Oppression towards Women Gender
scrutinized, and glorified as morally right or wrong. It is feared yet it is celebrated. War gives people irreplaceable tales continuously told from generation to generation.
The myth of war contributes in shaping people today in many aspects of life. Molesey 2010: 13 explains war as “the use of physical weapons and forces in a conflict that
may be expressed without the use of such weapons and forces ”. It is a conflict with or
without weapons. Meanwhile, Goldstein 2005: 3 prefers to define war as “lethal intergroup violence”. From both definitions, it can be taken two important matters i.e.
conflict and violence. War is deeply constituted by these two factors. Feminism and war is rarely gotten attention from people. Most people
believe that feminism and war is incompatible or even if it is not, the study of war is perceived as not really important to major challenges of feminism. Despite that, war
truthfully plays a key role in constructing mainstream gender establishment in society. Traditionalist
‟s beliefs pose women as biologically or physically incapable to participate in war. This idea makes war as an exclusive male field. Conflict and
violence are, then, associated as a male interest because women are less interested upon them. Consequently, conflict and violence embody male
‟s attributes while peace and tenderness embody female
‟s characteristics. This is where patriarchal tradition is affirmed and its gender concept is established. The problem of this
embodiment is people simply accept that binary result regardless what kind of war it is. War is seen simplistically as physical based and its multi meanings as well as its
multi forms of participation are disregarded. War, then, is “polarized and gendered”
as it is described by Clarke in Wallace, 2009: 597. This happens because people submit to traditional way of thinking.
The polarization and gendering of war create power gap between men and women. These processes codify male superiority and female inferiority. In the other
words, they construct male domination and female subordination in society. This means patriarchal society is made through these processes. It is disappointing that a
whole life of women is decided by a failure to grasp the broader meaning of war. Lerner 1987: 18 regrets that “biological determinism” then becomes a scientific
justification for women‟s inferiority. War remains unreachable for women since it is narrowly defined as physical based. Unequal power distribution resulted from this
division of patriarchy has affected women‟s political power as well. The concept of
war should be redirected to its actual point to normalize wo men‟s position either in
war or in society. War becomes a field of manhood among men since conflict and violence are
attributed to men. A spirit to conquer war has motivated men to prove their bravery. This is in line with Goldstein‟s claim that states joining war evaluates men‟s
establishment of masculinity or their manliness 2009: 252. A good man is associated with a tough individual that resembles a hero or good warrior. This point
also concludes that war is a source of alpha males or ultimate masculine figures in society. Masculinity is produced significantly by letting an individual to relate
himself to war. Militarism is a modern establishment of a war preparing camp that accommodates and continuously preserves this idea.
On the other hand, peacefulness and tenderness are seen as female ‟s
attributes contrasting a social construction of male ‟s attributes. This implies women
are always peaceful and tender beings. In turn, women‟s femininity is associated as
not far from those qualities. Those qualities are dependent to male‟s attributes of
masculinity to satisfy the binary opposition of thought. Therefore, both masculinity and femininity can be summarized as the products of male dominance affirming to
MacKinn on‟s view of sexual relation in Gardiner, 2002: 90. It is so because men
have more power to define in society.