By: MarcThis upcoming Christmas will be the 2nd holiday season I will have been deployed overseas in support of this so-called War on Terrorism. The first time I was here, I was a younger Soldier, and did not know much about the feminism that I eventually found and grew to love. This time, back and armed with a feminism perspective (among other things), I am starting to see a lot of the things that should have bothered me, and things that I see as being a big contribution to the incidences of rape in the military.
Each holiday, those "appreciative" of the services rendered by military personnel often come into our areas of operations to entertain us; these include pro athletes, celebrities and comedians. But each year, it seems, these Morale, Welfare and Recreation events also include entertainment that's questionable - cheerleaders, Hooters girls and other scantily-dressed women, whose purpose is simply to entertain Soldiers (need I say male?) and be eye-candy.
While I am not in favor of censorship, and most certainly, do not believe there is direct connection between watching scantily-dressed women dance to turn men on, and rape. What I do believe is that the objectification of women - that is, the separation of women's bodies from their humanities, can lead to rape. Yet, each year, this happens over and over again - conventionally beautiful women entertain sex-starved Soldiers who are already working in an environment in which traditional masculinity runs amok. Is it too much of a stretch, then, to think that these males, watch these women and objectify them, and then, in turn, objectify their own sisters in arms, making it much easier for them to rape?
It's not just rape that's the problem, though - while that number is high, and as the latest Stars and Stripes study showed, on the rise, this also contributes to sexual harassment, which has an effect that, at times, can be just as harmful to women. Of course, I am not comparing rape to sexual harassment, but I am saying sexual harassment also makes it difficult on women to perform the job well, and given the power dynamics in the military ranks, can make it very difficult for women to report these incidences.
By bringing in these entertainers, the military acknowledges that it sees women as simply entertainment for men - and what happens when these women leave after their week of being in theater? Soldiers turn to entertainment by observing, talking about and degrading other Soldiers. Degradation and the objectification of human beings, we know, is one of the passages of sexual assaults. There is no other organization in the world in which it would be acceptable for the heads of companies to bring in what I would consider "adult entertainment" to entertain its employees, yet this culture is almost the norm, and perfectly acceptable within the Army. At times, I've wondered if it's my tax dollars - the same money that the military pays me each two weeks that is supporting these MWR activities. If it is, then it is my own tax dollars - and yours, too, that are implicitly contributing to the sexual assaults and harassments taking place in theater.
On a more theoretical point - the military also apparently thinks that Morale, Welfare and Recreation, in this case, is limited to male entertainment. Not that I am advocating the Army bring male dancers in theater to entertain women, because it's just as wrong, but I cannot help but think the lack of male entertainers, whose goal is to whet women's sexual appetite (and the Play on Word award goes to me!),is a result of two things: a denial and acknowledgment of women's sexuality, and the subtle hint of homophobia, in that if gay male Soldiers saw other men, they would be turned on, and then God knows what will happen in the shower when they see a straight man they are attracted to!
For all its problems and the way it's scrambling to try to stop sexual assaults in theater, the very least the military can do is put a stop to these peep shows. The unfortunate thing, however, is that those responsible for many of the programs taking place in the military for troop morale, and indeed, for their own safety, are neither equipped to deal with these problems from a gendered perspective, nor do they have the experiences to understand the various dynamics being played out.
At some point, somewhere, someone with enough rank (I am talking about senior officers) will bring up these issues, and they will take the step necessary in curbing the rape culture that the military - no matter how implicitly and innocently - is promoting. But I am not holding my breath.
Thoughts?
-Marc
5 comments:
Brook -
Thanks for posting this. I appreciate it.
However, could you kindly take the apostrophe out of "harrasement's" so it'd read "harrasments"?
It's not the end of the world, but for some reason, it was changed, and it makes me look like I am five and do not know the difference between possesives vs. plurals. :)
Thanks!
