Steinem and Myers on Female Oppression in the Military and Violent Crimes

Gloria Steinem’s “Supremacy Crimes” and Steven Lee Myers’ “A Peril in War Zones” and “Living and Fighting Alongside Men” raised several interesting and thought-provoking issues that I had never considered in depth prior to reading these pieces. I found that each article provided a unique and useful perspective regarding the oppression of women in diverse and unique environments and scenarios, and moreover, new perspectives concerning the nature of those who are performing such oppression.

Steinem’s article, which focused on the various high-profile (and under recognized) violence crimes that have occurred in recent times, drew attention to the ways in which such crimes have been covered and recognized by the public/media. Steinem begins her essay by focusing on the Colorodo high school shootings, arguing that while the news focused on the fact that the men responsible for the shootings were “young,” and the “youth of America,” there was little emphasis on the fact that they were men. However, what is more interesting is that the majority of violent crimes are, indeed, performed by those who embody the patriarchal norm: white, heterosexual men. Steinem made interesting points in questioning what might have happened had the shootings been performed by young women, “Would we be discussing their youth more than their gender, as is the case so far with these male killers?” Of the various violent crimes that I have read/heard about through various media outlets, I had never considered such questions or issues. Steinem’s piece is very important in that it provides a new way of questioning a topic so prominent in our society through the framework of patriarchal norms.

In a similar vein, Myers offers several interesting facts and perspectives through his two pieces on women in the military. While I was well aware of the patriarchal/hetero-normative ways of the military, I had never considered the potential implications that this might have for female officers. In ”A Peril in War Zones,” Captain White’s case reveals the issues faced by women in the military who are victims of sexual abuse: for example, women who have been sexually abused/assaulted often fail to come forward due to the general understanding that their “commanders’ focus on the mission overshadows other concerns,” such as rape. In White’s case, she had “no confidence that her case would be taken seriously and so tried to cope on her own.” The fact that most women do feel this way is a difficult issue to tackle, as the perils of war will certainly continue to overshadow (what appear to be) more minor issues in the grand scheme of things, such as sexual assault.

Furthermore, I was shocked by Myers’ finding that “A woman in the military is more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire in Iraq.” I hardly believed this statistic when first reading it, and feel that it effectively highlights the severity of this situation.

I found that these three articles were incredibly enlightening and fairly “new” in terms of my understanding of female oppression, and I look forward to seeing others’ reactions on the matter.

Levy, Brownmiller, Morgan, and Walker

All of the readings for this class made me think back to a class that I took last year called Gender, Power, and Violence. In that class we learned how different institutions exerted their power over women in different ways and in some cases this power was exerted through violence. Once again, I found myself disturbed and disappointed while reading these articles about how men are able to maintain their power over women in society. Morgan’s article was especially poignant for me as it reminded me how difficult it must be for some women to live their lives in a state of constant fear after being raped. In addition I think that her story of how callous people acted towards her after she tried to report her rape is a big issue because as I learned in my class last year, this occurs way more often than people realize it does. All of the readings in one way or another addressed how women are prevented from changing their role in society. Levy’s chapter served as a foundation for how younger girls are trained to act in a way that puts them in a vulnerable position with men because society is telling them that in order to fit in they need to act in ways that are sexually degrading. I thought that her point about how young girls are constantly taught abstinence in schools, yet all they receive are messages of sex from the media was particularly interesting. It is almost as if they are placed in a situation where they can’t win because in order to practice safe sex they need to inquire about ways to do so, however this puts them at risk of being labeled as “whores,” or allows men to say that the girls are asking for it.

Additionally, I thought that Brownmiller’s excerpt was also very interesting. I found it shocking that 71 percent of rapes in Amir’s study were planned rapes and 43 percent of rapes had two or more men assaulting one woman. I often never think of rape as a pre-meditated act because of the context that I am in. I usually think of college campus rapes in terms of men refusing to stop when a woman says no, but I think that it is also unsettling to think that the majority of rapists in this case actually planned out what they were going to do before they did it. Walker’s piece about self-defense provides an avenue for women to feel safer, and I think that this is a good way for women to combat the power that men possess in society. If more women begin to challenge this balance of power maybe we will finally see a change in behavior from men, and in Levy’s case, also from women.

