Women Soldiers at Abu Ghraib; Leadership essay

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA43BhdXUmw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9yxdKolSkg&feature=endscreen&NR=1

 The Abu Ghraib scandal that came to light in April 2004 was a powerful and horrific display of human brutality orchestrated by several of America’s soldiers in Iraq. The article, Gender (In)Visibility at Abu Ghraib, by Marita Gronnvoll, examines the media presentations of the story and how gender played a role in this coverage. The media focused most of its attention on Lynndie England and her fiancé Charles Graner. England and Graner, among others, forced Iraqi prisoners to pose in sexually explicit photographs, often with their heads covered. England and Graner appeared in many of these photographs, either smiling or holding a ‘thumb’s up’ sign. Gronnvoll organized this reading into different sections that focused on different aspects of how the media covered this scandal. Gronnvoll began by examining the contrast between the way the women and men involved in these incidents were portrayed. Previously, in this class, we discussed the work of Simone de Beauvoir in The Second Sex. In this work, Beauvoir noted that “Women are defined in gendered terms, but men are simply defined as universal humans” (p 374).

Gronvoll goes on to give numerous examples where the women involved in Abu Ghraib were described as “women soldiers” rather than just “soldiers.” It is as though their gender had to be qualified by adding in that they are women, not just soldiers. The norm for soldiers is male, so the women automatically differed from the norm. The media also had to provide some kind of explanation as to why a woman would behave in such a masculine manner. England’s physical body was called into question, and she was described as tough and as a tomboy, in order to prove her abnormality as a woman. However, no media outlets called the physicality of the male soldiers into question. Gronnvoll makes another connection to previous class readings when she discussed Sloop’s book, stating, “this binary gender system leads us to expect as normal particular behaviors from men and particular behaviors from women” (p 377). Gronnvoll goes onto explain “the media coverage of England’s behavior at Abu Ghraib focuses on her failure to behave as a women should, whereas the media coverage of Graner’s behavior focuses on his failure to behave as an honorable soldier should” (p 377).

England received a lot of scrutiny from the media and her character was frequently attacked. She was said to be sexually promiscuous and seductive, often baring her naked body for the camera. Graner’s behavior, however, was almost explained away by the media. His wife had an affair while he was off at war, making him heartbroken and angry. Whereas England was just a sexually promiscuous deviant who cannot seem to follow traditional gender norms. Gronnvoll also chose to discuss the sexuality of the male soldiers and the male prisoners in this story. She discussed how the male soldiers were never seen alone in pictures with the naked prisoners. I believe she included this section in order to make the point that “the ultimate humiliation is to be feminine” (p. 389). However, this is where I would like to insert my first weakness of the article. To be honest, I felt as though this is a critique of the soldiers, rather than how the media regarded these soldiers. Therefore, it seemed like an odd discussion to insert into the article, since most of Gronnvoll’s discussion was of the portrayal of the media, rather than critiques on the individual soldiers. She does bring it back full circle when she discussed that no media called for a review of the military’s demonizing of the feminine. I just feel that the reader could get a little lost trying to follow along waiting for her to get to her point during this section.

 One strength of the article is the amount of research that she brings in to examine. The reader was better able to see that Gronnvoll’s points are valid and real because there was so much evidence to back them up. Also, the research cited was from some of the most well known media outlets in the world (Washington Post, Rolling Stone, New York Times). Anytime research is brought in from such a wide range of highly respected media, it is pretty clear that the author has done his/her homework. Another strength is the ease of readability of the article. This article could be useful for both rhetorical scholars and curious laypeople alike. The article was written in such a way that draws the reader in, even if they have no rhetorical experience. And the points that Gronnvoll made were also backed up by numerous research from a variety of sources. Even though the text was small and contained many pages, it was still an interesting and insightful read. In addition, I admit with most of the points that Gronnvoll made in her discussion. Especially the points about how the media portrayed England as a “woman soldier” rather than just a soldier. There was so much focus on why she deviated from traditional feminine behavior, and how a woman could perform such horrific acts.

One news sources said that they actually expected a woman to know better. What I just don’t understand is why? Why do the media and people in general expect women to act so different than men? Gronnvoll asserted that it is because women are traditional expected to be more docile and nurturing. And it become unnerving and uncomfortable when a woman deviates away from this behavior. Throughout this reading I kept being reminded of the article we read about Brandon Teena. He deviated from typical feminine behavior and acted in accordance with more masculine gender roles. People around him did not know how to react and respond, so they turned to judgement. They called his character into question in order to try to explain why he acted the way that he did. This is similar to what the media did to Lynndie England in the Abu Ghraib case. As I previously mentioned, the media had a field day taking shots at England’s physical body, her history, her sexuality.

 The media had to provide some kind of explanation as to why she was deviating away from traditional gender roles. That is why the behavior of the males in this story doesn’t have to be explained away. Males are traditionally expected to be violent, going along with the warrior mentality. So, naturally, the men in this story were just doing what men do. That is why it was not nearly as shocking for the men to be involved in something so horrific than it was to see women involved. Interestingly enough, England does not see herself as the media sees her. In this interview clip from the Associated Press, she described herself as victim of love, doing what she thought she needed to in order to please her male fiancé. I see this as a way that England wants to prove her traditional female role; wanting to please a man any way necessary. She wants to get back in the good graces of the media and the public, and this is one “excuse” that positions her as a helpless female, powerless to stop the orders of a man.
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vQ3pvi6JLY

 Overall, I really agreed with the points made in this reading, but was obviously sickened to read about such a horrific event. But I was also sickened to see how the media handled the coverage of this event. It frustrates me to see women constantly gendered and referred to as “women.” Yes, that is what we are: we are women. But why does that word have to qualify everything that discusses us? Women soldiers, women police officers, women doctors. In a world where the norm is to be male, women still make some people nervous. Especially women who are infiltrating traditional male roles.

Vavrus and the Mediated "Mr. Mom"

Through the fascinating, and often disheartening, case studies discussed in John Sloop’s book, Disciplining Gender, we critics were given insight into how society has a tendency to try and dictate for us the gendered meanings of our innate behaviors, our actions and our choices. For example, in the “John/Joan” case considered in the book’s first chapter, a young male baby was born, had his genitals accidentally mangled by the physician, was surgically reassigned as a female, and raised in a way that forced him to perform what society recognizes as the female sex. Despite the doctor’s and his mother’s seemingly positive reports of the child’s reassignment, it would later be revealed that the child railed against his manufactured femininity, and ultimately decided to be re-reassigned as a male. David, as he was later called, reflected on how it never seemed right for him to be a woman, notwithstanding every pigeon-hole in which his mother, doctor, and society attempted to place him.

In both Sloop’s book, and the Brenda Cooper’s article from this week’s reading, we saw an idea similar to this in the case of Brandon Teena. Teena, who was physically defined by his female genitalia, was ultimately killed because of the discrepancy between what he portrayed himself as, and what society thought he should be. Brandon, who was quite the ladies’ man, caused confusion amongst those he knew when it was revealed that he was supposedly a woman acting like a man. The outrage over Brandon’s enactment of his own identity was so shocking to the public that it cost him his life and—according to the national media—his reputation. Framed as a “deceiver,” the memory of Brandon’s life is muddled by society’s seemingly unshakable heteronormativity. Apparently, no one can rest easy until everyone is categorized into one of two types: heterosexual male or heterosexual female.

In this week’s reading of Mary Douglas Vavrus’ article, “Domesticating Patriarchy: Hegemonic Masculinity and Television’s ‘Mr. Mom,’” we encounter this same idea of society’s insistence to define specific gender roles. Vavrus discusses the “Mr. Mom” phenomenon—so named because of the successful Michael Keaton movie—in which stay-at-home fathers are put in the spotlight. Vavrus’ claim is that the idea of a Mr. Mom does less to expand dominant, narrow gender ideologies, and more to naturalize existing stereotypes of gender roles in the household.

