that a “tactic license to rape” is inherently possessed by soldiers as a result of their socially assigned obligation to emit power. Thus, it is evident women experience violence of a highly sexual nature during interstate conflict as rape is utilised as a means of physical and psychological warfare, exercised under the guise of egotism and empowered by a safety net of camaraderie and hyper-masculinity. This is reflected in the accounts of Gabriele Köpp, the first German to write a book about the sexual violence carried out in World War Two (which further supports notions of a culture of impunity as it is clear that, long after conflict has ceased, emphasis on men’s courage and sacrifice during the war takes precedence over assessing the morality of their military tactics), as she describes being raped by Russian soldiers in 1945. In her book "Warum war ich bloss ein Mädchen?" ("Why Did I Have to Be a Girl?"), Köpp states that upon fleeing her home she was raped by soldiers “relentlessly”, with seven instances occurring over a period of two weeks. Further evidence of ‘boys protecting boys’ during interstate conflict is present in the research of Philipp Kuwert, head of psychiatry and psychotherapy at the University Hospital of Greifswald, who found that the 27 German women he interviewed who were teenagers during the Second World War had been raped on average twelve times each. Though there is no concrete figure of how many women were victims of systemic Soviet rape in Germany during World War Two, approximations have been given at 2 million and, whilst there is little data regarding sexual violence towards men, a consensus has emerged amongst historians proclaiming the statistic to be substantially lower. Furthermore, the fact there is no definitive statistic for how many women endured rape during this war, nor is the number of victims who have spoken out outweighed, or even balanced, by those prosecuted for war crimes, is further testament to arguments of sexual violence being condoned and empowered by male soldiers specifically targeting the female population. Reasons for the carrying out of the practice by men, as opposed to on men, come as a result of the absence of a comparable culture amongst females and binary opposite connotations of femininity; submission, fragility and subordination, which prevent an affinity akin to the one present amongst groups of men materialising.

Whilst explanations are provided to decipher the cultural implications underpinning sexual violence in interstate conflict by this branch of feminist theory, it neglects the weaponisation of rape and how sexual violence can be employed strategically. This notion is demonstrated by the fact that, once considered external to the scope of foreign policy, US Secretaries of State and the UN Security Council now recognise rape as a “widespread and systematic…tactic of war” and vow to eliminate its presence. According to social scientist Ruth Seifert, who opposes the proposition that wartime rape comes solely as a result of lax military discipline and extreme masculinist culture, rape is a “routine element of military strategy” carried out with the intention of destroying the “will, morale, cohesion, and self-conception” of the enemy state. Sexual violence has this impact as women are considered the pillars of communities and families during war, causing the destruction of their physical and emotional wellbeing to create widespread instability. Likewise, in many cultures the state is gendered as the female body is commonly portrayed as being its personification, causing sexual violence during conflict to symbolise the destruction of not only the individual, but the entire nation. This nation-state embodiment also contributes to the sadistic, voyeuristic nature of much of the sexual violence that occurs during conflict adopts, with male family members often being forced to watch the rape of female family members. According to feminist scholar Catharine A. MacKinnon, this occurs as a “humiliation rite” for men who cannot fulfil the ‘protector’ role society has assigned to them, thus making women’s bodies a medium of expression in the context of interstate conflict. Naturally, as women are characterised as nurturers in the domestic realm, innately possessing less combative attributes and a need to be protected, such expressions would not carry the same leverage when reversed as the rape of male family members would not immediately render women failures of their socially constructed obligations. Examples of this can be taken from the Bosnian War, where gang and public rapes on the female Bosniak Muslim population frequently took place in front of villagers with, according to human rights organisation Helsinki Watch, the intention of causing “humiliation, degradation, and intimidation to ensure the survivors would leave and never return”. Evidence of the disproportionality in offences carried out on men and women is present in Bosnian wartime rape statistics, with estimates of the number of women raped ranging from 12,000 to 50,000, and approximate number of men raped reaching 3000. It is thus clear women suffer sexual violence during interstate conflict at a higher level than men as deeply embedded gender roles within patriarchal structures give rise to the systemic implementation of rape as a means of dismantling family structures and disrupting socio-cultural equilibriums. Conclusively, the argument stands that sexual violence inflicted on women during interstate conflict cannot be explained without employment of various feminist paradigms as they clarify how rape “erodes the fabric of a community in a way few weapons can” through the devastating psychological and cultural ramifications induced when female populations are victimised.

