Response to "Women's Lives" article 62: "Media Representations and the Criminalization of Arab Americans and Muslim Americans"

This article discusses how Muslim and Arab women are typified as weak, battered women due to their culture and the stereotypes placed on Arab men. I think  that as a people in the U.S, we tend to see Arab and Islamic men as embodying the terrorist ideals; it's only natural therefore that we feel compassion for the women that these terrorists live with. Since we typecast them as such horrendous people, we shudder at the disposition of the wives and young girls that get abused by them. When a terrorist activity or a crime is committed, we tend to label them as "Islamic/Arab/Muslim fundamentalists or extremists." By including the word 'Islam' as their primary identity, we start identifying Islamic with crime and evil. In actuality, the Islamic religion is a very peaceable one that believes in the equality and support of women. In fact, in one of the Prophet Muhammad's last speeches, he illustrates:

"Treat your women well and be kind to them, for they are your partners and committed helpers."

Don't get me wrong, the situation in the Middle East is very chaotic, with injustices being committed to all sorts of men, women, and children. What begins to irritate me is when people blindly blame their religion for the domestic problems these people have. There is nothing wrong with the Islamic religion; it preaches equality for both men and women. The problem lies in the extremist factions that begin drifting away from their most basic of moral values. Our view of what a terrorist represents has been skewed ever since the 9/11 attacks. I don't think this necessarily means we are bad people, we are just misguided in our thoughts. The Islamic culture is a very rich and beautiful one; we shouldn't blame it for being the cause of these extremist groups. 

image from http://goatmilk.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/british_muslim_women.jpg

Abstract

Kaylee Hardman

11062938

Women’s Studies 200: Gender and Power

Margo Tamez, Instructor

Global Sex-Slave and Marriage 

Trade and Child Sex-Trafficking

Women and girls in nations like Russia and especially in Southeast Asian countries are being sexually exploited for their looks. They continually get traded from one brothel to the next, sometimes even moving across dangerous borders. Not only this, but women are literally selling themselves as mail-order brides just to better their disposition in life. In Southeast Asia alone, over 300,000 women and girls are trafficked and sexually abused (LoBaido). Women are also sold to other men in foreign countries as wives; what makes this such a difficult problem to alleviate is that most of the processes involved in this transaction are legal. Many of these women are abused and sometimes murdered because they don’t know these men they have been sold to. Initiatives such as the International Broker Regulation Act of 2005 (IMBD) are taking steps towards protecting the vulnerability of these women (McElroy). What should be done to protect these women? Are there programs that the U.S can enact so that these exploited women and children can have a safe shelter to escape to?

The fact that many of these women and girls are seen as sexual commodities is a theory apparent in films like “Dream Worlds 2” and also relate to various chapters in “Inequality and Violence in the U.S,” such as chapter 11. Differing cultural values as well as economic status comes into play regarding how these women are sometimes treated.

Selling women as wives is illegal; yet, the processes used with which these women are sold to other men are perfectly legal (McElroy). There are many reasons why women like this resort to selling their bodies in this way. Other women and girls that are sold as prostitutes are hidden in brothels and hovels, never allowed to leave except for sexual encounters. In places like Cambodia, little girls that still have their virginities can be sold at a rate of about $600 for three days (Children). This project will examine how women and children around the globe are exploited as prostitutes and mail-order brides, as well as what is being done to combat their dispositions and prevent the exploitation of their innocence.

References

"Children for sale - Dateline NBC- msnbc.com." Breaking News, Weather, Business, Health,      Entertainment, Sports, Politics, Travel, Science, Technology, Local, US & World News- msnbc.com. 9  Jan. 2005. 28 Mar. 2009 .

Hughes, Donna M. "Trafficking and Sexual Exploitation on the Internet." Internet Archive: Wayback Machine. 1997. 28 Mar. 2009 .

LoBaido, Anthony C. "Sex-slave trade flourishes in Thailand." WorldNetDaily. 3 Feb. 2002. 28 Mar. 2009 <http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26296>.

McElroy, Wendy. "FOXNews.com - 'Mail-Order Bride' Law Brands All American Men Abusers - Opinion."Breaking News | Latest News | Current News - FOXNews.com. 10 Jan. 2006. 28 Mar. 2009 .

 

 

Controversial Ads

Sisley Fashion Junkie:

                This ad depicts two women with sunken expressions appearing to snort a white, powdery substance in the shape of a dress. The woman on the left is absorbed in the action of snorting the dress, while the woman on the right has a glazed look on her face as she gazes towards the camera. The sloppiness of the women is emphasized by the fact that her breast is exposed, yet she doesn’t seem to notice. She is too absorbed in snorting the dress to care; this illustrates the stereotype that women are more concerned with fashion and with looking good than they are other aspects of their life (like their physical health). How does this affect how women are viewed in American society? I think that young women see ads like this and feel pressure to put more thought and value into their outward appearance. While I think that there is nothing wrong with caring about how you look, the extent to which this ad emphasizes it is a bit outrageous. These women are so addicted to the world of fashion they have let it consume them, much like a dangerous drug would. This design company has played upon the vulnerability of women that are completely absorbed with fashion. Much like we saw in “Dream Worlds 2,” a lot of times women are portrayed as objects of desire and must look a certain way in order to achieve a desirable status.