In the movie “Mr. Mom,” the main character, played by Keaton, gets fired from his manly occupation (being Batman… or was it an autoworker?) and is forced to stay home with his kids while his successful wife maintains her job and supports them all monetarily. This movie marked one of the first pieces of pop culture to deviate from the engrained gender roles of male bread-winners and women child-raisers. And at first glance (as was the case when I first saw this movie as a boy) this seemed like a great tool for showing equality among men and women: it was okay for men to do housework and child-rearing. However, as the Mr. Mom phenomenon started to spread to real people, and at-home dads became more common, the light in which these stories are cast is bleak, in that it does the opposite of what made Mr. Mom seem so ecumenical. Vavrus argues that in published news stories about the Mr. Moms of the world, the rhetoric used leads to three harms:

“they privilege a narrow definition of family by only featuring heterosexual, married parents; they valorize men for learning parenting skills and adapting to stay-at-home paternity; and they repeatedly reinforce the message that the duties of a stay-at-home father are properly masculine activities.”

By conforming to these frames of reference for how we should view these fathers only reinforces a divide between the two dominant genders in our culture, possibly creating backwards momentum in the push for total equality.

            First, Vavrus asserts that the narrow point of view from which these stories are disseminated to multiple news outlets provides a skewed vision of the realistic situations. Because only married, middle-class-or-above couples were featured prominently in these news stories, it casts all at-home dads as able to do the housework and child-rearing without concern for where the next paycheck is coming from. Essentially this “normalizes the very narrow field of these dads’ attributes,” providing unrealistic attention to particular cases.

            Second, these stories valorize men for learning to do household tasks. In this way, Vavrus argues, a new cultural understanding of the masculine identity is formed—one in which “what it means to be a real man” is framed as someone well-rounded and capable of housekeeping and raising children. With this newly forged identity of masculinity, society can view an at-home dad as some mythical, ecumenical savior; not only is he manly, but he’s so manly he can sweep the floor, too!

Third, while this view of a stay-at-home dad’s duties as acceptable male behavior does work with the feminist critique of “traditional household divisions of labor,” it simultaneously undercuts this notion. By affirming the dads’ abilities and manliness, these news stories highlight a male who is perfectly capable of both male and female responsibilities—making females, again, seem lesser by comparison. An example of this point can be found in the Tide detergent "Dad Mom" commercials, and hopefully these will stimulate thoughtful discussion in class: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1qW7Po-1KI&noredirect=1  &

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M28l-6LUp3w 

At this point in the article, Vavrus finally gets rolling with her analysis and critique, as she points to more flaws with the Mr. Mom phenomenon. The majority of news stories Vavrus researched portrayed the at-home dad’s counterpart as the successful, job-wielding woman. Because she makes more money than her husband, she gets the right to not have to do the housework, and not have to deal with the kids. Simply, this is a straight-up reversal of the gendered roles we are used to. While it seems positive that the males can pitch in by being “Mr. Moms,” it only allows for the wife, the bread-winner, to don the dominant patriarchal role of the household.

Continuing the critique, Vavrus deftly points to how the media frames these relationships to illustrate her point. Instead of explaining the father’s new at-home situation as one of circumstance, it was majorly framed as a choice by the dad to do so—“even when the reason for the ‘Mr. Mom’ arrangement is a layoff.” This was a really interesting twist on the media’s part, and Vavrus used it to bolster he argument that “media representation is constitutive.”

The strengths of Vavrus’ article lie in her research. By utilizing a wide selection of these heteronormative news stories, she was able to peel back the veil on the Mr. Mom phenomenon. A strongly-written piece critiquing the fallacies behind the Mr. Mom fad culminated with the author’s conclusion. Because these news stories relied heavily upon the trope of a heteronormative nuclear family for the basis of its claims about stay-at-home dads, it cannot break away from “disciplining” these gender roles onto the public. As a result, men only see their problems with being at-home dads in the context of their sex, and not because of their innate abilities. Personally, as someone whose father was an at-home dad for a while, my only critique of Vavrus’ article is that it does not weigh more heavily on the actual testimonies of real at-home dads. However, because this is a class on media and gender, my desire to stick up for these fathers may not need to be explored.