Childhood truma and abuses, physical strength issues, and cultural- gender- unequality  of women,could be a starting variables. The two factors of economical temptations, and education of women, could change the outcome of study, in different directions. More importantly, all of the above-variales of armed conflictors, could change their atitudes toward women; as a result, reactions and results would be changed introcately.     

Feminist critical security scholarship in international relations might be a productive place to start.  You might try reading some of the work by Jane Parpart, Megan MacKenzie, and others, which looks at both the effect of armed conflict on women, and the role of women in armed conflict (and other aspects of gender analysis of conflict) in Africa. 

The conflict perspective, of which the feminist theoretical approach makes a part, could be helpful. 

Percentages of forced displacement of population during armed conflict can be a help to study the impact on women. Specifically, the studies of these percentage will be emphasized on women and the different abuses that humanitarian organizations register during these periods.

The Human Security paradigm could also be useful in terms of a people approach to security and how women fair in that equation. The impact of conflict are better appreciated in a post-conflcit analysis where the after effects of the conflict manifest. These are usually the 7 areas of human existence which the UNDP outlines as areas of concern for security from a people perspective. These include, health security, political security, economic, community, food, personal and environmental security. These areas are often impacted by conflict and because women are significant stakeholders in these areas of human existence, they are in turn impacted. You may also draw a link between human security and women's rights in this regard.    

The folks at Columbia are doing interesting work applying complexity theory to conflicts. It's a very robust framework, but the methodologies available can be a hurdle. http://ac4.ei.columbia.edu/ 

Please check Cynthia cockburn and Cynthia Enloe's work.

Start with Jones & Hughes, then Gadlin, then Vallacher. If that makes sense, have a look at the rest. Good luck!

- Mark 

Bar‐Tal, D. (2000). From intractable conflict through conflict resolution to reconciliation: Psychological analysis. Political Psychology, 21(2), 351–365.

Bartoli, A., Bui-Wrzosinska, L., & Nowak, A. (2010). Peace is in movement: A dynamical systems perspective on the emergence of peace in Mozambique. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 16(2), 211–230.

Billig, M., & Tajfel, H. (1973). Social categorization and similarity in intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27–52.

Coleman, P. T., Nowak, A., Bui‐Wrzosinska, L., Bartoli, A., Liebovitch, L. S., Musallam, N., & Kugler, K. G. (2011). The Five Percent: Finding Solutions to Seemingly Impossible Conflicts (1st ed., p. 274). New York City: PublicAffairs.

Deutsch, M. (1973). The Resolution of Conflict: Constructive and Destructive Processes. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Gadlin, H. (2013).\Rethinking Intractability: A New Framework for Conflict. Negotiation Journal, 29(1), 99–117.

Guastello, S. J. (2008). Chaos and conflict: Recognizing patterns. Emergence: Complexity and Organization, 10(4), 1–9.

Jones, W., & Hughes, S. H. (2003). Complexity, Conflict Resolution, and How the Mind Works. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 20(4), 485–494.

Mercay, A. (2006). Non-Linear Modelling of Small Arms Proliferation. In J. Borrie & V. M. Randin (Eds.), Thinking Outside the Box in Multilateral Disaramament and Arms Control Negotiations (1st ed., Vol. 1, pp. 165–190). Geneva: United Nations.

Mercay, A., & Borrie, J. (2006). A Physics of Diplomacy? The Dynamics of Comlex Social Phenomena and their Implications for Multilateral Negotiations. In J. Borrie & V. M. Randin (Eds.), Thinking Outside the Box in Multilateral Disaramament and Arms Control Negotiations (1st ed., pp. 129–164). Geneva: United Nations.

Musallam, N., Coleman, P. T., & Nowak, A. (2010). Understanding the spread of malignant conflict: A dynamical systems perspective. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 16(2), 127–151.

Pruitt, D. G., & Nowak, A. (2014). Attractor landscapes and reaction functions in escalation and de-escalation. International Journal of Conflict Management, 25(4), 387–406.

Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behaviour. Social Science Information, 13(2), 65–93.

Vallacher, R. R., Coleman, P. T., Nowak, A., & Bui-Wrzosinska, L. (2010). Rethinking intractable conflict: the perspective of dynamical systems. The American Psychologist, 65(4), 262–78.

It might be worth situating the 2012 Human Security Report in your analysis. It made a controversial claim about declining sexual violence in civil conflict, a claim strongly refuted by scholars working in this area http://duckofminerva.dreamhosters.com/2012/11/guest-post-whats-wrong-with-the-human-security-report-and-the-global-decline-claim.html

Many UN agencies have developed their own methodologies for inflict analysis, some of which have particular sensitivity to gender. UNICEF is one you might search for their publications. Here's something recent they developed with Search for Common Ground that may prove useful. 

http://learningforpeace.unicef.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/SFCG-Guidance_Conflict-Scans_March-2015.pdf

You may look at the works of Erik Melander, Neloufer De Mel, Thomas Plümper, Eric Neumayer,  Emiliana Bernard Stephenson. Their context is beyond Africa but they can offer some 'methodology' inspiration.