Women in arms: In conflict zones, feminine stereotypes don’t apply
https://arab.news/2vhae
News of the involvement of women in militancy — especially in suicide bombings — is always received as a major shock. However, how women act in times of war and radicalization is shaped by complex factors. The only reason that the world is caught off guard every time a woman decides to fight is more because of ingrained prejudices than anything else.
The truth is that suicide bombing has never been a ‘men only’ domain. Women have long participated in this violent strategy, and often to more devastating effect. Society is dealt a double blow when the name of a woman emerges. The shock is not just that people have been killed, but also that a woman has killed them. Consider Thenmozhi Rajaratnam (Dhanu), who assassinated Rajiv Gandhi in 1991. Or Wafa Idris of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade. The Chechen “Black Widows,” avenging their husbands’ deaths, left a similar mark. Recent history is full of examples. And yet, to this day, we let the idea of women fighting feel like exceptional occurrences. This view hurts counter-terrorism at its core because it excludes women, especially the youth, from any targeted strategies to encourage social inclusion and to prevent radicalization.
It is important to understand that conflict leaves women with few options, and often with only two: endure and suffer, or pick up arms and fight. Women and children are often the most unfortunate victims of war.
Many women, it has been recorded, join militant groups to avenge personal losses or escape abusive homes. Research by Farhana Ali and Mia Bloom highlights this devastating trend: in conflict zones like Pakistan, Afghanistan and Palestine, women who lose their families to drone strikes or collateral damage often find themselves pulled toward militancy.
The shock is not just that people have been killed, but also that a woman has killed them.
Syed Kaleem Imam
Terror organizations like Boko Haram, Daesh and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade have made use of women for years: because female operatives are often seen as less threatening, they can capitalize much better on the element of surprise. It’s also no secret that women have provided crucial logistical support to extremist groups like the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT).
Women have also been tasked with indoctrinating young girls into militant ideologies. Take Pakistan’s Lal Mosque incident in the mid-2000s. Women weren’t merely passive bystanders, they were at the forefront of the radical campaigns sponsored by the mosque, enforcing morality and demonstrating against ‘Western influence.’
These examples remind us that militancy has never been gender-exclusive: militants have long weaponized women to fuel their conflicts. It is only our embedded prejudices about women that cause us shock and surprise every time their involvement comes to the fore.
When society offers no shield, extremists swoop in, providing women a twisted form of empowerment. A striking recent example is Mahal Baloch, the third female suicide bomber from the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA). Educated, middle-class, and yet, a militant. What drove her to this? Was it ideology, or simply the state’s inability to address deep-seated grievances?
In Women, Gender, and Terrorism (2011), Laura Sjoberg points out that patriarchal structures often coerce women into criminal activities, including smuggling, kidnapping through honey trapping, and drug trafficking, for financial survival. The options for women in conflict zones are grim — engage in illegal activities or face further oppression.
It is the state’s failure to uphold justice and provide basic security that drives people, including women, toward radicalization. When institutions cannot protect the vulnerable or offer hope, violence becomes an outlet. But that is only part of the problem. Families, schools, communities and seminaries are meant to shape individuals into balanced citizens. When they fail, they make radicalization much easier to achieve.
The gap between violent extremism and societal neglect is paper-thin. The cracks are there, and militants are more than willing to exploit them. The only solution is prevention — address the cracks before they widen into fault lines. Instead of engaging in blame games and living in denial, eliminating fault lines through trust, fairness, genuine representation, equity, and inclusivity is the path to weakening the designs of hostile elements.
Community engagement, meaningful dialogue, and social and economic empowerment are the only ways to stop the growing trend of radicalizing and exploiting women for militant purposes. However, if we are to keep pretending that women are somehow too gentle, too nurturing, and too peaceful to turn to violence — well, the bombings will continue and continue to shock.
- The writer holds a doctorate in politics and international relations and has served as a federal secretary and inspector-general of police. He posts at @KaleemImam
