í Assignments

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 Roderick Ferguson’s, Aberrations in Black, there is a focus on relationships between property, capital, and prostitution. Each of these words have their own definition but Ferguson is able to mend them together so that they relate and connect with each other. Property can be a commodity, such as land, or, in harsher terms, having a person as property, such as a slave. Ferguson explains that, by working, individuals become property to the companies or institutions they work for. They also become property to capital, which is the outcome of working. In order to earn capital, individuals become property. Evidently, an example of this is prostitution, which is what happens when people sell themselves in exchange for capital. It is a survival tactic that individuals have been practicing for years. Within this piece, Ferguson discusses the “queer of color” analysis, which relates to this idea of property, capital, and prostitution. This queer of color idea relates to individuals who are judged in society for having different identities, such as drag queens and prostitutes. This concept is important as it shows the various ways in which queers and prostitution go up against this accepted idea of heteronormativity. It threatens the system that everybody is so accustomed to. Homosexuality is seen as an evil that has the potential to tear down society, as well as the heterosexual man. The benefits of capital and the means of obtaining it are most easily attainable for heterosexual males than anyone else. The individuals with the different identities due to sexuality are pushed to the side and are not given the same opportunities. It is a system that is so set in its ways. It functions properly and benefits who it is meant to benefit, which is why it is a threat if queers gain wealth through their own methods, such as prostitution. It takes away from the patriarchal society and does not allow it to remain as it is.

In Londa Schiebinger’s, “Skeletons in the Closet,” she discusses the analyses of anatomy in Europe back then. White women and white men were analyzed and conclusions were drawn from this to justify their thoughts and actions in society. Due to the white female body having smaller skulls and a larger pelvis, scientists concluded that their intelligence was inferior and their role in society should be to give birth to children. Several scientists continued to observe and compare the two anatomies but what was the real motive behind it? Were they genuinely interested in the two anatomies and wanting to compare them or was it solely in order to find inferior aspects of the female anatomy, which would then lead to a reason to further oppress women.

Due to how much faith society placed in physical and scientific evidence back then, these scientific ‘discoveries’ led many to believe the comparisons. Women were further kept out of power, being believed to be inferior because of the comparisons the scientists had made. One important thing to note is that all of the scientists were male, which means a female point of view was missing regarding this situation. As a result, the foundation for a society where women were oppressed was set and there was no way to argue it since science was so important. People weren’t able to argue with what scientists claimed and so the majority of Europe followed.

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.

In The Caliban and the Witch, Frederici explained that the degradation of women began with the change in economy, from a feudal system to a capitalism. With this shift in economy, the value of work changed as well, leaving women at the bottom in regards with their economic, social and political status. Women were seen as inferior to men in regards to labor, and as such, women were expected to work from home, doing domestic work and taking care of the family. For the women that tried to venture for work outside of the home, they were met with disadvantages such as lower wages than men, unsafe working conditions, and misogynistic treatment by men. This made women dependent on their husbands for income, creating a system where the husbands were the only providers of the household. Instead of being seen as productive members of society, they were viewed as only useful for their reproductive abilities.
The degradation of women contributed to the accumulation of wealth in the capitalist economy as society tried to control women’s reproductive systems. The capitalist system relied on workers for labor, and the women were seen as the means of creating more workers. Society considered this to be the “responsibility” of women, leaving them with few options for autonomy. The government passed several laws that considered using a contraceptive, having an abortion, or any other means of not having a child as a criminal act for women, forcing them to have a child even if they did not want to. Witch hunts also began as a means to further oppress women, intimidating women from seeking independence outside of the household in fear of their lives. Through these methods, society had created a new economic system that relied on a foundation based on women’s oppression and degradation.

In the article, “Are women human? It’s not an academic question”, Peterson and Parisi argue that we should interrogate the connection of “human rights” in connection to heterosexism rather than focusing on the androcentrism of human rights discourse. The author states that in the heterosexual society, heterosexuality was the only “nature” and “normal” relationship between men and women for people. He mentions the sexual inequality between men and women. The hierarchies happened including gender, sex, political. social-economic,and in family. Men have power to control women. Women were suffered from the sadistic heterosexuality. Under this condition, institutionalization of heterosexuality happens through the economy, women were gets lower paid compared with men. The inequality between men and women force women to rely on men since they didn’t have enough incomes to support themselves. In addition, if possible, women will get sexual harassment from men to get the job.

