Live webchat with Foreign Sec William Hague on sexual violence in conflict

[KatieMumsnet]

William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, will be joining us for a webchat this Monday (June 2) between 3.15pm and 4pm, to discuss a global campaign to end sexual violence in conflict.

In war zones across the world, sexual violence is used as a devastating weapon - and according to UNICEF, those most at risk are women and their children, both girls and boys. One of the starkest current examples is the conflict in Syria; nearly three out of four refugees who spoke with researchers on their arrival in neighbouring countries last year reported that sexual violence in Syria was on the rise. Earlier this year, JustineMumsnet joined others in highlighting the need for action.

William Hague and Angelina Jolie, Special Envoy for the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, will co-chair the Global Summit to End Sexual Violence in Conflict at ExCel London on June 10-13 2014. The summit, which is set to be the largest-ever gathering on the subject, will hear calls for international leaders to commit to protect women and children in war zones from rape and sexual abuse.

If you've questions for William Hague on the summit, what's likely to be discussed and which measures we can hope for in the wake of it, please do post them now, and come back on Monday to join the discussion.

[CailinDana]

My DD chose exactly 3:15 to wake from her nap so I missed the chat entirely, although I have now read the answers.

The whole thing strikes me as a PR exercise, and the whole "real men" claptrap just emphasises that.

Still, it's better than nothing, I suppose.

[speakerexplosion]

The 'real man' stuff is interesting. Can see why some posters don't like it as a message but I wonder whether the 'real man' message might work quite well in countries where gender politics tend to be fairly, eh, unsophisticated and being called a 'coward' is the worst thing a man can imagine.

DISCLAIMER I know very little about gender politics in eg Pakistan and realise that calling an entire group of countries 'unsophisticated' is a bit much. Guess I mean it as shorthand for 'not places where the discourse around gender has evolved along the same lines as it has among feminists and academics in developed countries'...

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

Oh, I thought it was quite good, cailin, but am possibly lacking the necessary cynicism about politics.

I do have proper issues with the 'real man' thing. I actually think it is likely to work worse in more (for want of a better word) 'macho' cultures, because the flip side of it is that the violence will be even more hidden. If you know your neighbours will think you are a coward for beating your wife, you'll make sure they never see it.

[IceBeing]

Glad others thought the 'real men' business was an issue too. Was a bit worried I was failing to check my privilege etc.

I just remember hearing that Indian culture is really steeped in the idea of women as special treasures to be worshiped, protected and provided for....and look where that has ended up!

Respect for women as people can't be gained by treating them as weaklings in need of extra protections.

But over all I was impressed with WH. Far more than I expected to be by a conservative MP. I think I am a little star struck!

[TunipTheUnconquerable]

I don't think it's a PR exercise at all - Hague has been talking about sexual violence in war zones for years, it's not just something he's come up with to deliver the Conservatives the Mumsnet vote now that we don't trust Call Me Dave any more....
(That said, he's probably one of their biggest assets given that his party has the likes of Dominic Raab in it.)

[numptieseverywhere]

William Hague needs to be Prime Minister, not Foreign Secretary.

[CailinDana]

Rape was seen historically, and is still seen in many countries, as one of the rights soldiers win when they win a battle. Women were and often still are one of the "spoils of war." Telling men that "real men don't rape" (smacks of "nice boys play nicely" doesn't it?) does absolutely bog all when those men don't even see women as people, they see them as possessions to be won and lost in battle. Look at British and American soldiers treating enemies like playthings in the Iraq/Afghanistan conflicts -these were "normal" people who behaved in a way they never would behave in a non-conflict situation because they didn't see those enemies as people, they saw them as objects, and as way to play out their sense of aggression, which the army deliberately built up in them to make them "good soldiers." Until women are actually seen as human across the world, trying to stop violence against them will be just as much a fire-fighting exercise as trying to stop violence against animals - voiceless creatures with no rights will always be targets of abuse. If women were truly represented in society, truly free, then they would be able to stand up for their own rights, they wouldn't have to have William Hague and Angelina Jolie speaking for them. But they're not.

