Image by Wikipedia
War or armed conflict is a reality that has been prevalent in our world from time immemorial. It is a common belief that war is associated with masculinity. Gender theorists such as Goldstein has discovered that culturally constructed gender identities enable war and that it is by appealing to the masculine identity of men that warriors are made. By corollary, war is thought to be a prerogative of men, and peace is considered to be the primary responsibility of women. However, as proved by history, this gendered view of war and peace is flawed, resulting from the aegis of the patriarchal society. It also ignores the presence of the LGBTQ+ community in war and those who have gone to war but do not subscribe to the traditional gender binaries.
Women at War; Men at Peace
Although it is mostly men who go to war or are involved in international and non-international armed conflicts, it has been witnessed by history that the heads of states who have started, participated or got involved in armed conflicts have not always been men. Mrs. Indira Gandhi, the former Prime Minister of India, was involved in the Liberation War of Bangladesh. Margaret Thatcher, the first female Prime minister of the United Kingdom, is famous for her war-mongering as under Thatcher’s leadership, the British government went to war against Argentina on the Falkland Islands. Margaret Thatcher was also famously known as the 'Iron Lady' for her strict manner of handling international and national policies. Going further back in history, several female freedom fighters, such as the likes of Matangini Hazra and Kanaklata Barua, and even before that Rani Laxmi Bai, had not hesitated to take up arms against the British colonizers in India’s struggle for freedom. In Myanmar, its de facto leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, is leading the defence on behalf of the Myanmar military forces in the International Court of Justice at Hague against allegations of genocide, thereby indirectly lending her support to militarism.
Therefore, although war is associated with masculinity, it is not the exclusive territory of men. There are senior women military strategists and female officers who are on the front lines of their army in today’s time, such as Lori Robinson, who was the U.S. Air Force general and became the highest-ranking woman in United States military history. In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India adjudicated that female officers are eligible to occupy command posts in the army and stated that “women officers in the Army are not adjuncts to a male-dominated establishment” contradicting the government’s submission of women being physically weaker and therefore unfit for higher positions in the armed forces.
Thus, as the theory that women cannot be responsible for war is debunked, it opens up another question: can men take up the mantle of peace? History has witnessed non-violent and peace movements initiated by men all over the world such as the anti-apartheid movement by Nelson Mandela in South Africa and the Civil Rights Movement in the United States in the 1950s and 1960s led by Martin Luther King Jr. Certain major peace and human rights initiatives in the world have also been taken by men such as the foundation of the Red Cross by Henry Dunant.
The heads of some of the most important peace organizations are also men, e.g., Antonio Guterres, the United Nations Secretary-General and Filippo Grandi, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Closer home, H.L.Dattu, the former Chief Justice of India completed his tenure as the chairman of the National Human Rights Commission on 2nd December, 2020. It negates the fallacy that men can only be responsible for conflicts and consequently cannot be at the helm of peace.
The Role of Patriarchy in Gendering War
Even though it is a fact that it is mostly men who go to war and countries with women leaders are mostly considered to be peaceful, one should be wary of strict generalizations. It is rather much more important to understand why the presence of war and armed conflict is still a grim reality across the world despite the presence of several international, national, and sub-national organizations that promote peace and human rights.
It has been proposed that masculinity makes war “intelligible” and “acceptable”. The very thought that war is more prestigious and masculine, rather than negotiation and peace treaties which is considered as a sign of weakness and therefore feminine, is deeply rooted in patriarchy. Patriarchal society equates masculinity with aggression and dictates that it is weak not to be able to retaliate when one is harmed or not fight for one’s territory or what is rightfully one’s own. Patriarchy, therefore, restricts the scope for peace and negotiation as war or armed conflict is considered to be the only way in most cases. It is a faulty theory that war is masculine but it can be said that patriarchy has given rise to conflicts that have evolved into armed conflicts over time and it channelizes through both men and women.
On the other hand, peace efforts and human rights are not about masculinity or femininity but is about doing the right thing. Fundamental human rights, especially the right to life, as laid out in Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), Article 6 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and in other international human rights instruments are the very basis of peace negotiations and peace treaties. Wars or armed conflicts result in endangering lives, displacement, shortage of food, lack of healthcare, disruption of education which is an infringement upon the most basic of human rights and thus takes a country back several years in its sustainable development goals. One does not become ‘weak’ (as femininity is often clumped with weakness) if one opens the path of dialogue with a hostile entity, be it a state or non-state actor. Peace talks can result in the avoidance of unnecessary bloodshed and the loss of human lives, which should be the topmost priority of the heads of every State, as that is the reason with which the UN Charter has been brought into existence.
LGBTQ+ Community: An Anti-thesis to Masculinity
The presence of gay men in the military also proves that traditional masculine roles cannot always be attributed to soldiers and war cannot be seen through the lens of mere masculinity. Homosexual activities within the military were not exactly unknown during World War I, especially among the British. Even romantic relationships between soldiers or a soldier and a civilian during World War II have come to the fore in the recent past, although during those times the men were forced to keep their sexual orientation hidden.
Therefore, it is important to take the tag of masculinity away from war and the accommodation of transgenders in the military is a significant step in demasculinizing war. In many European countries, transgenders can openly serve in the army, but deeply rooted prejudice against transgenders in most countries still make it impossible for them to enlist in the armed forces. In the United States, transgender persons were not allowed to serve in the military but a policy change in 2016 allowed trans-soldiers in the U.S. to be open about their identity. However, the Trump administration reversed the course of order in 2018 whereby transgenders are not allowed to enlist in the military anymore, although those who are currently serving will be allowed to continue at their post. Therefore, it is still a long walk for the United States, ranked at the top in military power in 2021, to shed their masculine entitlement to war.
It is equally necessary to make peace talks and negotiations the default mode of solving national and international conflicts without attaching the tag of either masculinity or femininity to it and the LGBTQ+ community can prove to be a great asset in the process of actualizing it. Fundamental rights of human beings cannot be sacrificed in the race of showing off one’s masculine powers so as not to be considered feminine or weak.
Conclusion
It is easy to take up arms and respond to violence with violence. There is no manliness in it nor will it put a stop to the cycle of violence or give any permanent solution to the problems plaguing the world. On the other hand, silently enduring violence only encourages its growth. True strength lies in standing up courageously in the face of violence with a commitment to peace and respect for human lives and foregoing one’s ego to preserve and safeguard human rights. What the world needs today is for us to renounce the narrow concepts of masculinity and femininity in order to establish humanity.
This article has been authored by Preeti Shaw, a final year student of LL.B. (3 years) at Techno India University.
Comments