FEM1100 Final Review PDF

[FEM1100 Final Review ] [Reading list] ALL readings are posted under Final Exam Reading List and information in Brightspace [ Ayotte, Kevin J. Mary E. Husain (2005) Securing Afghan Women: Neocolonialism, Epistemic Violence, and the Rhetoric of the Veil.] The article by Ayotte and Husain, *\"Secu...

[FEM1100 Final Review ] [Reading list] ALL readings are posted under Final Exam Reading List and information in Brightspace [ Ayotte, Kevin J. Mary E. Husain (2005) Securing Afghan Women: Neocolonialism, Epistemic Violence, and the Rhetoric of the Veil.] The article by Ayotte and Husain, *\"Securing Afghan Women: Neocolonialism, Epistemic Violence, and the Rhetoric of the Veil\"* (2005), critically examines the discourse surrounding the plight of Afghan women in the context of U.S. intervention in Afghanistan following the events of 9/11. The authors argue that the rhetoric used to justify military intervention often employs neocolonial and orientalist frameworks, which perpetuate epistemic violence---a form of violence that undermines and distorts knowledge systems and voices of the oppressed. ### **Key Points of the Article:** 1. **The Rhetoric of the Veil**: a. The authors highlight how the veil became a potent symbol in Western media and political rhetoric, representing the oppression of Afghan women under the Taliban. b. This symbolic use of the veil served to frame Afghan women as victims needing liberation, a narrative that justified U.S. military action under the guise of promoting human rights and freedom. 2. **Neocolonial Narratives**: c. Ayotte and Husain critique the neocolonial undertones in this discourse, which situates the West as the savior and the East (specifically Afghanistan) as backward and in need of rescue. d. This framing disregards the agency of Afghan women and silences their voices, instead privileging Western perspectives and interventions. 3. **Epistemic Violence**: e. The authors discuss how the portrayal of Afghan women erases the complexities of their lived experiences and cultural contexts. f. Epistemic violence occurs when the dominant narrative imposes knowledge systems that invalidate or overwrite local and indigenous ways of knowing. 4. **Instrumentalization of Women's Rights**: g. The article argues that the U.S. used women's rights as a strategic tool to gain public support for the War on Terror. h. The plight of Afghan women was instrumentalized to construct a moral rationale for military intervention, while the structural factors contributing to their oppression (such as poverty, political instability, and external interference) were largely ignored. 5. **Critique of Western Feminism**: i. Ayotte and Husain critique certain strands of Western feminism that aligned with this interventionist rhetoric, often failing to question the imperialistic undertones of "saving" Afghan women. j. They call for a more intersectional and culturally sensitive approach that listens to the voices of Afghan women themselves. ### **Significance of the Article:** - The article contributes to discussions on postcolonialism, feminism, and international relations by challenging simplistic narratives that justify intervention through the language of liberation. - It underscores the need to recognize and resist forms of epistemic violence in global discourses, advocating for an approach that centers the voices and agency of marginalized communities. This work is a valuable critique of how gender and cultural symbols like the veil are weaponized in geopolitical contexts, ultimately questioning the ethical implications of such practices. [ hooks, bell (2004) Understanding Patriarchy.] bell hooks' essay *\"Understanding Patriarchy\"* (2004) provides a critical exploration of patriarchy as a systemic and cultural force that shapes relationships, institutions, and social structures. hooks challenges traditional understandings of patriarchy, exposing its pervasive impact on both women and men, and calling for a more inclusive feminist analysis that acknowledges how deeply patriarchy is ingrained in our lives. ### **Key Points of the Essay:** 1. **Defining Patriarchy**: a. hooks defines patriarchy as a social system rooted in male dominance and control, where male authority is upheld as the norm in familial, institutional, and societal contexts. b. She emphasizes that patriarchy is not only oppressive to women but also damages men by forcing them to conform to rigid gender roles. 2. **Patriarchy in Childhood**: c. hooks discusses how patriarchy is introduced and reinforced in early childhood through family dynamics and societal expectations. d. Boys are often taught to suppress emotions, value domination, and reject vulnerability, while girls are socialized to be submissive and nurturing. 3. **Emotional and Psychological Impact**: e. hooks highlights the emotional toll patriarchy takes on individuals, particularly by alienating men from their emotions and relationships. f. She notes that women, too, often internalize patriarchal values, perpetuating these norms within their own lives and families. 