It is important, therefore, to examine particular womenâs stories at face value, and not ascribe unto them feminist labels they might eschew. Instead, the book strives to illuminate how U.S. military women have purposefully, and sometimes without purpose, influenced the debate and execution of policy in the most male-centric arena of foreign policyâwar-making. We can no longer accept academic treatments that âairbrushâ in womenâs participation in foreign policy matters for gender tokenism. Rather we must advance the reality that women in high places of power, such as Secretary of State, and women in relatively low places of power, such as an enlisted woman who receives a Bronze Star for valor, have radically reshaped how states âmakeâ war. Moreover, perhaps increased female participation in war will become a factor in reshaping the discursive and performative practices of the state, even liberal, hegemonic ones such as the United States. Thus, it is in this spirit that the following chapters will highlight the stories of âa polyphonic chorus of female voices whose disparate melodies are discernible sounds in the landâ (Elshtain, in McGlen and Starkes 1993: 188).
Exploring Feminisms
The male element is a destructive force, stern, selfish, aggrandizing, loving war, violence, conquest, acquisition, breeding in the material and moral world alike in discord, disease, and deathâŚ
Elizabeth Cady Stanton 1868
Helena Carreiras (2006) remarks, âFeminists have posited conflicting theories on the relation of women to war, peace, and revolution and women have, according to changing social and historical circumstances, responded to warfare and peace movements in a great variety of waysâ (p. 62). As with most theoretical approaches to social inquiry, there is no singular definition of feminism. In fact, there are many feminism(s); however, despite this diversity the large tent of Feminism can agree on the following points as necessary elements to employing this theoretical approach: (1) providing critiques of misogyny and sexual hierarchy; (2) a focus on women as subjects of analysis; (3) an expanded account of and altered orientation as to what is important to study in political life; (4) a specific normative focus which critiques what is and offers a scenario of what ought to be; and (5) championing ethical/moral norms that provide a critical stance regarding the position of women and envisioning a more desirable state of affairs in social and political life for women (Beasley 1999: 26â36).
Feminism can be utilized to critique mainstream political thought which has been viewed as male-centric, since it has been written and analyzed primarily by men for most of human history. Beasley refers to this approach as âadd Mary Wollstonecraft and stirâ (pp. 4â5). Other feminists, however, challenge traditional political theory and do not think that mainstream/or âmalestreamâ political theory can be analytically separated from its male-centric assumptions; hence, the need for a radical rethinking of political theory as we know it. Finally, other feminists, namely postmodernists, posit that our ontological and epistemological assumptions and knowledge in social sciences is utterly wrong because of a sexual hierarchy and male domination which has kept women in a subservient position. Hence, our male understanding of knowledge and human history is inherently anti-woman. 6
6 See Harding, Sandra. (1991), Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Thinking from Womenâs Lives. New York: Cornell University Press. Feminists also traditionally critique the false division, as they see it, between the public and private spheres of life. Men, according to feminists, have dominated in the public sphere through their participation in political and economic relations outside of the home. Obviously, women were not permitted in many countries to own property, vote, or run for political office until the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. Women have been confined to the private sphere of life where they are viewed as being primarily responsible and biologically superior to men in regard to taking care of the physical and emotional needs of a husband and children. Feminists are quick to point out, however, that a womanâs supposedly natural inclination to keep the fire of the hearth burning while her male companion goes forth into the public sphere to make laws and do business is false and artificially constructed to serve the interests of men.
Moreover, women are still dominated and subjugated in the private sphere and are often victims of violence along with their children. For many women, including those who may even eschew the term feminism, what transpires in the private sphere of life is political as well. By the 1960s, women in the United States and Europe began challenging the false dichotomization between the public and private spheres. The rallying slogan became, âThe personal is political.â The phrase was created to underscore the notion that what was happening in womenâs personal lives such as: accessing reproductive health care services, being responsible for all of the housework, and facing sexual assault in their own homes were indeed political issues. Women, therefore, needed to become active in the public sphere by making elected officials aware of these issues and most importantly exchanging ideas and organizing strategies with other women to improve their lives. In short, what could be described as âpoliticalâ in nature was now broadened tremendously. Moreover, âFeminism is not only a political theory. It is a political theory that coexists with and interacts with a political movement dedicated to eradicating the problems that women experience because of their sexâ (Sjoberg 2006: 32). And one of those main problems is violence. âFeminists are not against violence because women are more peaceful; they are against violence because of its disproportionate impact on women and people at the margins of global politicsâ (Sjoberg 2006: 202).
Since the emergence of a robust academic field in feminist international relations and feminist security theory, scholars such as Cynthia Enloe, Christine Sylvester, V. Spike Peterson, and Laura Sjoberg 7 contend that women often occupy the margins of mainstream academic analysis of international politics. Some women can be at the center of international politics, but more women will be at the margins. To analyze women at the margins, I will investigate how U.S. military women have impacted and been impacted upon by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Moreover, U.S. military women certainly affected, both negatively and positively, the lives of women in Iraq and Afghanistan as well. Even though we still think of war as a largely male-centric sociological, economic, psychological, and political set of processes, U.S. women have played key roles as soldiers, veterans, fatalities, stateswomen, 8 and peace activists. 9 However, the primary focus of this book is the role of U.S. women as enlisted soldiers, officers, female veterans, and female casualties of war. In order to examine these disparate positions and experiences, I draw on various strands of feminismâliberal feminism, difference feminism, radical feminism, Marxist feminism, and postmodern feminismâto provide analytical leverage.
7 See Sylvester, Christine. (2012), War as Experience: Contributions from International Relations and Feminist Analysis. Colorado: Routledge and Peterson, V. Spike (ed.). (1992). Gendered States: Feminist (Re)visions of International Relations Theory. Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers. 8 See Lusane, Clarence. (2005), âWhat Color is Hegemony? Powell, Rice, and the New Global Strategists.â New Political Science, 27, 1: 23â41. Mabry, Marcus. (2007), Twice as Good: Condoleezza Rice and Her Path to Power. New York: Modern Times. Rice, Condoleezza. (2011). No Higher Honor: A Memoir of My Years in Washington. New York: Crown Publishers. 9 See Cockburn, Cynthia. (2007), From Where We Stand: War, Women, Activism, and Feminist Analysis. New York: Zed Books. Cockburn, Cynthia. (June 2010), âGender Relations as Casual in Militarization and War: A Feminist Standpoint.â International Journal of Politics, 12, 2: 139â57. Riley, Robin. (2005), âSo Few of Us, So Many of Them_ U.S. Women Resisting Desert Storm.â International Feminist Journal of Politics, 7, 3: 341â57. Kutz-Flamembaum, Rachel. (2007), âCode Pink, Raging Grannies, and the Missile Dick Chicksâ, NWSA Journal, 19,1: 89â105. Liberal Feminism
Liberal feminists argue that women are equal to men in intellectual and physical abilities; women are capable of doing what men do, including participating actively in the public sphere of life. Liberal feminism, which is often viewed as the dominant strain of feminism in the United States, is primarily concerned with the issue of individual rights over the securing of the collective âgoodâ and ensuring that women have access to the same opportunities as men. Seminal court cases, civil rights legislation, sexual discrimination battles, equal pay for equal work, and the Equal Rights Amendment were all important milestones for liberal feminists. Feminists from Mar...