Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Inuit women

I found this article to be very moving. It talked about the different elements this one group of Inuit women have to deal with on a daily basis. It also brings in a different type of oppression that I had never thought about before, the fight for environmental justice. The author talks about how these women have been digesting toxins that were in their foods. The most horrific part about this is that majority of the toxin are coming from the emissions from the United States. I always thought about the clarity of our air, in regards to our earth, environment, and surrounding communities. I never thought about my driving emissions affecting the reproductive rights of another woman. Maybe I have just been naive, and I feel as though this maybe that was intent of this class, to get us to think critically about our words, actions, and perceptions, and how they are very narrow-minded to the perspectives to those women around the world. We really need to more knowledgeable to women's suffering on a more global level. I thought it was very interesting when I asked people in class if they would give up their food, which is apart of their cultural identity, to life a "non-toxic" life. It was interesting to see how people laughed at the situation, and then proceeded to say that it was a "no-brainer." I thought that this whole mentality was what Americans so often get accused of, not being able to see the broader picture. It might be simple for African American women per say to stop eating churches chicken (stereotype) if it were poisoned. These women do not have many choices, and it is apart of their cultural identity, to eat fish, and meat. So how can we really look down on them for keeping their pride, and identity, if anything we should be ashamed that we could so willingly give up our identity without thought. 

Paris is Burning

After watching the movie Paris is Burning, I was introduced to a world that I have never encountered before. In the time period that the film was created, homosexuality wasn't openly accepted. Gay communities were formed among the members, but it was in discreet fashion.
When the movie first started I was startled by the young boys who were expressing their sexual orientation. I have never witnessed young boys who freely spoke about their non-traditional sexuality in today's society. At that point in the film, I assumed that many documentaries and glimpses into homosexuals lives were coming up. This indeed happened, but I didn't expect to see vogues in underground New York.
A ball is a term that I have never used, and probably never would have unless I watched this movie. I was confused at first with the true propose besides just dressing up and being in character. When I finally realized the overall theme, it proved that regardless of how one appears on the outside they can have dreams to be something else in life. For example the military solider, the butch queen, or the Wall Street trader never popped in my head for runway. The ball was an entirely different world, that had to be kept underground. Given that homosexuality wasn't widely accepted still doesn't mean that individuals have to express themselves behind closed doors. This movie proves how close minded society is. We fail to respect differences amongst one another and continuously point the finger as if someone has to right to say they are better than someone else.
The movie took an nontraditional approach to breaking down social norms and implementing openness. Without documentaries and readings on issues that we fail to air in public, many things are hidden from the outside world. The more understanding I receive about people who may not have the same sexual orientation as me, broadens my understanding of different lifestyles.

Integrating Disability, Transforming Feminist Theory

When looking at the title of the reading, and seeing the word disability I wondered how the article would tie in with Feminist Theory. I always viewed disability as something uncontrollable, a function that someone simply inherited without asking. In some ways this is true, but after reading Garland-Thomson's article my understanding of disability in today's society was broadened.
Continuously in class we discuss race, sexuality, class and ethnicity and how they affect people's lives. Just as all of these social constructions are intersecting, I never thought about disability be included with these topics. When I read it, I was upset that I never realized how people living with disabilities truly have a different experience when going through life. The way outsiders observe people with disabilities as if they are abnormal or deformed is unfortunate. Many of us are too close minded when we think of how people should physically appear on the outside. One is deemed as normal if they are smart, healthy, or attractive, but individuals who appear to be frail or sickly don't receive as much attention or respect.
Growing up I was always referred to as the person who talked to people who appeared "different." While most people were concerned about the "in" crowd, typically jocks or cheerleaders I was drawn in by the "outcasts" who many of times had physical disabilities. Whenever I saw how people stared at these individuals or made fun of conditions they couldn't control, it made me angry. I could truly see the character of individuals that were held on a pedestal based on the way they treated others. I felt like it was my responsibility to eliminate these hurts that individuals were facing by simply changing the way I treated those that are considered "different."

Medical World and Women

Do doctors take women seriously? This article had me thinking about the episode of one of my favorite television shows, The Golden Girls. When one of the main protagonists feels she is deeply sick she is dismissed because she is an elderly woman. Since her illness has yet to be categorized she is not taken seriously. Just like Audre Lourde, Dorothy had an intuition on her body that proved to be right. Dorothy really was sick and Lourde did not have to have the medical surgery on her liver.

Feelings such as intuition have been linked as a woman’s trait. Arguably, that’s why intuition is not taken as seriously as “scientific facts”. When Lourde first hears about the possibility of liver cancer she says that she would like some time and “feel” the situation out. She wanted to see what was best for her body. She initially was basing this off of her instincts not scientific fact. What was probably the most chilling thing about this article was the doctor’s response. Instead of assuring her that the situation needed to be addressed quickly, he stated, “’If you do not do exactly what I tell you to do right now without questions you are going to die a horrible death’(150).”

The second article, I understood but did not agree, maybe because I have no idea what is fat and what is obese to the author. In my eyes obese in when a person’s weight jeopardizes their health and fat is when a person goes above the range of their ideal body weight. The second article, I understood but did not agree, maybe because I have no idea what is fat and what is obese to the author. In my eyes obese in when a person’s weight jeopardizes their health and fat is when a person goes above the range of their ideal body weight. I remember watching Tyra Banks show and becoming infuriated at the comment that hating fat people is the last tolerated prejudice. Sexism and racism are tolerated in our society as well. I also felt it devalued both oppressions. I felt this article had a similar tone. However, I did like that the author brought up the issue of larger women being accepted in Chicano,Latino, and African Descendant’s culture. This is not a triumph because these groups are marginalized so it does not in anyway help the plight of the overweight.

Race Gender and Work

Race Gender and Work was a pleasant article that seemed to be a highlight of the teaching all year in Feminist Theory and my Spelman career. The roles of women in the United States alone have been different. White middle class women were expected to work at home while black women were expected to do domestic work for middle class white women. What was intriguing to me about this article was the fact that separation between races is not natural. Perhaps the categorical nature of our society has caused me to believe that race is a natural division. Everything from poetry to history is separated by race. Is this away to keep people (women included) inherently divided?

Some would argue that the goals in Jennifer Baumgardner’s and Amy Richards’ Third Wave Manifesta from Manifesta mirror that of an Utopian society. I would argue that it is one of an egalitarian society. After reading Race, Gender and Work, Gender, race-ethnicity and class are not natural or biological categories (12). Society has led me to believe that how the world works and how it is divided in natural. However, there is nothing natural about it. That is how ingrained the oppression in our world is in our sub-conscious. How do we fix the problems addressed in this reading? I believe it is as simple as acting out the points in the manifesta.

Out of all the major points, the first point is the one that stuck with me. This part discussed making unacknowledged feminists, proud feminists. In this class we have spoken about friends, family, and ourselves on having ideals of feminism but not being feminists. Why is that? Is it because we truly feel that feminism is not for us or is it because of some fear that we will take on the stereotypical negative persona of a feminist? I feel if we call it what it is instead of going around the issue that real significant change can be made.

hmm

In the article “Fat Studies” I could not help and think about how issues around obesity seem to be once again a problem faced largely by women of color. Would obesity be such a “gross” concept if it were a majority white man’s problem? Weight loss commercials target women and a larger rate then men. Is this a way to control body image? In “Sex and Far Chics: Deterritorializing the Fat Female Body,: Jana Evans Braziel examines the cultural positioning of the fat femal body between two poles-the asexuality of obesity and the extreme salacious-ness (or hyper sexuality) of fat femmes, who threaten to devour all. Deconstructing these poles, Braziel suggests that because fatness has been seen through the history of Western thought as threatening to stability, order, and hierarchy, it needs to be tamed of delaminated (13). This made me think of Venus Hottentot, and women like her who had different body types. They were not celebrated but thought of as too strong, powerful, they had too much presence, and were threatening. As woman interested in woman’s health, I do not agree with being unhealthy, but not being rail thin does not constitute obesity. 

Cancer Diaries

How are women treated in the medical world? I do not mean medically but how are the perceived by medicinal personnel and how do those perceptions dictate how they are taken care of? In Cancer Diaries by Audre Lorde she is not treated like a person and her feeling on her body are not taken into account. After getting the news she has cancer, the hospital has to determine if she can even pay for her treatment. Lorde recounts

The fist people who interviewed me in white coats from behind a computer were only interested in my health-care benefits and proposed method of payment. Those crucial facts determined what kind of plastic ID card I would be given, and without a plastic ID card, no one at all was allowed upstairs to see any doctor, as I was told by the uniformed, pistoled guards at all the stairwells ( Lorde 150)

This made me think of indirect racism and sexism. Even though Lorde could afford to get treatment, there is an economic barrier that is most-likely going to effect women of color. Unlike in the fifties where laws blatantly excluded groups of people, there are policies that are similar to the Grandfather Clause (where citizens in the U.S could vote if there grandfather could) a, meaning a significant amount of a group will be disadvantaged and discriminated against.

