The Hardships of War Babies

While reading Alison Watson’s article on Children Born of Wartime Rape, I found many things interesting and many more disturbing. Right at the beginning of the article I could not believe that war crime rape was not, until recently, seen as an international war crime. I can only imagine the hardships and distress that these women go through when they are raped but not having it recognized as a crime in the international arena, would make it that much worse. When the war crime of rape was not recognized as a crime, then was it a more common occurrence compared to now? Or, do war soldiers, focusing in Darfur, do not take into consideration that rape, in war, is a war crime, do they just do as they wish, no matter the crime?

            For the women in Darfur, many of are going through traumatic times; their country is involved in war and their loved ones are dying. On top of that, enemy soldiers are raping them. As discussed in class, the reason for the rape of these women is to bring shame towards the male members of their community/society. This is why many of these women do not report these rapes or mention them to anyone in their family, though sometimes others find out: when wartime babies are born. Some reasons why women do not want to report the rape is because of the shame brought on their families but they are also stigmatized by society (p. 21).

            One concept that is not taken into consideration by many people is the babies that are the outcome of wartime rape. Many hardships are brought upon their mother and family as a result, as well as he child. It is often seen that the mothers of war babies are victims but not everyone takes into consideration that these babies are victims as well (p. 27). Sometimes their mothers can abandon these babies because they could remind their mother of the horrific crime against them. Also, having a wartime baby produces a stigma against the mother and the child, as well as that women’s family. Society could judge them and treat them differently, even look down upon them, as a result of the rape. It could also be possible that if the women was married that her husband would not want to have to raise and take care of a child of another man, especially because often in these cultures money and resources such as food is scarce.

            The question may be asked, if the mothers do not want these babies then why do they not get an abortion? In poorer countries, such as Darfur, abortions could not be legal. These countries also do not have the resources to perform safe abortions and therefore the abortion would endanger the women. 

Watson, Alison. “Chidren Born of Wartime Rape: Rights and Representation”. International Feminist Journal of Politics. ,9:1,20 — 34, 2007.

Genocide

The article, Gender and Genocide in Rwanda, by Adam Jones, the topic of gendercide is discussed.  The term gendercide is different from genocide; gendercide is the mass killing of a specific gender, in this case, the Tutsis male population. The Rwanda gendercide was a unique circumstance because boys and men were targeted and women were not, in fact, women were sometime the agents of gendercide. This is rare because women are often seen as vulnerable and peaceful and to have the women being the ones who are helping in the mass killings has been rarely, if at all, seen in history. When the Rwanda gendercide was first starting to take place, the United Nations and other International Organizations did not speculate that the Hutu were at first, targeting the male population of Tutsis. If so they might have tries to evacuate the male Tutsis population from Rwanda. This might have been ideal for International Organizations to do this but that does not mean that even if they new gerndercide was being committed, they would have done anything differently. The Rwanda gendercide is seen as a failure towards the United Nations because they were slow to respond to the situation and not very successful in helping the Tutsis populations escape the horrors that were occurring.

            Women were not just agents of gendercide but they also tried desperately to try and save their sons form the Hutu. In desperation to protect them, the women tried to dress up the younger boys as girls in an attempt to save their children from being killed (p. 205).  The distress and horror that the Tutsis population must have gone through during this time is unimaginable. Their children and family were not just killed but the Tutsis women were also raped. The Hutu wanted to impregnate the Tutsis women, so they could increase the Hutu population and demolish the Tutsis population. The replications that the Hutu put on Rwanda are still affecting Rwanda today. The male population in Rwanda is still significantly low today and as a result there is more women representation in parliament then in most countries in Africa.

Jones, Adam. “Gender and Genocide in Rwanda”. Gender Inclusive: Essays on violence, men, and feminist international relations. Great Britain, 2009

Choice and Preventability

I always find Joni Seager’s, The Penguin Atlas of Women in the World, really interesting and it makes me aware of issues and problems that I know little about.  In her chapter about abortion, I found it hard to comprehend the number of unsafe abortions in 2003, the world average was 48 percent (Seager, p. 39). In some developed countries, such as Canada, the number was 15 percent, which, in my opinion seems shockingly high (Seager, p. 38). Another topic that came up in the abortion section of her book was the legalization of abortions. I have always believed that it should be the women’s choice to have an abortion but a large portion of the world’s countries does not see it that same as I do. Will these countries ever change their laws regarding abortion? I believe that there will always be a strive to change abortion laws but even countries, such as the United States, where abortions are legal, there are people trying to make them illegal. I see illegalizing abortions as taking a step back and what hope do women have in countries that do not allow abortions if countries that do allow them are tying to disallow abortions?

            HIV and Aids is a disease that is not curable, yet, but can easily be prevented.  Unfortunately many people still contract HIV or Aids because they are poorly educated, do not have the resources, such as condoms, or cannot be protected from the disease, such as children. I find it be sad that simple remedies such as education and condoms have the ability to prevent, possibly millions, of lives but the resources and funding is not there to do so. It was stated in class that is costs about three American dollars to supply one condom to a person in need, such as someone in Africa, and that one condom could prevent that person from getting HIV or AIDS. Unfortunately that one person would need more than one condom throughout the duration of their life and it is not just one person but also millions of people who need these condoms. Funding to provide this is not available because it is not just condoms but education to use the condoms and there are so many tragedies, diseases, and famines in the world that there is not enough money to go around to sufficiently help each cause.

Seager, Joni. 2009. The Penguin Atlas of Women in the World. NY: Penguin. 

While reading Carol Cohn, “Sex and Death in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals”, many thoughts and questions came to mind. I thought it was interesting how once she became emerged in the life of nuclear technology and weapons she believed, and with good reasoning, that the only way she could strive in that environment is that she had to start speaking that language. It was clear that speaking this language was necessary to adapt to working with nuclear weapons. For this group of people using this language was psychological in order to distance themselves from the topic at hand, I believe that they had to dehumanize what they were doing (Cohen, p. 698). Cohen came up with a strong point; “the process of learning the language is itself a part of what removes you from reality of nuclear war” (Cohen, p. 704). Though this statement is valid, in my belief, it concerns me that with this mind frame, it makes the idea nuclear war more acceptable and a likelier measure to turn to, instead of peaceful resolution. If nuclear war has a mind frame that does not include innocent lives being lost in a nuclear attack, does this mean that it is more probable to occur? Is there any way to balance the masculine features behind nuclear war to make the tasks at hand easier to accomplish but yet still realize that these weapons take human lives and the use of nuclear bombs should not be taken lightly?

            Another point that Cohn made in the article, which I found to be rather interesting, was that in relation to nuclear arms, there is no term or acknowledgement of peace (Cohen, p.708). Cohen explains that the workers on the nuclear weapons do not see peace as an option or likely outcome. Is this the actual reality of having nuclear weapons in multiple countries or just the jaded answer that military personnel choose to use? In my opinion I think it is a little bit of both.

Cohn, Carol. “Sex and Death in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals,” Signs 12 (1987): 687.