Ann Jones new book: "They Were Soldiers: How the Wounded Return From America’s Wars - The Untold Story"

Spring 2013 Davies Fellow Ann Jones has a new book detailing the cost of war to U.S. servicemen & women which you should definitely check out.

Here is a teaser for that very book from TomDispatch:

They Didn’t Know What They Were Getting Into
The Cost of War American-Style
By Ann Jones

The last time I saw American soldiers in Afghanistan, they were silent. Knocked out by gunfire and explosions that left them grievously injured, as well as drugs administered by medics in the field, they were carried from medevac helicopters into a base hospital to be plugged into machines that would measure how much life they had left to save. They were bloody.  They were missing pieces of themselves. They were quiet.

It’s that silence I remember from the time I spent in trauma hospitals among the wounded and the dying and the dead. It was almost as if they had fled their own bodies, abandoning that bloodied flesh upon the gurneys to surgeons ready to have a go at salvation. Later, sometimes much later, they might return to inhabit whatever the doctors had managed to salvage.  They might take up those bodies or what was left of them and make them walk again, or run, or even ski.  They might dress themselves, get a job, or conceive a child. But what I remember is the first days when they were swept up and dropped into the hospital so deathly still.

They were so unlike themselves. Or rather, unlike the American soldiers I had first seen in that country. Then, fired up by 9/11, they moved with the aggressive confidence of men high on their macho training and their own advance publicity.

I remember the very first American soldiers I saw in Afghanistan...

Read more here.

"Military Sexual Violence: From Frontline to Fenceline" by Annie Isabel Fukushima & Gwen Kirk

"So why does military sexual violence persist? One explanation offered by The Invisible War is that the US military includes a higher percentage of “sexual predators” than civilian society. Also, some military commanders not only tolerate sexual assault, they are also complicit in covering up these incidents, punishing victims, and exonerating perpetrators or, at most, giving them a “boys-will-be-boys” slap on the wrist.
A weakness of the current debate is its narrow focus on US military women. Cynthia Enloe, a leading feminist scholar of international relations, recently noted the importance of looking to “those who are pushed to the margins” in order to learn about the big picture.
To locate the root of the problem means looking beyond the assaults on US military women — appalling as they are — to the routine incidents of military violence against civilians in combat situations and outside the fences surrounding US bases overseas. Given their mission, soldiers are trained to kill. This means seeing “others” as foreign or less-than-human. Gender and masculinity are at play; so too are racism and national chauvinism"

Read more here.

How would you be different if you were born as the opposite sex?

Hi to everyone! I just got back from traveling and such but... my feminist blinkers have gone off this entire summer! There are so many things to talk about but I will focus on one for now.
There is this movie called "Tootsie" with Dustin Hoffman and it is about a man who can't find a job, so he decides to dress up as a woman and try his luck in the job market. He gets cast in a soap opera and comedy ensues. But it was behind the scenes that made an impact on the actor. In the interview below, he explains his process of turning into a woman and gaining a perspective on what women have known for awhile.

Here is the link to the interview:
http://www.upworthy.com/dustin-hoffman-breaks-down-crying-explaining-something-that-every-woman-sadly-already-experienced-3

Watch the interview and please leave a comment!  :)

Personally, I surprised by his reaction and it gave me a perspective on how men see the stereotypes and pressures that women have to face. The constant commercials that plague women with images about the ideal size and look that they have to achieve with the latest makeup or diet trends.

Anu Bhagwati argues for more women in the U.S. military to curb sexualized violence

In a recentl op-ed with the Washington Post, Anu reflects on some of the themes she also talked to us about:

 

She then asks "So why are we surprised that sexual[ized] violence is such a problem in the ranks?"
Read more here.

An Apt Cartoon

Oh Subliminal Messaging.... Thou art Still so Rampant!

Charmin Commercialhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wo4oEdtDRPo

Here is an example of overt and subtler gender stereotyping.  (Sorry I couldn't get the YouTube video to show up here, but check it out!!)

The commercial is promoting Charmin Ultra Strong as a way to help keep underwear clean.

Overt: Women do laundry and its cleanliness is a primary concern of theirs.
Women are peppy, smily and feminine.
In the bear sections we see all the other normal stereotypes about males being large and females small and men grunting and women having soft voices.

More subtle: Messiness is a masculine trait - only the son and the dad are implied as leavers of skidmarks in their underwear.
Bathroom etiquette is not something we can speak about - (More below!)

