by Dr. Manuela Scheuermann, JMU Würzburg, M.Scheuermann@uni-wuerzburg.de

The COVID-19 pandemic visualizes existing socio-political grievances as if under a magnifying glass. This is particularly true for countries that were already characterized by instability and violent conflicts before the pandemic. The blog post takes this observation as an opportunity to take a closer look at the situation and role of women in these unstable regions during the COVID-19 pandemic. The global agenda for women, peace and security (FFS), which has been dealing with the situation and role of women in conflicts for more than 20 years, serves as the normative background for the article. The global agenda emphasizes that women in unstable states or civil war countries are exposed to sexualized and gender-based violence, that women's rights are not accepted as human rights and that women play only a marginal role, if any, in conflict resolution and reconstruction. The agenda, which now comprises ten Security Council resolutions and is differentiated in over 80 national action plans, aims to counteract these deficits.

It is now feared that positive developments in the FFS will be thwarted by the COVID-19 pandemic and its consequences. This article assumes that gender stereotypes could be reinforced again in the medium and long term due to the exceptional situation caused by the pandemic. In the following, specifically female-perceived stereotypes are identified and discussed. The female role models that dominate the global agenda are presented and possible changes as a result of the pandemic are identified. The article culminates in the thesis that we should take a closer look at the stereotype of the caring woman, which is perceived as classically feminine and which the pandemic has resurrected. This observation is certainly a cause for concern in anticipation of a deep anti-feminist relapse, but the article argues that the stereotype could actually be used strategically for feminist goals.

Roles in the global agenda for "women, peace and security"

In feminist peace research, attention is drawn above all to a clear gender-specific role correlation: Women are often connoted as being in need of help and protection (Tickner 2019). At the same time, they are assigned the role of the peaceful. This role is linked to the women-peace hypothesis, which examines the correlation between being a woman and being peaceful or willing to compromise (Maoz 2011). Feminist peace research, however, aims to overcome precisely such gender-stereotypical role attributions of a peace-loving, communicative, caring woman and - ultimately - to de-gender roles. In the ten resolutions of the FFS agenda, this intention becomes clear in parts. For example, it is emphasized that all fields of activity from the peace and security continuum are open to all persons, regardless of gender (Scheuermann/Zürn 2020). Women are presented as role models who explicitly want to be defined by their function and not by their gender.

However, stereotypical attributions can still be found in the resolution texts. Two dominant roles can be filtered out of the four pillars of the agenda "Participation, Protection, Prevention, Relief & Recovery":

1. the victim: the woman is the victim of direct as well as structural, sexualized and gender-based violence. In this role of victim, she is passive. Recently, however, especially in Resolution 2467 (2019), the representation has shifted towards the survivor ("survivor-centered approach"). The survivor is an active, self-empowering role that includes, for example, that male perpetrators must be held accountable and survivors have the right to reproductive health care.

2. the participant: the woman as a participant, both collaborating and leading in peacekeeping and peacebuilding. However, in UN missions it was long the order of the day for women to perform "typically female" tasks. As blue helmet soldiers, for example, they were deployed in medical services, logistics or supply services; as policewomen and civilian employees, they were expected to establish communication with the female population. The role of the caregiver always resonated strongly here, even if this was never explicitly addressed in the resolutions of the FFS agenda. It is only in recent years that a cautious and so far at best sporadic trend reversal can be recognized under the term "meaningful participation". Women are, according to the meaning of this meaningful participation, a natural and essential, but at the same time equal component of UN efforts. Women are part of armed night patrols, they are helicopter pilots or commanders of UN missions. As special representatives, they are the political arm of the Secretary-General in the field and conduct negotiations with warlords. So far, however, it is only Tickner's "occasional heads" (Tickner 1992) that we can observe. At the same time, women continue to fulfill the functions of nurses, communicators and teachers in UN missions, which are largely perceived as feminine.

Roles in the COVID-19 pandemic

Data from UN Women and the World Health Organization, which statistically record the situation of women during the corona crisis, now suggest that the multiple crisis could cause not only short-term but also long-term gender effects. These would also have an impact on role attributions in the context of the global FFS agenda. Three role-specific developments in particular can currently be observed as a result of the pandemic: 1) a pushback into the private sphere, into the role of the victim and those in need of protection; 2) an associated decrease in the relevant participation of women, including from once active women's rights groups and the like; 3) an increasing role of caregivers, which is only indirectly implied in the FFS agenda.

