- Email: [email protected]
Engendering genocide: Gender, conflict and violence
Women's Studies International Forum 29 (2006) 534 – 538 www.elsevier.com/locate/wsif
Engendering genocide: Gender, conflict and violence Geetanjali Gangoli Social Science Complex, 8 Priory Road, Bristol BS8 1TZ, United Kingdom
Contents Symbolic bodies. . . . . . . . . . . . . Women as perpetrators and the gendered Men as victims . . . . . . . . . . . . . Feminist responses and the way forward References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . continuum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . of violence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Thematic connections between gender, conflict and violence are significant areas of enquiry in recent times. Engendering conflict has been of some concern to academics, given the context of national and international conflict in areas as diverse as Bosnia, Iraq, India, the UK and the USA. The conflicts have taken forms as varied as internal conflicts between religious and ethnic communities in different parts of the world, acts of aggression against sovereign states, terrorist attacks and the global ‘war against terror’, the stigmatisation and demonisation of the Muslim community. All these factors impact on, and are impacted by gender. This review article will focus on some themes emerging from three fascinating studies that look at these issues (Giles & Hyndman, 2004; International Initiative for Justice in Gujarat, 2003; Jones, 2004) in different contexts. The International Initiative for Justice in Gujarat study (henceforth IIJG) examines the impact of the communal anti-Muslim program on women in the Indian state of Gujarat in 2003; while Giles and Hyndman's book addresses issues of gender and conflict internationally, links between global, national and domestic violence against women and the continuum of violence running through social, economic, political with gender relations permeating all those 0277-5395/$ - see front matter © 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.wsif.2006.07.010
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
534 535 537 537 538
relationships–interpersonal, international and financial– and the role of women in perpetuating violence against women in all these contexts. Adam Jones' book addresses the issue of ‘men as victims’ of male violence during war and conflict, and suggests that the invisibilisation of ‘gendercide’ against men in war and conflict situations raises issues of concern. Some of the issues that I will be addressing here are: the use and abuse of women's bodies in conflict and peacetime, the complicity of women in perpetrating violence against women and the gendered continuum of violence running from the personal to the international; the home to the battleground. In addition I will be addressing issues of male (and female) violence against men in the context of war and conflict and what that tells us about conflict and gender. Finally I will address the troubled question of how feminisms are to respond to ‘men as victims’ and ‘women as perpetrators’ of violence. Symbolic bodies There is a rich body of literature that looks at ways in which women's bodies are seen as symbolically representing a community, nation or race (Jayawardena & De
G. Gangoli / Women's Studies International Forum 29 (2006) 534–538
Alwis, 1996; Yuval-Davis & Anthias, 1989). The representation of women's bodies can take different forms in peacetimes and conflict times. For instance, Indian women winning international beauty pageants in the 1990s have been seen as a source of national pride, symbolising the ways in which contemporary Indian women's bodies are now globally desirable and desired (Ahmed-Ghosh, 2003; Kishwar, 1995). This is a change from mainstream ‘traditional’ ways of controlling women's bodies through seclusion and sexual control. While some have argued that this is a positive development, and allows women agency and control over the way their bodies are represented (Ghosh, 1996), others suggest that consumerism and commodification of the female body works to fulfil male fantasies, and lead to an objectification of women's bodies (Kishwar, 1995). Women's bodies have also been recognised as serving a literal function as creating life, therefore the ideal woman's body is that of a mother responsible for reproducing the ideal nation in Nazi Germany (Koonz, 1987). In peacetime therefore, and in periods of nation building therefore, the focus is on the bodies of women from one's own community, and there are efforts to control women's bodies so that they meet the national ideal. In times of conflict however, the focus shifts to the bodies of women from the enemy camp. As the IIJG focussing on the communal riots in Gujarat in 2002 reports, sexual violence against Muslim women and girls was a central plank of the Hindu fundamentalist agenda of the Sangh Parivar (IIJG, 2003). Historian Tanika Sarkar has commented that the sexual violence in the Gujarat riots was based on “a dark sexual obsession about ultra-virile Muslim male bodies and overfertile Muslim female ones” (Sarkar, cited in Nussbaum, 2004: 4–5). The sexual obsession, while manifested in particularly horrific and violent forms during the Gujarat riots, is based on pre-existing notions of Muslim male and female sexuality. Muslim Personal Law in India allows Muslim men to marry up to 4 times, which has been a matter of great concern to Hindu rightwing leaders. The concern is not for the rights of Muslim women who may suffer the consequences of such marriages, but for Hindu men seen as deprived of such ‘privileges’. The more extreme right displays envy for the Muslim man's legal right to marry more than once. Swami Muktanand Saraswati, a member of the VHP, held “There are no (equal) laws regarding marriage. Today, a Hindu man can marry only one woman, while a Muslim man can have five wives. If a man wants to have 25 wives, let him” (Saffron Brigade, 1993: 22). It has been argued while in theory, the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 disallows polygamous marriages, in reality, more
