The femininist face of war:
It is a truth universally acknowledged that war is just for men, what? I mean, those delicate ladies know their role(s) in a man’s war – as nurses, tending the sick and holding the hands of our boys in their dying moments, or as letter writing romantic sweethearts, raising the morale of the troops.
Whilst the antecedent paragraph was highly patriarchal, and, of course, tongue in cheek, I do wonder how the feminist movement can rectify their conflicting attitudes towards armed conflict: that a) war is a social construct of a patriarchal society and b) a woman should have equality of opportunity in any career she chooses…but does this logic even continue to allow women to be cannon fodder? How can we square that circle?
As the previous question suggests, the two positions contradict each other to such an extent that one cannot have it both ways. You’re either a feminist that supports militarisation or a feminist who doesn’t. It seems, at least to me, that if a feminist supports war per se, then she isn’t a truly moral person, nor is she really a feminist. And that’s the issue, isn’t it? You have to fight, even when invading oil rich nations don’t have words of mass distraction, sorry, I meant weapons of mass destruction. That’s why I couldn’t be a soldier. I could, and would, enlist if I felt the war had a true moral cause.
Nevertheless, whatever the case, “liberal” feminists certainly support women in the military. Erin Solaro makes her opinions on matters military quite clear:
“I am an overt and unabashed feminist: I believe women have the same civic and human worth men do. Part of that worth is the right – and the responsibility – to bear arms in the common defense…we – women – liver her too, and we are equal in all things, not just the good in society.”
I was going to go elsewhere with this humble essay. Yet – yet! – that last line resonates with me. And it should resonate with you, too. That last line! I repeat: “Not just the good in society”. Is Solaro implying that the armed forces don’t represent the “good” in society? And this is coming from an unabashed feminist. Is she saying that women have an equal right to make a chaos of this world? This statement invalidates the (supposedly) more extreme feminists’ claim that war is a patriarchal – and patriarchal only -- construct.
Luckily enough, I spoke to a female naval officer at the philosophy stall. She, and her male counterparts, believed that the issue of gender was not important. They stated that an individual has merits and that these merits were not dependent on gender. And as 15% of the armed forces in the UK are female, can feminists claim that all of them are victims of patriarchal conditioning?
Undoubtedly, there have been female warriors. I assume images of Joan of Arc, Boadicea and Lyudmila Pavlichenko, the ultimate Russian femme fatale, come to mind. I do, however, think, quite sincerely, they are famous because they buck the trend. If something is an exception to a rule, which very much determines that there is a “rule”, albeit a socially constructed one, about gender roles and the military. Except it’s not really a “rule”, is it?
Well, it is and it isn’t. Women have the opportunity to join the armed services, but they don’t have the opportunity to fight on the front line, at least in the United Kingdom. This is a clear instance of social conditioning determining law, yet again. But can we blame our Judeo-Christian moral background? Not if modern day Occupied Palestine (Israel is a state I refuse to recognise) is anything to judge by.
Occupied Palestine is under such a threat that women have to be considered for military service. Any notions of women being stereotyped as delicate flowers are rejected by sheer necessity – although female soldiers are objectified, so it seems women can never win.
And that is the issue here, isn’t it? Women are so judged by society, even most post-enlightenment, western societies, that whatever they do, they will face discrimination. They – female soldiers -- have to deal with stereotyping, such as that they are lesbian bitches with penis envy, clearly trying to overcompensate for not have the raw penis-toting machismo of a man, whilst they can’t conform to their Barbie and Ken, all things pink, career sacrificing, heterosexual, child-bearing sisters.
I must admit that I’m a man of strong convictions. I’ve certainly been described as arrogant and macho, even rude at times. These characteristics are synonymous with young, immature males. As a result, I’m used to writing strongly worded polemics, that are excellently written (I did mention I was arrogant) and organised.
This topic, however, is quite staggering. It’s so very, very broad and I really have opened not one, but many, cliché cans of worms. There’s so much to cover. I feel I’ve been tangential, but that wasn’t my objective. I just want to this topic justice, which I can’t in under one thousand words.
Nonetheless, if there is a so-called conclusion to this tumultuous mish mash of an essay, here it is: whilst I’m anti-war and proud of it, I genuinely empathise with females in the armed forces. Society judges them unfairly, and they draw criticism from chauvinists and feminists alike. But what’s worse is that they’re mostly judged by the mindless mainstream for not conforming to archaic gender roles. So whilst I’m dangerously befuddled by this issue, I’m going to have to leave you, as Levitch would say, dancing with my confusion, but quite proud to do so.
By Samuel Poole
