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…..

"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?

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.

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.

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.