REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE  
comments_imageCOMMENTS: 25

Women as Weapons of War

A new book shows how Western media depict women's bodies as dangerous -- threats as great as any machine gun or bomb.
March 6, 2008  |  
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Reproductive Justice headlines via email.

 
 
Advertisement
 
In her book Women as Weapons of War: Iraq, Sex, and the Media, published recently by Columbia University Press, Kelly Oliver vividly depicts, and correlates, the perverse behavior of a female suicide bomber in Iraq with that of a female Army private, Pfc. Lynndie England, whose sadomasochistic behavior towards her captors at Abu Ghraib drew international scorn.

This Alton Jones Professor of Philosophy, at Vanderbilt University, draws important parallels between empire building and the "free market," as well as the deployment of women as both purveyors and pariahs of battle, thereby exposing the vulnerable to be both wounded and wounder. And, by extension, she shows how global occupation by a country that increasingly emulates the behavior of some back-alley dominatrix can only be linked to ongoing sexual repression.

In her interview with AlterNet, Oliver describes how, in the name of imperial expansionism, we, in the West, are quickly becoming victims of our own sexualized consumerism:

Jayne Lyn Stahl: How are women being used as weapons of war, figuratively and literally?

Kelly Oliver: News media repeatedly describe women soldiers as "weapons." Women warriors are not referred to as women with weapons or women carrying bombs, but their very bodies are imagined as dangerous. For example, a columnist for the New York Times said, "An example of the most astounding modern weapon in the Western arsenal" was named Claire, with a machine gun in her arms and a flower in her helmet. After news broke about female interrogators at Guantánamo Bay prison, a Time magazine headline read "female sexuality used as a weapon," and the London Times described Palestinian women suicide bombers as "secret weapons" and "human precision bombs," "more deadly than the male."

Even Pfc. Jessica Lynch (the U.S. solider who was captured and rescued early in the Iraq invasion) was labeled a "human shield" and a weapon in the propaganda war. Media and public reactions to the more recent capture and release of British Seaman Faye Turney display some of the same tendencies. The British media accused the Iranian president of using Turney as a weapon in a propaganda war at the same time that conservatives used this image of a mother prisoner of war to argue against women warriors.

The metaphor of weapon in public media discloses the association between women, female sexuality and danger in the popular imagination. This imaginary association appears to have become part of military interrogation strategy at Guantánamo prison and Abu Ghraib, where women's participation was reportedly used to "soften-up" recalcitrant Muslim men. And just this month, Al Qaeda allegedly used two mentally impaired women to detonate bombs in crowded markets in Iraq. Reports indicate that the use of women suicide bombers is on the rise in Iraq because they can more easily get through checkpoints without arousing suspicions. For this reason, media coverage imagines them as more dangerous than their male-counterparts.

Explain the "virgin-whore" motif with respect to female suicide bombers and women soldiers.

Within the rhetoric of mainstream media, what female suicide bombers, recovered heroes like Jessica Lynch and Faye Turney, and the bad girls of Abu Ghraib have in common is that they are figured on one side or the other of the classic virgin-whore dichotomy that has been a mainstay of Western culture -- think of the new fragrance for women called "Angel or Demon." On the demon side, what some reporters have called "equal opportunity killers" need to be interpreted in light of older images of violent women from Hollywood films, literature and religious traditions. These latest examples of women figured as weapons are a continuation of stereotypes of dangerous women who use their sexuality as a deadly weapon to deceive and trap men. Some soldiers still name their fighter-jets and bombs after Hollywood bombshells and "buxom babes" from magazines. The atom bomb that ended WWII was named after Hollywood "bombshell" Rita Hayworth's most famous femme fatale character, Gilda.

In the wake of the photographs from Abu Ghraib, some commentators said that what they called the "whorehouse" behavior at the prison was the result of the presence of women, who trigger the natural sexual impulses of men. Several of these types of reports blamed the abuse on the very presence of women in the military. Underlying this thinking is the association between women and sex, and more to the point, the connections between women, sex and violence that permeate our culture.

