fElisabeth has 14 post(s)

Can you expand on what you mean by the “conflict” between power/domination as a cultural thing rather than something institutionalized? Power can be institutionalized (i.e. systematic racism or women living under Taliban rule being prevented from going to school), but are we arguing the ways in which forms of oppressive power can also be cultural? Is it acceptable to describe the “conflict” by explaining how culture can enhance these forms of oppressive power? I’m using Abu-Lughod’s piece and “are women human” to discuss the West’s ideas about what is right for women in terms of identity and the ways in which women do/don’t have power (kind of comparing the West to the Middle East). Does it make sense to discuss the conflict relatively to the West/East and how conditions differ for women.

In her essay, “Do Muslims Women Really Need Saving,” Lila Abu-Lughod argues that discourses on humanitarianism and human rights in the 21st century rely on constructions of the idea of the “Muslim Woman”. Abu-Lughod focuses on the burqa that is often seen as symbol of oppression, a veil that muslim women are forced to wear. Abu-Lughod looks at Afghanistan as an example, stating that under Taliban rule women, under Sharia Law, were forced to wear burqas and even after Afghanistan was liberated from the Taliban, women continued to wear burqas. This, of course, is because the burqa is not just a symbol of political rule or law, it is a cultural aspect of Islam and worn by Muslim women everywhere. Abu-Lughod seems to comment on the misconception “liberals” have of the burqa, stating that liberals were confused when women didn’t liberate themselves from the burqa once the Taliban was removed from Afghanistan. Of course they didn’t – they can’t.

In “Between Love and Money: Sex, Tourism, and Citizenship in Cuba and the Dominican Republic” Amelia Cabezas defines “sexual citizenship” as the relationship between citizens and sexual labor. Cabezas focuses on “sex tourism,” or the practices of sex workers who are dependent on their labor and the wages that are earned from their sexual services. This form of prostitution is seen as deviant behavior, of course, and considered of lesser value or importance to society. Of course there is gender inequality in sex work because men are given more sexual freedom and authority than woman. Outside of prostitution, women are demonized for being sexually active, called promiscuous, while it is acceptable for men to have multiple sex partners and engage in prostitution. Ironically, a majority of sex workers are women serving the needs of men (instead of male prostitutes serving the needs of female clients. In the DR and Cuba, anything outside the heteronormative patriarchy is considered wrong and demonized by society (including sexually deviant women, prostitution, homosexuality, etc.). In the DR and Cuba, sexual minorities of any kind are treated as lesser members of society. Latin American countries are typically very religious (Catholic) with an importance and emphasis on family – sexual practices that exist outside the purpose of producing children or maintaining the family are seen as immoral, wrong and those individuals will be ostracized by society. But, sex tourism and the practices of these sexual workers is accepted when it is seen as loving and romantic. Many people who engage in sexual tourism are seen as participating in mutually beneficial romantic relationships – where the tourists receive companionship and sexual services from the citizens in the DR and Cuba and the citizens receive financial benefit and economic support from the tourists. Considering some of these women are single mothers with children to support, it is understandable that they would seek this type of companionship to provide for themselves and their families.

Roderick Ferguson characterizes the relationship between property, capital and prostitution in his book “Aberrations in Black” using the “queer of color” analysis. “Queer of Color” describes individuals that are outcast from society for having different identities (some may be deviant while others may be more accepted), along with the emergence of the drag queens and prostitutes.

According to Ferguson, property is a commodity (land or in some cases, property can be people such as slaves) and a social standard. Although we, as individuals, are not owned, we are considered property in the sense that we provide labor for a wage rate to the institutions that we work for. It is essential that we work in order to obtain wages from our employer, in the hopes that we can acquire capital in order to sustain survival.

Capital is seen as human labor, basically commodifying the individual for the purpose of labor production. Within capital, there is a hierarchy that is comprised of skilled and unskilled workers, followed by women and children with the lowest wage rate being provided to the worker for the highest amount of labor production attainable for the institution to profit. Ferguson points out that the state can influence the heteronormative nature of capital, without the state.

Ferguson continues to explain that prostitution is a combination of property and labor capital. Prostitution is different from property and capital because it is disconnected from the conventional, heteronormative values of race and gender. But, prostitution is still the ownership of an individual that provides a service (labor) for a waged rate. Ferguson explains that prostitution is a threat to the system (and ultimately not protected socially or legally) because it provides a method of mobility that would otherwise not exist for people in those demographics. Queers can gain wealth through the labor of prostitution, that could elevate them financially in a way that society doesn’t want or allow.

“Queer of color” analysis is important to the connection among property, capital and prostitution because it exposes the ways in which queers and prostitution go against the heteronormative state and threaten the patriarchal system. Homosexuality and sexual deviance are thought to be tools to destroy society and the morals of the heterosexual man. Creating a system that gives a sense of identity and wages (potential wealth) to these members of society could potentially grant them power and means to success that are directed to heteronormative men only. If queers can gain wealth through prostitution, they would take power away from the patriarchy.

In “Are Women Human? It’s not an academic question,” Parisi and Peterson look at humans through the binary gendered lens as ‘men’ and ‘women’. The authors argue that men are seen as the dominant, universal human and women are subjugated (seen as dependent and submissive compared to men, who have dominance in sex roles and society). Focusing on human rights through an androcentrist lens actually excludes women while looking at human rights through a gendered lens that focuses on men’s rights.

Heterosexism looks at the institutionalization of heterosexuality as the ‘normal’ sexual identity and thus perpetuates ideas of what is normal for men (masculine behavior) or normal for women (feminine behavior) focused on bio-physical features (like family life and reproduction).

It is problematic to view society through an androcentric role because social norms and gender are controlled by the male dominant ideology, which means women’s right will be ingored (or not properly seen) or subjugated against men’s. The gender hierarchy imposed on women as prevented them from receiving the power and attention in society that is inherently deferred to men. Men’s interests are ultimately privileged and gender identities or sexual identities that exist outside this ‘norm’ are neither respected nor given proper validation. This translates into how children are raised in society – they are confined to the heteronormative expectation that greatly differs depending on the child’s sex. This inequality is transferred to race and socioeconomic class, as well.

The authors argue that a heterocentric view is a more accurate way to view the relationships between men and women and the different rights granted to individuals based on their gender. Women are subject to control and oppression that men will not and do not face (such as reproductive rights, domestic abuse, and more). It is important to not view social relationships through a gender-less lens because our social relationships are very defined by our gender, race and socioeconomic class.

In “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence” Adrienne Rich explores why homosexuality in women is seen as deviant or inherently negative behavior – addressing the misconception that a woman only indulges in sexual activities with other women out of spite for men. Rich also addresses that lesbianism has been underrepresented in feminist theory and literature. Citing Kathleen Gough, Rich explores her hypothesis that this perception has been created, in part, by man’s desire to control women. Female circumcision, chastity belts, denial of masturbation, idealization of heterosexuality, arranged marriages, prostitution and much more, are elements of male power dynamics that have been used against women to confine and control their sexuality. Women are threatened physically and fully employed in the home which prevents their movement, both literally and figuratively, outside of their designated role as homemaker, wife and mother. Women are objectified and subjugated against men, ultimately being held back in society to allow male power to progress and remain dominant against women and female objectives.

Rich claims that these power tactics enforce heterosexuality because they lead women to believe that participating in the institution of marriage (and of course, motherhood) is their purpose in society, that marriage and children are inevitable and a man is a vital component of fulfilling that legacy. A woman couldn’t be a woman, in society’s standards, without a man (a man to provide a woman with a socially accepted heterosexual marriage, children and family dynamic).

Kathleen Barry claims that domestic abuse, incest, prostitution, marital rape, daughters being sold into marriages and more have created a system that acts to enslave women through ‘female sexual slavery’. Rich suggests that compulsory heterosexuality basically acts as a ‘procurer and pimp’ in a world-wide prostitution ring that manipulates women into accepting the conditions they are forced into (creating an analogy to the battered woman that stays with her husband because she doesn’t think she has a way out, is confined economically, is emotionally manipulated, scared, etc.).

Rich’s argument suggests that the institutionality of heterosexuality (in terms of marriage, female reliance on men, love, etc.) is another, almost global, means of control that manipulates women into dependence on men and sexual suppression that could result in ignorance to homosexuality. Rich calls out feminists for largely ignoring this in feminist theory and literature, suggesting that their lack of attention is actually making the problem worse for women. It is troubling to think of heterosexuality as the norm and homosexuality as deviant or wrong. After unraveling the history of heterosexuality and women, it is evident that women have “resisted male tyranny” seen throughout every period. Rich suggests we do away thinking/labeling things in society as “good” or “bad” and “right” or “wrong”. The freedom to choose and have autonomy over your decision making, without society telling you what is right or wrong, is a crucial component in developing an understanding of your desires and sexuality.

While reading Gayle Rubin’s “Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality,” I thought about my experience with Catholic school. I attended Catholic School (almost) my entire life, I remember in high school we were assigned a project on abortion that instructed us to argue the side of prolife and prochoice. The argument for prolife was that if you’re not prepared to have a child then you simply shouldn’t have sex. This argument is completely unrealistic and illogical, but in an environment that has directly and indirectly programed us to think that premarital sex (and sometimes just sex itself) is sinful and wrong – the argument makes perfect sense. This bias permeates the political realm as well and prevents us from having logical and rational conversations about important issues regarding sex.

When Rubin talks about the far right making a case in the late 1960s that SEICUS (the Sex Information and Education Council of the United States) and proper sexual education would destroy the family and that similar practices and organizations would somehow tarnish morale and tamper with race relations. I think there is a huge problem with placing ideas of morality on sexual behavior. Sex is something that is natural and (arguably) the basis of existence (to reproduce and procreate – in a biological sense, the ability to reproduce determines the success of a species) and comes with risks that we must be prepared for. A refusal to educate people on sex can result in unwanted pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases and psychological problems that can result from non-consensual sex or fear of judgement.

I think that Foucault’s “The History of Sexuality” gives a more accurate explanation of sex – as a natural libido trying to break free from social constraints. He says that new sexualities are constantly produced, arguing that social sexual practices are always evolving and always changing, which means society must be aware and conscious of those changes and the new identities that may emerge from such a progression.

The assumptions that sex is sinful, that premarital sex is wrong, that the only purpose of sex is to have children in an ideological family, and that the negative repercussions of sex are consequences of poor moral practices is extremely regressive and dangerous. The far right has used religion as a justification for a certain moral high ground that (they think) grants them the right to tell other people how they need to behave in their private lives. I find it ironic that these people feel a moral superiority and a moral obligation to better society with a no-sex agenda, but don’t think to extend that moral obligation to orphans, homeless people, underprivileged children, veterans, sick people without access to healthcare and so much more. It is indicative that this “moral standard” is not moral, but religious. Religion can serve as a base for one’s identity and it is difficult to change people’s minds when their opinion is tied to their identity. Although we have come a long way and have sexual education programs and access to sexual care, it is astonishing and troubling that we are still having arguments about Planned Parenthood and contraceptive care.