Vulnerable and private

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, women have been increasingly exposed to gender-based violence, especially in fragile states and regardless of the actual coronavirus infection. Among other things, this has to do with lockdowns, the resulting forced retreat into the private sphere and the loss of employment. UN Women therefore classifies this situation as a "shadow pandemic" (UN Women 2020). As violence primarily affects young women, an increase in teenage pregnancies is assumed. A higher maternal mortality rate - similar to the data from the most recent Ebola outbreaks - is also expected. The role of the defenceless victim, which the global agenda wants to leave behind with the concept of survivors, is once again coming to the fore in view of this situation. As women find it very difficult to regain lost employment and freedom, especially in fragile states dominated by violent conflict, the COVID-19 pandemic could have long-term consequences for women in this regard.

Meaningful participation hardly possible

Self-determined, active, socio-politically participatory female life is hardly possible at present. It is not surprising that even in the northern hemisphere, women are few and far between as COVID-19 crisis managers. The world's corona task forces were almost exclusively male, especially at the beginning of the pandemic. Leading departments such as the health ministries are 70 percent male-led (WPL 2021). With a few exceptions, the political management of the coronavirus pandemic has a male face worldwide. However, the situation in civil war countries is many times more disastrous. Even before the pandemic, gender parity in relevant participation in conflict resolution and reconstruction was unthinkable. Only three percent of conflict mediators and four percent of UN blue helmets were female (Council on Foreign Relations 2020). During the pandemic, the United Nations and NGOs withdrew or isolated their staff to protect them from infection. They froze funds and put networks on hold. This also affects the many female peace activist groups, whose activities have been hampered by the critical overall situation. Female local "first responders", i.e. "forces of the first hour" in emergency situations, were and are no longer on the move during the lockdown. For the FFS agenda, this could mean that old gender roles (the man leads and shapes in the public sphere, the woman acts in private) could become entrenched before they have been permanently broken down.

The caregiver as a strategic role?

So far, the dark sides of the pandemic have been highlighted, which give rise to fears of a profound rollback, as predicted for Germany by experts such as Jutta Allmendiger (taz 2021). I would even argue that we are not currently seeing a rollback, but rather a cementing of roles that have not been overcome as lastingly as people, especially in Western affluent societies, wanted to believe. In addition to the role of the victim, the private worker and the non-participant, a further role that must be characterized as traditionally stereotypically female is crystallizing, especially in phases of lockdown and in phases of high incidence: Women are the caregivers in the pandemic.

This role has many negative consequences - from unpaid care work to exploitation, discrimination and oppression. Nevertheless, especially in zones of violent conflict where women have also lost their livelihoods due to the pandemic, they are the caregivers who organize the everyday life of an extended family, who are responsible for the well-being of the family and who ensure the basic survival of all. This shows that Caring is by no means just oppression. Women bear the fundamental responsibility for entire family groups. Care therefore does indeed have an empowering core. This old insight needs to be more widely recognized in order to avoid portraying carers as victims in private. Care provides creative power. Certainly not the kind that the FFS agenda envisions under the concept of meaningful participation, but it undoubtedly holds opportunities for self-empowerment.

This article would therefore like to encourage you to identify the potential of a concept of care for the empowerment of women and not to stop there. Care should be thought about in a much more principled way.

Wouldn't now be the right time not to evaluate, indeed devalue, care as a female role, but to revalue it in the sense of a global norm of care? Aren't the containment of conflicts, peacekeeping or the internationally supported reconstruction of a country destroyed by conflict also care? Care in the public sphere of a global society?

Gilligan had already attempted to locate care in a global context in 1982 - but without success. The moral core of care would have the potential to fundamentally enrich the international norm structure. For care is constituted by interpersonal attention, a sense of responsibility and social responsiveness, practicability and contextual awareness (Robinson 1997: 121). The current situation could be a window of opportunity to establish this concept, which is perceived as a typically female role, more strongly. A change in the connotation of caring could lead to the very feminine attributes of caring morality described by Robinson no longer being perceived as soft and weak per se in male contexts of war and security. Perhaps it is time to make a virtue of necessity.

Victims and carers - roles in the COVID-19 pandemic

This article is an appeal not to stop at the negative effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on gender stereotypes. It cannot be denied that women have been pushed back into the role of victim and into the private sphere. This also includes the fact that meaningful participation at a political level is currently hardly possible. This undoubtedly sets back the global FFS agenda. Instead, we should attempt to rethink obvious relapses into outdated stereotypes and interpret them in the direction of empowerment. Certainly, a victim remains a victim. But a caregiver is not only the woman at the stove, but also the UN commander of a peacekeeping operation. In my opinion, the concept of care is suitable as a normative basis for all peace efforts and has long since been de-gendered in this respect.

The blog post is based on the essay "Women, Peace and Security" under the conditions of the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Peace and Conflict Studies, 9: 321-335.