This 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
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Military entertainment promoting rape?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/17203
THANK YOU THANK YOU AND RIGHT ON!! It is great to know that there is at least one (I hope many more) Feminist serving in our armed forces!
I heard a soldier on NPR the other day saying that we have the most disciplined army in the history of the world, it is a wonder if troops can go without Jessica Simpson sings Frosty the Snowman this year?? I'm sorry you're forced to watch that.
You know, I often wonder what is going on in Iraq and Afghanistan...
The pace of change in the military is glacial. The top flag officers are in their mid-fifties, on average, which means they were in the Academy approximately at the tail end of Vietnam, in the early to mid 70s. That's the culture that runs the military, and those guys are going to pick guys that think and act like them for promotion. It's going to take until people who are in the Academy NOW are in the leadership positions before this really has a chance of changing... barring vigorous action from the Commander in Chief and the Congress (which can amend the UCMJ).
Here's an interesting article on the character of the top ranks of the Navy - the observations probably generalize. http://www.informationdissemination.net/2009/05/what-does-duck-look-like-naval-flag.html
This is a really well-written and important reflection. I wonder if there is anywhere within the military community where you could post this (perhaps anonymously...) In any case, thanks for sharing. I think your connections are spot on.
The way in which the military caters to the straight male sexual perspective to the exclusion of female perspectives codifies the prioritization of male sexual needs in the military over females, which is the basic M.O. of rape.
I grew up in an area adjacent to a military base and kept getting this message from defenders of the status quo: The military was made for men, so the logic goes, and the women in it are supposed to put up with that.
But too often they have to "put up" with sexual harassment and rape.
Like Marc said, every other major employer in the world understands this--or is at least held liable in court when they fail to.
Imagine a Fortune 500 company with a chiefly male workforce bringing in "Hooters girls" for entertainment. What if huge portions of their female workforce sued the company for a hostile work environment after enduring sexual harassment and rape? From a legal perspective this would be a nightmare. An inconceivable liability. The company would never want that information to get to a jury. Employers are legally expected to treat women like human beings.
Actually, as a kid I remember watching something on the news about Ford having sex parties for its employees. Apparently it wasn't hurt too bad by it, unfortunately. :-\
Dangerfield - very good analysis. I appreciate the response, dude.
Since you are in Virginia, and I'll be back there by February, and since we've talked about working together to start some sort of group that aims at curbing men's violence against women, I am thinking perhaps we should link up on Facebook to keep in touch? You can find my page through the link.
I hope all is well with law school for you.
Marc
"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"
I really liked that line, excellent perspective.
I guess my biggest question is "how?" A top-down ban on Hooters girls, et al. might stop that particular type of entertainment, but would it really change the military rape culture? I'm imagining a ban getting announced and all I see are a bunch of really pissed off soldiers. Banning Hooters girls wouldn't necessarily increase objectification towards women, but I can't imagine it would decrease it either. (Yes over time this would be a Win. Objectifying practices SHOULD stop, I'm just thinking about the immediate effects.) Maybe replacing the peep show with Meet-and-Greets? This would still be problematic, but TALKING with a person is more humanizing than WATCHING a person. I dunno.
I really liked the post, Marc. You always bring unique perspectives to the table. Take care on your deployment.
See, the thing is this: pornography is banned here in Iraq, because of host-nation sensitivity (despite the fact that Iraqis do watch porn and even attempt to talk to Soldiers about it or trying to sell it to them), and Soldiers learn to deal with it.
The same applies here - Soldiers can deal with this.
Mess, mail, a clean cot, and being treated humanely is all about morale. Everything else is extra, and if that extra includes the objectification of women, and making female Soldiers uncomfortable/putting them at risk, it needs to cease.
Someone needs to tell MWR that the objectification of women does not raise morale of women Soldiers, secure their welfare, and should not be considered a recreation.
Very nice. One thing I'll throw out a different possibility for: Since women are a noticeable minority in the military, if the MWR people were going to bring male entertainers for them, I would guess it would pretty much only be women at the show. (Gay guys might be interested, but obviously attending would be seriously problematic.) Given the soldiers I know (lots of family, a few friends) and general human nature, it seems like the lack of such entertainment is only indicative of the treatment of straight male desires as the norm, rather than serious homophobia.
If it sounds like I'm considering this to be a fairly innocent mistake on the military's part, I'm not. Treating one perspective as normal to the extent that the organization doesn't seem to realize other perspectives exist can be even harder to change than when awareness does exist, but prejudice gets in the way. At least in the latter case the problems have surfaced and can be dealt with. But if it is this way, as opposed to "OMG we can't have dancing dudes over here!", then it requires a somewhat different tack to change things.
This really is proof that we as a culture feel that men are entitled to look at female's bodies as sexy objects. They are literally using the sight of the bodies of these women as gifts... almost like a DVD. All it does is reinforce the idea that men deserve to look at scantily clad "hot" women whenever available, and women should just put up with it.
Also, where are the Chippendale's dancers for the women soldiers? I personally don't think of this as the kind of equality we should be reaching for, but if they are going to let men get an eyeful of young, pretty flesh, why not let women get an eyeful of young, handsome flesh? The answer is easy: women are not entitled to men's bodies like men are entitled to women's bodies. Of course people who realize this sounds awful try to mask it with "men are more visual than women."
No. Women get paid and receive other benefits for work like what was described. Even as USO volunteers, the benefit from the exposure, while feeling good about giving back to the troops with their talent, beauty and grace on stage.
Hooters waitresses make more money than Denny's waitresses.
Bartenders that show cleavage tend to make bigger tips.
If you want to make a shit load of money as a dancer, the most common way is to wear less or take it all off as part of your performance.
So to say women receive no benefit or to pretend we are victims is BS.
I am typing on a computer I bought with money earned while shaking my ass in front of men willing to pay to look at me do just that.
Did I have a lot of great choices at the time? No.
Was I glad to have that choice? Yes.
Am I aware of the male gaze and how the dominant paradigm needs to shift? Yes.
In no way did I imply that women who choose to make money by showing off their bodies are making bad choices or are victims. I don't know where you got that from, even in reading my comment twice over again. I think of myself as a Staples worker as much of a 'victim' as a woman who strips during college for money. I simply don't think that men are entitled to look at half-naked women everywhere they go. Women may receive benefits from these jobs, but that doesn't mean there aren't women who are bothered by the plethora of half-naked women everywhere. Seriously, what did I say that implied women in these jobs are all victims (and guess what, some are.)
Also, about women who show their bodies making more money. What about women who *don't* want to show off their bodies? What if I have to choose between Denny's and Hooters and don't feel comfortable working at Hooters? I would argue that I have just become a victim of a system that favors women who are willing to show skin, and now I am subject to make less money simply because I don't want to show skin. It's crap to think that the choice to make more money by showing skin being available is a universally wonderful thing. It's only good in the absence of better choices for women. For every woman who is thankful that she had to opportunity to strip to afford her computer, there is a woman who dearly wishes that she could make as much money do something that doesn't involve showing skin.
I misinterpreted this line "and women should just put up with it." to mean women are forced into those positions.
re: the word and concept of victim
I am a survivor who thrives.
If you want to work at Denny's instead of Hooters, good for you and sorry, it doesn't pay as well as the male gaze supported gigs do. If you have eaten at a place where the waitress knew red lipstick would help her make more tips, I'm glad you survived it.
If I had become a film actress, I would've chosen not to take roles that require making out, simulated sex, etc. I would lose a lot of roles, maybe miss out on a career altogether for it, but, no way in hell would I be able to bring myself to what Halle Berry did in Monsters Ball. She won the Oscar for that though, didn't she? And was paid a lot more than the women in Hooters. We saw her breasts in Swordfish too, again, way more than what the Hooters girls show with their pantyhose covered legs.
and listen,
I would have loved to have been born in Denmark, where being an asthmatic single mother without child support might not mean needing a job with no schedule demands, like stripping, but, no
I was born in the USA.
So yes, I'm grateful for the choice and yes, of course I would have preferred a job that didn't require removing my top onstage.
I worked at a Bikini bar first, and made 1/5 the money I made topless.
such is this patriarchal society.
c'est la vie
In the scene with Halle Barry, there was a man involved as well. That scene in Monsters' Ball was not designed to be stimulating. That was challenging acting, portraying realistic sex, as raw and unglamorous as it can be.
