1. society
2. crime
3. sexual offence
4. rape

IReflect – Student Journal of
International Relations
www.ireflect-journal.de
Hegemonic Masculinity, Victimhood and Male
Bodies as ‘Battlefields’ in Eastern DR Congo
HANNO BRANKAMP
IReflect – Student Journal of International Relations 2015,
Vol. 2 (1), pp 5-28
Published by
IB an der Spree
Additional information can be found at:
Website: www.ireflect-journal.de
E-Mail: board@ireflect-journal.de
Website: www.ibanderspree.de
E-Mail: vorstand@ibanderspree.de
Berlin, March 2015
Brankamp: Hegemonic Masculinity, Victimhood and Male Bodies
Hegemonic Masculinity, Victimhood
and Male Bodies as ‘Battlefields’ in
Eastern DR Congo
Hanno Brankamp
Abstract
While sexual violence against women prominently features on
the agendas of international and local actors, sexual crimes
against men and boys are vastly neglected. This article seeks
to examine the interrelation between notions of victimhood,
masculinity, and gender as structural factors in armed conflict,
and takes sexual violence against men in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) as a case in point. In particular, the
concept of ‘hegemonic masculinity’ serves as an alternative,
but not exclusive explanatory model for the use of sexual violence and rape during conflicts in the Eastern DRC. In contrast
to previous studies, the focus lies on the interaction between
widespread notions of ‘female’ victimhood and ‘male’ perpetration that serve as drivers for the emergence of gendered hierarchies, which sanction hegemonic forms of masculinity. The
article shows how these rival versions of masculinity in the
DRC determine each other’s intensity and prevalence, and how
the lack and/or exaltation of these masculinities can translate
into predatory behaviour, such as the targeted use of sexual
violence against men and women.
Keywords: Hegemonic Masculinity, Sexual Violence, Eastern Congo, Gender
Roles, Victimhood, Male Bodies, War Rape.
Introduction
The prolonged conflicts in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) are
recognised as scenes of widespread civilian suffering. Scholars, politicians,
and practitioners routinely emphasise the particular vulnerability of women
and children. Hence, these conflicts are often viewed as a war against women.
Media coverage on the issue typically displays cynical voyeurism, indulging
IReflect 2015, Vol. 2 (1): 5-28
5
Brankamp: Hegemonic Masculinity, Victimhood and Male Bodies
in the purposeful depiction of scenarios of gang rape and mutilation. The
dimension and prevalence of sexual- and gender-based violence (SGBV) puts
thousands of civilians in the provinces of Nord-Kivu, Sud-Kivu, and Orientale
(especially Ituri) at risk. Despite international responses, many still live in
fear of abuse, humiliation, and torture at the hands of militias and the Armed
Forces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (FARDC) which operate with
de facto impunity (Davis 2009). While sexual violence against Congolese
women and girls receives its deserved attention, similar crimes against men
and boys remain vastly unreported, and carry an additional social stigma
(Christian et al. 2011: 237). On the one hand, it is indisputable that women
and girls represent the majority of survivors of sexual violence in the DRC.
Prevention strategies and networks supporting medical treatment of survivors thus narrowly focus on women. On the other hand, this imbalance disempowers male survivors who suffer equally from physical pain, psychological traumas and social exclusion. The study of sexual violence during conflict
is not merely an academic question posed for its own sake, but aims at illuminating the structure, extent, and nature of the problem, in order to contribute to its solution (Gottschall 2004: 135).
The purpose of this article is to examine the interrelation between notions of victimhood, masculinity, and gender as structural factors in armed
conflict, and takes sexual violence against men in the DRC as a case in point.
To this end, the concept of hegemonic masculinity serves as a key explanatory model, and refers to a specific form of masculinity that sanctions subordinate and deviating gender identities, both male and female. In contrast to
previous studies, this article links the emergence of hegemonic masculinity to
notions of victimhood and wider debates on gender during times of war.
Sexual violence against men is neither new, nor is it geographically or culturally unique. In Eastern DR Congo – as during the wars in the former Yugoslavia – rape and sexual torture of men is an “open secret” (Oosterhoff, Zwanikken and Ketting 2004) rather than a disputed fact. Acknowledging this
violence against men eclipses simplistic explanations that solely stress misogyny and ‘patriarchal rage’ as driving factors of armed conflict.
Although special SGBV training programmes for Congolese government
forces have been underway, positive measures have yet to translate into
substantial change. Furthermore, despite progressive steps taken, international law fails to adequately recognise, address, and punish sexual crimes
against men (Lewis 2009). Failing to comprehend these structural problems
undermines prevention schemes, especially when a detailed analysis of masculinity and gender as conflict factors is neglected. Frankly, gender, as the
structural power relation between men and women, is rarely or never the
cause of war; this is also true for the DRC. While the roots of the conflict are
political, gender and predatory masculinities shape conflict economies and
the way that war is conducted. Narratives of victimhood create justifications
for the deliberate targeting of certain genders, and exacerbate hyper6
IReflect 2015, Vol. 2 (1): 5-28
Brankamp: Hegemonic Masculinity, Victimhood and Male Bodies
masculinising tendencies, thus militarising identities within and around
armed groups.
This article will proceed in the following way: Firstly, the political dynamics of the Congolese warscape will be examined, focussing particularly on the
versatile use of sexual violence by virtually all conflict parties during the First
and Second Congo War. Secondly, the discussion will consider conventional
narratives of ‘victimhood’ and male/female gender roles which form the
backdrop on which hegemonic masculinity can materialise and eventually
come into effect. Existing silences on male bodies as ‘battlefields’ are therefore seen as an immediate result of these stereotypical gender positions. In a
third step, the article will discuss the concept of hegemonic masculinity, and
explicate its growth from and interaction with local, Congolese understandings of masculinity and manhood. Fourthly, sexual violence and rape of men
in Eastern DRC will be presented in more detail, using the above frameworks
of victimhood and hegemonic masculinity as reference points to explain the
socio-psychological effects on communities, families, and survivors alike.
Lastly, the author will comment on the usefulness of the concept of hegemonic masculinity, its applicability to Eastern DRC, and propose potential future
alleys for research and practice, so that policy responses can eventually follow.
Framing Conflict and Sexual Violence in DR Congo
To some extent, rape and other forms of sexual violence seem commonplace
and almost unavoidable in war-settings such as the DRC. Following journalistic accounts on DR Congo as the “rape capital of the world” (BBC 2010),
structural violence against the local population is sensationalised, omitting a
serious analyses of the underlying political and gender-related drivers of
conflict.
A regional upsurge of “structural militarism” (Baregu 2002) immediately
after the Rwandan genocide became evident when the regimes of Rwanda,
Uganda and Burundi first invaded Zaïre (later DRC) in 1996. Through backing
Laurent-Desiré Kabila’s Alliance des Forces Démocratiques pour la Libération
du Congo-Zaïre (AFDL), neighbouring governments pursued the overthrow
of long-term dictator Mobutu Sese Seko who had ruled for over thirty years
(Prunier 2009). Following Mobutu’s demise, Kabila was installed as president
of the then re-named Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Only shortly
after, in August 1998, a Rwandan-backed rebellion of Kinyarwanda-speaking
communities in Eastern DRC served as a pretext for the allied forces to reinvade the Congo (Reyntjens 1999; Prunier 2009). In this second episode of
Africa’s World War, not only bordering countries, but also actors such as
Angola, Namibia, Zimbabwe and Sudan, which had political or economic
stakes in the conflict, engaged in fighting on Congolese territory (Mamdani
1999: 60; Weinstein 2000: 16).
IReflect 2015, Vol. 2 (1): 5-28
7
Brankamp: Hegemonic Masculinity, Victimhood and Male Bodies
During the two successive Congo Wars (1996-1997 and 1998-2003)
sexual violence became a strategy of war employed by belligerents on all
sides. Reports suggest that combatants of the Rassemblement Congolais pour
la Démocratie (RCD)-Kisangani, RCD-Goma, the Rwandan Army (then RPA),
the Mai Mai vigilante militias, the Ugandan army (UPDF), as well as the Burundian Hutu rebels of the Conseil National Pour la Défense de la Démocratie-Forces pour la Défense de la Démocratie (CNDD-FDD) routinely and
purposefully used sexual violence against civilians. Human Rights Watch
quite aptly called sexual violence in the DRC a “war within the war” (HRW
2002). Observers state that sexual violence in the Eastern DRC strongly resembles the violence that was committed during the Rwandan genocide, and
which was apparently replicated across the border (Pratt and Werchick
2004: 9; HRW 1996). Despite the withdrawal of the last Rwandan and Ugandan troops in 2003, and the normalisation of political ties between the government actors, civil strife and chronic violence continues to the present day.
Dozens of local militias, guerrillas and proxy forces are still operating in the
provinces of Nord-Kivu, Sud-Kivu and the district of Ituri, not to mention the
FARDC which have become one of the largest perpetrators of sexual violence
in the Congo (HRW 2009). While some argue that the rape of women has
historically symbolised the so-called “spoils of war”, and has been seen as a
common act of warfare (Brownmiller 1993: 32; Elshtain 1995: 4; Leatherman
2007: 53; Cockburn 2005: 22), the scale of sexual violence in the DR Congo
and elsewhere suggests otherwise.
Certainly, the conquering of space by armed forces ritually involves ‘taking’ enemy women. Nonetheless, this theory sits relatively uneasy with the
levels of violence that exceed intercourse rape. Mukwege and Nangini (2009)
therefore label these instances “Rape with Extreme Violence” (R.E.V). Ruth
Seifert provides more insights into why sexual violence and R.E.V occur so
frequently in armed conflict and suggests another four reasons; Rape as an
element of male-to-male communication through women’s bodies (also Rejali
1998: 26; Brownmiller 1994), as a means of boosting an army’s masculine
identity, as a weapon to destroy the enemy’s culture, and finally as an expression of masculine contempt for ‘femininity’ (Seifert 1994: 58-65). Following
this view, once male supremacy becomes unstable, or a re-negotiation of
gender roles is forced upon a society (potentially through civil war or invasion), armed groups and civilians are more likely to use sexual violence in
order to re-assert pre-existing social structures, or more specifically, hegemonic masculinity. Women’s socially assigned roles as transmitters of identity, ethnicity and race, thus makes them prime targets for sexual violence
(Yuval-Davis 2011; Turshen 1998: 9; Blanchard 2003: 1301-1302;
Puechguirbal 2001). Perpetrators can socially control local communities,
instil fear, and discourage deviant behaviour, but also convey feelings of
restoration to disempowered men and youth (Silberschmidt 2005: 196).
Strictly speaking, sexual violence constitutes a combined act of terror and
torture, rather than a tactic of war (Sivakumaran 2005: 1300; Pratt and Wer8
IReflect 2015, Vol. 2 (1): 5-28
Brankamp: Hegemonic Masculinity, Victimhood and Male Bodies
chick 2004). Armed conflicts usually exacerbate these tendencies through the
ready availability of small arms and emerging ideals of military manhood.
Therefore, warscapes like the DRC, along with Darfur, Rwanda, Bosnia and
numerous other conflicts, have posed as major precedents for the understanding of ‘gendered places’ in conflict.
Civilian women suffer disproportionately not only during, but also after
the fighting stops. Between 60-80 percent of women in the most affected
(Eastern) regions of the DRC are single heads of households, and many are
exposed to sexual violence, and/or sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), and
face rejection from their communities and spouses (Puechguirbal 2001:
1274). Survivors are usually silenced by cultural norms and taboos that ostracise and stigmatise those that openly admit abuse (GTZ 2009: 8; Avigad
and Rahimi 2004). Individuals frequently suffer from severe psychological
traumas and chronic physical pain. Whereas the vast majority of perpetrators
are men, increasing numbers of ‘victims’ are in fact also male. Eriksson Baaz
notes that sexual violence in wartime is therefore used to reinforce dominance not just over women, but also over men (Baaz 2009: 498). Apart from
the physical infliction of pain and suffering, the symbolic element of sexual
violence makes it consequential weapon of war. To analyse this in detail, the
following section will scrutinise prevailing notions of gender and victimhood
during conflict.
Unravelling Gender in Conflict: Men as Perpetrators, Women as
Victims
In violent conflicts, issues of gender identity become key. While this is true
also for times of peace, war is a moment when social and gender power relations can easily translate into physical combat and cause harm and suffering.
For the purpose of this article, gender will be referred to as “a set of discourses which can set, change, enforce, and represent meaning on the basis of
perceived membership in or relation to sex categories” (Sjoberg and Gentry
2007: 6-7; Connell 2012: 71-72; Butler 1999). Although feminists have advocated a serious examination of the gendered realities that shape sociocultural, economic, political, and inter-personal power relations, political
actors have instead often embraced a reductionist narrative that puts women
indeed centre stage, yet reproduces their role as passive “beautiful souls” and
collective “victims” rather than agents (Sjoberg and Gentry 2007: 4; Enloe
2000b; Tickner 1992). During war, this view becomes even more prevalent.
Overcoming this dilemma means to acknowledge victimisation as a – literally
and figuratively – disarming practice, that rather serves the preservation of
cemented gender relations than their disruption. As Thompson notes, the
study of conflict can therefore not be content “holding women up to the
light”, but must question the very foundations of gender relations, both in
war and peace (Thompson 2006: 342). Merely emphasising female victimIReflect 2015, Vol. 2 (1): 5-28
9
Brankamp: Hegemonic Masculinity, Victimhood and Male Bodies
hood as a constitutive characteristic of armed conflict in Eastern Congo renders the underlying causes and driving forces of conflict marginal, portraying
them as incomprehensible and in fact apolitical. Unravelling gender stereotypes, and rendering their contradictory nature visible, gives more insights
about their workings within armed conflict. Stereotypically, women – as
opposed to ‘warmongering men’ – tend to occupy at least three roles that are
summarised below.
Women’s Threefold Role in Armed Conflict
First, women assume the role of the ‘natural victim’. Despite wellintentioned, and sometimes successful efforts to alleviate women’s suffering
during war, the mantra-like repetition of a “womenandchildren” narrative
has led to the normalisation of victimhood as a feminine trait (Enloe 2000b;
Van Dijk 2009: 3,10; Moser and Clark 2005). Scholars and practitioners walk
a constant tightrope in trying to weigh grass-root responses to women’s
humanitarian needs, and the open re-production of a female imagery that
implies passivity and inaction. Cynthia Enloe (2000b) argues that patriarchy
needs men and women acting in mutually complementary ways. In this logic,
‘passive’ and victimised women are granted protection by men, usually
against the aggressions of other men. Women’s alleged inability to protect
themselves also feeds into notions of inherent nonviolence and peacefulness
as another marker of womanhood (Cohen 2013: 384). Such notions mask a
reactionary and double-edged understanding of the female role. Women are
portrayed as embodying ethical aspirations, such as peace and purity, but are
at the same time deemed unfit for survival in ‘the real world’, at least in the
absence of potent male patrons. Joshua Goldstein points out that feminising
peace reinforces the overdrawn masculinity of the male soldier and protector
(Goldstein 2001: 59).
