Captain Marvel (Part II): Feminist-Adjacent Themes Galore

This is the second part of my review of Captain Marvel, I encourage you to read the first part before reading this second part: Captain Marvel (Part I): The Role Model We Need. The first post dealt with the issues that most people see as implicating feminism, such as sexism in the military, getting back up after getting knocked down, and my personal favorite, women being too emotional. This post discusses issues that, while not necessarily implicating feminism at first glance, are clearly a part of feminism, such as creating your own family, first impressions, and how we as a society and as individuals treat refugees.

A SPOLIER ALERT IS NOW IN EFFECT. If you have not seen Captain Marvel, this serves as a warning that spoilers lie ahead.

One of the themes that the film tackles is creating your own family. The movie depicts Carol as this headstrong, emotional, courageous woman, from her childhood into adulthood. Her father did not like Carol's recklessness, and he seemed to almost forbid her from behaving like that. Dialogue and plot suggest that Carol had left her father, and started a new family with Maria. Maria is a single mother raising a daughter that Carol affectionately called "Lieutenant Danger". Maria was also in the Airforce and worked closely with Carol, becoming her best friend. Numerous pictures show them spending holidays together as a family unit, and Maria's daughter even refers to Carol as "Auntie Carol". A huge part of trying to defy gender expectations is having people leave your life that do not support your choice to live as your authentic self. It was great to see a new family form, and one that seemed supportive and genuinely happy. Such families are not often portrayed, and when they are portrayed, the depictions are seldom happy.

Next, first impressions drove the entire plotline of the film. Throughout the first half of the movie, we are led to believe that the Kree, a society led by an artificial intelligence (AI) and one that Carol is initially a part of, are trying to protect planets from the Skrull. The viewer is led to believe that the Skrull are the ones attaching the Kree. However, in a Pride and Prejudice-esq twist, we learn halfway through the movie that the Kree is not just an empire, but colonial in nature. Further, we learn and that the Skrull refused to submit to their rule. Because of this, the Kree essentially destroyed the Skrulls’ home planet. The Skrulls that are left are scattered throughout the galaxy and are all refugees. Thus, Carol is forced to question everything she believed, and makes the tough decision to help the Skrull.

While this may not seem directly related to feminism, I believe it very much is. Most feminist theories are based on the presumption that we should question societal norms and attitudes, especially in terms of power structures. For as far back as she can remember, Carol has believed that the Skrulls were not refugees, but rather were terrorists and aggressors. She had to re-evaluate everything she knew about the Skrulls and the Kree while choosing which side to take. In doing so, Carol shows a great example of how to be a proper feminist and how to be a good ally to marginalized groups.
Because Carol's re-evaluation is what we ask feminism and feminist to do every day. We ask everyone to re-evaluate societal norms and perceptions and ask why those norms are in place and whether they are just and correct. Feminism as movement has done the same as well. Originally focused on getting upper- and middle-class white women rights while using rather reductive and racist talking points, feminism was not all that inclusive. Bell Hooks accuses the movement of not being completely honest with itself, its origins or its focus, and encourages it to continue to reevaluate itself. And I believe the movement has continued to do so, becoming more and more inclusive towards all women, regardless of race, sexual orientation, economic status, and many other factors. That being said, this inner reflection needs to continue to ensure that all women are heard and are having their rights fought for.

Finally, the film asks us to re-evaluate the way we see refugees. The Skrull themselves are shapeshifters, and their forms, while not ugly, are also not aesthetically pleasing. The Kree tend to look more human. This symbolism is not lost on the audience. We were told the Skrull were bad, that they change their shape to assimilate into the population, and then they take over the planet. Because the Skrull look bad, the audience is more susceptible to believing the narrative the Kree give about the Skrull's actions. This is extremely relevant today when talking about refugees and the politics surrounding those seeking asylum, or even those seeking to immigrate into our country. They often just want to find a safe place to live and be accepted into their new society. And, just like the Skrull, most, if not all, refugees pose no great threat to society or those in the society unless they are threatened. It was great to see this portrayed in such a nuanced and non-preachy way.

Again, not all would see this as a facially or explicitly feminist message, but I see feminist thinking in it. The Skrull are just trying to live their lives as best they can, and they ask Carol to judge them based on their actions, and not on stereotypes or narratives she has heard about them. Most feminists want the same thing; they want to be judged on their actions, and not on the basis of stereotypes based on their sex, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic a person cannot change.

Overall, I loved the movie because it embedded so many themes in such a great story, all while managing to not get preachy about it. There were probably a couple other overt themes I did not explore in Part I or here, I encourage you to leave a comment on other themes you saw in the movie as well!

Captain Marvel (Part I): The Role Model We Need

I recently watched Captain Marvel. Going into the movie, I had low expectations. The reviews had not been great. And although I was excited to see a woman in the leading role of a super hero movie, I also was getting bored of the almost exclusively white genre. So, with mixed emotions, I entered the movie theater.

A SPOLIER ALERT IS NOW IN EFFECT. If you have not seen Captain Marvel, this serves as a warning that spoilers lie ahead.

Boy, was I thrilled with the movie. It touched on so many different issues, all important in feminist theory. And even though it was set in the '90s, it tackled issues that are still relevant and, indeed, hot topics today. Because it tackled so many amazing themes, I will write two separate posts about "Captain Marvel". This post will deal with the issues that most people see as implicating feminism, such as sexism in the military, getting back up after getting knocked down, and my personal favorite, women being too emotional. The second post will deal with issues that, while not necessarily implicating feminism at first glance, are clearly a part of feminism, such as creating your own family, first impressions, and how we as a society and as individuals treat refugees.

First, the movies portrayal of women in the military was brief, but excellently done. The movie did not try to sugarcoat any of the history of the military and its treatment of women, including women of color. It specifically stated and showed that both Carol Danvers (Captain Marvel) and Maria Rambeau, a woman of color and Carol's best friend, were not allowed to fly in combat because they are female. It was also heavily implied that Maria Rambeau, a black woman, had a much harder time getting any flying time, but that Carol kept supporting her, and Maria kept supporting Carol. This type of portrayal is just as important now as it was then. With the high level of sexual violence in the military-and given that it is still considered a boy’s club-it was amazing to see two strong women support each other and learn to thrive an environment that is hostile towards women.

The next major theme I noticed was getting back up after being knocked down. In the film, and throughout her life, there were numerous times where someone or something knocked Carol down. The Kree AI, one of the main antagonists in the movie, when trying to break Carol, remind her of all the times she has fallen down. The Kree AI tries to show her how flawed and week she is. And the Kree AI stop the memory right there. And for a minute, we see Carol believe it. But then she remembers what happens after all those times she fell. She gets up. With no tears, with no sign of pain, with no hesitation, she gets up. She does not consider her falling a flaw, because every time she fell, she got back up, stronger and more determined than ever. While most Marvel movies push this (Black Panther being the other clear example), this was by far the clearest message of it in any superhero movie thus far. To fall is human. We are imperfect beings. It is not how we fall, but how we choose to get back up. It is not our flaws or are mistakes that define us, it is how we learn and grow from them. This message was so well done, and it was great to see it being done through the lens of a smart, strong, courageous woman for once.

The last theme, and my personal favorite theme in the movie, is the stereotype of women being too emotional. Two scenes on this theme come to mind. Both involve Carol and Yon-Rog, her captain who is portrayed by Jude Law. In the beginning, Carol and Yon-Rog are training together. Yon-Rog tells Carol that she can never best him because she is too emotional, so she cannot think clearly. This was a clear use of the trope "women are too emotional to think rationally." And Yon-Rog said this while Carol was being no more emotive than an average person, male or female, in a hand-to-hand combat situation. And while the scene itself is not significant, it sets up second scene perfectly. At the end of the movie, Carol has clearly won, and Yon-Rog has lost. Knowing that he cannot beat her if she uses her powers, he tries to bait her. He says that she never was able to beat him at hand-to-hand combat, and because of that, she will never know true victory until she does. Yon-Rog wants her to fight him using only hand-to-hand combat because he knows he can beat her, but if she uses her powers, he would not stand a chance. Carol's response: she uses her powers to blast him hundreds  yards across the desert, flies over to him and pronounces "I have nothing to prove to you."

