Originally published at Bitch Flicks. Cross-posted with permission.| Warning: Spoilers ahead!

Driven, relentless, bad-ass women in film always hold a special place in my heart. Ripley from Alien and Aliens, Patty Hewes from Damages, Carrie Mathison from Homeland. Maya, the female protagonist of Zero Dark Thirty, is no exception. But can a film be feminist if it depicts horrific violations of human rights?

Played effortlessly by Jessica Chastain, Maya is a smart, tenacious and perceptive CIA analyst who navigates the 10-year hunt for al-Qaeda terrorist leader Osama bin Laden. Intense and focused, she relentlessly pursues her work with one singular goal: finding bin Laden. Unyielding, she refuses to give up. She’s a cinematic version of Carrie Mathison. Interestingly both women have an irrefutable compass when it comes to being right. They boldly trust and follow their uncanny instincts.

Zero Dark Thirty is riveting, fascinating and jarring. It assaults the senses with evocative images, haunting music, booming explosions and chilling 911 calls on 9/11. Powerful and exquisitely crafted by Kathryn Bigelow, it is unrelenting in its vision.

As Candice Frederick asserts, Maya anchors and propels the film. With a woman at the center of this story, it’s hard not to question gender. Zero Dark Thirty doesn’t overtly discuss gender politics, as Bigelow points out. Yet it reveals gender dynamics in subtle and important ways.

In the beginning of the film, Maya appears queasy about torture. Yet she refuses to turn away. When Dan (Jason Clarke), another CIA analyst, says she can watch the interrogation on video, she insists on being in the room. Early on, a colleague calls her a “killer,” a moniker that doesn’t quite seem to fit her composed demeanor and soft-spoken voice. Or is that supposed to challenge our stereotypical gender assumptions? But it certainly fits as the film progresses.

We witness a hyper-masculine environment in which Maya’s boss George (Mark Strong) slams his fist on the desk screaming at CIA analysts, “I want targets. Do your fucking jobs. Bring me people to kill.” After years in the field, after her friends have died, after relentlessly pursuing bin Laden, Maya swears, screams at a superior and boldly tells the CIA Director (James Gandolfini) in a room full of men, “I’m the motherfucker that found this place, sir.” Inoo Kang asserts this one statement draws attention to her gender: “anyone can be a motherfucker, man or woman – just like anyone can find bin Laden.” Does she adopt stereotypical masculine behavior to adapt? Or is her aggression merely a manifestation of her frustration and obsession? Or is she merely a bundle of contradictions, like most people?

Writer Katey Rich said she was fascinated how Maya’s “femininity is never talked about out loud, but influences everything she does and the way her colleagues react to her.” All of the male colleagues and superiors refer to her as the infantilizing term “girl” rather than “woman.” Yet Maya engenders enormous respect from her colleagues and superiors. Two times in the film, a superior asks one of Maya’s colleagues if she’s up for the job. In each instance, she’s described as “a killer” and “intelligent,” although James Gandolfini as the CIA Director dismisses that assertion by saying, “We’re all intelligent.” A Navy SEAL trusts Maya’s judgment on bin Laden’s location because of her unwavering confidence.

One of the best things about having a female director? Not only do we see an intelligent and complex female protagonist. We also see female friendship. Passing the Bechdel Test, we see Maya and her colleague and friend Jessica (Jennifer Ehle) debate, strategize, unwind and challenge each other. Reinforcing their friendship with a visual cue, Maya’s screensaver on her computer is a picture of her and Jessica.

After Maya becomes convinced that a vital lead is dead, it’s young analyst Debbie (Jessica Collins) who makes a crucial discovery through researching old files. She tells Maya that she’s been her inspiration. It was nice to see female admiration and camaraderie, even if Maya is too busy, too focused on work to acknowledge her compliment.

When Jessica asks Maya if she has a boyfriend or is sleeping with a co-worker, Maya firmly tells her no. Jessica encourages her to get a little somethin’ somethin’ to take the edge off. She says, “I’m not that girl that fucks – it’s unbecoming.” Now I’m not exactly thrilled with that statement. But I’m delighted Maya isn’t defined by her relationship to a man. She defines herself.

Some have called Zero Dark Thirty “a feminist epic” based on “the real women of the CIA.” But it’s also been criticized for its perpetuation of the Lone Wolf Heroine trope. When asked about the role of Maya’s gender, Bigelow – who was pleasantly surprised to discover how many women were involved in the CIA’s search for bin Laden – said “the beauty of the narrative” is that Maya is “defined by her dedication, her courage, her fearlessness.

I’m honestly not entirely sure if Zero Dark Thirty is a feminist film. But with its subtle gender commentary, female friendship, and female protagonist who’s defined by her actions rather than her appearance or her relationships, it’s hard for me to say it’s not.

Bigelow is a talented filmmaker who made an exceptional film. Which is why it’s shocking she didn’t receive an Oscar nomination. Kathryn Bigelow has continually faced sexism, whether it’s with asshat writer Bret Easton Ellis calling her overrated because she’s “hot,” or by not being awarded an Oscar nomination, despite winning numerous film awards. It’s also unfortunate because the Academy so rarely nominates directors of women-centric films.

Only 4 women have ever been nominated for a Best Director Oscar: Lina Wertmüller (Seven Beauties), Jane Campion (The Piano), Sofia Coppola (Lost in Translation) and Kathryn Bigelow (The Hurt Locker). Out of these 4, only the Piano was female-centric. Bigelow is the only woman to ever win. Ever.

