The US military and patriarchy

By: Marc

As many of you may know, I haven’t exactly held my tongue when it comes to speaking out against the sexism and homophobia of the US military. In fact, for doing so, I’ve been pulled off the air for “re-training” or been asked to just play music many times when I was a younger journalist.

Here, without the constraints of someone telling me what I can and cannot say, I’d like to explore the topic of the US military as a form of patriarchy toward other nations, and specifically, their women.

Imagine yourself a young, conventionally attractive woman from a war-torn, economically depressed country the US current occupies. Although traditions dictate that you belong in the private sphere, as a young woman, you are also the one responsibility for well-being of your family, to include making sure everyone has enough to eat, and that there is a roof over your heads.

To accomplish these tasks you have a few choices: you can either work at one of the many American factories, standing in long assembly lines all day, producing clothing and other products to be sold in America, being paid only enough for food, and most certainly, less than the minimum wage mandated in America (the reason many jobs get shipped overseas.).

To make more money, you can also be a part of the sex trade industry – becoming prostitutes to local men and visitors, or if you’re especially attractive, sex mongers from other nations – often European – will readily snatch you up to work in red light districts, catering to men with more economic powers than you do.

This work, too, does not yield economic power, and it becomes especially hard to get out of such work, even when you’ve paid off their debts. In some cases, when you’re subjected to sexual violence, there is nothing you can do

.There is always a third choice if you do not think working for an American clothing company, spending all day doing mundane tasks is appealing, or you do not like the idea of being paid for having sex. If your country happens to be occupied by the US military, you can always hope of marrying an American military man and upon being taken to America, work your butt off to send money to your family. After all, what’s not to like about being the wife of an American service member? Being an American is the greatest blessing God can bestow upon a person – as John Winthrop so eloquently put, and by extension, if you are a wife of an American, it’s also a blessing.

Upon marriage, you’ll be taken on base, where a variety of Army Community Service organizations will be there to help you out. You’ll learn to cook the American way, take care of your husband, minimal English as to understand what he’s asking for, how to clean to American standards, and the do’s and dont's of being a military spouse. You’ll also be indoctrinated into the mindset that being a military wife is the toughest job in the world, and that you’re all better for choosing to do this, even if it means you’ll sometimes be rejected by your own family and community – you know, the one you’re trying to help, while the US occupies your village and country.

Should the marriage fall apart and you’re already in America, there isn’t much you can do. But does it matter? You’re in America! With the skills you’ve acquired, you can always be a waitress, work at the local thrift store, or, if you change your mind, still be a sex worker! Your greatest asset as a woman is your vagina!

For all the faults I see with the 2nd-Wave feminist movement, we do owe to them feminist theory and the idea that patriarchy not only means the subjugation of men over women, but Western men over women of developing nations. In short, within patriarchy, at the top of the list is Western men, and at the bottom is women from other nations.

Apply this theory to the military and we clearly see the patriarchal aspects of power, sex and economics being played out everyday. Western men, with more economic power, and the perceived power of simply being an American, have at their disposals the lives of women from developing nation. If they so choose to, and many often do, American men can marry women of these nations, who clearly have very few opportunities. Rather than a lifetime of partnership, these relationships are based on a lifetime of master-slave relationships.

I am not one to question other people’s relationships, but one has to wonder why a man would marry someone who does not share the cultural, beliefs, dreams and ambitions he does. The answer is obvious: for some of these men, marriage isn’t about equality and love – it’s about gaining access to a life of ease, physical happiness and someone to be there.

For these women, marriage then becomes a stepping stone, whereas their own bodies and selves become commodities. After all, if you’ve got no other ways out, and short of prostitution, the best way to get out of an economically depressing situation is to marry someone with power – preferably Western power. It’s not enough that they are exploited by men in their own countries, they are also exploited by more powerful men from Western nations.

Clearly, while we cannot regulate who marries whom, I think we can work toward giving such women better opportunities. Rather than simplying teaching gendered skills aimed at making them “good wives,” the US military ought to have more classes that aim at empowering women, so they can gain the skills neccesary to be dependent of the men they married. But I am not holding my breath, because national security and military might have little to do with social justice, and unless dictated by feminist military generals and feminist members of the Department of Defense, it’s unlikely to happen.

On a last note: many anti-feminists and so-called Men’s Rights Advocates will claim that since women exploit men for money, why can’t men do the same in regards to a woman’s body? The answer is because women aren’t exploiting men. It is not exploitation when, at the end of such arrangements and marriages, women gain nothing; it isn’t exploitation when women enter a relationship knowing that she will rely on the man for everything, yet the man can break such relationships at anytime, and she’d be without economic stability; it isn’t exploitation when the men who enter these relationships clearly did so out of choice, but given the choices women had, such relationships weren’t much of a choice.

To be clear – these marriages aren’t “relationships” and aren’t based on love – they’re merely a long-lasting form of prostitution – and sadly, like many sex workers, foreign wives of American military men lack the rights and protections they need, in case the client-prostitute relationship turns sour