http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3848/why_soldiers_rape/
Martin, Yancy and Hummer, Robert A. “Fraternities and Rape on Campus.” Feminist Frontiers. Ed. by Verta Taylor, Nancy Whittier, and Leila J. Rupp. New York: McGraw-Hill Humanities, Social Sciences, & World Languages, 2007, 417-425.
Allen, Robert L. and Kivel, Paul. “Men Changing Men.” Feminist Frontiers. Ed. by Verta Taylor, Nancy Whittier, and Leila J. Rupp. New York: McGraw-Hill Humanities, Social Sciences, & World Languages, 2007, 426 -427.
Nagel, Joane. “Sex and War: Fighting Men, Comfort Women and the Military-Sexual Complex.” Feminist Frontiers. Ed. by Verta Taylor, Nancy Whittier, and Leila J. Rupp. New York: McGraw-Hill Humanities, Social Sciences, & World Languages, 2007, 441 - 449.
Women in the military are stereotyped by their male peers. These stereotypes are perpetuated by the military culture. “There are only three things the guys let you be if you’re a girl in the military: a bitch, a ho or a dyke” (Benedict 2). This quote, by Army Spc. Mickiela Montoya, illustrates the misogynistic and degrading view that countless male military officers have of their female counterparts. This view of women is extremely widespread in the military and has been found to contribute to the high incidences of rape and sexual harassment experienced by female officers. A culture of misogyny is created within the military in order to emphasize the masculinity of male officers and to assert male dominance over female officers. Helene Benedict’s article, “Why Soldiers Rape,” examines the larger social and political institutions that fuel the degradation of women in the military.
Rape and sexual harassment are two of the largest growing concerns among women in society. Many writers have described rape as a form of terrorism that instills fear in the victim and preserves and perpetuates the submission of women in the male dominated society. These acts of sexual violence and degradation have been estimated to affect one in six civilian women during their lifetime. What is even more shocking is that the incidence of rape and sexual harassment in the military has been shown to be almost double that of woman in civilian life. The result of research on this issue, discussed in the Military Medical Journal indicates that among the women in the military population, 71% have been sexually assaulted and 90% of women have been victims of sexual harassment (Benedict 2). The author indicates that typically, after a rape occurs, blame is often initially placed upon the victim. In her opening paragraph, Helene Benedict states that during post-rape discussions the authorities often focus on the “guilt” of the victims and the ways that their actions somehow contributed to the crime. Too often, a rape victim’s attack is attributed to their choice of suggestive clothing, flirty behavior or their unsafe location. On the other hand, the rapist’s actions are ascribed to their innate depravity and/or their mental instability. Based upon the attitude of those in authority, the victim is left to believe that the sexual assault is the result of her own bad choices. In contrast, the actions of the assailant are attributed to factors outside of his control, such as his lack of mental capacity. Benedict explains that the assignment of blame to the victim is dangerous for women and perpetuates the crime. By blaming the victim, those in authority may ignore the larger social issues that propel men to rape women: the concept of male superiority in society and the reinforcement of male dominance. The incidence of sexual assault on women will never significantly decrease until the truth about what drives men to commit rape is uncovered and dealt with by those in authority.
Standards of masculinity have perpetuated sexual harassment and rape. Our society has constructed a narrow image of the masculine ideal to which all men are expected to conform. In their article, “Men Changing Men”, Robert Allen and Paul Kivel state that boys are taught at a young age to be aggressive, independent and stoic. As boys mature, they are taught that the display of sensitivity and emotions is representative of weakness and vulnerability. These “womanly” feelings are highly discouraged in our patriarchal society. Allen and Kivel argue that through the reinforcement of certain emotions, boys learn to solve their problems by using violence and intimidation. “In a patriarchal society, boys are taught to accept violence as a manly response to real or imagined threats, but they get little training in negotiating intimate relationships” (Allen and Kivel 426). Through constant positive reinforcement of this masculine ideal, violence becomes the norm in men’s lives.
The model of masculinity which is fostered by our society creates an ideal that is only attainable through the demonstration of extreme aggression and dominance among men. Males learn that they can attain this ideal by asserting their dominance over women through sexual harassment and rape. The sexual degradation of women becomes more magnified in all-male environments, such as in college fraternities. In these settings, the social standards of masculinity and heterosexuality are harshly enforced. The hyper-masculinity demonstrated by fraternity brothers is considered to be superior to that of less aggressive males. The exaggerated machismo exhibited by the group serves to differentiate between members and inferior non-members, who often exhibit a less extreme form of masculinity than their male counterparts. Patricia Martin and Robert Hummer write in their article, “Fraternities and Rape on Campus”, that sexual violence against women is widespread within fraternities and in other all-male organizations because members are expected to prove their masculinity, often, by displaying their control and authority over women. The military functions much like a fraternity in the ways in which it reinforces the super-masculine ideals. The military is like a brotherhood that creates a mob mentality in which members lose their sense of self and commit violent sexual acts against women in order to prove their masculinity. “Even though most soldiers are not rapists, and most men do not hate women, in the military even the nicest guys succumb to the pressure to act as if they do” (Benedict 3). All male environments tend to foster a group mentality but the military magnifies the problem because it is inherently an environment which idealizes aggression and dominance.
Rape and sexual harassment are more complex problems in the military environment. In the article, Benedict explains how sexual violence not only stems from a need to demonstrate masculinity, but from an actual resentment and disrespect of female soldiers. One army officer stated, “The military sends women over to give the guys eye candy to keep them sane. In Vietnam they had prostitutes, but they don’t have those in Iraq, so they have women soldiers instead” (Benedict 2). By assaulting women sexually, men are asserting their superiority and power in order to prove that there is no place for women in the military. Male soldiers may also feel threatened by women, and feel that they must demonstrate their superiority in order to defend their positions. Sgt. Sarah Scully of the Army’s 8th Military Police Brigade stated that, “In the Army, any sign that you are a woman means you are automatically ridiculed and treated as inferior” (Benedict 2). In order to prove her point, Benedict focuses the readers attention to the language that is traditionally used by military personnel to demean other soldiers. Often times, sexist insults such as “pussy,” “girl,” “bitch,” and “lady” are used by officers to debase new recruits. The implication is that the lowest insult that can be used, is to call a soldier a term that is usually used to demean women. The misogynistic nature of the military is also demonstrated by a common naval chant which begins, “Who can take a chainsaw; Cut her in two; Fuck the bottom half; And give the upper half to you”(Benedict 2). This chant clearly illustrates how military officers sexualize and devalue women. Women are considered dispensable and useless except when they are sexually pleasuring a man. The use of these terms also ignores the growing presence of women in the military and is an expression of the resentment of this change in the military population among men.
