fAzel has 9 post(s)

In her piece “Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving? Anthropological Reflections on Cultural Relativism and Its Others”, Lila Abu-Lughod poses the issue of using the state of Muslim women in the Middle East in order to justify America’s war on terror. Abu-Lughod questions the ethics of the war on terrorism, claiming that the actions of the U.S. military, which often leads to shocking and appalling results, cannot be reasonably justified by the plight of women in nations where the US military is active. In order to support her claim, Abu-Lughod looks to Anthropology rather than politics, and offers a theory on how American sentiment and misunderstanding shapes our view on how to approach our relationship with muslim majority states. She posits that American’s, particularly the American Government, views toward Islamic culture are largely parochial and narrow. Abu-Lughod says that the supposed “oppression” of muslim women is not a mandatory coercion to live a certain way but rather a willing method for women to express their own culture, an ancient and proud culture with deep roots in history.

The author compares the American Government’s facade to “save” muslim women harkens to an earlier period in history, the Colonial Era, in which international powers pillaged and oppressed many different populations around the world under the guise of helping them with “education and civilization”. Abu-Lughod offers an alternative for the U.S. Government, saying that rather than focus on trying to “save” muslim women, they should not only recognize that cultures develop with widely different histories and social dynamics, since their actions are in essence an imposition of their own culture. On top of this, The Government should focus its resources toward actual humanitarian crises on the planet, like the prevalence of starvation or the massive wealth gap between western and eastern nations, or even the accommodation of millions of displaced refugees from war-torn countries.

Amelia Cabezas details sexual citizenship as the status of Caribbean women struggling with the controversial field of sex tourism and its scrutiny under Caribbean governments. Cabezas uses the cuban government as a primary example of how governments intervened to “purify” their respective cultures in order to better their images, by labeling women who’s occupations lay outside the heteronormative standards of their society as dangerous criminals that ought to be subjected to rehabilitation. This allowed the government to incarcerate women for crimes against social morality, which leaves a lot of room for interpretation as well as corruption and unfair treatment to the institutionalized – even though prostitution is entirely legal in such areas. This puts the civil rights of the sexual citizen into jeopardy, all the while reinforcing the governments authority under the guise of aiding these women to become better citizens and people in general. The “promise” of saving women from allegedly heinous relations with tourists is met with conflict from women who under impoverished conditions are forced to sell their services to support their children and lifestyles. With no other method of survival, the promise of bettering oneself according to heteronormative structures leaves these women empty handed and at risk of being taken advantage of by men in higher positions, such as corrupt police officers that Cabezas accounts of having raped and robbed women arrested for being with tourists. Thus, the political inclination of the cuban government puts many women in unfavorable positions, listing them as sexual deviants for taking actions that would be applauded for had they been done by a man. Sexual citizenry serves only to profile and deprecate women that do not comply with the social norm that is heterosexual male dominance, all for the economic interest and benefit that mass tourism brings to places like the Caribbean.

In his critical analysis of how factors like disproportionate economic possession, deviation from the classic “American nuclear family” model, and disparate historical backgrounds all play significant roles within the race relations of America in his book Aberrations in Black: Toward a Queer of Color Critique, author Roderick Ferguson offers a theory as to another factor that lies at the intersection of race relations in America, and this is sexual orientation. Ferguson utilizes political and economic theory commonly discussed by Marx and Marxism concepts to critique the capitalist structure and its inherent facilitation of racial/sexual inequality. These critiques highlight a common thread that connects the inherent notion of property and capital and how it creates a culturally common dislike of lifestyle choices that deviate outside the norm, like prostitution. This dislike is accentuated when considering the lifestyle choices queer men and women of color, especially since these demographics are already considered “outside the norm” by some in American society.

Ferguson offers a brief overview of marxist history and political theory to provide the reader a better understanding of the concept of property in the United States. He then uses this definition to argue that notions of nation and property are the primary factor for racial exclusion in this country. (Aberrations 3) Ferguson also points out that the acquisition of property is viewed as a virtue, and so people who chose lifestyles that deviate from this pursuit in exchange for conventional social taboos such as sexual liberation, or the profiting from it, are viewed with disdain. This applies much more so to queer people of color, who are already much more liable to be scrutinized for their actions simply because of their existence as a racial and sexual minority within the country. Using the African American queer prostitute from the introductory paragraph, Ferguson accurately represents the many individuals that find themselves ostracized from their culture due to the heterogeneity present within their natures.

Patricia Hill Collins’ “Outsiders” represent Black women not only as a group, but as a symbolic foundation of sociology hidden underneath the the facade of white American patriarchy. Collins explains that their oppression is a significant portion of Afro-American Women’s culture, but also to culture as a whole. The “Outsider within” refers to how paradoxically these women are ostracized through multiple negative stereotypes, yet remain relevant as the backbone of black feminism and the targeted minority. This is seen in Collins’ example of African American women being often employed as nannies or house keepers, taking care of white families when they fail to do it themselves.

African American women in particular deal with two fronts of oppression, their gender and race. Being put in the lowest possible position in a white male managed institution creates a necessary perspective on society that must be viewed in order to understand the functioning of American culture. Collins stresses the struggles laid out before Black women, and the sole choice of conforming or rebelling. These are concepts that the white majority do not come across, as there is no need for white males to organize activism against any oppressors. This attributes a unique value to feminist Afrocentric resistance to the inherent domination present in their lives.

It is important to consider this viewpoint due to the impact it has on paradigms, which Collins explains in relation to social consciousness. Outsiders see cultural practices differently than insiders, therefore oppositional thinking within society yields an inequality that is better observed through the eyes of the oppressed rather than the oppressor. This is because, as Collins points out, the status of black women in America as outsiders is the key factor of generating tension with insiders. Only by experiencing true oppression can one make a validated judgement on sociological concepts and issues present in reality.

In the reading V. Spike Peterson and Laura Parisi argue that heterosexualism is central to the relationship of human rights and gender differentiation. A heterosexual relationship consists of both male and female, implying a binary classification of the genders. This forces a natural polarity between the male and female, making both genders opposites and allows people to distinguish the two from each other. Among these distinctions lies historical discrimination in favor of men, in which human rights come into play. The byproduct of heterosexualism in society yields one in which one side dominates the other, exemplifying the behavioral relationship between men and women today. Humanity as a general term has long been established as androcentric making men the primary focus, hence the ‘man’ part of the word mankind. Thus heterosexism becomes a pillar of human rights, and as the world stands there is a clear hierarchal difference from the male and female sexes where universally accepted androcentrism gives males an advantage. Peterson and Parisi maintain that cultural values like family shape the prevalence of inequality and gender difference through social practice. Normalized heterosexuality is also present within the state acting as a sovereign model for citizens, making obligatory the social leverage given to men. Because of this human rights remains applicable to all, albeit less so for women. The unequal distribution of rights puts in jeopardy the protection of women from male oppression, a major difference in gender that is made easily identifiable by heterosexualism. This gives the analysis of gender relationships a clear result; a heterosexist institution favors males and promotes vulnerability to females. Relative to gender difference and human rights, it is obvious that society operates on discrimination for the sake of separating the sexes and making sure they stay mutually exclusive. Were the institution not to be heterosexist, human rights could potentially be evenly distributed at the expense of gender difference. What Peterson and Parisi explain is that human rights are impacted by heterosexualism, a human concept built upon over time. If heterosexism is abandoned, lines between genders would be erased eliminating the need to make women’s rights and human rights two separate things.

In the reading V. Spike Peterson and Laura Parisi argue that heterosexualism is central to the relationship of human rights and gender differentiation. A heterosexual relationship consists of  both male and female, implying a binary classification of the genders. This forces a natural polarity between the male and female, making both genders opposites and allows people to distinguish the two from each other. Among these distinctions lies historical discrimination in favor of men, in which human rights come into play. The byproduct of heterosexualism in society yields one in which one side dominates the other, exemplifying the behavioral relationship between men and women today. Humanity as a general term has long been established as androcentric making men the primary focus, hence the ‘man’ part of the word mankind. Thus heterosexism becomes a pillar of human rights, and as the world stands there is a clear hierarchal difference from the male and female sexes where universally accepted androcentrism gives males an advantage. Peterson and Parisi maintain that cultural values like family shape the prevalence of inequality and gender difference through social practice. Normalized heterosexuality is also present within the state acting as a sovereign model for citizens, making obligatory the social leverage given to men. Because of this human rights remains applicable to all, albeit less so for women. The unequal distribution of rights puts in jeopardy the protection of women from male oppression, a major difference in gender that is made easily identifiable by heterosexualism. This gives the analysis of gender relationships a clear result; a heterosexist institution favors males and promotes vulnerability to females. Relative to gender difference and human rights, it is obvious that society operates on discrimination for the sake of separating the sexes and making sure they stay mutually exclusive. Were the institution not to be heterosexist, human rights could potentially be evenly distributed at the expense of gender difference. What Peterson and Parisi explain is that human rights are impacted by heterosexualism, a human concept built upon over time. If heterosexism is abandoned, lines between genders would be erased eliminating the need to make women’s rights and human rights two separate things.

