15 July 2008

How must women behave?

While the tide of our class has mostly been moving in the direction of women's activism and positive ambitions to help themselves and their communities, I thought it would be a good time to look at a women exhibiting opposing behavior.

I found this article at the Washington Post website (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/15/AR2008071502018.html?hpid=topnews), to summarize the article a former driver of Al-Queda being held at Guantanamo Bay, accused a female interrogator of using unfair tactics by acting sexually suggestive.

Her behavior is potentially detrimental to the feminist movement, because she fails to show how women can use their brains and be empowered. Instead she just showed how women can use their bodies to get their way with men. However, is there a possibility that this could be a successful interrogation technique? Based on her results with the driver I would say that it is clearly. In the previous post about Iranian women, one thing that they wanted was dignity which I do not believe is gained from sexually suggestive behavior.

Overall, I was just wondering what people thought about reports like this and this behavior affects women globally?

2 comments:

Lydia said...

While I agree with Beth on the potential detriment to the feminist movement, this soldier, while a woman was interrogating a prisoner. Not sure where I stand on the issue of interrogation. (Article 3 of the Geneva Convention: "... shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment... Article 3's protections exist even if one is not classified as a prisoner of war. Article 3 also states that parties to the internal conflict should endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of GCIII."

Did she violate Article 3 of GC? She insulted his pride and made him uncomfortable. Therefore under the GC she did, but what is the GC's definitions of dignity and degrading. We fall into our personal opinions and culture acceptance. Some would say her use of non-violent interrogation was humane because she did not physical harm him. Is this acceptable to society? Some of my questions would be: Was she ordered/taught to use this form of interrogation? Or was this her reaction to handling the situation? What was her motivation to use her sexuality as a tool?

Your question about how this impacts women globally. I think the way stories are presented has more of any affect on women globally. We are accountable for our actions and I hope society as a whole can separate the actions of one from the whole. We are striving for equality not sameness. We want to maintain our uniqueness but have the same opportunities as others.

shattle said...

When reading this article a good amount of things come to my mind. While agreeing a good amount with Lydia I have a couple other random points that I want to bring up. At the base of the issue is the idea that a woman used her body as a way of interrogation can be seen in many ways. Being in a college atmosphere I find it disturbing how many females use their bodies to obtain things. This could be information, study help, and drinks at a bar. When it comes to this concept I feel like the use of a body is completely wrong. Is it wrong of me to think that a soldier trying to get information out of a terrorist by using her assets has potential to not be wrong? I know I am contradictory in my statements. It is ok to use your body in one way but wrong to use it in another way.

I am not one to flaunt what I have to try to obtain petty things such as drinks but I feel if I were a soldier and I could obtain information by using something I have that others dont to help millions of people I do not think that is wrong. I still find it slightly degrading that she had to do that but using a tactic that is not harmful is better than beating it out of the prisoners. This is a really difficult article to discuss because there are so many underlying issues that need to be taken into consideration. I can even say that after writing what I just said I am even second guessing it. I do not know if it was just me who potentially may have caught on to this but I was a little bit curious about the timing of her claim. If this happened such a long time ago why is it only coming out not right before trial? Is this coincidence or a ploy on his behalf? I still don't know my feelings on this but I can only pray that this is all a ploy because this is quite the difficult situation.