Two years ago, an employee of a Halliburton subsidiary was gang-raped in Iraq. When she reported the rape, she was treated at a military hospital and given a rape kit.
Then she was held in a storage container, without food or water, for 24 hours before a sympathetic guard let her call her father and tell him what was going on.
This is not an isolated incident. The Green Zone is a prime example of lawlessness, and women report that they are terrified of going to the latrines after nightfall for fear of being raped. This has led many women to refrain from drinking water after 3 pm, and there are three cases of women dying of dehydration as a result.
Unfortunately, there is no accountability. There is no governing body with jurisdiction over the Green Zone. The military has their own legal system in place, but from what I've been reading, it's sorely under-used and abused on behalf of the rapists in cases of women being assaulted. The private contractors have no oversight or accountability beyond not being fired.
And how is the media reacting? The same way they react to every rape victim who comes forward with her story. She might have consented. She was a slut. She's making it up as part of the anti-war effort. She knew the risks when she signed on.
Ah, yes. The risks. The risk of being shot by an insurgent. The risk of being kidnapped by extremists and having your execution videotaped and sent back home. The risk of driving over a landmine. The risk of death by dehydration. The risks of having your coworkers sexually assault you, then accusing you of lying/being a slut and having all the evidence of your assault conveniently lost.
Rape is a part of war. That's just the way things are (see entry #2 for my thoughts on that).
It's been long noted that part of training men for the military is to divorce them from the feminine aspects of themselves. To separate them from their mothers, to make them tough and manly by inducing them to hate weakness, and to equate weakness with womanliness. This is a dangerous tactic - women have just as much a part in the armed services as men do. Archetypal warrior women take up arms to defend their families and their communities - look at Athena, a brave goddess of defensive warfare, and the patron saint of Athens during its heyday. She should be an inspiration, an example of what the feminine aspect of Mars is capable of. We shouldn't reject that, especially in this day and age, in this war we are fighting right now. The protective and defensive aspects of warfare have just as much a place as the conquering and dominating aspects. Without the former, the latter will run rampant until we end up with a Jamie Leigh Jones and women like her.
What, though, is the excuse given by the independent contractors? They had no such gauntlet of psychic reconstruction. No, they have just been let loose in an environment where they can do as they please as long as they don't get fired.
We need our government to do the right thing and the just thing and hold every man accountable for his actions. We need the rule of law in place. We need the soldiers there to be as much protectors as they are conquerors, to protect the civilians working next to them and the female soldiers who would rather die of dehydration than risk becoming a rape victim in Iraq (and while we're at it, it would be bonny if they'd also protect the scores of Muslim women dying for allegedly violating Shari'a).
And we must all of us fight the notion that, "rape is just a part of war."
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Sunday, December 16, 2007
The Full Monty: The Musical
So tonight, I saw the musical, "The Full Monty" with a friend. Now, I haven't seen the film on which the musical is based, so I might be missing something.
On the whole, I think I liked it. At first, I wasn't sure how to proceed - after all, the play makes quite a lot of traditional gender roles, where the man makes the money and the woman keeps house.
... or does it?
The men in the play are feeling depressed and emasculated because they've been out of work and are being supported by their wives. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that someone who is not working and desperately wants to is subject to depression, male or female. There was also no real question of the families having to go on the dole - the women were making enough to support their husbands. It's just that the husbands wanted to work so they could meet their own financial obligations (the main plot revolves around a man wanting to be able to make his child support payments).
The play also dealt with the 'female gaze'. The men find themselves having to live up to what they believe is a woman's expectation of their physical appearance. Nearly all of them have to deal with living up to the stereotypes and what they think women want. They get to experience the pressures women have on them, and they recognize while flipping through a fashion magazine that women do have to deal with this. And it's not even physical expectations - one man struggles because he's afraid his wife will leave him if he can't provide enough material items.
