Jayshree Singh
4 min readSep 17, 2023
Jarhead 2: Field of 🔥Fire

Protection of persons
☺😌Are women sufficiently protected in armed conflict by the International Human

Law ? -
Who wants anyone to be staked by the way? The human society always been concerned and possessive of their possessed ones. But the question is due to division of labour based on the socialisation process always has the tendency to segregate the entitlements and roles and responsibility, so knowingly and unknowingly the pattern of gender construction too gets affected with regard to training or grooming matters since the birth as mortal on the Earth. Both male and female are educated in context of theoretical perspective, but as labour and labourer at the domestic front is the responsibility of females, who are expected to be in certain code of conduct to run the house affairs, naturally the violent and violation are not their prerogative, so if any such circumstances of war, or bloodshed occur they are least prepared first of all physically. Now if we discuss of men in war or at war zones, it is like they too are the victims of war and being in a sense facing the fact for the sake of protection of their territory Or borders and finally facing feminization of territory which is a property, possession and perth but cannot defend itself, even though there are many regulatory norms via conventions, alliances and treaties. International Human Law even if is applied then too it is an abstract power that rests in peace with its power of pen in files or in remote sense. Three aspects have been detailed here:
1.gender training and dimension
2.Feminization of territory by powerful hegemonic belligerent
3. Abstract regulatory defensive norms in the form of ordinances lying dormant in files.
If we say women or children are affected, we just want to throw the ball on this section of world’s human society, that it is their problem to save themselves; And the violations and violence the natural coercive emotions and strengths that held manliness and masculinity at test to check their courage and cooperation, but not for actual purpose of the Nature’s Divine to prevail peace in all the pervading creativity of the World Divine.
Answer to all this discussion in one line - stop making lame excuses women are vulnerable in war, while men are vulnerable in love and marital unanimity. This is completely a biased mindset to turn the tables to the side wherever one has the majority consensus upon certain things in public space and in private space. Subsequent to such scandalous mentality in war and peace times, the abstract words in IHL regulatory norms seems a farce upon understanding the fact - that why such questions are raised when men themselves feel that they should be handled with vulnerability in love, not women with vulnerability in war.

Are men as life partners or kith and kins for women protected in armed conflict - if they are born to protect WOMEN?

Protection of persons:
😌☺Are men as life partners or kith and kins for women protected in armed conflict - if they are born to protect WOMEN?

If the root cause is understood, that men are in the most endangered state with regard to being protected or at risk of their lives, then how women can be. Because first men are massacred, killed, mercilessly tortured if caught: If men are at so much risk of their lives, how can women be - THIS IS FIRST BASIC QUERY.

Secondly if women are instrumental to raise any fear amongst people indulge in Wars and there is a fear of being physically maligned, which is so looming and frightening, that all plunge themselves to protect women, now if they do not return live, then the surviving males are the protectors or guardians or counterparts of the survived women in a respective region affected by wars. The actual inquiry should be how far GENDER-ORIENTED SOCIETY is actually concerned about women? Do they look after women as it should be? Do they look after the dignity of their women?

The answer is certainly YES but these all refer to the fact women is treated with vulnerability even when the area is in NO WAR ZONE. They do not let women to learn self-defense, even when they are enrolled as cadets in any para military kind of unit, it is not necessary they are trained to defend themselves, only mental capacity building is focused, instead to be imparted physical protection training. This trend is same all over the world to treat women as a part of subordination even in times of NO WAR.

So it is natural that they are at risk of their physical and mental well being all the time. They are harmed most when their men at WAR or AWAY.

WOMEN as a whole is treated like an object to destroy the opponent, to exhaust the opponent, to let out the frustration of vengeance. BUT first the MEN of region in WAR FRONT of both Opponent group and of defenders group meet to death or destruction, proceeded mostly with women abduction, torture, slavery and disablement.

If we protect men, women can be protected. If women are trained militarily, men can be protected, vulnerable people too can be under protection.

Protection of persons:

😌☺How far cruelty in the fourth Geneva convention is not an impunity....?Because protection has been understood as not Occupational safety of health and work, protection is actually relative to registering how much harm is already done, so then subsequently the problem is seen or pursued in that perspective. Had alike the capitalist market strategy of the anticipatory model principle to pre- determine the issues, pros and cons been followed up in such areas while sending war correspondents or journalists, where vulnerability is instrumental to the gratification of evil demonic forces and mindsets, the trailblazers had even been then supporting other vulnerable sections too.

Jayshree Singh

https://medium.com/@1967jayshreesingh A prolific creative writer as a researcher and critic so credited with Publications more