Tuesday, April 15, 2008
"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.
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."
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)