I try to act normal, as if nothing has happened. But it is hard, I am tired all the time, I don’t have any energy. I want to act normal for my children, for my family. (Jacques 2013, interview)
For many male survivors, fleeing, alone or with their families, is a way to reassert control over their lives, to “leave the past behind”, and to try to find a better and more secure environment for themselves and for their families (Halla 2016, interview). Some male survivors, notably those living in refugee camps in Uganda, have organized collectively and formed groups of survivors of sexual violence. Their initiatives, which we will further detail in chapter 6, are supported by the Refugee Law Project, and include awareness-raising activities, the making up of short films, of documentaries, the provision of help to other survivors and so on. As described by Edström et al. (2016), these groups can be considered as a form of “therapeutic activism”, allowing survivors to retrieve agency and to act for a greater cause, by providing support to each other as well as to other survivors, but also by shedding light on the phenomenon of wartime sexual violence against men. As they become visible, survivors participating in these groups openly break a taboo, and thus demonstrate their mental and psychological strength. As shown by McClure in her work on conflict-related injuries in Northern Ireland, forming groups of survivors is an efficient strategy to gain agency and visibility (2015, 499). However, her work also shows that countering dominant narratives is a complicated task because of their hegemonic position, and that storytelling, as a classical method of victim advocacy, can be particularly tricky when what survivors want to highlight is complicated to describe or taboo. Her observations are particularly relevant with regard to the work of male survivor groups, who often have to overcome a general skepticism vis-à-vis their stories, when it is not an adamant refusal to hear them out.
It is worth mentioning that because many countries do not recognize the existence of sexual violence against men, and fuel homophobic assumptions about male survivors, men who are active in these survivors’ groups prefer to call themselves human rights activists (Refugee Law Project 2013b, 12). The difficulty to ascribe a political, social or even religious or cultural meaning to male sexual victimization makes it very complicated for survivors to turn it into a mobilization resource. In cases where sexual violence against men can be explicated by a specific political or communal belonging, for instance, when sexual torture is administered as a counter-insurgency strategy, such activism should, in principle, be less complicated to organize. But when, like in the Great Lakes region of Africa, explanations remain elusive, “going public” is significantly more complicated. The fact that some still manage to organize collectively and implement support activities, especially considering the significant obstacles deriving from their refugees status and the general condemnation of homosexual acts, demonstrates their resilience and shows that destructive behavior, as well as the “compensation hypothesis” discussed above, is surely not an inevitable outcome.
The impact of wartime sexual violence against men (or against women) on post-conflict peace-building and reconciliation processes is extremely difficult to trace. In contrast with the wealth of publications researching conflict-related and especially militarized masculinities, very few studies focus on post-conflict masculinities, which are often assumed to be unproblematic since the conflict has ended or receded (Cahn and Ní Aoláin 2009). In cases where episodes of sexual violence have been sporadic and relatively small-scale, silence surrounds them and they are usually not mainstreamed in the analysis. Some cases of conflict that have been the focus of more academic attention, such as the Great Lakes region of Africa, are still largely ongoing, and we still lack the necessary distance to assess the long-term impact of large-scale sexual violence against men.
Whereas issues related to gender-based and sexual violence against women are increasingly taken into account in peace agreements and in post-conflict political arrangements, at least at the discursive level (Féron 2017), most post-conflict societies do not officially recognize the existence of male survivors of sexual violence. Of course many other concerns related to gender-based and sexual violence, such as “war babies” (Seto 2013), still have to make their way into the public debate, but issues related to male survivors are particularly shunned. As we have seen, knowledge on the topic is lacking, and in the specific post-war context, male survivors, who have not been able to defend and protect themselves not to mention the group or nation, are excluded from the national narrative (Zarkov 2001, 77). This has to be understood in relation to the fact that most post-conflict societies continue to glorify war heroes, hyper- and militarized models of masculinity, which further obscure the fate of male survivors. As explained by Ní Aoláin et al. in one of the rare publications focusing on post-conflict masculinities, “the prevalence of this kind of masculinity poses complex issues for undoing violence, for mainstreaming gender equality, and for remaking societies that have been fractured and deeply divided” (Ní Aoláin, Cahn and Haynes 2013, 130). Dominant and militarized masculinity models embed a set of values and characteristics, which proceed to include or exclude individuals, especially those seen as deviant or not masculine enough. Post-conflict political elites continue to rely strongly on these models, by which they themselves often abide. In many ways, the perpetuation of unquestioned masculinity models inherited from the conflict period explains the maintenance of high levels of violence in post-conflict settings, especially between males, as shown by Morrell in the case of South Africa (2000). There is also the belief that since post-conflict societies are facing great challenges pertaining to reconstruction, stabilization and reconciliation, they are more than ever in need of “strong men” who are able to uphold and defend national values and unity. In Burundi, for instance, right after the end of the civil war in 2006 the government decided that all citizens had a duty to participate every Saturday in community work, notably through the cleaning and maintenance of roads. Many male survivors, however, feel too weak for participating in such physical work:
I am always tired. I feel weak. Who would need someone like me? I cannot even participate in community work on Saturdays. I feel useless. (Didace 2014, interview)
Post-conflict national narratives also heavily rely on the vision of a golden and mythical past where gender roles and relations were clear-cut and following a traditional script (Myrttinen 2003, 42–43). This is confirmed by what evidence could be collected on cases like Bosnia-Herzegovina or Croatia, where, in spite of the documented presence of numerous male survivors of sexual violence, the reconstruction of post-conflict national identities has been achieved against stories like those of male survivors: “The raped or castrated Croat man—in the context where rape and castration were associated with homosexuality and emasculation—would undermine construction of the Croat nation as virile and powerful” (Zarkov 2001, 80). In other words, even in cases where sexual violence against men has been widespread, post-conflict societies “cope” with the symbolic emasculation it entails by simply erasing it from national history and memory. While women’s victimization is acknowledged, men are assumed to be victorious combatants who are just in need of demobilization or reintegration. By contrast, male survivors (alongside noncombatant men) are neither targeted directly or indirectly by post-conflict policies, nor invited to take up an active role in reconstruction. Similar preconceptions determine international programs supporting post-conflict reconstruction and reconciliation, which either focus on women as victims of sexual and gender-based violence, or on former combatants who need to be reintegrated. As a consequence, the suffering that such violence induces at the individual and collective levels is denied any legitimacy, generating further suffering and frustration. Such tendencies are particularly obvious in Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration (DDR) programs, which have so far absolutely ignored the issue of male survivors of sexual violence. Whereas, and largely thanks to feminist and women’s movements and awareness campaigns, specific provisions for dealing with gender-based and sexual violence against women are now more and more frequently included in DDR provisions,[9] issues related to male survivors are still totally ignored. As underscored by Eriksson Baaz and Stern, this is remarkably detrimental to post-conflict stabilization objectives, since ex-combatants who have experienced such trauma might be prone to perpetrate further violent acts if not supported (Eriksson Baaz and Stern 2010a).
9
Examples include the Agreement on DDR between the Government of Uganda and the Lord’s Resistance Army (2008) and the Darfur Peace Agreement (2006). For more details, see “Guidance for Mediators. Addressing Conflict-Related Sexual Violence in Ceasefire and Peace Agreements.” New York: UN/DPA, Policy and Mediation Division, 2012.