Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Response to Rachel's Post 11/7/10
After reading the Chapters by Enloe, “Being Curious about our Lack of Feminist Curiosity” and “The Surprised Feminist,” it made made put things into perspective and analyze the world that I come from. At times it is difficult to be the curious one and step out of one’s comfort zone because one does not want to be judged by others, but this is the only way that we will be able to bring about change. Things must be defined or put into categories in order to make people feel more comfortable, for example when homosexuality was an uncomfortable issue until a name was actually put to it and there were those curious people that were able to explain it fully to the rest in order to create awareness. The same must be done for women today who continue to receive patriarchy’s back-hand in subtle ways because patriarchy has been able to hide itself and morph into another species in today’s society. Patriarchy has become hypocritical in character because society, which is led by patriarchy, continues to preach gender equality yet we still see the differences in the different gender treatment and even of unequal ratio of those in power positions such as in the fields of business, politics, and medicine. I see why Enloe encourages individuals, feminists in particular to step out of their comfort zone and not be afraid to question and be curious. This is the only way that they will be able to bring about change. Although there are still some subjects that feminists have not completely mastered, it is okay to not know everything but it is important to keep an open mind and continue further researching in order to tackle head on all the issues that feminists face by patriarchy. Feminists are still becoming more knowledgeable and some may want to break them down by coming at them with an argument that might establish an element of surprise in which they may not have a comeback, but this only helps to peak their curiosity even more to figure out an answer to some arguments and put it into perspective. Isn’t that how we all learn? Feminist Curiosity is crucial toward elaborating on knowledge and bringing about change in society.
Monday, December 6, 2010
Main Post: Enloe for 12/7/10
In Enloe's Introduction "Being Curious about our Lack of Feminist Curiosity," Enloe talks about how curiosity is declining because we do not wish to expend mental energy thinking about things. "Being curious takes energy. It may thus be a distorted form of 'energy conversation' that makes certain ideas so alluring (1)." By denying that anything new has happened, we don't have to investigate or challenge anything - the concepts of 'naturalness' and 'tradition' bolster this lack of curiosity by making people accept certain things or ideas as is without letting them or making them think it is unnecessary to question them. She adds to the mix the words 'always' and 'oldest' that discourage us from inquiring into difficult ideas with our limited supply of energy. She adds that some phrases we use in everyday language are lazy and don't get us to think why, how, whom, when, and where (for example, "cheap labor" vs. "labor made cheap"). Since there are so many reasons why we are not curious, we need to explore them when we do become curious because "[s]o many power structure - inside households, within institutions, in societies, in international affairs - are dependent on our continuing lack of curiosity (3)." These words that prevent curiosity prop up, legitimize, 'inevitabilize,' societal, familial, governmental, etc. structures, processes, ways, etc. We need to become aware of our lack of curiosity, understand the causes behind it, and take the veil of mental satisfaction away from other people. Enloe attributes this lack of curiosity to political agendas and people's wish to feel safe and comfortable - stepping outside of your bubble and confronting some sensitive, disconcerting ideas is not fun, so people don't want to do it and thus make excuses like no enough time or resources to investigate all these topics. Enloe says that feminists need to develop a feminist curiosity by first taking all women seriously - in other words, being ready to look closely at every woman's life as worthy of consideration since labeling groups does not allow us to see masculinity and femininity being politicized in society. Labels on groups of men and women obscure questions about the position, thoughts, benefits, and relationships of and between men and women and obscure patriarchy beyond. Enloe then goes on to explain patriarchy as "the structural and ideological system that perpetuates the privileging of masculinity (4)" can be found in every aspect of life because people and groups have developed their perception of the world based on the presumption that masculinity is more deserving of reward and praise and thus marginalizing, trivializing, and scorning femininity and feminine experience. Women do not question patriarchy because patriarchy makes women feel protected and safe because they do not question it. Patriarchy needs women to operate, in particular a certain view and acceptance of femininity - women need to be feminized so that masculine men look better than feminine women. Feminists are curious about women and thus have seen and exposed patriarchy to the world, but patriarchy is modernizing and adapting "new looks" to everything we throw at it so to disguise itself in all its workings. Enloe claims that we must always ask about patriarchy's role in something to see what is really playing out in society. For her own case study, Enloe is looking how her own girlhood was feminized subtly. She ends with the relationship between patriarchy, demilitarization, and women in these zones such as in Turkey, Japan, and Korea where their own cultural patriarchy has mixed with American military patriarchy to continue patriarchy's reign in those postwar societies.
