Fine – so antiwar feminism is necessarily a strong combination of radical and socialist’ feminism. But surely, at least, it is not ‘liberal’ feminism? Wrong again. If the concept of ‘women’s rights had not been invented, antiwar feminists would surely have invented them. Opposing militarism and war we have had to campaign for ‘women’s rights as human rights’, for the development of a system of international justice, for rape to be defined as a war crime. We have had to campaign for such liberal principles as women’s equal treatment and fair representation in political systems. How else to describe our struggle to achieve UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security with its call for the proper inclusion of women in peace negotiations and peace-keeping operations?
I understand the points the writer is trying to make (I agree with them even), but I think she misses on one key point: intersectionality. Feminism exists within a context where many other matters intersect (gender, race, rights, equality, justice, choice, sexuality, and a long list of etc.). As it is presented in the article, it might appear that feminism exists in a sort of vacuum where anti war activists are not equally influenced and affected by this constellation of issues that are common and inherent to feminism. What she calls “holistic feminism” is what I call a “feminism against oppression” (any kind of oppression), which quite honestly, it’s the only kind of feminism I can get behind.
For the past decade and a half I have been making all my content available for free (and never behind a paywall) as an ongoing practice of ephemeral publishing. This site is no exception. If you wish to help offset my labor costs, you can donate on Paypal or you can subscribe to Patreon where I will not be putting my posts behind a lock but you'd be helping me continue making this work available for everyone. Thank you. Follow me on Twitter for new post updates.