In the Fall of 2017, I was enrolled in Dr. Simten
Cosar’s Political Economy Class on Feminism, War, and Peace at Carleton
University, Ottawa, Canada. As part of the course requirements, students were
instructed to write a journal response to the monthly course readings. I found
this a very valuable way to discuss ideas and thoughts that, at times, do not
fit into the traditional academic forum. Considering that feminism seeks to
challenge the current way we engage with discourses, a journal article of this
nature seemed the appropriate avenue. The journal articles were meant to be a
way to discuss the course themes and tie them to experiences in the students’
own lives. I choose to write letters to my early self as a way to highlight the
questions I had throughout education and show my progression of feminist
perspectives and gaining confidence in my beliefs. Growing up I remember
feeling strongly about women being equal, however I did not know how to
properly express why I felt this way, or how to address situations where gender
inequality persisted. I don’t remember knowing about feminism. I credit a lot
of gaining my feminist roots to my first political science teacher at College
and my first feminist friend I made there. My professor introduced me to specific
terms and feminist discourses, while my friend allowed me to understand that
there are other people who share the same beliefs about equality. My feminist
journey only continued from there. I believe in the following journal entries
show some of this progression and how questions relating to feminism are
complex and multi-facetted. Feminism is continually evolving and so is the way
I engage with feminist discourses, what follows is the narratives I would tell
myself.
November 1, 2017
Dear First
Year Political Science Alex,
You are going to attend
your first political science class at Okanagan College and fall in love with
it. You will begin to understand how to explain and support ideas you have
always held. You will also meet people, who will not only get what you are
talking about, but will be just as excited to spend hours talking about
feminism and/or politics. These initial experiences will provide clarity and
spark a passion in you that will lead to continuing learning about politics through
a Master’s Degree.
However, throughout this
journey there will be many times that you will be frustrated with literature,
professors, and classmates. What will also be more infuriating is the
repetitiveness. There is only so many times you can hear “I believe in equal
rights but I am not a feminist”, “feminism isn’t relevant to this political
science course”, “why are you a feminist”, “feminism doesn’t have any academic
validity”, or “do we even still need feminism”. However, I promise you it will
get easier to find your confidence in replying and taking opposition less
personal. You will have amazing courses and professors that will highlight the
strength of feminism and its relevance to all aspects of political science and
life in general. Such courses will include Eco-Feminism, Women and Politics,
Gender, Nation, and War, and in your Master’s you will take Feminism, War, and
Peace.
You may be thinking by
the time you get to your Master’s, your fellow students will believe or
understand the importance of feminism. This will not be the case. However,
through your class on Feminism, War, and Peace you will meet like-individuals,
and learn to not only challenge militarized discourse but its intrinsic
connection and value male students place on political discourses of nuclear
weapons, war, violence, defense, and military. Here are some lessons this
course will teach you. The first point will help you understand more as to why
male political science students love talking ‘hard politics’. This will
interest you as education and its influence on socialization will be one of
your main interests, and ultimately the majority of what you study will relate
to education and/or feminism. Second, will be to discuss the way rape and
sexual assault are hidden in the military and throughout society. Lastly, this
class will highlight how dichotomies are everywhere. This last point will
assist in framing the future feminist discussions you will have.
Lesson
One: What does feminism have to do with war?
The research you will
learn in this course is a valuable perspective to be brought into the military,
security, and defense discourses, however, as you know it is so often pushed
off to the side. When trying to talk to classmates outside of this class with
an interest in the ‘hard politics’ of defense and security about feminism in
war, there are a few reactions. First, is thinking these are two separate
entities, that I could only be asking what their opinions are on feminism and,
separately, war. I believe this speaks to the notion that having anything
‘feminine’ attached to the masculine war rhetoric disrupts this pattern of
masculinity. This also feeds into the dichotomy that is persistent in the
majority of the articles (Enloe 2004, Goldstein 2001, Najmadabi 1997).
Another response you
will get is that you are specifically inquiring about women in the military,
not a feminist approach to military operations. Then there is usually the tired
old saying of if women can meet the physical test then they could be allowed to
serve but most can’t. Right because physical fitness is the only thing that
qualifies one for the military. Feminism simply being discussed in any relation
to the military threatens the domination, hierarchy, and patriarchy within the
masculinized military. You will see that the articles from October provide
insight into this response, particularly Goldstein (2001) and Cohn (2000). It
is about socialization.
