Rannie- Mohanty

When reading the introduction by Mohanty, Pratt and Riley, the point that I found most interesting was what they called ‘the mis-use of feminism by the US war state.’  They describe how the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were at least partly justified with women’s liberation. In this way, “the administration of President George W. Bush had explicitly argued that US ‘intervention’ would promote the cause of women’s liberation in those countries, thus claiming a ‘feminist’ motivation for US military aggression” (Mohanty, Pratt & Riley, p. 1). While I do not believe that the US government’s focus was on women’s rights (for example, there were clear economic and military reasons for invading those countries), the fact that they invoke feminism as justification is nevertheless interesting.

This discussion reminded me of the Puar reading a couple of weeks ago, where the Arab culture is seen in an Orientalist way (or Othered), which was also discussed in the introduction by Naber. Very briefly stated, this is an essentialist notion of Arab and Muslim cultures as repressive and backwards. One facet of that is the oppression of women and their rights. When this view of Arab cultures is constructed, it is simultaneously contrasted with the benevolent and developed West, where women are supposedly respected and have control over their lives.

But why would the US government claim to go to war over women’s rights? It is likely that women’s rights fit nicely into liberal ideas of women’s empowerment and humanitarianism, which may be popular with voters. Giving the American public a potentially valid reason for war would probably improve public opinion about the war. The ideas of liberalism and humanitarianism also seem to align themselves naturally with second wave feminism, emphasizing equal rights of men and women. For example, under this view, women should be allowed to serve in the military, but wars in general, the military-industrial complex and the impact of war on women is left out of the discussion. This is a very limited version of feminism, as Chanty and colleagues claim that it is impossible to understand the relationship between war and feminism without thinking about race, sexuality, nationalism, ideologies and more.

One could also ask:  If the U.S. government is so concerned with women’s rights, why does it not try to increase their rights at home? Women in the US are facing multiple types of oppression, such as limiting their reproductive rights and not changing laws about sexual assault in the military. Even though these are recent examples of female oppression, they have largely gone unchallenged (and are often part of the government’s war on women).

Chanty and colleagues also state that “US militarization has meant a new mobilization of historically embedded colonial practices and rhetorics of male superiority and white supremacy; of female vulnerability, inadequacy and inferiority; and of the subjugation of oppressed masculinities of men of color.” (p.3) In this way, Arab women have been conceptualized as vulnerable and potentially inadequate at ‘liberating themselves,’ necessitating the US to ‘intervene’ and ‘save’ them from their own cultures.

An analysis of the invasion would also try to look at what has actually happened to Arab women. Has their quality of life increased? Do they have more rights today than they did before? Considering that they have lived in a war-torn country, with a huge displaced population, where the death of family and friends is commonplace, I find that unlikely. If anything, women in Iraq and Afghanistan are probably more vulnerable now than they were before the invasion, for all of these reasons stated. Women’s rights and feminism are probably low on the list of priorities for the US government, but proved to be an effective way of rationalizing war when that was needed.

What do you do when feminism has been co-opted to justify war? How can you argue against the war, but still create a narrative that will be understandable to people in the general population?