In Chapter 1 "The Surprised Feminist," Enloe discusses how feminism shies away from surprise because people negatively connote being surprised with being inexperienced and incredible - in other words, being surprised makes you look bad because as a credible source, you are supposed to know and understand everything related to your cause. Enloe summarizes this social construct that "[i]t is as if admitting surprise jeopardized one's hard-earned credibility. And credibility, something necessarily bestowed by others, is the bedrock of status (13)." Since feminists' credibility is on shaky ground especially during this time with such anti-feminist leaning and enlightened sexism becoming the accepted norm, admitting that we can be surprised seems to undermine our credibility so our opponents could use it against us (aka "I thought you said you knew what was best. How can you said you know best when you don't even know what is happening?"). However, Enloe asserts that feminists' capacity to be and willingness to admit surprise is something we need to prepare ourselves for the future. She provides a list of events she was not expecting to ever happen, saying that "[t]he ways particular women of distinct citizenship statuses, social classes, ethnic groups, and racialized identities respond to each of these events is certain to determine the respective depth or shallowness of its long-term consequences in the twenty-first century (14-15)." In other words, the circumstances of the women reacting to these surprising events shape how these events' consequences reverberate through society. She says that her surprise that these events and others is what allowed her to step back and see connections and influences that affected these events that she did not see or pay attention to before - "[a]dmitting my surprise is the only way I am going to be able to take fresh stock of my feminist analyses of developments both far afield and close to home (16)." Surprise allows feminists to see what previous theories or concepts can explain or fit the surprising event or if new explanations are needed, which sponsors thinking outside the box. To admit surprise, even in the name of new thinking, is very hard for oneself, never mind in a classroom, conference, or meeting in front of people. Enloe concludes by saying that we need to resist our immediate response to deny surprise or embrace cynicism when we hear news about patriarchy's continuing perpetuation; instead, we need to not only recognize patriarchy at work, but also how, why, where, when, and who. Feminists need to question if patriarchy in each event has been challenged and where its source and implementation is coming from in place of reiterating the same-old patriarchy theory and knowledge. Only by embracing surprise can feminists really immerse themselves into genuine curiosity, broaden their conversations and horizons, and adapt to the coming future.
In Chapter 1 "The Surprised Feminist," Enloe discusses how feminism shies away from surprise because people negatively connote being surprised with being inexperienced and incredible - in other words, being surprised makes you look bad because as a credible source, you are supposed to know and understand everything related to your cause. Enloe summarizes this social construct that "[i]t is as if admitting surprise jeopardized one's hard-earned credibility. And credibility, something necessarily bestowed by others, is the bedrock of status (13)." Since feminists' credibility is on shaky ground especially during this time with such anti-feminist leaning and enlightened sexism becoming the accepted norm, admitting that we can be surprised seems to undermine our credibility so our opponents could use it against us (aka "I thought you said you knew what was best. How can you said you know best when you don't even know what is happening?"). However, Enloe asserts that feminists' capacity to be and willingness to admit surprise is something we need to prepare ourselves for the future. She provides a list of events she was not expecting to ever happen, saying that "[t]he ways particular women of distinct citizenship statuses, social classes, ethnic groups, and racialized identities respond to each of these events is certain to determine the respective depth or shallowness of its long-term consequences in the twenty-first century (14-15)." In other words, the circumstances of the women reacting to these surprising events shape how these events' consequences reverberate through society. She says that her surprise that these events and others is what allowed her to step back and see connections and influences that affected these events that she did not see or pay attention to before - "[a]dmitting my surprise is the only way I am going to be able to take fresh stock of my feminist analyses of developments both far afield and close to home (16)." Surprise allows feminists to see what previous theories or concepts can explain or fit the surprising event or if new explanations are needed, which sponsors thinking outside the box. To admit surprise, even in the name of new thinking, is very hard for oneself, never mind in a classroom, conference, or meeting in front of people. Enloe concludes by saying that we need to resist our immediate response to deny surprise or embrace cynicism when we hear news about patriarchy's continuing perpetuation; instead, we need to not only recognize patriarchy at work, but also how, why, where, when, and who. Feminists need to question if patriarchy in each event has been challenged and where its source and implementation is coming from in place of reiterating the same-old patriarchy theory and knowledge. Only by embracing surprise can feminists really immerse themselves into genuine curiosity, broaden their conversations and horizons, and adapt to the coming future.
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Femicides of Juarez in Mexico
Juarez, the border city to El, Paso Texas is known for being “a criminal’s playground” (Sarria). Juarez City is located in the border state known as Chihuahua which is where my family immigrated from and still most of my family remain. Since I can remember this state has encountered large amounts of crime starting with the femicides (homicides towards women) that began in 1993 until today with the major drug cartels that continue to reek havoc. “Femicides of Juarez: Violence Against Women in Mexico” by Nidya Sarria was a useful article that I found on a website called CommonDreams.org when doing research on the topic. This topic has become a fascination for many writers and movie producers. In 2006 a movie named Bordertown came out based on this story of the femicides that were occurring in Juarez starring famous actors such as Jennifer Lopez, Martin Sheen, and Antonio Bandera. The most interesting part about this whole story is that up to now, nobody has been able to solve the mystery to find the individuals responsible for these crimes.
The reported number of murders from “1993 to 2008 is up to 576” (Lezra). Teresa Rodriguez, author of the book “Daughters of Juarez” based on these femicides, researched the subject and she claims that “Mexican authorities file approximately one-eighth of all the reports- the actual number is closer to 5,000” (Lezra). According to the Organization of American State’s Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the victims were usually reported missing by their families “with their bodies found days or months later abandoned in vacant lots, outlying areas or in the desert. In most of these cases there were signs of sexual violence, abuse, torture, or in some cases mutilation” (Sarria). Most of the women targeted in these femicides worked at maquiladoras, “factories that import materials for assembly and then re-export the assembled product, to become a fixed aspect of the local and national economy” (Sarria). These factories are internationally owned and came about after the signing of NAFTA in which predominantly U.S. owned corporations were allowed to establish their factory corporations across the border in Mexico thus guaranteeing cheaper labor. As a result many families, especially women from poor towns flocked from small towns in the interior of Mexico to the border-city of Juarez in search for jobs in these factories which mostly hired women. These female maquila workers were the targeted victims for the homicides and most of the one’s killed fit a similar prototype: “most between the ages 12 and 23, slim, short, dark-haired and dark skinned” (Gaspar de Alba).
