fKamalpreet has 12 post(s)

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).

Amalia Cabezas’ essay, “Between Love and Money: Sex, Tourism, and Citizenship in Cuba and the Dominican Republic”, she explains and defines the term “sexual citizenship”. She also goes into the specifics of the connection between women who do not ‘fit the standards’ set by heteronormativity and this kind of sexuality she explains prior. Sex, travel, and globalization are now intertwined in the political order and are an important part of the tourism industry in the world today. The sexual labor of women, starting from the times of the European colonizations and then going on for over five hundred years, has always been a part of the economic and political world (1). And so the author brings up a very clear question, how is globalization now making such environments for sexual acts and sexualized identities to be created (2)? Amalia Cabezas believes that the tie between sex and tourism derives from the need of labor which changes seasonally, from the formal and informal sections of the economy. She also argues that workers and individuals are constantly changing and forming the labor process due to their own intimacies and sexualities. Not only that, but Amalia Cabezas also states that the not understanding of such practices and stereotypes of sex tourism are highlighted in the juridical framework and how sexual morality fits with sexual citizenship (5). Sexual citizenship goes straight to show the double standards on how society accepts and reacts to the actions of a woman to the actions of a man. A male sex worker can be seen as a hero, a national identity, someone working for the economy of the country, helping it grow. But on the other hand, a female sex worker will be considered the deviant, making them the link between tourism and prostitution, and are shamed for the work they have taken upon. The actions of a male sex worker are seen to be less politically charged and less culturally condemning, but a female sex worker? Well, that becomes a different story in the eyes of society (22).  Towards the end of her essay, Amalia Cabezas attaches a promise to this kind of sexuality, especially for those women outside of the “heteronormativity” spectrum. She states that the sexual rights of a woman (such as the right to her own body), can help challenge the ‘standards’ and ‘traditional’ views used by society to keep not just the sexual outlaws, but all women, in check (25).

In his book, “Aberrations in Black; Toward a Queer of Color Critique”, Roderick Ferguson distinguishes the connection between property, capital, and prostitution. This connection holds a link to his analysis, which in his words is known as “queer of color”. He beings to talk about the history of race in the United States of America, specifically the history of the exclusion of African American men, including their lack of rights as not just citizens, but even humans. Their lack of rights as humans was shown in the clear discrimination of them in the economic and racial settings (vii). The author pulls this all from an image he analyzed in the preface of his book. He further explains the meaning of this picture, connecting it to the sexuality behind racial exclusion. Such exclusion promoted the sexual purity and mobility of white women and white men (viii). As we move into the introduction, Robert Ferguson fixates his analyzing skills on Marlon Rigg’s “Tongues United”, where an African American drag queen prostitute is shown. The author depicts the individual as a feature of urban capitalism. It could be argued that she is displaying the many, as the author would like to say, socially disorganizing effects of the capital and political economy. In such an argument, it would mean that she represents a much larger black culture for her racial difference, which leads to a big connection with her sexuality, gender, and class. But the confusion would lie in characterizing her as a heterosexual or a homosexual, due to her “conflicting” role as a prostitute and a drag queen. This makes her not so liked by those of the African American culture and those not, as they want to present the black culture to be about everything that she is not. Simply put, such mindsets want the culture to be universally accepted as normal (2). Now, this is where the queer of color analysis comes in. The author describes it what is used to study what cultures can produce in the name of identifications and how it handles the unwanted “baggage” that comes along with it (3). Adding on to that, queer of color analysis believes that liberal ideology stops the crossing of race, gender, sexuality, and class in forthcoming social customs.

Cathy Cohen’s essay, “Punks, Bulldaggers, and Welfare Queens” showcases her opinion on what has inhibited the radical potential of queer activism. She states her main argument in her writing, “… I argue that a truly radical or transformative politics has not resulted from queer activism” (438). Cathy Cohen defines queer activism as a potential movement by antiassimilationist activists of today’s age devoted to questioning and changing the way people of their community or society understand and respond to sexuality. As queer activists, these individuals would find themselves challenging the norms set by society regarding sexuality and would radically change the politics in the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered communities (437). The author believes that instead of eliminating assumed categories and binaries of sexual identity, queer activism has only been a way to strengthen the dichotomies between heterosexuality and everything queer. Queer politics were formed around the early 1990s to fight the “de-gaying” tendencies supported by AIDs activism and the non-existence of the lesbian and gay community in the traditional civil rights, triggered by the increase in physical assaults against the members of the LGBTQ community. The queer politics are more of an “in your face” set of politics established by the youth to introduce the word “queer” as not just an abbreviated term to identify individuals or their sexuality. But what seems to be different in queer activists is that they are able to address their own anti-normative characteristics and non-stable behavior (439). The problem that lies in all of this is that queer politics are not emerging as the challenge it should be to the many systems of domination and oppression, including the system that gives privilege to heterosexuals and makes heterosexual relationships seem as though the natural ones in society (440). Through the evaluation of the contemporary queer activism and politics, she hopes for the potential in the construction of a set of politics where the privilege in one’s political comrades comes from their relation to power, not their homogenized identity.

Patricia Hill Collins voices her opinion on the fact that “outsiders” contribute to the study of sociology and how we understand society and culture in her essay, “Learning from the Outsider Within: The Sociological Significance of Black Feminist Thought”. Right in the beginning of the reading, the author begins to talk about how a minority significantly affects the lives of the majority, the example she uses is of African American women. Those women who work domestic duties for white families, and she calls this an “insider” relationship, one where both parties are satisfied, to the point where some whites might say they reveal their love for their black “mothers”. It also allowed for these African American women to realize that white power is not all because of talent or intellect, but more so because of the advantages, they hold due to racism. However, although they were called black “mothers”, the women knew that they could not be a part of these families, they were the “outsiders” (14). Many believe that the outsider within status is quite beneficial than some may think. The benefits include the high probability of individuals deciding to confide in the “strangers” in the way they can’t with each other, the patterns and problems they can notice that others who are involved in such a situation can’t, and Simmel’s definition of objectivity. Mannheim also believes that individuals who hold the outsider within status may develop creative development skills of academic disciplines from the situations they usually have to deal with. Much of these women help Black Feminist scholars in analyzing race, class, and gender, and explaining the sociological significance of black feminists (15). The author uses cross-disciplinary literature to explain not only the Black Feminist thought but also the idea behind sociologists who describe African American women’s outsider within status as usage of their standpoint to conduct research (16).

In the article, “Are women are human? It’s not an academic question” by V.Spike Peterson and Laura Parisi; they believe we should question the connection between human rights and heterosexism, instead of putting an emphasis, as some feminists, on the centralization of men on human rights. Throughout the article, the authors talk about heterosexism being a more accurate approach to examine the relationship between gender difference and human rights. Peterson and Parisi start off the article by saying that references to the non-gender-differentiated human are in fact references to men, such as their bodies, experiences, and stereotypes. Men are considered to be the norm and universal. While on the other hand women are not in the universal category, and their bodies, experiences, and stereotypes are seen to be as particular or partial. This shows the obvious that men are deemed the human while women are thought to be the other, one is in the category, and the other is in the subcategory (132). Plainly put, heterosexism is the set notion of heterosexuality being the only normal and natural type of a sexual identity, practice or relation (133). This also leads to the hierarchy of males and females, or male identities and female identities, based on biophysical features. Heterosexism is therefore clearly reflected in the discourse and practice of human rights by gender inequalities being held, the distinction between public and private spheres (men and women), and the focus only on states as the protector and violator of these individual rights (134). The two authors then start to draw connections with the history of heterosexism. It technically originated from two ‘great’ men, Sigmund Freud and Karl Marx. While Freud talked more about the psychological view of sexual differentiation and the need for controlling instinctual desires, Marx was more concerned with the social structure, and the establishment of such hierarchies.  First, they believe that the psychoanalytic perspectives led to the constituting of gender identities and sexual practices, starting as early on as from when an infant begins to mature and what happens in its surroundings, especially the language used to them. Second, Peterson and Parisi point out that the prominence of the language and psychoanalysis are what embellish the social structures (135).

Hello Professor,

When you say that we can use the work of Angela Davis from Race and Class, does that mean we can use all the chapters we read for class, 2, 3, 4, and 5? Or are we only allowed to use one of those chapters?

Thank you!

