What do you think?
Rate this book
Maneuvers: The International Politics of Militarizing Women's Lives
Maneuvers takes readers on a global tour of the sprawling process called "militarization." With her incisive verve and moxie, eminent feminist Cynthia Enloe shows that the people who become militarized are not just the obvious ones―executives and factory floor workers who make fighter planes, land mines, and intercontinental missiles. They are also the employees of food companies, toy companies, clothing companies, film studios, stock brokerages, and advertising agencies. Militarization is never gender-neutral, Enloe claims: It is a personal and political transformation that relies on ideas about femininity and masculinity. Films that equate action with war, condoms that are designed with a camouflage pattern, fashions that celebrate brass buttons and epaulettes, tomato soup that contains pasta shaped like Star Wars weapons―all of these contribute to militaristic values that mold our culture in both war and peace.
Presenting new and groundbreaking material that builds on Enloe's acclaimed work in Does Khaki Become You? and Bananas, Beaches, and Bases, Maneuvers takes an international look at the politics of masculinity, nationalism, and globalization. Enloe ranges widely from Japan to Korea, Serbia, Kosovo, Rwanda, Britain, Israel, the United States, and many points in between. She covers a broad variety of subjects: gays in the military, the history of "camp followers," the politics of women who have sexually serviced male soldiers, married life in the military, military nurses, and the recruitment of women into the military. One chapter titled "When Soldiers Rape" explores the many facets of the issue in countries such as Chile, the Philippines, Okinawa, Rwanda, and the United States.
Enloe outlines the dilemmas feminists around the globe face in trying to craft theories and strategies that support militarized women, locally and internationally, without unwittingly being militarized themselves. She explores the complicated militarized experiences of women as prostitutes, as rape victims, as mothers, as wives, as nurses, and as feminist activists, and she uncovers the "maneuvers" that military officials and their civilian supporters have made in order to ensure that each of these groups of women feel special and separate.
Presenting new and groundbreaking material that builds on Enloe's acclaimed work in Does Khaki Become You? and Bananas, Beaches, and Bases, Maneuvers takes an international look at the politics of masculinity, nationalism, and globalization. Enloe ranges widely from Japan to Korea, Serbia, Kosovo, Rwanda, Britain, Israel, the United States, and many points in between. She covers a broad variety of subjects: gays in the military, the history of "camp followers," the politics of women who have sexually serviced male soldiers, married life in the military, military nurses, and the recruitment of women into the military. One chapter titled "When Soldiers Rape" explores the many facets of the issue in countries such as Chile, the Philippines, Okinawa, Rwanda, and the United States.
Enloe outlines the dilemmas feminists around the globe face in trying to craft theories and strategies that support militarized women, locally and internationally, without unwittingly being militarized themselves. She explores the complicated militarized experiences of women as prostitutes, as rape victims, as mothers, as wives, as nurses, and as feminist activists, and she uncovers the "maneuvers" that military officials and their civilian supporters have made in order to ensure that each of these groups of women feel special and separate.
440 pages, Paperback
First published January 2, 2000
11 people are currently reading
528 people want to read
About the author
Cynthia Enloe
43 books114 followersCynthia Holden Enloe is a feminist writer, theorist, and professor.
She is best known for her work on gender and militarism and for her contributions to the field of feminist international relations. She has done pioneering feminist research into international politics and political economy, and has considerable contribution to building a more inclusive feminist scholarly community.
Cynthia Enloe was born in New York, New York and grew up in Manhasset, Long Island, a New York suburb. Her father was from Missouri and went to medical school in Germany from 1933 to 1936. Her mother went to Mills College and married Cynthia's father upon graduation.
After completing her undergraduate education at Connecticut College in 1960, she went on to earn an M.A. in 1963 and a Ph.D. in 1967 in political science at the University of California, Berkeley. While at Berkely, Enloe was the first woman ever to be a Head TA for Aaron Wildavsky, then an up-and-coming star in the field of American Politics.
Enloe states that she has been influenced by many other feminists who use an ethnographic approach, specifically, Seung-Kyung Kim’s (1997) work on South Korean women factory workers during the pro-democracy campaign and Anne Allison’s (1994) work on observing corporate businessmen’s interactions with hostesses in a Tokyo drinking club. Enloe has also listed Diane Singerman, Purnima Mankekar, and Cathy Lutz as people who have inspired and influenced her work.