The nature and history of men in war also contributes to the high incidence of rape in the military. In wartime, soldiers are desensitized and become emotionally calloused to violence through their constant exposure to the carnage and death. Soldiers are also trained to dehumanize their opponents in order to become more effective “killing machines.” Rape occurs more frequently in the military because soldiers are trained to become more aggressive and to accept violence as a normal way of life. This aggression which is focused on the enemy spills over and is directed to women. Because of their training, it becomes easier for men to mistreat women in general. Sexual assault against women is also deemed to be trivial compared to the violence which occurs on the battlefield. The military culture, its songs, jokes and language is based upon the glorification of the male soldier ideal .The naval chant mentioned in the previous paragraph is an example of how male soldiers are taught to accept and embrace the dehumanization of women.
The domination of women has always been a universal component of war. In the article “Sex and War: Fighting men, Comfort Women and the Military-Sexual Complex”, Joane Nagel addresses the ways in which historically, sex has functioned as a driving force in war. During the Korean War, bars and clubs were built near U.S. military bases in order to provide sexual services to U.S. soldiers. Nagel states that the military relied on prostitution in order to “sustain soldiers’ morale and discipline,” and to keep them complacent (Nagel 443). Rape was also employed by the military as a technique designed to demoralize and to vanquish the enemy by abusing or “conquering” their women. Nagel argues that “sexually taking an enemy’s women amounts to gaining territory and psychological advantage.” There is a difference between Nagel and Benedict in their view on rape. Nagel argues that sexual violence in war is an “ethnosexual phenomenon.” In that soldiers target women of different nationalities and races in order to exhibit their control and dominance over the enemy. Nagel argues that servicemen rarely rape “their own women” unless the woman proves herself to be disloyal (Nagel 443). Benedict, on the other hand, argues that male soldiers sexually violate and harass their fellow women soldiers because of the environment that breeds aggression and male dominance. In analyzing these two arguments I believe that sexual harassment and rape happens in both instances. However, in Nagel’s case, women are being assaulted in order to humiliate their opposition and to psychologically defeat their enemies. Ultimately, in each case the goal is to establish control and supremacy over their victims.
In her article, Helene Benedict attributes the high incidences of rape to the type of men that volunteer for service. Benedict states that many men who volunteer for service are from lower income neighborhoods and are more likely to rape or sexually harass women because of their socioeconomic class. “The economic reasons behind enlistment are well understood. The military is the primary path out of poverty and dead-end jobs for many of the poor in America” (Benedict 4). In response to her statement, I would argue that Benedict is contributing to a widely held stereotype that only certain types of men are capable of sexual assault. In reality, all men have the potential to rape. Benedict also blames the occurrence of rape in the military, to the incidence of men who are a product of abuse or who grow up in an environment of domestic abuse. It has been reported that men who have been sexually or physically abused as children are more likely to abuse others as adults. Oftentimes these men have a great deal of repressed anger that is released when they are placed in violent situations. Studies conducted by criminologist Menachim Amir and psychologists Nicholas Groth and Gene Abel prove that rapists are motivated by a mixture of sexual hostility and a need to dominate; urges which stem from childhood abuse.
Rape is more prevalent in the military than the statistics show. Under reporting is due to the fact that many women are reluctant to report cases of sexual assault because they are afraid of the repercussions they would face from army officers and from their peers. Reporting an incidence of sexual harassment or rape is viewed as an act of betrayal and women who do so are resented and ostracized by their fellow soldiers. Benedict states that a woman who report sexual harassment or rape, “risks being persecuted by her assailant if he is her superior, and punished by any commanders who consider her a troublemaker” (Benedict 3). To protect women from sexual assault, military officials need to strictly reinforce legal punishments for rape and harassment. Benedict points out that there is currently a shortage of military volunteers. In an attempt to retain the largest number of soldiers, the government has brought the least amount of sexual offenders to court as possible. Studies have shown that in the military, 47% of all sexual assault cases are dismissed and only 8% of cases are brought to a court-martial (Benedict 4). The military needs to adopt policies that convey to soldier the severity of sexual harassment and rape.
In the article “Why Soldiers Rape”, Helene Benedicts outlines the reasons why rape and sexual harassment have become a widespread occurrence in the military. Benedict attributes the incidences of rape to the overall social and violent nature of the military. The sexual degradation of women is perpetuated by the extreme standard of masculinity that is promoted in the military. The reinforcement of violence and aggression in a military environment also contributes the dehumanization of women and the overall number of sexual assault cases that occur each year. In order to improve women’s quality of life military, the government should enforce strict rules and punishments for rape and harassment offenders.
Monday, December 8, 2008
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Blog #18 - Steinman, Crenshaw
Supremacy crimes are violent acts committed by individuals who believe they are superior to their victims. Gloria Steinman discusses in her article Supremacy Crimes, that individuals who commit these types of crimes believe that they are entitled to a certain amount of control and dominance over their victims. Supremacy crimes are done by mainly white, middle-class and heterosexual males. Steinman argues that men feel a need to exhibit their superiority over other individuals because our patriarchal society requires men to demonstrate a certain level of masculinity and dominance. Males are taught to be aggressive, violent and in control of their surroundings. In her article, Gloria Steinman draws parallels between supremacy crimes and acts of mass murdering and serial killing. Studies show that the overwhelming majority of serial murders are committed by white males. The statistics given by Steinman support her argument that serial murders can generally be classified as supremacy crimes in which the assailant is demonstrating his dominance over individuals of a different gender, class or race. What disturbs Steinman is that because our society views white and male as the norm, people tend to disregard the idea that the gender and racial identity of serial killers could contribute to their violent actions. The fact that most serial killers are white males proves that there is a problem with the way that society requires white men to act. They commit these crimes because they need to establish their masculinity by harming “inferior” individuals. Steinman states that people are ignoring the information in her article because it would force people to admit there is a problem with our society and force people to redefine masculinity in a way that downplays violence, dominance and control. This would lead to a deterioration of our patriarchal hierarchy in which white males would no longer be in control.
