The Struggle for Control

“Supremacy Crimes” by Steinem, “Mapping the Margins” by Crenshaw, and “Peril in the War Zone” by Myers all discuss issues of violence against women and groups who are in power. Although there are variations about who holds the power, the common theme that holds all of these readings together is that the group in power affects women— of all colors. As a result of a patriarchal society, women often become the silent victims of male dominance.

In Steinem’s article, she discusses the group most likely to get hooked on the “drug of superiority” are young, white, heterosexual males. This claim makes sense when we consider a “normal” individual in the powerful business world. Belonging to the business world, symbolizes access to a plethora of resources and power. As a result, Steinem explains that power is, “A drug pushed by a male-dominant culture that presents dominance as a natural right; a racist hierarchy that falsely elevates whiteness; a materialist society that equates superiority with possessions, and a homophobic one that empowers only one form of sexuality.” Individuals who feed into concepts of power like these, perpetuate the cycle of who can claim power—and its often seen as a natural right to white individuals. Once claiming this power, the statistics of large crimes and murders show that these young, white, heterosexual men will do anything to hold on to their social standing, even if it means killing other people. In fact, Steinem believes, “Others may kill to improve their own condition--in self-defense, or for money or drugs; to eliminate enemies; to declare turf in drive-by shootings; even for a jacket or a pair of sneakers--but white males addicted to supremacy kill even when it worsens their condition or ends in suicide.” Although Steinem does not exactly bring in how men who take this power can specifically threaten/abuse women, it is clear that anyone who feels they deserve such a large amount of power is a dangerous force.

After considering thoughts like this, I understand our reading for last class a little more clearly. Susan Brownmiller’s definition of rape as, “nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear… an exercise in power that perpetuates male domination of women “ (272) now makes more sense to me. However, in addition to how she defines it, male’s power also seems to extend to the realm of controlling what can be and is not said. The best example of this type of power is revealed in “Peril in the War Zone”, where Myers discusses sexual harassment in the military. I was shocked to hear that “A woman in the military is more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire in Iraq”. Yet even with this truth and other statistics listed in the article, “The majority of sexual abuse allegations end with no prosecution at all. Of 2,171 suspects of investigations that were completed during the fiscal year that ended in September 2008, only 317 faced a court-martial. Another 515 faced administrative punishments or discharges. Nearly half of the completed investigations lacked evidence or were ‘unsubstantiated or unfounded’”. After reading this, it is clear that the unique environment of the armed forces are allowing sexual abuse and harassment go on by not doing enough to prevent it. Although there are many methods mentioned about the Army’s improvements recently addressing the issue, it is clear that women do not feel comfortable coming forward to make complaints about fellow soldiers. I do not blame them for not wanting to rock the boat in a group that should be so united. After all, in many cases the unity in the troop could play a large role in survival when in combat.

Considering the example of a military lifestyle, puts an interesting new spin on sexual harassment. Similar to the issues of intersectionality that Crenshaw brought up in “Supremacy Crimes”, it is important to remember that not all sexual harassment is the same. Where it is easy to judge a situation like sexual abuse as one that a woman should do anything to end, it is never that simple. Crenshaw brought up that each case of abuse is, “multilayered and routinized forms of domination that often converge in these women’s lives hindering their ability to create alternatives to the abusive relationships that brought them to shelters in the first place”. Like the military example, sometimes speaking up can sacrifice the unity of a troop in combat. However, more applicable to the “everyday” woman, sexual abuse is usually committed by an acquaintance. Walking away from a situation where a spouse or loved one violates the trust between partners is much harder than it would seem to an outsider looking in. Last semester in one of my psychology classes, we learned about the effects of abuse on their victims. In a study that we learned about, abuse actually led to stronger feelings for the abuser. Specifically, there were two groups of chicks. Individual chicks were put in a box. Some boxes had a hand that hit the chicks and the other box did not make any harmful movements toward the chicks. Affection for the hand actually grew for chicks that were hit. Although this is a random example, it makes it easier for me to understand why so many victims of abuse have trouble leaving their loved ones. On top of many factors that discussed in Crenshaw’s article, such as economic dependency, many victims of abuse genuinely believe their abusers can change. This faith can lead to further physical and psychological pain.