å May 2017

In Ferguson’s book, Aberrations in Black: Toward a Queer of Color Critique, he talks about how minorities do not always feel comfortable within their own social minority groups. It is harder for someone to be considered “other” in any sense, but many people fit into multiple minority groups ostracizing them from all those who have any difference. For example a white woman fits into the minority group of being a woman. A black woman fits into the minority groups of “black” and “woman.” A black, lesbian woman fits into the minority group of “woman,” “queer,” and “black.” Rather than using their similarities to be a rallying point; however, many people use their differences to show their superiority of the “others” within their own groups.
Ferguson also talks about the “prostitution” that is behind capitalism. When we are working we are renting out our bodies for the sake of making money much in the way of a prostitute. Ferguson looks at Marx’s ideas and compares them with the mill girls who were seen as deviant for working for a wage to buy themselves nice things. Ferguson wants the reader to look more deeply at where we get these ideas, and I also believe he is attempting to show the reader that we are all the same regardless of class, race, or gender and that we need to stop ostracizing and judging one another based off of these traits.

In the essay, Abu-Lughod seems to have the argument that western culture has decided veiling is a restriction on women’s rights and feminism, when in all actuality, we have created the stigma that these things are in fact a restriction at all. The essay seems to have two main questions of “who are we as people removed from this culture, to decide what is oppressive to these women?” and also, “of all the real injustices happening in the world, why are we so focused on this idea of veiling when we could be helping with actual causes worth our time?”
This essay had a large impact on my ideals about veiling, and I hope I can find out more about what motivates women to practice veiling, as it is something that I had rarely seen before moving to New York. I think the essay brings to light an important fact which is that western culture has a tendency to victimize the “other” groups we have created so as to pity them and help them become more superior like ourselves. This mentality seems ridiculous to me since what about our culture is better than theirs? Even the New York Times seems to have this same take with the article mentioned in the text.
We want to save others and we see it as helping, but in reality we are not always helping others, but in fact we are simply trying to make them more like us; we are trying to take away what makes them seem “other” to us. As Americans we have this idea that our way is best and everyone is or should be like us, when it simply isn’t true. Man countries do nearly everything differently from us; however this does not make what they do or what we do wrong, it simply makes it different.

Amelia Cabezas in her text “Between Love and Money: Sex, Tourism, and Citizenship in Cuba and the Dominican Republic defines sexual citizenship as a way to explain the motives behind one coming to a country looking for a sexual experience and the ones providing that experience. The concept of sexual citizenship was introduced in 1993 by David T. Evans. He wanted to amend social-constructionist theories of sexuality to underline the material foundation of sexualities from a neo-Marxist perspective. Nowadays, the concept, which has been developed mostly in Great Britain, is primarily used to draw attention to the political aspects of erotics and the sexual component of politics. Cabezas puts forth the idea that one going to another country for a sexual excursion is not specifically a bad thing. She puts forth that the sex worker is viewed highly negatively by society. The common view is that these people are sexual deviants always looking for sex and ways to make profit from it. Others also believe these people are obligated to offer up their bodies to whoever request them as long as money is involved and sometimes even without. Even the gender and sexual orientation if these people add to this stigma as many blacks and gays are put into the same light as always wanting sex or to make a profit from it. While this may be true for some sex workers many engage in this practice as a form of enjoyment and are very much in control of who they allow access to their bodies. Cabezas states for women in this profession in positions outside of heteronormativity  it can be very beneficial for them. Married women or those that have kids can benefit from this line of work   because having relations with someone who purchases their services can be very altruistic and some customers go out of their  way to help the families of these women with financial troubles.

Due Monday, May 8th, by midnight. Word count: 300 words. Please make sure everything is in your own words. Absolutely no quotes should be used. If you paraphrase from the text, you must be sure to include the proper citation (either MLA or APA).

If you have missed one or more of our weekly writing assignments, you can make up one assignment this week for full credit.

Lila Abu-Lughod’s essay, “Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving?”, she talks about the discussion on human rights and humanitarianism in the 21st century and how it is somehow based on the constructing of Muslim women. The author further criticizes the constructions of veiled women and the mission of saving others. Lila Abu-Lughod explicitly questions the intentions and discussions portrayed by the media, by asking a Muslim about their culture, their religious beliefs, and treatment of women to explain such a historical tragedy like 9/11. But they should have been looking at the role the United States played in this, and the history of repression in such areas and regimes. The media outlets would focus on religious and cultural explanations, instead of the ones that would answer their questions, the political and historical explanations. Such answers and issues indeed can lead to an artificial divide in the world, like us versus Muslims, when we should be reaching for global interconnections. The part that bugged Lila Abu-Lughod the most was the role Muslim women, and Afghan women, in particular, played in these explanations. Many have said that the “War on Terrorism” is almost like an intervention to help save the women under the Taliban regime, using the symbol of females as a justification for declaring war. But historically, such tries and efforts ended in results that were not anticipated at all, results that were the opposite of what they were going for (784). The author pays attention to the Afghan women that the “War on Terrorism” apparently saved. It was believed that these women wore their burqas because they were forced to by the Taliban, and it confused many when these women still continued to wear their veils after being saved. Media and other figures should be able to understand that the Taliban were not the ones to create the veils, the burqas, and hijabs.  For women in the Muslim and Southwest Asia regime, their covering is a sign of their modesty and respect (785). The veil does not symbolize a woman’s unfreedom, in contrast to contemporary beliefs. Lila Abu-Lughod suggests to her readers that instead of focusing on a woman’s veil, we should instead put our attention on important issues regarding feminists and others (786).

