Feminism and Abu Ghraib

Barbara Ehrenreich and Phyllis Schlafly, two stalwarts on opposite sides of the feminist fence, weighed in this week on the role of the three women guards (Megan Ambuhl, Lynndie England and Sabrina Harman) in the Abu Ghraib scandal. In the Los Angeles Times, Ehrenreich wrote:

The photos did something to me, as a feminist: They broke my heart. I had no illusions about the U.S. mission in Iraq — whatever exactly it is — but it turns out that I did have some illusions about women.

A certain kind of feminism, or perhaps I should say a certain kind of feminist naiveté, died in Abu Ghraib. It was a feminism that saw men as the perpetual perpetrators, women as the perpetual victims and male sexual violence against women as the root of all injustice. Rape has repeatedly been an instrument of war and, to some feminists, it was beginning to look as if war was an extension of rape. There seemed to be at least some evidence that male sexual sadism was connected to our species' tragic propensity for violence. That was before we had seen female sexual sadism in action.

But it's not just the theory of this naive feminism that was wrong. So was its strategy and vision for change. That strategy and vision rested on the assumption, implicit or stated outright, that women were morally superior to men. We had a lot of debates over whether it was biology or conditioning that gave women the moral edge — or simply the experience of being a woman in a sexist culture. But the assumption of superiority, or at least a lesser inclination toward cruelty and violence, was more or less beyond debate.

What we have learned from Abu Ghraib, once and for all, is that a uterus is not a substitute for a conscience. This doesn't mean gender equality isn't worth fighting for for its own sake. It is. If we believe in democracy, then we believe in a woman's right to do and achieve whatever men can do and achieve, even the bad things. It's just that gender equality cannot, all alone, bring about a just and peaceful world.

In fact, we have to realize, in all humility, that the kind of feminism based on an assumption of female moral superiority is not only naive; it also is a lazy and self-indulgent form of feminism. Self-indulgent because it assumes that a victory for a woman — a promotion, a college degree, the right to serve alongside men in the military — is by its very nature a victory for all of humanity. And lazy because it assumes that we have only one struggle — the struggle for gender equality — when in fact we have many more. (Bold emphases are Hugo's)

Meanwhile, dear old Phyllis Schlafly opines:

The pictures are stark illustrations of the gender experimentation that has been going on in the U.S. military. The images have lifted the curtain on a subject about which the public has largely been kept in the dark.

When he was still in office, Former President William Jefferson Clinton made clear his contempt for our military, but the Clintonista feminazis were more focused in their disdain. They were determined to give us a gender-neutral military or, as one of their representatives said, an "un-gendered" military.

That goal means masculinizing women and feminizing men... The result is a breakdown of military discipline and a dramatic coarsening of women and of men's treatment of women.

I suspect that the picture of the woman soldier with a noose around the Iraqi man's neck will soon show up on the bulletin boards of women's studies centers and feminist college professors. That picture is the radical feminists' ultimate fantasy of how they dream of treating men. Less radical feminists will quietly cheer the picture as showing career-opportunity proof that women can be just as tough as men in dealing with the enemy.

The gap between Phyllis' expectation of feminist reaction and Ehrenreich's more accurate understanding of the feminist response was too good to ignore! What I appreciated most about Ehrenreich is her proclamation that feminism cannot ever be satisfied with mere "gender equity." Simply integrating women into male-dominated systems of power will invariably produce the Megan Ambuhls, Lynndie Englands and Sabrina Harmans. Ehrenreich concludes:

What we need is a tough new kind of feminism with no illusions. Women do not change institutions simply by assimilating into them, only by consciously deciding to fight for change. We need a feminism that teaches a woman to say no — not just to the date rapist or overly insistent boyfriend but, when necessary, to the military or corporate hierarchy within which she finds herself.

In short, we need a kind of feminism that aims not just to assimilate into the institutions that men have created over the centuries, but to infiltrate and subvert them.

It is not enough to be equal to men, when the men are acting like beasts. It is not enough to assimilate. We need to create a world worth assimilating into.

Ringing words indeed. (And let me plug, in passing, Camassia's post on the subject). And while I am of course much closer to Ehrenreich than to Schlafly, I don't think that "infiltrating" and "subverting" the military is either a viable or a morally acceptable answer for the women's movement (even if it were possible to raise sufficient feminist consciousness among young American working-class females). As easy as it is to poke fun at Phyllis Schlafly, there is no denying that while the military may not feminize men (that seems absurd) it does coarsen women, because coarsening human beings of either sex is what the military does in order to accomplish its goals. Or perhaps it's just the pacifist in me that leads me to be unable to rejoice when women rise in the ranks of any branch of armed service.

Comments

[annika]

Respectfully, "horse hockey!"

Women are not kinder gentler creatures by nature. Surprise surprise. It is the unforseen result of radical feminism that has created in women such as Pvt. England et al. the license to act as brutish as men like Graner. You see it in the rise of female violent crime, too. Women are told that they need to kick ass like men, to take on the worst attributes of maleness, to be a winner. And more destructively, women are told to reject the traditional feminine role that has guided us and society for centuries.

In the beginning, feminism was about fairness, not the destruction of roles. Fairness largely having been achieved, idiots like Ehrenreich, in order to justify their existence, found a new goal to agitate for: the destruction of norms. It's laughable to me that she takes no responsibility for what she and those of her ilk (i love that phrase) have wrought.

"[I]t's not just the theory of this naive feminism that was wrong. So was its strategy and vision for change. That strategy and vision rested on the assumption, implicit or stated outright, that women were morally superior to men. We had a lot of debates over whether it was biology or conditioning that gave women the moral edge — or simply the experience of being a woman in a sexist culture"

What a shallow, destructive assumption that was. And if feminism was based on the assumption of moral superiority, why then do feminists insist on becoming just like men? Through biological means (birth control, abortion) and social engineering (sexual harassment and "anti-discrimination" litigation)? It was our traditional roles that gave us our strength. Take those away, replace them with nothing, and we have been left with no guidance on how to act as women, except for the male model. And in the subculture of a militqary prison run by supreme assholes like Graner, what do we expect?

i have no proof, but i contend that a woman raised under the social norms of WWII, placed in the same position of Lynndie England, would have been morally compelled to object to what was going on at Abu Ghraib. Instead, in a culture where we're not only told to be "like one of the boys," we're actually told that there's no difference between us and boys, you get Lynndie England.

But feminism, part and parcel of the "tear it all down man" 60's counter-culture left, has brought us to this end. And they don't see it. We need a new feminism, Hugo, or we're lost.

[Hugo]

Hence, Annika, my reluctance to embrace Ehrenreich's subversive solution. I don't want women in the military because I am troubled by the military, not because I am worried about what the military will do to women. I don't want Schlafly's solution either.

As we used to say at Cal "We don't want a piece of the pie, we want to bake a new cake!"

Thanks for the link.

[Elizabeth]

I don't know where to start with Annika's comment. I think that women should have every right to join the military by choice, for scholarship money, for travel, what have you. But I believe that women should have equal rights, period, just as I believe in equal rights for everyone. Feminism is not to blame for what these women did. These women are trained by the military. I can't speak for them, but I assume they are hardened by their training. Perhaps they were raised that way.

If women had stayed in their "traditional" roles, we wouldn't have the vote.

As far as Hugo's post goes, I agree with most of Ehrenrich's comments. I think some people have a misconception that women are morally superior, or always gentle, kind and tenderhearted. As with all generalizations and stereotypes, this assumption is false. I agree with you, Hugo, in your statement that "coarsening human beings of either sex is what the military does in order to accomplish its goals". I can't imagine being in the military, as I tend towards pacifism myself, but I imagine you have to harden yourself in some fashion to prepare for your death and the death of others.

There is so much else to be said, but my lunch hour is up.

[Anne]

Schlafly is a nut (in my opinion, of course), but her post certainly does point out some serious flaws in where feminism brought us.

I've always largely shared Ehrenreich's view of women as "morally superior" and, like her, I was dismayed when I discovered that that "superiority" was cultural and not innate. (Although I discovered it long before I saw the Abu Ghraib pictures.)

Like Annika, I think that the unspoken assumption of superiority is a significant part of the problem. Feminism wasn't just about equality for women.

There was always the assumption we'd do a better job, given the same opportunities. It wasn't about equality. It was about superiority. A heaping helping of hubris, and sheer, naive arrogance, fueled much of our (largely unconscious) beliefs.