Did the Academy ignore Kathryn Bigelow because of sexism? Did they not want to honor a female director twice? Or was it because of the raging shitstorm of controversy regarding the film’s depiction of torture? Or was it because of the pending Senate investigation? And would the Senate have even investigated Zero Dark Thirty had it been directed by a man? I have a sneaking suspicion that sexism resides at the root of each of these questions.

Many have raised the question whether Zero Dark Thirty excuses or glorifies or endorses torture while others have refuted these claims, arguing it depicts but doesn’t defend torture or is ambiguous in its stance. Some of the same people who didn’t give two shits about torture and halting human rights atrocities in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo — including Senator John McCain, himself a torture survivor with a “spotty record on torture” as he speaks out against torture yet votes in favor of it — are the same vocalizing outrage over Zero Dark Thirty.

Both Bigelow and screenwriter Mark Boal have vehemently denied the film being an endorsement of torture. Yet Bigelow has been called a Nazi making propaganda, “torture’s handmaiden” as well as having “zero conscience.”Wow. That’s ridiculously harsh, don’t you think? While I’m all for critiquing art, as Stephen Colbert (of all people!) pointed out, why are we railing against a filmmaker rather than the government who still hasn’t fully investigated the use of torture in the War on Terror?

Now does depicting horrific atrocities equate approval? Absolutely not. Films like The Accused and The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo portray rape graphically yet exist to combat victim-blaming rape culture. What matters is in the film’s portrayal.

Zero Dark Thirty does not shy away from graphic depictions of torture. Bigelow said that while she wished torture “was not part of that history,” it was. Within the first 20 minutes, we witness detainee Ammar (Reda Kateb) waterboarded, beaten, humiliated, starved, sleep deprived, stress positions by being forced into a tiny box, disoriented with lights and heavy metal music, and walked around with a collar and a chain like a dog. Later, we see other detainees in jumpsuits with wounds and scars. The abuse is horrifying and disturbing to watch. It’s repulsive to see the culmination of the racist, xenophobic colonialism that spurred the use of torture against Muslim Arabs.

Torture does not yield accurate information. Yet Dan repeatedly says to Ammar, “You lie, I hurt you.” When Ammar begs Maya for help, she tells him, “You can help yourself by telling the truth.” Not only does it subvert our gendered assumptions that she would be sympathetic to him. It puts the onus on the tortured detainees, not on the racist atrocities committed by government officials.

But Zero Dark Thirty also shows the inefficacy of torture. When Ammar is put into the box, he lies that he doesn’t know if there will be another attack. And yet we quickly see an attack in Saudi Arabia. We see CIA analysts uncovering intelligence without torture. After Ammar has been abused, demoralized and dehumanized repeatedly for months (years?), Maya and Dan eventually treat him with a modicum of decency and respect. Only then does he finally provide accurate and vital information.

Most tellingly, Dan says he’s leaving as he no longer can torture people. He says he wants to go to DC and do something “normal.” He warns Maya not to be “the last one holding a dog collar when the oversight committee comes.” This sense of awareness doesn’t acquit Dan’s or Maya’s actions. But it does convey that Dan knows that torture is fundamentally wrong.

But Zero Dark Thirty also portrays characters who repeatedly say that they can’t do their job without torture — or as they put it “enhanced interrogation techniques” — even after finding leads without torture and even after torture fails to stop terrorist attacks, which undercuts the message that torture is ineffective and reprehensible. It frames torture more as a Machiavellian means to an end: it’s not pleasant but still kinda necessary. But maybe that’s the point — to showcase the traditional thinking of the CIA in how to obtain intelligence, even when everything points in the opposite direction.While it certainly doesn’t condone torture, sadly Zero Dark Thirty doesn’t outright condemn human rights atrocities either.

It is this back and forth, this ambiguous juxtaposition of narratives and views that makes it difficult to analyze and open to interpretation. Zero Dark Thirty has been called a “reverse Rohrsach test” where everyone will see in it “something they would rather not see, but no one can agree on what’s wrong.” Take the opening: some will see it as inciting fear and terror while others (aka me) will see it as transporting us back to that time, reminding us why we as a nation reacted – right or wrong – the way we did. Bigelow herself said “there’s certainly a moral complexity to that 10-year hunt” for bin Laden. Bigelow and Boal didn’t spell everything out for us and “didn’t spoon-feed their opinions to the audience in a way that made for easy digestion.” They expect us to complete the puzzle for ourselves.

However, the biggest clue as to the film’s overall stance appears in its finale. Zero Dark Thirty may not criticize torture as much as it could or should. But that doesn’t mean it panders to politics. Rather it questions the course the U.S. has taken. It makes a bold and damning statement critiquing post-9/11 failures and the emptiness of the War on Terror. When bin Laden’s compound is invaded and he’s killed, it’s a taut and suspenseful albeit disturbing sequence. In the end, there’s no rejoicing, no celebration.

The last image we see is Maya, alone shedding silent tears. She allows herself a much-needed emotional release. While she should be satisfied at the culmination of her life’s work, pain tinges this moment. Lost and forlorn, she doesn’t know where to go next.

Zero Dark Thirty doesn’t provide any easy answers. Rather it asks complex questions. Like any masterful work of art, it challenges us and pushes us, at times in uncomfortable ways. It forces us to look at ourselves as a nation, to our collective pain and to our response to tragedy. Zero Dark Thirty essentially asks us if it was all worth it. It asks how we can move forward. Just like Maya, where do we go from here?

“If this is happening to me, I can’t be the only one.”

That epiphany is shared in the new documentary, The Invisible War, which takes an in-depth look at the impunity with which rape in the military is handled.

I remember reading these words at a Women to Women International meeting a few years ago. They were spoken by Patrick Cammaert, the Deputy Force Commander of the United Nations Mission to the Democratic Republic of Congo, in 2008, who said “It is probably more dangerous to be a woman than to be a soldier in modern conflict.” This exact equation has been demonstrated and repeated hundreds of times since.

How can that be? War evokes images of young men, literally led to slaughter. For most people in our world, exposure to violent conflict comes in the form of occasional newspaper pages filled with pictures of young men and a few women who die as soldiers fighting wars in other countries. We don’t see pictures of women who die as civilians or those who are raped violently and repeatedly in conflict as a war strategy. We tend to think of children and women as collaterally damaged during war, when in truth, all over the world, they are fully, bodily engaged in conflict involving the regular use of men’s bodies as weapons against them.

In the span of one year, between 2006 and 2007, more than 400,000 women were raped in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. This is 48 women raped every hour. In Columbia, between 2001 and 2009, a period of violent insurgency, 500,000 women reported being raped.

It is exceedingly difficult to obtain accurate data regarding the incidence of rape even in daily, civilian life. Obtaining it during times of war and in cultures where the stigma attached to being a rape victim results in ostracization or death, it is exponentially more difficult. On thing is certain however, rape is when men weaponize themselves and conflict is the time when rape as a mass phenomenon of power and control is most obvious and widespread.

Can rape during conflict be stopped? This is the goal of The International Campaign to Stop Rape & Gender Violence in Conflict, a collaboration between more than 400 Nobel Peace Laureates, international advocacy organizations, and groups working in conflict zones that launched this week.

The campaign, based on the practice of three principles, PREVENT, PROTECT, PROSECUTE, urges political leaders to acknowledge the widespread use of rape as a weapon during conflict and to protect civilians and those already victimized, often repeatedly, by these crimes. It requires that perpetrators of rape be identified, arrested and prosecuted – often by the very regimes engaged in the practice.

The Campaign is currently focused on four countries that need urgent attention: the Democratic Republic of Congo, Kenya, Burma, and Colombia. In these countries, rape continues to be used in widespread ways as a systematic method of control and terror.

I am including here a trigger warning for the following four paragraphs.

The Democratic Republic of Congo is hell on earth for women. It is known as the “rape capital of the world.” Despite an almost ten-year-old peace agreement, conflict is pervasive and deadly. Between 2006-2007 at a rate of 48 rapes an hour, the level of sexualized violence was terrifying. During this period, girls and women, assaulted with weapons, including bayonets, made daily make decisions between starving and being raped as they search for food. There were widespread reports of rebel rape camps and regular, frequent gang rapes, often including baby girls. Children conceived in rape, also died in rape. Rape is now a “normal” part of life involving civilians and members of various militias, including state forces and rebels. Men rape to humiliate, control, terrorize. Some believe it provides them with “magical powers” before fighting. The occurrence of rape remains high and common and is notable because it is now happening in women’s homes, where rape is largely accepted and perpetrators entirely unpunished. Several aid organizations have also begun tracking a high incidence of male rape, increasingly recognized worldwide as a frequent occurrence in conflict, even harder to document.

In Burma, a report produced by ShanWomen.org, a grass-roots organization, documents the repeated rapes of more than 625 girls and women and the use of violent sexual assault as a weapon. These girls and women were often raped by commanding officers in front of their troops, as part of an ongoing program of torture, shame and violence including choking, suffocation and various forms of mutilation. Twenty-five percent of rapes ended in death. Out of the total 173 documented cases, only one man was punished. On the other hand, women coming forward to report their rapes, were imprisoned, assaulted and sometimes killed.

In Columbia, a country were low-grade conflict regularly involving civilians has existed since the 1940’s, girls (as young as at least eleven) and women are regularly subjected to rape and assault by members of the military, paramilitary and guerilla forces. A survey on the incidence of sexual violence due to conflict in Columbia found that six girls and or women were raped every hour between 2001 and 2009. “82.15% of the 489,678 women victims of some type of sexual violence (meaning 402,264 women) did not report the abuses. 73.93% of the victims consider that the presence of armed actors…is an obstacle to reporting sexual violence.”

Lastly, Kenya, where, although there is no ongoing war, rape is used as a tool of ethnic subjugation defined as conflict related to 2007 post-election violence. A study conducted by The Centre for Rights Education and Awareness in 2008 found that “The Kenya Police Crime Report data for 2007 indicated that there were 876 cases of rape reported, 1,984 cases of defilement, 181 cases of incest, 198 cases of sodomy, 191 cases of indecent assault and 173 cases of abduction reported in the year.” Post-election rapes in Kenya included incidences of forced genital mutilation and widespread gang rapes. The next Kenyan election is in 2013.

The Sudan, Liberia, Peru, Sierra Leone, Rwanda, Cambodia, Bosnia, Guatemala, Haiti, Nicaragua, Mexico. These are places where mass conflict-driven rape were and sometimes are still common – as a weapon of ethnic cleansing. Women, described as sperm “envelopes” to be passed from man to man, are subject to violent forced impregnation or sterilization, psychological terror, humiliation and bodily mutilation. Gender inequities are at the core of these assaults because even though girls and women are overwhelming victims, men in these communities are often the primary targets. Girls and women are viewed as property and an attack on them is a form of theft and destruction against men. In this way, rape is a strategy and a reward both. Raping females is one of the most effective ways of eviscerating the social fabric of a community at every level.

