Ironic Human Rights Violations (17): Who Protects Us Against Our Protectors?

This photo’s subjects, George Mendonsa and Greta Zimmer, were two strangers, and a drunk Mendonsa – on a date with his future wife Rita at the time – noticed Zimmer in her nurse’s uniform, grabbed her and kissed her forcefully without her consent. A closer look at the image in question shows corroborating details that become stomach-turning when properly viewed: the smirks on the faces of the sailors in the background; the firm grasp around the physically smaller woman in his arms such that she could not escape if she tried; the woman’s clenched fist and limp body.

(source, source)

Here’s story brimming with irony:

An Air Force officer who led the branch’s sexual assault prevention unit been arrested for allegedly committing an act of sexual assault. Lt. Col. Jeff Krusinski is accused of drunkenly approaching a woman in a parking lot in Virginia and groping her. The woman fought back, and Krusinski’s mugshot appears to show cuts and bruises on his face. The news came on the eve of a new Pentagon report showing the epidemic of sexual assault among servicemembers is continuing to rise. There was a 6 percent increase in reports of sexual assaults in the military in fiscal year 2012 compared to the previous year. The number of people who anonymously said they were sexually assaulted, but never reported the attack, rose dramatically from 19,000 in fiscal year 2011 to 26,000 the following year. (source, source)

More on rape. More ironic human rights violations.

Human Rights Nonsense (29): The Link Between Porn and Terrorism

scene from The Good Old Naughty Days

(source)

Pornography is not a necessary cause of terrorism. The abolition of pornography would not lead to the cessation of terrorism in the world. Terrorism existed well before graphic pornography and its mass spread via the internet.

Likewise, pornography is not a sufficient cause for terrorism. There are pornography users, even addicts, who do not become terrorists. Given how widespread the viewing of pornography is today, if the direct result of each individual’s pornography use were terrorist violence, one could conceivably argue that pornography proliferation would pose a more widespread threat to human existence than nuclear proliferation.

Yet pornography now appears frequently in the possession of violent terrorists and their supporters, including Osama bin Laden. …

I wonder whether the pornography of today—now ubiquitous and increasingly grotesque—is one of the influences warping the mentality of those who aspire to or who actually go on to engage in ever more grotesque public violence. … Why, after all, would an al-Qaeda affiliate, as reported in 2009 from interrogations in Mauritania, select pornography to target new recruits? We need to know.

As terrorism researchers Daniel Bynum and Christine Fair point out in an article about the modern terrorists we have been pursuing, especially since 9/11, the fact of the matter is that “they get intimate with cows and donkeys. Our terrorist enemies trade on the perception that they’re well trained and religiously devout, but in fact, many are fools and perverts who are far less organized and sophisticated than we imagine. Can being more realistic about who our foes actually are help us stop the truly dangerous ones?” (source)

Yes, indeed, “we need to know”. Perhaps. Or perhaps there is nothing to know. Who knows? I have rarely seen a pile of insinuations so completely devoid of data and evidence. I do admit that the effects of porn consumption on people’s actions are a worthy subject of scientific investigation. Some forms of pornography can have a dehumanizing effect and may change men’s perceptions of women, perhaps to such an extent that porn can lead to violent acts such as rape. But the evidence available so far is mixed. And in the specific case of terrorism caused by porn, all we have are flimsy anecdotes and insinuations. I’m sure you can find just as many little stories about terrorists and violent games, terrorists and early child abuse, terrorists and poverty, terrorists and beards and so on.

The story above is just a free floating riff. “The U.S. government has had opportunity to observe, and in many cases, acquire, personal media from untold numbers of those involved in terrorism and the support of terrorism … [we] may be sitting on a massive data set for studying the intersection of pornography use and support for twisted violence such as terrorism” [my emphasis]. But then again, we may not be sitting on a massive data set. However, that’s no reason not to speculate, right? As I see it, there isn’t even a correlation, let alone evidence of causation. Just random anecdotes that are of no help at all explaining terrorism. You need to do better than that if you want to find the causes of some of today’s most horrific human rights violations.