The article Mapping the Margins, by Kimberle Crenshaw, discusses the ways in which race and culture contribute to domestic violence. Crenshaw begins her article with an idea similar to that of the matrix of domination. The matrix of domination is a paradigm that outlines social oppression based on different factors including race, gender and socioeconomic class. Crenshaw discusses how all of these factors converge to amplify the oppression and disadvantage of abused women of different races and cultures. What I found most interesting in Crenshaw’s article was her analysis of the ways in which domestic abuse affects black communities. She states that many acts of domestic violence are not reported in black communities because the victims do not want to contribute and to fuel racial stereotypes. Crenshaw states that, “People of color often must weigh their interests in avoiding issues that might reinforce distorted public perceptions against the need to acknowledge and address intra-community problems.” Many black women endanger themselves in order to protect their community from negative stereotypes.
Many people have stated that domestic abuse is not a problem isolated to women of a certain race, but that abuse is a problem for all women. These statements are made in an attempt to protect women from domestic abuse, but instead what they reveal is the disregard that many people had for battered women when they believed that domestic abuse was only isolated to communities of color. In response to Senator Boren’s statements about the ubiquitous nature of domestic violence, Crenshaw writes, “Rather than focusing on and illuminating how violence is disregarded when the home is “othered”, the strategy implicit in Senator Boren’s remarks functions instead to politicize the problem only in the dominant community. This strategy permits white women victims to come into focus, but does little to disrupt the patterns of neglect that permitted the problem to continue as long as it was imagined to be a minority problem.” Despite the language used by policy-makers, the abuse of black women is still being ignored, while the abuse of white women is being addressed.
The article Mapping the Margins, by Kimberle Crenshaw, discusses the ways in which race and culture contribute to domestic violence. Crenshaw begins her article with an idea similar to that of the matrix of domination. The matrix of domination is a paradigm that outlines social oppression based on different factors including race, gender and socioeconomic class. Crenshaw discusses how all of these factors converge to amplify the oppression and disadvantage of abused women of different races and cultures. What I found most interesting in Crenshaw’s article was her analysis of the ways in which domestic abuse affects black communities. She states that many acts of domestic violence are not reported in black communities because the victims do not want to contribute and to fuel racial stereotypes. Crenshaw states that, “People of color often must weigh their interests in avoiding issues that might reinforce distorted public perceptions against the need to acknowledge and address intra-community problems.” Many black women endanger themselves in order to protect their community from negative stereotypes.
Many people have stated that domestic abuse is not a problem isolated to women of a certain race, but that abuse is a problem for all women. These statements are made in an attempt to protect women from domestic abuse, but instead what they reveal is the disregard that many people had for battered women when they believed that domestic abuse was only isolated to communities of color. In response to Senator Boren’s statements about the ubiquitous nature of domestic violence, Crenshaw writes, “Rather than focusing on and illuminating how violence is disregarded when the home is “othered”, the strategy implicit in Senator Boren’s remarks functions instead to politicize the problem only in the dominant community. This strategy permits white women victims to come into focus, but does little to disrupt the patterns of neglect that permitted the problem to continue as long as it was imagined to be a minority problem.” Despite the language used by policy-makers, the abuse of black women is still being ignored, while the abuse of white women is being addressed.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Blog #17 - Allen, Kivel, Martin, Hummer
Fraternities are organizations that perpetuate masculine stereotypes and contribute to the degradation of women on college campuses. Fraternities recruit news members based on their personality and sexual prowess. Men who are athletic, strong, affluent, competitive and good-looking are chosen to be in fraternities because they are better at attracting women than effeminate and “nerdy” men. The more masculine the candidate the better chance he will have of being accepted into a frat. Effeminate behaviors are highly discouraged by fraternities, and members who display those types of behaviors are ostracized and labeled as homosexuals. Martin and Hummer write, “Fraternities work hard to create a macho image and context and try to avoid any suggestion of wimpiness, effeminacy and homosexuality.” A narrow image of masculinity is created and expected by members of fraternities. An extreme image of masculinity is accepted as the norm and the individuals that stray from this norm are considered inferior. As Martin and Hummer write in their article, femininity is also highly distorted by fraternities. Many members in fraternities view women as sexual commodities who are obedient and vulnerable. Women who stray from the ideal; sexual, beautiful and social are often ignored by fraternity members. Martin and Hummer state, “Brotherhood often plays itself out as an overriding concern with masculinity and, by extension, femininity. As a consequence, fraternities comprise collectives of highly masculinized men with attitudinal qualities and behavioral norms that predispose them to sexual coercion of women.”
Fraternity members emphasize loyalty, use of alcohol, physical force, secrecy, group protection, competition and superiority. These characteristics and actions have been proven to contribute to a “rape-prone” environment in fraternities that is dangerous for women. Martin and Hummer state that alcohol is used as a weapon to incapacitate women and take advantage of them sexually. The highly competitive nature of fraternity members leads to intense rivalries over the number of women they sleep with. Fraternity members often times have a multitude of sexual relationships that are devoid of any emotional attachment. These relationships can be dangerous because the men are only concerned with their sexual pleasure. They have little concern for the wellbeing of the woman and usually abandon them when the intercourse is finished. As it has been shown in the 1988 rape investigation of a Florida university fraternity, the sense of loyalty and secrecy among fraternity brothers has been used to undermine authority and protect members from legal punishment. Group protection is the most important aspect of a fraternity. Martin and Hummer write that, “Brotherhood norms require sticking together regardless of right or wrong; thus episodes are unlikely to be stopped or reported to outsiders, even when witnesses disapprove. The ability to use alcohol without scrutiny by authorities and alcohol’s frequent association with violence, including sexual coercion, facilitates rape in fraternities.”
In the article Men Changing Men, Robert Allen and Paul Kivel state that society has constructed a narrow definition of masculinity in which all men should follow. Men are expected to be aggressive, tough and stoic. These characteristics contribute to acts of violence against women. Allen and Kivel write, “In a patriarchal society boys are taught to accept violence as a manly response to real or imagined threats, but they get little training in negotiating intimate relationships.” Boys are taught to solve all their problems the manly way, by being violent and aggressive. When boys grow up they do not know how to solve problems in a mature way and often resort to violence. I agree that society contributes greatly to the domestic abuse of women. The rigid form of masculinity supported by our society needs to be reformed so that men are not expected to be violent and aggressive.
