fHannah has 9 post(s)

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.

In “Between Love and Money: Sex, Tourism, and Citizenship in Cuba and the Dominican Republic” Amelia Cabezas observes the act of having sex and all that is attached to it, more specifically in third world countries. Throughout history, the act of having sex changed. In earlier times sex was only correlated to reproduction. Of course, this thought has become more outdated today. However we can still recognize the stigmas that are attached to having sex. And by doing so, we can then break them down.

Cabezas discusses that sex has become a beneficial service to women in D.R. Sex labor was about more than the money it brought. Sex became a service (often taken place in resorts) that women used to gain opportunities that they would have had otherwise.  Cabezas explains that sex tourism allows women to navigate to a better life. It increases their chances to migrate. Money was not the only direct thing sex workers cared about. Sex can be exchanged for materials or offers. This was actually more preferred because it meant that the materials came with an emotional attachment, which would further the chances of a marriage proposal. Therefore the popular notion that people prostitutes themselves for money, is evidently a false conception. Sex tourism was more than the wages but more so the plausibility of life outside of their country, so they can flee from the economical and social disadvantages they suffered. Cabezas also talks about the double standard of sex that is presented in other countries. Men have an upper advantage in society. Male sex workers are less judged than female sex workers. Females are more likely to be challenged from authorities.

Sex is still heavily connected to ideas of marriage, procreation, and monogamous relationships. Third world countries like Cuba and Dominican Republic challenge this idea. It emphasized the more complex politics that is imbued in the act of having sex.

In Cathy J. Cohens work, “Punks, Bulldaggers, and Welfare Queens,” she explains the oppression of queers. Cohen emphasizes how sexuality is socially constructed and how categorizing the different branches of sexuality is demeaning and oppressing.  Categorizing sexuality ultimately gives certain amount of powers to each group, putting heterosexuality at the top of it. This translates heterosexuality as the “norm” within our society. This unjust system continues to marginalize and hinder queer activists. With queer politics at the bottom of this man made sexual hierarchy, queers are given almost no social standing. They are arguably the most oppressed within the sexual categories; and to be a black, female queer would result in a triple oppression because of their sexuality,sex, and race, being that white males are evidently more privileged. It is nearly impossible for queers to make any progress until we realize sexuality is a spectrum. And, we have to re-conceptualize our understanding of the term sexuality. And by doing so, it is necessary to break down the categorizing of sexuality, so we can view each other as equals. For queer activists to achieve their goal to have their own rights, they have to recognize all rights, for all that are oppressed.  These multiple forms of oppression that is embedded in our system continues to put those that does not meet the social expectations to be unprivileged, socially and economically. I think before being an activist for a certain community, one must be a humanist before anything else. We are all fighting for human rights. And I think this is what Cohen is trying to get at. You cannot make any progressive change for a group, without attacking the whole system. By breaking down the divisions that have been historically made to oppress certain individuals, can we then begin to make any real changes for anyone.

In “Are women human? It’s not an academic question,” V. Spike Peterson and Laura Parisi speak on heterosexism in relevance to human rights. They divert from the common feminist view of human rights in context to mens rights. This would in result allow us to think of human rights in different lens, and break away from male dominance. Peterson and Parisi talks about the states role in maintaining the degradation of women. For instance, they bring up domestic violence and how the state opted not to interfere.  This example is brought up to convey that women, even in their own household, are subjugated to their husbands. Not only are women under physical attack, but also psychological attack through the governments choice to not intervene. Because heterosexism is accepted as the natural sex identity, homosexuality is immediately deemed unnatural. And those practicing homosexuality is confined by the laws, by limiting the rights of gay men and women. The governments role, results to people being conditioned that, because the laws says it is wrong, then it must be wrong. The state has a way of influencing peoples morals, and they take to their advantage. This imbalance between gay and straight people is also applied to men and women. In the work environment, women are under male dominance, whether it be evident through their unequal pay or their tolerance of sexual harassment. It is ignorant to say that there isn’t a gender bias within our system and every day life. And although women rights have made progress historically, it is peculiar that women rights are not recognized as basic human rights. And I believe this is the point that Peterson and Parisi tries to get at. Women won’t be granted as a human until the state and society stops comparing our genders and sexuality.

