Training Gender

TRAINING GENDER: DISCURSIVE
ANALYSIS
The discourse of 'gender-awareness'

training in peace and security - a
discursive analysis of the United
Nations’ “Gender and Peacekeeping”
toolkit
By Sarah Lobrot
A thesis submitted to the Victoria University of Wellington in

partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master
of International Relations (MIR)
School of History, Philosophy, Political Science and

International Relations
Victoria University of Wellington

2010
2
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to acknowledge my supervisor, the MIR programme coordinator and

MIR student peers for their support, guidance and insightful conversations, which
have helped me in preparing my thesis, as well as adjusting to life in New Zealand
whilst studying. An unforgettable and wonderful experience!
3
ABSTRACT
The aim of this thesis is to examine the discursive practices that have arisen from
gender training in peace operations with the following research questions: “how is
the discourse of ‘gender-awareness’ constructed through UN gender-training
material for peacekeepers? How does this discourse contribute to further shaping
representations of gender, violence and security?” To help answer my research
questions, I proceed to a discourse analysis of the gender-training package created
in 2001 by the United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations (UN DPKO)
called Gender and Peacekeeping In-Mission Training.
The analytical frameworks chosen for this research paper are Michel Foucault’s
notion of discourse and Laura Shepherd’s ‘analytical strategies’. Using Foucault’s

understanding of discourse, this paper examines the social practices of gender in
the military field (peace and security): how are these social practices embedded in
knowledge (in what ways are the notions of gender approached? Do they form a
universal truth?)? How does this discourse act through and upon subjects (male and
female peacekeepers)?
Building on Shepherd’s work, this thesis seeks to interrogate and deconstruct the
concept of ‘gender-awareness’ in the UN training material around three
dominant discursive sites (called Shepherd’s ‘nodal points’): [1] ‘how the relations
between women and men are structured’ (gender), [2] ‘how they are affected by
violent conflict’ (gender and violence), and [3] ‘how the mere presence of
peacekeepers further impacts on those relations’ (gender, violence and security).
The literature review first addresses the construction of feminities and

masculinities in war and peace. It demonstrates that women are constructed as
being ‘peacemakers’ and that their feminity is shaped as being ‘peaceful’ and as
‘mother of the nation’ whilst masculinities are shaped through war. Secondly, it
looks at the ways in which gender has been integrated (or mainstreamed) into UN
policies: showing gender as a synonym for women.
4
The research discovers that ‘gender-awareness’ as a discourse in the UN gender-
training material is composed of: [1] gender that equates ‘sex’ and ‘women’, [2] the
dichotomy between women positioned as ‘victims’ and men as ‘heroes’ (expected
normal behaviour) and [3] universals such as women’s rights, which ignore cultural
contexts in their approach to gender. The paper also further investigates the
discourse of ‘gender-awareness training’, which I argue has been established as a
‘tool’ in the military field, but not as a critical concept. This tool seeks to produce
understanding (knowledge, i.e. what is produced as truth) of gender, violence and
security and to regulate the agents’ (i.e. male peacekeepers’) behaviours.
These findings are important as they add to the literature which demonstrates how
gender is de-politicised while sex is politicised and how women are excluded from
both the realm of peace (security) and the realm of war (violence). It reinforces the
idea that discourse is repeated and that for the UN to (re-)think gender in
meaningful and creative ways, it becomes necessary to deconstruct the way power
structures are shared.
5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………...……..........................7
CHAPTER 1 - ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK AND METHODOLOGY………......13

Foucault’s power and knowledge
Discourse as a site of struggle
Shepherd’s analytical strategies
Applied methodology
CHAPTER 2 - LITERATURE REVIEW………………………………...….…...................27

Gender, violence and security
1- Construction of (peaceful) feminities: women as peacemakers
2- Formation of (hegemonic) militarised masculinities
The UN gender policies in peace – UNSCR 1325
1- Gender mainstreaming: promoting gender equality
2- Protecting women: women as ‘vulnerable’
CHAPTER 3 - ANALYSIS OF ‘GENDER-AWARENESS’ DISCOURSE…….………46

Contextualising gender training in peacekeeping
Descriptive reading (presentation of the material)
Analytical reading
1- ‘How the relations between women and men are structured’ (gender)
2- ‘How [gender is] affected by violent conflict’ (gender and violence)
3- ‘How the mere presence of peacekeepers further impacts on [gendered]
relations’ (gender, violence and security)
Gender-awareness training as a technology
CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………………..........................78
BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………………………………………………..........................81
6
INTRODUCTION
The 2007 UN (United Nations) Working Paper “Gender Training for Peacekeepers:
Preliminary Overview of United Nations Peace Support Operations” voiced the
belief that a ‘peace’ that does not fulfil the needs of the community but instead
contributes to the inferiorisation and reduction of women’s roles within such a
1
community is not worth having.
This statement echoes an increased focus on the effects of gender relations in

conflict. This issue was first addressed in 2000 with the Windhoek Declaration,
Namibia Plan of Action and the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325
(UNSCR 1325) on “Women, Peace and Security”.
UNSCR 1325 addressed both violence against women and women’s contributions in
2
periods of conflict. UNSCR 1325 is therefore recognised as being the first policy to
address the different ways conflicts impact men and women. Furthermore, it is
recognised as being a major step towards the integration (or mainstreaming) of
gender into UN policies in peace and security.
The importance of gender training for peacekeepers has been given recognition as
a direct consequence of UNSCR 1325. In particular, “the protection, special needs
and human rights of women and children in conflict situations” have been
3
emphasised. Gender training materials have, therefore, been developed, tested and
1 Angela Mackay, "Training the Uniforms: Gender and Peacekeeping Operations", Development
in Practice 13, no. 2/3 (2003). And Minna Lyytikäinen, "Gender Training for Peacekeepers: Preliminary
Overview of United Nations Peace Support Operations," (UN-INSTRAW Gender, peace and Security
Working paper 4, 2007).
2 Laura J Shepherd, Gender, Violence and Security: Discourse as Practice (London; New York:
Zed Books, 2008). And: Peter Purkarthofer, "Gender and Gender Mainstreaming in International
Peacebuilding" (paper presented at the ISA Conference, 22-25 March 2006). See also Ulrike Krause,
"Women in Peace and Conflict? The Need of Female Representation and Participation," A Different View,
no. 33 (2009). Sandra Whitworth, Men, Militarism, and Un Peacekeeping: A Gendered Analysis (Boulder,
Colo.: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2007).
3 Megan Bastick, Karin Grimm, and Rahel Kunz, Sexual Violence in Armed Conflict: Global
Overview and Implications for the Security Sector (Geneva: Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of
Armed Forces, 2007). 172 and: United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM),
www.womenwarpeace.org/docs/Annotated_1325.pdf.
7
4
implemented in various peace-support operations. Indeed, the UN argues that “by
distinguishing between sex (a biological term) and gender (a social and cultural
construct), gender training challenges traditional ways of thinking and uncovers
5
common assumptions about women and men”.
This thesis aims to examine the discursive practices that have arisen from gender
training in peace operations. To do so I propose to analyse the discourse of the
gender-training package created in 2001 by the United Nations Department of
Peacekeeping Operations (UN DPKO). This training material is called Gender and
Peacekeeping In-Mission Training and it delivers in-mission training on the meaning
6
and implications of gender in peace operations.
I believe that analysing the UN DPKO gender-training material for peacekeepers is

relevant because it provides a basis for analysing the construction of gender and
how gender interrelates with the concepts of violence and security. Peacekeeping is
the field in which the most significant progress has been made on the
implementation of UNSCR 1325, therefore this analysis provides a good starting
7
point for a discussion on gender in peace and security.
Furthermore, whilst there is some literature on the different ways the UN has
mainstreamed gender in its policies, and about the construction of feminities and
masculinities in war, little research has been done on the implementations of such
policies. There is very little research that proposes a critical perspective on gender
implementation, that is, on gender training in peace operations.
4 Training Gender and Peacekeeping, from the UN DPKO, has been tested in the Democratic
Republic of Congo (MONUC), East Timor (UNMISET), Ethiopia and Eritrea (UNMEE), Kosovo
(UNMIK), Liberia (UNMIL) and Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL). Natalie Florea Hudson, "En-Gendering Un
Peacekeeping Operations," International Journal 60 (2005).
5 ———, Gender Resource Package for Peacekeeping Operations (New York: UN DPKO,
2004), United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations, "Gender Mainstreaming in Peacekeeping
Operations - Progress Report."
6 (UN DPKO) United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations, Gender and
Peacekeeping Operations in-Mission Training (New York: UN DPKO, 2004).
7 ———, "Gender Mainstreaming in Peacekeeping Operations - Progress Report," (UN DPKO,
2005).
8
Therefore, this research challenges the assumption that analysing discursive
practices should stop at the level of policies, without exploring further how
discourse could be (re)produced through the implementation of such policies.
Furthermore, whilst the concepts of ‘gender mainstreaming’ and ‘gender equality’
have been extensively discussed in the literature, not much has been said about
‘gender-awareness’, which is a concept that I seek to explore.
To help me examine the discursive practices in the UN gender-training material, I

have adopted my methodology from both Michel Foucault’s notion of discourse
8
and Laura Shepherd’s ‘analytical strategies’. Foucault understands discourses as
social practices that are embedded in knowledge (as the formation of universal
9
truth) and power (as acting through subjects).
This is important for my analysis as I propose to examine the social practices of

gender as a discourse in the military field (peace and security): that is, how are these
social practices embedded in knowledge (in what ways are the notions of gender
approached? Do they form a universal truth?)? How does this discourse act through
and upon subjects (how are peacekeepers, men and women represented? How do
peacekeepers enact their knowledge of “gender” in their missions?)? It is worth
pointing out that the latter point will focus solely on the expectations of how
peacekeepers should behave in their work. Indeed, as my thesis is limited to
discourse analysis, it does not allow observations about the ways peacekeepers put
the training into practice.
I also use Shepherd’s ‘analytical strategies’ to frame my analysis. Shepherd builds on

Foucault’s work to provide a specific method for analysing discourse, which I will in
turn use to construct my methodology. Shepherd undertook to analyse the UN
Security Council Resolution 1325 on ‘Women, Peace and Security’. She uses a
double-reading strategy, which involves proceeding from a descriptive to an
analytical reading. Secondly, she seeks to unravel the meanings of ‘nodal points’, the
8 Michel Foucault, The Archaeology of Knowledge, Trans. Am Sheridan Smith (London:

Tavistock Publications Limited, 1972). Shepherd, Gender, Violence and Security: Discourse as Practice.
9 Foucault, The Archaeology of Knowledge, Trans. Am Sheridan Smith.
9
centre signifiers around which she organises her analysis. Finally, she examines how
objects and subjects are produced, represented and legitimated.
Building on Shepherd’s work, as I will explain in more length later, my thesis aims
to interrogate and deconstruct the concept of ‘gender-awareness’ in the UN
training material. In order to achieve this goal, I chose to build my analysis around
10
three dominant discursive sites or ‘nodal points’ that I take as starting points.
These are: [1] ‘how the relations between women and men are structured’ (gender),
[2] ‘how they are affected by violent conflict’ (gender and violence), and [3] ‘how the
mere presence of peacekeepers further impacts on those relations’ (gender, violence
11
and security).
I selected these three nodal points to construct my analysis because they represent
the learning objectives and main messages of the training toolkit. Analysing
discourse through these discursive sites provides a suitable open framework for
gradually introducing notions of violence and security and how they relate to
gender. Also, this strategy provides an opportunity for identifying objects (of
knowledge about gender in peace and security, i.e. what is produced as truth) and
the way that (dominant) subjects (such as male peacekeepers and women) are
positioned in the UN discourse.
Using both Foucault’s and Shepherd’s work as an analytical framework, this thesis
is an attempt to answer the following research questions: “how is the discourse of
gender-awareness constructed through UN gender-training material for
peacekeepers? How does this discourse contribute to shaping representations of
gender, violence and security?” With these research questions, I intend to look at
what the discourse of gender-awareness is; how women and peacekeepers are
positioned in this discourse; and what male peacekeepers need to be aware of in
the realm of gender, violence and security (which in turn produces a ‘normal
10 The ‘nodal points’ will be explained in further detail in my methodology section. Shepherd,
Gender, Violence and Security: Discourse as Practice.
11 United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations, Gender and Peacekeeping Operations
in-Mission Training. Introduction iii.
10
expected behaviour’ from them).
To help answer my research questions, I have divided the thesis into several
chapters. The first chapter will set out my analytical framework and my
methodology. I intend to explain how I use discourse in my analysis and how I build
my methodology on both Foucault’s and Shepherd’s work.
In the second chapter, I will first review the literature that addresses the
construction of feminities and masculinities in war and peace. This will show that
women are constructed as being ‘peacemakers’ and that their feminity is shaped as
being ‘peaceful’ and as ‘mother of the nation’. This will lead me to review the
literature that shows how militarised masculinities are shaped through war.
Secondly, I will review the literature that explores the ways in which gender has been
integrated (or mainstreamed) into UN policies, which will demonstrate how gender
has been thought of as a synonym for women, hence reducing the potential that a
12
real investigation on gender could have on peace operations.
In the third chapter, I will combine the methodology I set out in Chapter 1 and the
conclusions of the literature review to interrogate the notion of ‘gender-awareness’
in the UN training material. My analysis will be constructed around the three nodal
points I previously introduced. The research will show that ‘gender-awareness’ as a
discourse in the UN gender-training material is composed of: [1] gender that
equates ‘sex’ and ‘women’, [2] the dichotomy between women positioned as ‘victims’
and men as ‘heroes’ (expected normal behaviour), and [3] universals such as
women’s rights, which ignore cultural contexts in their approach to gender.
Finally, the end of the third chapter will further investigate the discourse of ‘gender-
awareness training’, which I argue has been established as a ‘tool’ in the military
field, but not as a critical concept (reminding us of Foucault’s disciplinary
technology). This tool seeks to produce understanding (knowledge) of gender,
violence and security, and to control and regulate its agents’ (male peacekeepers’)
12 Shepherd, Gender, Violence and Security: Discourse as Practice.

11
behaviours.
Therefore, this thesis will interrogate the discourse of gender-awareness in terms of

the production of traditional stereotypes of feminities and masculinities in war and
peace. It will ask whether the UN concept of gender training is truly challenging the
way the UN has previously been ‘doing’ and understanding gender. The thesis will
eventually draw conclusions about the implications of the discourse of ‘gender-
awareness’ in the politicisation of gender and women.
12
Chapter 1
ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK AND METHODOLOGY
In this chapter, I set out my analytical framework and my methodology, which build
on both Michel Foucault’s notion of discourse and Laura Shepherd’s “analytical
13
strategies”. By way of introduction, this chapter outline the Foucauldian notion of
power and how it interrelates to knowledge (as a regime of truth), which is
embedded in discourse. I shall then provide the reader with an explanation of how
discourse is used in this thesis, through Foucault’s and Shepherd’s work. Thirdly, I
intend to show how Shepherd’s method builds on Foucault’s work and explain her
14
analytical strategies as a way of analysing discourse. Finally, I explain my
methodology, which logically comes out of Foucault’s and Shepherd’s work.
Foucault’s power and knowledge

I first intend to introduce Foucault’s notion of power and how it closely relates to
knowledge as the formation of a ‘universalising truth’. I will show that the
Foucauldian notion of power produces ‘subjects’ that are categorised, easily
identified and normalised. The normalisation of subjects is rendered possible
through the establishment of ‘disciplinary regimes’ or ‘technology’. Discipline
allows the formation of ‘docile bodies’ and the regulation of behaviours and
produces knowledge (what we know as being the truth). Finally, knowledge is
embedded in discursive practice, as it will be exemplified.
It is important to distinguish Foucault’s power from the traditional Hobbesian

understanding of power, upon which realism has drawn. For Hobbes, people agree
to give up a portion of their freedom to a sovereign, called the Leviathan, in order to
13 Foucault, The Archaeology of Knowledge, Trans. Am Sheridan Smith, Shepherd, Gender,

Violence and Security: Discourse as Practice.
14 Laura Shepherd uses the term ‘analytical strategies’ and I will stick to her terminology. This
term refers to a tripartite methodology that she created to analyse discourse. I will attempt to explain what
her analytical strategies actually are in one of the sections of this chapter.
13
15
find peace and security. From the Hobbesian notion of sovereignty, power is
defined as “the ability to make people (or things) do what they would not otherwise
have done”.16 This implies that there is someone, an A, who has an effect on another
person, a B: A has the ability to persuade B to make decisions and undertake actions
17
in the manner that A wants.
Foucault, on the other hand, envisages a notion of power that gets rid of A and B.
He considers how power fluctuates through and towards people and how power is
18
associated with bodies of knowledge (or discourse). What Foucault calls
‘governmentality’ or ‘biopower’ seeks to regulate life and normalise population
through statistics, control, public health and so on.19 The realist’s and Foucauldian’s
forms of power are often opposed, in that the former has “the right to take life or let
live”, whilst the latter has “the power to make live and let die”.20
Further, the Foucauldian notion of power produces ‘subjects’: “[power] acts in a

relatively autonomous way and produces subjects just as much as, or even more
than, subjects reproduce it. […]. Subjection [refers to] the processes of the
construction of subjects and as a collection of techniques or flows of power which
21
run through the whole of a particular social body”. In other words, certain kinds of
22
‘subjectivity’ (such as being a prisoner) are (re)produced through power. This new
way of seeing power suggests that power no longer comes solely out of political
15 Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, ed. C. B. Macpherson (Baltimore: Penguin Books [1968], 1961
Reprint). Hobbes calls the situation in which there is no sovereign the ‘state of nature’ (“solitary, poor,
nasty, brutish and short”). The Leviathan is a sovereign ruler–body politic comprised of everyone who has
given up their right.
16 Iain McLean and Alistair McMillan, Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics (New York: Oxford
University Press, 2003), 431.
17 Ibid. This conception of power has accompanied the rise of sovereignty. There are two distinct
forms of sovereignty, absolute and popular, but both have in common their relationship with law.
18 Michel Foucault, Power. Ed. James D. Faubion (New York: New Press, 2000).
19 Steven Epstein, "An Incitement to Discourse: Sociology and the History of Sexuality,"
Sociological Forum 18, no. 3 (2003), 494.
20 Michel Foucault, Society Must Be Defended, op. cit., p. 241.
21 Alec McHoul and Wendy Grace, A Foucault Primer: Discourse, Power and the Subject
(Malaysia: Melbourne University Press, 1993), 22.
22 Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. 1977, Trans. Alan Sheridan
(New York: Vintage, 1995).
14
structures and the law but acts on the “conduct of individuals”.23 Also, it defines the
individual differently. While in the realist’s definition of power the individual is
defined as being a rational actor (and passive object) in the exercise of sovereignty,
biopower positions the subject as having multiple identities (and bodies).
Studying individuals as subjects revolves around a new way of seeing the world and
is tied to truth and knowledge (or self-knowledge). Foucault explains that “this form
of power that applies itself to immediate everyday life categorizes the individual,
marks him by his own individuality, attaches him to his own identity, imposes a law
24
or truth on him that he must recognize and others have to recognize in him”. In
other words, being ‘an individual’ (or a subject) is not something natural, but it is
shaped through and within society. The formation of identities allows
categorisation and recognition by others. If one does not fit into these categories,
one becomes categorised as ‘abnormal’ or ‘deviant’ (e.g. homosexuals). Hence
25
power is productive and revolves around how ‘we’ see ourselves and the world. This
concept will be of great importance when studying the formation of peacekeepers
as subjects.
To further examine how power acts through and towards subjects, Foucault
analysed the formation of prisons in France in the early 19th century and examined
26
how the authorities controlled and imposed a “regime of truth” on individuals.
‘Discipline’ refers both to punishment and to the institution of a set of skills that
must be acquired to master a particular field, and is particularly important for the
purpose of this research, which is to analyse the discursive practices that come out
27
of (gender) training for peacekeepers in the military (peace and security) field.
23 Foucault, Power. Ed. James D. Faubion, 341.

