Response to "Sneak Attack: The Militarization of U.S Culture" Women's Lives

This selection emphasized how sneaky and seductive U.S militarization can be in our society. Aspects of this are showing up in all corners of modern culture. It doesn't help that since September 11th, not showing support of the military has been seen as unpatriotic and disloyal. In fact, it is this increased militarization of our culture that largely allowed George W. Bush to go to war in the first place. This cultural militarization has made war seem patriotic, romantic, and has even inspired a sense of security in our society. Evidence of militarization can be seen in most aspects of culture today. In high schools all over the nation, ROTC, Marines, Air Force, and Navy representatives are allowed to station booths in lunch rooms in order to advertise the benefits of joining to young, impressionable teens. In colleges, many students pursue degrees in military weaponry and in weapons engineering. Exposing kids at young ages to the benefits of militarization instills this distorted sense of patriotism at a young age. 

Even in beauty pageants, many of the judges have a lucrative military career that is widely publicized in the competition. What does this say to young women and girls watching these competitions? Not only does it show them what they should consider beautiful, but it also illustrates that military men are men to be respected and admired. I'm not saying this is a bad thing at all, but it is a good example of how militarization has seeped into many aspects of everyday culture. 

And then there is the presence of Hummers on our highways. While these originally were meant as military vehicles, average civilians have been able to purchase and drive them. What do these say about their drivers? They make drivers appear more intimidating and deserving of respect on the roadway, much like the intent of military hummers. Much like military presence in beauty pageants, this illustrates to citizens that anyone in the military is to be respected and admired. 

This respect and admiration makes people feel much more comfortable and secure with letting the military make decisions regarding national security. Whether this is a good thing remains up for debate. I think increased militarization in society today leaves the door open for manipulation by military and political leaders; if they hide behind the reasoning that what they are doing is a matter of national security, they can do virtually anything. I don't know about anyone else, but the fact that these people can wield that much power over an entire nation, especially a democratic one, frightens me. 

As U.S citizens, do we not have the right to know what goes on in our White House and Pentagon? Is it better that we not know? Are the people currently in power manipulating us and our values regarding democracy? Do we sacrifice our democratic ideals for national security? Is this a fair trade? 

Image from: http://www.truthout.org/files/imagecache/image_full_page/files/images/M1_112008J_0.jpg

Response to "Identities and Social Locations: Who Am I? Who Are My People?" Women's Lives, chapter 2

This chapter brought up some interesting questions that I think everyone should give some thought to. It deals with the concept of identity. This reading asks you to question your own sense of identity. Who are you? How do you identify yourself? Where is your home? Where is your community? I've always answered these questions with very shallow responses, yet I never truly thought about why I answer in these ways. 

Were I asked these questions, I would have simply stated: "I am Kaylee Hardman. I am an American, although my roots are Irish, Dutch, and French. My home is in North Bend, Washington. I consider myself a part of two communities, the WSU community and the community of Snoqualmie Valley."

We identify ourselves as so many different things, yet who decides the answers to these questions? And what are they based on? When people think of identity, I think it's most easy to identify the physical aspects. What do they look like? What is their race? I think in some ways, when you are asked to identify yourself, it's necessary to dehumanize the group of people that you most closely identify yourself with. When you say that you're Irish, you simply say that you're Irish; you don't go into detail about the struggles your people have overcome, or the beauty of the land your ancestors came from. Sometimes we distinguish ourselves as "white" and "non-white." Making this distinction suggests that minority groups that aren't white are a negative thing. How do we combat this? Should we stop considering ourselves white or non-white? Should we be content with stating our country of origin? I think this is a start, but not the only solution. In order to find a solution, I think we have to confront the presence of stereotypes, both negative and positive, in our society today. By making generalizations about different cultures, we cannot fully appreciate them. On the other hand, by romanticizing some of these cultures, we are essentially doing the same thing. Is it fair to express Asian women as part of "the mysterious orient?" Or calling Native American women "earth mothers?" Even positive stereotyping obscures the truth and many complexities of who these women really are. 

The chapter illustrates the concept of identity as "at the macro and global levels, identity is a matter of collective well-being and survival" (p. 67). Stereotyping these groups is a form of oppression; eliminating all oppression, racism, and bias is nearly impossible. This is why it's important for these different groups and cultures to identify themselves together and find strength and empowerment in each other. 

So then, what is my social identity? I don't think it's possible to truly express this in a few simple words. The truth is, everyone lives with multiple identities, with different cultures, heritage, and upbringings. These many different aspects of ourselves enhance us, cultivate us, and ameliorate us, while at the same time, they contradict us. 

In the portrait above titled "Rutu,' the artist portrays several different cultural and spiritual aspects of herself. She emphasizes European and Polynesian qualities of herself, as well as different Pacific and Christian symbols. Everything down to the fish around her neck and even the title of the portrait illustrate some aspect of the artist's identity. THe fish represent her astrological sign Pices, the name Rutu is a biblical word meaning 'compassion,' the lotus in her hand represents the concept of rebirth and regeneration in Chinese culture, and even the flat, bright colors and linear shapes reflect aspects of Japanese art. All of these different pieces come together in this painting to illuminate the artist's concept of social identity. 

