The conference emphasised the importance of understanding and addressing gender dynamics in both conflict situations and recovery processes. Participants underscored that conflict affects men, women, boys, and girls differently, and that effective interventions must take these differences into account to be truly effective.
One of the key points discussed was the way societal norms and expectations around gender can influence who becomes involved in conflict and how they experience it. For instance, traditional notions of masculinity mean that men and boys are more likely than women and girls to take on roles as fighters or protectors, which can lead to their involvement in violence or armed groups. This dynamic not only places young men at risk but also shapes the way they are perceived by their communities and how they perceive themselves, often leading to long-term psychological impacts. This can result in maladaptive coping strategies such as alcohol and substance abuse, perpetration of domestic or other violence, as well as impacting men’s ability to work and fulfil masculine roles. On the other hand, women and girls often face specific forms of violence and marginalisation in conflict settings, including sexual violence, exploitation, and social exclusion. The conference highlighted the need for interventions that address these gender-specific vulnerabilities, such as programs that provide psychosocial support to survivors of sexual and gender-based violence and initiatives that promote the inclusion of women and girls in peacebuilding processes.
Evidence has also shown that boys who suffer violence as children are more likely to perpetuate it as men. Conversely, girls who experience violence are more likely to suffer it as women. This demonstrates that adopting a gender sensitive lens to the way men, women, girls and boys experience conflict can enable interventions that disrupt cycles of violence and violent, patriarchal societies.
Participants also discussed the intersection of gender with other factors, such as age, social status, and cultural background, noting that these intersections can further complicate the experiences of those affected by conflict. For example, boys and men who have been subjected to sexual violence, which is commonly used as a way of emasculating men during conflict, or other forms of exploitation may face significant stigma and may be reluctant to seek help due to societal taboos around male vulnerability. Similarly, women and girls who are perceived as being associated with ‘enemy’ groups may be ostracised by their communities, making their reintegration and recovery particularly challenging; this is evident in the case of Yazidi women and girls kidnapped by ISIL.
The conference also explored the role of gender in post-conflict recovery and peacebuilding. Participants highlighted that women are often underrepresented in formal peace processes, despite evidence that their involvement leads to more inclusive and sustainable outcomes. Efforts to meaningfully and safely include women in peace negotiations and post-conflict governance were seen as essential for ensuring that the needs and perspectives of all segments of society are reflected in the solutions that are developed.
Moreover, there was a strong emphasis on the need to challenge and change harmful gender norms that perpetuate cycles of violence. Participants noted that programs aimed at promoting alternative forms of masculinity, where men and boys are provided spaces where they can share experiences of trauma and engage in non-violent forms of conflict resolution, can be particularly effective. MHPSS interventions that are embedded in other programming and not explicitly framed in terms of mental health and vulnerability may be more successful for men than standard mental health services. Similarly, empowering women and girls to take on leadership roles in their communities was identified as a crucial strategy for fostering long-term peace and stability.
However, participants also acknowledged the challenges of implementing gender-sensitive interventions in conflict-affected regions. These include cultural resistance to changing traditional gender roles, the risk of re-stigmatisation, and the lack of resources dedicated to gender-specific programs. For example, in some settings there can be significant objection to the involvement of women as this is construed as undermining traditional gender roles; there may be inherent tension between culturally sensitive approaches and efforts to include women. Another challenge is the lack of MHPSS services aimed at men and boys (relative to those aimed at women and girls). There can be lack of donor buy in for these services and they are sometimes justified as being a way to reduce domestic violence (to protect women and girls) rather than being important in their own right. This risks further perpetuating stereotypes of men as perpetrators rather than victims of conflict. To overcome these challenges, the conference called for increased funding and support for gender-focused initiatives, as well as the integration of gender perspectives into all stages of conflict intervention and recovery planning. Local organisations are likely to be best placed to advise on ways of managing these issues in programming while navigating strongly held beliefs about gender roles in their communities.
In conclusion, the discussions at the conference highlighted the critical role of gender in shaping the experiences of conflict and recovery. Effective interventions must be sensitive to these dynamics, addressing the specific needs of men, women, boys, and girls, and challenging the societal norms that contribute to violence and marginalisation. By incorporating a gender lens into conflict resolution and recovery efforts, policymakers and practitioners can create more inclusive and sustainable pathways to peace.