An Iranian American friend wrote to me "As you know, Islamic feminism is currently enjoying mainstream acceptance in the West to a great extent. Personally, I suspect that this is because they support the status quo in an international political context and only advocate small reforms rather than revolutionary changes."
But there is no blanket approach by the West to support a conservative status quo. In Syria and Libya, the West supports an opposition that includes Al Quaeda and other fundamentalist elements. Same in Egypt, after the Arab Spring of 2011. In Iraq US military forces ousted the secular Sunni and brought the conservative Shia to power in 2003. But in Afghanistan the US is fighting the Taliban and in Yemen and Somalia, the US is engaged in overthrowing fundamentalist groups. As the former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright once said, there is no cookie cutter when it comes to foreign policy. Each case is decided on its own 'merits' (if it fulfills a high stake dash to secure access to the world's oil reserves.) For example:
"Britain is involved in a secret high-stakes dash for oil in Somalia, with the government offering humanitarian aid and security assistance in the hope of a stake in the beleaguered country's future energy industry.
Riven by two decades of conflict that have seen the emergence of a dangerous Islamic insurgency, Somalia is routinely described as the world's most comprehensively "failed" state, as well as one of its poorest. Its coastline has become a haven for pirates preying on international shipping in the Indian Ocean."
• Mark Townsend and Tariq Abdinasir
• guardian.co.uk, Saturday 25 February 2012 21.04 GMT
•
Media analyst Eduardo Cohen responds:
"People in the West are told that Somalia has been a failed and violent state for over 20 years.
It's simply not reported that in 2006-7 there were two years of peace when a group known as the Islamic Courts took control of Mogadishu and most of the country. They were Muslim fundamentalists but not nearly as hard core as the Taliban or even the government of Iran. There were members who were sympathetic with Al Quaeda but the organization had no ties to Al Quaeda, though the US government claimed they did.
They implemented law and enforcement and for the first time in over a decade and a half women and families could safely walk the streets. They outlawed Khat, the amphetamine like drug that helped fuel more violence.
There was peace. For two years. The US couldn't tolerate that, so they worked with the Ethiopian government to organize, finance and support an invasion by Ethiopia to drive out those who had brought peace. The press act as if that didn't even happen. The Islamic Courts, who also seriously reduced Somalian piracy, were dislodged years ago by the Ethiopians working with the support of US covert (CIA) and special forces (military) and US aerial support (US air and naval forces).
Their removal led to the rise of Al-Shabab who ARE ultra conservative fundamentalists and who ARE connected with Al-Queda.
That, and the current military/covert campaign against Al-Shabab, also led to the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Somalis who are now refugees."
What is the West' interest in Somalia? As well as Somalian oil, the Bab El Mandeb chokepoint is a highly strategic waterway, through which hundreds of millions of oil barrels pass by Ethiopia, Djibouti and Somalia, 30 miles across from Yemen.
Saturday, March 3, 2012
Thursday, February 16, 2012
THE US FEDERAL RESERVE - NOT ON THE SIDE OF SMALL BUSINESSES
The Federal Reserve creates and regulates the flow of money into the economy of the United States. We can use the word ‘regulate’ or the word ‘manipulate’. It’s a form of subsidy. When a lot of money flows, businesses take out loans and hire new employees. This can cause overproduction as well as inflation of the money supply. When the boom collapses, workers are laid off and unemployment soars. It’s the job of the Fed to achieve some kind of balance between boom and bust.
Some would question whether the boom/bust cycle is healthy, and ask, who benefits from it?
Everyone can gain during the boom cycle, but in the bust cycle, businesses are purchased and consolidated into fewer and fewer hands. So we can say that only the very wealthy benefit from the up and down nature of the economy.
So that should lead you to ask…who are the Federal Reserve and how is it placed in the context of this cycle? It’s not a government agency. It is composed of 12 private banks in the US. If I were very cynical, I would venture to guess that these 12 banks are not going to suffer during the bust cycle. Meanwhile, smaller high street banks are likely to be gobbled up by the bigger banks. Corporations have ‘rights’, but the smaller corporations are likely to be swallowed up too, by the bigger sharks in the sea. And labor gets misallocated.
Let’s look at this from the point of view of jobs and labor. What and who, actually creates jobs in the US? The biggest corporations are not job creators in the US, which is why President Obama is urging corporations to bring jobs back from overseas. Small businesses (under 500 employees) are the major job creators (65 percent of the jobs between 1993 and 2009, according to the US Small Business Administration.) But as I’ve explained above, these smaller businesses are the most likely to go under during a bust cycle. Additionally, the biggest corporations receive the most tax subsidies, while the smaller ones often endure tax increases and a reduction in loans.
An analyst wrote in December 2011:
“New federal data show that the number of small bank loans to business has fallen to the lowest point in more than a decade, cutting the flow of money to a sector that's usually a job-creation powerhouse.”
http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/15/9470807-bank-loans-to-small-business-fall-to-12-year-low
Some would question whether the boom/bust cycle is healthy, and ask, who benefits from it?
Everyone can gain during the boom cycle, but in the bust cycle, businesses are purchased and consolidated into fewer and fewer hands. So we can say that only the very wealthy benefit from the up and down nature of the economy.
So that should lead you to ask…who are the Federal Reserve and how is it placed in the context of this cycle? It’s not a government agency. It is composed of 12 private banks in the US. If I were very cynical, I would venture to guess that these 12 banks are not going to suffer during the bust cycle. Meanwhile, smaller high street banks are likely to be gobbled up by the bigger banks. Corporations have ‘rights’, but the smaller corporations are likely to be swallowed up too, by the bigger sharks in the sea. And labor gets misallocated.
Let’s look at this from the point of view of jobs and labor. What and who, actually creates jobs in the US? The biggest corporations are not job creators in the US, which is why President Obama is urging corporations to bring jobs back from overseas. Small businesses (under 500 employees) are the major job creators (65 percent of the jobs between 1993 and 2009, according to the US Small Business Administration.) But as I’ve explained above, these smaller businesses are the most likely to go under during a bust cycle. Additionally, the biggest corporations receive the most tax subsidies, while the smaller ones often endure tax increases and a reduction in loans.
An analyst wrote in December 2011:
“New federal data show that the number of small bank loans to business has fallen to the lowest point in more than a decade, cutting the flow of money to a sector that's usually a job-creation powerhouse.”
http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/15/9470807-bank-loans-to-small-business-fall-to-12-year-low
Friday, February 10, 2012
CONSENT AND LEGITIMACY
My POS 201 Introduction to Politics class (at Northern Arizona University) is in large part an enquiry into the legitimacy of government. The 18th century Enlightenment writer John Locke wrote that government is only legitimate and democratic if it is derived from the consent of the people. Government that is imposed on the people, without their consent, is unpopular and bound to fail. Government must be seen to adhere to popular norms, values and beliefs. Government actions must be seen as appropriate. Legitimacy is derived from the Latin word for law (lex), but does not necessarily mean that all governmental actions have to adhere to domestic and international law. This explains how pre-emptive wars (for example, the US occupation of Iraq in 2003) are largely accepted by the governed, despite being illegal under the laws of war (humanitarian law).
The government must be perceived as sharing the same values as the governed. This implies trust and confidence.
I ask students whether for example, the US government is based on the values of ‘the people’. Students are asked to research various groups that are excluded from high levels of power: the poor, women, ethnic groups etc. For example, 40 percent of the US Congress are millionaires. Can the haves truly reflect the interests of the have nots?
Noam Chomsky, a US political writer, deconstructs the notion of legitimacy in Western government. He examines the methods by which governments gain trust, and thus, legitimacy.
Building from Locke’s idea that government must be consented to freely, Chomsky developed the concept of “the manufacture of consent” (Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media 1988, by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky).
As the title suggests, Chomsky and Herman posit that the mass media, because it is owned by ruling elites, distort information and create misinformation to benefit corporate power and the interests of the very wealthy. I think at some level, the public believes it is being manipulated, but feels powerless to stop it. This is evidenced by the fact that only half the population bother to vote, feeling there is little difference between Democrats and Republicans. But that is speculation. More research should be done to find out why and how governments in Western style democracies lose the confidence of the people, and what can be done to restore it.
The government must be perceived as sharing the same values as the governed. This implies trust and confidence.
I ask students whether for example, the US government is based on the values of ‘the people’. Students are asked to research various groups that are excluded from high levels of power: the poor, women, ethnic groups etc. For example, 40 percent of the US Congress are millionaires. Can the haves truly reflect the interests of the have nots?