If, on the one side, we have the so-called "whorehouse" activities of women at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay prisons, on the other we have the images of helpless women in distress or of mothers whose place is at home with their children. Lynch was described in the press with wildly varying characterizations from a "female teenage Rambo" to a "princess" and "damsel in distress."

While the young women at Abu Ghraib are portrayed as whores, Lynch is portrayed as an innocent virginal blond "country girl" and Faye Turney was figured as an emblem of British motherhood. Female suicide bombers have also been variously figured as virginal heroines in the Muslim world and as "more dangerous than the male" by the Western press.

Has what you perceive as the commoditization of women changed in recent years, and what role do the media and technology play in terms of what you call the objectification of women?

Yes, there are at least two very noticeable trends in recent years: First, in films and on television, we see not only continued objectification of the female body -- now with less clothes on than ever before in prime time -- but also a glorification of violence toward women. In other words, we see women's bodies being blown up, shot, falling out of planes, thrown through windows and beaten. Of course, we also see more violence toward men and violence, in general. But often the violence toward women in contemporary films is accompanied by showing off the scantily clad body, which gives the violence a marked sexual overtone. In addition, this violence is often packaged in the genre of the feminist avenger-type film, where the female protagonist is constantly attacked by men but still comes out on top, so to speak.

Throughout the book you refer to what you call the "pornography of looking." What do you mean by that?

The pornographic way of looking or seeing takes the object of its gaze for its own pleasure or as a spectacle for its own enjoyment without regard for the subjectivity of those looked at. It reinforces the power and agency of the looker while erasing or debasing the power and agency of the looked at.

This way of looking operates on both literal and figural levels: Sex and violence literally have become spectacles to be looked at, and sex and violence figuratively have become linked within our cultural imagination, evidenced by the fact that the phrase "sex and violence" has become part of our everyday vocabulary. In terms of Hollywood films, it is difficult to think one without the other.

In a general sense, my book is about the connection between sex and violence in contemporary culture. More specifically, it is about how this imagined connection plays itself out in the theater of war currently staged in the Middle East. Furthermore, it is about how this pornographic way of looking plays an essential role in waging war and how historically it has been used, even developed, within the context of colonial and imperialist violence. In this regard, the American occupation of Iraq follows in a long line of colonial and imperialist ventures executed by the "West" in the "East."

How is the violence that is happening overseas, often in support of patriarchy, connected to women's lives here in the U.S.?

By pointing to the lack of women's freedom elsewhere, we ignore the ways in which women are coerced at home, where ideals of femininity lead young girls to eating disorders; religious conservatives try to prevent young women from using birth control and limit their access to abortions; women continue to have the lioness's share of childcare; soccer moms resort to caffeine, Prozac and sleeping pills to maintain their busy schedules; and most of the people living in poverty in the U.S. are women and children.

It is telling that conservative politicians employ feminist rhetoric to justify war even as they cut programs that help women at home, including welfare, state-sponsored childcare, planned parenthood and affirmative action. They can simultaneously blame feminism for the abusive women at Abu Ghraib and invade Afghanistan to liberate women. The irony is that conservatives will use feminism when it suits their purposes and defame it when it doesn't.

Has technology enhanced the ability to exploit women while at the same time engendering the illusion of empowering them?

Yes. In the book, I discuss some of the ways that technology allows more women to work from home. So, in addition to domestic work, they use computer technology to work from home. Of course, this makes their schedules more flexible and gives them more power over time. But, like the other "time-saving" technologies, it also brings with it new demands to be available 24/7. Moreover, it can leave women "trapped" in their homes in a way that they aren't when they work outside the home. This is just one example; there are many more.

"As the Eye, so the Object," so said poet William Blake. How does this concept relate to embedded reporting technologies?

