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.

To Infinite, and Beyond

If I rubbed my crystal ball, seeking to decipher the future of feminist security studies, what would I be met with?

Nothing, probably, not being so inclined with divination. But where soothsaying denies, my mind supplies (or, at the very least, offers biased opinions and a few haphazard guesses). 

Chiefly, one day, I would like feminist security studies not to have that first qualifier. I would like the lives of women to be taken seriously and their experiences of violence, and war, and peace to be considered general experiences of violence, and war, and peace. Not general in that it is widespread, but general in that we don’t need to consider it the concern of a special interest group. Because rape, and sexualized violence, and structural violence, and although those other entities and forms of being which aren’t peace (and lets not getting started on what, exactly, peace is, anyways), concern everybody. And while I don’t advocate that color-blind or race-blind or inserttheroppressedandmarginalizedgroup-blind approaches are the way to go, at moment (because we first have to dismantle centuries of overt and institutionalized oppression, not to mention continuing prejudices and stereotypes, as well as all possible effects derived from these ugly histories--- and who knows long that will take), I hope we get to a place in the future where its not even an intentional choice but the norm.

Personally,  I agree with Professor Wibben on the potential harms of too many “feminisms” (after all, if feminism is inherently political, it has to have an agreed-upon agenda to cultivate a constituency). I also think it would behoove feminism and feminist critical security studies to adopt a wide variety of methods and to explore the bounty of disciplines. To “leave no stone unturned,” as it were. After all, systems of oppression poison all dynamics of our world, so it only makes sense to be equally comprehensive.  I believe there is a place for personal testimonials and a place for empirical observations. For participatory observation and covert reconnaissance. For assertions and for silence. This is, in part, because of my last wish regarding the future direction of feminist security studies. I think our understanding of security needs to be broadened. As nearly all of our reading has elucidated, the current US conception of security is defined by imperialist hegemonic masculinity. Security starts with the self, runs through the home, and colors relationships, cultures, societies, international networks. And as we further conceptualize a colony on Mars, I'll go ahead and assert that it'll define intergalactic life as well.


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


Wibben, A.T.R. (2011a) Feminist Security Studies: A narrative approach. Routledge.
(2011b) "Feminist politics in Feminist Security Studies" Politics & Gender 7 (4): pp. 590-595.


-Laur

Meanwhile, back in Manistan*

I generally avoid in cathartic rants and raves, preferring to preserve my own sanity and channel frustration into action, but this commercial really managed to pack a punch, combining blatant racism with unashamed misogyny. 

PepsiCo just pulled a Mountain Dew ad wherein an injured white woman was attempting to pick her abuser out of an all-black (except for the goat) line-up.

At least the comment from the Pepsi Co rep provided a good laugh:

"We understand how this video could be perceived by some as offensive, and we apologize to those who were offended."**

How interesting to employ the more neutral term of "perceived." Its not simply "perceived" by "some" as offensive, it is offensive, and apologizing just to those who made a fuss isn't sufficient. Not only does the ad highlight the widespread sexism in the US's society, it also brings to fore questions about the need for women in corporate leadership (although, it is interesting to note, the CEO of Pepsi is a woman). What role did women play in creating this ad? Would the addition of more women in creating it have changed anything? Additionally, the ad perpetuates widespread prejudice, inequalities, stereotypes, and harmful norms. Like Maria so eloquently pointed out in the post two before mine, violence (and the slew of negatives aforementioned) have been institutionalized and normalized.

*euphemism courtesy of Ann Jones

** Heine, Christopher. "Mountain Dew Pulls 'Most Racist Commercial in History' | Adweek." Adweek – Breaking News in Advertising, Media and Technology. Adweek, n.d. Web. 2 May 2013. <http://www.adweek.com/news/television/mountain-dew-pulls-most-racist-commercial-history-149061>.

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.

On the significance of titles, notes, and (civilian)? SWAT teams

On Monday, April 22, the esteemed Cynthia Enloe visited USF. First meeting with our class privately, Enloe gave a convincing sales pitch for the importance of notes (guess I should read those....) and a well-chosen title. I appreciated the concern that she took ensuring not to giving any assumptions to the women she wrote about in her book Nimo's War, Emma's War: Making Feminist Sense of the Iraq War. I was left with the question: Can writing (or even art) ever be prescriptive then? At some point, doesn't it take an assertion about what are universal values or rights? I don't actually have an answer for that but I absolutely agree with Enloe in that nonfiction writing and journalism should avoid assumptions, judgement, and pointed language. And when writing about others, whether in a nonfiction sense or as a representation in fiction, it should never be more about the author than the subject.

The evening lecture by Enloe got more into feminist material than the class had the opportunity to (since we were focused on research methods). She analyzed the Boston Marathon and its repercussions through a critical feminist lens. Her observations on the racial profiling, Islamaphobia, absurd media coverage and abjection of rights  in the aftermath echoed what I believe a lot of critical thinking observers felt. I thought of Cohn's piece that questioned the power involved in using terms like terrorism. As Enloe supported, it certainly is a political tool to help frame an event for the audience. Maybe not run of the mill terrorism, per se, but I imagine that the Saudi student who had his apartment searched in the aftermath felt terrorized.

