Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiOur world is hovering at the edge of an abyss, driven there by man's unreason. One crisis is cresting on top of another... The sinister developments in the advance towards the brink of disaster all interact, worsened by the calamitous threat - namely the arms race and militarization. These essentially ethical problems of wars, weapons, and tools of violence have existed since time immemorial, but in the present era they have been deeply aggravated and will continue to be aggravated if a halt is not called for. - Nobel Peace Laureate Alva Myrdal
A major source of devastation, human suffering and poverty, war affects all aspects of economic, social and political life. And over time, the nature of warfare itself has changed -- it is no longer soldiers who suffer the largest number of casualties, but civilians. In World War I, just 14 percent of deaths were civilian; today, that number has risen to over 75 percent. The nature of the battlefield has changed as well -- no longer fought in remote battlefields between armies, wars now rage in our homes, schools, our communities and increasingly on women's bodies.May 24th is celebrated globally as International Women's Day for Peace and Disarmament. This article was written in honor of the many women who have campaigned tirelessly for global peace.
Historical Perspective on Women's Peace Movements
For the first time in history, on April 28, 1915, the International Congress for Women -- a group of 1,200 women from warring and neutral countries that later became the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF) -- protested against World War I at The Hague in the Netherlands. Their historic meeting thus began a century in which women's organizations and movements mobilized in support of peace and disarmament.
Later during the Cold War, women lobbied against arms stockpiling and the possible use of nuclear weapons. After a conference in 1959 on the "Responsibility of Women in the Atomic Age," the newly formed European Movement of Women Against Nuclear Disarmament and other women's groups embarked on massive education and petition campaigns. A few years later in 1961, WILPF pioneered the US/Soviet women's seminars to help break Cold War barriers. In 1964, a movement called Women Strike for Peace was started in America while women from all over the world converged on a NATO conference in the Netherlands to demonstrate against its plans to establish a multilateral nuclear force. Five years later, WILPF sponsored an international conference on ending chemical and biological warfare.
During the 1980s, the women of Greenham Common in England inspired the world with their opposition to nuclear weapons and bases by leaving their homes and dedicating themselves to peace -- just as men have done for centuries to fight wars.
In the 1990s women continued the anti-war movement as mothers in both Macedonia and Chechnya. Dedicated to the prevention of gun deaths and injuries, the Million Mom March was founded in 1999 in the United States to support both the victims and survivors of gun violence.
In the Pacific region, women have organized against nuclear testing; in Japan, women set up a peace camp at the base of Mount Fuji. Women's groups in African countries like Angola, Burundi, Kenya, Somalia and Niger have also advocated for peace and reconstruction in their countries.
Why are women asking for disarmament?
One of the most compelling factors in the mobilization of women to form their own peace organizations is their role as mothers. Time and time again, women have organized themselves to protect their children: the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo in Argentina protested the "disappearance" of their children during the reign of a tyrannical military dictatorship; the Meira Paibis challenged the proliferation of armed conflict in the northeastern region of Manipur in India. In Sri Lanka, a group of more than 2,000 women from across the island, both directly and indirectly affected by the war, formed the Association of War Affected Women (AWAW) -- their sons and husbands either missing/missing in action, killed, or disabled due to the conflict.A key factor to understanding why women have formed organizations specifically in favor of disarmament is the connection many women have made between gender equality and peace. The 1915 meeting of women in The Hague concluded that permanent peace could be built only on the basis of equal rights (including equal rights between women and men), justice within and between national independence and freedom. Women have linked various forms of violence -- such as human rights violations, violence against women, and structural violence in economic disparities -- to the violence seen during wars. Through this perspective it becomes clear that disarmament relates not only to all forms of violence but also to the creation of a culture of peace, which can be perpetuated just as easily from generation to generation.
An individual's decision to disarm is influenced by the perception of personal and economic security. This makes disarmament an ever-evolving process that is dependent on myriad factors such as crime levels, economic opportunities, the state's ability to protect its citizens and the degree to which gun possession is legitimized in society.
