Why do we need feminism in geopolitics?

Short reflections on war and peace

Since the onset of the war in Ukraine, we have witnessed an unprecedented polarization of the media space. Not only has truth fallen victim, but also humor and basic common sense have succumbed to bellicose rhetoric.

I believe this is the most dangerous development that could have occurred, highlighting the urgent need for an internationalist pacifist feminist movement capable of countering the pro-NATO and pro-Putin factions with rhetoric grounded in reason and cooperation.

Recently, I had the opportunity to converse with a propagandist supportive of Russia, who acquired Russian citizenship less than a decade ago but exhibits a fervent Russophilia. He vociferates across all channels about the greatness of the war, the magnificence of the military, and how naive Mr. Putin was for not striking Ukraine more forcefully and sooner. Indeed, individuals like this are the equivalents of pro-war pundits in the West. If anyone harbored illusions that pacifist sentiments prevail in Russia, it is time to awaken to reality. The war has brought to the forefront a slew of fervent military conflict proponents, whose toxicity is matched only by the callousness with which they encourage people to go and kill for the very same ideals espoused by the opposing camp: the homeland, precious values, and the need to humiliate the enemies. They are governed by the same idea: our citadel is besieged by barbarian hordes threatening to tear us apart.

For researchers, this presents a fertile ground to identify common threads in pro-war propaganda.

The online commentary, whether from "internationally renowned experts," whether anti or pro-Russia, exhibits disturbingly similar traits. The black-and-white worldview, the hatred, the frenzy for more destruction and bloodshed, the enthusiasm to pour fuel on the fire with both hands, and the condemnation of anyone seeking to end the killings. And the identical responses: "Oh, you want peace? Tell your folks to withdraw, tell the Russians to withdraw, tell the Ukrainians to surrender." Objectives entirely unattainable. But it's good that they shout when they clamor for these things.

Now, where does feminism fit into this picture? I believe its place and role are crucial because, given the escalating risk of conflict, coupled with the nuclear threat, there is a greater need than ever for citizens from all countries to advocate for peace. Because if we survive, we will do so not because of, but despite, the fervent pro-war zealots who become agitated on all channels when it comes to military confrontations. Anyone who does not desire peace is merely a soldier. Whether real or a paper one. And those of paper would do well to be confronted, together, from both sides of the barricade, by rational individuals who refuse to be drawn into destructive initiatives.

There are indeed several significant pacifist groups, but it is dramatic that their importance has declined. During the period when the nuclear threat was acknowledged, pacifist movements held serious sway. However, nowadays, the feminist movement appears to be completely engulfed by militarism. Feminism now supposedly entails the presence of women in the Ukrainian army and the notion that not all women are fleeing with their children across the border. Ironically, from this perspective, the pinnacle of feminism would be for women to leave their young people alone and take up arms. This way, armchair propagandists could find some solace for their keyboard-induced anxiety. There was even discussion of an initiative to mobilize all Ukrainian women for armed combat. However, “due to misogynistic reasons”, of course, which blatantly disregards the real potential of women, this idea was abandoned. Apparently, according to the same “feminists”, a significant opportunity was lost, yet again, when women were disregarded. Because, the most “feminist” thing to do would be to throw women into the front lines, according to the warped mindset influenced by war propaganda. I was even told that an AK-47 doesn't weigh much and that I could bravely wield it. To kill Russians. For the cause. And to demonstrate that efficiency on the battlefield is not determined by gender, which, anyway, does not exist because it is assigned by doctors – who are also misogynists – at birth. I still wonder how the "feminists" could have missed the chance to advocate for the mobilization of Ukrainian women and their deployment – given that we've learned that handling a Kalashnikov isn't very difficult – to the front lines!

