Young, Iris Marion. "Feminist Reactions to the Contemporary Security Regime". Hypatia, Vol.18, No.1 (2003): 223-231.

Young, Iris Marion. "Feminist Reactions to the Contemporary Security Regime". Hypatia, Vol.18, No.1 (2003): 223-231.

• The construction of masculinity is associated with selfishness, domination, exclusion, and protection. The author chooses to focus on the association of protection with the masculine identity, wherein the protection that a man provides should be rewarded with obedience by those -- mainly women -- under his protection (224).
• The author suggests that the origin of patriarchy may lie in the relationship that forms between almost exclusively male protector and mainly female protected considering the male physical ability to provide security in a prehistoric world along Hobbesian logic (224).
• A security regime -- defined here as the relationship between the state, those it protects, and those it defends from -- contains two components: an external aspect of providing security from opposing states, and an internal aspect of providing security for civilians from other civilians who may seek to harm the state through criminalized acts (225).
• The relationship between the state and its officials, and the public under a security regime is that of the masculine protector and the feminine protected. The state provides security and in return expects the respect and obedience of the public (225, 226-227).
• The author endorses the analogy of the security regime as a 'protection racket' used by Dr. Rae Peterson, wherein a system of rules and policies punishes protected persons, specifically women, for rejecting the protection offered by the state. The same pattern exists in national security, where 'bad' citizens who reject security policy are punished (228).
• The author argues that the patriarchal relationship between state and citizen under the security regime is bad for a democratic society and undermines the autonomy of citizens (229).
• Colonialism and patriarchy serve to legitimate themselves by claiming to save either actual women or feminized 'barbarians', a trend that has become common again in American public discourse following war in Afghanistan. The intent behind this is benign, but it places the foreign women in a subordinate positions and denies them agency (230-231).
• The author claims that the 'crusader' mindset to free women is still anti-feminist, meaning that concern about the wellbeing of women cannot be the only qualification of feminism, it must instead be dedicated to viewing all people are equal and self-supporting citizens without enforcing power dynamics (231).