To sum up that ramble, what I'm trying to say is that tackling sexual violence in warzones, however commendable, is going at things from the wrong end. What needs to happen is that countries stand up and say "You cannot stop women from having an education, you cannot stop women from owning property/earning money/driving a car," and take serious action, military action if necessary, to enforce those demands. Trying to stop soldiers from raping women who have been raped all their lives by their husbands seems a bit...wrongheaded to me.

[IceBeing]

cailin I think I agree.....I mean taking on rape in war is a virtuous goal - but taking on rape in peace is probably a necessary precursor.

I was interested in the training of soldiers front though. That certainly seems to be doable in terms of real armies. Militias probably not so much.

[CailinDana]

It comes across to me as saying to women, "Your own country can treat you like shit, but we'll protect you from invading soldiers!" If I were in Afghanistan, unable to vote, unable to drive a car, devoid of any rights and likely to be raped multiple times throughout my life, I would have to raise a wry smile at lovely WH with his hopeful little head telling me I won't be raped in a war. Big whoop WH, thanks for that.

[TunipTheUnconquerable]

But surely the point is that war zone rape ought to be the low-hanging fruit in terms of preventing rape across the board.

One of the points I got out of the Susan Brownmiller book on rape (much of which is probably superseded by more recent research, but not all) is that not every army rapes on a large scale: there were armies which raped on a massive, massive scale, where virtually every soldier would be involved and virtually every woman in a village would be attacked, and others where this didn't happen and any sexual violence that did take place would be on a much smaller scale, a smaller number of rogue soldiers not following orders. This is something that can be affected by pressure from above so it would be insane not to do that.

When I've met women from war zones at feminist events like MWR and a demonstration my local group did, those women weren't saying 'No point in focusing on rape in war', they're saying 'we want it to stop'.

I think the bigger picture is hugely important and I'm very pleased WH seems to be seeing it too, but taking that as a reason not to attack this specific issue seems to me to be the equivalent of 19th century anti-slavery campaigners going 'oh, no point in ending the Atlantic slave trade, the real problem here is that white people don't see black people as properly human.'

[CailinDana]

To use your analogy though, Tunip, to me this seems more like saying "It's ok for a country to have slaves, but when you invade the soldiers mustn't beat them." The end of slavery was a massive and hard-won sea change in the rights of black people, and it was enforced with great difficulty and to great resistance. It was across the board - no country in the world endorses slavery in any official capacity and I'm sure if any country did there would be a massive campaign to change that. (I'm aware btw that slavery does exist, but it is an underground abuse of the vulnerable rather than an open socially-acceptable practice).

In contrast, there are many countries in the world that still treat women like animals. And there is nothing concrete being done to end that. In fact, women in many countries are effectively slaves, and this campaign is saying "Yes, you're slaves, but we'll tell soldiers to be "real men" and not rape you."

I'm not saying "don't tackle rape in conflict," of course I'm not. If even one woman can be saved from rape by this campaign it'll be worth it. What I'm saying is that I am tired of these campaigns that tackle symptoms rather than causes. And wartime violence is a symptom of generalised misogyny across the globe. As long as that misogyny persists, violence will persist and all campaigns like this will do is make very small, short-lived changes IMO.

[TunipTheUnconquerable]

But what you're saying is just the same as the complaint that's made against every feminist campaign, ever - that it doesn't go far enough. None of what you've said justifies calling the campaign as a whole (as opposed to the cringey 'real men don't rape' thing, which I agree with LRD and IceBeing about) 'wrongheaded'.

[Itsfab]

He seems a decent bloke.