Fraternity members emphasize loyalty, use of alcohol, physical force, secrecy, group protection, competition and superiority. These characteristics and actions have been proven to contribute to a “rape-prone” environment in fraternities that is dangerous for women. Martin and Hummer state that alcohol is used as a weapon to incapacitate women and take advantage of them sexually. The highly competitive nature of fraternity members leads to intense rivalries over the number of women they sleep with. Fraternity members often times have a multitude of sexual relationships that are devoid of any emotional attachment. These relationships can be dangerous because the men are only concerned with their sexual pleasure. They have little concern for the wellbeing of the woman and usually abandon them when the intercourse is finished. As it has been shown in the 1988 rape investigation of a Florida university fraternity, the sense of loyalty and secrecy among fraternity brothers has been used to undermine authority and protect members from legal punishment. Group protection is the most important aspect of a fraternity. Martin and Hummer write that, “Brotherhood norms require sticking together regardless of right or wrong; thus episodes are unlikely to be stopped or reported to outsiders, even when witnesses disapprove. The ability to use alcohol without scrutiny by authorities and alcohol’s frequent association with violence, including sexual coercion, facilitates rape in fraternities.”
In the article Men Changing Men, Robert Allen and Paul Kivel state that society has constructed a narrow definition of masculinity in which all men should follow. Men are expected to be aggressive, tough and stoic. These characteristics contribute to acts of violence against women. Allen and Kivel write, “In a patriarchal society boys are taught to accept violence as a manly response to real or imagined threats, but they get little training in negotiating intimate relationships.” Boys are taught to solve all their problems the manly way, by being violent and aggressive. When boys grow up they do not know how to solve problems in a mature way and often resort to violence. I agree that society contributes greatly to the domestic abuse of women. The rigid form of masculinity supported by our society needs to be reformed so that men are not expected to be violent and aggressive.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Blog #16 - Enloe, Navarro
The three articles assigned this week discuss the negative affects that globalization has on third world women. The first article, The Globe Trotting Sneaker, by Cynthia Enloe explains how large corporations have been taking advantage of the lower labor costs in developing countries by outsourcing factory jobs to poor workers in China, Indonesia and Thailand. Trade agreements, such as NAFTA and GATT, are mainly concerned with boosting the global economy and do little to improve the lives of workers. The lack of opportunities and jobs in many developing nations gives women little choice for finding work. Most of the time, women are forced to work in factories that produce the products of American companies. Although American companies are providing jobs for citizens of third world countries, the lack of labor laws, such as minimum wage laws, leaves many women working in dangerous conditions for a salary that is far below the minimum wage set in the United States. Nike and Reebok are just two of the many companies that have built factories in third world countries in order to profit from their loose labor restrictions. American companies that outsource factory jobs can produce their products cheaper in other countries by paying their workers less money. Enloe states in her article that, “If women can be kept hard at work, low paid, and unorganized, they can serve as a magnet for foreign investments.” This quote illustrates how females are being used as a cheap source of labor in order to boost the economy of the United States and other third world countries, with little or no regard for the well being of their workers.
Sharon Ann Navarro, author of The Invisible Women, and Cynthia Enloe both discuss the ways in which globalized manufacturing jobs have led to the displacement of many female workers. In her article, Enloe describes the shoe, clothing, and electronic industries as extremely mobile. The equipment for producing these types of goods are small and easily manufactured. So when workers begin to protest against the factories low salaries and harsh labor conditions, American companies can choose to shut down their factories and relocate them to other areas where there are new sources of cheap labor. The movement of factories has left many women with no work and very little job options. Women are either forced to migrate to where the factories are relocated, or work in demeaning entertainment jobs such as those that offer sexual services. I was shocked when I read these articles. Not because I didn’t know about the outsourcing of factory jobs but because I didn’t know who little governments and companies cared about the well being of their factory workers. These companies need to be held more accountable for their overseas factories, and the government needs to put more regulations on company practices in order to protect third world women from abusive jobs.
Sharon Ann Navarro, author of The Invisible Women, and Cynthia Enloe both discuss the ways in which globalized manufacturing jobs have led to the displacement of many female workers. In her article, Enloe describes the shoe, clothing, and electronic industries as extremely mobile. The equipment for producing these types of goods are small and easily manufactured. So when workers begin to protest against the factories low salaries and harsh labor conditions, American companies can choose to shut down their factories and relocate them to other areas where there are new sources of cheap labor. The movement of factories has left many women with no work and very little job options. Women are either forced to migrate to where the factories are relocated, or work in demeaning entertainment jobs such as those that offer sexual services. I was shocked when I read these articles. Not because I didn’t know about the outsourcing of factory jobs but because I didn’t know who little governments and companies cared about the well being of their factory workers. These companies need to be held more accountable for their overseas factories, and the government needs to put more regulations on company practices in order to protect third world women from abusive jobs.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Blog #15 - Mohanty, Bunch
In the article Under Western Eyes: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourses, the author Chandra Mohanty criticizes western feminists for homogenizing third world women, and defining them as one singular group of women with identical goals and struggles. The major fault of many western feminists is that they assume that all women have the same priorities and objectives. Mohanty blames these middle class feminists for presuming that they are the norm and for creating an agenda that they expect all women to follow. Mohanty describes this as a form of ethnocentric universality, in which western feminists believe they are the standard model for all women, and despite differences in race or socioeconomic status all women share the same beliefs and goals as western middle class feminists. Mohanty argues that western feminists designate women from developing nations as the Other according to what is know as the “third world difference”. The third world difference is used by western scholars to compare the average third world woman who is uneducated, poor and victimized to the average western woman who is educated, independent and progressive. The west has created a consistent image of third world women based on the ways that they are oppressed sexually and politically by their patriarchal societies. Despite cultural, geographic and economic differences all women from developing nations are portrayed as victimized and powerless. Mohanty is arguing that western feminists are ignoring the differences between third world women and characterizing them as one homogenous mass.
Chandra Mohanty’s idea is reminiscent of the ideas discusses in Audrey Lorde’s article, The Master’s Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master’s House. In this piece Lorde addresses the underlying racist views of women in the feminist movement. Lorde argues that a major tool of our patriarchal society is the ability of men to “divide and conquer” or emphasize the gender, class, racial and sexual differences among people, in order to create a hierarchy in which white middle and upper class males are in control. The statement, “the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house,” conveys the idea that women will never be able to overcome our patriarchal society if they create a hierarchy within the women’s movement and ignore the voices of women with different races and economic statuses. Mohanty also blames western feminists for creating a hierarchy in which third world women are considered to be at the bottom. Middle class white women need to recognize that not all women from developing nations are the same, and that they have different goals and priorities that are separate from those of western feminists.
Charlotte Bunch’s article, Whose Security, addresses the ways in which the Bush administration has disregarded human rights for the purpose of national security. Bunch argues that in the wake of 9-11, the United States could have become more empathetic to countries that face terrorism every day and could have begun to fight terrorism in a diplomatic and peaceful way. Instead, the Bush administration chose to ignore multilateral politics and proceeded into a disastrous and costly war. In an attempt to combat terrorism, the United States has become a reckless force in the Middle East and a hindrance to development of human rights for women in developing nations. In disregarding many human rights agreements created during past administrations, President Bush has set an example for other countries who now feel that they can also ignore human rights legislation without risking punishment from multi-national organizations. Bunch writes, “Indeed, the erosion of the US commitment to human rights helps legitimize the abuses of governments that have never fully accepted or claimed these standards. For while the US government has often been hypocritical in its human rights policies, open disregard for international standards goes a step further and thus strengthens fundamentalist governments and forces that seek to deny human rights in general, and the rights of women in particular.” The Bush administration has pledged to improve the rights of women in the Middle East. However, that goal has been abandoned and women in the region are still suffering from limited human rights.
Chandra Mohanty’s idea is reminiscent of the ideas discusses in Audrey Lorde’s article, The Master’s Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master’s House. In this piece Lorde addresses the underlying racist views of women in the feminist movement. Lorde argues that a major tool of our patriarchal society is the ability of men to “divide and conquer” or emphasize the gender, class, racial and sexual differences among people, in order to create a hierarchy in which white middle and upper class males are in control. The statement, “the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house,” conveys the idea that women will never be able to overcome our patriarchal society if they create a hierarchy within the women’s movement and ignore the voices of women with different races and economic statuses. Mohanty also blames western feminists for creating a hierarchy in which third world women are considered to be at the bottom. Middle class white women need to recognize that not all women from developing nations are the same, and that they have different goals and priorities that are separate from those of western feminists.
Charlotte Bunch’s article, Whose Security, addresses the ways in which the Bush administration has disregarded human rights for the purpose of national security. Bunch argues that in the wake of 9-11, the United States could have become more empathetic to countries that face terrorism every day and could have begun to fight terrorism in a diplomatic and peaceful way. Instead, the Bush administration chose to ignore multilateral politics and proceeded into a disastrous and costly war. In an attempt to combat terrorism, the United States has become a reckless force in the Middle East and a hindrance to development of human rights for women in developing nations. In disregarding many human rights agreements created during past administrations, President Bush has set an example for other countries who now feel that they can also ignore human rights legislation without risking punishment from multi-national organizations. Bunch writes, “Indeed, the erosion of the US commitment to human rights helps legitimize the abuses of governments that have never fully accepted or claimed these standards. For while the US government has often been hypocritical in its human rights policies, open disregard for international standards goes a step further and thus strengthens fundamentalist governments and forces that seek to deny human rights in general, and the rights of women in particular.” The Bush administration has pledged to improve the rights of women in the Middle East. However, that goal has been abandoned and women in the region are still suffering from limited human rights.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Blog #14 - Mink, Rangel
The Personal Responsibilities Act is a controversial law that was passed in 1996, banning all poor single mothers from welfare benefits. This law was enacted because of the belief that poor single mothers are lazy and promiscuous women whose only motive for have children is to gain financial compensation from the federal government. Gwendolyn Mink in her article, The Lady and the Tramp, describes the Personal Responsibilities Act as a war against poor women, in which single mothers are punished for having children. Mink states that, “Without welfare, mothers who work inside the home are deprived of equal citizenship for they alone are not paid for their labor.” Mink explains that caring for ones child has been almost completely devalued by the federal government because poor mothers have been denied all compensation for their labor as mothers. The only option afforded to poor single mothers is marriage. However this is a dangerous option for many women because they become financially dependent on their husbands. Women, who cannot survive economically to leave their husbands, are forced to remain in a relationship that can be loveless, unhealthy or abusive. Mink explains that, “full-time care-giving mothers, then, are disproportionately dependent on men if married and disproportionately poor, if not.”
Mink introduces an interesting idea concerning the way that feminists have contributed to the struggles of welfare mothers. During the second wave of feminists, women fought to gain acceptance in the male dominated public sphere, or the men’s world of work. Feminists created the idea that social and political independence came from paid employment. Out of this movement came the idea that all work outside the home is more important and socially productive than work in the home as a mother. The work of second wave feminists has helped to depreciate the value of child care as a woman’s primary source of labor. Mink argues that the work of the second wave feminist has contributed to the acceptance of the Personal Responsibilities Act which states that child care is not a legitimate form of labor. In my opinion Personal Responsibilities Act seems completely contradictory to the purpose of welfare. Poor single mothers are extremely vulnerable and need financial assistance in order to survive and raise their children. I do not understand why a single mother would be denied welfare assistance because she isn’t married, but in our patriarchal society it does not surprise me that the government values marriage and would require a woman to marry in order to gain financial assistance.
Knowledge is Power, is an article by Maria Cristina Rangel, about her struggles as a single mom on welfare. Rangel brings up a very interesting point, about the way that the government forces poor individuals to choose between working and getting welfare, and going to college to get an education and being denied welfare. It is almost impossible to gain a college degree if you are on welfare, because the government does not recognize the pursuit of knowledge as work, and therefore requires individuals to work in separate jobs in order to obtain welfare. Rangel makes a shocking comparison between the way that slave owners denied their “property” and education in order to keep them ignorant and subservient, and the way that the government denies people on welfare easy access to higher education. She explains how this could be a way of keeping these individuals ignorant and preventing them from petitioning against unfair welfare legislation such as the Personal Responsibilities act. In some way I agree with Rangel’s claim. The only way to free an individual from poverty is to provide them with an education so that they can get a high paying job. If individuals cannot afford an education they are forced to work minimum wage, or low paying jobs, and remain dependent on the government for welfare checks. Instead of just offering financial assistance to poor families, the government needs to find a way to offer college educations to lower income students so that they can permanently escape poverty.
Mink introduces an interesting idea concerning the way that feminists have contributed to the struggles of welfare mothers. During the second wave of feminists, women fought to gain acceptance in the male dominated public sphere, or the men’s world of work. Feminists created the idea that social and political independence came from paid employment. Out of this movement came the idea that all work outside the home is more important and socially productive than work in the home as a mother. The work of second wave feminists has helped to depreciate the value of child care as a woman’s primary source of labor. Mink argues that the work of the second wave feminist has contributed to the acceptance of the Personal Responsibilities Act which states that child care is not a legitimate form of labor. In my opinion Personal Responsibilities Act seems completely contradictory to the purpose of welfare. Poor single mothers are extremely vulnerable and need financial assistance in order to survive and raise their children. I do not understand why a single mother would be denied welfare assistance because she isn’t married, but in our patriarchal society it does not surprise me that the government values marriage and would require a woman to marry in order to gain financial assistance.
Knowledge is Power, is an article by Maria Cristina Rangel, about her struggles as a single mom on welfare. Rangel brings up a very interesting point, about the way that the government forces poor individuals to choose between working and getting welfare, and going to college to get an education and being denied welfare. It is almost impossible to gain a college degree if you are on welfare, because the government does not recognize the pursuit of knowledge as work, and therefore requires individuals to work in separate jobs in order to obtain welfare. Rangel makes a shocking comparison between the way that slave owners denied their “property” and education in order to keep them ignorant and subservient, and the way that the government denies people on welfare easy access to higher education. She explains how this could be a way of keeping these individuals ignorant and preventing them from petitioning against unfair welfare legislation such as the Personal Responsibilities act. In some way I agree with Rangel’s claim. The only way to free an individual from poverty is to provide them with an education so that they can get a high paying job. If individuals cannot afford an education they are forced to work minimum wage, or low paying jobs, and remain dependent on the government for welfare checks. Instead of just offering financial assistance to poor families, the government needs to find a way to offer college educations to lower income students so that they can permanently escape poverty.
Monday, November 10, 2008
News Flash #2 - Teaching Boys and Girls Separately
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/magazine/02sex3-t.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=teaching%20boys%20and%20girls%20separately&st=cse&oref=slogin
http://www.now.org/news/note/091907.html
Lorber, Judith. “Night to His Day”. Feminist Frontiers. Ed. by Verta Taylor, Nancy Whittier, and Leila J. Rupp. New York: McGraw-Hill Humanities, Social Sciences, & World Languages, 2007, 51
Specialized single-sex schools have been praised as one of the best ways to educate children today. These schools are different from traditional single-sex schools because their educational techniques vary based upon the gender of each student. Proponents of this kind of education believe that because boys and girls are biologically different, they require different forms of education. It would seem that tailoring a school to the specific needs of its students is beneficial. However, by basing their education on assumptions about the ways that boys and girls are biologically driven to act, these schools perpetuate gender roles and stereotypes. In the article, Teaching Boys and Girls Separately, the author, Elizabeth Weil discusses the benefits and drawbacks to single-sex schools and there underlying educational philosophies. Weil concludes that separate is not always equal.
Advocates of specialized single-sex schools believe that the biological differences between boys and girls cause them to learn and develop in significantly different ways. These schools mold their learning methods based on these assumptions. Proponents of single sex schools believe that boys and girls have different brain chemistry and structure. These factors affect the way that boys and girls process information and learn. Supporters of single-sex schools believe that boys learn better in an active classroom environment where the teachers speak loudly and are constantly moving. They believe that boys should read action/adventure books and should be actively engaged in class discussions. Supporters of this type of education believe that girls, according to their biology, learn best in social environments where students are positioned to face each other in order to engage in conversational-type discussions (Weil 7). Advocates claim that these specialized single sex schools permit teachers to use educational techniques that are designed to best suit their students. They argue that co-ed schools do not benefit all the students in the classroom because the learning methods savor the developmental needs of female students. Supposedly, due to their biology, girls are better listeners and do better in lecture based discussions. Those who subscribe to this belief argue that in co-ed schools teachers use a lecture based, passive form of learning which is better suited to girls needs. Boys, who process information better in active environments, have trouble focusing and staying connected to lecture discussions. Because they do poorly in class, boys feel alienated from their teachers and from their schools. Some people have even gone as far as to blame the women’s movement for forcing public schools to overcompensate for the historical injustices done to women, by tailoring teaching methods to benefit female students (Gandy 1). On the other hand, maximizer feminists may also be proponents for single sexed schools because they believe that males and females are biologically different. These feminists argue that laws should be enacted to embrace these biological differences so that no gender has an unfair advantage over the other.
In Teaching Boys and Girls Separately, the author interviews Dr. Leonard Sax who makes an argument for single sex schools based on the idea that boys and girls are biologically different. A closer investigation of his claims reveals that, although there are biological differences between boys and girls, most are not significant enough to cause discrepancies in the learning patterns between male and female students. For example, Dr. Sax argues that boys require teachers who project and amplify their voices because it has been proven that boys have weaker hearing than girls. However, the hearing differences between boys and girls are not significant. The actual scientific data reveals that the hearing threshold of boys is actually only between a quarter, to a half of a standard deviation lower than that of girls. Weil points out that there are more similarities than differences between the hearing of boys and girls. Similarly, it has not been scientifically proven that there is a causal connection between the biological differences of boys and girls and the ways in which they learn (Weil 10).
If the biological data collected does not prove a relationship between brain development and learning abilities, why is it that people are advocating for single sex schools on the basis that males and females require a different style of teaching? Kim Gandy, author of Below the Belt, argues that single sex schools perpetuate social stereotypes. Children in these schools are taught that men and women are different and unequal. Because these schools are based on stereotypes, they create restricting environments that isolate students who deviate from the norm. In the article Weil quotes Jay Geidd, “Imagine trying to assign a population of students to the boys’ and girls’ locker rooms based solely on height. As boys tend to be taller than girls, one would assign the tallest 50 percent of the students to the boys’ locker room and the shortest 50 percent of the students to the girls’ locker room. What would happen? While you’d end up with a better-than-random sort, the results would be abysmal, with unacceptably large percentages of students in the wrong place”(Weil 8). The author cites this example to show that assumptions about gender stereotypes are not accurate because there are so many variants beside gender that affect the way that students learn. Many people argue that single sex education is actually detrimental to students. Judith Lorber writes in her article, Night to His Day, gender is largely a social construct that is ingrained in a child at a young age. The ways that students are taught in specialized single-sex schools helps to create and reinforce gender norms because girls are expected to be passive and quiet, while boys are permitted to be loud and active. These schools teach children these stereotypes and reward them for conforming to gender roles. Weis points out that, “Dr. Sax is trying to tell us that boys draw action and girls draw stasis. He might as well have said: ‘Boys are active, girls are passive. Boys should go out and have jobs, girls should stay home and have babies’ ”(Weis 9). Some people may argue that single sex schools are beneficial because they eliminate sexual distraction, and allow girls to feel confident and empowered in a comfortable environment that is devoid of a dominating male presence. However, In Below the Belt, Gandy argues that the way to empower girls is not to separate them from boys altogether, but to address the reasons why young boys harass girls and make them feel more self conscious. She writes, “When we separate the sexes, we perpetuate the concept that men and women can't get along, and that male harassment of women is best handled by building a wall, not by changing the behavior and its motivation” (Gandy 2). She argues that separating the sexes merely ignores the gender problem.
Despite the arguments against specialized single-sex schools, it has been shown that these schools have successfully increased graduation rates and have attempted to solve the nation-wide “boy crisis”. The boy crisis is a theory that boys in the United States are in an academic free fall and are virtually disappearing from college campuses. However the alarming statistics that allegedly prove the existence of this problem are extremely skewed and are misleading. The actual numbers of boys who are failing out of schools and not going college are primarily racial minorities from poor neighborhoods. The graduation rates of middle and upper class white males have not faltered. Among white students in college the ratio of males to females is consistently 49:51, and males still outnumber female students in Ivy League schools. So is this academic crisis a gender crisis, or is it an economic/racial crisis, in which the needs of poor students are being ignored by the schools systems which fail to motivate them.
If there is no real academic boy crisis, why then have single sex schools been so affective in increasing the graduation rates among girls and boys? First of all it is important to recognize that many single sex schools are being developed in poor neighborhoods in the form of charter schools. Although these are public schools, they have rigorous admission standards in which only best and most motivated students are accepted. These charter schools have been so successful not because they are single sexed, but because the students enrolled are highly motivated and their teachers are extremely invested in seeing their students succeed. So, once again, the statistics surrounding these schools are misleading because there are other factors beside gender which influence a students outcome. Although experts like Dr. Sax claim that the success of these single sex schools is due to the specialized curriculum designed specifically for boys and girls, others would argue that there are many other factors that lead to the higher graduation rates at these schools. Elizabeth Weil states that, “Many variables are at play in a school: quality of teachers, quality of the principal, quality of the infrastructure, involvement of families, curriculum — the list is nearly endless”(Weil 17). Gender separation alone does not make single sex schools successful; it is based on a number of factors including the high level of dedication demonstrated by the students and faculty.
While single sex schools have greatly improved the graduation rates among poorer students, these schools will never be able to completely solve the problems of prejudice, poverty and gender stereotypes. Charter schools place some students in a position of privilege because they are chosen to receive a better education than the other students who are left in public schools. One of the problems with charter schools is that they remove the brightest and the most motivated students from the public school system, leaving the students who are at the most risk for dropping out of school. Yes, charter schools give many students an opportunity to fulfill there academic potential, but they abandon the most vulnerable and unmotivated students in the overcrowded and under funded public school system in our cities. In order to solve the academic crisis growing among students of lower income neighborhoods, more single sex schools do not have to be created. Students do not have to be separated by gender, rather, state governments put more funding in the already existing public schools, so all students, not just the brightest students, can benefit.
Single sex schools that educate boys and girls differently have helped to perpetuate stereotypes and gender inequality. In her article, Teaching Boys and Girls Separately, Elizabeth Weil illustrates how single sex schools teach children that each gender is different and expected to act in a certain way. The biological data that proves that there is a difference between boys and girls is misleading, and from closer analysis it is obvious that each gender is most similar than different. It is therefore apparent that specialized single sex schools serve the purpose of not benefiting boys and girls but rather preserving the idea that each gender is different and unequal.
http://www.now.org/news/note/091907.html
Lorber, Judith. “Night to His Day”. Feminist Frontiers. Ed. by Verta Taylor, Nancy Whittier, and Leila J. Rupp. New York: McGraw-Hill Humanities, Social Sciences, & World Languages, 2007, 51
Specialized single-sex schools have been praised as one of the best ways to educate children today. These schools are different from traditional single-sex schools because their educational techniques vary based upon the gender of each student. Proponents of this kind of education believe that because boys and girls are biologically different, they require different forms of education. It would seem that tailoring a school to the specific needs of its students is beneficial. However, by basing their education on assumptions about the ways that boys and girls are biologically driven to act, these schools perpetuate gender roles and stereotypes. In the article, Teaching Boys and Girls Separately, the author, Elizabeth Weil discusses the benefits and drawbacks to single-sex schools and there underlying educational philosophies. Weil concludes that separate is not always equal.
Advocates of specialized single-sex schools believe that the biological differences between boys and girls cause them to learn and develop in significantly different ways. These schools mold their learning methods based on these assumptions. Proponents of single sex schools believe that boys and girls have different brain chemistry and structure. These factors affect the way that boys and girls process information and learn. Supporters of single-sex schools believe that boys learn better in an active classroom environment where the teachers speak loudly and are constantly moving. They believe that boys should read action/adventure books and should be actively engaged in class discussions. Supporters of this type of education believe that girls, according to their biology, learn best in social environments where students are positioned to face each other in order to engage in conversational-type discussions (Weil 7). Advocates claim that these specialized single sex schools permit teachers to use educational techniques that are designed to best suit their students. They argue that co-ed schools do not benefit all the students in the classroom because the learning methods savor the developmental needs of female students. Supposedly, due to their biology, girls are better listeners and do better in lecture based discussions. Those who subscribe to this belief argue that in co-ed schools teachers use a lecture based, passive form of learning which is better suited to girls needs. Boys, who process information better in active environments, have trouble focusing and staying connected to lecture discussions. Because they do poorly in class, boys feel alienated from their teachers and from their schools. Some people have even gone as far as to blame the women’s movement for forcing public schools to overcompensate for the historical injustices done to women, by tailoring teaching methods to benefit female students (Gandy 1). On the other hand, maximizer feminists may also be proponents for single sexed schools because they believe that males and females are biologically different. These feminists argue that laws should be enacted to embrace these biological differences so that no gender has an unfair advantage over the other.
