Enloes's Surprise

I thought it reading Enloes introductory chapter to her book, The Curious Feminist, was a great way to end our readings for this class. She discusses the unpredictability of events, particularly those regarding women's issues, and the dangers of assuming knowledge. She stresses that we, as thinkers and activists, continuously be surprised by what is going on around us, and, most importantly: respond accordingly.

"It is often in the classroom that a feminist academic is most routinely tested in her commitment to acknowledging surprise." I thought this quote was a great way to connect her reading to the experiences we shared by taking this course. I think, personally, taking WMST was a great way to spark my interest in relating women's issues to other disciplines and areas of study. I agree with Enloe that women's issues can be the root of a variety of social problems, and thus it is a major importance to work actively to eradicate gendered marginalization, oppression, and degradation.

I think Enloe would agree that while studying feminism and women's issues, this is not enough. Often times, i believe that academics get lost in their own world and are unable to carry their knowledge into the real world. What i got out of this reading, and the majority of readings we had throughout the course, is that studying and engaging in an academic setting is not enough. Now that we, as students, have the background knowledge, we must take this into our real lives and make changes on a grander scale.

A daunting, but important, task.

To lead with curiosity...

When I was reading Enloe's introduction to her book entitled Being Curious About Our Lack of Feminist Curiosity I thought what a great piece this would have been to read at the beginning of the semester. I thought it did an excellent job of summarizing key issues that surround the problems with modern feminism and how we must move forward in the future to avoid any repetition. As I continued to read, however, I realized how much of the text I would have passed over and not appreciated had I read it at the beginning of my woman's studies "career". The ideas of patriarchy and need for curiosity would have just not been as profound.

I think our entire class has been sparked by the notion that we are all curious feminists to some extent who want to know more about our modern culture, how we got to where we are, and how we are moving forward in the future. I like, then, how Enloe envelopes this idea of curiosity and how in fact a lack of curiosity "saves mental energy". If we just accept everything for what it is, we will not need to think about how it came about to what it is today and therefore we will encounter no problems with it from here on out. But this is just silly. If we accept such words as "natural", "tradition", and "always", three words Enloe ideally would prefer us to challenge, we make concepts "immune to bothersome questioning" and allow our social, albeit patriarchal, system to continue functioning in an unhindered manner. As Enloe further points out:

"So many power structures ... are dependent on our continuing lack of curiosity. 'Natural,' 'tradition,' 'always': each has served as a cultural pillar to prop up familial, community, national, and international power structures imbuing them with legitimacy, with timelessness, with inevitability."

For example, "It is natural for women to take on the more feminine professions such as secretary or babysitter". This implies that the roles women are destined to be in have been so forever and thus need not be questioned, thus perpetuating the said power structure which ultimately favors masculinity to the highest degree.

Perhaps a 180 from this discussion of curiosity is Enloe's enriched chapter on The Surprised Feminist. She mentions how the feeling of surprise is an undervalued attribute which we can all learn and grow from. It is, dare I say, natural to not want to be surprised because that means that you were not "all-knowing" to begin with and thus your credibility has been minimized. As a feminist, however, Enloe argues that to be surprised is necessary to succeed and adapt for the future. No one can predict the future. Thus when new extraordinary occurrences appear, we will yes be surprised, but be able to analyze them and say how they have followed within the fundamental structure we have seen so far and how we can build from it.

All in all, what I took from these two chapters were that it is important to be curious because without curiosity our world would be routine and at the same time we must allow ourselves to be surprised in order to prepare for what we can only imagine lies ahead.

Why Do We Care?

This reading really brought the class full-circle to the questions of why we are here in a women’s studies class thinking about women’s experience in the world. We were all a bit curious (or at least I was) about why gender-based oppression exists and what we can do about it, and the lack of an answer even at the end of this course should generate more curiosity (or cynicism in some). Curiosity usually results from intrigue and unrest (may include frustration with the status quo). So we become more curious, learning about how systems operate, how we can make an impact or change, being aware all the time, ready to consider, analyze, and question different ideas and practices. Curiosity battles complacency.

Enloe writes that we should be open to surprise and acknowledge what is complex and problematic and embrace indeterminacy, messiness, and slippages. Instead of engaging in belief perseverance and holding onto our views until the bitter end, we should be flexible (but not naive), modifying our beliefs with new developments that we discover through our curiosity, and admitting when we are wrong (because we are often wrong, and never seem to acknowledge it enough). This curiosity transcends feminism and includes caring about animal rights, educational rights, health care rights, and any other issue you might be passionate about.

I have fallen into cynicism more than a few times this semester, in this class (you may, or may not, remember a post from early February titled “Social Constructs and Symbol Systems: Why are they valued?,” in which I basically said that systems should not exist), regarding educational issues (what kind of measurable impact are nonprofits having in education, dismay at funding cuts and budget deficits across the nation for public schools), and regarding religion (that’s a can of worms for another day). Though I am nowhere near having things figured out, talking to other people and continuing to ask questions about important issues, like Enloe suggests, keeps me occupied, informed, and socially conscious.

Leading the Way: Lead Post

Allison Attenello: "Navigating Identity Politics in Activism"

I loved the opening paragraphs of Attenello's essay. She begins by describing that each person should "locate themselves." By this, she means that everybody should be able to recognize and acknowledge their bias. This includes race, class, religion, gender, etc. By being aware of one's "privileges," a writer can start to try to be as unbiased as possible, although Attenello says that writing/activism will never be entirely objective, because the way in which someone writes or what they strive for is based off of who they are as an individual. This notion led her to become "obsessed" with identity politics, "the idea of that a diverse group of people could be bound together by a set of shared experiences and that these experiences could produce a particular set of identity." I thought that this was a great opening for it acted as an admission of her inherent bias (although she would try to overcome it) and it also opened the door for her thesis that these identity politics can be both valuable and harmful in regards to activism. It promotes people working together to obtain common goals, but it also has a narrow scope and may exclude the goals/desires of those who identify differently.

She then went into a discussion about her work in the New Brunswick area. A racially and economically diverse city in central New Jersey, this story struck me close to home. The demographics reminded me of Colgate. With the presence of Rutgers University in New Brunswick, the town is seemingly divided between the local and temporary (student) populations. In New Brunswick, the problem which prompted Attenello's work was the serial rapist who target both local hispanic women and the female student population. The police response and media coverage was focused nearly in its entirety of the student attacks, which marginalized the local hispanic women. This is a serious issue which left the rights of the locals unappreciated and frightened the locals that they would not be as protected as their student counterparts.

In order to combat this violence against women, particularly in the hispanic community, Attenello attended a meeting which she assumed would be a thriving hub of activism and discussion. Instead, she was thrust into a leadership position and speaking with and on behalf of a community which she did not belong to. After learning that violence against women wasn't even their biggest concern, Attenello felt especially undeserving of her role and the challenges it presented. Working with this group allowed her to cross the divide which separated the college students from the local hispanic/immigrant population. Doing so gave her a new insight into the identity politics of a group very different from her own. Which, in her own words, "made [her] a more thoughtful, open-minded, and effective activist."

I didn't really agree, however, when she asserted that she was an "illegitimate" leader of the Unidad de New Brunswick because of her outsider status. She asserts that because she didnt share any of the identity characteristics with the rest of the members she was unfit to represent them. I think that this is a little unfair. He compassion and her willingness to speak to the members and gain an understanding, in my mind, would be enough to make up for her inherent differences. I think that she was a valuable leader for the organization for all the resources that her "outsider" status brought to the group. I do appreciate her acknowledging that by being in a leadership role she was preventing another member from stepping up and gaining empowerment through their own leadership. For the latter reason, i understand and support her stepping down.

Attenello closes her passage with a clear and concise conclusion. She says that working with Unidad de New Brunswick was an empowering experience which widened her scope of identity politics. She learned how different communities handled and viewed things, and also learned what her particular privilege awarded her as a white, college-educated woman. She brought up the role of power dynamics in relation to her seemingly authoritative identity, something which she still struggled with while working in Costa Rica. She concludes by stressing the importance for activists to be negotiators, an appeal which seems to be very important for not only her own work, but for the work of all activists!

Shira Pruce: "Blurring the Lines that Divide"

Pruce also talks about the role of bias in her essay. She opens by describing her own identity. She is Jewish, a woman, and a leader. These characteristics would later spur her activism (and her bias). While visiting the death camps in Poland, Pruce became personally effected by the horrors she was able to see and became an even stronger activists for Jewish rights. In particular, she spent a year in Israel during which time (the early 2000s) the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was reaching new heights of terror. She notes, something which i found particularly interesting, that although she was in Israel and experiencing these attacks of terror firsthand, she was still an outsider due to her status as a tourist. She also notes that this perspective gave her a particular bias. Her anger and fear, for a long time, prohibited her from being objective while discussing the conflict. Her personal connection, yet her inherent distance, led her to see her own biases, and more importantly, acknowledge them and try to work past them.

After returning to the United States, Pruce was again facing attacks on Israel. This time, however, the attacks were made by her fellow students who called for the utter destruction of Israel in order to alleviate the US's problems following 9/11. After returning to Israel, she gained an important knowledge: after her previous emotionally driven experience, Pruce was given facts and figures to supplement her cause. She would later bring this rationalism back to her campus when she organized with fellow members of her community to bring awareness and fight anti-Semitism.

Importantly, Pruce began to expand her activist horizons: she no longer entirely identified as a Jew, but she also characterized herself as a woman. She realized that patriarchy was the root of many of the problems which she faced. Her marginalization, which she didnt dare talk about before her womens/gender studies, proved to her that there was work to be done not just for Jews, but for women as a whole. By characterizing women as the "other" to the male norm, patriarchy can be manipulated to make advances for women.

After participating in the Institute for Women's Leadership, Pruce was given opportunities to further her skills as an activist. This was put to test when an anti-Zionist group threatened to hots a conference at her university. In response, Pruce gathered many Jewish organizations together and had an extremely successful conference which gained public and political support and would later go on to inspire many other advocacy groups to this day. She later went on to discuss her time when rallying women together to go to Washington to support women's rights. After getting attention from NOW, Pruce was able to get over 10 buses worth of women to go and support the cause.

This was particularly important not only because of the attention Pruce was able to bring to the cause, but also because of the bridge she was able to build with another activist. She had previously known a Palestinian woman, whom she had disagreed with regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but found that they were able to unite under their common bond as a women. Pruce was able to take this realization and use it as a way to bridge the women of both Israel and Palestine. Hopefully, by having them discuss and work together for their common goals, they might be able to be more peaceful/understanding when talking about those issues which divide them.

After making the permanent move to Israel, Pruce found herself working for the Israeli Parliament, in particular in a Jewish-Christian coalition aimed with the betterment of Israel in mind. Although she said she was "in the closet" regarding her feminism, Pruce asserted that she was able to interact with people who could otherwise be considered her adversaries and work with them for a common cause: Israel.

She continues by discussing the Israeli-Hezbollah war and cease-fire, which she saw as evidence to a lack of a female voice and a clear lack of respect for human life. She also was given the opportunity to work on LGBT rights in Israel, an area which needs much support and activism.

She concludes by saying that all of these areas in which she fought so hard, whether it be for her Jewish or her female identity, were spurred by her desire to increase the female voice in leadership and activism. She further stresses the importance of women to stand up and cross the boundaries which would otherwise limit their voices and leadership. She says that it is these women who will bring about the most positive change throughout the world.

Tuesday Post

I had a couple of striking thoughts when I was reading Pruce's chapter in relation to my life. First of all, I got a smile on my face when she immediately mentioned how she visited Poland to study the history of her family and how they were affected by the Holocaust. I am in a class called Borderlands this semester in which we are studying unknown lands in and around this region so it was a nice breathe of fresh air that an American wanted to identify with her roots through Poland as opposed to say Germany. Moving on, I was greatly touched by her discussion about living abroad the year before college and how it changed her life. I think any abroad experience for an adolescent is life-changing and eye-opening so I fully agree with her recollection. Although I did have a (beyond) amazing time studying abroad in Ireland traveling and meeting new people, I think it is safe to say that I had quite a different experience than Pruce. She was 100% culturally involved in her time in Israel and took advantage of having first hand resources at her finger tips. For that, I am a little jealous, but am glad to know that such experiences are being had.

It was also interesting to read Pruce reflect on her time in college and how she became so involved in issues she believed in. It made me reflect a little bit about my four years at Colgate, as I will be graduating in a couple of weeks now, and how (again)  I have a very different experience. Though I would not change my time at this campus for anything, I do wish I had grown a passion for something, a cause, course study, subject, etc., and ran with it. As Pruce points out, college is a great way to make your mark and have people listen to you. Where else will you have such a diverse mind set of people either ready to listen or to challenge you?

News Flash: Male Primogeniture

News Flash ARTICLE: A Proposed Change to the Royal System of Ascension

As a young girl, I, like so many other kids, often dreamed about being a princess or meeting a prince. I can vividly remember watching my sister perform as Sleeping Beauty in her fifth grade play where she was able to sing and dance with her fifth grade Prince Charming. This lust for a monarchical life seems to be a thread which connects all countries and ages. I am sure my grandmother and mother alike had similar dreams when they were young, and I would not be surprised if one day my daughter looks longingly into the future hoping to one day be a princess or meet a handsome prince. In America, even though we have a tradition of disdaining royalty, we seem to be enthralled with European, and particularly British monarchies. As we have seen before with the American fascination with Princess Diana and her traditional role, we seem to throw feminist logic out the window.

This brings me to the purpose of this News Flash. In just a few days, Prince William will marry Catherine Middleton. This union is important for many reasons. Not only is a prince marrying a non-royal (every little girl’s fantasy!), but the marriage also will bring about changes within the royal government, especially regarding women’s issues. This paper will delve into the new proposal by Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, who suggests a change in the rules of royal ascension. This paper will argue, that the traditions of monarchy are rooted too strongly in a patriarchal structure, and only by making drastic changes, such as those proposed by Clegg, will the traditional institution be a valid supporter of women’s rights and equal opportunity of the sexes.

