Our logo is bigger now

Can we end rape as tool of war?

16 posts / 0 new

Log in or register to post comments

Thu, 2012-02-09 13:03

#1

Catchfire

Catchfire's picture

Can we end rape as tool of war?

Gloria Steinem and Lauren Wolfe:

Quote:
Sexualized violence may be the only form of violence in which the victim is blamed or is even said to have invited it. In war, rape shames women, men, children, entire societies. The stigma imposed on all who are touched by this violence makes this weapon incredibly effective as a means of destroying the enemy.

But it is crucial to remember that it wasn't always like this, nor does it have to be. Sexualized violence isn't a "natural" part of conflict. For the first 90% or more of human history, females and males had roles that were balanced and porous. Our societal positions weren't based on the domination of females by males. Humans and nature, women and men, were linked rather than ranked. The circle, not the hierarchy, was the organizing principle of our thinking.

By analyzing how sexualized violence was used to ethnically cleanse, as it was in Bosnia; to force pregnancies that would literally change the face of the next generation; or, as in Egypt, to stop dissent, we can look to future wars and possibly prevent a reoccurrence.

[...]

Naming sexualized violence as a weapon of war makes it visible -- and once visible, prosecutable. What happened to men in the past was political, but what happened to women was cultural. The political was public and could be changed; the other was private -- even sacred -- and could not or even should not be changed.

Making clear that sexualized violence is political and public breaks down that wall. It acknowledges that sexualized violence does not need to happen. When masculinity is no longer defined by the possession and domination of women, when femininity is no longer about the absence of sexual experience or being owned, then we will have begun.

But first, we have to stop saying sexualized violence is inevitable, or allowing its victims to be blamed. We have to imagine change before we can create it.

Issues Pages:

Thu, 2012-02-09 15:04

#2

Merowe

Yes, by all means lets stamp out this appalling practice and return modern war-making to the wholesome family-friendly pursuit its meant to be.

Thu, 2012-02-09 17:48

#3

500_Apples

I agree Merowe -- the opening post is revolting in its immorality and dispiriting in its ignorance. It even repeats the lie that rape was used as a weapon of war in Libya, a lie broadly recognized to be a total fabrication.

It is moronic from the first sentence onwards:

Quote:
Sexualized violence may be the only form of violence in which the victim is blamed or is even said to have invited it.

Actually, in most wars the victims of the violence are blamed for the violence. Palestinians are said to be rejecting peace, Iraqis were said to be supporting insurgents, Russians were said to be "occupying South Ossetia", Serbs were said to be running concentration camps, Pakistanis are said to be supporting Al-Qaeda, et cetera.

It is in no way surprising that Gloria Steinem, whose career was propelled by ties to the CIA, wants to promote the rubbish of sanitized imperialism. She is no doubt in favor of surgical strikes, humantarian carpet bombing, and economic sanctions. How the hell does somebody write a piece saying "If you're going to kill 100,000 people, make sure not to rape anybody"... it boggles the mind. It's totally disjointed from human nature. Obviously people who walk around acting like Gods and killing people are going to take what they want when they want, if you don't like the attitude, try opposing the war in the first place.

Every time I come back to babble, even briefly, I see articles like this one promoting imperialism. It really makes me sad.

ETA: I just double checked the examples in the article. The only examples cited are those of Nazis, Serbs, black, and brown people using rape as a weapon of war. No surprise there. They don't have the courage to mention Palestine, Vietnam, et cetera.

Why would they neglect to mention the behavior of western troops in Korea and Vietnam? hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm? Could it be that the purpose of this piece is just to prpomote racism against "the other", by exploting chivalrous tendency that is the desire to protect women who are idealized in the piece as weak, powerless and desperate for western help?

Thu, 2012-02-09 17:51

#4

Catchfire

Catchfire's picture

Hi Gents. You're in the feminsm forum. Thanks.

Thu, 2012-02-09 17:55

#5

500_Apples

Catchfire wrote:

Hi Gents. You're in the feminsm forum. Thanks.

You post an article promoting imperialism and then you hide behind the label of the forum.

You should post some articles about how girls in Afghanistan are now going to school.

Thu, 2012-02-09 17:56

#6

Catchfire

Catchfire's picture

Hi Apples, don't post in this thread again. Thanks.

Thu, 2012-02-09 18:04

#7

500_Apples

You are nothing more than an apologist for imperialism.

****************************

For those who want alternatives from the Catchfire-view, it is not just Brown men who rape during war.

http://www.bridgew.edu/soas/jiws/nov00/duty.htm

Duty, Honor, Rape: Sexual Assault Against Women During War
by Kevin Gerard Neill, MPH

The link discusses Vietnam, among other conflicts.

[gratuitous and potentially triggering material removed by moderator]

Thu, 2012-02-09 18:06

#8

Catchfire

Catchfire's picture

500_Apples, you repeatedly flounce from this site, only to return a few weeks later to abuse it. You won't be getting another chance. I don't know what happened to you, but I'll miss the old Apples.

Thu, 2012-02-09 18:16

#9

Todrick of Chat...

The simple answer is no we can not end rape as tool of war.

Abuses against civilians will always happen no matter what control measures are set in place by government and military organizations.

Humans will always be cruel to each other, as Apples mentions it does not matter or skin colour or religion of the individuals committing the crime.

Thu, 2012-02-09 18:47

Catchfire

Catchfire's picture

I was really hoping for a bit deeper thinking than has happened in this thread. There is a clear dearth of feminist analysis on babble these days.

Quote:
The use of sexual violence against women to submit, terrorize, and dominate entire populations is, in the 21st century, common in many parts of the world. International law has only begun to recognize and codify the fact that sexual violence is not a byproduct of war or an uncontrolled act by rogue soldiers, but a war crime committed against women, against races and sectors of society, and against humanity. It is also a calculated strategy of war....

War is by definition violence: violence against women, men, children, the environment. Genocidal campaigns and militarism are universally reprehensible. Why the gender-based focus?

Williams put the effort in context. "This is not an attempt to make war safe for women."...\

The goal of ending sexual violence in conflicts first focuses on making the problem visible and then on building societies that quickly condemn and stop what have been referred to as "epidemics" of rape in conflicts. It also relies on creating and implementing international law such as Security Council Resolutions 1820, 1888, and 1690 that "demand for the complete cessation with immediate effect by all parties to armed conflict of all acts of sexual violence," among other mandates.

Joanne Sandler, deputy director of UN Women, the UN entity charged with gender equality, noted that the UN system has advanced in recognizing rape in war as a specific international crime. She noted four reasons for a women-led civil society effort: to identify where sexual violence in conflict exists but has not yet surfaced, to go beyond legal mechanisms that exclusively address rape in specific situations, to increase monitoring and press for justice, and to build survivor-centered responses that place women’s rights in the center of peace talks.

Ending Rape in War

Thu, 2012-02-09 18:52

Catchfire

Catchfire's picture

Quote:
Two important books lit a match to what was already a long-standing concern. First, Sonja Hedgepeth and Rochelle Saidel sent me a manuscript of their anthology called Sexual Violence Against Jewish Women During the Holocaust. I didn't know them and they were only asking for a quote, but once I read it, I was outraged. Why had it taken 65 years to reveal these facts? Why were they ignored at Nuremberg? If we'd known, might it have helped prevent rape camps in the former Yugoslavia? Or rape as a weapon of genocide in the Congo?

I got in touch with the authors and asked if the Women's Media Center could help by making these connections. Our first panel linked scholars of the Holocaust with women's current experience in the Congo. It was a big learning moment for us all.

Then I read At the Dark End of the Street: Black Women, Rape and Resistance -- a New History of the Civil Rights Movement from Rosa Parks to Black Power, by Danielle McGuire. It roots much of the civil rights movement in the massive sexual abuse of black women. For instance, Rosa Parks was investigating a gang rape of a black woman by seven white men in Montgomery, so the bus boycott was more a result than a cause. Black women's resistance to sexual assault helped fuel the movement.