Women’s second classical role is that of domestic wives and field auxiliaries, or in Steans’ words: “camp followers” (2004: 89). Men’s roles as active
fighters contrasts sharply with women’s responsibility to ‘keep the home
fires burning’. Historically, these gender constructions were key for the legitimisation of masculine nationalism, the waging of wars, and the colonial
conquest at large (Enloe 2000b: 44-45; Amos and Pamar 1984: 14; Steans
2004: 89-90). Sustaining the image of women as virtuous home front labourers co-creates the myth of male ‘warrior heroes’ that they service. Through
this, women receive their own heroic wartime representation that is consistent with societal preconceptions of masculinity and femininity (Steans
2004: 81-82; Enloe 1988). Despite existing legislations that sanction women’s (limited) service in many armies around the world, their socio-culturally
subjugated position remains largely untouched. The same is not necessarily
true for cases in which women substantially participate(d) in guerrilla warfare, such as in Eritrea, Colombia, or in the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK).
10
IReflect 2015, Vol. 2 (1): 5-28
Brankamp: Hegemonic Masculinity, Victimhood and Male Bodies
Arguably, women’s most consequential role is the ‘nurturing mother’, the
third stereotypical image. Women-as-mothers are often seen as the emotional grounding of society and recognised as vehicles for cultural identity (Rich
1986: 30; Elshtain 1995: 96-97). This leads to their ready exposure to spiralling levels of (sexual) violence, torture, and other inhumane acts, especially in
conflicts that are infused with ethnic mobilisation. Seifert provides a formidable account of the Bosnian War, and asserts that sexual violence against
women serves several interlinked purposes, one of which being the destruction of the enemy’s culture (Seifert 1994: 63). Conflicts in the Congo also
feature this deliberate targeting of women. Even in the aftermath of the
fighting, women bear further humiliation through the birth of ‘war babies’
which often precipitates social exclusion (Watson 2007).
Dominant discourses which, either explicitly or implicitly, feature men as
perpetrators, or at least as silent abettors of (sexual) violence, naturally perpetuate women’s status as victims and conversely negate male vulnerability.
Some argue that the deconstruction of female victimhood – though desirable
– considerably weakens policies that are specifically tailored to women’s
protection during armed conflict (Gillespie 1996). This is certainly a case in
point. However, a nuanced view on victims and perpetrators, that acknowledges the heterogeneity of all genders, especially during wartime, can only
strengthen long-term emancipatory goals that seek to give agency to those
voices that otherwise remain unheard. This includes male survivors of sexual
violence. Of course, the downside is the acknowledgement of women’s equal
potential for murder and cruelty (Sjoberg and Gentry 2007: 4). That said,
Gentry and Sjoberg assert, that “[…] the stereotype of women’s victimization
holds fast largely because it is not entirely untrue;” (Sjoberg and Gentry
2007: 4). Recognising the reality of women’s violence and men’s vulnerability
also means to admit that this is statistically not the norm. For good reasons
few would argue otherwise (Puechguirbal 2001).
To illustrate these reversed wartime roles, Gentry and Sjoberg put forward the case of sexual abuse in the Abu Ghraib detention facility in Iraq
between 2003 and 2004, that displayed women as perpetrators, such as US
soldier Lynndie England (2007: 8). The fact that male Iraqi prisoners were
publicly exposed to inhumane treatment and sexual abuse at the hands of
female soldiers made the case even more noteworthy. Although quite exceptional in their media coverage, the incidents epitomise the existing contradictions between socially assigned wartime roles and the dire reality (Cohen
2013). Without going into detail, the ensuing scandal was a showcase for the
structural naturalisation of male perpetration vis-à-vis female victimisation,
and society’s unpreparedness to face the subversion of this principle
(Blanchard 2003: 1299). Recent reports from the DRC support this view.
Militiawomen have been found committing sexual violence against women
and men near the town of Walikale (Nord-Kivu), and conducted themselves
as brutally as their male counterparts (Hatcher 2013). Putting sexual violence into a wider structural context of inter- and intra-gender relations
IReflect 2015, Vol. 2 (1): 5-28
11
Brankamp: Hegemonic Masculinity, Victimhood and Male Bodies
helps to dissolve an arbitrary victim/perpetrator dichotomy. While men are
commonly associated with committing (sexual) crimes in armed conflict
(Eriksson Baaz 2009: 499; Enloe 2000a; Stern 2005), they are too often rendered invisible as ‘victims’. As much as the recognition of some women as
perpetrators does not alter the fact that the majority suffers from armed
conflict, the reverse is true for male survivors. Men’s bodies have rarely been
acknowledged as “battlefields” of war (Brownmiller 1994). The next sections
addresses this shortcoming, and illustrates the unfolding of hegemonic masculinity in the DRC.
Who’s a Man? Hegemony and Local Masculinities
In Black Skin, White Masks, Frantz Fanon notes that “white men consider
themselves superior to black men” (2008: 3), and thus states a seemingly
banal truth of the colonial age. The corollary of this banality is that colonial
power relations – especially blackness and whiteness – are also governed by
notions of masculinity, and more precisely, hegemonic masculinity. While
masculinity generally refers to ‘a place’ in gender relations, hegemonic masculinity, according to Connell, epitomises the ultimate supremacy in those
relations (Connell 2012: 71, 77-78). Drawing from a Gramscian model of
hegemony, this particular power position is the centre around which subordinate, marginalised, or complicit masculinities are organised, and which
gains validity through their (at least silent) consent (Lears 1985: 568). During colonialism, black or indigenous masculinity condoned the supremacy of
colonial (white) hegemons. Conversely, however, African masculinities were
perceived as an essential threat to the colonial apparatus, and were thus
coerced into submission (Connell 2012: 75). Hegemonic practice is structurally rather than overtly violent and relies on the complicity, consent, or at
least the constant fear of its subordinates who acknowledge and internalise
their inferiority. Violence and oppression, however, become pronounced and
visible when hegemony comes under threat. By portraying colonial male
subjects pejoratively as ‘feminine’, white hegemonic masculinity wanted to
keep Africans “in their place” (Lindsay and Miescher 2003: 5; Nagel 2000:
119-120) and preserve the colonial order.
Hegemonic Masculinity Re-Considered
Hegemonic practices such as feminisation and victimisation persist. Leatherman argues that this masculine hierarchy reinforces ethnic, race, and class
boundaries, and includes both women and men (Leatherman 2011: 20; Connell 2013: 68). By refining this default patriarchal divide between males and
females, gendered power hierarchies also appear within those categories. In
effect, hegemonic masculinity not only sanctions control over women, but
12
IReflect 2015, Vol. 2 (1): 5-28
Brankamp: Hegemonic Masculinity, Victimhood and Male Bodies
most importantly the domination of other men (Hooper 2001: 69-70; Donaldson 1993: 655). In war-torn societies, like the DRC, predominant ideals of
manhood are often popularly exalted and interlaced with emerging “militarised masculinities” that promote hyper-masculinity, gender exclusivism, and
intransigent heterosexuality (Lwambo 2011: 19; Connell 2012: 73-74). Wartime models of masculinity reaffirm themselves by the continuous devaluation of femininity and ‘feminine qualities’. Alternative interpretations of
manliness are marginalised and deemed illegitimate (Silberschmidt 2005:
197; Turshen 1998: 5; Seifert 1994: 60). However, Eriksson Baaz and Stern
suggest that masculinity perceptions within the Congolese army (FARDC)
vary quite substantially and rarely equate military masculinity with battle
heroism (2012a: 38-39). In reality, the majority of men, particularly soldiers,
cannot live up to the idealised versions of maleness to which they aspire. This
can potentially lead to compensatory reactions. Although competing masculinities are a universal phenomenon, it is important to point out that interpretations of maleness, as well as womanhood, are highly dependent on local
geographies, cultures, and the historical periods they evolve in (Berg and
Longhurst 2003). Further, the intensity of these gender locations is in constant change and re-negotiation.
