Internal Links
Internal Link – Patriarchy
Domestic abuse intensifies patriarchy, which is the ultimate cause of all abuse against women and human suffering
Tracy 7 (Steven, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Sep 2007, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3817/is_200709/ai_n29491710/pg_2/?tag=content;col1)IM
Feminist theory: Patriarchy is the ultimate cause of all abuse against women. It has only been in the past few decades that domestic violence has been studied in detail. When feminism emerged in the 1960s and 70s, feminist scholars began assessing the history and impact of misogyny and gender inequality in various spheres of life. This led to the first modern works on abuse being published in the mid 1970s.18 During this period of early modern feminism, the perspective developed that patriarchy, in any and all forms, is the ultimate cause of all abuse against women, for patriarchy is seen as the overarching social construct which ultimately engenders abuse. Lenore Walker in her early classic on domestic violence asserts: "My feminist analysis of all violence is that sexism is the real underbelly of human suffering."19 Typically, violence against women is explained in terms of a power struggle, for feminists argue that in a patriarchal society those with all the power-males-must resort to violence when their position of dominance is threatened. This feminist perspective on domestic violence is still fairly common. For instance, in a recent journal article several feminists state: "domestic violence maintains patriarchy, as part of a systematic attempt to maintain male dominance in the home and in society."20
Rape is the base form of patriarchy, which is the root cause of all abuse against women
Tracy 7 (Steven, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Sep 2007, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3817/is_200709/ai_n29491710/pg_2/?tag=content;col1)IM
Much of the early feminist abuse literature is global in its censure of male power and domination, and strident in its condemnation of patriarchy and even of males. For instance, Susan Brownmiller in her classic early feminist work on rape states that early on in human history, "rape became man's basic weapon of force against woman" and became the ultimate "triumph of manhood."21 Furthermore, she argues that from prehistoric times through to the present, "rape has played a critical function. It is nothing more or less than a conscious process by which all men keep all women in a state of fear."22 While she does not actually use the term "patriarchy" to link all female abuse to male power and domination, this is precisely what she is describing. Since the 1970s, many feminists continue to maintain that patriarchy is the ultimate cause of all abuse against women.23 Various religious feminists and egalitarians have also argued that patriarchy is the ultimate and necessary cause of all abuse against women. Like the secular feminists who hold this view, these writers also tend to indict patriarchy in any and all forms as the causal factor in all abuse against women. Carolyn Holderread Heggen states The inherent logic of patriarchy says that if men have the right to power and control over women and children, they also have the right to enforce that control. . . . Domination and glorification of violence are characteristics of patriarchal societies. ... In patriarchy, women and children are defined in relation to men who control the resources and the power. Women and children are the other, the object. Men are the norm, the subject. In a dominance-and-submission social order, there is no true mutual care. Subordinates are to care for the needs of the dominants.24
Internal Link – Patriarchy
The discourse of the War on Drugs celebrates manliness, loathes womanliness and prevents peace – we reject that
Workman 96 (Thom, Poli Sci @ U of New Brunswick, YCISS Paper no. 31, p. 7, January 1996, http://www.yorku.ca/yciss/publications/OP31-Workman.pdf)IM
War is masculinist in the sense that it is bound up with the flight from woman to man; it is a repudiation of feminine characteristics and traits in favour of those understood as masculine. War is inscribed with the celebration of manliness and the concomitant loathing of womanliness. We can speak of war in terms of its migration "to the masculine" and its flight "from the feminine". With respect to the former, war is associated explicitly with the achievement and recovery of masculinity. Embedded within the fabric of masculinity are the rituals of violence and destruction. Violence and aggression are not incidental to masculinity; they are integral to its meaning. War arises as the quintessential practice of masculine confirmation; in and through war manliness is achieved. The tapestry of virility embodies the war ethic. The masculinity of the war-maker is not doubted. War becomes the exclusive sanctuary of masculinized males (and occasionally of masculinized females). The extensive role of "women" in the functioning of the militaries is understood logistically but does not resonate within patriarchal consciousness.12 Lyndon Johnson's concern about the measure of a man are telling: President Lyndon B. Johnson had always been haunted by the idea the he would be judged as being insufficiently manly for the job.... He had unconsciously divided people around him between men and boys. Men were the activists, doers, who conquered business empires, who acted instead of talked, who made it in the world and had the respect of other men. Boys were the talkers and the writers and the intellectuals who sat around thinking and criticising and doubting instead of doing.... As Johnson weighed the advice he was getting on Vietnam, it was the boys who were most sceptical, and the men who were most hawkish who had Johnson's respect. Hearing that someone in the administration was becoming a dove on Vietnam, Johnson said "Hell, he has to squat to piss."13 The distancing of oneself from the war-option invites a series of disciplining cultural epithets (such as George Bush's "wimp" image) that signal the fall from the masculine. The debate around the entry of women (and gay men) into the military is driven largely by the fear that the military will be emasculated, this is, that it will lose its integrity as a masculine preserve. Joining the military is understood typically as a part of proving your manliness. Actually fighting in war is a more meaningful confirmation of one's manliness. Males that participate in war in a supportive manner are deemed to be less "manly" that the veteran soldier. Support for peace or peaceful initiatives is viewed easily as a sign of masculine deprivation. Peace is intuited as arousal disfunction.
Share with your friends: |
