The Conservative Legacy

This reading talked about how conservatism, both sociobiological and moral, opposes feminism and its objectives. This reading actually made me kind of angry. Although I was glad that the author provided criticism of the viewpoints at the end of the chapter, I found the arguments from moral and sociobiological conservatives to be frustratingly simplistic and naïve. The idea that men should be dominant over women because it has made them historically more successful seems to me like a fear of change and progression. The statement that feminism “weakens” society and makes a healthy masculinity more difficult (and unlikely) for men to achieve seems like an excuse for patriarchy. It saddens me to think that some people truly believe the most beneficial role a woman can play in society is staying in the home, thereby “controlling” men, and it upsets me even more that some conservatives would even term this the most “rewarding” role to have, so women are lucky. If the role is so rewarding, why don’t women reap material benefits and status for what they do? Is healthy masculinity really so unstable that giving some recognition or respect to women will topple it?

I probably sound a little fired up. I hope I wasn’t the only one.

Feminist

This piece discusses multiple perspectives on how gender relates to war. While I appreciate that Goldstein certainly provides a wide range of viewpoints, I have to admit that I found some of them too radical and feel like he really focused on the extremists from each school of belief. He related to a claim that the “feminization of world politics” over the past 100 years has created a “democratic zone of peace.” I found this ironic because I had learned in the past that the reason for peace between democratic nations has nothing to do with women in politics (especially since so few women hold elected positions), but has to do with the obligation leaders in democracies have to their constituents – so it is more difficult to enter into war, since you need the support of the people. While women technically have more rights in democracies, this does not mean that a “feminization of politics” has occurred. Further, when women do hold elected office, one might surmise that they will overcompensate for their feminine tendencies towards nonviolent methods by still engaging in violent conflict, in order to keep popular support, especially of other (mostly male) politicians and male citizens who will be waiting for her to look “weak” or put the nation in danger.

Towards a Gendered Understanding of Conflict

This article discusses how gender is an issue in both conflict and development and how recognizing and dealing with the effects of gender in either arena can make the situation in developing countries better. I found this article very interesting because I am really interested in issues with development and foreign aid by NGOs. Since I will be focusing on war for my literature review, I was also interested in the differences between fighting in conflict for men and women. I thought a really important point the authors made was how it is not necessarily that men want to fight in wars, but that they feel obligated to do so and know they will be punished if they do not “prove” their masculinity. They are also made to feel guilty if they do not protect their community and their family. Women, on the other hand, are usually defeminized when they take part in battle, and often have to worry about being raped or taunted. It turns out that going through all of this in the name of serving alongside men and making equal sacrifices for one’s society does not pan out with the benefits women may hope for. In other words, women are not “rewarded” for taking part in armed conflict. Once the battle is over, there is often no change in day-to-day gender norms. I thought this was really interesting and just shows how constrained we are in our gender roles and how set in stone our societies and ideals really are.

Women and Peace: The Meaning of Peace for Women

This chapter focuses on the specific questions we need to ask when thinking about both positive and negative, organized and unorganized peace for women. It encourages thought about how and why peace is a different concept for women than it is for men. The author talks about the difference between personal and structural violence in negative peace, in the difference between one women being beat by her husband versus a million women being beat by their husbands. This reminded me of the “personal as political” idea we discussed in class on Tuesday, and how feminism can help women to realize that their personal struggles are shared by others and give them the unity and conviction to work towards change. I think that one important, if tricky, part in giving women this feeling is not undermining their own personal struggle in a way that makes them accept it or feel that it is acceptable because it is “normal.”

The author also discusses the differences between direct and structural violence, giving the example of women being kept in ignorance versus not having enough to eat (even when men do), and says that direct violence such as starvation is of course more deadly. I think it would be interesting to discuss in class how direct and structural violence interact to reinforce one another. For example, are woman who are kept ignorant more likely to starve to death? Are starving women more ignorant? Do they accept direct violence because of structural factors, or is it the structural factors that create or worsen the direct violence?

Hooks: Feminism is For Everybody

In this piece, Hook discusses the need to return to a clearly and simply defined feminism, based on ending “sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression.” My favorite part of this chapter is that he says what many others forget: women can be sexist too! Sadly, its true that many women, in fact, most of us in some way or another, support the sexist behaviors and structures that make up our society. Even women who are supportive of feminism often forget the underlying ideal of feminism, which is, of course, equality. I was shocked to read about the various instances in history where women have selfishly perpetuated inequality by doing to other disadvantaged groups (racial and ethnic minorities, those of a low socioeconomic status), the same disfavors that sexist men and women have subjected us to in the past. I found it really sad that to some degree, equality for women was achieved at the price of, for example, racial equality. This caused me to wonder how we might have achieved both simultaneously and whether our social structures could even handle such change all at once. I think another very good topic to consider that goes hand in hand with Hook’s ideas is how sexism affects men, whether it be through stereotypes or disadvantages in certain situations.

Hatty: Bodily Harm

In this chapter, Hatty discusses what is defined as violent by society and under what circumstances violence is viewed as appropriate. She especially discusses how societal ideas about gender roles can influence our perceptions about the appropriateness of violence or the need for legal intervention in violent situations. One concept that I found particularly insightful is that naming actions as violent is a political process. To me, this means that our societal stereotypes and norms are also institutionalized into the legal framework for dealing with violence. This is dangerous because whether something is labeled as “violent” determines what the “appropriate” reactions to and feelings about that behavior should be. For example, if our legal system, either in actuality or de facto, does not take domestic violence seriously, this could eventually mean that physical harm inflicted by a romantic partner is no longer viewed as a violent act and reinforces the common notion that it is normal, “not a big deal,” or something that should be dealt with in the home.

Another concept I found interesting is that there are significant gender differences in the perception of aggression and violence. While for men violence is seen as necessary for maintaining control, for women violence feels like a loss of control (over themselves). These fundamentally opposite viewpoints lead to a lot of misunderstandings between the sexes and may point to a need for education between men and women that explains the differing perceptions and helps us to communicate better and work together more productively, whether it be in personal or professional relationships.

Making Gendered People

The author discusses how gender influences our daily lives, bodies, identities, and sexualities. Throughout the discussion, the author tries to define what exactly gender is and to introduce different theories about how gender relates to each topic. One of my favorite things about this piece is that culture is also taken into account. This is very important because the author acknowledges gender as a socially constructed concept. Therefore, seeing the differences in gender expectations and gender roles between societies is a good way of proving this point.

One topic discussed was homosexuality, including “another pattern of male-to-male sexuality” and “development of gay sexuality on the North American model.” While this discussion intrigued me, I was unsure whether I misunderstood the author’s intent. Was he really saying that the way homosexuality is acted out is cultural, versus biological? I think that in many ways this is sensible and goes along with the idea that heterosexuality is acted out according to societal “rules.” Still, it would be interesting to discuss how others in the class feel about this idea, especially about what we should take away from the reality of different sexual customs in other countries and the fact that developing nations especially model their behaviors after Western norms. This was a theme seen more than once, as when the author discussed general changes in sexuality (and, I would argue, also in gender roles and identities), as countries experience capitalist development.