The effect of this new style of reporting on journalists and on their news reports is multifaceted. First, insofar as the journalist's safety depends upon the troops with whom s/he moves, and insofar as s/he is in close quarters with them, the journalist's objectivity is compromised. The journalist begins to take on the perspective of the military. More than that, "embedded" reports are as much about the emotions of the journalist and the troops involved at that moment in military action. Rather than step back and give the viewer the larger perspective or context of the situation, embedded reporting encourages human interest stories and snippets of action that appear more like war movies than journalism. The live action effect of digital technologies increases the sense of intimacy and gives the viewer the feeling of being there.

The viewer is not just put in the place of the photographer as subject looking at the "native" other as object. With moving images and real-time Internet and television broadcasts, the viewer assumes the dynamic agency of the looking subject, along with his apparent right to look at and even manipulate the bodies of "native" others. These images not only record but also reproduce relations of domination. By comparing the images coming in from Iraq to images from the history of colonial enterprises in Europe, we see that they are just the latest visual technologies of oppression and occupation.
Jayne Lyn Stahl is a widely published poet, essayist, playwright and screenwriter whose articles frequently appear on The Huffington Post. She is a member of PEN American Center.
Email
Print
Share
Post on reddit
Post on stumbleupon
Post on facebook
Post on digg
Post on twitter
Post on delicious
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest Reproductive Justice headlines via email


Comments are closed-

Ho Hmmmmmm
Posted by: gellero on Mar 6, 2008 1:05 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author really stretches the analysis and meaning of things.

As a critic I would entitle my critique of her analysis 'ad absurdum'

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

This is a reach.
Posted by: abbadon2007 on Mar 6, 2008 1:17 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But perhaps a useful one. We are in some need of improvements in our military's treatment of women.

Mostly, we need to keep our soldiers from raping each other.

And secondly, we need to give victims more than just theoretical recourse.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Not Jessica Lynch
Posted by: terrapin on Mar 6, 2008 3:38 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Doesn't the author mean to refer to Lyndie England instead?

Please correct this.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Not Jessica Lynch Posted by: Ghoulman

Comments are closed-

Weapons
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Mar 6, 2008 5:22 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The worst part of this is not the book or the author, but the interviewer. She doesn't question anything critically, and could have ended it quickly by simply asking: What's the difference between your book and a zillion other feminist books that came before it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

There goes that Twilight Zone theme again . . .
Posted by: Moonray on Mar 6, 2008 5:34 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is one of the silliest articles I've read anywhere. I agree that the media stereotype women and other groups, but this desperate reaching for victim status is just annoying.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Reaction to this Article is Astounding!
Posted by: odcherenow on Mar 6, 2008 6:02 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is troubling is the apparent inability of respondents to this article to hold two frames at one time. Yes, there is still objectification of women, globally and locally; just turn on your television. Yes, there remains a common culture of violence against women and girls; take note of who gets shot in these US 'random shootings', overwhelmingly by male. And, yes, we have "come a long way, Baby" as the ad said. AND we have the most talented candidate running to join the leaders of 13 world governments, a woman. So, let's live with paradox as we try to figure out how to overcome 3,000 years of a patriarchal belief system, deeply embedded in the unconscious functioning of western and eastern minds...both male and female. Wake up, America.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Facts checking??
Posted by: DesertRat99 on Mar 6, 2008 7:39 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sorry, I stopped reading at "Jessica Lynch". Let's have a little quality control, shall we?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Pfc. Lynndie R. England
Posted by: Dallas Suz on Mar 6, 2008 8:21 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well this article managed to become total bullshit almost immediately by blowing its fact checking.

The woman who acted identically not her male military peers but became the scapegoat was Pfc. Lynndie R. England not Pfc. Jessica Lynch.

