I found this week's readings very interesting. Although Puar's argument got confusing at some points (dense is a better description), I enjoyed her argument about the State of Israel as well as Don't Ask Don't Tell in the US.

However, I was attempting in making connections between Puar's argument and the other two articles - I could see a connection Long's article but not a direct one with Enloe. I think the summary that one need to employ this week (a common denominator between the three articles) is still the lack of context when the West speaks of oppression in the East, as well as the West self positioning better/modern/liberal to justify their actions (Eg. US invasions, Israel's occupation).

I would like to raise some ideas here:

First, these articles shed light on how, over the course of history, the West or countries justify their acts with the notion "white man saving brown woman/queer from brown man." The never ending narrative that is sickening. However, the West through that narrative neglects to mention that they still have inequalities within its borders towards women and queers.

Second, in light of the argument above, it would be very interesting to apply Puar's method of homonationalism within feminism (the terminology would change). Nevertheless, women in the States do still face challenges and are not fully emancipated. There wouldn't still be feminists around fighting for gender equality if women were equal to men.

Third, I found the argument of where are the women quite interesting especially in how private female homosocial areas are not separate from the political world just as Enloe says "A feminized space is not the opposite of a political place" (p 296).

Overall, I enjoyed this week's reading especially in that they employed cases studies rather than just presenting theories (perhaps that was why I sort of understood what Puar was trying to say).