In the essay, “Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving,” Abu-Lughod challenges the common stigmas attached to Muslim women. She says that despite being a cultural relativist society, westerns have been more gravitated to being ethnocentric. Westerners have this superiority complex according to Lughood. She furthers her explanation saying, for us to think that Muslim women need saving, it implies that they are victims of oppression and we must intervene to “save” them. The burqa worn by females is often viewed, by us, to be a symbol a oppression. Lughood says we ignorantly see the burqa and believe that the woman wearing it is being deprived of her human rights. Women that are seen wearing a burqa are misjudged and viewed as victims rather than humans for wearing a representation of their culture. We are reducing their culture by the standards of our own, and Lughood says this is injust of us. The burqa is a choice, not a symbol for oppression. Lughood claims that those from the west and middle east have clashing definitions of feminism. She emphasizes that westerns are pushing their ideas of what it means to be a feminist upon them and this also is wrongful of us. We continue to oppose our own beliefs, because we think they are the only accurate ones. We are consumed with the idea that we must save Muslim women of their oppression, before even realizing they might not want our saving. Lughood says we have to be more educated in their history to understand their culture today. In the end, the only oppressing thing really is the westerns misconception to believe that Muslim women are oppressed. The misrepresentation, in the western society, of their culture is  what is conflicting them. It is difficult for them to identify themselves if we are constantly pushing our perceptions upon them.

White Christian nuns are accepted as practicing their freedom of religion when they wear conserative clothing and head scarves, but when a Muslim women does the same, she is considered to be dangerous or to be under the control of something oppressive. According to Lila Abu-Lughod, there was an invasive questioning of all Muslim women after the September 11th attacks in 2001. Many white Americans were questioning the beliefs and intents of women of Muslim faith. As Abu-Lughod pointed out, this would be considered unacceptable if the question was posed to a Christian or Jewish woman. Referring back to the title, these White Americans believe that Muslim women are under an oppressive grip. They believe that they have no choices or freedom in their faith, and that Muslim women who wear burqas and hijabs are being controlled by men, when in reality, it is the women’s choice. White Americans have continuously blamed Muslims for the September 11th attacks, and to this day that blaming has not stopped. Women who shame Muslim women for practicing their faith and wearing hijabs and burqas do not truly understand what the religion of Islam represents; these women are not being oppressed or controlled by anyone, they are practicing their religious freedom just like Christian or Jewish women. Relating back to the title of the article, “Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving?”, these white women feel as if they need to liberate Muslim women from their own religion, when in fact, they are already free to decide to practice whatever faith they wish. White Americans refuse to understand the true teachings of the religion of Islam, because of racist ideologies. They believe that their religion is superior because they are supposedly more free, when in fact women in both Christian and Islam religions have the ability to decide how they wish to express their religious freedom.

In Lila-Abu Lughod’s essay, “Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving?”, Lughod discusses this idea that Muslim women need to be ‘saved’. Without truly understanding the culture of Afghanistan women, individuals simply target them with biased, stereotypical characteristics. A focus on their standpoints in society, whether it may be political, social, or economic, are not necessarily supported but are judged by many, making it a relevant topic for discussion. Lughod argues the misconception of these women and the fact that the government is to blame, as they are denied of their citizenship rights. The work aims to discuss the issues of Muslim women, such as being forced to wear a veil, or the burqa, which covers the whole body and face. The burqa became views as a ‘liberating invention’, as the women who wore them were given the ability to leave segregated living conditions. The wearing of the burqa, however, carries with it this idea of sanctity and respectability. In the eyes of others, especially in Western thought, the idea of veiling is seen as a ‘lack of agency’ in women. However, it is just the opposite, as veiling is a voluntary act. Women can choose if they wish to wear it and they can also choose who they wish to wear it in front of.

Two points that Lughod highlights in this piece is that, first of all, it is important to stop categorizing veiling as an example of a woman’s “unfreedom”. Each individual is raised in a different social and historical background that shapes their values and understanding of the world around them. Secondly, it is imperative to not limit a Muslim woman’s ability, attitude, or situation down to a single article of clothing. It is important to steer away from this Western ideal on what is deemed as wrong or right. Instead, we must focus on serious issues and actual feminist concerns that go deeper than the simple concept of veiling.