The indigenous population in Mexico has historically suffered the most discrimination and continues to be the poorest in the country, thus many of the women that went to work at the maquilas were of indigenous backgrounds because many were poor and needed jobs to maintain their families. Some think that these murders are explicit hate crimes since most of he women fit the same physical profile. A racial hierarchy continues to exist in Mexico although it is not explicitly in place, but there continues to be much discrimination that occurs towards the indigenous population, one of the biggest example is the taking away of their lands by the government. The only reason I could think of as to why these murder cases have not been solved and authorities have not put much emphasis on following through with these cases is because the victims have three factor working against them; they are: 1)women, 2) indigenous, and 3) come from poor backgrounds. Machismo is a mentality of male gender hierarchy which has prevailed in Mexican culture in which a man is given more value because he is seen as the head of the household. Many of the male authorities which rule Mexico such as the government and police continue to maintain this machista mentality which is another reason why these minority femicide crimes are not a priority. It is ridiculous to see that these crimes have not been stopped and that those responsible have not been caught yet after so many years of supposed investigation by big groups such as the Mexican government itself, Amnesty International, the United Nations, grassroot organization protests, and even some FBI involvement (Gaspar de Alba). It is obvious that the authorities and police department are all corrupt and are either in some way involved with the murders or are getting paid off to get rid of the evidence. Corruption in Mexico especially in the state of Chihuahua has lately been at an all time high. It all started with these femicides and now this border state is best known for its massive drug cartels that are are running things because the government cannot place order, but most likely the government/police may even be involved.
When looking into this topic of the femicides and why these women remain working in the maquiladoras regardless of horrible working conditions and risks on their life, it reminded me of the chapter in Cynthia Enloe’s book the Curious Feminist called “Daughters and Generals in the Politics of the Globalized Sneaker.” In that chapter Enloe spoke about how the corporations would exploit the Korean women working in their factories by using their culture to manipulate them such as dowry practices and “good daughter” responsibilities. The same happens in Mexico by the U.S. owned factories on the indigenous women who are usually submissive and continue to have the mentality that the male is the authority because many have not received an education and are extremely poor, thus the companies use this cultural mentality in their benefit to impose longer working hours and lower wages on these women because they know they will not retaliate. These woman are seen as mere forms of variable capital thus taking away from their humanity which is probably another reason why the government also does not put much focus into investigating the cases of their murders. It was said that many of the reporters that looked deep into these murder cases received death threats or were even killed themselves. Unfortunately, the investigations for these femicides became overshadowed by those of the drug trade and drug cartel investigations. Thus the femicides of Juarez remain a mystery.
Work Cited
Enloe, Cynthia. The Curious Feminist. California: University of California Press, 2004.
Gaspar de Alba, Alicia. “ About the Femicides- Desert Blood: The Juarez Murders.” DesertBlood.net.
Lezra, Amands. “Mexican Government Perpetuates Ongoing Femicides in Juarez.” DrewAcorn. com. April 30, 2010. December 1, 2010.
Sarria, Nidya. “Femicides of Juarez: Violence Against Women in Mexico.” CommonDreams.org. August 3, 2009. December 1, 2010.
The reported number of murders from “1993 to 2008 is up to 576” (Lezra). Teresa Rodriguez, author of the book “Daughters of Juarez” based on these femicides, researched the subject and she claims that “Mexican authorities file approximately one-eighth of all the reports- the actual number is closer to 5,000” (Lezra). According to the Organization of American State’s Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the victims were usually reported missing by their families “with their bodies found days or months later abandoned in vacant lots, outlying areas or in the desert. In most of these cases there were signs of sexual violence, abuse, torture, or in some cases mutilation” (Sarria). Most of the women targeted in these femicides worked at maquiladoras, “factories that import materials for assembly and then re-export the assembled product, to become a fixed aspect of the local and national economy” (Sarria). These factories are internationally owned and came about after the signing of NAFTA in which predominantly U.S. owned corporations were allowed to establish their factory corporations across the border in Mexico thus guaranteeing cheaper labor. As a result many families, especially women from poor towns flocked from small towns in the interior of Mexico to the border-city of Juarez in search for jobs in these factories which mostly hired women. These female maquila workers were the targeted victims for the homicides and most of the one’s killed fit a similar prototype: “most between the ages 12 and 23, slim, short, dark-haired and dark skinned” (Gaspar de Alba).
The indigenous population in Mexico has historically suffered the most discrimination and continues to be the poorest in the country, thus many of the women that went to work at the maquilas were of indigenous backgrounds because many were poor and needed jobs to maintain their families. Some think that these murders are explicit hate crimes since most of he women fit the same physical profile. A racial hierarchy continues to exist in Mexico although it is not explicitly in place, but there continues to be much discrimination that occurs towards the indigenous population, one of the biggest example is the taking away of their lands by the government. The only reason I could think of as to why these murder cases have not been solved and authorities have not put much emphasis on following through with these cases is because the victims have three factor working against them; they are: 1)women, 2) indigenous, and 3) come from poor backgrounds. Machismo is a mentality of male gender hierarchy which has prevailed in Mexican culture in which a man is given more value because he is seen as the head of the household. Many of the male authorities which rule Mexico such as the government and police continue to maintain this machista mentality which is another reason why these minority femicide crimes are not a priority. It is ridiculous to see that these crimes have not been stopped and that those responsible have not been caught yet after so many years of supposed investigation by big groups such as the Mexican government itself, Amnesty International, the United Nations, grassroot organization protests, and even some FBI involvement (Gaspar de Alba). It is obvious that the authorities and police department are all corrupt and are either in some way involved with the murders or are getting paid off to get rid of the evidence. Corruption in Mexico especially in the state of Chihuahua has lately been at an all time high. It all started with these femicides and now this border state is best known for its massive drug cartels that are are running things because the government cannot place order, but most likely the government/police may even be involved.
When looking into this topic of the femicides and why these women remain working in the maquiladoras regardless of horrible working conditions and risks on their life, it reminded me of the chapter in Cynthia Enloe’s book the Curious Feminist called “Daughters and Generals in the Politics of the Globalized Sneaker.” In that chapter Enloe spoke about how the corporations would exploit the Korean women working in their factories by using their culture to manipulate them such as dowry practices and “good daughter” responsibilities. The same happens in Mexico by the U.S. owned factories on the indigenous women who are usually submissive and continue to have the mentality that the male is the authority because many have not received an education and are extremely poor, thus the companies use this cultural mentality in their benefit to impose longer working hours and lower wages on these women because they know they will not retaliate. These woman are seen as mere forms of variable capital thus taking away from their humanity which is probably another reason why the government also does not put much focus into investigating the cases of their murders. It was said that many of the reporters that looked deep into these murder cases received death threats or were even killed themselves. Unfortunately, the investigations for these femicides became overshadowed by those of the drug trade and drug cartel investigations. Thus the femicides of Juarez remain a mystery.
Work Cited
Enloe, Cynthia. The Curious Feminist. California: University of California Press, 2004.
Gaspar de Alba, Alicia. “ About the Femicides- Desert Blood: The Juarez Murders.” DesertBlood.net.
Lezra, Amands. “Mexican Government Perpetuates Ongoing Femicides in Juarez.” DrewAcorn. com. April 30, 2010. December 1, 2010.
Sarria, Nidya. “Femicides of Juarez: Violence Against Women in Mexico.” CommonDreams.org. August 3, 2009. December 1, 2010.
Friday, December 3, 2010
News Flash: "My Life Is Bro"
In our society today, patriarchy is reinforced through overly aggressive actions by men towards women, due to men feeling disempowered and intimidated by the rise of feminism and women’s ability to speak up and fight for equality. This phenomenon is very clearly illustrated through a website titled “Mylifeisbro.com”, where “lax bros” post funny comments, in a similar fashion to sites such as “Texts From Last Night” and “F My Life.” People can click “Chill” or “Not Chill” after reading the comments and deciding whether they approve of the statement or think it is funny or cool. This medium acts as a way through which the general public can view men’s attitudes, including their derogatory comments towards women, and can see how the world around them reacts to the statements made.
Before getting into the principles of this website and how it is representative of the emasculation of men in our culture today, I believe that it is first important to define one of the words in the website: “Bro.” In the connotation of this website title, bro is considered the same thing as a “lax bro.” According to Urban Dictionary, “A lax bro is a guy who plays lacrosse and fully embraces the culture. Commonly found in Maryland, many also spend their time laxin’, going to Catholic schools, and boating… Lax bros will often get together for a lax sesh, which usually includes the following: some brews, some bowls, babes, Dispatch, O.A.R., hemp anklets, board shorts, lax jerseys, polos, rainbow flip flops, etc.” Obviously, not all boys who play lacrosse enjoy these specific activities or act in this manner, but this stereotypical lax bro lifestyle is the one that MLIB perpetuates.
One comment posted on MLIB is as follows: “I’m an intern at a business. I went to a meeting. The meeting ended, the bitches left, and all the bros stayed for another meeting. Women can’t make decisions. MLIB.” 84 readers thought this statement was chill, and 11 didn’t. I found this statement to be very disrespectful when first reading it, but couldn’t instantaneously tell why. After examining why I was so appalled by this comment by a random bro, I came to the conclusion that it was because he is pretty much saying that women have no voice and shouldn’t be taken seriously. Whether or not this bro seriously means what he is saying, it still propagates oppression, which is the immobilization of human beings due to their identity. I’m a major proponent of women succeeding in the workplace, and the fact that some women are put in a situation where they can not make a real impact in their jobs is very offensive because it is an act of silencing.
The common themes that were displayed on MLIB included references to girls as hoes, bitches, sluts, and slampieces, the importance of natty light in a bro’s life, comments on how women belong in the kitchen, should not hold serious jobs, are pretty much equal to objects, and should live to serve men (one said that the female diet should consist of cum and sandwiches). One example of a comment on the website which represents the constant references to women’s place in the house is this one: “Today my son asked me why brides wear white. I told him because the dishwasher needs to match the fridge and the stove. MLIB”. This posting received 145 Chill votes and 17 Not Chill votes, which I found very surprising. Why would the public, or at least the people who read this website, be so supportive of this derogatory attitude towards women? This unconcealed approval of this sexist viewpoint is dangerous because it makes others think that it is acceptable to treat women like they are objects who belong in the kitchen to serve men.
