Transnational Feminist Practices Against War- Late/ Make-up Assignment

While reading Transnational Feminist Practices Against War, I was very interested in the third point that was made which connected domestic civil oppression to the violence of war. I immediately thought about how the military policing in Ferguson during the protests after Michael Brown was murdered by police. As a response and in solidarity Palestinians tweeted advise on how to deal with tear gas. As I continued reading there were connections made between the violence brown women experience due to military action and occupations, and the violence immigrant, brown, domestic violence survivors in the US experience at the hands of the state. (the second is the topic I’ve been working on all semester!)

With this connection being made I started to think about the ways this violence plays out and how the traumas of both women align for example the US military sexually assaulting women even though the mainstream reasoning for war is to “save brown women from their repressive culture” and the state violence of immigrant women who have experienced DV being detained for possibly being undocumented and then being sexually assaulted while in police custody. Another very grim connection that comes to mind is the destruction of the home overseas being a very literal bombing of cities and homes. While in the US, immigrant women calling for help but being physically forced out of their homes. This leads me to the fact that the US to begin with creates the conditions for immigrant women to have to immigrate to the US because conditions in their home countries are not livable similar to the both economic and physical destruction US war creates for brown women overseas.

After reading the assigned reading I read this article (https://www.momentmag.com/22800-2/ )which talks about students studying black issues standing in solidarity with Palestine. Specifically, this video (https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/world/when-i-see-them-i-see-us/2015/10/15/c8f8aa40-72c2-11e5-ba14-318f8e87a2fc_video.html?utm_term=.eab06d5ae93e)

 was played at the students’ meeting. It pictures Palestinians standing in solidarity with Ferguson and Baltimore and vice versa, and the intersectionality of the issues themselves, yet the unique struggles of each people. It was all extremely moving to watch!!! This all made me think about how movements that focus specifically on ending domestic violence in immigrant communities can and should take an active anti- war stance. I’m wondering what these solidarities between DV and anti-war movements would look like. I’ve been coming back to the incite website a lot lately. I feel that the framework for the movement is set, now all it takes is connecting it to what is actually happening now in the present. Where do we start? What does this solidarity look like? In what spaces can these solidarity take place?

Feminism and War - Beatriz Martinez

 Women in war is a difficult topic to cover especially in the era of feminism against colonization, imperialism and other factors that gender bodies. The authors of Feminism and War confronting US imperialism do a great job tackling this concept by creating arguments such as how femininity can negatively impact the roles of women in war.

Femininity is portrayed as fragile, weak and ignorant at times which within the setting of war, these characteristics are not ideal. The authors claim on how femininity had a negative impact on women led me to think about this specific view on femininity. I see the military as something only the strong and brave can do because that is how it is portrayed on media. Thus, “notions about the proper practice of femininity have a profound impact on how women are regarded in relation to war,  what they are expected to do, and the strength of the repercussions suffered for acting outside the accepted boundaries of femininity” (Riley, R., Mohanty, C., P, M., pg. 6). Women are expected to act strong because the military encourages it, but society does not approve of this behavior on women.

Moreover, the authors also state how femininity affects the way women differ from other women because of war (Riley, R., Mohanty, C., P, M.,  pg. 8). This led me to think about the ways femininity within the US is socially constructed versus other countries. During war, women in the US are viewed as brave for joining the military forces which is a male role. The women in the opposing side during war are not noticed for their work. This again illustrates the authors’ claim about how femininity negatively impacts women during war since there is this division between women in the US and other women around the world.

For example, the popular, “we can do it,” propaganda poster for women in the US during war is illustrating a white women. This poster is only appealing to the white women which makes them look brave and hardworking. However, there is no representation of black women in these posters and they are also working in the military. This shows how only white women can do a male task and still be feminine because they can look beautiful while serving the military for their husbands.

The theme I would like to discuss during class is the way femininity is viewed within different races due to war.

Erik Dierks on Feminism and War

In this piece, the authors discuss the topics of feminism and war, as well as feminist critiques of war itself and the reasoning/justifications behind said wars. One of the justifications that is often given that the authors touch on is the claim that the U.S. is going to war with X country in order to "save the women".

At the beginning of the piece, the authors note that "women's liberation" as a justification for the U.S. waging war on countries in the Middle East is inherently false, pointing out that the wars have a "...disproportionate and annihilating effects on the lives of women...". Instead of actually "saving" these women, the U.S is instead effectively killing them and upheaving their lives all in the name of capitalist gains. The authors point out that the dehumanization and demasculinization of men of color also accompanies the white savior complex of "saving" women in the Middle East. Both of which inherently demonize the native cultures and practices and effectively pushes the notion that western heteronormative ideals are supposedly better or more civilized.
Reading about this made me think of how almost all conversations of war in our society are ones in which the military is praised for the actions they carry out, without even stopping to discuss the destruction and pain they cause to the people living in these areas, or whether our waging of war was even justified to begin with. When the question of justifiability is asked, saving women from oppression or ending terrorism is typically the answer given. However, they once again fail to recognize our bombings of innocent civilians saves no one and that our own society was built on and continues to oppress and murder minority groups. So I really enjoyed reading the various topics and critiques the authors all brought up because they are often silenced or brushed off as unpatriotic.

Reading this piece made me think of all the narratives that were given to justify invading Iraq and the overall War on Terrorism and how hypocritical it is. They claim to be going there to save these women, yet back at home Muslim women and men are continuously oppressed, beaten, murdered and deported simply based on their religion.
Taking into consideration the violence and destruction war causes, could any position other than anti-war be considered feminist?

Arel Kincaid - Feminism and War

In the introduction to Feminism and War: Confronting US Imperialism (Riley, Mohanty, Pratt, 2018), the authors profess, “In the service of conquest, this mobilization [of historically embedded colonial practices and rhetorics of male superiority and white supremacy; of female vulnerability, inadequacy, and inferiority; and the subjugation of oppressed masculinities of men of color] deploys gendered roles that embody oppressive power relations. It depends on the manipulation of and demonization of complex cultural structures of sexuality, including same-sex and queer sexualities, and on the assumption that a Eurocentric heteronormative heterosexual ‘order’ is an underpinning for both nation and empire.” Nexes of gendered and sexual identities held in contrast with cisgender, heteronormative white supremacist values shape the ways in which war is waged; supported; and dialogued about; cloaking the capitalist interests of imperialism held by those in power and backed by the ever-shrinking aggregation of US bourgeois hoping to hold their class footing on the scraps of the capitalist elite.

One example of this that comes to mind was the rise of women in weapons factory jobs during World War II. It was suddenly patriotic for white women to take on factory roles left vacant by men who entered the military, while Black women faced racial discrimination in applying for and participating in the same work, and Japanese-American women and their families were being sent to internment camps. The weapons being produced by white women in these factories were being used against people of other nations who were dehumanized to US soldiers by military training, namely Japanese people, using Eurocentric notions of humanity and normalcy.

Moreover, while claiming to fight against German troops to alleviate the subjugation of European Jews, the United States turned away Jewish refugees, including women and their children, on nationalist principles. However, in the decades following the formation of Israel, a move by European powers to avoid having to pay an actual reparations to Jewish refugees following the Holocaust, the US has provided financial and military assistance as well as diplomatic support in the name of supporting the Jewish people. Though in reality the United States is using the resulting alliance to exert control in the Middle East, profiting from weapons sales to Iran and exploiting natural resources such as oil in the region.

A recent example of the US “saving” people of other nations from their own government (regardless of whether or not that nation’s government poses a threat to its people), with underlying capitalist motives, is President Donald Trump’s airstrike on Syria in retaliation for Syrian President Bashar Assad’s supposed use of chemical weapons against Syrian civilians. China Central Television’s coverage of Saturday’s anti-war protest in downtown Chicago was included in an article from Israeli news website Haaretz.com, providing transcribed quotes from an interview given by local Party for Socialism and Liberation member, Billy Kincaid. Kincaid expressed that “[he believes] the U.S. lies and comes up with false pretenses to justify military intervention in sovereign foreign countries. So [the Party for Socialism and Liberation] believe[s] that for people in the U.S., it's especially important [to] oppose wars abroad, because [they] have the loudest voice to influence the U.S. government to stop killing people, to let people determine their own destinies in their other countries."

The anonymous Reuters author for Haaretz included that “[Kincaid] further pointed out that the U.S. has an imperialistic interest in Syria where they want to set up a puppet government so that they can control the oil pipelines and the resources in Syria, which are the supposed true reasons for the war.”


This article can be viewed here: https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/syria/it-s-a-war-crime-chicago-protesters-against-u-s-s-strikes-in-syria-1.6014502

Discussion Question: I have seen uncritical support for President Assad voiced as a counterpoint to the US's paternalist war on Syria, especially as Western media paints Assad in a wholly negative light. What solutions does this pose, as well as what issues?

Zain Dababneh--Feminism and War

In the reading about feminism and US wars, the authors do important work regarding the intent behind war, specifically discussing the Afghanistan War in the first couple pages. The authors discuss how people who continue to pursue war use race, class, gender, sexuality, class, to legitimize and garner support for these wars. The use of gendered and sexual violence is a common thing that happens when the United States goes to war with another country. It is also very important to note that the authors use the women of color, intersectional, feminist critique of war.

An interesting point brought up by the author that I really want to discuss is the idea of saving brown women from brown men, and how capitalism has a major role with war. They say, “While the US imperial project calls for ‘civilizing’ men of color and oppressed nationalities--black, brown, Arab, Central and South Asian--and for ‘rescuing’ women of color outside of US borders, the same state engages in targeting, criminalizing, imprisoning, and killing these very peoples within its own borders in the context of the ‘endless wars’ required to sustain capitalist expansion” (4). Many people tend to not realize that war is also an industry. People profit when it comes to war. Weapons are a major industry in the United States. As long as there is capitalism, war will always exist. When the only goal of capitalism is to make profit, of course certain people want to go to war; it is so they can pocket more money while other people are being tortured and killed by their products. War is not about and is never about saving anyone from anything, it is about profit and power.

While reading about the gendered aspects of war and the use of sexual violence, it eerily reminded of two things: Rasmea Odeh and her body being abused and violated by the state of Israel, and the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq that used sexual violence against Arab men to dehumanize, torture, and to make them confess to crimes that they did not commit. Imperial feminism does not care for or even acknowledge how women and men of color are the true victims of war. They continue to advocate for equal opportunity for women and the LGBTQ+ community to serve in the army while ignoring how war negatively impacts women, men, and LGBTQ+ community in other countries.

An example of the gendered aspects of war in modern times was the recent deportation of Rasmea Odeh. Odeh was a political prisoner in Israel for ten years, was forced to confess to crimes she did not commit due to torture, and was released in a prisoner exchange with Israel. When applying for paperwork to become a citizen, she said she had no criminal record. In her interrogation, she was forced to confess to crimes she did not commit due to her being tortured and sexually assaulted by Israeli army. The Israeli Army also undressed her father in front of her and threatened to force him upon her if she did not confess to her “crimes.” Odeh rescinded her forced confession shortly after making it. In 2014, US Homeland Security used that as means to charge Odeh with immigration fraud and brought back her false conviction to strip her of her citizenship and deport her. Many spoke out against her deportation, but Odeh was sent back to Jordan in September 2017, with many protesters at the airport meeting her there to send her off well. The gendered and sexualized violence she experienced to keep her silent did not work, but she still faces the repercussions of the violence she experienced.

My question for the class is how do we critique imperial feminism without causing more factions and more division? How do we critique war without being called “unpatriotic”?

pictured: Rasmea Odeh

Siham El Samahi on Feminism and War

Dear Western Feminism...

Mohanty, Pratt, and Riley discuss the impact of war on women and how women in Afghanistan are used as a means to justify US military involvement. The US uses “white savior saving the brown women from the brown man” to make a case for the war on terrorism and “is used to justify US imperial aggression because this fulfills the rescue mission of a civilizing and civilized nation”.

            This is the orientalist narrative that the West uses to justify crimes committed against Arab lands or Middle Eastern lands. Orientalism is the idea that the West is civilized while the East is an uncivilized, barbaric place. So, with the idea that the East is a home of uncivilized people, it is easy for the West to justify their actions because Arabs and Middle Easterners are dehumanized. It’s so twisted and messed up to learn that they literally use women’s rights or whatever notion they have of women’s rights as a reason to go to war and then commit violence against those same women.

            The authors also mention how war disproportionately impacts women of color living in the US. Before reading this article, I didn’t think about how the US going to war also affects women of color in the US because my first thought goes to the women being directly impacted by war, like Iraqi women. But women of color, specifically poor women of color living in the US, are negatively impacted by military spending. Money for security and health resources is being taken out of the federal budget and put towards the military and war. It’s just a downward spiral of violence and abuse.

In a Leila Ahmed book on women and gender in Egypt, she discusses the British intervention in Egypt and how Lord Cromer urged British women to support the invasion of Egypt in order to save their brown sisters from their backwards men. Colonialist feminism at its finest. Similarly, Laura Bush used that orientalist narrative to call US women to “action” in order to help liberate the brown women. The image of Lord Cromer and Laura Bush coming to Egypt and Afghanistan to “free the brown women” with military troops behind them is ridiculous.