Barnard Commencement 2004

Speech by Barbara Ehrenreich

 

It is a total thrill to share this day with you today. I really feel honored to participate.

 

How many of you are parents of graduates? What I'm really curious about is how you managed to get here today, after paying all that money for tuition - Greyhound bus? I put two kids thru Ivy League myself, which meant I had to hitchhike to their commencement ceremonies.

 

I had another speech prepared for today- all about the cost of college and how the doors to higher education are closing to all but the wealthy. It was a good speech -lots of laugh lines - but 2 weeks ago something came along that wiped the smile right off my face. You know, you saw them too - the photographs of American soldiers sadistically humiliating and abusing detainees in Iraq.

 

These photos turned my stomach - yours too, I'm sure. But they did something else to me: they broke my heart. I had no illusions about the United States mission in Iraq, but it turns out that I did have some illusions about women.

 

There was the photo of Specialist Sabrina Harman smiling an impish little smile and giving the thumbs sign from behind a pile of naked Iraqi men - as if to say, "Hi mom, here I am in Abu Ghraib!"

 

We've gone from the banality of evil... to the cuteness of evil.

 

There was the photo of Private First Class Lynndie England dragging a naked Iraqi man on a leash. She's cute too, in those cool cammy pants and high boots. He's grimacing in pain. If you were doing PR for al Qaeda, you couldn't have staged a better picture to galvanize misogynist Islamic fundamentalists around the world.

 

And never underestimate the misogyny of the real enemy, which was never the Iraqis; it was and should be the Al Qaeda-type fundamentalist extremists: Two weeks ago in eastern Afghanistan, suspected Taliban members (I thought we had defeated them, but never mind) ... poisoned three little girls for the crime of going to school. That seems to be the attitude in that camp: In the case of women: better dead than well-read.

 

But here in these photos from Abu Ghraib, you have every Islamic fundamentalist stereotype of? Western culture -- all nicely arranged in one hideous image-- imperial arrogance, sexual depravity ... and gender equality.

 

Now we don't know whether women were encouraged to partcipate. All we know is they didn't say no. Of the 7 US soldiers now charged with the abuse of prisoners in Abu Ghraib, 3 are women : Harman, England and Megan Ambuhl.

 

Maybe I shouldn't have been so shocked.

 

Certainly not about the existence of abuse. Reports of this and similar abuse have been leaking out of Guantanamo and immigrant detention centers in NYC for over a year We know, if we've been paying attention, that similar kinds of abuse, including sexual humiliation, are not unusal in our own vast US prison system.

 

We know too, 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. Sabrina and Lynndie are not congenitally evil people. They are working class women who wanted to go to college and knew the military as the quickest way in that direction. Once they got in, they wanted to fit in.

 

And I shouldn't be surprised either because I never believed that women are innately less aggressive than men. I have argued this repeatedly - once with the famously macho anthropologist Napoleon Chagnon. When he kept insisting that women are just too nice and incapable of combat, I answered him the best way I could: I asked him if he wanted to step outside...

 

I have supported full opportunity for women within the military, in part because -- with rising tuition-- it's one of the few options around for low-income young people.

 

I opposed the first Gulf War in 1991, but at the same time I was proud of our servicewomen and delighted that their presence irked their Saudi hosts.

 

Secretly, I hoped that the presence of women would eventually change the military, making it more respectful of other people and their cultures, more capable of genuine peace keeping.

 

That's what I thought, but I don't think that any more.

 

A lot of things died with those photos.

 

The last moral justification for the war with Iraq died with those photos. First the justification was the supposed weapons of mass destruction. Then it was the supposed links between Saddam and Osama bin Laden - those links were never found either. So the final justification was that we had removed an evil dictator who tortured his own people. As recently as April 30, George Bush exulted that the torture chambers of Iraq were no longer operating.

 

Well, it turns out they were just operating under different management. We didn't displace Saddam Hussein; we replaced him.

 

And when you throw in the similar abuses in Afghanistan and Guantanamo, in immigrant detention centers and US prisons, you see that we have created a spreading regime of torture - an empire of pain.

 

But there's another thing that died for me in the last couple of weeks - a certain kind of feminism or, perhaps I should say, a certain kind of feminist naivet?.

 

It was a kind of 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. Maybe this sort of feminism made more sense in the 1970s. Certainly it seemed to make sense when we learned about the rape camps in Bosnia in the early 90s. There was a lot of talk about women then - I remember because I was in the discussions - about rape as an instrument of war and even war as an extension of rape.

 

I didn't agree, but I didn't disagree very loudly either. There seemed to be at least some? reason to believe that male sexual sadism may somehow be deeply 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 na?ve feminism that was wrong. So was its strategy and vision for change. That strategy and vision for change rested on the assumption, implicit or stated outright, that women are morally superior to men. We had a lot of debates over whether it was biology or conditioning? that made women superior- or maybe the experience of being a woman in a sexist culture. But the assumption of superiority was 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.

 

Now I'm not the only one wrestling with that assumption today. Here's Mary Jo Melone, a columnist in the St. Petersburg Times, writing on May 7:

.

"I can't get this picture of [Pfc. Lynndie] England 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, but that we were morally superior to them."

 

Now the implication of this assumption was that all we had to do to make the world a better place - kinder, less violent, more just - was to assimilate into what had been, for so many centuries, the world of men. We would fight so that women could become the CEOs, the senators, the generals, the judges and opinion-makers - becasue 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 the most profound thing I have to say to you today, as a group of brilliant young women poised to enter the world? - is that it's just not true.

 

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, General Janis Karpinski.

 

The top US intelligence official in Iraq, who was also responsible for reviewing the status of detainees prior to their release, was a woman, Major Gen. Barbara Fast.

 

And the US official ultimately responsible for the managing the occupation of Iraq since last October was Condoleezza Rice.

 

What we have learned, once and for all, is that a uterus is not a substitute for a conscience; menstrual periods are not the foundation of morality.

 

This does not mean gender equality isn't worth fighting for for its own sake. It is. And I will keep fighting for it as long as I live.

 

Gender equality cannot, all alone, bring about a just and peaceful world.

 

What I have finally come to understand, sadly and irreversibly, is that the kind of feminism based on an assumption of moral superiority on the part of women is a lazy and self-indulgent form of feminism.

 

Self-indulgent because it assumes that a victory for a woman - whether a diploma, a promotion, a right to serve alongside men in the military - is ipso facto - by its very nature -- a victory for 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, for social justice and against imperialist and racist arrogance ... cannot, I am truly sorry to say, be folded into the struggle for gender equality.

 

Women do not change institutions simply just by assimilating into them. But - and this is the "but" on which all my hopes hinge - a CERTAIN KIND of woman can still do that-- and this is where you come in.

 

We need a kind of woman who can say NO, not just to the date rapist or overly persistent boyfriend, but to the military or corporate hierarchy within which she finds herself.

 

We need a kind of woman who doesn't want to be one of the boys when the boys are acting like sadists or fools.

 

And we need a kind of woman who isn't trying to assimilate, but to infiltrate - and subvert the institutions she goes into.

 

YOU can be those women. And as the brightest and best educated women of your generation, you better be.

 

First, because our nation is in such terrible trouble - hated worldwide, and not just by the fundamentalist fanatics. My version of patriotism is simple: When the powerful no longer act responsibly, then it is our responsibility to take the power away from them.

 

You have to become tough-minded activists for change because the entire feminist project is also in terrible trouble worldwide. That project, which is minimally about the achievement of equality with men, is threatened by fundamentalisms of all kinds - Christian as well as Islamic.

 

But we cannot successfully confront that threat without a moral vision that goes beyond gender equality. To cite an old - and far from na?ve -- 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.

 

I'm counting on you. I want YOU to be the face of American women that the world sees -- not those of Sabrina or Megan or? Lynndie or Condoleezza.

 

Don't let me down. Take your hard-won diplomas, your knowledge and your talents and go out there and RAISE HELL!

LINK

kinky....a girl can take me on a leash to the bedroom :thumbup

kinky....a girl can take me on a leash to the bedroom :thumbup

472123[/snapback]

 

:confused

I am not trying to start a political debate again on Iraq. I want the girls to read this and participate.

I wonder what the girls think of the feminist movement, today's women's place in society and our future as mothers, career women and leaders.

kinky....a girl can take me on a leash to the bedroom :thumbup

472123[/snapback]

 

It's revolting that you can read that entire speech and reduce it down to one offensive remark.

 

This was a great speech. I wish I had something intelligent to add to it. I do think women have it pretty good, as far as opportunities go. It disgusts me when we waste these opportunities by lowering ourselves the way these women did. But as this point, it's become so commonplace for women to work alongside men...it's not always going to be the best and brightest. Bad people are everywhere and I think it's unrealistic to think that men are always the "bad guys."

 

I hesitate to label myself with any political affiliation but of course, am a strong support of women's rights. I think most women nowadays don't know how to be feminists anyway. The "feminists" I have known have been nearly obsessed with men and what men think of them. It demeans the term to use it so superficially.

fishywishy fell into the trap

 

and, what the hell are you doin outside the kitchen!

fishywishy fell into the trap

 

and, what the hell are you doin outside the kitchen!

472350[/snapback]

 

She might be heading to the bedroom.

 

 

*ZING*

:lol gold

alright...continue with topic ladies

Stop being revolting, Furman.

Wow. Great speech. I am also a huge supporter for women's rights. There's nothing I love more than seeing a woman succeed and be independent.

what? What are women gonna do revolutionary? Find a way to cook a new casserole? Quit writing articles and get back in the kitchen!

(i had to...it's too much fun )

Thanks girls for your input.

 

Fishywishy,

 

I think you are right. Many self-declared feminists are obsessed with men and don't actually respect themselves. I don't think being a feminist signifies hating men or acting like them. I think feminism should be a celebration of our differences and highlighting the traits that women posess that make us unique.

 

I don't think equality means I should become one of the guys like Barbara points out in the speech, I think it means being given the same opportunities as men and using those opportunities to show how women can do thinks differently and better without forgetting who you are.

 

Even if you decide that you want to stay at home and be a full-time mom, you should know that your place in the world is supremely important. A mom's job is the most difficult and less rewarding some times. Your efforts go unappreciated most of the time. Many people take for granted the sacrifices a woman makes to ensure that her family's needs are taken care of.

 

To the guys, next time you feel the need to be a jerk and tell a woman to go cook a caserole, think if that is the way you want someone to treat your mother or sister... That is all.

Many people take for granted the sacrifices a woman makes to ensure that her family's needs are taken care of.

 

Exactly. I respect good single mothers so much.

 

I always say that men are actually the "weaker" sex. They don't go through labor pains while giving birth or go through menstruation every month. Us women are strong as hell.

I think that the main problem is that men take women for granted (mothers, girlfriends, wives) and in many cases we are guilty of spoiling them too.

 

I love my brother, but my mom spoiled him beyond belief. She would always do the shores for him, make his bed, wash his dishes, put away his clothes, etc. Of course this came back to haunt her, because as he got older, more disorganized and would not pick up after himself, she got tired of it. It was too late, he was already spoiled. It was good for me though, I would charge him for cleaning his closet. :mischief

Women take men for granted too.

473256[/snapback]

 

How?

They can't have babies on their own. They can't drive on their own. Need I go on?

 

 

They can't have babies on their own. They can't drive on their own. Need I go on?

 

 

473276[/snapback]

 

You wouldn't be here if it wasn't for the fact that a woman decided to give you life.

Women take men for granted too.

473256[/snapback]

 

How?

473269[/snapback]

 

Women automatically assume men know how to do "mechanical things" and use that to get favors.

473274[/snapback]

 

:lol Tonyi... You can be funny! That is a surprise.

Women take men for granted too.

473256[/snapback]

 

How?

473269[/snapback]

 

Women automatically assume men know how to do "mechanical things" and use that to get favors.

473274[/snapback]

 

:lol Tonyi... You can be funny! That is a surprise.

473282[/snapback]

 

Well its the truth. How many women bother to obtain the tools or knowledge needed to maintain the infrastructure supporting their everyday existance? Do you know what a circuit breaker is and how to reset one? How about replacing the guts of a leaking toilet, replace a faucet, put in a new water heater, or snake out clogged drain? Change the oil on your car? Do you even know where the oil filter or dip stick is on it?

 

None of these mundane maintenance tasks are anything a woman is incapable of doing. Anyone with modest physical strength and the ability to read instructions can do it. Indeed they'd save hundreds of dollars doing it themselves when a man isn't available to wheedle a freebie from.

 

Men are assumed to know these kind of things at birth through some sort of genetic imprinting or something - and be able to summon them up on demand while the woman ponders weighter issues - like paint/border colors.

 

The truth though is a lot of men aren't genetically imprinted at birth with this secret arcane mechanical knowledge. I once observed a fellow engineer in the parking lot at IBM pouring transmission fluid into his radiator. This guy could program a computer, but couldn't get a screwtop off a longneck without help.

473300[/snapback]

 

Ask the guys (the younger generation) here, how many of them know any of these mundane tasks.

 

I have never pretended to be the helpless woman, I own my own toolbox and know how to set up a computer, VCR and surround system. On the other hand, I have no clue how to replace the guts of a leaking toilet, replace a faucet, put in a new water heater, or snake out clogged drain. My husband has no clue either and that is why when any of these problems arise, we call the plumber.

 

To change the oil of the car, I have no clue either, neither does my husband. We bring our cars to Jiffy Lube.

 

Perhaps you come from a different generation used to do everything yourselves. My father-in-law is the same way. He prefers to fix everything in the house himself to save a buck or two, but it doesn't guarantee the thing won't break again.

 

My husband and I are practical people of the 21st century. We prefer to pay someone else to do these things for us. I like to put my money back into the economy and save my free time to do my nails and post on boards. :mischief

My husband and I are practical people of the 21st century. We prefer to pay someone else to do these things for us. I like to put my money back into the economy and save my free time to do my nails and post on boards.? :mischief

473364[/snapback]

 

I prefer to keep my money in my pocket.

 

ex. It usually takes under 15 minutes to replace the guts in a toilet and the parts cost about $6. The whole operation can be accomplished with a $3 dollar store wrench and a sponge.

 

Reducing one's "dependency" is a very liberating and satisfying feeling. You talk of empowerment - taking control over the mundane annoyances in life without having to be dependent on someone else's schedule is pretty damn empowering.

 

What you're doing is choosing to be a captive to the system. There's nothing liberating or empowering about it at all.

 

Do you really think the people you hire to do the mundane things care if its a truly quality job? No, they want to get paid quick and get out.

 

Take Jiffy Lube for example - next time you go there, watch if they prefill the new oil filter with oil before screwing it on. They probably won't because it takes an extra minute or so. BUT, not prefilling means your engine will have ZERO OIL PRESSURE for several seconds when its next started. Zero oil pressure means no lubrication. No lub means metal-to-metal contact. This wears the engine out quicker.

 

When you empower yourself to learn how to change oil, you're free to do the very best quality job possible.

473389[/snapback]

 

I prefer to use my free time for other things and then put my money into the economy by giving someone else a job.

 

Anyway, I don't want this to get off-topic.

 

What do the girls think of women in the military?

yah, every dude should know how to change a tire and change their oil before being able to drive. Hell, my mom had to know how before she could drive.

 

Girls in the military? If they can keep up, sure. But, that is one of the field where there shouldn't be women there for quota purposes. If the woman can (the age old example...) carry a man over his shoulder to safety like a man can, then sure.

 

Some may say that a woman doesn't have that killer instict. 1) not everyone in the military kills. 2) The military teaches a killer instinct in a sense, 3) many women do have that killer instict--I know quite a few women that hunt, and quite a few men that don't like killing animals...granted they're animals and not humans, but that's the closest one can get before becoming a DC sniper...

 

So, yah, if a woman can do it, then let her in. But dont let her in because it's politically incorrect to not have a certain % of women.

What do the girls think of women in the military?

 

I'll admit it. I don't have the guts to join the military. I admire them ladies in the military.

What do the girls think of women in the military?

 

I'll admit it. I don't have the guts to join the military. I admire them ladies in the military.

474249[/snapback]

 

At one point in my life I considered joining the military. I wanted to prove something I guess. I have always wanted to be different. It all started with a conversation I had with a male friend. He said that only ugly, fat and lesbian women join the military. I got pissed and to prove him wrong I went to sign up for training with the marines. He said I was crazy, that I'd ruin my body and my life. I said to him that even if he thought women were only good for the kitchen and for sex, many of them have sacrificed their lives for his lazy ass. I said to him, think of me next time you want to disrespect women who serve in the military. He was really ashamed after that.

 

BTW, I was too old to join then, so they didn't take me. Lucky me, otherwise I'd be badmouthing Bush in Iraq. :blink: