History of Feminism
Related: About this forumWhy everyday gender inequality could lead to our next war
What if I suggested that reducing the rates of rape and sexism in the U.S. would reduce our risk of international conflict? You might think that American girls and women who regularly adapt their lives to deal with "harmless" street harassment, or who are assaulted by American men, have little to do with, say, the Iraq War. Yet research shows an undeniable relationship between the treatment of women in everyday life and a nations propensity for engaging in war.
Such is the conclusion of a fascinating book, Sex and World Peace, based on studies that spanned 10 years. The authorsValerie M. Hudson, Bonnie Ballif-Spanvill, Mary Caprioli, and Chad F. Emmetttook the question, How does a nations security affect the status of its women? and flipped it: Does the status of women affect a nations security? Their results are startling in their power and clarity.
According to the authors, the very best indicator and predictor of a states peacefulness is not wealth, military expenditures, or religion; the best predictor is how well its girls and women are treated. And before you start making exceptions for the U.S., think about this: Democracies with high levels of violence against women are as insecure and unstable as non-democracies. Whether a country is a democracy or not is irrelevant.
Gender is the fundamental construct for how a society understands difference. Regardless of which state we are talking about, tolerance for street harassment, rape, domestic violence, and restrictions on reproductive freedom are among several indicators of gender inequality rooted in such difference. These behaviors correlate to state security in multiple dimensions. In the simplest terms, states in which women are subjected to violence and uncontested male rule at home, where they are not allowed equal freedoms and rights to bodily integrity, privacy, and equal protection under the law, are those most likely to engage in violence as nations, the authors report. Microaggression against women in private connects to macroaggressive national behavior. The larger a nations gender gap in equality between men and women or the more violently patriarchal their structures, the greater the likelihood that a nation will resort to force and violence in the form of aggressive nationalism.
...
Hands up, who's surprised?
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)It could be more easily argued that opportunities for women expand during wartime when the men are away.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)War is good for business, after all.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)The photo above depicts a point at which women's status markedly improved and thus national security must have been very high, right?
redqueen
(115,103 posts)Employment, on its own, is hardly indicative of women's status as a whole.
Hatchling
(2,323 posts)Work opportunities does not equate saftey.
ismnotwasm
(41,984 posts)I think you missed the point of the article. Opportunities for minorities expanded in WW2. Great Scientific gains were made. Economies flourished. The entire world dynamic changed. Communism rose, governments collided-gained and lost. Etc.
At the cost of well over 50 million lives. And that's just the dead. Now unless you agree that war is a dandy way to move through civilization--- many must seeing often it happens; do you possibly think you could see your way clear to discussing alternatives? Even if, and on this forum especially if, it involves violence against women and gender inequities, that despite all that 'advancement'?
Which were interrupted by the time the 50's rolled around anyway, to a certain degree; stalled by a sexist, racist white male privileged society.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)I think it's hard to defend the idea that it sucks more for the underprivileged ones who stay home.
In the name of violence against *anyone*, peace is better for all concerned.
ismnotwasm
(41,984 posts)You mean by not being in battle? Or maimed? Or dead? Perhaps. But left with no income and a passel of mouths to feed on your own, definitely sucks.
Right on about war being some fucked up shit. I bet if we talked long enough, listened long enough, we could find some common ground here.
eridani
(51,907 posts)Kerala was historically a high status society for women because men were off fishing or trading spices. War isn't a necessary condition at all.