Comment 11
War St u d ie s ’ “ G en de r We e k ” i s Par t o f t he Pro b lem Anoushay Okhai S t a f f Wr i t e r
writer Anoushay Okhai on War StudR oar ies’ “gender week”, and why it is an in-
adequate solution to the lacking role of gender in the department’s modules. The KCL War Studies department has long striven to provide equal opportunities in a sector rife with sexism and female underrepresentation. One solution of theirs is “gender week”, a week set aside in compulsory first-year modules to specifically introduce women’s place in war and security. Though it gives a much-needed platform to gender discourse in warfare, the way in which gender week is handled ultimately risks being counterproductive. The limitation of a single week, the restriction of the subject, and the treatment of gender as an isolated issue tokenises and trivialises the topic, ultimately jeopardising security studies as a whole. First-year War Studies gives a broad overview of the discipline’s fundamental topics. Compulsory modules such as Causes of War, Experience of War, and Contemporary Security Issues (shared with International Relations) span topics such as historical warfare, modern security threats, and the impacts of conflict on those engaged. Gender, somehow, is treated as a separate issue from all of these themes. Women’s experiences and involvement in combat and policy are restricted entirely to the allotted week. Despite valuable gendered elements to themes like insurgency or various historical conflict narratives, there is minimal intersection. With only one week devoted to the subject, the content covered in each module is limited. Causes of War, for instance, largely focusses on sexual violence and gender theory. Though both are important subjects, there are several issues with making these topics the basis of this part of the curriculum. Sexual violence, for instance, is a triggering and therefore inaccessible topic for many more people than one would perhaps expect. Additionally, it contributes to the constant portrayal of women as submissive. The majority of the discourse portrays women as victims of war.
added, “Focussing on ‘victimhood’ for discussion ment continues to be part of the problem. It has implies that that’s the only role for women in war.” an opportunity to promote more widespread recognition of women’s issues; their contributions to This could have serious consequences for security war and policy-making, and how those function in as a whole. Contemporary Security Issues also fo- prominent security threats. Instead, the subject is cusses largely on sexual violence, but also on wom- treated as a politically correct requirement, thereen’s roles within ISIS. It is only upon independent by diminishing its value. So how could it be better? further research that one learns women were tasked with rebuilding the caliphate in 2017 and are large- There’s the alternative of making gender week ly responsible for recruitment. The policies crafted more wide-ranging. Last year’s required articles paid no attention to this vital information; result- for Causes were focussed entirely on renowned antly, 550 women slipped through proactive strate- sexist Van Creveld’s piece on how women fighting gies and joined ISIS in January 2015. The problem creates the illusion of feminism; around half of the with teaching students to only associate gender lecture spoke about gender roles. War Studies is a in conflict with female victims is that, in future, fascinating course; if it were less theory-heavy, and they likely won’t formulate adequate strategies. focussed less on academics who don’t value women, this would be far more interesting and useful. War Studies and Philosophy student Sam Light is one of many who thinks gender week wouldn’t ex- The best option, though, would be to do away with ist unless it were mandated. He added that it al- gender week altogether. Instead, it should be inways felt like the week the GTAs were least enthu- tegrated across the course and allowed to overlap siastic about, regardless of their gender. Our GTA with broader sub-themes. If gender and its assoin particular was notably disdainful; she found the ciated concepts were interweaved throughout the heavy focus on theory incredibly difficult to teach, course, it would be seen as legitimate and compreand we found it nearly impossible to analyse pro- hensive teaching rather than isolated specialisaductively. This difficulty spans multiple modules; tion. Students and staff would be able to go beyond Chloe Temple, studying War Studies and History, surface-level, monolithic studies, and be encourrelayed how her lecturer told personal stories of her aged to incorporate gendered thinking throughout time in the army rather than anything functionally security studies as a whole. Women are people, not academic. These are not isolated incidents; when requirements; it is not acceptable to treat them as much of the literature is dated analyses on the ex- such. istence of sexism, it is difficult to impart anything new. All of this amplifies the inaccessibility of gender week; despite being keenly interested in gendered representation, it hindered Chloe and many others from being able to engage in that week. Gender week does not take women’s issues seriously enough - its subject matter is seen solely as a diversity requirement instead of a legitimate, impactful topic. Fascinating and important gendered war and security topics exist, but they are currently uncovered by independent researchers. Women are overwhelmingly the ones who choose to do so; men, however, hardly ever take an independent interest. Sam Light suspects that “‘male’ is seen as the default identity, so any deviation is labelled as a sign of difference”. This makes sense: when the only compulsory gender education is a week of studying women as “others”, it’s a logical conclusion for men to reach.