Image from: http://arts.unitec.ac.nz/resources/units/visual_culture/cultural_identity_portrait/rutu.gif

Response to "Unity Statement" in Women's Lives

I had a couple of issues with this reading; firstly, I felt that it was stereotyping men as violent, unemotional shells of human beings. Not only this, but the message was very broad. It had complaints about issues we face in society today, yet it suggested nothing that could be done to help alleviate it. I think a lot of the message in this selection, which was a good message calling for peace and unity, was obscured by these various oversights. 

The author states that it is the "imperial arrogance of the white male power that has separated us from the suffering and wisdom of our sisters in Asia, Africa, South America and in our own country" (p. 527). This statement is very bold, if not ballsy; it is isolating men as a dominant and oppressive force. In my experiences, when you are trying to convince someone to think the way you do, you definitely do not isolate them and single them out to the point of discomfort and frustration. To be fair though, it's practically impossible to protest something without isolating certain people. Is it fair though, that these women cite all white males as being oppressive and dominant in society? I definitely don't think so. I think it's an arrogant statement, and it's blatant stereotyping. Personally, I don't want to listen to a group of people that are that ignorant. 

Another problem I found in this reading was the fact that these women are calling for an end to military drafts. Granted, no one wants to be drafted; but in a period of wartime, it's of the utmost necessity to protect your nation. Without these soldiers, we have no protection. If we are vulnerable, it is only a matter of time before another nation takes hold of our valuable resources and assets. Is this what these women really want to see? The fall of a great nation?

The Women's Pentagon Action also claims that "We want the uranium left in the earth and the earth given back to the people who tilled it. We want a system of energy which is renewable, which does not take resources out of the earth without returning them. We want those systems to belong to the people and their communities, not to the giant corporations which invariably turn knowledge into weaponry...We want an end to the arms race. No more bombs. No more amazing inventions for death" (p. 527). 

....So does everyone else. In case these women haven't noticed, people don't want to live in fear of weapons of mass destruction; people don't want to deplete all the natural resources of the earth; people don't want businesses in the hands of greedy investors looking to line their own wallets. Nobody wants these realities, yet they are very real. Complaining that we don't want to live with these facts does nothing to solve the problem. Rather than ranting and raving about how terrible the world is today, give suggestions for the common person to make this world better. Complaining gets no where; in fact, if anything, it just pisses a lot of people off. For lack of a scholarly term to describe this reading, I would simply call this bullshit. 

Image from http://www.dianamarahenry.com/images/PuppetsatPentagon.jpg

Response to "Rose Moon" in Chapter 12 of Women's Lives

This excerpt raised two interesting points that I thought were worth investigating. Sandra Steingraber, the author, is a pregnant woman questioning some of the local organic toxins prevalent in the environment of her hometown. She wonders why pregnancy books answer various health questions (yet do not touch on whether or not consuming small amounts of alcohol are detrimental to a fetus's health) with the statement, "in ignorance, abstain." 

She discusses how part of the problem is that our knowledge of chemical effects on the brain is very limited; she claims this is largely due to the fact that animal testing is limited at best. This raises an interesting question: Should we be allowed to test the effects that harmful chemicals and toxins can have on the brain on animals if it is to better protect a fetus's development and growth?

This is a complicated, multi-faceted, and controversial issue at best. On one hand, testing on animals would provide very useful information regarding fetus health and development; women could learn how to better avoid harmful chemicals that may hinder the growth and brain development of their babies. Yet it would be very cruel and harmful to these animals that would be forced to undergo these tests and experiments. What alternatives are there to testing these neurotoxins on animals? How else will we know what their effects on the body will be? 

It's been proven that testing on animals doesn't always provide accurate information on how a medication or a chemical will react in a human; it's difficult to find an animal accurately mimicking biological processes found in humans. This fact in itself is reason enough not to test on animals altogether; if it's not completely accurate, what good is it? I think that more needs to be invested in being able to use computers to study the effects certain toxins will have on the human body. Granted this would cost an enormous amount of taxpayer dollars and donations from organizations, but in my personal opinion I would say the good it would bring would far outweigh any negative consequences. I think spending taxpayer dollars in order to spare innocent animals from torture and captivity, and to invest in studying the effects of natural toxins on fetal development is a wise decision. 

The second point Steingraber brought up that I felt worth mentioning was the concept that many of these lab studies being conducted on certain chemicals and their effects are largely funded by corporations that use or sell these very chemicals. In the excerpt, she discusses how the studies on lead yielded very harmful evidence, yet the main funder of the studies were a lead-based paint company. Protecting their reputation was of the utmost importance, and so they refused to publish the accurate findings on lead, the consequences of which cannot be measured. Countless people have gotten sick and/or died from exposure to excessive amounts of lead. In modern day, nearly 1 in 20 people has an abnormally high lead content in their blood stream. 

