Off
Weapons discourse focus is inherently masculine
Myrttinen 2003 (Henri, researcher with the Institute for Social Transformation in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. He is also currently a
post-graduate student at the University of Natal in Durban, South Africa, researching masculinities in violent nation-building
processes. “Disarming masculinities” Women, Men Peace and security from Disarmament forum)
Weapons as sexual fetishes The
connection between men and weapons often takes on highly sexualized
characteristics. The notion of a sword, a gun or a nuclear missile being a phallic symbol or a penile
extension has become something of a cliché. This has happened to a point where it no longer can be seen as a subversive
critique of male obsession with weapons. Instead, the connection has been co-opted by mass culture— selling ‘manly’ products such
as razors or high-powered cars by means of using weapons in adverts to ‘manly men’—and by the arms industry, which sells ‘manly
weapons’ to ‘manly men’. The
phallic image of weapons—and the corresponding notion of violent
masculinity—is reinforced by the entertainment industry through movies and video games.15 Two groundbreaking
feminist analyses of male militarism during the Cold War investigated the sexualized discourse of the nuclear standoff: Helen
Caldicott’s Missile Envy16 and Carol Cohn’s ‘Sex and Death in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals’.17 While Caldicott saw the
Cold War arms race as being fuelled by a kind of penile envy, Cohn set out to investigate the sexualized vocabulary of the nuclear
standoff without falling into the reductionistic trap of simply equating of missiles with symbolic penises. Cohn describes a
language suffused with sexual, mostly phallic, imagery, clouding the lethal nature of the weapons
in question. The imagery also creates a sexualized intimacy between the developers and
handlers of the weapons systems and the weapon, one that finds its physical manifestation, for example, in a
quasi-ritualistic patting of the bomb, missile or bomber. A further interesting metaphor Cohn discovers is that of creating and
giving birth to a new world through the destructive power of the nuclear weapon. Here, however,
the sexualized metaphors become slightly confused: a phallic missile ‘delivers’ the ‘babies’ (the
warheads), and it is these babies that give birth to the new world. Guns as violent phallic symbols
are used, for example, in chants of the US Marine Corps (‘This is my rifle [holding up gun]/ this is my gun [pointing at penis]/
one’s for killing/ the other’s for fun’) or in The tragic irony of the concept of the armed male as a defender of the weak and helpless
is that often women and children are far more likely to be killed by the male protector of the family and his weapon than by an
outside intruder. pro-gun bumper stickers available in South Africa (‘Gun Free South Africa—Suck my Glock’). Condoms issued to
soldiers in the Second World War and in later conflicts were often used to cover the muzzle of their rifle to protect them from dust
and sand.18 The phallus is, however, not the only sexualized metaphor employed when seeking to visualize the relationship
between men and weapons. Soldiers
are also taught to feminize the tools of war: to view their guns as
‘brides’, as female beings who they are expected to care for. Tanks, naval vessels and aircraft are
given female names and adorned with paintings of pin-up girls. The weapon or weapons system thus
becomes a female lover, bride or mother of the male soldier. A striking description of the latter is Randall
Jarrell’s Second World War poem ‘The Death of a Ball-Turret Gunner’,19 in which the dead gunner is washed
out of the ‘womb’ of the bomber like a dead foetus. As with the male phallic metaphors, the use of female
metaphors is highly sexualized but it is also somewhat ambiguous—the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima was ‘male’ (Little Boy)
and ‘delivered’ by a ‘female’ bomber, the Enola Gay. In a more recent example, however, the new American MOAB (Massive
Ordnance Air Burst) bomb unveiled early in 2003 was nicknamed ‘The Mother of All Bombs’. The French nuclear test sites in the
South Pacific were all given female names.20 Thus, weapons
and weapon systems can be seen as reinforcing
traditional notions of gender roles on a symbolic level: the male soldiers takes care of his gun-bride, the tank- or
bomber-mother nurtures and protects the young male soldiers. On the other hand, this can also be seen as a symbolic concession to
the fact that traditional gender roles are transformed through combat. Women do take part in combat or combatrelated activities,
including killing, and not only on a symbolic level as ‘female’ guns and warships. Furthermore, as the example of the French nuclear
testing sites shows, the
metaphors can unintentionally symbolize violence against women in
conflict. As it tends to be men who are using the weapons systems, the sexual metaphors also underline male control over their
own bodies (male sexual analogies) and those of women (female sexual analogies). The violent strand of masculinity,
however, not only sees weapons as phallic extensions, as female sex objects or fetishes of male
prowess, but also sees the body itself as a weapon. This may, for example, happen in the context of violent
spectator sports,21 sexualized violence or through suicide attacks. All three are male-dominated domains—
females participating in violent sports are viewed as anomalies, males top statistics concerning
perpetrators of rape, and the recent appearance of female suicide bombers has taken security forces and the public by
surprise. In all three cases the use of the body as a weapon seeks to strengthen the social position of the male, by gaining ‘respect’ in
the ring or on the playing field, gaining ‘martyr’ status or sexual satisfaction and—above all—power by directly and violently
subjugating others.
Violence has been constructed as the norm in relationships between men and
women. It is the expectation that there will be violence. There no longer
remains a distinction between abused and non-abused. Violence against
women represents sexual terrorism, a war on women where bodies are the
physical territory upon which war is fought. This turns all impacts.
Ray 97 (Amy E. Ray, “The Shame Of It: Gender-Based Terrorism In The Former Yugoslavia And
The Failure of International Human Rights Law To Comprehend The Injuries,” The American
University Law Review. Vol 46. , pp. 835-838,
http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1380&context=aulr, //
candle)
Transforming the human rights concept from a feminist perspective. . . relates women's rights
and human rights, looking first at the violations of women's lives and then asking how the
human rights concept can change to be more responsive to women}50 In order to reach all of the violence
perpetrated against the women of the former Yugoslavia that is not committed by soldiers or other officials of the state, human
rights law must move beyond its artificially constructed barriers between "public" and "private" actions: A
feminist
perspective on human rights would require a rethinking of the notions of imputability and state
responsibility and in this sense would challenge the most basic assumptions of international law. If
violence against women were considered by the international legal system to be as shocking as violence against people for their
political ideas, women would have considerable support in their struggle. . .. The
assumption that underlies all law, including
society, human lives can be
separated into two distinct spheres. This division, however, is an ideological construct rationalizing the
exclusion of women from the sources of power.260 The international community must recognize that violence
against women is always political, regardless of where it occurs, because it affects the way
women view themselves and their role in the world, as well as the lives they lead in the so-called
public sphere.261 When women are silenced within the family, their silence is not restricted to the
private realm, but rather affects their voice in the public realm as well, often assuring their
silence in any environment*63 For women in the former Yugoslavia, as well as for all women, extension beyond the
international human rights law, is that the public/private distinction is real: human
various public/private barriers is imperative if human rights law "is to have meaning for women brutalized in less-known theaters of
war or in the by-ways of daily life."263 Because, as currently constructed, human rights laws can reach only individual perpetrators
during times of war, one alternative is to reconsider our understanding of what constitutes "war" and what constitutes "peace."861
When it is universally true that no
matter where in the world a woman lives or with what culture she
identifies, she is at grave risk of being beaten, imprisoned, enslaved, raped, prostituted,
physically tortured, and murdered simply because she is a woman, the term "peace" does not
describe her existence.265 In addition to being persecuted for being a woman, many women also
are persecuted on ethnic, racial, religious, sexual orientation, or other grounds. Therefore, it is crucial
that our re-conceptualization of human rights is not limited to violations based on gender.266 Rather, our definitions of
"war" and "peace" in the context of all of the world's persecuted groups should be questioned.