Adrienne Rich argues that heterosexuality is institutionalized as a concept, meaning that a monotheistic-like belief in heterosexuality is a product of society and established through its culture. Rich begins with Kathleen Gough’s work by explaining the eight characteristics of Male power and how the construct of male domination is intent on consciously curbing women, varying from physical abuse to limiting the way women think. These characteristics reveal themselves in present day society through sexual discrimination; Rich debating that these constructs serve in part to force heterosexuality onto women and thus limit lesbian freedom from all fronts through making homosexuality an obligatory taboo. The next example Rich draws pieces of her argument from concentrates on the sexualization of women already at a disadvantage in the workforce. There is a double standard against lesbians, it being that American society’s women are expected to look and behave as heterosexual females. The example of a lesbian being forced to express her sexual orientation in secret is an indictment of society’s desire to shun and suffocate homosexuality between women in order to make them fit in line with the characteristics of male power.

Male domination as an institution has a profound impact on feminist thought; the pressure on women as a group to fight gender discrimination often undermines female homosexuality. Rich uses the term ‘lesbian continuum’ to describe the various connections between women (not necessarily sexual) that allow them to form stronger bonds as a group and boost individual confidence. By ignoring the issue that is female homosexual freedom, lesbian continuum is put in jeopardy and hence women as a whole. This being a consequence of institutionalizing heterosexuality makes it difficult for women and feminism to consider homosexuality as a response to Male power, since the secret lesbian faces the possibility of loosing her place in society.

In her essay, “Skeletons in the Closet,” Londa Schiebinger rhetorically asks why female anatomy gained traction during the eighteenth and nineteenth century in order to apply the focus of her argument on the scientific aptitudes that were unavailable to women at the time. During an era of freedom fighting and movements for equal rights (race, class) it may seem obvious that the science of women became a subject of mass inquiry by many researchers connected to the struggle for equality among genders, yet Schiebinger emphasizes the importance behind the ulterior political motivations regarding the publication of female science. Schiebinger’s response to her own question indicates that the publication of women related studies in the scientific community during this time period carried some type of bias or pseudo-scientific hypothesis, which created deeper differences further separating men from women in society both naturally and morally. The eighteenth century portrayal of gender specific skeletal structures by Marie-Geneviève Charlotte drives home this point, with the claim about skull size being proportional to intelligence showing how early steps in modern science were actually a step backwards for women. Such evidence also applied to studies of non-white people and in this way, science as a field of study was being used as a social tool to justify the divide between genders and race, and maintain the social hierarchy that favored wealthy white men. Schiebinger continues her response by explaining how medical advancements could have had a more positive effect had people abandoned “ancient authority”, or simply changed from a traditionally archaic mindset. Because this failed to happen immediately, ideas of superiority and inferiority emerged directly from the scientific world and carried out consequences in nineteenth century social standard. Thus science and society intermingled to reinforce the position of men and their desire to dominate every subject relevant to civilization.

Angela Davis attempts to convey the initial free-for-all that was the commencement of the women’s rights movement alongside black liberation, describing the difference in ideologies, interests and involvement of women and abolitionists determined for equal rights. Davis sheds light on the juxtaposition of the already destitute working conditions available to working class women, the all around inhumane treatment of African American women and the concerns of the Abolitionists party. Through the mentioning of Charlotte Woodward and Sojourner Truth, Davis shows all women outside the rising middle class made up a notable majority of women that were mostly unrepresented by the Convention at Seneca Falls, which included mill workers and slaves. Such are the lives of Woodward and Truth; women who strived for much more than an equality of status to men, white or black. Focusing on the absence of any colored women at the Convention at Seneca Falls, Davis makes it clear that there is a difference in agendas within the women’s rights movement regarding association with the lower class women and African Americans. As a result collaboration between oppressed women and abolitionists was not prioritized and prevented the movement from achieving its full potential. Thus, the lack of integration of abolitionists in the women’s rights movement outside of the few Davis mentions most likely stumped the collective growth of the effort early on, or at least partially nullified the impact of the Convention at Seneca Falls. Moreover, I believe that Davis wants the reader to understand the importance of the conflicting movements during mid-nineteenth century and how they competed, by highlighting both the differences and similarities of African Americans and women fighting for equal rights. Had both parties effectively collaborated, women’s suffrage and the freedom of black Americans could have essentially provoked the undertaking of a second American revolution.