|
|
Women
and War
Women,
if they are to reverse the world-historic defeat of the female sex that occurred
in Mesopotamia in 4500 B.C. cannot serve class society; cannot serve
imperialism; cannot support or even abide wars of conquest and aggression
launched by imperialism. To recover from our loss of more than five millennia, we
women will have to follow the path opened by the women of Cavite who cried out
for the right not only to oppose but to actively fight against wars of
colonization and imperialist aggression.
By
Ninotchka Rosca*
Posted by Bulatlat.com
Kapatid
ako ng kapatid ko
I'm
sister to her who is sister to me;
Sister
to him who is brother to me.
--
babaylan maxim
There
cannot be, nor is there or will ever be
real
"freedom" as long as there is no freedom
for
women...
-- Vladimir Lenin 1919
Although
George W. Bush announced some time ago the end of major battles in Iraq, we can
expect the world to be convulsed by even more armed conflicts.
Jose Ma. Sison, who has provided ideological guidance to the Philippine
movement for nearly four decades now, speaks of "an extremely dangerous
situation, fraught with war" which "has arisen in the world
today." (ILPS speech, 7 May 2003) Wars
of aggression are now the fashionable, quick and easy solution to the crises
wrought by the over-concentration of capital, over-production and a shrinking
market wracking the world capitalist system;
wars of aggression are also the fashionable form of intra-imperialist
competition, with the U.S. chopping off the control and influence of Europe over
such resource countries as Iraq, splitting the European Union by subverting
England and forcing the entry of client states called the "New Europe"
into both the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
In
Asia, the U.S. has taken over Afghanistan, subverted Pakistan and is pushing
China away from a stake in the oil reserves of Khazakstan.
It is reclaiming its hegemony over the Pacific with the return of the
U.S. military in the Philippines. George
W. Bush underscored this development when, on 19 May, 2003, during the state
visit of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to Washington D.C., he referred to the
Philippines as a "major non-NATO ally."
He couldn't say "major ally" period, no?
Perhaps we can deconstruct what "major non-NATO ally" means -
something like "almost European but not quite." I will leave it to you to savor this subtle racism.
It
is a kind of irony that what Mr. Sison calls an "extremely dangerous
situation, one fraught with wars" should find us back in Mesopotamia.
For women of the world, Mesopotamia was the site of their greatest
triumph and most abject defeat. I
refer here to the domestication of plants and animals which occurred at the
beginning of the Neolithic period. This
was women's unparalleled contribution to the survival of the species itself.
Ironically, it would bring about their own isolation from social,
political, economic and religious power, when plow agriculture, with its use of
heavy tools and consequently, requirement of greater physical strength, evolved
in the same region in 4500 B.C. By
the end of the Neolithic period, women had been so
isolated from food production - an absolute precondition for survival in those
days - that they lost their economic and political power.
This loss of power was expressed in the downgrading of mother rights and
rise to dominance of father rights. Our
old friend Friedlich Engels, whom every woman should study, called the overthrow
of mother rights "the world-historic defeat of the female sex."
This
overthrow began the isolation of women from economic, political, social and
religious power at a time in human history when classes were developing -
through private appropriation of surplus - and class power over class was
evolving. Since then, every social
formation based on the existence of classes has integrated the repercussions of
this "world-historic defeat of the female sex" - from the devaluation
of her labor, to isolation from control and ownership of the means of
production, to marginalization from socio-political and economic discourse and
decision, etc. Every woman should
remember that the repercussions of this historic defeat resonate to this time,
in this particular class formation, under world capitalism.
Historic
defeat of the “female sex”
Which
is why, I suppose, we need special discussions like this to try to evaluate the
impact of world events on a sector called women.
I would like to deconstruct that category or sector, as we refer to it.
There is no such "sector" as women."
When we speak of women as a "sector," we are subtly referring
to what Engels has called the "world-historic defeat of the female
sex," back to Mesopotamia. That event in 4500 B.C. created the political
category "women" because all women suffered from its impact, to a
greater or lesser degree, for the rest of human history.
But in truth, women are divided into classes; women are multi-sectoral. Since the beginning of wars of aggression - fueled by lust
for control and ownership over the means of production, from slaves to land to
raw materials, etc. - there have been women on both sides of the war divide.
Women are killed in wars, captured, enslaved, raped; but women also
flourish from wars. Women lose possessions and families in wars; women also
profit from wars. Women are
victimized but women also collaborate and even victimize other women in wars.
