This paper considers how the use of 'hybridity' in the peacebuilding literature overlooks the gendered dimensions of hybrid interactions. It does so by examining the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 1325 national action plans (NAPs) for Liberia and Sierra Leone. By asking the gendered questions of 'who participates?' and 'how do they participate?' it draws from Mac Ginty's conception of hybridity and traces the compliance and incentivizing power in hybridized peace, as well as the ability of local actors to resist and provide alternatives. However, Mac Ginty's model is found to be inadequate because of its inattention to the gendered nature of power. It is found that with a gendered approach to hybridity, it is easier to trace the processes of hybridization of NAPs in post-conflict states where their implementation is limited. In asking the questions of 'who' and 'how', three conclusions about the gendered nature of hybrid peacebuilding are drawn: international intervention relies upon the 'feminization' of local actors; issues framed within the realm of the 'masculine' are more likely to get attention; and the Resolution 1325 agenda in post-conflict states can be subverted by framing it as a 'soft' issue.