Gawande and Goer: A Discussion of Childbirth

I found the discussion regarding childbirth between Gawande and Goer's articles to be quite informative especially in light of the New York Times article that recently reported that cesarean births have reached an all-time high in U.S. at 32%. And while all three articles come to leave the reader with varying conclusion on the state of childbirth in the U.S., what is interesting is the the NY Times article highlights several important points both made in the Gawande and Goer articles.

First, the NY Times article reinforces the point made in both articles about childbirth having become institutionalized to an alarming extent in the U.S. “We should do inductions for good solid medical reasons, not for convenience or the day of the week,” stated Dr. Macones said. The article mentions the increase in C-sections due to fears of OB/GYNs of being sued, but fails to fully suggest what then can be done about the problem. Grady mentions certain trends in c-sections today, like having repeated c-sections after the first, but she never cites a study that suggests this practice is unnecessary.

Secondly, Grady brings into the conversation the issue of cost and danger: all 3 authors seem to take separate stances on whether our institutionalized method of childbirth has higher risks for the mother and child, but they all three make note of the infamous issue of 'cost.' And while I understand Grady's point that c-section cost almost double that of vaginal births, one must also recognize her other point in that lawsuits are a real threat and problem. Yes, one solution for those doctors who simply perform the surgery out fear is to gain protections for these doctors, however, if c-sections are deemed necessary by the doctor for the benefit of the mother and child (in which hopefully most cases being performed it is), then I have trouble responding to the critiques of Grady and Goer against c-sections. I think Gawande has an interesting spin to his article in that he shows that an educated women in the field, Rourke (who Goer describes as having "unrealistic anxieties" due to her profession), is able to let go of her insistence on having this natural birth, reminding us that not all c-section are performed because we are eager to slice and dice patients now days. For me, it simply drove home the point that childbirth is dangerous and extremely scary. Some women want to do it naturally, but others do not. And regardless of the high costs, if a c-section means the mother and child are going to have a safe delivery (which Goer claims as having equal chances as vaginal birth in most cases, non-emergencies) then I believe the decision is the woman's and whatever makes her feel most comfortable. If your doctor recommends you have a c-section, and that is what you feel most comfortable with (even though, you may perhaps be able to give birth vaginally hours later), then I believe the decision is completely personal in nature and we should stop criticizing the system. Until extensive studies show that such c-sections are causing great harm, then I don't understand why the public is so concerned with which form of a childbirth a mother chooses.

Abortion Readings

I found all of these readings to be especially interesting since I just wrote my News Flash on a woman who chose to provide a live Twitter Feed during her abortion. As I talked about in my News Flash and was consistent in these readings, much of the discussion surrounding abortion deals with the negative impacts it has on a woman's body. Both chapters in Listen Up provided emotional and honest first-hand experiences of abortion and I found them to be extremely poignant. I have always been Pro-Choice, however I do not think that I have ever read a first-hand detailed description of what an abortion actually entails. The chapter by Muscio was so vivid that at one point I had to stop reading because I could not bear to think that any person would have to experience something like that. After reading the accounts of these women, I pondered Muscio's point of how our patriarchal society has this power over a woman and I agree with her. I don't think that people fully realize when they are fighting for abortion rights or claiming to be "pro-choice" that they are in a sense claiming power over someone else's body. The fight really comes down to the power that each woman holds over her own body. I think that my view on abortion is similar to the view that Crews expresses in her chapter. To me, it is simply illogical as to why anyone but the woman herself would get to decide the rights she has over her own body.