The commercial is enforcing many overt gender stereotypes, but the most interesting connection I found was the following.  According to Charmin, women do the laundry and are cleanly, but their sons and husbands are not, sometimes leaving "skidmarks," fecal matter, in their underwear.  Direct conversation about bathroom habits would seem to be the obvious solution, but such conversation is societally taboo, especially across genders.  So, concludes Charmin, one should buy their brand of toilet paper in order to solve the problem without breaking any taboos.

This really struck me because I had to watch the commercial several times (I was watching Hulu, so you see the same commercial over and over) to get this deeper gender stereotype.  These stereotypes have been so normalized, are so taken for granted, that even a recent graduate of the 2013 Davies Forum had to look hard to get the deeper message.

Be careful what you watch, because the subliminal messages can pass by unnoticed, and then get stuck in your subconscious.  There they may fester and subtly influence your decision making process, leading to future actions of your own which enforce gender stereotypes.

Such insidious conditioning is everywhere in our society, and it is highly dangerous.  This can be seen many places, but is especially true of Charmin commercials, because as a Montana native, I can tell you that bears are neither cute nor cuddly, and anything that tells you otherwise might get you mauled.

WATCH OUT!

Tavi Gevinson on female representation in the media

I found this really inspiring - I hope you do too!

A MUST READ for anyone who wants be informed about Iraq

What Kind of Liberation? Women and the Occupation of Iraq by Nadje Al-Ali and Nicola Pratt

            This book is the most incredible piece of writing I have ever encountered concerning the Iraq War.  It was comprehensive but concise, informative but easy to read, and clear while presenting a perspective that few Americans ever consider – the history of feminism and women’s (continuing!) activism in Iraq.  This book chronicles the rise and fall of women’s rights and movements in a country that the American media has portrayed as unflinchingly misogynistic and archaic.  Al-Ali and Pratt cut through this fabrication with a precision that takes the breath away. 

            They present a holistic and nuanced version of women’s active participation in Iraqi society, both politically and socially.  They manage to speak about the horrific reality of living conditions in Iraq without sensationalizing it, and to clearly and solidly refute the rhetoric of the Bush administration which claimed that Iraqi women were in need of the kind of liberation it could provide.

            I found this piece extremely meaningful because it contains the data to prove all of the half-baked theories I’ve gleaned from headlines and things other more well-informed people have told me.  And the writing style is so perfect for the content: simple enough that you don’t get lost in the academia and so compelling that you can’t put it down.  Such a piece of literature is exactly what I needed to really get a grasp of the reality of the situation in Iraq.  I often find myself shying away from learning about that war, either because it’s so gory and sensationalized that I feel sick, or so dry that I can’t get through it.  But this book is so obviously written from a place of caring for the women of Iraq, a caring that includes a desire to tell their story correctly, and to work towards a more tenable future for them, it makes it easier for me to care about the war in a way that is productive.

            In essence, this book contains all the facts one might ever need in order to prove that, at least for women, the invasion of Iraq has not brought any kind of liberation.

Al-Ali, N., & Pratt, N. (2009). What Kind of Liberation? Women and the Occupation of Iraq. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Put the blame where it belongs - On the Perp, even it it reflects back onto us

           In “Why Doesn’t She Leave,” an article by Ann Jones (in: Next Time She'll Be Dead. Boston: Beacon Press. 1994), we are reminded of an old adage: history is written by the victor.  In our current American society, where research is conducted mainly by men, trials are overseen by mainly male judges, and policy is made by mainly men, it is absurd to imagine that we would have a concept of domestic violence that is unbiased, fair, or representative of a female perspective.

This becomes particularly clear when we examine the research that has been conducted in the area of domestic violence.  Not only is the language used in this research blatantly biased (See “The Language of Love,” Jones 1994) but the focus of the research itself is inexcusably skewed.

Most research conducted in the United States of America on the topic of domestic violence is centered on the victim (Jones 1994), as if figuring out what unites victims of domestic abuse will give us the key to stopping it.  This is an overt example of a misogynistic scientific research process which has extreme consequences for victims of domestic abuse including rape, torture and death.  What needs to stop is THE ABUSER’S VIOLENCE TOWARDS HIS VICTIM.  Stopping abuse cannot be achieved by changing the behavior of the victim.  This is MISSING THE POINT ENTIRELY and is victim-blaming in the simplest terms. 

The incidence of victim-blaming in current mainstream media can be easily explained by our consistent patterns of misogynistic research practices which place the blame on victims.  It can be seen everywhere, from politicians protesting a regulation that would require physicians to ask about domestic abuse in regular doctor’s visits, to high-profile abusers being given lighter sentences because the public is sympathetic to an athlete’s need to “get out his stress” by beating up his wife. 

