Peace as a feminist issue

3 posts / 0 new
Last post
kropotkin1951
Peace as a feminist issue

Probing A Dichotomy

As a feminist thinker, advocate and activist, I’ve long felt organizing against war and militarism was a no-brainer. But as a journalist and the national media coordinator for the women’s peace group Code Pink for several years before returning to school, I found myself having separate conversations with my feminist and peace activist friends, marveling at how they seemed mutually exclusive. The peace activists read The Nation. The feminists read Bust. Peace activists gush over Noam Chomsky; feminists over bell hooks. They hold different rallies and belong to different listservs. I wondered if young feminists recognize, or reject, this dichotomy. Do feminists fight for peace? Is peace a feminist issue? I found exploring these questions in this story surprising, and more importantly, promising for the future of social change. ~Jean Stevens

Issues Pages: 
kropotkin1951

Quote:

Younger women attracted to the peace movement, however, are helping to provide an everyday feminist perspective on race, class and gender to the work. Peace Action West has worked to hire and cultivate women organizers and leaders, to host social and educational events, and to create networks to embrace women and empower their roles. When Griffin first began, Peace Action West offered a reading group for canvassers like her, dialoguing on race, gender and class. Organizers today often discuss the gender and racial implications of peace.

"Sometime it seems so basic in a way, we don’t even think about it," Griffin said. "But a lot of the same reasons I could easily be working for a feminist organization or anti-racist group, something about this work that connects us to all these issues."

That approach may prove vital to success. "I don’t know why (peace and feminist issues) occupy different arenas," Leslie Cagan, former national coordinator of United for Peace and Justice and leading organizer within the LGBT, anti-nuclear and peace movements for the past several decades, "besides the fact that you can’t focus on everything with just 24 hours in a day. But war is not just about submarines and aircraft carriers. It comes down on a very personal level, too."

Within the peace movement, activists must employ a feminist analysis or else war will never end, said Cagan. Much of the predominately-male antiwar activist left has historically failed to take feminism seriously. Since the height of the second-wave in the ‘70s, only some men and parts of the left have integrated feminist analysis, Cagan said. "To me, feminist analysis is the breakdown of male domination, the takedown of difference, of power, and that gender has a role to play in shaping other issues, issues of class, race and how other power dynamics play out. To think about how to end wars, we need to have this analysis."

http://www.ontheissuesmagazine.com/2011summer/2011summer_stevens.php

kropotkin1951

Quote:

Like lists enumerating “Why the War is Racist�? which have circulated in the U.S., the below reasons get at why the war must be understood as sexist. This list is a start, by no means meant to be exhaustive, at offering a wider understanding of who is hurt by imperialism.

1) Soldiers are not the only – or main – casualties of war.

The ideology of militarism glorifies soldiers, focusing our attention on their heroism and sacrifice. The U.S. anti-war movement has largely not escaped this soldier-centered paradigm – causing a gender bias in who it recognizes as ultimately suffering from war.

In the 20th century, 90 percent of all war deaths have been of unnamed women, children, and men.

...

2) The economic harms of war are exacerbated by patriarchy for women – both within the U.S. and in Iraq.

...

3) Militarization intensifies the sexual commodification of women. Feminist anthropologists such as Cynthia Enloe have documented how the U.S. military perpetuates the sexual commodification of women around military bases both in the U.S. and abroad, to manage and motivate its largely male workforce. [3] Additionally, we must analyze collusion between foreign and indigenous patriarchies under imperialism in exacerbating women’s oppression.

...

4) Militarization helps perpetuate sexual violence, domestic violence, and violence against women – both in the U.S. and Iraq.

Even though women serve as soldiers, the U.S. military is a misogynist, homophobic institution that relies on patriarchal ideologies and relations to function – with effects on larger society, as well as the countries we occupy or station bases. While the racist ideologies behind the war are regularly paid lip service by activists, we less frequently raise how this war depends on sexism. But the military and its public support are based on deeply embedded patriarchal values and practices.

...

5) Militarization and war decrease women’s control over their reproduction.

Just months after the invasion, increased back alley abortions were reported in Baghdad as women lost access to healthcare and contraception. In the U.S., budget stringency means that policies like universal healthcare and free contraception on demand will appear to remain a distant realities. Since women, not men, get pregnant, the lack of reproductive healthcare is an issue of women’s equality – affecting women’s control of their labor, bodies, and futures.

...

6) Militarization and conflict situations result in a restriction of public space for women – impacting their political expression.

Feminist scholars have observed the physical barriers to women’s public access in conflict situations time and again. In Iraq, due to insecurity, women are restricted from seeking healthcare, attending school and work. Such limitations have shaped the trajectory and form of women’s organizing, as well. When the political actors are men, women’s bodies and behavior risk becoming a battleground to be fought over by others – they risk marginalization in the political sphere unless they are able to actively organize around an agenda that takes into account their gendered position.

...

7) Occupation will not bring women’s liberation.

...

Conclusion

Imperialism requires particular gender relations to function. Little boys are taught that soldiering is a rite of passage – a vehicle to manly respect. The public learns that soldiering – and now serving as security or emergency personnel – entitles a special claim to citizenship, to this country and its offerings, even if in actuality such promises do not really materialize. But that is P.R. to boost recruitment. And by valorizing the violent, masculine protector at the expense of the feminine, at the expense of women, the state and society extract women’s labor at undervalued rates, preserving a gendered division of labor at women’s expense, and reinforce male sexual entitlement. Part of the military’s appeal to (heterosexual) men, the boost to troop morale it relies on, is the male privilege it promises to offer over economically dependent, sexually available women.

http://www.feministpeacenetwork.org/more-information/why-the-war-is-sexi...