The rather simple argument that the “link between ‘being masculine’ and
causing violence” in Eastern Congo has become an observable reality (Mechanic 2004: 16) calls for further elaboration. When masculinity is confused
with simply ‘being male’, the causal link of ‘man equals violence’ is in harmony with the prevailing narratives on victims and perpetrators. Consequently,
the silences surrounding intra-gender (e.g. male-to-male) sexual violence
become even more profound. To counter the prevailing narratives, the plurality of masculinities needs to be appreciated, as well as the common occurrence of power struggles among men over the hegemonic interpretation of
manliness. Armed conflict often escalates and is also escalated by these
tendencies. For a proper framing of these aspects in the Eastern DRC’s conflicts, local understandings of masculinity must be taken into account. For
methodological reasons, three strongly interrelated types of masculinity are
discussed.
Socio-Economic or Status Masculinity
Masculinities invoke notions of socio-economic potency, material well-being,
and financial security. Lwambo suggests that in the DRC, achieving manhood
is a process inherently connected to one’s ability to provide for a wife, family
and children, thus gaining status and prestige in the extended community
(2011: 55-56). Women also play a vital role in co-creating this masculinity
through the reproduction of social expectations and norms (Lwambo 2011:
12). Violent conflict, poverty and war can hamper men and women alike to
fulfil their assigned roles, mainly due to loss of property, unemployment, or
IReflect 2015, Vol. 2 (1): 5-28
13
Brankamp: Hegemonic Masculinity, Victimhood and Male Bodies
physical incapacitation. Status indicators of manhood, womanhood, and
‘familyhood’ are thus key to what is at stake in Africa’s violent conflicts. Aside
from material destruction and physical harm, war in Eastern DRC disrupts
communal cohesion at exactly this point. By incapacitating men that are
considered the heads of households, and the traditional leaders of the community (Christian et al. 2011: 233-234), warmongers question their victims’
status as men within local communities. The absence or perceived incapacitation of men during war makes women develop more independent means of
livelihood. Often a necessity of survival, this emancipation causes new difficulties in the post-conflict period, when male returnees expect ‘their’ women
to conform to pre-conflict gender roles that are no longer viable. Destabilising existing gender patterns can lead to status emasculation of men. As reintegration poses challenges to women and men, domestic violence and communal disputes increase after the actual fighting stops (Handrahan 2004:
434-435).
Sexual Masculinity
In discussions on conflict and gender, sexual masculinity is readily equated
with rape and other forms of sexual violence as “fuel for soldiers” (Askin
2002: 511) which generates testosterone-driven brutality. This view presumes both a narrow interpretation of sexual violence – as exclusively between males and females – and ignores the multitude of motives, the various
types, and the diverging societal implications of sexual violence (Eriksson
Baaz 2009; Sivakumaran 2007: 264-267; Carpenter 2006; Seifert 1994: 5765; Avigad and Rahimi 2004). Some accounts elicit notions of African hypersexualisation as the sole cause of sexual violence in the DRC and thus not only
reinstate a racist colonial imagery, but also create an atmosphere of inevitability to ‘savage’ violence in the Congo (Levine 2013; Nagel 2000; Eriksson
Baaz 2009; Ouzgane and Morrell 2005). Seifert notes that depicting perpetrators as merely following their “instinctive nature” releases them from any
responsibility or agency (Seifert 1994: 55). Sexual violence, with rape in
particular, is not a violent expression of sexuality, but a sexualised expression
of violence (Seifert 1994: 55). Considering the occurrence of male rape committed by heterosexual perpetrators, this insight supports a hegemonic masculinity model based on power, not sexuality. Yet, sexual desires are all but
absent from the accounts of Congo’s conflicts (Eriksson Baaz 2009). Elevating
sexual potency, promiscuity, competence, and bodily virility is often seen as
idealising sexual versions of masculinity. The absence of alternative capacities, such as wealth, social security or fatherhood, can potentially translate
into sexualised violence (Ricardo and Barker 2005: 17; Marsiglio 1988).
Although war rapes have become a distinct feature of conflicts in the Kivus
and beyond (HRW 2002), sexual expressions of masculinity cannot be reduced to this alone. In fact, the structural and personal reasons for commit14
IReflect 2015, Vol. 2 (1): 5-28
Brankamp: Hegemonic Masculinity, Victimhood and Male Bodies
ting sexual violence are manifold. Sexual masculinity is a catalyst, not a condition of such violence.
Militarised Masculinity
War nurtures variants of masculinity that strongly identify with militarism
and romanticised versions of military brotherhood (Leatherman 2011: 15).
Turshen points out that military institutions – both national armies and renegade militias – function as “male preserves” that celebrate male privilege
and gender exclusivism (Turshen 1998: 5-6). Others argue that male soldiers
wielding “the brute power of weaponry” (Brownmiller 1993: 32) is a potent
image that exemplifies militarised manhood. In the DRC, both national army
(FARDC) and rebel groups have institutionalised and embraced this masculinity (GTZ 2009: 4; Yuval-Davis 2004). In contrast to Western armies, military masculinity in the FARDC prominently omits notions of heroism or a
nationalist protector/protected narrative (Eriksson Baaz and Stern 2011: 22;
2012b: 721; Eriksson Baaz 2009: 505). Instead, a defining feature of Congolese military identity, and arguably also in other cultural contexts, is a person’s readiness to commit violence and endure the hardship of combat. This
unique masculinity materialises against the backdrop of a feminine ‘Other’
(Eriksson Baaz and Stern 2008: 67). Reaffirming adamant ‘non-femininity’
through the use of sexual violence constitutes the performative act of hegemonic masculinity.
The interplay of various forms of masculinity as described above is complex. Hegemonic masculinity is informed, altered and co-constituted by them.
Decline in one version of masculinity can mean the rise of another. Where
socio-economic deprivation prevails, the quest for recognition and power is
easily militarised. A flourishing arms market and strong military role models,
from Hollywood or Kinshasa, influence both the intensity and the viability of
‘manly’ fantasies. Military masculinity entails both the willing subordination
to a higher-ranking masculine authority as well as an opportunistic element
of dominating others, most commonly inferior men or women. The perpetrators’ personal failures, in sexual or socio-economic terms, can turn into the
purposeful degradation, rape or torture of inferiors during combat. As Seifert
notes the more unstable an actor’s real power position is, the more likely
becomes the use of sexual violence to bolster perceived power (Seifert 1996:
41; Scarry 1985). This is consistent with hegemonic masculinity and its propensity to violence, especially if faced with rival claims to power. Soldiers in
the DRC have expressed feelings of empowerment, hyper-masculinisation,
and enhanced self-esteem, by establishing roadblocks, and exercising active
control over the local population (Leatherman 2011: 139-140; Trenholm et
al. 2012: 216). In protracted conflict situations, sexual violence and rape
become synonymous with claiming untrodden territory, breaking taboos, and
IReflect 2015, Vol. 2 (1): 5-28
15
Brankamp: Hegemonic Masculinity, Victimhood and Male Bodies
living the otherwise unattainable masculine dream of (violent) conquest
(Leatherman 2011: 141-142; Richters 1998).