In Teaching Boys and Girls Separately, the author interviews Dr. Leonard Sax who makes an argument for single sex schools based on the idea that boys and girls are biologically different. A closer investigation of his claims reveals that, although there are biological differences between boys and girls, most are not significant enough to cause discrepancies in the learning patterns between male and female students. For example, Dr. Sax argues that boys require teachers who project and amplify their voices because it has been proven that boys have weaker hearing than girls. However, the hearing differences between boys and girls are not significant. The actual scientific data reveals that the hearing threshold of boys is actually only between a quarter, to a half of a standard deviation lower than that of girls. Weil points out that there are more similarities than differences between the hearing of boys and girls. Similarly, it has not been scientifically proven that there is a causal connection between the biological differences of boys and girls and the ways in which they learn (Weil 10).
If the biological data collected does not prove a relationship between brain development and learning abilities, why is it that people are advocating for single sex schools on the basis that males and females require a different style of teaching? Kim Gandy, author of Below the Belt, argues that single sex schools perpetuate social stereotypes. Children in these schools are taught that men and women are different and unequal. Because these schools are based on stereotypes, they create restricting environments that isolate students who deviate from the norm. In the article Weil quotes Jay Geidd, “Imagine trying to assign a population of students to the boys’ and girls’ locker rooms based solely on height. As boys tend to be taller than girls, one would assign the tallest 50 percent of the students to the boys’ locker room and the shortest 50 percent of the students to the girls’ locker room. What would happen? While you’d end up with a better-than-random sort, the results would be abysmal, with unacceptably large percentages of students in the wrong place”(Weil 8). The author cites this example to show that assumptions about gender stereotypes are not accurate because there are so many variants beside gender that affect the way that students learn. Many people argue that single sex education is actually detrimental to students. Judith Lorber writes in her article, Night to His Day, gender is largely a social construct that is ingrained in a child at a young age. The ways that students are taught in specialized single-sex schools helps to create and reinforce gender norms because girls are expected to be passive and quiet, while boys are permitted to be loud and active. These schools teach children these stereotypes and reward them for conforming to gender roles. Weis points out that, “Dr. Sax is trying to tell us that boys draw action and girls draw stasis. He might as well have said: ‘Boys are active, girls are passive. Boys should go out and have jobs, girls should stay home and have babies’ ”(Weis 9). Some people may argue that single sex schools are beneficial because they eliminate sexual distraction, and allow girls to feel confident and empowered in a comfortable environment that is devoid of a dominating male presence. However, In Below the Belt, Gandy argues that the way to empower girls is not to separate them from boys altogether, but to address the reasons why young boys harass girls and make them feel more self conscious. She writes, “When we separate the sexes, we perpetuate the concept that men and women can't get along, and that male harassment of women is best handled by building a wall, not by changing the behavior and its motivation” (Gandy 2). She argues that separating the sexes merely ignores the gender problem.
Despite the arguments against specialized single-sex schools, it has been shown that these schools have successfully increased graduation rates and have attempted to solve the nation-wide “boy crisis”. The boy crisis is a theory that boys in the United States are in an academic free fall and are virtually disappearing from college campuses. However the alarming statistics that allegedly prove the existence of this problem are extremely skewed and are misleading. The actual numbers of boys who are failing out of schools and not going college are primarily racial minorities from poor neighborhoods. The graduation rates of middle and upper class white males have not faltered. Among white students in college the ratio of males to females is consistently 49:51, and males still outnumber female students in Ivy League schools. So is this academic crisis a gender crisis, or is it an economic/racial crisis, in which the needs of poor students are being ignored by the schools systems which fail to motivate them.
If there is no real academic boy crisis, why then have single sex schools been so affective in increasing the graduation rates among girls and boys? First of all it is important to recognize that many single sex schools are being developed in poor neighborhoods in the form of charter schools. Although these are public schools, they have rigorous admission standards in which only best and most motivated students are accepted. These charter schools have been so successful not because they are single sexed, but because the students enrolled are highly motivated and their teachers are extremely invested in seeing their students succeed. So, once again, the statistics surrounding these schools are misleading because there are other factors beside gender which influence a students outcome. Although experts like Dr. Sax claim that the success of these single sex schools is due to the specialized curriculum designed specifically for boys and girls, others would argue that there are many other factors that lead to the higher graduation rates at these schools. Elizabeth Weil states that, “Many variables are at play in a school: quality of teachers, quality of the principal, quality of the infrastructure, involvement of families, curriculum — the list is nearly endless”(Weil 17). Gender separation alone does not make single sex schools successful; it is based on a number of factors including the high level of dedication demonstrated by the students and faculty.
While single sex schools have greatly improved the graduation rates among poorer students, these schools will never be able to completely solve the problems of prejudice, poverty and gender stereotypes. Charter schools place some students in a position of privilege because they are chosen to receive a better education than the other students who are left in public schools. One of the problems with charter schools is that they remove the brightest and the most motivated students from the public school system, leaving the students who are at the most risk for dropping out of school. Yes, charter schools give many students an opportunity to fulfill there academic potential, but they abandon the most vulnerable and unmotivated students in the overcrowded and under funded public school system in our cities. In order to solve the academic crisis growing among students of lower income neighborhoods, more single sex schools do not have to be created. Students do not have to be separated by gender, rather, state governments put more funding in the already existing public schools, so all students, not just the brightest students, can benefit.
Single sex schools that educate boys and girls differently have helped to perpetuate stereotypes and gender inequality. In her article, Teaching Boys and Girls Separately, Elizabeth Weil illustrates how single sex schools teach children that each gender is different and expected to act in a certain way. The biological data that proves that there is a difference between boys and girls is misleading, and from closer analysis it is obvious that each gender is most similar than different. It is therefore apparent that specialized single sex schools serve the purpose of not benefiting boys and girls but rather preserving the idea that each gender is different and unequal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)