fNusrat has 10 post(s)

There are many controversies about the meaning of the veil, and whether is it oppressive to women or not.  Many people, depending on where they live, may think a women being covered up is empowering, whereas others may see it as the other way, women being free to wear what they want is empowering.  The culture of certain regions plays a huge role on the status of women and their clothes.

Lila Abu-Lughod’s point was for the audience to acknowledge and be aware of the differences of other lives.  People have different traditions in different places and we should all be respectful of them.  There seems to be a difference in the political demands made on those who work on or are trying to understand Muslims and Islamists and those who work on secular-humanist projects.

In my opinion, as a Muslim woman myself, I feel as if even though women do have the right to wear whatever they please, there are many factors and social pressures preventing them from doing so.  For example, a girl raised in a conservative muslim family in NYC still probably does not have the freedom to wear a summer dress even if she wants to because of the social pressure within her community, that probably is taught within their culture.  If the mother wears a veil, she might expect her daughter to wear one in the future.  Her father probably assumes she will wear one.  Once it becomes the norm in the family, it is hard to break out of it without causing your parents to throw a fit.  They were taught from the generation before them their customs and values and teach it to their children and when their children to do reciprocate, the parents might feel as if they have not done a good job being a parent.

Since the early days, sex was always tied with economics.  For over many centuries, the sexual labour of women have been assimilated into the norms of economic and politics.

For women who occupy positions outside the heteronormativity, it was more difficult for them to live a normal lifestyle.  They were harassed and incarcerated for trivial matters. We also see a double standard in males and females when it comes to the sexuality.  Women were looked down upon or often seen as bad sexual subjects whereas male promiscuity is widely tolerated, or celebrated because of the “natural sexual inclination” males have.   Women have been the one to blame for prostitution, being seen as having no morals or lacking social values.  In the case of sex tourism, spokespeople often say that tourism is not the blame, instead it is the women to blame for their poor values. This idea about prostitution is flawed in many ways because prostitution wouldn’t be a thing if there weren’t people who actually wanted to be apart of it and seek it.  Also, prostitution is far more than just a moral issue. The economy in such countries with less restrictions on prostitution may have less job opportunities for women, causing them to rely on work such as being sex workers.

This shows how sex ties into economics. Although there can be some romantics encounters with the prostitution, it still is related with profiting of sexual labour. Also many women are looked down upon for being prostitutes because of their lack or morals or greediness, however, we also need to look into the jobs that are offered to women.  In most developing countries, jobs are very rare for women, especially poor women.  This may lead them into seeking jobs such as sexual labour just to make ends meet or suffice for their family/kids.

Race relations issues, suggesting poverty, race, and economic discrimination would be resolved by the political economy that created it, only this time would they be assimilated with politics.  This is an example of how people of color have already been ostracized politically and are still in the process of becoming assimilated. This just gives us an idea about how difficult it was for straight people of color to be included politically, which can only give us an idea about how difficult it would be for queer people of color.

The people who fall under the minority categories (ie…people of color, women) face more difficulties in their lives. They feel a type of estrangement towards people of their groups, for example, a black gay women might feel alienated in a group of other black straight women. Even though they are all black women, her sexuality is something the other straight women feel comfortable with, causing her to be ostracized. Identifying the domain determined by racial difference and gender and sexual conformity causes the rank of superiority. Because of this ranking if you don’t identify as one of these dominant traits, then it will be more difficult for you socially, politically, economically.

In this documentary “Transgenders in Pakistan”  I learned for the most part about transmen. They are kicked out of their families onto the streets, causing them to form a transgender group of their own. Within this group, most of the transmen are ostracized by their “gurus” (head of the group).  Ferguson’s text reminded me of that because it shows an example of how within groups (that are already oppressed groups) there is even more oppression, which causes them to estrange themselves from their bigger community.   In this case, they were left no choice to be alienated, however, some people chose to do it themselves for own personal reasons, in order to achieve their own comfort levels.

During the 1900’s real-life politics of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender started to emerge. Queers are usually underrepresented politically, which drives the community to create a new platform for themselves in order to speak up and stand out.  In Queer politics, sexual expression is something that progresses change, movement, redefinition, everyday. Queers are usually discluded in groups because of the un acceptance heterosexuals. They are not seen as normal to heterosexuals. Something that makes the queer community different than any other group is their willingness to confront power by emphasizing their “anti-normal” characteristic and traits.  They are fully aware of their “un normalness” and use it to their power to speak for themselves .

However, the inability of queer politics to effectively make changes is because of the dominance in the heterosexuals.  Heterosexuals are represented as dominant and more in control, whereas homosexuals are seen as marginalized and invisible in the real world. This show why people in the LQBT communities would want their voices to be heard more and why their activism as a whole became stronger.  In my opinion, I think heterosexuals (mostly Republicans) are not aware or don’t want to acceptance homosexual because they are not following the norm.  After taking a political science class, I learned that conservatives are not comfortable with change and/or have a hard time accepting change, which helps me understand and explains (not justify) why they do not accept the change in accepting homosexuals/transgender.

The concept of “de-gaying” reminds me of vice president Mike Pence and his gay conversion theory.  The concept of putting gay people in camps in order to de-gay them.  Although this essay was written 20 years ago, we can see that very little ideas about homosexuality progressed in our government.  This is something that needs to be changed in order for the world to progress and accept everyone for who they are.

In Collins essay, “Learning from the Outsider Within: The Sociological Significance of Black Feminist Thought,”  she speaks about outsiders.  These outsiders can be people who are not apart of white families.  White families seem to be the norm of standard living and everyone out of that is just an outsider.  These outsiders are able to see reality from the outside and in from the inside, which allows them to understand both perspectives.

Outsiders can contribute to the field of sociology and the understanding of society and culture by having a different glass view of the White people.  Black feminist go through various “marginality”.  Because they go through the oppression of being black and a women, they are able to see things in another perspective. Racism and sexism both share the same ideology of domination that does not see black women as an equal status rather than an other. This creates a dynamic between white women and black women.  White women are seen as secondary to a white man, whereas black women are seen as an object.  They see the lives within their own homes while also observing things with a white household.  This contributes to the field of sociology and our understanding of society and culture because we get to open our minds to another perspective outside of the “norms”.

This essay is very important because it gives us an understanding of the differences in white feminism and black feminism.  Intersectional feminists are usually people who understand the barriers amongst people of color.  I think Black feminism is important to many women of color, regardless if you are black or not, because it shows the importance of speaking out of your oppression.  It gives the women a voice who are not familiar with speaking about things.  They use their platforms to open the door of opportunity and familiarity to other women.

Similarly to other readings we’ve read, men happen to be the “norm” and we tend to see women as another “kind”. Peterson and Parisi mention in their essay that androcentrism happens to be prevalent even in the concept of humans rights.  This androcentrism is a way of showing men’s dominance over every situation including laws of basic human rights.   Feminists have come to the idea that human rights are ultimately men’s rights, resulting in the the abuse of women’s live and shunning of women’s voice. The normalization of male dominance in any situation leaves women with no voice or no one taking women seriously.  This is the problem with androcentrism and is primarily why Peterson and Parisi believe that heterosexism is precise way of analyzing gender difference and human rights.  

Heterosexism is a way of  referring to sex or affective relations between people of the so-called opposite sex.  This is a better/precise way of analyzing the relationship of gender differences and human rights because we eliminate the lack of women and get an understanding of the opinions of women about their own rights, whether it is regarding their bodies, motherhood, finance, or even education.  Feminists analyse the state from diverse perspectives. They understand and theorize the ideological and institutionalized normalization of the patriarchal family household. Women are marginalized – not treated as ‘human’ agents – in relation to economic, social and cultural practices.  Women are not seen as a whole subject (a whole person) and because of this second generation rights often worsen women’s vulnerability and subordination by endorsing cultural beliefs that devalue women and deny gender equality. States often indirectly act to ensure gender hierarchy and its denial of women’s rights.

Heterosexism is a better way of ensuring human rights politically.  Because of the androcentric views we have today, women do suffer oppression, sometimes subconsciously because they probably are so used to it.  For example, I heard in Hunter’s MSA, a women cannot become the president. There is no cultural or religious beliefs behind it. I don’t think I’ve heard an outrage on that issue because it is so normalized nobody says anything it.  I think they have an androcentric system within them.  

The radical theory of sex contains many different ideas and restrictions on the concept of sex.  These theories run deep within history and appear mostly in the United States and England.  The act of premarital/underage sex is something that is so forbidden that people are even advised not to touch themselves because of precautions for their health when they’re older.  Parents even tie their children up before they put them to bed in order to prevent them from touching themselves.  Any form of “sex per se” was a sensitive topic and many laws were made in order to perpetuate any form of sexual contact, whether it was physical or visual.  It even got to the point where some nude pictures were not allowed to be in textbooks because it violated their laws of nudity.  At that point it wasn’t sure what was appropriate or not.  The customs and norm of the sexuality culture in the past were deemed as normal and because of that, it shaped the laws, which is why why nobody really questioned it, however now sexuality is coming more and more out of their boundaries and not everyone is agreeing with the laws and customs in the past.

From reading this article we can clearly see the hierarchies embedded in our systems of sexuality.  Of course heterosexual couples were seen as the norm.  Police and media waged war on homosexuals throughout the 1950s. Many gay communities were raided.  This was all normal to people because gays weren’t accepted ever.  Even with all the commotion, the enforcements of the existing laws of prostitution has been restricted even more.  Some states have been passing new and tighter regulations on commercial sex.

