Following in timely fashion on our discussion today about rape in the context of war, I heard a story on All Things Considered this evening about a new documentary, "The Greatest Silence," which will appear on HBO this evening. It is about the rapes that have occurred in the eastern Congo, essentially in the wake of/since the Rwandan genocide which ended more than a decade ago. As we discussed today, many Hutus left Rwanda after the genocide and fled into neighboring countries, such as Congo. So, in essence, the war has ranged on, across the border. As in Rwanda, women have continued to be the spoils of war.
I encourage you to listen to the story. In it, film maker, Lisa Jackson, speaks of the Congolese associations of rape with war -- just as we were discussing today. She includes several cold blooded accounts from the mouths of the rebel thugs, including how they see their sexual prowess --including how it is manifest in rape -- as arming and empowering them for war. In essence, rape is a patriotic activity. Illustrating this point is an anecdote she shared about her efforts to connect with and gain the cooperation of those whom she was interviewing and filming in Congo. She took to Congo with her photos of her family and other artifacts about herself, and she told the rape survivors she met the truthful tale of having been gang raped in Washington, DC many years ago. When she shared this story, the Congolese women bombarded her with many questions -- who the assailants were, whether they had been caught and punished. Most tellingly, perhaps, they asked if a war had been going on in her country at the time.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Friday, April 4, 2008
A T-Shirt about Rape
Saw this brief item in the City Room section of today's NYT, and it reminded me of several things -- including our discussion this past week about how abortion is a bit like rape in the sense that no one seems to talk about either "happening" to themselves. There seems to be a shame in "owning up" to either. We mostly discuss them only in the abstract, apart from ourselves.
As you'll see from reading the piece, in 2004, writer and activist Jennifer Baumgardner distributed T-shirts that said "I Had an Abortion." When she decided she wanted to apply this approach to consciousness raising to rape, she had difficulty coming up with a suitable design, one that was neither too passive, ebullient, or shocking. She settled on the one pictured in the article.
She explains:
So what was the other thing this brief item reminded me of? Just what Baumgardner says above -- the need to let rape survivors "own the experience," to help end the silence about this all-too-often occurrence in the lives of altogether-too-many women. As I've expressed before to friends and students: Why do we value and encourage discussion of so many life experiences as providing insights into those experiences, yet dismiss what rape survivors know about rape as "emotional" or "biased" on the topic? We/they should be permitted to speak about our/their experiences without loss of credibility, without being dismissed as angry/upset/overly emotional/lacking objectivity (pick your descriptor). For so many reasons, we/it/they need to come to out of the closet.
As you'll see from reading the piece, in 2004, writer and activist Jennifer Baumgardner distributed T-shirts that said "I Had an Abortion." When she decided she wanted to apply this approach to consciousness raising to rape, she had difficulty coming up with a suitable design, one that was neither too passive, ebullient, or shocking. She settled on the one pictured in the article.
She explains:
And a conversation does follow on the City Room blog. Maybe you will want to join.“What the safe design loses is shock value,” said Ms. Baumgardner, but that’s not what she was going for in the first place.
What was she going for? A shirt that would let rape victims “own the experience,” she says, and would help chip away the cone of silence that surrounds a crime with humiliation at its core.
A shirt that would start conversations.
So what was the other thing this brief item reminded me of? Just what Baumgardner says above -- the need to let rape survivors "own the experience," to help end the silence about this all-too-often occurrence in the lives of altogether-too-many women. As I've expressed before to friends and students: Why do we value and encourage discussion of so many life experiences as providing insights into those experiences, yet dismiss what rape survivors know about rape as "emotional" or "biased" on the topic? We/they should be permitted to speak about our/their experiences without loss of credibility, without being dismissed as angry/upset/overly emotional/lacking objectivity (pick your descriptor). For so many reasons, we/it/they need to come to out of the closet.
Upcoming events at UC Davis on Wednesday, 9 April
Noon, April 9, Wilkins Moot Court Room, King Hall
Four of the attorneys who argued the same-sex marriage case recently before the California Supreme Court will speak.
Featured speakers will include:
Christopher E. Krueger, counsel representing Attorney General Edmund G. Brown
Kenneth C. Mennemeier, counsel representing Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
Shannon Price Minter, counsel representing the Rymer parties
Therese M. Stewart, counsel representing the City and County of San Francisco
Also April 9
Performing Rights: The Art of Sex Worker Activism
Scarlot Harlot, Founder & Co-Director, Sex Worker Film and Arts Festival; Co-Founder, Bay Area Sex Workers Advocacy Network
Maniko Passion, Founder, Sex Workers Outreach Project (SWOP), Los Angeles
3201 Hart Hall
Advice for women lawyers
A few weeks ago we were discussing "post-modern" marriage and the different forms that marriage might/does/could take. I was reminded of that this morning when I came across this study of women lawyers, who have higher divorce rates than male lawyers. Women professionals are also three times more likely than their male counterparts to remain unmarried.
Intuitively, these findings are not surprising to me. The study's author, Robin Fretwell Wilson, speculates that successful, highly educated women -- such as those who become lawyers-- are attracted to successful men. The latter, she theorizes, don't give women the "care and support" they need. She urges women lawyers to seek out men who will provide that care and support.
Her advice seems a bit simplistic to me, as does her theory, though it rings true at least in part. I think traditional gender roles are incredibly difficult to shrug off, for both men and women -- even highly educated ones. When women have work demands commensurate with those of men, "women's work" at home is less likely to get done. Depending on both male and female expectations of themselves and each other, this creates major stresses. Then there is the possibility that the woman lawyer will, by objective standards, be more successful than her male partner. The pitfalls are numerous . . . which isn't to say they are not worth navigating for those who desire both marriage and career.
I am also reminded of the Arlie Hochschild quote in that Mary Becker piece that we read earlier in the semester -- to the effect that women don't stand up for themselves -- for equality, if you will (my paraphrase)-- in the context of marriage because of the desire to avoid conflict in that context. After all, how much conflict can a marriage survive? What's a woman to do? Maybe the answer is to look for a partner who not only will love and support her, but who doesn't have to be constantly confronted/nudged/cajoled/hit over the head about doing his fair share.
Intuitively, these findings are not surprising to me. The study's author, Robin Fretwell Wilson, speculates that successful, highly educated women -- such as those who become lawyers-- are attracted to successful men. The latter, she theorizes, don't give women the "care and support" they need. She urges women lawyers to seek out men who will provide that care and support.
Her advice seems a bit simplistic to me, as does her theory, though it rings true at least in part. I think traditional gender roles are incredibly difficult to shrug off, for both men and women -- even highly educated ones. When women have work demands commensurate with those of men, "women's work" at home is less likely to get done. Depending on both male and female expectations of themselves and each other, this creates major stresses. Then there is the possibility that the woman lawyer will, by objective standards, be more successful than her male partner. The pitfalls are numerous . . . which isn't to say they are not worth navigating for those who desire both marriage and career.
I am also reminded of the Arlie Hochschild quote in that Mary Becker piece that we read earlier in the semester -- to the effect that women don't stand up for themselves -- for equality, if you will (my paraphrase)-- in the context of marriage because of the desire to avoid conflict in that context. After all, how much conflict can a marriage survive? What's a woman to do? Maybe the answer is to look for a partner who not only will love and support her, but who doesn't have to be constantly confronted/nudged/cajoled/hit over the head about doing his fair share.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
A victory for women?
In the last couple of years I have heard the same piece of interesting news over and over again in the Danish media: More women than men (in Denmark) get a higher education. According to the website of the Danish Department of Education in 2006 26.806 women and 16.864 men[1] were accepted to an institution of higher education. And furthermore, the percentages of women accepted are highest in the areas of education were a high grade point average from high school is required. This, apparently, is due to the fact that girls on average get higher grades than boys both in high school and lower secondary school.
I have discussed this phenomenon with my parents numerous times. My mother is a kindergarten teacher, and from her own experience she believes that parents demand more of their daughters than of their sons. If a boy has trouble concentrating in school parents will often say: “Oh he is a boy. A seven year old boy is supposed to have trouble concentrating in school. All boys are like that.” And then they let him off more easily than they would a girl.
I tend to agree with my mother’s view. You would never hear a grown-up say the above quoted sentence about a girl, because that is not how we expect little girls to behave. On the contrary, if a girl has problems concentrating, her parents will probably think there is something wrong with her.
This stereotyping regarding the behavior of small children can probably have severe consequences for a girl, who has trouble concentrating in school, since she will be regarded as unusual since she does not conform. But I think that the consequences are much more serious for boys. The stereotyping, in my experience (which, I admit, is not that great) only affects few girls, while it affects thousands of boys in a very serious way. Because letting boys off too easily when it comes to school work actually deprives them of a fair chance to a good education. The foundation of a good education, and with it a good life, is laid very early on, and many grown-ups, parents and others, do not realize that.
The fact that more women than men get a higher education seems like a victory for feminism. And of course in a way it is. But it seems like less of a victory when you think about the reason why it has become this way. Because, if what I have written above is true, women have not gotten their bigger share in the market of higher education by fair competition, but by the fact that they are actually favored in the educational system, since they are raised to conform to it better. And I do not think that that is what we want, because it has too serious consequences for men and for society as a whole.
One of the consequences is that some educations risks being regarded as “women’s educations”. Today it is already like that with many shorter educations like that of nurse and kindergarten teacher. But that might also be the case for educations that today are not regarded as “women’s educations”, since educations where a very high grade point average is required accept a very large percentage of women. These are for example medicine (67 percent women in 2006), psychology (81 percent women in 2006) and law (62 percent of women in 2006).[2]
Another problem is that even though there are more women with a higher education in the work force, the really high paying, high prestige jobs are still held by men, even in the areas where there are a very high percentage of women such as law and medicine.[3]
The large percentage of women taking a higher education is a good thing from a feminist point of view. Of course it is. But it also creates and reveals other problems concerning the equality in education and work for women. The large percentage of women in higher education is a good start, but we are certainly not there yet. However, well begun is half done.
[1] http://www.ug.dk
[2] http://www.ug.dk
[3] http://www.ug.dk
I have discussed this phenomenon with my parents numerous times. My mother is a kindergarten teacher, and from her own experience she believes that parents demand more of their daughters than of their sons. If a boy has trouble concentrating in school parents will often say: “Oh he is a boy. A seven year old boy is supposed to have trouble concentrating in school. All boys are like that.” And then they let him off more easily than they would a girl.
I tend to agree with my mother’s view. You would never hear a grown-up say the above quoted sentence about a girl, because that is not how we expect little girls to behave. On the contrary, if a girl has problems concentrating, her parents will probably think there is something wrong with her.
This stereotyping regarding the behavior of small children can probably have severe consequences for a girl, who has trouble concentrating in school, since she will be regarded as unusual since she does not conform. But I think that the consequences are much more serious for boys. The stereotyping, in my experience (which, I admit, is not that great) only affects few girls, while it affects thousands of boys in a very serious way. Because letting boys off too easily when it comes to school work actually deprives them of a fair chance to a good education. The foundation of a good education, and with it a good life, is laid very early on, and many grown-ups, parents and others, do not realize that.
The fact that more women than men get a higher education seems like a victory for feminism. And of course in a way it is. But it seems like less of a victory when you think about the reason why it has become this way. Because, if what I have written above is true, women have not gotten their bigger share in the market of higher education by fair competition, but by the fact that they are actually favored in the educational system, since they are raised to conform to it better. And I do not think that that is what we want, because it has too serious consequences for men and for society as a whole.
One of the consequences is that some educations risks being regarded as “women’s educations”. Today it is already like that with many shorter educations like that of nurse and kindergarten teacher. But that might also be the case for educations that today are not regarded as “women’s educations”, since educations where a very high grade point average is required accept a very large percentage of women. These are for example medicine (67 percent women in 2006), psychology (81 percent women in 2006) and law (62 percent of women in 2006).[2]
Another problem is that even though there are more women with a higher education in the work force, the really high paying, high prestige jobs are still held by men, even in the areas where there are a very high percentage of women such as law and medicine.[3]
The large percentage of women taking a higher education is a good thing from a feminist point of view. Of course it is. But it also creates and reveals other problems concerning the equality in education and work for women. The large percentage of women in higher education is a good start, but we are certainly not there yet. However, well begun is half done.
[1] http://www.ug.dk
[2] http://www.ug.dk
[3] http://www.ug.dk
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Dee Dee Myers at the Commonwealth Club
I listened to Dee Dee Myers' talk at the commonwealth club last week and was really suprised by some of her statements. She basically had an essentialist view of feminism: providing broad based reasons for gender disparities in politics and leadership positions in the economy. Dee Dee Myers was the first female press secretary in the White House and discusses the events leading up to her appointment and her treatment in the office. She hints that her appointment was related to President Clinton's desire for a more "representational" administration and that her position, initially, was mostly nominal. She didn't have the same power or pay that her male predecessors enjoyed yet carried the full responsibilty of the position.
Her speech is extremely interesting and can be heard at this link: http://audio.commonwealthclub.org/audio/podcast/weekly.xml
I think that her most groundbreaking statements related to women in politics. She candidly claimed that if Senator Obama was a woman, she would not go far in the race. Meaning that a woman with Senator Obama's credentials -- specifically, his short tenure in Congress -- would not be given the time of day had she decided to run for president. I usually think of Hillary's relentless reminder of her qualifications as a tactic to reduce Senator Obama's credibility. I never thought that she might be reiterating her resume so that the public, and Washington, would trust her more as a woman in power.
I'd love to discuss this more so please listen to the podcast!
Her speech is extremely interesting and can be heard at this link: http://audio.commonwealthclub.org/audio/podcast/weekly.xml
I think that her most groundbreaking statements related to women in politics. She candidly claimed that if Senator Obama was a woman, she would not go far in the race. Meaning that a woman with Senator Obama's credentials -- specifically, his short tenure in Congress -- would not be given the time of day had she decided to run for president. I usually think of Hillary's relentless reminder of her qualifications as a tactic to reduce Senator Obama's credibility. I never thought that she might be reiterating her resume so that the public, and Washington, would trust her more as a woman in power.
I'd love to discuss this more so please listen to the podcast!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)