By Linda Burnham
War Times, www.war-times.org 

The Abu Ghraib portraits of sexual humiliation and submission have exposed the unbelievably tangled strands of racism, misogyny, homophobia, national arrogance and hyper-masculinity that characterize the U.S. military. Militarized sexual domination is neither "contrary to American values" nor simply the work of a few "bad apples." It is, rather, a daily practice. 

The "bad apples" defense is both unspeakably inadequate and completely disingenuous. 

While narrowing the scope of inquiry to individual transgression may provide a convenient protective shield for the military, it also deflects attention away from very troubling realities. The photos of Abu Ghraib reveal as much about our nation as they do about the soldiers of the 372nd Military Police Company.

As our president made clear, the intent of the invasion and occupation of Iraq was to bring the Iraqi opposition to its knees. Why then the surprise that soldiers would be thrilled to comply so literally? The scenario in which an Iraqi man kneels with the penis of another in or near his mouth shocked us all. But our leaders' call for the naked humiliation of Arabs and Muslims was not so muted that only a few stray soldiers heard.

Iraqi prisoners made to wear women's underwear. Those who battled for women's equal right to serve should take heed. Degradation and weakness are still equated with the female in this man's army.  

Much has been made of the role of Private Lynndie England, the thumbs-up girl of prisoner abuse. Her culpability seems manifest and, back on home turf, England will have to fight for her soul the best way she knows how.  

But England is the second cover girl for the Iraq installment of the U.S. military's sexual integration story. Jessica Lynch was the first. Two fresh-faced, working-class, small-town girls eager to escape the limitations of location and station. Escape they did, into the welcoming arms of an institution that used one to rally the nation, spinning a narrative of the endangered but plucky female, rescued from the dark barbarian hordes. It will use the other as sacrifice to assuage the anxieties of a troubled nation.  

In her role as dominatrix over Iraqi men England exposed the sexualization of national conquest. As a participant in the militarized construction of the masculine she inaugurated a brand new, frightening archetype: dominant-nation female as joyful agent of sexual, national, racial and religious humiliation. How's that for liberation? 

Lynndie England aside, the scenes at Abu Ghraib depict sexual domination as a feature of military hyper-masculinity. The horrific Denver Post revelations of the sexual assault and rape of multitudes of servicewomen are a further indication that sexual domination in uniform is hardly a rarity. 

Our military is built upon the daily subjugation of the sexual lives of thousands upon thousands of women to the sexual appetites of servicemen overseas. Subordinating the national interests of countries the world over to the geo-political interests of the U.S. seemingly requires the sexual sacrifice of some portion of these nations' women--poor women, always. 

Military prostitution is viewed as rest and relaxation, entertainment for the troops. While the purported "goal" of the sexual humiliation of Abu Ghraib prisoners was to extract vital information, the photos tell a more twisted story. The cheery faces tell us that dramatizing the metaphoric rape of the Iraqi nation by acting out the sexual domination of Iraqi men was big fun. 

Casting themselves as directors and actors in the drama of sexual humiliation, the prison guards clearly believed that they could do whatever they wished, and thoroughly enjoy themselves in the process. Was it un-American for them to think so? Not when the core message of their commander-in-chief to the Iraqi people has been, "You will bow down to our capacity to dominate, and we will exercise that capacity despite global opposition."

The struggle over assigning culpability has taken on the character of a high-stakes political tango. That struggle will intensify. Although there's no question but that everyone responsible, from the immediate perpetrators on up, must be held to account, culpability runs far deeper.

It may be hard to get up in the morning and face this fact, but we are, collectively, as guilty as hell. We elect representatives who feed the military monster. We honor sadistic hyper-masculinity, awarding those who portray it best with governorships (e.g. Arnold Schwarzenneger). We devote vast resources to bondage and discipline in our criminal justice system. And we lie to ourselves unceasingly. 

The world is weary of, and profoundly angered by, America's tattered claim of innocence. 

The soldiers at Abu Ghraib pulled back the curtain on their perverse enactments so that we may see who we are. Do we have the courage to look? Do we have the will to change?
______________

Linda Burnham is the executive director of the Women of Color Resource Center in Oakland, Calif. (www.coloredgirls.org). 

War Times/Tiempo de Guerras, 1230 Market St., PMB 409, San Francisco, CA  94102
 

By Barbara Ehrenreich
May 20, 2004

Even those people we might have thought were impervious to shame, like the secretary of Defense, admit that the photos of abuse in Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison turned their stomachs. 

The photos did something else to me, as a feminist: They broke my heart. I had no illusions about the U.S. mission in Iraq ­ whatever exactly it is ­ but it turns out that I did have some illusions about women. 

Of the seven U.S. soldiers now charged with sickening forms of abuse in Abu Ghraib, three are women: Spc. Megan Ambuhl, Pfc. Lynndie England and Spc. Sabrina Harman. 

It was Harman we saw smiling an impish little smile and giving the thumbs-up sign from behind a pile of hooded, naked Iraqi men ­ as if to say, "Hi Mom, here I am in Abu Ghraib!" It was England we saw with a naked Iraqi man on a leash. If you were doing PR for Al Qaeda, you couldn't have staged a better picture to galvanize misogynist Islamic fundamentalists around the world. 

Here, in these photos from Abu Ghraib, you have everything that the Islamic fundamentalists believe characterizes Western culture, all nicely arranged in one hideous image ­ imperial arrogance, sexual depravity ... and gender equality. 

Maybe I shouldn't have been so shocked. We know that good people can do terrible things under the right circumstances. This is what psychologist Stanley Milgram found in his famous experiments in the 1960s. In all likelihood, Ambuhl, England and Harman are not congenitally evil people. They are working-class women who wanted an education and knew that the military could be a stepping-stone in that direction. Once they had joined, they wanted to fit in. 

And I also shouldn't be surprised because I never believed that women were innately gentler and less aggressive than men. Like most feminists, I have supported full opportunity for women within the military ­ 1) because I knew women could fight, and 2) because the military is one of the few options around for low-income young people. 

Although I opposed the 1991 Persian Gulf War, I was proud of our servicewomen and delighted that their presence irked their Saudi hosts. Secretly, I hoped that the presence of women would over time change the military, making it more respectful of other people and cultures, more capable of genuine peacekeeping. That's what I thought, but I don't think that anymore. 

A certain kind of feminism, or perhaps I should say a certain kind of feminist naiveté, died in Abu Ghraib. It was a feminism that saw men as the perpetual perpetrators, women as the perpetual victims and male sexual violence against women as the root of all injustice. Rape has repeatedly been an instrument of war and, to some feminists, it was beginning to look as if war was an extension of rape. There seemed to be at least some evidence that male sexual sadism was connected to our species' tragic propensity for violence. That was before we had seen female sexual sadism in action. 

But it's not just the theory of this naive feminism that was wrong. So was its strategy and vision for change. That strategy and vision rested on the assumption, implicit or stated outright, that women were morally superior to men. We had a lot of debates over whether it was biology or conditioning that gave women the moral edge ­ or simply the experience of being a woman in a sexist culture. But the assumption of superiority, or at least a lesser inclination toward cruelty and violence, was more or less beyond debate. After all, women do most of the caring work in our culture, and in polls are consistently less inclined toward war than men. 

I'm not the only one wrestling with that assumption today. Mary Jo Melone, a columnist for the St. Petersburg (Fla.) Times, wrote on May 7: "I can't get that picture of England [pointing at a hooded Iraqi man's genitals] out of my head because this is not how women are expected to behave. Feminism taught me 30 years ago that not only had women gotten a raw deal from men, we were morally superior to them." 

If that assumption had been accurate, then all we would have had to do to make the world a better place ­ kinder, less violent, more just ­ would have been to assimilate into what had been, for so many centuries, the world of men. We would fight so that women could become the generals, CEOs, senators, professors and opinion-makers ­ and that was really the only fight we had to undertake. Because once they gained power and authority, once they had achieved a critical mass within the institutions of society, women would naturally work for change. That's what we thought, even if we thought it unconsciously ­ and it's just not true. Women can do the unthinkable. 

You can't even argue, in the case of Abu Ghraib, that the problem was that there just weren't enough women in the military hierarchy to stop the abuses. The prison was directed by a woman, Gen. Janis Karpinski. The top U.S. intelligence officer in Iraq, who also was responsible for reviewing the status of detainees before their release, was Major Gen. Barbara Fast. And the U.S. official ultimately responsible for managing the occupation of Iraq since October was Condoleezza Rice. Like Donald H. Rumsfeld, she ignored repeated reports of abuse and torture until the undeniable photographic evidence emerged. 

What we have learned from Abu Ghraib, once and for all, is that a uterus is not a substitute for a conscience. This doesn't mean gender equality isn't worth fighting for for its own sake. It is. If we believe in democracy, then we believe in a woman's right to do and achieve whatever men can do and achieve, even the bad things. It's just that gender equality cannot, all alone, bring about a just and peaceful world. 

In fact, we have to realize, in all humility, that the kind of feminism based on an assumption of female moral superiority is not only naive; it also is a lazy and self-indulgent form of feminism. Self-indulgent because it assumes that a victory for a woman ­ a promotion, a college degree, the right to serve alongside men in the military ­ is by its very nature a victory for all of humanity. And lazy because it assumes that we have only one struggle ­ the struggle for gender equality ­ when in fact we have many more. 

The struggles for peace and social justice and against imperialist and racist arrogance, cannot, I am truly sorry to say, be folded into the struggle for gender equality. 

What we need is a tough new kind of feminism with no illusions. Women do not change institutions simply by assimilating into them, only by consciously deciding to fight for change. We need a feminism that teaches a woman to say no ­ not just to the date rapist or overly insistent boyfriend but, when necessary, to the military or corporate hierarchy within which she finds herself. 

In short, we need a kind of feminism that aims not just to assimilate into the institutions that men have created over the centuries, but to infiltrate and subvert them. 

To cite an old, and far from naive, feminist saying: "If you think equality is the goal, your standards are too low." It is not enough to be equal to men, when the men are acting like beasts. It is not enough to assimilate. We need to create a world worth assimilating into. 
 

Barbara Ehrenreich is the author, most recently, of "Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America." 

Women soldiers' role is debated
 

By Mary Leonard, Globe Staff  |  May 16, 2004

WASHINGTON -- The portrait of a kinder, gentler female soldier takes a "Mean Girls" beating in the photos of the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

The images of female soldiers gleeful over the physical torture and leering at the nude bodies and genitals of male Iraqi prisoners have shocked and revulsed many Americans. And the photo of the petite, pixie-haired R. Lynndie England pulling a naked prisoner like a dog on a leash is the awful evidence that abusive group behavior is not confined to men.

"The abuse of power is a human thing, not just a male thing," said Lory Manning, a retired Navy captain who studies gender issues in the military at the Women's Research and Education Institute, a nonprofit group. "Like immature men, immature women -- and those at Abu Ghraib were very junior and had no training, no qualifications, and rotten oversight -- are very likely to abuse unlimited power when it is handed to them."

Three of the seven reservists from the 372d Military Police Company who face criminal charges in alleged assaults, indecent acts, cruelty, and conspiracy are women: Specialist Sabrina D. Harman, 26, of Lorton, Va; Specialist Megan Ambuhl, 29, of Centreville, Va.; and England, 21, of Fort Ashby, W.Va.

Brigadier General Janis L. Karpinski, the Army reserve officer put in charge of military prisons in Iraq last June, was removed from command in January and singled out by Army investigators for failing to stop the rampant abuse at Abu Ghraib.

Retired Army general Evelyn "Pat" Foote, who devoted part of her 30-year military career to mentoring young woman soldiers, said she is more than sickened and horrified that three females face courts-martial following their roles at Abu Ghraib. She is disappointed that they did not heed her advice, that to be successful in the military, a woman should act more like a woman than a man.

"I tell them: 'Bring your competence and humanity, and don't be one of the boys. Don't romp, stomp, spit, cuss, or swear,' " said Foote, who commanded the 42d Military Police Group in Germany from 1983 to 1985. "But that's hard advice when you're in a unit that is 90 percent male, you want to be accepted by the men, and you are young and inexperienced."

Military sociologists say that the behavior of the reservists at Abu Ghraib was aberrant and that gender played no special role. But advocates for expanding opportunities for women soldiers fear a backlash to the crisis could slow or even stop the steady advancement of women into combat support roles and leadership positions since the 1991 Gulf War. Women now make up about 15 percent of the active-duty military, 24 percent of the reserve force, one in seven soldiers in Iraq, and serve on combat ships and aircraft.

"I'm very concerned that some people will try to blame women in the military and use it against them -- that they can't hack it or that they shouldn't have the same opportunities and training as men because they might do terrible things," said Nancy Duff Campbell, co-president of the National Women's Law Center, an advocacy organization concerned with sexual harassment and discrimination. "If this shows us there are problems with having women soldiers, there are also clearly problems with having men soldiers."

Conservative critics believe that Abu Ghraib is the most stunning and disturbing symptom of a breakdown in discipline because of the rapid integration of the sexes and policies that put women soldiers on the front lines.

Linda Chavez, president of the Center for Equal Opportunity, a think tank that opposes affirmative action, said that coed training and units are creating debilitating "sexual tension" in the military and that in the case of Abu Ghraib the presence of women in the military police unit may have even encouraged the obscene misbehavior that the photos reveal, she said.

"And even if you could deal with the breakdown in discipline, is it good for civilization and society to try to turn women into men and put them in the traditional role of the male warrior?" Chavez asked. "You have to train people to kill. I think we have to have the debate about whether this is a desirable thing for women."

In 1997, a Pentagon commission on gender integration reported that coed housing and training contributed to high rates of misconduct in the military, and it recommended that other services copy the Marines and separate basic training for men and women. The report died under a firestorm of criticism from women in Congress and the military, who said the recommendations were sexist and could discourage women from joining the armed forces.

Elaine Donnelly, a conservative activist, said the abuses at Abu Ghraib are the direct consequence of the Pentagon's "social engineering" and Congress's failure to heed the warning signs that allowing women into combat situations and extending a "don't ask, don't tell" policy to gay soldiers would lead to "a cultural deterioration" in the military.

"The movie 'Mean Girls' celebrates cruelty among girls and women. That is where we are going in the civilian world, and now we see it carrying over into the military, too," said Donnelly, who heads the Center for Military Readiness, a nonprofit that aims to reverse the Pentagon's personnel policies on gays and women.

Current studies on domestic violence defy conventional wisdom, demonstrating that women are frequently abusive and aggressive. That is particularly the case when they are in their early 20s and operating in a safe or known arena, like a home or perhaps even a prison, said Deborah Capaldi, a psychologist who studies domestic violence at the Oregon Social Learning Center, a private research institution in Eugene.

Martha Burk, a feminist activist and chairwoman of the National Council of Women's Organizations, does not know if women "at the core" have the potential to be as cruel and violent as men. But she said that she is certain that they can be trained to be abusive and that she believes that the women soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison were deliberately encouraged by their superiors to taunt and humiliate Iraqi prisoners.

In his report on the abuses at Abu Ghraib, Major General Antonio M. Taguba blamed a small group of out-of-control soldiers under inept leadership, and he laid much of the blame on Karpinski for failing to supervise the military police under her command. Karpinski has said she had no knowledge of the abuses before they were investigated and is the scapegoat for decisions made by men who outranked her.

Foote, who once commanded Karpinski, said she was distressed by the finger-pointing and worried that women who serve honorably and frequently are kinder and gentler officers in the military, would be tarred by the scandal, but she offered no excuses for the abuses.

Mary Leonard can be reached at mleonard@globe.com. 

© Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company.