Militarism is an ideology, policy, and practice that elevates the role of the military and other armed actors within society and positions them as “protectors” responsible for creating a form of security. Anti-militarist feminists such as those in WILPF have long critiqued militarism for fueling and legitimizing violence, including gender-based violence (GBV). Although GBV can be perpetrated by anyone, its primary perpetrators are often men, and its primary victims are often women or people of other marginalised genders. Around 30 percent of women worldwide — approximately 840 million women — have experienced partner or sexual violence. GBV includes a variety of violations, including sexual, physical, mental, and economic harm, often occurring at higher rates in contexts of armed conflict, occupation, and in settings with high prevalence of militarisation and crisis.
Members of militaries, police forces, and armed groups are often perpetrators of GBV, and their status makes justice and accountability more difficult.
The prevalence of SGBV among armed actors reflects the ways in which militarism and patriarchy intersect to fuel harms. In contexts of armed conflict, sexual violence in conflict has been widely recognised as a peace and security issue as well as a human rights issue. For example, UN Security Council Resolutions such as 1325, 1820, and 1888 recognize that SGBV– including rape, sexual slavery, forced prostitution, forced marriage, and human trafficking — is used as a weapon and tactic of war. Within settings such as humanitarian settings or peacekeeping operations, sexual exploitation and abuse — the actual or attempted abuse of a position of vulnerability – also occurs.
Contexts of armed conflict, post-conflict, military occupation, and genocide all have severe and differentiated gendered impacts. In 2025, the Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory and Israel found that since October 2023 Israel has systematically used sexual, reproductive and other GBV against Palestinians and carried out “genocidal acts” against Palestinians in Gaza by destroying and blocking access to reproductive health facilities. In Afghanistan, since they took power in 2021 the Taliban has put in place a system of institutionalised discrimination that contains a constellation of restrictions, designed to completely erase Afghan women from public life.
Although GBV occurs among all segments of society, research in different contexts indicates that militarized actors perpetrate GBV at higher rates than the general population. For example, in the United States, research indicates that rates of sexual assault by police are more than double that of the general population; police officer families face domestic violence at high rates; and sexual misconduct is one of the largest categories of police misconduct. Survivors of this violence often come from marginalized groups such as LGBTQ+, sex worker, or racialized communities, reflecting the inherent power imbalances between state security forces and the population. Beyond being perpetrators, members of militaries can also be victims/survivors of such violence, a reality which is often underreported. Members of militaries and peacekeeping missions who are not perpetrators also sometimes experience secondary trauma by witnessing others perpetrating such grave violations.
Militarism concretely increases the power and influence of armed actors, mostly men.
Militarism is not only an increase in military strength itself, but a system of values and practices that promote military approaches, and, in turn, serve to define leadership and power. Feminist scholars have identified that patriarchy and militarism share many values, including hierarchy, obedience, exclusion, and control. Militarism exacerbates other structural drivers and promotes men’s participation in violence – whether through policies such as mandatory conscription, recruitment into militaries or armed groups. It builds upon other conditions and forces that contribute to men’s violence and exacerbate patriarchal norms, including colonialism and imperialism, trauma, poverty and inequalities, land dispossession, climate change, food insecurity, the arms industry, corruption.
Feminists have argued that militarism heightens the risk of armed conflicts by positioning military action as a legitimate response to social issues, unrest, or other challenges. During armed conflicts and wars, military actors – largely men – gain increased status and power within societies, with military service becoming a credential for power. This exacerbates existing gender inequalities, misogyny, and patriarchal power, creating an environment in which gendered violations are more likely to take place, with impunity.
The Women, Peace and Security agenda recognizes and aims to address the gendered and disproportionate impacts of armed conflict on women and girls. It has four pillars – prevention, participation, protection, and relief and recovery. The agenda is enshrined through ten Security Council resolutions, over 100 National Action Plans, and other complementary frameworks including CEDAW General Recommendation 30 and Beijing Platform Area E.
Despite 25 years of implementation of the WPS agenda, and extensive research on the importance of holistic, comprehensive peace processes, many negotiations continue to exclude women, marginalised groups, and others outside of the main conflict parties. This continued exclusion serves as a reward for engaging in conflict and violence, and delegitimises peace actors in favor of militarised ones.
Military bases, prisons, and other militarized and carceral installations are often sites of gender-based violence, and fuel political economies that perpetuate this violence.
