Iraqi Women: Bodies and Identities

Both sides have their own ideas of the war. Even before terrorist became an everyday word, the media differentiated the Middle Eastern world from the western; dominated by religion opposed to a separation of church and state; sectionalist opposed to a worldview; archaic notions of women’s place opposed to advanced in women’s rights. Americans used their “innate rightness” and fear of the other to preemptively strike at a nation, which was felt to be full of named yet unidentified enemies.

The insurgents’ view, rooted in the historical framework of colonialism, seems to be a bit more realistic in context. Iraq gained full sovereignty in 1932, only 71 years before the American invasion. Iraq has been constantly fighting for its rights as a country and for freedom from tyranny throughout that time and before. Many things contribute to the feeling of a second colonization; the sanctions that over thirteen years cost the innocent lives of 1.5 million, the 2003 war that began without enough proof of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction or that it had any links to Al-Qaeda, troops allowing the looting of the museums and libraries and an unguarded border, yet maintaining a tight protection over the oil fields, and the $9 billion for the reconstruction of Iraq that disappeared under Bremer’s authority.

In this war of ideas, the strength of arms becomes a measure of the strength of ideology. The war in Iraq has become about competing ideologies. Both sides see themselves as fighting for freedom, freedom from tyranny and dictatorship and freedom from corruption by immoral infidels. Nevertheless, arms will never win this war; it will be decided on the bodies of women. “The ideal of woman has fueled the ideal of “authentic” national cultures, “indigenous” religions, and “traditional” family forms… such usage have meant the imposition of bodily discipline and behavior controls in the name of nation, progress and god.”(Siad 9) Impositions on the bodies and identities of women will determine the direction of the nation. Who will father the next state of Iraq has become a central issue. Control of women’s bodies is the control of the next generation. But the fight for control is ripping apart the very thing being fought over.

Two views of women compete in this war. One is the vision of American patriarchy; the other is a vision of Middle Eastern patriarchy. In Middle Eastern patriarchy, there is an emphasis on family roles and the need to have women fill those roles. This often leads to confinement of women within a structure of no choice. Because the family is so important women’s role within the family is necessary and vital but circumscribes them to fulfilling that role without any chance or choice of moving outside of it. A woman who wishes to move outside of her place in the home to a place in the public sphere is seen as abandoning her family. In American patriarchy, the emphasis is the primacy of public roles and the argument is that women cannot handle some or all of the responsibility of a public role because of her sheltered existence within the home. As Americans are trying to shape the future of this nation, we have pushed our own views in to the spotlight. The roles within the interim government that we have appointed women to have been nominal and barely fill our own quotas. In doing so the occupying forces find the women of Iraq incapable of becoming politically active on their own or holding posts vital to the conception of their new nation. Both views have powerful impacts on the women in Iraq during this time of war. This proclivity to see women as outside of the public sphere is beginning to show up in the new constitution drafted specifically the restriction of women within the public sphere in mind. But because of the need for her in the family many women can’t or won’t come out for their self. The control exercised on them to be good wives and mothers keeps many women from speaking on the need for introduction into society.

Most Iraqi women are more concerned with the war going on around them then the fight for rights. When the struggle to get the basics is greater than the struggle for freedoms and equality who can concentrate on a quota for legislature? The collapse of society and the instability of their lives is the largest force working against these women. Husbands dead, children starving, inadequate inaccessible health care, and the constant threat of rape, violence and death are the largest roadblocks to equality and freedom facing these women. Not only is there the constant threat of violence against them but also there are many social welfare issues. During the course of this and other wars, many men have been killed, incarcerated or maimed. If there is no man to protect or provide for the family the woman must take herself into the workplace or scrounge for her and her children’s existence. Because of the economic