A WOMEN'S STUDIES CONVERSATION ABOUT '50 SHADES OF GREY'

Monday, February 23, 2015 3:12 PM
Professor Winkler,

I have a topic in mind for my final paper but would like to vet it through you before I begin doing more in-depth research.  In current events a movie has been released based on a book written called "Fifty Shades of Grey".  While I wasn't impressed at all with the literature, I am currently very interested in the conversations on female sexuality that it has stirred up.  Female sexuality in America is fascinating to me as we have practically zero self-identity outside of the prominent male-centered sexuality currently accepted in our society.  I wish to explore why female sexuality is seen as shameful, and why women go to such great lengths to please the male sexual ego (dress, makeup, even vocabulary, etc.), rather than work to support, encourage and admire our own.

I'm worried that while this subject fits with the overall theme of the class that it might not be specific of a thesis enough to meet your criteira.  I would greatly appreciate your feedback.

Best Regards,
Charlissa [POS 355, Women, Power and Politics]

Tuesday, February 24, 2015 10:25 AM
-Dear Charissa,
I have been concerned about the celebration of violence against women in 'romantic' relationships due to this  book and film. There have been protests against it. The male star  said he would never do such things to women himself. But at the same time, the book was popular only by word of mouth so obviously it did appeal to millions of women! How to explain that?  One  theory I have come up with, is the idea that women have internalized their oppression , making it okay and desirable to be treated roughly. Or, another theory is, that faced with the challenges of being a woman in a man's world, women have regressed to fantasies of being passive and as you say, being a sexual object. Perhaps it's a safer place because it's a known place from the past.

Your theory as to why this film is popular is very relevant, and it made me think. You wrote ' I wish to explore why female sexuality is seen as shameful, and why women go to such great lengths to please the male sexual ego (dress, makeup, even vocabulary, etc.), rather than work to support, encourage and admire our own. "  So, building on that, it could be that women are ashamed of their sexuality and so the punishment we see in the book and the film, is self punishment for being sexual.

Definitely, pursue this idea for a Final Paper plan, using the film and book as a starting point. The prompt asks you to cycle through the theories we are learning in this class to see what might apply. Liberal feminism basically asks that women become 'like men'  ( ie be 'free' sexually)  and not build their own identify. This might mean to some women adopting a male based sexual identity.  Radical feminism focuses more on women building a woman centered identity.  I am now seeing  a massive conflict between these two theories, as played out in the film and the response, pro and anti, to it. Thanks for introducing this topic, and giving me a chance to think of it theoretically, in this email to you. Looking forward to your findings,

Sincerely,

Philippa

Professor,

Thank you so much for your reply!  I appreciate you taking the time to consider my request and respond with such great insights.

Yes, I agree with you that it seems almost as though male-centered sexuality in our culture has psychologically pushed women to seek internal retribution against themselves.  In many ways they act out their passivity -  whether they are punishing themselves for denying their own sexuality, or punishing themselves for accepting the oppression put upon them - I can't say.  Either way it is obvious to me that the feminine isn't celebrated or allowed to flourish in our sexual society.  Our culture seems to view women as vessels only for male sexuality.  I know that it has not historically always been this way, and since this is true, what we are seeing is a learned system of control over women perpetuated through time.  I find this deeply disturbing, and appreciate your permission to delve into why this is.

This subject (as all the other presented in this class) fascinate me.  Thank you for teaching such an enlightening and thought provoking class!

Best Regards,
Charlissa

THOMAS BARNETT'S NEW PENTAGON MAP SIMILAR TO WALLERSTEIN'S WORLD SYSTEMS THEORY

I haven't read  The New Pentagon Map (2004)  but most developed countries' foreign policy objectives promote a 'free market' neoliberal economic model, which the International Monetary Fund applies. Wikipedia summarizes the New Pentagon Map's thesis: 'The world can be roughly divided into two groups: the Functioning Core, characterized by economic interdependence, and the Non-Integrated Gap, characterized by unstable leadership and absence from international trade. The Core can be sub-divided into Old Core (North America, Europe, Japan, Australia) and New Core (China, India, South Africa, Brazil, Argentina, Chile and Russia). The Disconnected Gap includes the Middle East, South Asia (except India), most of Africa, Southeast Asia, and northwest South America...."


This sounds incredibly like Immanuel Wallerstein's  World Systems theory, which is a Marxist critique of globalization and the international production/distribution/consumerist model. In Wallerstein's view, the core countries (or Old Core, according to the New Pentagon Map) is not holding up well, and in fact, is leading the world into chaos. See his homepage http://iwallerstein.com/.


 I'd better read Barnett's book to figure out what he ripped off from Wallerstein, before I engage in any more critiques.

WHAT HAVE BEEN THE RESULTS OF THE US SILK ROAD STRATEGY ACT OF 1999

There is quite a bit of research on the impact (or not) of the  US Silk Road Strategy Act of 1999, out there on the Internet. For example,
http://www.turkishweekly.net/article/319/the-greater-central-asia-partnership-initiative-and-its-impacts-on-eurasian-security.html

assesses plans and projects of this Act, which was to advance US economic and political interests in Central Asian countries. Ultimately it had minimal impact, died in US Senate in 2006, and was a failed attempt by the US.  Here you would ask yourself, why did it fail? Looking at a map, you will see that China and Russia are the closest dominant countries to Kazakhstan. So to explore why the Silk Road Act wasn't successfully implemented, you would look for possible roadblocks, and do  a google search with terms such as  'China and Russia response to the US Silk Road Strategy Act".
This would have come up:
http://www.silkroadstudies.org/new/docs/publications/2007/0810starr-afgh-ca.pdf

Here you would understand that Central Asian countries are treading a very delicate path between the major powers, China/Russia vs US/NATO. To align itself with US interests, would put Kazakhstan at odds with its dominant neighbors , traditional ally Russia and emerging power China.
This balancing act by most of the developing countries in Central and South Asia is a central theme of my INTL 5665 class. The failure of the Silk Road Strategy Act resulted in a consolidation of a policy by Central Asian states, to not ally themselves solidly with the economic strategies of the US.
There was a lot of speculation that when Russia entered Ukraine in 2014, Central Asian states would pivot towards the US for military protection. Since then, it has become clear that the government of Ukraine is composed of fascists: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117692/fascism-returns-ukraine.

HAMAS: THE DEBATE

There is a debate as to whether Hamas is considered a terrorist organization (http://www.npr.org/2006/12/06/6583080/hamas-government-or-terrorist-organization). It's considered terrorist by a minority of nations (Hamas or its military wing is designated as a terrorist organization by Australia, Canada, Egypt, the European Union, Israel, Japan, the United States..,) . Like most militant organizations and most armies in the world, Hamas inflicts civilian casualties.  There is plenty of blame to go around.
There are other Israeli views different from the government:. "As long as we label Hamas as a terrorist organization, we cannot achieve a satisfactory cease fire in the south and won't be able to negotiate with the Gaza government on three main issues:

1. International supervision of the removal of missiles, and the prohibition on importing them by land, sea, or air
2. Opening the borders to Israel so that Gazans may come to Israel for work
3. Secure passage between Gaza and the West Bank

Source: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119064/b-yehoshua-israel-should-call-hamas-enemy-not-terrorists

In a highly debated topic, it's more credible to review both sides and then come up with evidence that supports your side.

To ignore the other side, undermines credibility that you are fully aware of all the points of view in a contested area.

THE IRAQI TILT (1982-1990)

Excellent discussion in Wk 1 in my Spring 2014 UMUC class on the 1991 Gulf War. Arguments for and against the Iraqi Tilt - the US support of Saddam Hussein against Iran during the Iran-Iraq War - have been laid out well.
The mandate in this class is to understand history from the perspective of policy analysis. Would events have occurred differently had a certain policy not been followed? Would Saddam Hussein been enboldened to invade Kuwait in 1990, if he had not previously received the green light to carry on his invasion of Iran? Clearly, he mis-read the situation entirely, as Clovis Maksoud points out. He also knew that that a similar Iraqi incursion into Kuwait in 1960, had been met with disapproval from the West. The UK sent troops to the border of Kuwait and Iraq to prevent a border war. On the other hand, the West mis-read Hussein, by providing him funds that he used to build up his military, but expecting at the same time that he would 'stay in his box'.  The West' policy was that of 'the enemies (Iraq) of my enemies (Iran) are my friends."
The question before the class in terms of policy analysis is: should  potential long term consequences of supporting a dictator be evaluated? Or should short term goals (defeating Iran) remain paramount? One student pointed out the ethical dimensions of foreign policy.  As a democracy and signatory to various human rights treaties, should the US adhere to human rights norms in choosing allies...or is that simply not a realistic strategy?
In 1987, the neoconservative Daniel Pipes correctly saw how the Iraqi Tilt might backfire:
"A more serious argument against a tilt toward Iraq is the danger that a victorious Baghdad would itself turn against pro-American states in the region — mainly Israel, but also Kuwait and other weak states in the Persian Gulf region. "http://www.danielpipes.org/5330/back-iraq
Hindsight is not 20/20 always...since Daniel Pipes clearly saw the danger involved in the Iraqi Tilt while it was in effect.

THE SOLUTION OF THE REFERENDUM

I believe that a referendum of the people of Kashmir is the only way to solve this kind of ethnic/territorial dispute.  A referendum has been the proposed solution for Kashmir since 1949:

"On 5 January 1949, UNCIP (United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan) resolution stated that the question of the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan will be decided through a free and impartial plebiscite. As per the 1948 and 1949 UNCIP Resolutions, both countries accepted the principle, that Pakistan secures the withdrawal of Pakistani intruders followed by withdrawal of Pakistani and Indian forces, as a basis for the formulation of a Truce agreement whose details are to be arrived in future, followed by a plebiscite; However, both countries failed to arrive at a Truce agreement due to differences in interpretation of the procedure for and extent of demilitarisation one of them being whether the Azad Kashmiri army is to be disbanded during the truce stage or the plebiscite stage. "

http://www.kashmirlibrary.org/kashmir_timeline/kashmir_chapters/plebiscite.shtml.

Referendum (plural would be Referenda?) have been used more widely than is supposed. Kyrgystan held a referendum in 2010:

"Rosa Otunbayeva, the country's acting leader, said she had won overwhelming support for her plan to create a new parliamentary system. "The new constitution of the Kyrgyz republic has been approved," she said in the capital Bishkek, adding: "We are proud of our country, which made this choice at a difficult hour."
Today's ballot was designed to legitimise the current government and to replace the country's abuse-prone presidential system."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jun/27/kyrgyzstan-referendum-civil-war-fears

A referendum can serve to defuse a potential civil war, but as with any public vote, it has to be perceived as fair and free.

The UN sponsored a referendum 30 August 1999 in East Timor, in which the vast majority of East Timorese voted for independence from Indonesia. This was followed by a violent attack against pro Independence forces, but ultimately the will of the East Timorese prevailed.

This year, Crimea was annexed to Russia following a pro-Russian referendum vote in Crimea.

US-TURKEMENISTAN RELATIONS 2014

Good question this week in my INTL 5665 Central and South Asian Studies Masters class...what are the relations between the US and Turkmenistan? Here you would start by looking first at US policy regarding this country.
During the administration of GW Bush, the focus was on Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan, in order to obtain military bases re: NATO-US war against Taliban 2001-now.
Under Obama, there has been rapprochement (a French term used in diplomacy which means attempting new relations after either hostilities or neutrality). Obama wants to focus on energy cooperation (the TAPI pipeline) and so Turkmenistan became important, as well as Kazakhstan, Central Asia's largest producer and exporter of oil (Turkmenistan is the region's largest producer and exporter of natural gas.)  But Turkmenistan wants to diversify export routes of its gas - and this is its key foreign policy objective.
Obstacles in the way of the US being a prime economic ally of this country are these:
1) Hegemonic influence of the USSR - still a major holdover from the days of the USSR
2) Turkmenistan sees China as a major consumer, and this has resulted in extensive Sino-Turkmenistan energy cooperation.
3) Because the US is promoting democracy and human rights in Central Asia, the US State Department cannot take the government of Turkmenistan's abysmal human rights record, lightly.  Amnesty International noted that in 2013, in February, "President Berdimuhamedov was re-elected with 97.4% of the vote. The OSCE did not send election monitors, citing limited political freedom in Turkmenistan.
In March, the UN Human Rights Committee concluded that although Turkmenistan showed a “new willingness” to improve its human rights record, a disparity between legislation and implementation persisted."
The US must still, according to its energy objectives, attempt rapprochement. A 2013 Congressional Research Service report states that US has provided and $6.02 million in FY 2013, and has requested $6.455 million for FY 2014 - excluding amounts from Defense and Energy Department funding. 


Source:

Turkmenistan:

Recent Developments and U.S. Interests

Jim Nichol

Specialist in Russian

and Eurasian Affairs

December 12, 2013