Thursday, April 17, 2008

inuit

Anne Lucas’s article No Remedy for the Inuit describes how the environment of the Inuit and its waters are contaminated and polluted which is also causing their food sources to also be contaminated which affects the health of the community and especially breast-fed babies. This article made think of the survivors of Hurricane Katrina who are currently living in contaminated FEMA trailers. I am trying to fathom how and why anyone with authority, power and money can allow this to happen to human beings…period. I am sure if the Inuit women, or people, had a choice in what they ate and lived, it wouldn’t be there. A classmate asked if we ever thought about the foods we eat and their relation to our culture and if we had to sacrifice our choice of foods related to our culture would we. Most argued that the question posed wouldn’t be much of an issue to those who have options to eat different foods (for whatever reason) and those who do not have a choice in changing their diet or foods, are forced to continue to eat contaminated foods for survival. I wonder if compassion, sympathy and empathy for others as scarce as common sense…..

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

"contesting cultures:westernization, respect for cultures, and third-world feminists"

Narayan presents an idea in her piece that women, not only of African-American decent can relate to, but as we see in her case, as an Indian women, women of all cultures are able to identify with. This idea is the notion that silence = innocence and good behavior. Often times as young girls in some, not all households, across the country, we are told time and time again that voicing our opinions, going against that of our fathers (and mothers alike) and those in "authority" is not "lady-like". When behaviors outside of the norm of conforming, thinking outside of the box, having a difference in opinion or idea, etc., young girls and women are classified as rebellious or disobedient. As the author shared in this piece, the idea of her not conforming or going against her mothers example of silence as obedience, it would then be a reflection upon her mother and her inability to parent. In my own life, I cannot say I can ever recall a time where I was silence by either of my parents, though I have seen in in friendships and even other family members. Never, however, have I heard the reason as being something that a parent feels as though will be attributed to their lack of parenting; often times it is in the lineage that these ideas and beliefs are passed down, just like many other ideas that families pass down through generations. As this piece shows...the same concepts and ideas are practiced in many households where there are mothers and daughters.

decisions

Cynthia Enloe’s Decisions, Decisions, Decisions, from Maneuvers’ The International Politics of Militarizing Women’s Lives discussed how militarization manifests a variety of ideologies, meanings and uses of people, places, things and ideas and how militarization manipulates the meanings of femininity and masculinity via the privilege of masculinity. She stated that militarization is the process by which things become controlled by, dependent on and develops its value from the military as an institution and mentioned that anything militarized can be demilitarized and remilitarized. She mentioned that she made Virginia Woolf’s essay Three Guineas an integral part of her seminars when discussing women and militarization. Woolfe focused on how the government’s civil service was masculinized and has produced a sense of culture filtered around it. It also damaged and basically “brainwashed” women who obtained high ranking statuses or degrees in law or medicine often found themselves competing against one another and normalizing hierarchy. During current times of “war”, it is almost hard to imagine what life in America would be like without war or conflict. One can only imagine how the war in Iraq has torn so many families and lives apart, but I wonder if it at all possible for Americans to separate their patriotism, or their love for their country from the harsh and negative realities it causes? Are employers being fair to the general public when hiring war veterans who may relatively have little to no experience and a specified field? Is it really okay for militarization to take precedence over issues pertaining to women or children?

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Decisions at the expense of...

Cynthia Enloe did an excellent job at breaking down the ambiguity of making decisions that hold political gravity because it always assumed that these decision makers are prioritizing the rights of all humanity without exception. But the reality is that some men and mostly women are merely actors in the warfare and political moves. When mobilizing support for women she suggests that those in that movement too are participating in militarization highlighting the dire need to strategize and that each maneuver must be closely examined to prevent the same tools from the master's house from being used to dismantle agendas resulting in the false teachings that foster the same issues. She mentioned that without close attention seemingly empowering structures such as all women colleges can even fall victim of misconstrued masculinized norms of hierarchy and competitiveness" (2000, 562). Overall her extensive research was screaming the need for women to not only analyze but to do something with their own analysis to ultimately share with their sisters for problem solving and policy reform. The issue is that many women feel privileged over other women not understanding the underlying commonality that no matter the education or socioeconomic status men or masculinized structures, such as dominating force, are prioritized as the higher class. It is easy to be distracted when on the unrelenting to quest to gain equal "opportunity" in the spaces where your opinions, qualifications, and creativity can be embraced to make legislative DECISIONS or organize in networks such as the UN. The institutions of patriarchy, capitalism, and white supremacy have been so deeply embedded in society's that it often impossible to even recognize when one is being positioned simply for political strategy or militarization not to be egalitarian.
It was interesting to read Enloe's five puzzled questions that resulted from her research. It was as if she realized that it is virtually impossible to strive for change or confront certain institutions with either militarization (obviously in a more subtle context) or exposing someone without incriminating repercussions such as masculine revenge. I did however disagree with her third question simply because I do not feel that it is problematic to break the silence in any instance. I truly believe, and can personally testify, that it is cleansing and empowering for a woman to assert her encounters with sexual violence and either reveal or not reveal her perpetrator. Nonetheless, the victim is given a voice and no longer lives in fear! Her ability to vocalize her pain gives voice to all those too afraid or confined to male dominating manipulation. If the news of the rapes were to inflame masculinized revenge I think that we would have had enough representation in these political offices and coalitions to charge each one! In the end, I took from this reading the demand to critique masculinized behavior before it is internalized and remains unchallenged. The unionizing of all women is imperative to break the constructs of division and stationed women that are unaware. This is the goal of not only militarization but the previously mentioned interlocking oppressions as well all to foster the ideology of needed power over another (group/race, nation, human) to stay unaware of the mirroring oppressions of humanity. Not only are the women being "pimped" as mentioned in the reading where the women were known as "comfort women" under the Japanese regime in the prostitution system. These women were in place, maneuvered by the government, to please/comfort these male soldiers to reinforce the need for war as the men were "cared for" to stimulate their compliance or ability to continue fighting. Each person has a role under the governments strategy to maintain its hierarchy and end the struggle for their envied power...at any and all costs!
Under Western Eyes: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourses touch upon very pertinent issues, elitism and seperation amongst women. Women are often described homogenously, grouped together and referred to as a whole, irrespective of their race, creed, origin, age or class. This allows for women to be sized up and immediately stereotyped. However, when it comes times fro female scholars and other well educated women to distinguish themselves amongst other women in writing a hierarchy develops, and his hierarchy is representative of colonization, an issue rooted deeply in the history of every marginalized group of human beings. This results in the classification of supposed inferior women as "third World Women." This phrase, "Third World Women" conjured images of African women, Asian women, Eastern European Women, Middle Eastern women and every other group of women who have been ignored, disregarded and discriminated against.
As an African American woman I can best relate to the struggles of African American women in the United States. It is a reminder of the double burden we carry of one, being female and two, being African American. We face adversity from White and Black men and White women. We are often he subjects of misrepresentations in the media; we are scored by our own men and deemed the Black sheep in any gathering. This is so true and made evident in Enole's piece. Using the example of the military and its inter workings, Enole points out that (to no surprise) militarization privileges masculinity, but it does so by manipulating the meanigns of both feminity and masculinity. what boundaries are set for women who wish to enter a militarist world? Will they constantly be pitted against thier male counterpart? omen's identity is often limited to thier gender that is defined under the pretences of masculinist notions This indicates a notion of difference--sexual difference. Even with religous ideoloies, power and human exiis defined in binary terms. Mohanty declares taht "seual differnce becomes coterminou with female subordiantion, and power is automatically defined in binary terms" (375). In other words, men exploit and women are exploited. Such an occurance my not necessairy be purposely; however, the power structure creates an unabled existence. T histype of exisitence is esential to the "survival of the fittest>"
But, what happens to this seemingly power mandated structure in the Third World? Women in the U.S. have the ability (depending on factors such as race, class, gender, sexuality, etc. ) to rise above their status as oppressed beings. This is made possible by certain job avenues with the implementation of minority outreach programs. However, I think to myself, will and can Third World Women ever rise above the confining barriers? The power structure is predetermined men are expected to work and excel, while women are to remain as servants.

My Western eyes were wide shut

Chandra Mohanty's article should have been required reading for me a long time ago. It could have saved my sister a lot of ridicule. Mohanty offers an opportunity to understand how women, like me, so easily allow class to divide our common goal of equality. Mohanty notes how, even women of the same race and ethnicity, will allow their class to construct themselves as the norm. She states, "Middle-class urban African or Asian scholars produce scholarship on or about their rural or working class sisters, which assumes their own middle class cultures as the norm, and codifies working class histories and cultures as Other."