Nevertheless, in every culture a common risk factor is being a woman, and to describe the
conditions of our lives as "peace" is to deny the effect of sexual terrorism on all women.267
Because we are socialized to think of times of "war" as limited to groups of men fighting over
physical territory or land, we do not immediately consider the possibility of "war" outside this
narrow definition except in a metaphorical sense, such as in the expression "the war against poverty." However,
the physical violence and sex discrimination perpetrated against women because we are women
is hardly metaphorical. Despite the fact that its prevalence makes the violence seem natural or
inevitable, it is profoundly political in both its purpose and its effect. Further, its exclusion from
international human rights law is
no accident, but rather part of a system politically constructed to
exclude and silence women.168 The appropriation of women's sexuality and women's bodies as
representative of men's ownership over women has been central to this "politically constructed
reality."*69 Women's bodies have become the objects through which dominance and even
ownership are communicated, as well as the objects through which men's honor is attained or
taken away in many cultures. Thus, when a man wants to communicate that he is more powerful
than a woman, he may beat her. When a man wants to communicate that a woman is his to use as he pleases, he may
rape her or prostitute her. The objectification of women is so universal that when one country
ruled by men (Serbia) wants to communicate to another country ruled by men (Bosnia-Herzegovina or
Croatia) that it is superior and more powerful, it rapes, tortures, and prostitutes the "inferior"
country's women.271 The use of the possessive is intentional, for communication among men through the
abuse of women is effective only to the extent that the group of men to whom the message is
sent believes they have some right of possession over the bodies of the women used. Unless
they have some claim of right to what is taken, no injury is experienced. Of course, regardless of whether
a group of men sexually terrorizing a group of women is trying to communicate a message to another group of men, the
universal sexual victimization of women clearly communicates to all women a message of
dominance and ownership over women. As Charlotte Bunch explains, "The physical territory of [the]
political struggle [over female subordination] is women's bodies."272
Our Alternative is a politics of lesbian separatism, the creation of an enclave
public to allow the activation of agency within self spaces.
Forefronting the perspectives, needs, and concerns of the feminine, especially
as it concerns the insidious nature of power, uniquely situates debate at the
center of our analysis, allowing us to hold up a mirror to ourselves and
acknowledge the lapse in equitable power relations. We must prioritize debate.
As debaters we all have the privilege of having a space where we can share and
negotiate viewpoints and opinions we acknowledge that there are those who
deem our speech act more credible and valuable than others. However, we find
ourselves in a position to operationalize that privilege in a way that that makes
the debate space more accessible.
Only reclaiming the notion of lesbianism beyond mere sexual classification
breaks from the norms imposed by male hegemony and exposes the
dehumanizing understanding of woman as an object to be fucked by man. To
reclaim lesbianism is to reject the demands of the male cultural system and to
create and celebrate the bonds of the female world.
Radicalesbians 1970 [Radicalesbians, 1970, “The Woman Identified Woman,”
http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/wlm/womid // candle]
What is a lesbian? A lesbian is the rage of all women condensed to the point of explosion. She is the
woman who, often beginning at an extremely early age, acts in accordance with her inner compulsion to be a
more complete and freer human being than her society - perhaps then, but certainly later - cares to allow
her. These needs and actions, over a period of years, bring her into painful conflict with people, situations, the
accepted ways of thinking, feeling and behaving, until she is in a state of continual war with everything
around her, and usually with herself. She may not be fully conscious of the political implications of
what for her began as personal necessity, but on some level she has not been able to accept the
limitations and oppression laid on her by the most basic role of her society--the female role. The
turmoil she experiences tends to induce guilt proportional to the degree to which she feels she is not meeting social expectations,
and/or eventually drives her to question and analyze what the rest of her society more or less accepts. She
is forced to
evolve her own life pattern, often living much of her life alone, learning usually much earlier
than her "straight" (heterosexual) sisters about the essential aloneness of life (which the myth of marriage
obscures) and about the reality of illusions. To the extent that she cannot expel the heavy socialization that
goes with being female, she can never truly find peace with herself. For she is caught somewhere between
accepting society's view of her - in which case she cannot accept herself - and coming to understand what this sexist society has
done to her and why it is functional and necessary for it to do so. Those of us who work that through find ourselves on the other side
of a tortuous journey through a night that may have been decades long. The
perspective gained from that journey,
the liberation of self, the inner peace, the real love of self and of all women, is something to be
shared with all women - because we are all women. It should first be understood that lesbianism, like male
homosexuality, is a category of behavior possible only in a sexist society characterized by rigid sex
roles and dominated by male supremacy. Those sex roles dehumanize women by defining us as a
supportive/serving caste in relation to the master caste of men, and emotionally cripple men by demanding that they be alienated
from their own bodies and emotions in order to perform their economic/political/military functions effectively. Homosexuality
is a by-product of a particular way of setting up roles (or approved patterns of behavior) on the basis of sex; as
such it is an inauthentic ( not consonant with "reality") category. In a society in which men do not oppress women, and sexual
expression is allowed to follow feelings, the categories of homosexuality and heterosexuality would disappear. But lesbianism
is
also different from male homosexuality, and serves a different function in the society. "Dyke" is
a different kind of put-down from "faggot", although both imply you are not playing your socially assigned sex role. .