It all links back to the fact that we as a culture refuse to place blame on the perpetrator because it leads to a recognition that we all participate in a society which normalizes a male mentality which leads to such violence.  In Kelly’s “Continuum of Sexual Violence” she examines the slew of sexualized violence which, legally and societally, is considered acceptable.  In a society that accepts “goosing” and “cat calls” as “funny,” it is often forgotten that, subconsciously, what women fear when these “commonplace bits of fun” occur is death itself. 

Liz Kelly (1987) uses a quote from Stanko (1985) in her “Continuum of sexualized violence” that emphasizes this point.  “In abstract we easily draw lines between those aberrant (thus harmful), and those typical (thus unharmful) types of male behavior.  We even label the aberrant behavior as potentially criminal behavior…Women who feel violated or intimidated by typical make behavior have no way of specifying how or why typical make behavior feels like aberrant male behavior” (p. 10).  Anu Bhagwati stated it even more simply, saying that instead of creating complex metaphor-based anti-rape ad campaigns, the message could consist of only two words.  DON’T RAPE. 

I’d like to see that ad campaign, and others like it.  No matter how uncomfortable it is for society at large and people in power to accept responsibility for domestic abuse, it certainly can’t be as uncomfortable as the abuse suffered by millions of Americans every day.

Ann Jones'  "Why doesn't she leave?" In: Next Time She'll Be Dead. Boston: Beacon Press. 1994.

Kelly, L. “The Continuum of Sexual Violence.” In: Women, Violence and Social Control, edited by Hanmer, J., and Maynard, M. Atlantic Highlands: Humanities International Press: 46-60. 1987.

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 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.

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 & Eubank, 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 & Eubank, 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.

Fort Hood soldier, in charge of sexual assault prevention, charged with "abusive sexual contact"

With barely a week in between, another soldier assigned to an assault prevention program in a branch of the U.S. military has himself been charged...

Melissa Harris-Perry, on her show this past weekend, discussed the issue with (among others), Anu Bhagwati.

According to the AP (full story here): 

WASHINGTON — A soldier assigned to coordinate a sexual assault prevention program in Texas is under investigation for "abusive sexual contact" and other alleged misconduct and has been suspended from his duties, the Army announced Tuesday.
Just last week an Air Force officer who headed a sexual assault prevention office was himself arrested on charges of groping a woman in a parking lot.
The Army said a sergeant first class, whose name was not released, is accused of pandering, abusive sexual contact, assault and maltreatment of subordinates. He is being investigated by the Army Criminal Investigation Command. No charges have been filed.
He had been assigned as an equal opportunity adviser and coordinator of a sexual harassment-assault prevention program at the Army's 3rd Corps headquarters at Fort Hood, Texas, when the allegation arose, the Army said.

Topless in NYC

According to law, it is legal for a woman to be topless in New York. Because of this, activist Moira Johnston is taking it upon herself to end the taboo around breasts and the female body. Is her form of awareness a good way to go about this or is it indecent? Is she doing this for petty attention? Is this a good way to de-sexualize breasts? What do you guys think?
Watch the video below:
http://blip.tv/btrpulse/moira-johnston-topless-in-ny-btr-pulse-ep80-6198544

Japanese politician calls wartime sex slaves 'necessary'

and no.... this is not an onion article....

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/14/world/asia/japan-hashimoto-comfort-women/

From the domestic to the international ... and back:

As the semester draws to a close, let us once again consider domestic politics & domestic violence. Earlier in the semester, we read Ann Jones'  "Why doesn't she leave?" (in: Next Time She'll Be Dead. Boston: Beacon Press. 1994), and today, this:

Thinking back to her piece - and her visit in February - what do you make of this latest victim blaming in the U.S. mainstream media? Please post entries with your thoughts - drawing on Ann Jones' work or anything else we've read!

Pentagon report finds increase in sexual assaults

A shocking new report by the Pentagon has found that 70 sexual assaults may be taking place within the U.S. military every day. The report estimates there were 26,000 instances of sexualized violence [my edit] committed in 2012, a jump of 37 percent since 2010. Most of the incidents were never reported. The findings were released two days after the head of the Air Force’s sexual assault prevention unit, Lt. Col. Jeffrey Krusinski, was arrested for sexual assault. We air highlights from Tuesday’s Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on military sexual assault and speak with Anu Bhagwati, executive director and co-founder of Service Women’s Action Network. "The numbers are outrageous, and I think we’ve reached a tipping point," Bhagwati says. "The American public is furious."