When one thinks of age-old tradition, monarchy immediately comes to mind. Within this system, one typically regards the King as holding true power. But in as early as 1553, England had a reigning Queen, without a King. This was Queen Mary I, who was one of only six women (including the current Queen, Elizabeth II) to rule over England. However, despite the fact that Queen Elizabeth is currently the head of Britain’s constitutional monarchy, one cannot assert with good faith that the monarchical hierarchy is free from gender bias. In fact, one of the oldest rules of the monarchical system is that of male primogeniture. As this 300 year-old law states, the throne will always go to the firstborn male son (Daily Mail). This means, that if a girl were born first, even if she would be physically and mentally able to rule, she would fall behind all of her younger brothers in line to the throne.

Already, five European monarchies have eliminated the rule of male primogeniture; Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Denmark (Wikipedia). With all the change which will inevitably be discussed after the upcoming nuptials, it has been suggested that a change be made to the male primogeniture rule in the UK. Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, suggested earlier this month that if William and Kate’s first born was a daughter, she should be the first in line for the throne. Clegg has asserted that his “own personal view is that in this day and age the idea that only a man should ascend to the throne ... would strike most people as a little old fashioned” (Carpenter). Women across the world seem to struggle with eradicating the beliefs of many which confine them to traditional, gender-biased roles. Making a change to the royal rules of ascension would be a major upheaval of traditional values. Such a change would recognize that ruling a country should not be contingent upon one’s gender.

The Prime Minister himself, David Cameron, seemed to hesitatingly support this course of action. He said he supported the idea “in principle,” but stresses the importance of taking time to make such big decisions, and the need to consult with the other countries which are under the umbrella of the Queen’s rule. (Carpenter). Being the politician he is, he seems to e straddling the fence somewhat on this issue. He neither wants to alienate the royalists nor the feminists. His concern with his political reputation may get in the way of his full support for women’s rights. It is unfortunate to think that he is considering ignoring a major step in the right direction in fear of the unease of a minority of traditionalists.

Making this change would not only effect the United Kingdom, but it would also directly effect the other 15 countries which make up the jurisdiction of the English monarchy. While, according to some reports, most members of the UK would not oppose such a change to succession rules, there are voices of dissent coming from other countries in the jurisdiction. Canada, for example, where the Prime Minister, although he did not outwardly disapprove of taking such action, asserted that it was not his “top priority.” Similarly, Australia does not seem to be on board with this issue. Down under, “opponents of a change in succession laws fear that republican politicians -- that's republican as in anti-royalist, pro-republic politicians -- would use the change to remove the queen as head of state in that country” (Carpenter). Again, it seems that women’s rights are placed on the back burner. People loose focus on the true meaning of changing the law, and instead focus on the inconveniences it may bring about.

The debate regarding the male primogeniture brings up many of the same issues we have looked at thus far in class. While many British women are vocalizing their support, many others are being too apathetic regarding this issue. For example, Ms Dun, a 25-year-old accountant claimed she does not consider herself a feminist and that she “likes equality, but [does not] want it weighted too much towards the woman. The whole idea of going around and shouting about being equal isn’t [her] style” (Carpenter). The problem is not just apathetic women, there are also clear, and strong, voices of opposition coming from men. In today’s modern society, one would hope that the younger generations would be supportive of such a change and it would be the older, more traditional older generations that would need convincing. However, 29 year old George Juer, a graduate of one of Britain’s most prestigious schools, argued against making this change. According to him, “they [the government] shouldn’t change the law just for equality’s sake.” If you ask me, changing laws for equality’s sake is generally a pretty good idea! He goes on and later says, “I’m not anti-Queen, but … why change something that’s worked perfectly for so long?” He closes his argument by stating that his “girlfriend agrees” (Carpenter). As we have discussed in class, men seem to have a strong belief that in order to raise the standing of women, they themselves will need to be lowered. It is important to stress that women gaining equity does not mean that men will have some of their rights “taken away.” Being able to have a first-born female have the right to the throne over her younger brothers is a great way for women’s equity to reach the monarchical system. Hopefully, male members of Parliament will not think along the lines of Mr. Juer, and will instead push this change forward.

In conclusion, if the British monarchy wants to remain a viable entity in the 21^st Century, then they need to join the bandwagon and promote the full equality of women. In order for the British monarchy to maintain its support, it behooves them to show that they are willing to make progressive steps so that the whole monarchical system does not collapse due to inequalities. Throughout its long history, the monarchy in England has been steeped in patriarchy and sexist traditionalism. If male primogeniture is denounced, women will have made great strides towards full equality. Hopefully, this would have a trickle effect which would promote women’s rights throughout all areas of the government, the business world, and social politics.

Works Cited:

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/columnists/gail-walker/how-queen-proves-women-have-as-much-right-to-rule-as-men-15144441.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1377498/Succession-rights-Kate-Middleton-Prince-Williams-1st-baby-Queen.html

Newsflash #3: Sexual Assault and Title IX on College Campuses: Public Versus Private Issues

This video will give a clear overview of the current situation on Yale's campus:
CNN News Video: Yale's "hostile sexual environment"

Breaking: DOE's Office for Civil Rights to investigate Yale for "hostile sexual environment" (3/31/11)

Saporta: A justified claim (4/1/11)

Students, admins react to Title IX complaint (4/4/11)

Miller updates on Title IX investigation (4/6/11)

Administrators believe Yale did not violate Title IX, Miller says (4/7/11)

Yale comments on Title IX (4/8/11)

"Strategy sessions" examine sexual climate (4/12/11)

Yale not alone in Title IX probe (4/15/11)

One atom of carbon. One atom of oxygen. One person forgets to turn the stove burner off and one stream of colorless, odorless carbon monoxide molecules spreads through the air. Barely discernible until someone is inexplicably overcome by fatigue, headaches, nausea. The symptoms of poisoning reveal themselves, and unless they are acknowledged and addressed, the victim succumbs to the eternal sleep. Similarly, sexual assault pervades college campuses, and when the symptoms reveal themselves, it’s often too late. One student is raped, another assaulted, and soon a rape culture is created. The damage is done, souls are crushed, and working to rebuild the individuals’ lives and heal the hurt takes time, guidance, care, and often legal endeavors. The problem is, the response to sexual assault on most campuses is reactive, responding to the problem after it has manifested itself, rather than proactive, addressing the issue before individuals fall victim to it. When thinking of carbon monoxide poisoning, the source of the problem is often a bit simpler to resolve, both reactively and proactively. The gas must be contained so that it doesn’t enter the air in concentrated amounts, so the leaky gas valve must be sealed and the gas supply must be shut off. However, issues of sexual assault and harassment prove more difficult when generations of societal messages that condone the gender performance of masculinity through power over others (usually women, but also men) must be overturned. For this reason, legal efforts that attempt to address public demonstrations of sexual harassment only target the symptoms of a rape culture, not the source of the problem. Efforts that address and give voice to private, less visibly obvious instances of sexual assault will have more long-lasting and significant impacts as universities and colleges attempt to shift attitudes so that safe sexual environments are experienced for all.