More posts in this series are here.

Crime and Human Rights (12): Prison Rape in the U.S.

(source)

The U.S. Department of Justice recently released its first-ever estimate of the number of inmates who are sexually abused in America each year. According to the department’s data, which are based on nationwide surveys of prison and jail inmates as well as young people in juvenile detention centers, at least 216,600 inmates were victimized in 2008 alone. Contrary to popular belief, most of the perpetrators were not other prisoners but staff members—corrections officials whose job it is to keep inmates safe. On average, each victim was abused between three and five times over the course of the year. The vast majority were too fearful of reprisals to seek help or file a formal complaint. (source)

Given the incarceration statistics for the U.S. – more than 2 million U.S. citizens are in jail – this means that one in 10 inmates is sexually abused in prison. Approximately half of all sexual abuse in detention is committed by staff, not by inmates (source).

More in prison rape here, here, here and here. More human rights facts here.

Human Rights Cartoon (67): Domestic Violence

domestic violence cartoon by Jeff Parker

(source)

More on domestic violence, on violence against women, and on sexual violence. More on violence in general. More human rights cartoons.

Gender Discrimination (22): Gendercide

The Economist has a front page story this week on “gendercide”, the millions of girls missing in the world, especially in India and China. Perhaps as many as 100 million girls have disappeared in the last decades because of

• selective abortions encouraged by new medical technology (ultrasounds and fertility technology)
• childhood neglect of girls (nutritional, educational neglect and neglect in health care)
• prejudice, preference for male offspring and
• population policies such as the “one child policy” in China.

I’ve written about this several times before (see here, here and here), and even called it a “boomerang human rights violation“: the skewed sex ratios that result from gendercide (in some areas of China, 130 boys are being born for every 100 girls) are coming back to haunt the men that are responsible (although many mothers probably aren’t without fault either). Because of their relative scarcity, women have found an unlikely source of power. They have a competitive advantage in the marriage market, and can demand more in marriage negotiations, or at least be more selective when choosing a mate.

Causes

In my view, the word “gendercide” is somewhat overwrought because, contrary to genocide, the word that inspired the neologism of gendercide, there’s no centralized plan to exterminate women. Femicide would be a better term since it’s obviously only one of two genders that’s targeted, but it still sounds like a government organized campaign of extermination. Gendercide is the result of a combination of causes:

• individual choices based on
• plain prejudice against girls
• cultural and legal traditions, or
• economic incentives that have been formed by historical prejudice.

Perhaps girls still need a dowry, and poor parents may find it difficult to save enough and hence prefer a boy. Or perhaps they prefer a boy because the law of their country or tribe – inspired by age-old prejudice – says that only boys can inherit land or the family business. Again, the parents may prefer a boy for this reason, not because they dislike girls. Or perhaps tradition holds that girls marry off into their husbands families, and parents simply want to be sure to have someone in their home to care for them when they are old (“raising a daughter is like watering your neighbor’s garden”, is a Hindu saying).

Consequences

The consequences of gendercide are mixed. It’s obviously horrible to the girls that are aborted or neglected to death. But, as in the “boomerang” case cited above, gendercide may ultimately empower women. However, the skewed sex ratios also spell trouble: the presence of armies of men who can’t find wives and have children (“bare branches” or “guanggun” they are called in China) may result in more sexual violence, depression, suicide, human trafficking etc. It’s estimated that in 10 years time, one in five young Chinese men won’t be able to find a bride. On the other hand, a shortage of women will encourage immigration, and immigration may help some women escape poverty, and perhaps will also result in more intercultural tolerance.

Solutions

Economic development won’t stop it. In China and India, the regions with the worst sex ratios are wealthy ones, with educated populations. Even in some population strata in the U.S. sex ratios are skewed. When people escape poverty, fertility rates drop, and when families have fewer children, the need to select for sex only becomes more important in order to realize their son preference. In poor societies with high fertility rates, families are almost destined to have a boy at some point. Female children will suffer relative neglect and may die more often and more rapidly (skewing the sex ratios), but selective abortions aren’t much of a risk: families don’t really feel the need to limit the number of children (on the contrary often, because children are a workforce), and ultrasound technology for sex determination of fetuses isn’t as readily available as in rich countries or regions. When families want few children – as they do in more developed regions – or are forced by the government to limit their number of children (as in China), they will abort female fetuses in pursuit of a son.

Ultimately, only a cultural change will help. The son preference has to die out. Education probably will help, as it always does. Ending pernicious policies such as the one child policy will also help, but then overpopulation hysterics will have to be dealt with. This policy didn’t help stop population growth anyway. Other East Asian countries reduced population pressure as much as China without brutal policies.

Old customs and discriminating laws should also be abolished. Think of the dowry system, or inheritance rights. Stigmatizing abortion, especially sex selective abortion, will also help.

More on gender discrimination, on prejudice, on India, and on China.

Crime and Human Rights (8b): Sexual Violence in U.S. Prisons

I’ve written before about the abomination that is the U.S. prison system (see here, here, here and here). Some more data:

• 12% of juveniles in U.S. prisons are sexually abused each year, compared to “only” 4% of adult prisoners. Juveniles are three times more likely to be abused. No surprise that there’s a lot more rape going on in prisons than in the outside world, but the numbers are still scary: 0.3% of US non-prisoners report rape each year, versus a world median of roughly 0.05%. 60,500 adults are victims of rape or sexual misconduct in prisons each year.
• Prison rapes are perpetrated by fellow inmates or prison staff. 10.8% of males and 4.7% of females reported sexual activity with facility staff. 9.1% of females and 2.0% of males reported unwanted sexual activity with other youth.
• The US is world champion in incarceration rates: it has 0.7% of its population in prison, vs a world median of roughly 0.1%. (source)

More posts about incarceration are here. More posts about sexual violence here and here. And then there’s something about violence in general.

Gender Discrimination (19): Violence Against Women On Television

The infamous rape scene from "A clockwork orange"

Prime time television shows in the U.S. are depicting significantly more scenes and stories including violence against women. The overall incidence of violence on television hasn’t increased.

(source, source, source)

The depiction of violence against women can be exploitative, but also educational. Impossible to say on the basis of these data if TV shows include depictions of violence against women in order to attract a particular kind of audience, or in order to educate the audience. In fact, this distinction is hard to make even for individual cases of depiction of violence.

TV may not have become more violent, but movies sure have:

(source)

This graph includes all types of killing, not just the killing of women.

More on violence against women in general here, here and here. More on violence in the media in general is here.

Human Rights Quote (76): Sexual Abuse in Prison

(source)

Americans generally take it for granted that corporal punishment, Singapore- or Saudi Arabia-style, is inhumane. We don’t just chop people’s hands off or tie them to a post and beat them. In practice, however, being sentenced to a U.S. prison in effect is a sentence to physical abuse. But rather than the level of abuse being determined by a judge and by the law, it tends to be determined by the vicissitudes of chance and gang affiliation. Read, for example, Carrie Johnson’s writeup of a recent report on sexual misconduct in federal prisons. Matthew Yglesias (source)

More on prison rape and prison conditions.

The Causes of Poverty (25): The Matthew Effect

The Evangelist Matthew Inspired by an Angel, by Rembrandt

(source)

The Matthew Effect – a concept invented by sociologist Robert K. Merton - is based on the following extract of the Gospel of Matthew:

For to all those who have, more will be given, and they will have an abundance; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away.

This statement is intuitively convincing. Those who already have economic resources can use these to acquire even more of them, often if not by definition at the expense of those who don’t have them. It’s easy to see how wealthy people have better information to use their wealth in such a way that they can increase it. How they know the right people, how they can use the education system to their advantage (and to the advantage of their offspring), how they can use the political system to their advantage etc. Conversely, poor people are often stuck in a poverty trap: their poverty makes them sick, and their sickness even more poor; their poverty makes it hard to access education, and their lack of education makes them more poor etc.

You can see at once how this is relevant to the issue of human rights. While income or wealth inequality as such isn’t a human rights violation, it does have implications for human rights. And poverty is a human rights violation. But the Matthew Effect can be observed in other human rights as well. Take for instance the wiretapping that is used in the war on terror. Initially, wiretapping is targeted towards individuals who are suspected of plotting an attack. However, it seems inevitable that those who are authorized to use wiretapping expand the field of their authority. Instead of targeted wiretapping, they go on fishing expeditions: throwing out the nets as wide as possible and see which fishes end up in it. They start to use data-mining, for instance, checking private information of entire populations in order to filter out suspect individuals.

Another example of the Matthew Effect in human rights can be found in hate speech laws. The laws may initially impose limits on the freedom of speech that crack down on cases of hate speech that may cause violence and riots. However, once certain exceptions on the freedom of speech are legal and legitimate, the boundaries may move towards more restrictions. Maybe speech that doesn’t pose an imminent threat of violence but perhaps a longterm threat to the stability of a multicultural society – such as derogatory speech, or blasphemous speech – should also be prohibited. And then you may find yourself on a slippery slope.

I can also mention what I called “searchlight human rights violations” (see this previous post): for example, a certain level of sexual violence against women in a particular society, can teach young men a certain culture, mentality and value system that automatically leads to a wider use of violence.

However, I don’t believe things are as simple as this. While the Matthew Effect is certainly a force that is driving human rights violations, I don’t think there is anything inevitable or mechanical about it. There are other forces at play as well, and some of them go in the other direction. If that wouldn’t be the case, then the Matthew Effect would have landed us in a place where respect for human rights is non-existent, and would have done so a long time ago.

Regarding the particular case of wealth inequality, a simple application of the Matthew Effect would require a vision of the world with limited resources. And although some – important – resources are indeed limited, others – equally important ones – are not. It’s not because one person receives a good education, that another one must receive less education. And when one person accumulates riches, this can benefit others (his or her employees for example).

Limiting Free Speech (35): Publishing Lists of Pedophiles on the Internet, Ctd.

example of a sex offender registry

(source)

A follow-up from this previous post on the same subject. We should of course do our utmost to protect people, and especially children, from sexual predators. In the U.S., and to a lesser degree elsewhere, “utmost” means publishing so-called “registries” of sex offenders on the internet. These registries contain the names, addresses and offenses of people convicted for sex crimes. The purpose of the registries is to inform people about the whereabouts of convicted sex offenders and allow them to take measures to protect their children. (A few examples of registries are here, here and here; some of those are government sites, others are not).

By definition, since the purpose is protection, these registries should contain only information on people who are likely to offend again, and to offend in a way that is dangerous to children (and possibly adults). People who have been convicted in the past but are not deemed to be possible repeat offenders, or people convicted for sex crimes that are not dangerous (flashers for example) shouldn’t be included, but regularly are.

These registries are an exercise of free speech. The question here is: should they be allowed, or are they doing more harm than good? In other words: should this case of freedom of speech be restricted in order to protect other rights? (we’ve seen before how human rights can be limited when they come into conflict with other human rights). Which other rights could possibly be harmed by this exercise of free speech? One could say the right to privacy of the offenders (it’s not because you’re a convicted criminal that you automatically lose your right t privacy). But that’s not obvious. Someone’s address and criminal record aren’t private information. So registries of sex offenders aren’t, by definition, violations of the right to privacy. Hence, the right to free speech of publishers of such registries can’t be limited because of the right to privacy of the offenders.