24 Ibid., 331.
25 Geoff Danaher, Tony Schirato, and Jen Webb, Understanding Foucault (Australia: Allen &
Unwin, 2000).
26 Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. 1977. Foucault refers to the
‘panopticon’, which is a prison that is shaped as a tower and allows guards to see their prisoners but
doesn’t allow the prisoners to know they are being watched. This form of surveillance is not particular to
prison but is reproduced in modern societies (with the installation of cameras in the streets, for example).
It contributes to the shaping of individuals’ behaviour as they know they can be watched.
27 Danaher, Schirato, and Webb, Understanding Foucault.
15
Technology or ‘tactics’ are elaborated to ensure the coordination and control of the
28
whole mechanism (such as a surveillance procedure). Hence ‘disciplinary
technology’ produces a certain kind of subject (associated with a certain kind of
29
behaviour) that can be easily identified (e.g. prisoner, soldier). Discipline is
therefore concerned with the production of ‘docile’ bodies that can be easily
30
regulated. It further contributes to the ‘normalisation’ of behaviours (that become
31
universalised and incontestable models of truth).
The regimes of truth that are constructed through disciplinary technology are tied
to the production of knowledge. Further, both truth and knowledge “authorise and
32
legitimate the workings of power”. Knowledge is created through the diverse
discursive practices that exist in a society. Andersen points out that “power is
present in our approach to things insofar as the objects we relate to are always
33
discursive objects, produced by and in discourse”. Hence, (‘objects’ of ) knowledge
is embedded in discourse, or what Foucault calls discursive practice. Indeed,
Foucault “conceives the objects of knowledge as emerging from the relationships in
a society that produce the discursive practices within which the ‘objects’ are
embedded. […] A Foucauldian analysis is therefore interpretative in its orientation;
34
it seeks to elucidate the meanings of foundation of knowledge”. Discourse and
bodies of knowledge are interrelated and embedded in each other, which lead
Foucault to look for the meanings that come from and construct knowledge.
Thus, I have introduced [1] the relationship between power and knowledge, [2] how
it produces a certain kind of subject and normalises behaviours and [3] how
28 McHoul and Grace, A Foucault Primer: Discourse, Power and the Subject, 70-71.
29 Danaher, Schirato, and Webb, Understanding Foucault, 49.
30 Ibid., 50.
31 Margaret A. Paternek, "Norms and Normalization: Michel Foucault’s Overextended Panoptic
Machine," Human Studies 10, no. 1 (1987).
32 Danaher, Schirato, and Webb, Understanding Foucault, 64.
33 Niels Åkerstrom Andersen, Discursive Analytical Strategies: Understanding Foucault,
Koselleck, Laclau, Luhmann (Policy Press, 2003), 3.
34 Michael J Shapiro, Language and Political Understanding: The Politics of Discursive Practices
(New Haven, London: Yale University Press, 1981), 148.
16
knowledge is embedded in discursive practices. I now expand further on how
discourse is used as a site of struggle in this analysis and this will be illustrated
through Foucault’s and Shepherd’s work.
Discourse as a site of struggle

As I have outlined through Foucault’s notion of power, discourse is concerned with
both bodies of knowledge and disciplinary practices. It forms a ‘site of struggle’ in
which truth-knowledge and social controls are mutually inclusive. They are
inclusive of each other because disciplinary technology controls individuals and
their bodies to produce the only adequate behaviour (truth). I will now try to explain
how Foucault’s and Shepherd’s work on discourse provides me with a solid
methodology to undertake a discourse analysis.
For this thesis, I use a (Foucauldian) notion of discourse that entails both language
and social practice. By discourse, Foucault means “a group of statements which
provide a language for talking about – a way of representing the knowledge about –
a particular topic at a particular historical moment…Discourse is about the
production of knowledge through language. But…since all social practices entail
meaning, and meanings shape and influence what we do – our conduct – all
35
practices have a discursive aspect”. Put simply, ‘discourse’ is not only made up of
words (as in language or text) but embodies broader cultural contexts and social
practices. As shown before, discourse as a site of struggle is understood as (social)
practices, which entail meanings and are productive of knowledge.
Whilst Foucault is usually referred to as a post-structuralist, his work draws on the

fact that discourse is not a structure. Indeed, as Andersen explains, structuralism is
a concept that seeks to ‘deconstruct’ texts and meanings by looking at their hidden
parts: “underneath the visible, directly accessible text, lays a slightly displaced
35 Stuart Hall, Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices (Sage

Publications Ltd, 1997), 44.
17
36
invisible text that controls the questions and answers posed by the visible text”. For
Foucault, however, only the level of the visible – or the ‘apparent’ – belongs to the
37
notion of discourse; there is no underlying structure. In other words, meanings do
not come from an underlying hidden part of a statement, rather meanings emerge
from a group of statements that belong to a social practice (how they relate to each
other, their irregularities and dispersions).
Furthermore, a Foucauldian notion of discourse produces insiders and outsiders. As

Andersen explains, “Foucault wants to show how any discourse involves excluding
procedures, which not only exclude themes, arguments and speech positions from
the discourse, but also produce outsiders, denounce groups of people as sick,
abnormal or irrational, and grant other groups the right and legitimacy to treat
38
these people”. Andersen draws on the fact that as discourse produces a model of
truth, therefore it produces a kind of subject that either conforms or deviates from
this model. The subjects who conform to the model created are normalised (i.e. they
are ‘normal’), while those who deviate are ab-normalised (i.e. they are abnormal,
deviant).
The production of certain kind of subjects with normalised behaviours is called a

‘regime of truth’. These regimes of truth seem natural and unquestionably true.
Foucault says that “every utterance is an utterance within a specific discourse to
which certain rules of acceptability apply”. Similarly, A.B. Fetherston argues that
“the power of discourse is to render ‘right’, ‘legitimate’, ‘taken-for-granted’, ‘natural’
specific ways of knowing, acting and organizing social life… Crucially, this rendering
of ‘right’ silences other possibilities (they are unknowable since they are not
39
possible)”. This quote means that discourse exists within a set of institutionalised
36 Andersen, Discursive Analytical Strategies: Understanding Foucault, Koselleck, Laclau,

Luhmann, 2.
37 Ibid., 2 and Shapiro, Language and Political Understanding: The Politics of Discursive
Practices, 132–134.
Luhmann, 3.
39 A.B. Fetherston cited by Sandra Whitworth, Men, Militarism, and UN Peacekeeping: A
Gendered Analysis (Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2004), 28.
18
practices that are produced and reproduced through time: discursive formations or
practices “delimit the range of objects that can be identified, define the perspectives
that one can legitimately regard as knowledge, and constitute certain kinds of
40
persons as agents of knowledge, thereby established as norms”.
In other words, discourse produces certain kinds of subjects that are ‘agents of
knowledge’, established as representing a universalised truth (that is qualified as a
41
discursive norm). I intend to use Foucault’s agents of knowledge as a site of
authority for my topic, i.e. I will look at who the peacekeepers are in the UN training
material, how they are meant to behave in the field of peace and security and how
they are expected to enact their knowledge of gender in their actions. The discourse
of ‘gender-awareness’ (that I will explain in more depth later) seeks to produce the
peacekeeper subject as a male agent of knowledge.
Borrowing from Foucault’s notion of discourse, Shepherd uses what she calls
“discourse-theoretical analysis” (DTA), which I will in turn use for my research. For
42
Shepherd, the primary goals of DTA are to “identify, problematize and challenge”.
Shepherd greatly emphasises the debt she owes to Foucault, Laclau and Mouffe, and
Derrida in constructing her methodology. She highlights the fact that her approach
is deconstructive. Shepherd takes “deconstruction to be ‘a reading which is sensitive
to what is irreducible in every text, allowing the text to speak before the reader, and
43
listening to what the text imposes on the reader’”. She borrows from Foucault’s
archaeological analysis, which looks at what is ‘apparent’ in a discursive formation,
by looking at how statements (or groups of signs) are constructed through
40 Shapiro, Language and Political Understanding: The Politics of Discursive Practices, 130.
41 Note here that ‘norm’ is employed in a Foucauldian way, as something ‘normal’, which carries a
universal truth in it – I will refer to it as ‘discursive norm’. It is different from the ‘norm’ that is discussed
by constructivist authors. See, for example, Peter J. Katzenstein, The Culture of National Security: Norms
and Identity in World Politics (Columbia Univ Press, 1996). Martha Finnemore, "Norms, Culture, and
World Politics: Insights from Sociology’s Institutionalism," International Organization 50, no. 2 (1996).
Alexander Wendt, "Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics,"
International Organization 46, no. 2 (1992).
42 Shepherd, Gender, Violence and Security: Discourse as Practice, 32.
43 Ibid., 26.
19
44
‘regularity and dispersion’. This means looking at how statements appear, i.e.
which statements are repeated and dispersed to form a discursive logic.
For Foucault, statements only exist in a discourse, and discourse analysis consists of
“the compilation of all actual statements (spoken and written) in their historical
45
dispersion and in their specific momentary value.” Analysing and constructing the
archive involves examining how the statements appear, not what (‘is the meaning’)
or why (‘this statement’). Archaeological discourse analysis creates objects, which
46
are constructed, classified and identified, as well as positioning subjects.
As I have previously outlined, objects refer to ‘objects of knowledge’ (bodies of

knowledge) and subjects refer to ‘agents of knowledge’ (agents that embody the
truth, i.e. normalised behaviour). In this study, objects of knowledge refer to the
construction of feminities and masculinities in war and peace, whilst subjects refer
to the peacekeepers, who are meant to represent a normalised version of feminities
and masculinities. Shepherd, too, undertakes to examine how discourse is
productive of bodies of knowledge as well as positioning subjects. She uses the
‘critical concepts’ of gender, violence, security and the international, and shows how
they relate to specific discourses. She then explores the “regimes of truth that claim
47
to fix their meaning” through DTA.
I have introduced Foucault’s notion of discourse, which [1] is understood as social

practices, which entail meanings and are productive of knowledge, [2] involves
looking at the ‘archive’, or group of statements, that is constructed through
regularity and dispersion, and [3] produces objects (of knowledge) and subjects
(agents), both of which embody a regime of truth, hence excluding those who do
not behave the right way. I have also outlined how Shepherd’s DTA builds on
Foucault’s notion of discourse as she takes a deconstructive approach and looks for
44 Foucault, The Archaeology of Knowledge, Trans. Am Sheridan Smith.

Luhmann, 13.
46 Ibid., 8–16.
47 Shepherd, Gender, Violence and Security: Discourse as Practice. This paragraph as a whole
refers to Shepherd’s strategies, 26–33.
20
the regimes of truth that are carried through discourse.
Both Foucault’s and Shepherd’s work will help answer my research questions, as
they provide me with a solid methodology. I will investigate the UN gender-training
material as (social) practices, looking at how statements appear (their regularities
and dispersions) and how it produces objects and subjects that embody a certain
regime of truth. I will explain my methodology further, but before I do that, I need
to clarify Shepherd’s specific analytical strategies, from which I borrow extensively.
Shepherd’s analytical strategies

Shepherd undertakes to analyse the UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1325,
on ‘Women, Peace and Security’ through DTA and I have outlined how her work
builds on Foucault’s discourse. More specifically, she uses what she calls ‘analytical
strategies’, which allow her to structure her work. I now look at these analytical
strategies, which are composed of three main elements. First, she uses a ‘double-
reading’ strategy, which involves proceeding from a descriptive to an analytical
reading. Secondly, she undertakes to unravel the meanings of ‘nodal points’, which
are the centre signifiers around which she organises her analysis. Thirdly, she
examines how objects and subjects are produced, represented and legitimised. I
adapt Shepherd’s analytical strategy to my methodology, as I will explain further.
Shepherd employs what she calls a ‘tripartite’ discourse analysis to identify

“practices of (re)production, (re)presentation, and (re)legitimization in the
48
document itself”. The tripartite DTA is a strategy that uses ‘double reading’, ‘nodal
points’ and ‘subject-positioning’. First, the ‘double-reading’ strategy involves using
a descriptive and then an analytical reading in a deconstructive process. This double
task allows her to uncover the meanings of ‘nodal points’ or ‘master signifiers’, which
49
do not have fixed meanings prior to the deconstructive work. A nodal point is a
centre that produces a discourse around which the “field of discourse” or the
discursive formation takes place. Shepherd takes as main nodal points the fields of
48 Ibid., 26.
49 Ibid., 27–28.
21
gender, violence, the international, and security. She explores how “these signifiers
are ordered within the texts so as to inscribe a meaningful relationship between
50
them”. In other words, she looks at how the signifiers of ‘gender, violence, security
and the international’ are productive of a discourse, and then at how these
discourses interrelate to each other to produce a ‘discursive formation’.
A discursive formation is the overall discourse which embodies different discourses

(such as the discourse of gender and violence in Shepherd’s work). In my analysis I
will examine the discursive formation of ‘gender-awareness’ and then ‘gender-
awareness training’, which are made up of discourses of gender, security and
violence.
Shepherd’s third strategy focuses on the production, representation and

legitimisation of objects and subjects, and how they relate to each other. For
instance, she examines the ways violence is represented and shows that violence is
produced “as legitimate, as gendered, as threatening to civil society […]. These
representational practices are ‘articulatory’ as they establish a ‘relational
51
complex’”. She illustrates her example by showing that the ‘discursive elements’
(violence and legitimation) are articulated together (“there are times when violence
is legitimate”), which contributes to changing the identity of the discursive
52
elements (“so not all violence is bad”) – hence contributing to the formation and
positioning of objects (of knowledge) and subjects (agents).
Through this tripartite discourse analysis strategy (double reading, nodal points and
subject-positioning), Shepherd aims to deconstruct the text and its representational
practices, which makes “a sense of order in the texts, thus constructing the meaning
53
of the concepts with which [she is] concerned”. Her methodology coincides with
the Foucauldian archaeological analysis that seeks regularity and dispersion in
50 Ibid., 29.
51 Ibid., 31. Citing Laclau and Mouffe.
52 Ibid., 31.
53 Ibid., 30.
22
statements, as I have previously highlighted. Another element that coincides with
Foucault’s archaeological work is found in Shepherd’s intention to look for
coherence in the texts within a set of limits: “in order to be comprehensible,
54
discourses must conform to the temporary boundaries of a given discursive field”.
Her boundaries are fixed by the (discursive) fields of ‘gender, violence, security and
the international’. In this thesis, the boundaries are fixed by the fields of gender and
violence, with some implications for the field of security.
Citing Foucault, Shepherd explains this coherence as being “the various rhetorical
schemata according to which groups of statements may be combined (how
descriptions, deductions, definitions, whose succession characterizes the
55
architecture of the text, are linked together)”. Hence she examines how the
statements appear, such as the linking of their different elements, which forms the
discursive formation (or architecture). Shepherd explains further: “in the
identification of representational practices specific to gender, for example, I look
for instances of gendered identities described ‘as’ or ‘like’, statements about
gendered identities that can be problematized and emphasis on aspects of gender
56
provided by placement within the text and/or repetition”. She looks at how gender
(for example) is represented in the (UNSCR 1325) text and how statements that
address gender identity are repeated or dispersed so as to form a discursive logic.
Thus, I have shown that Shepherd’s analytical strategies are made up of three main
elements: [1] double reading, [2] ‘nodal points’ around which discourses are
produced, and how these nodal points (and their discourse) relate to each other,
and [3] the production, representation and legitimation of objects (of knowledge)
and subjects (agents). I have illustrated how her analytical strategies relate to
Foucault’s archaeological analysis. I now undertake to explain to the reader how I
borrow both from Foucault’s work and Shepherd’s analytical strategies to construct
my methodology.
54 Ibid., 29.
55 Ibid., 29. Emphasis as in original.
56 Ibid., 30.
23
Applied methodology
Following from the outline I have given of Foucault’s notion of discourse and
Shepherd’s analytical strategies, I formulate how I intend to use their work to help
answer my research questions. I have already introduced how I use discourse (i.e. as
social practices and productive of knowledge), which is composed of the ‘archive’
(regular and dispersed groups of statements) and which produces objects and
subjects that embody a regime of truth, hence relating discourse-knowledge to
power.
I propose to examine the (social and representational) practices that form the UN
gender-training discursive formation, and how they contribute to the formation of
knowledge about the way gender relates to peace and security. More specifically, I
will interrogate how ‘gender-awareness training’ is constructed as a discursive
formation that embodies elements of truth (knowledge) in the way gender, violence
and security interrelate. As such, I intend to look at how the UN discursive practices
on gender in peacekeeping are productive of rules that are further established as
‘discursive norms’, and how ‘agents of knowledge’ are constituted (and who they
are).
Keeping in mind Foucault’s and Shepherd’s methods, I will look at the way
statements appear; that is their regularity and dispersion. This involves looking at
how gender appears through three nodal points (that I will explain further) in
groups of statements, such as in pictures, in practical exercise materials, in
PowerPoint slides and in definitions used in the Gender and Peacekeeping
Operations In-Mission Training toolkit. The research will show irregularity in the
discursive formation of the UN; that is the presence of a double language in the way
the material presents itself and the meanings that are unravelled through analysis.
I will use Shepherd’s tripartite analytical strategies; that is, ‘double reading’, ‘nodal
points’, and ‘subject-positioning’. Using a ‘double reading’, I will first undertake a
descriptive reading of the training package to establish what it is aimed at
accomplishing, and how the material presents itself in its approach to gender and
24
training (also with a focus on violence and security). Secondly, I will go on to an
analytic reading that seeks to unravel the meanings of statements.
As I have already partially explained, Shepherd takes as nodal points ‘gender’,