Recently, sixteen Yale students and alumni filed a complaint against the university stating that Yale did not respond adequately to a number of public incidences of sexual harassment on campus or to private incidences of sexual assault. Examples of these incidences include: Delta Kappa Epsilon (DKE) fraternity students chanting “No means yes! Yes means anal!” in the residential area where most first-year women live (who are the most common victims of sexual violence on college campuses); male students who ranked Yale first-year women by how many beers it would take to have sex with them; Zeta Psi fraternity student pledges who stood outside the women’s center with a sign reading “We Love Yale Sluts!;” and private instances of sexual assault in which students reported their case to the university’s Sexual Harassment Grievance Board and were discouraged from pursuing the case through the police or more punitive on-campus disciplinary boards. Because Yale is not maintaining a safe sexual environment for women, the complainants are contesting that Yale is not upholding Title IX, the civil rights law that protects against discrimination on the basis of sex in educational programs which receive federal funding. As a result of this complaint, the US Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights is conducting an investigation of Yale’s practices and potential violation of Title IX.

Ironically, the public displays of sexual harassment continue to receive more media attention, even when the media acknowledges that this should not be the case. Saporta, a Yale student, expresses in a column in Yale Daily News, that “many students feel that so much focus on public incidents of sexual harassment, which they see as examples of ‘boys being boys,’ takes away from what they feel is the far more pressing matter of physical sexual assault on campus.” Saporta accuses these students of failing “to see the connection between public acts of misogyny and private acts of violence.” While I agree that there is an inextricable link between public and private acts of sexual assault/harassment and I only see benefits resulting from the OCR’s investigation to protect student well-being on campus, I do not see this investigation as a solution to sexual climate issues on Yale’s, or any other school’s, campus. I see this investigation as beneficial if it encourages discussions and opens discourses up to women's issues, in classrooms and in casual conversations between students. Students initiated the complaint, and students are usually aware of what is problematic in the school environment and what specific issues need to be addressed. What message are the incensed Yale students conveying about the discourses present at their school when they alert the national authorities about possible breaches of Title IX? It seems to indicate that they do not feel they can make any progress by speaking and negotiating with other students, staff, and faculty. The reality is, national authorities can lay down the law and dictate Yale's conduct, but the national offices do not interact daily with the Yale community. Also, as Charlotte Bunch points out in her article "Whose Security?," those who dictate national decisions and efforts may have a broad and amorphous national agenda, rather than a clearly-defined and executed human rights agenda. Those in the campus community, students, faculty, and staff, must be on board and committed to change before change can even begin to occur.

Amid the Title IX violation claims, many people at Yale have become defensive, which does not help the community progress positively from these allegations. The first article in Yale Daily News concerning the recent complaint, explains that "the Task Force on Sexual Misconduct and Prevention [was] commissioned in the wake of the 2008 'We Love Yale Sluts' incident" ("DOE's Office for Civil Rights . . . ," 3.31.11). This task force was created reaction to an incident, when it could be argued that it should act proactively constantly so that "We Love Yale Sluts" incidents do not occur at all. The Dean of Yale College, Mary Miller, cited "several committees, reports and other measures taken by the University toward correcting sexual misconduct on campus in the past three years" ("Students, admins react to Title IX complaint," 4.4.11). The presence of initiatives does not ensure that they are operating effectively or when needed by the community. However, the Women's Center at Yale seems to be approaching women's issues, specifically sexual assault, in more promising ways. The Women’s Center, in an undertaking unrelated to the Title IX accusations, has held a week-long series of “strategy sessions,” which “are geared toward brainstorming ways in which Yalies can combat sexual misconduct” (“‘Strategy sessions’ examine sexual climate,” 4.12.11). Although students initiated this complaint, student discussions about the campus's sexual climate in safe campus spaces can allow voices to be heard. I wish the article had further explained the conversations occurring in these meetings, though they seemed to be movements in the right direction.

In our Women's Studies Center at Colgate, these encouraging, open, and honest conversations seem to happen without much inhibition. While Colgate is not a model school for low instances of sexual assault, there are niches and safe places (I think of Yes Means Yes seminar, Safe Zone trainings, brown bag lunches, lectures, Take Back the Night march and speak out) where at least some students feel comfortable sharing their ideas and thoughts about sex and sexuality on campus. We are also fortunate to have considerable faculty and staff support, in the aforementioned spaces and in one-on-one conversations with adults and role models on campus (which larger schools with more students and less staff per student cannot provide). In conversations with other Colgate students I encounter in women's studies courses and events, the "dichotomiz[ation of] 'public' and 'private'" (73) that Enloe points out, with public pertaining to that which affects the political realm and private pertaining to women's and personal issues, does not present itself as two discrete categories. Rather, women's issues are given voice and it seems likely that sexual harassment and assault will be resisted, not tolerated.

As Jonah Gokova suggests, “men need to change their attitude towards sex . . . [by] begin[ning] to see it as an opportunity to communicate mutually with women, rather than as a chance to dominate and conquer” (Freedman, 421). This communication needs to begin before sex, in large-group and small-group discussions about how sex can be meaningful and respectful to everyone involved. Professor Claire Potter of Wesleyan University notes in "A Letter to My Students: Stop Rape Now By Doing These Ten Things" that "men need to talk to other men about why men rape and and women need to talk to women about why they insist on making rape a private matter." Conversations need to occur across difference, gender identification and others, to address the impact that rape and sexual assault has on campuses and what campus community members find important to address. National forces can contribute to changing the campus sexual climate, but a community of students, staff, and faculty must be committed to the goals of decreasing sexual assault and harassment at both private and public levels, appropriately punishing sexual attacks when they occur, and cutting off the fuel supply (overturning myths, interrupting harmful social messages and constructs) of ideas which perpetuate rape cultures on campuses.

Works Cited

Bunche, Charlotte. "Whose Security?" The Nation. 5 Sept. 2002.

Enloe, Cynthia. The Curious Feminist: Searching for Women in a New Age of Empire. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004. Print.

Freedman, Estelle B. ed. The Essential Feminist Reader. New York: Modern Library, 2007. Print.

Yale Daily News articles that are linked above from March 31 to April 15, 2011.

Activism: Not Only For Women and Not Impossible At Colgate

The chapter by Shira Lynn Pruce called “Blurring the Lines That Divide: Social Change through Activism, Politics, and the Space Between” was the most meaningful to me, as she writes about how her education served to bring her passions to coherent and focused goals and efforts she could achieve. Though it seems that Pruce is a bit more of an extrovert than I am, her techniques of “putting herself out there” were both instructive and inspiring to me. I hadn’t really realized that the activist sphere is predominantly women (I was obviously aware that the political sphere is mainly men), but it makes sense since many treat activism as less serious or less valuable. Sometimes I shortchange grassroots groups and criticize their lack of large-scale impact, without fully acknowledging what they are doing on a smaller scale and how their actions can translate into large-scale change. I usually support structural changes, but I think I have realized the limitations of large-scale changes; when they are too broad, they can’t meet the needs of everyone. Some issues need small-scale changes because different populations have different needs (as Attenello realizes, the Mexican immigrants were not as concerned with gender-based violence as other issues in their community). Would activism around gender-based violence benefit their lives? Probably, but more impact would be felt if other more pressing issues were addressed.

It seems difficult to be an activist at Colgate. For the most part, students are either uninvolved in extracurriculars, not politicized about any issues (politically and socially apathetic), or involved in many extracurriculars and unable to devote enough energy to a specified issue. I fall into the third category and find that I am often stretched thin with my commitments and question how my time and energy can be spent best. Next semester, I am going to back away from some of my commitments and focus on a few that are most important to me (and most likely beneficial for the future work I might do). I think that deep down, everyone wants to make a meaningful impact in the lives of others. Colgate’s political and social cultures may not breed activism, but we can be activists on this campus by focusing our own goals and determining the appropriate actions to carry them out.

Who is an American?

I thought the passage from Leading the Way, Ibrahim's "Living While Muslim," was a heart-wrenching and important story. She spoke about many areas which we could all discuss for days, including racial profiling, US policies within the borders of Iraq, failing education systems, etc. However, while all of these areas were very important to her paper, the one thing that she said which struck me the most was regarding her American Identity.

Having been born in Iraq, Ibrahim moved to the US after the first US-Iraqi conflict. She inherently began to form some sort of duality which i imagine most immigrants develop. While she loved her new home in America, she also had strong ties to her homeland in Iraq. While this is a completely normal attachment, because her homeland was Iraq, her continued love and support was seen as a threat by many Americans. While this has happened to many immigrants over the course of our history (think Irish-Americans, Japanese-Americans, etc.), it seems like the discrimination of Iraqi-Americans (more generally speaking: Muslim-Americans) is stronger than any in recent memory.

It seems we are forcing our immigrants to totally abandon their ties to their country of origin. This seems like an impossible and unfair task, but yet, for some reason, we seem unable to grasp the idea that someone can love Iraq, and have family in Iraq, but NOT be connected to any kind of terrorist organization or threat.

When Ibrahim was describing her detainment at the airport, i thought back to my experiences in airports. My family and I are avid travelers and I take it for granted that i can wear whatever clothes i want or walk with my family or speak in my native tongue. If i were from Iraq and wore traditional garb, or was in a mass of other Iraqis (i.e. my family), or was speaking Arabic or Kurdish, i could easily be subject to forced interrogations and detainments all in the name of "National Security."

Ibrahim stated that no matter how many legal documents she had proving her American citizenship, she will never been truly accepted by the rest of America as a citizen. This was a frightening thing to consider. It is also upsetting because it has happened to so many different immigrants throughout our history. I want to think that as time progressed our nation became a much different, more open, society, but clearly, as Ibrahim's story indicates, America is still firmly rooted in its history of clumping every member of an ethnicity together and treating them like terrorists and threats to the country.

Newsflash #3 USA Swimming Investigates Multiple Sexual Abuse Cases Done By WHITE MALE Coaches

 http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Swimming/usa-swimming-sexual-abuse-olympic-hopeful-swimmer-files/story?id=11378627

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/abc-news-investigation-usa-swimming-coaches-raped-molested/story?id=10322469

           Over the past ten years, the USA Swimming organization has been drowning in the public eye due to numerous sexual misconduct acts that have been brought to the surface. In total, there have been 36 coaches banned for life from the organization, but single abuse cases number more than ten times that amount. “The coaches have molested, fondled and abused dozens of swimmers, according to court records and interviews conducted by ABC news.” These discrepancies highlight an extremely disturbing reality for families of young children who participate in the sport; whose hands do we trust our children in? With emotions of sorrow, fear and betrayal coming to light, we can begin to examine the problem in more detail. Through three individual cases I will explore the recurring themes of why the victims resisted coming forward, how their perpetrators were eventually caught, and the problems with the USA Swimming organization’s system.

            Before I analyze the first case, I would like to point out the lack of titles surrounding the convicted coaches. As we mentioned in class, a problem our society perpetuates in the media coverage of attack related stories is a lack of identifiers given to those who fall in the societal “norm”. That is, when we talk about white males, we very often leave out those specific qualifiers as is the case with the USA Swimming scandals. In both articles I found, written by Megan Chuchmach, the titles reflected the perpetrators as merely “Coaches”, disregarding their race or gender with the idea that those were assumed characteristics. For comparison, the gender and age of these coaches’ victims were clearly stated. In all cases they were referred to teenage girls, leaving no room for speculation on whether these coaches were molesting both sexes; note, however, disregarding race. Gloria Steinem would argue that the absence of these adjectives given to white males in relation to crimes perpetuates this category of “social norm” persons to continue committing such acts because as a group they are regularly ignored as a threat to society. I think she is correct in her claims which note that how we identify an assailant affects how we feel about a case and future cases; had we thought about typical stereotypes of those who don’t fall in the “norm”, readers would have analyzed these cases from a very different angle.

            The first case I want to discuss is about Brian Hindson who was a swim coach in Indiana. “[Hindson] secretly taped teenage girls he coached in two high school pool locker rooms, one in which he directed girls to a ‘special’ shower room where he had a hidden camera inside a locker.” ABC News interviewed Brooke Taflinger, one of the girls who the coach had taped, who said she was completely mortified by the experience. She also noted that since the tapes were made unbeknownst to her, she and her other teammates never had any reason to not trust, let alone report, their coach for his crime. “FBI agents [only] became aware of the pictures after a North Carolina woman bought the coach’s computer on E-Bay and discovered a video clip of a young girl in a locker room appearing to be taped without her knowledge. A subsequent search of Hindson’s home turned up more locker room footage and a large selection of child pornography.” Ken Stopkotte, another swim coach in Indiana who was selected as coach of the year in 2009, mentioned that although unfortunate, this incidences are not uncommon and that in fact this problem has been going on since he began coaching 27 years ago. The problem, a San Jose lawyer points out, is that this particular “system does not encourage reporting.” This is a similar dilemma to other sexual abuse cases we’ve discussed in class. A victim may not want to come forward for many reasons, but the main ones that we have pinpointed are fear of confronting a coach who is an established authority figure to these young teenage girls, fear of no one believing you and fear of what friends and family might think. Due to these and other reasons the problem of sexual abuse is persistent.

