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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

Updates from Ann Jones...

I thought you might be interested in what Ann Jones has been up to since she visited us, so here are two pieces she wrote (the first one is an update on her long-term involvement in Afghanistan & the second one, she said to me, was inspired by her visit to us!):

***

Afghan Women Face the Future

Ann Jones

March 8, 2013

This is a personal story, and it’s hard to tell because nobody knows how it will end. I first went to Afghanistan in 2002, where I volunteered with two small nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) staffed by Afghan women: widows, university students, teachers. I’ve gone back to Afghanistan to work with those women almost every year—except for part of 2010 and 2011, when I embedded with the US military instead, to learn more about its “mission” in the country. The military was so out of touch with the actual Afghanistan that I may as well have been on the moon.
I went back to Kabul again in January, eleven years after first meeting my Afghan colleagues, and more than a year since I had last seen them. I thought I would find them changed, and I did—but not as I had imagined. I was worried about their future. They’re worried too, but they’re also stronger and more determined than ever.

Read on here 

***

Men Who Kick Down Doors: Tyrants at Home and Abroad 

By Ann Jones
March 21, 2013

Picture this.  A man, armored in tattoos, bursts into a living room not his own.  He confronts an enemy.  He barks orders.  He throws that enemy into a chair. Then against a wall.  He plants himself in the middle of the room, feet widespread, fists clenched, muscles straining, face contorted in a scream of rage.  The tendons in his neck are taut with the intensity of his terrifying performance.  He chases the enemy to the next room, stopping escape with a quick grab and thrust and body block that pins the enemy, bent back, against a counter. He shouts more orders: his enemy can go with him to the basement for a “private talk,” or be beaten to a pulp right here. Then he wraps his fingers around the neck of his enemy and begins to choke her.
No, that invader isn’t an American soldier leading a night raid on an Afghan village, nor is the enemy an anonymous Afghan householder.  This combat warrior is just a guy in Ohio named Shane. He’s doing what so many men find exhilarating: disciplining his girlfriend with a heavy dose of the violence we render harmless by calling it “domestic.”

Read on here.

MSA's fundraiser for Somalia

When Somalia was first declared in a state of famine in 2011, awareness skyrocketed and people all over the world were doing their part to aid the country. However, like most crisis, people forgot and moved on to the next international crisis being publicized by the media. We are now in the year 2013 and the crisis is still crucial. In fact, the famine has most affected women and children. Because of the lack of food, women are forced to scavenge and venture far from home in hopes of finding food for their families and this leads to dangerous situations. Men and rebel armies formed from the chaos and conflict a famine creates, use this opportunity to exert dominance and proceed to rape, rob and kill women. A year into the famine, and mothers still feared sexual violence and worried for their daughters’ safety. Women are being displaced at an alarming rate, suffering from the corruption of militias who distort aid distribution to their advantage.

What’s happening in Somalia is telling of the role of women in the country. The treatment of women in Somalia is very similar to that of Sierra Leone, Liberia and many other countries we studies in Jones “War is not Over When it’s Over.” On top of the fact that they are starving and can’t feed their children, they can’t walk outside without being harassed or raped by a man or a soldier. A crisis rarely ever stays within its limits and will spin out of control if not handled. A famine turns into conflict, which can turn into a civil war. In addition, those that have the least rights have even worse living situations in times of crises. From history we know this, so governments should predict this and focus their energy on keeping women, the fruits of society, safe because they always bear the brunt of these crises.

Crisis in the Congo: Uncovering the Truth

Having been prodded by Professor Wibben to get up to date on the blog posts, I realized that I never posted on the event “Crisis in the Congo: Uncovering the Truth,” that occurred on February 28^th at USF. 

The event began with a film of the same name. Watching the film I was immediately transported back to Ann Jones’ chapter on the DRC in War isn’t Over when its Over. Amid the massive and devastating civil war that continues in the DRC, it is the women and the children who suffer the most, having already occupied the most oppressed positions in the society. I thought the film did a good job highlighting the extent of the issue but felt that it did not underline the issues of sexualized violence that are highly prevalent.

The discussion afterward was a continuation of the second dimension of the film: how others can help. I appreciated the speaker, Kambale Musavul's insistence that it is not the presence of peacekeeping forces and similar entities that will stop the violence. Instead, what is needed is a complete de-militarization of the society and an increase in opportunities outside of violent activities. This complimented our readings in class that see peacekeeping forces as perpetrators of sexualized violence and continued oppression as well as violence itself creating the detrimental construction of the “other.” I do wish, however, that these considerations had been better addressed in Musavul's recommendations for an end to the violence. The speaker’s recommendations focused on a) ending US military support to Rwanda and b) supporting the organization Congo Justice. I think an ultimate resolution to the conflict will also require a reconstruction of masculinity and femininity.