Another example of this disrespectful attitude towards women is as follows in a comment posted by a user of MLIB: “Today in class, some bitch was getting pissed at our jokes about women in kitchens. Later that day, I went to my local deli and got a sandwich. Who made me that sandwich you ask? That same bitch. It was sweet. MLIB.” 485 readers thought that this was a “Chill” situation, while 14 did not. This post describes a man putting women in their place, which according to this bro is the kitchen. Women have struggled for decades to break out of the stereotypical role of the stay-at-home mom, but apparently this progress has not become apparent to the male population.
In order to write this newsflash, it was only necessary for me to read through a few pages to get the sufficient amount of posts to support my argument. Surprisingly, it was hard for me to stop myself after reading more than twenty pages of the website. I found myself laughing at posts that were completely offensive to my gender and wanting to keep reading on to hear what these men had to say. Why did I keep reading? Why did I find such insulting and distasteful comments appealing? Perhaps Susan Douglas’ concept of enlightened sexism is true. Although I think that these stereotypes are okay because they are untrue and that we’ve proven them wrong and can therefore joke about them, it is possible that the sexist messages present in MLIB are actually having an impact on how I view women and perceive my own role in society. It is crucial to ask ourselves, “Are we really past that?” According to the overwhelming amount of “Chill” clicks on these posts, the public believes that we are.
After emerging myself in the MLIB website, I noticed a strong connection of the men’s attitudes to another event we learned about in class: the DKE incident at Yale. When the DKE pledges paraded around campus and specifically the Women’s Center chanting, “No means yes, yes means anal,” I saw this as an indication that men were uncomfortable with women’s rise of power, and that they felt that their masculinity was being threatened. In both MLIB and the DKE incident, men felt that it was necessary to try and put down women and the progress that they are making in the world. After reading Michael Kimmel’s article titled “Men—And Women—At Yale,” it seems that he would strongly agree with me. In this article, Kimmel states that, “we can see the men of DKE at Yale not as a bunch of angry predators, asserting their dominance, but as a more pathetic bunch of guys who see themselves as powerless losers, trying to re-establish a sexual landscape which they feel has been thrown terribly off its axis” (Kimmel 2010).
In conclusion, I saw these assertions by men as desperate struggles to attain power and regain their masculinity, which was previously threatened by women’s rise of power. I think it’s very interesting to examine how both women and men act in their respective social roles and react to women’s desire for equality in a world that is “still marred by gender inequality” (Kimmel 2010). This News Flash, more than any other, made me desperately want everyone to be treated as humans without the concept of gender maiming their life experience.
Works Cited
Kimmel, Michael Cebook. "Men -- and Women -- at Yale." Breaking News and Opinion on The Huffington Post. 20 Oct. 2010. Web. 04 Dec. 2010.
Susan J. Douglass, Enlightened Sexism: The Seductive Message that Feminism’s Work is Done, 1st edition, Times Books.
Newsflash: Stereotypes, Stereotypes: Rapists as Victims, Rape Victims as Sinners
Rape is something that continually occupies that dark place at the back of a woman’s mind because it is a horrible, stigmatizing, traumatizing act that she can be subjected to anytime, anywhere without warning, as Emilie Morgan knows all too well (Morgan 33-39). Although men can be and are raped by women as well as by other men and deserve attention and support, the overwhelming majority of reported rapes are women who were raped by men, which sends the very real message that no women are ever completely safe. Women are disproportionately vulnerable to rape because modern society is a rape culture where rape and violence against women is tacitly expected and accepted; therefore, rape is not always considered to be the heinous crime and violation of a woman’s privacy and power that it is. Thankfully, rape awareness has increased dramatically, so more rape victims are able to report these crimes, receive counseling and support, and erase the stereotypes, misinformation, and denial that surrounds rape, the victims, and the perpetrators. Until society recognizes what factors are really at fault for this rape culture – like patriarchy which includes rape-culture-friendly aspects like unequal power dynamics in which men hold more power than women, lack of information and communication, and cleverly hidden approval of women’s second-class status in various media like movies, advertisements, and magazines – and pledges to acknowledge and remove them, rape with its inevitable helpers of fear and shame will continue to be a devastatingly effective tool to keep women firmly in fear of and behind men in power and equality.
One of the overarching themes that rape awareness has undertaken to spread is the message that the rape victim is never at fault, no matter what the circumstances were, and that a woman is never “asking for” rape or insinuating that she wants to be raped through her actions, words, or dress. However, there are some people and groups that believe that female rape victims are at least partially or fully responsible for being raped because of certain decisions she made or did not make, a reasoning that has earned the label “victim-blaming.” Victim-blaming both by the victims themselves and others takes away women’s power to make choices and turns people away from seeing rape victims as they are – victims that need to be helped and loved. Morgan even said herself that when she was raped a second time that “[i]n those three years, I had fully internalized the view that a woman is somehow to blame if she is raped…Although I held him ultimately responsible, I couldn’t help scrutinizing my behavior. I had consented to everything up until that point. I knew what my limits were, but it’s possible I didn’t make myself clear to him. Maybe the word no wasn’t enough (Morgan 36).” An agent of this victim-blaming propaganda, a pamphlet declaring that the way a woman dresses invites rape because it inspires uncontrollable lust in men, reinforces incorrect stereotypes for both men and women, thereby supporting patriarchy with its unequal power dynamics and rape culture at large.
