Response to Caren 3/31

Caren’s discussion of Gloria Steinem’s article “Supremacy Crimes” raises some important points about the nature of those who end up committing crimes such as sexual assault. As mentioned in class, sexual assault is more about establishing dominance than about actual sex. In any case, while reading the articles about women in the military, specifically “A Peril in War Zones,” I began to wonder how much the military could be considered an anomaly in terms of how it compares to typical every day life, even with reference to Steinem’s concept of the “drug of superiority” that some white, middle-class males apparently become addicted to. The story of Capt. Margaret White was difficult to digest in that the harassment she experienced was so blatant yet in the context of a war zone, the effect on her as one individual really does seem insignificant when compared to large numbers of people being wounded and dying in war. Regardless, when we spoke about sexual assault in class we briefly touched upon how it is often used as a weapon in warfare, against the enemy. With that taken into consideration it seems absurd that it would occur between people who are teammates. While Capt. White was concerned with the effect that a report of harassment and assault would have on the mission at hand, one would think that the people who do the assaulting would have the same worries, for they quite possibly could be compromising the abilities of the victim though either psychological or physical harm – the statement that a woman in the military is more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed in combat is incredibly disheartening and scary. Even given the supposed revisions to the complaint reporting process, cases like those of Helen Benedict and Sgt. Tracy R. Phillips seem ridiculous. I was outraged at how the case of Helen Benedict was treated, where instead of prosecuting her offender, administrators instead criticized her for leaving her post. To acknowledge Caren’s discussion of Steinem’s article about power and supremacy crimes, I wonder if the idea of male power extends to a soldier’s decision to assault one of his comrades. My instincts would say yes, it probably is, but the reason I pose the question is that isn’t is not enough to be in an occupational position where one is legally asserting his supremacy over other people, even entire communities, by physical means? Could this “drug of superiority” be manifest in a decision to join the military due to the very nature of what the occupation entails when put into practice?

On a related note, “Living and Fighting Alongside Men, and Fitting In” highlights how women have really been able to succeed and even outperform men in military occupations that previously excluded women or were solely male dominated. I found it interesting that despite having seemingly proven their worth, that women still must resort to “showing a disarming brashness” to cope with slights from the men, mainly because I immediately thought about Levy’s argument against taking on masculine characteristics for their own benefit, because by embracing construed notions of “masculinity,” to Levy, a woman thereby rejects femininity. However, the article implies that any “brashness” or stoicism that military women exhibit in the context of living and working in war zones is an adaptation that is necessary for integration and that furthermore allows them to succeed in their work. In other words, along with my previous speculation as to how much the military can be compared to the “real world,” I am more inclined to view a female’s stoicism in the military as one of necessity to do the type of work that is presented as opposed to a conscious effort to subordinate other women (and the idea of femininity) for one’s own benefit as is more pronounced in the corporate world. The article “Living and Fighting Alongside Men” states, “women in today’s military say they do not feel the same pressure to prove themselves [as women before them did]. They adapt and expect others to adapt. They preserve their femininity without making much of it.” There are no specifics about what “preserving their femininity” entails or looks like in a military context, I think it is a good thing if female military personnel are able to do so, yet I am still wondering about how much room there is for traditional constructions of femininity in the context of a war. That is not to say that women can’t distinguish themselves as women amongst their comrades, but I feel like when comparing the idea of masculine vs feminine in the military that the nature of the environment and the missions make it such that an analysis here would be a slightly different case than what we previously have discussed with regard to “gendered” behavior.