535
Hindu men are polygamous than Muslim ones owing to loopholes in the law that allow Hindu men “to escape the criminal consequences of a bigamous marriage, and from the economic responsibility towards the second wife”(Agnes, 1995, pp. 32–38). However, Hindu rightwing leaders are unconcerned about such arguments or perceptions of reality. While the bodies of Muslim women in India are symbolically constructed by Hindu men as being desirable and (normally) not accessible, the bodies of Muslim men are constructed as beastlike, rapacious and dangerous (to Hindu women). This has a resonance in other contexts. For instance, the construction of black men in white supremist discourse reveals a similar fear of the sexually aggressive and predatory black men (Del Zotto in Jones, 2004). Therefore in periods of war and conflict, the women of the ‘enemy’ community, race or country are subjected to rape and torture. In addition, women in conflict situations are raped in order to be impregnated so that they are defiled by the seed of the predating enemy (Jones in Giles & Hyndman, 2004; Jones, 2004). In Gujarat and in Rwanda, rape accompanied torture and murder, and horrific incidents of raping, mutilating and murdering pregnant women has been seen as a form of genocide (Jones, 2004; IIJG, 2003). Rape is however not a random act of male violence against women in this context, but is an act committed to dishonour the woman and by extension her community, race or country. The ‘dishonouring’ however works only when the meaning of honour as symbolically vested primarily, though not exclusively, in women's bodies is shared by both the communities of the perpetrators and the victims. Within this prism, both perpetrators and victims have a shared understanding of sexual purity and impurity being vested in the bodies of women. This can take the form of children born out of rape during war being given up for adoption and raped women being coerced or pressurised by the community to remain silent about their violation and abuse and ‘using’ sexual assault of women to fuel hatred of the ‘other’ (IIJG, 2003). Women as perpetrators and the gendered continuum of violence It has been argued that feminist debates on violence against women have led to a focus on women as permanent victims of male violence (Ghosh, 1996; Picart, 2003), and there is little focus on the ways in which women within patriarchy are often agents of violence against women, and sometimes men. The three books under review however do not fall into that trap. On the
536
G. Gangoli / Women's Studies International Forum 29 (2006) 534–538
contrary, while there is an acknowledgment of women being one of the primary victims of violence under patriarchies, there is a parallel acceptance that in situations of conflict, women can be indirect or direct perpetrators of violence against women and some men. For instance, the role of Hindu fundamentalist women in encouraging sexual violence against Muslim women in India in 2003 (IIJG, 2003: 15) and similarly by Hutu women against Tutsi women in Rwanda in 1994 (Jones, 2004); the acceptance of Hitler's anti-Semitic ideology by German women (Holter in Jones, 2004) and women bearing arms in armed struggles all over the world, including Dalit women in rural Uttar Pradesh in caste conflicts. While Cockburn suggests that women who are thus directly or indirectly complicit in violence rarely benefit from their role in conflict in the same way as men do (Cockburn in Giles & Hyndman, 2004), it cannot be denied that women who act thus do enjoy some privileges that are denied to those women who may oppose these acts, and certainly those women who are the victims of such violence. Therefore women encouraging men to sexual violence against ‘enemy’ women and physical violence against ‘enemy’ men enjoy power over the men and women of the ‘other’ community, while also enjoying praise and privileges for supporting national struggles. Cockburn perceptively points out that there is a gendered continuum of violence between the (inter) personal to international; between the home and the battleground. Therefore it is meaningless to make a sharp distinction between peace and war, pre-war and post-war situations (Cockburn in Giles & Hyndman, 2004). There are of course significant links between male violence against women in the home, the workplace and the public arena in both peace and conflict situations. Pressures of war, communal tensions, forced migration and immigration lead to women being increasingly vulnerable to domestic violence from their partners and to sexual violence from men of different communities, while they have less access to justice and redress due to the conflict situation. For instance, following antiMuslim riots in the city of Bombay in 1992–1993, activists working with Muslim women found that Muslim women were reluctant to report cases of domestic violence to the police due to fear of reprisals from their community for being ‘disloyal’ and experiences of communal violence leading to a distrust of the police (Gangoli, 2000). Similarly ethnic minority women in the UK who have experienced domestic violence have testified to a fear of the police and the criminal justice system due to a perception of and experiences of institutionalised racism (Gangoli, Geetanjali, & Dono-