When
we speak of the impact of wars of aggression on women, we refer to one of the
continuing repercussions of what Engels called the "world-historic defeat
of the female sex." Wars of aggression do not only have material targets -
people, buildings, etc. - for their destruction; wars of aggression also have
non-material targets. And it is in
the destruction and defeat of certain ideals closely associated with women's
vision of what society should be, of what human relationships should be, that we
as a sector - although we aren't a sector - feel the impact of wars of
aggression. I refer here to such
ideas and ideals as cooperation, negotiation, sharing, peace, ensuring the
survival of all - as opposed to coercion, violence, expropriation for individual
gratification or the gratification and gratification of a few.
Wars of aggression erode what has been considered women's legacy - the
idea of a collective survival for the human species, of the creation of human
societies where each member can achieve his or her fulfillment, both in the
collective and individual sense. Wars of aggression attack
the very idea of social justice, indeed of justice itself, which rests on the
concept that every human being has intrinsic value and should not be disposable.
Class
society and capitalism of course rest on the very anti-thesis of this premise.
Capitalism indeed thrives on the assumption that certain categories of
human beings are disposable. This
is the foundation of the class and profit system.
People are marginalized so that they can be brutalized into the creation
of surplus wealth for a few. All
kinds of justification have been constructed to ensure that this dehumanization
perseveres. There was the false
science of eugenics to rationalize racism; social Darwinism to justify the
exploitation of workers and peasants; and underneath it all, a continuing sexism
so deeply engrained in religious, cultural and political beliefs we can't even
begin to fathom it. Those of us
marginalized and exploited on the basis of class, race and sex have very little
input as to where, when and what for wars should be launched.
Powerlessness
The
most graphic illustration of our powerlessness - and of our power as well,
ironically enough -- came when millions and millions of people the world over
marched in opposition to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
In every rally, protest march, gathering against the war, women were
visible and sometimes predominant, even though their voices were seldom heard
from the podium or over the public address system.
Nevertheless, despite such massive shows of protests from the people of
the world, the bombs fell, rained down, exploded over Iraq, over Mesopotamia,
over the city of Ur where the ruins of the great ziggurat to the moon goddess
Nanna stand.
It
is not common knowledge but there has always been a gender gap in public opinion
regarding U.S. overseas military adventurism.
Current polling systems have done away with gender-based surveys.
However, from Vietnam to Iraq, more than half of the female public has
opposed invasion and the bombing of a country by the U.S.
Majority of the women in the U.S. and Europe have always, time and again,
stood in opposition to the U.S. invading and bombing another country, no matter
what the claimed provocation. Nobody
bothers to ask why there is this phenomenon.
But we can speculate that we as women know that wars of aggression do not
solve anything; that they are short-term solutions; and that, in the end, no
matter where we as women stand, we will end up at the raw end of the deal.
Consider
the fate of two female American soldiers captured by the Iraqis at the start of
the invasion. One was white;
one was black. The white
woman made headlines the world over when an all-male commando team supposedly
raided an unguarded hospital where she was being treated.
She was supposedly rescued. From
a hospital? With regards the black
woman, aside from news reports about her capture and one news report about her
having been released, nothing more was said about her.
Do you even remember her name? I
remember the white woman's name.
Here
we have two images of the female in the U.S. military - and one can't have a
more vivid illustration of women and war than to be part of the monster.
One, the Caucasian, was a "damsel in distress" who had to be
rescued. The construct that was
sold over and over again, in repeated media exposure, was associated with her
whiteness, her youth, the blue of her eyes, the color of her hair: that the
invasion of Iraq is supposed to protect youth, innocence, apple pie and the
American way of life. This was
something one couldn't associate with a black female soldier, despite the fact
that nearly 36% of the U.S. military is comprised of people of color, and that
nearly 3% are "non-citizens."
For
women, is it preferable to be a "damsel in distress" or an invisible
cog? Whatever your preference,
suffice it to realize that neither woman had any control as to what ends their
peculiar fates would be used by the U.S. military.
In the end, what was palpable in their stories was an overwhelming loss
of control - as to how they would be perceived or if perceived at all.
Wars
of aggression
I
use these incidents of the American invasion of Iraq of how women intrinsically
feel that, whether they are "collateral damage" or not, wars are not
good for them, wars of aggression are extremely damaging to them and spell a
loss of control. By way of
contrast, I will recall to you how the women of Cavite Province of the
Philippines petitioned General Emilio Aguinaldo of the Philippine Revolutionary
Army for the right to bear arms and to fight against the United States.