Tipalet Cigarette Ad:

                This ad features a woman gazing longingly at the profile of a man holding a cigarette and blowing smoke in the woman’s face. The headline reads “Blow in her face and she’ll follow you anywhere.” As I looked at this ad, I began thinking about the stereotypical American 1950’s housewife. For many of these women, their ultimate goal was to find a well-off man, marry him, and have children. This ad plays upon those aspirations, as this woman seems to be magnetized by this sophisticated man. Does this stereotypical view on women demean them? I think women can be limited by these narrow views. This sense of emphasized femininity, which we discussed in chapter 11 of “Inequality and Violence,” can often times limit the scope of a woman’s view of her potential. Instead of feeling as though she can become a surgeon or an astronaut, women are limiting themselves to becoming housewives and mothers; while there is nothing wrong with aspiring to be a wife and mother, it shouldn’t be looked at as the only possibility for a woman.

Dolce and Gabbana Ad:

                This ad sparked a lot of controversy and protest; it was even withdrawn worldwide because of the public debate over it. The issue over this ad was whether or not it was depicting a sexual fantasy or gang rape. There is a woman lying on the ground as a muscular man hovers over her, holding her arms to the ground. A group of men surround the two and appear to be looking on at the scene unfolding before them. It’s also interesting to note that the expressions on everyone’s faces are very somber and serious. Had they had more light-hearted expressions then the tone of the ad would be more playful than intimidating. What does this say about men and women in general? To me, when I look at this ad I see that men are being portrayed as sexual deviants that use their physical strength to dominate women. This reminds me of some of the discussions we have had in class on violence as related to gender and ethnicity, especially in chapter 11 of “Inequality and Violence in the United States.” This ad is playing on the stereotype that women are weaker than men and that men are physically and even sexually more dominant. Men don’t want to be seen as “pussy-whipped” because our society says that that implies weakness. A lot of times, to combat this sense of inferiority, some men will act out against women, whether physically or emotionally. When I look at this ad, I see this group of men as trying to establish their dominance over this woman. The fact that her back is extended and her legs are strained implies that she is struggling to get out of the grasp of the muscular man hovering over her.

Kiwi shoe ad:

                This ad has a lot of sexist undertones; not only is this woman polishing a man’s shoe as though she is a servant, but she is also half the size of the shoe, further emphasizing her inferiority. This ad is suggesting that a woman’s place is to be docile and submissive to her man. In my own opinion, if this company wanted to illustrate the superiority of their shoes, they would have added a miniature of a man alongside the woman so as not to make the ad appear demeaning towards women. This is also related to chapter 11 of “IVUS.” The standard position of women since the 50’s has always been in the domestic realm. She is supposed to cook, clean, and take care of her family and her husband. Is it fair to be playing upon these stereotypes? Obviously, there is nothing wrong with a woman aspiring to be a homemaker; it is a very admirable desire to have, but by limiting the scope of possibilities, women are being oppressed. 

 

Response to IVUS Ch. 13: Militarism and Violence

The amount that the U.S spends on its military and on militaristic operations is absolutely staggering. A lot of this has to do with the agendas of personal investors in big businesses. These businesses work in correlation with the White House and world military leaders to promote profits and stay ahead of the curve in weapons worldwide. Sometimes, our leaders stretch the truth or even outright lie to us in order to gain our financial support for a militaristic endeavor. While it is necessary to have public support in times of war, should our leaders lie to us about the facts in order to gain our support? Of course not! If there is no reason to go to war with another country, then we shouldn't! If they have a resource we want, we should negotiate with them! Didn't we learn in pre-school that it's nice to share? 

Just as an example, it wasn't until 1995 that we learned the supposed North Vietnamese attack on the U.S in the Gulf of Tonkin was a complete fabrication. The significance of this attack was that it catapulted the Unites States into the Vietnamese war. Had this 'attack' not been fabricated and stretched, the U.S likely wouldn't have entered the war; the effects of this cannot be measured. How would our nation be different had we not entered the war? Even today, it's been proven that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and Iraq in the Sept 11 attacks on the World Trade Center. Did the White House use this tragedy as a launch point to take advantage of the oil supplies in Iraq? It's hard to say yes or no, but it does look suspicious. 

I think it's corrupt and greedy politicians and investors like these that give America its bad name. If these people were not so concerned with their own interests and with lining their own pockets, our society would have a lot more invested into domestic issues. All these profits being made by private investors could be put to much more valuable use. Why don't they spend some of their profits on building new shelters for battered women, or investing in a cure for AIDS? It's not the average middle-class American that is making America one of the most despised nations, they are simply misinformed about a lot that goes on in their country; it's the leaders that lie to them that make it difficult for this nation to truly progress.

Image from: http://www.amtrac.org/1atbn/Battles/FortressSentry/photos/ddd001.JPG

Facilitation for "Women's Lives" chapter 57

Key-words: privatization, sustainability, scarcity, urbanization, expropriation, giardia, cryptos poridium, E. coli, etc…

Key-phrases: public-private partnerships, commercial orientation, International Trade Organization (ITO), General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT), General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), World Trade Organization (WTO), World Bank, North American Free Trade Agreements (NAFTA), etc…

Key-names: Vandana Shiva, Suez Lyonnaise des Eaux, Metalclad, Mickey Kantor, Vivendi Environment, etc…

Key-ideas: Water resources are quickly becoming a private enterprise benefitting investors. The price for having water is rising sharply and companies are making more and more profits. The American water market is estimated at $90 billion, the largest in the world. The demand for clean water is the highest it’s ever been, because of pollution.

Questions and quotes:

·         “When water is traded as a good, all provisions of the agreement governing trade in goods apply” (431).

·         “All of us in the Coca-Cola family wake up each morning knowing that every single one of the world’s 5.6 billion people will get thirsty that day. If we make it impossible for these 5.6 billion people to escape Coca-Cola, then we assure our future success for many years to come. Doing anything else is not an option” (432).

o   Is it ethical to privatize something as essential as water? How does the cost and demand relationship for water in the U.S compare to other nations and third world countries?