van, 2005). In cases where women are sexually assaulted as during the Gujarat riots, we have seen that community pressures and notions of honour prevent women attempting to access justice for these acts. While the gendered continuum of violence has so far been addressed in terms of how it adversely affects women (women as victims), it may be useful to see whether it is a relevant concept for women perpetrating violence. Thus, it is important to address some of the ways in which some women are complicit in, and in some cases are perpetrators of violence in ‘domestic’ and ‘peace’ situations. Feminist researchers and activists in South Asia have long accepted the role of older women in the family, whether as mothers-in-law or mothers in perpetuating violence against younger women in the family (Gandhi & Shah, 1989; Gangoli, 2000). This can takes the form of mothers being perpetrators in cases of female infanticide and domestic violence including ‘dowry related violence’ against young married women by mothers-in-law and sisters-inlaw. This can sometimes be explained as women acting on men's behalf, i.e. serving the interests of their husbands and sons by being the actors in the violence. However, in the case of female infanticide, it cannot be denied that older women in cultural contexts such as South Asia benefit from being mothers of sons and conversely suffer from being mothers of daughters (Bumiller, 1990). Therefore female infanticide can at a very basic level be seen as an act of self-interest when committed by women. Similarly, power imbalances between mothers and daughters, and controlling the sexuality of young unmarried women in such contexts is important for older women, if they are to live a life where they are accorded respect for being good mothers. The issue of violent women, either within interpersonal or structural violence, is one that causes considerable discomfort to feminists. It has been argued that some feminists especially in the west (Dutton, 1995; Yllo & Bograd, 1988) have concentrated essentially on male violence against women, therefore casting women in the role of perpetual victims of oppression. Certainly addressing issues of how women complicit in patriarchy are rewarded for their actions can be an uncomfortable situation for feminists to confront. However, as feminists in contexts such as South Asia have understood, recognising these vexed issues does not necessarily lead to anti-feminist repercussions, especially when contrasted with the ways in which patriarchies punish women who are violent to men within their own family, community or class (Ahluwalai & Gupta, 1997). Women within patriarchies who accept contextually relevant patriarchal norms of female behaviour–sexual
G. Gangoli / Women's Studies International Forum 29 (2006) 534–538
behaviour, dress, appearance, marital status, motherhood–are rewarded as long as they conform to these norms. However, most women are aware of the vulnerability of their acceptance, even as they enjoy the rewards of social approbation and esteem. Punishing women who threaten or transgress social norms can be a way for other women to strengthen their own position, therefore the role of women as ‘carriers of culture’ (Yuval-Davis, 1997) is reinforced when they oppress other women within their family or community. During times of conflict and war, including struggles for national liberation, there can be a necessary shift in women's role. In addition to reproducing the nation and the home, women are often called upon to demonstrate their loyalty by encouraging men to perpetuate violence against women and men from the ‘enemy’ camp or by being violent themselves. Men as victims The issue of men as victims of gendercide is indeed a troubled one, as the articles in Jones' book reveals. The book rightly points out that violence against men in conflict and war is often invisibilised, and is rarely the subject of academic or social debate. The reasons for this range from social constructions of masculinity as aggressive rather than passive, of men as being perpetrators rather than victims to feminist discomfort with men trying to acquire victim status along with women. As Lindler perceptively points out, a man speaking about the ways in which some men suffer violence within patriarchies can easily be construed by women as ‘the shrewd attempt of a male to weep about victimization in order to hide his factual domination’ (Lindler in Jones, 2004: 55). The issue worth addressing in this context is: as with women experiencing violence, is the gendered continuum of violence relevant for men who are victimized by violence? In other words are there, within patriarchies, specific forms of violence against men who are not complicit in women's oppression, who are seen as ‘non-masculine’ or men whose masculinity does not ‘fit into’ or threatens mainstream patriarchal constructions; therefore men who are not ‘generic men’ (Carvell in Jones, 2004: 279). In peacetimes, this could include racist attacks against black and Asian men in the UK and homophobic attacks against gay men. During times of conflict and war, examples include: denouncing men who refuse to fight in wars as ‘cowards’ (Jones, 2004: 102); the shoot-to-kill policy of for example the UK police leading to the public shooting of an innocent Brazilian man who ‘appeared’ to the police as an Islamic
537