Unsurprisingly, men have traditionally been associated with the use, ownership and promotion of small arms, as they are overwhelmingly the owners and users of guns. They are also the primary victims of gun violence.
The security implications for women, while perhaps not comparable to those faced directly by men in battle, are also enormous. When guns flow freely in communities, and are not removed once a conflict ends, women run the risk of not only facing lethal domestic violence, but becoming more vulnerable as they manage their daily workload; women are typically the most burdened with caring for those who have been injured or disabled by gunfire.
Women, Peace & Security
Evidence shows that women's views towards weapons are much different than those of men. Inherent in this difference is an opportunity for peacemakers to carefully nurture and promote more women's participation in disarmament processes. According to the United Nations Development Programme:
"In sensitisation campaigns, disarmament should be separated from military disarmament and women should be the priority target audience because they know the negative side of guns, unlike male users who tend to focus on the upside of gun ownership. So when community disarmament and rebuilding strategies are planned, women are better targets."
Adopted in October 2000, the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 on women, peace and security specifically mentions the need to incorporate gender perspectives in all areas of peace support operations, including disarmament, demobilization and rehabilitation initiatives. This resolution was a monumental and historical turning point in acknowledging women's direct contribution to disarmament. The resolution codified in international law a tradition of women actively advocating for peace and disarmament at every level of decision-making.
A year later in 2001, the UN Department for Disarmament Affairs, along with the Office of the Special Advisor on Gender Issues and the Advancement for Women of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs issued a special collection of briefing notes entitled, "Gender Perspectives on Disarmament." In addition, Reaching Critical Will, a project of WILPF's UN office, has monitored disarmament at the UN since 1999 and continues to play an important role in the collection and distribution of vital information from UN meetings on disarmament.
Success Stories
In 1998, UNDP and UNIFEM developed a 4-year pilot project aimed at increasing women's role in the Weapons for Development Programme. Implemented in the Albanian districts of Gramsch, Elbasan and Diber, it found that women's support for the project contributed to its success as their involvement led to increased weapons collection. Albanian women who had no prior knowledge of gun related issues started understanding the complexities of disarmament. As a result, participating women were able to effectively advocate with local authorities, including police and others.
According to disarmament expert, Dr. Vanessa Farr, "Women felt that their participation in the family decision-making process had been improved because their preparation [in the pilot project] gave them a more authoritative opinion in family and community security decisions." It became clear that through their involvement, women started understanding disarmament from a more comprehensive perspective, one that would allow their communities to make political, social and economic progress, and not just as a means for reducing criminality and armed violence.
On International Women's Day for Peace and Disarmament, we salute the extraordinary courage of the women across the world who have dedicated their lives to peace.
* * *
Note from editor at The WIP: Bina's article was originally published on May 24, 2007 but is just as relevant today as it was a year ago. Here at The WIP, we celebrate women's roles as peacemakers and catalysts for global change.
* * *
Ms. Binalakshmi Nepram Mentschel is presently Oxfam GB's Consultant on Control Arms and the Arms Trade Treaty. She is also the founding Secretary General of the New Delhi based Control Arms Foundation of India (CAFI) and of the Manipuri Women Gun Survivor Network (MWGSN) based in the Indo-Burma border state of Manipur.
Copyright © 2008The Women's International Perspective
18 Comments so far
Show AllWell sure, there are cultural differences, but they would apply equally to both genders (or more).
However, the cultural disposition of violence toward women is old, and only now becoming discredited because it is seen for what it is: inhuman.
Women are tired of violence being fought out on, and over their bodies...they pay most when the deranged soldier comes home, they get beat up or shot most in their home.
We should all practice non-violence as much as they do...it changes the way we think and act to walk around unarmed.
It is more courageous.
@kalia: Good one! Much appreciated, lol. :D
@GwNorth: If you say you're a "self hating German," I truly feel sorry for you. No points for that one. One final time: Of course there are cultural differences, but that's not really what the article was about, now was it? It's about women from many cultures working toward peace, in contrast to men's war-mongering. You saw fit to bring in meaningless statistics about "obedience." Meaningless, because without a proper control sample, it's just interpretation. Milgram (now there's a name) was politically motivated, by the way. Let me tell you - USA must be full of mindless, obedient automatons, based on current and past events. Doomed to repeat history over and over again.