Although feminist thought provides valid explanations for sexual violence towards women in interstate conflict, the exclusively gendered approach of the school fails to wholly acknowledge the influence of race as a motivating factor behind the persecution of certain ethnographic groups. The significance of ethnicity was alluded to by Mary Rowlandson, a colonial American woman captured by natives in 1676, who stated “I have been in the midst of roaring Lions, and Savage Bears, that feared neither God, nor Man, nor the Devil . . . and yet not one of them ever offered the least abuse of unchastity to me in word or action”, suggesting it is crucial to explore racial hierarchies in grasping not only why women incur sexual violence during conflict, but also why they do so at a unequal rate to men. According to the postcolonial school, though natives have historically been depicted as savages, the European patriarchy is predominantly to blame for sexual violence during interstate conflict as the matrilineal and matrilocal nature of many societies, particularly in Asia, suggest the assumptions of feminist theory cannot be applied to men universally. Sexual violence towards women can firstly be understood as a form of ethnic cleansing, as it is exercised as a means of controlling reproduction and eradicating populations. As men do not possess the capacity to reproduce, women are inherently targeted on a comparatively mass level. One of the most prolific cases of rape being carried out with genocidal intent can be taken from the 1994 Rwandan civil war, whereby sexual assault was described as forming an “integral part of the process of destroying the Tutsi ethnic group” as the rape was “systematic and had been perpetrated against Tutsi women only, manifesting the specific intent required for those acts to constitute genocide”, according to the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. This is supported by the fact that Rwanda is a patriarchal society i.e. children adopt ethnicity on a patrimonial basis, suggesting women were specifically targeted to eliminate the Tutsi population and expand the bloodline of Hutu militia. Genocidal intent can also be inferred from the fact that many of the perpetrators of rape did so with the knowledge they were HIV positive and through inflicting sexual violence on the female population, life expectancy and mortality rates as a whole would suffer (particularly due to inaccessibility to antiretroviral drugs). This notion can also be evaluated in more recent examples, such as Sudan’s civil war where the UN Human Rights Office have stated 120 women were sexually assaulted in a single, month-long rape campaign in the country’s Unity state. According to researchers, “children, elderly, sick and persons with disabilities unable to flee, were often burned alive, as the attackers set ablaze their tukuls with lighters, or they had their throats slit” and that mass rape was inflicted on the female population, with a 20 year old victim stating “I kept quiet and did not resist as I saw other women being shot dead for refusing to have sex with the soldiers”. Though men are not explicitly identified as not being targeted in this example, the fact those presumably incapable of reproduction as a result of age or health complications reiterates postcolonial sentiments of women being disproportionally targeted to strengthen the invader’s ethnic group and eradicate that of the natives. Taking this evidence into account, it is undeniable postcolonial explanations provide compelling arguments for why women experience violence of a more sexual nature than men during interstate conflict as, through the lens of race, it is clear explanations for wartime rape go deeper than merely gender roles, impunity and humiliation.

It is evident the violence experienced by women in interstate conflict is of a more sexual nature than the violence experienced by men as a result of gender hierarchies, unanimity amongst soldiers and the psychological trauma inflicted on native, male spectators. Reasons for the disproportionality of its infliction are largely biologically driven, as sexual violence can be interpreted as an extension of the assailant’s aims in that the impregnation of native populations by invaders proliferates the attacker’s bloodline and serves to remove that of the natives. As the capacity of female populations to reproduce cannot be removed, one can suggest the issue must be addressed through demotivating the motivations identified in feminist theory. This could be achieved through diversifying military forces and enforcing gender equality standards, gradually dismantling strict patriarchal structures and implementing severe punishments for those found to commit war crimes, as well as incentives to prompt soldiers to report cases of misconduct. The explanations put forth by feminist schools prove highly persuasive as they encompass the breadth of interstate conflict in their propositions and offer multiple arguments, pertaining to cultures within military groups and native societies, identifying the impetus behind sexual violence. When used in conjunction with postcolonial thought, these explanations are further substantiated as racialised theories demonstrate how the targeting of women, not men, stems from ambitions to redraw ethnic boundaries; something which can only be accomplished through systemic, widespread rape on native, female populations. Consequently, the schools should not be used in isolation to one another. Feminist theory should be applied predominantly to the puzzle to decipher the foundations of sexual violence and, once core motivations are made explicit, postcolonial theory can be factored in to advance the bigger picture as to why women are the principle victims of this phenomenon.