She is best known for her work on gender and militarism and for her contributions to the field of feminist international relations. She has done pioneering feminist research into international politics and political economy, and has considerable contribution to building a more inclusive feminist scholarly community.
Cynthia Enloe was born in New York, New York and grew up in Manhasset, Long Island, a New York suburb. Her father was from Missouri and went to medical school in Germany from 1933 to 1936. Her mother went to Mills College and married Cynthia's father upon graduation.
After completing her undergraduate education at Connecticut College in 1960, she went on to earn an M.A. in 1963 and a Ph.D. in 1967 in political science at the University of California, Berkeley. While at Berkely, Enloe was the first woman ever to be a Head TA for Aaron Wildavsky, then an up-and-coming star in the field of American Politics.
Enloe states that she has been influenced by many other feminists who use an ethnographic approach, specifically, Seung-Kyung Kim’s (1997) work on South Korean women factory workers during the pro-democracy campaign and Anne Allison’s (1994) work on observing corporate businessmen’s interactions with hostesses in a Tokyo drinking club. Enloe has also listed Diane Singerman, Purnima Mankekar, and Cathy Lutz as people who have inspired and influenced her work.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
October 5, 2012
This is an overview of the militarization of women's lives. If that's all I wanted, this book would be fine. A Women's Studies professor on Facebook recommended this book as a persuasive case for how war hurts women more than men, but this book never even tries to draw such a comparison. Moreover, it continuously implies that violence against men is fine, but violence against women is detestable; men's lives should be militarized, but women's lives should not be--you little boys go play with your guns, but keep it out of our lives. Although it reservedly supports women in the military, it always clearly opts for ending the militarization of women's lives over ending militarization in general.
Many soldiers pay for prostitutes when they're off-duty. I see nothing wrong with sex between two consenting adults, so I don't share the feminists' loathing of prostitution. It's laudable that feminists want to raise awareness of the issue and try to eliminate unethical forms--sexual slavery, and under-age prostitution--but this book tries to argue that prostitution is an official U.S. military policy. It simply lacks any credible evidence for this. It says the SOFA agreement with Japan has explicit wording to make prostitutes available to U.S. soldiers abroad, but admits this document is not public record.
The chapter on rape is about as horrifying as you'd expect, but it doesn't have much in the way of hard facts. It's mostly anecdotal, with a summary of legal battles, mostly in other countries. But it's pretty clear that rape, like torture, is often used as a war tactic, to violate the enemy in the most humiliating ways. For women, that's usually rape, while men get the whole torture-buffet, including things like castration. Of course, this book leaves that part out.
Despite these shortcomings, those first few chapters were reasonable enough complaints, but imagine the nerve it takes to complain about how rough it is for female Army nurses, or mothers who send their sons off to war, when they're not the ones marching off to their deaths by the thousands! But then to actually portray these men as being somehow privileged because if they happen to survive the horrors of both the war and its resulting PTSD, they might be given a medal or a rank?? Or to blame these men for the ways women's lives have been militarized in subtle ways, while the men's lives have been explicitely militarized from birth??
See, it's hard to solve a problem when you only tell half the story. If you think women's lives have been militarized, sit down and have a chat with some vets. Listen to horror stories of death, destruction, lost limbs, and nightmares that persist decades later. Or even just talk to a high school football player. Listen to his fears--what the guys will think of him if he performs poorly, and even worse, what the girls will think of him. Hear about all the injuries he and his teammates endure. You'll find it sounds an awful lot like the military. Or even skip the football player. You'll hear more subtle variants on the same theme by most men, about their careers, their physique, their salaries, their skills, and their cars. Oh, and for bonus points, I dare you to find a man who still knows how to cry, whose parents haven't beaten that out of him at a young age because it's not manly (i.e. not appropriate for a soldier).
Don't say patriarchy hurts men too. That's an absurd contradiction, which basically means, "men's power makes them powerless." I'm not talking about patriarchy, but the powerlessness that comes with being society's protectors and beasts of burden. Men's lives have been thoroughly militarized from birth, a gender ethic instilled in them by both men and women. It's not men's power that creates the problems outlined in this book--it's their powerlessness. Treating women as victims and demanding that men protect them requires men to put their lives on the line, for which they need hefty incentives. The only things men have ever been willing to die for are respect, women's love, and women's bodies. That's why all three are made artificially scarce, and the social forces necessary to make them scarce are all experienced by women as oppression. Modern feminism focuses on the victimization of women, and demands protection, which plays right into the same old line that created these problems in the first place.
Women can take care of themselves, if they're given the confidence and the tools. Feminism needs to stop focusing on women's victimization, and start empowering both men and women, in ways that lead to equality. That's what feminism used to be about (see Who Stole Feminism). Since the 90's it's been warped into a very angry twist on a very traditional attitude toward gender. If feminists want to help women who are affected by war, they should work to minimize war in the first place; raise awareness about society's pressures to militarize men's lives, not just women's; encourage more women to join the military; and work to make things more equitable, and help EVERYONE, not just women.
I know, this book isn't about men. I get that. It's a feminist book, highlighting women's role in the military. Many feminists will be quick to point out that there are already plenty of books about men's role in the military, which they call history ("his story," get it?). I'm glad this book doesn't try to draw a comparison between men and women in the military. There's simply no comparison to be made. But it's downright offensive, as a man, to hear a Women's Studies professor claim that women are hurt by war more than men. This is now the third time I've heard a feminist make an absurd claim, then refer me to a book they say will back up their claim, which I then read, only to find no evidence whatsoever.
Many soldiers pay for prostitutes when they're off-duty. I see nothing wrong with sex between two consenting adults, so I don't share the feminists' loathing of prostitution. It's laudable that feminists want to raise awareness of the issue and try to eliminate unethical forms--sexual slavery, and under-age prostitution--but this book tries to argue that prostitution is an official U.S. military policy. It simply lacks any credible evidence for this. It says the SOFA agreement with Japan has explicit wording to make prostitutes available to U.S. soldiers abroad, but admits this document is not public record.
The chapter on rape is about as horrifying as you'd expect, but it doesn't have much in the way of hard facts. It's mostly anecdotal, with a summary of legal battles, mostly in other countries. But it's pretty clear that rape, like torture, is often used as a war tactic, to violate the enemy in the most humiliating ways. For women, that's usually rape, while men get the whole torture-buffet, including things like castration. Of course, this book leaves that part out.
Despite these shortcomings, those first few chapters were reasonable enough complaints, but imagine the nerve it takes to complain about how rough it is for female Army nurses, or mothers who send their sons off to war, when they're not the ones marching off to their deaths by the thousands! But then to actually portray these men as being somehow privileged because if they happen to survive the horrors of both the war and its resulting PTSD, they might be given a medal or a rank?? Or to blame these men for the ways women's lives have been militarized in subtle ways, while the men's lives have been explicitely militarized from birth??
See, it's hard to solve a problem when you only tell half the story. If you think women's lives have been militarized, sit down and have a chat with some vets. Listen to horror stories of death, destruction, lost limbs, and nightmares that persist decades later. Or even just talk to a high school football player. Listen to his fears--what the guys will think of him if he performs poorly, and even worse, what the girls will think of him. Hear about all the injuries he and his teammates endure. You'll find it sounds an awful lot like the military. Or even skip the football player. You'll hear more subtle variants on the same theme by most men, about their careers, their physique, their salaries, their skills, and their cars. Oh, and for bonus points, I dare you to find a man who still knows how to cry, whose parents haven't beaten that out of him at a young age because it's not manly (i.e. not appropriate for a soldier).
Don't say patriarchy hurts men too. That's an absurd contradiction, which basically means, "men's power makes them powerless." I'm not talking about patriarchy, but the powerlessness that comes with being society's protectors and beasts of burden. Men's lives have been thoroughly militarized from birth, a gender ethic instilled in them by both men and women. It's not men's power that creates the problems outlined in this book--it's their powerlessness. Treating women as victims and demanding that men protect them requires men to put their lives on the line, for which they need hefty incentives. The only things men have ever been willing to die for are respect, women's love, and women's bodies. That's why all three are made artificially scarce, and the social forces necessary to make them scarce are all experienced by women as oppression. Modern feminism focuses on the victimization of women, and demands protection, which plays right into the same old line that created these problems in the first place.