Also, a word of advice: If you want to coherently argue your point, it helps if your posts aren't (quite literally) all over the map. Try to stay focused. :)
PS "Honor killings" are a horrendous crime, akin to damaged Iraq vets coming home and murdering their spouses. WTF is your point?!
>>I've thoroughly debunked GwNorth's racist post, so I'm done with that
You are too funny. Look up the word racist. My grandfather was from East Prussian. I guess that makes me a self hating German.
You have debunked nothing.
Cultural differences are a part of life. If there were not Cultural differences it only follows there would be no different cultures.
The answer lies in Birmingham, UK where the incidents of spousal abuse by women spouse is the highest in Western world.
Siouxrose, is that what you really believe? All I see pseudoscience being used to point fingers at others, false Hollywood "history" being used to make the "ordinary" US-American feel better about the global crimes being committed in his/her name. Too few are like Jimmy Carter, who in his advancing years finally dares to speak the truth and help shatter the grand "holier than thou" illusion. Comparing Bush to Hitler is a helluva cop-out, though! :)
I've thoroughly debunked GwNorth's racist post, so I'm done with that.
Getting back on topic, Merkel, like Thatcher before her, is a strong woman in a position of regional power who would not hesitate to "pull the trigger" should the need arise. She also has an enormous intellect, which is one of the many reasons she is so widely respected in the world, unlike Mr. "Mission Accomplished." I can't think of another country on this planet who would elect a criminal idiot as a leader not just once, but *twice*. Because the USA is a mixture of ethnicities, that was not a racist comment, just profoundly sad observation.
Cheers
Icomeinpeace
You contradict yourself in your own post. Why do too many US-americans do just what they are told? If we are to subscribe to your belief system then the same should hold true in every country to the same degree.
Why do Americans vote for right of center parties? Why do more people in the deep south of America tend to vote along religous lines then those in other areas?
Why are Canadian right wing parties closer to the left wing parties in America?
We are not all the same. Our cultural enviroment shapes us.
It is not drivel to claim there are honor killings in the Muslim world. It is a fact. It is not drivel to point out that genital mutiliation occurs in Sub Saharan Africa. It is a fact.
In Ontario a Muslim group were pushing for the use of Shariac law. The Muslim women universally were opposed to it indicating that should Canada adopt such in order to be seen as "Culturaly sensitive" Muslim women in Canada would become second class citizens.
Here in Vancouver a immigrant family from India saw their own father murder their daughter because she had dishonored him by going out with a white person. Honor killings are cultural. We should not accept them in order to be culturally sensitive.
The frequency of war and violence in American Society is Cultural. It is not repeated with the same frequency in other nations. Germany was once seen as a militaristic society as was Japan. Neither are today.
All cultures have behaviours that are good and bad. It is not the color of skin that will determine the ultimate "belief systems" a person will grow into. It is the Cultural context in which they live.
Basic truth that goes for all of us--often the thing we fight most for is the thing WE are working on. "Teach best what you most need to learn," style... interesting tidbit to apply to one's own version of self-scrutiny.
GW NORTH: As usual, excellent post.
I COME IN PEACE: Do you? You're quite confrontational, and as a neutral party, I see areas where you and GW North actually are in agreement, saying the same thing in your own ways.
@GwNorth: Numbers are just that. They're meaningless without a control sample. Your ramblings indicate that you are way out of your depth here. Too many US-Americans just do what they are told, believe what they read, and stare blankly at the latest Indiana Jones flick, while protests against local government actions are happening elsewhere in the world with much greater frequency... And *that's* why we're in this predicament today. If you have travelled as I have, you'd never write such pointless drivel.
icomeinpeace
You are the one who started with the non-sequitors trying to bring in what Bach did 500 years ago. The fact is there are cultural differences that make socities more or less obedient. I have already given you the title of the book where the studies were cited.