A big issue today is the defunding of planned parenthood. This was probably enforced in order to prevent abortions, however planned parenthood doesn’t cover people for abortion.  It is to manage the birth control/contraceptives.  This type of regulation is similar to back in the days, however for different reasons. Back in the, people were trying to refrain young girls from having sex.  Now it is a sense of not supporting abortions.  Same situation, different reasons. 

These customs and norms are a perfect example that shows how people can be influenced by society and who they grow up with.  In my family, for example, it is not a question that people are supposed to wait until marriage to sex. It’s not a law in where my parents grew up, but generation after generation they were taught that and try to teach their kids the same.

he degradation of women was not surprising to me.   Women could not obtain some jobs for pay, however they were allowed to join only to be the supporters or pleasers of men, for example, become cooks, washers, prostitutes, and wives.  As usual, it is more difficult for women to independently support themselves rather than a man’s ability to support himself. Because of this, women were confined with reproductive labor, occupations that were devalued, and were excluded from many occupations.  Not only that, but they would be paid the lowest rates.  Women were basically ripped away from their rights to be equal by a man, and the capitalist economy used this to their own advantage.  The labor power of women slowly decreased and their dependence on men increased.  During this time the price revolution and the wage collapse had heavily affected women. Their wages compared to their male counterparts were decreasing as the years went on. This also led to the shortage of food/bread. The wealthy were the ones who received the best bread.  Because of this, the outrage of the poor women resulted in them demanding bread in and doing so in unethical ways. The dehumanization of women became a way to normalize the corruption of the wealth in a capitalist economy.  Not paying women the same as men, or even restricting them for getting paid downgraded women even though they were doing the same work as men.  This gave them less value, while at the same time the government benefits their wealth by keeping the money they save from the work labor that they are not paying these women.

This is similar to society today. Unbelievingly, we still have a pay gap for women working the same job as men.  This is degrading to women because it makes them seem like they are not as worthy as men in the workforce. Or when the government taxes tampons as “luxury goods” as if women can control their bodies.  This is just a couple examples how the degradation of women adds to the  wealth in a capitalist political economy today.

The interests of the science of the female anatomy were not random, but sought out to be focused for political reasons. One reason comparing the anatomy of women and men was an important project in the medical community was to provide evidence for the inferiority of women.  For example, the  French anatomist Marie- Genevieve-Charlotte Thiroux d’Arconville delineated the female skull to be smaller than a male skull. This was to “prove” the idea that a woman’s intellectual capabilities were less than a man’s.  Similarly the women pelvis were drawn larger than a man’s pelvis. This was done to normalize and prove the idea that women were destined for giving birth.  This gives me an understanding on why the study of both female and male bodies were important.  Scientists and Politicians needed to know the differences in the anatomy of males and females order to impose social norms and laws against women.  d, Hippocrates, Aristotle, and Galen all attempted to provide proper justification on why women were seen as inferior in their social status. They all used the female body as evidence, claiming it is the weaker body, resulting into them being more lazy, and less likely to want to do “manly” work.  The study of the female body in comparison to the male body, in my opinion, was an important project of study in order for the men to use “scientific” justification for oppression of women. Let’s not forget all these scientists were men. Also there probably were no female scientists because of the lack of education and jobs for women, which relates back to the idea that women were seen as destined as birth givers. Although it was found that women do have the capabilities as men, women were denied of the freedom and rights that were asked for.   

From time, women were never known as delegates or people in position of power, more often as the wives of those who were in power.  Women never really had an identity of their own. Politically, socially, and economically, women were always inferior to men, especially when married.  Davis’ purpose of this chapter was trying to prove to us the power of women, no matter of race or economic status.  In this chapter we see two women, whom both attended the Seneca Convention, but for very different reasons.  Charlotte Woodward, a White Woman, motives for signing the Seneca Falls Declarations was because of the oppression she felt being inferior to men economically.  Although she was a working women from home, the men in her family felt entitled to her money because legally the men were in control of her money.  However, Sojourner Truth, an ex-slave, vocally expressed her aspirations to be free not only from her racist oppression, but from her sexist domination. While Woodward focuses on the economic inequality, Truth touches more on the social issue of women seen as the “weaker sex” by explaining her ability to overcome the horrible experiences she went through, and picking herself up through every situation. She tells everyone she was able to go through that because of the strength of being a woman.  Her words were so touching, it leaves everyone in shock and awe. From this we can see the difference in the oppression or black and white women (middle class).  This gave us a sense of the difference in their struggles of being a women. Overall, we get the sense that Davis’ purpose was to  expose the diversity of women empowerment. We can see women from different races, backgrounds, and economic status, coming together to overcome the one most significant issue they all have in common, gender inequality.