Boots on the Ground: The Objectification of Female Soldiers
“Would that be considered boobs on the ground or no?” This was a comment from FOX news correspondent Eric Bolling following a report on a female pilot from the United Arab Emirates, who led an airstrike against ISIS in Syria. The comment has garnered much media attention, the FOX clip has gone viral, as has Jon Stewart’s reaction to the statement on his show. Although Stewart’s reaction focused on Bolling’s hypocrisy and false patriotism, his analysis overlooked the sexism, racism, and colonial prejudice layered in Bolling’s comment.
The women in question is Mariam al-Mansouri, the first female fighter pilot from the United Arab Emirates. The UAE was participating in airstrikes against ISIS in Syria led by the U.S. military. Al-Mansouri, clad in a hijab and thanking g-d for her success in the military (al-Mansouri), defies the notion of “U.S. troops deployed to ‘liberate’ Muslim women,”(Kirk 40). The image of a powerful muslim women flying a fighter jet was especially alarming to the FOX news hosts, one of whom claimed, “I hope that hurt extra bad from you, because in some Arab countries, women can’t even drive.” Prompting another host to remark, “Problem is, after she bombed it, she couldn’t park it,” (Bever). These comments reveal the depth of ignorance and prejudice present in the minds of many Americans, not only towards women, but towards Middle Eastern people and culture.
In her essay, Saving Iranian Women, Roksana Bahramitash discusses Orientalist Feminism and post-colonial views of the Middle East. She identifies a binary between East and West in which the West “is the best place for women” and the Middle East stands “in direct contrast and provides the worst conditions for women,” (Bahramitash 105). This binary overlooks the cultural differences between different Middle Eastern nations, lumping them altogether as “uncivilized” and “oppressive.” This is an especially important distinction to make in terms of the ISIS airstrikes considering that ISIS was formed in Iraq and active in Syria, two Middle Eastern countries, and yet the UAE, among other Middle Eastern nations, is committed to joining the United States’ coalition. This distinction and the contribution of Eastern countries to Western causes are often overlooked because they challenge the East/West binary that the US’ foreign policy depends upon.
And the American foreign policy does depend upon this binary. Many acts of foreign intervention are enacted in the name of liberating the women of the East. In fact much of US involvement in the region has been justified using the idea of “white men saving brown women from brown men,” (Bahramitash 103). This view “provides support for militarized foreign policy,” (Bahramitash 107). This justification carries colonial undertones. Bahramitash points out that “The ideas of implementing democracy and defending women’s rights as human rights are the modern-day equivalent of the “civilizing” missions of the European empires during the colonial era,” (Bahramitash 102). When considering the way that al-Mansouri fits into this scheme, we must look at the way she challenges the notion of Muslim Middle Eastern women as helpless and oppressed. “Because Oriental feminism regards oriental women only as victims and not as agents of social transformation, it is blind to the ways women in the East resist and empower themselves,” (Bahramitash 106). Major Mariam al-Mansouri is a pioneer, the first Emirati female fighter pilot. She is an agent of war against ISIS. She is more than the submissive stereotype that these news correspondents expect her to be.
Although much of the focus has been on Bolling’s comment, we can see evidence of prejudiced ideology throughout the entire segment. The clip opens with FOX corespondent Kimberly Guilfoyle repeatedly mentioning that the bomber is a women, taunting, “Hey ISIS, you were bombed by a woman.” This statement, while it may seem to some to be a celebration of a strong woman warrior, comes across more like a grown-up version of the playground taunt: “You were beaten by a girl.” Implied in this statement is that it is more humiliating to be beaten -or bombed- by a woman than a man as a result of their perceived roles in society. While its not surprising to see this type of internalized sexism in a FOX news correspondent, a network that is not particularly known for their support of feminism, it is troubling because this concept of shame associated with being beaten by a woman is a reflection of a larger pattern of thinking that infiltrates all aspects of a society built around a patriarchy.
Reaction to Bolling’s comments have been coming from all sides. A few days ago, a group of veterans penned “An open letter to FOX news,” which covers a brief history of women in the military, particularly during times of crisis. They point out that in 1944 it was “on the record that women can fly as well as men.” Clearly, Bolling’s comment was outdated. Women have been active participants of the war effort for as long as men, although they have not always been allowed the same roles and responsibilities, such as serving in combat. In the U.S., women in the military are still fighting for equality, and comments such as Bolling’s and his co-hosts actively perpetuate a mindset that goes against all that feminists in the military are working towards. It is disheartening to see. The letter also points out that Bolling’s comment was harmful in more ways than one. “By offending an ally and cheapening her contribution, you are actively hurting the mission. We need to send a clear message that anyone, male or female, who will stand up to ISIS and get the job done is worthy of our respect and gratitude,” (Men and Women of the Truman Project).
But the extent of Bolling’s sexist ideology doesn’t stop there. Even in his apology, which aired the next day, he is somehow unable to come to the realization that his comments were inappropriate on his own, claiming that it was a “look from his wife” that prompted the apology (Taibi). Whether this was an attempt to play off his remark as a casual case of misogyny or whether he actually didn’t realize the inappropriateness of his comment in the moment, this strained apology is actually quite alarming. For Eric Bolling, it took his wife taking offense for him to realize the sexism behind his comment. And she filled the role of the nagging wife as he half-apologized and rolled his eyes at the ridiculousness of it all. Wasn’t it clear that he was joking? Come on, everyone knew what he really meant. Didn’t they?
Returning to Bolling’s initial comment, there are multiple layers of ways to understand what he said and why he said it. I find it interesting that he focused on her breasts and that despite being a powerful, successful, and brave soldier, the most he could say about her was a sexually objectifying comment regarding her body. Although it was meant as a joke, the comment reinforces the lack of equality among male and female soldiers and that despite rank, task, or skill, women are often seen as females first. Regardless of their accomplishments, women soldiers will still be seen as an object, a body, or a pair of breasts.