Pfc. Jessica Lynch was the one who was turned in to a propaganda piece by the military. see Susan Faludi's book "The Terror Dream".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Fact Check
Posted by: Marshalldoc on Mar 6, 2008 8:25 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The text states: “The atom bomb that ended WWII was named after Hollywood "bombshell" Rita Hayworth's most famous femme fatale character, Gilda.”

This is incorrect. “Gilda” was the name of the first atomic bomb to be dropped on Bikini Atoll (see: linked text“Bomb Sinks 2 Ships and Damages 17; Capital Vessels Escape Extensive Harm; Destroyer Capsizes; Experiment `Success'“

The atomic bombs that ended WWII were “Little Boy” (Hiroshima, Japan - Aug. 6, 1945) and “Fat Man” Nagasaki, Japan - Aug. 9, 1945).

The names of those two bombs kind of argue against the paragraph's thesis...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

What Did You Expect?
Posted by: goldmarx on Mar 6, 2008 8:39 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's not surprising that the article is rife with factual errors.

That's what you get when anti-porn feminists babble on about how pornography is responsible for this or that.

Now it's how the 'objectifying gaze' of porn is responsible for war.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What Did You Expect? Posted by: lindabeth

Comments are closed-

ON PEOPLE'S BODIES
Posted by: Ipsi Dixit on Mar 6, 2008 9:21 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And may one add that what is true about women's bodies is even more true of the bodies of children.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Whatt???
Posted by: beautifulady2003 on Mar 6, 2008 9:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Jessica Lynch wasn't at Abu Ghraib. A much better and more accurate story of her time in Iraq can be found in Susan Faludi's book "Terror Dream." Geez, at least get your facts straight!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Whatt??? Posted by: bellydonna

Comments are closed-

Shame on Columbia University Press
Posted by: DaBear on Mar 6, 2008 10:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Because if the gross and inexcusable factual errors in the interview are in the book, CUP ought to recall every last copy and fix them, because some of the errors are the core premise of her conclusions.

This kind of thing just pisses me off to no end... here was an intriguing idea, but it dies in a suicide bomb because the editor didn't do her job in checking the author. This is what happens when publishers expect and author to do the job of writing and editing... publishing is a creative partnership. But how typical that the publisher who makes the most money on a book deal does the least amount of work. How Amerikaaner.

I have no patience for people who don't want to work hard and I have less patience for people who pontificate about history but have utterly no sense of the facts. Oliver and CUP ruined a perfectly publishable idea. IDIOTS! And those morons got paid?! Typical overprivileged rich brats.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

gabrielle
Posted by: chloe08 on Mar 6, 2008 11:53 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't think we should be so quick to dismiss the premise. It is objectification, or perceiving the enemy as other that allows the atrocities of war to be committed. This dynamic is fundamental to all kinds of exploitive relationships. We detach ourselves from the natural world and thus allow all kinds of devastation to occur in our name (oil drilling in Amwar, desecration of rain forests, 12 year old children working with no protection to make designer jeans). Could we be complicit in these acts of violence if we felt a sense of connection rather that separation? War is the most graphic example of this alienation. Little murders happen every day.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Captor or Captive
Posted by: Sakkara on Mar 6, 2008 12:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wasn't aware that Ms. England was a captive at Abu Ghraib. Yet she was apparenty mean to her "captors". I think you can add this to the list of the author's errors, factual and otherwise.

Anyway, the whole idea is just depressing. 30 years ago, women were used positively and effectively to SEDUCE the enemy (Russia, Cold War)... now they're beating people up and exploding themselves. It's an awful world you've made for us, Georgie Boy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Incoherent Rage
Posted by: Urgelt on Mar 6, 2008 3:17 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article is unsupported and unsupportable. It's a good example of what happens when a writer is motivated by sheer rage: it's all hard-hitting conclusions supported by sloppy, poorly considered rationalizations and outright errors. It reinforces unfortunate stereotypes about radical feminism: unreasoning, unreasonable, mad.