suicide bomber in 2005; the torture of Iraqi male prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison in 2004 and the killing of Sikh men in Punjab by armed forces in the 1980s. In all such cases Jones and his colleagues argue that these men are attacked, tortured and killed because they are men, hence such attacks are a form of gendercide. The argument put forward is certainly powerful, and in my view valid. Not all men benefit equally within patriarchies, especially in the context where patriarchies coexist comfortably with other forms of inequalities based on class, race, caste, ethnicity, religious and sexual orientation. The fear that feminists would object to this understanding is, in my view, somewhat misplaced. Most feminists should have few problems with the proposition that some men are indeed vulnerable within patriarchy–as some women can be powerful–as long as feminist theorisations and understandings of female oppression are not negated, or undermined (Carvell in Jones, 2004). In reality they would welcome an understanding that is critical of male violence in general, both against women and men. What feminists object to is when men claim an equal victimhood with women, denying or minimising male oppression of women, or that there are structural inequalities that work against women. For instance, in the UK and the USA, there have been claims that men experience domestic violence at the hands of women, as women do at the hands of men. Therefore, domestic violence is the result of spousal disagreements or arguments, not of patriarchal power imbalances (http://www.batteredmen.com). This has been combated by feminist scholars who have argued that women are predominantly the victims of domestic violence, and men the perpetrators and that in some cases where women are the perpetrators, the violence is committed in self-defence and retaliation as opposed to being an unprovoked attack. Domestic violence is therefore a gendered form of violence, one that affects women more adversely than men, and is based on a relationship of power and control between men and women (Dobash & Dobash, 1992; Dobash et al., 2000; Saunders, 1998). Such theorisations of male violence against women, however, in no way prevent feminists from accepting arguments that some men can be victims of violence within patriarchies, and such victimhood can strengthen mainstream patriarchies. Feminist responses and the way forward The engendering of war and conflict, a recognition of connections between different forms of gendered
538
G. Gangoli / Women's Studies International Forum 29 (2006) 534–538
violence in peace and war and a recognition of men's vulnerabilities to violence, have important consequences for feminist activism and research internationally. In India, feminists have always worked closely with organisations or individuals that are not predominantly feminist, for instance, anti-globalisation networks, anticommunal and secular movements (Gangoli, 2000). This is due to a recognition "that ‘women's issues’ including violence against women, are linked to issues of globalisation, communalisation and poverty; thus an instinctive understanding of the continuum of violence. In addition perhaps, collaborations between feminists and men's studies might be seen as mutually beneficial. References Agnes, Flavia (1995). Hindu men, monogamy and uniform civil code. Economic and Political Weekly, December, 16, 3238−3242. Ahluwalai, Kiranjit, & Gupta, Rahila (1997). Circle of light: An autobiography. London: Harper Collins. Ahmed-Ghosh, Huma (2003). Writing the nation on the beauty queen's body implications for a “Hindu” nation. Meridians: Feminism, Race, Transnationalism, 4(1), 205−227. Bumiller, Elizabeth (1990). May you be the mother of a hundred sons. New York: Random House. Dobash, R. Emerson, et al. (2000). Changing violent men. Sage: Thousand Oaks. Dobash, R. Emerson, & Dobash, Russell P. (1992). Women, violence and social change. London: Routledge. Dutton, Mary Ann (1995). The domestic assault of women (2nd ed.) Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia Press. Nandita, Gandhi, & Shah, Nandita (1989). The issues at stake. Theory and practice in the contemporary women's movement in India. New Delhi: Kali for Women. Gangoli, Geetanjali (2000). Law, Patriarchies and Feminist Movements in Bombay, 1975–1993. Delhi: University of Delhi (PhD Unpublished thesis). Gangoli, Geetanjali, Donovan, Catherine, et al. (2005). Service provision and needs: black and ethnic minority women living
with domestic violence in South Tyneside. Bristol: School for Policy Studies, University of Bristol. Ghosh, Shohini (1996). Deviant pleasures and disorderly women. The representation of the female outlaw in Bandit Queen and Anjaam. In Ratna Kapur (Ed.), Feminist Terrains in Legal Domains. Interdisciplinary Essays in Women and Law in India (150–183). New Delhi: Kali for Women. Giles, Wenona, & Hyndman, Jennifer (2004). Sites of violence. Gender and conflict zones Berkeley, Los Angeles: University of California Press. http://www.batteredmen.com. Accessed on 12th August 2005. International Initiative for Justice in Gujarat. (2003). Threatened existence. A feminist analysis of genocide in Gujarat Bombay: Forum Against Oppression of Women. Jayawardena, Kumari, & De Alwis, Malathi (1996). Embodied violence: communalizing women's sexuality in South Asia. London: Zed Books. Jones, Adam (Ed.) (2004) Gender and genocide. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press. Kishwar, Madhu (1995). When India ‘missed’ the universe. Manushi, 88, 26−31. Koonz, Claudia (1987). Mothers in the fatherland. Women, the family and Nazi politics. New York: St. Martin's Griffins. Nussbaum, Martha C. (2004). Body of the nation. Why women were mutilated in Gujarat. Boston Review. A Political and Literary Forum. Summer 2004. Available online at: http://bostonreview. net/BR29.3/nussbaum.html Picart, Caroline Joan (2003). Rhetorically reconfiguring victimhood and agency: the violence against women act's civil rights clause. Rhetoric and Public Affairs, 6(1), 97−125. Saffron Brigade (January 6, 1993). Frontline. Saunders, Aniel (1998). Wife abuse, husband abuse or mutual combat? A feminist perspective on the empirical findings. In K. Yllo, & M. Bogard (Eds.), Feminist perspectives on wife abuse Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Yllo, K. Ersti, & Bograd, M. Ichele (Eds.) (1988) Feminist perspectives on wife abuse. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Yuval-Davis, Nira (1997). Gender and nation. London: Sage. Yuval-Davis, Nira, & Anthias, Floya (Eds.) (1989) Women-nationstate. London: Macmillan.