This pamphlet, entitled Women and Girls by an anonymous writer or group, has been handed out in various places in Tennessee. Keshia Canter recalled that she was handed the pamphlet by a woman that she was serving food to at her mother’s Hi-Lo Burger’s drive-thru window (Galofaro). She recalled the woman saying “‘Even though nothing is showing [in reference to her clothes], you’re being ungodly. You make men want to be sinful’ (Galofaro).” The pamphlet told Keshia that she has been given this pamphlet because of her attire since women wearing tight-fitting or skimpy clothing make men lustful (Galofaro). In other words, this pamphlet states that it is essentially women’s fault that men sin and thus deserve retribution (Galofaro). It goes on to assert that “‘Scripture tells us that when a man looks on a woman to lust for her he has already committed adultery in his heart. If you are dressed in a way that tempts men to do this secret (or not so secret) sin, you are a participant in the sin…By the way, some rape victims would not have been raped if they had dressed properly. So can we really say they were innocent victims?’ (Galofaro).” This pamphlet’s disturbing, victim-blaming message has angered and worried many women because of its offensive nature and the possibility of it being distributed to actual rape victims to convince them to not report being raped, blame themselves, and stop them from seeking help. Media perpetuating victim-blaming like this pamphlet would isolate rape victims from help that they need and obscure the fact that patriarchy, not women and the way they dress, is really at fault for modern society’s rape culture.
This pamphlet propagates stereotypes about women and myths about rape that would effectively keep rape culture in place if women and men continued to believe them. Firstly, the pamphlet stereotypes women as evil, sin-inducing temptresses who display their attractiveness through their clothes (or lack thereof) whether they do it purposely or inadvertently. By casting women in this age-old stereotype as heartless, conniving people who use their sexuality to manipulate men – even though society tells women to do just that to obtain the power women have so desperately wanted, as Douglas keenly points out (Douglas 156-157) – the people behind this pamphlet cleverly invert the power dynamics between men and women and make this inverted model seem like actual reality. Women are really the ones with power because they are the ones who possess the powerful weapon of sexuality which can inspire lust and sinful thoughts in men. They dictate how men act, so if men rape, it is because women made them rape. Because women are really the ones in charge, they have to take responsibility for men’s actions in response to their sexuality. If women are not aware of how they could incite lust through their dress, it is their fault for not being aware of something they should have been. By supporting the illusion that women have all the sexual power and thus control what men will and will not do sexually, the pamphlet takes away male rapists’ responsibility for their crime by decriminalizing their raping act. This pamphlet places the fault on the female rape victims because of some power that they do not possess, which is grossly inaccurate considering that men are actually the ones who hold power over women sexually and beyond.
The pamphlet’s horribly disturbing victim-blaming message does not only hurt all women personally and socially, but also harms men by insulting their humanity by lumping all of them into one big group of slobbering beasts that are ruled by their sex drives. The pamphlet’s enthusiastic embrace of very common male stereotypes –in particular, that all men are ruled by their lower anatomy and thus have no control whatsoever of their actions because all they desire, think about, obsess over, is sexual pleasure –is extremely dangerous in two main ways. It further absolves men of their responsibility in the entire realm of sex, including sexual decisions and actions, as previously done in the pamphlet’s stereotyping of women as powerful demons who incite men to sin. By relegating men to little more than animals, which do not think about their actions and rely almost purely on instinct, any shred of responsibility that people could still tag onto male rapists for their actions even after agreeing with the women-have-power, women-are-responsible stance is lost. However, by relegating men to animals, the pamphlet disregards all the men in society who have not raped women, who think rape is wrong and horrific, who think that female rape victims are victims and need help, who treat women with respect and dignity; it actually nullifies the possibility that such men exist because all men, no matter how gentlemanly or nice they seem, are really just beasts inside straining to break the chains of propriety and have sex with every female they see. This pamphlet’s logic strips men of any good qualities they possess, ignoring many men’s self-control, and ultimately, maintaining the inaccurate belief that men have no depth, thoughts, or ideas beyond sex.
This pamphlet is dangerous and disturbing on so many levels because of its wrongness about or distortion of women, men, rape, and society. It blames women for being raped by asserting that they have sexual power and choice that they do not possess. It inverts power dynamics which makes it seem as though patriarchy does not exist, which obviously deflects men and women’s awareness of patriarchy and how it orients society about female inequality and silencing. It pigeonholes men into sex-obsessed pigs with no higher thought or ambitions who cannot control themselves from raping a beautiful, skimpy-clad woman because they do not have the willpower to do so. By promulgating these untrue stereotypes, this pamphlet – along with any other victim-blaming propaganda – allows the real culprit of patriarchy to remain undisturbed in the shadows and the real result of rape culture to thrive unfettered.
Works Cited
Douglas, Susan J. Enlightened Sexism: The Seductive Message that Feminism’s Work Is Done. New York: Times Books, 2010.
Galofaro, Claire. “Blame the Victim: Religious Leaflet Claims ‘Ungodly’ Dressed Women Provoke Rape.” TriCities.com: Your TriCities News Source. Feb 28 2010. Dec 3 2010. < http://www2.tricities.com/news/2010/feb/28/blame_the_victim_religious_leaflet_claims_ungodly_-ar-236411/>.
Morgan, Emilie. “Don’t Call Me a Survivor.” Listen Up: Voices from the Next Feminist Generation. Ed. Barbara Findlen. Emeryville, CA: Seal Press, 2001.
