This study examines and illuminates how the lives of Korean prostitutes in the 1970s served as the invisible underpinnings to US-Korean military policies at the highest level.
![]() |
| |||||||||||||||
|
Sell Back Your Copy for $0.30
No matter where you bought them, get up to 70% back when you sell your books at Amazon.com.
Used Price$3.18
Trade-in Price$0.30
Price after
Trade-in$2.88 |
This study examines and illuminates how the lives of Korean prostitutes in the 1970s served as the invisible underpinnings to US-Korean military policies at the highest level.
In a carefully researched study of U.S. military prostitution in Korea, Moon validates Cynthia Enloe's claim that the personal is international. These moving stories tell how the lives of Korean prostitutes in the 1970s served as nearly invisible instruments of U.S.-Korean military policies at the highest level. Moon's innovative case study demonstrates how a Cold War alliance was maintained at the price of these women's personal insecurity and challenges us to reconsider the human costs of international security policies.
(J. Ann Tickner )Katherine H. S. Moon is assistant professor of political science at Wellesley College.
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images? |
Unfortunately, it's not a history book, but a sociological study. There, I would have to say is the book's weakness. The author's argument is that the women are not just "passive victims" but rather, "players" who played an indispensable role in US-ROK relations. She builds her argument by pointing out that typical state-to-state relations involving elites, government institutions, and "men in suits" fail to address how non-elite, lower-level "actors" play a role and how international policies not only impinge on their bodies but also how they express some "agency," or autonomy by the women themselves. This comes off as a somewhat exaggerated argument, tenuous at best, and only plausible in the ideal world of academia. It seems more like she is trying to set up a "straw person" argument that combines feminist theory, organizational theory, and sociological analysis. All fine and good for the acedmics, but I wasn't very convinced as a lay reader. What agency can you really give to women who are forced to prostitute their bodies? What power and resistance can one have by selling sex? To her credit, she does admit that their power is limited and that they are don't have much say. But still, the argumentis more to convince her advisory panel for her Ph.D dissertation than the general public. I think the power of her book remains the fact that she has given voice to an "invisible" segment of women who have been discriminated and neglected, and shown how the US-ROK military relationship very much involves them. I wouldn't use the word "player" because it connotes or implies more "agency" than they have, but again, this seems more to be a political academic thing that the author is trying to make that is irrelevent to the very major contribution she has made. I think that as long as you learn something from this book, which you will, it is definitely a must-read for those who wish to examine US-ROK relations.
|