Resonding Post

Written  by Caroline Potoclicchio

After reading Steinem’s “Supremacy Crimes” and Chapter 5 in Enloe’s “The Curious Feminist Reader” I seemed a bit unsettled with the material. Steinem’s piece felt like it was a persuasion essay. Although I thought her argument that middle class white men are power hungry and are looking to seek power through crime, such as murder, I felt as if she didn’t provide enough evidence. I wish that she had found out more information concerning the kids who killed so many others at Columbine High School. Maybe she could have done research by talking to a school psychologist. She tries to provide another analysis of the argument by presenting the question what if it was women who were the power hungry seekers and killing off others? She continues asking questions and never really gives her point of view or offers an idea to support her argument. I understand how she is standing up for women in the sense that they are being raped and murdered by white middle class men, but I wish she had gone into more detail about how she feels the society would act if it was just the opposite, because I do not understand her article otherwise.

I felt kind of lost reading Enloe’s chapter 5, but I did get some of the main points out of it. She introduces the chapter by talking about being a teacher, and the issue of how to get students to talk in class.  This topic of being silenced leads into how women are silenced and the history behind it. Enloe talks about how women who worked in factories in the Asia-Pacific in the 90’s had to silence themselves from reporting any sexual harassment. They rather be considered “respectable” and deal with the harassment then tell anyone. Just from hearing others stories, I know that this still goes on today. Women in the United States still accept harassment, and brush it off.  Just from being apart of the Colgate community, I have talked to girls who don’t want to lose friends or power by reporting an unconsented sexual encounter. This type of sexual experience usually involves alcohol, where if they hadn’t been drinking, they would have been able to say no. In this generation, young women are pressured all over the country to seek popularity and maintain their respectable status, and to be a respectable women involves being silenced in such circumstances, especially if the people who are hurting you are supposed friends or acquaintances. I enjoyed Enloe’s chapter and thought it was more enriching than Steinem’s article.

Leading Post: Supremacy and Silence

Gloria Steinem's "Supremacy Crimes" argues the supremacy white, middle-class, heterosexual men have. As McIntosh has stated that white people have the privilege to not need to always defend or to prove their race, gender, sexuality, Steinem also agrees how these factors are not accounted for or talked about when thinking about crimes committed by white, middle-class, heterosexual men. These factors are often not put into discussion therefore contributing to the enforcement of "drug of superiority" that these men are constantly fed. Unlike these men with supremacy, people of color and women are always held accountable for their race, gender, or sexuality (as Douglas has also shined light about in her book). Steinem questions this dynamic by providing hypothetical situations where race, gender, and sexuality are attached to these supremacy crimes and rhetorically asking would that make a difference. She is obviously implying that it would make a difference. In these hypothetical situations, Steinem --I think-- wants to convey the message for people to recognize this supremacy that white, middle-class, heterosexual men have, and in doing so we can see how the "patriarchal code of honor and shame" generates our current hierarchy and what is deemed as acceptable gender/racial behaviors.

On a similar note, Enloe's chapter titled "Whom Do You Take Seriously," also discuss how the "drug of superiority" among men has stifle and silenced women, especially Asian-Pacific women. Enloe provides several examples of how women face abuse, violence, and sexual harassment but are unable to speak up about it. Through several rhetoric and ideologies, such as trivialization, respectability, Pacific Rim, and marriageability, women are sold the iamge that they are not allow to speak up and even if they do, no one will listen. The rational that women's experiencing abuse and violence are not political issues that needs to be publicly addressed cages women to silence. Additional the, the notion that speaking up will lead to "dishonoring of the nation" and will harm women in terms of not performing daughterly loyalty, discredit their marriageability, etc. further bird cages women to be docile, submissive, and must endure such inequalities. However Enloe suggest that women needs to consider a different approach that's "genuine, nonpatriarchal democratization" in order to redirect their movements for their voices to be taken more seriously in the public sphere.             

Power Hungry Men?

While reading Steinem's article "Supremacy Crimes" I was a bit shocked by the things I read. While I found that Steinem's article was extremely interesting and held some truth to it; I also thought that his writing was a bit aggressive and quick to jump to conclusions.

I thought the idea about men being pushed to commit crimes due to their addiction to power and superiority was truly interesting. It seems that men would go as far as murder to feel that power over another person, or in many cases, woman. It was disturbing and upsetting that men would go to such lengths, but it did seem likely that some men would commit these crimes due to power addiction.

What I did find a bit frustrating was that the article did not seem to include any other possibilities for the mens' dangerous, murderous actions. At the end of the article, there is no antithesis or suggestions of possible alternative reasons, but a strong declaration stating white men are driven by their thirst for power. Steinem writes, "that males are superior to females, that they must find a place in male hierarchy, and that the ability to dominate someone is so important that even a mere insult can justify lethal revenge". I am not trying to advocate for these murderers reasons for killing, but I do think that Steinem has an aggressive, accusing almost animalistic tone. I feel that no matter what racial group is in charge there will be violence against others. It is important to look at reasons for violence and try and stop the pattern, but I think that Steinem's tone is a bit too accusing and not as scholarly as I expected.

Responding Post

This week's readings the authors Brownmiller and Crenshaw through analyzing rape vitcims and women of color who have been abuse/rape both suggest that these issues should be taken into a greater content-- whether political or intersectionality--rather than on an individual level. They both see these issues to not only having to do with females but in a larger connection to social structures such masculinity, race/gender, and patriarchy. Brownmiller analyzed how the threat of rape has functioned to support/affirm males' masculinity and dominance by keeping women in fear. Crenshaw examined the   violence towards women of color in three categories: structural, political, and implication intersectionality; she also illustrated the interaction between race, gender, and socioeconomic class with violence against women of color (explaining the multiple burdens women of color have to uphold because of their race, gender, and class) . 

From this week's readings, I was especailly interested in Brownmiller's piece because it reminded me of a documentary I seen during my sophomore year in high school. I do not remember the name of the documentary but it was about several men who have been wrongly convicted for crimes that they did not do and how DNA testing has helped prove their innocence, although they have already severed many years in jail.

This clip above that was part of 60 minutes was one of the cases the documentary focus on. This segment of 60 minutes challenges the reliability of eyewitness evidence oppose to more tangible evidence. The story covers the journey of a black man who was falsely accused and convicted for allegedly raping a white women who identified him as her raper. Brownmiller acknowledge how the threat of rape and other ways have skewed the power towards men; however, it is interesting to see how in a rape case, the women can also have the power, especially since the a raped victim's words are more powerful than the guys sincere denial of the crime.

The two rationals that float around the air "women are trained to be rape victims...girls get raped. Not boys" and "women want to be raped" act together as a justification and normalizes why females get raped (more often then males). Society teaches the threat of rape and males (and some females) internalize the idea that the female is asking for it. The argument that the woman is asking for it blows my mind. What kind of society do we live in to think that there are people asking to be raped? If someone asks to be raped, then is it still called raped?

Caroline Potoclicchio's Post

Written by Caroline Potoclicchio

After attending a benefit for the Vera House in Syracuse, the theme of sexual violence against women has been prominent over the past couple weeks. During this benefit I learned about the white ribbon campaign, which is a campaign for not only women to be aware of sexual abuse, but also men to get other men thinking about how they can help decrease this abuse. The Vera House is a shelter for women who have been domestically and sexually abused. This house provides medication, therapy, food, and clothes for victims of sexual abuse.  One of the speakers commented saying "Men have the tools right in front of them to stop rape." Brownmiller touches upon this point in a different way saying that men have discovered that their "genitalia could serve as a weapon to generate fear". She also states that "a world without rapists would be a world in which women moved freely without fear of men." Another interesting point that she makes is that Little Red Riding Hood is "a parable of rape." According to Brownmiller, the wolves are the frightening men who are looking to prey on the women if they don't stay on path. "If you are lucky, a good, friendly male may be able to save you from a certain disaster." She also states that the once it has been established that all women want to be ravished, "it is bolstered by the claim that 'No woman can be raped against their will." Just from being a student at Colgate, I understand this point that she is making. There is a connotation that women may give men gestures but the truth is that men sometimes will read too much into polite or friendly gestures. There is also a claim that women can just say "No." However they can't say no if they are roofied or are unconscious from alcohol consumption. I think that the white ribbon campaign is completely accurate with trying to make men more aware about stopping sexual abuse. Women grow up knowing that this is a reoccuring pattern among their gender and now it is time for men to take a stand.