Mothers, Monsters, Whores: Women's Violence in Global Politics
This book provides an empirical study of women's violence in global politics. The book looks at military women who engage in torture; the Chechen 'Black Widows '; Middle Eastern suicide bombers; and the women who directed and participated in genocides in Bosnia and Rwanda. Sjoberg & Gentry analyze the biological, psychological and sexualized stereotypes through which these women are conventionally depicted, arguing that these are rooted in assumptions about what is "appropriate" female behavior.What these stereotypes have in common is that they all perceive women as having no agency in any sphere of life.
What people are saying - Write a review
Sjoberg and Gentry write an excellent exposee which undermines a traditional and incorrect perspective in feminism that women are not full political agents because they cannot "do violence". Through a refreshing empirical analysis, the authors explain the effects of dis-empowering discourses of female passivity and chart new political and academic paths for analyzing what it means to be "political" as a female.
(Disclaimer: I am not a social scientist and have only a casual interest in select social science topics; feminism or women's studies are certainly not among those topics, neither is much of current global politics)
I admit feminism has never been one of my most favorite subjects, and this book did little to change that. The authors have clearly devoted a significant amount of time to gathering data, which I'm sure is of great interest to other sociologists looking for sources to cite. For me, the text connecting that data immediately entered a bitter conflict with my attention, and my attention promptly surrendered, routed, and was nevertheless unethically chased down and speared in the back by heavy cavalry, decimated to the last man, child, and yes, woman.
The high point was the attempt at illustration of stereotypes of violent women which I found interesting, however the claims lacked confidence and brevity and I found myself getting tangled up in the disorganized arguments.
I disliked the fact that the book appeared to be mainly concerned with finely dissecting the Abu Gharib scandal and the Chechen and Middle Eastern suicide bombers. It felt like "women" was some new thing invented fifty years ago which people only now began to seriously examine. Only passing examination of historical prevalence of important sociopolitical events and trends (the book talks about no trends) where women were involved was made, and I could not derive any sane, useful, meaningful "general" (if only in the sense of "applies to something besides the authors' strange take on a single isolated incident") conclusion- either such things were deemed unnecessary, or were buried far too deep beneath the convoluted language for me to find.
Throughout I could not help feeling being mistaken for a well-informed academic in the authors' particular field of study- so many "why should I care? Why is this important?" questions I inevitably found myself asking were nonchalantly ignored. Perhaps if I was a well informed expert, I would have enjoyed this book more, but as it is... Umm. Yes.
A WOMAN DID THAT?
TWO NARRATIVES OF MOTHERS MONSTERS
THREE TRIPLE TRANSGRESSIONS AT ABU GHRAIB
FOUR BLACK WIDOWS IN CHECHNYA
SEVEN GENDERING PEOPLES VIOLENCE
LET US NOW SEE BAD WOMEN