MtJoy, Roxann. “Disturbing Rape Victim-Blaming Pamphlet Handed Out in Tennessee.” Change.org. Mar 2 2010. Dec 3 2010. < http://womensrights.change.org/blog/view/disturbing_rape_victim-blaming_pamphlet_handed_out_in_tennessee>.
One of the overarching themes that rape awareness has undertaken to spread is the message that the rape victim is never at fault, no matter what the circumstances were, and that a woman is never “asking for” rape or insinuating that she wants to be raped through her actions, words, or dress. However, there are some people and groups that believe that female rape victims are at least partially or fully responsible for being raped because of certain decisions she made or did not make, a reasoning that has earned the label “victim-blaming.” Victim-blaming both by the victims themselves and others takes away women’s power to make choices and turns people away from seeing rape victims as they are – victims that need to be helped and loved. Morgan even said herself that when she was raped a second time that “[i]n those three years, I had fully internalized the view that a woman is somehow to blame if she is raped…Although I held him ultimately responsible, I couldn’t help scrutinizing my behavior. I had consented to everything up until that point. I knew what my limits were, but it’s possible I didn’t make myself clear to him. Maybe the word no wasn’t enough (Morgan 36).” An agent of this victim-blaming propaganda, a pamphlet declaring that the way a woman dresses invites rape because it inspires uncontrollable lust in men, reinforces incorrect stereotypes for both men and women, thereby supporting patriarchy with its unequal power dynamics and rape culture at large.
This pamphlet, entitled Women and Girls by an anonymous writer or group, has been handed out in various places in Tennessee. Keshia Canter recalled that she was handed the pamphlet by a woman that she was serving food to at her mother’s Hi-Lo Burger’s drive-thru window (Galofaro). She recalled the woman saying “‘Even though nothing is showing [in reference to her clothes], you’re being ungodly. You make men want to be sinful’ (Galofaro).” The pamphlet told Keshia that she has been given this pamphlet because of her attire since women wearing tight-fitting or skimpy clothing make men lustful (Galofaro). In other words, this pamphlet states that it is essentially women’s fault that men sin and thus deserve retribution (Galofaro). It goes on to assert that “‘Scripture tells us that when a man looks on a woman to lust for her he has already committed adultery in his heart. If you are dressed in a way that tempts men to do this secret (or not so secret) sin, you are a participant in the sin…By the way, some rape victims would not have been raped if they had dressed properly. So can we really say they were innocent victims?’ (Galofaro).” This pamphlet’s disturbing, victim-blaming message has angered and worried many women because of its offensive nature and the possibility of it being distributed to actual rape victims to convince them to not report being raped, blame themselves, and stop them from seeking help. Media perpetuating victim-blaming like this pamphlet would isolate rape victims from help that they need and obscure the fact that patriarchy, not women and the way they dress, is really at fault for modern society’s rape culture.
This pamphlet propagates stereotypes about women and myths about rape that would effectively keep rape culture in place if women and men continued to believe them. Firstly, the pamphlet stereotypes women as evil, sin-inducing temptresses who display their attractiveness through their clothes (or lack thereof) whether they do it purposely or inadvertently. By casting women in this age-old stereotype as heartless, conniving people who use their sexuality to manipulate men – even though society tells women to do just that to obtain the power women have so desperately wanted, as Douglas keenly points out (Douglas 156-157) – the people behind this pamphlet cleverly invert the power dynamics between men and women and make this inverted model seem like actual reality. Women are really the ones with power because they are the ones who possess the powerful weapon of sexuality which can inspire lust and sinful thoughts in men. They dictate how men act, so if men rape, it is because women made them rape. Because women are really the ones in charge, they have to take responsibility for men’s actions in response to their sexuality. If women are not aware of how they could incite lust through their dress, it is their fault for not being aware of something they should have been. By supporting the illusion that women have all the sexual power and thus control what men will and will not do sexually, the pamphlet takes away male rapists’ responsibility for their crime by decriminalizing their raping act. This pamphlet places the fault on the female rape victims because of some power that they do not possess, which is grossly inaccurate considering that men are actually the ones who hold power over women sexually and beyond.
The pamphlet’s horribly disturbing victim-blaming message does not only hurt all women personally and socially, but also harms men by insulting their humanity by lumping all of them into one big group of slobbering beasts that are ruled by their sex drives. The pamphlet’s enthusiastic embrace of very common male stereotypes –in particular, that all men are ruled by their lower anatomy and thus have no control whatsoever of their actions because all they desire, think about, obsess over, is sexual pleasure –is extremely dangerous in two main ways. It further absolves men of their responsibility in the entire realm of sex, including sexual decisions and actions, as previously done in the pamphlet’s stereotyping of women as powerful demons who incite men to sin. By relegating men to little more than animals, which do not think about their actions and rely almost purely on instinct, any shred of responsibility that people could still tag onto male rapists for their actions even after agreeing with the women-have-power, women-are-responsible stance is lost. However, by relegating men to animals, the pamphlet disregards all the men in society who have not raped women, who think rape is wrong and horrific, who think that female rape victims are victims and need help, who treat women with respect and dignity; it actually nullifies the possibility that such men exist because all men, no matter how gentlemanly or nice they seem, are really just beasts inside straining to break the chains of propriety and have sex with every female they see. This pamphlet’s logic strips men of any good qualities they possess, ignoring many men’s self-control, and ultimately, maintaining the inaccurate belief that men have no depth, thoughts, or ideas beyond sex.