‘violence’, ‘the international’, and ‘security’. This research thesis cannot embody all
four nodal points as sole master signifiers as this would go beyond the scope of this
project. Instead, I will focus on aspects of gender and look at how gender is
constructed with violence and security.
For this research, the nodal points (or master signifiers) that I have chosen represent
the three main messages/objectives given by the UN gender-training tool. The
introductory part of the Gender and Peacekeeping Operations In-Mission Training
toolkit stresses that “without an understanding of [1] how the relations between
women and men are structured, [2] how they are affected by violent conflict and [3]
how the mere presence of peacekeepers further impacts on those relations, there
57
can be little meaningful advance in the effectiveness of peacekeeping operations”.
I have taken these three interrogations as starting (nodal) points for discourse
analysis:
 The first nodal point, ‘how the relations between women and men are
structured (gender)’, will allow for a discussion of how the UN represents both
the differences between sex and gender, and the link between gender and culture
(or the social and cultural construction of gender norms).
 The second nodal point, ‘how [gender is] affected by violent conflict (gender
and violence)’, will allow for positioning men and women (with a focus on the
representations of peacekeepers) as subjects in the UN discourse. The UN language
on the social context in which gendered roles and responsibilities are reshaped by
violent conflict will be examined.
 The third nodal point, ‘how the mere presence of peacekeepers further
impacts on [gendered] relations (gender, violence and security)’, will allow

in-Mission Training. Introduction, iii.
25
the establishment of the UN discourse on gender training in the security realm, and
how it seeks to bring basic skills to peacekeepers, which serves to recognise the
positive and negative impacts of peacekeepers’ actions on the community. It will
show that gender-awareness has been raised as a new discursive norm, i.e. a norm
that fixes (male) peacekeepers' behaviours (the agents).
Analysing discourse through these three nodal points will allow me to gradually
introduce notions of violence and security and how they relate to gender. As such,
the first nodal point will focus solely on aspects of gender. The second nodal point
will address the notion of gender and how it relates to violence. The third nodal
point will uncover meanings related to gendered-based violence and security. This
strategy will allow me to identify both objects (of knowledge, i.e. what is produced
as truth) and the way that subjects (male peacekeepers and women) are positioned
in the UN discourse.
Before proceeding to the discourse analysis of the UN concept of ‘gender-awareness’

in training peacekeeping, I now undertake to review the literature of two major areas
relevant for this research. First, I will review the literature which addresses gender,
violence and security. Secondly, I will review the literature which covers the UN
gender policies (UNSCR 1325) in peace and security. It is important to indicate to
the reader that I focus only on aspects relevant to this research. Indeed, the
literature encompasses a broad range of ideas and concepts, especially on the
individual aspects of ‘gender’, ‘violence’ and ‘security’. As it would be beyond the
scope of this project to review the literature of each concept separately, I will
examine aspects that address the interconnection between the concepts.
26
Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Before examining how ‘gender-awareness’ is constructed in the UN training policies

for peacekeepers, I first determine why it is important to integrate gender (and
gender training) into the UN peace and security policies, and how gender has been
incorporated into UN policies so far, through a review of the literature.
I will first review the literature that addresses the construction of feminities and
58
masculinities in war and peace. It will show that women have long been
constructed as ‘peacemakers’ in politics, which contributes to shaping their
feminities as being ‘peaceful’ and as ‘mother of the nation’. This construction does
not allow for women’s agency in war to be recognised as they are still being
marginalised. It doesn’t consider how traditional gendered roles and responsibilities
are disrupted and reshaped through (violent) armed conflict.
Secondly, I will review the literature that explores the formation of masculinities in
war. I will demonstrate that a discourse of (hegemonic) militarised masculinities
emerges in conflict, which is further established as being the ‘truth’ (knowledge)
that acts upon and through the military field. It creates ‘soldiery’ subjects that
behave in a (violent) masculine way; hence excluding women (and feminity) from
the field and forcing women to behave in a masculine way, too.
Thirdly, I will review the literature that explores the ways gender has been integrated
(or mainstreamed) into the UN policies. It will show that gender has been
mainstreamed as [1] a way of promoting gender equality, hence a way of increasing
women’s representation and participation, and [2] a way of protecting women from
58 “Gender is a term used in contrast to sex, to draw attention to the social roles and interactions
between women and men, rather than to their biological differences. Gender relations are social relations,
which include the ways in which men and women relate to each other beyond that of personal interaction.
They include the ways in which the social categories of male and female interact in every sphere of social
activity, such as those which determine access to resources, power, and participation in political, cultural and
religious activities.” Donna Pankhurst, ed. The ‘Sex War’and Other Wars: Towards a Feminist Approach to Peace
Building, Development, Women, and War: Feminist Perspectives (Oxford: Oxfam GB, 2004), 26.
27
gender (sexual)-based violence, that further contributes to representing women as
59
‘vulnerable’. I will argue (with Shepherd) that gender has been thought of as a
synonym for women, hence reducing the potentiality that a real investigation on
60
gender could have on peace operations. Gender is thought of in a quantitative
manner (i.e. including ‘more’ women), which reduces women’s potentiality for
61
better representation and participation in peace and security.
Gender, violence and security

I examine how gender has been related to and constructed with violence and
security through a review of the literature. I will focus especially on the formation
of gender roles that emerge in war and peace. From the literature review, I argue
that the traditional women/men dichotomies are further reinforced in the discourse
of war and peace; that is, women are constituted as being peacemakers, cultural
bearers of the nation, while men are constructed as being soldiers and heroes. Both
discourses form a Foucauldian notion of what is established as being the truth
(knowledge) and contribute to shaping subjects (male peacekeepers/women) and
how they should behave, either in a ‘feminine’ or ‘masculine’ way.
1- Construction of (peaceful) feminities: women as peacemakers

From the literature review, the dominant discourse of ‘feminities’ in war and peace
comes from the belief that women are natural ‘peacemakers’. This is problematic as
it relies on the assumption that this identity is due to essential (biological)
characteristics that women possess. Further, this belief doesn’t consider the
disruption of traditional roles in war and the fact that women are active participants
in both war and peace.
In situations of war and armed conflict, gender stereotypes are profoundly

accentuated. Cynthia Cockburn highlights the fact that “it’s true that in the
patriarchal family system women are primarily valued as mothers, a function

60 Ibid.
61 Ibid.
28
represented as biological and natural, and in nationalistic and militaristic versions
of patriarchal ideology the significance of child-bearing and child-rearing is
elevated to perverse levels, with women represented as the reproducers of the
62
people and guarantors of its collective culture”. Hence the traditional dichotomy
between man/breadwinner/protector of the family and woman/mother/vulnerable
is reinforced in the discourse in war. At the same time, other imageries appear in
times of conflict, which associate men with heroes and women with peacemakers.
Feminities have traditionally and culturally been described as the opposite of

masculinities, that is, embodying passivity and non-violence as the main
63
characteristics of their subjectivities. This conceptualisation of feminities relates
to the place of the ‘mother’ as central in the family and in society, the mother being
64
the cultural bearer of the nation. Hence women have been constructed as being
inherently and essentially more peaceful than men, that is, able to bring peace in a
war-torn society. As the International Alert’s Code of Conduct affirms, “we explicitly
recognise the particular and distinctive peacemaking roles played by women in
65
conflict afflicted communities”. It is because of the peaceful qualities associated
with women that the UN has decided to include them in peace activities, as it will
be explained further.
However, this conceptualisation is problematic as it assumes that women as women

are inherently more peaceful. Indeed, it is hard to see how essential feminine
qualities such as non-violence and kindness can truly be attributable to women due
to their sex. Goldblatt and Meintjes have shown that women can also inflict terrible
tortures on other women and participate in the organisation of prostitution: “many
South African women supported apartheid, firmly convinced that racism and
62 Cynthia Cockburn, From Where We Stand: War, Women’s Activism and Feminist Analysis
(London, New York: Zed Books, 2007). 210.
63 Donna Pankhurst, "The ‘Sex War’ and Other Wars: Towards a Feminist Approach to Peace
Building," Development in Practice 13, no. 2–3 (2003).
64 Ibid.
65 Ibid., 162.
29
66
violence were necessary to ensure order and to maintain a particular way of life”.
Their research shows that women can be the perpetrators of violence too.
Furthermore, conflicts contribute to changing and inverting gendered social roles

and responsibilities within the community. Women are no longer housewives but
67
assume more responsibilities during and after the conflict. Both men and women
are exposed to new threats that need to be addressed. Angela Mackay shows that
“men leave, die in combat, are brutalised, lose employment, or resort to despair,
violence, or apathy. Women assume enormous burdens of work and all manner of
different tasks and responsibilities, they lose their security and their protectors, and
68
they are also victimised and marginalised”. Thus war has a significant impact on
gender and transforms the traditional social roles within the community. Men can
no longer assume their role of breadwinners and protectors, and women must take
on more responsibilities. The change of traditional gender roles in war explains why
peacekeeping and peace-building missions must take these gender variables into
account in their work.
Indeed, the dichotomy “man does, woman is” ceases to be applicable during
69
wartime, as several feminist writers have demonstrated. In fact, women are
actively engaged in conflicts and assume all kinds of responsibilities. Meredith
Turshen argues that “in modern forms of war, especially civil wars and wars of
liberation, women are also combatants; women resist and fight back; they take
sides, spy, and fight among themselves; and even when they don’t see active service,
70
they often support war efforts in multiple ways, willingly or unwillingly”. Turshen
takes as an example Ugandan women who were members of the National Resistance
66 Beth Goldblatt and Sheila Meintjes, eds., South African Women Demand the Truth, What
Women Do in Wartime: Gender and Conflict in Africa (London; New York: Zed Books Ltd,1998), 43–45.
67 Meredeth Turshen, ed. Women’s War Stories, What Women Do in Wartime: Gender and Conflict
in Africa (London; New York: Zed Books Ltd, 1998), 20.
68 Mackay, "Training the Uniforms: Gender and Peacekeeping Operations", 218.
69 Turshen, ed. Women’s War Stories. And see also: Cockburn, From Where We Stand: War,
Women’s Activism and Feminist Analysis.
70 Turshen, ed. Women’s War Stories, 1.
30
71
Army (NRA) and spied during the 1980s civil war. Laura Shepherd also
demonstrates that “there is significant literature concerning women’s involvement
with violence and oppression; ‘feminists in the North and South [have] challenged
the so-called peaceful nature of women by examining their involvement in national
liberation struggles, their direct and/or indirect support of armed conflicts and their
72
contributions to war and militarism generally’ (El Jack 2003: 12)”. Women’s active
involvement in conflicts is indisputable, yet their participation is barely
acknowledged and is quickly forgotten once conflicts end, which means they are
marginalised.
The community, along with international organisations such as the UN, is quick to
forget about women’s contribution to war, i.e. women’s participation in the realm
of ‘high politics’. Teckla Shikola was a soldier during the Namibia war and explains
how she experienced the conflict in her testimony. She confesses that “the civilians
really suffered, particularly women and children, but after the war, no one
mentioned the contributions women made during the liberation struggle. […] Men
appreciate women who cook for them, and they respect women who fought in the
war with them, but after independence, they didn’t really consider women as part
73
of the liberation movement”. This example shows that women’s agency in war is
not recognised, as their subjectivity is confined to a certain model of what it is to be
‘feminine’ (and this does not encompass fighting or participating in war). Women
are relegated to the realm of peace, however, by being categorised as ‘peacemakers’
because of their sex, they are ‘superficially’ included. This aspect will be discussed
further in the analysis in Chapter 3.
Because women’s various subjectivities in war are ignored, they remain remarkably
unrepresented in peace-building processes, and their needs are not as well met as
74
those of male soldiers in post-conflict reconstruction. In particular, women’s
71 Ibid., 1.
73 Teckla Shikola, ed. We Left Our Shoes Behind, What Women Do in Wartime: Gender and
Conflict in Africa (London and New York: Zed Books Ltd,1998), 148.
74 Pankhurst, ed. The’sex War’and Other Wars: Towards a Feminist Approach to Peace Building.
17.
31
security is no longer made a primary concern when conflict ends, although it often
coincides with an increase in domestic violence. Further, women often suffer from
the traumatic effects caused by the (sexual) violence that they went through during
wartime. However, they receive low rates of assistance, insufficient healthcare and
a low level of encouragement to speak out, which is an essential step in the
75
successful prosecution of the aggressors. In addition, women soldiers are not
integrated into rehabilitation programmes and do not benefit from the same
support as men.
The non-representation of women in post-conflict reconstruction and

rehabilitation both highlights and produces a politics of securitisation that seeks to
return to “normal” (i.e. meaning as before, when the gender roles were traditional
and definite). Donna Pankhurst shows that the pressure of accepting changes in
gender relations is greater in periods of peace than in periods of war, so that “the
ideological rhetoric is often about ‘restoring’ or ‘returning to’ something associated
with the status quo before the war, even if the change actually undermines women’s
rights and places women in a situation that is even more disadvantageous than it
76
ever was in the past”. Along the same lines, Megan MacKenzie demonstrates that
women and girl combatants in Sierra Leone have not been integrated into
programmes for the rehabilitation of soldiers. MacKenzie argues that “throughout
the process of prioritizing security interests in Sierra Leone, the concerns of women
have consistently been ranked not only out of the category of security, but also out
77
of the category of ‘normal politics’ [as high politics]”. The return to a ‘normal’ –
peaceful – place is inherently symbolised by women because of their status of
householders and mothers, hence explaining why they are left out of any
securitisation/rehabilitation programmes.
I have explored the issues associated with the categorisation of women as inherently
more peaceful than men through the literature review. This discourse (embedded
75 Ibid., 17.
76 Ibid., 19.
77 Megan MacKenzie, "Reconstructing Women? Post-Conflict Security and the Return to “Normal”
in Sierra Leone" (paper presented at the Canadian Political Science Association Annual, 2007).
32
in the constituted knowledge of ‘what it is to be feminine’) contributes to further
excluding women from the realm of politics. This phenomenon contributes to
creating and reinforcing images of militarised masculinities, as I undertake to
78
demonstrate now.
2- Formation of (hegemonic) militarised masculinities

I now review the literature that addresses men’s roles in war. From the literature, it
becomes clear that a discourse of (hegemonic) militarised masculinities has long
79
dominated the military field, hence the field of peace and security. It creates a
certain image of what it is to be a soldier who needs to behave in a (violent)
masculine way – hence excluding women (and feminity) from the field and forcing
them to behave in a masculine way if they want to be included in the field.
War allows for different (male) soldiers’ subjectivities to take place. Sandra
Whitworth examines the formation of masculinities in war in depth and argues that
“soldiers are not born, they are made; and part of what goes into the making of a
soldier is a celebration and reinforcement of some of the most aggressive, and most
insecure, elements of masculinities: those that promote violence, misogyny,
80
homophobia, and racism”. She goes on to explain that soldiers have been subjected
to “the ideology of manliness” and that they have been told what it is to be a good
soldier. Turshen argues further that “war creates militarized societies, and an
elaborate ideology of gender roles links masculinity to militarism. […] The military
is a male preserve, run by men and for men according to masculine ideas of male
bonding, male privilege, and militarist values derived from definitions of
81
masculinity”. Therefore being a soldier is associated with masculine images of the
military, hence excluding women from the field.
78 Elisabeth Prugl, "Gender and War: Causes, Constructions, and Critique," Perspectives on
Politics 1, no. 02 (2003).
79 Hegemony refers to a term invented by Antonio Gramsci, which illustrates the dominance of
one class over another. I refer to this term now because it is used a lot in the literature that I reviewed.
However, for the purpose of this research, I will prefer talk about ‘discourse’ and how it has been
universalised. Robert W. Cox, "Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations: An Essay in Method,"
Millenium: Journal of International Studies 12, no. 2 (1983).
80 Whitworth, Men, Militarism, and UN Peacekeeping: A Gendered Analysis, 3.
81 Turshen, ed. Women’s War Stories, 5.
33
The subjectivities of soldiers are inherently associated with the gender roles that
emerge in the social and cultural context of security. In the field of security, Cohn
demonstrates that the culture of defence is highly masculine. If a woman wants to
be part of it, she must learn how to speak a specific ‘hyper-masculine’ language (that
82
Cohn calls ‘technostrategic’ ). As Cohn points out, the (sexual) imageries that take
place in the nuclear world do not come from the individual but emerge from a
83
“broader cultural context” (which in this case is defence and security). These
imageries are used to ‘domesticate’ nuclear weapons, i.e. to detach them from their
first goal, which is to end lives. By humanising weapons and making them their
principal ‘subject’, the nuclear world does not include human death in its vocabulary
84
(deaths are referred to as ‘collateral damage’). The masculinity of the
nuclear/defence world is expressed through detachment from emotions in
discourse. What Cohn’s study shows is that the role of gender emerges from a
cultural context in which security must be ‘performed’ in a masculine/violent way
(hyper-masculine) and is constructed through discourse and social practices (that
are produced and reproduced).
Masculinities have been institutionalised in the military, which makes them more
resistant to change. R.W. Connell stresses that “the institutionalization of
masculinity is a major problem for peace strategy. […] Collective struggle, and the
re-shaping of institutions, including military and police forces, are as necessary as
85
the reform of individual life”. Indeed, the military is one of the institutions in
which the cultural processes of masculinity and patriarchy have had the most
influence. Cynthia Enloe shows how forms of militarism have been introduced into
86
society, persuading men and women of its inevitability and naturalness. Cynthia
82 Carol Cohn, "Sex and Death in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals," Signs 12, no. 4
(1987).
83 Ibid.
84 Ibid.
85 Cockburn, From Where We Stand: War, Women’s Activism and Feminist Analysis, 229.
86 Cynthia Enloe, Maneuvers: The International Politics of Militarizing Women’s Lives (Berkeley,
London: Univ of California Press, 2000).
34
Cockburn also points out that “war as institution is made up of, refreshed by and
adaptively reproduced by violence as banal practice, in the everyday life of boot
camp and battlefield. Masculinity in its various cultural forms is an important
87
content of that cycle: masculinity shapes war and war shapes masculinity”. In other
words, war is embedded in the cultural constitution of masculinities, which in turn
impacts on the discursive practices of war (as productive of ‘how war should be’).
The cultural construction of masculinities and gender identities in war entails the
suppression of emotions, which at the same time renders war ‘possible’. Indeed, the
suppression of emotions is a sine qua non condition of the discourse of war, which
88
embodies bravery (self-control) and discipline (obedience). Elisabeth Prugl,
reviewing Goldstein’s work, explains that this “appeal to masculine identity help[s]
overcome men’s reluctance to go to war and help[s] produce a functioning army.
Men are not inherently disposed to war; instead, they most often need to be dragged
kicking and screaming in to [war], constantly brainwashed and disciplined once
89
there, and rewarded and honoured afterwards". Thus, masculinities in war are
rendered possible by the suppression of emotions; hence making emotions belong
to the realm of feminities – the private.
Furthermore, the construction of masculinities is cultural. Enloe shows that the