This perpetuates the misogyny that gender week aims to fight — future members of a male-dominated sector will enter into an education that exacerbates the view of women as a dependent monolith. As War Studies student Alicia Jenkins In viewing women as a token subject, the depart-
A c t i v i s m T h ro ug h Ic e C re am Ha n n a P h a m Staf f Wr ite r
writer R oar ice cream
Hanna Pham on Ben & Jerry’s ment to Black Lives Matter and “the urgent need to and the authenticity of politi- take concrete steps to dismantle white supremacy.” cal activism in businesses and corporations. Firstly, Ben & Jerry’s called upon President Trump Amidst an extremely divisive political climate, to no longer use Twitter to fan the flames of white it is seemingly impossible for individuals to supremacy and called upon Congress to pass H.R. not have an opinion on the current state of the 40, creating a commission to analyze the effects of world and this logic applies to businesses as well. slavery and how they could be remedied. They also called for the authorization of legislation to promote As consumers, it is important for us to err on the police accountability and combat racial violence side of caution as big-name brands take a stance and for the recommitment of more energy to the against systemic racism or the coronavirus pan- Civil Rights division in the Department of Justice. demic without addressing their internal issues regarding these matters. However, the promi- However, they go beyond just broad statements— nence of unexpected businesses authentically their political beliefs present themselves through raising awareness of social issues, specifically ice their products. As an ice cream brand, they have cream brands, in our daily lives is hard to ignore. a unique means by which they make their products reflect their political beliefs. To celebrate Ben & Jerry’s, arguably the best ice cream you can the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold marbuy in a supermarket, has a long history of speak- riage equality, “I Dough, I Dough” was released. ing out in solidarity with LGBT equality, climate change, democracy, and most recently the Black “The Flavor Empower Mint” was released on the anLives Matter movement. While many brands post- niversary of the 1954 Brown vs Board of Education ed a black screen and a corresponding hashtag in ruling that ended segregation in schools, and part solidarity with the movement, Ben & Jerry’s voiced of its sales were redirected to the North Carolina their support four years ago when many companies NAACP. The flavour, Love Is, released on Valentine’s found it too polarizing an issue to speak on publicly. Day in 2019, had part of its profits go to the charity Refugee Action, because “Ben & Jerry’s is about sharIn light of George Floyd’s death, they posted an ing love”. On top of that, Ben and Jerry themselves essay on their website reaffirming their commit- were arrested in 2016 while protesting in Washington D.C. In essence, it seems like every aspect of
Ben & Jerry’s is a reflection of their political beliefs. In today’s political climate, 70% of consumers want to know how brands handle social and economic issues — Ben & Jerry’s is a prime example of a company long associated with having a politically conscious core. That being said, even with the overt progressiveness of Ben & Jerry’s they have caught criticism from Palestinian rights groups regarding business practices in the contested area of the West Bank. According to the United Nation Human Rights Office Ben & Jerry’s, alongside 112 other companies, have profited from allowing their ice cream to be sold by the Israeli supermarket, Shufersal, that “profit from settlement activity in the West Bank.” While it is encouraging to see consumers care more about the ethical practices of corporations, it remains unclear to what extent businesses, in general, commodify social issues for their profits, versus having an authentic progressive stance. As previously mentioned, the ongoing Black Lives Matter movement has sparked companies to post on social media in solidarity, but not to address how systemic racism feeds into their own companies specifically. Looking to the future, will corporations strive to genuinely support social issues as demanded by consumers? Or will they pander to whatever issues are topical in the news to drive up profits?