Yet again, I feel frustrated.  "Nonviolent caregiving offers one construction of power which refuses domination, respects embodied willfulness, but does not let abuse go unchallenged... [it] offers hints of peace and of the rice of its violation," says Ruddick in "Notes Toward a Feminist Peace Politics" (123-124).   Okay, I understand this idea.  My question is how do I implement this as an alternative for war?  I am so frustrated with the fact that I am given so much information and ideas and I have no clear way, no instructions as to how I should go about putting these ideas to use.  It is utterly maddening.  But I suppose that is the point.  I need to find my own way.  Still if caregiving "refuses domination" and "respects embodied willfulness," maybe that is a good way.  I am just left wondering how.  That's all.  Just how.

In "Notes Toward a Feminist Peace Politics," Sara Ruddick presents a thoughtful argument for antimilitarist feminism. Much of her argument, however, rests on the idea of the binary opposition of masculinity and femininity. Ruddick defines both terms circularly: masculinity is war and war is masculinity, femininity is peace and peace is femininity. By placing these two terms in opposition, she does not seem to view gender as a spectrum. There seems to be nothing in between masculine and feminine, war and peace. Is their a middle way? Would a gender identity between masculine and feminine provide insight into a way between war and peace? Can such a thing exist?

The part of Ruddick's article I found most interesting was the comparison between caregivers and militarists -- specifically, the description of how similar they both are. Both "set out to control the wills of others... [and] control within a particular conjunction of power and powerlessness" (119). Were you surprised at this comparison? Is it strange that they have so many simlarities in power structure? Do you think that this is what makes caregiving an effective alternative to militarism? Could the line between them ever be blurred (think of the attitude of the US in "liberating" women from the veil that Lila Abu-Lughod discussed in one reading last week), and could this be dangerous?

Many times the idea of creating a peace agreement is simply a facade of placating to citizens want for stability. This piece of paper holds the power of creating an umbrella for "peace" however, "the morning after" always seems to be the same-what does peace mean? Simona Sharoni questions the idea of peace and what it means to different countries citing Israel/Palestine and the North of Ireland. She discusses the idea of "accidental activism" and the idea of the housewife as roles that some women play during peace time. However, the different roles of women seemed to change drastically depending on what country she was dissecting (e.g. Belfast) Therefore, does the signing of a peace agreement really hold any power if every region, ruler, religion, country and person for that matter have their own definitions of what it means? Is there even a universal definition of peace?

I thought Sara Ruddick's analogy/comparison of caregivers and militarists was an interesting one.  Her unpacking of job of 'caregiving', I think, was fairly accurate (even though she didn't really acknowledge the roles that men play in caregiving -- or did she?  or was that the point?  either way, it seemed omitted to me).  Yet like many ideas and thoughts, the practical implementation of said idea seems partially unclear.  How does Ruddick imagine "nonviolent caregiving" in real-life situations?  Where would've, say, the escalation to the War in Iraq veered from its path toward war to a path toward "nonviolent caregiving"?  What form does this "caregiving" take?   

On Sharoni's Article...

Sharoni's question, "Is political conflict a setback or a springboard for women's liberation?" really piqued my interest especially because I really didn't know the answer myself. Rosemary Ridd (quoted on page 177) made a good point that, "when a community is involved in open conflict... there is likely to be some fluidity in social ordering," which means that political conflict is a springboard, because it facilitates the blurring of the divide between genders; during political conflict, the focus is on the nation rather than gender. I loved the example of the women in west Belfast who organized their own alarm system and found this role reversal very empowering. However, I while I meditated for a while on whether or not I thought political conflict was a setback or springboard, I realized that I was utterly answer-less and completely disappointed. What Sharoni wrote, about women only beginning "with their attempts to protect their homes, families and communities rather than with a conscious attempt to move beyond the confines of the private sphere..." (180) struck me as unfair, but it seemed like it had some truth to it. So I suppose my question is, is it fair to say that women only become active in the public sphere in a subconscious attempt to protect the private sphere? Or perhaps it is best to, as Cynthia Enloe (quoted on p. 195) said, to "not look for clear authoritative answers" to a question as subjective as "what is feminism?"

Also, another question: Is it better to use political conflict as a springboard if it gets your message "out there," or does it weaken your message because it had to come out of another, bigger movement (will your message pale in comparison or seem weaker because it couldn't have been independently fought for)?

I loved Sharma's look at the ideology that is nationalism. It is a multifaceted approach, looking at the emergence and effects of Canada's nationalism through a consideration of borders and citizenship. She takes a strongly Foucauldian stance, examining the genealogy, subjecthood, and internalization of the produced Other- the noncitizen. I am most interested in her brief reference to the internalization of the noncitizen as the other, as a racialized identity... Sharma says "People were seen, and came to see themselves, as the 'same' as those categorized in similar ways and, simultaneously as 'different' from those who were placed in other state categories of entry and residence in Canada." (130) I would have loved for her to explore this more- the way the power functions to create the noncitizen subject internally. How can we begin to think about this? As North Americans? As women? As immigrants? (I'm sure many in the class are..) What does this mean for our subject-hood?