‘Bush Wives’: Male Bodies as ‘Battlefields’
As opposed to women, male survivors of sexual violence have remained
widely unnoticed (King 1995). This imbalance stems from deep-rooted cultural silence on male victimhood, especially sexual violence. In the DRC, sexual violence against men bears a special social stigma. Perpetrators dehumanise and humiliate their victims that are publicly ridiculed by their own
communities as “bush wives” (Gettleman 2009; Murdock 2011). In neighbouring countries this is exacerbated by legislations that criminalise homosexual acts, and make survivors reluctant to report abuse in fear of prosecution (Seruwagi 2011). Recent reports suggest that the DR Congo’s legislators
might soon follow suit (Bah 2014). Further, advocacy organisations focus
primarily on the unmatched number of female survivors (Sivakumaran 2005:
1276; Del Zotto and Jones 2002) and disregard men. As a result, sexual violence against men has become incompatible with predominant narratives on
conflict in the DRC (Autesserre 2012). Whereas female rape in DR Congo is
arguably estimated at the alarming rate of forty-eight women every hour
(Peterman et al. 2011: 1065), there are few numbers for men. As in other
conflicts, estimates of survivors are highly contested, dependent on reported
cases at specific medical facilities, or are entirely unavailable. Autesserre
estimates that four to ten percent of all rape survivors in the Eastern DRC are
men (Autesserre 2012: 15), whereas Johnson et al. found that over 23 percent of men in the Kivus and Ituri have experienced sexual violence of some
kind (2010: 558). The International Men and Gender Equality Survey (IMAGES) states that nine percent of all men in Nord-Kivu have experienced sexual
violence or abuse during conflict, as opposed to 22 percent of women (IMAGES 2012: 5). Despite the lack of statistical hard facts, sexual abuse and rape of
men have long spread in the region’s enduring conflicts. Men and boys are
not only at risk of being selectively massacred or forcibly recruited, but also
of experiencing rape and genital torture (Carpenter 2006). With respect to
prevailing Congolese ideals of masculinity that emphasise financial and socioeconomic strength, bodily virility, sexual potency, and fighting capacity, recognising men as targets of such degrading forms of violence is socially ‘unthinkable’.
Male Rape and Sexual Identity
Accounts of male survivors of sexual violence, though rare, do exist. Men and
boys from the Kivus and Ituri, have reported stories of abduction by armed
men, of enduring humiliation, gang rape, and genital mutilation (IRIN 2011).
16
IReflect 2015, Vol. 2 (1): 5-28
Brankamp: Hegemonic Masculinity, Victimhood and Male Bodies
Experiences range from rape, enforced rape at gunpoint, genital mutilation,
enforced nudity, enforced masturbation, to physical emasculation and torture
(Sivakumaran 2007: 264-267). Physical and mental challenges of male rape
survivors include excessive bleeding and chronic physical pain, psychological
traumas, stigmatisation, feelings of dehumanisation, impotence and the perceived destruction of gender identity (SVRI 2011). Cultural taboos and unrestrained homophobia in DRC (DoS 2013) inhibit survivors from reclaiming
their own bodies and sexualities which often results in social isolation. Already low levels of reporting are thus effectively diminished.
In contrast to women, male survivors are less likely to receive either
treatment for their physical and/or mental wounds, or legal support (Carpenter 2006: 95; WHO 2000: 111). Two problems immediately come to mind: the
lack of acknowledgement by political actors and institutions which eventually leads to the silencing of male survivors, and their ‘tainting’ as homosexuals
(Sivakumaran 2005: 1276; Del Zotto and Jones 2002). Sexual violence and/or
rape as performative acts of dominance can only work in ‘gender-stratified’
societies that celebrate the perpetrator’s heterosexuality while feminising,
homosexualising and silencing survivors (MacKinnon 1991: 1282). Social
unacceptability, patriarchy and idealised heterosexuality are thus key to
comprehend these social consequences of male rape. As previously explained, hegemonic masculinity maintains hierarchies and patterns of victimhood that are not bound by an arbitrary male/female divide, but function
on a continuum between masculinity and femininity, encompassing both men
and women (Skjelsbæk 2001: 71). Sexual violence is deeply symbolic. Rape
signifies the ultimate humiliation of the victim and his/her community. Nagel
(2000) notes that masculine notions of honour and purity, as well as the
existence of more or less strict ethno-sexual boundaries, are supportive of
this societal effect. After the Rwandan genocide, ethnic mobilisation projected into the Eastern DRC, making it also a gravity field for genocidal ideology
that comfortably links with predatory and in fact exterminationist masculinities.
Gender Inequality and Symbolism of the Masculine
The multidimensional study by Christian et al. assesses the effects of sexual
violence against men on families and local communities in the DRC (2011:
229). They conclude that the societal impact is mediated by gender constructs, especially pre-existing hierarchies of masculinity (Christian et al.
2011: 228), although they omit a specific reference to hegemonic masculinity.
During their fieldwork, male survivors voiced their shame over being ‘transformed’ not only into women, but into the ‘wives’ of the perpetrators, in this
case Hutu interahamwe militias (Christian et al. 2011: 237-238). The implicit
understanding of women as ‘less than men’ is significant here. Under the
influence of a pronouncedly hegemonic version of masculinity, the degrading
IReflect 2015, Vol. 2 (1): 5-28
17
Brankamp: Hegemonic Masculinity, Victimhood and Male Bodies
act of being ‘made into a women’ has severe repercussions. Brownmiller
states that during armed conflict women are not raped because they “belong
to the enemy camp, but because they are women and therefore enemies”
(Brownmiller 1993: 65). This is equally true for male survivors. Within the
confines of hegemonic masculinity, they occupy the lower, subordinate and
marginalised ranks of the masculine hierarchy (Connell 2012), and thus
become eligible, almost natural targets for abuse and domination.
Social norms and perceptions of socio-economic masculinity situate men
at the top of the gender hierarchy, making them heads of households, local
leaders and nominally defenders of their communities in Eastern DRC. During conflicts, rival sources of hegemonic masculine power, that is rebel
groups, armed bandits or government soldiers, severely disrupt indigenous
and local social systems and gender hierarchies (Lwambo 2011). On a communal and family level, male survivors typically experience status emasculation and become physically or mentally unable to contribute to the household
(Christian et al. 2011: 238). Mies (1986) describes this after-effect as
“housewifization” which undermines a man’s position as the family breadwinner. As a consequence, socio-economic deprivation increases and domestic hierarchies begin to unravel. The figurative emasculation of male survivors frequently leads to stigmatisation of the whole family. Children of survivors equally suffer from humiliation, in some cases being ridiculed with the
phrase: “your father is a woman” (Christian et al. 2011: 239). Wives of male
rape survivors in Eastern DRC may start questioning their husbands’ masculinity and traditionally assigned roles as men (Storr 2011).
These socio-psychological implications illustrate how sexual violence not
only seeks to physically and psychologically destroy the victim, but also to
lacerate the social cohesion of families and communities that are constructed
around male supremacy. Violent hegemonic masculinity destroys local gender relations in the target community and establishes new hierarchies, bypassing the emasculated male survivors. On this matrix, gender identities are
altered, reversed, re-negotiated, or utterly destroyed. Men affected by sexual
violence are ‘downgraded’ to the status of women, their masculinity is negated, and they are made into ‘non-men’, unsuitable for exercising their former
social roles. While this opens up new spaces for female agency and selfcontrol, violence is further engrained in the communities’ social psyche and
essentially inhibits empowerment. Armed groups in the Eastern DRC use
(male) rape for social control, instilling fear, and enforcing obedience (Pratt
and Werchick 2004: 10). Incapacitating local resistance at its core, namely
the patriarchal social cohesion, in order to freely access land, resources and
political power, is the metanarrative of these crimes (Lemarchand 2009:
125). Making also male bodies the battlefields in the Eastern DRC has become
another perfidious detail of a conflict which is governed by the symbolism of
‘the masculine’.
18
IReflect 2015, Vol. 2 (1): 5-28
Brankamp: Hegemonic Masculinity, Victimhood and Male Bodies
Conclusion
This article has analysed sexual violence against men in the Eastern DRC, and
identified the structural links between victimhood, masculinity, and gender
as conflict factors. Explaining wartime rape with the ‘spoils of war’ rationale
is insufficient and even confuses the symptoms of conflict with its roots.
Asymmetrical gender relations structure the Congolese warscape and exacerbate political and cultural divisions. Hegemonic masculinity is an ordering
principle that functions between and within gender categories. Its power
position is seldom visibly enforced, but instead relies on the silent acquiescence from marginalised, subordinate, and/or complicit masculinities. Both
men and women are co-creators of this gendered system and both are capable of extreme violence. In turn, both can also become ‘victims’ of this violence. While women are not just ‘camp followers’ and ‘nurturing mothers’,
men do not always appear as gun-wielding militiamen. Distinguishing only
between female victims and male perpetrators is counter-productive to empowering those that suffer most from (sexual) violence, namely people at the
social fringes of conflict societies. Victimhood often acts as an enforcement
mechanism to ‘brand’ gender positions and to perpetuate a status quo in
which these are naturalised and cemented.
