fJet has 8 post(s)

Lila Abu-Lughod’s article, “Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving”, is an examination into the politics and reaction to the movement to “liberate” Muslim women in the Middle East in countries such as Afghanistan. Abu-Lughod begins by explaining the generalization that resulted from the 9/11 terrorist attacks as well as the United States’ response to the attacks. She states that the media had taken a special interest in the Muslim women of these Middle Eastern countries that had fallen to the hands of the Taliban and other terrorist groups, and that they had come to view the covering of women as a form of oppression. The media, including the network CBS, which she was interviewed several times for, equate the covering of Muslim women to be a sign of the oppression they face, something that robs them of freedom and expression. Yet the media lacks an awareness on the cultural background or history of the hijab and burqa, as well as the political and colonial situations that engulfed the Middle East and changed the political climates.

According to Abu-Lughod, the media and feminists and activists in general have used the burqa as a manifestation of the oppression of the women in this region, without understanding its cultural relevance or the many other factors that oppress women. Their desire to “save” these women demonstrates their ignorance to the complexity of the lives and systems in the Middle East, as well as the many factors that contributed to the current state of affairs, such as U.S intervention. Abu-Lughod warns that the notion of saving these women is disrespectful to the difference in cultures between women around the world, as well as a victimization of a group that is not in need of Western women to be their saviors. Rather than take up arms to “liberate” these women, activists should instead look internally at how their cultures and traditions differ from those of the women they aim to save. Not only should activists reflect, but they should investigate into the systems and events that lead to the violence and terrorism in the Middle East.

In Amelia Cabezas’ article, “Between Love and Money: Sex, Tourism, and Citizenship in Cuba and the Dominica Republic”, the relationship between changing economic and labor practices and the rise in sex tourism is examined. The move towards free market practices after the fall of the Soviet Union has lead Cuba as well as the other nations in the Caribbean to experience a larger and more open amount of sex work in relation to tourism. Men come to these countries and take advantage of the more relaxed laws to engage in paid for sex that is severely illegal as well as restricted in the countries they come from, such as the U.S and European nations. Due to the dependence on tourism to generate revenue for the country, many young men and women are forced to move to tourist areas and enter prostitution as a means of living. Cabezas examines the color dynamic of sex tourism in Cuba, with dark skinned Cubans being more involved with sex tourism and making money through different relationships, while the light skinned Cubans are less involved with the practice in that they often just have sex for money and do not maintain long relationships. Sex workers in these tourist areas often marry their clients and begin to build families and lives, demonstrating the ways that sex workers can find more opportunities than just cash. Despite these opportunities, the practice degrades men and women alike, and contributes to the objectification of women and disregard to their safety and health. The increase in sex tourism is a reflection of changing economic values and practices, as well as a representation of the neo-colonialism that is still ever present in the Caribbean. While both men and women are involved in sex tourism, it is often the women who are persecuted by the government and authorities, which demonstrates the heteronormativity in that the government doesn’t want to grant women the same liberties over their bodies and sexual life that it does men.

African American women’s role as domestic workers for wealthy, elite, white families has provided them with a significant “outsider” viewpoint for culture, society and race, according to Patricia Hill Collins. Her essay, “Learning from the Outsider Within: The Sociological Significance of Black Feminist Thought,” examines the ways in which black feminists authors use the role of the outsider to examine the world from a sociological standpoint.

Collins uses Georg Simmel’s essay on the role of the outsider in sociology to provide a basic understanding of the benefits of being an outsider. According to Simmel, outsiders have a special type of objectivity, which allows them to be near and far, concerning and indifferent. Besides their objectivity, outsiders are also more trusted when someone needs to confide, meaning that they often have access to information that people within the group may not. Lastly, outsiders can use their objectivity to see patterns or situations that people immersed in the group are unable to see.

Black feminist scholars, according to Collins, are one group of “marginal intellectuals” that have the ability to promote further sociological discussions because of their unique perspective. The unique position that black women have as outsiders gives them a more complex understanding of race and class, and allows the black feminist to develop unique ideas. As outsiders, black women often see and hear things that their partners or spouses or even children would not experience, giving them a type of wiseness in regard to life. Due to their role as outsiders, black feminists promote a discourse that engages all audiences and racial groups, as well as engages sociological discussions regarding race, class, and assimilation. Black women are often discredited for their work, but they never fail to achieve academic greatness and inspiration to others. Collins essay provides an understandable context to the position of an outsider, especially regarding black women who are domestic workers.

Adrienne Rich’s article, “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence” addresses the many ways in which heterosexuality is enforced through institutions. Through both physical, psychological and economic means, society forces the notion of heterosexuality. Heterosexuality is often promoted through literature, art, and societal norms that constrict women and force them to follow suit. The idea of lesbianism is stifled and underrepresented, often in feminist literature, that casts it aside as a small occurrence that is due to sexual bitterness and preference, rather than natural attraction.

Rich uses Kathleen Gough’s “The Origin of the Family” to explain the physical and mental ways that men control women and force their heterosexuality upon them. Through rape, punishment, hysterectomies, domestic violence, men use physical force as a means of preventing women from escaping the realm of patriarchy. Mentally, men enforce heterosexuality through its promotion in the media, literature and the arts, as well as through marriage and workplace inequality.

In the workplace, women are often sexualized and harassed in addition to being underpaid. The low-paying jobs that women are often forced to take up require them to endure the sexualization at the hands of their higher paid male superiors. If a woman fails to maintain this heterosexual image, they are rejected and insulted by the males in their workplace, meaning that they have to keep up a sort of facade if their sexuality deviates even slightly from the heterosexual norm. This economic control over women creates the institution of heterosexuality in that women’s jobs often depend on them being sexual, obedient and submissive to men.

The institution of heterosexuality is also present through men’s need for sexual access to women. Things such as prostitution, marital rape, incest relationships and pornography contribute to men’s need to access women and fear of being rejected or not cared about. The power of men in society allows them to subjugate women to lower roles, and place value based on sexual attractiveness, which in turn reflects their attitudes in the workplace. Heterosexuality is enforced through many institutions that work with one another to subdue women.

Gayle Rubin’s, “Thinking Sex: Notes from a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality” is an examination of sexuality in society, and the ways that it is heavily structured. Rubin attributes the current fear and lack of discussion of sexuality to notions that emerged in the U.S and England in the late nineteenth century. For example, things such as masturbation, obscene literature and art, and abortion were discouraged and crusaded against. These ideas lead to the rejection and persecution of certain sexual groups, such as homosexuals and the transgender community. These ideas that were promoted lead to the rigid structuring of sexuality, as well as the lack of acceptance and ability to engage in conversations regarding sexuality.

Rubin describes several assumptions about sex, many of which go unquestioned. One of the most significant assumptions that affects sexuality, is that sex is a negative thing. Sex is deemed dangerous, harmful and sinful, and something that should only happen in marriage to produce children so long as it is not “too” pleasurable. This attitude towards sex prevents any discussion from happening, because how can people speak about sex objectively if their attitude towards it is negative? The assumption that sex is negative, especially if it is not heterosexual furthers the oppression of the lgbtq community.

Rubin claims that sexual activity is organized in a hierarchal system, that places “reproductive heterosexuals”at the top of the pyramid. According to Rubin, certain sexual acts have more or less value, and are more or less accepted depending on their place in the hierarchy of sex. Rubin states that low-status sex acts are condemned, and those who engage are viewed as criminals or mentally ill, while heterosexuals at the top are rewarded with social mobility and institutional support. This hierarchy of sexual activity prevents discussion of sexuality that is not “normal”, and stigmatizes people who are not deemed regular by society. The preconceived notions of sex enforce the system that is sexuality, which makes it more difficult to engage in productive discussion of sex. If sexuality that isn’t hetero is disregarded and shunned before it is even in the public view, how can people shed their ignorance and speak about sex? As long as sex is seen as taboo, it will be hard to dismantle the system that is sexuality.

Suzanne Kessler’s essay, “The Medical Construction of Gender” is an investigation into intersex infants, and the various methods that their doctors use to “create” a gender for the infant or decide upon the gender. Issues arise when the cultural idea of gender is reinforced by the actions of doctors who intend to “correct” inter-sexuality in their patients. To doctors, there may be more than one gender, but there are only two distinct biological sexes, something that often influences the medical procedures that infants who are born as intersex undergo.

Doctors use the theory of gender developed in 1972 that states that gender is changeable in an infant but only for up to 18 months. This theory is successful only when certain conditions are met beforehand a sex change operation, such as the genitals being made to match the chosen gender as quickly as possible, and being able to administer gender hormones when the child is in puberty. According to this theory, a child will identify with the gender chosen for them through these procedures and will accept their gender identity.

The doctors interviewed in Kessler’s essay state the importance of the professionals involved choosing a gender, and assigning it immediately without any doubt. The urgency of acting quickly is emphasized by the Money theory. The amount of chromosomes and intersex infant is born with can be used to diagnose the issue and identify the true gender of the child, and often help in choosing which procedure is best.

The fact that doctors ultimately want an intersex child to be one gender, and to identify as that gender illustrates the way inter-sexuality is viewed in society. Parents and doctors view intersexuality as a medical condition that must be fixed with urgency, which reinforces the notion that there are only two genders. While it is in the best interest in terms of simplicity to give a gender to an intersex infant, its cultural impact is larger than expected.

Londa Schiebinger’s essay, “Skeletons in the Closet” illustrates the link between anatomy and science and how scientists used anatomy to justify the inequality women faced. The first illustrations of the female skeleton depicted their skulls as smaller, as well as their pelvises as larger, a fact that anatomists used to justify their lesser roles in society. Scientists believed that women’s smaller skulls indicated they had less intellectual power than men, and that their large pelvises meant that women’s roles should be mainly childbirth.

Many men at the time perceived that “natural law” reigned supreme over all political ideologies and governing laws. White men used their belief in the power of “natural law” to justify the oppression of women, even when philosophers at the time such as John Locke argued that all men were created equal. This reliance on “natural law” to keep women subdued in society was reflective of the attitude of many white european men, that since science proved men and women to be unequal, their roles in society should be unequal as well.

The exclusion of women from scientific practices in this era prevented any women scientists to dispute the scientific claims being promoted by the scientific community. The unfairness of women’s predicament was evident in that science claimed they were less smart, and therefore were unable to have the opportunity to even study the claim and challenge it. Women were shut out from the scientific realm, resulting in their fixed position in society.

It is interesting to read about how science was used to justify women’s place in society because this is something that can still be witness today, despite the fact that this original evidence scientists produced was false. The 2016 presidential election proved the doubt that many men still have in association with a woman being in power. Many people believed Hillary Clinton would be unfit because she was a woman, therefore being more “emotional” and less rational, a claim which is absolutely untrue. This essay helped demonstrate the link between sexism and science, something that many people often overlook.

Angela Davis begins Chapter 3, “Class and Race in the Women’s Rights Campaign”, with the events which inspired the Seneca Falls Convention. Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott, women who attempted to participate in the World Anti-slavery Convention of 1840, are dismissed by the men of the convention because of the fact they are women. Although most men participating refuse to allow them to join, several abolitionists refuse to participate as well in solidarity.

According to Davis, the Seneca Falls convention was organized by upper class white women, and therefore only reflected their struggles, which consisted of the controlling effects of marriage, as well as the exclusion from professional fields of work. Davis illustrates the large group of women that suffer the inequalities of womanhood, as well as being in the working class through her description of the mill women. Davis demonstrates how the Seneca Falls Convention excluded this large group of women, and how the convention itself was classist.

Davis uses the stories of Sojourner Truth as well as Charlotte Woodward to demonstrate that the heart of the women’s rights movement was in the hands of working class and black women, instead of the dignified white women who believed the struggles of womanhood to be mostly linked to marriage, and failed to see its relation to race or class. Charlotte Woodward, a glovemaker, attended the convention to fight for a fair wage, and to separate herself from the patriarchy that prevented her from becoming a professional.

This chapter furthers the notion that the credit for the Women’s Rights movement is almost always given to the white, upperclass women of the Seneca Falls Convention, rather than the hardworking textile workers and black women. This is a characteristic that I still witness today, through “white feminism”. Even today I can clearly see that white women take the face of feminism, despite the fact that women of color play a large role. The fact that the term “white feminism” exists shows the growing acknowledgment of the whitewashing of women of color’s struggles for equality and the lengths that they go to achieve their goals.