Follow Up Post 4/21

The piece I found most interesting was Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving? by Lila Abu-Lughod. I thought this piece was very interesting because of how she framed the issues and tried to get us to take a look at things from a Muslim woman’s perspective. The analogies she was able to use really made me think of how much I would change if given some sort of freedom I wasn’t really pining for and how we must approach any cultural issues with knowledge of the culture and people we are working with and what are realistic things to expect. This piece seems to say that Americans get too wrappe dup in what they want for others rather than what others really want and while this can be a fine line it seems like Americans are on the wrong side in this case and it would serve both populations if goals were reassessed. It seems like so many resources have gone into helping the women in aspects that they do not need or want help in and that these resources may have been more effectively used if they were targeted towards helping the Afghan women with the things they feel are issues.

Main Post 4/21

I was a bit confused by Charlotte Bunch’s piece “Whose Security?” but I will do my best to summarize it.  I eventually understood where she wanted to go with this piece, but it took until the last few paragraphs.  She begins by looking at several issues that 9/11 has brought into a bigger light, such as “an increase in militarism, wars, internal conflicts and terrorism, which are affecting or targeting civilians and involving more women and children in deadly ways” (pg. 2).  One question feminists have raised for many years, even before 9/11, is who is actually protected by “national security” and what does “national security” actually entail.  We should be looking at security in terms of protecting people, and not simply using war to defend territory.  However, after 9/11 we have seen the “masculine warrior discourse” reemerge.  The media domination by male figures has reminded us that when it comes to policy issues such as war, defense, etc. that women still do not have much influence.  Bunch critiques the Bush administration’s policies post 9/11 and cites a few examples of when they strongly opposed UN leaders simply because they were promoting policies that did agree with their beliefs.  Bush’s policies, she argues, have provided a cover for other countries to push racism and violence against women aside.  She concludes with what she thinks we should do in the future.  She believes that if we deal with the “dynamic tension between the universality and specificity of our work [as a woman’s activist]…then we can move toward an affirmative vision of peace with human rights and human security at its core, rather than continue to clean up after the endless succession of male-determined crises and conflicts” (pg. 5).

The article by Lila Lughod was very informative and interesting.  As someone who has focused on women in the Middle East, she has a lot to say.  She spends the entire paper explaining to us why we should be wary of what Laura Bush had to say about the war in Afghanistan and how we should see issues in a historical context, and not a cultural one.  Lughod questions on page 784 why we think it is more important to know about the culture of the region, instead of the history of the very repressive regimes of the region.  She notes, “Just as I argued above that we need to be suspicious when neat cultural icons are plastered over messier historical and political narratives, so we need to be wary when…Laura Bush, all with military troops behind them, claim to be saving or liberating Muslim women” (785).  When looking at the war in Afghanistan, we need to remember several things about the women there.  For example, even when we “free” them, we need to realize that most women would still choose to wear some form of headcovering.  While the requirement to wear the burqa is indeed very repressive, there are other factors behind the situation in Afghanistan that we need to understand.  One very important point she makes on page 787 is that we need to be accepting of the fact that there is a difference between Afghan and American women, and that we need to be careful when we say that we are “saving” people.  When we claim we are “saving” them we are implying that they need to become more like us, and it should not be that way.  Furthermore, she states that she “cannot think of a single woman I know…who has ever expressed envy of U.S. women, women they tend to perceive as bereft of community, vulnerable to sexual violence and social anomie, driven by individual success rather than morality, or strangely disrespectful of God” (788).  We need to keep in mind when discussing the war in Afghanistan that while we do want to help the country and the women, the way to help them is not by making them more like us.  In the end, “Our task is to critically explore what we might do to help create a world in which those poor Afghan women, for whom ‘the hearts of those in the civilized world break,’ can have safety and decent lives” (790).

Ibrahim’s story is a personal account of what it has been like to grow up in America and what it has been like for her and her family during the American occupation of Iraq starting in 2003.  Her and her family originally came to America as refugees during the first Gulf War, and has remained here ever since—she considers New Jersey her home.  The first section of her story is about wanting to make the experiences of the Iraqi citizens in Iraq more humanized and to portray the American occupation in a different light.  She tells of her family members being kidnapped or killed, and continues on to talk about her project.  Ibrahim wanted to interview the youth who are living in Iraq or have recently been displaced to nearby Jordan.  However, this was difficult because she was no longer considered an “authentic Iraqi” (41).  After finding two boys to interview, they mainly complained about the lack of electricity, overcrowding at public hospitals (and the high costs at private ones), the crumbling education system, and general lack of security.  The American occupation had made even going to school for the day very dangerous.  She soon realizes that she needs to share all these stories with the general American audience to paint a very different picture than the mass media is—which is exactly what the boys she interviewed in Jordan wanted her to do.  Her next section deals with her personal struggles post 9/11 living in America.  On her trip back from Jordan she experienced what unfortunately has become the norm, racial profiling.  She was held in customs for six hours and asked questions, some even questioning their view of the Iraq war.  After this experience, she knew should couldn’t stay quiet.  She went on many news shows to share her experience and to try to get the story out.  This was her first step in her quest to “defend the human rights of all Americans, regardless of their race, ethnicity, gender, or religion” (46).  The conclusion to her story talks about refusing to adopt a single national identity and her experience as an alienated refugee when she first came with her family to America.

Main Post 4/19

Enloe in All Men are in the Militias, All Women are Victims and Spoils of War discusses in particular the case of Borislav Herak who was involved in rapes/murders during his time in the Serbian militia. She talks about how a person who was seemily not violent or angry could turn into the type of person to commit such acts. She says Borislav is only one of many people who underwent this type of transformation through the military and that the situation in Serbia is only one of many examples around the world throughout history. She says the situation men were put into helped to create the situation where the felt they needed to commit rapes and murders and that the higher authorities they were under are partially to blame for the men’s actions. She says the men were conditioned to no longer feel that killing was bad and that the rapes were just another perk of being a soldier. She also talks about how mothers were involved in helping their sons get involved in military life because of some social pressure they felt while the sons also felt pressures to be manly and meet some sort of societal expectations of being a fighter. In an interview with Borislav we can see that he was confused as to why he did things that he says he felt he did not want to and how affected he was by the culture of the military. In Spoils of War she connects these rapes to the way that women are given to soldiers as a supposed necessary item so that the soldiers can complete their jobs to the best of their ability. She talks about an incident at Okinawa in Japan and the way that it is common practice for women to be available for soldiers in a foreign land.

In A Peril in War Zones: Sexual Abuse by Fellow G.I.’s and Living and Fighting Alongside Men, and Fitting In by Stephen Lee Myers the life of women in the military in Iraq and Afghanistan is discussed. These papers talk about sexual assault of women in the military on site and how women are feeling as they have been integrated into the military. The women in the military face the danger of sexual assault with the added pressure of being judged by their peers and superiors, Myers says while giving examples of many who have had situations with sexual assault and their range of outcomes they have faced from discharge to their assailants being prosecuted. Myers cites statistics of rising incidences of sexual assault and the debate over whether this comes from more assaults or more reported assaults. The second article by Myers talks about how women have made their way in the military and how they have changed the standards in the military over time and how they have found ways to make their lives acceptable to themselves and to their male counterparts. A woman in the military sums it up by saying, ““You’re a bitch, a slut or a dyke — or you’re married, but even if you’re married, you’re still probably one of the three,” Sergeant Bradford said” (Living and Fighting, 1). But Myers also shows the bright sides of being a woman in the military through the many good times and successes the women have. Myers does make it apparent the strength the women must have to succeed in this man’s world.

Follow Up 4/19

I found both of Steven Lee Myers’ pieces to be very interesting.  I was pleased to hear that in recent years the government and military have become stricter regarding sexual harassment, abuse, rape, etc.  However, we are far from done yet.  One quote that really struck me was that, “‘A woman in the military is more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire in Iraq’” (“A Peril in War Zones: Sexual Abuse by Fellow G.I.’s”, pg. 3).  We hear day in and day out about American soldiers being killed in Iraq, yet a woman is more likely to be raped than killed, like those thousands of soldiers.  This is a frightening statistic.  We claim that we have done such a good job of integrating women in the military, etc. yet we still face serious issues.  Thinking back on Steinmen’s article on crimes over supremacy, part of me has to wonder if that plays a factor in the rapes in the military as well.  These men begin to feel threatened by the women and want to prove their superiority over her by raping her.  This is an issue.

Another quote I found interesting was, “Women have sought acceptance in a still-predominately male environment not by emphasizing their sex but rather by displaying their toughness, their willingness to adjust to conditions that are less than ideal” (“Living and Fighting Alongside Men, and Fitting In”, pg. 3).  The traits we typically think of when we think of the military and the people we want defending our country are predominantly those of men.  We would not want a spoiled and rich little girl who has never had to work a day in her life going out to fight for our safety.  However, I once again have to think back to Steinmen.  If these women are going out to prove they are capable of fighting in the military, I could see how many men could feel threatened by this and feel the need to assert their dominance through sexual harassment, sexual abuse, rape, etc. like the women in these two articles experienced. 

Follow Up Post 4/14

Stienem in Supremacy Crimes gives her thoughts on why at type of person, white heterosexual males, are killing in mass more often than other groups. I thought this article was interesting because it was a situation that I truly had not ever thought about before and she make some very interesting points. She does not give many concrete facts but dies provide examples. I thought the most interesting part of her work was her final suggestions that, “just as we as society have begun to raise our daughters more like sons--more like whole people--we must begin to raise our sons more like our daughters--that is, to value empathy as well as hierarchy; to measure success by other people's welfare as well as their own.” This quote gives a direction for people to aspire to which if people follow can make a change in these tragedies.

Enloe in Whom Do You Take Seriously talks about the way women and men are seen differently when they speak out on a topic and makes interesting observations about the way that women are not as respected. She also touches on many things we discussed when talking about workers in foreign countries and the abhorrent conditions they work in and she adds more to the dimension we discussed of women not being able to leave their jobs even if they are feeling uncomfortable especially with regard to inappropriate sexual conduct by superiors.

Follow Up 4/14

I was intrigued by our readings for Thursday.  I thought Enloe’s thoughts on trivialization in particular were very interesting, but I was surprised more by Steinmen’s article titled “Supremacy Crimes”.  Throughout the semester we have talked about the white, male dominance in our society, but I never really connected it like Steinmen did.  I guess I can’t really say I’m surprised by these conclusions, but they are a bit jarring.  In class today (Tuesday) we talked about how the rape myths usually include some aspect of racial stereotyping (that black men are, by nature, more aggressive) and Steinmen’s piece shows a completely opposite side.  That “white males—usually intelligent, middle class, and heterosexual…account for virtually all the serial, sexually motivated, sadistic killings” (Steinmen pg. 1, paragraph 5) is proof that we need to put an end to the many stereotypes.  There are many reasons behind a killer’s motivation, and often, as Steinmen proves, has to do with the supposed “supremacy” that white males are “entitled” to.  I do not know what we can do to help fix/ease this.  Steinmen gives one suggestion in her closing thoughts:  “…just as we as a society have begun to raise our daughters more like sons—more like whole people—we must begin to raise our sons more like our daughters—that is, to value empathy as well as hierarchy; to measure success by other people’s welfare as well as their own” (pg. 3, 2^nd to last paragraph).  However, I do not know how exactly Steinmen hopes that we go about actually carrying this out.  Sure, it is easy to say that we need to do this but it took our society a long time to allow a girl to be raised more like a boy (get to work outside of the home, etc.) and do not know how, in practice, we would be able to do this.

Main Post 4/12

The point of Susan Brownmiller’s piece, “Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape” is to make the topic of rape something that we feel comfortable talking about.  She wants to make all women aware of rape and where it came from and “deny it a future” (317).  She begins by explaining how the process of training women to be the victim comes at a very young age.  Whenever we learn about rape when we are younger we are usually told that it is a male raping a female.  Brownmiller notes, “The message becomes clear.  Rape has something to do with our sex” (313).  She argues that “Red Riding Hood is a parable of rape” (313) and that it tells girls to not venture far from the path and that if they are lucky a nice man might protect them.  Next she continues on to say that men want to believe that all women, on some level, want to be raped.  Understandably, she has an issue with this claim.  Some claim that rape cannot happen against the will of a woman, and/or that it is impossible to “thread a moving needle” (314).  These claims imply that forcible rape does not exist and that if a woman actually does not want to be raped she can fight to prevent it.  She concludes this section of the piece by observing how our society has somehow always put the fault on the woman.  In the next section she notes that we need to recognize that rape is not an impulsive crime, but one of deliberation and hostility.  Women need to fight back against all that our society has told us or hinted to us throughout our lives in order to not make women the automatic victim and not let us be told that we want to be raped.  We need to “redress the imbalance and rid ourselves and men of the ideology of rape” (316).

Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw’s article is about minority women and how their experiences with rape and abuse are very different than that of a white and/or upper-class/privileged woman.  Her piece is divided into four main sections: introduction, structural intersectionality, political intersectionality, and the conclusion.  The introduction tells us how Crenshaw will “consider how the experiences of women of color are frequently the product of intersecting patterns of racism and sexism, and how these experiences tend not to be represented within the discourse of either feminism or antiracism” (1).  The first section of her structural intersectionality section deals with battering.  She argues that economic issues (such as access to jobs, housing, and wealth) often play a very key role in the experience of a colored woman.  Socioeconomic factors often disempower women of color, and when you add battering to the situation, it only gets worse.  She next touches on how an immigrant woman is negatively impacted.  Immigrant women who are not legal residents of the United States are often put in the worst situations due to the laws that restrict their ability to leave an abusive marriage for fear of deportation.  Her next section deals with structural intersectionality and rape.  Rape crisis centers that help women of color are often disadvantaged from the start.  Counselors are forced to deal with many other issues before dealing directly with the rape when one is reported which limits their funding.  Crenshaw then moves on to the Political Intersectionality section.  She begins this section by talking about the politicization of domestic violence.  She tells the story of how she tried to find statistics on the rates of domestic violence by district in LA but they would not release anything, claiming that domestic violence activists do not want them released, as they will most likely reinforce racial stereotypes.  Her next section, Domestic Violence and Antiracist Policies, touches on an argument that says the feminist movement has no place in the communities of color.  She continues on to discuss how many minority women do not report many of the abuse they experience because they do not want to perpetuate the racial stereotypes they already face.  Crenshaw continues on to her next section, Race and the Domestic Violence Lobby.  In this section she laments that as long as “attempts to politicize domestic violence focus on convincing elites that this is not a ‘minority’ problem but their problem, any authentic and sensitive attention to the experiences of minority women will probably continue to be regarded as jeopardizing the movement” (9).  Her next and final section, Race and Domestic Violence Support Services, tell us how one Latina woman was denied access to a shelter, even when her safety was seriously in danger, because she was not proficient in English.  Crenshaw continues on to tell us how the shelter was unwilling to change their policies or let her son translate for her.  She concludes the article with a few examples of Supreme Court cases and leaves us with this thought: “Through an awareness of intersectionality, we can better acknowledge and ground the differences among us and negotiate the means by which these differences will find expression in constructing group politics” (15).

On a side note, a friend sent me a link to a video on this website so I began looking around at other articles on it.  I found this article on the homepage and thought about how shockingly it relates to what we have been talking about all semester and what we are talking about with these articles as well:

http://www.barstoolu.com/#random-thoughts/reader-email-the-only-thing-worse-than-feminists-is-male-feminists/