by Amee Chew
Refusing to be silenced as a military parent, Cindy Sheehan's courageous voice has lent new urgency to stopping the war in Iraq. ?Mother Cindy? has been likened to a Rosa Parks of the anti-war movement. Both widely recognized women served as symbolic figures to help bring the weight of a larger base of organizing to bear on the public. Yet today we have an anti-war movement which largely fails to point out connections between war, and U.S. patriarchy or gendered domestic inequalities. To galvanize organizing against militarism to its full potential, we must question its gender-blind approach. In fact, Sheehan came as a surprise to segments of the movement which prioritized looking to the troops and potential recruits as the centers of resistance. Sheehan and Hurricane Katrina remind us that as the war's effects are much broader, we can expect and should look to support rebellion from a variety of mutually reinforcing fronts. What would it mean to put not just Cindy's son at the center of outrage, but women like Sheehan herself, as military mothers, wives, and partners? How have these women themselves, not just the troops, been militarized, manipulated, and exploited? What would it mean for the anti-war movement to interpret women like Sheehan as activists and agents fighting against exploitation which directly affects them in their own right ? not just as stand-ins for others' struggles, defined by a male-dominated left? Following is a numbered list of suggestions for how to apply a gender analysis to the war ? how to understand its links with U.S. patriarchy. Like lists enumerating ?Why the War is Racist? which have circulated in the U.S., the below reasons get at why the war must be understood as sexist. This list is a start, by no means meant to be exhaustive, at offering a wider understanding of who is hurt by imperialism. Next > Soldiers are not the only ? or main ? casualties of war |
|||
| |||