But there are other reasons why the rights of those publishers can be limited. Registries can (and did) lead to

• harassment of offenders, violent attacks and even murder
• ostracism, including their family members and children (some registries even have button to print a mugshot that can be posted on the offenders’ doors)
• violations of their right to freely choose a residence: they are either chased away, or legally prohibited from living near certain places (schools, playgrounds…); sometimes these prohibitions are so restrictive that people are forced to be homeless (in Miami, exclusion zones have created a camp of homeless offenders under a bridge)
• violations of the right to work: people whose names are in registries are often fired from their jobs or have difficulties finding a job.

These are obviously rights violations that are serious enough to at least make us consider whether the right to free speech of the publishers of registries should be maintained.

And even the right to privacy can become a problem. As noted, addresses and criminal records aren’t private. However, many registries contain a lot of “noise” – people who do not pose any threat (some U.S. states requires registration of people who have visited prostitutes, who have had consensual sex as teenagers etc.). Not only does this label harmless people as “predators”, with often devastating consequences for them. Another result of this noise is that the registries become useless. As a consequence, those who defend the registries ask for more information to be included so that they can judge which “predator” is a real one:

I agree that a man who exposes himself to a woman may not pose the same danger as a convicted child-molester or rapist. All represent a threat, however, so the solution is thus not less information but more detailed information. Give me the facts about the offence and let me decide the level of risk to me and my family. As the parent of two young children I would like to know who my neighbour is going to be before I buy that new home. Adrian Kendall

Taken to its logical extreme, such a view will defend putting everything “bad” about everyone in a super-register. 1984 all over again. Perhaps registries could be used on a need-to-know basis only.

PS: there’s apparently also an iPhone app for this:

More posts in this series.

Limiting Free Speech (34): Pornography and Sexual Violence

from the kiss series by Wim Delvoye

(source, attention: this link is NSFW; more about Wim Delvoye here and here)

In this old post in the blog series on limiting free speech, I mentioned the possibility that pornography causes sexual violence, and that this violence could be one of the justifications for prohibiting or limiting pornography, and hence for limiting one form of free speech. (The physical integrity rights of the victims of pornography induced sexual violence outweigh the rights to free speech of pornographers and their clients). I also cited some scientific research corroborating the link between pornography and sexual violence.

Now I came across some evidence pointing in another direction. We all know that porn is one of the main reasons to use the internet. Large increases of internet use of the last years, together with a proliferation of websites offering free porn, should, in theory, lead to a large increase in the numbers of rape. But that isn’t the case.

The rise of the Internet offers a gigantic natural experiment. Better yet, because Internet usage caught on at different times in different states, it offers 50 natural experiments. The bottom line on these experiments is, “More Net access, less rape.” A 10 percent increase in Net access yields about a 7.3 percent decrease in reported rapes. States that adopted the Internet quickly saw the biggest declines. And, according to Clemson professor Todd Kendall, the effects remain even after you control for all of the obvious confounding variables, such as alcohol consumption, police presence, poverty and unemployment rates, population density, and so forth. Steven E. Landsburg (source)

Another study:

A vocal segment of the population has serious concerns about the effect of pornography in society and challenges its public use and acceptance. This manuscript reviews the major issues associated with the availability of sexually explicit material. It has been found everywhere it was scientifically investigated that as pornography has increased in availability, sex crimes have either decreased or not increased. (source, source)

So it seems that the opposite is true: more porn = less rape. Maybe porn is a substitute for rape. In which case, one of the justifications for restricting the free speech rights of pornographers collapses. However, I mentioned in my old post that sexual violence isn’t the only possible reason to limit the rights to free speech of pornographers. Pornography can, for instance, perpetuate discriminatory gender roles. And the quote below shows that there is some evidence that pornography increases the likelihood of re-offending:

In this study, we examined the unique contribution of pornography consumption to the longitudinal prediction of criminal recidivism in a sample of 341 child molesters. We specifically tested the hypothesis, based on predictions informed by the confluence model of sexual aggression that pornography will be a risk factor for recidivism only for those individuals classified as relatively high risk for re-offending. Pornography use (frequency and type) was assessed through self-report and recidivism was measured using data from a national database from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Indices of recidivism, which were assessed up to 15 years after release, included an overall criminal recidivism index, as well as subcategories focusing on violent (including sexual) recidivism and sexual recidivism alone. Results for both frequency and type of pornography use were generally consistent with our predictions. Most importantly, after controlling for general and specific risk factors for sexual aggression, pornography added significantly to the prediction of recidivism. Statistical interactions indicated that frequency of pornography use was primarily a risk factor for higher-risk offenders, when compared with lower-risk offenders, and that content of pornography (i.e., pornography containing deviant content) was a risk factor for all groups. The importance of conceptualizing particular risk factors (e.g., pornography), within the context of other individual characteristics is discussed. (source)

Torture, A Collection of Images

More on torture here. More collections of images here.

Abu Ghraib torture

(source, read the full story here)

Modified version of the infamous Lynndie England Abu Ghraib torture picture, suggesting higher level military and political involvement

(source)

Photoshopped image of the Statue of Liberty, suggesting that Abu Ghraib and other torture scandals have modified the image of the U.S.

(source)

Jack Bauer, "hero" of the TV series "24", has done much to make torture acceptable again

(source, read more about the influence of “24″ here and here)

waterboarding by the inquisition

(source, read the full story of waterboarding here)

torture and sexuality

(source, read more about the perverse relationship between torture and sexuality, especially during the Christian Inquisition)

Strappado is a form of torture in which the victim's hands are first tied behind their back, and then he or she is suspended in the air by means of a rope attached to wrists, which most likely dislocates both arms - weights may be added to the body to intensify the effect and increase the pain

(source, read more about it here)

Gender Discrimination (17): Gender Based Violence in Conflicts, and the Dubious Role of Peacekeepers

peacekeeper, photo: AP / Hussein Malla

(source)

[This post is by guest-writer Line Løvåsen].

Bodies as battleground

The use of rape, genital torture and other types of sexual violence (or gender based violence) is common in most military conflicts, and is often a conscious strategic choice rather than exceptional excesses by individual soldiers. This kind of violence now kills and maims more African women than the combined effects of cancer, malaria, road accidents and war (see here). The conflicts in Congo, Rwanda, Liberia, Sudan and in other countries, also outside Africa, have left countless women and children the victims of sexual atrocities.

Violence against women has been called “the most pervasive yet least recognized human rights abuse in the world” (see here) and can be exercised on many different levels: that of the individual and the household (domestic violence), the level of culture or ethnic groups etc.

In the conflicts in Congo, for example, all parties have used sexual violence, including the UN Peacekeeping Forces (called MONUC, see here). I want to disrupt the automatic association that peacekeeping is the alternative to military violence. I want to show that peacekeeping may increase conflicts and insecurity. While the gender relationships in certain ethnic groups are seen as unequal and violent by the West, we in the West often judge without examining our own behavior. Gender violence doesn’t get the attention it deserves, especially gender violence in or by the West.

What if peacekeeping equals violence?

What happens when the solution to a conflict is another problem? The presence of UN peacekeepers may indeed keep the peace, but may and does sometimes lead to gender based violence inflicted by the peacekeepers on the local population. Peacekeeping missions may encourage prostitution by local women, especially if poverty levels are such that this is the only trade these women have (Martin 2005:15-16). As in all prostitution settings, rape is often disguised as prostitution.

However, the problem is not limited to sexual violence. Peacekeeping troops may also experience a culture shock that can escalate into racism and even racist violence. In the Somali mission, Somali men were seen as homosexuals (as in Somalia it is common for men to hold hands). In addition, the extreme situations in which peacekeepers often find themselves, can provoke attitudes like “Why even bother, these people are backward and barbarians”.

In the eyes of the local populations, peacekeeping can be seen as military conquest (Jeong 1999:22-23), especially when the violent actions of these peacekeepers isn’t of a sexual nature but the result of abuses of power (Martin 2005:15-16). Such abuses are linked to the impunity and immunity that normally apply to peacekeeping forces.