Women can take care of themselves, if they're given the confidence and the tools. Feminism needs to stop focusing on women's victimization, and start empowering both men and women, in ways that lead to equality. That's what feminism used to be about (see Who Stole Feminism). Since the 90's it's been warped into a very angry twist on a very traditional attitude toward gender. If feminists want to help women who are affected by war, they should work to minimize war in the first place; raise awareness about society's pressures to militarize men's lives, not just women's; encourage more women to join the military; and work to make things more equitable, and help EVERYONE, not just women.
I know, this book isn't about men. I get that. It's a feminist book, highlighting women's role in the military. Many feminists will be quick to point out that there are already plenty of books about men's role in the military, which they call history ("his story," get it?). I'm glad this book doesn't try to draw a comparison between men and women in the military. There's simply no comparison to be made. But it's downright offensive, as a man, to hear a Women's Studies professor claim that women are hurt by war more than men. This is now the third time I've heard a feminist make an absurd claim, then refer me to a book they say will back up their claim, which I then read, only to find no evidence whatsoever.
May 17, 2018
Important commentary on how women's lives are militarized; somewhat repetitive, but Enloe provides excellent evidence to support her arguments
May 23, 2017
Enloe argues that women (and everyone) are already, always being militarized in different ways. She relies on evidence from around the world and across time to make her point. This is a great read for anyone interested in the history of the military and/or women's role in it.
June 6, 2025
The Christian scriptures teach that "our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms" (Ephesians 6:12). A problem for us is that the "powers" are often opaque or hidden--these are forces which move people into systems that run counter to shalom, counter to the Reign of Heaven. The NT writers portray Jesus unmasking some of these systems--for example, he calls out those who use religion or markets to exclude people from worship or God's love. The challenge in contemporary American Christianity (which, I suppose, is not unlike that of other peoples in other times and places) is that unmasking these powers makes us very uncomfortable because it challenges deeply held beliefs about what ought to be valued. One particular challenge facing conservative US Christians is the emphasis on individual accountability to the exclusion of analyzing social systems. In some circles, any social analysis at all is dismissed as "woke" or fundamentally unchristian.
Of course, it is always both--we make moral decisions as individuals and we are part of social systems that incentivize us toward harm while blinding us to our complicity. We need both individual moral transformation and systemic justice.
What I appreciate about Enloe's feminist analysis of militarism is the unmasking one of these powers. We spend enormous social resources justifying the military: we give it control over our lives, and we seek its legitimation to give meaning to our lives. But the basic function of a military is to kill and destroy. This function may be necessary at times, but it is never unproblematically good, and it certainly runs counter to the New Testament's teaching on anti-violence. Militaries are especially problematic for women. Yes, militaries protect some women from certain threats, but they also threaten other women. Consider, as Enloe does, that militaries develop prostitution policies: We simply expect women to be commercially available for our soldiers' exploitation. Enloe doesn't stop there--rape, domestic violence, mothers, women soldiers, nursing, feminists, and so much more, these can all be brought into militarism's service. She illuminates the tentacles that bind us to militarism and make it so difficult to challenge. But then Jesus never said peacemaking would be easy, just that the peacemakers would be blessed.
Of course, it is always both--we make moral decisions as individuals and we are part of social systems that incentivize us toward harm while blinding us to our complicity. We need both individual moral transformation and systemic justice.
What I appreciate about Enloe's feminist analysis of militarism is the unmasking one of these powers. We spend enormous social resources justifying the military: we give it control over our lives, and we seek its legitimation to give meaning to our lives. But the basic function of a military is to kill and destroy. This function may be necessary at times, but it is never unproblematically good, and it certainly runs counter to the New Testament's teaching on anti-violence. Militaries are especially problematic for women. Yes, militaries protect some women from certain threats, but they also threaten other women. Consider, as Enloe does, that militaries develop prostitution policies: We simply expect women to be commercially available for our soldiers' exploitation. Enloe doesn't stop there--rape, domestic violence, mothers, women soldiers, nursing, feminists, and so much more, these can all be brought into militarism's service. She illuminates the tentacles that bind us to militarism and make it so difficult to challenge. But then Jesus never said peacemaking would be easy, just that the peacemakers would be blessed.
November 28, 2007
My only complaint about this book is the way she discusses women working in the sex industry. Otherwise, her discussion of 'the militarization of women's lives' is spot on.
March 27, 2008
fascinating.
Read
August 9, 2011The war is on in so many places other than battlefields.
December 20, 2012
Abstract but interesting thoughts on how the military treats women and femininity.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews