Setting the Stage:

 In thinking about explaining conflict, always attentive to whose story is being told, and what that tells us about action.
 Argument from realists that national priority is paramount – thus things that detract are bad
 In regards to sexual assault in peacetime, clear that policymakers have decided in practice that that’s OK.

Gender Mainstreaming: as per discussion on Beijing Conference, attempts by international society to mainstream gender into
problem of war: thus UNSCR 1325.

Theoretical Debate

What is the Story of War in Beard and Strayhorn?

 War as something taking place between states, and importantly, for rational reasons. Moreover, the conduct of war as
something that involves armies and territory (Beard & Strayhorn p. 43, 44).
 Q: What is the argument behind engaging in first-strike attacks? Is there a moral prohibition against doing so?

Q: How has gendered violence affected & been affected by the conduct of war as per the case studies?
 Notably, as per Stern, rape was not seen as an independent crime until 1993 from Yugoslavia. Note this is the case despite
rape as tool of war since recorded history.
 ALSO: breaks down the understanding that combat and war is something on a battlefield – in contrast to Beard and
Strayhorn, violence and insecurity follow people into the private sphere.
 As per McDermott p. 763, rape is a “part of combat socialization that bonds the perpetrators together.” Q: Do you see any
evidence of this in the readings? Elsewhere?

***Group Work Q: Great question in Steans p. 110. What does it mean? Think about ways in which women’s bodies have
been used in war at multiple levels.
 See reference in Carpenter pp. 94 – 95, and news report on England and Harman.

Q: A little troubled by McDermott p. 761. Reading this makes it seem that “rogue states” are aggressive and violent. Does this
argument make sense in the context of US militarism?

Listing Activity Q: Where are there points of overlap between discussion of security studies, and the feminists?
 Argument from Keohane – connections between feminist & conventional theorists are possible.
 Note Carpenter e.g. sees gender mainstreaming as linking traditional security issues to gender now (p. 85).

Q: Where are there points of disagreement?

 Also note Beard & Strayhorn about “rational actor” model – that it misses local factors that motivate policymaking. See p. 51
 Assertion that war and organized violence is central part of ir, and thus normalized.

Discourse and Analysis

Q: What is potential danger of describing rape as savagery, bestial in the context of war (pp. 496 & 498)? Note that at
beginning of article, Ehrenreich described England and Harman as “cuteness of evil.” What are Baaz & Stern concerned
about?
 Racial tropes which can be used to obscure the institutional context behind making this assault possible.
 But on the other hand, is it helpful to say that people who can commit such acts are not evil? How to grapple with very real
moral revulsion against this behavior?
 OTOH, Baaz & Stern p. 512 do point out that war is a tremendously unnatural state.

Q: Consider discursive discussion of rape – distinguish ‘defendable’ rape from evil rape. Was this a surprising claim? Is this
something you’ve heard before? See Baaz & Stern p. 510 to clarify how they make this distinction.
 [Consider Trotta video]. To what extent does this rely on the same kinds of arguments about ‘defendable’ rape? Note Baaz &
Stern on p. 515 allude to the idea that this rape & militarized masculinity is part of global norms about masculinity.
 Note: This could affect how we think about accountability and punishment in post-conflict.
Q: How does this connect to narratives of combat itself?
 As per Baaz & Stern, combat is presented as a place outside normal civilian relations – see discussion on DRC. But this
overlooks as Steans points out (p. 106), that there is often an apparatus that sanctions this behavior.

Q: What kind of work does the narrative of Beautiful Souls/Just Warriors do? What is a Just Warrior and a Beautiful Soul?
 Plays into need for protector males with hyper-masculine/hegemonic masculinity to protect the motherland.
 Note also women’s involvement in supporting discursive & social acceptance of rape – Baaz & Stern pp. 509 – 510.

Men and Women: Differences

Q: What was Ehrenreich’s approach to the woman/peace nexus, and can you understand why she might have thought that
way?
 Note as per Steans, that this narrative is potentially dangerous – can be used as justification for exclusion of women from
privileged (combat) areas. See also Fukuyama.

Q: How does Carpenter overlap with Tickner in her reason for writing & theorizing?
 Who or what is to be secured (p. 85). Like Tickner, failure to acknowledge this misses important ways of understanding
insecurity. See real manifestation of this throughout, and pp. 87 – 88.

Women as “monsters.” See Steans pp. 109 – 110 and discussion of FSTs.

