Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Women as Weapons of War

By Jayne Lyn Stahl, AlterNet. Posted March 6, 2008.


A new book shows how Western media depict women's bodies as dangerous -- threats as great as any machine gun or bomb.
imagedb

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Jayne Lyn Stahl

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
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.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: women, sexuality and war, women as weapons of war, kelly oliver, western media

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.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
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]

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]

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
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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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
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]

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
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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]