It's always so easy to think of what we don't want when we look at (almost) any situation that few of us accurately plan for what we do want.

It can be a failure of optimism, but it's a failure nonetheless.

It is not enough to be equal to men, when the men are acting like beasts. It is not enough to assimilate. We need to create a world worth assimilating into.

As long as we're admitting our failures and discussing them and preparing to try again, we haven't entirely failed, though. Right?

A new feminism? Maybe so. But let's be clear. I wouldn't roll back the clock and trade what equality we've gained just to eliminate what those pictures have taught us about women.

It's the failure to know ourselves that brought many of us to this spot. A cursory glance at history would have proven to anyone who cared to look that women are capable of the same brutality as men. To move forward, we have to do a better job of identifying who we want to be, not just who we don't want to be.

[Col Steve]

Well, these are interesting comments:

"because coarsening human beings of either sex is what the military does in order to accomplish its goals.

"I imagine you have to harden yourself in some fashion to prepare for your death and the death of others."

As someone who has commanded two units composed of both male and female soldiers, I don't ever recall putting "coarsening" on the training schedule. Since words mean something, a quick look at the dictionary finds coarse as "roughness, rudeness, or crudeness of spirit, behavior, or language."

Now, Soldiers as a part of job qualification require some degree of physical fitness (and yes, gender is taken into account much to Schlafly's despair - but the adjustments are very reasonable given the physical differences ON AVERAGE between men and women). Soldiers require the mental toughness to perform their jobs under stressful condition..and yes, dying is an occupational hazard (your own, your fellow Soldier, the enemy, and unfortunately non-combatants sometimes). Doctors see death and I suppose require some "hardening" to become used to dealing with that aspect of their profession; but, we still expect them to retain compassion in dealing with the living. Accordingly, we train Soldiers to perform their duties under trying circumstances; however, we still expect them to remain sensitive to their obligations to conduct themselves according to the prescribed rules and regulations under the military code of justice and other abiding documents our civilian leadership requires us to follow.

I find Ehrenreich's point on women "subverting" the institutions (in this case the military) somewhat frightening. Is she arguing for a kinder, gentler military (I think not) or that somehow women in charge would create the climate where there are less violations of the code of conduct? (of course, BG Karpinski who was responsible for the training and overall conduct of her soldiers was a woman).

I found the woman in my command to be mostly good young Americans trying to do their best. They had successes and problems in about equal percentages to their male counterparts. This isn't to say their aren't issues (ie. the Air Force Academy scandals), but let's not try to extrapolate what appears to be (at this point) an isolated incident of failure in both personal conduct, unit training, and leader responsibility into something more to fit an agenda.

[John Sloas]

Col Steve,
With all due respect, doesn't being trained to kill other human beings with weapons and your hands lead to coarsening or perhaps a better word is desensitizing (even if it isn't on the "training schedule")? I know that the military does more than kill, but killing the enemy before he/she kills you seems to be a fundamental nature of the occupation.

Both of my grandfathers fought in WWII, my dad worked ordinance (i.e., maintained all the weapons on aircraft carriers) during Vietnam--it coarsened them. They viewed human live differently because of their training (especially foreign human life). My grandfather showed me pictures of dead Japanese as if they were hunting trophies--that seemed coarse to me.

From my limited perceptive, the business of war is unpleasant and brings out the worst in people (male and female). In every American war, Americans have committed atrocities (be it a small number of Americans) -- in the digital age, a better job has been done of documenting it.
Peace to you sir.

[The Angry Clam]

I find it interesting that some of these feminists feel secure in proclaiming their belief in the innate moral superiority of women.

I wonder how many would appreciate a statement on the innate moral superiority of a race (another biological category like sex) or of one culture over another.

I doubt many.

[Amy]

When I saw the Abu Ghraib pictures, my first thought was not, "How on earth could a woman be involved in that?" it was "How on earth could a person be involved in that?" For me, it was a failure of the military in either properly teaching soldiers the Geneva Convention or failure by the military in complying with the Geneva Convention. However, having read the excerpts here, I identify more with Barbara Ehrenreich than Phyllis Schlafly.

Fairness largely having been achieved, idiots like Ehrenreich, in order to justify their existence, found a new goal to agitate for: the destruction of norms.

In this portion of Annika's comment, I strongly disagree that fairness between the sexes has largely been achieved, that Ehrenreich is an idiot, and that she is "agitating." I wonder what her version of feminism would look like.

Hugo, are you worried about what the military will do to men? And if not, why not? If I may ask...

[Col Steve]

John:
I would agree with you that, historically, an Army of draftees with limited training (basically to get them to survive the first few days and then experience takes over) and going through prolonged, intense combat (Civil War, WWII) would be far more likely to have "coarse" Soldiers. I should have clarified I was really referring to the post-70's, all-volunteer professional military.

I should be careful and speak only to my personal experience and what I have observed in 20+ years in the Army - that most Soldiers can be trained in how to kill yet retain the notion that it is unpleasant (it you want to argue that is desensitizing, I won't quibble too much except to say that doesn't preclude retaining a sense of how dreadful it is and that you retain a responsibility to conduct yourself in certain ways). Remember though that the vast majority of folks do not end up killing someone, especially as technology enables more lethality from distances. I'll also add that seeing the "highway of death" in Gulf War I made me more sensitive to how deadly force is and that is should be the last resort of a nation.

I take exception to 3 things from Hugo's post.

The first is his statement (really my inference of that)with regards to coarsening being what the military does. Since we draw from the population at large, there are bound to be some members who for various reasons fail to conduct themselves according to the ethics of the profession.His words seems a gross generalization and a lack of understanding what the military profession tries to instill in its members. Personally, I just didn't see that in the women under my command nor was it a goal of my (and my superior commander for part of the time was a woman) leadership.

Because of that position, I next find it difficult to give any credence to Phyllis Schlafly. Women have been a valuable asset to the military. They often bring a unique set of attributes and I consider them one of our nation's comparative advantage, especially to other nations that do not allow women to serve. Often, putting steel on a target is the (relatively) easier part of the process - the whole planning, supporting, analysis, and other combat support/service support functions that make the military able to execute campaigns is often the long pole in the tent. I wonder if she asks the hundreds of military men married to other servicemembers if they find their spouses somehow "less feminine."

Third, I find Ehrenreich position somewhat disconcerting. Of course they have the right to their opinion, but it seems rather callous to exploit the circumstances of Abu Ghraib to something greater than it is or to advance a personal agenda. The leader of the MP Brigade was a female General - not an easy feat to accomplish. From all I've read, she is a smart, savvy, accomplished woman. She was responsible for the training, supervision, and conduct of her soldiers. I suppose in spite of this general's attributes, Ehrenreich would argue the "institution" corrupted her - how convenient to have a theory that can twist any scenario to fit your conclusion. I have to agree with Hugo that I find it troubling to use words like subverting and infiltrating, especially when it comes to the military. The profession is not perfect and women play an important role in the collective solutions to making the military better..but Ehrenreich seems confused on who the enemy really is..

[annika]

Two rebuttals:

As a historian, and one who has known a few members of the military, i would say that war often brings out the best in people, at least when it's waged by American soldiers.

And as a woman, albeit a 27 year old one, i have to wonder where is all this discrimination today's so-called feminists cry about. i haven't experienced it. Thanks to real feminists of the past, in my life "fairness between the sexes" has largely been achieved.

i can only speak from personal experience, but look at me. i supervise a department of paralegals in a large firm, and next fall i will be going to a highly rated law school where 58% of the students are women. That couldn't have happened thirty or forty years ago.

Don't let people make you into a victim. Especially when their livelihood depends on perpetuating your victim status.

[Xrlq]

Here's where the discrimination lies, Annika. As a woman, your chances of getting in to the school were no worse than those of males with comparable qualifications. When you graduate, your chances of passing the bar and landing a six-figure job right out of law school are about the same, too. Where things break down is a few years down the road, when it comes time to make partner (or not). If you are single, or married but childless, or hire a nanny, etc., then your odds of making partner are about the same as those faced by a similarly situated male. But if you have a couple of kids, take an extended leave and/or go part time to spend more time with them, then guess what? You'll have less time to devote to your job, and therefore, less advancement. Needless to say, many women choose family over career, or at least to strike a more family-friendly balance than their male counterparts would (or, as principal breadwinners, could).

Among feminists, this range of choices is known as a "glass ceiling."

[d-rod]

If women and men working together, military or otherwise, make a group more effective and at the same time reduces inequality, then I am all for it. As far as the “coarsening” of female volunteers to the extent that it helps round out the liberating force, I’d say that is a net good thing. The early prophets had an attitude toward women that kept women peacefully subjugated in victim status and today would be thrown out of civilized gatherings and banned from commenting on Hugo’s humble blog. “The badness of men is better than the goodness of women” Ecc 47:14. Discarding this sort of evil from our vocabulary helped change the environment that set the stage for women to envision achieving equality.

It’s easy to assert that the New Testament changed all that, but it is shameful that Jesus did not have more to say against those whom he frequently quoted and instead left generations of women to fight against hideous forms of oppression against tremendous odds. It is only through the coarsening of women that they have recently risen above second-class citizenry in the West. Sixty Minutes this week showed women coarsening themselves to struggle and protest against Muslim men in Paris who wanted to enslave, rape, intimidate and destroy them. With few exceptions throughout history a woman was not permitted to do anything of importance except by the sufferance of her lord and master, who was more often than not probably a sadistic opinionated ass.

The greatest salvation of Christianity today lays in that, excluding Christian Reconstructionists, no one takes biblical texts literally anymore. The danger of doing so has been illustrated far too many times, but the theme of my quotes and comments here speak to the fact that the fundamentalist interpretations are unfortunately usually the truest. By bestowing the honor of these texts being the word of God, we simply dishonor God and may become negligent accomplices in perpetuating evil ourselves. Art, music literature and wisdom are from God in my opinion, but the Scriptures are no more the word of God than are the Koranic verses that literally oppress women today. By not acknowledging and openly repudiating the known nonsense, the factual contradictions and the inaccuracies, we are repeating the historic blunder of Jesus of Nazareth.

I do not mean to chip away at anyone’s faith but to illuminate evil that has occurred in the name of faith. In Islam, fundamentalist clerics are essentially correct when they assert they receive their instructions from sacred texts - hypocritical Christian complaints to the contrary will fall on deaf ears. Extremists and hardliners are simply interpreting texts for what they clearly state. I support the moderates of all faiths who desire peace and whose only real safeguard in the world today is not pacifism but America’s strong military, defending universal values including the freedom of religion.

[Anne]

The Angry Clam said:

I find it interesting that some of these feminists feel secure in proclaiming their belief in the innate moral superiority of women.

Um, I can't speak for anyone else, but when I was speaking, I meant to be referring to an unconscious assumption of superiority that I used to have. I lost that illusion quite a long time ago but others are only now understanding that they even held that belief.

In short, it wasn't a consciously held belief.

[Jo Boost]

Quite some time has passed since we saw those infamous photos of Abu Ghraib, and just a few things have happened: a few men put "on trial" - which seems not quie the same as Nuremberg - as should, of course, be if meant to be reasonable and acceptable to the victims. But more, it seems, the"Honour of the Forces" is taken care of that that - AND THE "HONOUR OF WOMEN".
I am afraid, it's no use denying: the Women's Movement also has to do some serious accounting. First of all -yes- the famous 'moral superiority' and the attached monopoly of badness and violence on the male side. A lot has to be seen to: "Women never lie"; "All men are rapists". The "Duluth Programme", etc, etc. The Women's Rights Movement has lived on lies, pretence, fake statistics, etc. anything but truth. We may, in the end have to be grateful to Lynndie England & Co. And the company is sizeable: There is the imediate commander Ms. Brigadier General Janis Karpinski who saw nothing wrong in Abu Ghraib; then Colonel Carolyn Wood who comanded the interrogation unit in Bagran (Afghanistan) as, then, in Baghdad and was the author of the 'rules of interrogation' which Gen. Sanchez had never seen; then Brigadier General Barbara Fast, the top intelligence officer in Iraq, and finally Mary Walker, chief Air Force Council, who headed the Pentagon cum Judiciary commission who told Mssrs. Bush and Rumsfeld that anti-torture laws were irrelevant. A good old feminist team - or what was that? The famous "chain of command" for all these atrocities was almost entirely female!
It boggles the mind to see that. I cried when the facts sank into my head: My God! Women did that! I can now understand how men feel if they feel al the shame of belonging to a gender that is blamed for everything possible under the sun, from rape to murder. I know it know: I have to feel just as ashamed. And I know: Most men have nothoing like that on their minds - just as most women don't. But the shame is there, collectively - just because we have painted ourselves so perfect and superior. Perhaps it's better now, because we know it was a lie. The truth can help and create again a real feminism that works together with men for tru equality and mutual respect.

[Jo Boost]

Quite some time has passed since we saw those infamous photos of Abu Ghraib, and just a few things have happened: a few men put "on trial" - which seems not quie the same as Nuremberg - as should, of course, be if meant to be reasonable and acceptable to the victims. But more, it seems, the"Honour of the Forces" is taken care of that that - AND THE "HONOUR OF WOMEN".
I am afraid, it's no use denying: the Women's Movement also has to do some serious accounting. First of all -yes- the famous 'moral superiority' and the attached monopoly of badness and violence on the male side. A lot has to be seen to: "Women never lie"; "All men are rapists". The "Duluth Programme", etc, etc. The Women's Rights Movement has lived on lies, pretence, fake statistics, etc. anything but truth. We may, in the end have to be grateful to Lynndie England & Co. And the company is sizeable: There is the imediate commander Ms. Brigadier General Janis Karpinski who saw nothing wrong in Abu Ghraib; then Colonel Carolyn Wood who comanded the interrogation unit in Bagran (Afghanistan) as, then, in Baghdad and was the author of the 'rules of interrogation' which Gen. Sanchez had never seen; then Brigadier General Barbara Fast, the top intelligence officer in Iraq, and finally Mary Walker, chief Air Force Council, who headed the Pentagon cum Judiciary commission who told Mssrs. Bush and Rumsfeld that anti-torture laws were irrelevant. A good old feminist team - or what was that? The famous "chain of command" for all these atrocities was almost entirely female!
It boggles the mind to see that. I cried when the facts sank into my head: My God! Women did that! I can now understand how men feel if they feel al the shame of belonging to a gender that is blamed for everything possible under the sun, from rape to murder. I know it know: I have to feel just as ashamed. And I know: Most men have nothoing like that on their minds - just as most women don't. But the shame is there, collectively - just because we have painted ourselves so perfect and superior. Perhaps it's better now, because we know it was a lie. The truth can help and create again a real feminism that works together with men for true equality and mutual respect.

[John Scotton]

As a Vietnam era vet this whole episode makes me sick! We hold our troops to Geneva Convention standards against gangters who shuck their uniforms and resort to civilian dress to sneak up and attack our young men and women undercover. Then when our people (sick and tired of the subterfuge) try to use unorthodox methods to discern where the illegal fighters bases are located, we punish our folk! Seems like Saigon again! What we need is to let the Smart Folks of CNN, ABC, NBC and CBS tell us a better way of fighting people who don't adhere to the Maquis of Queensberry rules. But now that I think about it, these young people may get sentenced to prison but at least they'll still be alive --not like many of their comrades!!!

Hmmm, let's see, alive prisoner or DEAD!!!

[mythago]

As I recall, John, the NVA agreed with you about the ludicrousness of the Geneva Conventions.

[mercedes]

You know, it's great to talk the feminist talk and walk the femisist walk, but it's ludicrous to join the ranks of the feminist movement and put up with misogynistic double standards. I say, true feminism is about equality. Women should have the same rights as men, no matter what the circumstances. If you reverse the situation, nobody would think twice about a man in the same situation.

[Nike Air Force One Pas Cher]

Il ya ce gamin une hippie qui est toujours raconter une histoire pour dénoncer mon swoosh, parce qu'il dit qu'il favorise des ateliers clandestins, quoi que cela signifie, mais je peux dire qu'il est tout simplement

[Chaussures Air Jordan]

Aller par l'état du monde est en ce moment, vous seriez pardonné pour mettre le Moyen-Orient à droite au bas de votre liste de lieux où aller. Les images du Moyen-Orient que nous voyons dans les médias sont des guerres, des manifestations

[Moncler Jackets]

It's great to hear from you and see what you've been up to. In your blog I feel your enthusiasm for life. thank you.