Are there more pressures on female actors generally to meet a certain culturally prescribed ideal of sexiness than there are for male actors? Sure.
But what Halle did in Monsters' Ball wasn't like stripping.
Sex and sexuality are part of life. It's how they are enacted and portrayed that determines whether or not someone is being objectified.
"It's crap to think that the choice to make more money by showing skin being available is a universally wonderful thing. It's only good in the absence of better choices for women."
And I would add that some women (those of us who don't possess adequate physical beauty to be compensated for it) don't even have *that* choice.
I dunno I really have mixed feelings about this.
I think the issue is that the military isn't providing male entertainment for female officers, not that they provide this.
I guess I just don't get how young sexed-up men are supposed to get sexual gratification if they don't have something like this. They are away for months at a time. Hardly any females around. And those that are, whether allies or enemies, obviously cannot be sexually assaulted or raped, and very few of the men will get sex from them consensually, so what are these guys supposed to do?
To me it seems these events would DECREASE incidents of sexual assault and rape because it acts as an outlet and a release of some of this energy. If you didn't have these some of these guys would go crazy.
I know alot of women don't understand this level of sexual desire, but as someone who has a desire like this myself I know what it would be like for me were I a man and in the military. So it's not hard for me to imagine what it's like for the guys.
I think they need to find ways that soldiers can get their required sexual satisfaction. How to do so legally? I guess with things like this. Just offer them with both male and female performers. Heck remember there are gay men in the military too.
You have to be really careful here... your post seems to suggest that rape is about sex and sex alone. The way you describe it, men rape because they are horny and just really need to get their fill of women. If men did not feel entitled to women's bodies, they would not rape. Rape is about power. These men get all sexed up by the women being flaunted, feel entitled to women because they just had women flaunted in front of them as entertainment paid by their employer, and then go after their female co-workers because they think it is their right. Plus, can you honestly think that SEEING half-naked women can replace the feeling of having sex with women? I think not. I'd like to give men more credit than thinking of them as potential rapists if they don't get some eye-candy. And I also have a pretty high libido and am in a long-distance relationship, so I know what it's like as well.
"I know alot of women don't understand this level of sexual desire, but as someone who has a desire like this myself I know what it would be like for me were I a man and in the military. So it's not hard for me to imagine what it's like for the guys."
I think that your comment is problematic in that it implies that men inherently have more and stronger sexual desires than women. I don't think that is true, despite how often we are told to believe it.
There are several problems with this way of thinking, but I would say the biggest is that it leads into the "boys will be boys" mentality of rape culture and the idea that women NEVER want to have sex. That men are more sexual and so they just can't help themselves. But that treats rape simply as sex, when really I think it has a lot more to do with power, dominiation and control than sex at all.
so what are these guys supposed to do?
Not to put too fine a point on it, but jack off would be my advice. I don't know where this idea came about that men must have images of women's bodies or actual women's bodies to gain sexual relief. Friction is all you need folks. It's free, it's legal, it doesn't require a condom.
No it also requires a fantasy for most people, whether entirely contained in ones mind or provided through a dirty magazine, movie, book, etc. Without a fantasy you cannot masturbate, the mental aspect is very important in becoming sufficiently aroused for it to be a possibility.
Further given the amount of boredom described by most soldiers in the area I'd imagine that they'd run their imaginations dry pretty quick.
Of course you can masturbate without a fantasy... and certainly if you do fantasize, it doesn't have to be to something you see visually.
And if you're not sufficiently aroused enough to be able to masturbate without visual imagery, then there is no compelling "need" to masturbate.
Of course you can masturbate without a fantasy...
I'm not just going on personal experience here, its also something I've seen sex educators such as Dr. Ruth explicitly mention as a requirement. Even when physically aroused if a person is not mentally aroused it lacks a pretty large feature for most people.
and certainly if you do fantasize, it doesn't have to be to something you see visually.
It's not an absolute requirement, but certainly makes it easier for a substantial segment of the population. But why do masturbatory aides have to be limited to just titillating images? There is a large variety of sources people get assistance from, whether in the form of titillating stories or the use of a variety of physical aides.
And if you're not sufficiently aroused enough to be able to masturbate without visual imagery, then there is no compelling "need" to masturbate.
