Violence against women and girls in Emergencies
According to United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), “violence against women and girls is one of the most prevalent human rights violations in the world. It knows no social, economic, or national boundaries. Worldwide, an estimated one in three women will experience physical or sexual abuse in her lifetime".
Historically, when tackling GBV, the humanitarian community has focused on sexual violence and more specifically, sexual violence committed by armed actors. Increasingly, research has confirmed what women and girls have been saying for years, that the biggest danger they face in humanitarian situations is often found in their own homes or from people they know. For example, the ground-breaking report, No Safe Place: A Lifetime of Violence for Conflict-Affected Women and Girls in South Sudan, found that IPV was the most common form of violence against women in conflict affected settings.
Research continues to demonstrate that specific types of violence increase in emergency and humanitarian settings including, Intimate Partner Violence (IPV), Child Early Marriage and Forced Unions (CEMFU) and Rape. Women and adolescent girls are disproportionately impacted by these three types of violence. These three forms of violence can overlap. For example, girls married before they reach 18 are at 22% higher risk of intimate partner violence than women who marry later. Intimate partner violence can take a form of sexual violence, such as marital rape.
The COVID-19 pandemic has contributed to drastic increases in GBV, in particular, Intimate Partner Violence and Child Early Marriage and Forced Unions (CEMFU). Globally, 243 million women and girls, aged 15-49 have been subjected to physical or sexual violence perpetrated by an intimate partner in the last 12 months. In emergency settings the risks for CEMFU increases. Families may perceive early marriage as a way to keep girls safer from violence, a misconception contradicted by evidence – in reality, girl brides are at higher risk of violence, including sexual violence, than their unmarried peers. The scale of GBV in humanitarian settings requires that accessible life-saving services for survivors should be prioritized at the outset of any emergency. This intervention should not be implemented if those services are not in place. Once those services are established, this intervention should engage with stakeholders in the referral pathway to ensure any disclosures of violence result in appropriate referrals for help.
Even if support services are in place, survivors may feel shame, guilt, may be afraid of retaliation. Additionally, as with IPV, due to prevalent victim blaming attitudes, women and girls who experience violence are at risk of being ostracized, stigmatized, and marginalized in their families and communities. This can become an additional barrier for them in seeking help and healing. It is essential that men not only speak out against violence but believe and actively support survivors.
Working with men
Engaging men and boys in efforts to prevent or reduce GBV in humanitarian settings is still a relatively new area of programming. Underpinning this intervention are three assumptions. One is that not all men are violent. Two is that social constructions of masculinity play an important role in determining men’s use of violence against women and girls. Third, men who do not use violence have a role to play in reducing or stopping violence and supporting survivors. While most interventions in displaced and conflict affected contexts lack rigorous testing, some good practices have emerged from research as to what works when engaging men and boys in violence prevention. It is recommended to engage men as partners to foster equitable intimate relationships, and as agents of change to promote gender equity – which both this intervention does. Successful programs engaging men, strive to transform gender norms and harmful dynamics – so called gender transformative programming. This approach involves in depth critical examinations and discussions on gender norms and the harms they can cause. This intervention does that by linking all forms of violence to the unequal power distribution between genders, the examination of stereotypical masculine communication patterns, and other attributes of masculinity. Examining restrictive masculinity norms and their impact on relationships and wellbeing is another good practice. Male only groups are understood to be appropriate spaces for discussions about harmful gender norms and other sensitive content or seek advice. This should however be complemented by dialogues with women and girls to avoid strengthening gender inequalities. Engaging men and boys should not occur at the expense of women or replace essential life-saving services for survivors. The safety and engagement of women, girls and survivors must remain a priority.