English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

With her paper Rape as a War Crime (Politikon 6/2003, p. 55-69), Andrea Theocharis has put an issue on the agenda, which has long been missing in Politikon’s discussions. I am grateful to Andrea for starting an important debate, which I would like to continue by giving some remarks to her contribution focusing on the gender constructionist dimension of rape in violent conflicts. Agreeing with Andrea, I will argue that rape and sexual violence are not only systematic and strategic weapons in violent conflicts but gendered crimes which cannot be analyzed appropriately without theorizing social and cultural constructions of masculinity and femininity. I will outline how gender-blind approaches fail to meet the issue of rape in violent conflicts. By mentioning some exemplary empirical figures, I will show that rape in violent conflicts is neither a new phenomena nor can it be considered a by-product of war. It must be emphasized that rape is not an act of sexuality but a crime against human physical and psychical integrity. I will discuss gender-sensitive approaches, which analyze rape in violent conflicts. Special attention will be paid to the view of rape as an act of male violence against women, which has also been outlined by Andrea. I will then focus on the construction of hegemonic masculinity and the widely ignored fact that also men are victims of rape and sexual torture in violent conflicts. I will conclude with emphasizing that constructions of femininity and masculinity are integral to violent conflicts in general and to rape and sexual violence in particular. If mainstream conflict analysis continues to ignore the dimensions of gender constructions, it will fail to meet its subject appropriately. Gender-blind research and rape in violent conflicts After The debate in mainstream conflict analysis about rape and sexual violence is above all characterized by its non-existence. As Andrea observes, rape in violent conflicts has been considered a normal by-product of war (Theocharis 2003: 55). It is also widely ignored in academic literature dealing with peace and conflict studies. Frequently, rape is explained and apologized by the assumption of a normal sexual drive of men and missing military discipline (Crawley 2000: 95; Nordstrom 1997: 16; Brownmiller 1978: 52). It is remarkable that hardly any-one no longer tries to explain the occurrence of violent conflicts as such using socio-biological approaches. However, as soon as sexual violence is concerned, these approaches are still popular (Seifert 1993: 67). One example of recent academic debates is Herfried Münklers (2002) book about the new wars. Among other points, Münkler sees the new wars marked by the resexualization of the use of violence. (Münkler 2002:

Rape and Constructions of Masculinity and Femininity