warrior identity is central to the formation of Serbian imagined masculinity, and
90
this in turn produces ideals of feminity that are complementary. She argues that
to understand the mass rape of Muslim women in Serbia between 1991 and 1993, one
must interrogate how militarised masculinities have emerged alongside the
91
nationalist discourse. Enloe explains that in many societies, “cultural
construction[s] of masculinity […] have been dependent not simply on celebrating
87 Cockburn, From Where We Stand: War, Women’s Activism and Feminist Analysis, 248.
88 Prugl, "Gender and War: Causes, Constructions, and Critique".
89 Ibid.
90 Cynthia Enloe, ed. All the Men Are in the Militias, All the Women Are Victims: The Politics of
Masculinity and Femininity in Nationalist Wars, The Women and War Reader (New York, London: New
York University Press, 1998).
91 Ibid.
35
men as soldiers, but on simultaneously elevating women as mothers-of-soldiering-
92
sons, valuing women chiefly for their maternal sacrifices for the nations”. Thus
nationalism must be understood along with how notions of masculinities and
feminities are simultaneously and culturally shaped. Research has shown that there
is a cross-cultural notion of what masculinities are (called ‘cultural constructions of
manliness’ by Turshen), and that war contributes to shaping militarised masculinity
in many different cultural contexts – hence forming (hegemonic) militarised
93
masculinities.
The formation of (hegemonic) militarised masculinities further impacts on women,

who tend to adopt masculine behaviour to fit into the militarised culture and
identity. Megan Bastick, Karin Grimm and Rahel Kunz argue that “women are not
'by their nature' more gender-aware, nor will women always push for gender
reforms. Women entering a predominantly 'masculine' environment tend to react
accordingly by adopting 'masculine' behaviour. There are examples of female
officers being tougher on rape victims than male colleagues to prove themselves.
Women also feel marginalised by the dominant 'masculine' culture and therefore
94
do not 'dare' to bring up gender issues”. Thus it seems that women (soldiers) adopt
the principal traits of the gender-masculine identity in war.
I have reviewed the literature that addresses how notions (discourse) of feminities
and masculinities emerge in war. Women are perceived as essentially more peaceful
than men, while men are perceived as being violent and embodying ‘manly’
(aggressive) characteristics. These discourses form feminities and masculinities that
are culturally constituted and that feed each other. These discourses are tied to
knowledge and power, that is, they both create a discourse (knowledge) of what it is
to be a woman and a man in war and contribute to shaping masculinity as a
dominant ideology in the military and political field. As discourse-knowledge is
92 Ibid., 54.
93 Pankhurst, "The ‘Sex War’ and Other Wars: Towards a Feminist Approach to Peace Building."
168. See Turshen, ed. Women’s War Stories.
94 Bastick, Grimm, and Kunz, Sexual Violence in Armed Conflict: Global Overview and
Implications for the Security Sector. 148
36
embedded in power, it explains that men are included in the political (peace and
security) field, while women are excluded from its realm.
I shall now examine how the UN has integrated gender in its peace and security-
related policies. For this research, I will mostly focus on the UN Security Council
Resolution 1325 on women, peace and security, and how it has constructed a certain
notion of gender (related to violence and security).
The UN gender policies in peace – UNSCR 1325

I now undertake a review of the literature that concerns the integration of gender
(or gender mainstreaming) in UN peace operations. I will focus on analyses of the
UNSCR 1325, which will eventually help answer my research questions and
contribute to illuminating and strengthening my findings. As I have mentioned,
this research owes a great debt to Shepherd’s analysis of UNSCR 1325, both in terms
of her methodology (‘analytical strategies’) and in terms of her findings as to the
way gender has been constructed by the UN, which further (inter)relates with
95
violence and (international) security discourses. I will discuss two predominant
critiques of the UN gender mainstreaming in security and peace (UNSCR 1325),
96
which have been extracted by Shepherd.
The literature shows that gender mainstreaming has been used by the UN [1] as a
way of acting on women’s representation and participation (hence mainstreaming
‘women’, not gender), and [2] as a way of protecting women from gender(sexual)-
based violence (hence representing women as ‘vulnerable’). As will be shown, these
discursive aspects draw on the formation of feminities as ‘peaceful’ and
masculinities as ‘militarised’ and ‘violent’ that I have previously explained.
Shepherd argues that gender has been constituted as a ‘variable’ (such as in ‘gender-
sensitive training efforts’, ‘gender-based violence’, gender dimensions’, ‘gender

96 Ibid.
37
97
considerations’) that can be easily replaced by the word ‘women’. The UN seems
to be dealing with the gender concept in a quantitative manner, as being
synonymous with including more women in its business. By doing so, the UN is
98
equating (and reducing) women’s ‘participation’ to women’s ‘representation’.
Further, women are represented as ‘vulnerable’ and victims that need to be
99
protected by (men) soldiers.
1- Gender mainstreaming: promoting gender equality

I first intend to explain how the notion of gender mainstreaming has progressively
been introduced into the UN policies in peace and security. Gender mainstreaming
comes from the recognition that armed conflict affects men and women
100
differently. This concept mainly arose out of an increase in awareness about the
gender(sexual)-violence that women undergo in war. The concept of
‘mainstreaming’ gender has the potential to subject all the UN policies to the
101
particular interests of men and women, and in this sense could be quite powerful.
It assumes that gender is a social construct and acknowledges the different resources
102
and access to power available to men and women. Hence mainstreaming gender
into all of the UN operations has been made a priority, with the goal of achieving a
103
gender parity of 50/50. While it is important to acknowledge that this is an
important step towards a better treatment of women in policies, the way gender has
been constituted is problematic, as it mostly focuses on women and their ‘peaceful’
characteristics. Gender mainstreaming hence equates with mainstreaming women
104
so that they are more represented. However, representation has only been
97 Ibid., 120.
98 Ibid.
99 Ibid.
100 Whitworth, Men, Militarism, and Un Peacekeeping: A Gendered Analysis.
101 Ibid., 124.
102 Ibid., 124.
103 Judith H. Stiehm, "Women, Peacekeeping and Peacemaking: Gender Balance and
Mainstreaming," International Peacekeeping 8, no. 2 (2001), 42.
104 Purkarthofer, "Gender and Gender Mainstreaming in International Peacebuilding". And Joanne
Dow, "Mainstreaming Gender or Mainstreaming Women? - a Feminist Critique of UNSCR 1325" (Thesis
submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of International Relations - Victoria
University of Wellington, 2008).
38
thought of in terms of achieving a ‘critical mass’, which does not ultimately allow
105
women to be represented in a meaningful way.
The UN first started talking about the advancement of women and the importance
of gender mainstreaming in 1995 at the Beijing Conference. The Beijing Plan (or
Platform for Action) promoted gender equality as essential for effective peace-
building operations and suggested a set of measures to be taken to encourage the
106
representation of women. The Beijing Conference is usually considered to be a
significant step in recognising the importance of mainstreaming gender in all areas
of work at the UN, and in the field of security; this is a recognition that has
continued to gain traction. The conference was followed by the Windhoek
Declaration (or the Namibia Plan) in 2000 on ‘Mainstreaming a Gender Perspective
in Multidimensional Peace support Operations’, which “demands effective gender
107
mainstreaming as a standard component of all peace support missions”. It sought
to promote gender equality and an awareness of the implications of gender in peace
activities.
Following from the Windhoek Declaration, The UN Security Council Resolution

1325 on “Women, Peace and Security” was adopted by the UN in October 2000 and
addressed for the first time the position of women in war, both in terms of the
108
violence they suffer from and of their contribution in periods of conflict. It set
international standards for assimilating gender in conflict resolution and
reconstruction. UNSCR 1325 calls for action in three main areas: [1] the promotion
of equality and women’s participation in peace and security, [2] the recognition and
protection of women from gender-based violence and, finally, [3] the
mainstreaming of gender in all aspects of conflict prevention and reconstruction

106 Purkarthofer, "Gender and Gender Mainstreaming in International Peacebuilding".
107 Tarja Vayrynen, "Gender and UN Peace Operations: The Confines of Modernity," International
Peacekeeping 11, no. 1 (2004), 136.
108 Shepherd, Gender, Violence and Security: Discourse as Practice. And also: Purkarthofer,
"Gender and Gender Mainstreaming in International Peacebuilding". See also Krause, "Women in Peace
and Conflict? The Need of Female Representation and Participation." Whitworth, Men, Militarism, and
Un Peacekeeping: A Gendered Analysis.
39
(including the areas of peacekeeping, peace-building, post-conflict reconstruction,
109
humanitarian aid and disarmament). As for the first aim, it is based on the
110
assumption that women seem more approachable to the local population. Also,
women who have been subjected to aggression or raped by a male soldier find it less
111
threatening to deal with a woman than another man in uniform. Furthermore,
research has shown that the presence of women soldiers has an impact on the
112
gender-based violence of male soldiers. Thus the presence of women contributes
to legitimising the activities undertaken by peace operations amongst local
113
communities.
These mandate, and UNSCR 1325, promote gender mainstreaming as synonymous

with gender equality (as mainstreaming women). The UN states that
“mainstreaming a gender perspective is the process assessing the implications for
women and men of any planned action, including legislation, policies and
programmes, in all areas and at all levels. […] The ultimate goal is to achieve gender
114
equality”. The UN has expressed great interest in the role women play in situations
of conflict and peace reconstruction and seeks to promote the equal participation
of both sexes. As the text of UNSCR 1325 states: “reaffirming the important role of
women in the prevention and resolution of conflicts and in peace-building, and
stressing the importance of their equal participation and full involvement in all
efforts for the maintenance and promotion of peace and security, and the need to
increase their role in decision-making with regard to conflict prevention and
109 http://unscr1325.org/. Accessed 25/01/2010.

110 Louise Olsson, "Mainstreaming Gender in Multidimensional Peacekeeping: A Field
Perspective," International Peacekeeping 7, no. 3 (2000), Sabrina Schulz and Christina Yeung, eds.,
Private Military and Security Companies and Gender, Gender and Security Sector Reform Toolkit
(Geneva: DCAF, OSCE/ODIHR, UN-INSTRAW,2008), 4.
111 Krause, "Women in Peace and Conflict? The Need of Female Representation and
Participation.".
112 Ibid. See also: Olsson, "Mainstreaming Gender in Multidimensional Peacekeeping: A Field
Perspective".
113 Schulz and Yeung, eds., Private Military and Security Companies and Gender. Some other
authors have shown their enthusiasm as to UN SCR 1325 such as Hudson, "En-Gendering UN
Peacekeeping Operations".
114 Louise Olsson, "Gender Mainstreaming in Practice: The United Nations Transitional Assistance
Group in Namibia," International Peacekeeping 8, no. 2 (2001), 98.
40
115
resolution”. UNIFEM (the United Nations Development Fund for Women)
explains that this paragraph aims to encourage measures that directly impact on
116
“the number of women in decision-making position”. Shepherd argues that the
inclusion of women, as encouraged in the UNSCR 1325, is purely based on a
117
quantitative approach and seeks to achieve a better “critical mass”. Indeed,
realising a better representation of women does not necessarily lead to
118
“improvements in the lived experience of other individuals”. Shepherd criticises
the fact that representation (as adding more women) is equated with
119
participation.
While this could certainly represent potential for women, basing women’s
representation on numbers contributes to further reproducing gender
120
inequalities. This is partly because the UN discourse on gender is still based on
sexual-difference theory, and is mainly concerned with “women”. Feminist authors
have shown how gender is not meaningfully incorporated into peace-operation
121
processes as it is not gender that is mainstreamed but women. Hence, the UN
seeks to include women in peace operations because of their qualities of being
women. Once again, the UN focuses on the fundamental biological differences
between men and women, which constructs specific values and characteristics that
women should possess, such as being nurturers (mothers), promoting and
122
representing peace, and being “inherently pacifist”. Laura Shepherd argues that
115 (UNIFEM).
116 Ibid., emphasis added.
117 Shepherd, Gender, Violence and Security: Discourse as Practice. Some authors, however, such
as Louise Olsson, have shown the positive impact of achieving a ‘critical mass’ in peacekeeping
operations, such as mobilising more local women and contributing to change some of the stereotypical
gender representations. See Olsson, "Mainstreaming Gender in Multidimensional Peacekeeping: A Field
Perspective".
119 Ibid.
120 However, the goal that the UN has set remains difficult to achieve in peacekeeping missions.
See, for example, Olsson, "Gender Mainstreaming in Practice: The United Nations Transitional
Assistance Group in Namibia" and Stiehm, "Women, Peacekeeping and Peacemaking: Gender Balance
and Mainstreaming".
121 See Dow, "Mainstreaming Gender or Mainstreaming Women? - a Feminist Critique of UNSCR
1325".
41
“the discursive construction of [the] feminized peacemaker” is apparent in the
analysis of the Secretary-General Report and the UNSCR 1325, as shown in “women
play an active role in informal peace processes (UNSC 2002 a:13)” and women can
be “actors in early warning, reconciliation, peace-building or post-conflict
123
resolution (UNSC 2004a: 112)”. Thus the UN Report and SCR 1325 keep
essentialising women based on their feminine attributes, hence legitimising their
claim for more women’s contribution in peace activities.
2- Protecting women: women as ‘vulnerable’

At the same time, the UN represents women as ‘vulnerable’, ‘suffering/lacking’ and
‘victims’. Both UNSCR 1325 and the Secretary-General Report referred to women as
being ‘vulnerable’ and discussed “the protection, rights and the particular needs of
124
women”. Shepherd argues that “the representational strategies in the Reports
suggest that it would be valid to reduce these articulations to their simplest form
[that is] ‘women and girls are vulnerable’ (UNSC 2002a:7). […] Thus, the universal
subordination of women is affirmed through the predication of feminity as
125
vulnerability and the positioning of feminity as ‘low’”. In other words, women are
constituted as inferior, as vulnerable creatures that need masculine protection.
Hence, women are perceived as embodying essentialist feminine values that are
inferior to those carried by men. Not only are women ‘mothers’ and ‘peacemakers’,
but it seems that in the UN discourse they are also ‘lacking’ (something) and “always
126
more in need”. Shepherd states that “the representation of women in the [UN]
Report minimizes female agency, articulating a feminine subject position that in
times of conflict is either ‘forced out’ or ‘pushed into’ dangerous situations. Women
lack: they suffer from ‘lack of land…lack of access to, or control over, resources
127
(UNSC 2002a: 9).”
Thus, the UN discourse on women prevents women from being ‘actors’ and active
123 Ibid., 89.

124 Ibid.
125 Ibid., 87.
126 Ibid., 88.
127 Ibid., 87.
42
participants in times of conflict. Women’s agency is reduced to what they are
lacking and what they need to be provided with. Their strengths are not recognised.
Susan McKay demonstrates that “women and girls are usually rendered invisible or
are, at best, marginalised by being perceived only as leaders and facilitators of
128
cultural and social reconstruction”. McKay exemplifies her argument by showing
that the girls that fought in Mozambique and Sierra Leone did not benefit from any
129
of the disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration programmes (DDR).
Similarly, Megan MacKenzie shows that the DDR process in Sierra Leone, despite a
considerable number of women combatants, was largely “gender-blind” and that
women and girls were relegated to the roles and identities of “‘camp followers’,
‘abductees’, ‘sex slaves’, ‘domestic slaves’, ‘or girls and women associated with the
130
fighting forces’ and ‘vulnerable groups associated with armed movements’”. These
examples show that the participation of women in war and the recognition of female
fighters is denied in the UN discourse and that women’s agency is reduced to
‘followers’ or ‘slaves’ – hence women do not benefit from the same rehabilitation
programmes as men.
Even when the role of women in conflict and post-conflict reconstruction is finally
acknowledged, feminist authors have criticised the UN’s incapacity to tell ‘which
women’ are parts of these processes. In other words, women are constructed as a
‘women’s group’ and there is no distinction between the different roles they might
play. Shepherd states: “as Carol Cohn, Helen Kinsella and Sheri Gibbengs argue, ‘it
remains important to ask which women are included and are we expecting more
from women (super heroines) than we expect of men?’ (2004: 136, emphasis in
131
original)”. Pankhurst further reiterates that “denying women agency is also a
potential outcome of the crude deployment of a ‘gender’ concept in policy, where
128 Susan McKay, ed. Reconstructing Fragile Lives: Girls’ Social Reintegration in Northern
Uganda and Sierra Leone, Gender, Peacebuilding, and Reconstruction (Oxford: Oxfam focus on
gender,2005), 23.
129 Ibid., 25.
130 MacKenzie, "Reconstructing Women? Post-Conflict Security and the Return to “Normal” in
Sierra Leone".
43
132
all women are presumed to act in the same way and are powerless to do otherwise.”
The UN has failed to recognise that there are different categories of women, and
expectations concerning women’s role in peace activities are not entirely defined.
In conclusion, whilst the UN’s policies of reducing gender inequality should

certainly be acknowledged, the UN has failed to think of gender beyond ‘numbers’,
which ultimately contributes to further reproducing inequality. By including more
women in their business, the UN suggests that women-as-women can impact
positively on the ‘macho-masculine’ soldier’s culture, which will eventually ricochet
133
into gendered-based violence. However, the UN has not recognised that the mere
presence of more women does not equate to a reduction in gender-based violence.
The UN needs to reform its approach on gender and adopt a critical one that engages
with the formation of militarised masculinities in war and conflicts. Many feminist
authors discuss the UN’s lack of critical thinking about gender and the formation
of militarised masculinities in war, peace and security. Sandra Whitworth argues
that “gender critiques have been forced to fit into the UN’s ‘way of doing business’”
without transforming how that business is done. This kind of incorporation of
gender is ultimately a more effective way of silencing critique compared to
straightforward dismissal, because it ensures that deeper critical questions, those
that look, for example, at militarised masculinity, do not end up on formal agendas
134
for addressing gender and peacekeeping”. The UN has failed to engage with deeper
issues on gender in periods of conflict, which ultimately prevents the organisation
from changing its approach on gender to one that could impact positively on armed
conflicts and peace. As such, the UN discursive practices of gender, violence and
security further reproduce the dichotomies between ‘peaceful’ feminity and
‘aggressive’ masculinity that I have previously highlighted.
132 Pankhurst, "The ‘Sex War’ and Other Wars: Towards a Feminist Approach to Peace Building",
169.
Implications for the Security Sector, 174. They show that some research has suggested the positive impact
of women’s presence.
134 Whitworth, Men, Militarism, and Un Peacekeeping: A Gendered Analysis, 17.
44
From this review of the literature, I have discussed the different ways the UN has
attempted to mainstream gender in peace and security, and I have shown how
mainstreaming gender relates to discursive practices about the ways feminities and
masculinities are constructed, embedded in knowledge (about gender, violence and
security) and power (that acts upon and through the behaviour of individuals).
However, there is no (or little) literature that takes a critical perspective on gender
implementation, that is, on gender training in peace operations. The literature that
addresses gender training deals with practical issues (or challenges) and generally
celebrates gender training as being a good initiative, a step forward for the
135
advancement of gender and women. This thesis challenges the assumption that
analysing discursive practices should stop at the level of policies without exploring
further how discourse could be (re)produced through the implementation of
policies.
Furthermore, while the concepts of ‘gender mainstreaming’ and ‘gender equality’

have been extensively addressed in the literature, showing how they are sites of
discourse embedded in power, not much has been said on the concept of ‘gender-
awareness’ (which is directly tied to the idea of how gender policies are
136
implemented).
I shall now undertake a discourse analysis, using the methodology that I have
outlined in my analytical framework, to unravel meanings related to gender,
violence and security arising from ‘gender-awareness’ training in UN peacekeeping.
135 See, for example, Hudson, "En-Gendering UN Peacekeeping Operations".

136 Of course, the literature has discussed the importance of ‘training awareness’ on gender (see, for
example, Enloe, ed. All the Men Are in the Militias, All the Women Are Victims: The Politics of
Masculinity and Femininity in Nationalist Wars). Lene Hansen, "The Little Mermaid’s Silent Security
Dilemma and the Absence of Gender in the Copenhagen School", Millennium: Journal of International
Studies 29, no. 2 (2000). But I haven’t encountered any literature that addresses how the UN shapes
‘gender-awareness’ as a concept.
45
Chapter 3
ANALYSIS OF ‘GENDER-AWARENESS’ DISCOURSE
I now undertake the discourse analysis, following the methodology I have outlined.
I will interrogate the notion of ‘gender-awareness’ in the UN training material and
how it is constructed around three dominant discursive sites (that, following
Shepherd’s analytical strategies, I have called nodal points): [1] ‘how the relations
between women and men are structured’ (gender), [2] ‘how they are affected by
violent conflict’ (gender and violence), and [3] ‘how the mere presence of
137
peacekeepers further impacts on those relations’ (gender, violence and security).
I will examine how the UN discursive practices through training produce what to
be aware of in the realm of gender, violence and security.
The analysis will show that ‘gender-awareness’ as a discourse within UN gender

training is composed of: [1] gender that equates ‘sex’ and ‘women’, [2] gender
training in relation to violence that reproduces the dichotomy between women as
‘victims’ and men as ‘heroes’, and [3] gender skill-sets in relation to violence and
security that emphasise universals such as women’s rights and ignore cultural
contexts in their approach to gender.
I will then explore gender training further as a tool (or a technology) that
(re)produces the traditional stereotypes of feminities and masculinities that have
been discussed in the literature review, by shaping subjects’ behaviours.
Contextualising gender training in peacekeeping

In this section, I aim to explain the institutional and political context surrounding
the development and implementation of gender training in peace-support
operations. This will show that gender training was born from the UN policies that
have been discussed in the literature review, such as UNSCR 1325. In addition, I will
in-Mission Training. Introduction, iii.
46
discuss the conditions for the emergence and implementation of gender training
(and its challenges). This will illustrate the usefulness and relevance of
problematising gender training through the lens of ‘gender-awareness’ as a concept
that can potentially transform the way gender has been done in peace and security.
Gender-training toolkits and resources have emerged over the past ten years
following calls by the UN to develop and implement gender training in peace-
support operations. These initiatives mostly originated from two international
mandates; the Windhoek Declaration and the Namibia Plan of Action (2000), and
the UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on women, peace and security (2000). The
Namibia Plan of Action demands that gender issues be mainstreamed “throughout
all regional and national curricula and courses for peace support operations,
138
particularly those sponsored directly by the Training Unit of DPKO”. UNSCR 1325
recognises “the importance of… specialized training for all peacekeeping personnel
on the protection, special needs and human rights of women and children in
139
conflict situations”. The resolution seeks to encourage states to develop such
training in their pre-deployment and in-mission operations, using as an argument
the preventative impact that gender training could have on rates of sexual
140
exploitation and abuse. Furthermore, gender training echoes the belief that a
“peace” that does not fulfil the needs of the community but instead contributes to
the inferiorisation and reduction of women’s roles within such a community is not
141
worth having.
What makes gender training of relevance now is that men are (finally) included in
the process of gender mainstreaming: “in the 2004 Report, men are mentioned:
‘Training on gender issues should be provided to all staff at decision-making levels,
138 Lyytikäinen, "Gender Training for Peacekeepers: Preliminary Overview of United Nations
Peace Support Operations", 6.
Implications for the Security Sector, 172, and also: (UNIFEM).
Implications for the Security Sector. 172.
141 Mackay, "Training the Uniforms: Gender and Peacekeeping Operations" and Lyytikäinen,
"Gender Training for Peacekeepers: Preliminary Overview of United Nations Peace Support Operations".
47
men as well as women’ (UNSC 2004a: 97). […] the Report allows for the suggestion
that readers might be forgiven for thinking that gender is just about women. As
Terrell Carver (1996) has succinctly remarked, ‘gender is not a synonym for women’,
but nevertheless ‘we slip from gender to women and women to gender but have yet
142
to slip form gender to men’”. In this analysis, I will interrogate how men are
included in the gender-training package and what it means for the relationship
between gender, security and violence.
Following from these mandates, the United Nations DPKO, the United Nations
Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR), and other peacekeeping training
centres have developed gender-training packages designed for both military and
civilian police personnel. A notable example of this is the Gender and Peacekeeping
Online Training Course, developed by the UN Department of International
Development (DFID) and the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and
143
International Trade (DFAIT) in 2000. The online course proposes a three-day
training programme, which contains plenty of resources (exercises, methodologies,
readings…), and covers different themes, such as gender and culture, humanitarian
144
law, human rights, and gender in peacekeeping. However, this course has been
criticised for being too academic and not being sufficiently targeted to the intended
145
audience.
Canada’s Pearson Peacekeeping Centre has also integrated UN standards into its
training modules for military and police and has mainstreamed gender into its
146
training programmes. Within the UN, UNITAR conducted a programme on the
Special Needs of Women and Children in and after Armed Conflict for civilian
personnel in eight peacekeeping missions between 2001 and 2006, but this was

143 http://www.genderandpeacekeeping.org/.
144 Ibid.
Implications for the Security Sector, 172.
48
147
eventually suspended for budget reasons. Finally, the DPKO has been very
proactive in developing material that includes a gender component. They have
developed a comprehensive gender tool, Gender Resource Package for Peacekeeping
Operations (2004), which explains the concept of gender mainstreaming to
148
peacekeeping personnel (military, civilian police and civilian) of all grades. To
complement the resource package, DPKO has designed two other pre-deployment
training modules that are included in their Standardized Generic Training Modules
149
(SGTM): SGTM 17 and SGTM 5C. In addition, in 2001 DPKO implemented a tool
designed specifically for in-mission training, the Gender and Peacekeeping In-
Mission Training tool, which delivers training on the meaning and implications of
150
gender in peace operations.
As I have already mentioned, this thesis aims to analyse DPKO’s Gender and
Peacekeeping In-Mission Training package. The DPKO undertook three concrete
measures to integrate gender analysis in peace operations. The first consisted of the
creation of a gender unit along with the appointment of a gender advisor on each
mission. The second action sought to increase the number of women involved in
peacekeeping operations. The third measure aimed to provide “gender-awareness
151
training to all peacekeeping personnel”. This research focuses on the last aspect,
and the terms “gender-awareness training” will be examined and put in perspective
through discourse analysis. According to DPKO, the Gender and Peacekeeping
Training package aims to facilitate the implementation of gender mainstreaming by
achieving three main goals: defining how the relationships between men and
women are structured; explaining the social context in which gender roles and
responsibilities are transformed by armed conflict; and making peacekeepers aware
148 United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations, Gender Resource Package For
Peacekeeping Operations.
Peace Support Operations".
in-Mission Training.
49
152
of their actions by facilitating the development of basic skills in gender analysis.
In other words, gender training has been set up as a concept that seeks to include
“briefings to clarify key gender terms (such as the difference between sex and
gender) and to identify and challenge gender stereotypes. This involves challenging
pre-conceived notions that, for example, women are more peaceable and will
automatically use less force than men and exploring links between models of
masculinity and violent behaviour. Gender training is a forum to discuss the
different ways in which men and women experience security, and to build the
capacity of the participants to respond appropriately to the needs of men, women,
153
boys and girls”. Hence the gender-training concept seeks to reform socially and
culturally fixed conceptions of gender and this involves interrogating and
potentially changing the ways of seeing gender. These objectives sound attractive
and this research aims to look at whether the UN DPKO training material is indeed
challenging (cultural) gender stereotypes s or contributing to their (re)productions.
What is more, The DPKO specified that its training package should be re-tailored
according to the specific needs of the in-mission peacekeeping being carried out, to
154
consider the cultural, historical and local contexts of the missions. It is therefore
expected that the trainers will collect local data to adapt the content of the training
package. However, it is not always easy for trainers to collect such data, as the
evaluation of the training sessions in the UN Mission in the Democratic Republic
155
of Congo (MONUC) shows. Also, and as I will exemplify in my analysis, not
enough room is left in the DPKO training package for the adaptation of ‘gender-
awareness’ to local cultures.
The first field experiences have shown that gender training faces many challenges.
152 Ibid., 7, see also Nadine Puechguirbal, "Gender Training for Peacekeepers: Lessons from the
Drc," International Peacekeeping 10, no. 4 (2003), and United Nations Department of Peacekeeping
Operations, Gender and Peacekeeping Operations in-Mission Training.
Implications for the Security Sector, 148.
154 Puechguirbal, "Gender Training for Peacekeepers: Lessons from the DRC", 116.
155 Ibid., 116.
50
The packages are criticised for being too complex and sophisticated to be fully
grasped by military and civilian police peacekeepers. Indeed, peacekeeping
personnel tend to confound gender with women’s issues and do not understand the
156
relevance of such training for their work. Further, the training brings up
emotional, linguistic and cultural issues about the ways peacekeepers have always
seen and understood the world and it can be intensely challenging to bring up new
157
perspectives on gender identities and roles. Another challenge is that pre-
deployment training for peacekeepers suffers from a lack of time, preparation and
in-depth learning, which potentially undermines its relevance. Some have argued
that ongoing training on gender at all levels and in all areas of peacekeeping
158
missions must be pursued. In this, Norway is a good example of how to practise
159
gender training throughout the general training of peacekeepers. Finally, gender-
training modules have limited impact, as there is not yet any system for monitoring
160
peacekeepers and holding them accountable. All these challenges are important
to keep in mind. However, gender training can have a powerful impact in
contributing to challenging and transforming traditional perspectives on gender.
This research does not seek to examine the different challenges arising from the
(practical) implementation of the gender-training material. However, this paper
assumes that the training material can have a significant impact on raising
awareness about the ways gendered relations are structured and about how armed
conflict contributes to further impacting on such relations. Gender training has the
potential to transform the way gender is understood in peace operations and to
challenge the ways gender is currently done. It has the potential for rethinking how
gender, violence and security are constructed around prevailing notions of
militarised masculinities. By problematising gender training through the concept
of ‘gender-awareness’, I seek to uncover what raising awareness actually means for
156 Ibid., 117.

Implications for the Security Sector.
159 Ibid., 172
51
the UN. I aim to analyse what the discursive practices of ‘gender-awareness’ are and
how they relate to violence and security – hence shaping a Foucauldian notion of
truth (knowledge) about gendered relations in (violent) armed conflict in peace and
security.
I will first undertake a descriptive reading of the training package to establish what
the material is aimed at accomplishing, and how it presents itself in its approach to
gender and training (with also a focus on violence and security). Secondly, I will
proceed to an analytic reading that seeks to unravel the meanings of statements,
through the three nodal points that I have presented and explained. Through this
double reading I will explore the discourse that emerges from the UN gender-
training concept.
Descriptive reading (presentation of the material)

In the descriptive reading, I intend to illustrate how the material presents itself. This
is important to contrast the UN’s statements on what the training material aims to
do (and how ‘it’ sees itself ) with how ‘gender-awareness’ is constructed as a
discourse. From this, I will conclude that the gender-training material (and its
related gender-awareness discourse) has emerged out of the UN’s will to enhance
its human rights standards in peace operations. Furthermore, the material presents
itself as being a comprehensive ‘tool’ on gender and security, allowing peacekeepers
to fully grasp how gender is socially constructed and how gender impacts on armed
conflict, and to develop skills as to how their actions further affect gendered
relations.
The training manual is founded on the United Nations human rights standards,
specifically from the preamble of the UN charter (“we the peoples of the United
Nations determined to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity
and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of
161
nations large and small…”), to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)
in-Mission Training. Introduction, iv.
52
and other human rights treaties, and finally to other conventions and resolutions,
including the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against
Women, the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action (1995), the Windhoek
Declaration (2000) and the Security Council Resolution 1325 (2000). What is
common to these treaties, conventions and resolutions is their call for more equality
between women and men, based on the principle of human rights. The discourse of
‘gender equality’ has been constant in all UN efforts to mainstream gender in its
peace and security activities.
Following from these treaties and resolutions, the UN has stressed the importance
162
of peacekeepers respecting the standards they have put in place.. Hence the
training package is justified because it is important that the peacekeepers “reflect
163
and practice the principles for which the United Nations stands”. This is a crucial
aspect to understanding how the discourse of ‘gender-awareness’ has been
constructed, as will be explained further below.
The manual is intended to enable trainers to “prepare and deliver basic training on
164
the meaning and implications of Gender and Peacekeeping Operations”. The
toolkit is presented in a concrete, simplistic and practical form to allow for easy
manipulation by the instructors. It is composed of several exercises and practical
situations in which peacekeepers can easily recognise their daily routine. These
situations are intended to get peacekeepers to constantly test their understandings
165
of the concepts and their progress. The manual put at the disposal of the trainers
includes ‘trainer text notes’, ‘presentation slides’, ‘readings’, ‘participants handouts
166
for class activities’ and ‘additional materials’. The training toolkit is designed to
be completed in one day, or two half-days, which could be considered quite
ambitious and too short to allow peacekeepers to assimilate all the notions.
162 Ibid., Introduction, iii – The UN refers to the numerous accusation against male soldiers
exploiting and abusing local women during peace operations.
163 Ibid., Introduction, iii.
166 Ibid., Introduction, vi.
53
The training toolkit stresses that the trainers should consider the participants’
cultural differences in their teaching. Culture in the training package is defined as
the “shared values, norms, traditions, customs, arts, history, folklore and
institutions of a group of people”. Further, “these shared beliefs serve as guides and
167
determinants for behaviour within cultural groups”. As Mackay (the creator of the
DPKO training) argues: “[f ]or pre-deployment training the material should be
broad and generic, incorporating a wealth of different examples. For in-mission
training, it will be important to contextualise and offer local examples whose
168
relevance the peacekeeper will immediately be able to test”. Mackay highlights the
fact that cultural factors were taken into account in the creation of the in-mission
training, and that discussing cultural differences is essential in order to allow
169
peacekeepers to understand how gender relations are socially constructed. The
material also points out that language is an important issue, as it is sometimes very
difficult to translate gender to the mother tongue of the participants and to
170
differentiate it from ‘sex’.
As the course overview of the training material states, the objectives of the course
are “to show the relationships between men and women and [how] their gender
roles and responsibilities are changed by violent conflict; to develop the skills to
recognize the different needs, capacities and expectations of women and men in the
host population; to make peacekeepers aware of the gender implications of their
171
actions”. In other words, gender training is depicted as dealing with the way
(violent) armed conflict affects both men and women, so that peacekeepers will be
more aware of the impact of their actions.
However, it is important to note that, at this stage of the programme, the expected
learning outcomes are much less ambitious than the previously mentioned
167 Ibid., Introduction, vii.