Read on/ watch here.

Future of Feminist Security Studies

Although we discussed many different approaches to the future of feminist security studies, one particular quote from Carol Cohn's article really stuck out to me because of how it related to our recent class discussions and because it, in my opinion, really represented the future of feminist security studies. When I read the final words of Cohn's article "Feminist Security Studies’: Toward a Reflexive Practice," her quote "...it is also likely true that no one is more likely to push a change in agenda than the organized women who live in the shadows of those elite men's decisions" (2011, p.585) made me think of one of our class discussions. I connected the term "organized women" to the organized and masculinized nature of the military.  

The quote seems to make a point that the future of feminist security studies rests in the hands of women who are often directly or closely related to a masculinized society, where they are often in the shadows and discredited (sectors like the military). And in a way I believe this opinion. Although I am not saying that only women who have these experiences will be the ones who are at the forefront of the feminist security studies, I believe that those who are will play a vital and important role. 

One of the main reasons I believe this is because of one of her earlier quotes, where she says that "...this involved asking questions such as how and why the masculinist institutions at the heart...if we study men in these institutions as men, then what can we learn? (Cohn, 2011, p. 585). She stresses the importance of studying men and masculinity as a way to progress and learn more about feminist security studies. Those who are in environments where masculinity and the masculinized society are prevalent are able to take vital experiences in order to learn more about the culture. For example, how and why these masculine institutions function the way they do, how they define masculinity and where this notion of "power" comes from. For me, this is where the future of feminist security studies lies.  

Cohn, Carol (2011) “‘Feminist Security Studies’: Toward a Reflexive Practice” Politics & Gender 7 (4): pp. 581-586.

Anu commenting on latest Air Force Scandal..

... on "All In" (with Chris Hayes) tonight:

See the whole clip here.

Head of U.S. Air Force's anti-sexual assault unit arrested for sexual battery

http://www.sfgate.com/technology/businessinsider/article/The-Air-Force-chief-of-sexual-assault-4492622.php
I have no words...... this on the heels of that Air Force general overturning a jury's sexual assault conviction.

Very reminiscent of Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi, right here in SF. Be interesting to see if this Airman actually loses his job. Sadly, probably not.

FSS-- future?

"The first task of a feminist security scholar should then be to develop a willingness to listen and to consider another view of the world" (Wibben, 2011, p.111).

The future starts with one simple word: curiosity (Enloe). Developing curiosity, as I have learned in the past two semesters, is necessary in the path towards establishing a feminist curiosity and to questioning everyday aspects of the political, because "feminism is political" (Wibben, 2011, p.113).

I think a big danger to the future, not just of Feminist Security Studies, but to society and people in general, is the same danger that Wibben identifies as "the myth of the empowerment narrative, the idea that we could be 'giving a voice' to someone (who am I to give a voice?)." She claims, instead, that "we need to 'ask ourselves the hard questions about what we are doing and why we are doing it'" (2011, p.110, quoting Andrews). This is the threat; that instead of perpetuating hegemony, knowledge, and power hierarchy, a critical aspect to the future of Feminist Security Studies is to understand that realities are all different, to question, and to tackle issues using the narrative perspective as a way to inform the general. As Cynthia Enloe said, the particular is the general, and the general is the particular, just a lot of particulars.

Wibben, A. (2011). Feminist Security Studies: A Narrative Approach. New York: Routledge.

Reflections on the future of feminist security studies

There are several points made by Prof Wibben in the last chapter of her book, Feminist Security Studies, which I believe are critical to the field and academia more generally. I especially agree with her suggestion that scholars must recognize the relationship between identity and narrative. Much too often, studies are considered "real", "valid", and "important" only if they are "objective" (is anything ever really completely objective anyways?). As scholars, feminists, and citizens more generally, I think its critical to "Ask ourselves the hard questions about what we are doing and why we are doing it", as Andrews states (quoted in Wibben 2011: 110). This is a topic which has interested me all semester, and which was widely discussed at the workshop. Whether one uses the term self-reflexivity, subjectivity, or positionality - I think the main point remains the same - the ability to acknowledge that we are all "situated" beings - from a certain class, race, sexual orientation, gender, political affliation, nation, and so on. Secondly, we must recognize how these subject positions inform our research.

Though I generally agree with Prof Wibben's analysis of the 9/11 narrative, and I agree that binary, totalizing rhetoric is both unproductive and inaccurate, I don't believe that the "other" in this case - those responsible for 9/11, should at all be considered political agents, as so doing (I believe) assumes that those responsible have some sort of rational, intelligible motive, which I don't believe is the case. Nonetheless - I agree with the overall point being made - that in the future of FSS and feminism more generally, anytime that an incident like 9/11 takes place, there are always multiple possible narratives, multiple possible meanings, which cannot be reduced to simple binary terms of "us" and "them".


