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.

Blurring the Lines or Re-enforcing Labels?

Cooper, B. (2002). Boys Don't Cry and female masculinity: Reclaiming a life & dismantling the

politics of normative heterosexuality. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 19, 44-63.

            In previous discussions surrounding the media and the portrayal of the transgendered community, there has been a lot of negative discourse.  Often the media attempts to spin transgenderism in a way to justify it and make it fit into the heteronormative values of our society.  A common theme that surrounds this discourse is the portrayal of masculinity, both female and male.  A film that has sought to break those boundaries and cause disturbance in America’s view of masculine heteronormativity is Kimberly Peirce’s version of the Brandon Teena murder in Boys Don’t Cry.  In her article, Brenda Cooper seeks to expose how Pierce’s depiction of Brandon Teena broke down boundaries and fought against the heteroideology surrounding masculinity that plagues our society.  Cooper presents four main points in her essay: to dismantle the myth of “America’s heartland,” problematize heteromasculinity, center on female masculinity, and the blur the boundaries of female masculinity.

 In her attempt to dismantle the myth of “America’s heartland,” Cooper discusses how the Falls City that was portrayed from Peirce’s perspective seeks to shatter the idea of the pre-established American dream.  Instead of seeing happy heteronormative family units behind white picket fences with 2.5 children and a dog, viewers of Boys Don’t Cry are exposed to the darker side of living in the Midwest.  Lana’s mother is neglectful and a drunk who has befriended two ex-convicts.  Candace is a single mother who also drinks too much and works at a bar.  Lana is a young woman who is wasting away at a blue-collar job working in a factory.  “In Peirce’s view, Falls City is not a place where good-hearted people are content to live their lives; it’s a place where most are desperate to leave but fear they never will” (p. 50).  Cooper discusses how this portrayal of Falls City helps to break the notion that Brandon Teena was the dark and deceptive cloud that fell on a wholesome and happy-go-lucky town.  This portrayal also helps to fight against the heteronormative family unit that is so often depicted in the media.

            Cooper’s second point, to problematize heteromasculinity, discusses how in the film, John Lotter and Tom Nissen are to serve as the picture of masculinity; however Peirce shows a darker side of the men.  They are both ex-convicts with short tempers and who use self-mutilation to help quell their inner rage.  They are alcoholics and abuse drugs.  John is a single father of a young daughter, but is depicted as being negligent and ultimately a bad father.  He becomes upset when his daughter wets herself and soils his pants and he also attempts to give her beer.  Lotter and Nissen assert their masculinity through “committing acts of violence as their natural birthright” (p. 52).  Instead of portraying Lotter and Nissen’s masculinity in archetypal ways that the media typically defaults to, Peirce takes a darker turn, again to expose viewers to the dark side of masculinity.  Cooper states that Peirce chose to depict Lotter and Nissen in this light to make “it more difficult to see their response to Brandon’s ‘deception’ as some kind of ‘panic’ and thus somehow ‘defensible,’ or to condemn Brandon’s masculine performance as ‘sick,’ which has typically been the case when individuals refuse to occupy their biologically assigned gender” (52-53).  Instead of excusing Lotter and Nissen’s actions as a response to being deceived like other media outlets have, Peirce is challenging viewers to sympathize with Brandon and not his killers.

            Cooper centers on female masculinity by juxtaposing Brandon’s interpretation of heteromasculinity to the masculinity that was performed by Lotter and Nissen.  Cooper discusses how Brandon first idolized the two criminals and was delighted to be considered one of the guys in their motley crew, however once he became infatuated with Lana, he realized that he would have to put his own spin on the masculine traits he was mimicking.  “…when Brandon is interacting with women, it is with shy sensitivity and tenderness that helps redefine what it means to be a man.  As Brandon pursues a relationship with Lana, he exhibits a new form of masculinity—he’s the boyfriend young women dream about” (p. 54).  The fact that Brandon is able to connect with Lana on a different level eventually gets him into trouble.  Lotter, who is extremely territorial of the young woman, begins to question Lana and what she seems in Brandon, which ultimately leads to his exposure as a transgender male.  However, despite this exposure, Brandon had successfully convinced his friends in Falls City that he was a man’s man, and that he was man enough to get the girl, all while biologically being female.  Ultimately this ability to perform heteromasculinity as a female is what disturbs and confused Lotter and Nissen and pushes them to their breaking point.

            The analysis of female masculinity ultimately leads to the blurring of boundaries that Cooper claims Peirce does successfully in this film.  Cooper argues that because Brandon’s sexuality and gender were so ambiguous in the film and because Lana refused to acknowledge that Brandon was biologically a female but identified as male, the lines between gender and heteromasculinity became blurred for the viewer.  She specifically focuses on the last love scene between Brandon and Lana, which is a scene that has undergone scrutiny from critics.  Cooper claims, “I would argue that this scene is liberatory precisely because it refuses to conform to heteronormativity’s categorization of gender as exclusively male or female.  The ambiguity of Lana’s attraction to Brandon as a man on one hand, and her acknowledgement and acceptance of his biological sex on the other hand, subvert heteroideology and its inherent oppression of sexual difference” (p. 56).  The combination of Brandon’s confusion and Lana’s refusal to accept that Brandon was confused and love him regardless of how he identified, helps to make Brandon’s identity a little less confusing in the sense that Lana saw him as a person, male or female.  This confusion breaks the ideals that surround a heteronormative couple, making their relationship confusing to those who need to transfix upon the heteroideology that dominates our society.

            While Cooper presents two solid critiques in her first points of dismantling the myth of “America’s heartland” and problematizing heteromasculinity, her arguments surrounds female masculinity are rather limited.  Cooper’s referral to Brandon blurring the lines of female and male masculinity is problematic because Brandon did not identify as female, he saw himself as a male.  Cooper praises the last love scene between Brandon and Lana; however it could also be viewed as a cop-out on Peirce’s part.  Peirce and Cooper may view this scene as blurring the line between female and male masculinity and heteronormativity, but some scholars may view the scene as limiting.  Brandon in real life hated being classified as a lesbian and detested everything that came with being female.  If this was truly how he saw himself, it is hard to believe that he would be willing to allow Lana to view him fully as a woman and be vulnerable to the point to experience pleasure like a woman.  So while Cooper is praising Peirce one should question if instead of liberating Brandon did Peirce just place him into another category?  Were the lines really blurred or as demonstrated in Sloop’s book, did Peirce add that scene because as a society, we are just too uncomfortable to let Brandon just be Brandon, regardless of label?