Gayle Rubin’s essay, “Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality” presents her argument that several persistent features of thought about sex inhibit the development of a radical theory of sex (Bullock). She observes many assumptions in the western culture to prove her point further and to show how they end up limiting political discourse on sexuality in the United States. During the late nineteenth century, the United States and England had a period where sexuality, in some ways, was renegotiated. Powerful social movements were against prostitution and masturbation, especially amongst the young, and encouraged chastity. On top of that, morality crusaders targeted public dancing, music halls, birth control information, abortion, nude paintings,  etc. Unfortunately, the consequences of these “moral paroxysms” still profoundly influence society, such as leaving deep imprints on people’s thoughts on sex, sex law, medical practice, child-bearing, etc (143-144). In result of all of this, masturbation is still seen as an unhealthy practice with myths that it could affect the health and maturation of a child, lead to insanity, or be a hindrance to growth. Although the horrific techniques to keep young ones from masturbation have been left behind, there are still social and legal structures which do not allow for minors to gain sexual knowledge or experience (144). Not only was prostitution and masturbation being targeted during this era [especially just before and after World War II], with laws being passed against such things, but soon the focus started to shift to “homosexual menace” or the code ‘sex offenders’ [but also including rapists and child molesters]. Once the public began to “worry”, an epidemic of sexual psychopath laws were passed through state legislatures, giving more police powers to psychological professions over homosexuals and other sexual deviants (145). Homosexuals and other erotic communities were persecuted and became objects of witch hunts and purges, with the help of executive orders, congressional investigations, and media exposures supported by the government. More than thousands had lost their jobs due to this, and till this day there are still restrictions on federal employment of homosexuals (145). Such anti-homosexual movements are the most documented examples of sexual suppression and erotic repression from the late nineteenth century which sadly still affects how society thinks today.

In The Caliban and the Witch, author Silvia Federici believes that capitalism is keen to sexism and racism, as a social, economic system. Throughout the first chapter of her writing, she is able to describe the degradation that women face. The author talks about the exploitation of European workers, the enslavement of African Americans and Native Americans for the “New World”,  the transformation of a body to a work machine, the destruction of women’s power in not only Europe but America as well, and primitive accumulation (Federici, page 63). She puts a great amount of focus on the extermination of the “witches”, also known as the “Great Witch Hunt”, which occurred in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Silvia Federici argues that the Great Witch Hunt is one of the main reasons why it was possible to destroy the power of women in Europe, as well as America. As many would like to relate capitalist accumulation with the liberation of the workers, male and female alike, she believes you could not. Federici argues that instead capitalism has invented more savage forms of enslavement, and creates deeper divisions, especially between men and women (Federici, page 64). The merchant capitalists during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries took advantage of the cheap labor force of that time, and the “informal economy” was built from the labor of women and children, whose work did not match the low wage they received (Federici, page 72). Women also began getting themselves involved in riots, resisting against enclosure, the fencing of land and draining of fens. It was believed that they were strong and confident enough to stand up and speak up because they were technically above the law, legally “covered” by their husbands. However, the government was quick to take that privilege away and started arresting women who were involved in the riots. When their lands were lost and communities fell apart due to the enclosure, women suffered heavily. It was much harder for women to become vagabonds or migrant workers, they were less mobile because they had to take of the children or were pregnant, and the option of joining the army as a cook, washer, prostitute, etc. was taken away by the seventeenth century. It had become more difficult for them to support themselves than men and became increasingly confined to reproductive labor (Federici, page 73-74). Reproductive work continued to be paid, however at really low rates and was then even labelled as “women’s labor”. Women were not given a variety of waged occupations, and if they did happen to find one, their wage was almost nothing compared to the average male salary. These unfortunate changes redefined women’s position in society, left reproductive work as their only option, and increased their dependence on men (Federici, page 75).

Suzanne Kessler’s essay, “The Medical Construction of Gender” describes the factors that play a role in the way physicians, parents, and patients understand and manage the medical condition known as intersexuality. To begin with, an intersexed individual is one who was born with genitals that are not of a female nor male. Physicians who handle such cases consider factors, other than the biological ones usually considered by scientists, to be able to determine the gender of an individual (Kessler, page 3). However, these physicians hold a belief that being a female or male are the only natural options (Kessler, page 4). It has been said that cases of intersexual infants are usually managed using the theory of gender, which was first proposed by John Money, J.G Hampson, and J.L Hampson in 1955 and later developed in 1972 by John Money and Anke A Ehrhardt. This theory states that gender identity can be changed by the age of eighteen months. The conditions of this theory to be ‘proven’ are that the parents must be sure of whether their child is a male or female, the genitals must match the assigned gender as soon as possible, the individual must be given gender-appropriate hormones at puberty, and the person must be informed about their medical condition with explanations appropriate for their age. If the theory is ‘proven’ than it is also stated that the intersexed individual will develop a gender identity parallel to their gender assignment and will not question their assignment. Nonetheless, this theory has been supported by only a handful amount of actual cases, and more cause its prominence and resonation with modern ideas (Kessler, page 6-7). Physicians also say that an intersexed infant’s diagnosis, gender assignment, and genital reconstruction should not be put off any longer than two years since the parent’s confusion on the child’s gender or sex can increase any negative response towards the baby (Kessler, page 9). It is quite contradictory that the primary factor behind how intersexuality is to be treated is determined by a theory that, as stated in the essay, has taken a character of gospel, and it’s effective has been questioned by specialists who use it themselves (Kessler, page 8).