In her book, Globalization and Militarism: Feminists Make the Link, Cynthia Enloe argues that warfare and conflict is defined by, and later defines, gender norms in society.1 She argues that United States foreign policy throughout history has been defined by the "masculinized" qualities of physical force, rationality and strength while nearly absent of the "feminized" qualities of compassion, negotiation, and care.2 U.S. foreign policy during the War on Terror is no exception to this argument. From a feminist perspective, one can identify how the Bush administration feminized United Nations investigators who were sent into Iraq in 2002 to investigate the potential possession of weapons of mass destruction by the Iraqi government. The masculinized Bush administration was not willing to be patient while the investigators conducted a slow, cautious and thorough investigation. The Bush Administration’s response when the UN investigation found no WMD in Iraq was “swift and negative.”3 In the media during this time, Bush is constantly seen undermining the work of those "feminized" investigators, and instead convincing the American public that the results were not trustworthy-- physical force was needed. He used his rationality to convince Congress to declare war on Iraq in 2003. Enloe argues, in this case and many others, that gendered norms and almost always impact who is considered credible and influential in society. In this case, the slow and deliberate investigation of the UN investigators was feminized and undervalued, while the Bush administration's use of force was masculinized and valued.
While it is difficult to analyze national security solely from a gendered lens, doing so allows a scholar to analyze implications and societal structures that impact our national security that would otherwise go unnoticed. When it comes down to it, security is merely a relationship between those who protect, or those who are "masculinized,” and those who need protection, or those who are "feminized.”
While it is difficult to analyze national security solely from a gendered lens, doing so allows a scholar to analyze implications and societal structures that impact our national security that would otherwise go unnoticed. When it comes down to it, security is merely a relationship between those who protect, or those who are "masculinized,” and those who need protection, or those who are "feminized.”
Many components of the War on Terror were gendered and sexualized. Most specifically, the events at Abu Ghraib in 2004, where Iraqi prisoners of war were forced by members of the U.S. military to perform sexual acts with each other in order to rob them of their masculinity and further emphasize the strength and masculinity of the U.S. Marines.4 Enloe uses an exchange between President Bush and Saddam Hussein to emphasize cultural ideas of “masculinity.” The leaders were in a brief media “debate” arguing about whose soldiers were “real men.” Hussein masculinizes his soldiers solely with their willingness to kill while president Bush masculinizes his soldiers saying that they are equally as willing to kill, but for the greater good. This idea is quite common in U.S. and Western militarized societies since the times of colonization: white men have to save brown women from brown men. This mentality is precisely the rationality used by the Bush Administration to convince the U.S. public that the U.S. needs to invade Afghanistan to save Afghan women from the Taliban. The “brown men,” or Afghan men, in this scenario are too barbaric and brutish to even protect their own women-- they need the “savior” of the white man to free the brown women from their oppression. This mentality has been used to justify the declaration of war since pre-colonization and the very beginning of orientalism.
1 Enloe, Cynthia, Globalization and Militarism: Feminists make the link, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield, 2007.2 Please note: “Masculinization” and “feminization” do not mean that specific qualities are either more associated with males or females. These terms are used to describe qualities that have been socially constructed to be either associated with those who identify as “men” or those who identify as “women.” All people, regardless of personal gender identification, embody all masculinized and feminized qualities to varying degrees.
3 Thielmann, Greg, “The Cost of Ignoring UN Inspectors: An Unnecessary War with Iraq,” Arms Control NOW: The blog of the American Arms Control Association, March 5, 2013, https://armscontrolnow.org/2013/03/05/the-cost-of-ignoring-un-inspectors-an-unnecessary-war-with-iraq/.
4 Iraq Prison Abuse Scandal Fast Facts, CNN, last updated March 12, 2016, http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/30/world/meast/iraq-prison-abuse-scandal-fast-facts/.
I agree that it is important to not lose sight of how we (westernized culture) wage war typically before considering other options such as peace treaties. While I agree with your argument I think that at times some forces cannot be met through "feminized" means. In times of fear, military action, at first, is often widely accepted as a positive means to achieving the end goal. Overtime, public opinion changes as it has from the moment Bush declared the War on Terror to now where force and violence is on the decline in terms of public opinion. I really enjoyed reading your post because previously I had not thought about the War on Terror or wars in a more general sense from a gender perspective.
ReplyDeleteI'm happy you enjoyed a new perspective, Meghan. I know I surely do as well. When I was first introduced to these topics, I shared your feelings towards using peaceful means to achieve what has always been achieved through military force. However, I have been increasingly convinced that really any form of dictatorship or oppressive regime can truly be undermined and eventually destroyed without violence. This, of course, is far from simply appeasing an oppressive regime and requires a great deal of organization and strategic planning. I'm attaching some links to Gene Sharp's work of nonviolent movements and tactics used to peacefully transform dictatorships to democracies.
Delete198 Methods of Nonviolent Actions:
http://www.aeinstein.org/nonviolentaction/198-methods-of-nonviolent-action/
Also, taking a peak through the chapter titles in "How Nonviolent Struggle Works" may be helpful for just expanding the idea that peaceful means are not as successful or strategic as a militarized response to war. Here is a link to that PDF: http://www.aeinstein.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/HNVSW-updated-Jan-2015.pdf.
Very interesting post Mary Grace.
ReplyDeleteI was wondering how you might view Obama's War on Terror through this lens. What does the use of Drones do to the gender roles in the military and the society as a whole? What does it mean when men cannot fight?
Hello Prof. Shirk. Super interesting questions. While Obama has definitely been able to embrace a more feminized foreign policy (examples being negotiations with Iran and making significant budget cuts to the military), he has definitely not fully transformed the U.S. concepts of masculinized security. I think drones are an easy way of "covering up" that many soldiers are simply losing their motivation to risk their lives for the state any longer. Enloe argues that war has sustained for so long over history because men feel the need to protect their women and women has frequently "guilted" men into going to war to defend the state and people at home and ensure "freedom" for others. But what is the motivation to risk your life when the military has not prevented any attacks on the homeland, women and children conduct their lives without fear of foreign attack and when freedom and democracy for Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan has clearly not be achieved through U.S. military power? Individuals clearly lose the motivation to "defend" their country because these sterotypical gender norms are beginning to break down. Without such norms, men do not feel as inclined to fight and the fighting then must be made less risky. The solution? Drones. (Of course, this does not explain everything about the decision to use drones or the morality behind them, simply one of the many gender implications of the policy.)
DeleteI agree with Meghan that in some wars, western states can lose their representation of male and female, but there are parts that I may have to question. In retrospect, political scientists know that the rushed invasion of Iraq was a failure but the blame should not be totally put on Bush. His Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, had major influence over Bush and the National Security Council's decision-making on the invasion. Instead of suggesting a cautious plan, Rice also advocated for swift action before the Hussein Regime could move the WMD's.
ReplyDeleteToward the end of your post I noticed you made an interesting topic about the West's viewing they have to save the "brown women from the brown men" and was curious if you think these political philosophies exist in allied states to the U.S such as France or even in the U.S. Surely, the French government which has been persecuting Muslim women trying to wear a hijab. Or even in the United States there have been criticisms of not enough women representation in government. These are just some questions to ponder, I am not expressing my views in this paragraph. Interesting lens from a feminist perspective
Hi Joseph. As for your first comment, I urge you to look again at footnote 2. When I place "blame" for the Iraq war, I am not placing this blame on President Bush, the one male who made the official request for a declaration of war. I am suggesting that the masculinized Bush administration, of which Rice is included, was held accountable to the U.S. public to take aggressive violent action in response to this attack. Simply because Rice is female, does not mean that her actions cannot be masculinized. Many of the actions of women in political and security positions are extremely masculinized, which further indicates a societal preference for masculinized approaches to politics and security.
DeleteAs for your second comment, you absolutely point out an excellent, modern and not specifically violent example of the "White Savior" ideology that has influenced Western policy since precolonial times. Hijabs are often viewed in the West, as I'm sure you are aware, as a form of oppression against women. However, many women actually choose and enjoy wearing the hijab and don't feel any need to be "liberated" from this "oppression." Is the Western, predominantly white government of France attempting to "free" brown, in this case Muslim, women from the brown men who enforce the dress standards of Islam? Maybe. I'm sure some theorists are writing about it. Interesting way to think about about this issue.
I think this is a very interesting and great way at looking at the reasons as to why Bush went to war so quickly and without more reason then the "War on Terror" to back his decision. I agree with Professor Shirk...How would Obama have a different view? He had women in his cabinet and women roles in the military have changed dramatically since Bush.
ReplyDeleteI really think it would also be interesting to see what the view of ISIS would be since you mention al-Qaeda and their sense of masculinity too.
Hi Emilia! I urge you to take a look at footnote 2 as well. Obama simply including more women in his cabinet or the military does not "fix" this problem by any means. Female advisers to Obama (particular HRC) are very rarely praised for their feminine approach to security. I would even argue that the only way they were able to gain legitimacy with a U.S. public that so highly glorifies masculinity in politics and security was by embracing their masculinity and learning how to "play like a man." Only when a person (regardless or their gender) can be elected on a platform that is "feminized" by the stereotypical understanding of what that entails, will we have really transformed into a society in which, at least for that one election, is able to value the feminine equally to the masculine. For example, the current PM of Sweden was elected on what she reffered to as a "feminist foreign policy," or one that valued human rights and equal opportunity or military power or profit. This is a significant indication that Sweden may be well on it's way to valuing both masculine and feminine qualities equally (at least in the political sector.)
DeleteCheck out more about this on their website! Really good stuff! http://www.government.se/government-policy/feminist-foreign-policy/
I think this is a very interesting post. I think many good points were raised about how govenrment can be looked at through a masculine lense, especially the use of force. However, I'm curious as to how the inspectors are feminized? The traits listed were care, compassion, and negotiation. While you are probably correct, what defines an inspector of the US government or the UN as feminized? Inspectors looking for WMD are not there to provide aid, negotiate or love the citizens, they are present to look for weapons. Like I said, you are probably correct, I am curious as to how they are feminine.
ReplyDeleteWell done!
Hello Ben! Very good point. I'm happy you bring it up because it is quite an interesting dynamic. At base level, the inspectors shouldn't be feminized... right? They are looking for deadly weapons in an unstable region. They are men in high ranking positions given legitimacy by the UN. However, the Bush administration intentionally feminized them to convince the U.S. public that declaring war on Iraq was necessary, even though no WMDs were found. How could Bush convince the public that an invasion was still worth it even with no evidence for WMDs? Make the UN inspectors seem unreliable. The Bush administration did this by undermining the slow, patient, careful investigation and therefore, a violent (masculinized) response was the only answer aka the only reliable way to determine the presence of WMDs. Is this more clear? The point is, investigators are not inherently "feminine" by any means. However, the Bush administration intentionally made this investigation seem to peaceful, too feminine and too unreliable to really trust it. A masculinized response was then clearly the only answer.
Delete