Week 5

• January 29th in-class test is graded and ready for pick-up
• Pick it up in class or during my office hours
• For any questions about the test, email or visit during office hours (Tuesdays 2-3pm, Watson Hall 024)

Four essays:

• Sara Ruddick, “Mothers and Men's Wars”
• Sara Ruddick, “A Women's Politics of Resistance”
• Jean Bethke Elshtain, “Is There a Feminist Tradition on War and Peace?”
• Sarah Tobias, “Toward a Feminist Ethic of War and Peace”

Two interrelated questions:

• How should we interpret the myth of the masculinity of war & women’s peacefulness?
• How should we understand the relationship between “feminism” as a distinctive way of thinking, and the ethics of war & peace?

Two subjects for discussion:

• The popular dichotomy
• The challenge to modern feminists

The popular dichotomy:

1. Women are essentially peaceful
2. Men essentially are not

1. Women exemplify the commitment to non-violence
2. Men are intrinsically predisposed to violent behaviour

The feminist challenge:

The popular dichotomy stems from a tempting chain of reasoning:

Individual women --> “Femininity” --> “Motherhood”

Instinctive ethic of “caring” --> (Universal community)

Peacefulness & nonviolence --> Anti-war pacifism

• But, many feminists say, we must avoid this deceptive way of thinking

Linked questions:

1. Are women peaceful by nature? (Is there a “pure maternal peacefulness”?)
2. Are men naturally warlike? Is masculinity militaristic?
   
3. Are there close ties between approaches to i) rationality, ii) war, and iii) masculinity?
4. Is maternal practice, with its virtues of self-sacrifice and caring, a likely starting point for peace politics?
   
5. Should women be used to fight in combat roles, alongside the (male) soldiers?
6. Lynn Searfoss is a U.S. anti-war activist whose son is stationed in Iraq. She disagrees with the U.S. war in Iraq. But she asserts that she supports U.S. troops fighting there. Is there an inconsistency in Searfoss’s views?

Back to the popular dichotomy & the challenge to feminists

Prevailing forms of the dichotomy:

• Women exemplify the commitment to non-violence
• Men are intrinsically predisposed to violent behaviour
  
• Virtues of the masculine soldier vs. Virtues of pure maternal peacefulness
• Bravery, discipline, strength and patriotism vs. “sheltering, nursing, feeding, kin work, teaching of the very young, tending to the frail and elderly”
  
• “Language of warriors” or “Techno-strategic rationality” vs. Ethics of care & motherhood
• Clear-sightedness and unsentimental reasoning during a crisis vs. Women, who see only maimed bodies and needless blood spilled

Images:

Massacre(s) of the Innocents:

http://www.wga.hu/frames-e.html?/html/r/reni/1/innocent.html
(Guido Reni, 1575)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/Matteo_di_Giovanni_002.jpg
(Matteo de Giovanni, 1488)

Returning to the Reconquered Land:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/warpaintings/images/Clausen.jpg
(George Clausen, 1919)

Landing of the Canadian 1st Division:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/warpaintings/bundy1-e.asp
(Edgar Bundy, 1915)

“Counterexamples”:
The Spartan Mother:
http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/images/SpartanWomanShieldBarbier.jpg

Liberty Leading the People:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/rschwart/hist255/la/bigliberty.jpg
(Delacroix, 1830)

Rosie the Riveter:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/images/rosie-image51.jpg
http://obt.lcsc.edu/rosiesribs/images/Rosie%2520the%2520Riveter.jpg

The problem:
Individual women --> “Femininity” --> “Motherhood” Instinctive ethic of “caring” --> (Universal community) Peacefulness & nonviolence --> Anti-war pacifism

• This chain “essentializes” the nature of women, indeed, all of human nature

A. It’s an oversimplification

• A sweeping generalization such as this gives no insight into complex human nature
  Women are individuals, not examples of one essential type

B. It also reinforces harmful stereotypes...

• Elaine Donnelly: “the long-standing moral imperative that men must protect women from physical harm”
• The meek woman is being protected by the powerful man
• Women = dependant on man
• Man = free & strong

C. It throws the burden on to the shoulders of women

• “It’s up to women to change the world” by bringing about a peaceful politics and social ethos

Ruddick’s argument:

• “Pure” maternal peacefulness doesn’t exist: it’s a deeply embedded mythology of modern society
• (Nor does the “essentially” brave male soldier exist)
• But, Ruddick says, maternal practice is nevertheless a natural resource for peace politics
  
• A Women’s Politics of Resistance:
• Participants are women (mostly?)
• Invokes symbols of femininity
• Designed to resist militaristic practices and policies by their governments
  
• The ‘Madres’ of Argentina/Chile provide a powerful example of Ruddick’s aspirations bringing about results

Questions revisited:

1. Are there close ties between i) ideas of rationality, ii) war, and iii) masculinity?
2. Is maternal practice, with its virtues of self-sacrifice and caring, a likely starting point for peace politics?
   
3. Are women peaceful by nature? (Is there a “pure maternal peacefulness”?)
4. Are men naturally warlike? Is masculinity militaristic?