Hello.
I am a UN humanitarian Aid worker who is stationed in Liberia. I am responsible for providing aid to women, men and children in surrounding IDP camps. As you know, there is conflict in this area and when there is conflict the people of the country suffer. UN troops might prove to quiet the conflict. The Lebanese and Israelis must be kept apart.
It has become clear to me that women especially suffer when conflict ensues. Women seem to be particularly vulnerable during conflict times. This could be because they are physically smaller and weaker than the men and their safety depends on social bonds. Conflict disrupts those social bonds leaving women vulnerable.
It is clear that something must be done but it is important that we understand the social set-up of their society before implementing anything. We must record whether or not men and women need to be separated, where the children reside, and what activities different genders are involved in. After noting this we can set up living arrangements for those whom are displaced because of conflict but NOT before. This could lead to more issues especially for the women who must obey the rules of their society even to their own detriment.
Doctors seem to be a necessity as well. Rape seems to be a serious issue during conflict as well. Women in refugee camps and in the military are especially vulnerable. This is also something that must be reported seeing as how rape is sometimes left out of reports. PTSD is a common effect of rape and having a mental health professional might minimize the mental damage. Due to ethnic cleansing sometimes AIDS is purposefully spread. Clearly a doctor would be needed for that as well.
I hope you find my suggestions helpful
All the best
We noted in class that, for whatever reason, reality television has become increasingly popular.
psychology looked at fans and nonfans to see if their wa s a ‘type’ that watched reality tv. http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200109/why-america-loves-reality-tv
No there wasn’t. Intelligent and nonintelligent were just as like to watch and so were sociable and nonsociable people.
I have noted an interestingly similar trend in horror movies.
since Paranormal activity came out in 2007 there have been a stream of horror mokumentaries coming out.
parnormal entity
death of a ghost hunter
quarentine
Of course some thought this was a ripoff of “The Blair witch project” http://my.spill.com/profiles/blogs/paranormal-activity-a-complete
others reminded us of an obsucre film “in memoriam” whcih contianed footage found in “Paranormal activity” http://www.getthebigpicture.net/blog/2010/10/31/paranormal-activity-ripped-off-in-memoriam.html
Whatever the reason, there is a trend in horror towards reality and it is this trend that we can utilize when using horror to challange rape culture. What theatergoers apparently want is to not know where fear of fantasy ends and fear of reality begins. They don’t want to check under their bed for monsters. It seems people are ready to deal with the horror outside the movie theater.
Zombie films like “Quarentine” make this especially clear. The government is willing to expand those trapped in the building for the good of society. The film is echoing what people are afraid of; the system they live in will put itself above you. It will gladly sacrfice you to save itself.
We can use this trend towards reality to comment on the system instead of meerly making females stronger.
sean of the dead. showing how zombie films are often symbolic for what soceity creates
New media provides the perfect opportunity.
The way “Blair witch project” marketed itself using new media should be used as a model for how we could use it to promote our feminism horror.
the trialor made the film look real
and the website encouraged that belief http://www.blairwitch.com/
you can see blog after blog asking each other “was it real” http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1693/is-the-blair-witch-project-a-true-story
http://www.snopes.com/horrors/ghosts/blair.asp
It seems that people who see horror are willing to believe that what they are seeing could be true. Usually we must deal with an audience that wants to believe that evil happens to evil people. Victim-blaming comes from this way of thinking. “the world is good so you were bad or stupid.” We are dealing with the polar opposite type of people.
Using horror we can get people to the first step: realizing the reality of rape culture. We can claim horror as our own tool of fear; but this time people will know what to really be scared of.
I recall a time when my college sets up “tabling” (a clubs chance to had out fliers and speak about their mission statement) in a unique matter. They decided to put three activist groups right on top of each other; the Muslim group, the LGBT group, and the women’s coalition group.
Inevitably there were some disagreement among the groups and interesting conversations ensued. One of the members of the queer group came up and made a fascinating point. He said he found it odd that pornography seems to be the one thing that the Christian Right and the feminist movement had sided on.
