Alison Kopit- Feminism and US Wars

Alison Kopit

Feminism and US Wars

In “Introduction: Feminism and US Wars – Mapping the Ground,” Chandra Talpade Mohanty, Minnie Bruce Pratt, and Robin L. Riley argue for a multiplicity of feminisms, acknowledging that there is not one set of feminist beliefs, “…no monolithic ‘feminism’ or even a shared set of philosophical, ethical, cultural, or political interests among all women” (1). The piece shows the ways that militarized imperial forces coopt women’s issues to support war and to encourage the continuation of it. Rhetoric, accompanied with simplified media representations and depoliticized notions of womanhood create the illusion that war is necessary and is an instrument of protection for the vulnerable. Through these representations, war is “crafted as rescue missions in the name of democracy and ‘civilization’” (2). Thus, people believe that there is no other option but to be at war.

In reading these pieces, I continued to return to the way that notions of victimhood rely on representations of femininity, and vice versa, and the way that they are essential for justification of war. Notions of victimhood depoliticize the role of women and further white supremacy, but also create meaning about disability in the process. Although notions of ability, virility, strength, and independence, hold meaning for constructions of gender, sexuality, race, and class, they also collide with disability at their core. For example, when are women seen as less able, and thus need to be rescued- besides the fact that this is obviously untrue- why is this fundamentally bad? Why do people of color need white saviors and what are the various layers of hierarchy embedded into that? What is feminine about perceived lack of ability or independence (and what is disabled about these things)? I would argue that each of these representations hold implications for disability representation as well, but because ableism is seamlessly integrated into society and seen as “true,” they are often not even recognized as such in the literature.

Ableist disability rhetoric also relies on these binary and simplified understandings. Weakness, inability, and protection, even emasculation, all mark disability representations in the media and society. To rebel against this, many disability groups and individuals have attempted to bring the pendulum all the way back, talking back and claiming that disability is strong and powerful and beautiful. This is a trap! Disability is complex! This insistence on the exact opposite thus keeps us confined to simplified understandings and depoliticizations. In my work about disability art (but also in activist endeavors), I always advocate for there also to be space for ugly and weak inside disability, just like there is a place for these things across the human. Dichotomous understandings and simplistic definitions, albeit easier to explain, are not only inaccurate, but are shrouded in erasure and depoliticization.

For discussion:

In these selections, it seems that one binary representation, and that representations are simplified and essentialized. Feminine victim vs. militarized masculine. Innocence vs. villainous. Feminist=pacifist or feminist=supporting all women (even if they are involved in imperialism and militarization). How do we break out of these representations? We know that they’re false. What makes them so seductive?