MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2517555049 · doi:10.1080/14616742.2016.1209869

“Maniacal slaves:” normative misogyny and female resistors of the Mojahedin-e Khalq Iran

2016· article· en· W2517555049 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Sara Hassani

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Feminist Journal of Politics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTerrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsResistance (ecology)NormativePoliticsSociologyGender studiesRhetoricFemininityGentryCognitive reframingLawSocial psychologyPsychologyPolitical scienceTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Feminist scholars the world over are increasingly aware of the importance of analyzing popular discourse, especially regarding women’s involvement in proscribed violence. Yet few have looked at Middle Eastern organizations, and fewer still at the Mojahedin-e Khalq Iran (MEK), a longstanding resistance group whose all-female leadership and sizeable female membership present a compelling challenge to prevailing gender norms. How do popular media portray female MEK resistors and what might these representations signify for our gendered conceptions of violence? In examining the MEK’s female leadership, this article undertakes a close reading of western and Iranian news coverage in an attempt to analyze the degree to which these women are painted as willful political agents or, as is often assumed, irrational actors incapable of autonomous political participation. Following Sjoberg and Gentry, I develop four cognitive frames to describe female resistors, while also challenging the media’s victimizing and sexualizing gaze. I thus problematize these women’s portrayals as “maniacal slaves,” and explain how such gendered rhetoric operates to preclude the notion that members of the MEK might practice legitimate political resistance worthy of analysis or understanding.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.396
Threshold uncertainty score0.372

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.299 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Feminist Journal of PoliticsSame topicTerrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political ViolenceFrench-language works237,207