For me, inspiration comes from seeing positive results. For instance, a woman survivor of brutal rape in the Congo is rejected by her family, but learns she's not alone or at fault from the story of a Jewish woman who survived rape and the Holocaust only to be shunned as if she had collaborated. Each example illuminates another. We have to know what's wrong to change what's wrong, but the special problem of sexualized violence is used to silence and shame the victim.

Documenting the problem allows individual victims to know they're not alone or at fault, and allows the institutions of society to create remedies, from laws to education.

Naming sexualized violence as a weapon of war makes it visible and subject to prosecution. In the past, what happened to men was political, but what happened to women was cultural. The first was public and could be changed, and the second was private, off limits, even sacred. By making clear that sexualized violence is political and public, it breaches that wall. It admits that sexualized violence can be changed.

Thu, 2012-02-09 19:19

Todrick of Chat...

Double post, my mistake.

Thu, 2012-02-09 19:23

Todrick of Chat...

Never mind.

Mon, 2012-02-13 03:08

Red Tory Tea Girl

Steinem, unapologetic transmisogynist, erasing male victims of rape in a war zone... yep, that's some good feminism... no, sorry, wait, tenure masquerading as feminism.

This board seems oftentimes really hostile not to anti-feminists but those feminists who don't endorse the unidirectionalism of the second-wave, to the point that for sex worker's advocates, pretty feminist folk, this board does not feel like a safe space. Anyway, yes, all wars are crimes, all rapes are war crimes, but each activity within a war seems to take a highly gendered toll... it's interesting to note how those people who explicitly oppose explicit and implicit differentiation based on gender, seem to implicitly have different levels of difficulty with it based on the gender, legal, assigned, lived, or otherwise, of the victim.

Can we end rape as a tool of war? Yes, but to do so we must develop a consensus doctrine for the use of force that makes it illegitimate to target civilians. If you think there's no connection with predator drones attacking rescuers and civilians after an attack on a suspected combattant, as Greenwald has been reporting, and rape of civilians as a method of instilling terror, you are sadly mistaken.

Tue, 2012-02-14 02:40

CanadaApple

As with a lot of things, I suspect it is probably a question of not "can" but "how"? I don't have the answer to that, but I hope it's out there somewhere.

Thu, 2012-02-16 00:06

swallow

swallow's picture

On "how", this seemed useful:

Catchfire wrote:

I was really hoping for a bit deeper thinking than has happened in this thread. There is a clear dearth of feminist analysis on babble these days.

Quote:
Joanne Sandler, deputy director of UN Women ... noted four reasons for a women-led civil society effort: to identify where sexual violence in conflict exists but has not yet surfaced, to go beyond legal mechanisms that exclusively address rape in specific situations, to increase monitoring and press for justice, and to build survivor-centered responses that place women’s rights in the center of peace talks.

Ending Rape in War

There's been a lot of useful work getting the basis for "rape as a war crime" down in international law. But leaving it to the international lawyers doesn't seem like the way forward. There's much to be said for a turn to "women-led civil society effort." Maybe that will help dispel the aura of inevitability -- "Of course rape happens during war! Boys will be boys," etc. Maybe it will help increase the chance for lasting peace solutions. Probably leadership in this effort should pass from the international lawyers to groups like, perhaps, [url=http://www.heritiersdelajustice.org/]Héritiers de la Justice[/url] and other locally-led initiatives.

If it doesn't, then yeah, there's a danger that (in Cynthia Enloe's words) "exposing militarized rapes does not automatically serve the cause of demilitarizing women's lives.... A woman outside the military who ahs been raped by someone else's soldiers can be remilitarized if her ordeal is made visible chiefly for the purpose of mobilizing her male compatriots to take up arms to avenge her -- and their -- allegedly lost honour." (Maneuvers: The International Politics of Militarizing Women's Lives) I think that can be extended to the anti-imperialist point that what "they" do to "their women" justifies invasions to impose a more American way of life.

Anyway, hoping to learn from listening to the thread...