What is the female role in politics? Does she have one, separated from that of the male sex? Does the male role define that of the female's? Here are some quotations from Sharoni's piece that I think suggest there is an existing bind that women have to men in the political world.
pg 184. ....The space available for women, at the height of the conflict, to mobilize politically and to explore new conceptions of femininity and gender roles depends to a great extent on the identities and roles of men in these conflicts and on the conceptions of masculinity that inform their personal and political struggles.
pg 200. But in order to maintain their place in Northern Ireland politics, women had to endure an overtly sexist working environment and accept a fairly conventional division of power and labour at the all-party talks.
pg 201. .....the meanings assigned to being a man or a woman in a particular context are not fixed or static but rather changing over time and in relation to particular political developments.

In her article, Sarah Ruddick discusses the so-called "masculinity of war", describing in detail her idea of masculinity as a violent, aggressive force in society. How does this idea of masculinity contrast or relate to the ideas of masculinity presented by Halberstam in "Female Masculinity"? What does it truly mean to be masculine? What is masculinity in relation to feminity? From this can we say whether masculinity is a positive, negative, or neutral force in society?

Simona Sharoni’s piece on “Gendering Conflict and Peace in Israel/Palestine and the North of Ireland,” sheds light on the relationship between war and gender. Sharoni states that although “images attached to masculinity, femininity and gender relations in situations of overt political conflict are far from universal,” there are still some very insightful observations that come from viewing gender in the context of political conflicts. To see Israeli and Palestinian women use war to facilitate their own liberation elucidates the incredible power politics have to shape social norms. In other words, in the state of weakened political system (times of war), women and marginalized groups are able to break out of their socially oppressed roles. Sharoni states that “differences and similarities between and men and women are often shaped more by the particular social and political conditions that underlie the conflict than by inherent gender differences.” (201). How can this concept be applied specifically to the American gender binary system? What political structures have served to strictly enforce gender roles?

Nandita Sharma advocates a similar strategy as Judith Jack Halberstam's idea of radical passivity. In the face of what she terms the "global apartheid," Sharma advocates for "a rejection of the global system of nation states" (139). Rather than change the idea of states or sovreignty, Sharma instead believes that "we need to engage in practices of refusal" (139). However, this is problematic for the same reasons as Halberstam's argument--how would this work? Sharma criticizes the current international concepts of nations and immigration, but she offers no way out of the existing system. She calls for a new order based not on "imposed identities...but upon radically diverse ways of organizing" which are not specified. 

In Sharona Simoni's article, she gives a variety of examples of the increased political activism among women that accompanies a colonial conflicts. However, all of these women come into the public sphere through their traditional roles in the private sphere--as mothers whose primary concern is the family. These women become aware of the gender discrimination that they face only through this new "accidental" activism. Simoni cites various women describing their political awakenings who claim that this transformation is irreversible. However, the examples of women remaining politically active in the peace process are constrained by their traditional female gender roles as mothers. The women of the NIWC end up as the token maternal figures, and the Irish women must "embrac[e] motherhood in order to justify their political stand" (200). Is it possible for these women to stay in the public political sphere as individuals outside the previous maternal role that they have supposedly transcended during the conflict itself? Do these constraints exist because of the nature of their initiation into politics, or because the space for new ideas about gender generated in conflict is only temporary? 

After reading the Ruddick and Sharma articles, I noticed a similarity between Sharma's characterization of Western nations (in particular Canada) as insular entities and Ruddick's description of the female-associated "caregiver" as "notoriously 'partial'" and "far more likely [to disobey/act] when authorities threaten their 'own' work, their 'own' people" (Ruddick 123). This then prompts the question of whether the concept of protecting the "self" in contrast with the "other" is inherently ingrained into our consciousness and if it is possible to break free of existing dichotomous barriers. Women are equally guilty of perceiving men as "other" and "alien," just as families are suspicious of outsiders (i.e. parental scrutiny of potential boyfriends/girlfriends) and nations are wary of immigrants. Declaring one dichotomy unjust has incurred questioning about other dichotomies (race, religion, gender and sexuality to name a few) and may open the door to further questioning about other dichotomies in the future - is it desirable for the world to be one massive homogenous mixture, or is there an invisible line that must not be crossed?

oct. 2 discussion post

While Nandita Sharma argues that nationalism is a dangerous ideology used to discriminate and further enforce an international hierarchy that she calls "global apartheid," Simona Sharoni argues that nationalism can empower feminism and fuel "accidental activism." Sharma devotes one paragraph (p.131)to the subject of women and men and their relationship to each other as well as races and nations. And instead, for the most part, Sharma mostly discusses the North/South, Western/non-Western relationship. Sharoni, on the other hand, discusses specific instances of an increasing role of female activists in Palestine and Northern Ireland during times of war. Are these two writers diametrically opposing each other on the basis of nationalism and providing yet another example as to how feminist discourse is divided? Is there a way for us readers to reconcile their different conclusions about nationalism, or are they making two arguments that may be incomparable and irrelevant to one another?

Feminist Peace Politics

After reading Sara Ruddick's article, I could not help but wonder how her theory would relate to the ideas about the nature of masculinity put forth by Jack Halberstam. Ruddick suggests that war is an undeniably masculine practice which stems from traits found exclusively among men. Ruddick writes, "Criminally, this "masculinity" is expressed in actual acts of rape, sexual assault, and torture" (p110), and "The misogynist domination that pervades military life and lore fosters brutality and domination both on and off battlefields" (p 113). this However, if we consider Halberstam's notion that masculinity should not be limited to biological men ("masculinity must not and cannot and should not reduce down to the male body and its effects" (p. 935)), how can we make sense of Ruddick's opinion on war and the strictly masculine nature of militarism?