Why do people resort to violence to uphold an identity?

    Sarah Brown’s “Female Perpetrators of the Rwandan Genocide” unpacks the gender narratives that can be seen throughout the

world but highlighted in Rwandan society and their genocide. She asks questions about women being mobilized, their exercised

agency and post perpetration to try and answer why females active role in this genocide was silent in the narrative. Through these

gender assumptions many can not fathom how mothers or daughters could be a part of direct or indirect violence. However, Brown

mentions many cases of female perpetrators through fear of the Interahamwe, coercion, or choice were a large part of the Rwandan

genocide. 

    In the case of the Rwandan genocide, identity was solely based of your ethnic group. Conflict was between the Hutu and Tutsi

women, gender was not a factor. As Brown mentioned, that loyalty to either group was much more significant than any feeling of

sisterhood between Hutu or Tutsi women. Was this violence from females directly following every other man in a part of this

gruesome genocide? I would argue it was not. I think a major factor of females being a larger part of this genocide than the

narrative shows is their gain of empowerment. Those Hutu commandments were revolutionary because it gave women

the right to act on these three rules. Entitling them to a small voice, but the start of change in the right direction. These women

finally did not male approval to do every last thing. Even if that meant killing, looting, raping, or exposing this gave more power

to their gender based identity. They began to appeal to their traditional role in an outdated Rwandan society through this violence

that was eventually silenced due to the shock of many. In a way these acts of violence from women seemed to be almost a cry

for equality in Rwanda, as much as a part of the rivalry between the Hutu and Tutsi groups. 

    Another part of the article that fascinated me was the lack of female perpetrated cases of rape during the genocide. The main

reason being male victims being afraid to be ostracized, disgraced or being stigmatized as a woman. This truly highlights the

gender assumptions that were deeply rooted in this society and is an example of problems that can be found in any country.

I believe this also relates to the the lack of records or awareness of female participation within this genocide. Female action

was quickly followed by “not being legitimate” or “unique case” phrases silences and devalues the effect women had in this conflict. 

    This was the most eye opening article we have read so far. I had decent background knowledge of the Rwandan genocide

before this, but it never highlighted the gender invisibility, bias, and conflict that was happening along with the violence. Ignoring

women in this conflict means ignoring a large part of the population that includes perpetrators, victims, and bystanders just like

the men. After reading this piece, it seemed to me that the men and women were almost fighting for different endings and

changes to this conflict. This is very unique in history and allows us to say that different identities can try to be upheld even

when fighting in the same war or using the same violence.