| Abstract [eng] |
As a result of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and other security challenges, Armenia has been heavily militarized over the past 30 years and is now considered one of the most militarized countries in the world. Patriarchal power relations are also deeply rooted in the country. This disproportionately affects women, as studies show. For example, they face poverty, sexual abuse, they tend to underestimate their own security. In such societies, women have virtually no access to higher-level security debates, and therefore do so mainly through the non-governmental sector. Just as feminist studies have pointed out that the experience of conflict is gendered, so in Armenia women's movements raise issues related to women's rights, the impact of militarisation and conflict, and peace. However, women activists are also affected by militarisation and the changing security situation. The aim of this study is to analyze how feminist women's movements in Armenia are affected by militarisation and conflict, which disproportionately affect women. Also, what are their opportunities to engage on security issues in a way that provides an alternative to the dominant militaristic (male) narrative. In order to achieve this, a qualitative case study was conducted. The data for the study consisted of 8 semi-structured in-depth interviews with women working on the above issues in Armenia, as well as secondary sources. The empirical part of the study was divided into four parts: the impact of militarisation on women, feminism in the context of militarisation (and insecurity), women's involvement in the armed forces, and women's capacity to change the dominant narrative. The study revealed that militarisation, patriarchal power relations and the evolution of conflict have also affected women's movements, leading to changes in their attitudes. After 2020, as Armenia went from a winner to a loser, anti-militarism was increasingly replaced by liberal feminism, and activists became less critical of militarisation and more supportive of military measures because "there is no other choice". This can be explained through a growing sense of insecurity - antimilitarist themes are more popular among women who do not feel existentially threatened by the disappearance of the state .Now that Azerbaijan is threatening Armenia itself, women (as well as society as a whole) feel even more insecure and are more likely to see taking up arms as the only option. This also shows 62 that women are concerned about state security (regardless of their views) and are looking for ways to participate in it. Armenia’s case study shows that liberal feminists are less likely to emphasize the negative effects of militarisation, to support the government, and not to criticize the military. In other words, not to offer any alternative to the dominant militarist narrative. The other group – anti-militarists who criticize militarization, emphasize the negative impact on women – do not feel free to do so, and are less involved. In other words, while the role of women in society seems to be changing (they are encouraged to join the military), inclusion is selective - only those who agree with the dominant narrative are heard. Given that militarisation and conflict negatively affect women, many women's needs remain unmet. In other words, militarisation is further justified by the voices of women activists themselves. The study is significant given that more and more states are militarizing and there is more discussion about the role of women in national defense. The study may also offer some recommendations for future research. 1) A more in-depth analysis of the situation of women in the militaries of patriarchal countries such as Armenia. 2) Comparative studies would be useful to understand more about feminism in militarized and patriarchal states. For example, compare the case of Armenia with that of Azerbaijan. |