Accusations of sexual violence or abuses of power by peacekeepers are hard to investigate, either because the local judicial system has collapsed (which is often the case when there is a need for peacekeepers), or because the international community and/or the country of origin of the peacekeepers fail to take notice. An incident in Somalia when a boy was tortured for hours and killed by UN peacekeepers forced people to notice the often contradictory nature of peacekeeping.

It is important to keep in mind the culture where peacekeepers come from (F&N 1994:14-15), because a culture shock can lead to violence or other types of human rights violations. Moreover, we shouldn’t forget that peacekeepers are soldiers, and some of the assumptions that guide military behavior are detrimental to conflict resolution processes. Current military training and logic still contains strong “them-us” and “win-lose” dichotomies and condones human rights abuses in the name of security. Moreover, the presence of armed forces can escalate the sense of threat and disagreements, and can convince local populations that the use of force is the normal type of social interaction (F&N 1994:18). They will be tempted to ask the question: if those peacekeepers can fight violence with violence, why can’t we do so as well?

How to improve peacekeeping?

According to Fetherston (1993:22-24) we must first address and understand our assumptions of what is success. Traditional diplomacy operates from negative peace-assumptions. Violent conflict is seen as a natural state of affairs and success is a settlement or a compromise. This, however, often means reinforcing existing power structures rather than the mitigation of discontent. Contrary to this, we need to move towards conflict resolution. Success here is positive peace tied to basic human needs. Violence is not seen as natural, but caused by social and environmental conditions and the frustration of human needs. These things can be changed (Fetherston 1993:6-7).

The focus must be on larger long term processes of reconstruction, rather than short term suppression of conflict. Peacekeepers must lead by example, and hence they must develop skills such as empathy and cultural awareness rather than purely military skills (Fetherston 1993:14). When peacekeepers derail, there should be a more effective criminal prosecution system. One could also attempt to increase the number of women in peacekeeping troops.

References

Fetherstone, A. B. (1993) Making UN pk more peaceful: Relating Concepts of “Success” to Field Reality Working Paper (Australian National Unversity. Peace Research Centre); NO 139 National Library of Australia
Fetherstone, A. B. and Nordstrom, C. (1994) Overcoming conceptual habitus in conflict management: UN peacekeeping and warzone ethnography, Working Paper (Australian National Unversity. Peace Research Centre); NO 147 National Library of Australia
Jeong, H-W. (1999) “Concepts of Peace and Violence” in Peace and Conflicts Studies: An Introduction. Aldershot, England: Ashgate Publishing, pp. 19-30.
Martin, S. (2005) Must boys be boys? Ending sexual exploitation & abuse in UN peacekeeping missions, Refugee International, http://www.refugeesinternational.org/content/publication/detail/6976

If you want to learn more about gender based violence in different countries and the campaigns for change, here are some links:

http://www.theirc.org/what/gender-based-violence.html
http://www.who.int/gender/violence/en/
http://www.unfpa.org/gender/violence.htm
http://www.hhri.org/thematic/gender_based_violence.html
http://www.irinnews.org/IndepthMain.aspx?IndepthId=20&ReportId=62814
http://www.igwg.org/priorityareas/violence.htm
http://www.popcouncil.org/genfam/violence.html

Gender Discrimination (16): Sexual Violence in South Africa

(source)

Shocking numbers from The Guardian:

One in four men in South Africa have admitted to rape, according to a study that exposes the country’s endemic culture of sexual violence. … Almost half who said they had carried out a rape admitted they had done so more than once. … South Africa is notorious for having one of the highest levels of rape in the world. Only a fraction are reported, and only a fraction of those lead to a conviction. … Only 7% of reported rapes are estimated to lead to a conviction.

The study … also found that men who are physically violent towards women are twice as likely to be HIV-positive. … Any woman raped by a man over the age of 25 has a one in four chance of her attacker being HIV-positive.

More on rape, and on violence against women in general.