Global Feminism

Misogynist Military

****RAPE/SEXUAL ASSAULT TRIGGER WARNING****

In a February 8 CNN opinion piece, writer and U.S. Representative Jackie Speier (Democrat-CA) addresses the problem of military rape and sexual assault. Currently, little is done to bring justice for the approximately 19,000 servicepersons who were raped or sexually assaulted in 2010¹. When an assault or rape is reported to a commander (the proper action in the military), it is completely up to the commander what is done with the report^2.. Many times, the report is ignored or even the victim is punished—an unacceptable action anywhere, let alone in a military in which a woman is more likely to be raped by a co-worker than killed by an enemy³.

Speier relays the story of Ohioan Army Spc. Andrea Neutzling as an illustration of the military’s failure to bring justice to sexual assault and rape victims. Neutzling was sexually assaulted by an intoxicated co-worker, reported the assault, and the co-worker received 5 days of base restriction as a punishment⁴. Three years later, Neutzling was raped by another soldier and did not report the attack, believing nothing would happen⁵. One month later, she was raped by two soldiers who took video of the incident⁶. Neutzling, once again, feared nothing would happen so she did not report the incident.

A chaplain was told about the incident and the video, but chose to accuse Neutzling of not acting “like a rape victim”⁷. Though video evidence apparently existed, Neutzling’s commander did nothing about the situation other than threaten to charge Neutzling with adultery, since she was married⁸.

After Marine Corps Private Stephanie B. Schroeder was raped in a public restroom, she was told by her commander “Don‘t come bitching to me because you had sex and changed your mind”⁹. The rapist denied Schroeder’s charge, prompting command to put Schroeder on restriction for lying and was told “Shitbags like you aren‘t allowed to have liberty”¹⁰. Pvt. Schroeder was sexually harassed and assaulted several more times throughout her military career¹¹.

Neutzling, Schroeder, and 26 other service men and women are “plaintiffs in a lawsuit against former secretaries of state Donald Rumsfeld and Robert Gates that accuses the military of failing to prevent or prosecute instances of rape and sexual assault”¹².

In her role as a U.S. Representative, Speier is pushing an act, the STOP Act, which will take investigation and punishment of military rape and sexual assault out of commander’s hands and place it in the hands of a new office in the Department of Defense¹³. This office would be staffed by military and civilian personnel trained to work with sexual assault and rape cases¹⁴.

The group Service Women’s Action Network (SWAN) supports the STOP Act. One of the group’s visions is “to transform military culture by securing equal opportunity and the freedom to serve in uniform without threat of harassment, discrimination, intimidation or assault”¹⁵.

While the STOP Act addresses an important issue—that of lack of justice for military rape victims—the underlying issue of rape and sexual assault themselves are not addressed. As with the ICC discussed several weeks ago, this is a punishment-based approach to rape and sexual assault. With this approach, an assault must actually occur before any action can take place.

While I fully agree that a better system for reporting in the military needs to be in place, I think it is also vitally important to stop military rape and sexual assault in the first place. Commander’s inaction and overall callousness to rape and sexual assault cases would not be an issue if rape and sexual assault simply did not happen in the military. If an effort was made to stop misogyny in the military, this issue, among many others, would be nonexistent.

____________________________

1. Jackie Speier, “Victims of military rape deserve justice,” CNN Opinion, February 8, 2012, http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/07/opinion/speier-military-rape/index.html.
2. ibid
3. ibid
4.  ibid
5. ibid
6. ibid
7. ibid
8. ibid
9. Virgina. The United District Court for the Eastern District of Virgina. Case 1:11-cv-00151-LO -TCB Document 9. http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/cioca-et-al-first-amended-complaint.pdf
10. ibid
11. ibid
12. Jackie Speier, “Victims of military rape deserve justice,” CNN Opinion, February 8, 2012, http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/07/opinion/speier-military-rape/index.html.
13. ibid
14. ibid
15. Service Women’s Action Network, “Mission,” Service Women’s Action Network, 2011, http://servicewomen.org/about/mission/

Kony 2012

If you’ve logged on to Facebook within the last week and a half, you have likely seen a video titled “Kony 2012”. The video, made by the non-profit organization called “Invisible Children,” expresses it’s intent to “make Kony famous”.

