The responses to Module One have been fantastic. First, I want to comment on the use of the Internet as a pedagogic devise. It allows for an amazing range of interaction. This was particularly visible in the fact that we received two messages from people who had attended “ring” dances at the Citadel, one whose twin graduated from there, people from other cultures to whom the whole thing sounded incredibly sexist, and people who had served or are serving in the military in some capacity. What an interesting group!
People struggled with the meaning of the use of violence as a language. There was consistent recognition that it is a critical component of male dominance, and that explained the jealous guardianship of the Citadel against the presence of women. Coincidentally, a judge ruled last week that a female cadet could not prove her sexual harassment claim against the school.
On the language of violence, one student made the point that Shannon Faulkner, thinking she could win over her fellow cadets by getting to know them, observed that she was speaking the “language of the personal.” What do we get when we answer the language of violence with the language of the personal? I thought this was a particularly interesting point, as it relates to how many girls are brought up to be empathetic. Empathy is a key here-soldiers (men) are taught the necessary tactic of objectifying their ‘enemy’ while women are taught to be nice and not too bossy or loud in asserting themselves. I make this point in the spirit of finding ground on which to compromise-I certainly don’t believe that all men are violent or that all women are empathetic. Rather, it’s quite important that we initiate discourse over these issues, thus I sometimes generalize to make a point. But I think that the female empathetic response prevents women from self-defending. As well, I think male socialization should include heavy doses of empathy training. Some batterer treatment programs focus on developing empathetic responses in the men who abuse their partners.
Both Thelma and Louise and the Lorena Bobbitt case completely captured my attention when they came out or happened. I thought it was remarkable that so much ink was spilled over the amputation of one man’s sex organ, when women’s bodies are mutilated and abused every day. Thelma and Louise raised so many interesting issues-the rape scene was so realistic and the questions that arose about whether she’d be able to prove it were compelling. “Well just about a million people saw you dancing with him…” But dancing is one thing, kissing is another thing, and having sexual intercourse with someone is a completely different thing. It has consequences. We can get pregnant. It can change a woman’s life forever, while a man can easily walk away. When does a woman lose her right to say no? We’ll look at rape in the fourth week.
Safe-T-Man was in an ad I saw on an airplane in an in-flight magazine. I think it captures something profound about gender roles-more specifically, the idea that females must depend on males for their protection. The tricky part is that it’s protection from other males. So why is it a woman’s problem? Moreover, one student made the point that a blow-up doll is not going to stop a violent husband or boyfriend, so that it provides only a false sense of security. This is a critical point in that even in self-defense classes, the focus is on women defending against attacks by strange males. We neglect, I’m afraid, to teach girls and women how to defend against potentially abusive mates by getting out of the relationship early. Women need to learn to recognize signs of jealousy, possessiveness, and control that masquerade as romantic interest in western society.
Thanks again to everyone who engaged in the discussion of module 1's three case studies -- your participation resulted in an interesting, useful, and thought-provoking dialogue.