Peace Support Operations." Citing Angela Mackay, 11.
169 Ibid., 11.
in-Mission Training. Introduction, ix.
171 Ibid. Course Overview, xii.
54
objectives of the course. Indeed, participants are expected to be more aware of ‘why
and how gender is relevant’, ‘how the human rights standards provide a basis for
using a gender perspective’, and ‘the impact of their actions’ on the community. This
is the first irregularity that can be noted in the UN discourse, between what the
objectives are and what is expected from peacekeepers. Regularities and
irregularities contribute to creating a discourse of ‘gender-awareness’ (what to be
aware of ) as it will be further explained.
Analytical reading
I now intend to explore further how the UN constructs a notion of ‘gender-
awareness’ in its training packages for peacekeepers, through analytical reading of
three discursive elements (or nodal points): [1] ‘how the relations between women
and men are structured (gender)’, [2] ‘how [gender is] affected by violent conflict
(gender and violence)’, and [3] ‘how the mere presence of peacekeepers further
impacts on [gendered] relations (gender and security)’. I aim to deconstruct the UN
discourse surrounding ‘gender-awareness’ training; what does it mean for the UN
and what does it imply for a critical concept of gender in peace? How, then, is
‘gender-awareness’ constructed as a discourse in the UN gender training toolkit? I
will show how these three discursive elements are parts of the ‘gender-awareness’
training discursive formation and how this discursive formation is productive of a
discourse of gender, violence and security.
 ‘How the relations between women and men are structured’

(gender)
I first undertake to analyse how the UN training material talks about the way the
relations between men and women are structured. In other words, how does the UN
construct what to be aware of regarding the way gendered relations are structured?
I will demonstrate that there are numerous irregularities in the way the UN
addresses the concept of gender. While the apparent discourse is that gender is
about ‘gender’ as a socially constructed variable, which looks at the relations
between both men and women, the underlying rhetoric is that gender equates to
women and sex. The latter is constructed as being the truth (in a Foucauldian
55
fashion).
There is a significant lack of critical gender content in the training material, and this
is because the UN’s rhetoric on gender as a concept is often associated with facts
and numbers that relate to “women’s issues”. The training material says “gender is
often classified as ‘women’s issues’. This is wrong.” Later, it says “the reason that
much of the discussion [in the training material] focuses on women’s interests, the
effects of conflict on women and their exclusion from the peace-building process
etc. should become self-evident”. The contradiction (or irregularity) in these
statements is quite striking. Indeed, with the second statement, the UN does not
appear to tackle how this discussion should be about the construction of gender
(and of things as constituting 'women's issues'). As a result, gender continues to be
introduced both as being about ‘women’ and as being a ‘personal issue’, and there
is no reference to the way gender (with notions of feminities and masculinities) is
constructed.
Further, the training toolkit represents gender as something that is ‘personal’,

removing gender from the political field. Introducing the material, the UN DPKO
presents gender as quite a challenging subject because it is ‘contentious’, ‘emotional’
and ‘political’. The UN stresses that “some personnel may find that discussing how
culturally defined roles and responsibilities for women and men differ among
172
regions and communities can be unsettling or even confrontational”. Gender is
presented as being a confrontational subject for three main reasons: gender is
‘contentious’ as confusions between sex and gender can arise among participants;
gender is ‘emotional’ because “it strikes at the heart of who we are or think we are as
individuals”; and gender is ‘political’ because it is challenging the status quo of all
173
social institutions (family and state) so it is likely to unleash resistance. The
challenge is therefore to bring up gender issues “in a non-confrontational as well as
Peace Support Operations", 15, citing United Nations 2004: 46.
in-Mission Training. Introduction, viii.
56
174
practice-oriented way”. I argue, however, that the way the UN presents gender as
a ‘challenging topic’ is questionable and contributes to the construction of gender
as a personal issue. The UN presents gender as personal because it implies that
participants (individuals) [1] will struggle with the conceptual notions of sex and
gender (contentious), [2] will have their deepest-seated beliefs touched
(emotional), and [3] will resist meanings challenging normative social structures
(political).
This is another irregularity in the discourse: while the UN affirms that gender is a
political subject, the underlying discourse is that gender is a personal subject.
Firstly, gender is not a challenging topic because confusions arise between sex and
gender; rather it is a challenging topic because it unravels how gender has been
constructed as equating to sex. Secondly, the UN is offering a notion of gender that
would be ‘emotional’. Teaching and learning about gender could raise emotions in
the classroom; however, it could also bring humour, interest, enlightenment,
strength, etc. Reducing gender to the realm of emotionality is problematic as it does
not question the underlying assumption about why and how gender has been
constructed as an emotional/women’s issue, rather than as a conceptual subject.
Thirdly, it is not because participants will resist the new concept that makes gender
a political concept; rather gender is political because it questions the discursive link
between power and men (and how hegemonic masculinities have been shaped) and
175
it is political because gender is about the “big picture” of international relations.
Indeed, as I have previously highlighted in the literature review, the creation of
masculinities as a dominant discourse (or discursive norm) in the military
institution makes it extremely difficult to challenge.
Further, while gender is presented and discussed in the training kit as being
different to sex, when the discourse is analysed gender remains constructed as a
‘women’s issue’. This contributes to the formation of a double discourse, one
175 Cockburn, From Where We Stand: War, Women’s Activism and Feminist Analysis. Citing
Cynthia Enloe, 231.
57
explicit, which is ‘gender is different from sex as it is socially constructed’ (the UN’s
statement), another more implicit, which is ‘gender still equates to women’s issues’.
The way relations between women and men are constructed and do not depend on
physiological attributes is vaguely touched on in the training tool, but I could not
find evidence that the notion was critically addressed. For example, training
sessions do not critically assess the way that gender stereotypes might be
(re)produced. Indeed, the UN treats gender in a rather superficial way. The first
exercise, ‘What Is Gender About?’, does not emphasise in any way that gender roles
are constructed. For example, the material refers to gender as “describ[ing] the
social roles and relations between men and women in society”, as “affect[ing] all
aspects of life – economic, political and social”, and as “show[ing] what we expect
176
men and women to do and how we expect them to behave”. Not pointing out that
such relations are not natural but are in fact constructed is running the risk that
participants will confuse gender and sex even further.
The other implicit discourse becomes apparent when one looks at how statements
appear in the UN gender-training discourse, and this involves looking both at the
regularity and dispersion of statements. I have chosen to analyse (PowerPoint)
images from the section ‘Gender and Sex’, which is particularly relevant to
examining how the UN discourse is constructed around those notions. I have
chosen two illustrations: the first one is entitled ‘Gender and Sex’ (slide 26) and the
second one ‘Gender roles’ (slide 28). The ‘Gender and Sex’ slide is composed of two
images: one representing a woman in a typical 1950s’ domestic scene, she is cooking
and taking care of her two children. The second image, slightly larger, is juxtaposed
next to the first image, and shows men (in Switzerland) voting publicly. There is not
much information about these pictures, apart from the fact that they are supposed
177
to “allow for the transition to ‘Gender roles’”. Indeed the ‘Gender roles’ slide, made
up of two other images, depicts how gender roles can change. The first one
illustrates a military woman accompanied by two male soldiers. They are all looking
in the same direction, which one can assume is toward the commander. To the right
in-Mission Training. ‘A Gender Perspective’- Text 3.
177 Ibid., “A Gender Perspective” – Text 18.
58
of this picture, a man is carrying and kissing a baby. He has a red cross on his arm.
All these pictures contain plenty of symbols that are easily noticeable: the first
pictorial duo represents traditional gender stereotypes, i.e. child rearing and
cooking for women, and assuming a public and political function (voting) for men.
The second set of images clearly indicates how (gender) roles can be inverted.
The content is unavailable.
Please consult the print version for access.
The second set of images is even more problematic. While the images are supposed
to show how gender roles can be inverted, they offer another message, which further
59
excludes women from the political realm and reinforces the masculine identity of
peacekeepers. The first image showing a woman joining the military, between two
men soldiers, could be (re)producing a discourse of ‘what normality is’ – it is not
normal to see a woman wearing a military jacket, assuming political (and
masculine) functions. It would be important for the trainer to discuss this aspect
and whether the woman is perceived as ‘abnormal’ by the participants and why.
Secondly, the image showing a man cuddling a baby in quite an affectionate manner
contributes to (re)producing a discourse on what a good peacekeeper should be,
that is taking care of and ‘protecting’ the community – hence, still exercising a
public role and having a heroic identity (by protecting the most vulnerable). The
discursive practices are shaping subjects (as women or men), and what their
‘normal’ and expected behaviour should be – forming a Foucauldian notion of
(normalised) truth in the notions of feminities and masculinities and their
appropriate behaviours.
Across these few examples, the discursive practices in the UN training material
appear to construct gender as being synonymous with sex and women, hence
shaping ‘gender-awareness’ as being ‘sex and women awareness’. Further, gender is
presented as an a-political subject or a personal topic. As gender is both associated
with sex/women and the personal, this contributes to further (re)producing a
representation of women as excluded from the field of politics. It constructs
‘gender-awareness’ as an empty signifier: it does not really mean awareness on
gender, it means awareness on sex and women.
 ‘How [gender is] affected by violent conflict’ (gender and violence)

I now examine how the UN constructs gender in relation to violence, and I look at
the discursive practices on gendered roles and responsibilities in armed conflict.
The research will show that the way ‘gender-based violence’ is constructed
contributes to further position women as a ‘victim’ subject and men as a
‘protector/heroic’ subject. I will demonstrate that the contradictory identities of
peacekeepers are rendered silent in the UN discourse, which does not allow any
room for the deconstruction of militarised masculinities in gender training.
Deconstructing militarised masculinities and reconstructing a new identity that
60
embodies both feminine and masculine is essential to bringing real change in the way
peace operations are undertaken.
First, the UN discourse on the gendered roles and responsibilities in violent conflict
in the training material contributes to (re)producing women as ‘victims’. This is
mostly done through what I call the ‘who question’. Indeed, addressing gender-
based violence through the ‘who question’ contributes to producing quantifiable
data about ‘who’ suffers the most and ‘who’ suffers about ‘what’. Indeed, gender and
violence are mostly associated with facts and figures. In the ‘true and false’
introductory exercise ‘What Gender Is About’, gender is addressed in a quantitative,
factual, manner: “50 per cent of all displaced are women and children”, “more
women and children than men are killed or injured by anti-personal landmines”,
178
etc. Similarly, the PowerPoint presentation presents ‘gender analysis’ as a concept
that shows us “who is vulnerable and most likely to suffer”, or “who needs
179
protection”.
Hence the UN DPKO is constructing a notion of gender and violence that is factual,
180
concerns number and usually addresses the question of “who suffers the most?”.
It suggests that women are the ones ‘who’ are most likely to suffer and need
protection. This reminds us of the preamble of UNSCR 1325 that immediately
positions women (and children) as “the vast majority of those adversely affected by
181
armed conflict”. It is not helpful to think about gendered violence in terms of
182
“point-scoring over whether women or men suffer the most”. I draw here on
Shepherd’s argument that it is counterproductive to classify ‘women’ or ‘men’ in
terms of who suffers the most (furthermore, the statistics to back these assertions
are usually based on quantitative (number-values) research, not qualitative
178 Ibid., “A Gendered Perspective – Text”, 6.

179 Ibid., “A Gendered Perspective – Slides”, 46.
180 The gender material that invites us to think about “Why women and children are more
vulnerable [to landmine]” is another example. Ibid., “A Gendered Perspective – Text”, 8. There are many
other examples that cannot all be addressed within the scope of this project.
182 Ibid., 116.
61
183
research, so their relevance must be questioned).
Furthermore, through the ‘who question’, women are often associated with
children. This contributes to (re)producing the ‘woman and children’ ‘fixings’ that
have been previously highlighted in the discourse of the UN (UNSCR 1325 in
particular). Shepherd stresses that “one of the main problems in associating women
and children in international relations is that it feeds the nationalist discourse that
184
defines women mainly as the cultural bearers of society”. Associating women with
children reinforces the fact that women are mothers and nurturers, and that men
185
must protect ‘their’ women and children. It contributes to producing a discourse
that essentialises women as vulnerable creatures. Shepherd argues that “women are
part of ‘women and children’, ‘are targeted by combatants’ and [are] therefore
implicitly not combatants, women have ‘special needs’ and require ‘protection’
(UNSC 2000a: preamble), particularly from ‘gender-based violence… rape and other
forms of sexual abuse (Article 10). Overall women are ‘linked by their gender
through their vulnerability to violence’ in this representation (Bahdi 2003: 46) and
186
therefore fixed as vulnerable.” This is problematic when training about gender,
because it suggests that peacekeepers should be trained for the ‘specific needs’ of
women whereas these issues should concern everyone. It should also incorporate a
discussion on why women are perceived this way (through which cultural and social
construct lenses?). It contributes to producing a discourse of gender and violence as
being ‘sexual-based violence’.
Further, as gendered violence is constructed as being sexual-based violence, it

produces a discourse of gender-awareness training as ‘sexual-based-violence
awareness training'. When addressing what ‘gender-based violence’ is, the UN
training tool mentions that it concerns “sexual violence against women and girls;
women exposed to sexual mutilation, pregnancies, STDs and consequent
183 Ibid., 116.

184 Ibid., 119, quoting Puechguirbal, 2004, 11.
185 Ibid.
186 Ibid., 119.
62
community rejection and inability to marry; [and that women are] particularly
187
vulnerable in refugee/IDP camps”. Through its discourse, the training material
focuses both on ‘women’ as the ones concerned about gender-based violence and
on the sexual forms of violence. While it is also mentioned that “men also suffer
sexual abuse in conflict situations”, the reference to men is quite succinct, usually
anecdotal and not explicit as to the different forms of gender-based violence that
188
men suffer from. It refers to ‘sexual abuse’, namely the rape of men, which is taboo
in the UN discourse and the discourse of war, peace and security in general. This is
one of the rare references to the fact that men too are victims of gender and sexual
violence in conflict.
As I will explain further in the third part of the analysis, the UN discourse on gender
and violence in its training material subverts its primary function, which is to train
peacekeepers to be aware of gender issues: it is in fact training peacekeepers to be
aware of the sexual abuses that women go through in violent conflict. While it is
certainly a very crucial and important issue that needs to be addressed by the UN
peace operations, other gender issues are not addressed, or even raised, which is
problematic. It reinforces the discourse of dominant masculinities as being the only
discourse that takes place in the peace and security realm.
Thus, violence is used to produce and reproduce (Foucauldian) ‘gender’ categories,

while it should be addressed regarding gender as “lived identity – something that
189
affects both ‘men’ and ‘women’”. Indeed, the many agencies of women are
rendered silent in the UN discourse. As it has been discussed earlier, women’s
agency in war is embedded in the tension between ‘victims’ and ‘active participants’,
in-Mission Training. “A Gendered Perspective – Slides”, 49. The training material also points out that
“gender-based violence is a form of discrimination that seriously inhibits women’s ability to enjoy rights
and freedoms on a basis of equality with men”. “A Gendered Perspective – Text”, 25 (emphasis added).
188 The training tool does mention men’s rape, for example, pointing out that very little research
has been done on the topic. It says that “anecdotal evidence exists of regular sexual threats and violence
against men and boys by members of the RUF in Sierra Leone. The RUF referred to their male victims as
‘women’”. Ibid. “A Gendered Perspective – Text”, 26 (emphasis added). Thus, the UN is treating rape,
and men’s gendered-based violence as something anecdotal.
63
190
in which they don’t always have a choice. Haleh Afshar argues that “conflicts can
both empower and disempower women, since women can be at the same time
included in practice and yet excluded ideologically, or they may be both victims and
191
agents of change”. Understanding women’s dual subjectivities in conflict is
particularly important to (re)conceptualising a notion of gendered violence which
is a ‘lived identity’, i.e. something that can move from one box to another, instead of
being rigidly fixed and categorised.
Men, on the other hand, are subjected to discourse about their identity which is
associated with militarised values. But, at the same time, they are asked to deny
those values, to adopt another form of masculinity, one which is related to the
‘breadwinner/protector’ masculine function. The UN discourse in the training
material contributes to removing masculine subjectivity associated with
aggressiveness and tries to reconstruct another image of the ‘hero’; someone who
cares for and protects the community. Peacekeepers are depicted as ‘good’, ‘nice’,
smiling and helpful figures, qualities that are seen to be essential elements for the
mission of the peacekeeper and the creation of a long-lasting peace. As illustrated
on the PowerPoint presentation, peacekeeping operations “save lives, human rights,
restore conditions for peace and security, enhance the population’s ability to deal
192
with crisis and restore society”. Thus, the discourse surrounding peacekeeping
operations is that it contributes to ‘saving’, ‘protecting’, ‘restoring’, and ‘enhancing’;
terms that are all positive and belong to the vocabulary of heroism. Heroism,
however, is not constructed as being a gendered quality. On the contrary, heroism
(and qualities that are associated with it, such as bravery, obedience and courage) is
constructed as being a ‘masculine quality’, i.e. a quality that only men possess. When
analysing the image accompanying the UN discourse on what peacekeeping
missions are, one can see a (Canadian) male peacekeeper (wearing a blue beret
which suggests his connection to military peacekeeping) talking and smiling with a
190 Haleh Afshar, ed. Introduction War and Peace: What Do Women Contribute? Development,
Women, and War: Feminist Perspectives (Oxford: Oxfam GB,2004), 3.
191 Ibid., 2.
in-Mission Training. “A Gendered Perspective – Slides”, 46.
64
woman in quite a relaxed posture. The woman is smiling as well and is carrying a
child. Another child is behind her, looking at the scene. The peacekeeper is bending
towards the woman, suggesting a protective attitude. The scene depicts the helping-
and-caring image of a soldier, who is helping-and-caring-for-woman-and-children.
Thus, while this discourse is deconstructing the ‘manly’, aggressive soldier
masculinity to propose a more ‘peaceful’ one, it is at the same time (re)producing a
traditional image of masculinity: breadwinner, protector of woman and children.
Masculinity in peacekeeping is composed of two conflicting identities: the

militarised, violent masculinity (that I call manly-aggressive-ness) and the
protector of the vulnerable (heroic-protection-ness) masculinity. As Sandra
Whitworth stresses: “lying at the very core of peacekeeping is a contradiction: on
the one hand, it depends on the individuals (mostly men) who have been
constructed as soldiers, and on the other hand, it demands that they deny many of
193
the traits they have come to understand being a soldier entails”. At the core of
peace operations, soldiers are being described in terms of what a good soldier
should be (i.e. engaging with a certain notion of militarised masculinity) and are
asked at the same time to remove those fundamental traits in order to adopt new
193 Whitworth, Men, Militarism, and Un Peacekeeping: A Gendered Analysis, 3.

65
ones that are more adequate to the work of peacekeepers. This entails, for example,
removing weapons for self-defence. Whitworth points out that this double
discourse provokes a ‘crisis of masculinities’ (or an “ideology of manliness” for
194
Enloe) : “in this way, often ridiculed and demeaned within traditional military
culture, the resolution of the military’s legitimating crisis becomes to some extent
a crisis of masculinity. All the messages a soldier receives about appropriately
masculine behavior are fundamentally at odds with what is expected in a peace
195
operation’”.
Thus, there is a strong contradiction in peacekeeping between the image of the nice,
kind soldier helping the community, which is delivered by certain countries (e.g.
Canada and Denmark), and the more robust-violent common image of the
196
soldier.
This contradiction becomes quite problematic when training for gender-awareness

and discussing masculinities, as it potentially seeks to remove men from their
197
(constructed militarised and heroic) hegemonic masculine identities. Once we
explain to men that they cannot be as they have been told a good soldier should be,
that being a soldier entails both traits of ‘manly-aggressive-ness’ and ‘heroic-
protection-ness’, they might feel that they no longer have a solid identity.
Puechguirbal proposes that we adopt a new concept of masculinities in gender
training, which focuses on “patterns of masculinity more open to negotiation,
198
cooperation and equality”. She goes on to show that “peacekeepers are asked to
lead a mission for peace, not to fight. […]. This approach requires skills that are
199
definitively people-oriented”. Thus the concept of hegemonic masculinities
should be deconstructed in training sessions to bring about a new one, a masculinity
that is more adequate and relevant to the function of peacekeepers and that has the
194 Ibid., 16. The ideology of manliness entails characteristics such as violence, discipline,
homophobia, misogyny and racism.
195 Ibid., 16.
196 Ibid., 16.
198 Ibid., 124, citing R.W. Connell.
199 Ibid., 124.
66
potential to remove masculine identities based on the dichotomy of ‘strong-and-
warrior’ males and ‘weak-but-peaceful’ females. To do that, I argue that the new
concept of masculinity that needs to be addressed in gender-training modules for
peacekeepers should include characteristics of both masculinity and femininity, to
be able to fully bring about new ways of thinking about the transformation of gender
roles.
Thus, when analysing the discursive practices that concern how violent conflict
impacts on gender, one can see that women are represented as ‘victims’ while men
are represented as ‘heroes’. While this is not a new idea, what this analysis shows is
that such discourses are reproduced from the UN policies (UNSCR 1325) to the UN
implementation of gender ‘tools’. Further, I have identified that ‘gender-awareness’
is actually used to both deconstruct the aggressive identity of (male) soldiers and
construct the heroic-protecting identity of (male) peacekeepers. ‘Gender-
awareness’ here acts as a (Foucauldian) disciplinary technology that tells (male)
200
peacekeepers how to behave with women and children. While it seeks to
deconstruct one aspect of a soldier’s identity, it doesn’t, however, remove
hegemonic masculinities.
 ‘How the mere presence of peacekeepers further impacts on

[gendered] relations’ (gender, violence and security)
I now analyse how the relations between peacekeeping and gender issues appear in
the UN discourse, which will potentially contribute to creating a (Foucauldian)
knowledge about the discourse of gender, violence and security. I will interrogate
what the UN DPKO means by ‘bringing (gender-awareness) skills’ to peacekeepers
and how it produces male peacekeepers as agents of knowledge. Indeed, the main
objectives of the training course are “to develop the skills to recognize the different
needs, capacities and expectations of women and men in the host population [and]
201
to make peacekeepers aware of the gender implications of their actions”.
200 Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. 1977.
in-Mission Training. Course overview, xii.
67
This research will show that the UN has not fully recognised the potential created
by what a critical understanding of gender awareness could bring to gender and
security. Indeed, this analysis will demonstrate that [1] the ‘basic skills’ are not
clearly identified and are mostly associated with a ‘human-rights-based’ approach
202
and UN standards (or codes of conduct) to be respected, and [2] the cultural
context in which gender and security are constructed has not been sufficiently
integrated into the UN approach to training, which does not allow for a concept of
203
gender that is translated into different cultural contexts.
UN peacekeeping missions affect gender inequalities; hence it is essential that

peacekeepers integrate a gender-sensitive approach into all their activities.
Puechguirbal explains that “participants […] need to understand the impact of their
own presence in the community, and the effects of the imbalance of resources and
204
power between them and the local population”. Local women see peacekeepers
as resourceful and powerful and are more easily tempted to seek help in situations
when they are economically weak. However, while feeling good about the help they
provide, peacekeepers do not consider the consequences of their actions, which
leads to further increases in gender imbalances, especially when they leave the
205
country.
The UN highlights the fact that gender training is “not a luxury, but a requirement
for improving the effective discharge of the mission’s mandate and reducing both
harmful forms of behaviour by peacekeeping personnel and unintended negative
202 Note here that while it would be interesting to analyse how the UN discourse on human rights is
translated in its training material, this would go beyond the scope of this research. Furthermore, the UN
mentions the debate between cultural relativism and universalism, which cannot be addressed in this
paper either. This paper focuses on how gender is constructed, and this involves looking at how the UN
constructs the ‘human rights’ discourse through a gender lens.
203 Similarly, much more would need to be researched and analysed on the way the UN has
addressed culture and gender. This paper points out the need for more (discursive) space to be devoted to
the cultural context in which gender is applied, and I argue that gender in gender training needs to be
translated depending on the cultural context in which it is evaluated.
205 Ibid., 120.
68
206
effects of mission policies and programmes”. Focusing gender training on the
“harmful forms of behaviour”, e.g. the sexual abuses on women by peacekeepers, is
quite problematic and even though it needs to be tackled, it does not fully engage
207
with a notion of ‘gender-awareness’ at all levels. It is, again, reducing the UN’s
level of discourse to ‘women’s issues’. Of course, it is very important to address issues
of sexual abuses, and the fact that the UN seeks to reduce and even eliminate sexual
exploitation is crucial and encouraging. What is problematic, however, is that it
constructs a discourse on gender, violence and security that is limiting.
First, the UN discourse on ‘gender-awareness’ is based on a human (as women)

rights-based approach, limiting its scope. This discourse contributes to reducing
the concept of ‘gender-awareness’ to a ‘code of conduct’, i.e. to behavioural rules that
should be adopted by (male) peacekeepers (the subjects). The training material
explains that at the end of the course, the participants are expected to “understand
208
how human rights standards provide a basis for using a gender perspective”. With
respect to this expected learning outcome, the material provides basic training in
the UN concept of Human Rights and the Convention on the Elimination of
Discrimination against Women. The latter is explained as dealing “specifically with
209
[the protection of ] women’s rights”. The promotion of women’s human rights has
been a major issue over the past 10 to 20 years, as it recognises that the human rights
210
norms are gender neutral, preventing those standards from applying to everyone.
This aspect is emphasised particularly in the UN discourse, which stresses that the
course will focus on ‘non-discrimination’ (against women) and ‘gender-based
violence’ (which I have already shown can be reduced to ‘sexual (women)-based
211
violence’).
Peace Support Operations", 7, citing UN DPKO 2004: 45.
207 See also how the UNSCR 1325 contextualises gender training in peacekeeping. The resolution
seeks to encourage states to develop such training in their pre-deployment and in-mission operations,
using as an argument the preventive impact that it could have on sexual exploitation and abuses.
in-Mission Training. “A Gendered Perspective – Slides”, 37.
209 Ibid., “A Gendered Perspective – Slides”, 32–39.
210 Ibid., “A Gendered Perspective – Text”, 21–22.
211 Ibid., A Gendered Perspective – Text”, 22.
69
Hence the UN is constructing a discourse of gender awareness that is ‘standards of
women’s rights’. The UN intends to implement a code of conduct that would prevent
(male) peacekeepers from acting against women’s human rights. In an exercise
entitled ‘The Collaborator’, peacekeepers are invited to think about their ‘mandate’
and what it implies in terms of women’s rights. A case study describes a woman
asking peacekeepers for help because she has been raped by enemy troops and fears
being killed by her husband. The case study asks participants to think about what
they should do if helping this woman is not covered by their mandate. This exercise
is aimed at bringing ‘gender-awareness’ skills to peacekeepers. However, what this
exercise is really doing is installing new (discursive) norms of behaviours that
peacekeepers should adopt, which is to integrate a ‘women’s rights’ perspective into
their work. Puechguirbal argues that teaching a gendered code of conduct should
not be reduced to a listing of rules to respect. Peacekeepers need to understand the
212
impact of the context of conflict on girls and women, but also on boys and men.
By focusing on ‘women’s rights’ as synonymous with ‘gender-awareness’, the UN
does not provide peacekeepers with a real understanding of gender issues that
would help them to have a comprehensive approach to gender in peace and security,
and a full impact on gender imbalances. It also constructs a discourse of gendered
security as being security-for-women.
THE ‘COLLABORATOR’
A group of peacekeepers are on patrol in a formerly occupied village,
when a young
Pleasewoman
consult runs up toversion
the print them and begs them hysterically to take
for access.
her with them.
Through a translator she tells them that she is pregnant as a result of
having been raped by enemy soldiers.
Her husband and other men from the village have just returned from
serving in the army.
She is afraid that when her husband finds out about her pregnancy she
will be killed for ‘collaborating’ with the enemy.
212 It would be interesting to find out whether such training contributes, indeed, to eliminating
forms of violence against women.
70
By doing so, it is also implying that the target of this training package is ‘men’. The
UN discourse on ‘gender-awareness’ suggests that ‘men’ should be trained about
‘women’s human rights’. Male peacekeepers are formed to be the agents of knowledge
for peace and security. There are few references or exercises designed for both sexes.
Female peacekeepers are not included in the training material as agents for peace
and security. Once again, women’s subjectivities are produced as being the victims
that ‘men’ peacekeepers should protect. This discourse contributes to further
excluding men from the realm of gender, which is constructed as something
woman-related, and therefore weak, abstract and, in a Foucauldian sense,
abnormal. It legitimates the fact that male peacekeepers need training on
something that they do not fully understand and that is abnormal to them. It also
contributes to further excluding women from the realm of peace, as they are
categorised as victims and not agents of peace. Thus, this analysis has shown that
‘gender-awareness’ training is used as a disciplinary technology, whose discourse
constructs women as a ‘deviant, particular’ subjects to be studied by men (male
peacekeepers as agents of knowledge).
While men need training about ‘women’s rights’, women, on the other hand, need
training about ‘peace’ (peace here refers to the ‘UN peace operations’ – something
political; it does not refer to peace as being the idea of the ‘motherly-pacifist’, a
quality which has been attributed to women due to their sex). The UNSC Reports
(2002 and 2004) suggest that women need training to be involved in peace activities.
Hence what is suggested is that female peacekeepers need training to contribute to

peace reconstruction and that male peacekeepers need training to deal with
women’s issues. Women are again represented as an anomaly. Shepherd suggests
that “in representing women as needing ‘support’, ‘training’ and ‘skills building’, the
Reports construct women as a problem to be overcome, as opposed to
problematizing the complexity of gender. […] the Reports fail to mention that many
men need similar interventions on their behalf as they are marginalized on account
71
213
of their class, race, politics, sexuality and so on.” By distinguishing ‘who’ needs
‘what’ based on sex attributes, the gender-awareness (discipline) technology further
(re)produces the dichotomy between women and men, and almost produces a
discourse which suggests that women need to be trained for the political realm
while men need to be trained for the private realm.
Furthermore, the UN gender-awareness discourse does not fully acknowledge the

cultural context in which masculinities and feminities are constructed. Indeed,
awareness of gender is understood in a Western-liberal way and is not mission
specific. It is entirely the trainer’s responsibility to “add mission-specific, context-
214
specific examples”. Trainers are expected to customise and adapt the training
material to the context of the mission and the culture of the audience. The UN
stresses the importance of including local populations as participants if possible.
Local representatives were included as a resource during the DPKO Gender and
Peacekeeping In-Mission training in Ethiopia, Sierra Leone and DRC and the UN
commented that it was a real success: “the ‘peacekept’ were able to provide context
215
and translate ‘gender’ in that society for the peacekeepers”. The in-mission
training package must include elements of cultural context. Puechguirbal explains
that “the importance of context-specific training is evident”. She takes as an example
the mission in DRC (MONUC), in which legal consent for sexual relations is 14, but
216
peacekeepers are bound by the international law of consent, which is 18.
While acknowledging the importance of ‘doing’ cultural gender, which represents

how the material presents itself, I suggest that the UN discourse does not allow for
a comprehensive approach to culture and gender in security. ‘Gender-awareness’ is

in-Mission Training. ‘A Gender Perspective’-Text 2.
Peace Support Operations", 11. The UN comment about the ‘real success’ of including local
representatives (and how local participants were used) should be subjected to further research. From a
discourse analysis perspective, it can only show ‘how the training material (the UN) represents itself” but
cannot be taken as evidence that gender is indeed translated into local contexts. I shall focus on how the
in-mission training material constructs gender in relation to cultural context.
216 Puechguirbal, "Gender Training for Peacekeepers: Lessons from the DRC".
72
constructed out of its cultural signification and further reproduces both the ‘us’
versus ‘them’ dichotomy, and the ‘men’ versus ‘women’ one. In the exercise ‘Reading
the Signs’, the peacekeepers are invited to think about their behaviour in public
places. The exercise describes a ‘European UN male military’ that starts talking and
then gesticulating over local women. Everyone seems to enjoy themselves; however,
217
their behaviour is noticed by some of the waiters. The participants are invited to
think about “how the peacekeepers are perceived by the community”, “the economic
power of foreigners”, “the perceived ‘political’ power of authority figures in uniform”,
218
as well as “the racial distinctions”. These are good questions that need to be
addressed and shows that the UN has taken some important steps. However,
looking more closely at the exercise, the material suggests that there is a single, a-
cultural notion of masculinity and feminity. It provides a Western view on how
masculinities and feminities are constructed.
While participants are asked to react regarding their own culture, the way the
exercise is constructed implies that [1] ‘masculinities’ equate to uniform and power,
[2] ‘masculinities’ are constructed in a uniform way. But it does not deconstruct the
way masculinities are shaped in culture. Indeed, it is assumed that masculinities are
all the same and do not depend on any cultural context. It assumes that
masculinities equate to “authority figures in uniform” but does not acknowledge
that this is what has been constructed as the dominant and hegemonic notion of
masculinity in the Western/liberal/UN discourse. Furthermore, it does not
interrogate any notion of feminities in a local context. The exercise presents various
situations of the gender, race and nature of peacekeepers, but simply categorises
‘local women’ (“the rest”, “the other”) in the same box, without interrogating the
local and cultural context of their feminities and how this impacts on their relations
with the peacekeepers. In certain cultures, for example, women are prohibited from
219
talking to male strangers. The exercise contributes to constructing a discourse of
in-Mission Training. ‘A Gender Perspective’-Text 15-17. There are different versions provided with
civilian/military/European/African/male/female.
218 Ibid., ‘A Gender Perspective’-Text, 17.
219 Gerard J. DeGroot, "A Few Good Women: Gender Stereotypes, the Military and Peacekeeping,"
International Peacekeeping 8, no. 2 (2001).
73
‘gender-awareness’ that is disassociated from its cultural content. It seeks to make
peacekeepers aware of their perceived ‘Westernised militarised and powerful’
masculinity but does not deconstruct masculinities and feminities in relation to
cultural contexts. It contributes to reproducing a gendered version of the ‘West’
versus the ‘rest’.
Including local participants should be automatic in each training session, to avoid

imposing a notion of gender that is Westernised and universalised. Indeed,
speaking of the “other” has been vehemently criticised by post-colonialist writers,
such as Said, who argues that a discourse of ‘the rest’ or ‘the other’ has been created
220
along with a discourse of ‘the West’. This discourse has been universalised as
being the only possible truth, without allowing the possibility of the colonised
countries expressing their own voice: “the cry of the victims of colonialism was
221
ultimately the cry to be heard in another language”. In terms of gender training,
analysing the UN discourse of ‘gender-awareness’ shows that it does not allow for a
222
concept of gender that can be translated into a local context.
By focusing on Western representations of relations between men and women, the

UN discourse is somehow reducing the concept of gender and excluding ‘other ways
of doing gender’ from its realm. This discourse is problematic in the context of peace
operations, as it reaches and impacts on ‘other’ local cultures and should consider
the formation of feminities and masculinities in ‘other’ cultures. It shows that the
construction of masculinities as the dominant framework to conceptualise power
and international security has been done through a Western (liberal) framework.
Hence the way gender awareness has been constructed does not involve local and
220 Edward Said, Orientalism (New York: Vintage, 1979). The dichotomy between the West and the
others has created a discourse on the Orient. Said explains that such discourse misrepresents what is the
Orient. He argues that the West has created an image of the Orient constructed in opposition to its own
subjectivity. This has engendered the creation of stereotypes and false perception of both the West and
‘the others’.
221 Ashis Nandy, The Intimate Enemy: Loss and Recovery of Self under Colonialism (Delhi: Oxford
University Press, 1983).
222 It would be interesting to further investigate gender through the lens of post-colonialism.
Indeed, ‘local’ practices seem often unnatural to Western eyes, and much literature addresses the question
of liberalism (including the UN) and how it imposes certain views and certain norms on those that have
been categorised as ‘the others’.
74
cultural ‘awareness’ of gender issues (and the construction of local feminities and
masculinities).
This framework produces gender training as a technology that carries a certain

notion of truth as to masculinities and feminities – and hence is embedded in power.
I will undertake now to explore further this notion.
Gender-awareness training as a technology

Through discourse analysis I have examined how the concept of ‘gender-awareness’
has been constructed in UN gender-training materials. I have shown that the way
gender awareness is done does not take advantage of its full potential, that is, to
allow for a new gendered approach in peace and security. The concept of ‘gender-
awareness’, indeed, should carry deeper political meanings. It implies going to the
heart of the hegemonic masculinities, deconstructing them and building a new
notion of masculinity that would be aware of how relations are gendered and would
consider both masculinity and feminity. If done correctly, gender awareness could
change the way peace and security is currently structured, challenging the dominant
social structures, to finally reach gender balance.
Here I discuss ‘gender-awareness training’ as being further established as a

technology that acts upon the individual to shape its bodies of knowledge.
Discipline here is not used as ‘punishment’, but as a ‘tool’ that allows the
223
development of a body of skills and knowledge. Foucault relates discipline as
punishment and body of skills “through its concept of power-knowledge. He goes
beyond the conventional view that the development and acquisition of knowledge
necessarily makes people more powerful or is ‘good for them’. Rather, knowledge is
something that makes us its subjects because we make sense of ourselves by
224
referring back to various bodies of knowledge”. The meaning of “making sense of
ourselves” here is very important. It explains how (male) peacekeepers can make
sense of themselves by referring to the bodies of knowledge constructed by the UN
223 Danaher, Schirato and Webb, Understanding Foucault, 50.

