| Author |
Message |
    
Chrishayden
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Chrishayden
Post Number: 1177
Registered: 03-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, May 27, 2005 - 01:43 pm: | 
|
POV: sexual domination in uniform
==================================
http://www.war-times.org/issues/18art8.html
Sexual Domination in Uniform: An American Value
by Linda Burnham
The Abu Ghraib portraits of sexual humiliation and submission have exposed the unbelievably tangled strands of racism, misogyny, homophobia, national arrogance and hyper-masculinity that characterize the U.S. military. Militarized sexual domination is neither “contrary to American values” nor simply the work of a few “bad apples.” It is, rather, a daily practice.
The “bad apples” defense is both unspeakably inadequate and completely disingenuous.
While narrowing the scope of inquiry to individual transgression may provide a convenient protective shield for the military, it also deflects attention away from very troubling realities. The photos of Abu Ghraib reveal as much about our nation as they do about the soldiers of the 372 nd Military Police Company.
As our president made clear, the intent of the invasion and occupation of Iraq was to bring the Iraqi opposition to its knees. Why then the surprise that soldiers would be thrilled to comply so literally? The scenario in which an Iraqi man kneels with the penis of another in or near his mouth shocked us all. But our leaders’ call for the naked humiliation of Arabs and Muslims was not so muted that only a few stray soldiers heard.
ARMY EQUATES WEAKNESS WITH FEMALE
Iraqi prisoners were made to wear women’s underwear. Those who battled for women’s equal right to serve should take heed. Degradation and weakness are still equated with the female in this man’s army.
Much has been made of the role of Private Lynndie England, the thumbs-up girl of prisoner abuse. Her culpability seems manifest and, back on home turf, England will have to fight for her soul the best way she knows how.
But England is the second cover girl for the Iraq installment of the U.S. military’s sexual integration story. Jessica Lynch was the first. Two fresh-faced, working-class, small-town girls eager to escape the limitations of location and station. Escape they did, into the welcoming arms of an institution that used one to rally the nation, spinning a narrative of the endangered but plucky female, rescued from the dark barbarian hordes. It will use the other as sacrifice to assuage the anxieties of a troubled nation.
In her role as dominatrix over Iraqi men, England exposed the sexualization of national conquest. As a participant in the militarized construction of the masculine she inaugurated a brand new, frightening archetype: dominant-nation female as joyful agent of sexual, national, racial and religious humiliation. How’s that for liberation?
Lynndie England aside, the scenes at Abu Ghraib depict sexual domination as a feature of military hyper-masculinity. The horrific Denver Post revelations of the sexual assault and rape of multitudes of servicewomen are a further indication that sexual domination in uniform is hardly a rarity.
MILITARY DEMANDS SEXUAL SACRIFICE
Our military is built upon the daily subjugation of the sexual lives of thousands upon thousands of women to the sexual appetites of servicemen overseas. Subordinating the national interests of countries the world over to the geo-political interests of the U.S. seemingly requires the sexual sacrifice of some portion of these nations’ women--poor women, always.
Military prostitution is viewed as rest and relaxation, entertainment for the troops. While the purported “goal” of the sexual humiliation of Abu Ghraib prisoners was to extract vital information, the photos tell a more twisted story. The cheery faces tell us that dramatizing the metaphoric rape of the Iraqi nation by acting out the sexual domination of Iraqi men was big fun.
Casting themselves as directors and actors in the drama of sexual humiliation, the prison guards clearly believed that they could do whatever they wished, and thoroughly enjoy themselves in the process. Was it un-American for them to think so? Not when the core message of their commander-in-chief to the Iraqi people has been, in essence, “You will bow down to our capacity to dominate, and we will exercise that capacity despite global opposition.”
The struggle over assigning culpability has taken on the character of a high-stakes political tango. That struggle will intensify. Although there’s no question but that everyone responsible, from the immediate perpetrators on up, must be held to account, culpability runs far deeper.
It may be hard to get up in the morning and face this fact, but we are, collectively, as guilty as hell. We elect representatives who feed the military monster. We honor sadistic hyper-masculinity, awarding those who portray it best with governorships. We devote vast resources to bondage and discipline in our criminal justice system. And we lie to ourselves unceasingly.
The world is weary of, and profoundly angered by, this country's tattered claim of innocence.
The soldiers at Abu Ghraib pulled back the curtain on their perverse enactments so that we may see who we are. Do we have the courage to look? Do we have the will to change?
Linda Burnham is the executive director of the Women of Color Resource Center in Oakland, Calif. (www.coloredgirls.org). War Times will soon be publishing a special issue on gender, race and war.
EBC/War Times • 1230 Market Street, PMB 409 • San Francisco, CA 94102
www.war-times.org • editorial@war-times.org
© Copyright 2002
|
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 3058
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, May 27, 2005 - 02:48 pm: |
|
Chris,
Good article. Though, unlike what the author appear to allude to, the England's of the world - the dominant female jailer and torturer had amongst her female predecessors operatives of the Third Reich. FEMALE Nazi's were often amongst the most pruriently brutal of all concentration camp operatives (plus, unlike at Abu Ghraib, there were as many women amongst their victims as there were men).
Chris, have you witnessed this question asked and answered: What happened to those Iraqi POW's who REFUSED to abide the Abu Ghraib humiliations?
Were they then tortured in the more 'traditional' fashions?
If so, were their torturers American?
Or were the POW's, as alleged by some in the press, shipped off to Syria to experience more 'exacting' methods of POW inquiry?
Were the POW's killed?
It seems to me that considering how what was done to these POW's so starkly conflicted with Arab/Muslim tenets/culture, there HAD to have been a material number of Iraqi POW's who resisted this mistreatment that's been revealed to us.
As bad is what we've seen was/is, I wonder if we all are missing the very WORST part of the Abu Ghraib story. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 3059
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, May 27, 2005 - 02:57 pm: |
|
Chris,
It is ironic that the most visible American 'hero' and 'villian' of the Iraqi War have been 2 little White women. |
Chrishayden
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Chrishayden
Post Number: 1179
Registered: 03-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, May 27, 2005 - 04:02 pm: |
|
Abm:
This debate over women in combat has degenerated to an equal opportunity arguement--
War is an awful, brutalizing thing. Nobody should be involved in it--to discuss whether women should have the opportunity to engage in this awful activity is to miss the whole idea of whether anybody should.
People are acting surprised--this is what combat soldiers do. Then they come back here and try to fit in--a couple of stories here.
A friend of mine was in a military hospital around the time of the Vietnam war. He asked a black man who seemed otherwise fine, why he was there. "Man, I tried to kill my mama," he said. He had of course seen combat.
A personal friend of mine came back. Served in the 101st Airborne. Told his wife by no means should she touch him while he was asleep. She forgot and tried to shake him awake once. Luckily he woke up before he had strangled her to death.
To ask that we do this to our women too is not only to ask what kind of cowards and shirkers would hide behind their women and send them into that, but to ask what do kind of mothers and wives and daughters do we want back.
Another story. WWII. Politician is inspecting a British Paratroop unit. Says, "Fine men, General"
General says, "Yes sir and I hope every man jack of them is killed in battle." He knew what he had done to these men.
When you make people soldiers you are training them to be killed or to kill and often making them useless for anything else. I don't think we should be doing this to women. I know there is probably no way you are ever going to keep them away--apparently dozens of women served in combat units in the Civil War by disquising their identities.
People are trying to make this into a capability or opporutnity thing. Nobody is capable. And you should know that the draft laws being proposed will also provide for the drafting of women.
Ah the glory of it, right? I remember watching the movie "Pork Chop Hill". The Chinese have cut up the Americans and the American commander on the Hill is wanting to pull out. His commander tells him to stay there. "They couldn't do that," I said. "Yes they can. And do," said a guy watching with me who had been in that type of spot.
War is not glorious. It is hell. Is this what we want for mothers, daughters, wives? Shouldn't somebody be spared to carry on when the shooting stops? |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 3061
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 07:05 am: |
|
Chris,
I appreciate and concur with your cynicism about war.
There are, however, times/issues that warrant a military response (e.g., the UN intervention in the Rwandan genocide might have saved 100,000s). And to the extent that such is necessary, women should be granted opportunities to make equitable contribution to such efforts.
But, like you, I have family/acquaintances whove (mostly) survived mindless warmongering. Yes, THEY more than any person or cause bear the true face of war.
Therefore, I believe we should be cautious about being too critical of soldiers. Imagine how WE might treat the enemy upon witnessing our best friend being blown to bits by them.
Perhaps the greatest problem is not the wars or the warriors themselves, but rather those who incite/declare/direct them. |
Chrishayden
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Chrishayden
Post Number: 1180
Registered: 03-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 11:10 am: |
|
Abm:
How can you advocate somebody doing something you wouldn't do yourself?
What kind of MEN hide behind their women?
Not until every man between 17-65 who can crawl or be carried to the battlefield has been shot down is this even conscionable.
One thing the conservatives do have right--this country is going to hell--only they think so for the wrong reasons. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 3062
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 11:36 am: |
|
Chris,
I'm a bit more progressive than you are in this regard: I believe there are SOME women who are mentally/emotionally/physically stronger/faster/braver than I am. Or, at they very least, I think such is possible. And to the extend that they exist, I imagine they'd be more effective as soldiers than I am.
Now. Of course, on average, men are physically (and mentally/emotionally if you believe a certain Harvard President) stronger/faster (though not necessarily braver). Thus, it's probably best that certain positions within the military have higher proportions of men.
But I'm not going to patently select a man to fight over a woman JUST be cause she IS a woman.
Because the Armed Forces NOT should be staffed to further some silly/dangerous macho bias. The Forces should instead be staffed to effect desired state/military missions/objectives.
Ironically, though, I wager many within the REPUBLICAN Party embrace YOUR views. |
|
Email This Page