Ann Jones' Davies Forum Lecture at USF

VIDEO HERE: The Longest War: Militarism and the War Against Women
Lecture presented at USF on 2/21/2013

Ann Jones is the author of numerous books on violence against women, including Women Who Kill and Next Time She'll Be Dead which focus on domestic violence in the U.S., as well as, more recently, Kabul in Winter and War is Not Over When It's Over, where she takes her expertise to conflict zones. As part of the Spring 2013 Davies Forum, Women, Violence and War, she lectured on "The Longest War: Militarism and the War Against Women." 

After the lecture, some of us went out to dinner...

Project Z: The Final Global Event

From April 4 to April 6, the University of San Francisco hosted the International Human Rights Film Festival (http://www.usfca.edu/artsci/hrff/program/). Knowing that I had limited time to watch a film, I decided to forego several appealing options (The Invisible War, Justice for my Sister) to attend the much-touted finale: Project Z: The Final Global Event. My feelings about it are best summed up in the concise conversation I had with my sister about the film afterwards. Having not attended herself, she asked what it was about. “Well,” I said, “I’m not really sure.” The film’s synopsis, found on its website http://www.projectzmovie.com/ gave me the idea that the film would trace and analyze the patterns and processes in conflict history from the Cold War to the Arab Spring. Opening the screening, the film’s primary filmmaker, Phillip Gara, iterated that Project Z documented the military-industrial-media-insertotherinstitutionsIcan’tremember complex. I find this premise incredibly interesting. In class we’ve discussed how the media frames violence and how it has developed a pattern of victim-blaming (see, “Why Doesn’t She Leave,” Ann Jones).  Other work by Ann Jones has also pointed the finger at the military-industrial complex (Winter in Kabul).  My own research paper is on how the solider has become the epitome of virtue in America (and looks at media like news articles and political cartoons) as a result of hegemonic masculinity and imperialism, so I really appreciate the films synthesis of the media and entertainment industry with the military-industrial complex. It showed the development of technology in the military and the use of video combats and simulation to train servicemembers. However, overall, I did not feel like the film made its point clearly enough. I also found it hard to follow. Viewers were forced to jump from a staged and dramatized discovery of a top-secret film archive, to interviews, to scenes of military training, to clips of conferences, and back again. Our class has also given me the tools to study the silence, and I wondered where women were in the movie. The experiences of men in the military were presented as the status quo, the norm. Lastly, like many who study war are wont to do, I thought the film drew too distinct of a line between what war is and what peace is.

Jones, Ann (1994) “Why Doesn’t She Leave?” In: Next Time She’ll Be Dead. Beacon Press: pp. 129-166.4

Jones, Ann (2009) “In The Prisons” In Winter In Kabul: Life Without Peace in Afghanistan (pp. 91-203). New York: Picador.

PROJECT Z: THE FINAL GLOBAL EVENT US, 2012, 75 min, Filmmakers: Phillip Gara and James Der Derian


-Laur

USF Global Women's Rights Forum, Panel: Sisters in Spirit

Speakers: Toni R. Battle (Baptist and Native American faith traditions), Mary Waskowiak (Catholic faith tradition), Bhawana Kamil (Islamic faith tradition).

As an agnostic leftist with a fiercely agnostic upbringing, I'll admit that I was reluctant to attend this particular panel, but as it was the only one that fit in my schedule, I showed up, ready for uncritical panderings and protestations of faith.

What I encountered, however, was a profoundly moving dialogue consisting of a mixture of personal narrative and political opinion that explored a wide range of ways in which the panelists' spiritual beliefs affected their work.  There was a really moving sense of honesty present in the room.  I came to understand that for these women, the call to do social justice work came first, and their spiritual beliefs were simply a continuation of their work, spirituality and social justice synergistically informing their lives.

I was fascinated by the crossover between their views, methods and personal stories, given that they were all in different disciplines and from different faith backgrounds.  It reminded me of a quote from the introduction to a book by Sanam Anderlini, “Although their motivations and ideologies may differ, their vision and demands for the future often converge…They emphasize a holistic notion of peace, defined not just in military security and political terms but also in terms of human security, rooted in a combination of political, economic, personal, community and environmental factors” (p. 9, 2007).

This forum also connected well to the work that Ann Jones did with her Global Crescendo project.  The telling, and most importantly, the sharing, of stories is an intrinsically human activity and can allow us to make deep connections with other humans.  These deep connections, communicated through photo work or live speech, can remind us in an extremely effective way that violence against any one person is violence against a whole network of people, extending all the way back to ourselves.

Anderlini, S. N. (2007). Women Building Peace: What they do, why it Matters. London: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

In the News

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv-movies/cnn-rape-coverage-sparks-petition-article-1.1292387

An interesting read about the media coverage surrounding the rape case in Ohio. I thought this particularly related to our discussions about violence against women and mirrored some similar public reactions to domestic violence regarding victim-blaming as detailed in our reading about battered women "Why Don't They Leave?".

The Power of Women: Corporate Social Responsibility

     On Tuesday, March 5 the University of San Francisco hosted an event titled The Power of Women: Corporate Social Responsibility as part of the Global Women’s Rights Forum. The event consisted of a panel of women who discussed either their positions as leaders in corporations or their roles interacting with women’s rights. To begin, Linda Hothem, the Chief Executive Officer of Pacific American Services, LLC, discussed how women in the corporate world have a choice: to become indignant, or to take their obstacles and turn them into a teaching opportunity. Choosing the latter, Linda made sure to use her leadership role to develop and enforce socially responsible practices, like exceeding safety and sustainability mandates,  in her company. As CEO and President of The Better World Group, Wendy James echoed Linda’s commitment to social responsibility. More specifically, Wendy’s speech emphasized the correlation between women in management and increased sustainability and profit in companies. Finally, Erika Guevara-Rosas of the Global Fund for Women discussed how individuals and the private sector can mobilize and network to improve opportunities for women and marginalized groups. Erika continued by linking the development of the latter with pay-offs in the realms of both human rights and profit.

     This panel provided an excellent supplement to our class discussions. The repeated connections between women and sustainability voiced by the panelists complimented readings from Cockburn’s From Where We Stand. A significant portion of our last class meeting was dedicated to exploring Cockburn’s note on the association of women’s groups with environmental activism. Furthermore, the panel raised the issue of what women owe one another and how this can help women progress as a whole. This idea, of what one marginalized individual owes another, was reminiscent of past readings, such as those by Ann Jones. Finally, Erika’s broader focus, on human rights in generals, reminded me of the importance of intersectionality. Overall, therefore, this Global Women’s Rights Forum event was an excellent complement to our class on Women, Violence, and War. It both reiterated threads we’ve already tried unraveling, and provided new food-for-thought.  

Cockburn, Cynthia (2007) From Where We Stand: War, Women's Activism & Feminist Analysis. London: Zed Books

Revision of Ann Jones' Chapter on Burmese Refugees

Ann Jones' chapter on the Burmese refugees in Thailand  focuses on the processes and struggles of her project the "Global Crescendo Project" which used photography as a means of documenting the daily lives of displaced Burmese minorities in Thailand. Mainly focusing on the Karenni women, who were thought to be shy and self-contained, the GCP brought a voice to many of them, as well as bridged the "gap between women and action" that exists as a result of impunity and patriarchy. Beyond the common difficulties in the camps, such as disease that passes quickly throughout camp refugees, domestic violence is in high frequency but seldom acknowledged, as "women endure violence because they saw no other choice,". As Jones' points out, such violence is incredibly ironic because it was a similar form of GBV, or torture, that the refugees were escaping from in the first place. Most importantly, the GCP began a path to educating and teaching men "how the problem starts and how they can solve it by themselves", learning, and using their knowledge of their history of suffering to promote rights and security writhing the community and the private sphere.

Ann, Jones. "Burmese Refugees in Thailand: Someplace Else." War Is Not Over When It's Over. New York: Metropolitan, 2010. 168-203. 

Burmese Refugees in Thailand

The chapter on the Burmese refugees in Thailand from “War Is Not Over When It's Over” by Ann Jones focuses on the process and some aftermaths, or bringing the Global Crescendo Project to photograph the daily lives of the thousands of displaced Burmese minorities "imprisoned" in these "temporary" homes for 20 years. Mainly focusing on the Karenni women, who were thought to be shy and self-contained, the GCP brought a voice to many of them, as well as an attempt to bridge the "gap between women and action" that exists as a result of a lack of impunity, patriarchy, and the opportunity to put into action the system of governance. Beyond the common difficulties in the camps, such as disease that passes quickly throughout because the houses are so close together, domestic violence is in high frequency but seldom acknowledged, as "women endure violence because they saw no other choice," ironic because it was a similar form of GBV, or torture, that they were escaping from when they were forced to escape Burma.  In the end, the lives of the women who participated were greatly impacted, and changes began to be made, but most importantly, it began a path to educating and teaching men "how the problem starts and how they can solve it by themselves", learning, and using their knowledge of their history of suffering to promote rights and security writhing the community and the private sphere.