From birth we are
socialized to value certain traits in girls and boys, which translates into
long lasting structures within society. War and military involvement values
certain traits, such as strength, lack of emotion, discipline, and pride. These
are engrained at a young age in little boys through school, parents, friends, popular
culture, and media. It can be as simple as ‘boys don’t cry’, praising boys on
their work, encouragement of violence and competition in sports, or excusing
certain behaviors. You learned this all through K-12 education, such as when
the boys were picked first for sports teams, or you were told you were too nice
to be a lawyer, or knowing that the male students were allowed to question and
inquire teachers but when you did it you were sent out of class or your
opinions were dismissed.
So when boys grow up
they relate to the military because it values the characteristics they have
been socialized into. In Political Science, male students are particularly
fascinated by the hard masculinity of war, for similar reasons. Feminism
challenges the space male students have carved out for themselves in the
studies of war.
Lesson
Two: Why is there pervasive sexual assault in the military?
The second lesson you
will learn is more difficult to discuss but provides clear connections between
the pervasive dismissal of sexual assault accusations in the military and
society. Goldstein specifically brought up the various sexual interactions that
happen during war-time, some consensual and others not (2001). In civilian
society, sexual assault and harassment are not discussed with the openness,
trust, and support which are inherent to the dialogue of other subject areas.
The veil around the military can be even worse.
An argument that you
will hear people bring up against feminism’s focus on sexual assault against
women is that men are sexually assaulted as well, so why aren’t feminists
focusing their attention on men. You will learn two responses. First, noting
the context sexual assault against men is happening in, typically being
prisons, or as we have learned, the military, is important in framing the
response. Further, it is significant to add that most often it is men also,
perpetuating the assault. Second, is that feminists aim to end rape culture
through challenging the patriarchy which would be beneficial to all members of
society.
In Zarkov’s article, this
topic is relevant in highlighting the other reasons for rape to exist in war
(2011). It is a form of domination over an ethnic group, and/or a way to
humiliate the ‘losing’ people. These are realities of war-time. In second year
college you will write a paper about the comfort women Japan institutionalized
during the Second World War, where you will come across the notions that war-time
rape was an “inevitable concomitant of battle” or a “spoil of war”. It is not a new concept or a revolutionary
idea that rape and sexual assault is imbedded into the very nature of war but
yet, still difficult to discuss. Thus feminism. Feminism needs to be a part of
war-time analysis not only because we need more women in the military or that
women are affected by war zones in a way distinct to men, but because feminism
will bring light to the toxic culture that permits rampant sexual assault in and
by the military. Feminism offers guidance to reframing war discourse and in
turn, society. Back to my original observation, feminism should not be distinct
from war discourse, people who study war and military should not be adverse to
such an approach. To even further circle this back, to allow people to better
engage with feminist war discourse, which is the process of applying a feminist
lens to the way society engages and understand war, people need to be
socialized and educated to not feel threatened by feminism and recognize the
validity feminism research brings to academia.
Lesson
Three: How does war imbed dichotomies?
Lastly,
you will consistently be noticing the dichotomies within the articles and your
education as a whole. There is the more pronounced dichotomy of male/female, or
combatant/civilian, which all the authors discussed. The male/female dichotomy
is better represented by masculinity and femininity, which signifies the
socialization and construction of the two factors. Masculinity and femininity
can be manipulated in a few ways to achieve the desired goals of the military.
It can be taken in the
hero complex, where masculinity must protect femininity from the enemy, or the
infringement of the other. Men must be strong to protect the weak women who lack
capabilities and agency. This dichotomy is closely related to a savior hero
rhetoric on which colonialism is based on. In Zarakov’s article she discussed
the how the colonial notion of civilized versus primitive can use women in the
dichotomy and also have women perpetrate the dichotomy (2011). Women are just
as complicit in colonialism. You will eventually read Feminism for Real:
Deconstructing the Academic Industrial Complex of Feminism by Jessica Yee,
which challenges feminism on its colonial tendencies. The author, remarks that
Indigenous women don’t necessarily feel the feminism sisterhood because women,
particularly white women, are still within the colonial oppressive framework
(Yee 2011). The book still is in support of feminism but wants to readers to
understand their role in colonization and that patriarchy has been imposed on
Indigenous people. This emphasized the intersection of dichotomies.
Further, masculinity can
be promoted through direct opposition to not wanting to be feminine, so if a
man ascribes to dominant forms of masculinity, such as athletic prowess,
strength, and a lack of emotion, the less feminine others will perceive them as.
In this dichotomy of masculinity, gay men disrupt the narratives of domination
over the feminine, and homophobia reasserts the dominant masculinity over
anything feminized.
Other dichotomies in the
reading, is the warrior, hero protecting the mother, which represents the
homeland. Najmadabi’s article particularly emphasizes how men go fight as part
of the masculine state to protect the feminized homeland (1997). It is further
developed to say men fight as an obligation of a son to fight for their mother,
the homeland. This rhetoric is present with in all cultures and is typically
one of the least challenged dichotomies.
Lastly Alex, you will
learn all this information to make you more passionate about feminist causes,
more critical of feminism so that your feminism is intersectional, and provide
you with the confidence to not back down from a challenging of your values and
ideas. Be strong. Do not give up. Feminist research is always important and
valuable.
December 1, 2017
Dear Post Undergraduate Alex,
So you have completed
your degree, congratulations, now what. What will you do with that degree?
Political science, so are you going to be a politician? What is your opinion on
every political issue happening around the world at this very moment? Oh you
don’t have one, well then what did you really study in political science? These
are all the questions and responses you will receive when mentioning your
graduation from political science. However there will be more important
questions that will challenge you, that will show you why you took political
science. These questions will further allow engagement with feminist discourse
that takes you beyond your undergrad understanding. Why are women always
represented as peaceful? This narrative that is constructed about women
persists, and maybe this is why crime by women, seems to engage you. Women
committing criminal acts such as Karla Homolka or Kelly Ellard[1] disrupt this narrative of
women as peaceful and complicit. Or connected to this, is the banality of crime
and violence, how can ordinary people, specifically men, commit atrocities?
Where should responsibility lie? How is masculinity constructed to permit
certain acts to be normalized? Society wants to blame the individual instead of
looking to the systemic problems that lead to domestic violence, rape, and
murder. People should be held responsible but so should society. Lastly you
will really begin to think about the construction of social movements. Who
should be accepted in them? What role can they play? Is it anyone’s right to
say who or who cannot participate? You will have friends who will say that any woman
who is a Conservative cannot be a feminist. I disagree, first because I don’t
think it is my responsibility to say who and who cannot be a feminist, but it
would also be my responsibility to push their feminism and make sure it is more
intersectional and it does not further oppress anyone. Furthermore, it is
important to understand that feminism is not one monolithic entity. There are
many different interpretations and facets, which can be understood through the
discourse and action from individual actors. So after graduating from your
undergrad, you will be pushed to think beyond traditional perimeters of
political science. You will start to develop your own opinions and listen to
other opinions without being persuaded to abandon your own thoughts. You will
be unequivocally a feminist and gain the confidence to not back down on how
much you believe in feminism.
Lesson
Four: Why are women always represented as peaceful?
Women as peaceful and
kind, compassionate, caring, motherly, navigates its way into all discourse in
society. Movie scenes and characters such as Lucy in Across the Universe works tirelessly to protest the war in Vietnam
and only questions her anti-war movement when the men of the group decide to
create a bomb. She says “I thought it was the other side that drops bomb”. She
is the peaceful, feminine constant throughout the musical story of an anti-war
caveat of American society during the Vietnam War. Or there is Princess Leia in
Star Wars, although has a governing role, is portrayed as more peaceful,
compassionate, and doesn’t engage in fighting like her brother Luke. Furthermore
women as the leveled headed voice of reason when sports fights or bar fights
break out, are continually portrayed in TV or movies. The narrative of this is
seriously disrupted when Charlize Theron defied traditionally peaceful feminine
roles in Mad Max: Fury Road or Uma Thurman in Kill Bill, or the majority of the
characters from Orange is the New Black. Understanding the value in disrupting
the persisting narrative of women as peaceful and kind will be beneficial for
you, personally, to see that you do not have to constantly be the mediator in
situations nor try to always appease everyone.
Uma Thurman, Kill Bill
The readings highlight
women are dichotomized into peaceful, in comparison to men’s violence. However,
this is not a biological predisposession. Women are not inherently more
peaceful, nor are men born more violent. It is the socialization children, then
men and women, received to gain value and a place in society. However, why is
it more common to have women active in peace movements as discussed in Halek Afshar and Azza Karam’s articles (2003; 2001)? You
will learn it is in part due to the socialization that persists throughout
society, but I also think peace movements provide a legitimate political
platform and way for women to be politically engaged and enter the masculine
discourse of war. Active participation in war efforts for women have been
restricted either strictly relational to their male relations, or through
removed labour efforts. Women have been instrumental in medical caregiving roles
during war times, though arguably this does little to challenge the masculine
war versus the feminine peaceful care. But being active in peaceful activism
allows a platform for women to be heard. Even with women engaged in war
measures, they are excluded from high-level decision making, where as peace activism
can permit women to influence the direction of war efforts.
