Politics versus Practicality

The question of “naturality” is evident throughout this week’s readings, i.e. Is war “natural,” is national citizenship “natural?” And yet the question of what is natural begs the question of what is real and realistic? And is it possible that what may not be “natural” may be redefined as “real” and once something is real can it not then be considered natural? How much of these paradigms are essentially renewable? In other words is it possible for Ruddick’s notion of care-giving and peace politics to gain strong relevance? Similarly, how realistic is the No Borders movement? Is it possible that women somehow have a right, a separate power almost, to declare such revolutions and make them so? What allows women to uniquely position themselves at such radical crossroads? How can these movements, which begin on the fringe, yield success as well as gain popular (and male) support?

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?

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?