All of these readings address the theme of men being in control in our society, and this is highlighted by the fact that throughout the majority of our history men have been the lawmakers in our country, and like Crews mentions men are the ones who are "needed to deliver babies." I thought Crews brought up a really interesting point of how men dictate the process of birth and stipulate when and where a woman should give birth. Crews is definitely right in the fact that the choice surrounding becoming pregnant and giving birth should be made by the person who is actually going through the experience. In addition, Arcana's article suggests that regardless of the circumstances women need to discuss their abortions and the need for choice. I agree with this, but I also see some danger in doing so. While reading Muscio's chapter I thought that for me the details of the actual abortion were instrumental in helping me realize how serious it actually is and helping me reinforce my belief that women should have the right to choose, however as I mentioned in my News Flash this open discourse could also backfire and enable people who are pro-life to depict abortion as a sinful process.

News Flash 2: The Controversy of Kathryn Bigelow

On Sunday, March 7, 2010, Hurt Locker director Kathryn Bigelow made cinematographic history when she became the first female in the Oscar’s eighty-two years to win the title of Best Director. As one might expect, Bigelow’s monumental win and its implications for women in American culture and cinema have fostered significant discussion and debate amongst a variety of feminists and their respective (and often conflicting) ideologies. Manohla Dargis’ New York Times article, “How Oscar Found Ms. Right,” presents these varying perspectives, as well as her own opinion, concerning the feminist accomplishments (or lack thereof) represented by Bigelow’s newly minted title (Dargis, 2010, p. AR1). http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/movies/14dargis.html Through a discussion of the varying responses to Bigelow’s victory, Dargis reveals that both Bigelow’s feminist critics and supporters are largely concerned with American cultural norms and fixed systems and whether or not Ms. Bigelow’s success represents a step for women that functions “outside of the system.” Where they differ, however, is in the particular American “system” that they choose to discuss. Whereas Ms. Bigelow’s critics emphasize the issue of American cinema’s patriarchal norms and the female director’s inability to defy them, her supporters reveal her ability to transgress the American standard of the male/female binary. In this sense, we may consider her opposition to reflect the ideology of the radical feminist camp, whereas her praise is more in tune with “postmodern feminists”

With regard to the criticisms that emerged following Bigelow’s victory, Dargis cites a recent article in Salon written by Martha P. Nochomisom, titled “Kathryn Bigelow: Feminist Pioneer or Tough Guy in drag?” http://www.salon.com/entertainment/movies/film_salon/2010/02/24/bigelow. Dargis succinctly observes, “the heart of Ms. Nochimson’s critique is the charge that Ms. Bigelow and her ‘masterly’ technique have been lauded while Nancy Meyers and Nora Ephron have endured ‘summary dismissal.’ In other words, American Hollywood cinema, much like American culture as whole, tends to valorize films that are patriarchal in both content and composition, thereby devaluing films that predominantly feature women, films which are “routinely dismissed because they’re about women, as the patronizing term ‘chick flick’ affirms every time it’s reflexively deployed” (Dargis). Thus, in directing a film with the “male” theme of war and a cast of predominantly male characters, Bigelow’s acquisition of the title of Best Director is not so much monumental, as it is merely perpetuating and “working within” the patriarchal “system” that is American cinema.

Nochism’s argument is in line with several feminist ideologies that are member to the “radical feminist” movement. For example, just as Ariel Levy takes issue with the “female chauvinist pigs” who attempt liberation by participating in the male-oriented raunch culture and by assuming the mantra of “why try to beat them when you can join them?” (Levy, 93), Nochism and similar Bigelow critics discredit the female director’s victory for having occurred within a patriarchal framework. This critique might view Bigelow much like Levy views HBO president/television mogul Sheila Nevins (Levy, 89)—an incredibly successful woman who is limited by her adherence to the male “status quo” (Levy, 93). Ms. Bigelow’s success, in this view, is depreciated by radical feminists who consider it a slave to the “status quo” of what is considered “masterly” (Dargis) American cinema, or “kinetic and thrilling movies about men and codes of masculinity set in worlds of violence” (Dargis).

Conversely, Dargis’ own opinion represents that feminist camp that applauds Bigelow for her ability to excel beyond the confinements of a different but similarly problematic American “system” or “norm”—America’s deeply embedded cultural and societal organization around a male/female binary. Dargis reveals that when Ms. Bigelow appeared on “60 Minutes” on February 28, she “insisted that there was no difference between what she and a male director might do” (Dargis). Moreover, Bigelow’s approach to her own publicity in general is strictly intellectual and work-oriented. Dargis argues that Bigelow avoids sexual and personal self-promotions in the news and popular culture, and her limited publicity is subsequently gender-neutral and solely concerned with her work. Indeed, “her insistence on keeping the focus on her movies is a quiet yet profound form of rebellion. She might be a female director, but by refusing to accept that gendered designation — or even engage with it — she is asserting her right to be simply a director” (Dargis). Dargis’ claim, therefore, is that Bigelow is a novel and groundbreaking figure for the feminist movement (in particular, for women in cinema), due to her ability to narrow her focus to her work, rather than her work as a female director. Ms. Bigelow does not value her success in the context of her womanhood, and thus does not subscribe to the standard binary male/female trap of American society.

Dargis’ pro-Bigelow argument is reflective of the postmodern feminist camp—an ideology that aims to overhaul the fixed gender dualities in American culture. These feminists do not seek equality between men and women, but rather, strive to wholly abolish the American insistence that there is a biological distinction between the two. Postmodern feminist thinkers such as Anne Fausto-Sterling, who argue against the notion of “essentialism,” or the idea that men and women have inherently different capabilities and skills, might similarly praise Bigelow for aiming to be perceived as a skilled director, rather than a skilled female director. Fausto-Sterling argues that the “Euro-American ways of understanding how the world works depend heavily on the use of dualisms,” which is problematic in that “we usually employ dualisms in some form of hierarchal argument” (Fausto-Sterling, 21). Thus, to assert that men and woman are inherently different and generally points to one being superior to the other, and in the American patriarchal system, the higher sex is men. Fausto-Sterling and other postmodern feminists/ “social constructivists”, thus, might praise Bigelow in that she does not acknowledge that she might be any less talented or likely to create a “masterly” film because of her gender (because gender is socially constructed and not inherent).

Dargis’ discussion of Ms. Bigelow’s critique and praise highlights the dominant feminist ideologies that seek to advance women by working outside the American systems that tend to oppress them. However, both opinions are highly theoretical and raise an underlying question of feminist ideologies: “what is practical?” In other words, perhaps it is enough to praise Bigelow’s win for the other female directors of the world (or any female who might identity with Bigelow, for that matter). The deconstruction of the patriarchal and gendered “systems” in American culture is a large and daunting task than—a task for which Ms. Bigelow is not/should not be held responsible. As the Oscar winner stated herself, ““the journey for women, no matter what venue it is — politics, business, film — it’s, it’s a long journey”(Dargis)—is it not enough to appreciate this first step?

Works Cited

Dargis, Manohla (2010, March 14). How Oscar Found Ms. Right. New York Times, p. AR1.

Fausto-Sterling, Anne. Sexing the Body. New York: Basic Books, 2000.

Levy, Ariel. Female Chauvinist Pigs. New York: Free Press, 2005.

Nochimson, Martha (2010, February 24). Kathryn Bigelow: Feminist Pioneer or Tough Guy in Drag? Filmsalon.com. http://www.salon.com/entertainment/movies/film_salon/2010/02/24/bigelow

The New Levy?

Susan B. Douglas, a Communications Professor at the University of Michigan recently published a new book - entitled "Enlightened Sexism: The Seductive Message that Feminism's Work is Done" - that has won some considerable praise. Building off of many of the points Ariel Levy makes in "Female Chauvinist Pigs," Douglas looks at how "glam representations of women calling the shots" are in fact deceiving us today. Click here to read a review of her book in ELLE magazine.

News Flash #1: Meg Whitman: California's 'Manly Girl'

In a recent Slate article, contributor Sara Libby comments on the highly-discussed campaign of Meg Whitman for California governor. While the article – entitled “Meg Whitman: California’s ‘Manly Girl’” – spends some time looking at the leading Republican candidate’s policy objectives and qualifications, the bulk of the article, as suggested by its title, looks at how Whitman defies the boundaries of the typical woman political candidate. Seen by many to be the “anti-Palin,” Libby describes Whitman as no “40-something pinup,” but an incredibly driven individual who finished high-school in three years, enrolled in Harvard business school at 21, and led a small start-up known as eBay from $4 million to over $8 billion in annual revenues during her tenure as CEO (Libby). Yet despite Whitman’s clear “competence and cunning,” her “spine of steel” attitude – which commentators have often equated to being on par with her male counterparts – appears to be the topic of much concern amongst the public. While Libby has her own opinions on Whitman’s “somewhat flat and overly practical” operating principle, it is the manner in which she discusses female voters and Whitman’s lack of appeal to them that troubled me most (Libby).

The title of Libby’s article cleverly plays off the pejorative term “girlie men” which was first coined by SNL and subsequently used by current California governor Schwarzenegger to describe his opponents who lacked necessary “guts” (Nicholas, 2004, A-7). Unlike Schwarzenegger’s typical “girlie men” rivals, Libby suggests that Whitman can be seen as a “manly girl” (Libby, 2010). Not only is Whitman uninterested in “fashion and decorating,” but she is also a cutthroat CEO which Libby suggests can be seen through her stances on cutting welfare and other aid programs. However, power-women such as Whitman have become quite common these days and whether one believes the attitudes of these women are in fact innate or an attempt to ‘perform’ the gender role of the male, society appears to have become accepting of women who can lead Fortune 500 companies as well as men.
What is most troubling about Libby’s article, however, are the subtle references that she makes regarding Whitman and how she is less of a girl and more “manly” with respects to her stoic demeanor regarding personal matters. Libby comments that “when [Whitman] reveals personal details, she does it with the spontaneity…of Al Gore.” Additionally, Libby criticizes Whitman’s recent book – The Power of Many – stating that “the few moments of personal trauma included are described in PowerPoint-ready sound bites” and that “when she refers to her marriage to neurosurgeon Griffith Harsh IV as the ‘Whitman-Harsh merger,’ it's not entirely clear whether she's joking” (Libby). Libby’s comments got me thinking as to why she so desperately seems to be in need of these personal details? What is also quite interesting is that Libby writes her article in the ‘Double XX’ section of Slate – a collection of news stories and Op-Ed pieces that are dedicated to looking at ‘what women really think about news, politics, and culture.’ Does Libby’s comment regarding Whitman’s lack of personal exposure suggest that as women, the one thing we expect from other women is an emotional component? And are we skeptical of women who never show their “softer side,” an act Libby states that Whitman has failed to do (Libby).

After reading Libby’s article, I was intrigued by her comments regarding Whitman’s book and figured it would be interesting to read a portion of it and make my own judgments on whether Whitman’s book was entirely stoic and unrelatable. On the contrary, I found Whitman’s book to be an enjoyable read. I was half-expecting to pick up a book that read like a computer manual but instead was pleased to find a very readable, and even at times, personal story. For example, in the section “Be Authentic. You Can’t Buy Integrity,” Whitman discusses how at times in your life you have to make sacrifices in order to achieve your goals and reach success. She recounts a story of another mother refusing to let her children carpool with Whitman’s because the woman “did not quit her job as a banker to stay home and take care of my children so that I could hand them over to someone else’s nanny” (Whitman, 2010, 84). Whitman recalls how the mother’s comment took her six months to recover from and personally, I can’t really see someone getting much more personal than this.

Anne Fausto-Sterling, in her book Sexing the Body, discusses at length the role of gender roles in our society and our inability to fathom characteristics of specific genders as actually inherent in the opposite sex. For example, an aggressive woman is simply a woman ‘acting’ aggressive; she is not actually aggressive, she has simply learned from her male counterparts how to behave in a certain manner. Additionally, during our class discussion following our reading of Ariel Levy’s “Female Chauvinist Pigs,” we talked at length about the difference between “acting” or “performing” gender and actually being a person with qualities and characteristics that are normally described as manly. And now after reading Libby’s article and trying to pin-point where in the literature we have come across instances of women dealing with other women who defy the normal mold, I realize I am unable to find anything on the matter. Although Levy talks about how FCPs “perform gender” and how even amongst lesbian and transsexual couples there still exists a tendency to reinforce gender roles, she fails to ever comment on the large body of present-day women who either do hold these high-up positions and are not “playing” gender as well as women who judge these power-women for not spending their days at home with the children. I think Levy is very quick to categorize modern women into categories which I believe Fausto-Sterling would suggest is a result of needing to understand the world through the male-female dichotomy. A woman can’t simply be naturally uninterested in fashion and have a raging temper – these characteristics must have been learned and are an act. Similarly, I believe that Whitman’s innate sense of drive and power – which Whitman attributes to her strong-willed mother who served as an airplane and truck mechanic for the Red Cross in New Guinea during World War II – confuses and slightly frightens many women because we cannot categorize these attributes as easily as we would like. Sarah Palin is clearly a woman, Hilary Clinton – despite her affinity for pantsuits – showed the world she was a woman when she cried on public television, and the executives that Levy discusses in “Female Chauvinist Pigs” are all very womanly with their high-heels and short-skirts despite their propensity to use crash language and keep up with the guys. I view Meg Whitman to be very similar to author Jennifer Reid Maxcy Myhre. Myhre, who at a certain point in her life stopped forcing herself to act like a girl and cut her hair and stopped shaving her legs, describes how her mere presence on the streets illicits daily looks of utter confusion (Myhre, Listen Up, 86). Unlike a transsexual or cross-dresser who is trying to perform a clear act of gender, Myhre’s presence is particularly troubling because her natural self is not clearly “feminine” or “masculine” – she naturally appears to be some sort of hybrid of the two socially constructed ideas. Similarly, after reading through portions of Whitman’s book, I got the sense that she never was trying to “perform” a certain gender. She was who she was and lived her life accordingly. She even at one point explains why she’s not interested in fashion – a clear response to the many criticisms people have against her. In the section “Focus Demands Discipline,” Whitman explains how her priorities have always been her family and work (Whitman, 184). In her free time, she explains that she preferred to be hiking with her family or helping her sons with their homework instead of attending public functions or going shopping. And when recalling a time when a male friend or hers bought her a very fashionable Armani suit, she writes that “I accepted his gift and I loved wearing it, but would I have taken time away from Griff and the boys to go shopping during that crazy, hectic period? No” (Whitman, 184).

Whitman appears to be honestly uninterested in fashion and good at what she does, yet Libby’s article I believe only reinforces one of the problems that we have been studying in this class – that people in society still are programmed in a bi-polar system and are weary of those who break the mold. What I thought was most telling in Libby’s article is when she discusses Whitman’s polling results and her inability to “attract sisterly support” (Libby). Libby shows that Whitman is much more ahead of her Republican and Democratic candidates with regards to the male vote – meaning she is much more popular with male voters than women. Why is it that women are not supporting this woman while men overwhelmingly are? It also seems as though women, as Libby clearly presents, are ill at-ease with this woman who has defied traditional roles her whole life. Although we commonly speak of the “patriarchal system” we live in and how men have dominated the terms on which women live, I also believe that women have a hand in perpetuating this cycle. A political candidate should not be spending time explaining why she is uninterested in fashion and be criticized for being a terrible mother when her child gets suspended from school – both attacks that we never see male candidates having to respond to. Instead of continually questioning those who do not conform to the mold and trying to uncover the “motives” behind their actions, it seems like it is about time to simply look at people for who they are and whether or not they are qualified.


Works Cited:

Fausto-Sterling, Anne (2000). Sexing the Body. New York, New York: Basic Books.
Levy, Ariel (2005). Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture. New York, New York: Simon & Schuster.

Libby, Sara (February 9, 2010). “Meg Whitman: California’s ‘Manly Girl.’” Slate Magazine - http://www.slate.com/id/2243540.

Whitman, Meg (2010). The Power of Many. New York, New York: Crown Publishers.