UNIVERSITY OF LJUBLJANA
FACULTY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES
Author: Maja Matić
Mentor: mag. Mojca Jarc
THE HOOPER CASE
Intermediate report
Ljubljana, 11. 12. 2007
When sexual discrimination is mentioned, we primarily think about discrimination against
women. However, sexual discrimination exists also against men, what is precisely what my chosen
article is about. In the following summary and analysis, I will try to find out, whether men are
really better off in existing social relations, and how discrimination applies against men in reality.
In the first part, I will summarise the chosen text by depicting the theoretical approach and the case
study the author uses and analyses, and in the second part, I will analyse this text and try to set the
basis for our group’s case study.
Gender analyses in international relations have traditionally been associated with feminism;
however, they are not always connected to the rights of women or a feminist perspective
(Carpenter 2003: 2). Carpenter (ibid.) chooses to look into gender constructivism in the context of
existing civilian protection networks, and not in the framework of women’s emancipation or
gender equity; by this he tries to point out the extent to which adult men are rendered vulnerable
by gendered institutions and norms. He denominates this kind of analysis as explanatory gender
analysis, which demonstrates that the taken-for-granted beliefs about men and women are socially
constructed rather than biologically inherent and shows that those, who adhere to these beliefs, act
differently than they would in the absence of this belief.
In the case study of the Balkan war, he describes the way gender construction, posing beliefs
that women and children and not men are non-combatants, influenced the sex-selective killing and
protection and thus protecting women, children and the elderly, and rendering men vulnerable
(Carpenter 2003: 1—2). Both United Nations Commissioner on Human Rights (UNHCR) and
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) were engaged primarily in delivering relief and
monitoring and discouraging human rights violations; while United Narions Children’s Emergency
Fund and other organisations targeted protection toward specific groups, UNHCR and ICRC were
to deliver aid by the basic principle of impartiality (Carpenter 2003: 3). But in practice, where
resources or opportunities were limited, they prioritized the “most vulnerable”, disregarding even
their proper standards and principles (as described in a UNHCR manual, that humanitarian
assistance should be provided without distinction to nationality, political or ideological beliefs,
race, religion, sex or ethnicity and that relief activities should be geared toward the most urgent
cases) (Carpenter 2003: 3).
For example, in April 1993, UNHCR evacuated several thousand women and children from
blockaded Srebrenica. Two years later, 8000 men perished ant the hands of the Bosnian Serb Army
(BSA), some of the fighters, but still may of them civilian husbands, fathers and older brothers
(Carpenter 2003: 4). Furthermore, ethnic wars today are carried out by small groups of “thugs”
rather than mass armies, leaving a majority of adult men and older boys in the civilian sector
(Carpenter 2003: 4—5). It is true that women, girls and younger boys are vulnerable to specific
forms of attack such as sexual violence and later exploitation and deprivation, but in this case,
where men and older boys were to be executed, adult women and children are least vulnerable to
lethal attack (Carpenter 2003: 5). What is more, women are as competent to fight as men – this
case has shown, that women often actively cooperated in the war and some had proved to be very
talented fighters (Carpenter 2003: 8). Physically, a healthy adult woman is much more like a
healthy adult man than an elderly or a child (Carpenter 2003: 9). If following principles, the
UNHCR and ICRC would actually find adult healthy women the least prioritised for evacuation,
but this was not the case (Carpenter 2003: 15).
Carpenter (2003: 6) follows standpoint feminists in distinguishing gender, the culturally
constructed beliefs that regulate relations between men and women, manifest at various levels of
social organization, from sex, the biological characteristics. This includes norms as standards of
behaviour defined in terms of rights and obligations, which provide an intersubjective context in
which discourse and behaviour are interpreted, approved or condemned by the third parties
(Carpenter 2003: 7). He differentiates between gender norms, which are norms regulating
behaviour between the sexes, and gendered norms, which are general norms, but applied
differently to both sexes (i.e. the norm of civilian protection, which applies to all civilians, but is in
practice gendered by prioritizing women and neglecting men) (Carpenter 2003: 7—18). Therefore,
while adult able-bodied men are most likely least vulnerable physically, they become far more
vulnerable because of socially constructed, gender and gendered norms (Carpenter 2003: 10).
Furthermore, even the international community stressed mainly the victims of women and children
as a greater outrage to that of men, and the BSA forcefully evacuated women and children itself,
both subscribing to internalised beliefs and trying to lessen the condemnation of the international
community; thus both were influenced by gendered norms (Carpenter 2003: 13—14).
Excluding men was therefore simply not considered as a form of discrimination or a violation
of humanitarian rules regarding the impartial distribution of assistance; even the Geneva
Convention prohibits distinguishing on the basis of sex, but in practice this applies only to
discrimination against women (Carpenter 2003: 8—15). As Carpenter says (2003: 17), “in
classifying the world, fixed meanings and diffusing norms networks of moral meaning /…/ delimit
the parameters of acceptable action, and even the ways in which it is possible to think about acting,
in a given milieu.” This is how the internalised beliefs of gender differences guided the action of
regional and international actors.
The case of sex-selective evacuation nicely depicts the way by which gender construction can
put men in a weaker position, not only aggravating their position in the society, but also
threatening their lives. This theoretical approach can be applied to all the spheres, where women
historically had a leading role, i.e. the family and the household (and the problem of allocation of
the children to the mother and not the father after a divorce), or the position where women are
depicted as victims and are thus offered greater protection by the society (as we have seen in our
chosen case of allocation of widowers’ pension, or social aid generally and protection against
domestic abuse). The same is with prejudices against men in cases of violent crime, felony or even
smaller offences; generally men are preferably considered as suspects when it comes to regular
police or border investigations.
Gender and gendered norms thus influence not only the lives of women, but also those of men.
They are hard to reveal as they are internalised as early as in the primary socialisation and
stimulated through later practice. They are so deeply rooted that they are perpetuated through
institutions at lowest and highest levels, even in a universal international organisation such as the
United Nations. Women’s rights have been defended by nongovernmental and governmental
international organisations and exist quite firmly in international discourses as a problem to be
solved and goal to be further pursued. The problem with men’s rights is that they are, unlike
women’s rights, in the international discourses practically non-existent or neglected as unimportant
or exaggerated. The concept of discrimination between sexes, as I have stated earlier, exists mainly
against women, because men are regarded as the main power holders and dominators. Precisely
this discriminates them, as this is again a social construct that generalises them into potentially
dangerous human beings. These beliefs are situated in our collective consciousness so deeply, that
the attention has been brought to men’s rights only recently. It is necessary that these rights be
introduced into the international discourse to bring the overall construction of gender inequalities
into our collective knowledge. Carpenter (2003: 19) affirms that the practice is changing by
observing that both the ICRC and the Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs have
recently begun to acknowledge men’s particular vulnerabilities as civilians.
To conclude, I will once again affirm that gender construction can victimise both sexes, as it
imposes beliefs that attribute certain qualities to them, which are not present naturally. To briefly
summarize, this construction understands women as the gentle, feeble, victim sex, and men as
strong, dominating sex. But these beliefs can harm both sexes, not only their roles in the society,
but also their lives. While it will be, because of existing social conventions, very difficult that a
major movement for men’s rights, as we have seen for women’s rights, will develop, we need to
pay attention to this issue, because it poses a deep and serious problem.
Source text (annexed):
Carpenter, Charli R. (2003) »Women and Children First«: Gender, Norms and Humanitarian Evacuation in the
Balkans 1991 – 1995. International Organization 57(4), 66–94.