Is video game violence real?

I saw an article today about video game sexualized violence and it argued that any violence that happens in this setting is wrong and should be considered a crime. This debate has been going on for awhile and it also includes whether or not violence in video games can have an effect on children's behavior. I'm kind of still debating this myself. Before this class, I thought that it was the parents' job to teach children to differentiate between the real and the virtual world. It seemed pretty logical. But now, I think that they should still teach their children but not responsible or liable if their children can't make that difference. This argument can also apply to pornography. In Law and Order, Special Victims Unit, (one of my favorite shows) there had been cases where males see rapes, torturing, among other things in video games and porn and try to replicate it in their personal lives. But in these types of cases, who is responsible: the guy who commits these crimes or the industries that create the scenarios? It's a fine line because society first creates these criminals and then punishes them for the same behavior it taught them. This is a question I still can't answer. But, by using this example, I think that sexualized violence in video games is real because it programs the users to think that this is ok, in other words, it normalizes violent behavior. It is the same process that is seen in the military. Weird how all of these things are connected...

But please comment with your ideas.

Some would call it rambling

Events like a graduation never seem complete without a few did-he-really-just-say-thats and are-we-actually-having-this-discussions. Mine was witness to a denouncement of feminists, with a bit of a back-tracking defense that although all feminists are crazy, he supports women’s activists. Perhaps that individual should be more attentive to the company he keeps. I err in blind condemnation, however. Once upon a time, I too thought feminists were crazy, even while supporting women’s rights. That’s why my gender studies courses have been so important to me. They have given me the language to articulate those thoughts, feelings, and observations that have long given me discomfort, even if I couldn't quite put a finger on why. Now I have positionality, intersectionality, and hegemonic masculinity (it would be nice if Microsoft Word did too- those red squigglys are so unbecoming to my manifesto).

It’s shameful that that may be my most persuasive self-check is self-identification. I agree with getting angry, I agree with protest, outcry, endurance, and firm-resolve. The comment from that individual did come from at least a sliver (albeit teeny tiny) of reality. Sometimes being a warrior becomes being a crusader. And I think as soon as a mission is given such divine status, it loses focus. Gods, in any case, can justify all. The rare outlier that does fall into man-hating is likely guilty of complicity with privilege. Is that individual white, middle-class, heterosexual, able-bodied, sound of mind, thin but not too thin, youthful (ad infinitum)?  For me to even have such thoughts, at least so clearly formulated in my mind, I owe Kimberle Crenshaw for giving me “intersectionality” and the scholars who built upon her work.

Another particular addition to my vernacular has been especially timely: victim-blaming. News recently has been jointly filled with sexualized violence and its explaining away via excusing the perpetrator. Like the Stuebenville case, blame is being routinely shifted to the victim. During the semester, we had the opportunity to read “Why Doesn’t She Leave,” in Next Time She’ll Be Dead by Ann Jones.  The use of repetition as a persuasive rhetoric tool as well as articulate analysis on domestic and sexualized violence in this chapter really helped elucidate the absurdity of victim-blaming for me. It dovetailed well with our reading of the Continuum of Sexual Violence, which, additionally, maintains connections with Connell’s conceptions of hegemonic masculinity, as both examine the pervasiveness and infiltration of various aspects of privilege in US society. Concurrently, I’ve lately avoided complete cynicism by rejoicing in the fact that conversation is happening. The fact that it seems to be being debated now seems to suggest that the reliance on “tradition,” or “the way it’s always been” is being challenged. I relish that. And then I hear an esteemed female physician on NPR discussing community- and patient-based health care declare that women are “universally” communicative, chatty, and desirous of discussing such topics as menopause and I waver between excusing her for having been raised in the US’s system of stark and hierarchical gender dichotomies and denouncing her as a betrayer of women.

I feel as though I should end with an acknowledgement of the more international-minded of our class’s readings. In particular, I enjoyed What Kind of Liberation? Women and the Occupation of Iraq by Nadje al-Ali and Nicola Pratt. Themes of positionality and intersectionality were replayed. The need to feminize security studies was also underlined. As the rhetorical title indicates, claims of women’s liberation for the Iraq War have not been well met in its aftermath. The book did an excellent job of elucidating the specific challenges that some women in Iraq face, the role of the international system and the United States, and the shared global system of patriarchy, consequences in tow. Ultimately, our internationally-focused readings helped to dissolve “us” vs. “them” heuristics by uncovering shared experiences.

Lauren: Another Example of the Invisible War

As I was catching up with the Big Bang Theory episodes after a long day of doing nothing, a preview for the second season of LAUREN came on. I saw that it was about a woman in the military. I found out it was a rape case, just the Invisible War. The preview showed a pretty, White female (Lauren) telling another soldier about her rape. After, there is a shot of a male commanding officer telling Lauren's captain that she needs to make this go away. In another take, we see both women talking about the rape and Lauren is emotional because they tell her that she has no right to do anything. I automatically thought of the Invisible War and Jessica Lynch. It showed a stereotypical White woman being controlled by a big, strong man in an environment where she couldn't do anything. I think that this show became an extension of The Invisible War because it shows the story of another rape case in the military in another form of the media. The series is broadcasted on the WIGS and on Youtube, as well as on TV, which are easier ways to access the series than a documentary. The casting of the actress made me think: Is this really positive for exposure of military rape? I mean, it focuses solely on women, it follows the defenseless female, and it's about her fight against the system. In my personal opinion, any exposure is good exposure, even if it is stereotypical. This series, which I just started watching, gives other people an idea about what is happening in the military and it makes women (and men) think about these issues before enlisting. I had the same issue with the Invisible War. But if it wasn't for the documentary, I wouldn't have known about military rape. So, even if the Invisible War and Lauren mainly focus on women's cases, it is a starting point to raise awareness.

Here is the link to WIGS website in case you are interested in watching the series: 

http://www.watchwigs.com/

Wigs also makes other series about women in different situations that deal with "women problems." If you see or are seeing any of the other series, tell me what you think :)

I will be watching the series throughout the summer and I will post some analysis and personal thoughts on the series. I recommend everyone see it and post comments about the episodes as well.

Violence, Suicide Bombing, and the Quest For Nationalism

Female suicide bombers have been used in several organizations around the world. Contrary to popular belief, they are not just simply religious organizations full of religious fanatics. Rather, many of these organizations are secular and work with religious organizations in recruiting and using religions as a justification for larger motivations (Weinberg, 2011). Many organizations, some hosting a religious exterior, have the secular goal of achieving nationhood. The best two examples are the Al-Aqsa Brigade, working with Hamas and Hezbollah, in Palestine and the completely secular Tamil Tigers of Sri lanka.

Other organizations using female suicide bombers include: Syrian Social Nationalist Party in Syria, Kurdistan’s Worker’s Party aka (PKK), and the Chechen Shahidkas of Chechnya. Nationalism is a huge motivating factor in each of these organizations, even the ones affiliated with a religious philosophy. In every one of the organizations mentioned above, their mission is to establish a nation while fighting in the name of nationalism (Weinberg, 2011).

There is a lot of debate as to whether or not women have different reasons than men for joining organizations utilizing suicide bombing. Gender specific motivations include: regaining family honor after events such as rape or infidelity, avenging the loss of a loved one, or being forced into the organizations through kidnapping (Bloom, 2005). While there are some situations where this is the case it is essential to understand that women are not inherently peaceful and have the same motivations as men including nationalism and patriotism.

According to Sjoberg and Gentry (2007), most “accounts emphasize women’s motivations for engaging in suicide terrorism as different to men’s, as associated with their femaleness rather than humanity, and as personal rather than political” (p. 136). Furthermore, “academic studies of the motivation for female suicide terrorists […] either ignore gender altogether or take account of gender without seeing genderings” and that “Instead of seeing women as agents making choices in relation to their socio-cultural situation, each produces a stylized, gender-marginalizing narrative of women’s participation in these movements that denies agency” (p.137).

According to Ness (2008), even though “women terrorist are neither misfits nor rare […] most people react with an extra level of shock and horror” (p. 217). This has several implications when women are not considered political or violent beings. The first is that because they are not considered violent, repeated acts of terror by women occur under that radar of security forces and second, to further their struggle these organizations have used women as cheap, effective, and excellent sources of political and media attention and as sources of fear and astonishment (Eager, 2008, p.172). Internationally the failure to realize the ability of women in these organizations after abuses suffered at the hands of an enemy has only served to fuel their involvement and as a source to further nationalist sentiments (Bloom, 2011).

 “I am going to fight [emphasis added] instead of the sleeping Arab armies who are watching Palestinian girls fighting alone” –Ayat Akras (Al-Aqsa Brigade)

References

Bloom, M. (2005). Dying to kill: the allure of suicide terror. New York: Columbia University Press.

Bloom, M. (2011). Bombshell: women and terrorism. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

      Eager, P. W. (2008). From freedom fighters to terrorists women and political violence.

Aldershot, England: Ashgate.

Ness, C. D. (2008). Female terrorism and militancy agency, utility, and organization. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

Sjoberg, L., & Gentry, C. E. (2007). Mothers, monsters, whores: women's violence in global politics. London: Zed Books.

Weinberg, L., & Eubank, W. (2011). Women's Involvement in Terrorism. Springer Science+Business Media, 28(Gender Issues), 22-49. 

Narratives

Although I learned about myself, the way I think, and how to analyze the world I live in from the methodologies that we have discussed and read, I find that the most moving literature for me is about narratives of women. Coincidentally, the literature on the best approach to feminist research and methodologies moved towards the narrative approach (Cockburn, Wibben). For me the most powerful reading was from Ann Jones, Kabul in Winter. Jones (2006) gave me nightmares, made me sick with anger and horror. While I was reading I was simply mortified that this was occurring, that this was allowed to happen in the world. But then it dawned on me after listening to her speak, violence against women happens all over the world in many forms. Some of the worst violence against women taking place right here in the United States, including structural violence implemented by the state and targeting minority women. The truth is that violence is all around us, and that the violence around is normalized. This reading and Jones' lecture made the continuum of violence make sense for me. It made me wonder where the women in Afghanistan had begun to deny that "nothing was really happening" to allow the society to normalize the grotesque violence they experience now? It made me think about where the women in the U.S. had begun to normalize the violence and allow for questions like "why didn't she leave?" to take the place of "how did we let this happen?"

What narratives have done for me is realize that while I am reading the stories of women in other parts of the world, they might be reading stories from mine thinking the same thing or even seeing similarities. Victim blaming happens in parts of the world such as Liberia, parts of the world we would never equate with our own society! I think it is important to not remove ourselves from the narratives of others, but use them as tools and stories to understand the violence that is happening in our own societies as well.

Reference

Jones, Ann. Kabul in winter: life without peace in Afghanistan. New York: Metropolitan, 2006. Print.

A Summer of Mis-romance: On Complicity and Intimate Violence (cross-posted from Kaalratri)

Davies Fellow Caron Gentry connects the dots - from representations of women and violence in Black Heart, Fifty Shades of Grey, Wuthering Heights, Medea and the Twilight saga to relationship violence among teens in the UK, sexualized violence in the U.S military, and domestic violence in the U.S. - there is a continuum of violence (cf. Kelly 1987). As Gentry notes, "we are teaching the next generation that gender stereotypes of subaltern feminine submissiveness and passivity and dominant masculine aggression and dominance, whether they are performed by men or women, are valid."
Read more at Kaalratri.

Kelly, Liz (1987) “The Continuum of Sexual Violence” In: Jarna Holmes and Mary Maynard (eds) Women, Violence and Social Control. Macmillan: pp. 46-60.

Readings to Remember

Though it was several months ago that we read Liz Kelly's (1987) piece "The Continuum of Sexual Violence" and Kelly's/Radford's (1990) piece "Nothing Really Happened," I still find myself relating each of these readings back to my personal life and the lives of other women. As Kelly (1987) argues, the issue of sexualized violence is best understood not as a matter of "yes" or "no" (yes it was indeed sexualized violence or not it was not) but rather as a matter of degree. As she states, "Sexual violence exists in most women's lives, whilst the form it takes, how women define events, and its impact on them at the time and over time varies" (Kelly, 1987, p. 2). As we discussed, this however is not to suggest that those forms of sexualized violence that are less common or less violent are necessarily less important. This challenges the assumption (foolishly made by various political figures who I cannot remember off the top of my head) that sexualized violence, in its "real" form, only occurs when a nameless, psychotic man jumps out from the bushes and rapes a virginal, "innocent" woman. 

For me personally, this concept has many (discomforting) implications - among them realizing that I myself may have had experiences on what is generally considered the less severe side of the continuum. At the time, since I was not aware of the concept of a continuum, I, like many women, kept telling myself "Well, nothing really happened."

Of course, this forms the basis of Kelly and Radford's piece (1990) which examines the ways in which women are encouraged to invalidate, deligitmize, or otherwise gloss over their experiences of sexualized violence. In my reading, both Kelly's concept of the continuum and the response(s) of "Nothing really happened" formed the basis of Lynn Phillips film, Flirting with Danger: Power & Choice in Heterosexual Relationships (2006). I remember leaving the film showing feeling incredibly uncomfortable and even a bit anxious, because I saw myself and my own experiences through the characters in the film, who, like me, were encouraged to invalidate their experiences.

Kelly, Liz (1987) “The Continuum of Sexual Violence” In: Jarna Holmes and Mary Maynard (eds) Women, Violence and Social Control. Macmillan: pp. 46-60.

Kelly, Liz and Jill Radford (1990) “’Nothing Really Happened’: The invalidation of women’s experiences of sexual violence” Critical Social Policy 10 (30): pp. 39-53.