Paper/Proposal Title
Gender-Based Violence and Rethinking Human Security
Location
River Campus, Room 2080
Start Date
10-4-2013 1:00 PM
Abstract
In the wake of the implementation of UN Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace, and Security, the highly-publicized incidences of wartime sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV), and the advocacy of human rights organizations on these topics, it is becoming increasingly significant to understand the challenges of measuring, reporting, advocating on, and responding to wartime SGBV. The 2012 Human Security Report (HSR) sought to clarify what it perceived of as misconceptions about SGBV. In so doing, it purported to prove that the mainstream narrative of advocacy exaggerates the worldwide prevalence and intensity of wartime sexual violence and that it systematically neglects domestic sexual violence in war-affected countries. This paper starts by treating HSR itself as a primary source to argue that many of HSR’s inferences are problematic and the conclusions it reaches either do not flow from the data it cites, are contradictory, or fail to engage with existing literature. These shortcomings lead HSR to paint an incomplete – if novel – perception of wartime SGBV. In addition to these shortcomings, the paper considers some of HSR’s widely accepted contributions to SGBV discourse, such as the call to explore men as victims of SGBV and women as perpetrators of it, the commitment to highlighting the variance in SGBV within and across conflicts, and the difficulties in securing accurate data about wartime SGBV. Finally, this paper will cast HSR in the broader context of advocacy on wartime SGBV to highlight the challenges of crafting effective advocacy campaigns at the intersection of gender, human rights, and violence, with a particular focus on wartime sexual violence.
Gender-Based Violence and Rethinking Human Security
River Campus, Room 2080
In the wake of the implementation of UN Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace, and Security, the highly-publicized incidences of wartime sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV), and the advocacy of human rights organizations on these topics, it is becoming increasingly significant to understand the challenges of measuring, reporting, advocating on, and responding to wartime SGBV. The 2012 Human Security Report (HSR) sought to clarify what it perceived of as misconceptions about SGBV. In so doing, it purported to prove that the mainstream narrative of advocacy exaggerates the worldwide prevalence and intensity of wartime sexual violence and that it systematically neglects domestic sexual violence in war-affected countries. This paper starts by treating HSR itself as a primary source to argue that many of HSR’s inferences are problematic and the conclusions it reaches either do not flow from the data it cites, are contradictory, or fail to engage with existing literature. These shortcomings lead HSR to paint an incomplete – if novel – perception of wartime SGBV. In addition to these shortcomings, the paper considers some of HSR’s widely accepted contributions to SGBV discourse, such as the call to explore men as victims of SGBV and women as perpetrators of it, the commitment to highlighting the variance in SGBV within and across conflicts, and the difficulties in securing accurate data about wartime SGBV. Finally, this paper will cast HSR in the broader context of advocacy on wartime SGBV to highlight the challenges of crafting effective advocacy campaigns at the intersection of gender, human rights, and violence, with a particular focus on wartime sexual violence.
Comments
This biennial conference provides a unique space for scholars, practitioners and advocates to engage in collaboration, dialogue and critical analysis of human rights advocacy — locally and globally. Learn more about the Human Rights Center at the University of Dayton >>>.