It is worth noting that we often start from generous principles and end up, through small but sure steps, with shocking conclusions. We begin with Christian principles, for example, and then, through small yet persistent steps, we discover that God wants us, women, to stay at home to raise children! We start with socialist principles and find out that it's good to have collectivist polyamorous relationships (read: accepting partner infidelity) because that's how we strike at patriarchy. We begin with feminist principles of social equity and end up with the idea that we should raise money to buy drones from the overly “progressive” Turkish government, a NATO partner, to strike at misogynistic Russians. Following the same logic, people who do not hold progressive views on sexuality certainly deserve to be bombed. Bombing, as seen in Afghanistan, has an immensely “beneficial” role in the advancement of feminism and progressivism, being the ultimate expression of democratic values and their efficient spread globally.

On the other hand, I may be possible to find Russians willing to join us in our pacifist efforts, but it is equally possible to encounter individuals who are fanatically pro-war. They resemble our national breed of fanatics in many respects. It is not implausible to assume that in Russia, many victims could fall into the trap of war rhetoric just as they have in other places. I even had a direct discussion with such a person - although it is highly likely that they are well paid - who did everything possible to completely ignore the horrors of war just to "humiliate the West." It is hard to believe, but some people find solace in the idea that they are part of a camp that attacks enemies. I can imagine these individuals savoring their vodka and consoling themselves with the thought that, although tens of thousands of young Russians have died, at least they can fill their mundane existence with acts of heroism on the front lines. Even if they have not been and will not go there, they derive satisfaction from grinning gleefully over piles of corpses.

So, what is to be done?

In order to see the solution, we have to define the problem.  Feminist liberals often argue that "there are multiple forms of feminism, all legitimate." Regrettably, I must assert that the only genuine form of feminism opposes the mass killing machinery that is war and the institutions that enable it. While women in the military may be a source of pride, they also pose a real danger, as they stand alongside men in institutions that can become the most efficient instruments of destruction. But what kind of feminism celebrates fighting side by side with men to kill? Why not advocate, on the same principle, for gender parity in mafia institutions and in their leadership? How can we hope to reform society when we demand integration into the same structures that maintain the status quo, uphold hierarchies and domination, and take pride in killing people?

Albena Azmanova has emphasized that the struggle for women's equality with men in institutions dominated by them has brought personal victories to women but has led to the loss of the war. By achieving equality with men in these institutions, they have ended up sharing the same exploitation and humiliation in an unjust society. They have won the personal battle but lost the social war and legitimized the institutions they fought to enter. They will pay a high price for this, as people reject this type of feminism along with other forms of social injustice.

It is futile to have elites boasting about gender quotas if they are based on the same system that produces insecurity, precariousness, fierce competition, vast inequality, and abject poverty. Feminism, unlike militaristic feminism, should be a formidable enemy, not a guard dog of power. I do not believe that women should comply with the recruitment center to gain legitimacy for profoundly anti-humanist and anti-feminist institutions just to show that they can also pull the trigger. Working in the institutions of an unjust system is at most a necessity, not a motive for progressive zeal.

The geopolitical commentary landscape is almost entirely dominated by men. Whether they are detractors of Russia or admirers, men dominate the scene. Apart from Katie Halper, Rhania Khalek, or Abby Martin, there are few women who have a voice in this field. Recently, both Katie Halper and Rania Khalek have invited members of sexual and feminist minorities from Palestine to their shows to draw attention to an issue that is too often overlooked. The desire to undermine pacifist movements that may emerge within progressive circles has directed the security apparatus toward supporting the idea that the people with whom the West is in conflict are backward and do not have the correct conception of human sexuality. Hence, it was often said that feminists who fight for Palestine, for example, are like chickens advocating for KFC restaurants! That they would be eaten alive in Palestine because there are only "bad and narrow-minded" people there. One of the guests on the mentioned shows stated that all initiatives by progressive young Palestinians to raise awareness in their communities were blocked, precisely to keep alive the idea that their people are irredeemably lost in terms of tolerance. Moreover, there has been frequent discussion about how even in Ukraine there were "progressive" movements aligning with the far-right to support the superiority in terms of tolerance over Russians. The instrumentalization of causes related to women's rights, LGBT community rights, is extremely important in this field. Especially to demonstrate the moral superiority of the "civilized and democratic side of the conflict" and to discourage pacifism.