Compare with oppression that women get from the society, they also gets the oppression in their family. Even when females are single, they have been tied with the reproductive role. They force to play in the role, and it have been consider as the value of women. If women did not want to having a child, they will be consider devalue for society,.

In Ferguson’s book, Aberrations in Black: Toward a Queer of Color Critique, he talks about how minorities do not always feel comfortable within their own social minority groups. It is harder for someone to be considered “other” in any sense, but many people fit into multiple minority groups ostracizing them from all those who have any difference. For example a white woman fits into the minority group of being a woman. A black woman fits into the minority groups of “black” and “woman.” A black, lesbian woman fits into the minority group of “woman,” “queer,” and “black.” Rather than using their similarities to be a rallying point; however, many people use their differences to show their superiority of the “others” within their own groups.
Ferguson also talks about the “prostitution” that is behind capitalism. When we are working we are renting out our bodies for the sake of making money much in the way of a prostitute. Ferguson looks at Marx’s ideas and compares them with the mill girls who were seen as deviant for working for a wage to buy themselves nice things. Ferguson wants the reader to look more deeply at where we get these ideas, and I also believe he is attempting to show the reader that we are all the same regardless of class, race, or gender and that we need to stop ostracizing and judging one another based off of these traits.

In the essay, Abu-Lughod seems to have the argument that western culture has decided veiling is a restriction on women’s rights and feminism, when in all actuality, we have created the stigma that these things are in fact a restriction at all. The essay seems to have two main questions of “who are we as people removed from this culture, to decide what is oppressive to these women?” and also, “of all the real injustices happening in the world, why are we so focused on this idea of veiling when we could be helping with actual causes worth our time?”
This essay had a large impact on my ideals about veiling, and I hope I can find out more about what motivates women to practice veiling, as it is something that I had rarely seen before moving to New York. I think the essay brings to light an important fact which is that western culture has a tendency to victimize the “other” groups we have created so as to pity them and help them become more superior like ourselves. This mentality seems ridiculous to me since what about our culture is better than theirs? Even the New York Times seems to have this same take with the article mentioned in the text.
We want to save others and we see it as helping, but in reality we are not always helping others, but in fact we are simply trying to make them more like us; we are trying to take away what makes them seem “other” to us. As Americans we have this idea that our way is best and everyone is or should be like us, when it simply isn’t true. Man countries do nearly everything differently from us; however this does not make what they do or what we do wrong, it simply makes it different.

Amelia Cabezas in her text “Between Love and Money: Sex, Tourism, and Citizenship in Cuba and the Dominican Republic defines sexual citizenship as a way to explain the motives behind one coming to a country looking for a sexual experience and the ones providing that experience. The concept of sexual citizenship was introduced in 1993 by David T. Evans. He wanted to amend social-constructionist theories of sexuality to underline the material foundation of sexualities from a neo-Marxist perspective. Nowadays, the concept, which has been developed mostly in Great Britain, is primarily used to draw attention to the political aspects of erotics and the sexual component of politics. Cabezas puts forth the idea that one going to another country for a sexual excursion is not specifically a bad thing. She puts forth that the sex worker is viewed highly negatively by society. The common view is that these people are sexual deviants always looking for sex and ways to make profit from it. Others also believe these people are obligated to offer up their bodies to whoever request them as long as money is involved and sometimes even without. Even the gender and sexual orientation if these people add to this stigma as many blacks and gays are put into the same light as always wanting sex or to make a profit from it. While this may be true for some sex workers many engage in this practice as a form of enjoyment and are very much in control of who they allow access to their bodies. Cabezas states for women in this profession in positions outside of heteronormativity  it can be very beneficial for them. Married women or those that have kids can benefit from this line of work   because having relations with someone who purchases their services can be very altruistic and some customers go out of their  way to help the families of these women with financial troubles.

Due Monday, May 8th, by midnight. Word count: 300 words. Please make sure everything is in your own words. Absolutely no quotes should be used. If you paraphrase from the text, you must be sure to include the proper citation (either MLA or APA).

If you have missed one or more of our weekly writing assignments, you can make up one assignment this week for full credit.