Tuesday, November 28, 2017

Zubia Jahangir on Robin L. Riley's "Feminism and War"

One of the author’s points in “Feminism and War confronting US imperialism” is that the wars relies on the ideas of racism, sexism, and the masculinity of the heterosexual men. The author states, “Given the centrality of US imperial wars in the world today, it is impossible to understand ‘feminism and war’ on a global scale without understanding the specificities of the racist, heterosexist, and masculinized practices and ideologies mobilized by a USA in pursuit of economic and political hegemony.” Such ideologies are the reason behind many wars.

The author is mainly trying to convey that modern wars are based on the idea of militarized patriarchy which means that the manliness of a man is needed in order save a nation and its women, as they are the “saviors” of women. This idea provokes women to only be at home serving their men as these men are serving their country. This idea promotes the idea of female vulnerability that is why women cannot participate in the military. Nonetheless, war demands heterosexuality, particularly male heterosexuality which makes women to play their roles of mothers and wives at home supporting the wars while these “manly man” go out and save other women from “oppression” by bombing their countries.

The wars continue to rely on race, gender, white supremacy, and masculinity. The author says, “…annihilating effect on the lives of women, …with the manipulation of racialized discourses of male supremacy and female helplessness as justification…” The war not only reinforces sexism, but it also reinforces racism, classism, and even homophobia. The militarized patriarchy mostly victimize women of color because they have less access to health and education and are also victims of misogynistic culture and are in severe need of saving. This is justifiable enough for the white supremacist man to intrude, bomb, and hence save these “oppressed” women. This also becomes a reason for white supremacists to oppress the masculinity of the men of color by degrading their heterosexuality and demonizing them as a human being.

In this speech, the former president, George W. Bush, thanked everyone for the great effort of successfully liberating Afghan women and children city by city by their “Afghan Women and Children Relief Act.” This was another war on the name of helping women and children by victimizing the women of color and demonizing the Afghan men; another war based on race, gender, superiority, and masculinity.


Why can people not put themselves in other’s shoes before making any decisions for them or trying to help them in their own ways?

2 comments:

  1. I really liked your inclusion of GWB's speech, which helps exemplify your point more clearly about women's helplessness being used as a way to push forward war. You asked a really engaging question; often no one thinks to bring up how we should consider not only how our actions affect others, but more importantly whether or not if we'd welcome those very same actions towards ourselves.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Zubia,
    I thought your take on hyper masculinity's position in war was spot-on. Women have been used as game heads for men to enact violence, and this kind of "vulnerability" that has been attached to women is toxic and harmful. As you said, though, war doesn't only enable sexism; it also promotes classism and racism as cross-sections that can have increased negative effects on poor women of color. The fact that men in power think of war as means of liberation (as you stated with Bush's speech) is only further from that in regards to war's implications towards all women. I really enjoyed reading this piece!

    ReplyDelete