In Myer's articles on the presence of sexual abuse in the military, he discusses the unique nature of this environment and how it is, at times, more difficult to report an issue of sexual abuse than in other environments. The question that comes to mind after reading these two articles is a biological one. To lay the devils advocate, it could be said that the reason why the "attackers" are most always males, is because they are more sexual beings; they desire sex more frequently, they think about it more often, and thus resort to foreful measure to get what they "need". But if there is one thing that has been driven home for me by this course, is that I need to question societal "assumptions" and beliefs. How much truth is there to this statement? Are men really more sexual than women? Or is this just another societal construct so deeply imbedded in our lives that we can't tell the difference from what's natural and what's not? If it isn't true, and could be proven so, I think there would be some changes in this dynamic. If it wasn't "natural" perhaps more men wouldn't feel "obligated" to partake in these acts. The notion of "everybody's doing it" is powerful. I believe this article can be connected to Muscio's point about how it is important for all of us to look internally for answers, to stop following the lead and do what we feel is right.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
dominance
In Steinam's article on Supremacy Crimes she raises the question of how we, as a society, label issues. To her dismay, the COlumbine shootings were labeled in the media as an issue with america's "youth" even though, as she states, the issue is not with such a general group of people. I believe she eloquently sums up the core of the issue when she writes, "It's a drug pushed by a male-dominant culture that presents dominance as a natural right; a racist hierarchy that falsely elevates whiteness; a materialist society that equates superiority with possessions, and a homophobic one that empowers only one form of sexuality. "(Steinam, pg2). I found her juxtaposition of these realities in our culture with their negative repercussions to be powerful. As well, later in the essay, she makes a distinction through her quotation of Dr. James Gilligan, of how male violence is not only prominent, its obligatory. "As Dr. James Gilligan concluded in Violence: Reflections on a National Epidemic, "If humanity is to evolve beyond the propensity toward violence...then it can only do so by recognizing the extent to which the patriarchal code of honor and shame generates and obligates male violence." (pg.3) I think we can draw this notion back to Johnson's belief that we should not be blaming the individual, but the society for the wrongdoings occurring throughout our country.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Great thoughts, Cait and Alex! You've done a nice job of connecting these articles together, and raising some broader questions about violence against women. Cait, your question about male sex drives is an interesting one, and one that has often been used to justify rape. However, as we discussed last week, rape is rarely about sexual urges; it tends to be about power and attempts to claim or maintain power. So even if one were to claim that males have higher sex drives (is this a fact? Or is this a construction), it doesn't necessarily follow that this could "explain" rape. Alex, I appreciate your thoughts about accessibility, too. It's a really interesting question: so often, writing about gender, race, and oppression are so theory-heavy and dense (if not poorly written) that they AREN'T accessible. Again, we run into issues of privilege! How do we go about creating knowledge that is both accessible AND respected within the academic community?
ReplyDelete