. are not therefore a "real woman" or a "real man. " The grudging admiration felt for the tomboy, and the queasiness felt around a
sissy boy point to the same thing: the contempt in which women-or those who play a female role-are held. And the
investment
in keeping women in that contemptuous role is very great. Lesbian is a word, the label, the
condition that holds women in line. When a woman hears this word tossed her way, she knows
she is stepping out of line. She knows that she has crossed the terrible boundary of her sex role. She recoils, she
protests, she reshapes her actions to gain approval. Lesbian is a label invented by the Man to
throw at any woman who dares to be his equal, who dares to challenge his prerogatives (including
that of all women as part of the exchange medium among men), who dares to assert the primacy of her own
needs. To have the label applied to people active in women's liberation is just the most recent instance of a long history; older
women will recall that not so long ago, any woman who was successful, independent, not orienting her whole life about a man,
would hear this word. For in
this sexist society, for a woman to be independent means she can't be a
woman - she must be a dyke. That in itself should tell us where women are at. It says as clearly as can be said: women
and person are contradictory terms. For a lesbian is not considered a "real woman. " And yet, in
popular thinking, there is really only one essential difference between a lesbian and other
women: that of sexual orientation - which is to say, when you strip off all the packaging, you must
finally realize that the essence of being a "woman" is to get fucked by men. "Lesbian" is one of the
sexual categories by which men have divided up humanity. While all women are dehumanized as sex objects, as
the objects of men they are given certain compensations: identification with his power, his ego, his
status, his protection (from other males), feeling like a "real woman," finding social acceptance by adhering to her role, etc.
Should a woman confront herself by confronting another woman, there are fewer rationalizations, fewer
buffers by which to avoid the stark horror of her dehumanized condition. Herein we find the overriding fear of
many women toward being used as a sexual object by a woman, which not only will bring her no male-connected compensations,
but also will reveal the void which is woman's real situation. This
dehumanization is expressed when a straight
woman learns that a sister is a lesbian; she begins to relate to her lesbian sister as her potential
sex object, laying a surrogate male role on the lesbian. This reveals her heterosexual
conditioning to make herself into an object when sex is potentially involved in a relationship,
and it denies the lesbian her full humanity. For women, especially those in the movement, to
perceive their lesbian sisters through this male grid of role definitions is to accept this male
cultural conditioning and to oppress their sisters much as they themselves have been oppressed
by men. Are we going to continue the male classification system of defining all females in sexual relation to some other category
of people? Affixing the label lesbian not only to a woman who aspires to be a person, but also to
any situation of real love, real solidarity, real primacy among women, is a primary form of
divisiveness among women: it is the condition which keeps women within the confines of the
feminine role, and it is the debunking/scare term that keeps women from forming any primary
attachments, groups, or associations among ourselves.
Their discourse causes the violence that they claim to object to. This process
allows for the male subject to be shaped by the loss of the feminine – they get
free reign to militarize and invade wherever they like. Only separatism solves
by allowing for sexual difference to be valued and voiced.
Weedon 99 (Chris Weedon is the Chair of the Centre for Critical and Cultural Theory at Cardiff
University, “Feminism, theory, and the politics of difference”, pp. 90-93,
http://www.helsinki.fi/sukupuolentutkimus/opiskelu/verkkokurssit/psaf/docs/weedon.pdf //
candle)
In the order of reason which has governed Western thought since the rise of Ancient Greek philosophy, feminine
otherness is denied and reconstituted as a male-defined otherness. This results in the denial of subjectivity
to potentially non-male-defined women. A maternal feminine subjectivity, were it to be realized, would
enable women to step outside of patriarchal definitions of the feminine and become subjects in
their own right. Whereas the unconscious in Freud and Lacan lays claim to fixed universal status, for Irigaray its actual form
and content is a product of history. Thus, however patriarchal the symbolic order may be in Lacan, it is open to change. The question
is how this change might be brought about. For Irigaray, the
key to change is the development of a female
imaginary. This can only be achieved under patriarchy in a fragmented way, as what she terms the
excess that is realized in margins of the dominant culture. The move towards a female imaginary would also entail
the transformation of the symbolic, since the relationship between the two is one of mutual shaping. This would enable women to
assume subjectivity in their own right. Although, for Irigaray, the imaginary and the symbolic are both historical and changeable,
this does not mean that, after thousands of years of repression and exclusion, change is easy. In a move not unlike
that of ecofeminists, Irigaray suggests that the symbolic order, men and masculinity are shaped by
patriarchy in ways which are immensely problematic not just for women but also for the future
of the planet. The apparently objective, gender-neutral discourses of science and philosophy —
the discourses of a male subject — have led to the threat of global nuclear destruction. In An Ethics
of Sexual Difference (1993; original 1984), Irigaray suggests that the patriarchal male subject is himself shaped by
the loss of the maternal feminine which motivates a desire for mastery: Man's self-affect
depends on the woman who has given him being and birth, who has born/e him, enveloped him, warmed him,
fed him. Love of self would seemingly take the form of a long return to and through the other. A
unique female other, who is forever lost and must be sought in many others, an infinite number
of others. The distance for this return can be conquered by the transcendence of God. The
(female) other who is sought and cherished may be assimilated to the unique god. The (female) other
is mingled or confused with God or the gods. (Irigaray 1993: 60-1; original 1984) Irigaray takes this theme further in Thinking the
Difference: For a Peaceful Revolution (1994; original 1989) when she suggests that the desire
for god- like mastery and
transcendence has dire consequences for the world: Huge amounts of capital are allocated to
the development of death machines in order to ensure peace, we are told. This warlike method
of organising society is not self-evident, it has its origin in patriarchy. It has a sex. But the age of technology has
given weapons of war a power that exceeds the conflicts and risks taken among patriarchs. Women, children, all living things,
including elemental matter, are drawn into the maelstrom. And death and destruction cannot
he associated solely with war. They are part of the physical and mental aggression to which we
are constantly subjected. What we need is an overall cultural transformation. Mankind [le people des homines]
wages war everywhere all the time with a perfectly clear conscience. Mankind is traditionally
carnivorous, sometimes cannibalistic. So men must eat to kill, must increase their domination of nature
in order to live or to survive, must seek on the most distant stars what no longer exists here, must defend by any means
the small patch of land they are exploiting here or over there. Men always go further, exploit further, seize more, without
really knowing where they are going. Men seek what they think they need without considering
who they are and how their identity is defined by what they do. To overcome this ignorance, I think
that mankind needs those who are persons in their own right to help them understand and find
their limits. Only women can play this role. Women are not genuinely responsible subjects in the patriarchal
community. That is why it may be possible for them to interpret this culture in which they have less involvement and fewer interests
than do men, and of which they are not themselves products to the point where they have been blinded by it. Given their relative
exclusion from society, women may, from their outside perspective, reflect back a more objective image of society than can men.
(Irigaray 1994:4—5; original 1989) The destructive force of the patriarchal symbolic order makes all the more pressing Irigaray's
project of creating a female imaginary and symbolic, specific to women, which might in its turn transform the male-defined symbolic
order in the West, in which women figure only as lesser men. In this process, separatism
becomes a strategy in the
struggle for a non- patriarchal society in which sexual difference is both voiced and valued: Let
women tacitly go on strike, avoid men long enough to learn to defend their desire notably by
their speech, let them discover the love of other women protected from that imperious choice of men which puts them in a
position of rival goods, let them forge a social status which demands recognition, let them earn their living in order to leave behind
their condition of prostitute — these
are certainly indispensable steps in their effort to escape their
proletarianization on the trade market. But if their goal is to reverse the existing order - even if that were possible history would simply repeal itself and return to phallocrat-ism, where neither women's sex, their imaginary, nor their language can
exist. (1994: 106; original 1989)
The treatment of women in society maps out the social arrangements which
drive racism and other forms of discrimination it is the white male telling us
how to act that delegates discrimination towards our sisters.

The method of a Lesbian Separatist community allows for women to create a
lesbian world free from paternalistic and heteropatriarchial domination.
