CNN Article | OnIslam's Article
The recurring message we’re getting is that there is something inherently wrong with femininity. It’s a specter that haunts women by placing women into oppressive roles in society. It’s a specter that haunts men as an image of what not to be in fear of being labeled as a homosexual. We are socialized with the idea that femininity is “something that is evil and that should be purged,” (WAO). From the internalization of this type of thinking comes “masculinity camps” in Malaysia to re-socialize effeminate boys into dropping their feminine traits. The obvious analysis using our authors’ ideas is the binary gender opposition and notions of sexuality that Anne Fausto-Sterling elaborates in Sexing the Body. The appropriate image of femininity and masculinity are so narrow and strict that young Malaysian boys are being singled out as threats to this image. However, there is another analysis that can be made drawing from our more current readings about militarization where our authors like Enloe and Myers frame militarization as a masculinization process. These Malaysian boot camps are essentially total institutions that attempt to indoctrinate a need of being masculine into these stigmatized boys, a pressure that Enloe’s Borislav Herak experienced in the Serbian militia. By using these authors, we can explore the ways these Malaysian boot camps reinforce the binary gender system, heteronormativity and the role of masculinity and femininity in the nation building process.

The rhetoric behind these camps is primarily based on our two-gender system and what we have socially constructed them to look like. Malaysian boys are singled out for “effeminate tendencies” that do not fall under the stereotypes attached to the male gender whether it be liking a certain color or toy or the act of crying. This state is so plagued by the idea of gender ambiguity that even boys “surrounded by female siblings” are snatched up and placed into masculinity boot camps. By taking action to punish and re-socialize these young males, the Malaysian state department that is funding these boot camps is showing how intolerant they are of anyone that doesn’t categorize perfectly into the gender binaries. Fausto-Sterling’s criticism of the oversimplification of sex and anything that associates with it applies here perfectly; instead of having our label describe and work for us, we are defined and restrained by the label itself (54). Just as intersex newborns have to cope with the psychological pain afterwards for the decision someone had made for them, these Malaysian boys have to cope from being targeted and discriminated against by their own government at an age where many are already insecure and still developing. These psychological damages are all done in the name of reinforcing stereotypes and the two check box system: M or F.

With gender stereotypes come questions about sexuality. Though the camp authorities deny criticisms of the camp missions being homophobic and sexist, we cannot isolate the camp’s activities from the political and social context it’s in. Not only is homosexuality illegal in Malaysia, but Islam is also the official state religion in Malaysia, which “considers homosexuality unnatural and destructive to the social fabric” according to another article. Despite the adamant voices of denial from camp authorities, these camps are profiling and targeting homosexuals in order to “fix” them as if something is utterly wrong and needs to be “fixed.”

Though I struggled with this topic initially because on the surface it seemed like a men’s issue, I realized that it had everything to do and say about women as well. Enloe pointed out in her chapter mainly focused on men in militias that “constructing ideals of masculine behavior in any culture cannot be accomplished without constructing ideals of femininity that are supportive and complementary,” (Enloe, 107). So when these masculinizing camps say that they will make sure their boys leave with messages of physical strength, power, confidence, character, and national pride in their heads, what are they saying about femininity, about women? If they’re trying to cure these boys of femininity, these camps are also sending the reverse message that female qualities are characterized by weakness, fragility, subservience, and ill character. These boys are plagued with the disease of femininity and these camps are attempting to cure it and save them from qualities of the other gender. To actually go about indoctrinating these “masculine” qualities, the camps adopt ideas from a highly masculinized institution – the military.

Although the article states “the minister denied that the camp was a military-style…the students only march in unison every morning,” we have to look at the activities he didn’t think were “military-like.” Daud, the minister and authority figure of these camps tells readers that the boys participate in intensive activities that are fun. These fun activities that Daud describes are jungle-trekking, paintballing, aerobic workouts, lengthy visits to the mosque and “hoisting the national flag and reciting the Rukun Negara.” Despite Daud’s insistence of the militarial aspect of his camp, these activities have strong connections to militarial ones. Though it might not be able to pierce a skull, paintballing is an aggressive activity that gets the boys holding and using guns. Like we had discussed in class, masculinity seems to be tied closely with violence and aggression, traits the military cultivates. Though jungle-trekking may not ring a bell in terms of strategic militarization for Westerners, it is not merely a camping trip but relates to how wars are fought in Southeast Asia. If we look at militarization as a masculinization process, we can understand why these camps utilize military activities and techniques in working with these boys. The total institution aspect of the military helps Daud and his supporters break down the existing identity of these boys and to re-socialize “good” qualities into them. The point isn’t to merely teach the boys how to be masculine, but what’s even more vital is to raise these boys to “think of [themselves] as needing to be masculine,” a transformation of thinking Borislav Herak went through (Enloe, 101). After analyzing how these camps operate and institutionalize masculinity into these “effeminate boys,” we have to look at whom it benefits.

After the familiar ring of masculinity from the physical activities, the remaining activities stand at an interesting place. Whereas the physical portion of camp activities focused more on making the boys look and act like men, the patriotic and religious activities focused on the mindset of these boys and encouraged a very specific set of values and way of thinking. The mosque visits, marching, hoisting of flags, and the unison national chants is precisely the process of indoctrination and repetition of ideology and not just any ideology but the ideology of the state and the majority. The hegemonic aspect of these activities brings up questions about nation building and who plays a part in the process. Traditionally and historically, men are active participants of nation-building and these camps can be seen as a way to target young boys who have traits that threaten this male dominance in the construction of nationalism. Enloe brings up the interesting relationship between male patriotism and female patriotism and these camps are actively defining and solidifying the chasm between the two. Enloe notes that in “cultural constructions of masculinity…men [are] celebrated as soldiers…and women as chiefly [as] maternal sacrifices for the nation,” (Enloe, 107). The boys in these camps are learning how to be soldiers, learning how to cure themselves of a disease that might lead them to be a passive participant in the nation-building process, to prevent them from being the sacrificed. The role of the female patriot, as Enloe suggests, is to reinforce a brother, a father, an uncle – that is the role of feminism in the construction of nationalism and these “effeminate boys” not only blur gender lines, but also patriotic and nationalistic roles. These sprouting new boot camps attempt to reverse this by strengthening the militarization of masculinity. These boys need to not only feel like it’s their social duty to “man-up,” but a national duty as well.

After making the connection between militarization and masculinization, we can bring the discussion back to home and understand why the women in Myers’ article had such a rough time in the military. The military has traditionally been a field to cultivate and exercise dominance and power, traits labeled as masculine. With this come problems of sexual harassment and violence as men attempt to exercise their power and dominance over their female peers in the military.

Now the ultimate question: so what? Abu-Lughod brought up a good point; we tend to care about issues because they’re trendy. Instead, she challenges us to think about human rights. The profiling and targeting of these young, innocent Malaysian boys because they’re not expressing gender “correctly” is all due to our tendency to look at differences instead of commonalities. I think we’re taking the easy way out here, the path of least resistance. Instead of changing the way we think to make room for others in society, we turn them into problems with our rhetoric and try to change them. These corrective masculinity camps are easy because we don’t have to change ourselves; we’re not the problem, or are we?

News Flash #3: "Why Do We Let Them Dress Like That?"

http://www.npr.org/2011/04/05/135146130/moms-to-kids-youre-not-going-out-wearing-that

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703899704576204580623018562.html#articleTabs%3Darticle

The Wall Street Journal published an article on March 19^th titled “Why Do We Let Them Dress Like That?” The title’s “them” refers to this American generation of teen and pre-teen girls…of course. The author, Jennifer Moses, has since been inundated with questions and follow up interviews from WSJ and NPR; the article itself has received over 650 comments (an unprecedented response that the Wall Street Journal has called a “tempest”). So, amongst all of the hotly debated issues, politics, and disasters that are published every day in the Journal, why is it that this topic struck such a nerve with readers? Why does the appearance of our female youth perpetually attract so much criticism? The opinions in this article provide a small window into our society’s view of women as liabilities and our projected need to look out for their best interest. Furthermore, by closely watching the reaction to this article, and how the greater media discusses this topic, we begin to better understand the complex nature of the social pressures on young women today.

A large portion of Moses’ article is spent justifying her complaint that young girls are simply dressing too scantily; and there are endless reasons why she thinks this is a dangerous problem. But I think that the value of the article (or rather, what has elicited the mass response) is in her answer to the question that the title asks. Why do we let them do it? The issue, Moses argues, is not with this generation of girls, but with this generation of parents – specifically, mothers. She says:

We are the first moms in history to have grown up with widely available birth control, the first who didn't have to worry about getting knocked up. We were also the first not only to be free of old-fashioned fears about our reputations but actually pressured by our peers and the wider culture to find our true womanhood in the bedroom.

It is helpful to recognize this distinction; personal histories and experiences are a large part of parenting, and changes in technology and society have certainly created a different background for this generation of moms. However, I think Moses’ statement fails to fully support the argument that follows it. She proposes that there are two main reasons that mothers have difficulty confronting their daughters about sexuality: (1) a fear of hypocrisy and (2) a vicarious thrill which mothers receive from having sexually attractive daughters (particularly as many mothers feel that they lose their own sex-appeal with age). I cannot imagine that these concerns are new, or even specific to this time and culture. American culture could not have gone from its puritan heritage to present day without this repeated cycle of a girl’s teen-aged rebellions affecting her mothering style down the road.

We should also be critical of how Moses’ allocates the responsibility to fix this “problem.” The article reads without any real consideration of the male role in this issue. The idea that boys or fathers are involved in any part of this is barely even hinted towards. In fact, the only time fathers are mentioned at all is in their assumed financial support of this style and behavior (which is also the only hint toward how consumerism may play a role). The absence of any male voice in these conversations and the lack of discussion about the male influence on female appearance show our society’s tendency to make problems concerning women just that. They are issues concerning only women, instead of issues that concern society. For example, in the NPR interview, Moses says, “clothing absolutely does send a message and if the messages is come grab my butt, I don't think we should be encouraging our youth to project that.” This shows how Moses’ perspective makes it the responsibility of the female to change her behavior in anticipation of the male’s reaction instead of the other way around. If attracting sexual misconduct is the concern, why not write the article about boys and title it, “Why Do We Let Them Act Like That?” Instead, Moses ignores the male role (and by doing so endorses it), leaving women with the burden of finding a solution to our violent sexual culture.

Female fashion trends clearly involve gender, and in order to understand it and why it makes so many people uncomfortable, we must look closely into how both males and females work to create these social norms and sexual politics. It is the same logic (in reverse) that Enloe employs when she examines nationalism alongside ideas of masculinity and femininity. It is impossible to fully understand the gender relations involving military men if we only look at the men; one must look deeper and consider how there might be a female influence, especially if the goal is to change it.

Except, in this case, one does not have to look very far to find the male influence on female fashion trends, which makes it even more disturbing that it is left out of this conversation. Moses’ article and the debates it has sparked offer a microcosm of the conflicting pressures on girls; they must both be attractive and reserved, desired and respected. Moses even acknowledges how this struggle extends to their mothers because, as parents, they want their daughter to be appealing but without the stigmas and dangers that may come along with that quality. And one cannot deny that these stigmas, desires, and dangers are stemming from more than the girls themselves. A vast majority of the demand for these styles is made in an attempt to please the male counterparts.

These sexual dynamics are what exist below the surface of Moses’ argument; implied in the tone of the article is the common myth that there is a direct and absolute correlation between displayed sexuality (in clothing choices) and acted sexuality. It is this assumption that creates such concern over clothing. If it was not a common belief that what you wear dictates how you act, I don’t think this article would have ever been written. At least, it would not have drawn so much attention.

In addition to questioning how this article reflects our culture, we must also explore how it contributes to it. Moses certainly has good intentions in writing this article. She wants to see confidence in young women without having them resort to self-objectification. But the way in which she presents this argument contributes to a larger form of patriarchy by steering the “blame” in a counter-productive direction. Instead of criticizing our society for promoting this behavior, this article criticizes mothers and daughters for being products of it. Perhaps Moses should instead be asking “Why Do We Make Them Dress Like That.” Overall, this article contributes to our society’s negative sexuality and adds to the pressures on women to reach an impossible standard. In order to create a more positive sexual culture, we need to stop blaming girls for their sexuality and start cultivating a positive environment that may encourage them to feel attractive and confident without having to express it in this way.

News Flash: CNN's Portrayal of RapeLay Videogame Silences Discussions of Violence Towards Women

CNN Video Discussion about "RapeLay" Videogame

We rarely hear discussions of rape in today’s media, and when rape does appear in the media, the discussions do not address the key issue: that rape is a serious act of violence against women, and it must be ended. I am focusing on a CNN video from March 31, 2010. The video addresses a videogame that was once available on amazon.com, called “RapeLay”. The object of the videogame is for players to find, corner, and rape women. Players can chose different methods of assault, and they can even get women pregnant and then force them to have abortions (See Article). The CNN video refers to these animated figures as “women”, although they look more like young teenage girls. The videogame was quickly banned from Amazon.com, but apparently it is still available for free download on many websites, and the intense media coverage of this game is largely responsible for it’s availability on the web. While the game itself is disgusting and unacceptable, the way that CNN discussed the game is also extremely disheartening. The entire discussion of the RapeLay game was centered on the idea that parents need to be on the look out for it, to make sure their kids do not play this game. The coverage includes zero discussion of violence against women. This CNN video shows that the media’s portrayals and discussions of rape are extremely skewed and fail to discuss the systemic issues of violence against women in our society. CNN’s portrayal of this videogame sheds light on the fact that discussions of violence against women continue to be stifled in the public sphere, which is consistent with Cynthia Enloe’s argument in her chapter, “Whom Do You Take Seriously?”.

I believe that CNN’s discussion of RapeLay focused on the wrong issues, because the video clip is all about how parents should monitor their children, and it fails to address the issues of violence against women that are present in the videogame. When I began watching the video, I expected the newscasters to address the idea that this game is degrading to women and reflects the violence against women that is present in today’s society. However, the entire story was framed in a way that completely ignored the idea that rape is the central focus of the game. For example, the opening line for the CNN video includes the male newscaster stating “What you are about to see is very disturbing. But parents, we have got to warn you about this videogame, because your kids could get their hands on it! It depicts rape.” It disturbs me that this is framed in terms of parents making sure their children don’t find this game. Of course, I agree that the discussion of parents making an effort to make sure their children do not get a hold of this game should definitely be included in the video segment. However, I think it is despicable that the main focus of the video is not about how degrading the videogame is to women, or about how rape is a serious crime. Cynthia Enloe has an explanation for this phenomenon: the CNN video does not discuss the issue of raping women because our society does not accept the discussion of certain women’s issues in the public sphere.

Enloe explains that a historical way to silence women’s issues has been to keep them out of the public sphere, and making an intense differentiation between the public and private spheres helps with this silencing. I argue that CNN chose to discuss the implications that this videogame has on parents monitoring their children instead of discussing rape as an issue in society because our media culture is afraid to bring rape into the public sphere. For example, at one point in the video, I was excited because I thought the male broadcaster was about to make a point about the issue of rape in the videogame. Instead, to my dismay, he said “this awakens a lot of parents to any violent video games, even if it’s not to this degree. What does this do to our kids, when they are playing the war games, and it’s just graphic violence, over and over again?” I expected him to discuss how this game awakens parents to violence against women, but instead he equated the rape videogame to other videogames that include war and other violence. Again, I believe that CNN used this tactic to guide their discussion because rape is not something that can be discussed in our public sphere, and news on television is about as public as a sphere can get.

After the male broadcaster spoke for a while, a woman named Cheryl was brought into the discussion via webcam. Because she is a woman, I thought that she might bring up a discussion of violence against women. However, her avoidance of the subject was even worse than the male broadcaster’s. Cheryl is apparently the co-founder of the Center for Mental Health and Media, and given this background I definitely expected her to comment on the psychological effects that a videogame like this could have on young girls who could potentially be exposed to it. To my great surprise, in her dialogue with the male broadcaster, Cheryl seemed to give an excuse for the videogame, suggesting that it wouldn’t be that damaging to children who are exposed to it. The male broadcaster asked Cheryl what the effects of this game could have on children, and Cheryl responded that the characters are “very crudely drawn, there is no genitalia shown”. I was infuriated by this response. Cheryl is implicitly suggesting that the game will not tell boys that it is okay to sexually assault girls and that the game willnot terrify young girls, simply because no genitalia is shown. She even goes on to say that it is normal for younger kids (especially boys) to play violent videogames, and she states that violence in our society is decreasing, not increasing. I was completely astounded that Cheryl did not mention the message that this videogame can and will send to children about violence against females. She completely ignored the fact that the violence in the game only targets women, and she essentially equated it to other violent games that involve war.

Similar to the reason that the overall CNN video did not discuss rape, Cheryl did not discuss violence against women because, according to Enloe, women who speak out about violence have historically been disrespected in society. Therefore, it is likely that Cheryl did not delve into a discussion of rape or violence against women because she felt that discussing the topic in such a public sphere would cause her to no longer be a “respectful woman”. Enloe explains that “in many societies, in many eras it has been deemed improper for any “respectable” woman to speak at a public meeting” (Enloe 75), let alone speak about rape in a public setting. Enloe also mentions that, historically, women have not only been disrespected for speaking in public about sensitive issues, but they have also been labeled as “prudish” or as lesbians for speaking about certain topics pertaining to women’s rights (Enloe 78). The fear of having these labels imposed on herself prevented Cheryl from discussing violence against women in the video. Cheryl, like so many women, was silenced.

We know that speaking about women’s issues is largely kept out of the public sphere. This known fact raises a question: Why does this CNN video about the RapeLay videogame exist at all, then? Why did the videogame receive any media coverage, if it is about rape? Enloe provides us with the answer to this question. Although women’s issues are generally not discussed in public, Enloe states that “violence against women almost everywhere has been a topic kept out of the public arena or only sporadically and very selectively allowed into it in the form of a “scandal””(Enloe 73). While our media ignores most rape cases, the RapeLay videogame was brought into the public sphere because of its scandalous nature. Although violence against women is common in our society, videogames depicting this violence are rare, but they produce public interest. Because the videogame was a “scandal”, it was brought into the public arena and was given media coverage.

CNN’s video coverage of the RapeLay videogame serves as a prime example of Enloe’s idea that discussions of women’s issues are silenced in the public sphere. Instead of discussing the videogame in terms of how it is extremely degrading and frightening for women, the videogame is simply discussed in terms of how parents should monitor their children’s videogame use. Not only does the framework of this discussion completely ignore women’s issues, but the woman who participates in the discussion never mentions the effect that this game has on both girls and boys in terms of legitimizing violence against women. The media avoids discussions of violence against women because the topic has historically been silenced in the public sphere. Cheryl does not bring up the discussion, and nor does the male broadcaster, because women have historically been devalued for speaking about women’s issues publicly. According to Enloe, the only reason that this story even made it into the mainstream media is because it was scandalous, and people are attracted to scandalous stories. In the future, I sincerely hope that CNN handles stories like this one in a very different fashion. Clearly, the main issue with the RapeLay videogame was how it encourages violence towards women. CNN failed to discuss this issue, and instead framed the story in a way to avoid bringing a discussion of violence against women into the public sphere.

Works Cited

Enloe, Cynthia. The Curious Feminist. Univ. of California Press, 2004.

CNN Video: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2010/03/31/pn.rapelay.parent.outrage.cnn?iref=videosearch

CNN Article: http://articles.cnn.com/2010-03-30/world/japan.video.game.rape_1_game-teenage-girl-japanese-government?_s=PM:WORLD

Response to Abu-Lughod, Bunch, and Ibriham

These three authors focused on something our previous authors skipped over: transnational feminism and American feminists’ responsibility to advocate for women’s rights as human rights. I agree whole-heartedly with Abu-Lughod when notes how the types of discussions we’re having about Muslim women tend to emphasize differences instead of looking at unifying factors. We tend to speak about Muslim women as the cultural other. This makes it harder for us to relate and I think it’s important to emphasize instead that this is a human rights issue, not just a cultural, historical, or political issue. Fundamentally, we are all human and we all share basic rights. Then why do we insist on having conversations that dissect the Muslim woman as if she’s a foreign object that needs to be studied in order to be saved? Our obsession with cultural things like the burqa may or may not reveal opportunities to lift oppressions, but I agree with Abu-Lughod when she says that it is besides the point. The point is not to lay value judgments and identify oppressing aspects of culture, but to find a balance between understanding cultural differences and committing cultural violence and to use this new mindset to advocate for human rights. After all, I wouldn’t want foreigners telling me all the reasons why I should not be binding my feet when I don’t even have the freedom to walk outside my door without the fear of being killed by one of my own, or by the hands of my “savior country.”

The topic of saving Muslim women is another that she brings up and it’s equally as fascinating. Abu-Lughod challenges us to think of our discussions as acts of cultural violence. Are we doing violence unto these women by measuring and judging them by Western standards and values? I think this is wrong as well. Why should we expect these women to look like us? Who has the right to say that Americans are the perfect picture of feminism and equality? This not only puts us in the position of superiority, like Abu-Lughod said, but also adds to the perceived end of feminism in America, Douglas’ point. By using rhetoric that frame Americans as saviors, we are emphasizing the perfection of our social order. This creates an illusion and is actually hindering feminists here in America. I agree with her when she says that it’s not a purely philanthropic venture to advocate for foreign women’s rights, but it also benefits women here too. Ibrahim also echoes this need for more spokespersons for these types of global issues. Though she doesn’t necessarily focus on merely women, she emphasizes on human rights, which is also interesting and something new.

On Bunch’s article, I had a different response from Callie regarding America’s obsession with 9/11. Callie found this statement to be harsh and a downplay of 9/11, but I agree with what was said. I do agree that it is a downplay of 9/11, but I understand what the author’s saying about the experience of other’ countries with terrorism. I think that America doesn’t take terrorism seriously unless it experiences it for itself. We seem to give off the impression that since we’re one of the superior nations, if not the superior nation, that we don’t deserve this type of treatment. All of a sudden, there is this obsession. My problem is not with the obsession, but my problem is how we use this obsession to justify war, to justify violence against culture and ethnicity. It clouds our judgment to the point where American citizens like Ibrihim are being detained at the airport, in their home country. Terrorism anywhere is wrong and terrorism in other countries should not cause us to turn our backs. As Ibrihim’s story revealed, we end up turning our backs on one of own. To what point can the government take away our rights on the basis of national security? When it ostracizes communities in America? When it alienates and perpetuates stereotypes of certain communities? These stereotypes play out when we discuss human rights, the war, and the status of global feminism and the discussion we may be having might not benefit who we want to benefit at all.

Response Post April 21

These articles reminded me of the very strong point that Bill Clinton made when he was here in October. He made two basic statements that resonated with me:

1) Americans need to know how lucky we are and embrace it (carefully)

2) Americans need to realize how much we have to learn from (and about) other countries and cultures

These authors support this idea by exposing some of the struggles that exist (especially politically) for people in foreign countries. But they also carry the message that Western ignorance can exacerbate these struggles when the society’s clash. The problems, as Abu-Lughod argues, quite often arise from our failure to look past the surface and beyond what defines people as “other.” Basically, because cultural differences are the easiest way to mark differences in western vs non-western groups, we often assign “wrongness” to them simply because of unfamiliarity.

The established international power of our nation implies a certain amount of responsibility to the people of the world in need. The argument made in “Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving” is that we should over come our unexplainable fascination with cultural differences like veiling and focus our strengths and efforts on systemic/political change that allows more freedom to choose how they live rather than encouraging people to live in ways we assume are “better” because we enjoy them more.

Furthermore, as Bunch points out, we need to be careful of polarizing mentalities, like Bush’s “with us or against us.” This type of thinking is a scare tactic used to garner unquestioning support; it minimizes people’s ability to deviate for the better, and it adds strength and numbers to “the enemy” by marginalizing people who think outside the narrow range of “with us.” We should always strive for our right to challenge the status quo in order to broaden perspectives and avoid austere dualities.

Main Post 4.20

Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving? (Lila Abu-Lughod)

We justify the war on terrorism by saying that it is a war to save and liberate the Afghan women. But is this a valid statement? This question is of particular importance to the author because she herself is a Muslim woman. After the 9/11 attacks, she was asked by many different organizations to speak at panels and give her opinions about Muslim women. In her paper, the author sheds light on the West’s obsession with the “plight of Muslim women”, and how this obsession has negative impacts.

One point that the author brings up is how obsessed the media is with understanding Middle Eastern conflicts based on cultural/religious ideas, instead of looking at historical or political ideas. I think she has a very strong point. When we look at other conflicts, we tend to focus more on historical/political factors, but when it comes to the Middle East, the West largely focuses on religion and culture as an explanation for conflicts.

The author has a basic but semi-lengthy discussion of the tradition of veiling. I took an Intro to Middle Eastern Studies class last spring, so I found the veiling portion of this article to be extremely interesting. The West has many preconceived notions about the Middle East, and notions that we have about the veil are extremely biased and incorrect. As the author points out, after the Taliban was expelled, it seemed that Western people assumed that Muslim women would immediately abandon their veiling practices. This was not the case. Veiling is not a sign of oppression in Muslim culture; it is a sign of cultural practices. While full-body veiling has become less popular, many modern educated Muslim women wear the hijab, which is basically a scarf that covers part of the head and the neck. It is baffling to both me and the author that women would throw away these cultural practices as soon as their oppressive political leaders were overthrown.

Instead of thinking of freedom in terms of dress (veiling), the author urges us to consider a more broad (and important) definition of freedom; one that includes universal human rights to be free from structural violence and inequality. She warns us about the dangers of being cultural relativists, but she also encourages us to be more understanding of culture practices…just because they may not be “Western” does not mean they are oppressive.

Another interesting point that I found in the paper was how many Afghan women look to Iranian women as an example of “women making significant gains within Islamic framework”. These women do not want to abandon their religious practices, but they do want to change the gender inequality that exists in their culture (and it also exists in ours, although not to the same extent). Finally, the author discusses how there is a great danger is saying that Afghan women must be “saved” from their situation. This is extremely disrespectful and ethnocentric of Westerners to assume, because they are assuming that the West must save these women from their circumstances. Instead, the author suggests that we should simply consider ways in which to make the world “a more just place”.

I think this piece was one of the best readings we have done all semester. The author had very clear points and it was enjoyable to read, because it sheds so much light on a subject that many Westerners are confused about. I think this article was so important, and I’m very glad that we read it.

Whose Security? (Charlotte Bunch)

This article echoes Lila Abu-Lughod’s in many ways. The Bush administration used Afghan’s women’s need of rights to get support for the “War on Terrorism”. However, it is extremely strange that the voices of feminists in America have not been heard in support for the war. This proves that the administration got support from people who were uninformed of the true state of affairs, so these people just believed that Afghan’s women’s rights were part of a good reason to go to war. Additionally, the article discusses the event of 9/11 itself, and how it was viewed internationally. Obviously it was a huge deal for the United States and the day will always be a day of intense grief and sadness for Americans, especially those in the New York area. However, this author argues that resentment for America has stemmed from America’s “obsession” with 9/11. Many other countries deal with terrorist attacks on a daily basis, so it is hard for others to understand America’s intense focus on 9/11. Personally, I find this statement to be a little harsh. I know that other countries experience intense terrorism on a daily basis, but that does not diminish the events of September 11^th.

Living While Muslim: Human rights Advocacy in the Post-9/11 Era (Araw Ibrahim)

Ibrahim is an Iraqi-born American citizen who writes about her struggles reconciling her life in America with what America has done to Iraq. Her family in Iraq has experienced intense losses and hardships because of the occupation of American troops. However, Ibrahim wanted to find a way to cope with this “double identity” situation. She wanted to find a way to “accept prospering in a country that began this whole mess and that was indirectly responsible for taking the lives of members of my own family” (41). To go about finding a way, she decided to start a project in which she would interview young Iraqis and see their perspectives. One of the most poignant responses she got from an interviewee was how hospitals are overcrowded with wounded U.S. soldiers. I obviously support healthcare for soldiers but it saddens me that Iraqi civilians may be suffering and receiving poor healthcare due to overcrowded hospitals.

Another poignant part of the story was when Ibrahim and her family were intensely questioned at JFK when the returned to America from Jordan. This is a prime example of racial/cultural profiling, and it is unacceptable. I respect Ibrahim for refusing to “adopt a singular national identity” as an act of political resistance (47). It is definitely not an easy choice, but it is an important and powerful one that she has made.

Main Post 4/18

“Living and Fighting Alongside Men, and Fitting In” by Steven Lee Myers accounts how the war front has undergone perceptible change due to the relatively new presence of women in this new kind of war. The article mostly tries to put the reader at ease, saying that most of the problems people assumed would accompany the integration of women into combat simply have not been issues. Sex and pregnancy happen, but the article claims that neither has become a noticeable distraction to the soldiers. For the most part, women have their own facilities and some semblance of privacy – and when they don’t they are happy to find ways to cope. Overall, the article implies that women have been a positive influence on the American military efforts and that they have been so because of their ability to “show their toughness.” Their reception by males in the military seems slightly more ambiguous, giving way to the categorical thinking our society often exhibits: slut, bitch, or dyke. But the article explains this away by claiming that the women don’t let it bother them. While this was an interesting read, I can’t help but think that it may be contributing to enlightened sexism. It dismisses a lot of things pretty lightly and gives an overall feel that everything in the military front, is on the right track. Hopefully this is true, but it should be read with a questioning eye.

A Peril in War Zones: Sexual Abuse by Fellow G.I.’s, is also written by Steven Lee Myers and gives some credence to my suspicion of the first article. It gives multiple accounts of inappropriate behavior towards women on integrated military bases abroad. A vast majority of these cases goes unreported, and soldiers have a long list of reasons why. Understandably, some women feel like they would be hurting their military effort by adding the distraction of a sexual abuse report. Their sense of duty, first and foremost, to their mission discourages drawing attention to such a menacing issue. Other reasons include the common idea that it won’t do them any good, nothing will be done about it anyway, or that it might even hurt their careers. While the number of reports is going up, there is still not a strong climate of support for victims of sexual crimes, male or female. The military continues to make a public effort to better this situation, but it is often undermined by skepticism and conservative beliefs about female service from people inside and outside of the armed services.

Enloe’s chapter “All the Men Are in the Militias, All the Women Are Victims” uses the base story of Borislav Herak to underline how nationalism shapes and reinforces particular notions of masculinity and femininity. Borislav Herak went from an unassuming, unsuccessful man to a power-wielding militiaman, accused of mass rape and murder. Enloe believes that it was the nature of Nationalist warfare that brought out this dormant side of the young man who was unremarkable in peace time. Enloe’s strongest points, I think, are her evaluations of how female relationships contribute to these ideas of masculinity, particularly in wartime. For instance, we are all familiar with the concept of the patriotic mother who allows or encourages her son(s) to fight for their country. The militarized ideas of masculinity depend on the participation of the entire society, not just men. Enloe makes the great point that ideas of masculinity cannot be upheld without ideas of femininity to counter-act them. These concepts, Enloe argues, experience even greater polarization and specification in war-time by telling men that their masculinity is validated by their performance as soldiers and telling women that they need to support their men. This polarization may also be a reason why ordinary men like Borislav Herak resort to violent acts we might call supremacy crimes. I think Enloe’s argument makes sense and is an interesting case study into a cultural behavior that seems to span across the world and across time.

NPR recently had an interesting discussion relating to women in the military. It can be read or listened to here: http://www.npr.org/2011/02/26/134083528/Women-In-Combat-How-You-Feel-About-It

Responding post: Enloe & Myers

Enloe and Myers’ work brings to attention the issue of sexual harassment and violence against women in the military. Whereas Myers’ work focuses on American women’s experience working in the military, Enloe looks at other nation’s militaries and we can see the same trend even those Enloe and Myers are both speaking about different time periods. This is both shocking and frightening because it shows how times have not changed. It is still in the nation’s interest to masculinize men, especially the men we put in our military. This masculinization process, Enloe argues, inadvertently sends messages of violence, power, and control, which pave way for a susceptibility of sexual violence against women. Enloe also points out that by defining masculinity, nations also define femininity to re-enforce the power and control that men have over women.

When we read excerpts like this for class, we tend to distance ourselves from the writing, from the authors, and from the entire time period. Even though Myers’ article was just 2 years ago, some might think that the changes have alleviated al the issues this article brought up. However, this is very relevant to today, fits very well with my news flashes about the status of global feminism (especially the one I wrote about mail-order-brides), and in some ways, hits close to home.

(The rest of my post is emailed)

It is always a pleasure to read Enloe because she challenges her readers to think outside the obvious. Even her chapter for this week, which emphasizes and analyzes masculinity, is a fresh new direction to looking at femininity.

Response Post 4.18

The two New York Times articles brought a topic to light that I think is rarely discussed in our media today. I have never really thought about sexual assault in the military before. It is easy for us to assume that the military is one united unit…a team that works together and depends on each other, and therefore they would not hurt each other. It was really upsetting to read the stories of women in the U.S military who have been sexually assaulted. What was even more upsetting to read was that many of the women were expelled from the military and sent home because of their complaints. Some women who remained silent expressed their intense fear about their stalkers. One woman refused to drink anything after 7 pm, so she did not have to go to the bathroom in the middle of the night and risk being attacked by her stalker.

The very idea of living in fear of sexual assault in a military setting frightens me. I find it to be even more frightening than sexual assault in a “normal” environment, because these women really feel that they have no where to turn to for help. The military has always been extremely male dominated, and I can imagine that women feel they cannot complain about their situations because they have an intense fear that their male superiors will not take them seriously. In fact, many of these assaults probably occur by males who are in a higher position of power than the women they are assaulting, therefore putting the women in even more of a “birdcage” type of situation.

Finally, these articles made me ponder the whole “don’t ask don’t tell” debacle. If women are allowed to be in the military and fight alongside men (and have sex with men), why is there such an intense debate over having gay people in the military? I have always heard that one large factor going in to the gays in the military discussion is that straight men will feel that their gay fellow soldiers may be attracted to them, and that is an added pressure that they don’t want to deal with while they are in the military. However, if women are allowed to be in the military and live in close quarters with men (as the NYT articles tell us), shouldn’t these women be “putting sexual pressure” on men, the same way that gay men would do if they were in the military? It doesn’t make sense that one of the main arguments for “don’t ask don’t tell” is that gay men will make straight men feel uncomfortable, when women are in the military anyway.