There is no such thing as ‘Weaponized Feminism’ to justify international armed or humanitarian interventions. Sadly, my observations of the international scene as per the operations of feminism and perceptions of women as vulnerable populations worthy of interventions on their behalf, military or otherwise (education, medical aid, food security etc.) is precisely the opposite of that thesis. Specifically, I’ve observed over the course of over three decades of close scrutiny, as a feminist, social and cultural critic, that NO ‘weaponizing’ of women’s express vulnerability within nations ruled as, or threatened by, factions of the Islamic State or violent Islamic extremists has taken place, though perhaps it should, at least in support of humanitarian aid, medical, educational, social and food security interventions.
My studies have shown me that there has historically not even been much notice taken of their (our) plight in threatened or war-torn countries harried by extremist Islamic factions, like the Taliban in Afghanistan, ISIL and the Pan-Islamic militant organization al-Qaeda, now reforming in both Iraq and Afghanistan and other vulnerable or fractured nations states, Boko-Haram in Nigeria and Congo, etc., etc..–or anywhere else, for that matter.
That is why international and national organizations such as SWAG (the Status of Women Action Group) and NOW (the National Organization for Women), exist. We are a vulnerable population everywhere that still struggles under quasi-religious masculinist values; witness the current U.S. Supreme Court’s negation of Roe vs Wade, and the pending eradication of women’s Reproductive Rights in most of America. We, as a population, are vulnerable because we still, after nearly 40 years of in-your-face proactive Second Wave Feminism (nearly as radical as the Women’s Suffrage Movement, but not quite–we represented only two thirds of a legal ‘person,’ in those days, after all…There was a lot to set right), and while, overall we’ve come up a bit from earning 60% of what an equally or less qualified male will make in the same job, for the same work, to something more like 80%, in most developed Western nations, we are still not there. Based on gender, and until the numbers bear it out, we still represent a vulnerable underclass. And, until violence against women ceases to represent the leading human rights abuse on the planet, I don’t think we can claim to be ‘there.’
It is never the plight of the (absolutely, very evidently) vulnerable female populations that spurs U.S., British, Canadian or other Western nations’ interventions–military or otherwise–but other factors considered much more important–like George Bush Jr.’s egoic contest with his father and former president George Bush Sr., with Islamophobe Billy Graham whispering in his ear to start a new ‘crusade’ and observe the decree of a ‘Higher Father’ (his exact words), along with tired old war hawks from his father’s administration, Cheney and Rumsfeld, instead of heeding the advice of his earthly father and former CIA chief, George Bush Sr., NOT to get in a war against Saddam Hussein (Bush Sr.’s former CIA proxy and plant turned renegade and adversary, like Noriega). It was never, never the plight of women under these regimes that prompted interventions and there was never even the pretense of aid to women being prioritized. That only ever happened on the part of individual feminist activists and feminist organizations, both inside and outside the countries threatened by misogynistic extremist factions, like RAWA, Human Rights Watch (U.N.) and Amnesty International.
Thinking further on the hawks within Trump’s administration who pushed for military interventions, even bombing raids, within Afghanistan, Syria, Palestine, Iraq, and (especially) Iran (Mike Flynn, Mike Pompeo, John Kelly, John Bolton, etc.), they never cited the welfare or conditions of women as a vulnerable population to support their cause, or not to my knowledge.
