ABSTRACT:

This article aims to define gender inclusion in the PVE and CT sectors. It is important to have a genuine basis for understanding the impact of gender inclusion and gender mainstreaming, especially in fragile, conflict and violent (FCV) contexts, where women and girls experience acute vulnerabilities, while simultaneously recognizing men, boys and marginalized communities are also impacted by violent extremism and terrorism. This article investigates what it means to meaningfully and mindfully gender mainstream in the PVE and CT sectors for communities affected by violent extremism and terrorism. The analysis uses desk research and lived examples to highlight where preventing violent extremism and counter terrorism policies and interventions could be improved.

Societal power imbalances have been well recognized as a contributing factor to drivers of violent extremism and terrorism. Women and girls, men, boys and marginalized communities are affected differently, underscoring how their individual and gendered experiences can often influence their involvement in violent extremist or terrorists’ activities. This impact on individuals can fluctuate based on states’ responses, interventions and policies or roles performed by individuals within violent extremist organizations or terrorist groups, indicating violent extremism and terrorism are gendered. Thus, it is essential to consider gendered needs in order to develop effective preventing violent extremism (PVE) and counter terrorism (CT) measures that account for everyone.

In an effort to effectively improve PVE and CT measures, it is important to understand the fundamentals of gender inclusion. While gender inclusion is not a new concept, understanding it is essential to establishing a prosperous society based on equality and equity, yet there is still confusion about what it means. After several attempts to pinpoint a definition in the literature, which only resulted in finding explanations for “gender inclusive” or “gender and (social) inclusion,” it seems appropriate to provide my understanding of gender inclusion in the context of PVE and CT, as most information quickly devolved into mainstreaming and operationalization of gender inclusion. Against this backdrop, I offer this definition: a process of being gender sensitive by adapting language, behaviors, policies, interventions and mechanisms that provide an equal and equitable landscape for all actors (regardless of sex). Here it is vital to note being gender sensitive should not result in being gender neutral or blind. Instead, gender sensitive aims for an even-handed manner in PVE and CT measures, but due to societal power imbalances, women and girls are typically excluded or ignored, and therefore a gender lens is required to remove gender biases and stereotypes that perpetuate inequalities (Sans, 2022).

According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC, 2020), “Mainstreaming a gender perspective is the process of assessing the implications for women and men of any planned action, including legislation, policies or programmes, in all areas and at all levels. It is a strategy for making women’s as well as girl’s, boy’s and men’s concerns and experiences an integral dimension of the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of policies and programmes in all political, economic and societal spheres so that women and men benefit equally, and inequality is not perpetrated. The ultimate goal is to achieve gender equality.” To achieve this, there are a few recurrent themes currently used to bridge mainstreaming gender into the PVE and CT sectors. By linking gender mainstreaming with security and most often, the women, peace and security (WPS) agenda, there is an interplay at hand aiming to fortify states’ security agenda, while simultaneously addressing consequences of violent extremism and terrorism. These ties are further strengthened by enforcing that states uphold their human rights obligations, particularly to women and girls. Additionally, there is advocacy for states to use intelligence gathering to potentially identify victims and perpetrators of violent extremism and terrorism—this may (but usually does not) include reports on sexual/gender-based violence (S/GBV), typically prevalent in fragile, conflict and violent (FCV) affected contexts, as it is often seen as unrelated or “personal domestic matters.” In practice, gender mainstreaming is often accompanied by the use of run of the mill expressions and calls for capacity building, raising awareness, training of trainers, etc., which is jointly carried out with states’ consent by international donors and development partners to integrate gender into PVE and CT policies, programs and activities.

If lived history is an indicator, the current approach to gender inclusion, while seemingly gender inclusive by using a gendered lens is merely evidencing the lack of action displayed in times of crisis. For example, in Gaza the relentless revenge war is having a significant impact on women and girls, with women and children accounting for more than 70% of the death toll (Middle East Monitor). According to recent data (NBC News, 2024), 35,091 Palestinians have been killed, since 7th October, 2023, including 15,103 children and 9, 961 women. This is a significant kill count increase of 7, 491 from when this article was originally penned—citing a report by UN Women dated 19 January (UN Women, 2024), which found 70 percent of the 27, 600 civilian fatalities were women and girls, particularly noting, “Women and girls in Gaza are dying at unprecedented levels.” It further highlighted that “951, 490 women and girls have been displaced from their homes” and “2 mothers are killed every hour in Gaza.” Reports from UNHCR indicates (UNHCR, 2023), “one child is killed every 10 minutes.” On the other hand, in Ukraine, humanitarian corridors were established for women and children to move to safer locations, S/GBV awareness and alarms rang to ensure the safety of women and girls, indicating solutions exists and can be implemented. In comparison and similar to Gaza, in other FCV contexts, where violent extremism and terrorism is present, such as, Afghanistan, Northern Cameroon, Northeast Nigeria, Myanmar, Mozambique, South Sudan, Yemen, etc. women and girls are subjected to severe forms of abuse, showcasing gross negligence towards and lack of credibility for gender inclusion in the PVE and CT sectors.

