'Feminists' for War

[Pawn Power]

Pentagon Enlists Feminists for War Aims
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-hayden/pentagon-enlists-feminist_b_238715.html)

[Black Dagger]

So do these 'feminists' support the current Afghan government and 'our' northern alliance 'allies' as well? :confused:

[Devrim]

Feminism has become one of the ideological props for imperialist intervention in the Middle East. Things like this should come as no surprise. Nor should feminists backing the state in imperialist wars. They have a long history of it going back at least to 1914.
Devrim

[Black Dagger]

Dev you are being a bit loose with your language there, it is not 'feminists' or 'feminism' who have a history of supporting imperialist intervention (or wars) - but liberal, bourgeois feminists and 'feminism'; your post unintentionally or not tars all feminists with the same brush. Of course it is not a suprise to see female politicians etc. championing US foreign policy as a boon for 'women's rights'.

[Devrim]

We hold that feminism is a bourgeois ideology, and that all femenism is bourgeois. I don't think that it is wrong to suggest that feminism has been used as an ideological tool to justify imperialist intervention in the Middle East. Nor do I think it wrong to suggest that feminists have a history of this. During the first world war the newspaper 'The Sufferegette' changed it's name to 'Britannia' showing its support for the war.

Devrim

[BobKKKindle$]

I don't think that it is wrong to suggest that feminism has been used as an ideological tool to justify imperialist intervention in the Middle East

I think the point that BD was getting at, and a point I would agree with as well, is that it's wrong to treat "feminism" as a homogeneous bloc or even as a single coherent ideology. There are many feminisms, all of which explain the origins of womens oppression in different ways, and propose different solutions, in accordance with divergent class interests, and so whilst it's certainly correct to say that there are some feminists who have given enthusiastic support to imperialist intervention, especially in Afghanistan, and that the ruling classes have often used feminist ideas as an ideological device to justify their aims, it's wrong to make a blanket statement that applies to every single person who identifies as a feminist, and every school of feminist thought. Clara Zetkin and Alexandra Kollantai can both be seen as major theorists of socialist feminism but I don't think anyone would see them as having a bourgeois political line or supporting imperialism. The same can be said of Sylvia Pankhurst, who, as you're doubtless aware, identified as a Left-Communist towards the end of her life, as well as being an ardent feminist.

[h0m0revolutionary]

I think the point that BD was getting at, and a point I would agree with as well, is that it's wrong to treat "feminism" as a homogeneous bloc or even as a single coherent ideology. There are many feminisms, all of which explain the origins of womens oppression in different ways, and propose different solutions, in accordance with divergent class interests, and so whilst it's certainly correct to say that there are some feminists who have given enthusiastic support to imperialist intervention, especially in Afghanistan, and that the ruling classes have often used feminist ideas as an ideological device to justify their aims, it's wrong to make a blanket statement that applies to every single person who identifies as a feminist, and every school of feminist thought. Clara Zetkin and Alexandra Kollantai can both be seen as major theorists of socialist feminism but I don't think anyone would see them as having a bourgeois political line or supporting imperialism. The same can be said of Sylvia Pankhurst, who, as you're doubtless aware, identified as a Left-Communist towards the end of her life, as well as being an ardent feminist.

You're quite right Bob, but the policy of the ICC is to dismiss all feminism, as i've had ti explained, they hold that communism is inherently against patriarchy and suppression of females so feminism, of a socialist strain or not isn't valid.

Of course this is completely removed form reality and telling of the gender balance within the ICC.

[Devrim]

Of course this is completely removed form reality and telling of the gender balance within the ICC.

I can't talk about the ICC as a whole as I don't know the figures, but in the Turkish section the 'gender balance' is about two thirds male, one third female. Considering that Turkey is a country where women traditionally have less activity in public life than in the UK, I don't think that it is that shocking.

How does the AF compare?

Devrim

[Devrim]

I think the point that BD was getting at, and a point I would agree with as well, is that it's wrong to treat "feminism" as a homogeneous bloc or even as a single coherent ideology.

I don't think that it applies to every person who calls themselves a feminist. I think it is fair to say that supporting imperialism is not untypical of feminism though and there is a track record of feminists and feminist organisations doing this.


The same can be said of Sylvia Pankhurst, who, as you're doubtless aware, identified as a Left-Communist towards the end of her life, as well as being an ardent feminist

Actually Sylvia was a left communist for a very short time at the height of the revolutionary period. Afterwards she drifted off into all sort of strange ideology and ended up being a supporter of Ethiopian nationalism. In the period that she was a left communist though she broke with feminism.

Devrim

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Feminism has become one of the ideological props for imperialist intervention in the Middle East. Things like this should come as no surprise. Nor should feminists backing the state in imperialist wars. They have a long history of it going back at least to 1914.
Devrim
And people calling themselves communists also have a long history of taking sides in imperialist wars.

[Devrim]

And people calling themselves communists also have a long history of taking sides in imperialist wars.

And anarchists too. No, it is a good point though. I am not of course saying that every feminist supports imperialist wars. I do think that it is quite common though, and I don't think that there is anything in feminism that makes one believe that they shouldn't. I think that it is a valid point to make that feminists supporting imperialist wars is neither new nor surprising.

One would expect communists and anarchists not to support imperialist wars thoough. I think it's fair to argue that those who did betrayed. I don't think that you can really day the same thing for feminism.

Devrim

[Revy]

What about Code Pink?
They're feminists and very anti-war, opposed to both wars.

[Devrim]

What about Code Pink?
They're feminists and very anti-war, opposed to both wars.

I am not saying that every feminist supports wars. I am saying that it is not exceptional for feminists to support wars and that feminist ideology is currently being used to justify imperialist interventions in the Middle East.

I am not sure what you mean here by both wars as according to Wiki they were only founded in 2002.

Devrim

[Pogue]

Iraq and Afghanistan, Devrim.

[BobKKKindle$]

Iraq and Afghanistan, Devrim.

I think Devrim is pointing out that the invasion of Afghanistan took place in 2001.

In truth I think that the use of feminist ideology is just the latest manifestation of an older trend which can best be described as the notion of the "White Man's Burden", i.e. the idea that imperialism can play a civilizing role in relation to non-white peoples, who would otherwise not be able to develop their economies and overcome allegedly backward customs, until those peoples are ready to rule themselves. This is a notion that we would normally associate with the political establishment but it's also something that's frequently been used by sections of the left, or rather those who see themselves as being on the left, to avoid having to take a firm stand on imperialism, and to protect the interests of their limited support base. For example, at the Stuttgart Conference of the Second International, in 1907, the delegate for the Dutch SAPD, Henri van Kol, argued that it would be wrong for socialists to "abandon half the globe to the caprice of peoples still in their infancy". Even Marx fell prey to this aspect of orientalism (according to Said, anyway) in his comments on India.

[Pogue]

But its possible to be "opposed" to a war after it started, because its still going on. For example I got involved in anti-war stuff half a decade after the Afghanistan war started so I am 'opposed to both wars'.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

I am not saying that every feminist supports wars. I am saying that it is not exceptional for feminists to support wars and that feminist ideology is currently being used to justify imperialist interventions in the Middle East.
I suppose it wasn't an exact analogy, and that supporting wars isn't as incompatible with feminism as it is with communism/anarchism. But there is also a long and proud history of feminists opposing militarism as a product of patriarchal gender roles. See Virginia Woolf's Three Guineas (liberal, but undeniably anti-war), or this for a more recent analysis that rejects essentialist ideas of women as peacemakers (http://www.womeninblack.org.uk/Feminist%20Antimilitarism.htm), but argues that "feminism, as theory and practice, can be an important contribution to antimilitarism and to opposing nationalist political projects. And not just as an add-on. I really think, because they are deeply gendered social structures, because gender is intrinsic to them, you can't wholly, fully, understand militarism or nationalism without a feminist analysis."