4. **Complicity and Resistance**: g. The essay critiques the complicity of both men and women in maintaining patriarchal structures, arguing that this system is upheld not only through overt oppression but also through cultural norms and internalized beliefs. h. hooks calls for collective resistance to patriarchy, urging individuals to critically examine their own roles in perpetuating it. 5. **The Role of Feminism**: i. hooks advocates for a feminist movement that addresses patriarchy as a central issue, engaging both men and women in the struggle for equality and liberation. j. She argues that understanding patriarchy is crucial for dismantling it, and that men must be active participants in this process. ### **Significance of the Essay:** 1. **Intersectional Understanding of Patriarchy**: a. hooks broadens the feminist critique of patriarchy by illustrating how it operates across multiple dimensions of life, affecting individuals regardless of gender. b. This inclusive approach strengthens feminist discourse by addressing the ways men, too, are harmed by patriarchal norms. 2. **Critique of Rigid Gender Roles**: c. The essay highlights the damaging effects of traditional gender roles, offering a framework for understanding how these roles are constructed and enforced. d. hooks challenges readers to envision new ways of being that reject domination and promote equality and emotional freedom. 3. **Relevance to Contemporary Feminism**: e. hooks' analysis remains deeply relevant to contemporary conversations about toxic masculinity, emotional labor, and systemic oppression. f. Her call for both men and women to engage in dismantling patriarchy underscores the importance of collective action in achieving societal change. 4. **Empowerment Through Awareness**: g. By exposing the roots and effects of patriarchy, hooks empowers readers to question their own beliefs and behaviors, fostering a sense of agency and responsibility. h. The essay encourages critical reflection and dialogue, making it a foundational text for understanding and addressing gender-based oppression. ### **Overall Impact:** *"Understanding Patriarchy"* is a seminal work that deepens the discourse on gender and power, providing tools for recognizing and resisting patriarchal systems. hooks' insights into the pervasive nature of patriarchy and its harmful effects make this essay an essential resource for feminist thought and activism. [ Johnson, Alan (1997). Patriarchy the System] Alan G. Johnson's essay *\"Patriarchy, the System\"* (1997) offers a clear and accessible framework for understanding patriarchy as a systemic and structural phenomenon rather than simply a collection of individual attitudes or behaviors. Johnson aims to demystify the concept of patriarchy, focusing on its role as a social system that shapes human relationships, institutions, and cultural norms. ### **Key Points of the Essay:** 1. **Defining Patriarchy as a System**: a. Johnson argues that patriarchy is best understood as a system of social organization where power, privilege, and authority are predominantly held by men. b. He emphasizes that patriarchy is not reducible to individual men's behavior or attitudes; instead, it is a societal structure sustained by norms, practices, and institutions. 2. **The Role of Individuals in the System**: c. Johnson explains that individuals, regardless of their personal beliefs, participate in patriarchy simply by living within it. d. People often perpetuate patriarchal values unconsciously, through adherence to cultural norms and social expectations. 3. **Key Features of Patriarchy**: e. **Male Dominance**: Men disproportionately hold positions of power and authority in political, economic, and social spheres. f. **Male Identification**: Traits and values associated with masculinity (e.g., strength, rationality) are prioritized and considered superior. g. **Male Centeredness**: Social narratives, media, and institutions revolve around men and their perspectives, marginalizing women's experiences. h. **Control and Violence**: Patriarchy relies on mechanisms of control, including coercion and violence, to maintain its structures. 4. **The Paradox of Participation**: i. Johnson highlights the paradox where individuals may simultaneously benefit from and be harmed by patriarchy. j. For instance, men may gain privilege but lose emotional intimacy, while women may comply with patriarchy to gain social acceptance while enduring oppression. 5. **Paths to Change**: k. Johnson argues that dismantling patriarchy requires a shift in focus from blaming individuals to addressing the systemic nature of the problem. l. He calls for collective action, education, and cultural transformation to create a society that values equality and inclusivity. ### **Significance of the Essay:** 1. **Clarifying Systemic Oppression**: a. Johnson's work is significant because it moves the conversation about patriarchy away from individual blame and toward a structural analysis. b. This shift helps readers understand that patriarchy persists not because of inherently \"bad\" people, but because of deeply entrenched social systems and norms. 