Charlize Theron, Mad Max: Fury Road
Ultimately
women can only be presumed to be more peaceful in nature due to their
socialization, and the prescribed gender roles. This has allowed women to
reclaim this notion and turn it into something that can allow women to have a
greater influence on military operations, if only to raise awareness.
Discussing the inherent masculinity of war and conflict cannot be completed
without challenging our notions of peace and who controls peaceful
rehabilitation. UN Article 1325, which was brought up in some of the month’s
readings and the second documentary, explicitly links women to the
post-conflict peace negotiation process as a valuable and productive way to
restructure society. Women need to be apart of the peace process not because of
some inherent essential characteristic but because all perspectives,
experiences, and opinions need to be valued in creating a stable government
post conflict.
Lesson
Five: Is there banality of crime and violence, how can ordinary people commit
atrocities?
What will strike you
most in the excerpts from Nadire Mater is the
banality of what she was describing (1997). Hannah Arendt’s concept of Banality
of Evil is really impactful when trying to understand why people commit certain
atrocities. Ardent received extensive backlash, in particular because she was Jewish,
for seemingly not holding Adolf Eichmann solely responsible for the atrocities
he committed. Although she did lay responsibility with Eichmann, she also put responsibility
on the context and the repeated indoctrination of the political climate at the
time.
Hannah Arendt, The Banality of Evil
The process of accepting violence as a legitimate
form of conflict mediation is not inherent to humanity but is contextual. This
can further be explained by women making decisions in times of war that would
not have been made outside of the context of war. It changes individual agency.
Individual decisions are altered when you are facing political, economic and
social violence. Which is further exemplified when individuals are normalized
into accepting a hierarchy in society that needs to be maintained through
violent subordination.
This could also connects
with Micheal Kimmel’s article on globalization being a factor to socialize men
into feelings of resentment towards particular groups for the circumstances
they are left in (2005). After World War One it was easier to mobilize a fascist
movement because the economic situation left people in dire circumstances with
limited agency and the need to blame someone. Kimmel discusses how men have
organized world-wide due to downward mobility (2005). However, blame is thrust
to specific groups of people, specifically minorities and women, when the real
cause is the capitalist global economy which has led to significant
developments in technological advances reducing the need for certain jobs. The
hate and violence espoused by these groups, though not excused for the unacceptable
rhetoric, can be understood in its context.
People need to be held
responsible for their actions, however, political science will teach you that
that is too simplistic blame for actions. Political science will afford you the
tools to critically engage with the way the state and society are constructed
to either indirectly or directly push people into committing terrible acts. The
state could have either created the conditions that make people think the only
way to achieve a goal is through violence or the state could have specifically
pushed people to commit the atrocities such as in Nazi Germany.
Lesson
Six: Is it anyone’s right to say who or who cannot participate?
There will be an
uncomfortable feeling that will rush over you when you see terms such as men’s
rights, men’s activism, challenge masculinity, or men’s studies. Is this going
to be a group encouraging men to reclaim, reinforce and perpetuate the power structures
and domination that have existed for thousands of years, all topped with
misogyny? Or will this lead to a group of men that are challenging the current
constructions of masculinity with the aim to dismantle harmful gender roles and
the patriarchy? Although most often it is the former. You will learn the former
Deputy Minister of Education was meeting with boys groups and received numerous
correspondence from men’s rights groups from around the province saying sexist
things about the Premier. I am not saying that the Deputy supported this, but
rather that this rhetoric persists. Furthermore, there have been various men’s
groups, formally or informally associated, that make waves usually on the
internet, which target feminists, feminism, and women in general. This can be
seen when Anita Sarkeesian received death and sexual violence threats from
gamer men feeling challenged by her feminist critiques of the gaming industry.
So this muddles any thoughts you will have when you see men’s groups trying to
challenge masculinity.
However, I do believe
men and men’s groups can be important in the feminist movement. There is for
sure a necessary place, even though some disagree. Men who actively come out as
feminists, Prime Minister Trudeau, Matt McGorry (actor: How to Get Away with Murder),
Terry Crews (NFL player and actor: Brooklyn Nine Nine) and Justin Balondi
(actor: Jane the Virgin) are notably engaging in discourses to challenge
harmful masculinity and raise attention on the role men can play in feminism.
Michael Flood further explores the role men can play in peace movements and
challenging the traditional discourses (2005). Some feminists do not support
the active advocacy of men in the feminist movement. Although I disagree, I
understand where these sentiments can come from, as I have met many progressive
feminist men who believe this title negates their own unchecked sexism. This
will be a notion that will seriously frustrate you. As long as feminist men
allow for women’s opinions, perspectives and experiences be at the forefront of
the movement, and support over direct, then I want to see more men in feminist
advocacy. Challenging thousands of years of patriarchal oppression is a
difficult task which will require all the possible support. The narrative needs
to follow that men and masculinity need not be accepted into feminist discourse
but men need to accept feminist discourse as a way to challenge masculinity and
the patriarchy.