It is also important to note how women can incorporate patriarchial beliefs into their own belief system without even realizing it. For instance, Mohanty's point out how women "assume that woment are a coherent group with identical interests." One thing that comes to my mind is that fact that women in the United States believe that their lives are the dreams of all women. Many American women assume that a women living in other countries will have a better life if they come to America. This thought process is no different than a man who believes that a woman is better off being married because he can provide a better life for her than she can alone.

Mohanty's revelation on "objectification" was an eye opener for me. Before reading this article, I didn't realize that I have practiced objectification. My sister is a woman who loves to cook and care for her family. I have often critized her for what I have labeled "performing her wifely duties." According to Mohanty, I am labeling my sister as "traditional" and myself and "modern." My labeling was to establish that I have the freedom to do as i please and she doesn't. I actually labelled her choice as oppressive. Therefore,I have the better life. Mohanty made me realize that my sister cooking and caring for her family is her choice and not her obligation. This article opened my eyes to my own discursive feminist view.

...and the flies are on their faces

Before I begin this blog, I would like to start with a bit of honesty. Whenever I hear the term “third world” I immediately think of poverty, lack of education, people living on top of trash dumps with diseases and flies flying around their mouths. I know this is terrible. But I am just being honest…and sadly, I believe that most Americans think the same exact thing I do. Thanks history channel. Perhaps that is why Uma Narayan’s article “Contesting Cultures: Westernization, Respect for Cultures, and Third World Feminist from Dislocating Cultures: Identities, Traditions and Third World Feminisms” was shocking from the title. Third World Feminism? Could there be a such thing. Can poor people think about anything else but being impoverished? Who cares about the equality of women…does somebody have some food or clean water though? (Okay, I’ll stop because I am really being an ass). After reading the article, I well understood that Narayan was a westernized as I am but came from a family that escaped the third world. The author raised some very valid points; I have never thought that educating women is still considered, in some parts of the world, to be a westernized practice or idea. I have always assumed that as our world became more interconnected through technological advances that such things as denying women education would have to cease to exist. However, religion, tradition and power still play a strong role in the oppression of women no matter how many advances the world makes. It is up to the women who escape those oppressive situations to return to their homes and share their acquired information with others. There are still many “third world” practices that prevail in America. Men are still beating the shit out of their wives, men are still sticking their dicks and a bunch of different women, men are still treating women as if they are less than equal…and the list goes on. I guess the only difference is in America there are laws against such practices and in other countries there are laws that uphold such practices. But hell, what’s the big damn difference to the woman getting her ass beat.

contesting cultures

Uma Narayan discussed how she struggled with titling herself a “Third-World” feminist because of the connotations connected with being in America and of American culture yet being born in India. She also states that it is problematic to call herself a “Third-World” feminist because there are feminists who live and function as feminists entirely within Third-World national contexts. In contrast, she states that it will only be problematic if the term is understood narrowly, or with from specific perspectives and not from an open heart or mind. In her discussion, she attempts to “reveal some of the problems and paradoxes that are embedded in [the] charges of “Westernization” as well as to understand what provoke(s) them”. I wonder, like I stated in a previous blog, if the term/phrase “third-world” itself seem problematic to the authors, although their focus, I believe, is on the authenticity of the practices, discourse and ideologies of “third-world” feminism and their fear of being ignored and overlooked by “Western” feminism. Reading this also made me wonder that since feminism technically developed in the “West”, therefore it would have…let’s say…access to a variety of ways to get their side of “the message” out nationally and internationally. Or perhaps, have feminism ALWAYS been around and did not develop in the “West” and it was just another “great idea” stolen by the good people of the “West”? Should “Western” feminists just mind their own business and focus on things that affect them and not make assumptions about “others” or “non-Western” feminists?

westerneyez...westernized...westernlies

Chandra Mohanty’s master narrative about the hegemonic Western feminisms their effects of “third world feminisms” contained thorough discursiveness. At times I felt like I understood what she was discussing but then I would feel lost again. What I understood from the articles was that in order to prevent the marginalization and ghettoization (still have no clue what she meant by that) of “third world” feminisms from mainstream Western feminist discourses, deconstruction and dismantling followed by building and construction must take place. It is apparent that her concern for “third world” feminism is overshadowed and misrepresented by the ideologies of Western feminism. Stereotypes of “third world” women tend to construct false beliefs and ideals in the minds of those who aren’t “third world” people which can cause issues, especially in regards to feminism discourse and intellectual and political construction. She mentioned how problematic it is when writers use certain textual strategies when describing or discussing a concept outside of their own (i.e. Westerners referring to non-Westerners as Others and etc). She also mentioned that other writers in different realms of writing, when discussing those who are not like them (whether it be class or race) tend to neglect sensitivity or empathy to those “Others” they may be referring to. I found her article to be interesting and from my perspective I gathered that she wants a sense of “unity” among other feminists and to not shun or neglect “third world feminists”. However, after reading a discussion on the topic of “unity” last night, I’ve come to realize that even when discussing “unity” there will always be “division”. It’s also interesting to me, that before enrolling into this class I thought I had a pretty good grasp about what feminism was all about. I did not realize, like everything else, feminism isn’t the same to everyone everywhere. Although mainstream feminism is dominated by Western feminism, that does not make it okay for Western feminism to dictate and represent ALL feminism and what it means to everyone including those of the “third world feminism”.
Ok this is random and kind of off topic but isn’t the term “third world” problematic in itself?

Western Feminist Domination in Scholarship

Mohanty describes in “Under Western Eyes: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourses” the problem with the dominant Western feminism and the lesser developed “third world” feminisms. Mohanty explains that Western feminism comprises of colonialism, class, race, and political differences that “limit the possibility of coalitions among (usually white) Western feminists and working-class feminists of color around the world” (345). She exhibits a criticism of Western feminist scholarship on women in the third world. Mohanty discusses the importance of the acknowledgement of difference according to class, race, and ethnic location, and model of power.
I had a discussion in my seminar class last semester about whether there should be a universal feminism. We had a debate for and against universal feminism and the group against universal feminism won. Universal feminism marginalizes some women’s specific concerns of oppression. Women from different countries have different issues according to their culture. For example, women in the United States may be exploiting women in Colombia who work long hours on cotton plantations. Therefore, it is difficult for these women to unite on labor issues. I am also reminded of the NOW movement and how black women's concerns and other women of color were not represented by white women who started this movement. I believe that it is important for women from different countries, ethnicities, and class to express their own concerns regarding oppression. How would you like it if someone who doesn't understand your situation or circumstance speak for you?

Nature VS Nurture

These readings kind of reminded if what i just read in my intro class about burqa's. I was recently reading a article entitled the bleeding afganistan and it talked about how us military has used the cultural misconception of the meaning of the Burqa in muslim religions and have tried to use it as an excuse to "liberate" the women of afganistan. Not to mention that at the same time their allowing Taliban forces to take over. The rading Beyond the Veil... reminded me of how women are often seen within a culture as objects of pleasure but thru western culture, are often the main gender to be attacked in order to affect an intire society. In some cases muslim and western cultures have seemd to have the same views of objectifying women. Although in many western societies women are given the opportunity to sumbolize strength and resistance, it is appearnt that the ultumate success of women in power in any cultural setting is a man's biggest fear!
In respect to the reading"Westernization," i felt that this reading took a turn relating nature vs nurture. Nature, in realtion to femenism in a western society is sometimes a term used very fluidly. i noticed in this reading that a lot of her responses about growing up in a "feminist" enivronment was not solely the reason for her labeling herself as on. i felt that i related to this reading on a peronal level because just by growing up around strong, powerful, black women didn't becom the main reason why i feel that i am one now. It was mainly the time when i realized who i was and what my peronal morals and standards were that i decided i was a feminist.

Telling them they are oppressed?!

The way I interpreted this reading was that the author was critiquing Western Feminists thoughts and labels placed on women in third world communities. The assumptions western women make are that these third world women are oppressed and only viewed by society as objects used for sex and labor. Many Western Feminists have created their own scale in which they use to determine and define the degree of oppression (socially, economically, politically, and sexually) that third world women experience. It is difficult to categorize “third world women” because the area covers so many regions. The women in these regions vary, significantly, in religion, class, and caste. So how can we make generalizations about an entire region?
It disturbs me to read this passage because it makes Western Feminists seem ignorant and insensitive. It referred me back to a reading I studied in Intro. The reading was discussing the Burqa (veil) worn by women in some third world cultures. Western Feminists decided that the burqa was oppressive to these women but never asked these women how they felt. If they had asked, the women would explain that they wore the burqa by choice. It is saddening that Western Women are forcing these ideas of oppression on groups that do not feel they are oppressed. Who are you to tell someone she is being oppressed? Ask her how she feels.

