… a Women’s Security Council?

Linked with Svetlana Slapsak – Slovenia.

Why should there be an international body for security, consisting of women, or Women’s Security Council?

Published on glow-boell.de, by Svetlana Slapšak, not dated.

excerpt: … In my and other women’s research in these topics, this was due to the complex historic, cultural, anthropological, and social situation in this specific region. As we were following the current trends in thinking gender, this obviously complied with the actual theoretical models of interpretation, especially that the gender is constructed or performed in and by culture, but at the same time it made us very cautious about any generalization. The recent Yugoslav case might not be identical with other war situations around the world. However, it can provide for some rather convincing arguments when the idea of Women’s Security Council is put on the table. My intention would be to tackle the possible negative reactions to this idea, and to challenge some of the stereotypes concerning participation and empowerment of women on the highest level world politics.


Among these stereotypes, one deserves a special attention: it is a rhetorical strategy which manipulates an otherwise sane and arguable thingking, pointing to the fact that women are not less agressive or less inclined to violent solutions of social and political problems than men, which is often successfully exemplified in several women politicians of our times. Yes, women are not »by nature« less agressive and more pacifist.

Because they are not different from men, they should have equal participation in modelling the world politics, and since they are almost completely excluded from the level of decision on war(s), they shoud have an international body of their own. This body should discuss, expose, and decide on matters of women’s position and women’s politics concerning wars, because women are by culture differently positioned (constructed), treated, and identified in wars. A large majority of women on this planet are still prone to be victims rather than agressors in the wars; their inter-human relations (family, motherhood) are formed in such a way that wars present a direct threat to their social functioning.

Among the differences that speak in favor of a gender-defined Security Council, there is also a possibility of special women’s gains in wars, like the global emancipation of women after WW I, and after WWII in some countries which experienced the revolutionary, mainly socialist changes. In short, wars are bad but can also be good for women and their rights, and in many examples we know of, this does not relate to the losses and gains of men in a parallel way. If women could discuss the same war threats in their own political body, and on the same international level of importance, the problems would be, at least, looked at from two radically different points of view, which would finally cover the whole, not only the half of world’s population.

Women’s participation in presenting problems and solutions, being so different, could certainly not be decorative, only for the sake of equal represenation, but of substantial importance for a wise decision-making in the most serious matters. Peace making practices and strategies, developed by many women’s communities in many highly challenging situations could help a lot in controlling and calming down the risky areas and moments … (full text).

Comments are closed.