Women’s peace: Reexamining women’s anti-war politics of resistance in Lysistrata in analogy with Russian maternal-women’s activism

Autor polazi od Aristofanove Lisistrate kao paradigmatskog antiratnog teksta ‎ženske politike otpora, no preispituje njeno čitanje kao feminističke kritike ‎rata te kao kritike atenskog imperijalizma. Prvo, autor ističe da ženska politika otpora kroz seks-štrajk i okupaciju javnog prostora nije nužno povezana ‎s antiratnim uvjerenjima, već proizlazi iz zaštite “ženskog svijeta” privatnih ‎odnosa i domaćinstva. Drugo, “ženski mir” kojim se satirizira atensko vodstvo ima antidemokratski predznak i nije kritika atenskog imperijalizma, već‎njegova obrana. Na kraju, u analogiji s Lisistratom, propituje se ruski ženski ‎aktivizam kao reakcija na ruske agresivne ratove u Čečeniji i Ukrajini. Taj ‎aktivizam primarno polazi od majčinstva kao legitimnog oblika artikuliranja ‎problema rata, ali ne dovodi rat u pitanje. Autor zaključuje da takav ženski aktivizam koji proizlazi iz racionalnosti brige za dobrobit djece i muževa, bilo ‎u Lisistrati bilo onaj koji se većinski manifestira kod ruskih majki i žena, nije ‎politički i vrijednosno utemeljen te ne artikulira koherentne antimilitarističke ili pacifističke stavove, pa stoga nije uistinu antiratni. U kontekstu Rusije, ‎svojim zahtijevanjem boljih uvjeta muškarcima u vojsci majčinsko-ženski aktivizam zapravo je strategija za optimizaciju rata, bitno se ne suprotstavljajući ‎ruskim državno proklamiranim ratnim ciljevima ili ih čak podržavajući.‎The author starts from Aristophanes’ Lysistrata as a paradigmatic anti-war ‎text of women’s politics of resistance, but reconsiders its reading as a feminist ‎critique of war as well as a critique of Athenian imperialism. First, the author ‎points out that women’s politics of resistance through sex-strike and occupation of public space is not necessarily connected with anti-war beliefs, but ‎stems from the protection of the “women’s world” of private relations and the ‎household. Second, the “women’s peace” that satirizes the Athenian leadership has an anti-democratic connotation, namely it is not a criticism of Athenian imperialism, but its defense. Finally, in analogy with Lysistrata, Russian women’s activism is questioned as a reaction to Russia’s aggressive wars ‎in Chechnya and Ukraine. This activism primarily starts from motherhood ‎as a legitimate form of articulating the problem of war, but does not question the war itself. The author concludes that such women’s activism, which ‎stems from the rationality of care for the well-being of children and husbands, ‎whether in Lysistrata or the one that mostly manifests itself in Russian mothers and women, is not politically or value-based, does not articulate coherent anti-militaristic or pacifist attitudes, and therefore is not truly anti-war. ‎In the context of Russia, by demanding better conditions for men in the army, maternal-women’s activism is actually a strategy for optimizing the war, ‎not significantly opposing or even supporting Russia’s state-proclaimed war ‎goals.