Bananas, Beaches And Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics

One of many organized transnational feminist groups working to change international politics, IANSA exhibited feminist curiosity, asking “where women are in today’s international politics of guns” (24). This group, working with others, exposed how the international export of guns sustained gender-based violence and therefore was a pillar of international patriarchy. Despite opposition from the Vatican, Russia, Syria, and Iran, the efforts of this group led to the inclusion of the words “gender-based violence” as a formal and binding criterion on governments when evaluating the legality of exporting weapons as part of the Arms Trade Treaty. In drawing attention to this group and others, Enloe emphasizes the potential for women, acting together, to challenge national and international politics. She praises this group and others like it for drawing connections where none are usually made. In this case, the group “linked international gun political economies to the political economies of sexualized wartime violence, domestic violence, and the processes of intimidation that severely limit women’s economic and political participation” (27).

Male diplomats’ wives have sustained and challenged national and international politics. Enloe explains that before the 1970s, in several countries, including the US and UK, male diplomats’ wives had important duties in the conduct of foreign affairs. They hosted social events where male diplomats could bond informally and therefore develop better relationships. Additionally, they attended many public functions, representing their country, and offered counsel to their husbands. These services were unpaid and unrecognized. However, both the US and UK included an evaluation of wives in the performance reviews of male diplomats. For years, women performed these roles unquestioningly and sustained the patriarchal system.

However, beginning in the 1970s and intensifying in the 1980s, male diplomats’ wives began to organize and make demands on their governments. In some cases, such as in Sweden, they received pensions. The US and UK stopped including evaluations of wives’ performance in their husbands’ files. In chronicling the contributions of these women, Enloe exposes their invisibility in accounts of international politics. Additionally, she highlights the possibility of bringing about change by describing the achievements of their organized resistance. At the same time, she describes the obstacles and resistance they encountered while pursuing these changes. As a result, one US organization for diplomats’ wives advises them to secure their financial independence before relocating with their spouses.

Enloe explores the contributions of diplomats’ wives, their efforts to bring about change, the successes and failures of those efforts, and the connections these women make with other groups of women, such as female diplomats and administrative assistants, whom the State Department’s policies impact. In defense of patriarchy, powerholders attempt to keep groups of women separate from one another, knowing that uniting would strengthen women’s position. In discussing enlisted soldiers’ and military officers’ wives and those of men working on banana plantations, Enloe reiterates these messages.

Exemplifying a governmental agency that sustained patriarchy with specific policies is the US State Department. Until the 1970s, female diplomats were required to resign from their positions if they married. In contrast, the organization expected male diplomats’ wives to aid them in their careers by performing unpaid diplomatic work. The conduct of these wives was a consideration in the men’s evaluations and career advancement. A lawsuit in 1989 led to court-ordered changes for gender-biased examinations and postings. Nevertheless, the State Department was not found in compliance with that ruling until 2010. Enloe uses this as one example to show how patriarchal policies produce gender biases. These are not natural but caused by human agents. She uses similar examples to reveal gender bias in the US military and foreign governments.

One of the three largest banana production corporations in the world, Chiquita, originally called United Fruit, contributed to a gendered division of labor in the banana industry. Men cleared the land for plantations and worked them, living on them and away from home. Their wives thus had to maintain and work the family farms. Women were hired at subsistence wages to wash the pesticides off the bananas and pack them. Because they did not make enough money to sustain themselves, some moonlighted as sex workers, serving the male workers. The corporation benefited from this arrangement because the men spent their money on sex and were more likely to sign on for another contract. The women were controlled in the workplace via sexual harassment as well. In discussing the company’s labor practices, Enloe thematically highlights The Impact of International Politics on Women’s Daily Lives. The pesticides gave many of the women painful rashes, for example, and they lived in poor conditions. Enloe also notes that gendered politics were fluid and manipulative. If prices had to be reduced, men’s jobs would be filled by women, which cost the company far less.

The company hid its exploitation of workers from female consumers in the US, whom its marketing targeted. The company created a logo that was half woman and half banana, seeking to create brand loyalty among women for a generic fruit. Women were used as sex symbols to sell products. While Enloe goes into detail about this company, she alludes to how several other companies, including smaller ones, are guilty of similar practices.

The term bananera refers to a woman working on a banana plantation. Beginning in Honduras in 1985, bananeras called for a women’s committee in their union. The men ridiculed the proposal and defeated it. That opposition strengthened their resolve, and they made a plan. By demonstrating their importance to men’s initiatives in the union and lobbying sympathetic men, they formed a committee in 1988. They held training workshops and taught women leadership skills. Enloe comments that such skills are not natural but taught. Ultimately, in Honduras and other countries, women were elected to senior posts in banana workers’ unions. In 2012, the first meeting of female banana workers and smallholders occurred. Following that, Iris Munguia, the first woman elected as the federation’s senior coordinator, got Chiquita’s corporate executives to take sexual harassment on plantations seriously. Enloe uses this example to show that women are actors and agents who have the power to challenge national and international politics. They are most likely to be successful if they unite across national boundaries.

The daughter of a Brazilian grocer, Miranda secretly auditioned for a spot on a Rio de Janeiro radio station and got it. By 1939, she had become a star in Brazil, appearing in four films and recording more than 100 songs. In that year, a Broadway theatre producer noticed her and gave her an offer to come to New York, which she accepted. The US entertainment industry turned Miranda into the 1940s stereotype of Latin American women. She wore outrageous hats with bananas and other fruit on top of them. She was portrayed as flamboyant, naive, and amusing but was never cast as a romantic lead. Nevertheless, her 1940s movies helped make Latin American countries safe for American corporations at a time when imperialism was being questioned. Enloe cites Miranda to highlight how countries use women as symbols in international relations and how Hollywood has assisted in defining femininity and racial versions of it through the lens of a patriarchal, US-centric society. The US featured Miranda and other Latin American actors in films when it sought to shift from a militaristic to a cultural influence in the region. Miranda died prematurely of a heart attack in 1955, and her body was sent back to Brazil, where “throngs turned out to pay public tribute to her” (218). While Brazilians took pride in her success, they were ambivalent about the definition of femininity that Hollywood foisted on her.

An international banking agency, the World Bank and private banks have played a pivotal role in the “globalization of the garment industry and its deliberate reliance on low-paid feminized work forces” (276). Enloe points out the domination of men in the banking industry, where few women rise into top positions. In granting loans to countries and garment manufacturers, the World Bank and others require a profitability ratio that forces decreased labor costs. Corporations in this industry thus seek out countries that pay low wages. When the women in a given country organize and demand better wages and safer working conditions, the country’s investment rating declines. Enloe holds these institutions accountable for the shift to manufacturing in Bangladesh and the unsafe conditions there, which led to the deaths of more than 1,000 women. Again, she traces the roots of women’s oppression to the decisions of those in powerful positions.