Finding Your Own Voice

In reading "Contesting Cultures: 'Westernization,' Respect for Cultures, and Third-World Feminists from Dislocating Cultures: Identities, Traditions, and Third World Feminisms" by UmaNarayan I took note of the anecdote she provides from her childhood:

"I remember my mother saying, 'What sort of girl are you to talk back like that to your father?'and my thinking, 'But his reprimand was not deserved, and he will not listen to me, and she will not even let me speak" (544).

I related this to African-American culture which suggests to children in general that they should speak when spoken to, mind their elders, and watch their tongues. Although I can understand these lessons are taught with the intent of instilling respect in children, while young black boys will grow up and because they are men can disregard these traditions, what becomes of young black girls? We are in a privileged position to be attending an institute for higher learning, especially one that acknowledges and addresses women's issues so passionately. However, for young black girls not in our position, who were taught when and where their voices were ever relevant, if at all, when they grow older, is is possible for them to grow out of these lessons and into their own voices? How many girls like Narayan are conscious that they do not deserve to be reprimanded but are further reprimanded for speaking up? Realizing there are negative consequences associated with women speaking up, they will eventually refrain from utilizing their voice, and if that happens, what can we do?

Contesting Cultures: "Westernization," Respect for Cultures, and Third-World Feminists

When reading Contesting Cultures, I easily related to the "conflict" between the mother cultures and feminism.  Growing up, the influence that the women and particularly my mother had on me, shaped my outlook on how to present myself in society.  The women in my family are very conservative and this was particularly hard for me once I came into my own as a young lady.  Typically I stray away from the norm and am liberal in my thinking, therefore I sometimes face a lot of friction with my mother.  For example, getting  tattoos was something that was totally off limits in my family.  Putting markings on my body went against respecting my body as a temple.  I agree with the idea to respect one's body, but having tattoos represents significant experiences that have occurred in my life.  Although I respected my mother's opinion I followed my own intuition for what I wanted to do.  This is just one example of something that I have gone against with my mother, but I believe everyone has a similar experience just in a different way.  
Once I was introduced to feminism, I found my "own" in a sense.  Having the opportunity to respect diversity among all women was intriguing to me.  The "ideal" woman or the "correct" women, which is educated, conservative, well spoken in corporate America was never appealing to me.  However, being educated and presentable in society has it's advantages, but I do not support all women having to be molds of each other, instead of diverse.  Freedom of expression seems to be overlooked in order to sometimes conform in society.
Gender roles also existed when I grew up, not necessarily instructions on correct gender roles, but what I witnessed second handily.  Gender roles I witnessed were in church for the most part.  Watching women support their men was at the forefront.  Women's roles in the church seemed to only be watching after the kids, and whenever a women spoke up, it was only a suggestion that a man would get credited for.  The lessons that our parents teach us, are based on what will make our lives easier sometime. Our voices sometimes seem silenced, in order for us to have it easier if we just follow protocol.  Feminism has its' own influence on the way people matriculate in life, but I don't believe it is a symptom of Westernization.  Feminism is a new outlet to compare the influences one has had in their upbringing and make a personal decision on how they choose to live their own lives.   

"Decisions, Decisions, Decesions

I found this particular reading quite interesting, for I can relate a lot of what is being discussed in Decisions, Decisions, Decisions, from Manwuvers: The International Politics of Militarizing Women's Lives by Cynthia Enloe. On page 563 it says "A marriage becomes militarized to the extent that the woman who as the wife depends for her sense of public or domestic security...on a man who has her husband and medical care, on a man who as her husband defines himself as a solider." I immediately thought of my granmother, wife a soldier who played this role and to this day still remains in this role. In the Western world it is automatically assumed, especially with the husband active in the military, that the wife stay home and play the "stay at home role" while the husband was out fight wars, etc. In rare cases have I seen the roles reversed which is why there is always an uproar as Enloe infers in the reading. These stereotypes are common in the Western world which is why I feel so many people are closed minded.

Feminist and Westernization...good or bad?

After reading Contesting Cultures: "Westernization," Respect for Cultures, and Third-World Feminists from Dislocating Cultures: Identities, Traditions, and Third World Feminisms" By Uma Narayan it never occurred to me the different aspects of feminism regarding Westernization, especially how much one's culture can play apart in their thoughts as far as feminism is concerned. What makes us different not only as humans but as females, being the feminist that we are, has a lot to do with our up bringing. Just as there are many diverse people, there are also diverse feminist and thoughts. Many assume that all feminist "think alike" . Well in a general perspective yes, but personally no. Narayan goes more in depth speaking about political issues and how as feminist we should be able to embrace with in our community especially our political community. Third-World feminist should no longer view themselves as outsides but view themselves as "insiders" as Narayan mentions (Narayan 549).

Westernization

I found Uma Narayan's article very interesting, I thought it was interesting how she spoke about the changing of the times with her grandmother being married at thirteen and her mother being married at twenty-one years of age both products of arranged marriages themselves. I wondered if her grandmother also underwent verbal abuse from her mother-and-law and if so why these women continue to treat each other in such ways. When I was researching bridal burnings in India while I was in high school I remember reading that many of the young brides' deaths were attributed to the matriarchs, these women would often trick their young daughter-in-laws and lure them to their deaths. If these women spoke out about the way they were being treated, they were often beaten by their husbands as punishment for speaking out about their husband's mothers. I thought to myself as a mother how could I force my daughter into such a life style and then become upset with her once she rebelled against me. This idea of silence is found in so many third world countries, it seems kind of childish to me; as a daughter-in-law you are to endue pain and mistreatment and once you become a mother-in-law it becomes your turn to oppress. What's the point? I was always raised to believe that once you are married, two become one, and you share each others problems, so I know that if my mother-in-law was causing me grief, I would tell my husband and expect him to do something about it. I guess it then becomes a question of who is more important; your wife or mother? But is it right to force someone to make that choice?

The Laundry???

I found myself re-reading line after line making attempts to comprehend. There was a lot of interesting, eye-opening and clarifying information in all of the articles once you began to understand them, but the one that particularly stood out to me was "Decisions Decisions Decisions".

In this article Cynthia Enloe, introduced me to a new concept "militarization". This concept she describes as "the step-by-step process by which something becomes controlled by, dependent on, or derives its value from the military as an institution of militaristic criteria"(562). The whole idea of militarization is quite disturbing...it’s reassuring to know that "what has been militarized can be demilitarized" but the truth of the matter is it can also be "remilitarized". What I found more disturbing than that was Woolf's extensive list of everyday items and concepts that are and have potential to be militarized. I was able to see how the examples provided in the text regarding the production of sneakers and the institution of marriage could be militarized...but mascara, umbrellas and laundry??

She made an argument that there are movements that are opposed to "militaristic regimes" however they can encompass militaristic values. When I read that paragraph on page 563, the chapter in Gender Talk that discusses the Civil Rights movement came to mind. The Civil Rights movement was supposed to be about the liberation of all minority people however, the minority women were never seen, heard or even discussed. Their "decisions [militarized] their movements in ways that privilege[d] masculinity and thereby marginalize[d] some men and most women"(563).

I supposed in the society we live in, the militarization of mascara, umbrellas and laundry should not seem too farfetched.

Under Western Eyes: (AN EYE OPENER) Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourses

How right Ms. Chandra Talpade Mohanty when she said that "colonization has bene use dto characterize everything fromt he most evident economic and political hierachies to the production of a particular cultural discourse about what is called the 'third world." Here goes my story lol... I grew up in a LARGELY predominent Caucasian area. Well actually I was the first African-American to attend my high school since it had been open since 1964. My mother who is also partly Caucasian did her best when it came to rasing me making sure that regardless of where I was now I knew where I came from in reference to her background and my father did his part in reference to his background. But of course when my friends were using Herbal Essenses shampoo and I wanted to my mother did not allow me to because I did not have "that kind of hair." When kids were dying their hair crazy colors... I wanted to. When girls were wearing little spaghetti straped shirts... I wanted to... but couldn't. My mother always referred to it as my stage of colonization and recognizing the way life is.

When Mohanty was talking about feminist scholarship not being the mere production of knowledge about a certain subject but a political and discursive practice in what is purposeful and ideological I got kind of lost. What I think she was talking about was that when it comes to women being intelligent and smart is cannot just be us wanting to be smart but it is something we have to do in order to have some type of power?!?

According to this I'm a "third world woman" based upon the fact that I am open about sexuality and Western women are not. They are educated (me too), modern (kinda), has control over their own body (I do), and sexualities (I do too... I just like to educate and discuss all realms of sexuality). We as women are oppressed just as Mohanty stated it's a "shared oppression." Sitting in on a Men in Society class at Morehouse the professor wrote the word women on one side of the board and men on the other. The guys in the class were instructed to get up and write whatever came to mind in reference to their opinion of both sexes. Most of the things regarding women were emotional, dependent, powerless, sexy, child-bearers, smart, teachers, nurses, etc. and men were depicted as being strong, athletic, money-makers, supporters, etc. This bring a strong tie to Mohanty when she said that men exploit and women are exploited. Sitting in that class seeing as though it wasn't my class I did not want to say anything but I had to. I stopped the professor immediately and asked if he thought that both cross-sectionally women and men could both be all those things and he said "Yes, but I feel one is more so than the other." Argh!

Yet, sometimes in WESTERN society that so many try to get most women to conform to it is those women that are the instigators (spelling) that perpetuate those types of opinions. I just wish more men were interested in taking classes and readings things of this nature so they too could understand and could open their eyes to "Western Eyes."

Mohanty defines "Westeren Feminist"

After reading the articles for this week I was a little overwhelmed. I mean, I didn’t know exactly how but I knew it was a lot new, interesting and challenging information. Honestly I really enjoyed the article by Chandra Talpade Mohanty. In the article “ Under Western Eyes: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourses” Mohanty defines what the “third world woman” is along with what it means to be a “Western Feminist” while she explains these two important terms she also pertains to the third world scholars writing and their culture.
I would have to say when I first started reading this article I was confused. I felt as if she was raising too many issues in just this one article perhaps it would have been better if she broke them down a little better. However, her article was just like any other article that I have read this semester, I have to read it more then once to really comprehend it. In this article I liked how she really broke down the definition of colonization and talked about what it has now become “a denote a variety of phenomena in recent feminist and left writings in general.” (p.373) Colonization is a term that I find can be defined in several ways. When I begin to think about Colonization two words come to mind immigration and migration. These two words I feel describes what Colonization in a short, simple, and sweet way. The relationship between “Woman” and “Women” was talked about in the article. I found this to be pretty interesting and problematic. I do feel that every individual male or female are going to have their own personal views about the context of these two words. Personally, I really could not seem to find a difference between the two terms, besides the one letter difference and one being plural and singular. (Smile)
Western feminist representation of women in the third world and Western feminist self-presentation are two terms that were a must to recognize. Mohanty incorporates Marxists “maintenance” function of the housewife and real “productive” role of wage labor as some of the characteristics of the third world. Third world women may be viewed as women who do not have control over their own lives and powerless but they are still women. Because they are people they deserved to be respected. It is interesting to me to know that the same general point of women being “powerless” is prominent everywhere even globally. We know that as women we are struggling daily but what matters is what we decide to do about the struggle. “ What binds women together is a sociological notion of the “sameness” of their oppression…..between “women” as a discursively constructed group and “women” as material subjects of their own history”(p.374)
As women we must recognized how much power we have and be willing to stand up for what we believe in and know is right. In the case of the “Western Feminist” it is our charge as women to help them. If we all recognize that if one woman struggles then all women struggle, regardless of class, race, and national boundaries “It is time to move beyond the Marx who found it possible to say: they cannot represent themselves; they must be represented.” (p.379)

"Under Western Eyes: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourses"

In this particular reading Chandra Talapade Mohanty discusses Western feminism and the "third wave feminist." As most people assume, when thinking of colonization, we mostly refer to economic and policital issues and systems, but Mohanty takes a twist and is referring to the pracctices and teachings of Western Feminism and the effects. Mohanty's goal through out this reading is to critique Western Feminst scholars on there academic teachings and bring individuals to a new light of "feminsim." Many people have a set definition of "feminism" and Mohanty allows us to think in a more broad perspecitve. She mainly focuses on thinking out of the box in the "politcal" context without falling into the trap of false generalizations.

Monday, April 14, 2008

In Decisions, Decisions, Decisions, Enloe brings up some interesting points. I was thankful that midway through the reading, she gives her definition of militarization, which is " the step-by-step process by which something becomes controlled by, dependent on, or derives its value from the military as an institution or militaristic criteria." This definition went along with my own definition of militarism which I got from reading this, which is basically anything that is influenced by the military. This reading was fairly boring and quite repetitive, but I got the point. Basically she was saying that everything has had some influence from the military, and that pretty soon aspects of western culture, such as rape, liberation, peacekeeping, femininity, and sneakers will be able to be militarized. In my opinion, some of her views for the future and militarization are a bit far fetched.

One section of Uma Narayan's Contesting Cultures: "Westernization," Respect for Cultures, and Third World Feminists from Dislocating Cultures: Identities, Traditions, and Third World Feminisms that really stood out to me was when she was talking about her experiences with her parents. She discussed how her mother used to always silence her, but in turn her mother used to get silenced by her mother-in-law. I think that often times, when people get treated a certain way, no matter how much they do not like it, they impose the same treatments on otters because it gives them a source of power. I was raised by my grandmother, and I know that many of the times that I questioned her on why she reprimanded me a certain way, her answer was basically because that is how her mother did it. I really feel where Narayan is coming from because for the 11 years that my mother raised me I was always taught to ask questions. When I started living with my grandmother, I did not understand why I couldn't speak at certain times or why I was told that a child should be seen and not heard. I think that the archaic ways of raising children should be left back in archaic times because this hegemonic view that children should be seen and not heard can really be detrimental, especially when it comes to little girls. If they are taught to sit pretty and not say anything, this can be harmful when it is time to stand up for what you believe in.

"No Remedy for the Inuit" Gender Issue? I think not...

I can't even begin without saying that I was unaware of the importance of environmental genocide. Before reading "No Remedy for the Inuit: Accountability for Environmental Harms Under U.S. and International Law" I decided to take it upon myself to do a quick background research on environmental genocide; and I ran across the environmental genocide involving the Native Americans and toxic waste that has been happening for years now. It kills me to know that the government alone, could so discreetly do away with others, while at the same time punishing other humans that commit crimes by the death penalty...what COWARDS!
Although Lucas suggest that this has become a gender based problem, from the research of the NACEC; I beg to differ. Genocide is taking place EVERY where and anywhere. Gender does not seem to be the problem here, the problem seems to be "man " in general holding such power that should not be in "his" hands and allowing such ridiculous behavior. Sure Lucas focuses on the dioxins inuit females, but the focus should not be JUST females, but both females and males. Environmental genocide is a WORLDWIDE issue NOT just based on females alone and it would be quite unfair to just base this serious issue on one gender being that there are many others suffering.

Sunday, April 13, 2008

The Inuit Battle - Its not about gender

Environmental genocide is a major cause of cultural death around the world. The destruction of the Brazilian rain forest, cancer causing electrical towers in US neighborhoods, toxic fumes from burning oil wells in Iraq, the diamond trade in Africa, and e-waste in China are just a few examples to justify my statement. Most of the research and media coverage on these issues is filled with gender bias. The Lucas article tries to use the Inuit battle to address gender bias. However, the article is not a fair representation of the Inuit battle.

Ms. Lucas attempts to address an environmental issue as a gender issue. However, the NACEC research she uses and the information in her article are contradicting. Lucas leads her readers to assume that the findings of the research study conducted by the NACEC were solely based on the affect of dioxins on the Inuit women. This is not true. The study was conducted to test the newly create model of tracking dioxins. Lucas would also have her readers assume that legal claims, discussed on pages 193 through 197, will not work because the battle would be between big govenrment and the Inuit women. Shelia Watts Cloutier’s fight is not gender based. Ms. Cloutier’s fight is for the more than “140,000 Inuit population,” both male and female. Therefore, the battle is between big government and the Inuit people.

Regardless of Lucas’ attempt to make the dioxins issue facing the Inuit people a gender issue; she does make valid points about the lack of feminist thought in international laws. Women in war torn Iraq could benefit from the Convention against Torture and Rape (198) if the International community would adhere to feminist critique about the exclusion of non-state offenders.

Wednesday, April 9, 2008

How it Feels to Be Oppressed Me

For students like myself who live lives as minorities within minorities within minorities or who have seriously considered concepts taught in courses like ADW or the introductory women’s studies course, Chapter 2 of Race, Gender, and Work titled “Race, Class, Gender, and Women’s Work: Conceptual Framework” is not new. It is simply a reminder that as feminists we are not working against only against sexism but all systems of oppression. Understanding this idea helps eliminate the divisions that occur between different types of feminists and other marginalized groups. In this chapter it is stated that “it is artificial to discuss them [race, gender, class] outside of historical time and place, and separately from one another” (12). This idea is aligned with works written by Audre Lorde, Dr. Beverly Guy-Sheftall, Patricia Hill Collins, and a number of other feminist writers who have written extensively on the interlocking oppressions that affect not only women but homosexuals, people living with disabilities,etc.

