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.