The four countries above have been identified as those requiring the most immediate and urgent help. But, they are not the only ones in which conflict-related sexual violence is taking place.

Rape used in these ways, first defined as a weapon of war in the 1990 after the atrocities of the Bosnia-Herzegovina and Rwandan wars, is now recognized by the Geneva Conventions torture, a human rights violation and a war crime. Despite this, rape is used widely and systematically in conflict areas worldwide. It is often explicitly ordered by commanders, who participate themselves and penalize those that don’t. In the countries above, a major problem is a consistent pattern of government and political inaction or complicity in the face of obvious and grave injustice and violence. Despite the work undertaken by humanitarian aid groups, grass-roots organizations, activists and human rights advocates, perpetrators remain largely free to do as they like. Rapes like the ones described above continue to be conducted and reported in conflict areas around the world. The highly gender-specific nature of this crime against humanity means that it is more often than not still thought of as sexual and “relatively” harmless. Rape is about power and humiliation and control and degradation. The consequences are devastating. War and conflict, relying as they do on the dehumanization of men to fight, is the perfect environment for an exponential increase in the dehumanization of women, already assumed to be subhuman.

So, what can you do? The organizers are aware that the goal of eliminating conflict-driven rape and sexual assault seems improbably to many, if not most, people. But, there are conflicts where widespread rape does not occur. If that is the case, then there is noting inevitable about it. In which case, it is indeed preventable.

The Campaign, launched this week, is designed to raise awareness and brings supporters together online. www.stoprapeinconflict.org. Events will be taking place throughout the week of May 6-13, in countries around the world. Everyone interested should take the initiative’s Pledge, which involves a series of action steps related to using social media to share information, raising funds and generating political momentum to change the way government perceive and deal with this issue. You can do other things as well – for example, taking a photo of your #IPLEDGE and sharing it on the StopRape in Conflict wall; contacting your local government official and informing them of the Campaign and your pledge; sharing the information on your Facebook wall, and encouraging others to learn more. If you are a Tweeter, use the hashtag #IPLEDGE. Tweet your representatives and make sure you include @stoprapecmpgn in your Tweets.

It’s not impossible.

The International Campaign to Stop Rape & Gender Violence in Conflict is the first ever global collaboration between Nobel Peace Laureates, international advocacy organizations, and groups working at the regional and community levels in conflict.  The Campaign demands urgent and bold political leadership to prevent rape in conflict, to protect civilians and rape survivors, and call for justice for all—including effective prosecution of those responsible. These three pillars of the Campaign—PREVENT, PROTECT, PROSECUTE—signal a comprehensive effort to stop rape in conflict.  Join the campaign by taking the pledge.  Then, tweet about it to @stoprapecmpgn using #IPLEDGE.

The recent Secret Service scandal has gotten many people – from political operatives to Congresswomen – calling for the inclusion of more women in the Secret Service and other such security forces.

What never fails to amaze me in the aftermath of such issues is how verbal and public so many men are with their sexism.  One need only browse the comment threads on a recent CNN article and the Yahoo News report (just to take two examples) to see it in action.  Let’s just take a look:

“Can you just see a cat fight on the rear bumper of the Presidential Limo. Just watch the ladys on Trump’s Apprentice to see how well women work together”

“All it would mean is that the prostitutes would be out of business and the male SS would simply seduce the willing female SS.  Their morals are no different”

“As someone who has been in combat and has seen women drop their weapons and run away, I’d have to say bad idea.”

“Yes, more women in the Secret Service! Then we can have sexual harassment scandals instead of prostitution scandals. Gotta keep it all in the company.”

As I said, the blatant sexism of such people never ceases to amaze me.  And so if you have a minute, please do as I have and reply to their comments or add your own.  Right now, the vast majority of the responses look like the above ones, and we cannot allow the general public to take such statements as a reasonable assessment of the situation.

But the question itself is an important one: would having more women in the Secret Service have prevented this scandal?

The Secret Service isn’t the only place we need to be asking ourselves this question.  In 2000, the United Nations passed Resolution 1325, which recognized the unique role women have to play in the peace and security of their communities.  One reason this resolution had to be considered in the first place is because the numbers themselves are so illustrative about the appalling lack of female representation in the security sector – this includes everything from peacekeeping forces to defense contractors to military to police and yes, protective entities like the U.S. Secret Service.

In the U.S. Secret Service, women make up about 25% of the agency’s workforce, but only about 11% of agents and uniformed officers. When we move beyond the Secret Service and look at other types of security forces, the numbers are no better.  Internationally, women currently comprise 2.35% of all UN peacekeeping troops.  Even in national police forces, defense industries, and other armed forces, the players are overwhelmingly male.  And so the introduction of women into the security apparatus, whether it be local, national, or international, is a relatively recent movement, and its impact is still being assessed.

With regards to sex scandals, I don’t care what political party you’re from or what gender you ascribe to – groups of women are not culturally trained and encouraged to engage in these activities in the same way that groups of men are. If you view engaging with prostitutes as something the Secret Service shouldn’t be involved in while traveling abroad on the taxpayers’ business, then you have to agree that in general, women do not do such things.

Women do not go to brothels together at the end of a long day.  Women do not get offered prostitutes when they check into certain hotels, because the hospitality industry in many parts of the world views having a human being available for your sexual gratification to be part of their business.  Women are not the market for the special sex tours that are sold to tourists around the globe, and with the exception of the rare “Madam,” women do not kidnap, rape, and sexually abuse young boys and girls and then pimp them out to the highest bidder.

In essence, there is not a culture built around the sexual exploitation of men by women.