On page 16, it is stated that “racial-ethnic and class domination have differentiated the experiences of women, one cannot assume, as do many feminist theorist and activists, that all women have the same experience of gender oppression – or even that they will be on the same side of a struggle, not even when some women define that struggle as ‘feminist.’” This quote draws on a problem that causes divisions. People sometimes feel a need to pick and choose what oppression affects them the most and they do not realize that its not one type of oppression affecting them, it is a multiple oppressions working collectively to oppress you and pin-pointing examples of oppression is much easier than pin-pointing what it is exactly oppressing you. In the excerpt from chapter 2, examples were given that helped clarify ways that marginalized people are oppressed. One example centers on slavery and the effects it has had on people. For many years it was believed that people of color, particularly Africans were enslaved because they were of a darker shade and their oppressors even concocted scientific evidence to “prove” that they were fit for slavery. It has also been said slavery was a result of capitalism. In this way it is difficult for someone to say that people were enslaved only because white people thought little of Africans and it is equally difficult to say that they were enslaved because white people only need them for cheap labor. They equally contributed to the oppression of enslaved people and it is equally important to work against both capitalism and racism.

I think this article is a good foundation for studying the interlocking oppressions. It should be eye-opening for people who believe that they need to choose one oppression to work against and ignore other parts of their lives that being oppressed. It bothers me when people even argue over whether feminist issues are important to advocate for in the face of racism, especially women. It fact this reading reminds me of an essay written by Zora Neale Hurston titled, “How It Feels to Be Colored Me.” In this article Hurston discusses her feelings on being colored and from reading into her background in class we realize that she was raised in a predominantly black community unlike other seminal writers and didn’t realize she was colored until she left the boundaries of her community. She obviously did not realize her “coloredness” until white people made her realize it, but even then it wasn’t like a presence hovering over her like race was for others like Richard Wright and Ralph Ellison. Maybe some women have this experience. Until they are in situations where they realize their “womanness”, they don’t realize that they are oppressed. Until they are in those situations in the workplace being underpaid, exploited, and harassed, they may never realize they are being oppressed. Just my thoughts.

Tuesday, April 8, 2008

Created Concepts of Oppression

African American feminist theorists are constantly proving that experiences of "gender oppression" by women of color are different from those of white women. Gender oppression for women of color cannot be discussed without the inclusion of race and class. Race, class and gender are all created concepts. These concepts were created separately. However, when combined they are the enabling force which produce economic oppression. This article has some very compelling facts which support this theory.
Race is the most dominating of the created concepts. The “Taxonomy of race” was created to produce a justification for “racial dominance.” Racial inequality is one of the reasons that women of color experience gender oppression differently than white women. For example, when white women were forced into the subordinate roles of “childrearing” and “homemaker” they experienced gender oppression. However, they saw their oppression as unequal access to the workforce and not the subordinate role. The establishment of their societal roles were not oppressive to them because they “used their economic power, class, to reassign” most of these roles to women of color. This reassignment was based on race and class.
Class is the most underlying of the practiced concepts. Class creates lines of economic status. Within these lines is the hidden fact that regardless of how high a person of color’s SES is, there will always be a person of color beneath a white person. Based on created racial lines, there should never be a person of color above a white person. However, events in history are “transforming” this fact.

race, class, gender and women's works

I agree with the author of Race, Gender, and Work on that race, gender, work and even class are inextricably tied. And i also agree that there is no generic gender oppression which is experienced by all women regardless of their ethnicity or class. This can be viewed easily here at Spelman College. Just because we are all women and mostly black does not necessarily mean we all share the same experiences. Our class, cultures, ethnicity, and even region play major roles in our experiences as women. As the author stated, "one cannot assume, as do many feminist theorists and activists, that all women have the same experience of gender oppression-or even that they will be on the same side of a struggle, not even when some women define that struggle as "feminist." Therefore, I believe there is a need for an all encompassing movement or multiple parallel movements to serve the needs of all women and accomodate the vast differences.
I enjoyed how the author reinforced the connection between race, gender, class and ethnicity by starting off each section saying that each component is important separately but cannot be fully understood or explained without incorporating the other components. It is virtually impossible to attain radical social transformation without acknowledging nad accomodating the various differences amongst women.

Conceptual Framework

This chapter was to build a foundation for the readers to understand how race, class and gender formed women’s works by their history. Teresa Amott and Julie Matthaei authors of the book Race, Class, Gender, suggest that understanding race, class, and gender helps understand women’s economic histories. Women’s economic status has typically changed through out history when they are connected (married) or separated (divorced widowed) from a man. In addition typically gender roles are assigned to women, but there are some exceptions. For these reasons the authors suggest that there is no generic gender oppression which is experienced by all women regardless of race-ethnicity or class. On the bases of class women have had different jobs then men which caused men and women different economic roles; women having the subordinate role. Gender has typically placed the role of childbearing on women because of their biological makeup. These are just a few that were mentioned which set the conceptual framework for women’s works.

Third Wave Manifesta

The "Third Wave Manifesta," from Manifesta is truly a very articulate and radical form of feminism that is not necessarily seen in today's mainstream (white-female dominated) feminism. I deeply appreciated the fact that the authors, Jennifer Baumgardner and Amy Richards incorporated the feminists ideologies of women of color in the manifesta as stated point #5. This particular piece also shows the attempts made during the third wave of feminis to include diversity in issues of women's rights by included issues pertaining to poor women and women of the gay/lesbian community. However, I must be critical of the article by stating that there is still room for improvement. I still feel in this article that it is still pertaining to women living in the United States. Class, sexuality, and race (though not in as much detail as it could have been discussed) were mentioned. However, what about the issues of women living in "developed" countries and the fact that we as "Western" women benefit from their exploitation. Issues of imperialism, globalization, and nationalization should be addressed. In addition, it is very hypocritical that many of us, who consider ourselves feminists, will voice our concerns on women's rights, but refuse that some of our "rights," are obtained through the subjugation of others. In engaging in intellectual discourse, we are aware of the many systems of oppression that prevalent within, and outside, our society. I believe that issues of religion, ageism, and "disability," should be discussed in this article. Third Wave Manifesta was successful in naming the various demands that we face as women. At the same time, point #9 was very disturbing. It stated the right for women to have full participation in the armed forces, including that of combat. I say this is disturbing because it does not acknowledge the fact that there are women who are exercising their "right" to military combat by currently killing innocent men, women, and children in the Iraq War. Some of these women will fight for women's rights, while at the same time participate in the militarization of women in countries outside of the United States, as a means to "liberate them." If Point #9 is not clearly specified, it can become very dangerous-which could further "feed" into an oppressive Western form of feminism, and thus further engaging in the notion of "us" and "them." It could end up leading back to the first wave of feminism which only benefited middle-class, White women.

"Women, Culture, and Society"

This article definitely was helpful in broadening the scope on a more global level in regards to the interlocking oppressions of race, class, and gender beyond the African American experience. The author illustrates the oppressions of gender that perpetuate sex labor division in the ever industrialized Korea and conceptualizes it historical relevance in an attempt to highlight the transitional period in search of the alternative to the society in which we function that is deeply embedded in patriarchy. Lie analyzes the role of women in the transition from agrarian patriarchy to patriarchal capitalism as it specifically relates to Korea and breaks down the differences as well as the commonalities as they are both plagued with some sort of hierarchical demand. Similar to the Marxist-Feminist analysis, women's subordination is said to have been a result of the growth of capitalism in the government in developing societies. The two interacting systems that objectify both women and men are patriarchy and capitalism. The exploitation of the male labor, at cheap cost, that ultimately becomes a class issue because there lies a huge division among the workers and owners while the surplus is allocated for the owners. The second component is the exploitation of women. Because of the political climate that implies a need for authority over women, men are categorized as an authoritative class that permissibly rules over women. The women and men are trapped in gender roles that are all, according to this analysis, derived from the separation of production of good that once originated in the home to the prioritization of markets and industry booming. The issue in both frameworks stresses that the major contributor to such division in the work force is considered the "public versus private" matter. While men were outside of the home working their contribution was viewed as a public gain for not only their families but also for the economy. However, the women that were restricted to the domestic roles maintaining the upkeep of the household were seen to be contributing privately. Even when she was afforded the opportunity in the work force she was always lower in status than the male no matter her capabilities. The women were also vehicles for economic gain as they historically have been valued for their reproductive labor and consumerism all to ensure the functionality for their household highlighting the paid vs. unpaid labor that is said to make up the "nuclear family". Tracing this cycle of subordination and sex labor division was quite interesting and showed that since the beginning there has a been a focus to capitalize on people's abilities at any cost. In many ways the system has been adjusted due to emancipation laws and passed bills, however, the sense of ownership over one's body for economic gain is still practiced and has simply shifted from slavery to wage slavery.