They wouldn’t, I don’t think, as they are, to a man, members of the American Religious Right, who don’t think women should have bodily autonomy or rights over reproduction choices, and should cleave unto their husbands and/or fathers as per Christian scripture, and have always been extremely up front about these beliefs. In terms of ideologies of femininity, they are much more in agreement with their perceived religious adversaries than in opposition to them–at least on matters concerning women’s rights. I don’t think they ever weaponized feminism in asserting their mutual cause. Their overt motivation was always a virulent, oft-stated Islamophobia–at least from the point of view of threatened Islamic States, like Iran:
https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/409345/Alarming-appointees-Trump-and-his-Islamophobic-ideologues
Trump absolutely ignored the plight of those fighting ISIL in the mid-East, including the all-women militias in Palestine and Syria, who’d been fighting the Islamic State in organized and effective ways since 2015, so as to make themselves, their mothers and their children less vulnerable to the rampant abduction, concubinage and rapine practiced by ISIL fighters, and because nobody else would do it–have their backs–prioritize their education, medical, social or food security.Trump’s abrupt withdrawal from Syria and Palestine, on Turkish dictator Erdogan’s insistent request (so he could go in and slaughter Kurds, mainly), left not only the regular Syrian forces in the lurch, but the self-made, no longer vulnerable Christian, Kurdish and other female militias abandoned and in renewed, grave danger. (Especially as the abrupt withdrawal automatically released scores of incarcerated ISIL terrorists, putting them out on the streets and boardrooms once again.)
https://www.timesofisrael.com/christian-female-fighters-take-on-the-islamic-state-in-syria/
https://www.middleeasteye.net/fr/news/christian-female-fighters-take-syria-950366808
Then Biden pulled out of Afghanistan abruptly without consideration of the women who literally had to put the Burka back on and get off the streets so as to avoid getting beaten (or worse) by the reinstated Taliban government. Feminists from around the world were begging Biden to consider the plight of women in Afghanistan, and he wouldn’t–didn’t–do it. HE didn’t ‘weaponize’ feminism; Trump didn’t. George Bush Jr. and Billy Graham (Rumsfeld, Cheney, et al, SURE didn’t, being basically Fundamentalist themselves). There was nary a mention of the vulnerable female populations in these fundamentalist Islamic State war zones by militaristic Western nations determined to invade–ever.) That has been left to feminists and aid organizations, NGOs, attempting to pick up the pieces. (And they, unlike the determined women of Palestine and Syria, HAVE no militias.)
Now, women in Aghanistan are are crashing into the heart of a full-scale humanitarian disaster, literally starving, and access to either education or even the most rudimentary medical, not to mention gynaecological or obstretric care, is once again non-existent, as it was under Taliban control twenty years ago and previously, after the Soviet pull-out. (They weren’t in there there for women either.) To be fair, the entire Afghan population is starving, but women, children and the elderly always suffer worse privation in these situations–always:
‘…Afghanistan is being hit by multiple crises that are “progressively getting worse,” with drought, economic collapse and displacement all pushing the population into catastrophic hunger, a senior international aid official said Thursday. “The onset of winter will only increase the pain for Afghans and drive some closer to disaster,” warned Alexander Matheou, Asia-Pacific regional director for the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. “Staying warm and putting food on the table is now harder than it was before. And if you fall sick, you are more likely to struggle in trying to access health care,” he said in an interview with The Associated Press at the end of a visit to Afghanistan. “For people who already vulnerable, they will become more vulnerable. For people already in critical condition, it could become deadly,” Matheou added. According to U.N. figures from early November, almost 24 million people in Afghanistan, around 60% percent of the population, suffer from acute hunger. That includes 8.7 million living in near-famine. Increasing numbers of malnourished children have filled hospital wards.’
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/afghanistan/2021-12-03/afghanistans-looming-catastrophe
First-world nations all over the globe are trying to figure out ways to help without all the aid going straight into Taliban leaders’ and their ranking cadres’ pockets. “As Afghanistan’s economy collapses, international community looks for innovative ways to avoid humanitarian disaster. A U.N. program supporting health clinics could provide a model for injecting cash into the economy while bypassing the interim Taliban government…”
Would that there were such a thing as “‘Weaponized Feminism’ spurring broad-based international humanitarian interventions on women’s behalf, or used to justify humanitarian interventions on the part of vulnerable populations in war-torn nations. If only….
Yvonne Owens, Ph.D 