Making male survivors more visible does not contravene the long-term
efforts to contain and prevent abominable crimes against women in the DRC.
On the contrary, using the prism of hegemonic masculinity is constructive
and viable for several reasons. First, it presents a more nuanced account of
the gender dynamics in Eastern Congo and illustrates how social hierarchies
are constructed and re-negotiated along the parameters of ‘femininity’ and
‘masculinity’, especially at the interstices of gender, status, sexuality, and
ethnicity. Second, during armed conflict, when underlying principles of supremacy, control, and consent are at stake, hegemonic masculinity can turn
violent, and may develop a destructive and predatory character. If so, other
variables, such as status, sexuality, and military identities become salient as
they constantly interact and shape the current hegemonic model. Lastly,
hegemonic masculinity provides important insights that can potentially – in a
post-conflict setting – facilitate change and counter-hegemonic actions
through a detailed understanding of masculinity systems. While this article
only explored some of the wider debates on victimhood, gender, and masculinity with respect to the Eastern DRC, further research on more specific
localities and social anomalies is necessary. Also the colonial and neo-colonial
production of hegemonic masculinities and masculine stereotypes, as well as
pre-colonial attitudes towards gender and sexuality, represent fruitful areas
of future research that can contextualise and historicise gender debates regarding especially Eastern and Central Africa. Empowerment and prevention
programmes for survivors of sexual violence and the reconciliation of families, villages, and communities hinge on the analysis of these long-term processes and cultural stigmas that fuel the internal logic of hegemonic mascuIReflect 2015, Vol. 2 (1): 5-28
19
Brankamp: Hegemonic Masculinity, Victimhood and Male Bodies
linity. In doing so, the combined study of victimhood, masculinity, and gender
can set the ground for a deeper understanding of what shapes the Eastern
DRC’s conflicts socio-psychologically, and thus create leeway for political
action.
20
IReflect 2015, Vol. 2 (1): 5-28
Brankamp: Hegemonic Masculinity, Victimhood and Male Bodies
– I reflect –
As reiterated throughout the article, research on sexual- and
gender-based violence cannot remain an ‘academic question
posed for its own sake’, but almost inevitably influences policies, directly and indirectly. This, however, is not to be understood as a fervent appeal for ‘academic activism’, or as a reminder of the academy’s supposedly inherent ‘duty of relevance’. Instead, the point is that any study on the complex
manifestations of gender, masculinity, and violence, are naturally relevant and influence the policy world at least through
discourse and discussion. This article on Hegemonic Masculinity, Victimhood and Male Bodies as “battlefields” is no exception. Not designed as a series of policy recommendations, but
rather as an analytical piece of how masculinity and victimhood are conceptually tied into wider systems of gender construction, the article examines how violence is born out of
these complex interactions. For a more in-depth understanding of masculinity in Eastern DRC, more field work is necessary, and academia is well-advised to overthink its temporary
‘honeymoon’ with NGOs and humanitarian actors, and rely on
its own data sets and interpretations à la Maria Eriksson Baaz.
Hanno Brankamp
MLitt (International Security Studies), 2nd Semester
University of St Andrews, UK
hb52@st-andrews.ac.uk
IReflect 2015, Vol. 2 (1): 5-28
21
Brankamp: Hegemonic Masculinity, Victimhood and Male Bodies
References
Amos, Valerie / Parmar, Pratibha, 1984. Challenging Imperial Feminism, In:
Feminist Review, 17, 3-19.
Askin, Kelly D., 2002. The Quest for Post-Conflict Gender Justice. In: Columbia
Journal of Transnational Law, 41, 509-521.
Autesserre, Séverine, 2012. Dangerous Tales: Dominant Narratives on the
Congo and their Unintended Consequences. In: African Affairs,
111(443), 202–222.
Avigad, Jocelyn / Rahimi, Zohreh, 2004. Impact of Rape on the Family. In:
Peel, Michael (ed). Rape as a Method of Torture, Medical Foundation
for the Victims of Torture, pp 119-132.
Bah, Valérie, 2014. DRC Looks to Follow in Uganda's Footsteps with Anti-Gay
Bill,
Think
Africa
Press,
(online)
Available:
www.thinkafricapress.com/drc/looks-follow-ugandas-footsteps-antigay-bill (Accessed 14th March 2014).
Baregu, Mwesiga, 2002. The Clones of ‘Mr. Kurtz’: Violence, War and Plunder
in the DRC. In: African Journal of Political Science, 7(2), 11-38.
Berg, Lawrence D. / Longhurst, Robyn, 2003. Placing Masculinities and Geography. In: Gender, Place & Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography,
10(4), pp 351-360.
Butler, Judith, 1999. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, New York / London.
BBC Online, 2010. UN official calls DR Congo ‘rape capital of the world’. Available: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8650112.stm (Accessed 4th March
2014).
Blanchard, Eric M., 2003. Gender, International Relations, and the Development of Feminist Security Theory. In: Journal of Women in Culture and
Society, 28(4), 1289-1312.
Brownmiller, Susan, 1993. Against out Will: Men, Women and Rape, New York.
Brownmiller, Susan, 1994. Making Female Bodies the Battlefield. In:
Stiglmayer, Alexandra (ed): Mass Rape: The War against Women in
Bosnia-Herzegovina, Lincoln / London, pp 180-182.
Carpenter, R. Charli, 2006. Recognizing Gender-Based Violence Against Civilian Men and Boys in Conflict. In: Security Dialogue, 37, 83-103.
Christian, Mervyn, Safari, Octave / Ramazani, Paul / Burnham, Gilbert / Glass,
Nancy, 2011. Sexual and gender based violence against men in the
Democratic Republic of Congo: effects on survivors, their families and
the community. In: Medicine, Conflict and Survival, 27(4), 227-246.
Cockburn, Cynthia, 2005. The Gendered Dynamics of Armed Conflict and
Political Violence. In: Moser, Caroline O.N. / Clark, Fiona C. (eds). Victims, Perpetrators or Actors? – Gender, Armed Conflict and Political Violence, London, pp 13-29.
22
IReflect 2015, Vol. 2 (1): 5-28
Brankamp: Hegemonic Masculinity, Victimhood and Male Bodies
Cohen, Dara K., 2013. Female Combatants and the Perpetration of Violence:
Wartime Rape in the Sierra Leone Civil War. In: World Politics, 65,
383-415.
Connell, Raewyn W., 2012. Masculinities, Cambridge.
Davis, Laura, 2009. Justice-Sensitive Security System Reform in the Democratic
Republic of Congo, Initiative for Peacebuilding (IFP) Security Cluster,
Country
Case
Study:
DRC,
Available:
www.initiativeforpeacebuilding.eu/pdf/Justice_Sensitive_Security_Sy
stem_reform_in_the_DRC.pdf (Accessed 9th March 2014).
Del Zotto, Augusta, and Adam Jones, 2002. Male-on-Male Sexual Violence in
Wartime: Human Rights’ Last Taboo?, Paper presented to the Annual
Convention of the International Studies Association (ISA), New Orleans, LA, 23-27 March. Available: http://adamjones.freeservers.com/
malerape.htm (Accessed 20th March 2014).
Department of State (DoS), 2013. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices
for 2013, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, US Department of State, Available: www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/human
rightsreport/index.htm?year=2013&dlid=220100 (Accessed 10th
March 2014).
Donaldson, Mike, 1993. What Is Hegemonic Masculinity?. In: Theory and Society, Special Issue: Masculinities, 22(5), 643-657.
Elshtain, Jean B., 1995. Women and War, Chicago / London.
Enloe, Cynthia, 1988. Does Khaki Become You? The Militarization of Women’s
Lives, London.
Enloe, Cynthia, 2000a. Manoeuvres: The International Politics of Militarizing
Women’s Lives, Berkeley.
Enloe, Cynthia, 2000b. Bananas, Beaches and Bases, Berkeley.
Enloe, Cynthia, 2002. Demilitarization – or More of the Same? Feminist Questions to Ask in the Postwar Moment. In: Cockburn, Cynthia / Zarkov,
Dubravka (eds). The Postwar Moment: Militaries, Masculinities and International Peacekeeping, London, pp 22-32.
Eriksson Baaz, Maria / Stern, Maria, 2008. Making sense of violence: voices of
soldiers in the Congo (DRC). In: The Journal of Modern African Studies,
46(1), 57-86.
Eriksson Baaz, Maria, 2009. Why Do Soldiers Rape? Masculinity, Violence,
and Sexuality in the Armed Forces in the Congo (DRC). In: International Studies Quarterly, 53, 495-518.
Eriksson Baaz, Maria / Stern, Maria, 2011. Whores, men, and other misfits:
undoing ‘feminization’ in the armed forces in the DRC. In: African Affairs, 110(441), 1-23.
Eriksson Baaz, Maria / Stern, Maria, 2012a. Beyond Militarised Masculinity:
The case of the Democratic Republic of Congo. In: Eriksson Baaz, Maria / Utas, Mats (eds). Beyond “gender and stir”: Reflections on gender
and SSR in the aftermath of African conflicts, Policy Dialogue, Uppsala.
IReflect 2015, Vol. 2 (1): 5-28
23
Brankamp: Hegemonic Masculinity, Victimhood and Male Bodies
Eriksson Baaz, Maria / Stern, Maria, 2012b. Fearless Fighters and Submissive
Wives: Negotiating Identity Among Women Soldiers in the Congo
(DRC). In: Armed Forces & Society, 39(4), 711-739.
Fanon, Frantz, 2008. Black Skin, White Masks, London.
Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ), 2009. Masculinity and
Civil Wars in Africa – New Approaches to Overcoming Sexual Violence
in War, Issue Brief, Programme Promoting Gender Equality and
Women´s
Rights.
Available:
www.oecd.org/dac/genderdevelopment/44896271.pdf. (Accessed 28th February 2014), 1-11.
Gettleman, Jeffrey, 2009. Symbol of Unhealed Congo: Male Rape Victims. In:
The New York Times, 5th August.
Gillespie, Terry, 1996. Rape crisis centres and ‘male rape’: a face of the backlash. In: Hester, Marianne / Kelly, Liz / Radford, Jill (eds). Women, violence and male power – Feminist activism, research and practice, Buckingham / Philadelphia, 148-165.
Goldstein, Joshua, 2001. War and Gender: how gender shapes the war system
and vice versa, Cambridge.
Gottschall, Jonathan, 2004. Explaining Wartime Rape. In: The Journal of Sex
Research, 41(2), 129-136.
Handrahan, Lori, 2004: Conflict, Gender, Ethnicity and Post-Conflict Reconstruction. In: Security Dialogue, 35, 429-445.
Hatcher, Jessica, 2013. Congo’s Forgotten Curse: Epidemic of Female-onFemale Rape. In: Time. Available: http://world.time.com/
2013/12/03/congos-forgotten-curse-epidemic-of-female-on-femalerape/ (Accessed 5th March 2014).
Hooper, Charlotte, 2001. Manly States: Masculinities, International Relations,
and Gender Politics, New York.
Human Rights Watch (HRW), 1996. Shattered Lives: Sexual violence during the
Rwandan Genocide and its aftermath, HRW Report. Available:
www.hrw.org/reports/1996/Rwanda.htm. (Accessed 4th February
2014).
Human Rights Watch (HRW), 2002. The War Within the War – Sexual Violence
against Women and Girls in Eastern Congo, HRW Report. Available:
www.hrw.org/reports/2002/drc/Congo0602.pdf (Accessed 1st March
2014).
Human Rights Watch (HRW), 2009. Soldiers Who Rape, Commanders Who
Condone: Sexual Violence and Military Reform in the Democratic Republic
of
Congo,
HRW
Report.
Available:
www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/drc0709web.pdf (Accessed
10th March 2014).
Integrated Regional Information Networks (IRIN), 2011. HEALTH: Rape as a
“weapon
of
war”
against
men,
IRIN.
Available:
www.irinnews.org/report/93960/health-rape-as-a-weapon-of-waragainst-men (Accessed 2nd March 2014).
24
IReflect 2015, Vol. 2 (1): 5-28
Brankamp: Hegemonic Masculinity, Victimhood and Male Bodies
International Men and Gender Equality Survey (IMAGES), 2012. Gender Relations, Sexual Violence and the Effects of Conflict on Women and Men in
North Kivu, Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, SIDA. Available:
www.sida.se/Global/Countries%20and%20regions/Africa/DR%20C
ongo/International%20Men%20And%20Gender%20Equality%20
Survey.pdf (Accessed 10th March 2014).
Johnson, Kirsten / Scott, Jennifer / Rughita, Bigy / Kisielewski, Michael /
Asher, Jana / Ong, Ricardo / Lawry, Lynn, 2010. Association of Sexual
Violence and Human Rights Violations With Physical and Mental
Health in Territories of the Eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo.
In: The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), 304(5),
553-562.
King, Neal, 1995. Speaking Our Truth, New York.
Lears, T.J. Jackson, 1985. The Concept of Cultural Hegemony: Problems and
Possibilities. In: The American Historical Review, 90(3), 567-593.
Leatherman, Janie, 2007. Sexual Violence and armed conflict: complex dynamics of re-victimization. In: International Journal of Peace Studies,
12(1), 53-71.
Leatherman, Janie, 2011. Sexual Violence and Armed Conflict, Cambridge.
Lemarchand, René, 2009. Reflections on the Crisis in Eastern Congo. In:
Brown Journal of World Affairs, 16(1), 119-132.
Levine, Philippa, 2013. Naked Truths: Bodies, Knowledge, and the Erotics of
Colonial Power. In: Journal of British Studies, 52, 5-25.
Lewis, Dustin A., 2009: Unrecognized Victims: Sexual Violence Against Men in
Conflict Settings Under International Law. In: Wisconsin International
Law Journal, 27(1), 1-49.
Lindsay, Lisa A. / Miescher, Stephan F. (eds), 2003. Men and Masculinities in
Modern Africa, Portsmouth.
Lwambo, Desiree, 2011. ”Before the War, I was a Man”: Men and Masculinities
in
Eastern
DR
Congo,
HEAL
Africa.
Available:
www.healafrica.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/men-andmasculinities-in-eastern-dr-congo.pdf. (Accessed 18th March 2014).
MacKinnon, Catherine, 1991. Reflections on Sex Equality under Law. In: The
Yale law Journal, 100(5), Centennial Issue, 1281-1328.
Mamdani, Mahmood, 1999. Preliminary Thoughts on the Congo Crisis. In:
Social Text, 60, Globalization?, 53-62.
Marsiglio, William, 1988. Adolescent Male Sexuality and Heterosexual Masculinity: A Conceptual Model and Review. In: Journal of Adolescent Research, 3(3/4), 285-303.
Mechanic, Eli, 2004. Why Gender Still Matters: Sexual Violence and the Need
to Confront Militarized Masculinities. In: Insights, Partnership Africa
Canada
(PAC).
Available:
http://dspace.cigilibrary.org/jspui/
bitstream/123456789/14787/1/Why%20Gender%20Still%20
Matters.pdf?1 (Accessed 10th March 2014).
IReflect 2015, Vol. 2 (1): 5-28
25
Brankamp: Hegemonic Masculinity, Victimhood and Male Bodies
Mies, Maria, 1986. Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale: Women in
the International Division of Labour, London.
Moser, Caroline O.N. / Clark, Fiona C., 2005. Introduction. In: Moser, Caroline
O.N. / Clark, Fiona C. (eds). Victims, Perpetrators or Actors? – Gender,
Armed Conflict and Political Violence, London, pp 3-12.
Mukwege, Denis Mukengere / Nangini, Cathy, 2009. Rape with Extreme Violence: The New Pathology in South Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo. In: PLoS Medicine, 6(12), Health in Action, e1000204.
doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000204.
Murdock, Heather, 2011. Rape in Congo Devastates Male Victims, Voice of
America.
Available:
www.voanews.com/content/rape-in-congodevastates-male-victims-134117048/148375.html, 17 November,
(Accessed 3rd March 2014).
Nagel, Joane, 2000. Ethnicity and Sexuality. In: Annual Review of Sociology, 26,
107-133.
Oosterhoff, Pauline / Zwanikken, Prisca / Ketting, Evert, 2004. Sexual Torture
of Men in Croatia and Other Conflict Situations: An Open Secret. In:
Reproductive Health Matters, 12(23), 68–77.
Ouzgane, Lahoucine / Morrell, Robert, 2005. African Masculinities: Men in
Africa from the Late Nineteenth Century to the Present, University of
KwaZulu.
Peterman, Ambera / Palermo, Tia / Bredenkamp, Caryn, 2011. Estimates and
Determinants of Sexual Violence Against Women in the Democratic
Republic of Congo. In: American Journal of Public Health, 101(6),
1060-1067.
Pratt, Marion / Werchick, Leah, 2004. Sexual Terrorism: Rape as a Weapon of
War in Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, USAID/DCHA Assessment
Report.
Available:
http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/
PNADK346.pdf (Accessed 28th February 2014).
Prunier, Gérard, 2009. Africa’s World War: Congo, the Rwandan Genocide and
the making of a continental catastrophe, New York.
Puechguirbal, Nadine, 2001. Women and War in the Democratic Republic of
the Congo. In: Signs, 28(4), 1271-1281.
Rejali, Darius, 1998. After feminist analyses of Bosnian violence. In: Lorentzen / Ann, Lois / Turpin, Jennifer E. (eds). The Women War Reader, New York / London.
Reyntjens, Filip, 1999. Briefing: The Second Congo War: More than a Remake.
In: African Affairs, 98, 241-250.
Ricardo, Christine / Barker, Gary, 2005. Young Men and the Construction of
Masculinity in Sub-Saharan Africa: Implications for HIV/AIDS, Conflict, and Violence. In: World Bank, Social Development Papers, 26,
June.
Rich, Adrienne, 1986. Of Woman Born, Motherhood as experience and institution, London / New York.
26
IReflect 2015, Vol. 2 (1): 5-28
Brankamp: Hegemonic Masculinity, Victimhood and Male Bodies
Richters, Annemiek, 1998. Sexual Violence in Wartime. Psycho-Social
Wounds and Healing Processes: The Example of the Former Yugoslavia. In: Bracken, Patrick J. / Petty, Celia (eds). Rethinking the Trauma
of War, New York, pp 112–128.
Scarry, Elaine, 1985. The body in pain. The making and unmaking of the world,
New York.
Seifert, Ruth, 1994. War and Rape: A Preliminary Analysis. In: Stiglmayer,
Alexandra (ed). Mass Rape: The War against Women in BosniaHerzegovina, Lincoln / London, pp 54-72.
Seifert, Ruth, 1996. The Second Front: The Logic of Sexual Violence in Wars,
In: Women's Studies International Forum, 19(1/2), 35-43.
Seruwagi, Moses, 2011. Unreported Horrors – Male Rape in DR Congo, Inter
Press Service (IPS). Available: www.ipsnews.net/2011/11/
unreported-horrors-male-rape-in-dr-congo/ (Accessed 28th February
2014).
Sexual Violence Research Initiative (SVRI), 2011. Care and Support of Male
Survivors of Conflict-Related Sexual Violence, Briefing Paper. Available:
www.svri.org/ CareSupportofMaleSurviv.pdf (Accessed 3rd March
2014).
Silberschmidt, Margrethe, 2005. Poverty, Male Disempowerment, and Male
Sexuality: Rethinking Men and Masculinities in Rural and Urban East
Africa. In: Ouzgane, Lahoucine / Morrell, Robert (eds). African Masculinities: Men in Africa from the Late Nineteenth Century to the Present,
University of KwaZulu, 189-203.
Sivakumaran, Sandesh, 2005. Male/Male Rape and the “Taint” of Homosexuality. In: Human Rights Quarterly, 27(4), 1274-1306.
Sivakumaran, Sandesh, 2007. Sexual Violence Against Men in Armed Conflict.
In: The European Journal of International Law, 18(2), 253-276.
Sjoberg, Laura / Gentry, Caron E., 2007. Mother, Monsters and Whores: Women’s Violence in Global Politics, London / New York.
Skjelsbæk, Inger, 2001. Sexual violence in times of war: A new challenge for
peace operations?. In: International Peacekeeping, 8(2), 69-84.
Steans, Jill, 2004. Gender and International Relations: An Introduction, Cambridge.
Stern, Maria, 2005. Naming Security: Constructing Identity, Manchester.
Storr, Will, 2011. The rape of men: the darkest secret of war. In: The Guardian. Available: www.theguardian.com/society/2011/jul/17/the-rapeof-men (Accessed 3rd March 2014).
The Guardian (Online), 2011. The worst places in the world for women: Congo. Available: www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jun/14/worstplaces-in-the-world-for-women-congo (Accessed 4th March 2014).
Thompson, Martha, 2006. Women, Gender, and Conflict: Making the Connections. In: Development in Practice, 16(3/4), 342-353.
Tickner, J. Ann, 1992. Gender in International Relations: Feminist Perspectives
on Achieving Global Security, New York.
IReflect 2015, Vol. 2 (1): 5-28
27
Brankamp: Hegemonic Masculinity, Victimhood and Male Bodies
Trenholm, Jill / Olsson, Pia / Blomqvist, Martha / Ahlberg, Beth Maina, 2012.
Constructing Soldiers from Boys in Eastern Democratic Republic of
Congo. In: Men and Masculinities, 16(2), 203-227.
Turshen, Meredeth, 1998. Women’s War Stories. In: Turshen, Meredeth /
Twagiramariya, Clotilde (eds). What Women do in Wartime: Gender
and Conflict in Africa, London / New York, pp 1-26.
Van Dijk, Jan, 2009. Free the Victim: A Critique of the Western Conception of
Victimhood. In: International Review of Victimology, 16, 1-33.
Watson, Alison M.S., 2007. Children Born of Wartime Rape: Rights and Representations. In: International Feminist Journal of Politics, 9(1), 20-34.
Weinstein, Jeremy M., 2000. Africa’s ‘Scramble for Africa: Lessons of a Continental War. In: World Policy Journal, 17(2), 11-20.
World Health Organisation (WHO), 2000. Reproductive Health during Conflict and Displacement. Available: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/
2001/WHO_RHR_00.13.pdf (Accessed 7th March 2014).
Yuval-Davis, Nira, 2004. Gender, the Nationalist Imagination, War, and Peace.
In: Giles, Wenona, and Jennifer Hyndman (eds). Sites of Violence: Gender and Conflict Zones, Berkeley, pp 170-189.
Yuval-Davis, Nira, 2011. Gender & Nation, London / Thousand Oaks.
Zarkov, Dubravka, 2001. The Body of the Other Man: Sexual Violence and the
Construction of Masculinity, Sexuality and Ethnicity in the Croatian
Media. In: Moser, Caroline / Clark, Fiona C. (eds). Victims, Perpetrators, or Actors: Gender, Armed Conflict, and Political Violence, London,
pp 69-82.
28
IReflect 2015, Vol. 2 (1): 5-28