In many instances, gender mainstreaming approaches have been criticized as a “box-ticking” exercise, as rhetoric and reality fail to match up. According to the “ASEAN Gender Mainstreaming Strategic Framework 2021 –2025” (2021), there is a “lack [of] political power needed to bring about transformative change for women; and for not being robust enough to counter the multiple sources of backlash against women’s rights. As a result, while many governments, development organisations, and donors claim a commitment to mainstreaming gender in their policies and programmes, few are implementing it to the degree that is required. There remains a large gap between the rhetoric around gender mainstreaming and actual development and government practice.” Statements such as this, are not uncommon and it calls into question gender inclusion practices. Currently, the general approach to gender inclusion is both disingenuous and promotes lip service, further crippling both the WPS and gender inclusion agendas by denying it’s progress. Moreover, it exposes the PVE and CT sectors to ‘women-washing,’ by throwing around words related to gender mainstreaming, while overlooking gender-specific vulnerabilities present in the violent extremist and terrorist contexts.

Without an appropriate gender-sensitive lens to gender mainstream in PVE and CT policies, programs and interventions run the risks of muddling program design, implementation, baseline and endline evaluations, while further frustrating donors and stakeholders who have strong corporate commitments for gender inclusion. Moreover, in protracted crises—when gender inclusion is most needed, we see a failure to act and prevent harms to women and girls. This is due to a lack of willingness to put women and girls at the center of the discussion during conflicts, hindering mindful and meaningful gender mainstreaming approaches for integrating gender effortlessly and efficiently in PVE and CT policies, strategies, programs, and interventions.

In order to integrate gender into PVE and CT policies, programs, and interventions, and especially in times of crises, it requires a systematic (re)structure that accounts for various levels of organization at the programmatic levels and within institutional frameworks (i.e., government, international development organizations, NGOs, CSOs, Academia and Private Sector).    

At the programmatic level considerations should remain along the program cycle to include:

1. In dept gendered analysis taking into account the local context and using a feedback loop mechanism for real-time data to operationalize and integrate gender considerations while factoring in community ownership and sustainability of programmatic outcomes;
2. Incorporate the gendered analysis into the project design, tailoring program objectives with the needs of women and girls, men, boys and marginalized communities, as identified by communities. This should include a gendered risk assessment and associated mitigation measures to counteract potential bottlenecks in program implementation and in times of crises;
3. Establish intentional gender verification milestones at implementation stage to account for gender integration; and
4. Accurately identify a gender framework for the monitoring and evaluation criteria that considers both positive and negative gender dynamics to build on and improve future work.

At the institution level, leading by example would mean implementing internal policies enabling support for these programs. For example, basic policies should routinely advocate for gender sensitive employee retention by considering:

1. Committing honestly to gender equality and equity;
2. Establishing HR policies to achieving gender parity at all levels of employment;
3. Fostering an enabling environment that supports equal pay for equal work;
4. Enhancing the integration of a gender perspective with the aim to remove gender-restrictions or barriers and to improve internal working conditions systematically; and
5. Empowering working parents by establishing institutional policies that allows “parental” time-off, rather than penalize or stigmatize a decision to have a family. This should also apply to elderly care.

The idea behind these policy examples, is to demonstrate that gender mainstreaming should be achieved at an institutional level with engagement and full participation, in order to have mindful and meaningful gender mainstreaming at the programmatic level. Without the required commitment from senior levels of leadership at institutional levels, the “buy-in” to implement at the programmatic level is hindered, as it rests on the shoulders of workers, fighting an uphill battle for something, they themselves will not receive. While this is not a substantial list, it provides a basis to gender mainstreaming into PVE and CT programs by providing a reference point for circumventing unfavorable gender consequences to PVE and CT activities, policies, interventions and programs. Should such an approach be taken seriously, conditions on the ground, especially in crises would improve for women and girls, boys, men and marginalized communities.

Gazbiah Sans is the Director of PVE Works. She is a Preventing Violent Extremism and Counter-Terrorism expert, specializing in gender inclusion and gender mainstreaming, specifically in fragile, conflict and violent contexts. She has 15 years of experience, notably with USAID in Cameroon on the Boko Haram affected Lake Chad Basin Region and with the World Bank in Afghanistan. She serves as a member and the former Chair of the Internal Review Panel for the Global Community Engagement and Resilience Fund (GCERF). She concurrently serves as a core member of the Christchurch Call Advisory Network (CCAN).

References:

ASEAN-Gender-Mainstreaming-Strategic-Framework-2021-2025 (September, 2021). https://asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/ASEAN-Gender-Mainstreaming-Strategic-Framework-endorsed-by-AMMW.pdf

Middle East Monitor. (March 16, 2024). Women and children make more than 70% of Gaza death toll. Middle East Monitor. https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20240316-women-and-children-make-more-than-70-of-gaza-death-toll/

Sans, Gazbiah. 2022. “Gender Biases in Preventing Violent Extremism Policies.” Accessed 21 January, 2024.  

U.N.’s new breakdown of Gaza death toll sparks confusion and anger. (May 14, 2024). NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/gaza-death-toll-ocha-un-confusion-anger-rcna151934

UNODC, Mainstreaming Gender in Terrorism Prevention Projects/Programmes: Briefing Notes for Staff (December, 2020). https://www.unodc.org/documents/Gender/20-05713_Terrorism_Brief_ebook_cb.pdf

UN Women, Facts and Figures: Women and Girls During the War in Gaz  a (January, 2024). https://www.un.org/unispal/document/facts-and-figures-women-and-girls-during-the-war-in-gaza-un-women/

UNHCR, Women bearing the brunt of Israel-Gaza conflict: UN Expert (November, 2023). https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/11/women-bearing-brunt-israel-gaza-conflict-un-expert