The obvious problem here is that these studies are being funded by companies that have a stake in the outcomes; when you bring a biased party into the situation, there is bound to be some amount of manipulation. What's necessary to do in this case is to acquire primary funding from arbitrary parties, such as local government or private investors that do not have a stake in the outcomes of such tests. 

Response to "Report from Okinawa (1997)-Women's Lives

As I was reading through this selection, I came across the mentioning of brothels that were established in Okinawa for soldiers fighting in WWII; women in these brothels were called "comfort women." I've heard this phenomenon referred to as "comfort battalions" as well. As I researched this further, I discovered that for the most part, these comfort battalions were in China, Japan, Korea, Thailand, the Philippines, Vietnam, and Singapore. Women from all of these areas were transported between brothels all along Asia. 

Over 100,000 women were made to be in these brothels. Many of them were encouraged by Japanese officials, thinking they would serve as great moral boosters for the troops. Many of these women were either forced into the business, sold into it, or lured into it under false pretenses. Some of these women were simply kidnapped by Japanese soldiers. They were expected to have sex with soldiers between 12 and 40 times a day, which often times caused harm to their genitals. Comfort women were ranked into several categories; the youngest, "freshest" women were the highest category, with virgins usually saved for high ranking officers. As these women got older and had more and more sex with the soldiers, they were slowly downgraded in status. One terrifying fact was that some of these women had to have their rotted uteruses removed due to so much disease and unprotected sex. 

As I continued researching this topic, I wondered how the Japan and the rest of the world dealt with this when the facts came to light. I found out that Japan has offered verbal expressions of regret for the atrocities committed to these women, but has done little beyond that. 

My question to anyone reading this blog post is whether or not there is a way of compensating women that have suffered like this? Can anyone make up for what they have had to endure? Can you put a monetary value on the pain and torture they were forced to undergo? I think the only way to truly compensate these women is to somehow totally erase their memory of the occurrences. If there is actually a way to do this, then I have yet to hear of it.

The fact that the Japanese military had a large hand in running these brothels is the most shocking; the very entity that is supposed to protect and serve its people is actually raping, mutilating, torturing, and killing them. This calls into question the role of the military in a national entity. Is the military supposed to protect the people, or protect the interests of the nation? Perhaps both? What if these come into conflict with each other, such as in this case? Do you protect the people of the nation, or do you protect national interests and investments? 

I don't think this is simply a black and white issue; there is a lot of gray area to consider in situations such as these. In this case, these women and girls were treated horrendously and paid the price physically for their forced involvement in these brothels. The intended result was for soldiers to boost their moral, improving their performance on the battlefield. A necessary task, but the way it was gone about was atrocious. 

What are acceptable sacrifices the people of a nation can make during war-time? When I think about this, I can't help but be reminded of America during WWII. People were encouraged to live frugally, send care packages of food overseas to fighting soldiers, and women were finally given the chance to enter the workforce. In my opinion, these are the sacrifices people should make during war-time; they should not be forced into physical abuse and sexual violence. 

Gender and Citizenship

The video "Reforming the Border" brought to light some very interesting issues regarding citizenship as related to physical boundaries, gender and sex. The many boundary constructions we have established along our borders have created a nationalist, almost exclusive sort of mentality among citizens. This got me thinking, 'what makes someone a citizen?'

On the surface, citizenship is created through the physical community in which we live, but what about the many moral communities throughout the world? Are we citizens of these specific communities as well? The more I think about it, the more I realize that individual identity is created through the differences we all possess, both in physical ways as well as emotional and moral. Does this then mean that no one is truly a citizen of anything or anywhere? How can we identify ourselves with others when we are all different in so many ways? And on this note, what are the differences between moral communities and ethnic/physical communities?

The early 20th century saw a rise in the concept of the 'good citizen' and the decline of an autonomous individual with unique identities. With a rise in the emphasis on citizenship, the social divisions we begin to experience also begin to rise. People become more focused on physical borders and differentiating the moral distinctions between all these different cultures. A sense of nationalism and citizenship begins to develop around different moral communities rather than vice versa. It's like forming a club where you find all your members first, and then you decide what you stand for and what your values are. It should be the other way around. 

The concept of protecting citizenship was brought up in the video as well. Dialogue and cultural translation between borders is coming into conflict with the idea of preservation and protecting one's citizenship. This is a double-edged sword when you begin to dissect it. We encourage people to be proud of their ethnicity and native cultures, yet it is this pride that tends to create an exclusive mentality in the hopes of preserving your race and cultural identity. While I don't feel any animosity towards people of other races (in fact I respect many of these varying cultures) I do feel a sense of pride in being white. To digress a bit, I think that society today is teaching us that we should feel guilty for being caucasian due to the many atrocities they have committed against other races in the past, but I think it's important to look past this shallow guilt and find a sense of pride in who you are and in your genetic and ethnic makeup. 

Anyways, to get back on topic, this video really made me think about the concept of gender as related to national boundaries. Are the women in these videos seen as 'proper citizens?' Do they see themselves as good citizens?

Image from: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0705/feature5/images/ft_hdr.5.jpg

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