Wibben, A. (2011). Feminist Security Studies: A Narrative Approach. New York: Routledge

Future of Feminist Security Studies : CURIOSITY

Our discussion about the future of Feminist Security Studies brought up some important ideas, many that were reiterated in our readings. I particularly found our discussion regarding how we could continue to cultivate our initial feminist studies. An important idea we touch on was that “it implies a radically different ontology based on an acceptance of vulnerability and uncertainty where ambiguity and strangeness are embraced, or at least acknowledged” (Wibben, 2011 p.113). There is a deep-rooted aversion to admitting one’s vulnerability and uncertainty, especially in the academic field. This class has taught me, it’s okay to admit you don’t know the answer or that you’re not comfortable with some material. I think this is extremely important to understand moving forward. We should be finding more questions than definite answers. Just the act of realizing those questions exist and are important is a critical step in feminist studies.
Similarly, the idea that “how open a researcher is to engaging in (self-) reflexive research processes, interrogating their own positionality and privilege, questioning its impact on what can be perceived, being willing and able to be surprised, and adopting a stance of curiosity” (Wibben, 2011 p.111) has made me realize things before that I accepted as givens. Recognizing what we are not questioning is what I will concentrate on in the future. It has made me look back on so many papers, presentations and classes I have taken in the past in a new light, which is what I think feminist studies as a whole is all about; recognizing certain aspects that are left unquestioned and maintain a curiosity to identify them.

Wibben, A. (2011). Feminist Security Studies: A Narrative Approach. New York: Routledge

The Future of Feminist Security Studies: The Answer is Blowin’ in the Wind

       Feminist Security Studies (wherever the semantic emphasis falls) seems to be a field with a bright, if not clearly one-directional future.  What I mean by this is that of all of the academic disciplines, those I respect the most are those which are constantly questioning their goals, methods, and terminology.  Just like research which is bettered by changing the research question to fit the results, rather that squeezing the results into some pre-conceived theory, I believe that academic disciplines should not take their fundamental tenets (or their names) as divinely written in stone.  I see nothing wrong, and, in fact, everything right, about a field writing to question and evaluate their practices, values, methodology and even its name. 

           Ann Jones (1994) would agree with me, stating “Researchers…commonly present [their ‘subjects’] with a list of predetermined questions, designed to elicit the information the researchers want, and keyed for quick reduction to faceless numbers – a ‘scientific method’ very different from listening to what women have to say for themselves” (pg. 155). 

The feminist curiosity that Cynthia Enloe writes about would appear to be a useful perspective for any academic, because by approaching everything, even one’s dearly held “traditions” with a critical mind, one can discover new links, new theories, and new conclusions. This is why I feel confident about the future of Feminist Security Studies.  If many people in the discipline are utilizing this feminist curiosity, the discipline will remain alive and vital.  (One hopes that their curiosity might puncture any egos unwilling to keep changing.)

I am still undecided about whether I think that sticking with the conventional definition of “Security Studies” is a positive approach; it does allow for those unfamiliar with feminist theory to grasp the ideas with a familiar framework. If such a framework were discarded, how would analysis be carried out, and how would anyone outside FSS be able to understand it?

            On the other hand, changing existing power structures from the inside can be arduous and ultimately an exercise in futility.  Perhaps the solution would be to continue to grow and expand FSS, drawing on both reframed traditional academic practices of the discipline of Security Studies, and also new academic practices created by FSS scholars.  This could, hopefully, grow to such proportions that it would seriously rival traditional Security Studies. 

            While perhaps an overly optimistic view, I think that a re-definition of the term “Security” has such far-reaching consequences that it is worthy of much academic (and policy-makers’) attention.  Because so far, to me “Feminist” Security Studies is simply a more holistic view of “Security Studies.”  It is not a niche, it is a view of International Relations that includes, and focuses on women.  And this does seem like a good idea, doesn’t it, given that over 50% of the global population is, guess what: women!

            Women already play an enormous role in “war” and “peace-”time International Relations.  It’s about time we started studying that role in detail.  Perhaps then we would be able to see things in a light that is clear and piercing enough, that we would be able to break the cycle of history and head off in a new direction.

Ann Jones'  "Why doesn't she leave?" In: Next Time She'll Be Dead. Boston: Beacon Press. 1994.