War: What is it Good for? (Absolutely Nothing)

When thinking of war and gender together, I usually do an activity similar to the one we did in class the other day: think of examples beginning with the gender dichotomy and then go from there. Therefore, I list everything that I perceive as gender and war combined for males and females, and then begin to work my way out of the box. I realize that this is not everyone's approach to the topic, but it makes the most sense to me. This is one reason why I was taken by surprise when Goldstein begins talking about North American's history in political science. While I understand the idea of gender in anything even five years ago was limited, I did not realize to the extent that "male war scholars' interest in the puzzle of gendered war roles has been minimal." Not only this, but "feminist literatures about war and peace of the last 15 years have made little impact as yet on the discussion and empirical research...in the predominantly male mainstream of political science or military history." Fifteen years? That's quite a bit of time to have worked on a topic to get only little impact. This all makes me think: why are mainly women interested in this topic? To me, men are usually more involved in war than women, and war can be a lot of pressure on men as well, such as the pressure to be very tough and macho. Believe it or not, not every man fits into the "I'll rip you apart" category. 

Goldstein also really helped me reconfirm that I'm an anthropologist at heart. Although my familiarity with anthro is unfortunately limited, the key concepts to the discipline fit the way I think and like to analyze certain concepts. As mentioned in the article, Margaret Mead really embodies what I previously said about men not always being tough and how war is an enforcer to these gender norms. SIDE NOTE: I just bought a book from amazon called The Anthropology of Peace and Nonviolence--absolutely incredible. 

Table 1.2 made me very frustrated, and not just about the men. Why would anyone in a book entitled "contending paradigms in international relations" omit gender from the majority of the book?! How can we ignore gender when we have made it so prominent and such a big deal in our culture? The least we can do is talk about it. Why are we socialized so that only women can discuss gender? Why do men have a "low-interest" level? 

Another frustrating moment: "there is something about [international relations] that renders it particularly inhospitable and unattractive to women." I don't understand why this is. Hello, women: you can help solve world issues too, and bring gender back into the discipline! WHY ISN'T THERE A FEMINIST THEORY OF WAR??????? Why can't feminists agree on this one thing: that their main goal is to create equality? Why can't we remember that, even when there are disagreements? 

I'm all for working together, but I'm also all for having your own opinion. Difference feminism is not my cup of tea. I really do not think men and women are that much different. Of course, we do have certain things--but that's because we're not all the same person. But focusing on how women are more nurturing and connected and peaceful is, to me, ridiculous. We've been socialized to believe this. Focusing on our differences will only pull us apart--not equalize us. 

I think I would be considered a Postmodern Feminist, although I'm not really partial for labels. However, because of society, I say that I'm gay instead of queer. It's funny how it can affect something so minimal. This, just like war, is "deeply rooted in the human experience," and really needs to be more thoroughly discussed and analyzed.