Anne, 92 (Sheila, written in cooperation with 20 Dykes who are working on The 1992 Annual
Lesbian Separatist Gathering, “Lesbian Separatism”, Off Our Backs - vol. 22, No. 6, june 1992 )
Lesbian Separatism Lesbian Separatism is a concept, an ideology, and a movement that developed, most recently, among several
groups of Lesbians in the U.S. in the 1970s, but we think there have been female and Lesbian Separatist movements throughout the
history of heteropatriarchy. There are individuals and groups of Dykes who identify themselves as Lesbian Separatists from at least 9
different nations that we know about at this time. "Separatism,"
according to the dicktionary refers to the
policy or principle of separation from a political or ecclesiastic union. "Lesbian Separatism" is a
principle of moving towards Lesbian, life-loving reality and implies separation from the
pervasive domination of the global political and ecclesiastical union that is heteropatri archy. That is,
the worship of maleness, social relationships that support male power and the destruction of
female energy and power. As Lesbians we are female-born beings who separate our sexuality from men, and we relate
physically, affectionately, intimately and sexually with other female-born Lesbian-loving beings. When we as Lesbians
enjoy Lesbian being and Lesbian spaces, we are enjoying, at least to a degree, an act of Separation,
Separatism. There is no short or absolute definition of Lesbian Separatism that can be comprehensive. This is because Lesbian
Separatism is a living, moving journey in which individual Dyke Seps find ourselves in different
places in an ongoing process. Separating the rest or all of our lives from men and the social
organization that is heteropatriarchy is more difficult and complex?for few of us, if any, are in a position to survive
should the systems of men collapse tomorrow. In the meantime, we separate ourselves from male domination,
from activities that are destructive to ourselves and each other, male serving behaviors and
addictions. We work against and examine how we are influenced by Sadomasochism, violence
against Lesbians, Lesbophobia, the oppression of Butches?the most identifiable Dykes, Classism, Racism,
Femininity?feminine behavior and role, Anti-Semitism, Ethnocentrism, Nationalism, Imperialism,
Ableism, Ageism, Looks-ism, Fat oppression, Therapism, Parasitism?the birthing and/or caretaking of males, and the generally unquestioned institution of motherhood, Expertism, Professionalism
and hierarchies of all kinds involving a higher authority than oneself, giving up of personal power, deferring or submitting to another.
This is not to say that there will not be influences of these oppressive belief systems in our interactions. We
need to
continually point these things out to each other as they arise unintentionally. Lesbian
Separatism is our DESIRE to love and value ourselves and other Lesbians?as Lesbians. This is an
earth-loving, life-loving drive for 9 survival. By focusing on, loving, and caring for the lives of
Lesbians, we create a world of Self and Other (female-self) loving creatures. To create this world
we consciously choose to be in a Process of Separating from the individuals, institutions and
internalized forces that hate and destroy females/Lesbians and every other life form on this
planet. We separate from these individuals, institutions and internalized forces (insidious abuse that turns against ourselves)
in whatever ways we believe we can. And we continually challenge ourselves to expand the ways
that we believe we can. There is no one way to be a Lesbian Separatist, or to live Lesbian
Separatism. Some of us may still relate to some men superficially, or to maintain paid work, housing, or other needs that can't
currently be met by Lesbians. Some of us live in cities and deal with men daily, but don't let them into our hearts. Some of us deal
with men rarely, but still struggle against the effects of previous associations. While we are all doing this separating in different ways
with greater and lesser success in different areas of our lives, the important
point is that we are in a moving
process of union with other Dykes, creating communities that meet our own needs. What we seek to
create is often nebulous. We proceed from what we know to what we hope for, so it is easer to define
what we are separating from than what we are moving to. We hope that by connecting with other
Lesbian Separatists of shared Dyke-loving values we can create a space to share our wildest dreams
and to make them happen. Separatism creates the possibility and the living space to think even
this far. Some of us hope for a better life for ourselves, more whole with other Dykes. Some of us hope for a better
world for us all if females regain our full power. And, some of us believe that because males are parasitic on
females and female energy, that if we create a movement that inspires females to progressively withdraw
ourselves and our focus and energy from males, we'll ultimately create a Lesbian
planet...mmmmmmmmm. Lesbians are very powerful beings, we can create with the world. the
world we imagine. We hope you'll join us..