I suppose incoherent rage sells books to those true believers, but it sure as hell doesn't convince anyone else.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Editors
Posted by: chuckbutcher on Mar 7, 2008 1:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is the reason editors have a function in a publishing enterprise and why wastebaskets are seldom empty.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

DeWayne93
Posted by: DeWayne93 on Mar 7, 2008 7:13 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Your interviewer is incisive, direct and thought-provoking in her questions; the interviewee is evasive, over-generalizes and, as others have noted, sadly misinformed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

An Excellent Interview, Unfairly Received
Posted by: mclemens on Mar 9, 2008 10:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I first encountered Professor Oliver's work fifteen years ago in a book she wrote about Julia Kristeva which, I must say, was a most thoughtful and clear introduction to the work of that profound and complex philosopher/psychoanalyst. I found this article an exemplary teaser for what promises to be a fascinating read. Despite a minor erratum in editing ("captors" for "captives") and Oliver's conversational slip in conflating "Gilda" with "Enola Gay" (which in no way diminishes her overall point) it was a lucid and engaging overview of an intriguing and highly relevant subject.

As for the comments, I can't say I'm surprised but I am dismayed by all the vitriol flung about by some of the posters who apparently never learned the difference between semiotics and seminal fluid. I suppose it would be too much to expect everyone who responds to have rudimentary fluency with Lacanian structuralism or Heideggerian hermeneutics, but at the very least they could read attentively enough to realize there was nowhere any inaccuracy or confusion in the article between Lynch (i.e. Madonna) and England (i.e. Whore). Talk about a reaction formation!

Judging from some of the outraged carping at "feminism" (without any demonstrable inkling of the philosophic and analytic validity of the points the article discusses), these critics might just be worried that a closer reading could dam up their jouissance in gazing at the latest avidly anticipated production from "gore-nography" impresario Eli (Hostel) Roth. Or perhaps it's just that the ignorant are always the quickest to arrogantly judge and mock -- after all, they've got that motherload of motherwit percolating under their pates. Who needs humility or education when you've got all that going on upstairs?

I look forward to getting and reading a copy of Prof. Oliver's latest at my first opportunity. Thank you to Ms. Stahl and AlterNet for alerting me to it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

battle of the wombs?
Posted by: hereoz on Mar 10, 2008 11:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who can tell how much Arafat's smugness relates to demographics?


Letter From Israel: Battle of the Wombs by ...
"The womb of the Arab woman," Arafat says smugly
promising ultimate victory over the Jews,
"is my strongest weapon." The updated CIA 2002 factbooks on ...
www.villagevoice.com/news/0249,172811,40286,1.html - 48k -

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Alternet Comments:

Comments are closed-

Ho Hmmmmmm
Posted by: gellero on Mar 6, 2008 1:05 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author really stretches the analysis and meaning of things.

As a critic I would entitle my critique of her analysis 'ad absurdum'

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

This is a reach.
Posted by: abbadon2007 on Mar 6, 2008 1:17 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But perhaps a useful one. We are in some need of improvements in our military's treatment of women.

Mostly, we need to keep our soldiers from raping each other.

And secondly, we need to give victims more than just theoretical recourse.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Not Jessica Lynch
Posted by: terrapin on Mar 6, 2008 3:38 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Doesn't the author mean to refer to Lyndie England instead?

Please correct this.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Not Jessica Lynch Posted by: Ghoulman

Comments are closed-

Weapons
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Mar 6, 2008 5:22 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The worst part of this is not the book or the author, but the interviewer. She doesn't question anything critically, and could have ended it quickly by simply asking: What's the difference between your book and a zillion other feminist books that came before it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