Noam Chomsky, a US political writer, deconstructs the notion of legitimacy in Western government. He examines the methods by which governments gain trust, and thus, legitimacy.
Building from Locke’s idea that government must be consented to freely, Chomsky developed the concept of “the manufacture of consent” (Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media 1988, by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky).
As the title suggests, Chomsky and Herman posit that the mass media, because it is owned by ruling elites, distort information and create misinformation to benefit corporate power and the interests of the very wealthy. I think at some level, the public believes it is being manipulated, but feels powerless to stop it. This is evidenced by the fact that only half the population bother to vote, feeling there is little difference between Democrats and Republicans. But that is speculation. More research should be done to find out why and how governments in Western style democracies lose the confidence of the people, and what can be done to restore it.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF VIOLENCE
Gerald Lloyd Beeson in my POS 201 Spring 2012 class, describes the research of Lt. Colonel Dave Grossman. Here is an excerpt from Gerald's essay. The prompt asked students to consider whether humans are by nature predominantly aggressive.
" Grossman, in his book “On Killing”, documents various research in military history that shows that men do not want to kill and that it was only by modified training received after World War 2 and the Vietnam War that they managed to increase military killing rates. Grossman cites the battle of Gettysburg, in which 90 percent of the 27,574 rifles found on the field of battle were found loaded and not fired, which means that the soldiers dropped them but did not fire them."
According to Grossman, video games replicate the army's 'train to kill' conditioning techniques, and is responsible for the rising rate of murder among the young.
Gerald Beeson adds ".... Alexia Eastwood points out that “EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE" from studies of psychology actually suggests that “OUR INCLINATION TO SHARE AND COOPERATE ARE HARDWIRED INTO OUR GENETIC CODE” (Eastwood, 1). Eastwood refutes the modern day assumption of economic modeling which is based on Homo Economicus. This theory is all based on the presumption that actions of all men are, essentially, self-serving (Eastwood, Man 1). Eastwood points out that the “ NOTIONS OF POVERTY AND WEALTH” are “SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONS” and are not “UNIVERSAL”. She indicates that other societies demonstrate or represent wealth by redistribution or gift giving (Eastwood, 2)...
As you can see, there is clearly evidence that refutes the ideology that man is essentially a ego-maniacal, self-centered, violent and nu-controllable personage that needs to be monitored by a complex political structure. Society is the way that it is because of social constructions and the political systems."
Works Cited:
Eastwood, Alexia. “Revisiting Economic Man.” Share the World’s Resources. (2010 April 16): Web. 22 Jan 2012.
Grossman, Lt. Col. Dave. On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society. New York. E-rights/E-reads, 2009. Kindle edition.
" Grossman, in his book “On Killing”, documents various research in military history that shows that men do not want to kill and that it was only by modified training received after World War 2 and the Vietnam War that they managed to increase military killing rates. Grossman cites the battle of Gettysburg, in which 90 percent of the 27,574 rifles found on the field of battle were found loaded and not fired, which means that the soldiers dropped them but did not fire them."
According to Grossman, video games replicate the army's 'train to kill' conditioning techniques, and is responsible for the rising rate of murder among the young.
Gerald Beeson adds ".... Alexia Eastwood points out that “EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE" from studies of psychology actually suggests that “OUR INCLINATION TO SHARE AND COOPERATE ARE HARDWIRED INTO OUR GENETIC CODE” (Eastwood, 1). Eastwood refutes the modern day assumption of economic modeling which is based on Homo Economicus. This theory is all based on the presumption that actions of all men are, essentially, self-serving (Eastwood, Man 1). Eastwood points out that the “ NOTIONS OF POVERTY AND WEALTH” are “SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONS” and are not “UNIVERSAL”. She indicates that other societies demonstrate or represent wealth by redistribution or gift giving (Eastwood, 2)...
As you can see, there is clearly evidence that refutes the ideology that man is essentially a ego-maniacal, self-centered, violent and nu-controllable personage that needs to be monitored by a complex political structure. Society is the way that it is because of social constructions and the political systems."
Works Cited:
Eastwood, Alexia. “Revisiting Economic Man.” Share the World’s Resources. (2010 April 16): Web. 22 Jan 2012.
Grossman, Lt. Col. Dave. On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society. New York. E-rights/E-reads, 2009. Kindle edition.
CLAIMS ABOUT GLOBAL INCOME GAPS SUBJECT TO CONTROVERSY
Claims about the morality of globalization, tend to revolve around the global income gap. To make your case, students should provide data (see my Guidelines).
Carolyn Cannafax wrote
'For globalization to succeed as an integrative rather than a divisive force, it cannot be formulated as a zero-sum game, or ultimately there will be no winners. Failure to instigate the necessary transformation throughout the international political economy will reformulate its governmental and corporate leaders as victims of their own malfeasance. All are subject to the same environmental degradation, social chaos and economic attrition, regardless of their economic, societal, or political positions.'
Her evidence of the zero sum game is the widening gap between rich and poor.
This 'gap' is subject to controversy. Anti globalists tend to assume there is a widening gap, whereas pro globalists want to believe the gap is narrowing.
It is not controversial that the US is experiencing a widening gap. Bloomberg.com reports the following:
"A widening gap between rich and poor is reshaping the U.S. economy, leaving it more vulnerable to recurring financial crises and less likely to generate enduring expansions.
Left unchecked, the decades-long trend toward increasing inequality may condemn Wall Street to a generation of unimpressive returns and even shake social stability, economists and financial-industry executives say. "
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-13/growing-income-divide-may-increase-u-s-vulnerability-to-financial-crises.html
China, India and other Asian countries, as well as Sub Sahara Africa have seen a widening gap. Whereas, it has been argued that the gap appears to be narrowing in other parts of the world. But as we see in Week 1, INTL 5400, units of measurement of national wealth are controversial.
Here is an interesting article focusing on the debate about income inequality:
http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/income/debate.html
Key quotes from the article:
"The September 2004 issue of the prestigious American Journal of Sociology carries an article entitled ‘Accounting for the Recent Decline in Global Income Inequality’ (Firebaugh and Goesling 2004) arguing that global income inequality has declined in recent decades as a result of economic globalization. Firebaugh and Goesling’s main arguments revolve around rapid industrialization in the densely populated regions of China and India.
Robert Wade of the London School of Economics, a notable contributor to debates about global inequality (Wade 2004, 2001) shows that Firebaugh and Goesling’s conclusion of falling inequality is sensitive to a series of choices about measures (how incomes are compared, populations weighted, inequality measured) and data (based on national income accounts or household surveys). When alternative choices are made, global income inequality may increase rather than decline."
Probably sealing the deal, is the discovery that the World Bank got its figures wrong in 2008.
"Contradicting the Bank's celebrated decline in extreme poverty figures last year to less than a billion for the first time, the new measurements revealed a far less optimistic outlook - a total of 1.4 billion poor people in 2005,[1] revised from 986 million in 2004.[2] A margin of error, in other words, of 42 percent, defining a quarter of the developing world as living without sufficient means for human
survival. " http://www.stwr.org/globalization/world-bank-poverty-figures-what-do-they-mean.html
Carolyn Cannafax wrote
'For globalization to succeed as an integrative rather than a divisive force, it cannot be formulated as a zero-sum game, or ultimately there will be no winners. Failure to instigate the necessary transformation throughout the international political economy will reformulate its governmental and corporate leaders as victims of their own malfeasance. All are subject to the same environmental degradation, social chaos and economic attrition, regardless of their economic, societal, or political positions.'
Her evidence of the zero sum game is the widening gap between rich and poor.
This 'gap' is subject to controversy. Anti globalists tend to assume there is a widening gap, whereas pro globalists want to believe the gap is narrowing.
It is not controversial that the US is experiencing a widening gap. Bloomberg.com reports the following:
"A widening gap between rich and poor is reshaping the U.S. economy, leaving it more vulnerable to recurring financial crises and less likely to generate enduring expansions.
Left unchecked, the decades-long trend toward increasing inequality may condemn Wall Street to a generation of unimpressive returns and even shake social stability, economists and financial-industry executives say. "
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-13/growing-income-divide-may-increase-u-s-vulnerability-to-financial-crises.html
China, India and other Asian countries, as well as Sub Sahara Africa have seen a widening gap. Whereas, it has been argued that the gap appears to be narrowing in other parts of the world. But as we see in Week 1, INTL 5400, units of measurement of national wealth are controversial.
Here is an interesting article focusing on the debate about income inequality:
http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/income/debate.html
Key quotes from the article:
"The September 2004 issue of the prestigious American Journal of Sociology carries an article entitled ‘Accounting for the Recent Decline in Global Income Inequality’ (Firebaugh and Goesling 2004) arguing that global income inequality has declined in recent decades as a result of economic globalization. Firebaugh and Goesling’s main arguments revolve around rapid industrialization in the densely populated regions of China and India.
Robert Wade of the London School of Economics, a notable contributor to debates about global inequality (Wade 2004, 2001) shows that Firebaugh and Goesling’s conclusion of falling inequality is sensitive to a series of choices about measures (how incomes are compared, populations weighted, inequality measured) and data (based on national income accounts or household surveys). When alternative choices are made, global income inequality may increase rather than decline."
Probably sealing the deal, is the discovery that the World Bank got its figures wrong in 2008.
"Contradicting the Bank's celebrated decline in extreme poverty figures last year to less than a billion for the first time, the new measurements revealed a far less optimistic outlook - a total of 1.4 billion poor people in 2005,[1] revised from 986 million in 2004.[2] A margin of error, in other words, of 42 percent, defining a quarter of the developing world as living without sufficient means for human
survival. " http://www.stwr.org/globalization/world-bank-poverty-figures-what-do-they-mean.html
Thursday, December 1, 2011
WAS FACEBOOK RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ARAB SPRING?
Today (Dec 1, 2011) a student wrote 'I doubt the Arab Spring would’ve succeeded without the Internet and the information age.'
There has been quite a controversy about the alleged impacts of Facebook (FB) and other social media on the Arab Spring.
Before FB, there was simply email and websites. This allowed a massive anti war global protest in 2003 with 11 million organized in a few weeks, to protest the US plans to invade Iraq.
Before email and websites, there was radio and television. In 1986, massive demonstrations )"people power") led to the peaceful overthrow of a US backed dictator in the Philippines. Popular uprisings that followed included those in Thailand, South Korea, Mongolia and Indonesia. Pre-FB resistance led to the overthrow of the S African regime of Apartheid. In Latin America, dictatorships transformed into democracies, thanks to people power type protests.
Going back further in time, before WWII, there was organized resistance to British imperialism throughout the Middle East. In Iraq there were four uprisings alone. Pan Arabism, socialism and other resistance movements (which we covered early on in the class) led to coup d'etats and regime changes in many ME countries.
Social media perhaps hastens the day, ie quickens the rate at which events develop, but that is true for everything today.
But in terms of getting people out into the streets, I don't think social media has that much of an impact,
One could say that organized and mass resistance to oppression has had a history stretching over millenia, PW
There has been quite a controversy about the alleged impacts of Facebook (FB) and other social media on the Arab Spring.
Before FB, there was simply email and websites. This allowed a massive anti war global protest in 2003 with 11 million organized in a few weeks, to protest the US plans to invade Iraq.
Before email and websites, there was radio and television. In 1986, massive demonstrations )"people power") led to the peaceful overthrow of a US backed dictator in the Philippines. Popular uprisings that followed included those in Thailand, South Korea, Mongolia and Indonesia. Pre-FB resistance led to the overthrow of the S African regime of Apartheid. In Latin America, dictatorships transformed into democracies, thanks to people power type protests.
Going back further in time, before WWII, there was organized resistance to British imperialism throughout the Middle East. In Iraq there were four uprisings alone. Pan Arabism, socialism and other resistance movements (which we covered early on in the class) led to coup d'etats and regime changes in many ME countries.
Social media perhaps hastens the day, ie quickens the rate at which events develop, but that is true for everything today.
But in terms of getting people out into the streets, I don't think social media has that much of an impact,
One could say that organized and mass resistance to oppression has had a history stretching over millenia, PW
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
INTERNALIZED OPPRESSION
Lively discussion this week in my graduate Women and Health class, on Radical Feminism theory. From Amber, who critiques the theory of Radical Feminism suggesting that "violence [by women US soldier at Abu Graib) is indicative of sexual domination of the vulnerable, rather than gender warfare between men and women."
Focusing on gender only doesn't include unequal distributions of power. For example, a wealthy upper class woman has more power than a poor working class man. This idea comes under Identity Politics (in the RF lecture), and is echoed by Jeremy who wrote:
“However, what radical feminism does not appropriately take into account is the impact that racial and class identity has in society. For instance, an upper class white woman living in a suburban household in the United States may not easily relate to the gender problems that a poor Nigerian woman faces.”
Jeremy also wrote
“To be honest, I was disappointed that it was only the Abu Ghraib incident that was used to explain the female abuse over men. Not that this was not an appropriate case, but like you mentioned I thought it was a small cross section to examine. I really expected more and I thought that the "decoy" argument was weak. Instead, I would point to Amin Mallouf's book, "In the Name of Identity," for a better suggestion for female violence toward men. Instead of saying that women in power humiliate men by putting them through the same abuse that women are subjected to is not simply an example of "gender decoy," but more so the fact that all individuals hold multiple identities. Maalouf argues that people choose their primary identity as the identity that is most likely under attack. The small sample of women at Abu Ghraib are also educated Americans who saw themselves as superior and more human then the Middle Eastern men that were now under their control. I would argue that these women did not hold gender at the same level of identity as the men did and the women mocked it. Nevertheless, I think there are too many variables in the Abu Ghraib case when attempting to explain behavior.”
Identity politics describes Mallouf’s point. This was from the lecture this week “EACH WOMAN IS SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED DIFFERENTLY, BECAUSE OF A MULTIPLICITY OF IDENTITIES (GENDER, SEXUALITY, CLASS, ETHNICITY, NATIONALITY)” (Winkler, 2011, p. 1).
RF is an over-arching theory that doesn’t allow for a contextualized analysis. As Brandon wrote ‘I agree with your idea that a total change will not be successful without taking into consideration race, economics, and class.’
By the way, including Abu Graib in the readings wasn't meant to be a sweeping statement about the US military's approach to torture, but an intriguing and unique case which appears to counter the RF philosophy. But, I worry that the small number of soldiers who were imprisoned for Abu Graib torture, were scapegoated unfairly. There was a permissive atmosphere in the era immediately after 9/11, where rules regarding torture were relaxed. The US under the Bush Administration condoned renditions, and the use of certain types of torture. Today, the Obama Administration continues renditions, which is when prisoners are flown to countries that use unlimited forms of torture. See this:
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/01/nation/na-rendition1
The UK sent prisoners to be tortured by Ghaddafi’s security services in Libya…this was revealed after the rebels took over Libya.
Betul also critiques RF, pointing out that violence is committed by women against women, such as FMG. In the UK, there are continuous newspaper reports about Indian fathers and mothers who kill their daughters for falling in love with someone outside their faith. In India, for every 1000 boys, there are at least about 60-70 girls under the age of 6 years who were killed before or within 6 years after birth.
The mothers are often involved in the murders. This is explained through the idea of ‘internalized oppression.” Here is how the concept is explained from a psychological viewpoint:
“WHAT IS INTERNALIZED OPPRESSION?
We know that every hurt or mistreatment, if not discharged (healed), will create a distress pattern (some form of rigid, destructive, or ineffective feeling and behavior) in the victim of this mistreatment. This distress pattern, when restimulated, will tend to push the victim through a re-enactment of the original distress experience either with someone else in the victim role or, when this is not possible, with the original victim being the object of her/his distress pattern.
Source: http://www.rc.org/publications/journals/black_reemergence/br2/br2_5_sl.html
I like the term ‘internalized censorship”. This explains why a mother would kill or mistreat her daughter, by the fact that social messages are internalized such that they bypass all human instincts of compassion, and even, basic mothering instincts.
Or, this phenomena could be explained by the fact that the mothers themselves could be victims if they did not kill their own daughters. In which case, they have chosen their own lives over those of their daughters…somehow, for me, a less likely explanation.
Betul then writes “The main difference is that women as a whole are more compassionate and less likely to commit atrocities such as torture, terrorism, and genocide that patriarchal societies have carried out in previous decades.” Most feminists believe that a kinder society results from a full participation by women at all levels. It is believed that individual women in a male-centric environment would have no choice but to adopt its dominant values.
Finally, Bridgett makes a great point, which is also a critique of RF “Violence against men is also an important topic that must not be overlooked”.
RF theory has not proved to be sustainable, by many students. But most did not comment on the amazing Umoja, the village where men are forbidden, in which a temporary woman-only solution seems to be working.
Focusing on gender only doesn't include unequal distributions of power. For example, a wealthy upper class woman has more power than a poor working class man. This idea comes under Identity Politics (in the RF lecture), and is echoed by Jeremy who wrote:
“However, what radical feminism does not appropriately take into account is the impact that racial and class identity has in society. For instance, an upper class white woman living in a suburban household in the United States may not easily relate to the gender problems that a poor Nigerian woman faces.”
Jeremy also wrote
“To be honest, I was disappointed that it was only the Abu Ghraib incident that was used to explain the female abuse over men. Not that this was not an appropriate case, but like you mentioned I thought it was a small cross section to examine. I really expected more and I thought that the "decoy" argument was weak. Instead, I would point to Amin Mallouf's book, "In the Name of Identity," for a better suggestion for female violence toward men. Instead of saying that women in power humiliate men by putting them through the same abuse that women are subjected to is not simply an example of "gender decoy," but more so the fact that all individuals hold multiple identities. Maalouf argues that people choose their primary identity as the identity that is most likely under attack. The small sample of women at Abu Ghraib are also educated Americans who saw themselves as superior and more human then the Middle Eastern men that were now under their control. I would argue that these women did not hold gender at the same level of identity as the men did and the women mocked it. Nevertheless, I think there are too many variables in the Abu Ghraib case when attempting to explain behavior.”
Identity politics describes Mallouf’s point. This was from the lecture this week “EACH WOMAN IS SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED DIFFERENTLY, BECAUSE OF A MULTIPLICITY OF IDENTITIES (GENDER, SEXUALITY, CLASS, ETHNICITY, NATIONALITY)” (Winkler, 2011, p. 1).
RF is an over-arching theory that doesn’t allow for a contextualized analysis. As Brandon wrote ‘I agree with your idea that a total change will not be successful without taking into consideration race, economics, and class.’
By the way, including Abu Graib in the readings wasn't meant to be a sweeping statement about the US military's approach to torture, but an intriguing and unique case which appears to counter the RF philosophy. But, I worry that the small number of soldiers who were imprisoned for Abu Graib torture, were scapegoated unfairly. There was a permissive atmosphere in the era immediately after 9/11, where rules regarding torture were relaxed. The US under the Bush Administration condoned renditions, and the use of certain types of torture. Today, the Obama Administration continues renditions, which is when prisoners are flown to countries that use unlimited forms of torture. See this:
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/01/nation/na-rendition1
The UK sent prisoners to be tortured by Ghaddafi’s security services in Libya…this was revealed after the rebels took over Libya.
Betul also critiques RF, pointing out that violence is committed by women against women, such as FMG. In the UK, there are continuous newspaper reports about Indian fathers and mothers who kill their daughters for falling in love with someone outside their faith. In India, for every 1000 boys, there are at least about 60-70 girls under the age of 6 years who were killed before or within 6 years after birth.
The mothers are often involved in the murders. This is explained through the idea of ‘internalized oppression.” Here is how the concept is explained from a psychological viewpoint:
“WHAT IS INTERNALIZED OPPRESSION?
We know that every hurt or mistreatment, if not discharged (healed), will create a distress pattern (some form of rigid, destructive, or ineffective feeling and behavior) in the victim of this mistreatment. This distress pattern, when restimulated, will tend to push the victim through a re-enactment of the original distress experience either with someone else in the victim role or, when this is not possible, with the original victim being the object of her/his distress pattern.
Source: http://www.rc.org/publications/journals/black_reemergence/br2/br2_5_sl.html
I like the term ‘internalized censorship”. This explains why a mother would kill or mistreat her daughter, by the fact that social messages are internalized such that they bypass all human instincts of compassion, and even, basic mothering instincts.
Or, this phenomena could be explained by the fact that the mothers themselves could be victims if they did not kill their own daughters. In which case, they have chosen their own lives over those of their daughters…somehow, for me, a less likely explanation.
Betul then writes “The main difference is that women as a whole are more compassionate and less likely to commit atrocities such as torture, terrorism, and genocide that patriarchal societies have carried out in previous decades.” Most feminists believe that a kinder society results from a full participation by women at all levels. It is believed that individual women in a male-centric environment would have no choice but to adopt its dominant values.
Finally, Bridgett makes a great point, which is also a critique of RF “Violence against men is also an important topic that must not be overlooked”.
RF theory has not proved to be sustainable, by many students. But most did not comment on the amazing Umoja, the village where men are forbidden, in which a temporary woman-only solution seems to be working.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)