[CailinDana]

Perhaps "wrongheaded" was the wrong word. Patronising is perhaps better? It seems to me that these campaigns are held up as examples of how great things are when they don't really tackle anything. But, I do accept that the idea behind it is good and it could have the effect of chipping away at misogyny, and that can only be a good thing.

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

I think I see what you're both saying - a depressing point, though, is that he is presumably constrained, to an extent, by what his party or their voters will accept.

If he started a huge campaign aimed at eradicating all male violence, that would be brilliant, but it might also be very short-lived, mightn't it?

I'm not sure I am convincing myself here, mind.

[JugglingFromHereToThere]

Also I'm not sure if tackling rape in a war zone is going for the "low hanging fruit" (as Tunip suggests it may be) seems to me that the aggression and violence of war is likely to make rape more rather than less likely, compared to the base line as it were

[PlentyOfPubeGardens]

Sorry I missed this, it looks like quite a good webchat - thanks William, you seem like a good egg (for a tory ) - I wish you the very best for this Summit and I hope it achieves its aims.

Great discussion from MNer's too. Cailin's posts are spot on.

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

Well, there's also a risk with soldiers who return from war zones without appropriate counselling, who pose a higher threat of violence, isn't there? Not sure how that fits into the argument, but I suppose if you are looking at it from a somewhat self-interested perspective, you don't want an army that returns traumatised into violence at home.

(Btw, sorry, I know this is upsetting for some people to read and I don't in the least mean it as stigmatizing traumatized soldiers.)

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

plenty - funny you say that, was just thinking I'd possibly vote for him if he defected.

[PlentyOfPubeGardens]

Yes Juggling, I'd have thought the 'low hanging fruit' would be getting men to recognise the women they actually know as human beings first. Women who are part of the 'enemy' they have been taught to dehumanise as soldiers - that's harder. Right now I don't think they even think of them as 'enemy women' but as women who 'belong' to the enemy.

[AndHarry]

I think there's merit in coming at the issue in a pincer movement. On one side Britain funds education in developing countries and encourages women to have their own money and own voice and on the other side it sponsors a global movement to combat sexual violence in the extreme condition of war. I see both approaches as valid and complimentary.

To add yet another analogy to this thread, when MSF goes into a new area, the first thing it does is dig latrines and set up basic sanitation. Then it gets on with healing the sick and wounded. Prevention and cure, working together.

[TunipTheUnconquerable]

I don't agree Plenty, I think bringing about a total change in how a group of people see an entire sex is far harder than making sure they don't go on the rampage while under military discipline for a relatively short period of time. As I said above, not all armies perpetrate mass rape. It is not a given.

The Susan Brownmiller book is really interesting and well worth a read. We did it as MN Feminist Book Club a few years ago. It's a 1970s feminist classic and very eye-opening.

[TheSameBoat]

I agree with the thrust of Cailin's argument. Rape in conflict is the far extreme of the sprectrum. It is the symptom of, not misogyny exactly but, an undervaluing of women and a reduction of them to their sexuality and their usefulness rather than their worth as a person in their own right. It's that mindset that needs tackling.

It's a culture that begins in childhood. DS tells me of the rape jokes that go around in his school at year 7. Maybe those kids don't know what they're saying but they are learning at an early age to reduce girls to their usefulness as sexual objects. That is the thin end of the wedge. Rape is the fat end. We need to tackle the thin end first. Although how we do it is another question!

[TunipTheUnconquerable]

AndHarry - absolutely.

[TunipTheUnconquerable]

TheSameBoat - I agree with 'That is the thin end of the wedge. Rape is the fat end.'
What I very much disagree with is the idea that we need to tackle the thin end first, and I think it's only because we're sitting here in a privileged situation in which we are not in a war zone, that we could possibly imagine it's more important to prioritize tackling rape jokes over actual rape.
We will only bring about lasting, long-term change, by a change in culture. But in the short to medium term we have to tackle these widespread, appalling human rights abuses. A different toolkit is needed for both of these extremes, and the two things can easily happen at the same time.