Joseph Kony is an awful person – there’s no doubt there. He is the leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army, which has committed many human rights offenses including kidnapping, rape, and murder.

“The message [of the video] was blunt – and in the eyes of many overly simplistic. It argued that the world and the United States in particular should do more to capture a man indicted almost a decade ago by the International Criminal Court and who still tops their list of suspects at large, accused of multiple war crimes including kidnapping children to act as soldiers and sex slaves,” writes Peter Apps, a journalist for Reuters (1).

The video is part of a larger campaign being lead by Invisible Children, called “Kony 2012.” The awareness raising will culminate on the night of April 20th, when everyone is supposed to go out at dusk and cover their city with KONY 2012 posters until dawn (probably while wearing their KONY 2012 shirts and bracelets, too).

However, as stated previously, this is very problematic. The solution being proposed here is overly simplistic. It is also very militaristic – one of their goals is to get the United States army to go to Uganda (where Kony and the LRA no longer inhabit [2]), where they will help the Ugandan army capture Kony and “bring him to justice.”

This is also problematic due to the record that Invisible Children, INC carry. Only 32c per dollar goes to the cause, while the CEO and two main filmmakers make $88,000+ per year (3).

As Javie Ssozi, a Ugandan blogger wrote, “[h]ave they thought of the consequences? Making Kony ‘famous’ could make him stronger. Arguing for more US troops could make him scared, and make him abduct more children, or go on the offensive” (2).

This could displace more people from their homes once again. It could also take more children away from their parents, if Kony becomes stronger. When he previously claimed to back down, he actually built up his army and became stronger again.  This could happen another time, thus leading to more kidnapping, raping, and murdering.

“None of us who actually work with populations affected by mass atrocity believe this to be a truthful or helpful representation. Even under horrific circumstances, people are endlessly resourceful, and local actors understand their needs better than outsiders. It’s good that Americans want to help, but ignoring the role and authority of local leaders and activists isn’t just insulting and arrogant, it neglects the people who are the most likely to come up with a solution to the conflict,” write Kate Cronin-Furman and Amanda Taub (4).

This relates to women in multiple ways. First, their children are being taken away by Kony and his army, and sometimes are murdering their parents. The girls are turned into sex slaves, and are raped multiple times.

However, the Ugandan army, which Invisible Children supports, has been accused of raping and kidnapping civilian women as well (5). In one case, “[i]n September 2010, two Ugandan soldiers reportedly took a young Congolese girl of 15 named Marie to a clinic in Nzara, South Sudan. The girl had been “rescued” from the LRA by the Ugandan soldiers, who allegedly gang-raped and impregnated her, before taking her to the clinic “nearly dead” (5).

While disarming and dismantling Kony and the LRA are important causes, it is important to realize that putting up posters and donating to Invisible Children won’t help the cause much, especially when they are spreading false information and supporting militarization.

1. Apps, Peter. “Seen by millions, will Uganda Kony video matter?” Reuters, 14 March 2012. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/14/us-uganda-kony-video-idUSBRE82D0WH20120314?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reuters%2FworldNews+%28News+%2F+US+%2F+International%29

2. Pflanz, Mike. “Joseph Kony 2012: growing outrage in Uganda over film.” The Telegraph, 08 March 2012. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/uganda/9131469/Joseph-Kony-2012-growing-outrage-in-Uganda-over-film.html

3. “Invisible Children.” Charity Navigator. http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=12429

4. Cronin-Furman, Kate and Amanda Taub. “Solving War Crimes With Wristbands: The Arrogance of ‘Kony 2012′”.  The Atlantic, 08 March 2012. http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/solving-war-crimes-with-wristbands-the-arrogance-of-kony-2012/254193/

5. Mutaizibwa, Emma. “UPDF in Kony hunt accused of rape, looting.” The Observer, 02 March 2012. http://www.observer.ug/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=17456:updf-in-kony-hunt-accused-of-rape-looting&catid=78:topstories&Itemid=116

On Whose Dollar?

 The International Monetary Fund has been the subject of a lot of talk in regards to its relation to Myanmar. In a Reuters article the IMF is framed as being pivotal in the future economic success of the country, but what struck me most about this article article was how it so closely related to the AWID article, ‘The World Bank and Women’s Right’s in Development’. Upon first pondering the topic I was immediately critical of an organization that is headed by a privileged member of a capitalist society whose mission it is to aide ‘underdeveloped’ countries. In the statement released by Hon. U Hla Tun, Governor of the World Bank Group for Myanmar there was talk of the aid given mt the IMF, revenue and expenditures, and economic development, but nothing about how these thing effect the women of Myanmar. This is a critique of mine do to the fact that in some publications, such as the AWID piece, the IMF is framed as caring about, through its partnership with the world bank, ‘women in development’.

 I feel it is safe to say that organizations align themselves with like minded organizations, and the same is true for countries. U Hla Tun is affiliated with the World Bank which is charged with focusing on the development of women for the last two decades, yet there is no mention of women in the address or in the article coverage dealing with the consequences as a result of the U.S’s involvement with these organizations and Myanmar.

 So my questions are how effective is the IMF and World Bank’s feminist assertion when it is not expressed on a public stage? Does the fact that these and like organizations are headed by members of ‘developed’ countries and 9.9 times out of 10 American? Only speculation is offered here.

 The AWID article actually talks about the ways in which he actions of these organizations are harmful to women, for instance when dealing with women’s unpaid labor and the scarcity of food. When this was brought to the attention of the organization they made aggressive efforts to show their dedication to women’s issues, but a few years after these efforts we see no trace of desires to continue this work in deliberate conversation.

 It is my contention that these economic issues are the issues of feminists, but its not enough to simply say so. We have to hold people like the governor of the World Bank Group for Myanmar accountable for the promises they make, for the principles they claim to have and the change we want to see.

Murder Through Inaction

A recent CNN article outlined the health threats of using open fires for cooking and heating. Initially, such an article would seem to focus on the danger of fire itself, but this article took a different approach. “When cooking can be deadly” by David Lindsay brought to attention the effects of smoke from these fires: lung disease, cancer, pneumonia, and heart disease. Since about half the global population (about 3 billion) relies on open fire, this constitutes a major problem.¹

Lindsay’s article lists a World Health Organization statistic of 2 million premature deaths per year caused by indoor pollution from open fire cookstoves. Two million feels like a large number—because it is. But what this WHO statistic does not speak to is most of these deaths are women and children.

In Tanzania, where Lindsay’s article focuses, women do much household work like farming for the family and childrearing.² With this information, it is not a large jump to assume that women also do other work traditionally associated with the private sphere. Namely: cooking. (This can also be assumed from Lindsay’s article, which interviewed only women about cookstove problems.) If women are the ones spending time around dangerous smoke, they will be the ones whose health is affected. Since women are also in childrearing roles, it can be assumed that children will be close by these fires along with their mothers. Thus, children are also largely affected by the pollution dangers.

Further statistics about indoor pollution found on the WHO’s website give specific mortality rates for children under 5, but no specific gendered statistics.³ Why?

The way the WHO’s statistics are listed hides the gendered aspect to the problem of cookstove pollution. However, Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves seems to be attempting to bring some light to the gendered aspect of indoor cookstove pollution. The organization’s homepage acknowledges women and children to be most affected by harmful smoke.⁴ Interesting since WHO is a United Nations organization and Global Alliance is funded through the United Nations Foundation. Why is there not recognition of gendered aspects across the board?

A company in Tanzania has begun locally producing clean, safe cookstoves to reduce cooking dangers, but these stoves are expensive for poor, rural women.⁵ With WHO estimating cookstove smoke to be in the top five health hazards in poor countries, why is more not being done to reduce this hazard?⁶ The Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves is involved in researching the problem and raising awareness, which is well and good, but all the awareness in the world will not do a thing for material reality.

Dangerous cookstove smoke is literally killing women around the world. To my knowledge, no feminist organizations have taken this cause to heart. Why? What are we waiting for? How many more women must die when the problem very clearly has a solution?

When women are brutally murdered we speak up. Cookstove deaths are slower and less dramatic, but when they are 100% preventable, are we murdering women by our inaction?

­____________________________________________________________

1. David Lindsay, “When cooking can be deadly,” CNN International, February 7 2012, http://edition.cnn.com/2012/02/07/world/africa/tanzania-stoves/.
2. “Gender,” Tanzania National Website, February 7 2012, http://www.tanzania.go.tz/gender.html.
3. World Health Organization, Global Health Observatory Data Repository, World Health Organization, 2011, http://apps.who.int/ghodata/?vid=34000.
4. Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves, homepage, Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves, 2012, http://cleancookstoves.org/.
5. David Lindsay, “When cooking can be deadly,” CNN International, February 7 2012, http://edition.cnn.com/2012/02/07/world/africa/tanzania-stoves/.
6. Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves, homepage, Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves, 2012, http://cleancookstoves.org/.
7. ibid.

Syria

We all heard about the Arab Spring, the multiple uprisings occurring in the Middle East almost a year ago.  However, it is not simply a thing of the past. There is still a lot of violence happening, particularly in Syria.

For the last 11 months, Syria’s leader, Bashar Assad, has been terrorizing his own people who attempted to get him out of office last month. According to the Huffington Post, “The U.N. said in December that that more than 5,400 people have been killed since March, but it has been unable to update its count for weeks due to the chaos. Hundreds more have been killed since that tally was announced (1).”

Over the weekend, Syrian forces bombed neighborhoods in Homs, which killed at least another fifty people (2). This violence, which Syrian state forces deny and accuse “terrorists” of doing, is leading to issues between states worldwide. Particularly involved in this event are the member nations of the United Nations Security Council.  While the West would like to create a U.N. resolution with the Arab League calling for Assad’s resignation, Russia has vetoed this resolution and China stands by Russia’s side (3).

While Obama says that the United States and other countries are willing to diplomatically lean on Assad and use sanctions against him and his regime, he says that, unlike in Libya, they will not use force. He also says that the United States has no plans to arm the oppositional forces to Assad’s military in order to foster a better armed uprising (4).

From what I know about the Arab Spring, which is admittedly limited, I do not know of many differences between the situations in Libya and Syria, and therefore, I do not understand why one garnered a militaristic response from the United States and why one is not even being considered. I feel as though there must be something to gain from not going in militarily, even something such as not wanting to spend more money while in an election year where economics are a heavy issue.

I do not necessarily believe that military force would be the best route, though I’m not sure of how many dictators tend to take to rational discussions and reasoning.  I believe that more of a fight would be put up by Assad and his military before he gives up, which will occur at the expense of the people.

This would particularly occur at the expense of the women who live in Syria.  Women had a lot to do with the Arab Spring protests in other countries, so I’m sure many were involved in Syria as well, which puts them at a particular risk. Further, living in war-torn countries leads to stressful pregnancies or difficulties which child-rearing, which is often done by women.

1. “Obama To Syrian Civilians: U.S. Stands With You .” The Huffington Post, 06 February 2012. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/04/obama-to-syrian-citizens_n_1254348.html?ref=world

2. Evans, Dominic. “Syria bombards Homs; West scrambles for new strategy.” Reuters. 06 February 2012. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/06/us-syria-idUSTRE80S08620120206

3. ibid.

4. Pace, Julie. “US not considering arming Syrian opposition.” Associated Press. 07 February 2012.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_US_SYRIA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

I believe I’m in charge around here.

We’ve all seen the girl effect. Teen Mom. The New Girl. *&#$ Girls Say.   Us girls are everywhere. No really. We’re all over the world.

Now most of this new focus on “girls” isn’t actually on girls. It’s on women. Specifically 18-23 year old women. Women who have access to opportunity and education.  We can get jobs. We can get a degree. Or not. We can enter the workforce or not. We can start our own business.   Choice is ours. Well here in the first world anyway.

We can do whatever we want.

But.

That doesn’t mean we’ll be successful. In fact, say we chose to start our own business, be our own boss. According to Forbes, my profits will max out at around $50K . If I chose to run for president, I’ll probably lose because as a woman I’m not seen as competent to lead this great nation, this global powerhouse.

So what’s a girl to do?   Help other girls. By putting them in charge.

Nike and the Girl Scouts of America have both started international campaigns to bolster girls leadership abilities and create outreach programs to bring educational opportunities to girls in poverty stricken areas. Norway, Sweden, Indonesia, Nepal, Mexico and the UK all have quotas on female membership in Parliament.

These countries and campaigns can help boost women into a leadership position and allow for greater visibility of women’s issues. They give a stronger voice to women by giving women a stronger voice in government.  By putting girls in charge we  bring women power to change and be in charge of  their own lives.