Steinem, Myers, and Crenshaw

Steinem’s article “Supremacy Crimes” strongly accuses white, middle class, heterosexual males for the bulk of the hate crimes that have been committed. After listing numerous violent slaughters, she points out that the perpetrators are not “youth,” “our children,” or “our teens” but rather our sons, or more specifically, our white, middle class, heterosexual sons. I never realized that privileged white males, those with the most advantages and least to resort to violence for, were the demographic disproportionately responsible for hate crimes, and find Steinem’s claim that they are “hooked on the drug of superiority” to be interesting and relevant to our class and the media pictures displaying male violence as acceptable and expected. Steinham describes the drug of superiority as “a drug pushed by a male-dominant culture that presents dominance as a natural right,” and I agree with her that if we are to reduce white, male violence we need to dissect the influences that feed the notion that masculinity excuses dominant violent behavior. It is shocking that notions of superiority would compel white, middle-class males to kill, especially when they have no stimulus for anger or feelings of injustice. Steinem points out that “ Others may kill to improve their own condition—in self-defense, or for money or drugs; to eliminate enemies; to declare turf in drive-by shootings; even for a jacket or a pair of sneakers—but white males addicted to supremacy kill even when it worsens their condition or ends in suicide.” Although there are many other incidences of hate crimes committed by people of color and women, the fact that those that are most advantaged in our society are the primary perpetrators signals that society is failing to recognize the extreme implications of patriarchy and the feelings of supremacy over others that it bestows.

Steven Lee Myers’ articles about women in the war were another reminder that there is no escaping sexual inequality. “Living and Fighting Alongside Men” was the more uplifting account of women’s integration into the military, describing how the bases now treat gynecological problems and distribute birth control and condoms, and examples of how women have coped to maintain their femininity. Still, he points to the fact that sexual harassment and sexual assault occur, and mostly go underreported for fear of the repercussions of making accusations. “A Peril in War Zones” gives a harsher account of the sexual harassment occurring in Iraq, and Captain White’s story emphasizes the pressure that women feel to “Drive on” and not report the abuse. The article reveals the Pentagon estimate that “as few of 10 percent of sexual assaults are reported, far lower than the percentage reported in the civilian world.” It also highlights the case of Sgt. Tracey R. Phillips who was discharged from the army after reporting an unwanted sexual advance. Considering the extreme pressures of war and the risks of reporting, it is not surprising that so many cases remain silent. In such a male dominated environment, based on power and violence, patriarchy seems to be at its finest, and although the number of reported cases is increasing, it is scary to think of the number of victims, similar to Captain White, that have had to suffer in silence.

Crenshaw’s essay reminds us once again that we cannot divide race and gender into two separate categories. By ignoring the intersection of racism and sexism, which is often done by feminist and antiracist practices, we are ignoring women of color. Crenshaw points out the intersectionality of gender and race as it applies to violence against women of color, and once again we are reminded of how society’s standards and institutions favor some and disregard the needs of others.