Ann, Jones. "Burmese Refugees in Thailand: Someplace Else." War Is Not Over When It's Over. New York: Metropolitan, 2010. 168-203. 

Sierra Leone: Girls

Sierra Leone: Girls

            In the chapter “Sierra Leone: Girls” from Ann Jones’ War is Not Over When it’s Over, Jones shows that in the wake of a devastating civil war women and young girls are still experiencing the degradation, rape, and limitations that they were during wartime. Jones retells her experiences of giving cameras to girls and women to photograph their crumbling villages and scores of pregnant and unsupported teens. One of the central issues, according to Jones, is that older men, many from other countries, often seduce and rape very young girls and then leave them when they get pregnant, worsening their poverty and making going to school an impossibility.

Ann, Jones. "Sierra Leone: Girls." War Is Not Over When It's Over. New York: Metropolitan, 2010. 92-130. 

"Democratic Republic of Congo: Rape" summary

Ann Jones' chapter, “The Democratic Republic of Congo: Rape,” in War is Not Over When It's Over describes the long-standing situation of rampant sexual violence in the DRC, emphasizing the ripple effect of rape perpetrated by militias during conflict to the broader population. The situation is compounded, Jones illustrates, by a patriarchal culture that undervalues women and denies them their rights. She explains how a long history driven by a "privatization of violence" - wherein individual men rouse private armies and ethnic militias for personal wealth and power - ultimately reinforced a structure that normalizes rape and transforms the act from a problem of attacking the female body to a form of humiliation towards men. Though this rape culture stems from violence between the Hutu and Tutsi tribes of the DRC, it became such a norm that common citizens (including teachers, pastors and even fathers) also participate in these acts of abuse. Extraordinary statistics and anecdotes concerning the high amount of women raped, gang raped, and raped multiple times; the wide age range among girls and women raped; the physical and psychological effects of rape; and disastrous tendencies towards victim-blaming further demonstrate the extent of which women are dehumanized and devalued under men in the DRC. Much of Jones' interaction and research occurs through her experience in working with the Gender Based Violence division of the International Rescue Committee and the Collectif des Femmes de Kamanyola, a local DRC group dedicated to providing support to victims of sexual assault.

Jones, A. (2010). "The Democratic Republic of Congo: Rape." War is not over when it's over: women speak out from the ruins of war. New York: Metropolitan Books.

*** I have the Kindle version of this book, which, unfortunately, does not show page numbers! I'm not sure how to cite this since I have no clue where several of these quotes/paraphrased ideas are located.

Cote D'Ivoire Summary

Jones, Ann. "Cote D'Ivoire: "Grace A L'Appareil"" War Is Not over When It's Over: Women Speak out from the Ruins of War. New York: Metropolitan, 2010. 15-55. Print.

As a part of their “A Global Crescendo: Women’s Voices From Conflict Zones” photography project, Ann Jones & the International Rescue Committee gave digital cameras to women living in small Cote d’Ivoire villages where being a women meant being relegated to the role of indentured servant. The volunteers were instructed to take photos of their trials, tribulations, triumphs, and everything in between. This photo-project gave the previously silenced women the skills they needed to identify what they’d like to change about their lives, the ability to concretely capture their dissatisfactions, and the courage to publically speak out about the injustices they suffered. By the end of the project some of the women even went so far as to march for their rights. Although this project did not get the Cote d’Ivoire women to talk about the gender based violence they experienced as a result of the recent civil war, it was a huge success insofar as it empowered these women of Cote d’Ivoire to fight for their rights.

Allie, Helen, Kortney

Liberia: Life Can Change - Section Summary

In the section “Liberia: Life Can Change” of “War Is Not Over When It’s Over”, Ann Jones shows the power of facilitating Liberian women’s ability to define and find solutions to their collective problems, centered around violence in supposed times of ‘peace’. Jones shows how much of Liberia’s contemporary history is characterized by violence towards women, exemplified by the findings that 75% of women refugees from Liberia report being sexually assaulted. Jones details her work through the International Rescue Committee by partnering with local Women’s Action Groups to select Liberian women to be photographers in their communities. These women had “survived the violence of war, and the violence of the peace that followed, when everything was changed; but they worried about the young girls” (Jones, 2010, p. 85). Through this form of community partnership Jones was able to speak candidly with Liberian women about violence in their home, particularly rape in marriage, and work with the women to reflect on their hopes and dreams for the future of young women in their communities and their own futures.