224 Ibid., 50.
75
gender-training material. However, it is not solely the training material that
constructs and shapes (soldiers’) subjectivities. Indeed, the training material is
itself embedded in the dominant discourse surrounding the military field. I am not
arguing that gender training alone would constitute the subjectivity of
peacekeepers. Gender-awareness training as a technology is just a ‘tool’ that
reinforces the already-existing discourse.
Thus, gender awareness as technology is embedded in three main discourses,

related to gender, violence and security (and how they interrelate). This analysis has
demonstrated that the way gender is done in the UN [1] excludes gender from the
realm of war (only sexual-based violence happens in war), [2] excludes men from
the field of gender (male soldiers need to be “aware” of but are not concerned). This
research has also touched upon other issues, such as, the way gender is done in the
UN [3] excludes women from the realm of war (their agency is restricted to being
victims), and [4] excludes women from the realm of peace (achieving a ‘critical
mass’). Further research would need to be done to validate point [3] and [4].
Indeed, ‘gender-awareness’ technology contributes to marginalising women and

reinforcing dominant masculinities. Further, it associates sex with war and gender
with peace (‘doing gender’ is ‘making aware’ of sexual violence that ‘women’ suffer
in ‘war’) – while, for example, there is also domestic violence in peace (peace being
constructed as starting when conflicts end). Gender should be associated with both
war and peace: ‘doing gender in war’ would imply looking at the formation of
militarised masculinities and feminities, and the agency of women as active
participants in war; ‘doing gender in peace’ would involve looking at gender as ‘lived
identity’, which fluctuates from women to men and from men to women, through
225
which all forms of gender-based violence are examined.
Thus, this research contributes to validating arguments that the way the UN is
76
226
“doing gender” contributes to further de-politicising gender. On the one hand,
the UN is doing ‘sex’ in war, which becomes a political tool: ‘technology of gender-
awareness’ means ‘technology of sex in war’. However, one could argue that even sex
is not done in peace (e.g. domestic violence is not addressed, although there is often
an increase in domestic violence in peace). The way gender is done through training
shows that a comprehensive discourse on gender is not included in peace and
security, hence contributing to de-politicising ‘gender’ as a concept. It is important
to acknowledge the efforts and progress made by the UN, however the discourse of
‘gender-awareness’ they offer does not fully engage with a critical concept of gender.
Rather it is a technological ‘tool’ constructing “sex-awareness on women’s issues”,
embedded in the Foucauldian knowledge-power.
226 MacKenzie, "Reconstructing Women? Post-Conflict Security and the Return to “Normal” in
Sierra Leone"; Cockburn, From Where We Stand: War, Women’s Activism and Feminist Analysis, Enloe,
Maneuvers: The International Politics of Militarizing Women’s Lives; Cohn, "Sex and Death in the
Rational World of Defense Intellectuals"; Hansen, "The Little Mermaid’s Silent Security Dilemma and
the Absence of Gender in the Copenhagen School"; Pankhurst, ed. The ’Sex War’ and Other Wars:
Towards a Feminist Approach to Peace Building.
77
CONCLUSION
This research thesis has sought to answer the question of how the discourse of
‘gender-awareness’ is constructed through UN gender-training material for
peacekeepers, and how this discourse contributes to shaping representations of
gender, violence and security. I have discussed the discursive formation of ‘gender-
awareness’ in the UN DPKO gender-training policy around three central points
(discursive sites). From the analysis of these nodal points, I have attempted to show
that ‘gender-awareness’ as a discourse within UN gender training is composed of:
[1] gender that equates ‘sex’ and ‘women’, [2] gender training in relation to violence
that reproduces the dichotomy between women as ‘victims’ and men as ‘heroes’, and
[3] gender skill-sets in relation to violence and security that emphasise universals
such as women’s rights and ignore cultural contexts in its approach to gender.
This discourse constructs what (male) peacekeepers need to be aware of in the

realm of gender, violence and security. It has allowed me to identify both objects (of
knowledge, i.e. what is produced as truth) and the way that subjects (agents: male
peacekeepers, and non-agents: women) are positioned in the UN discourse.
From this argument, I have discussed how the discourse of ‘gender-awareness’

training is further established as a (disciplinary) tool which seeks to control and
regulate (male peacekeeper) subjects’ behaviours and their understanding
(knowledge) of the relations between gender, violence and security. The discourse
of ‘gender-awareness’ training as a technology shows that certain notions of
feminities (women as peacemakers and as victims) and masculinities (image of the
militarised hero) are constructed as being the truth, which in turn contributes to
shaping subjects (male soldiers) accordingly.
Thus, the discourse of ‘gender-awareness training’ appears to further (re)produce

traditional stereotypes of feminities and masculinities in the military field (peace
and security). This discourse fails to provide any critical thinking about gender and
fails to truly challenge the way the UN has previously been ‘doing’ and
78
understanding gender. The discourse of ‘gender-awareness’ is embedded in the
relationship between power and knowledge, which contributes to further de-
227
politicising gender and excluding women from the realm of politics. It shows also
how gender is de-politicised while sex is being politicised. Hence while gender is
excluded from the realm of peace, sex is included in the realm of war. It contributes
to excluding women from both the realm of peace (security) and the realm of war
(violence).
I have undertaken this research through a discourse analysis that borrows from both
Foucault and Shepherd. Analysing the UN DPKO gender-training material has
allowed me to uncover meanings that are related to ‘gender-awareness’ and its
relations to gender, violence and security. Hence my research feeds the academic
knowledge on gender, violence and security, and could be said to be the
continuation of Shepherd’s work on the UNSCR 1325 and how it is constructed as a
228
site of discourse on gender, violence and security. Shepherd’s work has
considerably inspired and strengthened this research, so I owe her a great debt. This
research has also shown the validity of the use of discourse analysis, through a
Foucauldian lens, to examine the objects of policies. Foucault provides us with great
229
tools of analysis. However, this research would have provided broader and better
results if it had encompassed an analysis of the bodies as a site of discourse, showing
230
how gender discourse is performed and repeated through (stylised) acts.
Finally, this research has shown that discourse is repeated – hence Shepherd’s
analysis of UNSCR 1325 and my analysis of UN DPKO gender training share similar
227 Cohn, "Sex and Death in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals"; Cockburn, From Where
We Stand: War, Women’s Activism and Feminist Analysis; Enloe, ed. All the Men Are in the Militias, All
the Women Are Victims: The Politics of Masculinity and Femininity in Nationalist Wars; Cynthia Enloe,
Bananas, Beaches and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics (Berkeley, Los Angeles:
Univ of California Press, 1990); MacKenzie, "Reconstructing Women? Post-Conflict Security and the
Return to “Normal” in Sierra Leone".
229 Foucault, The Archaeology of Knowledge, Trans. Am Sheridan Smith, ———, Discipline and
Punish: The Birth of the Prison. 1977, ———, Power. Ed. James D. Faubion, Michel Foucault, Society
Must Be Defended: Lectures at the Collège De France, 1975-76 (Penguin, 2003).
230 Judith Butler, "Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in Phenomenology and
Feminist Theory," Theatre Journal 40, no. 4 (1988), ———, ed. Gender Trouble, Continental Feminism
Reader (USA: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003).
79
results.
It ultimately shows that, even though the new UN initiatives on training gender have
raised much enthusiasm and some of it should be celebrated, the way the UN is
doing “its business”, in a rigid, hierarchical, and mechanical way, inevitably
influences all its practices, even those that seek to be innovative. For the UN to (re-
)think gender in meaningful and creative ways, it will be necessary to deconstruct
the way power structures are shared (hence deconstructing hegemonic
masculinities).
80
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Afshar, Haleh, ed. Introduction War and Peace: What Do Women Contribute?
Edited by Haleh Afshar and Deborah Eade, Development, Women, and War:
Feminist Perspectives. Oxford: Oxfam GB, 2004.
Andersen, Niels Åkerstrom. Discursive Analytical Strategies: Understanding

Foucault, Koselleck, Laclau, Luhmann: Policy Press, 2003.
Bastick, Megan, Karin Grimm, and Rahel Kunz. Sexual Violence in Armed Conflict:
Global Overview and Implications for the Security Sector. Geneva: Geneva Centre
for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces, 2007.
Butler, Judith, ed. Gender Trouble. Edited by Ann J Cahill and Jennifer Hansen,
Continental Feminism Reader. USA: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003.
———. "Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in Phenomenology

and Feminist Theory." Theatre Journal 40, no. 4 (1988): 519-31.
Cockburn, Cynthia. From Where We Stand: War, Women’s Activism and Feminist
Analysis. London, New York: Zed Books, 2007.
Cohn, Carol. "Sex and Death in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals." Signs
12, no. 4 (1987): 687-718.
Cox, Robert W. "Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations: An Essay in

Method." Millennium: Journal of International Studies 12, no. 2 (1983): 162-75.
Danaher, Geoff, Tony Schirato, and Jen Webb. Understanding Foucault. Australia:
Allen & Unwin, 2000.
DeGroot, Gerard J. "A Few Good Women: Gender Stereotypes, the Military and
Peacekeeping." International Peacekeeping 8, no. 2 (2001): 23-38.
Dow, Joanne. "Mainstreaming Gender or Mainstreaming Women? - a Feminist

Critique of UNSCR 1325." Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the
requirements for the Master of International Relations - Victoria University of
Wellington, 2008.
Enloe, Cynthia, ed. All the Men Are in the Militias, All the Women Are Victims: The
Politics of Masculinity and Femininity in Nationalist Wars. Edited by Lois Ann
Lorentzen and Jennifer Turpin, The Women and War Reader. New York, London:
New York University Press, 1998.
———. Bananas, Beaches and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International

Politics. Berkeley, Los Angeles: Univ of California Press, 1990.
———. Maneuvers: The International Politics of Militarizing Women’s Lives.

81
Berkeley, London: Univ of California Press, 2000.
Epstein, Steven. "An Incitement to Discourse: Sociology and the History of

Sexuality." Sociological Forum 18, no. 3 (2003): 485-502.
Finnemore, Martha. "Norms, Culture, and World Politics: Insights from

Sociology’s Institutionalism." International Organization 50, no. 2 (1996): 325-47.
Foucault, Michel. The Archaeology of Knowledge, Trans. Am Sheridan Smith.

London: Tavistock Publications Limited, 1972.
———. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. 1977, Trans. Alan Sheridan.
New York: Vintage, 1995.
———. Power. Ed. James D. Faubion. New York: New Press, 2000.
———. Society Must Be Defended: Lectures at the Collège De France, 1975-76:

Penguin, 2003.
Goldblatt, Beth, and Sheila Meintjes, eds. South African Women Demand the
Truth. Edited by Meredeth Turshen and Clothilde Twagiramariya, What Women
Do in Wartime: Gender and Conflict in Africa. London; New York: Zed Books Ltd,
1998.
Hall, Stuart. Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices:

Sage Publications Ltd, 1997.
Hansen, Lene. "The Little Mermaid’s Silent Security Dilemma and the Absence of
Gender in the Copenhagen School." Millennium: Journal of International Studies
29, no. 2 (2000): 285-306.
Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. Edited by C. B. Macpherson: Baltimore, Penguin

Books [1968], 1961 Reprint.
Hudson, Natalie Florea. "En-Gendering Un Peacekeeping Operations."

International Journal 60, (2005): 785-808.
Katzenstein, Peter J. The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World
Politics: Columbia Univ Press, 1996.
Krause, Ulrike. "Women in Peace and Conflict? The Need of Female

Representation and Participation." A Different View no. 33 (2009): 23-25.
Lyytikäinen, Minna. "Gender Training for Peacekeepers: Preliminary Overview of

United Nations Peace Support Operations." UN-INSTRAW Gender, peace and
Security Working paper 4, 2007.
Mackay, Angela. "Training the Uniforms: Gender and Peacekeeping Operations."

Development in Practice 13, no. 2/3 (2003): 217-22.
82
MacKenzie, Megan. "Reconstructing Women? Post-Conflict Security and the
Return to “Normal” in Sierra Leone." Paper presented at the Canadian Political
Science Association Annual, 2007.
McHoul, Alec, and Wendy Grace. A Foucault Primer: Discourse, Power and the
Subject. Malaysia: Melbourne University Press, 1993.
McKay, Susan, ed. Reconstructing Fragile Lives: Girls’ Social Reintegration in

Northern Uganda and Sierra Leone. Edited by Caroline Sweetman, Gender,
Peacebuilding, and Reconstruction. Oxford: Oxfam focus on gender, 2005.
McLean, Iain, and Alistair McMillan. Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics. New
York: Oxford University Press, 2003.
Nandy, Ashis. The Intimate Enemy: Loss and Recovery of Self under Colonialism.
Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1983.
Olsson, Louise. "Gender Mainstreaming in Practice: The United Nations

Transitional Assistance Group in Namibia." International Peacekeeping 8, no. 2
(2001): 97-110.
———. "Mainstreaming Gender in Multidimensional Peacekeeping: A Field

Perspective." International Peacekeeping 7, no. 3 (2000): 1-16.
Pankhurst, Donna. "The ‘Sex War’ and Other Wars: Towards a Feminist Approach
to Peace Building." Development in Practice 13, no. 2-3 (2003): 154-77.
Paternek, Margaret A. "Norms and Normalization: Michel Foucault’s

Overextended Panoptic Machine." Human Studies 10, no. 1 (1987): 97-121.
Prugl, Elisabeth. "Gender and War: Causes, Constructions, and Critique."

Perspectives on Politics 1, no. 02 (2003): 335-42.
Puechguirbal, Nadine. "Gender Training for Peacekeepers: Lessons from the DRC."
International Peacekeeping 10, no. 4 (2003): 113-28.
Purkarthofer, Peter. "Gender and Gender Mainstreaming in International

Peacebuilding." Paper presented at the ISA Conference, 22-25 March 2006.
Said, Edward. Orientalism. New York: Vintage, 1979.
Schulz, Sabrina, and Christina Yeung, eds. Private Military and Security Companies
and Gender. Edited by Megan Bastick and Kristin Valasek., Gender and Security
Sector Reform Toolkit. Geneva: DCAF, OSCE/ODIHR, UN-INSTRAW, 2008.
Shapiro, Michael J. Language and Political Understanding: The Politics of

Discursive Practices. New Haven, London: Yale University Press, 1981.
83
Shepherd, Laura J. Gender, Violence and Security: Discourse as Practice. London;
New York: Zed Books, 2008.
Shikola, Teckla, ed. We Left Our Shoes Behind. Edited by Clothilde Twagiramariya
and Meredeth Turshen, What Women Do in Wartime: Gender and Conflict in
Africa. London and New York: Zed Books Ltd, 1998.
Stiehm, Judith H. "Women, Peacekeeping and Peacemaking: Gender Balance and

Mainstreaming." International Peacekeeping 8, no. 2 (2001): 39-48.
Turshen, Meredeth, ed. Women’s War Stories. Edited by Clothilde Twagiramariya

and Meredeth Turshen, What Women Do in Wartime: Gender and Conflict in
Africa. London; New York: Zed Books Ltd, 1998.
United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations, (UN DPKO). Gender

and Peacekeeping Operations in-Mission Training. New York: UN DPKO, 2004.
———. "Gender Mainstreaming in Peacekeeping Operations - Progress Report."

UN DPKO, 2005.
———. Gender Resource Package For Peacekeeping Operations. New York: UN

DPKO, 2004.
Vayrynen, Tarja. "Gender and UN Peace Operations: The Confines of Modernity."

International Peacekeeping 11, no. 1 (2004): 125-42.
Wendt, Alexander. "Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of
Power Politics." International Organization 46, no. 2 (1992): 391-425.
Whitworth, Sandra. Men, Militarism, and Un Peacekeeping: A Gendered Analysis:

Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2004.
Internet sources :
http://www.genderandpeacekeeping.org/.Accessed 15/01/2010
http://unscr1325.org/. 10/01/2010
(UNIFEM), United Nations Development Fund for Women.

www.womenwarpeace.org/docs/Annotated_1325.pdf.
84

Training Gender

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Training Gender

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Training Gender

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TRAINING GENDER: DISCURSIVE

The discourse of 'gender-awareness'

A thesis submitted to the Victoria University of Wellington in

School of History, Philosophy, Political Science and

Victoria University of Wellington

I would like to acknowledge my supervisor, the MIR programme coordinator and

notion of discourse and Laura Shepherd’s ‘analytical strategies’. Using Foucault’s

The literature review first addresses the construction of feminities and

CHAPTER 1 - ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK AND METHODOLOGY………......13

CHAPTER 2 - LITERATURE REVIEW………………………………...….…...................27

CHAPTER 3 - ANALYSIS OF ‘GENDER-AWARENESS’ DISCOURSE…….………46

This statement echoes an increased focus on the effects of gender relations in

I believe that analysing the UN DPKO gender-training material for peacekeepers is

To help me examine the discursive practices in the UN gender-training material, I

This is important for my analysis as I propose to examine the social practices of

I also use Shepherd’s ‘analytical strategies’ to frame my analysis. Shepherd builds on

8 Michel Foucault, The Archaeology of Knowledge, Trans. Am Sheridan Smith (London:

12 Shepherd, Gender, Violence and Security: Discourse as Practice.

Therefore, this thesis will interrogate the discourse of gender-awareness in terms of

Foucault’s power and knowledge

It is important to distinguish Foucault’s power from the traditional Hobbesian

13 Foucault, The Archaeology of Knowledge, Trans. Am Sheridan Smith, Shepherd, Gender,

Further, the Foucauldian notion of power produces ‘subjects’: “[power] acts in a

23 Foucault, Power. Ed. James D. Faubion, 341.

Discourse as a site of struggle

Whilst Foucault is usually referred to as a post-structuralist, his work draws on the

35 Stuart Hall, Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices (Sage

Furthermore, a Foucauldian notion of discourse produces insiders and outsiders. As

The production of certain kind of subjects with normalised behaviours is called a

36 Andersen, Discursive Analytical Strategies: Understanding Foucault, Koselleck, Laclau,

As I have previously outlined, objects refer to ‘objects of knowledge’ (bodies of

I have introduced Foucault’s notion of discourse, which [1] is understood as social

44 Foucault, The Archaeology of Knowledge, Trans. Am Sheridan Smith.

Shepherd’s analytical strategies

Shepherd employs what she calls a ‘tripartite’ discourse analysis to identify

A discursive formation is the overall discourse which embodies different discourses

Shepherd’s third strategy focuses on the production, representation and

As I have already partially explained, Shepherd takes as nodal points ‘gender’,

57 United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations, Gender and Peacekeeping Operations

Before proceeding to the discourse analysis of the UN concept of ‘gender-awareness’

Before examining how ‘gender-awareness’ is constructed in the UN training policies

Gender, violence and security

1- Construction of (peaceful) feminities: women as peacemakers

In situations of war and armed conflict, gender stereotypes are profoundly

59 Shepherd, Gender, Violence and Security: Discourse as Practice.

Feminities have traditionally and culturally been described as the opposite of

However, this conceptualisation is problematic as it assumes that women as women

Furthermore, conflicts contribute to changing and inverting gendered social roles

The non-representation of women in post-conflict reconstruction and

2- Formation of (hegemonic) militarised masculinities

Furthermore, the construction of masculinities is cultural. Enloe shows that the

The formation of (hegemonic) militarised masculinities further impacts on women,

The UN gender policies in peace – UNSCR 1325

95 Shepherd, Gender, Violence and Security: Discourse as Practice.

1- Gender mainstreaming: promoting gender equality

Following from the Windhoek Declaration, The UN Security Council Resolution

105 Shepherd, Gender, Violence and Security: Discourse as Practice.

These mandate, and UNSCR 1325, promote gender mainstreaming as synonymous

109 http://unscr1325.org/. Accessed 25/01/2010.

2- Protecting women: women as ‘vulnerable’