Right now for work (well, not right now, but until 2 minutes ago), I am trying to compile a bibliography to help people read up on what the ostensibly knowledgeable people are saying about the terrorist threat within the United States. It is a shitty task, because I am a really excellent, capable legal intern, and my job wastes me (I have already asked my supervisor to ALSO do a bunch of long-term legal research projects - we'll see if that happens. My organization is really good at trying to find quick band-aids for the bullet wounds anytime one of our concerns get shot, but no ability to think about what legal issues we need to address now BEFORE they are lying bleeding on the floor. And let me tell you, if you are doing national security/counterterrorism law and human rights, all of your ideas will eventually be hit by snipers from Congress or the White House).
ANYWAY. So, I am poking around via google into the echo chamber that is habituated by Serious People with Serious Thoughts on such things. And I was looking at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy for any useful speeches. And as I scrolled down the page, I stopped looking at the titles of the speeches to see if they should be included in my bibliography, and started looking at the pictures. Wait, I'll let you do it. Go look here.
Notice anything?
Not only is there not a single woman, MAYBE ONE of these dudes is a person of color, by image or name. ONE. And I don't think the name "Juan Carlos Zarate" is Arabic or anything.
Not that I'm surprised, necessarily. It's just a sad reminder of how far we have to go (and how stupid our fucking terrorism policy is. I mean, really, you can be the an organization that solely produces "Near East" policy with no one from the Near East? For fuck's sake).
I encountered the same problem while doing my masters in international relations. We were 20% women (students), and probably 3-4 women professors out of 15ish. My male (American) professor told us that students pursuing IR studies are around 50-50 male/female ratio, and thus, it was very strange that we had 20%. It makes me wonder where those female IR students are going after they graduate if, they are not entering places of policy making? food for thought. In addition, (my male professor's theory), the problem has to do with the types of topics that female students are researching in IR. He thinks that female students tend to research human rights, migration, gender, etc (in other words, 'soft topics') while male students study war, security, terrorism. That would explain the all-male policy making at the highest level. Seeing the topics my female/male peers did in their dissertation, my professor has a point.
ReplyDeleteTrue, but also? It was super unfriendly to women in my intelligence law and counterterrorism law classes. Like, I would get mansplained to all the time about the law of war, even when I was right, even when those dudes had no idea what the fuck they were talking about, because as a female, what could I know about the law of war? War is a boys' game.
ReplyDeleteSo women are getting forced out, or leaving in disgust, I reckon, too.
That is also true. One of my classmates who was taking International Law told me that the male professor would never call on a girl (who would raise her hand all the time), but only the boys in the class. It was so obvious, she told me, that other male students felt uncomfortable because the marginalization was so clear.
ReplyDeleteI would hate to be in that type of environment which I could see why female students might be forced out. This is making me wonder what my female/male peers are doing now.
[Aside: I am super lucky, because my international law professor is a self-proclaimed feminist.] In a policy situation, where you are basically trading on people assuming you know what you are talking about, it's a huge deficit to be a woman (or of color, no doubt). Being female and very young-looking, the second I open my mouth, people have already dismissed what I am going to say, no matter how right I am. That's pretty much lethal to your policy career, right there.
ReplyDeleteI think policy positions are so populated by white men because of that. Because they can claim authority and Serious Person status merely by being themselves.