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 Steubenville case, blame is being routinely shifted to the victim. During the semester, we had the opportunity to read “'Nothing really happened': the invalidation of women's experiences of sexual violence,” in Next Critical Social Policy by Liz Kelly and Jill Radford.  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 and some of the writings by Ann Jones. 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.