Mainstreaming GENDER - militarization
“International relations is a man’s world, a world of power and conflict in which war is a privileged activity” –Ann Tickner
In Judith Hick Stiehm’s Theses on Military, Security, War and Women, the author speaks to the issue of looking at militarism from a gendered perspective. In the first part of the publication, she establishes that “we can participate in choosing our government; we are accountable for the nature of our military and where and how it is deployed” (Stiehm). In this week’s Seager reading, she establishes that fewer than 50 countries have ever had women as the head of state. Seager uses the example of the European Union, in which women constitute only 30% of its members (Seager). If the government, dominated mostly by males is said to have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, and women make up the majority of those affected by war, how can we establish a framework of decision making that is more representative of women? How can we benefit from mainstreaming gender into the decisions making process surrounding militarism and the application of force?
Citizens of a democracy have the right to express their assent or dissent through the ballot. Universal suffrage for women is almost in every state. However, the right to vote is largely ineffective in the absence of participation. Parties need to make a concerted effort to include more women into their party list, not for the sake of filling a quote. Women and voters (especially females or those who stand for equality) need to compliment these efforts by getting up and voting. This is not to say that a woman, regardless of her credentials or more importantly, her political stance should get the vote. Rather, I believe that our political decision making needs to weigh the benefits of the inclusion of gender (as opposed to exclusion) and our votes should be translated according. In other words, we need to show more support for things like pressure parties that seek to include gender in their decision making process, or, ideally, show support for a suitable female candidate.
Women are not more or less qualified to run for office; however the argument here lies in the fact that militarisation has been naturalized as a masculine phenomenon, whereby men are the key actors. In this sense, women are seen as subordinate actors in combat, when in reality, women play an integral role in warfare. Furthermore, the underrepresentation of women in positions of power, serves to ratify the fact women are largely affected by war, and further subordinated as a result of it. Without any agency, how can women make any concerted efforts to improve the ways combat has affected their lives.
More importantly, women have for a long time have been the driving force behind the peace making process, however, the efforts have largely been concentrated outside of political office. In this sense, many efforts have been concentrated on making war more “humane”. However, the logic here is skewed for the simple fact that war is never humane, and should never exist in the first place. These efforts, that include movements to stop using rape as a weapon of war, are the by-products of a system that largely perceives war as inventible to solving conflict.
By mainstreaming a gender perspective in public policy, in my opinion, will be a transformative project changing the way in which we perceive war and the application of force. The spill over affect of mainstreaming gender into governmental office will benefit many areas of public policy. For example, the policies pertaining to the reproductive rights of women will be more representative of actual women’s needs. In terms of militarisation, a more gendered perspective will arguably see war a last resort to solving conflicts.
Seager, Joni. The Penguin Atlas of Women in the World. Brighton: Penguin Group, 2009. Print.
Stiehm, Judith Hicks. Theses on the military, security, war and women. Ed. Laura Sjoberg. London:Routledge, 2010. Print