Q: Why describe violence against men/boys “gendered”? As indicated in Carpenter, generally this is constructed as violence
(mostly by men) against women.
 Observation p. 84 and passim.

Q: Any concern that this is shifting focus – “what about the men?” Carpenter argues that rape of women is also an attack on
men. Very controversial statement.
 Flip side of treating women as less-than/chattel/lacking agency  sex-selective massacres (Carpenter pp. 88 – 89).
o Note as per p. 90 that killing men is not always purely strategic.
 Critics might point out that this widens what we consider gendered violence – would include forced conscription (in US!).
 OTOH, Carpenter clearly concerned about appropriate mechanisms to respond to trauma of war – without paying attention to
these forms of gendered violence, we will be unable to do so effectively. See pp. 95 – 96. Converse p. 99.

Constructing Masculinity

Listing Activity Q: What are the ways in which the soldier’s construction of masculinity (aka “militarized masculinity”) is
similar to/different from how we see masculinity as constructed in day-to-day lives? Are there any overlaps, or is it all
unfamiliar?
 Negotiating the masculinity of women soldiers – either they are not real women, or they are not real soldiers (pp. 505 – 506).
o Either way, military combat remains coded as a masculine space.
 Also, more expectation that sexual assault is expected, perhaps, in this space. The ‘freedom’ of war.
 Perception of man as provider, woman as recipient. Clear gender roles on domestic life & work (p. 507).

Q: What do we gain in understanding, when we treat masculinity as fluid, contested, not fixed and “fragile” (Baaz & Stern p.
499)?
 Understanding that this is negotiated helps us understand how soldiers negotiate their understanding of themselves, and
justify their action. Especially since this is connected to justification for sexual violence.
 Importantly, this justification is socially bound – ideas about masculinity are not individual; they are socially established.
 As per Baaz and Stern p. 499, you “learn” to be masculine in the context of the state in the military. But, this produces a
“different heterosexual violent [masculinity]” than might be the case in civilian life!
Roundtable: McDermott asserts, contra social constructionists, that there are in fact real biological differences between men
and women, oriented around “reproductive goals and opportunities” (pp. 765 – 766). What is gained and what is lost from
accepting that argument? How might this fit with Baaz & Stern?
 Note, in thinking about fighting, that McDermott: “Women and men fight for different reasons, with different goals, precisely
because of their divergent reproductive opportunities and incentive structure” (p. 767).
 Although – from McDermott, fighting is about sex. Fighting is not done through sex.

Q: How does race and ethnicity figure into our understanding of rape and sexual violence in war?
 See Baaz and Stern, and also Carpenter p. 88, noting rape as means of forced reproduction.

Institutions and Accountability

Q: What were some of the contributing factors identified by Baaz & Stern in explaining patterns of abuse in the DRC?
 A lack of accountability; lack of resources contributing to predatory behavior (p. 501); loss of legitimacy from civilian
population (p. 502); breakdown of traditional means of sanctioning rape (p. 503).

Q: Role of sexual violence in war?

 On one hand, hyper-masculinity and heteronormativity have impact on women’s bodies: rape, sexual assault. BagNews.
 OTOH, per Carpenter, Ehrenreich, McDermott, & the Guardian, sexual violence can be meted out to men, and/or by women.
o The men are feminized when assaulted; the women use sexuality to degrade.
 Importance of thinking about security: “Crimes against women in war…” (Steans p. 107).

Core Question: So we ask again: what are we to make of the informational erasure surrounding this iconic artifact of US
history, one that indicates sexual violence in the plain light of day? And why is it that most Americans readily recognize the
“Napalm Girl” but not the “Black Blouse Girl?”

Q: Why this refusal to engage with the sexual nature of violence in war?
 It has been made invisible. See England and the lack of attention to sexual assault in My Lai. Interestingly, this even though
the actual act of killing was covered!
o Perhaps this would raise questions about the nature of hyper-masculinity and its effects on soldiers’ attitudes to
women? But killing is seen as understandable… I don’t know.

Group Work Q: Gender equality in war? What does it mean? First start with “right to fight” feminism. Parse that.
 Then note that Ehrenreich describes what happened in Abu Ghraib as “gender equality” (p. 170): “Here, in these photos from
Abu Ghraib, you have everything that the Islamic fundamentalists believe characterizes Western culture… imperial
arrogance, sexual depravity… and gender equality.”

TAKEAWAY: Understanding Sexual Assault

Q: What does this tell us? Is rape in war/as a tool of war inevitable? Why are Baaz & Stern concerned that describing it as
such is reductionist? (p. 514).