13 points that make TOO much sense

I thoroughly enjoyed Baumgardner’s and Richard’s thirteen-point agenda in regards to women’s rights. Point two reflects my stance on abortion rights. Although I personally would like to believe I will never abort a child I willingly helped conceive, I cannot say for sure what I would or would not do until I am in that situation. However, “a woman’s right to bear or not bear a child, regardless of circumstances” should be a common sense and natural right of all women. What further appalls me is that there are MEN who make decisions, whether good or bad, on women’s reproductive rights. I am outraged about that and cannot fathom how stupid and idiotic that reality is. I have realized that I have come to be more sensitive, open-minded and outspoken for the gay and lesbian community. They like everyone are a part of humanity and should be given the same civil and natural rights as anyone else (i.e. marriage, adoption, etc). It is outlandish alone that one has to create an agenda dispelling what I believe to be common sense. However, we all know that common sense isn’t common at all. I often joke how I wish all the men I knew and come in contact with daily, could experience what I experience in the classrooms at Spelman College; But as I matriculate through my collegiate experience, I realize that I am not joking at all and a course centered on Manifesta should actually be a required course for all people who step foot on any college or university’s campus…but that would make…too much sense.

Women Works in RaceClassGender as One

The day I stepped into a sociology class here at Spelman College I was told that race, class and gender are all socially constructed ideologies that do not exist independently. I also learned that an individual’s experience differs from other individual’s, usually according to ethnicity and culture. I often wonder if race, class and gender weren’t constructed by society, or didn’t exist at all, how the world would be. Would it be better or worse? Going about life in the world with no awareness of race, class or gender which will result in true equality and demolish the prejudice, discrimination and all the isms that plagued the world? Will there be a need for religion or other organized institutions that keep us from freely crossing gender roles or racial roles?
Being a black woman raised in a middle-class family, I’ve been prepared for the worse and expecting nothing but the best professionally and personally. My mother use to always tell me that I will always be reminded of my race and gender which will ultimate affect what class I am placed, depending on my personal persistence and perseverance, into. I believe there is no way to completely erase what society has constructed in regards to how we all view race, class and gender; I do, however, have a newly optimistic view on ways we can re-construct how we all view race, class and gender and that is by acknowledging the burden and damage it creates and revitalizing a more positive and community-based way of living that incorporates the acceptance of all humanity and embracing individuality and differences. This will be a lifestyle change, and changing lifestyles has never been easy or done over night.

working women

After reading this article, I randomly wondered why whenever gender is discussed, the discussion is solely pertaining to women or those of the female gender, like, when race is discussed, it’s usually black vs white/white oppressing black (in America). I understand that a man’s or the male gender is of the “popular sect” and never threatened, however, I think it is important that in order to solve an issue you would have to begin with the origin of the issue first. But yes…that was my random spill.
The author of the article discussed that it is vital to not only argue about a woman’s status, or her lack thereof, but to recognize the evolution and forever changing nature of male dominance and female oppression and understand ways systems of society mold and construct how the world views gender.

The Politics of the work force.

The article "Race, Class, Gender, and Women's Works" was yet another reminder of how oppresive our society is. In the arena of labor, an system that keeps this nation a float, women still are not given equal opportunities, but by now I should not expect that.

This article really broke down the system of labor and the roles women and minorities play within it. "Whereas gender creates difference and inequality according to biological sex, race-ethnicity differenctiates individuals according to skin color or other physical features"(17). To all black women, this quote should be very dishearting. Why? Well because when it comes to race in this society, black people find themselves at the bottom, and when it comes to gender, women are at the bottom. So any way you look at it, blacks, women and especially black women get the short end of the stick, in the case of this article this holds ture even in the work force.

This article really reminds me of an article I read in Intro to Women's Studies. "Racial Ethnic Women's Labor: The Intersection of Race, Gender, and Class Oppression". In that article Evelyn Nakano Glenn breaks down the laboring system as it relates to women into two models.

PATRIARCHY
The patriarchy model which was developed by Marxist feminists explain the inferiority of women in the work force. There is a sexual division of labor that seperates women's jobs from men's jobs. This goes back to the idea of the public vs. the private; the work force vs. domestic life. Basically, women's occupations should surround home life, children and support of the male (bread winner). Where as the male is allowed to occupy jobs that utilize his intelligence and strength (which are both things women are not supposed to posess).

COLONIZED MINORITIES
Colonized minorities is the other model discussed in the article. This system encourages the economic dependency of minority groups. By providing unfair wages for minorities an instituting "discriminatory barriers" the minorites are often stuck with the worst jobs.

These articles together proves how true this idea of intersectionality is. No matter what way you look the issuses in our society, specifically in this case the labor force, race, gender, and class are a major factor and can not be seperated.

Third Wave Manifesta

It’s nice to read something concise like Third Wave Manifesta between lengthy excerpts from other texts. The thirteen points from the text encompass a majority of contemporary feminism concerns. As women we have more power than we realize. I’m not sure what stops us from utilizing our influence to obtain what would benefit us most. Essentially I enjoyed how the authors touched upon a variety of problems in their agenda.

One such important issue mentioned is securing the reproductive and sexual rights of women. The reality of women being able to have full control over their own body is one I would like to see in my lifetime. Currently we live in a time where women’s reproductive rights are challenged in a multitude of arenas such as legislation that hinders women’s access to reproductive health services and safe and legal abortions. Abolishing the double standard is vital as well. Imagine if women weren’t the only ones held responsible for the actions others participated in as well. Advocating male responsibility in sex, family, etc. would liberate women in so many positive ways.

Equal access and support for women is imperative if women are to advance in society. Raising awareness and supporting ideals that would allow for full participation in society from women must be met if progression is to be made.

Third Wave

I can relate to most of the 13 Agenda points. However, I need some clarity on a few things. Point 1 - What did the authors mean when they said "and, further, a voting block of eighteen to forty year old. Does this mean that the new acknowledging feminist will increase the voting power of this age group? Point 2- how many years "under eighteen" should a woman be when making a decision to "bear a child?'
Point 3, "Sex for pleasure not for procreation," I agree and disagree with this point. I agree that most people have sex for the pleasure principle. However, there are couples, married and unmarried who use the pleasure of having sex to procreate. I also know that there are people who have given birth to children without having sex. (IE: artificial insemination). Some of these people chose to be artificially inseminated because they could not become pregnant by having sex or the wanted a child without having to have sex.
Point 8, "Equal access to health care." the gap between women's health and the health care for men has create life threatening results for women's health. For example, the following was published in a journal article i used for a research paper i was doing. "A 2000 study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine found that men were more likely to be prescribed cholesterol-reducing drugs than women were, despite a 1999 report published in the Journal of the American Medical Association stating that men and women benefit equally from the drugs."
When reading the "Third Wave Manifesta from Manifesta" I was felt both empowered and uplifted by the bullet points because I could relate to the majority of the themes. When reading the article the woman was at the forefront, and was the focus. Breaking down social constructions, what comes along with being a woman, double standards, and many more women's rights were dissected. The Manifesta included all types of women and didn't make anyone feel left out. Different themes applied to different people allowing multiple connections and overlapping(s) to occur. I related to numbers 10 and 12 the most. I can relate to number 10 because I have witnessed it the most out of any other situation. Women who are physically or sexually abused, violated or mistreated is evident in all walks of life. No one has the right to harass another person regardless of how the "thought" of violence came about. Being a personal witness to one of my friends being physically abused by another person gave me the conviction to stand firmly against domestic abuse. Watching my friend get hurt and pushed around was difficult as an observer, but imagining what was really running through her head when she was beaten, is even more challenging. I truly can't understand how someone would put there hands on another person. This represents insecurities that the abuser is trying to cover up, by appearing more powerful to the one they are abusing.
This led me to number 12. My whole reason for being a feminist is to promote equality overall. I never want to just fight for women's rights although I am a women, I want to fight for equality for all. It would be selfish for me to only look out for my rights. Men and women need to work hand in hand in ending all social oppressions. Of course I have more of a connection with women's rights because of my biological orientation, but all oppressions are intersecting and therefore overlap with both men and women.
On a larger scale this article reminds me of being questioned constantly by others about my major. It's unfortunate that you have to explain what a Women's Studies major is. I never question a biology major, only because I have learned about biology and it is seen as "normal." People don't truly know about Comparative Women's Studies which is sometimes depressing, but silence will never let others learn either. There has to be social change with social action for anything to prosper.

