FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1569015263> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1569015263 endingPage "19" @default.
• W1569015263 startingPage "4" @default.
• W1569015263 abstract "Abstract The following discussion is based on an extensive survey of UK mainstream television news reports broadcast between September and December 2001 during the military attacks on Afghanistan, known as Operation Enduring Freedom. Also conducted was a survey of British radio and print media published and produced within the specified period. I argue that the 2001 news media coverage of Afghanistan was an important precursor to current debates about Muslim women in Europe and the United States since it highlights many of the contradictions and hypocrisies housed within western public discourses on women's rights. Detailing numerous examples, I contend that the prevalent theme of women's liberation on international news agendas did nothing to alter the prevailing norm of news media coverage, which denied Afghan women access to media spaces throughout Operation Enduring Freedom. Afghan women were invariably the subjects rather than the agents of such debates. Moreover, regardless of their gender, the vast majority of journalists reporting the 2001 conflict failed to recognise and confront the co-option of women's rights for the purpose of justifying military aggression on humanitarian grounds. I argue that this has grave implications, not merely for future reporting on Afghan women, but for the widespread practice by mainstream politicians and their associates of co-opting the discourse of women's rights to justify military conflict. Keywords: Afghan women; Operation Enduring Freedom; pseudo-feminist reporting ********** '[D]rag[ing] Afghanistan's brutalised men and invisible, downtrodden women out of the dark ages' (Jonathan Miller, Channel Four website, 2004). 'The brutal Taliban regime [...] makes its women non-people' (David Williams, the Daily Mail, 29 September 2001). Contested interpretations of the veil The concealment of female bodies under the burqua was a major focus of attention for British reporting on Afghan women during Operation Enduring Freedom, 2001. The British fixation with the veil has a long history extending to times of colonial expansion and periodically resurfacing in response to migration to the United Kingdom from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh during the twentieth century. This recurrent preoccupation again arose at the beginning of the so-called War on Terror. The enduring currency of the veil as a metonym for oppression has been the subject of many articles and commentaries by women from Asia and the Middle East advising that the garment be situated in its shifting historical, political and social contexts. Indeed, Nadia Wassef argues that the veil represents 'a gross essentialisation of a fabric worn by different women in different ways and in different settings to express different things' (2001: 118). Nevertheless, repeated vilification of the Afghan burqua during 2001 suggests how under-theorised this garment was in public debates throughout Britain and the United States. As recent news media coverage of the burqua shows, there is a clear need to complicate British popular understandings of the garment. On 1 October 2001, for example, the Mirror carried an article headed by a photograph of a burqua-clad woman with a caption reading: '[a] mother in traditional Islamic dress'. This depiction may be criticised on two fronts. Firstly, it peddles what Nirmal Puwar has called 'homogenised, static readings' of the garment (2002: 65) and, secondly, it implies that Islam is, in the words of Nadia Wassef, the ultimate 'explanatory force behind women's lives' (113). One means of combating 'homogenised' readings of the garment is to historicise the burqua's origins and to catalogue its changing significance at different historical junctures. The burqua made its first appearance in the Ottoman Empire, where it was used as a curtained sedan-chair by upper-class Christian women to denote status and as protection from thieves and dust. …" @default.
• W1569015263 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1569015263 creator A5003947741 @default.
• W1569015263 date "2007-02-01" @default.
• W1569015263 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W1569015263 title "Journalists in Feminist Clothing: Men and Women Reporting Afghan Women during Operation Enduring Freedom, 2001" @default.
• W1569015263 cites W1554141099 @default.
• W1569015263 cites W1987351853 @default.
• W1569015263 cites W2008325311 @default.
• W1569015263 cites W2016343710 @default.
• W1569015263 cites W2025977837 @default.
• W1569015263 cites W2084546686 @default.
• W1569015263 cites W2477956086 @default.
• W1569015263 cites W2484342097 @default.
• W1569015263 cites W2624910131 @default.
• W1569015263 cites W644035142 @default.
• W1569015263 hasPublicationYear "2007" @default.
• W1569015263 type Work @default.
• W1569015263 sameAs 1569015263 @default.
• W1569015263 citedByCount "2" @default.
• W1569015263 countsByYear W15690152632013 @default.
• W1569015263 countsByYear W15690152632020 @default.
• W1569015263 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1569015263 hasAuthorship W1569015263A5003947741 @default.
• W1569015263 hasConcept C107993555 @default.
• W1569015263 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W1569015263 hasConcept C169437150 @default.
• W1569015263 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W1569015263 hasConcept C193641492 @default.
• W1569015263 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W1569015263 hasConcept C2777617010 @default.
• W1569015263 hasConcept C2780587734 @default.
• W1569015263 hasConcept C29595303 @default.
• W1569015263 hasConceptScore W1569015263C107993555 @default.
• W1569015263 hasConceptScore W1569015263C144024400 @default.
• W1569015263 hasConceptScore W1569015263C169437150 @default.
• W1569015263 hasConceptScore W1569015263C17744445 @default.
• W1569015263 hasConceptScore W1569015263C193641492 @default.
• W1569015263 hasConceptScore W1569015263C199539241 @default.
• W1569015263 hasConceptScore W1569015263C2777617010 @default.
• W1569015263 hasConceptScore W1569015263C2780587734 @default.
• W1569015263 hasConceptScore W1569015263C29595303 @default.
• W1569015263 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W1569015263 hasLocation W15690152631 @default.
• W1569015263 hasOpenAccess W1569015263 @default.
• W1569015263 hasPrimaryLocation W15690152631 @default.
• W1569015263 hasRelatedWork W1190589392 @default.
• W1569015263 hasRelatedWork W141160144 @default.
• W1569015263 hasRelatedWork W1537372952 @default.
• W1569015263 hasRelatedWork W156081517 @default.
• W1569015263 hasRelatedWork W1821597413 @default.
• W1569015263 hasRelatedWork W196951277 @default.
• W1569015263 hasRelatedWork W1980366510 @default.
• W1569015263 hasRelatedWork W200502837 @default.
• W1569015263 hasRelatedWork W2009260021 @default.
• W1569015263 hasRelatedWork W2029740162 @default.
• W1569015263 hasRelatedWork W206408980 @default.
• W1569015263 hasRelatedWork W2085676656 @default.
• W1569015263 hasRelatedWork W2155714051 @default.
• W1569015263 hasRelatedWork W2476035897 @default.
• W1569015263 hasRelatedWork W269867748 @default.
• W1569015263 hasRelatedWork W2724799259 @default.
• W1569015263 hasRelatedWork W3021157928 @default.
• W1569015263 hasRelatedWork W5425537 @default.
• W1569015263 hasRelatedWork W582170723 @default.
• W1569015263 hasRelatedWork W1549373889 @default.
• W1569015263 hasVolume "8" @default.
• W1569015263 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1569015263 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1569015263 magId "1569015263" @default.
• W1569015263 workType "article" @default.