Boredom and stress are both compelling reasons. Soldiers tend to have a lot of both so I'm inclined to go in the exact opposite direction and argue for equal opportunity for shows for women.
Well good for everyone imagination is free too! And I'm sure these soldiers have seen plenty of pornographic imagery to recall it anytime they want. Women arent supposed to just be objects for their masturbation fanatasys especially at the expense of their own lives and womens respect in society.
It doesnt suprise me you would be the first to start the 'what about teh menz' line of thinking.
While I agree that the mind serves a huge purpose in masturbation, I'd also say that's what the brain is for.
Often times, the mind, with all its imagination, is far sexier than any porn could make.
Besides, prancing women around purely for the masturbatory purposes of men is sort of creepy and dehumanizing.
Thanks for the comment, though, because it makes me think on the nature of sexuality and objectification, as well as what sex actually means.
More on that later.
Bored doesn't drain the imagination. It sparks it.
Well, most men (myself included) need a visual image to masturbate to, or we just can't get off - which is why so many men (myself included) use porn.
So, if you don't want to let these guys look at live female entertainers, porn is the next best option.
If you "need" porn (or other visual stimulation)to get aroused, you don't "need" to masturbate.
Not a difficult concept, one would think.
So, women's lives have to be put at risk for your sexual satisfaction?
Sounds pretty fair to me.
I obviously can't speak for everyone in the military, but from what my SO (who spent most of last year in Iraq) told me, hookups in combat zones *do* happen, probably more than you would think. (At least in his experience. His roommate was married, for what it's worth...didn't stop him.)
I wasn't there to see it, obviously, but from what he described, it sounds a lot less like maximum-security prison and a lot more like everyday life here in the states, where some men have sex regularly, some sporadically, and some rarely or never. It's just that the stress level is much, much higher.
Also, Lilith already mentioned this, but the connection between high sex drive and rape that it sounds like you're making is a little unsettling.
careful, man. you're basically insulting a lot of male soldiers in the U.S military by suggesting that they can't control themselves while being deployed overseas.
Gotta give 'em more credit than that, no?
Rape isn't always about sex and lust. Like everyone else said, it's also about power and control.
I just noticed this part:
their required sexual satisfaction.
I think you mean desired sexual satisfaction. It's ridiculous to imply that there is some sort of RDA for sex. Sex is not like food or air - you might FEEL like you are about to die from lack of sex, but trust me, you will not.
Are you kidding? "Required sexual satisfaction"??? Ever heard of masturbation???
Look, due to a severe hormonal imbalance, for over a decade I, a woman, had exactly 5 times the level of testosterone of most men my age (30's). It was a nightmare to be so constantly aroused and feel almost desperate for sexual activity every waking moment.
Guess what? I didn't rape anyone, not once (gasp!). Nor did I sleep around. I was single the entire time and I routinely went a year at a time without sex, because I'm not lead around by my libido. Not that promiscuity is "wrong" but in the military, when opportunities for mutually consentual sex are rare, a little maturity and discipline goes a long way.
Attitudes like yours do nothing but perpetuate male entitlement.
"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"
But that's not true, is it? I was reading a couple weeks ago on Boing Boing about an IT or computer company that brought in female strippers to give male employees lapdances at a trade show. I think it happened in Thailand, and a lot of the comments on the article were defending it by saying that this was just the norm in Thai culture. I might have some of my details wrong, but it was along the same lines of what your OP is about.
No, no it is not true. First, business lunches at Hooters still take place. Second, my sister works for a major employer who had scantily-clad and body-painted women decorating their holiday party.
It's kind of cute, how the comments in this thread think major employers provide harassment free workplaces.
It's kind of condescending to suggest we are ignorant of sexual harassment in the work place.
It has gotten better. There is HR now, there are sensitivity training courses & you can sue for SH now.
This is all relatively new and yes, we still have a long way to go, but, my goodness we have come a long way too.
Thanks for pointing that out - I was simply unaware of the whole situation in the coporate world.
I've had three jobs in my life - the Army, a non-profit progressive organization, and the Democratic Party. Two of those three are very serious about sexual harrassments and language.
I guess what I truly meant was that in other organizations, such actions aren't as overt and normal as it is in the military, I suppose ...because I can't imagine a corporate office having posters up and sending out mass e-mails advertising the next time there are cheerleaders or Hooter's girls will be there to entertain its employees.
Yeah, and if you happen to be a female employee who doesn't want to, ahem, conduct business at Hooters or laugh along with the misogyny-laden office humor and you voice opposition, you are "too sensitive," "a prude," etc. My mother has worked in Corporate Hell for 20+ years and sees this all the time: mostly female, but also some male, employees put in uncomfortable, sexist, and clearly unethical situations who are forced to either complicitly go along or be ostracized in the workplace.
That's what defines the Boys CLub. It's how men subtly and often without awareness, leave women out of the bonding experiences that create strong business relationships.
I don't drink beer and I don't care to watch sports other than gymnastics and competitive cheerleading.
When my Coordinator (works under me) went on a bonding outing with the director and producer, to a sports and specialty beer bar, I was left out of conversations and bonding that led to the Coordinator going onto the next film project with them.
They gave me a great recommendation, but, they didn't feel like I was their buddy. In film, the buddy will get the job over the good worker who isn't also a buddy, every time.
How a woman is dressed, how much her hips shake and wiggle, if she is of standard western beauty or not- it is not OK to say that her dress and her actions lead to rape. NOT OK
we do not have to cover (Burka, fundamental Baptist long skirts and sleeves, etc.) in order to prevent rape.
Rape is a violent crime.
My beauty is not an excuse for rape.
My ability to sing and dance in a sensual or sexual way, is not an excuse for rape.
My long hair, short hair, big eyes, small eyes, perky or saggy breasts, narrow or wide hips, are not an excuse for rape.
There is no excuse for rape.
I love dancing, Belly Dancing, Hip Hop, Jazz, Lyrical and I was a stripper who loved to perform acrobatic moves on the pole (it felt like flying).
I loved wearing a bikini and dancing.
When I dance Samba, the costume was closer to band-aid than bikini, with feathered head dress AND I LOVED IT!
If you, anyone in your military, anyone on any street attempt to rape me, I will attack with ultimate force, as I have been trained to.
If I kill the attempted rapist, I will be sure my lawyer reminds the jury that how I dress and whether I choose to shake my ass or not-
it does NOT EXCUSE RAPE.
thanks you for your service and may the feminist spirit continue to grow and mature in you.
BTW
do they ever have sexy, hot, funny, tale dark and handsome men perform for the horny women in the forces? They ought to! in the spirit of fun and entertainment, fantasy is healthy!
Does anyone else see the strangeness in this whole scenario? This is all supposedly in service to liberate a country that uses the excuse of an exposed anything to shame, rape or kill women on a regular basis. So our service people are going out and putting their lives on the line for, in part, the liberation of women from the authority of hardline religious crazy. Then go back to base and watch women expose themselves for recreation of male troops who then use women's exposure as an excuse for rape.
good point!
For what it's worth, another thing to point out is that this practice is very counterproductive to the Army's battle against sexual assaults.
It's paying very good money to various organizations, like Men Can Stop Rape, and Sex Signals, to talk about consent and rape and such, but it mainly focuses on Soldiers 18-24, and then to bring this in, it simply sends a muddled message to its Soldiers.
I am going to wait until the holiday season is over, to document the shows that come here to Iraq, and will be sending a certified letter to appropriate parties and CC women's rights organizations on it, so the letter doesn't get buried.
Hopefully, we can do something about this. If you have suggestions or stories relating, please do let me know.
Marc
Thank you for writing this. My boyfriend is in the military and he is also a feminist. I'm sure he would agree with you on all the points you made.
I really hope this aspect of military culture will one day change.
Thank you so much!
I'm serving stateside and come from a long history of military members and this has ALWAYS bothered me, esp now that I'm active duty. It seems to me that the armed forces like to talk a big game about how we are all respected as "soldiers" or "shipmates" first, but when it boils down to it they aren't above tossing eye candy at their (male) soldiers. "Oh, but they're sex starved! Oh, but they haven't seen a woman in SO LONG"
So what? I'm pretty sure MWR would have a HUGE problem with hiring hunky, shirtless male performers for the ladies. Ya know, cause dudes are GROSS.
So, Marc, in your view, "sex starved" heterosexual males who view scantily clad female entertainers are potential sex harassers and rapists?
Following that logic, the solution would be to prevent those young straight guys from looking at any images of scantily clad women - because, after all, if a straight guy sees a woman dancing in a bikini, he's at risk of becoming a rapist!
Funny, from what I understand of Arab culture, images of scantily clad women are few and far between - but I do believe they have sexual harassment and rape in Iraq (I'm sure you could confirm that by asking some of your Iraqi Police or Iraqi National Guard colleges).
So, does your proposed ban on men looking at scantily clad women extend to "sex starved" civilian men as well?
Marc, your "feminism" sounds a lot like the rabid religious puritanical fanaticism of the folks you're fighting against over there!
Rape and sexual harassment are about power and violence and men hurting women - rape and sexual harassment are caused by misogyny, not by healthy male heterosexual fantasies about women!
Marc, you've occasionally expressed curiosity about why so few straight men support feminism.
With puritanical, sex hating, man hating attitudes like yours being presented as "feminist", do you even have to ask why?
Looking at porn and other forms of objectifying women are not "healthy male heterosexual fantasies." Anybody who enjoys porn in which women are routinely degraded, humiliated, and treated as disposable is not a feminist... in fact, very much the opposite.
Gregory - following the logic is right - objectification of women as sexual objects is the gateway to rape, in a lot of cases.
You seem to only get heated when feminism brings up the connection about rape and pornography, because you see it as trumping your rights.
My question: what are you doing to stop rape? Don't tell me what I am doing wrong, or get pissy about it - start contributing.
And besides, Gregory, I don't want allies in the movement who claim to be feminists, yet continue to support the misogynistic culture that pornography depicts.
You seem like a smart guy - I don't understand why it's so hard to understand that rape in different cultures are caused by different social forces.
And do you mean to tell me that the male gaze, and the bullshit idea porn sells about any man can talk any woman out of their clothes, or that women will say no until they're fucked hard enough, isn't about power and violence?
Why is it so hard to understand that, if violent movies have a violent effect on society, that sexually degrading performances has sexually degrading effects on women?
You can fuck all you want, and do whatever you need to get off, but you don't have to do so at the expense of women's safety.
I don't agree with the premise that this kind of thing only happens in the military. It's famous for happening at college fraternities, and in the context of celebrating college sports events. (Armies and universities both take very young adults away from their families and put them under quite a bit of pressure. It makes them susceptible to media and peer pressure.) Does anybody remember those lacrosse players at Duke being accused of rape? Those charges were eventually dropped, partly because their behavior was regarded as acceptable in their community. More relevant to this discussion, strippers at a lacrosse team party wouldn't have been seen as a big deal if there hadn't been rape. Either if there had been provocative dancing and porn but no sex, or if the party organizers had hired a fully-consenting prostitute for the gang bang. WTF?
I attended a large engineering school 15 years ago, and there was a longstanding college tradition of showing porn movies as part of the festivities of homecoming week. People who protested that it was offensive and should stop were generally considered prudes with no respect for tradition. I quietly stayed home, but some women went to the movies in order to show they were good sports, part of the community, not prudes.
5 years ago, I worked for a little startup company, and sometimes went to technical trade shows. There were a few scantily-clad women, obviously there to attract attention. A few times, I went up to one and asked about technical details (trying to be polite and look only at her face). Once, she admitted she was a model hired for the show who didn't know anything about the product. Another time, she was a product developer who happened to be very pretty, and wore a swimsuit and heels to an event where her colleagues wore polo shirts and khakis. She relaxed noticeably when she stood behind a large machine to demonstrate it.
A male friend of mine is an engineer who develops demonstrations for specialized technical sales. He works (and travels) with the sales and marketing team, and is invited to their parties. He talks about find them very different from engineers and developers--they drink a lot more, they are more openly competitive, they are more outgoing. And the sales and marketing team he works with now, at one of the largest companies in the world, brings in dancing girls to their parties. He hesitates to say they're more sexist than his old workplace, but he finds the sexism nastier. His old workplace was almost all male, and they usually just forgot all about women. This group is almost all male, and they think of women as attractive objects for sexual use.
He's not a deeply committed feminist, but he's the father of a daughter. He wants women to have equal pay and be safe from rape. He recognizes that his workplace is full of problematic attitudes and behavior. But he doesn't want to speak out and risk his job. (Especially these days, when economic security seems so fragile.) There's no way to know how many of his colleagues are actively sexist, and how many are uncomfortable and afraid to say so.
Well said (@ OP).
The issue is that women are seen as objects, as entertainment for men.
This is rape culture, isn't it?
I don't think having male entertainment would address the issue. It's not the same with the sexes reversed, as there isn't the power imbalance in women leering at men. I'm also not sure any human being should have to be pure, simple entertainment for another.
It also assumes everyone is straight. What about soldiers who are gay? I suppose there aren't any of those?
The upper ranks really do resemble one another closely across services, for one thing because once (and if) attaining that bird, a senior officer will be heading to a joint command or the Pentagon, to learn how the other 3/4 live.
As to the issue at hand, as a servicemember who served in the Box, and went to (well, guarded) one of these USO girly-shows, I have to say I was deeply embarrassed, both on behalf of the girls who struck me as willing to be objectified for patriotic reasons, and naive enough to think it was a good idea, AND on behalf of my fellow servicemen, almost half of them married, who just wanted to do their service and go home to their wives or girlfriends (or boyfriends; there were not a few ladies in the crowd.) I will say I was only proud of the young men and women not on the stage, who kept their cool, had a good time, drank a (mandated limit) couple of brews, and then went back to their jobs, still looking forward to going home to wives, girlfriends, and boyfriends.
As to my personal impression of the show? It was fun; there was comedy, dancing, some very, very pretty girls, and I enjoyed it some, but probably would have enjoyed it better if the girls hadn't been there simply as eye candy. I'm not comfortable with that, as it makes my job in middle management harder, knowing as I do, that however much common sense and esprit de corps they may possess, young men and women are still young men and women, and feelings of attraction between them can go badly wrong. Distracting spectacles of flesh are fun distractions, but presenting some women as objects, and others as brothers-in-arms, is an unnecessarily confusing complication to an already-complicated thing: trying to relate well to people you don't know all that well, thousands of miles from everyone else you can relate to except in the broader sense of human community.
I will say, I had the privilege of talking over the show afterward (technically we were just bullshitting, but the senior NCO in the back of my head never turns off) with a couple of the boys and one of the girls in my squadron, and they all enjoyed it, even though one of the boys thought the eye-candy was a bit much for him and made him kind of uncomfortable on behalf of the ladies in the audience. The female corporal said it hadn't bothered her, since she couldn't relate well to cheerleaders anyway, which had the ring of truth, but I was glad to see the subject broached and dispensed with maturely and comfortably, and professional relationships nurtured and maintained by a bonding experience, which anything fun in a place you work 12 hours on and 12 hours off ought to be.
Thank you for writing this. My boyfriend is in the military and he is also a feminist. I'm sure he would agree with you on these issues. I hope this aspect of military culture will one day change.
Marc, and those who agree with the premise, why do you single out the military for these actions? It was my understanding that Hooters and cheerleaders are a part of most big towns and cities all throughout the US. Children are even familiar with them both. -So why exactly is this a major problem when the military does it?
If you argue that society as whole is male centric and highly sexualized (which I don't disagree with), then why again should the onus be on the military to take up the cause to stop offending women when mainstream society itself finds little issue? If your theories are true, men wouldn't need to wait till getting into the military to start raping women- if that's what watching cheerleaders and going to Hooters makes men do, as it seems your topic is not so slyly suggesting. I'd think you guys would be more ticked at the idea your little brothers, your sons, your neighbors sons seeing women on tv being presented as sexual objects than you would of adult military personnel. The idea that you direct your complaints strictly at the military makes me question your cause.
*And why would you guys claim the objectifying of women as 'entertainment'(cheerleaders are in no way considered "adult entertainment" btw) is ultimately a contribution to uncontrollable urges and psychological desensitization in men which will eventually lead to them committing rape -- then go on to counter the ideal that allows 'boys to be boys'; as you argue that men do not have uncontrollable sexual urges of some sort, nor do they have a higher 'sexual drive' than women? If men are not animalistic in their sexual desires, then these adult men should have no problem separating the entertainment provided by female cheerleaders and Hooters Girls and the real live human virtue of their female compatriots. Seems you are playing both sides of that argument here.