Mothers, Monsters, Whores: Women's Violence in Global Politics

by Laura Sjoberg, Caron E. Gentry

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.

Genres: Nonfiction, Feminism, Academic, International Relations, Politics, Academia, Gender and Sexuality

232 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2007

About the author

Laura Sjoberg is Assistant Professor at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Virginia. Her first book Gender, Justice and the Wars in Iraq was published in 2006. She has published articles on just war theory in the International Journal of Feminist Politics, International Politics and International Studies Quarterly. Her research focuses on gender, just war theory, international security and international ethics.

Reviews

[owlette · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an important book for thinking about what feminism truly stands for and how international politics affect and are affected by the gendered discourses around women who commit political violence.

The title refers to the three ways the mainstream analyses explain why some military women engage in proscribed violence in international arena, mainly torture, genocide, and terrorism. Mother: these women commit violence because they are mothers or wanted to be mothers but failed. Monsters: these women are crazy. Whores: "bitches be crazy," they're lesbians, or they're controlled by men. All three framing devices either commit gender essentialism (mother and whore narratives) or pathologize their womanhood (monster narrative), explaining women's decision to commit violence as anything but political and rational.

These narratives have their prototypes in ancient mythology and history---the mothers in Medea, the monsters in the Gorgons and Queen Boudica, and the whores in Jezebel---and the empirical chapters demonstrate just how sticky and prevalent they are. Torture, terrorism, suicide bombing, and genocide: when women are found committing these acts of violence, journalists and scholars rarely treat their choice as as one of voicing legitimate grievances against an oppressive regime. Instead, the outsiders myopically focus on the women's family relations, sexual history, and psychological profiles.

So why do these fetishized narratives permeate the mainstream ("malestream") discourse? Patriarchy, of course! But more specifically, why do academics who purport to be gender neutral fall for these facile metaphors? Chapter 7 is enlightening in regards to this question. This chapter surveys the existing theories of individual violence---rational choice theory, social learning theory, frustration-aggression theory, psychoanalysis, etc.---and shows that they a) implicitly or explicitly exclude women from their domain of analyses and b) fail to sufficiently explain men's behavior in the first place. Bad theories make space for toxic narratives: "Theories of why men commit crimes, or why men are aggressive are precisely the fodder for gendered narratives of women's transgressions (181)."

Another related answer to the same question is that these gendered narratives are politically expedient as distractions. For example, the 2001 Abu Ghraib prison scandal where American women soldiers were found torturing Iraqi prisoners might have been embarrassing for the U.S. military, but it was even more humiliating for the Iraqis whose masculinity were being emasculated by women, albeit "bad"women. Moreover, as Sjoberg and Gentry point out, since they were aberrant women---aberrant women soldiers/American women--the integrity of American imperialism, which will protect real, American women, remains untainted.

It's important that we see the mother, whore, and monster narratives for their latent, insidious nature and not make the same mistake of Barbara Ehrenreich, who in the wake of the Abu Ghraib scandal bemoaned that feminism was dead because "a uterus is not a substitute for a conscience." To be accurate, in the op-ed piece Ehrenreich calls for a better kind of feminism that goes beyond gender equality, but Sjoberg and Gentry correctly point out that Ehrenreich was missing the point of feminism.

Feminism at its best is not about claiming that women's judgement is better than men's. It is not about claiming that the world would be different if women ran it. It is instead about analysing the manifestations of gendering global politics. (20-21)

This is a difficult lesson, not only for men, but for all women to learn and re-learn.

[Liz · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was an interesting exploration of women who commit proscribed violence, and the gendered narratives (of 'mothers,' 'monsters,' and/or 'whores') that are often placed upon them to explain their violent actions. I'm still chewing on whether I buy the central argument, but I do think it provides a useful framework in which women's agency in committing acts of violence can be explored and deconstructed.

It was particularly infuriating to read about the Palestinian suicide bombers who left written and/or recorded statements of why they were committing political violence (in their words, to advance a political cause) and still people explained away their actions with things like "she was so sad that her boyfriend died that she killed herself." I'm sorry, WHAT.

[Gular I H · Rating 4 out of 5]

If a woman commits a crime, does it mean that she did it only because she is a mother/monster/whore?

[Katie Jacintho · Rating 5 out of 5]

Completely revolutionized the way I look at the world. A MUST read!

[saizine · Rating 3 out of 5]

The star rating should really be closer to a 3.5/3.75; this book is convincing and, in some places, engaging. However, it's the fact I have to use "in some places" at all that's a little disappointing. Perhaps I've been spoiled of recent by a spate of nicely organized and narrative scholarly works, but this one felt a little disjointed/repetitive to me. This is not to knock the content - I found a lot of what the authors presented convincing, in both the theory and case study sections - but this feels like one of those rare cases when lots of subtitles/subsections actually hamper an argument. Also, narratively, the Overview-Individual-Mother-Monster-Whore-Conclusion setup felt a little tiresome by the third case study. Perhaps this is one of those books that's miles better when you're dipping in and out of it, or interested in only the theory/only one case study for a project, rather than reading it cover to cover. Highly recommended for reference and/or research, not quite so much for reading out of general interest.

[Lia Meirelles · Rating 5 out of 5]

the way sjoberg tends to face female violence in such an unique way, specially when we are thinking global politics and more specifically international security, this is genius masterpiece work!

[Yowita · Rating 3 out of 5]

dobra książka, która opisuje i analizuje przypadki, w których kobiety popełniają (różne) zbrodnie, są agresywne — acz społeczeństwo ignoruje prawdziwe powody ich przemocy, sprowadzając je do płci i „roli społecznej”.
Najbardziej zaczepił mnie fragment o samobójczyniach/zamachowcach z Palestyny, które zostawiały po sobie listy, tłumacząc swoją śmierć powodami politycznymi. Niemniej ludzie (często mężczyźni) wyjaśniają ich zachowanie „smutkiem i żałobą po stracie męża/brata/syna, poczuciem niespełnienia rodzicielskiego czy miłosnego”.
Ogólnie, ciekawa teza. Jest to książka bardzo dokładna, naukowa. Dlatego czytać od deski do deski nie polecam - osobiście musiałam robić długie przerwy w czytaniu, ze względu na formę i treść, która z czasem już się trochę powtarzała, nudziła, a przede wszystkim męczyła na maksa. Jak ktoś jest w stanie poświęcić książce mega dużo czasu, wie, że tę wiedzę wykorzysta i jest po prostu mocno zainteresowany tematem (albo przynajmniej częścią) - polecam. Przeczytać hobbistycznie, dla siebie? Nie odradzam, ale też nie polecam🤷🏻‍♀️

[Mollie Carson · Rating 3 out of 5]

there were so many typos - particularly in people's NAMES - that i had a hard time focusing on content. I'm a certified copy editor, please call me and let me help you. this is embarrassing for an academic book.

the content, though, was strong and the framing of the narratives well done and well organized. The myriad subheadings and subsections made it a bit choppy and sort of hampered the flow of the narrative. the case studies were well chosen and indicated each of the three tropes well.

[Natalie · Rating 2 out of 5]

It was ok. Interesting arguments and compelling case studies but becomes very repetitive. Perhaps it is in that repetitiveness that the argument is made but as a book when the conclusions of each chapter are the same it is less interesting to keep reading.