peAce Ventura

“From the masculine perspective, peace has meant the prevention of violence through institutional control; security is found in deterrence against aggression and degence of the homeland. On the contrary, the feminist security agenda seeks protection from organized state violence and the fulfillment of fundamental needs. Security also means individual well-being and personal safety in various social relationships, including family.”(Peace And Conflict Studies, Jeong, Ho-Won 85)

Begging: Why do women link more frequently to peace than men?

Because peace more readily identifies with the culture-imposed qualities of feminine, the peace process is woman’s work by association. Regardless of it sexist connotations the link between peace and women is not necessarily and certainly not always one made out of malice. Patience is a virtue of teachers, as is heightened sense of smell is of viticulturists; as discipline is well received in the military, so too peace may be a virtue of women (disregarding the exceptions in each case).

Essentially, Jeong argues, women embody survival through her ability to regenerate life. The destruction of life by strategy—either in warfare and its expansion into the environment, or through official policy concentrating malnourishment, illiteracy, and disease-ridden conditions within certain places—is within contradiction to the very being of the woman and her ability to ensure the viability of the human race. Ultimately, any society that vows respect to its women is sure to prosper.

What does the incorporation of homosexuals and women (the marginal sideliners) into the ‘fight for one’s country’ do to the military? A friend of mine once justified his attraction for other males as a natural response to over-population. Such justification has been drawn on the side of genocide, as well. And, in such event as ‘Eddie Izzard’ and his view on what place transvestites could have in the army, I wonder about the reorganization of internal affairs within the military. (Skip to 3:44) Interestingly enough, it appears that the fight for one’s country would not dissolve because “less-violent” persons were drafted into uniform, but rather that the social dynamic between sexed people would strip the U.S. army of it’s ability to be “standing” or “on reserve”. And certainly, this is a different direction then I intended to run.

Originally, I saw the contradiction laced in sustaining civil rights in an organization designed to protect the civil society by wave of violence, force, and intimidation. Then again, perhaps the contradiction is a valid and familiar extension of struggle; for indeed those who, on a micro (or personal) level, are emboldened by their victory might look to commission their power or finesse to the commonweal. Here, the contradiction is not completely undone, but rather diluted.

Quite simply though, I like the argument that men bring violence—historically and predictably; women bring peace—reproductively; and homosexuals bring—SURPRISE!—or discomfort to those trained to use violence. (Even on military submarines women reproductively interrupt the daily regiment. Submarinas)