[Devrim]

I think Devrim is pointing out that the invasion of Afghanistan took place in 2001.
No, I wasn't. I was thinking of the two wars as first and second, my misunderstanding.
Devrim

[Devrim]

But there is also a long and proud history of feminists opposing militarism as a product of patriarchal gender roles.

not as long as it's history of jingoism.


"feminism, as theory and practice, can be an important contribution to antimilitarism and to opposing nationalist political projects. And not just as an add-on. I really think, because they are deeply gendered social structures, because gender is intrinsic to them, you can't wholly, fully, understand militarism or nationalism without a feminist analysis."

I don't think there is anything revolutionary about it. It is the se sort of social pacifism that the Zimmerwald left rejected during the First World War.

I don't think that feminism has anything to offer in understanding natonalism except mystification either.

Devrim

[bromide]

I question whether you've read any feminist analysis, Devrim. You could start with Colonial fantasies: towards a feminist reading of Orientalism from Meyda Yeğenoğlu if you're actually interested in learning about a feminist analysis of nationalism and colonialism. You can read a good portion of it in Google books.
I would also remind you that there are more feminisms than just Western feminisms, and that that there are women out there who are anti-abortion or pro-imperialism and call themselves feminists, but that doesn't mean that other feminists agree with them, accept their views, or would even consider them feminists at all. I know I don't.

[Devrim]

You could start with Colonial fantasies: towards a feminist reading of Orientalism from Meyda Yeğenoğlu
Is this a sort of attempt to pick something obscure that I wouldn't of heard of? Actually she works just down the road from where I live and I know people who know her.

The fact that there are lots of different analysis that call themselves feminism doesn't obscure my main point that feminism often backs the state in wars, and There is nothing contraditory about that. By the way I believe (though I am not 100% certain) that Yeğenoğlu supports the extremely nationalist and statist Republican People's Party (CHP).

Nor does the fact that some feminisms don't support imperialist war make them revolutionary. In our opinion all feminism holds a bourgois analyisis at it's very base but that is a different question.

Devrim

[bromide]

I chose to recommend Orientalism because it's a major work in feminist theory which addresses your misconceptions on feminisms, nationalism and and the idea that feminists are all bourgeois imperalists (or even just one lump of people). I also noted that a significant portion of it was available free online, so I think the fact that you're complaining about obscurity just highlights your reluctance to have your preconceptions questioned. Incidentally, I think it's interesting that you think her well-known work is obscure, but you seem to know both her and her political affiliations.

[Devrim]

a major work in feminist theory which addresses your misconceptions on feminisms, nationalism and and the idea that feminists are all bourgeois imperalists (or even just one lump of people).

I never stated this. I stated that support for imperialism is in no way contradictory to feminism. See earlier in the thread:


I am not saying that every feminist supports wars. I am saying that it is not exceptional for feminists to support wars and that feminist ideology is currently being used to justify imperialist interventions in the Middle East.


I chose to recommend Orientalism because it's a major work in feminist theory ... I also noted that a significant portion of it was available free online, so I think the fact that you're complaining about obscurity just highlights your reluctance to have your preconceptions questioned.I wasn't complaining about the obscurity. I haven't read much feminist theory in about twenty years. To be honest, I think that its basic premises are wrong and it doesn't have much to offer. My point about obscurity was to pick somebody from an academic from an obscure country seemed to be like trying to play the obscure.


Incidentally, I think it's interesting that you think her well-known work is obscure, but you seem to know both her and her political affiliations.I don't know this work, but I do happen to live in the same obscure country near the university where she teaches and have comrades who study in that department. I think it is pretty obscure though if you aren't interested in feminist accademics. For example, I have just checked and she doesn't have a wiki entry in either English or Turkish. Whereas the examples I used of the US government using feminist rhetoric to justify its interventions in the Middle East, and the English suffragettes turning into a jingoistic patriotic group are very well know.

Devrim

[Luís Henrique]

Reminds me of the "Zimbabwean women" chain letter...

Evidently progressive ideologies, or bits of them, can be used to support imperialism. Christopher Hitchens, for instance, is an example of atheism being used to support aggression against "muslism" countries.

Elements of progressive ideologies - particularly anti-imperialism - can also be used to support reactionary third-world dictatorships. Thence we see "socialists" and "leftists" supporting the Iranian theocracy, Mugabe's tyranny, etc, etc, etc.

In fact, even "left-communism" has been used to support reactionary initiatives, such as the Venezolan "White Hands" movement.

Luís Henrique

[Pawn Power]

LH, where did you come from? Either way, welcome back.


Reminds me of the "Zimbabwean women" chain letter...

Evidently progressive ideologies, or bits of them, can be used to support imperialism. Christopher Hitchens, for instance, is an example of atheism being used to support aggression against "muslism" countries.

Elements of progressive ideologies - particularly anti-imperialism - can also be used to support reactionary third-world dictatorships. Thence we see "socialists" and "leftists" supporting the Iranian theocracy, Mugabe's tyranny, etc, etc, etc.

In fact, even "left-communism" has been used to support reactionary initiatives, such as the Venezolan "White Hands" movement.

Luís Henrique

I generally agree with this analysis. Hitchens and the recent reaction to the Iranian uprising are both good examples. But I think it is important to reiterate that these position don't necessarily represent the position in general but are often aberrations of it.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

I never stated this. I stated that support for imperialism is in no way contradictory to feminism.
At which point we get into semantic territory: I'd say that imperialism (at the very least, every form of imperialism we've ever known to exist) has been a gendered, masculine, patriarchal phenomenon, so feminists who've supported it (and obviously I can't deny they have) were contradicting their feminist principles. But you can say that they weren't, and I wouldn't be able to disprove it in any way.

[Luís Henrique]

At which point we get into semantic territory: I'd say that imperialism (at the very least, every form of imperialism we've ever known to exist) has been a gendered, masculine, patriarchal phenomenon, so feminists who've supported it (and obviously I can't deny they have) were contradicting their feminist principles. But you can say that they weren't, and I wouldn't be able to disprove it in any way.

I would say more: that imperialism is inseparable of militarism, and that military activity has been regarded, traditionally, as a masculine activity. So, how do imperialist feminists reconcile this?

By demanding the military activity to be opened to women? How many actually did this, and how many of these "imperialist feminists", on the contrary, have, at least implicitly, "betrayed" by relying on the "protective nature" of the male of the species?

And those who have openly demanded "equal opportunity" for women in the military field, how have they reacted to the fact that such equal opportunity has systematically been denied? How do they reconcile this with their so-called "feminism"?

Luís Henrique

[Pogue]

Reminds me of the "Zimbabwean women" chain letter...

Evidently progressive ideologies, or bits of them, can be used to support imperialism. Christopher Hitchens, for instance, is an example of atheism being used to support aggression against "muslism" countries.

Elements of progressive ideologies - particularly anti-imperialism - can also be used to support reactionary third-world dictatorships. Thence we see "socialists" and "leftists" supporting the Iranian theocracy, Mugabe's tyranny, etc, etc, etc.

In fact, even "left-communism" has been used to support reactionary initiatives, such as the Venezolan "White Hands" movement.

Luís Henrique

Could you please substantiate the last point?

[Luís Henrique]

Could you please substantiate the last point?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/student-movement-venezuela-t62963/index.html?t=62963&highlight=Manos+blancas

Luís Henrique

[Devrim]

In fact, even "left-communism" has been used to support reactionary initiatives, such as the Venezolan "White Hands" movement.
Could you please substantiate the last point?

I don't know anything about the student movement in Venezuela. There was a discussion on it on here based on an article that was originally published in our paper in Venezuela. The English translation is available here:
http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2007/student-protests-venezuela

There is also a leaflet distrubuted by a contact of the ICC at Universidad Central de Venezuela:http://en.internationalism.org/wr/307/ven-students-leaflet

As well as a reply to criticisms of our position:http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2008/apr/students-may-2007

Non of the articles, as far as I can see, show any support for a 'white hand movement' nor even mention it.

Devrim