A closer look at the ‘misuses of feminism’ for advancing imperialistic agendas: A case study of Iraq.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Liberating third world, Muslim women from the clutches of oppressive Arab men has proven to be a popular and seductive justification for the military invasion of various Middle Eastern states throughout history. Individuals that support the ‘liberation’ of women of colour through military occupations argue that women in these ‘third world states’ are oppressed and require the assistance of a western military invasion to facilitate their liberation. This stems from viewing Arab women as mainly docile and passive individuals rather than active participants of their lives and destinies engaging in their own forms of resistance. Yet, a growing number of scholars and feminists are beginning to question the possibility of liberating women through the very forces that oppress them- namely imperialism and militarism. This paper- through a case study of Iraq- is similarly critical of the possibility of liberating women through a military invasion. It attempts to answer questions such as; how are women living in ‘post-liberated’ Iraq versus under Saddam, and what do their daily struggles look like, in its endeavour to paint a picture of the status of the various groups of women in Iraqi society pre and post 2003 invasion. The paper argues Iraqi women experience their society and the Baath regime differentially based on a combination of factors such as their social class, place of residence- urban or rural, political affiliation and so on. Thus rather than viewing Iraqi women as a homogenous group of oppressed women that require western military assistance for their liberation the paper encourages individuals to pay more attention to the grassroots. Only when the oppressed and exploited participate in the process of their liberation can the endeavor be successful.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".