Done! MSWord auto correct! :/
Marc,
I can't even begin to describe how thankful I am that you posted this. I am very aware of both the skin-centered MWR events and the sexual harassment/sexual assault epidemic in the military, and that you had the guts to draw the line connecting them speaks volumes about your astuteness and character.
I'll be the first to admit that I don't know everything about how various entertainers are chosen to visit Soldiers. I have a theory, though. Polls and surveys do get passed around asking what the troops want to see, and since the troops are overwhelmingly male, they're going to have more male-oriented entertainment. I'm very sure top brass has been briefed on the connection between objectification of women and sexual crimes. It's very possible they value the morale of the majority over the minority...or simply refuse to see their choices as contributors to the problem.
I have some nitpicks, though.
First, the title of the essay: Hiring scantily-clad women to cheer up troops is not promoting rape. That is a VERY serious accusation that should not be made lightly. Perhaps it should be "Military Entertaining Promoting Objectification of Women?" Objectification =/= Rape, and though there is a definite connection between many rapes and viewing women as objects, there's a lot that has to go on in a man's head and heart from when he see's a cheerleader to raping a woman.
Secondly, I think the focus must be widened to get an accurate picture of the problem. Does the military itself aid and abet objectification? No, because the military is not autonomous, nor is it a separate society. It is a collection of society within the society it was collected from. It's morals and culture comes from wider America. It's not fair to point to the military and say "that's wrong", when American society says it's very, very right. The military has always reflected what civilian society does and never the other way around, because it is a service.
I may be just a cadet now, but I won't be one forever. I hope that one day I can voice objections and be heard by my military peers. I have a chance to be top brass--let's hope something can be done.
I applauded your stance and your choice not to consume entertainment that objectifies women. Let us unmask the beliefs that ultimately influenced group and official decisions to present women as objects for consumption.
First: In war, rape of those the soldier considers ‘other’ (the enemy) is tolerated, encouraged and even organized by military leadership. The practice of systemic, institutionalized rape as a tool of war is ages old and continues to this day (for example see the story of systemic rape in the Congo on CBS). Only recently was it recognized as a war crime. Here is a list of recent atrocities.
Second: Woman as rewards. Often women were considered part of the spoils of war. Another example is the "Comfort women" of the Japanese Army during and prior to World War II.
If MWR is providing a more palatable, civilized version of women as rewards, then connecting this ‘entertainment’ with the military’s reluctance to take meaningful action to confront rape and sexual hostility in the work place is reasonable association.
Third: Women have a right to work, to perform and to express themselves.
WWJD? What Would Jerry Do? If I hold beliefs in common with Jerry Falwell I double check my facts, analysis and reasoning. The late Jerry Falwell disapproved of the Hooter’s Girls. So l ask myself, are those performers doing something wrong? Are their bodies shameful? Consider the fate of Dua Khalil. We live in a world that convicts, kills, condemns, and ostracizes women that choose to express themselves, to exercise choice over their own bodies. Those performers are working and being paid. We must not let oppression and sexism masquerade as protection or feminism. It gets complicated.
Conclusion: Society (and its organs such as the military) should neither deny freedom and employment to women, nor should they be the purveyors of exploitive entertainment. Does military entertainment promote rape? I don’t know. Does the military promote rape by creating an environment that allows it and that also fails to adequately deter it through punishment? Yes, it does.
~mychael
Read "Bananas, Beaches, and Babes" by Cynthia Enloe. You probably have, since Dr. Fish teaches the book in one of her classes and has a copy in her classroom. It speaks about the military and its influence on the women in different countries. While this may not be what this particular article is about, but Enloe covers the subject of women as rewards and how women are second when it comes to men, especially in prostitution. I believe that the military encourages the belief of women as rewards.
I lived in Okinawa, JP when I was younger- during protests of military involvement in reaction of the gang rape of a teenage Okinawan girl. While the military took stance in prosecuting these men, the idea of sexual exploitation, rape and the military should be addressed as being harmful to women and not just a mans penis (ie. STDs, STIs)
Post a Comment