2. **Inclusivity in Critique**: c. By emphasizing that patriarchy affects everyone, not just women, Johnson creates space for men to engage in feminist discourse and recognize their own roles in perpetuating or challenging the system. d. This inclusive approach fosters a more collaborative effort to dismantle patriarchal structures. 3. **Accessibility and Practicality**: e. The essay is written in a way that makes the complex idea of systemic oppression accessible to a wide audience, including those new to feminist theory. f. Johnson provides practical insights into how individuals can resist patriarchal norms in their everyday lives, making the essay not just theoretical but actionable. 4. **Interdisciplinary Relevance**: g. The essay's framework has applications across fields such as sociology, gender studies, and psychology, making it a foundational text for understanding systems of power and privilege. h. It invites readers to apply a systemic lens to other forms of oppression, such as racism and classism, showing how systems of inequality intersect and reinforce one another. 5. **Call for Cultural Transformation**: i. Johnson's analysis underscores the need for a cultural shift that challenges the values underpinning patriarchy, such as dominance and control, and replaces them with egalitarian and compassionate alternatives. j. His vision for change encourages collective responsibility, empowering individuals to challenge the status quo. ### **Overall Impact:** Johnson's *\"Patriarchy, the System\"* is a foundational text for understanding patriarchy as a systemic and pervasive force in society. By providing a clear and actionable framework, Johnson equips readers with the tools to recognize and challenge patriarchal structures, making his work a vital resource for anyone committed to social justice and equality. [King, Angela (2004). The Prisoner of Gender: Foucault and the Disciplining of the Female Body]. Angela King's essay *\"The Prisoner of Gender: Foucault and the Disciplining of the Female Body\"* (2004) explores the ways in which Michel Foucault's theories of power, discipline, and the body intersect with feminist understandings of gender. King builds on Foucault's insights to analyze how the female body is subjected to societal discipline, often through norms, practices, and institutions that reinforce traditional gender roles. ### **Key Points of the Essay:** 1. **Foucault's Theories of Power and Discipline**: a. King draws on Foucault's concept of *disciplinary power*, which operates not through overt force but through subtle, everyday practices that regulate individuals and make them conform to societal norms. b. She emphasizes Foucault's idea of the *docile body*---a body that is trained, shaped, and controlled to serve social and political purposes. 2. **Gendering the Docile Body**: c. King critiques Foucault's work for being largely gender-neutral and adapts his ideas to address the specific ways women's bodies are disciplined under patriarchy. d. She argues that women are disproportionately subjected to disciplinary practices aimed at producing a normative femininity, such as beauty standards, dieting, and fashion. 3. **The Female Body as a Site of Discipline**: e. King examines how societal expectations impose control over women's physical appearance and behavior, making the female body a site of continuous self-surveillance and regulation. f. Practices like makeup, fitness regimes, and cosmetic surgery are framed as forms of empowerment but often serve to reinforce patriarchal ideals. 4. **Intersection with Feminism**: g. King highlights the tension between feminist critiques of these disciplinary practices and the internalization of these norms by women themselves. h. She explores how women may simultaneously resist and comply with these norms, often viewing adherence as a form of agency or self-expression. 5. **The Prisoner of Gender**: i. The title of the essay reflects King's central argument: that gender acts as a prison, confining individuals---particularly women---within a set of expectations about how they should look, act, and exist in the world. j. The female body becomes a \"prisoner\" of societal constructions of femininity, subjected to continuous scrutiny and modification. ### **Significance of the Essay:** 1. **Extending Foucault's Work to Feminism**: a. King's essay is significant for bridging Foucauldian theory and feminist thought, offering a gendered critique of disciplinary power. b. By adapting Foucault's concepts, King sheds light on the unique ways in which women experience discipline and control in patriarchal societies. 2. **Critique of Beauty Standards**: c. The essay provides a powerful critique of the cultural industries that perpetuate unattainable beauty ideals, showing how these standards operate as tools of social control. d. King's analysis resonates with contemporary concerns about the effects of media, advertising, and social media on body image and self-esteem. 3. **Reframing Empowerment**: e. King challenges narratives that portray adherence to beauty norms as purely empowering, encouraging a deeper examination of how such choices are shaped by societal pressures. f. This reframing invites feminist scholars and activists to reconsider what true empowerment might look like in the context of bodily autonomy. 4. **Intersectionality and Body Politics**: g. While focusing on gender, King's framework also opens the door to discussions about how race, class, and other intersecting factors influence the disciplining of bodies. h. Her work has implications for understanding the experiences of marginalized groups whose bodies are policed in distinct ways. 5. **Call for Resistance**: i. The essay calls attention to the need for resistance against the disciplining of the female body, advocating for a feminist approach that challenges normative constructions of femininity. j. King's work inspires critical thinking about how individuals can disrupt these norms in their personal lives and in broader cultural contexts. ### **Overall Impact:** Angela King's *\"The Prisoner of Gender\"* is a compelling contribution to feminist theory, offering a nuanced application of Foucault's ideas to the gendered disciplining of bodies. By highlighting how societal norms confine women within rigid frameworks of femininity, King's essay provides a foundation for understanding and challenging the pervasive control mechanisms that shape gendered identities. [ Oertner, Sherry (2022). Patriarchy.] Sherry B. Ortner\'s 2022 article, \"Patriarchy,\" published in Feminist Anthropology, offers a concise yet comprehensive examination of patriarchy as a pervasive social system characterized by male-gendered power structures. Ortner emphasizes that patriarchy extends beyond mere sexism, permeating various facets of social life, from intimate settings like families and kin groups to larger institutions such as corporations and governments. **Key Points of the Article:** [Definition of Patriarchy:] Ortner defines patriarchy as a social formation where men predominantly hold power and authority, influencing political leadership, moral authority, social privilege, and control over property. [Structural Pervasiveness:] She highlights how patriarchal structures are deeply embedded across different arenas of social life, from small-scale contexts like families and kin groups to larger entities such as corporations and governments. [Intersection with Other Forms of Power:] Ortner discusses how patriarchy intersects with other systems of power, including capitalism and neoliberalism, reinforcing and being reinforced by these structures. [Cultural and Historical Variability:] She acknowledges that while the structure of patriarchy exhibits striking regularity across different societies, its manifestations can vary culturally and historically. **Significance of the Article:** [Reasserting the Concept of Patriarchy:] Ortner\'s article serves as a reaffirmation of the importance of understanding patriarchy as a systemic form of power, countering tendencies to downplay or overlook its significance in contemporary discourse. [Framework for Analysis:] By providing a clear definition and exploration of patriarchy, Ortner offers a valuable framework for analyzing gendered power relations in various social contexts, aiding both scholars and activists in their efforts to address gender inequality. [Intersectional Approach:] Her discussion of the intersections between patriarchy and other systems of power encourages a more nuanced and comprehensive approach to feminist analysis, recognizing the multifaceted nature of oppression. [Call to Action:] Ortner\'s work underscores the need for continued vigilance and activism against patriarchal structures, reminding readers that despite progress, patriarchal systems remain deeply entrenched and require sustained efforts to dismantle. In summary, Sherry B. Ortner\'s \"Patriarchy\" is a significant contribution to feminist anthropology, offering a succinct yet profound analysis of patriarchal systems and their enduring impact on society. Her work provides essential insights for understanding and challenging the complexities of gendered power relations in the contemporary world. WHAT WILL THE ESSAY QUESTION FOCUS ON? PATRIARCHY (MAIN IDEAS, COMPARE & CONTRAST ETC...) hooks, bell (2004). Understanding Patriarchy. Johnson, Alan (1997). Patriarchy the System Oertner, Sherry (2022). Patriarchy [The Prisoner of Gender: Foucault and the Disciplining of the Female Body] How ideas about gender and the body have been shaped by centuries of polarized thinking. These ideas are reinforced by powerful cultural categories like mind vs. body, culture vs. nature, and reason vs. emotion. King examines how these ideas have affected women's lives, subjecting the female body to scrutiny, control, and objectification. SHE DOES THIS BY CHALLENGING FOUCAULT She takes a closer look at Foucault's influential ideas on power and knowledge and how they intersect with feminist critiques of gendered identity. The idea of men and women as opposites is supported by polarized categories such as mind/body, culture/nature, spirit/matter that have been inflected with gender ideologies. In the mind/body dualism the body and mind are regarded as quite separate, the body is merely the crude container of the mind. Mind and reason are superior to the emotions and senses and divorced from one another. Man is mind and represents culture: the rational, unified, thinking subject; woman is body and represents nature: irrational, emotional and driven by instinct and physical need. Mind/culture/man must harness and control this potentially unruly body/nature/woman through the application of knowledge and willpower. [How does Johnson define \"patriarchy,\" who takes part in it, and why do they participate?] Johnson defines \"patriarchy\" as a social system(2Marks) )in which men hold primary power, dominating roles in political leadership, moral authority, social privilege, and control of property. not merely a collection of individuals (such as men) but a system that shapes society. Patriarchy operates as a structure of social relationships and ideas, and cannot be fully understood by focusing only on individual men and women. WE ARE The participants include men who benefit from this system, women who may conform to traditional gender roles, and societal institutions that perpetuate these norms. All people, regardless of gender, participate in patriarchy in different ways, often without realizing it. Privilege conferred by this system is not always felt or acknowledged by those who benefit from it. Johnson emphasizes the need for individuals to become aware of their participation in patriarchy and make conscious choices to resist it, as well as the importance of reforming social institutions to create a more equitable society. Patriarchy can persist without men being present because people of all genders internalize its values and norms WE participate because culture socialization, economic dependency, and cultural expectations, which reinforce patriarchal values and behaviors, often making it difficult to challenge the status quo. The concept of patriarchy: not merely a collection of individuals (such as men) but a system that shapes society. Patriarchy operates as a structure of social relationships and ideas, and cannot be fully understood by focusing only on individual men and women. Patriarchy can function without men having oppressive personalities or actively conspiring to maintain male privilege. It perpetuates itself because people, whether knowingly or unknowingly, often accept, internalize, and contribute to it as part of their everyday lives. This happens not because they are consciously oppressive, but because following societal norms and expectations Johnson argues that patriarchy operates on multiple levels, shaping our lives through social norms, institutions, and power dynamics. It dictates how we should behave as gendered beings and reinforces ideas of what is \"good\" and \"desirable,\" often privileging men, white people, cisgender individuals, and heterosexuals. This system teaches individuals how to act, rewards or punishes behavior, and creates hegemonic gender and sexual norms that become ingrained in daily life. Power is narrowly defined within patriarchy as dominance over others, which is seen as desirable but is ultimately harmful. [Where is the power?] This system teaches individuals how to act, rewards or punishes behavior, and creates hegemonic gender and sexual norms that become ingrained in daily life. Power is narrowly defined within patriarchy as dominance over others, which is seen as desirable but is ultimately harmful. HOW IS PATRIARCHY HARMFUL? According to bell hooks patriarchy is the single most life-threatening social disease assaulting the male body and spirit. [PATRIARCHY IS...] Patriarchy is a political-social system that insists that males are inherently dominating, superior to everything and everyone deemed weak, especially females, and endowed with the right to dominate and rule over the weak and to maintain that dominance through various forms of psychological terrorism and violence. [PATRIARCHAL THINKING: RELIGION] At church they had learned that God created man to rule the world and everything in it and that it was the work of women to help men perform these tasks, to obey, and to always assume a subordinate role in relation to a powerful man. They were taught that God was male. These teachings were reinforced in every institution they encountered\-- schools, courthouses, clubs, sports arenas, as well as churches. A "natural" way to organize life [PATRIARCHAL SCRIPTS] Although we were often confused, we knew one fact for certain: we could not be and act the way we wanted to, doing what we felt like. It was clear to us that our behavior had to follow a predetermined, gendered script. We both learned the word "patriarchy" in our adult life, when we learned that the script that had determined what we should be, the identities we should make, was based on patriarchal values and beliefs about gender. [The rules] To indoctrinate boys into the rules of patriarchy, we force them to feel pain and to deny their feelings. They all underscore the tyranny of patriarchal thinking, the power of patriarchal culture to hold us captive. "Psychological patriarchy" describes the patriarchal thinking common to females and males. Despite the contemporary visionary feminist thinking that makes clear that a patriarchal thinker need not be a male, most folks continue to see men as the problem of patriarchy. This is simply not the case. Women can be as wedded to patriarchal thinking and action as men. [Psychological Patriarchy: A Shared Mindset] Terrence Real uses the term "psychological patriarchy" to describe the internalized patriarchal beliefs shared by both men and women. Despite the common perception that patriarchy is a system created and perpetuated by men, women can---and often do---participate in enforcing it. For example, a mother might discourage her son from expressing sadness, telling him to "man up." A father might criticize his daughter for being too ambitious, warning her that men don't like women who are "too strong." These are not isolated actions; they are part of a broader cultural script that teaches us all to play our assigned roles. Terrence Real makes clear that the patriarchy damaging us all is embedded in our psyches: Psychological patriarchy is the dynamic between those qualities deemed "masculine" and "feminine" in which half of our human traits are exalted while the other half is devalued. Both men and women participate in this tortured value system. Psychological patriarchy is a "dance of contempt," a perverse form of connection that replaces true intimacy with complex, covert layers of dominance and submission, collusion and manipulation. It is the unacknowledged paradigm of relationships that has suffused Western civilization generation after generation, deforming both sexes, and destroying the passionate bond between them. [Patriarchy Hurts Men Too?] Patriarchy is often discussed in the context of its harm to women, it's crucial to recognize that it also deeply wounds men. It denies them the full range of human emotions, forcing them to suppress vulnerability, empathy, and connection. Men are often judged by their willingness to engage in violence, their ability to dominate, and their capacity to suppress feelings. The result is a system that isolates men from their emotions, their relationships, and their humanity. It's no wonder that so many men feel trapped by the very system that claims to elevate them. [COLLUSION] Feminist advocates collude in the pain of men wounded by patriarchy when they falsely represent men as always and only powerful, as always and only gaining privileges from their blind obedience to patriarchy Often feminist activists affirm this logic when we should be constantly naming these acts as expressions of perverted power relations, general lack of control of one's actions, emotional powerlessness, extreme irrationality, and in many cases, outright insanity. Passive male absorption of sexist ideology enables men to falsely interpret this disturbed behavior positively. As long as men are brainwashed to equate violent domination and abuse of women with privilege, they will have no understanding of the damage done to themselves or to others, and no motivation to change. *Patriarchy demands of men that they become and remain emotional cripples. Since it is a system that denies men full access to their freedom of will, it is difficult for any man of any class to rebel against patriarchy, to be disloyal to the patriarchal parent, be that parent female for male. Patriarchy as a system has denied males access to full emotional well-being, which is not the same as feeling rewarded, successful, or powerful because of one's capacity to assert control over others. To truly address male pain and male crisis we must as a nation be willing to expose the harsh reality that patriarchy has damaged men in the past and continues to damage them in the present. If patriarchy were truly rewarding to men, the violence and addiction in family life that is so all-pervasive would not exist. This violence was not created by feminism. IF patriarchy were rewarding, the overwhelming dissatisfaction most men feel in their work lives---a dissatisfaction extensively documented in the work of Studs Terkel and echoed in Faludi's treatise---would not exist.* At the same time, patriarchy never stands alone, and always exists in complex intersections with other forms of power [How does patriarchy intersect with other systems?] Patriarchy does not exist in isolation. It intersects with other oppressive systems such as racism, capitalism, and white supremacy to create a web of domination and control. [sherry Oertner: patriarchy] Patriarchy is more than just "sexism." It is a social formation of male-gendered power with a particular structure that can be found with striking regularity in many different arenas of social life, from small-scale contexts like the family, kin groups, and gangs, up through larger institutional contexts like the police, the military, organized religion, the state, and more.. [Sexism] Discrimination or prejudice based on sex or gender, typically targeting women and girls. The term emerged during the \"second-wave\" feminist movement of the 1960s to 1980s, inspired by the civil rights movement's term racism. Sexism reflects the belief that one sex is superior, creating social expectations about what men, boys, women, and girls should do. Initially, it aimed to raise awareness of the oppression of girls and women, but by the early 21st century, it came to include discrimination against any gender, including men, boys, intersex, and transgender people. [How does sexism show up?] In society, sexism typically targets women and girls, reinforcing male dominance, or patriarchy, through actions by individuals, groups, and institutions. This often takes the form of economic exploitation and social control. Sexist attitudes and behaviors promote stereotypes about gender roles linked to biological sex. A common example is socialization around traditional gender roles, which views men and women as opposites with distinct roles. Women are often seen as the \"weaker\" sex and less capable in logic or rational thinking, which confines them to domestic roles related to nurturing and emotions. As a result, women are seen as unfit for leadership in business, politics, and academia. Even though they may be valued as caretakers, these domestic roles are often devalued compared to men's work. [Sexism in society is typically directed against women and girls and works to uphold patriarchy, or male dominance:] -This system is reinforced through ideological and practical actions taken by individuals, groups, and institutions that oppress women and girls based on their sex or gender. -Such oppression often manifests as economic exploitation and social control. Sexist behaviors, conditions, and attitudes reinforce stereotypes about social roles (gender roles) that are linked to one's biological sex. *Misogyny, an extreme form of sexism, involves a strong dislike or prejudice against women. In societies where misogyny is common, women often face high levels of violence and mistreatment, such as domestic abuse, sexual assault, and being treated as objects. Women may be seen as inferior or as property, which leads to both personal and institutional discrimination. For example, a woman who is assaulted might be blamed by a judge or jury for how she was dressed, adding institutional harm to her personal trauma.* [Internalized misogyny] -While internalized misogyny is pretty much the antithesis of feminism, it is, unfortunately, an obstacle that most feminists have to grapple with, due to the inherently patriarchal structure of our world. -Women are socialized to believe that if we observe the rules of the patriarchy, its spaces will be kinder to us, or that we will be cared for. Internalized misogyny is the prejudiced behavior women project upon themselves and other women. This manifests in statements that claim, "I am not like other girls" due to the need to cater to the male gaze. Projecting these misogynistic claims is a result of a gnawing fear of being perceived as weak or incapable due to one's association with femininity. \- Internalized misogyny has a restricted view of femininity and womanhood where, in order to be independent, a woman must subvert all traditional notions of womanhood and challenge the existence of "the other girl." It deems womanhood as competition rather than collaboration, and overlooks the diversity and complexity in independent existence [In sum: ] Sexism targets women and girls to maintain male dominance (patriarchy) and is reinforced by individuals, groups, and institutions through both ideology and practice. It often results in economic exploitation and social control. Sexism reinforces gender stereotypes tied to biological sex, promoting traditional gender roles where men and women are seen as opposites. Women are labeled the \"weaker\" sex, viewed as less logical or rational, and confined to domestic roles focused on nurturing and emotions. These roles are undervalued compared to men\'s work, leaving women underrepresented in leadership positions across business, politics, and academia. [PATRIARCHY + intersectionality] "Patriarchy can never be fully disentangled from race, class, and other systems of domination and exploitation." Developed primarily by Black feminist scholars theorizing a framework that would better represent US class and racial realities, and the realities of the lives of Black women. The concept is most often associated with the work of legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw (1989), but it was also central to Black feminist anthropology from the outset. As Lynn Bolles, citing a range of earlier work, sums it up, "Black women in anthropology came to feminism not because of what they found there, but because of what they felt they could contribute to the analysis of gender inequality. Most often this meant paying greater attention to the interactiveness and simultaneity of race, class, and gender" (Bolles 2001, 34). [Intersectionality] -It is useful for certain purposes to focus tightly on the specifically gendered nature of patriarchy: -The dominance of men over women, the cultivation of sexism and misogyny, and so on. -In practice, however, patriarchy is fundamentally intersectional, in two senses. In the first sense, the intersectionality is submerged within the gender categories, as discussed in the second part of this article. -The categories of "men" and "women" are never purely biologically defined, but always already invested with other forms of social hierarchy. This is close to Crenshaw's original point, that intersectionality is (in part) a property of the person. [Patriarchy as a structure] Patriarchy is more than just "sexism." It is a social formation of male-gendered power with a particular structure that can be found with striking regularity in many different arenas of social life, from small-scale contexts like the family, kin groups, and gangs, up through larger institutional contexts like the police, the military, organized religion, sports, the state, and more. (Ortner:308) [Intersectionality of hatred?] §In the second sense, which is closer to its usage for many anthropologists, intersectionality is part of the social landscape. §While hatred of one particular category---women, gays, people of colour,etc.---may be foregrounded in the ideologies of particular organizations, in practice the various hatreds tend to be part of a single toxic intersectional brew. §People who are hostile to one category tend to be hostile to all the rest, which brings us back to right-wing extremism or, if you will, fascism. §Thus, for example, in her article on the rise of fascism in Brazil, Keisha-Khan Y. Perry quotes a feminist journalist describing right-wing President Bolsonaro as a "homophobic, misogynist, racist 'thing'" (2020, 158; see also Aciksöz and Korkman 2017 for Turkey). §Similarly, Sophie Bjork-James (2020) documents how the slippages between patriarchy and white supremacy are exploited in right-wing online recruiting tactics in the US (see also Ferber 1998). S.B Oertner (312) [What is epistemic violence?] Epistemic violence refers to the harm done to people or groups through the ways knowledge is created, represented, or ignored. It happens when certain voices or perspectives are silenced, distorted, or dismissed, often due to unequal power dynamics. This type of harm isn\'t physical but affects how people are seen, understood, and valued. How? Silence , Misrepresentations , Erasures, Impositions Epistemic violence reinforces inequality by denying people the chance to represent themselves or be understood on their own terms. Recognizing this involves questioning whose voices are heard and making space for marginalized perspectives to challenge dominant narratives. To erase the diverse and contextually specific experience of Afghan women regarding covering practices inflicts epistemic violence by devaluing them as subjects (Spivak 1999, 291; Mohanty 1991b, 71). U.S. representations of Afghan women only or primarily as objects victimized by (even the Taliban's) male agency ineluctably reduce knowledge of these women to their status as victims. This discursive elision of varied indigenous practices and the knowledge regarding their contextual values can only be described as a "violent" imposition on Afghan women's subjectivity. As demonstrated above, the subjectivity of Afghan women---and third-world women in general---is not exhausted by their victimization in patriarchal and misogynist contexts. Some discourses about the burqa, however, ironically parallel the violence of sati by performing a metaphorical burning of the subaltern subject in neocolonialist expressions of U.S. feminism. The violence wrought by the rhetoric of the veil is not, however, limited to epistemological registers. The struggles of the white, heterosexual, elite, western woman have gained currency as the only history of feminism setting itself up as a role model for the rest of the world. Any woman who does not fit this image is deemed oppressed and in need of saving, making her a white man's burden and the white feminists' cause célèbre. It is important to deconstruct the normative western feminist notions of gender and bring into focus Indigenous understandings of gender from the global South (and North) include it into the larger geo-political feminist epistemology. The infliction of violence against women's bodies, in the form of assault, rape, and murder, is clearly the most visible manifestation of misogyny. To the extent that physical brutality ultimately threatens the very existence of the subjects on which it is imposed, we might plausibly say that physical violence against women is the most significant concern out of the various types of violence discussed in this article. Yet the obviousness of physical violence should not lead us to think that violence against women is a theoretically or historically simplistic phenomenon. Women in Afghanistan were most certainly the victims of terrible physical violence at the hands of the Taliban. At the same time, we must take seriously the call from feminist international relations scholars to examine "the ways in which governments and the military use, and alter, prevailing discourses about gender to their own ends" (Whitworth 1994, 26). While U.S. expressions of concern for the well-being of Afghan women were indeed valuable for raising the profile of efforts to address the conditions for women in Afghanistan, we must turn a critical eye toward the appropriation of feminism to justify U.S. military intervention.