In today’s culture, heterosexuality is heavily glamorized and viewed as the normal sexuality. Therefore being, a homosexual, immediately meant being an outcast and considered as abnormal. Within our pop-culture, we grow up watching movies, seeing advertisements, reading books, and so forth, all in the context of heterosexual romance. It is evident in our society that, this idea of finding pop-a husband is a woman’s only, necessary goal. Heterosexuality is an institution that is politically organized within our capitalist system in order to maintain the oppression of women, and keep men as the dominant sex. The economy is in favor to the man, and so forces women to be submissive to men in the work field every day. Women are enslaved both physically and mentally through the control of men.

In “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence,” Rich explains that, things like marriage, rape, vaginal surgery, idealization of heterosexuality through media, are all methods to oppress the women’s freedom of choice. Moreover, the women’s sexuality is no longer something we can think of for ourselves. We are controlled by male dominance, resulting women to see sexuality in only western culture’s lens. And to further believe, that heterosexuality is the acceptation.  Lesbian existence is then diminished of its value and often hindered. It is rarely acknowledged enough. Lesbianism is often misinterpreted as a choice that women takes on because they became bitter towards men. And it’s this false representation, that disallows lesbian existence to be able to progress.

We are born into the world of male control, and so we often see the world in only one perspective. And this one perspective is much influenced by the institutionalization of heterosexuality, enforcing us to remain dependent to men. This, politically organized, romanticizing of heterosexuality brutally limits our natural right of choice, and  effects our self-identification. We are still so objectified and until we can change this, we will never be able to freely think of our sexuality, without the judgments and disadvantages of our culture. Once we find a place for lesbian existence in our culture, maybe then can women progress in society.

In Rubin’s, “Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality,” she observes the notion of sex in Western culture. Rubin believes that sex is heavily viewed and practiced politically, rather than our natural property. Sex is only accepted in society in terms of marriage, love, or reproduction. And sex on any other terms is considered to be taboo, most especially if it involves homosexuals. Things like fetishes, sex toys, porn, and almost anything else in the context of sex, is presumed to be bad and unnatural. However the only unnatural part of this all really, is for western culture to even determine whether or not the act of sex is good or bad. It attaches sex with morality, when sex is just a natural expression, that we cannot always control, just like our hunger. Rubin mentions that our choice of diet is like our choice of sexuality. But, yet sexuality is viewed differently from other parts of our body. Western culture has idealized sexual behavior, and conforms people to their standards of “moral” sex.

Simply being a homosexual was considered to be a sexual offense. It places your entire character to be  good or bad just because of your sexual preference. And today, we can still see the same things going on. We are constantly under this pressure, when sex should be allowed, how, who, where, etc. Sex has become such a political system that it robs sex from its natural state. Our sex lives have socially become more of a burden. And this extends western culture’s power of judgement to say what is moral and immoral. How far is this supposed to go? There are limitations on how much relativism can go on in a culture. It is threatening our birthrights. Sexual oppression has been evident historically, and still is today.

In Caliban and the Witch, Federichi reveals the brutal truth about capitalism. I found this appealing, because within today’s society, capitalism and everything it “offers”, is romanticized. And sometimes, we cannot help to believe this, at least one point in our lives, because of the states success in glorifying it. Capitalism is however misconstrued; Capitalism was built on the subjugation of women. Federichi explains this in detail, by reviewing the history and the “transition to capitalism.”