This was more than a hundred years ago, in 1899.
We who come from the Philippines rightly take pride and
courage from this tradition of militancy and opposition to aggression and
invasion.
U.S.
presence in the Philippines has always been profoundly disruptive of peace,
deeply divisive and ultimately fatal to Filipinos, male and female alike.
U.S. military presence in the Philippines has always been an abomination
- because of its officers' deliberate and calculated destruction of the legacy
of women in the archipelago. In
1900, when the U.S. barely controlled the archipelago, a Major Ira Brown
proposed a system of "regulated vice" to be established in the
Philippines for the U.S. troops. We
must bear in mind that half of the U.S. military of the time was stationed in
the Philippines to "pacify" certain "insurgents." What was meant by "regulated vice" - brothel
houses, prostitutes, nightclubs, bars, etc. - has since become the enduring
legacy of the U.S. to Filipinos.
Over
a year ago, the U.S. military returned to the Philippines, ostensibly to help
the Manila government deal with a tiny band called the Abu Sayyaf.
We do not hear very much about this "war on terrorism"
involving the Abu Sayyaf. Instead,
there are now bombings galore in Mindanao, aerial bombardment of the territories
of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, concerted atrocities on human rights and
people's organizations, the surveillance and murder of women organizers.
The little fabric of peace that existed - via the peace pact between the
Manila government and the MILF, and via the peace talks
between the Manila government and the National Democratic Front - has been
ripped asunder. In effect, the
U.S., in collaboration with the government of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, has
unleashed a war of terror on the Filipino people.
Moreover, recruitment into the sex trade has increased 600%.
To
add insult to injury, George W. Bush welcomed Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to the
White House with these words: "Just over a century ago, Americans and Filipinos worked
side by side to liberate the Philippines." A lie; a myth; a
construct. The White House has
become better than the Nazis at creating fables to replace historical truths.
Even as the women of Cavite were asking for the opportunity to fight U.S.
invasion in 1899, the U.S. military was busy killing 1/8th of the population of
Luzon. "Working side by
side" meant 250,000 Filipinos killed in armed conflict and an additional
half million dead from disease and starvation.
Agonizing
Which
is why, for me, the bombing of Ur, of Mesopotamia - the sites where women begun
human history - of Baghdad of the great female storyteller Scheherezade, the
bombing of these places was extremely agonizing.
That this was followed by the looting of artifacts from the museums and
historic sites of the Iraqi nation added to the pain.
Our entire history is being erased and replaced
with a constructed memory. Without
a knowledge of history, how do we begin to dismantle the artificial constructs
of imperialism; without a knowledge of our history, where do we women start to
dismantle the lie and discover the truth of our militancy?
It
is with deep regret that I find a woman heading the Philippine government at
this time of the return of U.S. hegemony in the Pacific.
But it is a vivid illustration that not all women are the same, that we
are divided into classes, with our own separate class interests.
They may not be aware of it but women like Gloria Macapagal Arroyo who
serve the interests of imperialism are themselves demeaned and dehumanized by
it. I cannot imagine how she, president of the Philippines, sat there at the
White House and swallowed the Bush revision of the history of her people without
dying on the spot. She was made
stupid and ignorant of her own history and she couldn't even make a peep!
Talk about disempowerment!
We
must take from this incident this one profound lesson: that women, if they are
to reverse the world-historic defeat of the female sex that occurred in
Mesopotamia in 4500 B.C. cannot serve class society; cannot serve imperialism;
cannot support or even abide wars of conquest and aggression launched by
imperialism. To recover from our
loss of more than five millennia, we women will have to follow the path opened
by the women of Cavite who cried out for the right not only to oppose but to
actively fight against wars of colonization and imperialist aggression.
I
hope you will take these words to heart. I
hope that we will see one another, recognize one another, over the years and if
need be, over the centuries, in the struggle to end class society, in the
struggle for women to regain their social, political and economic power, to
recover their right to help shape this world in accordance with a vision that
guarantees the survival and fulfillment of the entire human species.
Posted by Bulatlat.com
*Ninotchka
Rosca is the international spokesperson of GABRIELA Purple Rose Campaign Against
the Sex Trafficking of Filipinas. This article is based on a speech the author-
a renowned novelist and activist - delivered at the Grassroots Women Forum in
Vancouver, Canada, May 21, 2003
Back
to top
We
want to know what you think of this article.
|
