Gender, War and Militarism: Making and Questioning the Links

I love how, in this discussion of women in the military, specifically in Israel, there is a quote from Idan Halili of New Profile that brings up the very interesting and new notion that men can be refuser-heroes instead of soldier-heroes. She is discussing the concept of refusal to serve in the Army, and the fact that is not only women who are morally opposed to serving, that peace is not just a feminist movement. This is really important because labeling peace-making or peace-seeking as a feminine role limits the ability of the world to live in peace, hurts men physically, emotionally, and spiritually, and leads to the needless harm of so many men and women both. If you consider the men who tried to refuse the draft in the US, or the men who went to war but hid instead of shooting their enemies, and consider even further those men who may be morally opposed to the idea of war but feel that it is their duty as a man to serve in the armed forces, I would imagine there are many fewer men than it appears who are interested in using war as a means to resolve conflict. In addition, we might consider women who fight in an effort to change gender expectations, or to gain power or respect, but not because they actually believe in it. There are also many men and women who join the Military for financial reasons. Offering alternatives to these situations where people see their only or best answer as joining the Army is an important step towards a more peaceful world. By changing the gender expectations for men so that they do not feel obligated to fight, we would be taking a first step towards a more peaceful and more equal society.

Women and War in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

“War also destroys the patriarchal structures of society that confine and degrade women. In the very breakdown of morals, traditions, customs, and community, war also opens up and creates new beginnings.”

This quote from Meredith Turshen, referenced in Nadine Puechguirbal’s Women and War in the Democratic Republic of Congo, was very refreshing to me after all of the negative things I have been reading about what happens to women, their bodies, their power, and their lives as a result of war. I think that what Turshen says is very true and that we are seeing it more and more in the world today, where violence creates solidarity between women who recognize that the only way to protect themselves is to stand up together and be heard. While it is certainly shameful that this is what we have let it come to for so many women, it is true that war is often a catalyst for women’s rights movements, and the great obstacles that women often overcome in these situations only serves to illustrate the true strength of so many women around the world. As nations try to rebuild from catastrophes such as civil war and large-scale violence, it is the perfect chance for women to show their power, leadership skills, and indispensability to society. In addition, as the readings for today discuss, many women are the glue that holds their societies together, on many levels, in wartime. This experience must bring women around the world to see how strong and capable they are, and to desire the ability to effect change and meaning in their world even in times of peace.

Spiking the Punch (Woman Ch 15)

In this chapter Angier continues to discuss why and how everyone is naturally aggressive. Everyone knows that women are more likely than men to channel their aggression through language. That’s why I was so surprised to read that studies have actually found that boys and girls engage in equal amounts of verbal aggression, such as insults or pointed facial expressions. Overall, boys and girls engage in the same amount of aggression, with boys’ being physical and verbal and girls’ being indirect (ie, cold shoulder) and verbal. I thought this was a really interesting way of categorizing aggression and explaining how we all fulfill our aggressive tendencies, but the downside is that it all really depends on how one defines aggression. For example, there are many researchers who might agree that verbal aggression is indeed aggression, since it is still direct, but indirect aggression is just a sort of coping mechanism and not violent at all. In this analysis, boys would appear to be much more aggressive than girls.

Another part of this chapter I found interesting was how she traced the female bond back through history and explained it using the social structures of our primate ancestors. She even went so far as to show the change from matriarchy to patriarchy in the Bible! That men learned the benefits of befriending one another and banding together from women is certainly worthwhile to consider.

Wolf Whistles and Hyena Smiles (Woman Ch 14)

Today, Angier makes a really interesting argument about why biological-based arguments concerning the origins of gender differences are just plain wrong. She insists that women are innately aggressive, in fact, that women are naturally just aggressive as men. I think one of her most interesting arguments is that aggression is for those without real power. This is a really great point. After all, we are usually violent because we are frustrated or we feel that our voice is not being listened to. Even in war and terrorism, the violence usually occurs because the parties feel that they do not have enough power to get where they want (or need) to using only their words. Another example is a child throwing a temper tantrum. When the child has asked her or his parent for something and the parent’s response is not what the child desires, then the child turns to violence. Of course, women do not want to be likened to tantrum-throwing toddlers, but thinking of these examples really solidifies for me the truth in her claim.