Page 141 he gives the results of the experiments. Numbers are numbers, they are not opinions and he points to the conclusions of those that did the testing that the differences were due to collectivist versus individualistic cultures.
>>All human beings behave similarly given equal positions of power and circumstances, regardless of sex.
This is simply the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard in my life. So GW bush acted exactly the same as George Washington? Gandhi acted exactly the same as Stalin or would have if running the Soviet Union?
It is not the position of power that makes the person, it is the person.
Why even bother to vote in an election if everyone will act exactly the same way?
I have had a lot of bosses in positions of power, and every one of them was different.
Now CAN a woman be as cruel? Certainly. Just like a person living in Japan can commit murder. The fact is the people in Japan commit a lot less murders then the people in America.
It is not because it a "racial Characteristic" it is because there are significant cultural differences.
Culturaly woman have always been given short shrift in virtually every society. It was not long ago they could not even vote. Seeing women as lessor beings not being entitled to vote is a learned behaviour. The degree to which that is applied is part and parcel of a nations Culture.
>>Alexlawyer
The experiments were all run in the 1960s and very early part of the 1970's. I expect they will have changed over that time just as all cultures evolve.
Again and I repeat myself here. The issue is not "obedience" but the degree of "obedience" . That is at what point does that obedience to authority break down?
As to the suggestion it not about nationality, gender or religion , that simply an illogical statement. It is the cutural enviroment one is raised in that goes the greatest way to shaping our behaviour. We can not simply ignore that.
In order to address the issues of violence on ones fellow man, or violence against women, or the tendency to enter into wars, we have to understand what it is in our repective cultures that make such actions permissible or acceptable and we can not do that by subscribing to the myth that all cultures are the same just because it politically correct.
Cultures or nations that evolve past such things as wars, and violence against one another will always be different then cultures that do not. It wpuld be fallacy to suggest all nations/cultures are progressing at the same rate.
This is not about one group of people, or one religion being "superior" to another. Frankly I have little use for any organized religion. It is how those in power are able to use a nations cultural memes, and its religous beliefs to manipulate that population in acting against its own best interests.
Answer a simple question..
Are there cultural difference to how women are treated in Iraq as compared to how they are treated in Sweden? If yes do these differences lead to more or less violence against women?
If yes it leads to more should we ignore the Cultural differences when trying to end violence against women?
If the answer is NO to all the questions then why debate change or the desire for change ? What is the point if nothing we do will ever make a difference because people/cultures/beliefs are all the same and result in the same patterns of behaviour?
>> It's about peaceful, decent, humane people of all sorts and conditions working to win over or, failing that, nonviolently oppose violent, hateful and selfish ones.
People are not born violent. People are not born hateful. They are not norn slefish. The Enviroment shapes them in that direction. That enviroment includes our respective cultures and religions.
If this was not the case, then there no point to having a progressive community trying to shape a better future.
Part of that future includes more women in positions of power wherein women help in the decision making power. I believe in so doing we will help form a better fuuture. I do not believe that women are just the same as men and if more were in power, there would be no difference.
@GwNorth: Your non-sequiturs prove my point. "Moral Minds" is opinion, not fact. Also, there's no mention of Germans in your link. By the way, what on earth do elections have to do with obedience? Every political party campaigns... Correlating campaigns with obedience is, at best, specious.
For cross-cultural comparisons to have any validity, the subjects must be in the same sample. The fact is, women can be every bit as cruel (read history, have a good look at the Abu Ghraib pics) given absolute power, as men. All human beings behave similarly given equal positions of power and circumstances, regardless of sex.
Jeez, enough already! About a third of the German public voted for Hitler 75 years ago, but today Germany is far more peaceful and progressive than the US. They made a big, horrendous and deadly mistake, but they have learned from it. We, on the other hand, are slow learners.
It isn't about one nationality, race, religion or gender vs another. That way of thinking is the cause of the problem. It's about peaceful, decent, humane people of all sorts and conditions working to win over or, failing that, nonviolently oppose violent, hateful and selfish ones.
While I agree that women are, overall, more affiliative and peaceful than men, there are many exceptions. Barack Obama is, in this sense, more stereotypically like women than Hillary Clinton.
Milgram's work was interesting and is still often quoted, but how about Kohlberg's stages of moral development? Our school curricula and, most of the time, religious instruction are intended to create conventional morality and unquestioning obedience to authority rather than independendent reason and allegiance to ethical principles over politicians. I think this accounts for a lot of the difference between the Bush-McCain supporters on the one hand and the Obama voters on the other. I wish Obama were more progressive on issues like Cuba and Palestine, but he'd never be elected if he were. But I still trust his character and instincts far more than McCain's.
>>Germans and Australians are EVERY bit as human as everyone else on this planet. German contributions to European culture in particular, and science, are nearly unparalleled in human history. So quit spouting racist B.S. Thank you.
It is not racist to state men are more responsible for Homicide and rapes then females. It is not racist to state that there are more Homicides in America then there are in Germany. It a statistical fact . Thank you.
Whether Amwericans were on the moon before Germans or invented rock and roll music is immaterial to that fact. That Germans elected Adolf Hitler to power and that Americans elected GW Bush does not determine whether otr not either group is "Human".
http://ezinearticles.com/?Fundamentals-Of-Abnormal-Psychology---Obedienc...
This and any number of articles on the tests illustrate cross-cultural differences. Thank you. My own source is Moral Minds where the experiments and followups were cited.
You confuse the tendency to inflict a shock with that of inflicting pain. All were willing to inflict shocks at the lower level. It was as the shocks "apparently" got more severe that cultural/gender differences manifest themself.
Obedience to authority exists in every culture. Where that obedience breaks down had significant differences.
@GwNorth: How racist of you. The Milgram tests were conducted on ordinary Americans. That was the whole point of the test. Interestingly, women were about as obedient as men (in the original experiment). Even more interestingly, none of the subjects requested that the experiments be terminated, and none went to check on the health of the "victim." Did you know that in certain subsequent tests, women tended to be more obedient than men? The only people who refused to "shock" the "victim" were male!
Germans and Australians are EVERY bit as human as everyone else on this planet. German contributions to European culture in particular, and science, are nearly unparalleled in human history. So quit spouting racist B.S. Thank you.
I mentioned Milgrams tests in the 1960s wherein he wanted to test "Obedience to Authority".
At the time German males were the most obedient with some 85 percent of them following orders and pressing the button to shock a test subject even though they openly claimed it against their values.
Of the groups mentioned, Australian females were the least likely to follow orders and inflict pain on other people.
Great article. Women get along so much better than men as a rule, their emotional maturity seems to be much farther along than that of men. Women are so much more civilized than men in the way they interact with one another, and are more socially inclusive and supportive. It would be a great thing to see more women in disarmament on all levels! Let's replace militarism and gunboat diplomacy with dialogue, sympathy, and seeing the common ground we all share. To this end we need more women in key positions of business and government.
Getting guns out of the hands of the American male and some misguided women, is going to be the ultimate test of endurance for these women of peace. Given the NRA and its overwhelming fear of everything including the wind blowing, guns are here to stay in this country. We Americans, as a society never seem to learn; no matter how many of our visionaries, statemen, leaders and children are killed, we keep worshiping the almighty gun and its ammunition. Now, we have tazers and that is becoming the weapon of choice, especially when civil protest is being made, agaist the citizenry. What we really need is a citizens' movement to make the government and the police AFRAID of us instead of the citizens being afraid of the government.
I would like to have seen included in this article mention of the NEW women's peace organiations focused on ending the occupation of Iraq -- Grandmothers Aainst the War (New York City and Bay Area, San Francisco --and the Granny Peace Brigade (New York City and Philadelphia). Grandmothers Against the War in NYC was organized in 2003 in response to the brutal and immoral attack on Iraq, and the Granny Peace Brigade in NYC followed two years later, initiated when 18 of its members got arrested and jailed when they tried to enlist in the Times Square recruiting center on Oct. 17, 2005. Both groups inspired their counterparts in other cities and have been extremely active since. Just google us and see.