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.

Women All Day Everyday:The Future of Feminist Security Studies

Feminist Security Studies. What loaded words! How can one word be political, social and economic all at the same? I'll tell you how. We live in a world where everything is on the table for the taking, to benefit individuals. The days of tribal societies are long gone. Now, our minds are in "me, myself and I" mode, because it's an option. We have to work twice or thrice as hard to make sure people are never comfortable are that. Once that state of individuality is reached its hard to go back. People get one taste of the sweetness of security and vow to never let it go, even though we learn over and over again through out history that we need one another.
Regardless of public opinion, I don't see the major progress women have made. Why have women become stuck in fake security? Yes, we have made strides, but at least in the past, violence against women was right there, open for the world to see. Now women don't even realize when violence is being enacted on them. In fact, American women have this idea that they "are so free", while women in other parts of the world are "so oppressed". I think that is where the future of Feminist Security Studies lies, because I know I live in an educated bubble where me and people around me somewhat understand this.
Waking women up to the reality that is right in front of their noses. Don't settle, don't be satisfied, and don't leave it someone else. Don't compare yourself to women across the nation because at the end of the day, we are all women. Don't complain about your salary that is still less than your male counterpart in the 21st century, and then talk about how crazy feminism is. Feminism isn't a special passion that only some acquire. It isn't the famine in Somalia, or the Arab Spring. This is about 51% of the world who deserve to be treated with same  respect and dignity as the other 49% and aren't. Easier said than done, but we have the privilege to do so, why not? "What is more, feminists insist that the question of identity and security are fundamentally interwoven: Any security narrative is also a narrative of political identity"(Wibben 2011, p. 109).

In the words of Betty Hutton to Howard Keel: "Anything you can do I can do better."

The Future is Just the Start

This reflection is kind of bittersweet because it reminds me of everything I have learned this semester and how much I will miss coming to class and hearing other perspectives on FEMINISM.

One quote that really stood out to me was that, "[the] narratives of security, told from outsiders' standpoints, offer a very different account of security than the dominant state-centered security narrative" (Wibben 2011, p. 100). When it comes to security, it is a very individualist concept. Our American idea of security varies from state to state. Not even that. I think that it varies from person to person.
In Communication, we have qualitative research methods, in which we interview individuals to gain their perspective. Using that as a tool, it's a way to better understand where the research is going and what still needs to be done. There is also the argument that because we are not personally involved in other countries' politics, that we shouldn't give our input because there is no possible way to relate. Our "solutions" might not be the best way to solve the problem but it's a starting point. It's like a self-fulfilling prophesy. Because we can never achieve equality between genders, why should we even try? No! Any progress, as small as it may be, is still progress. We might not see it in our lifetime, but at least we strived for change.
Along with that argument, any perspective is valid. Even if we may not want to accept or agree, we, as students, are extremely privileged and we might not have the same perspective, but that doesn't mean we should not try to understand others. Our personal experiences, whether they be negative or positive, shape us and help us join the feminist conversation. Our negative experiences are the most valuable because those are the ones that makes us want to change. Like Stern said, "[she] [had] lived through a difficult time in [her] life" (Wibben 2011, p. 104) but that's what makes her angry. Like Swati said, that's what we need to make change, for us and for other women. So really, it is because we look to the future that we can start changing our present.