In the CNN article “Despite new female faces in Congress, numbers in decline,” author Dana Bash reports the disappointing decline in the number of women in Congress after this November’s election. Earlier this month, voters came out in droves, proving their skepticism of the Democratic leadership in Congress by electing Republicans, many of whom also beat out long-time incumbent representatives with a traditionally strong competitive edge. While the media highlighted this year’s contest as a year for women, the turnout proved to be otherwise. This year marks the first in three decades that the number of women in Congress has not increased. In fact, only 17% of representatives in Congress are women, a staggering number when we consider that women make up over half of our nation’s population (Bash). Congress is supposed to be a body that represents the multifaceted population and interests of that population under a democracy. However, with such little representation of women in Congress, a major group of people in our country is being underrepresented and as a result their interests are being overlooked and often ignored. While I do not think there should be quotas in place to ensure a certain number of females fill specific seats in Congress, I do believe that the government ought to enact legislation that better benefits female Senators and House Representatives. The laws that govern our legislative body ought to provide women with better access and flexibility, with their roles as mothers and wives kept in mind.
Bash reports that while the number of women in Congress did not increase this year, there was a record number of Republican House Representatives elected, in some cases beating out strong political bulls (Bash). For instance, Bash explains, GOP candidate Vicky Hartzler from Missouri toppled incumbent House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton, a 34-year House veteran (Bash). While Hartzler and other elected Republican women do not credit their victories on gender, they do agree that their perspectives as females and mothers were appealing to constituents. Further, in a predominately male-dominated party, Hartzler and other elected Republican representatives explain that they will give their party a unique outlook.
Despite the gains for Republican women, there was still no increase in the number of female representatives overall in Congress (Bash). This trend seems to fit with the fact that there has been relatively no growth of females representatives since 1992, the so-called “year of the woman.” In fact, of the 535 members of Congress, only 73 of the 435 members of the House of Representatives are women and only 17 of the 100 members of the Senate are women (Bash). Lisa Murkowski’s Senate race in Alaska, which has yet to be decided, could also have an impact for the representation of women in the legislative branch. If Murkowski is not reelected, the number of women in the Senate will drop for the first time since 1979 (Bash). It seems odd that such a small number of women are represented in the body that should reflect the makeup of America.
Further, while the media has made it appear that women are making strides in politics, the case is clearly not a reality. With Hilary Clinton as a Presidential candidate and political powerhouse, along with Sara Palin as the first female Vice-Presidential nominee and Nancy Pelosi as the first female House Speaker, it appears that women are taking the stage as strong politicians with political vigor and determination that would scare any male seeking election. However, despite the strides these pioneers have made, Bash reports, Republican women had a relatively small success rate in this year’s election: 28% (Bash). Democratic female candidates, though a little more successful, only secured 46% of the seats for which they ran (Bash). And while Democrats have one-up on female Republicans in their success rates, fewer Democratic females competed in the election this year than in the recent past. Regardless of party affiliation, the results are clear, as evidence of the fact that the United States ranks a high 90th in the world when it comes to the number of women in national legislatures.
In addition, despite any gains women made this year in Republican representation, their novice status has altered the role of women in leadership positions in Congress. Lawless with the Women and Politics Institute at American University says, “The problem with Republicans is that not only do they have very few women, most of them are relatively new entrants into the chamber” (Bash). The only leadership position that remains seems to be Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington. She is expected to keep her position as vice chair of the House GOP Conference, the fifth-ranking position if you count the speaker at the top, Bash explains (Bash). She decided not to take a higher-ranking position, because as a pregnant mother of two, she feels it is the right decision “professionally and personally” (Bash) In addition, with the Republican overhaul in Congress, many Democratic female representatives are losing their prominent leadership positions. For instance, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will hand over her position, but will likely hold on to her role as top House Democrat. Further, Rep. Louise Slaughter at the House Rules Committee, Rep. Nydia Velazquez at the Small Business Committee and Rep. Zoe Lofgren at the House Ethics Committee are expected to lose their leadership positions (Bash). The only woman expected to rise in the ranks, according to Bash, is Ros-Lehtinen, who is likely to become chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee (Bash). With such a diminished role of women in the legislature and such an influx of novice representatives, it seems unlikely that women will wield as much power as they had in the past, which as we know, was very little.
I believe that while the Republican Party made strides in electing women this fall, the overall lack of women and their diminished role in Congress is indicative of a country that still falls short when it comes to representing all interests in government. In order to fix this unfortunate reality, I believe the government ought to enact policies that give women better access and flexibility to compete and work successfully in the legislature. I think this can best be accomplished by providing women with work hours that allow for them to juggle the difficult tasks of being oftentimes mothers and professionals. Furthermore, there ought to be policies that allow pregnant politicians to hold high ranking positions while going through the normal birth process. This would allow women like Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington to move up the political ladder while maintaining a healthy personal life. Also, I believe there should be better policies to encourage women to run for positions in politics. This may mean campaign finance reform or other means to allow easier access for professional women from diverse backgrounds to seek candidacy. Finally, I believe that by increasing awareness through the media that women make up such a small percentage of our legislators in Congress, it may be possible to inspire more females to join their political allies in a race to Washington.
Bash, Dana. "Despite new female faces in Congress, numbers in decline." CNN.com, 10 November 2010, .
It is a common misconception that a human being is born either a male or a female. Many people don’t realize that there are actually more than two sexes in the biological spectrum. In fact, geneticists believe that there are at least five sexes, with a possibility of more. Yet, our society, for the most part, is inclined to believe that when it comes to sex everything is black and white, male and female; with exception for the rare anomalies, who are usually tormented and shunned from mainstream society. In a society that is slowly moving away from black and white conventions, Katy Steinmetz's article,
sheds light on the progress that we have made to be more accepting of the LGTBQ community, as well as the hurdles that we must still face to fully embrace them into our society.
Before discussing Steinmetz’s article, I feel that it is important to clarify the current anatomical and physical categories that currently exist. As most people know, male and female constitutes the ‘correct’ chromosomes that match with their respective reproductive organs. Accordingly, the genetic make up for a male is XY and for a female it is XX. This in itself raises numerous quandaries as to why our society exists around a patriarchal society, however that is not the focus of this paper. The individuals who are born with a combination of organs, chromosomes, or genitalia are labeled intersexuals. They are in essence between sexes. Intersexuals also constitute those born with extremely small penises or enlarged clitoris’. Also included in this group are hermaphrodites, who possess one ovary and one testis, female pseudo- hermaphrodites, who possess ovaries and a portion of male genitalia, but no testes and finally male pseudo- hermaphrodites, who possess testes and a portion of female genitalia, but no ovaries. The huge dilemma with people who are born intersexual is that our society really has no place for them. As soon as they are born, doctors rush into emergency surgery to assign the new born a sex. Many times this surgery is unnecessarily and rashly performed on an enlarged clitoris or a small penis. However, the child usually does not feel as if they are a male or a female, because genetically they are not. In relation to the article, a transgender individual is one whose gender identity does not match their assigned sex.
Steinmetz’s piece discusses the discrepancies faced by transgender people in our society. Prior to June 9th, 2010 any and all transgender people in the United States were required to undergo sexual reassignment surgery in order to change the sex listed on their passport. This was a government issued mandate. In essence, if Mike was born a man, but now identifies as a woman in all aspects of his/her life, the government still required that he/she undergo surgery in order for his/her passport to read Female. This requirement stems from the notion that a person’s genitals define their gender, which we now know is far from true. This restriction disqualifies many people who cannot afford such procedures. Walter Bockting, a clinical psychologist for the University if Minnesota estimates that a male-to-female genital reconstruction costs between $12,000 and $25,000. A female-to-male procedure costs between $4,000 and $8,000. Now for the kicker, to construct a penis, which is rarely done, costs between $20,000 and $75,000 (1). Although that is a large price range, the point is clear, undergoing surgery is extremely costly.
Cost is not the only issue; many transgender people do not believe surgery is necessary for them to “assume the gender role they feel is right for them” (1). Bockting explains, “There are more and more transgender and transsexual people who live full-time in that role and travel as such and do not have the surgery. Surgery should be medically necessary for health and well being… not for proper documentation” (1). Bockting makes an extremely valid and important argument. It seems that America is moving in the direction of surgery to fix all of our problems. The rates of cesarean births are on the rise, as well as enhancement surgeries. Even more pressing though is the need that doctors feel to operate on children who are born intersexual. The government and medical institution as a whole are trying to enforce unnecessary and risky surgeries on people. The main reason for this is to reinforce our commitment to a two-sex society.
Despite this commitment, it appears that there are a few bright spots on the horizon. On June 9th, 2010 President Obama and The State Department eliminated the surgical requirement. Transgender individuals can now legally alter their passport with a note from their physician “stating that they have undergone clinical treatment for a ‘gender transition’.” (1) This new measure will definitely reduce the amount of transgender travelers who report being harassed upon the realization of their true identity. It will also spare many of these travelers the embarrassment of being subjected to invasive questioning and stares of disbelief. Proponents of the new measure defend the position on the basis that there is essentially no security risk. As long as they are abiding by the laws and regulations, there should really be no problem.
A current concern for these individuals will be the new controversial screening process that is being enforced by the Transportation Security Administration. Under these new guidelines, airport security and personnel are authorized to perform extremely intrusive and thorough pat downs. If this method is not performed, passengers can also be subject to enhanced full-body imaging machines. These machines provide images of passenger’s anatomy, allowing security personnel to see underneath the exterior layer of clothing. This could potentially cause a lot of problems for transgender passengers. TSA employees might look at a passport and see female, while the machine is showing a penis. Due to the current high level security threat, TSA members might be inclined to question the passenger to find out their true identity. TSA member’s disbelief in a transgender passenger’s identity stems from the larger issue at hand, which is the general misunderstanding of sexuality and gender in our society.
This misunderstanding and general lack of discussion helps to fuel those who are opposed to President Obama’s new measures. One of the main opponents is Paul Scott, a Michigan state representative. Scott and his cohorts rely mainly on ideological arguments, instead of practical and rational reasoning. Many of his arguments are blatantly rooted in prejudice and traditional values. In his upcoming election he will run on the platform that makes it “a priority to ensure transgender individuals will not be allowed to change the sex on their driver’s license in any circumstance” (1). Scott believes that this issue has to do with social values and in some sense it does. People like Mr. Scott do not exhibit the type of social values that foster an open and understanding community. In an interview with the Michigan Messanger, Scott stated that his proposed idea “would keep men ‘from dressing as a woman and going into female bathrooms’.” (1) His comments show the prevailing lack of understanding that plagues our society. Being transgender entails much more than dressing in the opposite sexes clothing. Furthermore, Scott is making light of a very serious transition that many transgender individuals face. It is a long and sometimes traumatic process for individuals to feel comfortable enough to express their true identity. In fact, some people face assault, harassment or death when revealing their true identity to their community. Thus, Scotts remarks are not only a stereotypical generalization, but also harmful and degrading.
Unfortunately, Mr. Scott’s crass remarks mirror how many American’s feel. While I think his statements are ignorant and misinformed, many people would agree with him. Ninety five percent of people are lucky to have their gender identity match their sex, but the other five percent are outcast for no fault of their own. What people fail to realize is that gender is a social construct, which restricts our clothing, styles, mannerisms and lifestyle. Gender is what we have come to make it, which we can see as both positive and negative. It is negative in the sense that we have made it such a restricting and sometimes detrimental concept. However, we can be positive and look to the future, because if we constructed gender than hopefully somewhere down the line we can re-construct it to be more inclusive. In closing, it is becoming ever more clear that our society lives in the gray zone, so maybe, just maybe it is time to stop governing in black and white.
(1) Katy Steinmetz. “New Passport Rules Ease Switch for Transgenders.” Times Magazine. 3 December, 2010.
I was quite persuaded by Lila Abu-Lughod when reading Do Muslim Women Really need Saving? Anthropological Reflections on Cultural Relativism and Its Others. Abu-Lughod argues that burqa should be viewed as an ““religiously” appropriate” (Lila Abu-Lughod) clothing. She also states that some people even regard burqa as kind of liberation to Muslim women because it enables women to walk outside home without risking being disreputable. Therefore, it is not necessary for Muslim women to immediately throw off their burqa while risking their religious rules.
Her arguments seemed quite reasonable to me at first. Indeed, people from outside Muslim world should not view veiling as a way of repression on women simply because women in major society do not wear veiling. However, veiling such as burqa should not be discussed simply about sign of repression, it should be considered more about health effects as well as social effects.
Burqa causes various diseases. Because burqa, especially Afghanistan style, covers almost the entire body of women and only leaves a small region about the eyes which still covered by net or grille, women’s field of vision is largely restricted and their vision is threatened. And lack of sunshine because of wearing burqa also threatens the wearers’ lives. As many medical experts have pointed out, women who wear burqa are more vulnerable to osteoporosis due to a lack of sunshine which causes a lack of Vitamin D and their newborn babies are more likely to get more seizures for the same reason (1). Burqas can also cause hearing loss, skin problems, headaches, cardiac disorder, asthma, and also can contribute to mental health problems (2).
In addition, burqa largely restricts women’s spheres. Because burqa is so heavy and women need to support the whole weight of burqas simply by their heads, moving with burqas is actually painful. And how can women really socialize outside their homes if they could not be recognized by their faces with difficulties in talking and hearing with others.
Indeed, it is inappropriate to “save” these women under burqas before knowing their actual will and their opinions. However, how can we ask these women to be satisfy with the burqa which nominally has made them more liberal while we ourselves never stop campaign for more rights for ourselves outside the Muslim world?
In each of the texts assigned, the authors focus on women’s issues globally and how U.S. military occupation in other nations, which purports to help those women in states of submission, often imposes its own patriarchal ideologies in place of current oppressive systems. In Cynthia Enloe’s chapter “Updating the Gendered Empire,” the author opens with a discussion of a comparison between contemporary U.S. and previous empires, such as those military powerhouses like ancient Rome, China, Persia, and Great Britain, among many others. With the slew of military invasions including those in Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003 following the earlier invasions previously discussed in Yugoslavia and Liberia, is the US today considered an empire? Further, Enloe considers the role of women in these empires and says in order to uncover women’s roles, which are crucial to the maintenance of powerful empires, we must observe empire-building structures within parlors, brothels, tea plantations, factories and other “private” places (Enloe 270).
Enloe explains an exercise she completed with several groups of people, including Canadian women of the Innu community living near NATO air force bases and Japanese groups in Okinawa and Tokyo. The exercise involved the people imagining themselves to be a particular woman playing a role in either “sustaining, questioning, or resisting” U.S. military occupation and explicating that experience as that woman in a first-person narrative. From the exercise, it was clear that while there were a variety of women with different societal roles and functions and different personalities and attitudes towards the U.S. military bases, the message was the same for all: international alliances depend on women to maintain their roles as passive agents in an international power structure dominated by masculine supremacy (276).
These unequal roles in international alliances become even more evident when Enloe investigates the status of women in Afghanistan under the U.S. occupation today. She talks about the deputy minister, who, though she wielded much responsibility as a woman in the Afghan post-Taliban government, still put herself and her family in danger due to her role in government as a woman. A woman not used to smiling, the deputy minister gained the “luxury” to smile while in Tokyo, talking to Japanese specialists about those topics that interested her like women’s and girls’ health, education, politics and the economy (278). This example prompts Enloe to look into the gendering of the U.S. occupation in Afghanistan. She explains that the occupation poses problems with security, since the U.S. several times rejected extending peacekeeping activities outside of the city of Kabul, thus endangering women to move outside the city walls to pursue teaching posts. Further, masculinized authority roles pose problems with danger and combat, as peacekeeping was left to UN troops, while combat was left to U.S. soldiers. And, to make this war justifiable to Americans, the threat women faced on a daily basis in Afghanistan made people sympathetic of the dangers they undeservedly faced. However, Enloe points out that this view that U.S. occupation will help elevate the status of women is naïve; in fact, many so-called allies of the U.S. military are often known to be sexist “warlords” (281). These warlords, that comprise the Northern Alliance and on whom the U.S. greatly depends for ground combat, are a masculinized group of soldiers comprised of all males in opposition to modernization (281). Further, these imperialist strategies of securing unequal masculinized alliances has only “hobbled, not facilitated, the genuine liberation of most of Afghanistan’s women and girls,” as these allies held the same views as those in the Taliban, namely that women and girls ought to be subdued and controlled (283).
Further, Enloe explains the result of such masculinized occupation as impacting the subsequent drafting of a constitution in the post-Taliban Afghanistan. While women had a relatively significant presence in the constitutional convention (seven out of thirty-five appointed members), their wishes to implement provisions in the constitution that ensured their full liberation as females in a sexist society were dashed when the final constitution pledged “that Afghanistan’s future law-making will be ‘informed by’ the principles of Islam, which when interpreted by conservatives, treat such gendered equality as anathema” (289).
The same masculinization is present in the “back-door” dealings, including the formation of the post invasion Iraqi Governing Council. Of the three hundred people selected to represent this group, only five were women, Enloe points out (293). This had serious repercussions for the representation of women in the nation, especially in the formation of a constitution. Women also can’t express their discontent with this base status and their condemnation of violence against women because the masculinized threat intimidates them daily. For instance, when the Organization of Women’s Freedom in Iraq spoke out against violence towards women, the lack of female demonstrators prompted one Iraqi to ask, “’Where are all the women?’” (299). And when the final group was selected to draft a constitution, all twenty-five members were men, demonstrating both Iraq and the United States’ acceptance that the governing ideologies of the reordered nation ought to reflect gendered roles.
Enloe stresses that countries should not seek unequal international alliances that reflect solely masculine alliances and expect women to accept masculine military occupation, but instead should pursue a cross-national alliance of equals (303). This, Enloe explains, will solidify solidarity among people cross nationally as well as prompt each party to question the actions and motives of their own nation and military and its impact on women. Cross-national feminist interactions are creating a newer awareness of the unfair dealings in the world and how it impacts a woman’s role as the oppressed. Gendered structures, and in particular masculinization, according to Enloe, are crucial for empire-building and military expansion and viewing the role of women in society is a view into how this is accomplished. Without a view into these topics with gender in mind, Enloe states, there is no opportunity for us to change the structures that limit human well being and flourishing.
In “Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving,” author Lila Abu-Lughod also examines international justice and wonders whether the U.S. occupation in Afghanistan, for instance, can truly help liberate women. She argues that in order for liberation of Muslim women to occur, we ought to appreciate the differences among women in the world, keeping in mind the various conditions under which women live, and consider that our own responsibilities to reach global justice often shapes this liberation process, often for the worse. Abu-Lughod says that following the September 11th attacks, she, as a Muslim intellectual, was posed with many questions about women in Islam, an obsession based on the belief that knowing something about the culture of the region and treatment of women would somehow explain why the attacks occurred or why the Afghan governments had been overtaken by corrupt forces (Abu-Lughod 784).
Abu-Lughod explains that this obsession with the position of women in Islam and Afghanistan ignores the complex issues of global politics and as a result creates an artificial divide that looks something like “us versus Muslims” (784). Further, U.S. speeches announcing the liberation of women as a result of military occupation within the country reflect contemporary colonialism that in the past sought to “free” women from their male oppressors, “white men saving brown women from brown men” (784). But if American military occupation is freeing women, why are Afghan women still donning the oppressive symbol, commonly thought of as central to the “Taliban-and-the-terrorists” form of submission, the burqa. Abu-Lughod points to the ethnic invention of the burqa, which sought to signify a woman’s respectability and modesty and to indicate her moral responsibility to the home and family. Since this is the case, it is no wonder that such a common dress code, to which women give little thought, would not all of a sudden be thrown out the door when the U.S. began occupying Afghanistan (785). Veiling for Muslim women, she describes, is a custom just as is our unspoken dress codes for weddings, funerals, and everyday life. Further, the obsession with the veil, Abu-Lughod points out, should be given up to consider the varying conditions and issues facing women in the Muslim world today (786).
In addition, Abu-Lughod argues, we must examine what in fact we are supporting when we praise U.S. occupation in Afghanistan and consider the core parts to human justice, which may not include liberation from a piece of clothing, but perhaps instead the right to water, food and property that allows all women and men to live well. We must take into consideration cultural difference when we consider larger, more complicated issues and we must change our attitudes to the U.S.’s role in “liberation” (787). While she does not argue for traditional cultural relativism, she does argue that different social, political and historical circumstances shape the way in which people grow and come to understand their place in the world. As a result, we must respect different cultures and how these people will choose, for themselves, what constitutes true liberation (788). Further, she argues, it is problematic to even see the Afghan women as people in need of salvation (788). This attitude implies Western superiority, which arrogantly purports to save Afghan women from the oppressive culture in which they live. To avoid this problem, Abu-Lughod argues, we ought to “use a more egalitarian language of alliances, coalitions, and solidarity, instead of salvation” (789).
Charlotte Bunch in “Whose Security?” agrees that the U.S. military occupation in Afghanistan is a projection of supremacy in the face of the evil Middle East and argues that women and feminists in American today have little voice in shaping international policy, which was, during the early stages of occupation, dominated by the masculine and corporate-driven administration of George W. Bush. She argues that our current foreign policy in the U.S. does not open up opportunities to build solidarity among women cross-nationally. In particular, the U.S. response to 9/11 has taken the country into war, rather than other directions that could have created greater security and global consciousness of multilateralism (Bunch 2). Further, the US military response to the 9/11 attacks, according to Bunch, has created more problems for women globally, curtailing human rights “in the name of ‘national security’” (2). Further, it has functioned to condemn Islam as an evil institution, rather than fundamentalist groups worldwide, which threaten the lives of countless women globally (3).
In addition, Bunch argues that the U.S. involvement in the Middle East has rejected the observance of human rights in the name of war on terrorism. While Mary Robinson, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights suggested, quite intelligently, that rather than the U.S. engage in a war on terrorism, the events of 9/11 ought to be tried as international crimes, the U.S. and the Bush administration in particular sought to hinder her appointment to a second term (4). Moreover, this opposition shows the target of not only one who has in mind international human rights, but also of one who stands to represent women’s interests throughout the world. Bunch wonders why feminists have not had a great impact on global relations and argues that we ought to shape our own government from a woman’s perspective if we want to effectively improve the lives of people in other nations. Therefore, feminist activism in our nation, Bunch suggests, must keep in mind women’s positions in our country and worldwide in order to change the structures than keep women in a state of submission.
Cynthia Enloe, "Updating the Gendered Empire."
Lila Abu-Lughod, "Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving? Anthropological Reflections on Cultural Relativism and Its Others."
Charlotte Bunch, "Whose Security?"
Cynthia Enloe’s chapter, “All the Men are the Militias, All the Women are Victims” explores the roles of masculinity and femininity in Nationalist Wars, she also seeks to explain what drives certain men to perform horrific war crimes. She starts off by bringing up Borislav Herak, a seemingly normal Serbian man who later on went on to commit mass rape and murder. Enloe seems confused on how a man like that decided to kill and rape these women. He was never violent and he “fell” into the company of Serbian militiamen, he did not seek them out, he joined because they offered him food and shelter. Cynthia Enloe asks the question, “How had such an apparently unpoliticized individual come to take risks in the name of Serbian nationalism (Enloe 101)?” The answer to this question is a complex one but it starts off with the fact that he was a man and grew up in a time that demanded masculinity from its male population. Another point Enloe brings up is how little has been written about women and their experiences of ethnicity and nationalism. Cynthia Enloe gives three assumptions for why women are mentioned in investigations of politicized ethnicity or of nationalist movements: one is that men had the ideas and actions that lead to processes and women are just spectators. Another is that men and women have roughly the same experience and since men are easier to research, they chose men. And lastly uneven task distribution between and men and women had little impact on individuals’ sense of belonging or on the strategies selected for collective mobilization. These assumptions are really faulty and don’t really understand how ethnic and nationalist processes actually operate. They are based on trivial decisions, because decisions involve power and that’s what constructs nationalism. Cynthia Enloe then says that he being a militia fighter or a male can’t explain Borislav Herak’s actions of nationalism. After he joined the militia is when he decided that his Serb nationality justified military action, not before. When he first joined he was taught that it was the Muslims fault for why he was oppressed, and why he had no success in life. He was socialized to think that military action was necessary if want to call yourself a Serb man. This is also done with women, but in a different way, instead of telling the to fight, they glorified women by calling them the mother’s of soldiers, and elevating their status because of this fact. Masculinity was becoming linked with performing as a soldier. This is seen in a lot of places, like South Africa where the Zulu men were taught that their manhood was rooted in their performance as a warrior. Cynthia Enloe then goes on to describe work done by Christopher Browning and his research on Nazi officers. He had a similar dilemma as Enloe because he wanted to know what would make an ordinary German man with a family kill defenseless Jews. He found that most of the officers before the war were not actively involved in politics and they were actually not deeply embedded with the anti-Semitic feeling. What the superior officers did was try to lower the psychological stress involved with killing someone. Things like, “Dignity as fathers, reassurance as boyfriends, pride as sons, comradeship as fictive brothers-in arms, satisfaction as masculinized heterosexuals,” were said to lesson the blow of killing someone. Enloe then gives an excerpt of a conversation with Borislav Herak and a reporter. He fully confessed to murder and rape and said he only did it because he was ordered to, and that he felt regret for it. To me he said like a weak man that did what he was told instead of standing up and doing what his right. Sometimes it’s hard to do the right the things, but if more people stood up for what it is right then maybe this whole incident wouldn’t of happened. I understand he was scared for his life, but what about the lives of the innocent women he was killing and raping. He was put in a difficult situation and it’s horrible that anyone is put into situations like that, but he seems like a follower to me with no backbone.
“The Spoils of War,” is another chapter in Cynthia Enloe’s book “A Curious Feminist.” It describes how U.S. soldiers in Japan are allowed to hire prostitutes. This was in response to how three soldiers raped a twelve-year-old girl. Many think that the prostitution is ok because it’s prostitution not rape. This is ridiculous, if prostitution is illegal in the U.S. then why is it okay to do it in Japan, totally disgraceful and really puts a bad name on the soldiers in Japan.
Steven Lee Myers wrote two articles in the New York Times about women in the military. The first, “A peril in War Zones: Sexual Abuse by Fellow G.I.’s” is about sexual harassment and sexual assault faced by women in the military. With the introduction of a lot more women entering the war in Iraq, new problems that the military hasn’t real seen are coming up. Mainly sexual Assault and harassment which can be the result of the strains of combat, close quarters in remote locations, tension and even boredom. The military has a zero tolerance when it comes to sexual abuse, but the fact is that most women don’t report it because women are afraid they won’t be believed or it might jeopardize their rank in the military. Another thing is that women feel that their problem of being abused is so small compared to the actual war going. Sgt. Tracey R. Phillips actually came forward and told of the harassment that happened to her. She ended up being discharged. With this as an example of what happens to sexual harassment victims in the war, no wonder only 10 percent of abuse is reported. Myers explains that even though abuse is still around, the respect for women in uniform is more common then it used to be and that this a result of the change of culture that happened to the military when women entered. The number of complaints though of abuse is on the rise, but this may be do to the fact that more women are coming forward and are not afraid of what will happen to them. This abuse is an even bigger problem if the soldiers are in a combat zone because your suppose to have your fellow soldiers back, but how can you do that if that person has harassed you. This is dangerous because this not only puts people in danger, but also buts the mission at hand in danger of failing. The military is now offering rape kits so that evidence can be collected, they have also set up nurses who can examine a woman, and a person they can talk to after the incident happens. However some of the military’s efforts are being undermined by commanders who are in charged and afraid of reporting the attack because they fear it’s a bad reflection on them. They need to realize that, that is not the case and it’s even worse if they don’t say something. The main problem is that when attacked in the army, you can’t even get away from the person because each place is so small, its like a “fishbowl”, you can’t escape the person. Hopefully people in the army see how especially dangerous this is and how degrading it is.
In Myer’s second, lighter article, “Living and Fighting Alongside Men, and Fitting In,” he looks into the lives of men and women in the army. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are the first wars where women have worked for prolong periods of time. With this introduction of women, comes the introduction of sex. On the military base a lot of the men and women have sex and with the availability of contraceptives it makes the sex a lot safer. Pregnancy is pretty rare so there is really no problem with that, only three women were sent home in ten months in one of the bases. He explains how sexual abuse is still a problem but not any more of problem of how it is in regular society. The fact now is that some women have high ranking jobs and it’s a direct result of their actions not their genetic make-up. Col. Burt K Thompson, commander at Warhorse, said “I’ve relieved males form command, I’ve never relieved a female commander in two and half years as commander (Myers 5).” This shows how actions speak louder then words, women proved themselves component when it comes to war while maintaining their femininity through out war. The women in war today are confident and intelligent and know what they are doing; they have to be in order to protect this country.