Yon-Rog tried to rely on Carol being "overly emotional" to win the argument. The issue: Carol was never "overly emotional." Having feelings and showing them does not make you overly emotional, at least not in the way that Yon-Rog thought Carol was. Carol cared about people, but her instincts to protect those and serve the greater good were always there. And in that moment, she was thinking logically. She may have or may not have been able to beat Yon-Rog in hand-to-hand combat, but she did not need to risk those odds. She was infinitely more powerful than him, so why risk it? These two scenes turn the emotional female trope on its head; they show that just because you care about people, does not mean that you are overly emotional.

Overall, "Captain Marvel"was a fantastic movie with a lot of positive messages, and I would highly recommend the movie for those seeking strong female representation.

Veteran Tammy Duckworth sums up the conversation about women in combat, perfectly!

This week the U.S. House of Representatives Armed Services Committee heard 18 hours of debate before approving a $612 billion defense policy bill that will now be send to the full House for consideration. Part of the debate centered on the role of women in combat forces, an issue that has garnered significant press attention in the last few years, and has been thoughtfully written about on this blog.

It is hard to think of more sexist workplace than the United States military. It is the epitome of masculine culture, where strength, aggressiveness, and competition are encouraged and admired. It is thus unsurprising that in such a hyper-masculine culture, discrimination or devaluation of women has occurred within the U.S. military since its inception. But the truth is that women have served valuable roles in the military since the American Revolution. In the last 50 years, women’s presence in the U.S. military has grown steadily. 

Yet, despite increasing numbers of women serving in the military, a discriminatory Department of Defense “Ground Combat Exclusion policy” has remained in place to restrict women from artillery, armor, and infantry combat roles.

Serving in the U.S. military is honorable. We respect our service people and veterans; we call them heroes. It can be a good way of life­—a way to get an education, see the world, make a good living wage, and earn a retirement. The problem with these discriminatory combat exclusion policies is that it prevents women from having the same opportunities for advancement in the military. Promotion in the military, including to the very highest posts, is based on combat experience. So, as Greg Jacob, policy director for the Service Women’s Action Network, states:

If women remain restricted to combat service and combat service support specialties, we will not see a woman as Commandant of the Marine Corps, or CENTCOM commander, or Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Thus women in the military are being held back simply because they are women. Such an idea is not only completely at odds with military ethics, but is distinctly un-American.

In May, 2012, two female soldiers filed a lawsuit in federal court to challenge the combat limits. This set off a chain of events that has led to significant changes in military policy over the past three years. First, in January of 2013 the Joint Chiefs of Staff unanimously recommended that the combat exclusion policy be lifted, noting:

[T]he time has come to rescind the direct combat exclusion rule for women and to eliminate all unnecessary gender-based barriers to service.

In response, then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta officially lifted the combat policy exclusion. The Secretary’s action gave the services three years to figure out how to integrate women into all combat roles without reducing combat readiness, worsening sexual harassment rates and breaking women’s bodies by assignments for which they don’t qualify.

Since the ban on women in combat has lifted, each branch of the armed services has been “experimenting” with women in their combat troops. 60 Minutes ran a story titled A Few Good Women about the Marines trying to recruit women into their Infantry Officer School. The story highlights a “14 hour Combat Endurance Test” that requires numerous tasks over a 16 mile course.

Two things struck me about the story. First, I simply don’t understand why accommodations cannot be made for females. Is the military unable to recognize that women may have different strengths than men, and that by allowing them to be part of a combat troop but only carry a 50 lb. pack instead of a 100 lb. pack, that may add value? The military needs to re-examine its demands. Perhaps the rigors are justified, perhaps they are antiquated. If the demands are justified, then fine. Certainly some women will be able to meet them, and they should be allowed to do so. If they are outdated to the modern reality of combat, then adjustments should be made. It seems to me that the physical requirements exist just to discriminate against women.

Second, the males within the military are very resistant to women being part of their club. The brave woman interviewed for their story, Second Lieutenant Melissa Cooling, flat out says that the men she is training with don’t want her there. General Dempsey suggested allowing women into combat units may ease the military's ongoing problem with sexual harassment: "I have to believe, the more we can treat people equally, the more likely they are to treat each other equally." I hope that is the case, but for now the focus by many seems to be that women cannot meet the physical demands and have no place in combat. There doesn't appear to be acceptance. The ad nauseam debate in the House last week about women's place in combat seems to prove this. The discussion still is not ‘how do we make this happen,’ but rather, ‘this shouldn't happen because woman cannot handle it.’