This pamphlet is dangerous and disturbing on so many levels because of its wrongness about or distortion of women, men, rape, and society. It blames women for being raped by asserting that they have sexual power and choice that they do not possess. It inverts power dynamics which makes it seem as though patriarchy does not exist, which obviously deflects men and women’s awareness of patriarchy and how it orients society about female inequality and silencing. It pigeonholes men into sex-obsessed pigs with no higher thought or ambitions who cannot control themselves from raping a beautiful, skimpy-clad woman because they do not have the willpower to do so. By promulgating these untrue stereotypes, this pamphlet – along with any other victim-blaming propaganda – allows the real culprit of patriarchy to remain undisturbed in the shadows and the real result of rape culture to thrive unfettered.
Works Cited
Douglas, Susan J. Enlightened Sexism: The Seductive Message that Feminism’s Work Is Done. New York: Times Books, 2010.
Galofaro, Claire. “Blame the Victim: Religious Leaflet Claims ‘Ungodly’ Dressed Women Provoke Rape.” TriCities.com: Your TriCities News Source. Feb 28 2010. Dec 3 2010. < http://www2.tricities.com/news/2010/feb/28/blame_the_victim_religious_leaflet_claims_ungodly_-ar-236411/>.
Morgan, Emilie. “Don’t Call Me a Survivor.” Listen Up: Voices from the Next Feminist Generation. Ed. Barbara Findlen. Emeryville, CA: Seal Press, 2001.
MtJoy, Roxann. “Disturbing Rape Victim-Blaming Pamphlet Handed Out in Tennessee.” Change.org. Mar 2 2010. Dec 3 2010. < http://womensrights.change.org/blog/view/disturbing_rape_victim-blaming_pamphlet_handed_out_in_tennessee>.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Follow-Up: Responding to Aridelle's Post 12/2/10
I found Lil Abu-Lughod's arguments in "Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving?" to be very a very interesting read, because her arguments related directly to my current life and my past experiences. She brings up a good point by questioning whether we really should become involved in Muslim women's lives. In a way, Muslim women are being silenced and oppressed in their culture by being forced to conform to social expectations enforced by a strict patriarchy. But if we look at the situation in a different light, our involvement and the concept of us pressuring Muslim women to act and live how we think is right is also a form of silencing them. Our involvement also may be unfair in the sense that our viewpoint on what constitutes as freedom and righteousness is strongly tainted by our own cultural ideals.
I can relate Abu-Lughod's piece to different areas in my life now through the reading that we are doing in Anthropology. In this class, we read a book titled "Women and Islamic Revival In a West African Town." One concept I could connect between our reading in WMST and the book I read in Anthro was how dominant males are in Islamic society. For example, we read in "Women and Islamic Revival" that while men congregate in groups at specific times in mosques to pray, women only pray isolated in their own homes, whenever they have time off from doing their house chores. Although there is an apparent imbalance of power and freedom between men and women, we must ask ourselves if intervening is the right thing to do. Do we really know what's best for Muslim women?
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Response to Aridelle's Post: 12/2/10
I reacted most to Bunch's article "Whose Security" because I both agreed and disagreed with her points. I believe that 9/11 and its reverberations throughout our nation have been twisted in ways to support some policies that are less than ideal or acceptable for lots of American citizens as well as foreigners. I couldn't help but think about the TSA scandal with the invasive pat-downs vs. intrusive body scan option that many travelers have to make when flying on airplanes. I have read articles and watched some videos about this new technology and every TSA official and even some randomly sampled people said generally "If it protects us/makes our national security better, then by all means." Who says it makes national security better if we don't even know the long-term effects of radiation sitting on the skin? Plus, I think that unless everyone goes through the scanner or some equally thorough search, they are not much help beyond discouraging terrorists from trying to take bombs or weapons onto planes on the off chance that they might get searched. What is the point of the scanners if you could easily let an armed terrorist go through because you just didn't end up picking him or her for the scanners? Also, national security prioritizes the state over individuals, a fact that these scanners' implementation obviously show - we invade your privacy to ensure all our safety. But when is the fine line between ensuring our protection and overstepping boundaries? I am not a conspiracy-spotter where I think everything the government does is leading us down a slippery slope, but even so we need to be aware of the balance between individual person, citizen or not, and state.
The main point I disagree with Bunch on is America's deteriorating commitment to human rights in wake of 9/11 - by us becoming hyper-aware to these countries where our attackers have their bases, we become more curious about them and in doing so uncover human rights violations that we didn't know existed there. Granted, the way we are going about things might not be the best way, but I think it was a bit strong for her to say that 9/11 has completely shifted our politics inward. It is technically the government's job to protect us, but protecting us doesn't mean a complete tradeoff of individual rights here and abroad - such a thing would be against the principles we were founded on.
The main point I disagree with Bunch on is America's deteriorating commitment to human rights in wake of 9/11 - by us becoming hyper-aware to these countries where our attackers have their bases, we become more curious about them and in doing so uncover human rights violations that we didn't know existed there. Granted, the way we are going about things might not be the best way, but I think it was a bit strong for her to say that 9/11 has completely shifted our politics inward. It is technically the government's job to protect us, but protecting us doesn't mean a complete tradeoff of individual rights here and abroad - such a thing would be against the principles we were founded on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)