The subject of gender roles in conflict and peace plays an
intricate part in understanding the underlying psychology behind gendered
violence. I found Catherine Niarchos comment in the Peacework report the most
enlightening when she describes the language of the military as “ saturated
with sexual imagery, much of it misogynous (14).” Another compelling matter
raised in the Peacework article is the account of the gay male veteran of IVAW
recounting his experience with gender and the military, “ I can tell you that
young straight men, otherwise good men, will go to great lengths and do
horrible things to prove that they are not gay.” The implications of this hyper
masculine mantra, described in the veteran’s account, which is prescribed and
assumed by a portion of those in the military, can also be applied to violence
against women. This article also raises the question of the role of
institutions in gender violence. I
also wondered what other institutions would promote a hyper masculine mantra
and reward overtly heterosexual behavior.
Thankfully, I needed to only sit in my room. From the comfort of my very own bed I
was able to enjoy the soulful degrading sounds of the neighboring fraternity
annex. I called on my undergrad roommates to provide some context for me. They
informed me that they must have been practicing their serenades for the
sororities. The use of the highly romanticized word serenade seems particularly
ill-chosen considering the focus of the song simplified the worth of women into
their ability to perform sexual services on men. I am by no means comparing the
status of gendered violence in a conflict/post conflict to that of this college
campus, but I do think the arguments made by Niarchos and IVAW do apply.
Often
war is seen as a justification to violence and unsavory behavior. What is the
justification in the objectification of women by young men receiving a higher
education? Do we chalk it up to immature male bonding or do we look at its
place in gender violence? I do not mean this as a commentary on greek life, it
just happened to be the motivation behind this post, and I am sure this
behavior is not limited to fraternities. The larger question illustrated by this
antidote is what is the state of gender violence in higher education
institution? I have experienced street harassment on a much more frequent and
intense level on this campus than on any other college campus I have ever been
on. The argument could be made that I am more aware of it because of my
increased feminist knowledge, but that should not discount the fact that I have
seen women on this campus be shamed for simply walking down a street. The real question is what role does
higher education play in perpetuating this behavior and what are these
institutions’ responsibilities in responding to it?
Ashley, this post tackles a lot of themes around gender based violence in different contexts either conflict situations or college campuses. This analogy of harassment and violence occurring in these two contexts discredits the argument that conflicts are more dangerous for women. This is because of the current culture about the sexual harassment and rape perpetuates violence. In my research on Egypt, I try to avoid analyzing the reasons behind the prevalence of street and sexual harassment for that what the different scholars proposed aren’t comprehensive in understanding the issue. At the same time, some analysts of this issue would refer to theories that undermine men's agency which for me resembles the first wave of WID that essentialized women and ignored their agency. So thanks for pondering over this topic and for the eye opening observations.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi Ashley, I read your article today, Nov 25th, and I found it fit with the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. I think your question what is the role of institutions in gender-based violence such as education institutions is crucial in understanding our society. Until now most institutions (at different levels family, community, national, international) are patriarchal institutions. This situation can be seen in the laws and in the practices of states and markets around the world. As a result, women need to speak up for each gender-based violence case that they face. Of course, women around the world did that in various times and locations, but we need to keep speaking up against violence. This link I saw it today http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5Hgq1rhNQo&feature=youtu.be . The video portrays different women from different countries in the Arab World, and they narrate in different Arabic-dialects what are some forms of discrimination and violence that face women in their everyday lives.
ReplyDeleteI think there are distinctions that need to be made regarding the type of behavior that Ashley describes and cites in the Peaceworks document on gender and conflict. The gay soldier describes the acts that fellow soldiers would commit to prove that they are not gay, implying various either homophobic or misogynistic acts or language to prove one’s heterosexuality. However, I do not believe that this in itself constitutes as behavior specific to conflict, but rather a setting that is all or mostly male. The culture of this setting may be formed by the preparation for conflict, but I think it has more in common with the all-male environment and context of the fraternity house than a group of soldiers during or after conflict. The Peaceworks document describes the term of “violent capital” (Peaceworks,15) as one where soldiers who have come back to domestic lives after fighting find no applicable use for their skills in killing and destruction that they were trained in earlier. This can often result in gendered violence, however I think it is very distinct from the cases of the soldiers and fraternity brothers that Ashley describes. These cases are more the results of all-male environments coping with their own insecurities regarding their sexuality, that is manifested in their being outwardly homophobic and misogynistic as “proof” of their sexuality. Not to justify their actions, but to understand them, in many all-male environments, there are many pressures amongst young men to prove themselves as “men” (i.e. heterosexual men) for the idea of homosexuality existing within an all male environment would be threatening to the group, for it will cause other members of the group to ask themselves if their being in an all-male environment that includes homosexuals would make them perceived to be homosexual by proxy. Therefore, in the case of the fraternity brothers that Ashley describes, one would suspect that the most vocal and eager to assert their heterosexuality in this way are the ones that have the most to prove, either by being closeted homosexuals, not having a stable relationship with a woman or because they perceive themselves to be less virulent or have a lower “number” than other men they come into contact with. This behavior is also reflective of their personal frustrations with women and courtship. Many men in all-male environments likely find themselves turned down at one time or another by their “objects of desire”. Verbal or physical harassment or violent and/or demeaning speech regarding women and sex either directed at women or spoken within the all-male environment is a way for men to recover or desensitize themselves from these defeats by humiliating the women that have “offended” them either directly, or more often than not by trying to humiliate and insult women they encounter in general. Gail Dines, an anti-pornography feminist, states that the viewing of pornography by men (another all-male group activity, along with the describing of crude and outrageous sexual acts depicted in pornography with other men) is another manifestation of this, for men watch it often to see the humiliation of women who resemble those that would reject them (from Wikipedia). Since this type of behavior is prominent in most young adult all-male environments (fraternities, sports teams, boy’s summer camps, military units, single sex high schools) the best approach to deal with this is to work with men in these groups to recognize the consequences of these thoughts and actions and develop better alternatives to vent or resolve their frustrations.
DeleteI think there are distinctions that need to be made regarding the type of behavior that Ashley describes and cites in the Peaceworks document on gender and conflict. The gay soldier describes the acts that fellow soldiers would commit to prove that they are not gay, implying various either homophobic or misogynistic acts or language to prove one’s heterosexuality. However, I do not believe that this in itself constitutes as behavior specific to conflict, but rather a setting that is all or mostly male. The culture of this setting may be formed by the preparation for conflict, but I think it has more in common with the all-male environment and context of the fraternity house than a group of soldiers during or after conflict. The Peaceworks document describes the term of “violent capital” (Peaceworks,15) as one where soldiers who have come back to domestic lives after fighting find no applicable use for their skills in killing and destruction that they were trained in earlier. This can often result in gendered violence, however I think it is very distinct from the cases of the soldiers and fraternity brothers that Ashley describes. These cases are more the results of all-male environments coping with their own insecurities regarding their sexuality, that is manifested in their being outwardly homophobic and misogynistic as “proof” of their sexuality. Not to justify their actions, but to understand them, in many all-male environments, there are many pressures amongst young men to prove themselves as “men” (i.e. heterosexual men) for the idea of homosexuality existing within an all male environment would be threatening to the group, for it will cause other members of the group to ask themselves if their being in an all-male environment that includes homosexuals would make them perceived to be homosexual by proxy. Therefore, in the case of the fraternity brothers that Ashley describes, one would suspect that the most vocal and eager to assert their heterosexuality in this way are the ones that have the most to prove, either by being closeted homosexuals, not having a stable relationship with a woman or because they perceive themselves to be less virulent or have a lower “number” than other men they come into contact with. This behavior is also reflective of their personal frustrations with women and courtship. Many men in all-male environments likely find themselves turned down at one time or another by their “objects of desire”. Verbal or physical harassment or violent and/or demeaning speech regarding women and sex either directed at women or spoken within the all-male environment is a way for men to recover or desensitize themselves from these defeats by humiliating the women that have “offended” them either directly, or more often than not by trying to humiliate and insult women they encounter in general. Gail Dines, an anti-pornography feminist, states that the viewing of pornography by men (another all-male group activity, along with the describing of crude and outrageous sexual acts depicted in pornography with other men) is another manifestation of this, for men watch it often to see the humiliation of women who resemble those that would reject them (from Wikipedia). Since this type of behavior is prominent in most young adult all-male environments (fraternities, sports teams, boy’s summer camps, military units, single sex high schools) the best approach to deal with this is to work with men in these groups to recognize the consequences of these thoughts and actions and develop better alternatives to vent or resolve their frustrations.
Delete