            Sexual misconduct within the USA Swim organization proves it has no geographical boundaries with our next case. Andy King, 62, who was a swimming coach at many clubs along the West Coast was recently convicted of sexual abuse that spanned a period of thirty years. King was charged in cases that involved over twelve teenage girls which ultimately led to his 40 year sentence. He was only caught when one of his 14-year-old victims spoke with her pastor about the abuse, despite numerous previous complaints made by suspicious parents. Incomplete background screenings are thus highlighted as a key flaw in the swimming organization system. “According to USA Swimming, the organization only checks for criminal convictions and does not include background interviews or investigations with local police.” The same source mentioned that the screenings are “willfully incomplete [and] a simple phone call” would help avoid employing coaches with sexually abusive behaviors or pasts. Another huge problem with the organization is its overall lack of responsibility. The executive director of USA Swimming, Chuck Wielgus, said it is each local club’s job to do a complete background check on the individuals they hire, not the national organization’s. What was more disturbing was his rationalization that 36 coaches banned is not a lot when compared to the 12,000 total they have had in the past ten years. Finally, his most shocking outburst was when, “asked if he had apologized to any of the young teen victims, Wielgus responded, ‘You feel I need to apologize to them?’” Here we see the clear shift of responsibility moving away from the organization. In addition, there seems to be no advocacy for change made by USA Swimming in the future. Without change, the problem simply persists.

            In a subsequent related article, Chuchmach reveals yet another sexual abuse lawsuit against USA Swimming. I became very personally disturbed when reading this article when I learned the coach that was accused, Norm Havercroft, worked for West Valley swim club in San Jose, CA. I swam for this club for five years, from first to sixth grade. Although I confirmed with my mom that Havercroft never worked for the club while I was there, it is still unsettling to know that I could have easily been a victim as well. It makes me feel powerless yet lucky that I escaped what would have been eternal abuse. Jancy Thompson is the victim who made allegations against the coach who she claimed began molesting her four years after she joined the team at age 15 until she left for college in 2000. “Thompson said the alleged abuse included physical touching that occurred mostly in hotel rooms while away at swim meets and lewd online messaging.” Although Thompson was questioned about Havercroft’s behavior at the time she was being abused, he was being accused of similar charges by a fellow teammate, she denied any misconduct out of fear. She also said it was difficult to come forward with allegations because she didn’t want to disrupt her coach-athlete relationship. Because her coach was an obvious authority figure, she was scared to upset him and possibly jeopardize her chances of becoming an Olympic swimmer. Furthermore, Thompson argued that no one would believe her since he was older and well-respected within the West Valley Swim Club. It wasn’t until 2003 that she told her friend who encouraged her to go to the police. Like the previous two cases, a major setback of the swimming system hindered the ability to catch this coach sooner. There have been claims that the “organization had knowledge of sexual misconduct by [Havercroft] and continued to allow him to coach children.” Evidently, if his inappropriate behavior had been accounted for in a rational manner, Thompson would have never been a victim of such a traumatic experience.

            Through these three unfortunate examples, we see major flaws within the USA Swimming organization and the loose leash they have on their hired coaches. With a startling number of sexual misconduct cases arising every year, it remains clear that change must happen in order to limit their increase in the future. After the most recent incident was revealed, the organization did “promise to reform its child protection measures.” But an adjustment will take more than a promise. USA Swimming must take responsibility for their actions and have greater concern for America’s youth. In addition, if we make it more socially acceptable to come forward about sexual abuse crimes, it will result in the apprehension of perpetrators before they attack other teenage victims. Thus, like most problems feminists face, a solution for change must come from the center and appropriate itself outwards in order to be effective.

           

Advocating for Women in the Middle East: Hearing Female Voices

The article titled “Whose Security” in The Nation is an impassioned essay about the ineffectiveness of national security post-9/11 to protect the human rights of women internationally or to allow the voices of international women’s rights supporters/activists in the U.S. to be heard. Ironically, though the war in Iraq was touted as an effort which would also address Afghan women’s rights, it is clear that this cause was abandoned early on so the issues were in some cases exacerbated, not quelled. Unfortunately, women in other nations do not realize that there are U.S. women advocating for their rights because men in politics and the military dominate war conversations and political discourses. This makes it difficult to form international alliances and collaboration between women on a global scale. After 9/11, national security became solidified and the emphasis on the nation, territories, and borders overpowered any emphasis on individuals. It is impossible to hear all the voices and serve all the needs of individuals when often ill-defined national issues are prioritized. Thus, women’s voices aren’t heard when national security issues are at stake. Human rights have lost their prevalence in the national discourse, and voices that support human rights are quickly silenced, like UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson, who “suggest[ed] that these acts of terrorism be prosecuted internationally as crimes against humanity rather than used as a call for war” (Bunche 4). If women’s voices are not prioritized on the international scale, women can work domestically to ensure “that U.S. policies and corporate forces based here stop harming women elsewhere” (Bunche 5), like the labor practices and subcontracting we talked about in class. Bunche also advocates for bringing the international and domestic spheres together so that efforts at home can have impact abroad.


Abu-Lughod writes about how people in the U.S. should approach discussions about Afghan women and how Afghan women can best be served, not through an attitude of “we will save them” but rather through an attitude of appreciating their differences and the forces that influenced their development as individuals and groups, and considering how we are implicated to address global human rights injustices. Abu-Lughod smartly points out that media forces often try to define Muslim women with broad generalizations that would never be applied to women in dominant religious sects in the U.S. Also, by framing information about women as potential clues to understanding acts of terrorism, human rights violations against women are largely ignored. Muslim women are further “othered" and the hope for international efforts for women’s rights is lost. She moves on to the issue of the burqa and the frequent cries of Americans that Muslim women should remove their constraining veils now that they are no longer forced. However, these complaints do not take into account the reasons and cultural practices behind wearing a veil, such as protection from unrelated men and maintaining a respectability expected of women in their culture (though some may argue that women should not have to be respectable, it is a socially constraining expectation). As Abu-Lughod points out, “veiling itself must not be confused with, or made to stand for, lack of agency” (786). By imposing our cultural norms upon Afghan women, we limit what we think is acceptable for them and diminish what they value as important. It could even be regarded as a supremacy crime for Western powers to attempt to change the lives of Afghan women by claiming that their goals for these women are supreme or superior over what the women might deem as significant.

The chapter in Leading the Way titled “Living While Muslim: Human Rights Advocacy in the Post-9/11 Era” shows that women’s voices are being heard about issues in Iraq affecting women. The writer, Arwa Ibrahim, explains the conflict she experiences: being an American citizen when the United States inflicts damage upon Iraqi citizens daily in wartime. Ibrahim found that her individual actions contributed to a larger movement to inform others of human rights violations in Iraq. She interviewed Iraqi youth and wrote a widely circulated news article. From their testimonies, Ibrahim realized the “general lack of security” (43) and gained information that she could share with an American audience, breathing life and humanity into the experiences of Iraqi citizens and allowing their voices to be heard. Her own family’s experience with racial profiling and illegal detainment, interrogation, and searches in an American airport led her to speak in television press conferences about discrimination against individuals who are from other nations (or even U.S. citizens) who may appear to be of Middle Eastern descent. Her small actions contribute to global and domestic efforts to protect the rights of women and citizens of all nations more generally. She does not allow a single national identity to define her and seeks to inform people to stop “othering" people they may not know.

Sex and War Zones

I was perturbed by the article "Women and Arms: A Peril in War Zones - Sexual Abuse by Fellow G.I.'s" by Steven Lee Myers for a few reasons. I come from a family with a moderately strong military background and was raised with a very romantic vision regarding our armed forces, particularly the Marines. While I am well aware that there are serious flaws to our military forces, in particular sexual crimes, I still want to be able to maintain the image of the army which makes me proud. Unfortunately, when stories such as this come out, I am again faced with the reality of sexual assault within the Army and the challenges women in particular must face daily.

When one GI who was continuously being harassed claimed to feel safer outside the protective confines of her base than in her shower, this spoke volumes. The problem with sexual harassment while deployed is made even worse because women cannot escape their attacker. Often times they are members of the same unit, and more scarily, if a man is a superior officer, any woman who speaks against him can be charged with insubordination. Another upsetting aspect is that other men in a woman's unit may be skeptical about charges of true sexual assault or think that she was 'asking for it.' If this is the case, women can feel further ostracized by the soldiers who are supposed to have her back and support her. For these reasons, and i'm sure many more, the percentage of reported sexual crimes is very low (estimated at only 10%).

I think sex in the military is a very taboo thing to discuss, particularly when you are an active member. This is something that i think needs to change in order to bring about enough awareness to promote safety, particularly regarding sex, within military units. It is also important to make the general public aware of these problems, which would allow people to have a better picture of what our women in the military really face.

woMEN in the War Zone

Myers pieces are some of the most interesting articles we've read to date because he brings up current topics with issues I would normally never think of. That is, it is evident that the US has troops overseas fighting in the Middle East and I probably would not think twice about the fact that women make up a small percentage of troops sent, but I would never had thought about the abuse and assault that many women experience during the context of wartime.

In both Myers articles, he explores the co-ed living situations in the foreign camps, sexual abuse that goes on as a result, and what necessary changes are being made to reduce the number of cases every year. A Peril in War Zones: Sexual Abuse by Fellow G.I.'s follows the accounts of Captain Margaret H. White who began a sexual relationship with a warrant officer prior to leaving for Iraq. When they were eventually deployed and living abroad, White began feeling bombarded by the officers advancements and did her best to avoid him at the camp. "'It go to the point that I felt safer outside the wire,' Captain White said". White felt concerned coming forward about her abuse because the officer was higher ranked than she was and she feared that her case would not be taken seriously. Also, "she did not report it, she said, because she feared that her commanders would have reacted harshly--toward her." These are relevant concerns revolving around those who are abused in these war time environments and are the main factor why more cases are not reported and thus the abuse continues. In fact the only reason why White's statement was eventually filed was because she was part of another investigation involving the officer. In the end, he was charged and found guilty for a total of 19 offenses.

Unfortunately, White's case is not uncommon. Many number of cases are reported every year and even more cases are left undisclosed. Myers points out the statistics in his article stating that there were 2908 sexual assault cases reported in 2008 which was a 8% increase from the previous year. This increase could be a good thing, however, since it could reflect how more people are feeling comfortable coming forward about their attacks, whether because more action is being taken or the stigma of accusing others is decreasing. On the other hand, although, "the Army ... has increased the number of investigators and lawyers trained to investigate accusations," a significant reason for the increase in reported cases, it is clear that there still is not a 100% level of disclosure. One reason in particular stood out to me and that was that the victims had been engaging in "misconduct for which they could be disciplined, such as under-age drinking, fraternization or adultery." Myers gave the example of Marti Riberiro who was an Air Force sergeant. She argued that she had been raped when she left her post to smoke a cigarette. When she came forward, her commanding officers threatened to prosecute her for leaving not only her post, but her weapon as well.

I think it is clear that the battle to limit the number of sexual assault cases in war zones is far from close to being over. New laws must be enforced through the pentagon and then seen through overseas by high level commanders. It is a sad truth that these occurrences happen, but I think with commitment and tolerance we will be able to see big changes in the near future.

The Use of Sex to Manipulate and Control Individuals and Nations

I am reading The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao by Junot Dias in an English course titled Sex and Global City. In the novel, Trujillo (actual dictator in the Dominican Republic from 1930-1961, political and military leader) is known to be a womanizer who sleeps with thousands of very young women that have little choice in the matter. Through class discussions in my English course, we have determined that Trujillo is subduing the people of the Dominican Republic by wielding his power through sex, with women's bodies as a central manipulation point. There are obvious connections between Trujillo and Borislav Herak (in “Men in Militias, Women as Victims” chapter by Enloe). In some ways, Trujillo embodies a conception of Dominican masculinity and thus leads many men to follow his ways and rape and sexually assault women, though it is clear that Trujillo also "unmans" his fellow Dominican men by subordinating them and their daughters to him. The society is riddled with a paralyzing fear; both the imagined potential and the reality that daughters and wives will be taken advantage of, and resistance to Trujillo's wishes will lead to severe punishment, imprisonment, or death. In this way, Trujillo’s actions are more than supremacy crimes against specific individuals; rather, he is committing supremacy crimes that are far-reaching across the entire nation.

Similarly, in the NY Times article "A Peril in War Zones: Sexual Abuse by Fellow G.I.'s," female soldiers live in fear that they could be harassed or assaulted by fellow soldiers. These issues did not exist when women weren't in the military or when only a few women served, but in more recent wars, women have served in much higher numbers so this reality has developed. Like Trujillo's absolute power over his people, commanders and hierarchies existing within the military make it difficult to report incidents and prosecute appropriately. As Enloe points out, nationalistic military men “were socialized to kill by a steady stream of assignments devised in Berlin over several months, assignments that gradually escalated in their levels of dehumanizing harshness” (Enloe 111). The increasing prevalence of rape in the military places women as victims who are “more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire in Iraq” (Myers 3, 28 Dec. 2009). Also, men in military/political positions who are compelled to rape thousands of women dehumanize the women and themselves, as sex is consumed by violence and indifference. It is unlikely that sex could be meaningful in any circumstance for men who rape numerous women and sex becomes scarred with violence for the women who are victims.

Lead Post: Steinem and Enloe

Gloria Steinem: "Supremacy Crimes"

This reading was a short article which was published in Peace Work Magazine. In it, Gloria Steinem looks a little bit more carefully at the roots of most violent hate crimes. These include the terror of serial killers, the trend of school shootings and the like. One of her main arguments is that people are unaware, or perhaps consciously avoiding, that the reality is that these "troubled" people are usually white, middle-class, heterosexual men. Steinem points out that this statistic is true for most hate crimes, including the "impersonal, resentment-driven, mass killings."

She interestingly makes the assertion that these crimes are rooted in a superiority complex. She states that many of these crimes, which offer the offender not economic or "rational" gains, are carried out just because they believe, "I am superior because I can kill." I think this is a very interesting point, and it also makes me wonder if the reverse is true. I agree that these people may get pleasure out of feeling superior because of their killings, but i also wonder if they can justify their crimes with the assertion "BECAUSE I am superior, I CAN kill." I am sure Steinem considered this option and just lumped it with her original phrase, but i think there is a slight nuance between the two. To Steinem, it is the "addiction to the drug of supremacy" which is the deepest, most ignored root of these crimes.

Steinem points out that most of these "senseless" hate crimes are not committed to better the offenders position in the world. She compares this to the majority of African-American, lower class, or homosexual crimes by asserting that crimes of the latter variety usually bring about (or try to bring about) some sort of personal gain. While I want to agree with this theory, I was slightly annoyed by her phrasing. I thought it sounded like she was condoning these crimes more so than she was just illuminating her readers on the differences.

She goes on to postulate how people would have reacted if certain variables were changed in the crimes she discussed. While I thought this was an interesting tactic, because most of it was pure speculation, I didn't find it to be a very sound argument.

To conclude her article, Steinem makes an excellent point. She continued her theme of supremacy and domination and proposed that if we, as a community, were able to make great strides in eliminating the veil supremacy then perhaps these crimes could be eradicated." I will leave you with one of her closing remarks: "Just as we as a society have begun to raise our daughters more like sons - more like whole people- we must begin to raise our sons more like daughters - that is, to value empathy as well as hierarchy; to measure success by other people's welfare as well as their own."

Cynthia Enloe: "Whom Do You Take Seriously"

For Thursday's class we also read the chapter entitled "Whom Do You Take Seriously" from Cynthia Enloe's The Curious Feminist. In this passage, she discusses silencing which occurs not only within the classroom (as I had previously encountered the term), but also in the world as a whole. She begins by proposing two important questions, the first: "whose voices are heard in the public realm" and the second: "whose voices are heard in a manner that ensures that those speakers' experiences and ideas will be taken seriously." She then discusses why some voices may be unheard. Whether it be because one would rather listen or because she wouldn't want to subject her opinions to criticism or if she doesn't expect her voice to be validated alongside the voices of men.

Enloe then discusses Hannah Arendt, a famed 20th century intellectual who focused mostly on public and political spheres and the role society plays within them. Arendt stresses the importance of public speech among citizens (including women!) in order to have a healthy and thriving political atmosphere. However, Enloe isn't totally on board with Arendts dichotomy between what is public speech and what is private speech. As Enloe points out, areas which are typically reserved for the private realm are usually those which pertain to women. This means that by not speaking about them in public, the issues are never fully heard or responded to.

One such area which is generally reserved for the Private realm is violence against women. Enloe praises the work of women in Asia to talk publicly about women's issues, including violence. By maintaining this dichotomy, Enloe points out the inherent "trivialization" which occurs to women's issued. She later discusses how the role of "respectability" plays in as well.

For women to speak publicly, they may shed the "respectability" that has been attributed to their character. In essence, this is a way to ensure that women, who are concerned with their reputation, won't risk being denigrated to a lower stature by speaking out by "[challenging] the authority of the gender-policing concept." The notion of "respectability" also comes into play when Enloe mentions the result of women speaking about the violence which happened to them. By undergoing, and later speaking about, an experience, women can be seen as "less pure" and thereby less respectable.

Enloe does a good job of highlighting this "marginalization" of the female voice. To conclude her passage, she calls women to think about these facts and implores them to ponder the questions which she proposed. She concludes by saying that it is her hope, that by "redirecting and reinforming participatory movements in the Asia-Pacific and in North America ... [are] actions that will ensure that democratization is less superficial, more authentic."

Conveying Strong Messages through Silence

Through my Educational Studies coursework and independent study, I have encountered many texts which mirror Enloe’s opening passage about silencing in schools. Identifying that silencing can “come from a sense of being silenced” (Enloe 70) or can be a personal choice is an important distinction to make. Enloe also identifies the importance of hearing everyone’s voice and listening to others’ voices by citing Arendt’s ideas that arenas for public speech about public issues are necessary to the function of a political society. By sharing ideas, people learn to trust and understand each other more. A large part of the reason why I am an Educational Studies major is that I think changes that would benefit society (such ensuring that everyone’s voice is heard, reducing/ending discrimination and prejudice, increasing educational and employment opportunities, etc.) start in schools, which is why I am glad that the small classroom anecdote expanded to societal changes that seek to include the voices of women in public sphere to a greater extent, especially in regard to violence against women. Violence against women is traditionally a private discourse, but it should be public so it isn’t misrepresented, trivialized, or deemed less important than other issues.

I think it’s also important to consider our own class participation and what factors motivate us to participate (feeling valued, graded class participation, etc.) versus what factors deter us from participating (being the only ____ in the class, feeling intimidated by teachers or other students, etc.). Then I think about how factors that make me feel comfortable speaking (besides rewards, like grades, which can motivate for the wrong reasons) can be recreated in every encounter I have with other people in daily life, considering what factors might make them comfortable so that everyone’s voice is heard. For example, if it seems likely that someone won’t participate because they are the only_____ in the group, find other points of commonality so they will feel included, then celebrate their differences appropriately.

I think it is also important to consider how being silent (by choice and as a group) can actually convey a strong message. This Wednesday, Colgate is celebrating the Day of Silence, which is a “day of action in which students across the country take some form of a vow of silence to call attention to the silencing effect of anti-LGBT bullying and harassment in schools. Through their activities, students can speak out against harassment and organize for change for their schools and communities" (Day of Silence website). Once again, there is a distinct difference between choosing to be silent and being silenced.

Susan Brownmiller

I had a serious problem with the Susan Brownmiller reading for Tuesday's class. The passage, an excerpt from her work: Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape was a call to arms for women to unite against the patriarchy of men (and how they use sexual politics to subjugate women) and the myths associated with rape (and how they too contribute to the degradation of women in society). After reading the introduction to the passage,I was excited to read about what I thought would be the power-play between men and women and the role that sexual relations played. As far as rape was concerned, I was interested, and hoping, to read about the way society responds to rape and how the victimization of women is a result of social misconceptions. However, I was so immediately turned off by Brownmiller that I was unable to get much information about any of the areas I was hoping to find.

While I think she intended her first sentence, and the beginning part of her writing, to be shocking, I found she went too far. She claimed that ALL men were consciously using their penises as weapons and that ALL women were kept in a constant state of fear (pg 312). I disagree completely with her notion that all women live in "a constant state of intimidation" and that they see the threat of rape in every man. For me, this is preposterous! To make such a generalization is a rash misjudgment, and as a woman I have personally never felt this way and I refuse to believe that every man, my friends included, consciously use a threat of rape to maintain a domination over women. Along these lines, I also dont think that all men hold the notion that "women want to be raped" as a true statement. For the most part, I give men more credit that Brownmiller and think that most men dont believe women "are asking for it" or that there is such a thing as a "heroic rapist."

Because of my initial rejection of Brownmiller's argument, I was unable to get much out of her writing. However, I did appreciate near the conclusion of her passage, where she discusses the politicization of rape. I thought her appeal to make rape a "speakable" crime is important. By being able to talk about it, I think the stigma of rape can be lessened, if not disappear. While I maintain that most men do not think the way Brownmiller described, i concede that some men do. Hopefully, by speaking out and making rape an important issue, the number of those men will diminish (and ideally be decimated)!