particular image is that it could be any member
of the fraternity of the imagined community
lying in the tomb. However, until recently in
many nations, this was not the case and even
today in many nations it is unimaginable that
women are in the tomb (Sharp, 1996).
For Anderson, the power of nationalism lies in
the horizontal fraternity of national citizens. This
fraternity emerges from the fact that any man
could be the unknown soldier who has laid down
his life for his country, providing the ultimate
sacrifice. In the national imaginary, women are
mothers of the nation or vulnerable citizens to be
protected. Women are not equal to the nation –
each standing for it in the way that men can as
warrior citizens. Women are symbolic of the
nation (McClintock, 1993). Many nations are
figuratively female (for example, Britannia,
Marianne, Mother Russia).^2 In the national imag-
inary women are mothers of the nation (its bio-
logical origin) or vulnerable citizens to be
protected by the bond of male citizens.
While men are heroic in their defence of the
nation, women are heroic in their reproduction of
it and nurturing of its future. The public–private
divide ensures different roles for male and
female citizens (Yuval-Davis, 1997). But this
division is also played out at a larger scale. It is
the fear of foreignviolation of women as sym-
bols of nation that is key.^3 The division of the
international (the sphere of unregulated anarchy)
and the state (the protected and safe space of
home) parallels the division between public and
private. The private is supposedly the safe
sphere. The public is dangerous: it is here that
women are out of place and even perceived as
partially culpable if attacked. As feminist geo-
graphers like Pain (1991) and Valentine (1989)
have suggested, if, despite this image, it is in the
private space of the home that women face the
greatest danger, then it is possible that this is also
the case for the nation. Dalby suggests that:Just as some feminists challenge the ideology of the
family in suggesting that private spaces are ‘safe’
because of the presence of a male protector, whereas
public spaces are dangerous to women ... it is a simple
extension of these arguments to argue that states do not
really protect all their (domestic) citizens while provid-
ing protection from the perils of the anarchy beyond the
bounds of the state. (1994: 531)Certainly women seeking to adopt the role of
protector in military service is an issue that
seems central to many debates on national
strength. Liberal feminism argues that keeping
women from their right and responsibility to
risk their lives for their country reduces them
to second-class citizens. This is integral to theliberal feminist argument ‘that sees women’s
differences used to keep women out of public
power; seeks their equal admission to the state
and an end to the male monopoly on legitimate
violence’ (Pettman, 1996: 147).
As theorists like Anderson see this as linked to
ultimate citizenship, liberal feminists might be
right in arguing that its attainment by women
would move towards equality. However this
would be to accept a culture of masculinism.
Second- and third-wave feminists have argued
that it is not sufficient merely to succeed within
masculinist culture – to succeed only in some
ways by adopting masculinist traits themselves.
Instead they argue for a more thorough challenge
to the nature of the values underlying society.
Enloe (1989: 44) has suggested that nationalism is
an inherently masculinist form of identity, based
around ‘anger at being emasculated’ at some point
in history. Similarly, Newsinger (1993: 126) asks
whether violence – ‘the ability both to inflict and
to take it – is portrayed as an essential part of what
being a man involves’ in certain national cultures.
This offers the possibility that this form of politi-
cal identification has its roots in masculinist
culture so that it cannot accommodate a feminist
challenge. Research has suggested that women
deployed in traditionally masculinized jobs have
generated hostility and concern about the morale
of men ‘who had been recruited partly with the
promise that joining the military would confirm
their manliness’ (Enloe, 1993: 214).
Women in the military are often seen to
challenge masculinist pride and identity.
Dowler’s (1998) research into the role of women
in the IRA has highlighted the difficulties that
this militarized form of national identity has with
the inclusion of women’s violence and struggle.
As a result women and their actions and sacri-
fices are often not recognized in the reproduction
of national images. Dowler’s interviews with
women from the IRA demonstrate attempts to
rein in women to the public sphere to perform
their role in the struggle. One woman told her:The people here definitely view us differently than they
do the men. For instance there is always a big party for
a man when he gets out of prison. A hero’s return. I didn’t
have such a welcome home. It was as if, ‘thank Jesus
that’s over, now I can get my dinner on the table’. They
also look at us differently than other women. First off if
we were in prison we weren’t having wee ones
[children] which is what we were supposed to be doing.
I think if my husband could have got me pregnant in jail
he would have because that was what he was supposed
to be doing. A lot of men think I’m wild because I did
my whack [time in prison], because women aren’t
supposed to be doing the same thing that the men are in
this war. (1998: 167–8)GENDER IN A POLITICAL AND PATRIARCHAL WORLD 4773029-ch25.qxd 03-10-02 11:04 AM Page 477