Industrializing Women: Taking Out the Trash

After reading John Lie’s article “From Agrarian Patriarch to Patriarchal Capitalism: Gendered Capitalist Industrialization in Korea” I have realized the strong impact that class has on the lives of women. I have always acknowledged that women are oppressed throughout the world. We are globally oppressed with powerful statements such as “you throw like a girl” and are equally oppressed throughout classes. Li e writes, “In elite household, the patriarch rules over the household… (And) as with elite women, peasant women endure considerable oppression, working harder and longer than men in general.” Women’s position in society is often, universally, viewed as subordinate to men. Rich women are expected to live under the rule of their husbands, much like lower class women are. However, I empathize with the plight of the poor woman because not only does she work, she is also expected to do the same amount of cooking, laundry and caring for children as is the un-working woman. Patriarchs have also affected the amount of money women are paid for their labor especially considering that the work of women is considered a cheap form a labor much like American society views the work of Hispanics as cheap labor. This is a very disappointing and disheartening reality. Much like Americans often joke, “I’ll hire a Mexican to cut my whole lawn for $10 dollars” there are parts of the world (America included) where hiring women is viewed in the same light. There is so much resistance to changing the widely accepted social structure of men on top, women under men, and children under adults and animals under everybody because it is seen in so many aspects of our society. It is hard to view a woman as able to think, lead and earn as much as a man if she is seen as a subordinate in her home and to her children. Women’s equality will never be universally achieved if women, even feminists, allow patriarchy to prevail in certain aspects of their lives. It has to be torn down everywhere for it to cease to exists. That means dismantling patriarchy in religion, in our homes, in our places of work, in music, in advertising and in every social construct. It would mean every woman choosing to stop making statements like “I don’t have to take out the trash because I am a girl.”

Korea, U.S., Europe...There is Gendered Work All Around!

It matters not what city, town, state, or country; rather, what matters is the prevailing power structure that be. In most societies women are relegated to the bottom of the workforce.  John Lie asserts that the role of women changed drastically from agrarian to patriarchal capitalism.  However, I would like to think differently.  In agrarian patriarchy, there we little room for women's possibilites.  I interpret this to mean that women were essentially invisible and not of concern.  Rather, women were mere objects--house servants.  There was no work for them outside of the house.  While in the patriarchal society, there was this seperation of labor: private vs public sphere.  This meant that women's work was still in the home and men were the breadwinners.  They were the face of the home. The face of the nation, while women were still invisbile.  I mean granted they were noticed for thier work in the home, but this was something they had been doing for years.  There was not much change.  Instead, the division of labor was more pronounced.  But when considering class--the division is much different. The oppression that these women face will rear far different outcomes. What I realized is that the experiences of women in Korea does not differ from other nations.  Perhaps the type of work of that is done, but still they are seen as house servants, a presence not to be represented in larger society.  It is quite disheartening.  The difference lies in how will these women form an uprising.  Will society be receptive?  Will they be hesitant to receive such a message from women?  I know that in America, the women's rights movement was forthright, in that for the first time as a collective, women were standing up for what they believed in opposition to the masculinist forces.  They were not willing to accept no for answer.  I am a woman, which means I am a human being. I deserve what any man deserves!  Now, I do believe that Korean women fought for what they believed. Perhaps, the approach was different, in that the patriarchal nature of Korea  is a bit more different than what is experienced in the U.S. Nevertheless, they are standing up for what they believe. They are refusing to be  silenced.



Disrupting Gender Roles

"Race, Class, Gender, and Women's Works: A Conceptual Framework," addresses the division of labor according to race, class, and gender. For this particular comment, I will discuss the division of labor according to gender specifically. According to the article: "Anthropologists have found that most societies, across historical periods, have tended to assign females to infant care and to the duties associated with raising children because of their biological ability to bear children" (14). However, does the sudden advent of "pregnant men" (Lee Mingwei, Thomas Beatie) affect the division of labor. Although these men did not naturally conceive, because they are currently bearing children in their wombs, will they be assigned the duties associated with raising children. Or, will their natural "manhood" absolve them of that assignment? I introduce these examples to suggest that, as technology advances, and different movements continue to grow, for how much longer will we (as a society) be able to draw clear lines and create definitive categories? Are we reaching a point where we must de-construct all the previous categories because they are not representative of the current world?

Gendered WORK!!

In the article, "From Agrarian Patriarchy to Patriarchal Capitalism: Gendered Capitalist Industrialization in Korea", John Lie describes Korea's transition from agrarianism to capitalism and how it affected gender. Lie argues that gender liberation emerges after patriarchial captialism is implemented. Under agrarian partriarchy, gender was regarded as "invisible and ineffective as a source of identity" (35) and basically "embedded and subsumed"(35). Lie describes how class divided women in agrarian households in sectors such as elite and lower class/peasant. Peasant women differed from the elite women because of their roles as hard workers ("working harder and longer than men in general" (35)). Peasant women also collaberated and mobilized according to their concerns. Under patriarchal capitalism, Lie argues that gender is disembedded with apparent gendered labor roles(37). Industrialization ended agrarian patriarchy but erected another type of patriarchy which "denigrates female work and workers" (38). Women began to unite because they received a common gender oppression. In the name of resistance, Korean women started a women's movement to end gender oppression at the workplace and at home.

After reading this article, I feel like Korean women's struggle for liberation is similar to American women's struggle. During and after WWI and WWII, American women were employed with jobs that would have been labeled as "men's jobs". American women began to notice their significance and their rights to equality with men. As a result the first wave of feminism with NOW began. Women's position economically and professionally affects their perception of their innate rights.

Third wave Revolution


Reading this Manifesta gave me pride to be a woman but also made me reflect on how being a women in today's society is constantly regulated. Not just women but all people are constantly told how to live their lives by the main people that live their lives the opposite. Although all of these thirteen points hit the nail on the head the problem is that they even need to be said. These points should be common sense for the common way of living life. So why do people always need to point out the obvious? Don't get me wrong, i agree all the way with how the manifesta has set up their agenda, it just sucks that everyone doesn't think like this. I remember when i was younger and marched in the women's pro-choice march in Washington, DC and i can vividly remember the images that those who were anti-choice held up. It just troubled me how they felt that they had the right to tell women that they never knew, never have seen, and probably may never see again how they should act out their "reproductive roles" accordingly. Many times i feel that people more often try to enforce and apply their individual morals and beliefs on others lives, but make hypocritical decisions when dealing with their own lives, as if they are an exception to their own rules.
These thirteen points right the everyday wrongs in society. If this was publised nationally and posted every where i do think that i could make a difference. Many times others are so wrapped up in who they want to be, how they want to be seen, and how they see others that they dont remember that in the end we are all JUST HUMAN!!! Even though common sense is not always so common, common courtesy is something that we've been learing since we were born. Its important to think of the basics that were once so strictly enforced. Through the media and other coorperate controlled organizations, we have become desensitized to properly identify disrespeful and derogitory actions.

3rd Wave!!!




From reading the third wave manifesta, I think that this is the Manifesto for generation X feminists. I sometimes feel that within the feminist movement our younger generation isn't taken as seriously but I feel that many of my peers are very active and involved and radical and they deserve to be recognized. Also with their #2. Women's rights to bear or not bear children, I spoke with my best friend yesterday about how difficult it is for minors to have abortions without the consent of a parent and I was explaining to my friend that many of these young women will try and preform an abortion on themselves totally harming their reproductive system because they are so adamant about not having a baby. In situations like these I feel that even if you are not pro choice, you must recognize the fact that women are going to try and have abortions no matter if they are legal or not and it is important to advocate for their right to have a safe and sterile abortion. Also I was condom shopping not to long ago and the store that I went to had their condoms locked up behind a counter and I thought to myself how intimidating this must be for a young girl or boy. Many of these kids who want to buy condoms and practice safe sex with probably turn away because they are to embarrassed to ask for a box of condoms for fear of being judged. But they will still have sex, now putting themselves and their partners at risk. I think that it is very important to advocate for not only free condoms for minors at their doctors offices but also free birth control for girls under eighteen who are to fearful to ask their parents or guardians. I think that young people want to practice safer sex but because of the stigma that goes along with sexually active teens, they are too scared. Also I like to consider myself a very strong opposer of violence against women, I try my best to not only educate my female friends and family but males as well about violence against women and how violence does not only have to be physical but is verbal as well. Often many women who are in relationships get coerced into having sex with their partners or spouses and are too afraid to say no for fear of being beaten or verbally assaulted. This too is violence against women and if you are afraid to say NO to someone then maybe you shouldn't be with that person. Someone who claims to love you should never intimidate you or make you afraid of them. Lastly, I agree that it is important for all feminists, no matter our sexual orientation, educational background, or class, to come together on equal ground to fight for what is important for us as women; holistic health care, equal pay, reproductive rights, human rights, etc.