The play ends on an upbeat note, with the women reassuring their husbands that they love their men for the whole person (or, in the case of two dancers, riding off into the sunset together), in spite of flab or repo men.
All in all, it has my stamp of approval.
On the whole, I think I liked it. At first, I wasn't sure how to proceed - after all, the play makes quite a lot of traditional gender roles, where the man makes the money and the woman keeps house.
... or does it?
The men in the play are feeling depressed and emasculated because they've been out of work and are being supported by their wives. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that someone who is not working and desperately wants to is subject to depression, male or female. There was also no real question of the families having to go on the dole - the women were making enough to support their husbands. It's just that the husbands wanted to work so they could meet their own financial obligations (the main plot revolves around a man wanting to be able to make his child support payments).
The play also dealt with the 'female gaze'. The men find themselves having to live up to what they believe is a woman's expectation of their physical appearance. Nearly all of them have to deal with living up to the stereotypes and what they think women want. They get to experience the pressures women have on them, and they recognize while flipping through a fashion magazine that women do have to deal with this. And it's not even physical expectations - one man struggles because he's afraid his wife will leave him if he can't provide enough material items.
The play ends on an upbeat note, with the women reassuring their husbands that they love their men for the whole person (or, in the case of two dancers, riding off into the sunset together), in spite of flab or repo men.
All in all, it has my stamp of approval.
Friday, December 14, 2007
War on Christmas?
Inspired by this article: http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/12/12/subway.attack/.
And it came to pass that in those days, there was much strife in the nation. For many who called themselves Christians believed themselves to be holy warriors, engaged in a battle preserve the sanctity of Christmas. The point of contention greatest amongst them was the use of the words 'Happy Holidays' instead of 'Merry Christmas'.
And it came to pass in the city of New York, several disciples of the great rabbi and teacher, Yeshua ben Joseph, did take part in the War on Christmas when they did yell out, 'Merry Christmas!' on a crowded subway. Their words were heard by a man named Walter Adler, who was of the same faith of Yeshua ben Joseph but did not believe in him as the disciples did. And Adler did return, 'Happy Holidays.'
And the disciples of Yeshua ben Joseph, forgetting the great rabbi's teachings, were quite wroth. For, lo, one of them called out an accusation, that it was Adler's people who had killed Yeshua ben Joseph. And at that point, violence broke out between Adler and the disciples.
The ten disciples began to beat Adler on the train. Adler was an American, but the Americans on the train turned back to their newspapers and shut their ears. Adler was a Jew, but the Jews on the train turned to each other and shut their eyes.
And, lo, the only man who had courage enough to stand up to the disciples and come to the aid of the American Jew was a follower of Mohammed the Prophet, a Muslim.
And thus was the holiday cheer kept by the Christians, the Jews, and the Good Samaritan.
And it came to pass that in those days, there was much strife in the nation. For many who called themselves Christians believed themselves to be holy warriors, engaged in a battle preserve the sanctity of Christmas. The point of contention greatest amongst them was the use of the words 'Happy Holidays' instead of 'Merry Christmas'.
And it came to pass in the city of New York, several disciples of the great rabbi and teacher, Yeshua ben Joseph, did take part in the War on Christmas when they did yell out, 'Merry Christmas!' on a crowded subway. Their words were heard by a man named Walter Adler, who was of the same faith of Yeshua ben Joseph but did not believe in him as the disciples did. And Adler did return, 'Happy Holidays.'
And the disciples of Yeshua ben Joseph, forgetting the great rabbi's teachings, were quite wroth. For, lo, one of them called out an accusation, that it was Adler's people who had killed Yeshua ben Joseph. And at that point, violence broke out between Adler and the disciples.
The ten disciples began to beat Adler on the train. Adler was an American, but the Americans on the train turned back to their newspapers and shut their ears. Adler was a Jew, but the Jews on the train turned to each other and shut their eyes.
And, lo, the only man who had courage enough to stand up to the disciples and come to the aid of the American Jew was a follower of Mohammed the Prophet, a Muslim.
And thus was the holiday cheer kept by the Christians, the Jews, and the Good Samaritan.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
What does 'Apples of Isfet' Even Mean, Anyway?
I know 'Apples of Isfet' is a strange title for blog. There's a little blurb below the title explaining things, but I feel it would be useful to go into a little more detail.
Isfet is an ancient Egyptian concept, closely related to ma'at. To the Egyptians, ma'at meant truth. When one died (and assuming one had enough money and power to justify the expensive burial and mummification ceremonies), the soul would travel to the Scales of Anubis. There, the heart of the deceased would be weighed against the Feather of Ma'at. Those who had done more good than ill in their life possessed a heart which weighed less than the Feather; those whose hearts were heavy with sin would outweigh the feather. Light-hearted souls were permitted entry into the Afterlife, while those with heavy hearts were consumed by the chimaera, Ammut (Ammut would travel to the Sahara to defecate, so sinners could look forward to an eternity as a little demon turd, baking underneath the desert sun forever).
The Egyptians believed strongly in order and hierarchy. Given that the stability of their culture was dependent on nothing so much as the Nile flooding on time each year, this is easy to understand. Everyone fit in, somehow, to the system of law and order.
Western culture is not so very different. We're not dependent on the weather so much, but we love our order. We love our established patterns, our habits. We love them so much that we are threatened when someone challenges them - when we are told , for instance, that we have lived an unfairly privileged life, when we are told that our society is massively unjust towards certain subgroups of people (the farther away you get from being a white, middle-class, heterosexual male, the more unjust it tends to be). Some intellectuals like to refer to this system as the patriarchy.
I like to use ma'at.
The patriarchy isn't simply the purview of men - women can buy into the patriarchy with all the vim and vigor of even the most entrenched misogynist. It also doesn't just come into play sometimes and not other times. Truth is in the eye of the beholder - and depending on where you stand in your relationship to the patriarchy, you have a different viewpoint on things. Like ma'at, the patriarchy is a web which overlays our entire society. It is accepted as truth - how many times has an injustice gotten the reaction, "That's just the way things are"? Such is ma'at.
Isfet is the opposite of ma'at. It is the chaos which comes when the established order is threatened or even dismantled. It is working for change, working to redefine 'established truths'. When Betty Freidan questioned, she was doing isfet. When Martin Luther King, Jr. preached civil disobedience, he was preaching isfet. And Malcom X's passioned writings are also isfet, since they all sought a redefinition of what was true and just. Isfet is my particular way of questioning and challenging things.
But why apples?
In the beginning, there was Eden, and man and woman lived in idyllic harmony. They wanted for nothing, all was provided. They had no consciousness, and therefore no reason to be either content or discontent. They sought comfort the way a creature seeks comfort and shied away from pain as an animal would. God ruled that his children would be protected from suffering and chaos - they lived a life of perfect ma'at, and bringing isfet was forbidden.
There was an angel in Heaven, one of God's most beloved of the Heavenly Host. He was the Morningstar, and there was no angel who was as beautiful or loved God more. Because humans were God's greatest creation, he loved them and adored them more than any other angel. And he saw what was within them, the immense potential they had. They were capable of comprehending mysteries angels only dreamed of.
They also had the infinitely precious gift of Free Will. They could do anything, be anything, become anything they wished. But as the Morningstar watched, he saw that the humans squandered their Free Will. Their intellect and creativity, which was nothing less than a spark of the Divine, was being wasted. They sought only to meet the most base of needs, and had no reason to ever want for more.
So the angel, appalled at such waste of potential, rebelled. He came to Eden and whispered the secrets of self-awareness and consciousness to Eve. To her, he gave the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Like Prometheus giving fire to the prehistoric Greeks, Lucifer the Morningstar gave humanity the bump needed to bring them from animal to realize their potential as man.
Within the Garden of Eden, or Garden of Ma'at, there is no need to question. Life is comfortable - restrictive, yes. But there is nothing to threaten you while you are in the Garden.
Except your own choice, the exercise of your own Free Will. Are you going to eat the Fruit of Knowledge and realize your own nakedness? There is a reason Eve and Adam left the Garden after they ate the apple - because once you realize what Eden is, it stops being Paradise and starts being prison. And there's no going back. Once you give up Eden, you're forever cast out of the Garden. Not only that, but those who would bring others out of the Garden, the Morningstars, are creatures of corruption to be feared, reviled and cast out.
Apples are also sacred fruit of the Discordians, to whom nothing is really sacred. Eris threw a golden apple inscribed with 'Kallisti' into a wedding party, and thus kicked off a chain of events which culminated in the Trojan War. The apple was itself nothing special, but became a catalyst for much greater things.
So what are the Apples of Isfet?
Draw your own conclusions.
That's what this blog is for.
Isfet is an ancient Egyptian concept, closely related to ma'at. To the Egyptians, ma'at meant truth. When one died (and assuming one had enough money and power to justify the expensive burial and mummification ceremonies), the soul would travel to the Scales of Anubis. There, the heart of the deceased would be weighed against the Feather of Ma'at. Those who had done more good than ill in their life possessed a heart which weighed less than the Feather; those whose hearts were heavy with sin would outweigh the feather. Light-hearted souls were permitted entry into the Afterlife, while those with heavy hearts were consumed by the chimaera, Ammut (Ammut would travel to the Sahara to defecate, so sinners could look forward to an eternity as a little demon turd, baking underneath the desert sun forever).
The Egyptians believed strongly in order and hierarchy. Given that the stability of their culture was dependent on nothing so much as the Nile flooding on time each year, this is easy to understand. Everyone fit in, somehow, to the system of law and order.
Western culture is not so very different. We're not dependent on the weather so much, but we love our order. We love our established patterns, our habits. We love them so much that we are threatened when someone challenges them - when we are told , for instance, that we have lived an unfairly privileged life, when we are told that our society is massively unjust towards certain subgroups of people (the farther away you get from being a white, middle-class, heterosexual male, the more unjust it tends to be). Some intellectuals like to refer to this system as the patriarchy.
I like to use ma'at.
The patriarchy isn't simply the purview of men - women can buy into the patriarchy with all the vim and vigor of even the most entrenched misogynist. It also doesn't just come into play sometimes and not other times. Truth is in the eye of the beholder - and depending on where you stand in your relationship to the patriarchy, you have a different viewpoint on things. Like ma'at, the patriarchy is a web which overlays our entire society. It is accepted as truth - how many times has an injustice gotten the reaction, "That's just the way things are"? Such is ma'at.
Isfet is the opposite of ma'at. It is the chaos which comes when the established order is threatened or even dismantled. It is working for change, working to redefine 'established truths'. When Betty Freidan questioned, she was doing isfet. When Martin Luther King, Jr. preached civil disobedience, he was preaching isfet. And Malcom X's passioned writings are also isfet, since they all sought a redefinition of what was true and just. Isfet is my particular way of questioning and challenging things.
But why apples?
In the beginning, there was Eden, and man and woman lived in idyllic harmony. They wanted for nothing, all was provided. They had no consciousness, and therefore no reason to be either content or discontent. They sought comfort the way a creature seeks comfort and shied away from pain as an animal would. God ruled that his children would be protected from suffering and chaos - they lived a life of perfect ma'at, and bringing isfet was forbidden.
There was an angel in Heaven, one of God's most beloved of the Heavenly Host. He was the Morningstar, and there was no angel who was as beautiful or loved God more. Because humans were God's greatest creation, he loved them and adored them more than any other angel. And he saw what was within them, the immense potential they had. They were capable of comprehending mysteries angels only dreamed of.
They also had the infinitely precious gift of Free Will. They could do anything, be anything, become anything they wished. But as the Morningstar watched, he saw that the humans squandered their Free Will. Their intellect and creativity, which was nothing less than a spark of the Divine, was being wasted. They sought only to meet the most base of needs, and had no reason to ever want for more.
So the angel, appalled at such waste of potential, rebelled. He came to Eden and whispered the secrets of self-awareness and consciousness to Eve. To her, he gave the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Like Prometheus giving fire to the prehistoric Greeks, Lucifer the Morningstar gave humanity the bump needed to bring them from animal to realize their potential as man.
Within the Garden of Eden, or Garden of Ma'at, there is no need to question. Life is comfortable - restrictive, yes. But there is nothing to threaten you while you are in the Garden.
Except your own choice, the exercise of your own Free Will. Are you going to eat the Fruit of Knowledge and realize your own nakedness? There is a reason Eve and Adam left the Garden after they ate the apple - because once you realize what Eden is, it stops being Paradise and starts being prison. And there's no going back. Once you give up Eden, you're forever cast out of the Garden. Not only that, but those who would bring others out of the Garden, the Morningstars, are creatures of corruption to be feared, reviled and cast out.
Apples are also sacred fruit of the Discordians, to whom nothing is really sacred. Eris threw a golden apple inscribed with 'Kallisti' into a wedding party, and thus kicked off a chain of events which culminated in the Trojan War. The apple was itself nothing special, but became a catalyst for much greater things.
So what are the Apples of Isfet?
Draw your own conclusions.
That's what this blog is for.
The Rules
This blog is not a democracy or an anarchy. While open discussion is encouraged, it seems that talking about feminism brings out the absolute worst in some people. To ensure that honest debate is at a maximum while asshattery remains at a minimum, please observe the following principles of polite discourse:
1) Anonymity is looked down on. Please endeavor to sign your comments. Anonymous and insulting comments will be deleted. Go troll somewhere else. In fact, even signed, insulting comments will be deleted.
2) We're all adults here. Though some of my ideas may not be popular (and oh how it galls me that feminism is unpopular!), I arrived at them through study and careful examination. These are not just ideas I grabbed out of nowhere because they sounded good or because, "it felt right." If you take a position, please put a somewhat similar amount of thought in it. If you insist on arguing from an emotional perspective, at least respect that other people have viewpoints which may be as equally valid as yours. Disagreement is not a personal insult.
3) Please please please try to cite your sources.
4) Name calling and being purposefully offensive will also get you deleted. These are the tricks thirteen year old boys use to get attention. Like I said, we're all adults here and you're going to have to work a little harder for attention. If you can't tell the difference between being purposefully offensive and challenging someone's idea's, go read up on rhetoric and then come back.
5) It'd be totally awesome if you're at least passingly familiar with feminist theory, not just what you've picked up about feminists from the mass media.
1) Anonymity is looked down on. Please endeavor to sign your comments. Anonymous and insulting comments will be deleted. Go troll somewhere else. In fact, even signed, insulting comments will be deleted.
2) We're all adults here. Though some of my ideas may not be popular (and oh how it galls me that feminism is unpopular!), I arrived at them through study and careful examination. These are not just ideas I grabbed out of nowhere because they sounded good or because, "it felt right." If you take a position, please put a somewhat similar amount of thought in it. If you insist on arguing from an emotional perspective, at least respect that other people have viewpoints which may be as equally valid as yours. Disagreement is not a personal insult.
3) Please please please try to cite your sources.
4) Name calling and being purposefully offensive will also get you deleted. These are the tricks thirteen year old boys use to get attention. Like I said, we're all adults here and you're going to have to work a little harder for attention. If you can't tell the difference between being purposefully offensive and challenging someone's idea's, go read up on rhetoric and then come back.
5) It'd be totally awesome if you're at least passingly familiar with feminist theory, not just what you've picked up about feminists from the mass media.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)