-
- freefoto.com
Being relatively new to feminism and coming from a catholic background where pornography was never even a thought in my head I stayed silent during the conversation and just listened to what the members of the group had to say. They said that they had no problem with pornography as long as the people involved are not dehumanized. It sounded like a solid enough argument to me.
It is by definition impossible, at least according to Helen E Longino and Diane E H Russell, to treat people humanly in pornography. Longino tells us that in the oxford dictionary pornography is defined as “description of the life manners, ect of prostitutes and their patrons meaning harlot hence the expression or suggestion of obscene unchaste subjects in literature or art. So the definition of pornography according to Russell, Logino and feminists like them, is verbal or pictorial representation of sexual behavior that degrades or demeans portrayal of the role and status of the human female. It views her as a sexual object to be exploited and manipulated.
Not all porn demeans women, one may argue. The counter to that argument would then be, if it doesn’t demean it isn’t porn. You need a different definition for it, maybe sexual explicit material or perhaps erotica. The demeaning aspect of pornography is necessary for it to be labeled as such.
porn vs erotica
This is obviously a big threat to woman. It reinforces negative gender roles; men as the dominator and subject, and woman as the passive submitter who can only gain pleasure through pleasuring man
Unfortunately the damages of pornography go even deeper then reinforcing negative gender roles. It can actually lead to violence against women. Russel did her own research and found that 10% of the women she interviewed in San Fransisco said the men they were with wanted to perform some sort of violent sexual act; the ideas of which originated from a porno they watched. Worse then originating the idea pornography can be reinforces ideas like rape/violence and even legitimizing it. Russel gives an example of a fake dr’s article in “rape agony or ecstasy?” where the writer tells the audience that Rape is actually enjoyable for women and that the assaults and aftereffects are in fact not all that traumatic.
Some proponents of pornography may want to claim the 1st amendment defense, arguing that pornography is protected under freedom of speech. Just as it is illegal to yell fire in a crowded theatre (the logic being that people will get hurt) this should follow with some bogus article undermining the seriousness of rape and adding to out American Rape culture. Other forms of speech or not protected; incitement to violence, misrepresentations, slander, false advertising…(pornography could fit under many of these non protected forms of speech)
needless to mention that the internet has made porn increasingly avialable
Logino gives a simple answer to the problem of making science more objective: we need more women involved in science!
Logino describes science as a social practice instead of a practice by indviduals. This is made clear by Majorie Green whom discusses that scientist rely on each other for education and instruments. Now adays knowledge is expanding in more of a rapid way than ever before. http://www.webmd.com/ information can be dispelled to future students long befor they step into a classroom. http://sciencewithme.com/blog/ – a 5 year old can begin to gain the instruments.
The key to objectivity in science does not just lie in gaining knowledge but also in evaluating and changing the data that the community has gathered. People are flawed and bound to make mistakes (we reviewed some of those in the last blog) but through a diverse community all the peopel will not have the same bias.
So to fix sexism we must get more women involved.
To fix racism we need all races represented.
and so on.
the greater the number of different points of view included in a community, the more likely its scientific practices will be objective
From our first blog you can probably see a minor problem with this solution. http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2012/11/study_demonstra_1 at present science is exclusionary to women. Looking at aspiring female scientist online confirms this face. The science community wants to keep itself male. with men being more likely to be hired http://blogs.nature.com/naturejobs/2012/09/26/sexism-in-science-means-men-more-likely-to-get-hired.
Lukily with new media women can arm themselves. It used to be that to be initiated into science you had to be accepted and taught by a person. As we see above there are clever blogs and activities ensuring that anyonw can get a basic initiation into science.
This isn’t nearly enough but it is a start. New media can serve as the catalyst for women to enter the field and catch onto andocentric biases.
So science isn’t objective.
In fact, it can be quite sexist.
The examples form Orkulk’s essay talks about the history though….what could be sexist about current scientific practices?
I browsed blogs to examine this sexism and to show how easy it is to arm yourself with knowledge today.
First: concerning women who wish to be involved with science
1.) http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/09/28/_50_years_after_rachel_carson_s_silent_spring_sexism_persists_in_science_.html
“isn’t it like a women to get scare of a few little bugs” Rachel Carson wrote about agricultural pesticides and the response was to call her a “hysterical spinster”
2.) http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/science/2012/09/are-scientists-sexist-new-study-identifies-a-gender-bias/ in this stidy they found that “both male and female professors consistently regarded the female applicant as less competent”
3.) if this is supposed to represent women in science I am not surprised…
4.) since they are in a weaker position they are more likely to have their ideas stolen
Jolyn Bell Burner is brilliant and had her ideas stolen by an adviser when she was just an undergrad
Next: for the women who science should benefit
1.) We have discussed it before but I think nothing points towards sexism in science more than this new disease PMDD. I am willing to learn if I have falsely decided this disease to be a construction of the patriarachy but for now it seems like a way to medaclize being female and control it as well
since science has been male dominated(and is) men have been used as the model for what it is to be human leading to see female specific life occurrences as a disease.
2.)
women are more likely to DIE from heart attacks than men are. They are less likely to report for fear of ‘bothering’ someone. They are also less likely to recognize symptoms because they are different for men and women but symptoms for men are the one most readily advertised
3.) the scorn of my chosen method for birth.
I am only 22 and don’t plan on have children for many years but this is still a fight I have with my family. I don’t want to go to a hospital because I don’t like the way we give birth in America. I don’t want to be drugged and put in a position for a doctor’s convenience. I want to have a natural birth among loved friends and family. Unfortunately my loved ones say this is a crazy irresponsible desire. “You need to be in a hospital!” or “What if something goes wrong?” For hundreds of years births were natural and someone our species has continued to survive. They don’t realize that this thought pattern is coming form the orign that men do not give birth and so this is some sort of disease that requires hospitalization. I told them I would get chekced reguarly before the due date and would know if there was a reasonable chance of complcaitions I have introduced them to countless friedns who have given birth in this way but I am still irresponsible.
Eventually I want to become a doctor. I hope that while I pursue this dream I always remember to look at the information I am getting through ‘gendered lenses.’ 
When I was little they taught be science was objective. It was right after they gave me a lesson on face and opinion. I think I was supposed to make the leap that science is fact.
Jackie Robinson: fact and opinion
I got into a disagreement with a friend’s boyfriend. Me and and my friend were discussing how science has been racist and sexist in the past. This seemed to strike a nerve within him. He argued that science is objective and that it gains it’s objectivity from the scientific method. Any sexism or racism that came from science must have been the work of a person doing BAD science. I argued that he was wrong on all levees. Science is not, by nature, objective and even if it was it could never be done correctly by anyone. We would need to hold every scientist responsible for performing “bad science” by virtue of their humanity.
science was used to justify slaughter not too long ago.
In practice science is non-objective enough that it is worthwhile to discuss and figure out how to make the situation better.
Countless philosopher’s of science has raised the question of ‘objectivity’ in science. Helen E Lognino is one such scientist that strongly disagrees with the idea of science as objective.
Logical poscitst want to say that science relies on an arbitrary ‘context of discovery’. This is not true. The circumstance surrounding a discovery can vary; the way the hypothesis is made or the emotional state fo thte scitntist. Logical postvist wand to give a response similar to my friend’s boyfriend and say that the orgin may be subjective but the method employed ensures that sceicne keeps its objectivity.
This way of thinking of science does not follow history accurately.
IN her essay “gender and the biological sciences Kathleen ORkuhlk discusses several case studies of sexism within science.
1.)”the importance of feminist critique in contemporary cell biology-egg is seen as passive and sperm as agressive even though contary information has surfaced showing an egg ‘dirgects the grwoth of small finger like projection of the cell surface to clasp the sperm and draw it in.
2.)2.) anthropolgical bias: mael struggle, male incentivness, and male competition are to explain the basis of human evolutio
3.) 19th century crainiometry. Bigger is better hypothesis. Men have bigger brains so they are better/more intelligent
4.) biological determinism (men aggressive women emotional.)
So clearly science is not objecive sir. At the very least it is wise to discuss these matters because this lack of objectivity affects me !
“Thanks to an evolving sens of the way in which the internet may be deployed in a democratic and emancipatory manner by a growing planetary citizenry that is using the new media to become informed, to inform others, and to construct new social and political relations.” -New media and society Khan and Kellner
Craig Newmark agrees!
In their essay on new media and society Khan and Kellner praise the internet for its ability to successfulyl organizes anti-war and anti-corporate globalization demonstrations. This moment, they argue, is an ‘unparalleled worldwide…social justice movement’
this blog is an ‘online civic moment’ the kind of social justice that the authors say the internet can provide: http://blog.e-democracy.org/
The main issue with arguing that the internet is democratic is that it assumes a world in which internet ACCESS is democratic. Perhaps one day we will get there, the UN certainty seems to think it is necessary
UN declares internet access a human right.
But as it stands now not everyone has internet access. It remains a right that mainly middle and upper class obtains. You cannot call a movement truly democratic if everyone doesn’t have an equal opportunity to participate. Until everyone has internet access the movement will still be exclusionary in a class sense. Only women of a high enough class can escape and take refuge within cyberspace, lower-class women still have no ‘room of their own’.
If you interested in the numbers you can check out
(http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm)
I also think that Kahn and kellner did not give proper weight to the ways in which governments have attempted to control the internet. They mention that the Bush administrator proposed the TIA so they could combine all extant date in one location. This would be done in the name of preventing terrorist from organizing.
Unfortunately “terrorist’ is a word that has no definite definition. Terrorist could mane a website that fights against sexism, racism, or capitalism. Can we trust governments, if they had the power, to stand idly by while bloggers gain support for causes meant to topple the socials injustices that make the system what it is?
rudecactus.comThe internet is absolutely an amazing place but we must keep in mind these two issues. 1.) internet access 2.) the ways in which it can turn on us.
the kind of internet access only a poet would dream of 🙂
Note* I will continue the four part blog at a latter date. I am very excited because I have thought of a possible solution for how to make horror films feminist.
Beofre I discuss what I think would work I want to describe something I do not think would work; the strong female character.
This blogist wrote an entire blog praising strong female characters http://www.bloodsprayer.com/uncategorized/hear-me-roar-ten-female-horror-film-characters-who-have-made-me-the-%E2%80%9Cwoman%E2%80%9D-i-am-today/
so did this one http://www.cult-labs.com/forums/horror-today/9624-horrors-greatest-female-characters.html
Ok last one http://www.brutalashell.com/2011/02/women-in-horror-ten-female-characters-that-break-the-mold-of-convention/
…
It is understandable that they want to praise strong female characters in horror. Seeing a representation that does not conform to the patriarch is , of course, a good thing.
The problem from this can be found in a review of Foucault’s theories on power.
First some definitions: 1.) biopower is the means by which the state exercises its control 2.) governmetnality is how the governmetn produces good citizens(suited to its policies)
His way of examining the problem is by looking at the system. IF we only focus on strong female characters it feeds into the idea that the problem is women, not what society is doing to women.
if you want to learn more about Foucult this is a blog entierly devoted to him http://foucaultblog.wordpress.com/
While we are on this topic it is interesting to think of horror as a tool of biopower. An earlier post discussed “The Hills have eyes,” that film interestingly enough took place far away from the protection of society. Horror can be used to make women afraid, afraid of what life would be like without the patriarchy. It encourages us to think that we need it for protection when in actuality it is what is endangering us.
tradebit.com
Clearly, “the strong female character” is not the solution?
So what is?
tell you in the next blog post !
-
- Fil:Unclothed woman behind question mark sign.jpg
poeticpan 