Index

to the unguided aerial bombing that damages every part of an area11 and has been frequently used by the United States since the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.12 Also, museum exhibitions entitled “The Weaving of War” in various parts of the United States, including New York and Miami, are part of the aestheticization of war carpets. Furthermore, most collectors of war carpets are part of the Canadian or American military or armed forces. In the exhibitions, the war rugs are exoticized and constructed as coming from a faraway land. As noted by Canadian cultural critique Susan Cahill, “Exhibiting the rugs as crafts from a distant land neglects the current realities of a Canadian military presence in Afghanistan, for example, as well as of Afghan diaspora in the Middle East and around the world” (2009, 231). In this context, the carpet as a material object becomes an image that itself conceals the materiality and spatiality of who makes it and under what circumstances—an image depicting fetishized weapons with magical powers, the power to rule the world. Indeed, military culture and mass culture are tightly woven together in a way that defines our historical moment.

Also, as some feminist scholars have argued, commodities have mediated between the private and the public in colonial modernity, and they continue to bring together “the empire of merchandise” in Barthes’s terms with “the empire of the home” in Anne McClintock’s terms. Under neoliberal governmentality, selling and buying have increasingly been extended to new media spaces, furthering the blurring of public and private while strengthening the aesthetic and sensorial attachment to the notions of them and us, primitive and civilized, violent and peaceful, and so on.

Beyond museums and collectors’ collections, war carpets are used as home decoration. Beatriz Colomina argues that: “This militarization of the house is consistent with Fuller’s idea of the house as a ‘shelter.’ She repeatedly refers to the etymological meaning of the word as that which covers or shields from exposure or danger; a lace of safety, refuge or retreat” (Colomina 2007, 73). Colomina refers to a 1942 article in Life, “Gardens for the U.S. at War,” that says: “War glares at you from the morning newspapers on your doorsteps. It crowds into the bus with you as you rush for the 8:15. It strikes at you from the grocer’s shelves. But there’s one place war can’t touch you—your garden” (Gate 1943, cited by Colomina 2007, 117).

If the house is a site of military defense, as it has been depicted in war literature in the United States, the Oriental carpet is a permanent reminder of gardens not touched by war. However, war carpets have changed this equation by making the home both a site of defense and a place of offense. In both cases, consumers are pushed into withdrawal and separation. While the labor in the war zone is trapped in the war zone or refugee

camps, the war carpet has become mobile, creating a sense of being at home yet removed from the war in the everyday zones of empire.

Feel-good Consumerism War, along with the free circulation of commodities, formally and informally opens up space for neoliberal policies including denying access to credit, neglecting infrastructure, abandoning technical training or any form of technological development, feminizing labor, and transferring commodities to the vulnerable spaces of war zones and refugee camps. Neoliberal governmentality also involves what I call feel-good consumerism. This form of consumerism has diminished if not concealed the violence of war and militarism in the areas where commodities can be produced far more cheaply than anywhere else without any profitable return for the small producers.

This feel-good consumerism includes both the citizens of a nationstate, making them feel included in the economic system, as well as those who are now being placed outside the liberal nation-state into the anonymous spaces of war zones, remote villages, refugee camps, and borderlands—beyond any form of labor regulation. A report on Tory Ferrey, a war-rug collector, states: “Ferrey and Lauer have sold much of Ferrey’s larger collection over the past two years to benefit various charities, including Afghan education. They’ve raised $38,000 so far, and Ferrey is down to about two hundred rugs, which she hopes to sell at two remaining charity auctions, one of them Saturday” (Bauer 2007). Selling war carpet through charity to promote Afghan education is an example of the paradoxical conjunction of neoliberal wars and humanitarian consumerism.

Also, the branding of commodities with an identification of being from a war zone, I argue, is radically different from other forms of branding. This kind of branding is made within the context of new and old forms of Orientalism, linking the discursive economy of Orientalism to material production under neoliberal governmentality. The identity attached to commodities that target those who “buy to help” makes the consumers not only feel better but also feel included in the empire, obscuring the blatant violence of war as well as geopolitical inequalities.

There are many theoretical issues involved in this process, including deregulation, privatization, pro-corporate policies, and militarism. The selective shrinking of states involving market-based transformations with no endpoint, as political theorists of neoliberalism argue, requires continuous variation in the mobile world of commodity circulation. As feminist

scholar Rey Chow observes, “Because of the often accidental nature of the encounter with objects—one can never be sure what may come one’s way, when and where—the nostalgia for owning the past that is embedded in collecting is, arguably, inseparable from a utopian sense of anticipation, of holding forward to a future that is not entirely known or knowable” (Chow 2012, 61).

The war carpet as an image is an integral part of neoliberal universalism, reinforcing the power of images as they produce a world of commodities desired, bought, and sold in the marketplace and cyberspace, no matter the local histories of violence and the trauma of war. War carpets are creating a narrative of war as anonymous and not affecting bodies; instead, their consumption results in a feel-good consumerism in the North for those who collect, exhibit, or buy these products to help women, rural people, and refugees, gluing the economy of Orientalism to branding technologies of war. War carpets link the net and the network of trade to the work of those without access to citizenship, attached to a nation-state in the war zone or refugee camps.

Keeping the suFFering at a distanCe As I showed in this chapter, representational practices have been crucial in the circulation of war carpets. The mediation of the internet, the cyber space along with museum exhibitions have mobilized distinctive meanings around the consumption of war carpets, enabling the investment of new value into the war rugs as commodities. The intervention of media technologies not only function as a supplement to a neoliberal capitalist order and its value system, but also produces additional value for the commodities in circulation. While the internet has become a crucial site of selling and buying what is produced in one part of the world and consumed in another part of the world, the museums’ exhibitions continue to play a crucial role in mediatization of commodities. In other words, war rugs are produced in the war zones through the feminized labor of women, children and refugees but aestheticized and consumed in the United States and Canada. In this context, the labor is emplaced with little or no capacity to cross the borders while the war carpets are made mobile crossing the threshold of the war zones and its boundaries.

War carpets turn the tragic moment of war into the pleasurable moment of consumption. The aestheticization and fetishization of war carpets reflect the memory of war along with feminized labor, its disavowal, and its ongoing daily life in the sites of production, in the fragments of empire, war

zones, refugee camps, remote villages, and so on. The aesthetics invested in collecting, exhibiting, selling, and buying the carpets are, in my view, rather anaesthetic, since they avoid the shock and trauma of war by domesticating its effects while internalizing them as guilt. Indeed, since the 1980s, war carpets have become a silent form of the cultural repression of war.

We can use Terry Eagleton’s suggestion that “aesthetics is born as a discourse of the body” (1990) to understand neoliberalism; it is important to understand the forms of politics that are influenced by aesthetic appeals. Indeed, neoliberalism and aestheticization reinforce each other since both involve a notion of “liberal choice” actualized in the consumerist regimes of commodity circulation. Neoliberalism creates space for the commercialization of war and militarism through further differentiation, categorization, and the marketing of difference on the one hand and the notions of individual and group tastes and choice on the other. As a result, war becomes a commodity of choice in a perverse collapse of agents of war with collectors of war carpets.

If recent wars have been kept at a distance, in Favret’s terms, then how can we explain the significance of everyday commodities and, in this particular context, “war carpets”? War carpets serve to overcome this sense of distance, bringing the war home by displaying a picturesque view of smartweapon technology either for exhibition or for decoration as disposable commodities. We can conclude that what Favret calls “getting the human eye out of the loop” (2010, 196) but, in my view, keeping it on the target is indeed central to the consumption of war carpets. Also, if collecting and owning war carpets is an effort to collect bits and pieces of the history of recent wars and occupations in the Middle East, then history here appears as a culture (not economy), meaning charitable humanitarian acts to preserve a techno-romantic image of militaria peacefully juxtaposed with the landscape. The networks of peaceful means of trade and humanitarian consumerism, as well as modes of knowledge production in the age of global media and new information technologies, have been crucial in the establishment and continuation of a neoliberal empire.

The techno-romantic surface of war carpets both conceal and reveal wartimes linking distant geopolitical locations where consuming the war in one location induce production in another. However, the contradictions caused by the fusion of violence of war and pleasures of consumption are pressing for an interrogation of proximity and distance in the feminist politics of benevolence along with other humanitarian forms of consumerism. Feel-good consumerism is not limited to war carpets, many nonprofit and for-profit organizations, both feminist and not feminist, in the Global

North use humanitarian consumption as a justification for helping subaltern women in other parts of the world. However, this rationale reinvests power in the subjects of consumption while suppressing an interrogation of either the consumers’ complicity in this process or the conditions under which certain commodities are produced.

notes 1. While masses of weavers in the Oriental carpet industry are women, I use the concept of feminized labor to refer to the labor of women, children, and sometime men that is done under highly exploitative and precarious conditions. According to Ariel Zetlin Cooke, in the refugee camps gender participation in carpet weaving has changed since men have become more involved in weaving war rugs (2005, 61). 2. Anne McClintock refers to “the militant geography of mercantile imperialism and its dreams of dominating not only a boundless imperium of commerce but also a boundless imperium of knowledge” (1995, 23). 3. Remember George Bush’s appeal to consumerism after 9/11 and the market exploitation of 9/11 to sell and buy patriotism and nationalism. 4. A number of sellers of war carpets challenge the notion of terrorist carpets.

In their view, the emergence of these carpets goes back to 1979 and the reaction of Afghan people to the occupation of Afghanistan by the Soviets (http://www.rugrag.com/post/Afghan-War-Rugs-3dCultural-Artifacts--

Terrorist-Rugs-3d-Ignorance.aspx). 5. See http://www.warrug.com/price.php for some examples. 6. The Afghan war rugs on exhibit at the Penn Museum from April 30 to July 31, 2011. 7. I believe the Foucauldian concept of governmentality as an ensemble of the practices of the governments, the technologies of power, and the subjects made governable, best grasp our neoliberal social context. 8. Buck-Morss refers to this concept to talk about “the simultaneity of overstimulation and numbness” and the “dialectical reversal, whereby aesthetics changes from a cognitive mode of being ‘in touch’ with reality to a way of blocking out reality” (2005, 302). 9. Foucault uses to the concept of biopower to explain how modern nationstates invest in some lives while disinvesting in others. Agamben uses the two concepts of the state of exception and the bare life to talk about those subjects that are denied both legal and political representation. 10. Jacques Rancière, Le Partage du sensible: Esthétique et politique. La

Fabrique, 2000. 11. The term carpet bombing is older than the occupation of Iraq and

Afghanistan. It was used during the World War II and the Vietnam War.

12. Marc W. Herod, in his “A Dossier on Civilian Victims of United States’

Aerial Bombing of Afghanistan,” documents the Afghan civilian casualties of these bombardments (http://www.uscrusade.com/vic/). The concept of carpet bombing has also been used in other contexts including Susan

Faludi’s reference to the carpet bombing of emancipated women in her 1991 book Backlash.

reFerenCes Apter, Emily. 2005. Dan Graham Inc. and the Fetish of Self-Property. In The Lure of the Object, ed. Stephen Melville, 15–37. Williamstown: Clark Art Institute. Bauer, Mary. 2007. Afghan Tribal ‘War Rug’ Collection Reveals Artistic Skill,

Violent Imagery. Pioneer Press, March 22. Retrieved from http://www. twincities.com/localnews/ci_5500968. Beckert, Sven. 2015. Empire of Cotton: A Global History. New York: Vintage

Books. Buck-Morss, Susan. 2005. Aesthetics and Anaesthetics. In Walter Benjamin:

Modernity, ed. Peter Osborne, 291–331. New York: Routledge. Cahill, Susan. 2009. Battleground: War Rugs from Afghanistan. The Journal of

Modern Craft 2: 229–232. Chow, Rey. 2012. Entanglements, or Transmedial Thinking About Capture.

Durham: Duke University Press. Colomina, Beatriz. 2007. Domesticity at War. Cambridge: MIT Press. Cooke, Zeitlin Ariel. 2005. Michgan and Merza Hozain, Hazara Weavers. In

Weaving of War. Fabrics of Memory, ed. Ariel Zeitlin Cooke and Marsha

MacDowell. Michigan: Michigan State University Museum. Eagleton, Terry. 1990. The Ideology of the Aesthetic. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Faludi, Susan. 1991. Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women.

New York: Crown Publishing. Favret, Mary A. 2010. War at a Distance. Romanticism and the Making of Modern

Wartime. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Freedgood, Elaine. 2006. The Ideas in Things. Chicago: The University of Chicago

Press. Lendon, Nigel. 2017. One Half of an Imaginary Conversation. Rugs of War. April 25. rugsofwar.wordpress.com. McClintock, Anne. 1995. Imperial Leather, Race, Gender and Sexuality in the

Colonial Contest. New York: Routledge. Moallem, Minoo. 2004. Violence of Protection. In Interventions, ed. Elizabeth

Castelli and Janet Jakobsen, 47–51. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Moallem, Minoo. 2018. Persian Carpets: The Nation as a Transnational

Commodity. New York/London: Routledge. Raghavan, Sudarsan, 2015. Afghanistan’s Famed War Carpets Are Getting a

Makeover—Once Again. The Washington Post. April 2. Retrieved from https:// www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/04/02/afghanistansfamed-war-carpets-are-getting-a-makeover-once-again/ Rancière, Jacques. 2000. Le Partage du sensible: Esthétique et politique. Paris: La

Fabrique. Spooner, Brian. 2011. Afghan Wars, Oriental Carpets, and Globalization

Expedition. Expedition 53: 11–20. Retrieved from https://repository.upenn. edu/anthro_papers/63 Tarde, Gabriel. 2001 [1890]. Les lois de l’imitation. Paris: Seuil.

Index1

A

Ableism, 116 Abortion, 9, 131–144, 168, 176 Absence, see Symbolic annihilation Activism, 2, 10–13, 20, 28, 30, 69, 86, 95, 97, 101–103, 113, 123, 135, 139, 143, 148, 149, 153, 155, 160, 162, 163, 170–174, 177, 195–213, 221, 222, 224, 226, 232, 245

See also Social change; Women, activism Advertising, 44, 74, 75, 240, 246 Aesthetic life, 262 Affect theory, 66–74, 77, 77n1 Affective turn, 7, 65–77 Afghanistan, 32n1, 258, 260 Ageism, 84 Agency, 4, 22, 67–70, 73, 75, 83, 84, 88, 122, 198, 204, 211, 212, 221, 244–246 Arab Gulf, 42, 48 Aristotle, 86

B

Benedict, Helen, 148, 149, 156n5 Binary constructions female/male, 120 mind/body divide, 4 public/private divide, 4, 186 reason/emotion divide, 4

See also Cisgender; Gender, politics of, gender roles; Heteronormativity

Body body image, 220 body politics, 69 headscarf, 176

See also Sexual empowerment; Social control of women’s bodies

1 Note: Page numbers followed by ‘n’ refer to notes.

© The Author(s) 2018 D. Harp et al. (eds.), Feminist Approaches to Media Theory and Research, Comparative Feminist Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90838-0 271

C

Canada, 40, 185, 258 Chile, 133–135, 138, 139, 144n1, 185 Cisgender, 95, 98, 103n1 Class, 3, 7, 22, 23, 25, 26, 42–43, 65, 76, 85, 88, 99, 104n5, 112, 120, 138, 139, 144n4, 149, 151, 153, 155, 160, 168, 228–230 Classism, 84, 99, 103, 222 Commodity, 257–259 Communication inquiry, 24 Computer-mediated communication, 198, 202, 211 Consciousness, 132, 148, 150, 171, 201, 220 Consumer culture, 69, 70 Consumerism, 259 Critical/cultural studies, 66, 67 Cultural imperialism, 198 Culture and cultural norms, 6, 41, 42 and cultural taboos, 38, 42, 44, 48, 49 Cyberfeminism, 159, 160 Cyberspace, 258

D

Deleuze, Gilles, 67, 69, 71, 72, 74, 160 Double binds, 119, 186 Dualism, see Binary constructions

E

Emotional labor, 69, 71, 74–76 Empowerment, 11, 42, 43, 48, 84, 85, 122, 162, 171, 198, 201, 202, 205, 210, 212

See also Sexual empowerment Erdogan, Recep Tayyip, 167, 168, 172, 173, 175, 177 Eudaimonia, 86, 87 Exceptionalism, 9, 148, 153, 155

F

Facebook, 132, 138–140, 144n1, 154, 197, 198, 200, 201, 208 Federal Communication

Commission, 26 Femininity, 5, 7, 55, 57, 58, 61, 62n4, 98, 114, 119, 120, 122, 135

See also Masculinity Feminism black feminism, 3, 160, 163, 206 cyberfeminism, 159, 160 liberal feminism, 124 radical feminism, 96, 124

See also Women, activism; Women, movement Feminist scholarship feminist critique, 226 feminist ethics, 88 feminist media studies, 2, 3, 8, 12–14, 65, 71, 84, 113, 122, 123 feminist pedagogy, 220 feminist theory building, 7, 25–27, 31, 32 First World, 85, 86

See also Global South; Western hemisphere Friedan, Betty, 1, 249, 250

G

Gender, politics of gender gaps (inequalities), 226, 230 gender ideology, 5–7, 24, 114, 169 gender issues, 86, 113, 125, 190, 224, 230 gender justice, 22, 123, 151, 175, 176

gender relations, 20, 26, 258 gender roles, 1, 121, 151, 155n2, 173 Global media monitoring project, 6, 27, 40, 224 Global South, 3, 8, 25, 148–155

See also First world Globalization, 24, 25, 27, 40, 41, 45, 151, 250

H

Hashtag, 11, 132, 139, 140, 150, 154, 162, 197–213 Heteronormativity, 9, 61, 95, 97, 98 Homogenization, 37 Homophobia, 84, 99, 115, 161, 220

See also Heteronormativity

I

Identity, 3, 4, 7–10, 17, 25, 28, 55, 58, 62n3, 68, 74, 84–86, 94–100, 103n1, 109, 114–116, 118, 120–122, 136, 142, 144n4, 151, 159–162, 164, 175, 187, 204, 220 Ideology, 5–7, 14, 22, 24, 54, 68, 72, 114, 119, 122, 169, 188, 189, 203 India, 9, 148–152, 155n1, 156n6, 207–209 Information and communication technologies, 266 Intersectionality, 2–4, 7–10, 12, 13, 24–26, 75, 85, 99, 109, 115, 160, 161, 163, 175, 184, 185, 187–190, 205–207 Intervention, 11, 13, 120, 162–164, 175, 210, 219–233 Intimate publics, 198, 200, 201, 203, 207, 208, 210–213 Islam, 10, 43, 45, 169, 175–177

K

Knowledge production, 8, 101–102, 222

L

Latin America, 134, 136, 138, 139 LGBTQ, 187

M

Machismo and macho behavior, 136 Majlis, 44, 46, 47, 49 Male domination, 198, 203

See also Patriarchy Male gaze, 6, 53–62 Marginalization, 1, 27, 86, 113, 118, 184, 188, 223, 226 Masculinity, 7, 55, 62n4, 114, 117–120, 122, 135, 151, 152, 190 Material conditions, 86, 124 Media digital media, 8, 9, 12, 69, 140, 148, 154, 155, 159–164, 188, 202, 204, 205 entertainment media, 39, 46 media audiences, 75, 84, 137, 138, 199, 240 media discourses, 2, 4, 9, 114, 115, 122, 148, 151, 155, 183–185, 188, 198 media forms, 5, 207 media practices, 4, 39 media production, 84, 88 news media, 9 (see also News coverage) visual media, 6, 38, 44, 45

See also Media industry; Media monitoring Media industry broadcasting, 6, 26, 42, 44, 45, 53–62, 138, 248, 252n2

Media industry (cont.) internet, 69, 70, 135, 137, 138, 140, 161, 197–199, 201, 205, 209, 223, 226, 228, 258 media industry critique, 7, 8, 70, 88, 99, 101, 115, 154, 188, 200 media treatment of women, 185 newspapers, 38, 40, 42–44, 46, 57, 137, 138, 142, 209, 211, 239, 240, 245–247, 251 social media, 2, 9, 11, 69, 98, 100, 122, 150, 153, 154, 163, 188, 189, 197–202, 204, 206–209, 223, 225 sports media, 111–125 television, 6, 24, 38, 40, 42, 44–46, 53–62, 68, 83, 93, 111, 168, 211, 239, 240, 245, 247, 248 Media monitoring, 27 Media Report to Women, 245 Media representation, see

Representation Meme, 139–141, 162, 197 Middle East, 37–49, 258, 260 Militarism, 258, 259 Minorities, 5, 13, 46, 62, 95, 156n4, 160, 167, 185, 205, 232, 243 Misogyny, 177, 184, 220

See also Sexism Mulvey, Laura, 6, 54–56, 62n4 Muslims, see Islam

N

Neoliberalism, 26, 69, 70, 122, 168 News coverage, 9, 39, 98, 142, 148–150, 155, 188 Normalization, 3, 62, 115, 155n2, 175, 198

O

Oman, 45 Oppression, 3, 22, 24–26, 28, 29, 65, 86, 94, 96, 97, 99, 112, 114–116, 160–162, 172, 175, 176, 198, 203, 204, 206, 209, 210, 212, 213, 219, 223

See also Marginalization; Powerlessness; Victimization Orientalism, 264, 265

See also Eastern hemisphere Otherness, 116

P

Patriarchy, 4, 6, 7, 10, 14, 17, 24–26, 40, 42, 45, 54, 60, 96, 109, 114, 120, 122, 135, 151, 159, 161, 169, 172, 175, 177, 186, 188–190, 195, 207, 225 Political economy, 22, 26, 206 Political resistance, 11, 198 Politics, 2, 10, 14, 39, 66, 68–70, 72–74, 86, 95, 96, 100, 103, 111, 159, 161, 169, 171, 172, 174, 178, 183–187, 189, 190, 225, 239, 258 Politics of relation, 161 Pornography, 6, 85 Postcolonialism, 3, 25, 116, 175, 205, 258 Power, 1, 84 girl power, 111, 112, 124 patriarchal power (see Patriarchy) power relations, 24, 38, 75, 88, 109, 114, 202

See also Oppression; Subordination Powerlessness, 38, 83, 88, 136, 203 Public scholarship, 219, 225

Public sphere, 5, 9–11, 25, 30, 68, 109, 132–134, 136, 137, 139, 141–143, 162, 184, 188, 189, 200, 204, 241 and public life, 43, 141

See also Binary constructions, public/private divide

Q

Qatar, 6, 37, 38, 41–49 Queerness, 55, 61 Queer theory, 67, 69, 73, 76, 95, 115

R

Race, 3, 6, 7, 22–26, 65, 68, 72, 75, 85, 86, 88, 98, 99, 103n2, 104n5, 112, 115, 116, 119, 136, 149, 153, 159–164, 205, 206, 220, 232, 248 Racism, 84, 86, 99, 103, 115, 161, 162, 178, 207, 220, 222 Rape myths, 9, 148, 151 Representation media representations, 40, 84–86, 100, 113, 114, 116, 258 pictorial representation, 39 politics of representation, 84 self-representation, 83, 98 sexual representation, 8, 84, 85, 87, 88 underrepresentation, 183

See also Symbolic annihilation Roosevelt, Eleanor, 244, 253n6

S

Saudi Arabia, 45, 46 Sense-making, 131–144 Sex, 7, 23, 25, 58–61, 69, 83, 85, 88, 94, 103n1, 115, 120, 144n4, 176, 220 Sexism, 4, 84, 99, 103, 115, 120, 149, 177, 178, 185, 220, 224

See also Misogyny Sexual empowerment, 84, 171 Sexuality, 3, 22–24, 26, 58–61, 69, 83–88, 94–96, 99, 103n2, 104n5, 112, 119, 121, 133, 172, 176, 222, 225 Sexualization, 2, 7, 84, 85, 87, 88, 113 Sexual orientation, 85, 86, 96 Slacktivism, 197–213 SlutWalks, 225 Social change, 11, 22, 28, 113, 154, 162, 202, 211

See also Activism Social control of women’s bodies, 135 Socialization, 49, 136, 226

See also Social norms Social norms, 39

See also Culture, and cultural norms; Socialization South Africa, 9, 148, 149, 152, 154, 155, 155n1, 155n3 South America, 131–144 Status, 3, 4, 6, 11, 13, 20, 29, 43, 45, 61, 83, 96, 103n1, 109, 117, 118, 135, 136, 150–152, 201, 205, 222, 223, 232, 238, 239, 244, 250, 253n7 Stereotypes, 40, 46, 62, 70, 116, 132, 138, 187, 203, 206, 226 Subordination, 3, 17, 29, 60, 61, 203, 213 Symbolic annihilation, 5, 6, 21, 37–49

T

Third world, see Global South Transgender, 8, 62n1, 93–103, 187, 205, 224 Transnationality, 10, 12, 68, 116, 154, 167–179, 225, 258, 259, 262

Tuchman, Gaye, 5, 20, 38–40, 47, 48, 114 Turkey, 10, 168–178, 178n2, 199, 200

U

United States (U.S.), 11, 20, 26, 29, 32n1, 32n2, 38, 40, 41, 55, 61, 95, 96, 104n7, 112, 116, 132, 140, 148, 149, 153, 163, 167–172, 174–176, 178, 187–189, 210, 221–233, 238–240, 242, 244, 245, 252n3, 258

V

Victimization, 38, 85, 203 Violence domestic abuse, 28, 31 sexual abuse, 83, 85, 88 sexual harassment, 117, 132, 154, 208 symbolic violence, 135–137 violence against women, 9, 31, 84, 132, 135, 137–139, 141, 143, 171, 188, 209 violence of poverty, 85

See also Male domination; Oppression; Victimization Voice, 2, 4, 9, 11, 13, 20, 23, 30, 58, 96, 103, 104n7, 118, 141, 151, 154, 155, 171, 175, 177, 188, 189, 198–200, 202, 203, 205–207, 209, 211–213, 225, 241, 248, 252

See also Women, voice

W

War and conflict, 31 War carpet, 12, 257–267 Warfare, 259 Western eyes, see Orientalism Wikipedia, 138, 226, 227, 229 Women, 1, 19, 38, 54, 70, 84, 95, 109, 111, 132, 149, 160, 167–178, 184, 198, 220, 237–252 activism, 10 biography, 241, 242 labor, 123 marches, 132 in media, 11, 49, 71, 206, 238–241, 243, 245, 246, 252 movement, 20, 113, 221 rights, 19, 46, 143, 150, 151, 195, 208 voices, 2, 20, 23, 32, 118, 121 Women’s Media Center, 240, 252n2