Week 9 blog

            Cynthia Enloe’s "Updating the Gendered Empire: Where are Women in Occupied Afghanistan and Iraq" from The Curious Feminist explores the role of women during wartime as pawns in an imperial framework.  Enloe equates the power of U.S. military influence with its reach into allegedly “private places,” namely ones which women inhabit and men exert their authority over.

            Something that I found interesting was the exercise where women and men would “stand up” and represent different women in different walks of life. It was supposed to show that the range of men-dominated imperial influence is felt by a wide range of women and that it is a more complicated relationship than originally thought.  Enloe concludes from this exercise that first women are actually very intimately involved in empire-building through their daily tasks, and second that women’s roles can hardly be seen as uniform. I found this an interesting observation because it seems to imply a level of autonomy and independence but the author says that in actuality, these women are counted on by “foreign policy-makers to keep playing their supportive, or at least passive roles” (274). These roles are therefore not ones of dissent but rather ones where the conformity of women helps keep the gender power structure in place and thriving.

            In many instances, women are described as “needing saving” which was problematic considering earlier readings this quarter. Enloe says, “Women are deemed crucial by the rivals, but merely as symbols, subordinates, admirers, or spectators.” She does say that the supposed emancipation and liberation of women that the west promotes becomes a front because women are merely playing a male-determined role for the victorious side. Obviously some women do have political positions but it was interesting to hear that even these supposedly powerful women are always at a disadvantage. Women might have power in name but many lack the four “bargaining chips” that men possess which allow them to have actual political clout. I thought that this was especially interesting because even if policies and laws change allowing women more opportunities for power, these changes may be ineffectual.

            Lastly, one of the best points that I think Enloe makes is about violence and its effect on women. The threat of violence against women plays a huge role in their seeming passivity or a lack of political activism. Her discussion about certain terms is interesting. “Security” was the word used by the Bush administration in its imperial invasion in 2001. Women are restricted by the term; for example, women teachers were told that it was “not safe” for women to teach outside the capital. The word “combat” implies that not all masculinities are created equal – Enloe writes that the “masculine” Americans were in charge of combat and fighting while the peacekeeping was left to the Germans, Canadians, and Dutchmen. The threat of violence makes women see political change as separate from their lives and realities.

            Scott Long’s article “Unbearable witness: how Western activists (mis)recognize sexuality in Iran" explores western reactions from the gay community to supposed anti-homosexual activity in Iran using the case of Makwan Mouloudzadeh who was convicted and executed for raping three boys. The boys later recanted their accusations and it became clear Mouloudzadeh was coerced into giving a confession, namely that there was no proof that he had any homosexual sexual relations at all. However, media from the United States and Europe quickly attributed “gayness” to him and claimed Iran was executing homosexuals by accusing them of rape. He became almost a champion for them. However, Iran has a death penalty for homosexual conduct, consensual or non-consensual and Long writes that indeed the hype might have sealed the boy’s fate; “Perhaps the international campaign alleging Makwan’s homosexuality had changed [the official in charge’s] attitude, moving to speed the execution” (121).

            I thought it was interesting that American and European media didn’t question the fact that he might not have had sexual relations, instead contending that it was not rape because it was consensual “sex with a peer.” I think that in this case, it became a matter of identifying – cases that weren’t gay cases were transformed into gay cases by the media, often to further the writer’s own ends or garner attention. The media found a cause to fight for because of this misplaced identification. These men were believed to be “gay.” They were “like us,” and they needed to be protected. Because of this, shockingly, victims of the alleged rape were attacked. Some said they were “asking for it” or that they were completely making up the story, something that would be unthinkable in the United States. I thought it was interesting that in this case the American and European media had Muslim gay men seemingly take on the role of Muslim women. It reminded me of our discussion that Muslim women were seen as having to be liberated. Doug Ireland described what he said were appeals from gay Iranians, saying “Save us, help us!” as if they needed to be rescued by the west.

            The media coverage also became a way of demonizing the Muslim community in Europe. Peter Tatchell from OutRage! Group targeted Muslim fundamentalists as a threat, saying that they were going to bomb gay venues. This reminded me of the media hype after 9/11 in the United States where any Muslims became suspect to the American public as potential terrorists. It’s interesting that in blanketing these people as “terrorists,” the media ignored the distinctiveness of their targets. In a way, the media took on the very role of the Muslim fundamentalists they were criticizing in grouping a population as the same.

            As someone who is studying journalism, I was extremely disgusted by the blatant fabrication of information that went into these articles and could not believe that people were getting away with it. I just took a Media Law and Ethics class last quarter detailing cases against journalists and it was interesting that they refused to share their sources or even published information that they knew to be false and yet weren’t sued for libel by anyone in the international community. I was curious to know what the ramifications of Long’s article were, if any at all.

            The most interesting part of Jasbir Puar’s “Introduction: Homonationalism and Biopolitics” is the idea of who is “sanctioned” to live and who is not. Although homosexuals are a minority group, there are still hierarchies within detailing who is more “acceptable” in society.  This is the idea of homonormativity. Puar details how race and sexuality are linked. I thought it was really interesting because in the United States it is clear that the “normal” homosexual is white, relatively privileged, and male. It reminded me of the fact that there are certain ways of “being gay” such as certain behaviors and way of dressing that are seen as more normative or desirable. It’s interesting to note that women homosexuals or lesbians are really not seen as the norm even though they are such a big part of the homosexual community. Transexuals and bisexuals are viewed as even less normative.

            I thought Puar’s discussion about gay marriage as a way of “sanctioning” an acceptable way of being homosexual was especially thought-provoking. The fight for gay marriage is at the forefront of media coverage recently but it’s easy to forget that it’s a heterosexual institution that can be used to exert influence about what is a "correct" or socially acceptable way of acting.