Feminism and Globalization Maggie Nelsen

Maggie Nelsen

4/11/12

Feminism, Activism and Globalization

                Last week’s discussion about dowry-murder and the importance of understanding that social problems each come with their own context, provides a nice transition into examining women’s NGOs in Pakistan, and the socio-religious obstacles they encounter and contend with. One of last week’s readings, Narayan, pointed out that universal feminist’s issues cannot be addressed and combated with universal solutions and strategies—because of the unique historical, social, political and economic circumstances which exist in each country and culture. This theme and reality is also quite pertinent to Jafar’s investigation of how feminist organizations in Pakistan operate, specifically within the context of Islamic fundamentalism. Some key points are made throughout the article, relating to the specific issue itself (challenges encountered by Pakistani women’s NGOs) and broader concepts about the perceptions of culture and people in general. Before delving into the topic of how women’s organizations in Pakistan are responding to resistance from Islamic groups, it is important to point out the sometimes violent opponents of these organizations typically stem from a minority sect of Islamic extremism. This must be noted because many westerners have perceived and associated the religion of Islam only with zealous fundamentalists (because that is all the media reports on). The clash between fundamentalists and women’s advocacy organizations can be boiled down to a relatively simple phenomenon that is occurring: hegemonic patriarchy—in this case, heavily reinforced by Islamic principles and practices—is being significantly endangered by the perceived threat of these women’s NGOs. That is the core phenomenon that is occurring in Pakistan and in other forms in various parts of the world; in Pakistan gender discrimination is being played out in the context of these budding non-profits run by intelligent, capable and autonomous (and mostly Islamic) women. One of the strategies employed by the NGOs in order to become accepted and trusted by some of the more “traditional” communities they work in, is to use Islamic principles, interpretations and values strategically. This is the strategy I was most inclined to because as one man said: “ ‘We don’t disturb the set social norms’…local activists use religion to talk about issues that communities would otherwise be unwilling to discuss”(Jafar, 268). This to me seems not only a sensitive and moral approach but also an effective and rational one. Use the very institution which thwarts humanitarian work as a tool or vehicle to accomplish the organizations goals and mission. I believe ultimately this is the only method by which to gain acceptance and work with people. This reminds of one the French women interviewed in last week’s article who said: “…to be a good Muslim is not the veil”(Killian, 585). In other words, you can abide by and take pride in your faith while still opposing practices which harm and subordinate women. I hope the same sentiment can somehow be translated to those rebuking the hard-working women’s groups in Pakistan.

                The Susan Okin reading brings up the debate about instituting cultural or group rights, in order to protect the practices often misconceived and therefore persecuted by the dominant culture. However, such special laws for minority groups—religious or cultural—often work to simultaneously perpetuate oppressive practices towards women, such as polygamy for example. This article brings to the forefront the controversy over the obligation of the state and international bodies to defend women’s rights or the populous minority groups which reside in many democratic countries. Often times crimes involving some form of domestic violence or obscenity are ultimately rationalized to a certain extent due to a defendant’s “cultural background”. Charges and sentences are often reduced because the crime has links with cultural or religion norms. The core problem is best articulated by Okin: “ ‘culture’ or ‘traditions’ are so closely linked with the control of women that they are virtually equated”(6). (Personally, I’d omit the “virtually” with quite literally). Therefore, when women’s advocates try to question some of these practices it is received by the culture at large (including some women) and by many men of course as a direct attack on their social identity as a group, their tradition, their values, their religion. This is the framework which many are coming from when justifying female genital mutilation, sati, and rape victim-rapist marriages, among other abominable practices.  For me, more than anything this article shed light a universal social construct and severe imbalance we have a global society: the expectations of women in sexual partnerships and the double-standards surrounding infidelity and virginity that women across the board, anywhere in the world, any class, any religion suffer. Why is there gender prescription for women that they must be virginal before marriage, remain monogamous and be confined to a domestic and sexual servant of men. A truly globalized phenomenon: this obsession over women’s virginity and sexual servitude to men—what historical or perhaps also biological explanations can be derived from this reality?

                The questions above warrant broader questions Professor Jafar poses in her commentary: “How [is] a particular tradition or practice ‘invented’? Who does it benefit?” (The latter being a more obvious question perhaps?). Today’s readings regarding culture and women’s rights can maybe be categorized into two different groups. One area investigated clearly evidences absolute violations of humanity, while the other issues are embedded and intertwined with cultural misconceptions and murky perceptions about foreign cultures and even one’s own culture. This issue is addressed in the reading “Do Muslim Women really Need Saving?”. The article stresses similar points as Jafar. Essentially western feminism needs to learn and gain a better understanding that feminist causes are not black and white issues, and certainly not across state and cultural borders. If only dominant cultures could spend a little bit more time investigating other practices, cultures and their circumstances then perhaps more of what Jafar describes could be avoided: “We spend much of our time fighting the stereotypes, telling the story from the other side, or highlighting the neglected accounts. And at the same time we have the responsibility  of questioning our own cultural practices. It is a marginalized existence no matter how you look at it. To insiders we seem like traitors who dare expose the weakness—‘the dirty laundry’ and to ‘outsiders’ we are often a lone voice crying in the wilderness”. I can really empathize with this sentiment, I can’t relate to it coming from the dominant culture group but it certainly motivates me to defy stereotypes and increase my own understandings. I feel as someone from the privileged group makes me even more responsible for gaining my own cultural understanding of other groups and to try and articulate that to others like me, or encourage them to seek out their own learning.