There goes that Twilight Zone theme again . . .
Posted by: Moonray on Mar 6, 2008 5:34 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is one of the silliest articles I've read anywhere. I agree that the media stereotype women and other groups, but this desperate reaching for victim status is just annoying.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Reaction to this Article is Astounding!
Posted by: odcherenow on Mar 6, 2008 6:02 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is troubling is the apparent inability of respondents to this article to hold two frames at one time. Yes, there is still objectification of women, globally and locally; just turn on your television. Yes, there remains a common culture of violence against women and girls; take note of who gets shot in these US 'random shootings', overwhelmingly by male. And, yes, we have "come a long way, Baby" as the ad said. AND we have the most talented candidate running to join the leaders of 13 world governments, a woman. So, let's live with paradox as we try to figure out how to overcome 3,000 years of a patriarchal belief system, deeply embedded in the unconscious functioning of western and eastern minds...both male and female. Wake up, America.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Facts checking??
Posted by: DesertRat99 on Mar 6, 2008 7:39 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sorry, I stopped reading at "Jessica Lynch". Let's have a little quality control, shall we?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Pfc. Lynndie R. England
Posted by: Dallas Suz on Mar 6, 2008 8:21 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well this article managed to become total bullshit almost immediately by blowing its fact checking.

The woman who acted identically not her male military peers but became the scapegoat was Pfc. Lynndie R. England not Pfc. Jessica Lynch.

Pfc. Jessica Lynch was the one who was turned in to a propaganda piece by the military. see Susan Faludi's book "The Terror Dream".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Fact Check
Posted by: Marshalldoc on Mar 6, 2008 8:25 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The text states: “The atom bomb that ended WWII was named after Hollywood "bombshell" Rita Hayworth's most famous femme fatale character, Gilda.”

This is incorrect. “Gilda” was the name of the first atomic bomb to be dropped on Bikini Atoll (see: linked text“Bomb Sinks 2 Ships and Damages 17; Capital Vessels Escape Extensive Harm; Destroyer Capsizes; Experiment `Success'“

The atomic bombs that ended WWII were “Little Boy” (Hiroshima, Japan - Aug. 6, 1945) and “Fat Man” Nagasaki, Japan - Aug. 9, 1945).

The names of those two bombs kind of argue against the paragraph's thesis...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

What Did You Expect?
Posted by: goldmarx on Mar 6, 2008 8:39 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's not surprising that the article is rife with factual errors.

That's what you get when anti-porn feminists babble on about how pornography is responsible for this or that.

Now it's how the 'objectifying gaze' of porn is responsible for war.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What Did You Expect? Posted by: lindabeth

Comments are closed-

ON PEOPLE'S BODIES
Posted by: Ipsi Dixit on Mar 6, 2008 9:21 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And may one add that what is true about women's bodies is even more true of the bodies of children.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Whatt???
Posted by: beautifulady2003 on Mar 6, 2008 9:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Jessica Lynch wasn't at Abu Ghraib. A much better and more accurate story of her time in Iraq can be found in Susan Faludi's book "Terror Dream." Geez, at least get your facts straight!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Whatt??? Posted by: bellydonna

Comments are closed-

Shame on Columbia University Press
Posted by: DaBear on Mar 6, 2008 10:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Because if the gross and inexcusable factual errors in the interview are in the book, CUP ought to recall every last copy and fix them, because some of the errors are the core premise of her conclusions.

This kind of thing just pisses me off to no end... here was an intriguing idea, but it dies in a suicide bomb because the editor didn't do her job in checking the author. This is what happens when publishers expect and author to do the job of writing and editing... publishing is a creative partnership. But how typical that the publisher who makes the most money on a book deal does the least amount of work. How Amerikaaner.

I have no patience for people who don't want to work hard and I have less patience for people who pontificate about history but have utterly no sense of the facts. Oliver and CUP ruined a perfectly publishable idea. IDIOTS! And those morons got paid?! Typical overprivileged rich brats.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

gabrielle
Posted by: chloe08 on Mar 6, 2008 11:53 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't think we should be so quick to dismiss the premise. It is objectification, or perceiving the enemy as other that allows the atrocities of war to be committed. This dynamic is fundamental to all kinds of exploitive relationships. We detach ourselves from the natural world and thus allow all kinds of devastation to occur in our name (oil drilling in Amwar, desecration of rain forests, 12 year old children working with no protection to make designer jeans). Could we be complicit in these acts of violence if we felt a sense of connection rather that separation? War is the most graphic example of this alienation. Little murders happen every day.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Captor or Captive
Posted by: Sakkara on Mar 6, 2008 12:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wasn't aware that Ms. England was a captive at Abu Ghraib. Yet she was apparenty mean to her "captors". I think you can add this to the list of the author's errors, factual and otherwise.

Anyway, the whole idea is just depressing. 30 years ago, women were used positively and effectively to SEDUCE the enemy (Russia, Cold War)... now they're beating people up and exploding themselves. It's an awful world you've made for us, Georgie Boy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Incoherent Rage
Posted by: Urgelt on Mar 6, 2008 3:17 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article is unsupported and unsupportable. It's a good example of what happens when a writer is motivated by sheer rage: it's all hard-hitting conclusions supported by sloppy, poorly considered rationalizations and outright errors. It reinforces unfortunate stereotypes about radical feminism: unreasoning, unreasonable, mad.

I suppose incoherent rage sells books to those true believers, but it sure as hell doesn't convince anyone else.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Editors
Posted by: chuckbutcher on Mar 7, 2008 1:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is the reason editors have a function in a publishing enterprise and why wastebaskets are seldom empty.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

DeWayne93
Posted by: DeWayne93 on Mar 7, 2008 7:13 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Your interviewer is incisive, direct and thought-provoking in her questions; the interviewee is evasive, over-generalizes and, as others have noted, sadly misinformed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

An Excellent Interview, Unfairly Received
Posted by: mclemens on Mar 9, 2008 10:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I first encountered Professor Oliver's work fifteen years ago in a book she wrote about Julia Kristeva which, I must say, was a most thoughtful and clear introduction to the work of that profound and complex philosopher/psychoanalyst. I found this article an exemplary teaser for what promises to be a fascinating read. Despite a minor erratum in editing ("captors" for "captives") and Oliver's conversational slip in conflating "Gilda" with "Enola Gay" (which in no way diminishes her overall point) it was a lucid and engaging overview of an intriguing and highly relevant subject.

As for the comments, I can't say I'm surprised but I am dismayed by all the vitriol flung about by some of the posters who apparently never learned the difference between semiotics and seminal fluid. I suppose it would be too much to expect everyone who responds to have rudimentary fluency with Lacanian structuralism or Heideggerian hermeneutics, but at the very least they could read attentively enough to realize there was nowhere any inaccuracy or confusion in the article between Lynch (i.e. Madonna) and England (i.e. Whore). Talk about a reaction formation!

Judging from some of the outraged carping at "feminism" (without any demonstrable inkling of the philosophic and analytic validity of the points the article discusses), these critics might just be worried that a closer reading could dam up their jouissance in gazing at the latest avidly anticipated production from "gore-nography" impresario Eli (Hostel) Roth. Or perhaps it's just that the ignorant are always the quickest to arrogantly judge and mock -- after all, they've got that motherload of motherwit percolating under their pates. Who needs humility or education when you've got all that going on upstairs?

I look forward to getting and reading a copy of Prof. Oliver's latest at my first opportunity. Thank you to Ms. Stahl and AlterNet for alerting me to it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

battle of the wombs?
Posted by: hereoz on Mar 10, 2008 11:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who can tell how much Arafat's smugness relates to demographics?


Letter From Israel: Battle of the Wombs by ...
"The womb of the Arab woman," Arafat says smugly
promising ultimate victory over the Jews,
"is my strongest weapon." The updated CIA 2002 factbooks on ...
www.villagevoice.com/news/0249,172811,40286,1.html - 48k -

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

 
Advertisement
From The Blog
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS