One thing I've definitely learned in this class so far is that the words 'nature' and 'natural' should never be trusted when applied to social structures. In the first section meeting we picked apart the essentialist viewpoint stating that women are 'naturally' different from men due to biology and can therefore all come together for the feminist cause. So then, in reference to this week's readings, what is the 'nature' of masculinity? Ruddick critiques this concept of what's natural, saying that many people accept war as a 'natural' way of dealing with 'enemies,' because most political systems, which are (in my opinion) impossibly aggressive and patriarchal, use the 'natural' human desire for 'justice' as a justification for war. So, by using the words masculine and aggressive synonymously throughout her essay, is Ruddick herself falling into this trap of attributing 'natural' characteristics to specific genders? And how does the following idea fit into her argument(s)?: "the idea of assaultive masculinity is oppressive to many men who struggle with and against a gender identity that would immerse them by 'nature' in violence."
Sharma, too, uses the word 'natural' in quotations, implying its inadequacy as a justification for what she calls global apartheid, which assumes that certain people (especially 'otherized' people) belong in certain geographic locations, and that to keep these people where they 'naturally' belong, is to maintain the natural order of the world. So, is border control as much of a 'masculine' (and thus destructive) practice as war? What about colonization? Also, the No Borders movements promoting "solidarity amongst nations and rejection of the global system of nation states," and "unrestricted movement of people," (Sharma 139) would you say that such movements are in the spirit of Ruddick's antimilitarist feminist peace politics based on care? Do you think that these movements could ever succeed? What would Ruddick say about No Borders?