Am I saying women never do these things?  No, of course not.  But that is very different from equating the rates at which men buy sex to the rates at which women do it.

And so at the very least, we all need to acknowledge that groups of women do not engage in these activities the way groups of men do.  It’s just one reason that sexual violence, prostitution, and sex trafficking seem to follow men with guns.

For example, the arrival of UN forces (almost exclusively male) frequently leads to increased sex trafficking and violence against women.  In Haiti, Kosovo, and Sierra Leone, all of which accepted varying numbers of overwhelmingly male international peacekeeping forces in the aftermath of conflict, sex trafficking and prostitution levels increased accordingly.   Conversely, other countries such as Nepal that have seen similar post-conflict or unstable conditions, but where international peacekeeping troops were not deployed, have not seen statistically significant increases in sex trafficking or prostitution rings.

However, the question of whether having more women present would have prevented, or stopped, such things from happening is far less clear.

There isn’t much evidence to draw upon.  However, one of the challenges we will encounter repeatedly is the indisputable fact that not all women are the same.  Especially when it comes to looking at ways to prevent such sexual escapades from happening in the first place, many women simply do not want to be seen as the “matriarch” of their security force, being pressured into policing the sexual activities of their coworkers.  And why should they have to be?  They didn’t join the Secret Service – or any other security force for that matter – in order to be the sex police or the morality police or whatever else you may want to call it.

Perhaps.

In other security-related forces, the inclusion of more women has had positive results, not just in dealing with issues of sexual violence or sexual misconduct, but also in terms of broader operational effectiveness.  This just goes back to the same argument about diversity that feminists have been making for a long time – it’s not that we’re special.  It’s that we have different skills and abilities and you shouldn’t be dismissing the benefits of diverse viewpoints and experiences.

So there you have the dilemma – as feminists, we are hesitant to claim that all women are one way or another.  That said, we have evidence that women’s behavior as a group is different from men’s, often in ways that would lead to different outcomes.

As crystallized in the coverage of the North African revolutions, journalists, media pundits and the public often forget women’s participation in conflict and security. When people discuss war, they often don’t take women or gender into account. Women become the forgotten collateral. Yet they consistently play a pivotal role. Women govern and lead their communities, serve in the military, become refugees, survive rape and assault, mourn lost loved ones, negotiate peace and protest for change.

Starting October 11^th, PBS will air the groundbreaking 5-part series Women, War and Peace that asks the question: “What if we looked at war as though women mattered?” Featuring women in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Columbia and Liberia, each film will examine and showcase different aspects affecting women and security.

Executive producers and series creators Abigail E. Disney, Pamela Hogan and Gini Reticker yearned to fill the media gap in women’s participation in war, to move beyond the preconceived notion that “war and peace are men’s domain.”

From the website’s description, the series is about how:

“The vast majority of today’s conflicts are not fought by nation states and their armies, but rather by informal entities: gangs and warlords using small arms and improvised weapons. The series reveals how the post-Cold War proliferation of small arms has changed the landscape of war, with women becoming primary targets and suffering unprecedented casualties. Yet they are simultaneously emerging as necessary partners in brokering lasting peace and as leaders in forging new international laws governing conflict.”

Having previously worked at Harvard University in a center researching issues

pertaining to women and public policy, I know the importance of including a gender lens in the realm of negotiations and security. I’m absolutely thrilled this groundbreaking documentary series will explore an often forgotten yet vital component of war and peace.

Here are each of the 5 films that will air with descriptions from the documentary’s website:

Part 1: I Came to Testify is the moving story of how a group of 16 women who had been imprisoned and raped by Serb-led forces in the Bosnian town of Foca broke history’s great silence – and stepped forward to take the witness stand in

an international court of law. Their remarkable courage resulted in a triumphant verdict that led to new international laws about sexual violence in war.

Part 2: Pray the Devil Back to Hell is the astonishing story of the Liberian women who took on the warlords and regime of dictator Charles Taylor in the midst of a brutal civil war, and won a once unimaginable peace for their shattered country in 2003.

Part 3: When the U.S. troop surge was announced in late 2009, women in Afghanistan knew that the ground was being laid for peace talks with the Taliban. Peace Unveiled follows three women in Afghanistan who are risking their lives to make sure that women’s rights don’t get traded away in the deal.

Part 4: The War We Are Living travels to Cauca, a mountainous region in Colombia’s Pacific southwest, where two extraordinary Afro-Colombian women are braving a violent struggle over their gold-rich lands. They are standing up for a generation of Colombians who have been terrorized and forcibly displaced as a deliberate strategy of war.

Part 5: War Redefined, the capstone of Women, War & Peace, challenges the conventional wisdom that war and peace are men’s domain through incisive interviews with leading thinkers, Secretaries of State and seasoned survivors of war and peace-making. Interviewees include Secretary of State Hillary Clinton; Liberian peace activist Leymah Gbowee; Bosnian war crimes investigator Fadila Memisevic; and globalization expert Moisés Naím.

Each part in Women, War and Peace will air on consecutive Tuesday nights on PBS from October 11^th through November 8^th. I’ll be blogging my thoughts and reactions after each documentary. So be sure to watch the series, read my follow-up posts and share your thoughts.

How do you think the series will change how we view women in conflict?

This piece is cross-posted with permission from Opinioness of the World.

Revolutions have consequences.

Since the beginning of the year, we’ve seen longstanding and repressive regimes fall in North Africa, and continuing protests across the Middle East and Gulf. In real time, we are watching people struggle with how to structure new institutions, build democratic governments and rebuild (or build) a non-governmental civil society. They are all fighting to shape new futures.

It’s both exciting, and a bit scary to watch. But a key question in each country is how much space there will be for women to participate fully in each of these nascent democracies. In many cases, women were critical actors in these revolutions and fought side by side with men. Many were bloggers; activists; leaders and logistics experts. Reports from Libya are that on Friday, September 3, Martyrs’ Square was filled for part of the day with only women to celebrate the fall of Colonel Gaddafi and their role in that battle.

Women bring different life experiences and perspectives to the policy debate, and it is important to ensure that those views are part and parcel of the public discussions. Women are the backbones of societies, even when they aren’t publicly acknowledged. Women make sure communities function; they run businesses, large and small; they provide the agricultural work that keeps families going. It is this experience, as well as the experience of living life as a woman, subject to harassment and violence and unequal treatment, that must be part of building safer, more stable societies.

Research shows that women’s participation helps build stronger businesses and public institutions. We need more women in politics to make sure we make the best policy decisions we can and build stable and transparent societies. A study of legislative actions in countries belonging to the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) found that the greater the number of women in a country’s parliament, the more that country spends on education as percentage of GDP and per capita. In India, local councils headed by women paid more attention to critical water and sanitation issues. Business co-ops formed by women usually thrive and support families and communities.

All of these countries face a long road ahead. Throughout the region, there are opportunities for women to be part of institutions that will shape legal frameworks for decades to come.

In Egypt, parliamentary elections are tentatively set for October 2011, and presidential elections for later in the fall. These upcoming elections will give us clues about the emerging political landscape and to the level of involvement and influence women will have as candidates and voters. Clearly, it was disappointing that there were no women included in the 63 person group drafting the package of constitutional amendments which were passed on March 19, 2011 with 77% of the vote. The amendments contained no reference to equality for women, but did not alter the quota for women’s participation in Parliament’s lower chamber, currently set as 64 of 444 seats.

Tunisia will also hold elections for the Constituent Assembly in October 2011. Tunisia has taken the lead by passing a law that there be an equal number of men and women candidates on the lists for Constituent Assembly, and that women and men appear alternatively on the lists. This latter requirement is critical to maximizing the number of women who will actually get elected. According to a recent Freedom House report, “Women have played a visible role in Tunisian society, representing 37% of the working population, 56% of students, 24% of magistrates and 22% of the executive positions in the Tunisian civil service.” The previous parliament, dissolved after the fall of Ben Ali regime, had the most women in the region. This Constituent Assembly will frame how Tunisian will govern itself into the future and how women will fare in that future.

In Libya, as the search for Colonel Gaddafi continues, the National Transition Council (NTC) is continuing its work to shape the new government. The NTC is in the process expanding and adding new members and new voices.

Perhaps even more important, however, is the involvement of women everywhere decisions are made, whether that is electing women to office at the local or national level or involving women in decision making about how camps are run or resources are distributed. This is where the rubber meets the road for so many and where the reality of women’s lives and challenges becomes painfully important.

Photo Credit: AP

Dear U.S. Navy:

A long time ago, I dedicated my life to public service.  Having spent time in both the government and nonprofit sectors, the time will come soon for me to consider joining our armed forces.  It’s been in the back of my mind for a few years now.  I spent time on Capitol Hill working on military and defense issues, and soon I’ll complete a Masters program in Global Security Studies.

There are a lot of things that attract me to military life, and in particular to the Navy.  Have I mentioned I love boats and ships and anything on water?  I spent almost four years as a coxswain for several different crew teams, and I’m confident that those skills would serve me well as a Navy Officer.  Have I mentioned that I love leadership and discipline and teamwork?  All qualities that I want to use as a member of your service.  Have I told you how much I want to learn new skills, and be at the forefront of the cutting edge technology that services not just Americans, but people all over the world?  Did I tell you yet that I want to join the Navy? 

Here’s the thing, though.  I can’t do it.  I want to give you guys a fair chance.  I want to seriously look into all the amazing opportunities that would be afforded me as a Naval Officer, a member of our armed forces, serving my country.  But I can’t do it.  At least not yet.

You see, there are two things that are stopping me right now.  The first is your institutionalized discrimination against women.  As I wrote  a few weeks ago, the U.S. Coast Guard is currently the only branch of our military that doesn’t forbid women to seek and achieve any job opportunity that is available to men.  Now, I won’t always agree with every policy of every institution I’m ever a part of.  But this is a pretty big deal.  No matter how hard I work, no matter how much I accomplish, your “official” policy against allowing me into combat will prevent me from experiencing – and contributing to – key aspects of military service that will make me qualified for higher positions.

Well, actually, that’s not true.  The truth is that I could easily be in combat; my service as such just won’t be acknowledged by the institution because technically, it wasn’t supposed to have happened.  Thanks anyway, but being a woman, I promise you I’ve already experienced my fair share of doing work that is neither acknowledged nor compensated.  How can I willingly join an institution, make it the center of my life and of my existence, if you can’t even acknowledge that I have equal potential to a man?  The answer is, I can’t.

The other problem is your unacceptably high levels of sexual violence.  I know you’re trying, and that’s a start.  I’m glad you have a fairly new Sexual Assault and Prevention Response Office that is working to enforce a zero tolerance policy towards sexual assault.  I’m glad you’ve started to allow victims to report their assaults without being required to file a formal police report, so that they can get the help they need independent of deciding whether to take legal action.  I’m glad you’ve recently asked your members to participate in an online sexual assault survey about the scope of the problem and the effectiveness of the current prevention program.   And I appreciated that you’ve funded a full time position at NCIS (Navy Criminal Investigative Service) to handle data collection for sexual assault cases.

But a female soldier serving in Iraq is more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire. One in five women serving in the Air Force say they’ve been sexually assaulted since joining the service.  The problem is all over the service, in all branches, and the Pentagon estimates that 80-90% of assaults aren’t reported at all.  Now I know all the arguments about how rape occurs in higher percentages in environments that emphasize traditionally masculine qualities such as aggression and violence, but I’m afraid that’s just not good enough.  Victims are still often denied insurance claims for PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) related to sexual assault if they didn’t immediately report the crime.  Victims are often ostracized in their units for disrupting moral.  Victims aren’t encouraged to seek legal action because they know the numbers: only 8% of cases that are investigated result in prosecution.  Even more outrageously, 80% of those who are convicted of the crime are honorably discharged.

And so you have to do better.  About giving women equal opportunities and about protecting us from heinous crimes committed by fellow servicemembers.  After all, if I’m going to be protecting others, can’t you at least protect me?

I’ll make a deal with you.  Once you do those things, I will very seriously look into joining the Navy and serving my country in uniform.  Sound fair?

Thanks,
Abigail

It happened months ago, and yet, I wouldn’t be surprised if I wasn’t the only one who hadn’t yet heard.  With the distressed economy at home and the political unrest abroad, it would have been an easy announcement to miss.  But it shouldn’t have been.

This past June, Rear Admiral Sandra L. Stosz became the very first woman to be appointed Superintendent of the U.S. Coast Guard Academy.  For that matter, she’s the first woman to ever be appointed Superintendent of any military academy.

The fact that the U.S. Coast Guard was the first to take this particular plunge isn’t surprising.  It was as far back as 1975 that the Coast Guard Academy opened its doors to women (even before the Department of Defense was ordered to do so by Congress), and shortly thereafter, in 1977, that the Coast Guard opened all of its jobs to women.  Even today, the U.S. Coast Guard is the only branch that does not reserve certain jobs for men alone. That could be one reason why this year’s Academy class is comprised of about one third women – a higher percentage than at any other military academy.

In contrast, women weren’t allowed to serve in combat positions within the Navy and Air Force until 1993, and even now, the Army and Marine Corps refuse women the opportunity to serve in infantry, artillery, and armor units.  In case the lines here are hard to draw, it’s significantly more difficult to rise through the ranks of an organization that does not permit you the opportunity to gain experience in critical roles.

Of course, women have been carrying out Coast Guard duties since even before there was a formal Coast Guard.  As early as 1830, women were responsible for minding the primitive lighthouses, a job which required little formal education, but enormous patience and stamina.  The Women’s Reserve of the Coast Guard was formally created by Franklin Roosevelt during World War II (although of course, as frequently happens when women are made visible in great quantities, some assumed recruitment for the Women’s Reserve was really a front for a government-sponsored prostitution ring).  But since then, women have moved up the ranks of the U.S. Coast Guard with equal consideration, and many feel that this branch is the most institutionally supportive of professional female development and advancement.

This isn’t the first gender barrier that Rear Admiral Sandra L. Stosz has broken.  She was also the first female graduate of the U.S. Coast Guard to even achieve the rank of Admiral.  Now, by accepting her new leadership position at the Academy, she’ll serve as an example to not only women in the service, but to other servicemembers, decision makers, and institutions as well.  It’ll be inspiring to see what she accomplishes in her new role.

Anybody who pays even the slightest attention to the world around them has a right to sometimes be a little confused about the lives women lead.  In America, we see news about women earning more Bachelor’s degrees than men while simultaneously being bombarded with words and images that portray women as mindless sex objects.  Internationally, we learn that women comprise 70% of the world’s poor while we also read about the vast number of aid programs that are designed specifically to provide opportunities and tools for women to lift themselves out of poverty.

The dual role of “Victim” and “Change-Agent” can be confusing, and that’s because it is.  Women are playing more roles now than ever before — beyond just wife and mother, they are students, activists, business leaders, politicians, and so much more.  And yet the truth is that, while women are slowly gaining ground in many places around the world, demanding rights and tearing down walls of discrimination and prejudice and hate, they are also still the number one target of the global status quo, leaving millions uneducated, impoverished, abused, and neglected.

I thought long and hard about how to celebrate today, the 100th anniversary of International Women’s Day.  Should I write about challenges that women still face around the world?  The gains we’ve made in recent years?  The war on women that has been declared by Republican politicians around the United States?  And then a professional acquaintance forwarded me an article that pointed me in the right direction.

Women need specific, targeted, and specialized aid to combat the centuries of abuse and neglect they’ve been subjected to.  But even more important than aid is recognizing the emerging role women are playing in issues related to their own peace, prosperity, advancement, and security.

Carla Koppell is the Executive Director of the Institute for Inclusive Security, an amazing organization that promotes the role of women in all decisions that affect peace and security globally.  This month, she is serving as the Guest Editor for the “International Women’s Rights” issue of The Solutions Journal.  Her piece on the role of women in today’s world emphasizes the dual nature of women’s place in the global sphere.  If you read nothing else today, read Koppell’s article, Women in the World, on the ways women are taking control of their lives, and get just a taste of the revolution that is springing to life across the globe.

Free people all over the world have been riveted by the violence and protests sweeping across the Middle East as the oppressed and neglected rise up to demand their own freedom.  And because women are affected in unique ways by war, violence, conflict, and strife, they are taking matters into their own hands. In Egypt, women are demanding a role in rebuilding their country, striving to ensure that gender-sensitive policies are brought to the table. In Liberia, women are serving as part of a UN Peacekeeping Mission to wage peace in a country that saw years of turmoil and death due to a violent civil war.  And the recent launch of UN Women, the United Nations’ newest agency to empower women, shows enormous promise.  As Koppell points out, women are the keys to success in overcoming many of the globe’s challenges.  And so, empowering women isn’t just a moral imperative (although don’t get me wrong — it absolutely is).  It’s also an economic, security, peace, and freedom imperative.  The world is starting to recognize this: we recently celebrated the anniversary of UN Resolution 1325, promoting the participation of women in all aspects of global peace and security.

If we want the world to look a certain way, to be a certain way, then we absolutely 100% must engage women in a more targeted and directed way than ever before.  But women need the tools to do so, and that’s where we can increase our commitment to them.  It’s impossible to lead your country in the 21st century if you don’t have an education.  It’s impossible to break free from a family that abuses and violates you if you aren’t allowed to leave your home unaccompanied.  It’s impossible to bring your perpetrators to justice if you aren’t allowed in a court room, or if the laws of your land do not recognize you as a victim of a crime.

There is much work to be done.  But as we increase our efforts to provide targeted aid initiatives to women in the form of microcredit loans and school supplies, we need to also increase our support for the brave women around the world who are taking matters into their own hands.  It is time for the global community to recognize their work and support their efforts to be involved in the decisions and policies that affect their lives.  These brave women are meeting us more than halfway — it is time we stepped up.

This week, voters are flooding the polls in Sudan to vote on a referendum to allow the South to secede and form its own, independent country.  Despite concerns of violence and unrest, the vote has been largely peaceful and is expected to yield a victory for the independence movement.  However, despite the success so far, not enough has been to done to involve women in the peace-building process.  If action is not taken soon, southern Sudan’s hopes at a stable and peaceful birth will fall far short of its potential.

This past October, the world celebrated the ten year anniversary of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325, acknowledging the role women have to play in global peace and security.  The resolution encourages greater participation in conflict prevention, conflict resolution, peace-building, and post-conflict governance.

Because women are affected in unique ways by conflict, gender-sensitive issues need to be at the center of peace and security operations.  So far, women’s participation has been minimal. Women were largely excluded from negotiations that forged the Comprehensive Peace Accord (CPA), the cease-fire agreement of 2005 that paved the way for this week’s referendum on secession.  The Darfur Peace Accord (DPA), intended to bring peace specifically to the Darfur region which has seen extraordinary violence and death in recent years, does only slightly better than the CPA.  The DPA excluded women in the first six rounds of negotiations, but in the seventh round, extensive efforts by both local activists and the international community prompted the African Union to allow women to form a Gender Expert Support Team (GEST) to advocate for gender specific issues.  The DPA at least attempts to address gender sensitivity by calling for increased female participation in government and improved capabilities to address gender-based violence.  However, without quotas, money, or tools for implementation, such efforts remain ineffective.

What Needs to be Done

Women need to be granted a greater role in not just the peace-building process, but also in the new governance and power-sharing structures.  Should the South choose to secede, as is largely expected, organizations such as the International Crisis Group have suggested a number of steps that can be taken to ensure greater participation by women:

1) A smooth reintegration of refugees.  Refugees, most of whom are women with children, cannot participate in the peace and rebuilding process until they are safely home. The war in Sudan has displaced almost 4 million people, and it is imperative that the crisis be addressed without additional violence or chaos. If women are traveling with children, and are combating poverty, drought, hunger, disease, imprisonment, degradation, and violence, it is simply impossible for them act as agents of the peace and stability that the region desperately needs.

2) Access to justice for victims of sexual violence. Sexual violence in times of war is staggering as women are targeted not just as vulnerable civilians, but also as a strategy of war. Without justice for the victims, along with medical care and treatment, the cycle of violence will never end and these women will not be able to lead full and productive lives. Additionally, a judicial system that allows sexual predators amnesty cannot adequately and justly serve its population.

3) Access to reproductive health care. Particularly in a war that has such high rates of ethnic tension, where forced impregnation is used as a weapon of war, such access is imperative in order to give women control over their bodies and health.

4) Education and training about HIV/AIDS. Such training will not only save lives, but also improve relations as it seeks to end the stigmatization surrounding victims of the disease. After a woman is raped, often her family will not accept her back because of fear of the virus. She is then additionally unable to care for her children and the refugee crisis will become even more pronounced.

5)  Opportunity to participate in governing.  For example, women need to be involved in the National Transition Team, which prepares and allocates budges for post-conflict reconstruction, in order to ensure that gender-specific needs are addressed.

Victory is largely expected for the independence movement, and Southern secession may prove to be a valuable mechanism for women’s engagement.  While Northern Sudan has a longer and more established history of women’s activism, the enabling culture of the South, along with its government’s official commitment to advancing women’s rights, has garnered more international support and funding for these activities. The Government of Southern Sudan, for instance, has already set up a Ministry of Gender, Child, and Social Welfare specifically to address gender-related policies. Secession from the North may provide more freedom to pursue gender-sensitive policies, such as the passage of CEDAW (UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women). CEDAW cannot be ratified currently as it is a national issue, and in the North, many view the terms of CEDAW as being contrary to Sharia law.

Ultimately, the goal is to achieve what the International Crisis Center calls a “gender-sensitive framework for sustainable peace.”  The Sudanese people have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity now, and we can only hope that they will do what is necessary to encourage a peaceful and stable transition by promoting women’s participation at all levels.