What's the difference … between a war zone and a situation experienced by a female student walking to the university, after reaching the university library after darkness? The similarities between the two [are] striking. A woman walking over campus campus … because of an immediate injury or death … Why is such a scenario usually referred to as a war zone? – Thom Workman (1995, 1-2)
I recently asked my wife why she felt uncomfortable walking alone from our university campus to our home for the night. When I asked, we returned from a dinner time and we kissed a little bit of some of the evening activities. As soon as I asked the question, however, his behavior was immediately changed from lightness, from players to difficult and serious; he answered nervously. He explained that he had always moved or he was walking home because he did not feel safe on the dark, bushy roads leading to our home, without the nearby being protected. I explained it to a further explanation and replied that if it was actually attacked, there would be no protection. He could not have expected anyone to hear or respond to crying in the campus, probably not able to leave the attacker, especially since he is currently pregnant and too small to physically defend himself from a male assailant.
My wife's answers to my question, and especially the emotions she showed on her face while speaking, opened my eyes to the honesty and justice of fear she felt. Men often hear that women in the dark, isolated places face difficulties when they are themselves, but it is difficult for most men to understand why women may feel these feelings because they are so different from things. The feelings of fear and anxiety give confidence to the observations made by Thom Workman, "The Mars Hidden Agenda: Race, Class and Gender in the Contemporary War" (Workman 2005). Workman directly mentions "the threat of injury and death, concerns about survival … the development of special relationships, anxiety and anxiety" that characterize the feelings of men and women trapped in war zones with the emotions that female university students like my wife , they feel they have to walk alone in the dark (Workman 2005, 2). He argues that since both situations have the same negative emotions, the practical difference between the two is, at least in this case, not important.
However, the greatest point in the worker is that women are subjected to separate violence both for war and peace, as violence is an inherent and essential part of sociocultural practices recorded in the patriarchal world system (Workman 2005, 5). This is a feminist view of war and violence, as it says, that patriarchal violence focuses on women, as women are largely absent, even invisible to security planners and governments in general. This invisibility is rooted in the masculine security concept, and this is not a disorder outside the social structure. It is rather an integral part of what citizens, and even patriarchal societies, understand as normal and acceptable.
In Carol Cohn's article, Sex and Death in the defense intellectual rational world goes on. It analyzes the importance of comprehensive sexual metaphors in the language of the defense community, and in particular in the field of nuclear deterrence. He estimates that the special, sexual language of the defense community "both reflects and shapes the nature of the American nuclear strategy project" (Cohn 1987, 690). In other words, it is largely impossible to understand the culture and ethos of the defense community in a non-sexual sense. Furthermore, Cohn argues that sexual metaphors and sexist language "play a central role in defending and acting on defense intellectuals as it is" and that feminists should carefully choose their own words to speak with the right audience (Cohn 1987, 690). You feel that the people of the defense community will not understand the feminist security concepts, as these ideas are easily recognizable in the traditional folk language of the defense industry.
The effect of Cohn's argument is to reinforce the idea that Workman suggested that war and, in general, violence are part of the patriarchal system. The same language that men talk about sexual and sexual life in everyday life, about missiles and tactics. Violence and sexuality are inseparably interconnected in the defense world (Cohn 1987, 692-693) because the defense community, like all other societies, is dominated by the patriarchate and closes most of women's substantive participation.
Similarly to masking the defense community, they resemble the consequences of neglecting women in other aspects of society. In development, outdated policies that exclude women from calculations are ineffective for ineffective practices and unsuccessful efforts (Man-made Hungine 1986). Regarding a terrible irony, women are usually the most affected part of society when development and reform measures fail (Cornwall 2003). Likewise, decisions taken during a war in the defense facility, the use of weapons, the tactics to follow and the enemy must be identified without taking into account the woman's view. Women are invisible in defense circles because their perspective is ignored and their invisibility results in serious problems such as the official policy of soldiers using armed violence (Bumiller 1999, Kristof 1995, Mydans 2001, Sanger 1992, Shapiro 1995, Simons 2001a, 2001b and Tetreault 1995). It can also create enormous security situations that make rape a common and weakly criminal offense (Makiya 1993, Polgreen 2005 and Sengupta 2003) and discrimination against women, which distinguishes maternity and maternal duties with martyrdom and murder (Bennet 2002a, 2002b, and McGirk 2007). Thus, masseurization of the defense institution is a special target of violence throughout the world for women during the conflict
. Violence against women is generally rooted in society, even during peacetime, which are motivated by violence during the conflict: patriarchal dominance, sexual language and female invisibility. Women are targets of special violence because of their situation of unusually vulnerable society; the structure of most societies collects the second-class status of women from birth to death into the psychology of women and men, and because of their second-class status, women are more likely to become victims of violence because they are least able to influence society or law through their policies.
As during the conflict, rape is a major cause of violence against women during the peacetime. Even in peace often the military is guilty, as the young women's problems facing the Amazonian tribes prove when the Brazilian soldiers are near their villages. Young women are moved by Brazilian soldiers who provide girls and their families with food and other equipment. The soldiers then sucked the girls, leaving their families and villages with ethnic mixed children who may or may not be faithful to the community when they are grown (Rohter 2002). United Nations peacekeepers were perpetrators of similar crimes in other parts of the world (Associated Press 2005 and Hoge 2005), as US soldiers in Japan (Associated Press 2000a and Pollack 1996) and even US Air Force Academy (Janofsky 2003)
more often, perpetrators of violence against women during the peacetime are not soldiers. Cultural attitudes that dictate what makes women "good women" in most societies makes it difficult for women to get help when rape occurs and it is even harder to convince their offenders. Social barriers that prevent women from bringing onslaught on trial racially consider rapists as relatively low risk offenses. The shame of rape is projected to the family of the victim, not only to his own person, and in some cultures the victim is often murdered in "honest murder" or forced to "commit suicide" to his own life. because his death is perceived as recovering lost family honor (Associated Press 2000b, Bilefsky 2006 and Bumiller 1999).
This attitude is not limited to the Third World or ultra-Conservative Religious Societies; live, and even in the first world, even in the United States. Even as a white Christian man, I can not understand the crime victim, though not the stigma of sexual crime. When I was in high school I jailed and my jacket and rucksack stolen. For reasons unexplainable to date I have been too ashamed to tell my parents the imprisonment. After a few days he questioned what had happened, and eventually the information came to me. I can only imagine how terrible the sadness of becoming a victim is to women who are raped or otherwise abused. In my case, it was a rather irrational shame that remained silent. In the case of abused women, the fear of sexual and abusive social taboos, the fear of refusing family and friends, and the inherent difficulties and emotional pains of conviction in rape are a real and very rational feeling of shame.
Although it is obvious that the victim is not mistaken, he probably appears to be "dirty" or "asked" whether he was relentlessly dressed or walked alone in the dark as if those factors were that the attackers had the right to force women (Magowan 2002). In fact, the stigma attached to the victims of sexual harassment is so great, even in America, that only five killers have been convicted of their offenses for every hundred reported rape. This statistic does not include non-reported rape, which surely exceeds those reported (Magowan 2002). The shame of becoming a victim forces many women to remain invisible and hide the crimes committed against them, which in turn reduces the cost of committing such crimes and encourages murderers to sacrifice other women. Thus, regardless of whether a woman lives in a country blessed with peace or war, it must face equal dangers. In order to ensure that women are safe, sacrificing stigma must be removed from cultural attitudes and the situation of women should be widely publicized. Only if women are not in constant danger will they be able to enjoy the full benefits of peaceful, prosperous societies. It is unfortunate that half of the population can not fully feel the feeling of security outside the war zone.