The theme that ties
these three ideas, along with the three previous entries together could be summarized
as challenging the traditional dichotomies of masculinized war versus feminized
peace while acknowledging the ways that individuals perceive their own
oppression, without legitimizing hateful discourses. Alex, political science is
not about having all the answers or knowing the right things to say at each and
every moment. It is about asking questions that make you uncomfortable, it is
about allowing traditional narratives to be disrupted, and it is about being
confident in your beliefs but listening to others. This can involve anything
from understanding your own privileges in life, such as being a white
heterosexual Canadian, and questioning what forms of oppressions that you are
complicit in. This course will teach you the unanswered questions are the most
engaging and most valuable. There is no right way to approach political science
or feminism but constantly challenge your own and others’ ideas to continue
learning.
Works Cited
Azza Karam, ‘Women in
War and Peace-Building: The Roads Traversed, the Challenges Ahead,’ International
Feminist Journal of Politics, 3 (1) (April 2001), pp. 2-25
Cohn, Carol ‘‘How Can She Claim Equal Rights When She Doesn’t Have
to Do As
Many Push-Ups As I Do?’: The Framing of Men’s Opposition to
Women’s Equality in the Military,’ Men and Masculinities, 3 (2000), pp.
131-151.
Enloe, Cynthia. ‘All
the Men Are in the Militias, All the Women Are Victims: The
Politics of Masculinity
and Femininity in Nationalist Wars,’ in her The Curious Feminist: Searching
for Women in a New Age of Empire (California: University of California
Press, 2004).
Enloe, Cynthia. ‘Spoils
of War,’ in her The Curious Feminist: Searching for Women in a
New Age of
Empire (California: University of California Press, 2004).
Halek Afshar, ‘women
and Wars: Some Trajectories Toward a Feminist Peace,’ Development in
Practice, 13 (2&3) (May 2003), pp. 178-188.
Goldstein, Joshua S. ‘Heroes: The Making of Militarized
Masculinity,’ in his War and
Gender: How Gender Shapes the War System and Vice Versa (UK and USA:
Cambridge University Press, 2001).
Goldstein, Joshua S. ‘Conquests: Sex, Rape, and Exploitation in
Wartime,’ in his War
and Gender: How Gender Shapes the War System and Vice Versa (UK and USA:
Cambridge University Press, 2001).
Michael S. Kimmel,
‘Globalization and Its Mal(e) Contents: The Gendered Moral and Political
Economy of Terrorism,’ in Handbook of Studies on Men and Masculinities, Michael
Kimmel, Jeff Hearn and R.W. Connell (Eds.) (Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi:
Sage, 2005).
Michael Flood, ‘Men’s
Collective Struggles for Gender Justice: The Case of Antiviolence Activism,’ in
Handbook of Studies on Men and Masculinities, Michael Kimmel, Jeff Hearn
and R.W. Connell (Eds.) (Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage, 2005).
Nadire Mater, ‘I Love
All Human Beings; Even the Terrorists We Captured,’ in her Voices from the
Front (USA: Palgrave Macmillan, 1998).
Nadire Mater, ‘I Became
A Terrorist, Like They Said, A Real Terrorist...’ in her Voices from the
Front (USA: Palgrave Macmillan, 1998).
Najmabadi, Afsaneh.
‘The Erotic Vatan [Homeland] as Beloved and Mother: To Love,
To Possess, and To
Protect,’ Comparative Studies in Society and History, 39 (3) (July
1997), pp. 442-467.
Yee,
Jessica. Feminism for Real:
Deconstructing the Academic Industrial Complex of Feminism. (Canadian
Centre for Policy Alternatives 2011)
Zarkov, Dubravka.
‘Exposures and Invisibilities: Media, Masculinities and the Narratives
of Wars in an
Intersectional Perspective,’ in Framing Intersectionality: Debates on a
Multi- Faceted Concept in Gender Studies, Helma Lutz, Maria-Terese Herrera
Vivar and Linda Supik (Eds.) (Burlington, VT.: Ashgate, 2011).
[1] These women are two of Canada’s
most infamous murders. Karla Homolka killed three people, one of which was her
sister, with her former husband in the late 1980’s. They were known as the Ken
and Barbie killers. She currently lives in Quebec and he is still in prison. In
1997, Kelly Ellard murdered a fellow classmate in Victoria, BC at the age of
15. She is still currently serving her
sentence in prison.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder