War plays an important role in the construction of gender, or the social roles of men and women. This article analyzes the gendered experience of what Kaldor calls "new wars." It shows that new wars are largely fought by men in the name of a political identity that usually has a significant gender dimension. They use tactics that involve deliberate attacks on civilians, including systematic rape as a weapon of war, and are financed by predatory economic activities that tend to affect women more than men. The article describes the ways in which laws relating to gendered violence have been strengthened since the 1990s, arguing that implementation has been very weak. The article concludes that the construction of masculinity in new wars, in contrast to the heroic warrior of "old wars," is much more contradictory and insecure. On the one hand, extreme gender differences can only be secured through continued violence; on the other hand, the very contradictory and insecure character of masculinity offers a potential for alternatives. By looking at new wars through a gender lens, it is possible to identify policy options that might be more likely to contribute to a sustained peace. These include support for civil society, which tends to involve a preponderance of women, implementation of law at local and international levels, and greater participation of women in all aspects of peacemaking, including peacekeeping and law enforcement. ********** War is a predominantly male activity. It is fought largely by men, and statistics suggest that young men of military age are most likely to be killed in war, whether as combatants or as civilians. (1) This cannot be explained in terms of the biological differences between men and women. Women are capable of being effective soldiers; they can and do join fighting forces, and women get killed in battle as well as in attacks on civilians. Instead, the significance of the predominance of men engaging in warfare lies in the way that gender is constructed in war. In referring to gender, we mean "a set of cultural institutions and practices that constitute the norms and standards of masculinity and femininity." (2) Although individual men and women may not necessarily conform to these stereotypes, masculinity is largely associated with physical strength, action, hardness, and aggression, in contrast to the association between femininity and passivity, empathy, caring, and emotion. In many spheres of life, such as those pertaining to political and military leadership, traits associated with masculinity are valued. (3) But in according greater value to the traits of masculinity, the traits of femininity are correspondingly undervalued, which may lead to discrimination and even gender-based violence against those associated with feminine traits. Many scholars have remarked that war enhances and extols the value of traits associated with masculinity. (4) Indeed, as Steans has noted, "militarists use the myth of war's manliness to define soldierly behaviour and to reward soldiers." (5) Soldiers are deemed "heroes," and this gives rise to the dichotomy between the images of the "protector" (male) and the "protected" (female). Such images are used to legitimize recourse to conflict, thus raising public acceptance of the violence of conflict and of the necessity of subjecting primarily young men to injury and death. These images also disguise both the multiple active roles women play, and the actuality of gender-based violence during conflict. The terms "protected" and "victim" used to describe women imply weakness and subordination, which, in turn, perpetuate women's lack of empowerment in peacetime situations and mask the reality of women's experience of violence and insecurity. Our argument is that there are specific differences in the way gender is constructed in different types of wars. In particular, we suggest that "new wars," as described by Kaldor, can be interpreted as a mechanism for rolling back any gains women may have made in recent decades. …

中文翻译：

---

性别与新战争

战争在性别的建构或男女的社会角色中扮演着重要的角色。本文分析了卡尔多所说的“新战争”的性别体验。它表明，新的战争主要是由男性以通常具有重要性别维度的政治身份的名义进行的。他们使用涉及蓄意攻击平民的策略，包括将系统强奸作为战争武器，并通过掠夺性经济活动提供资金，这些活动往往对女性的影响大于对男性的影响。这篇文章描述了自 1990 年代以来加强与性别暴力有关的法律的方式，认为实施非常薄弱。文章的结论是，与“旧战争”的英雄战士相比，新战争中男性气质的构建更加矛盾和不安全。一方面，只有通过持续的暴力才能确保极端的性别差异；另一方面，男子气概非常矛盾和不安全的特征提供了替代方案的潜力。通过性别视角看待新战争，可以确定更有可能促进持久和平的政策选择。这包括支持妇女占多数的民间社会，在地方和国际层面执行法律，以及让妇女更多地参与建立和平的所有方面，包括维持和平和执法。********** 战争主要是男性活动。它主要由男性作战，统计数据表明，无论是作为战斗人员还是平民，处于军人年龄的年轻人最有可能在战争中丧生。(1) 这不能用男女之间的生理差异来解释。女性能够成为有效的士兵；她们可以而且确实加入战斗部队，妇女在战斗和袭击平民中丧生。相反，男性参与战争的重要性在于性别在战争中的构建方式。在提到性别时，我们的意思是“一套构成男性气质和女性气质的规范和标准的文化机构和实践”。(2) 虽然个别男性和女性可能不一定符合这些刻板印象，但男性气质在很大程度上与体力、行动、硬度和侵略性有关，而女性气质与被动、同情、关怀和情感之间的关联则相反。在生活的许多领域，例如与政治和军事领导有关的那些，与男性气质相关的特征受到重视。(3)但在对男性气质特征的更高评价中，女性气质特征被相应地低估，这可能导致对与女性特征相关的人的歧视甚至基于性别的暴力。许多学者评论说，战争增强和颂扬了与男性气质相关的特征的价值。(4) 事实上，正如 Steans 所指出的，“军国主义者利用战争男子气概的神话来定义士兵的行为并奖励士兵。” （5）士兵被视为“英雄”，这就产生了“保护者”（男性）和“被保护者”（女性）形象的二分法。这些图像被用来使诉诸冲突合法化，从而提高公众对冲突的暴力和主要使青年人遭受伤害和死亡的必要性的接受。这些图像还掩盖了女性扮演的多重积极角色以及冲突期间基于性别的暴力的现实。用来描述妇女的“受保护”和“受害者”一词意味着软弱和从属地位，这反过来又使妇女在和平时期长期缺乏赋权，并掩盖了妇女经历暴力和不安全的现实。我们的论点是，在不同类型的战争中，性别的构建方式存在特定差异。特别是，我们建议卡尔多所描述的“新战争”可以解释为一种机制，可以让女性在最近几十年中取得的任何成就回滚。… 以及冲突期间基于性别的暴力的现实情况。用来描述妇女的“受保护”和“受害者”一词意味着软弱和从属地位，这反过来又使妇女在和平时期长期缺乏赋权，并掩盖了妇女经历暴力和不安全的现实。我们的论点是，在不同类型的战争中，性别的构建方式存在特定差异。特别是，我们建议卡尔多所描述的“新战争”可以解释为一种机制，可以让女性在最近几十年中取得的任何成就回滚。… 以及冲突期间基于性别的暴力的现实情况。用来描述妇女的“受保护”和“受害者”一词意味着软弱和从属地位，这反过来又使妇女在和平时期长期缺乏赋权，并掩盖了妇女经历暴力和不安全的现实。我们的论点是，在不同类型的战争中，性别的构建方式存在特定差异。特别是，我们建议，正如卡尔多所描述的那样，“新战争”可以被解释为一种机制，可以让女性在近几十年来取得的任何成就回滚。… 在和平时期缺乏赋权，并掩盖了妇女经历暴力和不安全的现实。我们的论点是，在不同类型的战争中，性别的构建方式存在特定差异。特别是，我们建议，正如卡尔多所描述的那样，“新战争”可以被解释为一种机制，可以让女性在近几十年来取得的任何成就回滚。… 在和平时期缺乏赋权，并掩盖了妇女经历暴力和不安全的现实。我们的论点是，在不同类型的战争中，性别的构建方式存在特定差异。特别是，我们建议，正如卡尔多所描述的那样，“新战争”可以被解释为一种机制，可以让女性在近几十年来取得的任何成就回滚。…