Presentation by Tanja Bergen
Like this:
One blogger likes this post.
Tags: Class Topics
This entry was posted on November 17, 2009 at 6:00 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
November 18, 2009 at 3:16 am |
I really like Kyla’s comment today that because women’s bodies are seen as more vulnerable that’s maybe why they are often seen as victims.
I think because of the female and male power dynamics built in in our society, we often see males as being dominant, strong, larger, etc. etc., so during conflicts, we apply that perception to females in the conflict zones.
I think the same thing can be said for children where because of their size, etc. they are seen as more vulnerable.
But I think we need to change this perception because:
1. We need to focus on men as well. Men are also subject to rape, violence, abuse, etc. but they are not shown in the media or public as much.
We need to recognize all humans in conflict as victims, not just females.
2. Not all females, as we saw in the presentations, are purely just vulnerable victims. By saying that women are vulnerable, we are just making generalizations and lowering the ability of the female population. We need to recognize that women in conflict are often active and are survivors.
Not all women are victims, many are survivors, many have agency.
November 25, 2009 at 10:13 pm |
I really liked Tanja’s article and presentation (and speakers) because they all brought up this alternative perception of women and men within conflict zones and developing countries.
It got me to thinking about media representations of men and women, not so much about which image is more prominently displayed (ex: women as victims, not survivors), but how there are always only two images for each gende: survivor or victim, not a combination.
I wrote an essay a while ago that discussed gender perceptions, about how society tries to put women into women gender boxes and men into men gender boxes, but that in reality, there are no real boxes, just a spectrum of gender that all men and women fall along differently. In reality some women do fit the gender stereotypes that are desired of them, but many fall differently along the gender spectrum and in order for society to function efficiently, these women are pushed back into a certain area of the spectrum.
So, it may be that women (and men) in conflict zones are victim/and/or/survivor, but media will always have trouble depicting this contradiction because it is set up in such a way to only allow for simple dichotomies. It’s just easier for society to function this way, uncritically oversimplifying and without getting in to the complexities of this world.
November 28, 2009 at 1:04 am |
To follow up on Midori and maybe advance it one step farther:
I think that these boxes are absolutely detrimental to our society and to many other societies around the world – equally to men and women.
In the eastern DRC there is some preliminary research that is looking at why men rape. Some of the conclusions talk about the narrow constructions of masculinity – provider, head of household, possessive, in charge, domineering, etc. – that many Congolese men are expected to live up to. During conflict times, when families are broken up as the flee violence amongst many other things, this is impossible. So what is one possible method that some men may use to regain a sense of control – especially in a ethnically charged conflict context – rape.
Some good resources to read:
Maria Eriksson Baaz and Maria Stern, “Making Sense of Violence: Voices of Soldiers in the Congo (DRC),” Journal of Modern African
Studies, 46, no.1 (2008)
Maria Eriksson Baaz, “Why Do Soldiers Rape? Masculinity, Violence and Sexuality in the Armed Forces in the Congo (DRC,”
International Studies Quarterly no. 53 (2009), Interviews with Congolese Soldiers, Baaz & Stern,
November 30, 2009 at 10:55 pm |
I really agree with what all the commenters have written. Sometimes gender roles and stereotypes about female passivity and male strength, power, etc…can take away important focus away from all victims. Gender roles and societal labels place constraints on even aid programs or how people prioritize help or resources given to victims. A lot of times, men do get the short end of the stick in terms of support organizations, counselling and resources in conflict zones. Although it is widely accepted that that majority of wars in history and today are started and fought by men, there is a rising number of women who are participating either as suicide bombers, soldiers, guerilla fighters, etc… Obviously still not to the extent that men are partipating, but it’s important to keep these things in mind.
(This next bit is just some additional stuff that’s not entirely related but still interesting)
What about other social contexts surrounding rape? I can’t remember where I watched this documentary, but basically it was talking about African rape statistics and how a lot of men will rape women who are either suspected of being a lesbian or are openly a lesbian. To them, the cultural acceptance of this kind of rape stemmed from the idea of transforming lesbians back to being heterosexual by showing her what sex is like from a man. I think the documentary also touched upon some ideas of how a lot of men in these areas feel that lesbians threaten their masculinity and their very black and white perceptions about gender roles and sexual identities.
December 1, 2009 at 4:21 am |
The terms “survivor” and “victim” always trouble me when it comes to sexual or physical abuse. I don’t like the dichotomy. I don’t that such dichotomy exists. People often identify themselves as victims, b/c they had no power over what happened to them. They may also identify themselves as survivors b/c they have managed to overcome the experience. People can be victims, survivors or both (as Midori mentioned). It’s also important to realize that the factor of time. A person affected by violence is no immediately a survivor or a victim. It takes time for the person to make sense of his or her own experience start labeling himself or herself. What I want to say is that the terms of survivor and victim are subjective. I feel strongly that we should never label people b/c we think that “survivor” is more appropriate than “victim” or that it sounds better. Sometimes people want to be acknowledged as victims b/c they seem themselves as victims.
Now, another point of view may say, you are more likely to raise funds if you portray people as victims rather than survivors. true. b/c these two terms are subjective I think the presentation of those affected by violence is very challenging. That being said, I personally avoid that when I talk about sexual violence in particular in workshops, I always say a survivor or victim.
December 1, 2009 at 4:25 am |
I enjoyed Alice’s comment. In case anyone is interested, here are some short videos about women fighters in various parts of the world:
December 2, 2009 at 7:03 am |
I also have concerns with the survivor/victim/perpetrator trichotomy (yes I created a new word) that exists when discussing gender related issues. I think Midori did an excellent job of drawing together the heart of the issue- oversimplication so as to allow us in the West to get our 30 second/this is black and this is white/news clip and from it, decide that women all over the world are oppressed and need our help and liberation.
But that is the MAIN issue. When do we step in, if woman’s rights are being violated? How do we react when we hear news stories of women getting stoned to death when they were the victims/not perpetrators of rape? Should we apply a western feminist analysis of the situation? Can we even comparatively begin to understand these experiences?
I think one thing the Western media is excellent is doing as well is creating victim/perpetrator stereotypes. I am especially upset when I read western media analysis of woman’s rights in China where they point to Confucian values of men being dominant over women as being the central theme behind the favouring of male children/one child policy.
First, it would be much more relevant to look at Mao’s political ideology- which today can be seen as having much more influence on gender issues than Ancient Confucianism. Mao, in 1927 (keep in mind is almost 40 years before the beginning of North American second wave feminism) wrote in the Little Red Book- “As for women, in addition to being dominated by these three systems of authority, they are also dominated by the men (the authority of the husband). These four authorities – political, family, religious and masculine – are the embodiment of the whole feudal-patriarchal ideology and system.”
Having been to China last summer and immersed in the culture, I know that the single-narrative of women as unwanted is erroneous. In a Yao village in Southern China, I learned that women are actually the dominant bread-winners and men must spend three years child-rearing in order to prove their worth as fathers. In Shanghai, I heard countless references to men as being known for spoiling their “well-dressed” wives. There is definitely a danger of a single story- See TED video http://www.ted.com/talks/chimamanda_adichie_the_danger_of_a_single_story.html- and we constantly are hypocritical of this when we examine gender issues overseas.
December 3, 2009 at 12:53 am |
There are great comments regarding the restrictive dichotomy between “victim” and “survivor.” This binary definition is, in itself, oppressive. Using a post-modern analytical framework, so is the binary framework for identifying gender – we all expressed discomfort with the dichotomy between “victim” and “survivor,” but all conformed to the gender binary of “male” and “female.” I would argue that part of the social constructions behind the victim/survivor dichotomy are the constrained ways that genders are defined – the rapist is a hyper-masculine dominant male, the victim a vulnerable female. I don’t see gender as a binary concept – I see it as a spectrum of socially constructed characteristics. Rejecting the gender binary as oppressive relates to the now common distinction between sex and gender – sex is biological, gender is performed, constructed, etc. This discussion is sometimes referred to in terms of “Queer Gender Theory.”
Moving away from post-modernism, I’d also like to discuss Foucault’s discourse analysis in terms of self-identifying as either “victim” or “survivor,” or some combination of the two…or occupying a space between the two. Foucault makes an important distinction between objects and subjects – in the discourse surrounding identity and power relations, we are all active participants, and therefore subjects rather than passive objects. Thus, the rhetoric surrounding identity as either male or female, victim or survivor, would be both internalized and interpreted by those involved in expressing their own identity. While the role of “victim” might be an effective marketing strategy, what are the consequences of labeling someone as a victim for that person? How do they then internalize this role while processing their own lived experience and expressing/performing their identity? Issues regarding gender put a lot at stake in public discourse, as gender performance is such a constitutive aspect of people’s identities. Ultimately, I think discussions like the one we had in class today – contesting notions of “femaleness” and “victimhood” – are crucial in the movement towards equality.
December 4, 2009 at 6:49 am |
There are some great points made in this post especially on the dichotomy between victim and the victimizer, and female and male, in all their colours, not respectively.
To note, when speaking of ‘victim,’ the notion itself is disempowering. It denotes a sense of helplessness. The point that most resonated with me from the speakers on this topic was the sense that even if individuals undergo tremendous hardships, they still have the power to alter the path of their lives. They are not fully subjects of their victimizers. We need to respect victims for their pasts, but also give them due esteem that they still have power and a sense of agency. Power was not taken away in the case of “I am ______” (I’m sorry, but I’ve forgotten her name…I’m terrible with names). Power may be lost for a time and individuals may lose faith in themselves, but I still believe that they have access to that power. Each individual has a sense of power through their intelligence and experience that is unique in a sense.
This is my own ‘philosophy’ muddled together from my own experiences.
I frown upon statements such as “empowering women” because it takes away from their own power and sense of responsibility for their future.
December 4, 2009 at 5:51 pm |
I agree, the phrase ‘empowering women’ is so problematic. Its also ubiquitous in the aid and academic world and therefore drilled into my head and I’m always catching myself letting it slip out.
Fact is, the phrase is an oxymoron. You can’t GIVE empowerment, defined as “increasing the spiritual, political, social or economic strength of individuals and communities. It often involves the empowered developing confidence in their own capacities” (thank you wikipedia). It has to come from within.
My boss at the Liu Institute, Erin Baines, has taken an amazing approach to supplying resources to increase women’s advocacy capacity (and therefore they become empowered) in Northern Uganda.
Here is the process, see what you think. Are there any issues?
What she does first is get girls together that have been forced wives. Get them talking. Often, while living in captivity, these women, who may have lived side by side in an armed groups’ camp, are not permitted to talk to each other. Often they have no idea that other women went through the same experiences (kidnapping, forced marriage and childbirth etc.). What more, when these women get talking together, they realize, wait a minute – what happened to us was wrong.
This is important – you have to remember that these girls grow up in societies that often blame them for being kidnapped (or worse) having children with rebels. Providing women opportunities to share their experiences with their peers in a neutral space allows them to realize, though this may seem obvious to us (ponder on the 1000′s of privileges in your life that makes this so), that it is actually NOT ok that they were abducted, married off and forced to run around in the bush in the middle of a war for years.
From there, its advocacy training. English skills, computer skills, livelihood training. After all, its ultimately these women’s jobs to gain equality. As in the ‘developed’ world’s struggles for gender equality, it needs to be achieved by the affected, not given by the powerful. Though, as Lara mentioned, support from white westerners does give these women legitimacy and ease their efforts.
In any event, I think this is a great experience of how developed countries can provide resources and the ‘space’ for conflict – affected women to seize their own rights. What do you think?
December 4, 2009 at 10:11 pm |
Tanja, I think your boss is totally on the right track. It seems like this way of becoming involved in the problems (which we have a lot of difficulty relating to, for the most part) of developing countries (where we often start to meddle, uninvited) incorporates a lot of the solutions we have come up with in class to address ethical problems that we have identified as existing within development projects. First of all, rather than going into a country and saying, “hey guys, you have problems, let us fix you through counseling and frivolous ‘teaching’ positions!”, she acknowledges the fact that providing an opportunity for these women to talk with one another– allowing them to realize that they were in fact subject to atrocities but that they were not alone– without TELLING them, is great. It’s a good example of refraining from top-down program implementation, yet shows that providing resources from within the community, allowing women to create their own agency, can still be achieved without a sense of hierarchy.
After the presentation, and following the roundtable where I was able to ask the women whether or not they felt that ‘victim’ and ‘survivor’ were completely separated, I think I have to disagree that the term ‘victim’ is inherently disempowering. While I do agree with Andra in that it denotes a sense of helplessness, I feel that it is more descriptive, and focuses on circumstance, rather than an overall state of being. One can be a victim of a crime, but this does not mean that they themselves are necessarily and permanently ‘victims’. Linked to the concept of victimization, for me, is the potential to combine it with the term ‘survivor’. I don’t think you can be a survivor without first having been the victim. And I don’t think that erasing history and ignoring the ‘victim’ stage is necessarily conducive to healing. But there is of course the danger of viewing oneself as a victim, permanently, which is where I think the sense of helplessness becomes relevant. Did that make any sense?
December 4, 2009 at 11:36 pm |
As mentioned in class, I really don’t believe that there is a severe issue with how gender is perceived in conflict. Although Tanja brought up excellent case studies and examples, I believe that it comes down to what you expose yourself to. There are international organizations that focus on females and their role/struggle post-Rwanda. There are international organizations that focus on the men who suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder after the Vietnam war. Some of these organizations are grass-roots based, some are at an international and governmental scale. They way I see it, each of these organizations were started when someone decided to share a story with the world. They wanted people to gain insight into what they had face as a result of war, and wanted people to empathize with them and do something about it. One example is Kim Phuc’s, the woman in the famous Vietnam war photograph, organization. Her organization is targeted towards individuals who have suffered from the consequences of war, such as those children who were born with birth defects due to Agent Orange. Kim Phuc’s story touched people’s lives, and she used that story to build something that she strongly believed in. Her organization was created not to be superior to other organizations that target male war victims and females who worked as nurses during the war, but rather to be a part of the interdependent, diverse scope of international organizations trying to create change in the world.