One Congresswoman, Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), summed up this debate, perfectly in my opinion. Duckworth served in a combat capacity during her service in Iraq. She flew combat missions as a Blackhawk pilot and lost both her legs when her helicopter was hit by a RPG (rocket propelled grenade) during a 2004 mission. Since then, she’s made a full comeback, successfully ran for Congress, was appointed by President Obama to be one of the top officials in the Department of Veteran Affairs, and is now running for the Senate. Her social media response to the House Armed Services Committee debate about women in combat was this:

When Members of Congress debate women in combat, I look down at the stumps of my legs & wonder, where do they think I was - in a bar fight?

Exactly, Congresswoman! That says it all. Women can do it, and more importantly, they HAVE done it. It’s time to end the doubt and allow all female soldiers that want to be in combat the right to try, the same as the men do.

Mobile courts: Taking justice to rural places--in Congo, no less

NPR reported yesterday on a conference in London about rape as war crime and what can be done to stop it.  This is a very important event, as this issue is near and dear to my own heart.  Indeed, just a few hours before I heard the story, I was interviewed by Film at 11 about some work I did in 1996 for the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, investigating sexual assaults that occurred as part of the Rwandan genocide in 1994.  The feminist in me is very excited about this conference.

But the story also intrigued and pleased the ruralist in me where Ari Shapiro reports:

Karen Naimer, who directs the Program on Sexual Violence in Conflict Zones with Physicians for Human Rights, recently saw how the attitudes toward this issue have changed. She was in Congo, at a mobile court that brings justice to remote villages. 

"We were in this small town of Kahele, and 19 female survivors came. And they were waiting for their day in court," says Naimer. 

Two militia members were on trial, accused of holding 400 women in the bush as sex slaves for a year. Women showed up with babies they had borne in captivity. Naimer sat with the victims as they waited to testify. 

"And what was so striking to me as I spoke with them quietly was their deep desire to face their perpetrators and to demand justice," says Naimer. "That cathartic process comes at such a cost for them. The kind of community, rejection, stigma they face, they were willing to endure that because this moment in time is so necessary for their personal healing."

I have written some about the issue of access to justice for rural people (and have a piece on that topic forthcoming in the South Dakota Law Review), and sometimes the struggle is for literal, physical access to a court.  It is about getting to the courthouse.  So I am intrigued by this idea of a mobile court.  I guess one could liken it to the judges who still "ride circuit" in a number of rural areas in the United States, going from courthouse to courthouse over a region or district to hear motions and conduct trials.  But I guess I didn't expect something this novel and innovative to come out of the Congo.  I'm impressed.

Cross Posted to Legal Ruralism.

The 2011 Nobel Peace Prize: progress toward a new societal order

History reveals that our society developed to reflect a "patriarchal order." Radical feminist scholars defined this order as a system developed by men for the primary purpose of serving male needs. Within the patriarchal order, women became a "category of oppressed people" trapped in a female "ghetto of sorts" with a purpose "to serve[]...men" in their shared, male conquest for power. (Marilyn Frye, The Politics of Reality: Essays in Feminist Theory). Some, like Catharine MacKinnon, consider violence and sexual harassment a defining element of this system. Men within this order focus on protecting their superior status and suffer from the pressure associated with "basing self-worth on performance, hiding doubts and vulnerabilities, and repressing feelings" (Id.; Mary Becker, Patriarchy and Inequality: Toward a Substantive Feminism).

The passage of time indicates that the strength of the patriarchal order slowly dissipates. Yet, many important vestiges of this system persist. As Mill explained in Women's Rights and Power in the Liberal State, the "issue is that [the legal subordination of women] is rooted in feelings," for the "most deeply-rooted feelings exist to protect old institutions and customs." So, is it even possible to strip a society of its demeaning, misogynistic, patriarchal traditions?

Today's news indicates that a new societal order--an order favoring equality and justice--might well exist. Early this morning, the Norwegian Nobel Committee announced Leymah Gbowee, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, and Tawakkul Karman as recipients of the 2011 Nobel Peace Prize. The Committee explained that these three women earned the prestigious prize for their "non-violent struggle for the safety of women and for women's rights to full participation in peace-building work." (Id.). The Committee followed this explanation with a statement that left a smile plastered across my face. "We cannot achieve democracy and lasting peace in the world," the Committee stated, "unless women obtain the same opportunities as men to influence developments at all levels of society." (Id.).

These three women, like many remarkable women of the past, threaten the patriarchal order by refusing to remain chained behind the walls of the "female ghetto." In recognizing the achievements of these women, the Committee itself threatened the patriarchal order. The victory sweetens when one considers that these women were selected from amongst a pool of over two-hundred, well-qualified contenders.

Leymah Gbowee

In describing the role of women in a patriarchal world, Judith A. Baer explained in Our Lives Before the Law: Constructing a Feminist Jurisprudence that "sex is the means by which men exert power over women, and the model and metaphor for that power. Women's function is to be men's sexual outlets." So, what happens when brave women choose to resist this exertion of male power? What can happen when women turn the tables and refuse sex until men meet women's goals? Apparently, peace!

In the face of rape, warfare, and hunger, Leymah Gbowee organized women in a peace movement poised to end the Liberian civil war. These women sang and prayed together. They also collectively instituted a sex strike until their husbands, brothers, and male friends laid down their guns in favor of peace and reconciliation. Ultimately, the Gbowee-led mobilization of women in Liberia empowered women, recognized their legitimacy, and paved a road directly to peace.

Ellen Johnson Sirleaf

Ellen Johnson Sirleaf became the first female president of Liberia in 2006. (Three Women's Rights Activists Win Peace Prize). When she began her presidency, Sirleaf "inherited a broken country, devastated by war, [with] people displaced, infrastructure broken, [and] institutions dysfunctional." In spite of this challenging situation, President Sirleaf's leadership stabilized a failing country. (Id.). Her achievements in the face of adversity and her role as a powerful societal leader surely challenge patriarchal system in favor of an alternative world order in which women share the stage with men.

That said, while many celebrated Sirleaf's receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize, others argued that she did not deserve the award. These critics happen to include Winston Tubman, the man considered her main contender in Liberia's upcoming elections. While some may see this criticism as troubling, it could simply reveal the existence of a healthy Liberian democracy, for criticism abounds in democratic politics. In a world where even Americans have failed to elect a female president or vice president, President Sirleaf serves as important role model for women in leadership and politics.

Tawakkul Karman

In a country where women frequently face beatings and familial rejection for political activism, Yemeni leader Tawakkul Karman challenges the status quo. Often called "the Mother of Revolution," this brave activist and journalist inspires women throughout her country and her region to speak out in protest. Professor Nadia Mostafa explained to the New York Times that granting the prize to Karman serves as a victory for more than just women and activism, it "means Islam is not against peace, it’s not against women, and Islamists can be women activists, and they can fight for human rights, freedom and democracy.” Also a mother, Karman works tirelessly, but she is not immune from protest and danger. (In Yemen, A Woman Leads The Call For Revolution). Men have challenged her with their traditional daggers, and others have threatened the lives of her family members due to her actions and beliefs. (Id.).

Under the direction of Karman, the protesters in Yemen chanted, "The people. Want. The fall of this regime." (Id.) Is the time ripe for women and men to jointly call for the eradication of the last vestiges of patriarchy? Is the world ready for the fall of the male-dominated regime? The optimist in me wants to believe that the world will get there sooner rather than later.

Women in the military and their restrictions on combat engagement

The New York Times (“NYT”) recently profiled female Marines serving in Afghanistan. According to the article, the American military sent 40 female Marines to Afghanistan as part of “an unusual experiment” to create full-time “female engagement teams” to accompany all-male patrols in a particular rural region where men are culturally off limits from Afghan women.

According to NYT, the mission for these female Marines is to win over Afghan women by meeting with the women over tea in their homes, assessing their needs for aid, gathering intelligence, and assisting in building schools and clinics. This seven-month deployment is nearing an end, and the mission has been deemed a success. The article notes, however, that these Marines have also been involved in combat situations – such as firefights, ambushes, bombings, and base attacks – thereby sidestepping military rules restricting women in combat.

As stated by NYT, current military policy prohibits women from “combat” branches such as the infantry, armor, and Special Forces. Apparently, Congress has even tried to restrict women’s role in the military even more. However, possibly as a sign of the practical necessities of the military, women have been skirting these rules for nearly a decade in Iraq and in Afghanistan. To comply with the combat prohibition rule, women simply “attach,” rather than assign, to combat branches; female engagement teams simply “accompany” Marine infantry units.

In late summer 2010 the military reviewed and clarified certain rules: (1) female engagement teams could not go on foot patrols with the primary purpose of hunting and killing enemies; and (2) the female engagement teams were only allowed “temporary stays” of 45 days at combat bases. To satisfy the language of the latter rule, every six weeks female Marines travel from their combat stations for an overnight stay at a larger base camp before returning back to the combat outposts.

At least one female Captain has stated that “[t]he current policy on women in combat is outdated and does not apply to the type of war we are fighting.” The author of the NYT article notes that the Marines promote an image as “the most testosterone-fueled service,” and that the Marines are a long way from allowing women in the infantry. The remainder of the article offers a glimpse into the minds and typical days of three female Marines, but the author does not substantially probe the basis for the combat prohibition rule.

The most likely reason that I can think for this dual standard is a preconception that women cannot or should not handle the physical and/or mental requirements for combat situations. If so, this rationale seems rather presumptuous and calls to mind other prejudicial notions of what women are or are not capable of doing. It may be a biological fact that women are, generally speaking, physically smaller than men, but this may not necessarily hold true on an individualized basis for women and men who serve in the armed forces. A woman who wishes to serve in a Marine combat unit may be more physically-capable or more mentally-prepared than a similarly situated male Marine, but the military’s rules do not allow for this variability. Instead, the military applies a hard and fast rule that possibly rests on a questionable foundation.

Moreover, a comparison of the black-letter of the rules versus the real-world operation of the rules highlights the ineffective restriction that the rules impose. One rule prohibits female teams from going on foot patrols to hunt and kill enemies. According to NYT, however, female Marines involuntarily become engaged in combat situations simply as a result of doing their jobs. These types of situations basically boil down to "kill or be killed." From a practical standpoint, it does not make sense to prohibit female Marines from engaging in combat with a purpose when the military is placing them in situations where they will inevitably have to engage in combat anyway. Similarly, the “temporary stay” rule does not seem to serve any actual purpose when female Marines can, and do, circumvent the rule by complying with the black letter, but not the spirit, of the rule.

In conclusion, the military may have valid reasons for prohibiting women from serving in combat branches, but as a categorical rule, such a wholesale restriction along gender and sex lines seems suspect to me because I cannot think of why an individual’s gender or sex should factor in to one’s ability to join a combat unit. Furthermore, in the real world, female Marines sidestep these rules anyway, thus evincing a certain reality which the military's rules do not reflect.

More on military moms

Another item in the New York Times "Women at Arms" series appears in today's paper. Lizette Alvarez's feature story is headlined, "Wartime Soldier, Conflicted Mom." It features poignant vignettes of several military moms and explains that the military has adapted to having women serve in Iraq and Afghanistan with, for example, birth control and gynecological exams now available on bases in war zones. Adapting to the challenge of mothers as soldiers has proven more formidable, in part because of the challenges the women face as mothers.

Alvarez reports that almost half of the women who have served in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are mothers. That's more than 100,000 solider moms. Among them, a third are single mothers, and the overwhelming majority are primary caregivers. Alvarez explains why they join (many of the same reasons men do, duh) and summarizes some of the challenges they face:

The pay is good, particularly in a war zone, the benefits are excellent and the jobs offer financial security and career advancement — all of which is good for their children. Many love their work and feel a sense of pride and patriotism in defending the country. Yet mothers, whether married or single, say that long periods of time away from their children and then the transition back to domestic life — where they are expected to immediately resume household responsibilities — can be excruciatingly difficult.

Not surprisingly, then, the military faces enormous challenges when it comes to recruiting and retaining women. Shelley MacDermid Wadsworth of the Military Family Research Institute at Purdue University, an organization that the U.S. Department of Defense supports, observes:

The Army’s challenge, but also the military’s challenge, is to help service members feel they don’t have to choose between family life and their military career. They leave when they can't figure out [how to do both].

I suppose Alvarez explains her focus on "mothers" as soldiers instead of "parents" as soldiers by noting that most of the military mothers are primary care givers. Perhaps we are to assume that most male soldiers are not. Or, maybe Alvarez is just following the U.S. military's lead in terms of how it sees this matter--as one about mothers rather than about parents. In any event, it would be nice to know that the Dept. of Defense is working to address these same issues (e.g., balancing work and family) as they play out for soldier fathers, too.

See other blog posts about this NYT series under the military label.

Women in the military

The New York Times is doing a series on women serving in combat and how recent experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq are bringing down barriers. The first in the series, by Lizette Alvarez, is "G.I. Jane Breaks the Combat Barrier," and the second, by Steven Lee Myers, is "Living and Fighting Alongside Men, and Fitting In."

Here's an excerpt from the first story:

Before 2001, America’s military women had rarely seen ground combat. Their jobs kept them mostly away from enemy lines, as military policy dictates.

But the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, often fought in marketplaces and alleyways, have changed that. In both countries, women have repeatedly proved their mettle in combat. The number of high-ranking women and women who command all-male units has climbed considerably along with their status in the military.

And here is one from the second:

Opponents of integrating women in combat zones long feared that sex would mean the end of American military prowess. But now birth control is available — the PX at Warhorse even sold out of condoms one day recently — reflecting a widely accepted reality that soldiers have sex at outposts across Iraq.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are the first in which tens of thousands of American military women have lived, worked and fought with men for prolonged periods. Wars without front lines, they have done more than just muddle the rules meant to keep women out of direct enemy contact.

They have changed the way the United States military goes to war.

Drafting women into the military?

See the bloggingheads video here.

Did you hear about the new Spanish defense minister?

She's 7 months pregnant, a pacifist, and a member of the first-ever Spanish cabinet on which the number of female ministers exceeds the number of male ministers. NPR's coverage is here.

Rape as an Act of War

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.

Women as Entertainment in Occupied Areas

Blog Post February 2008
Kelly White

2008 Outlook for U.S. Service Women in Iraq

Women as Entertainment in Occupied Areas

In the Fall of 2007, Redskin cheerleaders visited the Kalsu Air force base. The purpose of the visit was to boost morale. And there are a number of criticisms one could make. Such as whose morale are we trying to boost? Why this particular form of entertainment? Some letters to the editor from female troops criticized the performance. Other letters defending the visit used the "sameness approach," advocating that Chippendales [click on link; see "Women Deserve Chippendales"] should come to the Air force Base (AFB).

What is the impact of this form of entertainment on service women? If one form of entertainment is the sexualizing of women for the entertainment of men, then what are the experiences of the women serving on the same base?

I remember reading an article in my undergraduate women's studies courses on the effect of pornography on people's acceptance of rape. The statistic was something like men were then 25% more likely to believe that holding a woman down to have sex was acceptable behavior. (Although the link I found indicates a greater %).The link from the cheerleading form of entertainment to the pornography and its consequences is not a far stretch, no too farfetched of a comparison.

My friend recently reported to me that a friend of hers had to put in for relocation because her superior officer had repeatedly sexually harassed her. This servicewoman had loved the job she was assigned to, a saving grace during war, and yet, when she filed grievances for the situation she had to endure, there was no assistance.

At some point I would like to explore the grievance process in general for military personnel in combat zones and occupied countries.

In the news media, before the war there were reports of superior officers raping female officers. Now, when there is a less stringent grievance process and other realities of war that hinder a service women's ability to protect herself and find assistance, it should be no surprise that rape reports continue. Washington Times, see 3rd paragraph from the bottom. N.Y. Times supporting documentation.

In response to the "Women Deserve Chippendales" the sameness approach does not always work. That the consequences of sexualizing women compared to that of men in a patriarchal society are not similar. That even if (presuming heterosexuality) servicewomen did have Chippendales as entertainment, the problem would not resolve itself. Military women would still have to contend with sexual harassment and rape. And, presumably, if U.S. servicewomen have limited resources, then women of the occupied country are without a doubt similarly disadvantaged.


Click here for a link of the response military women had to the Redskins visit. [See letter entitled "No more Ta Tas Please"