I also really appreciated Enloe's comprehensive look at the costs of war. I'm doing a paper on forms of political protest and when, where, and why they work. A lot of the geopolitical analysis that I have come across only take things like financial price tags and estimated military deaths into cost-benefit calculations of potential wars. I keep wondering why things like the militarization of a society, sexualized violence, or psychological trauma (all of which long outlast the combat operations) don't get considered. Enloe applied this extended cost-of-war analysis to the militarization of civilian police, as observed in the Boston bombing suspects. Until people are convinced both of the connection of these other consequences of war and the magnitude of these consequences, I find it difficult to believe that people will see the police response to the Boston marathon as a problem. Until these connections are made, I imagine people will be grateful that the greater Boston area had such resources, considering the terror that they both reasonably felt and were made to feel by the media.


Cynthia Enloe (2010) Nimo’s War, Emma’s War: Making Feminist Sense of the
Iraq War. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Davies Forum Workshop - Impressions I

(photos via Prof. Doubiago)

One Million Bones

As I sat at the table, molding a humerus for the One Million Bones project, I was struck by an incredulous feeling of positionality. To begin, an overview of the event: As part of the One Million Bones project and Students Rebuild, the USF class "Literature of the Child: Trauma and Healing," hosted a clay bone moulding activity. The intention was to send these bones to D.C. to raise awareness about genocide. Each bone was to generate a $1 donation.

While creating my contribution, I thought about which causes manage to gain media attention. Genocide, for one, sometimes manages to capture the collective consciousness. However, I wondered why some genocides we gain widespread noteriety and why some go largely unnoticed. I certainly knew about the Holocaust within my first few years of education but I didn't hear anything about Rwanda until middle school or the former Yugoslavia or Sudan until high school. I'm still a little hazy on the details over Burma/Myanmar and wonder why we still tend to refer to the actions' of early white Americans against Native Americans "wars" rather than genocide. I think this relates in large part to our discussions of intersectionality. I also believe it is an incredible example of the ability of those in power to shape the discussion. Just like we discussed who gets to call domestic violence "domestic violence," rather than "terrorism," we could untangle who gets to call genocide "genocide" or "war" "ethnic cleansing" or "collateral damage."

Finally, I dwelled on the Bezos Family Foundation, which was receiving the donations that the bones generated. Relating it to our past reading on the Iraq War, I wondered who was directing this organization, who was setting up the priorities, who was running it, etc.

Overall, I don't know whether this activity will have a cumulative positive effect or not. I do know that genocide is an issue I care about, and that there is nothing to justify it, but  don't actually know the effectiveness of "generating awareness," or raising funds for an organization that I am unfamiliar with. Those are certainly questions to consider...

-Laur

Davies Forum Workshop

Let me begin by saying that the Davies Forum has provided a wide range of wonderful learning experiences. Having said that, it makes my designation of the Davies Forum Workshop as the best opportunity thus far all the more significant. In addition to our class, the Davies Forum workshop included Sarai Aharoni, Caron Gentry, Swati Parashar, and Elina Penttinen as facilitators. I thought that this wide range of individuals was incredible. Much of the reading that we have done thus far has seemed to agree harmoniously. At the workshop, all of the facilitators appreciated and respected the work of the others, but was also willing to offer different opinions and perspectives. I saw this most of all in the dynamic between Elina Penntinen, who is from Finland and focuses on experiences of joy, and Swati Parashar, who, originally from India, focuses on variations on the access to violence.

The workshop began with introductions and an explanation of what has led us to being interested in women, war, and violence. We quickly delved into discussions regarding privilege, positionality, and authenticity. Although I still struggle with these myself, I think it is important to remember that there is a continuum of violence, and so even if we aren’t “in the war zone,” we still have experience with war and violence. Secondly, there is something to be said for shared humanity. To a certain degree, people all over the world experience emotions like grief, joy, fear, and pride. Lastly, there is something to be said for being an ally, no matter what privilege you have.

The second half of the workshop began with an activity that forced us to meditate before drawing depictions of violence and well-being. I found it interesting how many of us included a wide variety of types of violence. For example, there were scenes of violence done unto one’s self, domestic violence, and the typical war combatant violence. Other important notes included the importance of time to reflect and the importance of community. Finally, we returned to discussions about emotions, and whether one type or another is more important to studying International Relations, which lead to a bit of an argument about the potential for transformation and resilience. Ultimately, I’d have to play PC and say, “Its all important!”

I learned a lot at the Davies Workshop and felt that being invited to the table was empowering. A lot of our reading was reflected in the discussion we had and I was glad to see that a difference of opinions didn’t have to lead to a silencing of opinions.

-Laur

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

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

"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.

Cohn Case Study

Carol Cohn's piece, ""Motives and Methods: Using multi-sited ethnography to study U.S. national security discourses" stresses the importance of comprehensivity in research. Being comprehensive allows for an examination of multi-sited research (among other locations, Cohn interviewed at war colleges, military academies and nuclear sites). Cohn became interested in the topic when she noted gendered rhetoric while studying national security rhetoric during the Cold War era. She interviewed a wide range of individuals including: military spouses, enlisted personnel, officers, and scientists. Cohn also discusses the influence of bias and stereotypes. Biases existed on both ends. For example, she noted civilian vs. military biases, male vs. female biases, career biases, and her own difficulty interviewing whom she viewed as a war criminal.

Cohn, Carol (2006) "Motives and Methods: Using multi-sited ethnography to study U.S. national security discourses" In: Brooke Ackerly, Maria Stern and Jacqui True (eds) Feminist Methodologies for International Relations. Cambridge University Press: pp. 129-152.

                                                            - Laur and Edwin