Indeed, pacifism can also be instrumentalized. When Germany wanted to prevent the United States from entering the First World War, it heavily funded female pacifist movements. Woodrow Wilson had won the elections with a pacifist agenda, and Americans did not want to enter a war they did not consider their own. In this context, an extensive propaganda war was taking place behind closed doors, with adversaries attempting to exploit any vulnerability.

Hence, there is a need for international pacifist feminist movements that escape the attempts of co-optation by belligerent factions. Moreover, pacifism is inherently more difficult to instrumentalize. As mentioned above, it is not impossible, but it is more challenging to use. We have feminist movements, LGBT movements, but we lack pacifist movements. Serious funding is allocated for raising awareness about combating domestic violence or reducing discrimination against minorities, but almost none for peace, cooperation, or raising awareness about the nuclear threat. How many NGOs in Romania or elsewhere in the “civilized” West primarily focus on peace and anti-war activities? How much funding is obtained to fight against war? Are there open competitions for such funds? Curiously, no.

Because movements and civic activism have long ceased to be funded directly with small sums by members and sympathizers. They are funded by competing for huge sums, often from elites. These elites will never desire major changes that significantly threaten their interests. Therefore, we have far too few pacifist NGOs, and they only appear as a continuation of the traditions of the 1960s in Western countries. One of Norway's most important sociologists, Johan Galtung, has been an untiring advocate of peace and conflict studies. Have you heard of a master's degree in peace studies? No, but you have heard of numerous security studies where:

- Force institutions are glorified;

- There is no question of not accepting and even celebrating war;

- War is almost adulated and promoted as a factor of progress;

- Peace is for fools;

- Violence is human nature;

- Peace can never be achieved;

- People are evil and malicious, and only the naive advocate for peace;

- We must invest heavily in weapons and defense in general;

- We must be vigilant, the enemy is watching.

Whenever entering a new study cycle, analyses are conducted on the mental health of future students. I wouldn't accuse all professors and students of security studies of mental health problems. But I am absolutely convinced that if a serious national psychological profiling campaign were conducted, levels of suspicion bordering on paranoia, high anxiety, dualistic worldview, tendency to project one's own shortcomings onto the potential enemy, and probably many others would emerge. And if one day the United Nations were to extend this research to the level of security institutions in all states, nearly identical personality profiles would emerge.

For propagandists, there is not so much effort required. Discourses can be analyzed. It will be seen that Russian propagandists like Mark Sleboda seem to have drunk from the same cup as Lindsay Graham or the valiant Radu Tudor, and the virus of bellicosity has been transmitted. Similarly, there is hatred for pacifism and the disregard for any attempt to nuance the discourse. And the idea that they, with their sinister and dark view of human nature, are the "realists." Let us beware of their "realism." It kills.

And, if we are to survive, we must do so, as I mentioned, despite them, showing that whatever war does, peace does better. That there are only losers in war and that illusory victories only occur in their heads. For the tens of thousands of mothers who have lost their children, the war has long been lost. And perhaps no one invites them to television, but that does not mean they should not be invited.

This article was first published in Romanian here.

Maria Cernat is a graduate of the Faculty of Journalism and Communication Sciences (FJSC) (2001) and of the Faculty of Philosophy (2004) of the University of Bucharest. She holds a Master`s Degree from FJSC in 2002 and in 2008 she got her PhD in Philosophy. She is currently an Associate Professor in the Department of Communication and Public Relations of Titu Maiorescu University and at the Faculty of Communication and Public Relations of SNSPA (National University of Political and Administrative Studies). Since 2011 she has published articles on Romanian websites for political debates (The Barricade, CriticAtac, Cealaltă Agendă, România Curată, Gazeta de Artă Politică, etc.). She is the president of the Institute for Media Research and Human Rights and she co-hosts a podcast focusing on Eastern-Europe politics „On the Barricades”.