A key component of militarism is creating the architecture to sustain it, including military bases and other installations. But military bases — particularly foreign military bases — are well-documented sites of GBV.
US military bases in contexts including Hawai’i, Guam, Okinawa, and South Korea have all been sites of systematic gender-based violence against local women, with violations including sex trafficking, sexual assault, and femicide. In the case of Korea, the South Korean government established sex work districts and colluded with the US government to shape local political economies to cater to US military personnel. In the US territory of Guam, local activists document increases in sexual violence upon the arrival of US navy ships. These violations have a variety of health impacts as well, including sexually transmitted diseases, unwanted pregnancies and unsafe abortions, drug and alcohol dependency, and mental illness. The presence of foreign militaries and private military and security contractors in Djibouti is one of the driving factors in the sexual exploitation of women and girls in the region. In the case of US military bases abroad, Status of Forces Agreements between the US and the host government often include legal protection for US personnel, and do not protect local communities from the violence they may perpetrate. In the words of activists from the Pacific region, “Where there is more military, there is more human trafficking and gendered violence… Demilitarizing our homes across Oceania is crucial to protecting our peoples.”
As military actors seize territory and power, sexual violence often occurs with impunity and disrupts local communities and economies. In the Central African Republic, for example, sexual violence perpetrated by Russian mercenaries is impacting agricultural economies and outputs, as women feel unsafe going into the fields. Contexts of military occupation, such as in Palestine, also contain extensive architectures of structural violence, such as in detention settings. Research has shown that there is systematic sexual and gender-based violence in Israeli prisons.
Weapons increase the propensity for GBV and also enable impunity.
As countries militarise and more weapons circulate within a society, their use and threat of use can become more common, including at the household and community levels. The possession, presence, proliferation, and use of weapons, including small arms and light weapons (SALW), increase the likelihood that violence such as GBV occurs. Incidences of GBV including femicides, conflict-related sexual violence, and other violations are often perpetrated with the use of a firearm, through which perpetrators seek to establish power and force over victims. Research indicates that the presence of weapons also makes GBV more deadly, with some statistics showing that a woman is five times more likely to be killed through femicide if a gun is present.
As a result of feminist advocacy, frameworks such as the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) have recognized the relationship between weapons proliferation and GBV. Article 7.4 of the ATT makes it illegal to transfer weapons if there is a chance they will be used to facilitate GBV. Arms proliferation broadly helps fuel armed conflict, which therefore “propagates the conditions that lead to conflict-related sexual violence”. According to the UN, exact statistics on the prevalence of armed violence against women is not fully known due to the lack of adequate information and reporting on these issues. This underscores the importance of disarmament and arms control efforts as key aspects of prevention.
Military spending creates more human need and diverts away from human security, including prevention of gender-based violence.
Global military spending is reaching record highs, surpassing $2.7 trillion USD in 2024. These numbers are only expected to increase in the coming years, with some projections estimating that military expenditure could rise as high as $6.6 trillion USD in the next ten years. Research from UN Women indicates that militarization contributes to and exacerbates gender inequality, which has a negative impact on the economy and society writ large. It does this both by crowding out social expenditures as well as indirectly by “sustaining gender norms that reinforce women’s subordinate status in the society”. The recent report of the Secretary-General on the impact of military spending on sustainable development demonstrates the different ways in which militarization undermines progress towards the SDGs. These include exacerbating inequalities, contributing to the climate crisis and environmental degradation, and increasing weapons proliferation. In the words of the report, “military spending does not guarantee security; instead, it often fuels arms races, deepens mistrust among countries and further destabilizes the international political landscape. Diverting funds to military spending locks countries into long-term military-centered policies, prioritizing defence spending over development gains, and signaling a dangerous decline in international cooperation.”
While militarization is increasing, protection and prevention remain drastically underfunded. UNFPA estimates that $42 billion – a fraction of military spending – is needed to address GBV worldwide. With recent funding cuts, including from the United States and other major donors, progress towards ending GBV is stalling. Women’s rights organizations and civil society organisations are facing major funding challenges, limiting their ability to continue essential work such as operating shelters, providing legal aid, and administering psychosocial support programmes. According to UN Women, around 90 percent of organizations have been forced to reduce their support programmes for survivors. One in three organizations have suspended or shut down GBV programmes.
Through policy choices that promote militarism over human security, cycles of violence become normalized, impunity is strengthened, and a culture of violence and aggression is promoted. Moving the money from war to peace is therefore an essential component of ending GBV.