Federichi examines this period in history and first notes that this was not a period of social progress, even though many believed it to be so. When the women’s main role of being a housewife changed, they faced social degradation and as as results they were financially dependent to their husbands. Where women had almost no way of gaining an income, this economic separation of the genders forced women to have no place in their new society. They were viewed instead as property. Women were perceived as incapable and only useful for the means of reproduction. Federichi describes this by dating back to the 1500s of the population crisis. From my understanding of the reading, Europe was so substantial on increasing population because, the economy was so heavily dependent on labor, and labor required people. Therefore, they mandated women as criminals if they chose not to procreate. They viewed them as a necessity, and treated them as property and stole them of their autonomy and freedom. This showed the degradation of women and how powerful the European control was. Women were threatened of their basic rights. They had no control of their own bodies and reproduction. It was even viewed as a crime if there was any proof of birth controls. I found most appalling in the reading when males were apparently viewed as the true “givers of life” when male doctors delivered babies. This just furthered showed how meaningless women were perceived to be. Europe’s coercion of women reproduction was almost this product of capitalism. Because labor expansion was so important, capitalism was fixated on the degrading and exploitation of women, whatever means necessary.

In Kessler’s essay “The Medical Construction of Gender”, she brings up the complications in intersexed infants. When a baby is born with ambiguous genitals, Kessler explains that it is ultimately up to the doctors to assign a sex as soon as possible, in order for the infant to grow up with a relatively normal childhood. And through this decision making, Kessler reveals that there are cultural and environmental expectations that play an influential role. Although some biological factors like X or Y chromosomes, or reproductive systems take part in assigning a sex, it is the appearance of their genitals that is important. Kessler says that parents must be comfortable with is, or else they can dissociate with their infant and take on stress from friends and family. This would eventually leave consequences to the infant as the baby then grows up, unable to identify with his or her gender.

Which brings the topic of gender identity and gender roles. Kessler mentioned in the essay how both are considered when doctors must assign a sex. They factor in social norms because it is so influential in a child’s identity. For example, because society often ties masculinity to the size of their penis, a doctor would rather assign an infant to be female, if the infant’s penis is 3 units below the average size. This further suggested how aesthetics can overrule biological conditions of a male because they want to avoid the psychological implications the infant would have gone through growing up. Moreover, Kessler explains that the relationships kept between the parents and the doctors are critical throughout the process. She emphasized the importance of honesty and compassion throughout. Therefore, it would keep a strong relationship between them and their child. Honesty and awareness of intersexed infants is crucial, yet ignored. It is not as openly spoken about, then it should be. Society fails to understand that because of the pressures of our cultures, we are more than just our biology.

Davis used the Seneca Falls Convention as a platform to introduce the many experiences of women’s suffrage. The Seneca Falls convention is known as the starting point of the women’s rights movement. It was initially to point out the oppressing conditions of the middle class white women. For the new era of the industrial revolution, forced women to feel dependent to their husbands and suffer economically. The convention however, failed to mention women of other classes and races. And its outcome was the pouring reactions of many, like Charlotte Wood and Sojourner Truth to tell their perspective of the women’s rights movement. So although the first convention was not a total success in bringing forth all women of class and race, it did inspire others to practice their freedom of speech and have an opinion on the matter. It allowed other women to point out the things that the first convention missed. One of the most obvious thing the Seneca Falls convention ignored were the suffering of black women. Davis brings up Sojourner Truth in order to point out the flaws of the women’s rights movement. Sojourner Truth exposed the racism that was in the women’s rights movement. And that in order for the movement to make any progress, it must first acknowledge all women, including black women. Sojourner Truth, an ex-slave, knew oppression more than the white woman. Yes, white women were oppressed due to their sex, but they never experienced the oppression that a black woman has faced. Sojourner Truth then became a representative figure for the black women. I think Davis mentions Sojourner in order to explain the division line between the women’s rights movement and the abolitionist movement. And that for any real social change to happen, it must happen in unity. One cannot advocate for equality in gender, if they cannot simply even consider black women to be a woman. They were both fighting for the same freedom, yet once again the white women’s rights trumped the black women’s rights. Davis emphasizes this clear tension between the two movements.