Engendering genocide: Gender, conflict and violence Geetanjali Gangoli Social Science Complex, 8 Priory Road, Bristol BS8 1TZ, United Kingdom
Contents Symbolic bodies. . . . . . . . . . . . . Women as perpetrators and the gendered Men as victims . . . . . . . . . . . . . Feminist responses and the way forward References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . continuum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . of violence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Thematic connections between gender, conflict and violence are significant areas of enquiry in recent times. Engendering conflict has been of some concern to academics, given the context of national and international conflict in areas as diverse as Bosnia, Iraq, India, the UK and the USA. The conflicts have taken forms as varied as internal conflicts between religious and ethnic communities in different parts of the world, acts of aggression against sovereign states, terrorist attacks and the global ‘war against terror’, the stigmatisation and demonisation of the Muslim community. All these factors impact on, and are impacted by gender. This review article will focus on some themes emerging from three fascinating studies that look at these issues (Giles & Hyndman, 2004; International Initiative for Justice in Gujarat, 2003; Jones, 2004) in different contexts. The International Initiative for Justice in Gujarat study (henceforth IIJG) examines the impact of the communal anti-Muslim program on women in the Indian state of Gujarat in 2003; while Giles and Hyndman's book addresses issues of gender and conflict internationally, links between global, national and domestic violence against women and the continuum of violence running through social, economic, political with gender relations permeating all those 0277-5395/$ - see front matter © 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.wsif.2006.07.010
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
534 535 537 537 538
relationships–interpersonal, international and financial– and the role of women in perpetuating violence against women in all these contexts. Adam Jones' book addresses the issue of ‘men as victims’ of male violence during war and conflict, and suggests that the invisibilisation of ‘gendercide’ against men in war and conflict situations raises issues of concern. Some of the issues that I will be addressing here are: the use and abuse of women's bodies in conflict and peacetime, the complicity of women in perpetrating violence against women and the gendered continuum of violence running from the personal to the international; the home to the battleground. In addition I will be addressing issues of male (and female) violence against men in the context of war and conflict and what that tells us about conflict and gender. Finally I will address the troubled question of how feminisms are to respond to ‘men as victims’ and ‘women as perpetrators’ of violence. Symbolic bodies There is a rich body of literature that looks at ways in which women's bodies are seen as symbolically representing a community, nation or race (Jayawardena & De
G. Gangoli / Women's Studies International Forum 29 (2006) 534–538
Alwis, 1996; Yuval-Davis & Anthias, 1989). The representation of women's bodies can take different forms in peacetimes and conflict times. For instance, Indian women winning international beauty pageants in the 1990s have been seen as a source of national pride, symbolising the ways in which contemporary Indian women's bodies are now globally desirable and desired (Ahmed-Ghosh, 2003; Kishwar, 1995). This is a change from mainstream ‘traditional’ ways of controlling women's bodies through seclusion and sexual control. While some have argued that this is a positive development, and allows women agency and control over the way their bodies are represented (Ghosh, 1996), others suggest that consumerism and commodification of the female body works to fulfil male fantasies, and lead to an objectification of women's bodies (Kishwar, 1995). Women's bodies have also been recognised as serving a literal function as creating life, therefore the ideal woman's body is that of a mother responsible for reproducing the ideal nation in Nazi Germany (Koonz, 1987). In peacetime therefore, and in periods of nation building therefore, the focus is on the bodies of women from one's own community, and there are efforts to control women's bodies so that they meet the national ideal. In times of conflict however, the focus shifts to the bodies of women from the enemy camp. As the IIJG focussing on the communal riots in Gujarat in 2002 reports, sexual violence against Muslim women and girls was a central plank of the Hindu fundamentalist agenda of the Sangh Parivar (IIJG, 2003). Historian Tanika Sarkar has commented that the sexual violence in the Gujarat riots was based on “a dark sexual obsession about ultra-virile Muslim male bodies and overfertile Muslim female ones” (Sarkar, cited in Nussbaum, 2004: 4–5). The sexual obsession, while manifested in particularly horrific and violent forms during the Gujarat riots, is based on pre-existing notions of Muslim male and female sexuality. Muslim Personal Law in India allows Muslim men to marry up to 4 times, which has been a matter of great concern to Hindu rightwing leaders. The concern is not for the rights of Muslim women who may suffer the consequences of such marriages, but for Hindu men seen as deprived of such ‘privileges’. The more extreme right displays envy for the Muslim man's legal right to marry more than once. Swami Muktanand Saraswati, a member of the VHP, held “There are no (equal) laws regarding marriage. Today, a Hindu man can marry only one woman, while a Muslim man can have five wives. If a man wants to have 25 wives, let him” (Saffron Brigade, 1993: 22). It has been argued while in theory, the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 disallows polygamous marriages, in reality, more
535
Hindu men are polygamous than Muslim ones owing to loopholes in the law that allow Hindu men “to escape the criminal consequences of a bigamous marriage, and from the economic responsibility towards the second wife”(Agnes, 1995, pp. 32–38). However, Hindu rightwing leaders are unconcerned about such arguments or perceptions of reality. While the bodies of Muslim women in India are symbolically constructed by Hindu men as being desirable and (normally) not accessible, the bodies of Muslim men are constructed as beastlike, rapacious and dangerous (to Hindu women). This has a resonance in other contexts. For instance, the construction of black men in white supremist discourse reveals a similar fear of the sexually aggressive and predatory black men (Del Zotto in Jones, 2004). Therefore in periods of war and conflict, the women of the ‘enemy’ community, race or country are subjected to rape and torture. In addition, women in conflict situations are raped in order to be impregnated so that they are defiled by the seed of the predating enemy (Jones in Giles & Hyndman, 2004; Jones, 2004). In Gujarat and in Rwanda, rape accompanied torture and murder, and horrific incidents of raping, mutilating and murdering pregnant women has been seen as a form of genocide (Jones, 2004; IIJG, 2003). Rape is however not a random act of male violence against women in this context, but is an act committed to dishonour the woman and by extension her community, race or country. The ‘dishonouring’ however works only when the meaning of honour as symbolically vested primarily, though not exclusively, in women's bodies is shared by both the communities of the perpetrators and the victims. Within this prism, both perpetrators and victims have a shared understanding of sexual purity and impurity being vested in the bodies of women. This can take the form of children born out of rape during war being given up for adoption and raped women being coerced or pressurised by the community to remain silent about their violation and abuse and ‘using’ sexual assault of women to fuel hatred of the ‘other’ (IIJG, 2003). Women as perpetrators and the gendered continuum of violence It has been argued that feminist debates on violence against women have led to a focus on women as permanent victims of male violence (Ghosh, 1996; Picart, 2003), and there is little focus on the ways in which women within patriarchy are often agents of violence against women, and sometimes men. The three books under review however do not fall into that trap. On the
536
G. Gangoli / Women's Studies International Forum 29 (2006) 534–538
contrary, while there is an acknowledgment of women being one of the primary victims of violence under patriarchies, there is a parallel acceptance that in situations of conflict, women can be indirect or direct perpetrators of violence against women and some men. For instance, the role of Hindu fundamentalist women in encouraging sexual violence against Muslim women in India in 2003 (IIJG, 2003: 15) and similarly by Hutu women against Tutsi women in Rwanda in 1994 (Jones, 2004); the acceptance of Hitler's anti-Semitic ideology by German women (Holter in Jones, 2004) and women bearing arms in armed struggles all over the world, including Dalit women in rural Uttar Pradesh in caste conflicts. While Cockburn suggests that women who are thus directly or indirectly complicit in violence rarely benefit from their role in conflict in the same way as men do (Cockburn in Giles & Hyndman, 2004), it cannot be denied that women who act thus do enjoy some privileges that are denied to those women who may oppose these acts, and certainly those women who are the victims of such violence. Therefore women encouraging men to sexual violence against ‘enemy’ women and physical violence against ‘enemy’ men enjoy power over the men and women of the ‘other’ community, while also enjoying praise and privileges for supporting national struggles. Cockburn perceptively points out that there is a gendered continuum of violence between the (inter) personal to international; between the home and the battleground. Therefore it is meaningless to make a sharp distinction between peace and war, pre-war and post-war situations (Cockburn in Giles & Hyndman, 2004). There are of course significant links between male violence against women in the home, the workplace and the public arena in both peace and conflict situations. Pressures of war, communal tensions, forced migration and immigration lead to women being increasingly vulnerable to domestic violence from their partners and to sexual violence from men of different communities, while they have less access to justice and redress due to the conflict situation. For instance, following antiMuslim riots in the city of Bombay in 1992–1993, activists working with Muslim women found that Muslim women were reluctant to report cases of domestic violence to the police due to fear of reprisals from their community for being ‘disloyal’ and experiences of communal violence leading to a distrust of the police (Gangoli, 2000). Similarly ethnic minority women in the UK who have experienced domestic violence have testified to a fear of the police and the criminal justice system due to a perception of and experiences of institutionalised racism (Gangoli, Geetanjali, & Dono-
van, 2005). In cases where women are sexually assaulted as during the Gujarat riots, we have seen that community pressures and notions of honour prevent women attempting to access justice for these acts. While the gendered continuum of violence has so far been addressed in terms of how it adversely affects women (women as victims), it may be useful to see whether it is a relevant concept for women perpetrating violence. Thus, it is important to address some of the ways in which some women are complicit in, and in some cases are perpetrators of violence in ‘domestic’ and ‘peace’ situations. Feminist researchers and activists in South Asia have long accepted the role of older women in the family, whether as mothers-in-law or mothers in perpetuating violence against younger women in the family (Gandhi & Shah, 1989; Gangoli, 2000). This can takes the form of mothers being perpetrators in cases of female infanticide and domestic violence including ‘dowry related violence’ against young married women by mothers-in-law and sisters-inlaw. This can sometimes be explained as women acting on men's behalf, i.e. serving the interests of their husbands and sons by being the actors in the violence. However, in the case of female infanticide, it cannot be denied that older women in cultural contexts such as South Asia benefit from being mothers of sons and conversely suffer from being mothers of daughters (Bumiller, 1990). Therefore female infanticide can at a very basic level be seen as an act of self-interest when committed by women. Similarly, power imbalances between mothers and daughters, and controlling the sexuality of young unmarried women in such contexts is important for older women, if they are to live a life where they are accorded respect for being good mothers. The issue of violent women, either within interpersonal or structural violence, is one that causes considerable discomfort to feminists. It has been argued that some feminists especially in the west (Dutton, 1995; Yllo & Bograd, 1988) have concentrated essentially on male violence against women, therefore casting women in the role of perpetual victims of oppression. Certainly addressing issues of how women complicit in patriarchy are rewarded for their actions can be an uncomfortable situation for feminists to confront. However, as feminists in contexts such as South Asia have understood, recognising these vexed issues does not necessarily lead to anti-feminist repercussions, especially when contrasted with the ways in which patriarchies punish women who are violent to men within their own family, community or class (Ahluwalai & Gupta, 1997). Women within patriarchies who accept contextually relevant patriarchal norms of female behaviour–sexual
G. Gangoli / Women's Studies International Forum 29 (2006) 534–538
behaviour, dress, appearance, marital status, motherhood–are rewarded as long as they conform to these norms. However, most women are aware of the vulnerability of their acceptance, even as they enjoy the rewards of social approbation and esteem. Punishing women who threaten or transgress social norms can be a way for other women to strengthen their own position, therefore the role of women as ‘carriers of culture’ (Yuval-Davis, 1997) is reinforced when they oppress other women within their family or community. During times of conflict and war, including struggles for national liberation, there can be a necessary shift in women's role. In addition to reproducing the nation and the home, women are often called upon to demonstrate their loyalty by encouraging men to perpetuate violence against women and men from the ‘enemy’ camp or by being violent themselves. Men as victims The issue of men as victims of gendercide is indeed a troubled one, as the articles in Jones' book reveals. The book rightly points out that violence against men in conflict and war is often invisibilised, and is rarely the subject of academic or social debate. The reasons for this range from social constructions of masculinity as aggressive rather than passive, of men as being perpetrators rather than victims to feminist discomfort with men trying to acquire victim status along with women. As Lindler perceptively points out, a man speaking about the ways in which some men suffer violence within patriarchies can easily be construed by women as ‘the shrewd attempt of a male to weep about victimization in order to hide his factual domination’ (Lindler in Jones, 2004: 55). The issue worth addressing in this context is: as with women experiencing violence, is the gendered continuum of violence relevant for men who are victimized by violence? In other words are there, within patriarchies, specific forms of violence against men who are not complicit in women's oppression, who are seen as ‘non-masculine’ or men whose masculinity does not ‘fit into’ or threatens mainstream patriarchal constructions; therefore men who are not ‘generic men’ (Carvell in Jones, 2004: 279). In peacetimes, this could include racist attacks against black and Asian men in the UK and homophobic attacks against gay men. During times of conflict and war, examples include: denouncing men who refuse to fight in wars as ‘cowards’ (Jones, 2004: 102); the shoot-to-kill policy of for example the UK police leading to the public shooting of an innocent Brazilian man who ‘appeared’ to the police as an Islamic
537
suicide bomber in 2005; the torture of Iraqi male prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison in 2004 and the killing of Sikh men in Punjab by armed forces in the 1980s. In all such cases Jones and his colleagues argue that these men are attacked, tortured and killed because they are men, hence such attacks are a form of gendercide. The argument put forward is certainly powerful, and in my view valid. Not all men benefit equally within patriarchies, especially in the context where patriarchies coexist comfortably with other forms of inequalities based on class, race, caste, ethnicity, religious and sexual orientation. The fear that feminists would object to this understanding is, in my view, somewhat misplaced. Most feminists should have few problems with the proposition that some men are indeed vulnerable within patriarchy–as some women can be powerful–as long as feminist theorisations and understandings of female oppression are not negated, or undermined (Carvell in Jones, 2004). In reality they would welcome an understanding that is critical of male violence in general, both against women and men. What feminists object to is when men claim an equal victimhood with women, denying or minimising male oppression of women, or that there are structural inequalities that work against women. For instance, in the UK and the USA, there have been claims that men experience domestic violence at the hands of women, as women do at the hands of men. Therefore, domestic violence is the result of spousal disagreements or arguments, not of patriarchal power imbalances (http://www.batteredmen.com). This has been combated by feminist scholars who have argued that women are predominantly the victims of domestic violence, and men the perpetrators and that in some cases where women are the perpetrators, the violence is committed in self-defence and retaliation as opposed to being an unprovoked attack. Domestic violence is therefore a gendered form of violence, one that affects women more adversely than men, and is based on a relationship of power and control between men and women (Dobash & Dobash, 1992; Dobash et al., 2000; Saunders, 1998). Such theorisations of male violence against women, however, in no way prevent feminists from accepting arguments that some men can be victims of violence within patriarchies, and such victimhood can strengthen mainstream patriarchies. Feminist responses and the way forward The engendering of war and conflict, a recognition of connections between different forms of gendered
538
G. Gangoli / Women's Studies International Forum 29 (2006) 534–538
violence in peace and war and a recognition of men's vulnerabilities to violence, have important consequences for feminist activism and research internationally. In India, feminists have always worked closely with organisations or individuals that are not predominantly feminist, for instance, anti-globalisation networks, anticommunal and secular movements (Gangoli, 2000). This is due to a recognition "that ‘women's issues’ including violence against women, are linked to issues of globalisation, communalisation and poverty; thus an instinctive understanding of the continuum of violence. In addition perhaps, collaborations between feminists and men's studies might be seen as mutually beneficial. References Agnes, Flavia (1995). Hindu men, monogamy and uniform civil code. Economic and Political Weekly, December, 16, 3238−3242. Ahluwalai, Kiranjit, & Gupta, Rahila (1997). Circle of light: An autobiography. London: Harper Collins. Ahmed-Ghosh, Huma (2003). Writing the nation on the beauty queen's body implications for a “Hindu” nation. Meridians: Feminism, Race, Transnationalism, 4(1), 205−227. Bumiller, Elizabeth (1990). May you be the mother of a hundred sons. New York: Random House. Dobash, R. Emerson, et al. (2000). Changing violent men. Sage: Thousand Oaks. Dobash, R. Emerson, & Dobash, Russell P. (1992). Women, violence and social change. London: Routledge. Dutton, Mary Ann (1995). The domestic assault of women (2nd ed.) Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia Press. Nandita, Gandhi, & Shah, Nandita (1989). The issues at stake. Theory and practice in the contemporary women's movement in India. New Delhi: Kali for Women. Gangoli, Geetanjali (2000). Law, Patriarchies and Feminist Movements in Bombay, 1975–1993. Delhi: University of Delhi (PhD Unpublished thesis). Gangoli, Geetanjali, Donovan, Catherine, et al. (2005). Service provision and needs: black and ethnic minority women living
with domestic violence in South Tyneside. Bristol: School for Policy Studies, University of Bristol. Ghosh, Shohini (1996). Deviant pleasures and disorderly women. The representation of the female outlaw in Bandit Queen and Anjaam. In Ratna Kapur (Ed.), Feminist Terrains in Legal Domains. Interdisciplinary Essays in Women and Law in India (150–183). New Delhi: Kali for Women. Giles, Wenona, & Hyndman, Jennifer (2004). Sites of violence. Gender and conflict zones Berkeley, Los Angeles: University of California Press. http://www.batteredmen.com. Accessed on 12th August 2005. International Initiative for Justice in Gujarat. (2003). Threatened existence. A feminist analysis of genocide in Gujarat Bombay: Forum Against Oppression of Women. Jayawardena, Kumari, & De Alwis, Malathi (1996). Embodied violence: communalizing women's sexuality in South Asia. London: Zed Books. Jones, Adam (Ed.) (2004) Gender and genocide. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press. Kishwar, Madhu (1995). When India ‘missed’ the universe. Manushi, 88, 26−31. Koonz, Claudia (1987). Mothers in the fatherland. Women, the family and Nazi politics. New York: St. Martin's Griffins. Nussbaum, Martha C. (2004). Body of the nation. Why women were mutilated in Gujarat. Boston Review. A Political and Literary Forum. Summer 2004. Available online at: http://bostonreview. net/BR29.3/nussbaum.html Picart, Caroline Joan (2003). Rhetorically reconfiguring victimhood and agency: the violence against women act's civil rights clause. Rhetoric and Public Affairs, 6(1), 97−125. Saffron Brigade (January 6, 1993). Frontline. Saunders, Aniel (1998). Wife abuse, husband abuse or mutual combat? A feminist perspective on the empirical findings. In K. Yllo, & M. Bogard (Eds.), Feminist perspectives on wife abuse Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Yllo, K. Ersti, & Bograd, M. Ichele (Eds.) (1988) Feminist perspectives on wife abuse. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Yuval-Davis, Nira (1997). Gender and nation. London: Sage. Yuval-Davis, Nira, & Anthias, Floya (Eds.) (1989) Women-nationstate. London: Macmillan.