It would be interesting, however, to examine why some women, or women in certain situations, feel that it is acceptable to use aggression whereas other women in the same situation might not. For example, some girls are more likely to resort to violence while others are more likely to keep quiet when they cannot make their point. Were these girls raised differently? Do they have different amounts of power to begin with? Or, is it just like with boys (who, of course, face societal pressure to resort to violence and appear “masculine”), that girls, all humans indeed, express varying levels of aggression depending on their personality and other factors.

Cole: Commonalities and Differences

This is an interesting challenge to the idea that all women are the same and takes a look at the ways in which culture, class, race, and gender (specifically femininity, it doesn’t really look at the experiences of men), intersect. One of the most interesting aspects of this for me was the recognition that women stereotype against other women based on their class, race, or other factors. It is interesting to me that most people are victims of stereotypes and yet still impose them on others. To me, this says that we as a culture choose not to recognize the power stereotypes have over us but instead accept them to some degree, as if both giving and receiving of this phenomenon sets the scales to even. After reading this I thought of some examples, for example working women stereotyping upper class women who play the suburban housewife role as snotty, lazy and materialistic while these upper class women might stereotype the working class women as, ironically enough, lazy or unintelligent. The strangest part is, these women likely put some of the same stereotypes on one another. For example, the working woman might say that the upper class woman is lazy because she doesn’t have a job, while the upper class woman might retort that the working class woman must be lazy or she would have a better job, or more money. These are pretty simplistic examples, but really show how wrapped up we are in all of stereotypes, to the point where we hardly notice them or their foolishness until they are holding us back. I’m really glad I got to read this and think about stereotypes in this way!

Gendered Treachery

This article takes a look at how gender as a dichotomy and as an integral part of our personal identity is the underlying cause of homophobia. The main issue is that those with masculine identities feel threatened by homosexuality because it goes against the traditional roles for men. One piece that I found really interesting was that masculinity is paradoxically defined as “natural” and also something that needs to be guarded against “losing.” Obviously, something that is natural does not require an act or performance to uphold. In my opinion, this really shows that there is no one, true, natural masculinity but that masculinity, femininity and personhood itself come in countless forms that differ from one person to another. The author suggests that eliminating the distinct categories of “male” and “female” is the best approach for getting rid of homophobia. Although I can see his point, I think this is a challenge that seems, to most people at least, unrealistic. I feel that it would be interesting if this author expanded on his ideas by discussing how the elimination of dichotomist genders might occur.

Boys Do Cry

This excerpt is a discussion of how feminism can help men and also why they might feel threatened by it. This really goes back to one of my favorite things about feminism, which is that it can really help everyone by giving us all to develop every part of our selves as people, to do what we are truly good at and enjoy without the boundaries that gender tends to impose on both men and women. The author makes some really good points about how difficult it must be for men to not show their feelings unless it is through violence, which is of course not a natural state for women or men. Whenever people ask me if I would rather be a man if I could choose, this is always the point that I remember and that makes me say “no.” I like that I, as a woman, am “allowed” to truly feel, experience, and express my emotions.

The author also discusses masculinity and the military, which is the topic Lauren and I are exploring for our literature review. I think that one interesting point she makes, which I have never considered before, is that the military is innately sexist since they feminize the enemy in order to dehumanize them. This is much the same as male sports teams do when they are trying to pump themselves up for a big game. It is quite sad to think that what is perceived as the best way to make men feel strong (and capable of killing), is making them think of their enemy or competitor as feminine.