Feminism in Globalization - Anakena

SOC 400 – Feminism

            Throughout our weeks discussing various facets of globalization, one topic that has come up repeatedly – although never overtly – has been feminism and the impact that globalization has on women and children. Oftentimes, women and children bear the brunt of the negative effects of globalization and this collection of articles for this week’s readings render explicit some of these issues.

            Prof. Jafar’s blog post on the Burden of Representation goes back to a conversation we had in class on the cover of the Times Magazine featuring Aisha, an Afghan woman without her nose. The question of essentializing the coverage of Muslim women by choosing her image (featuring the ever-present veil as symbol of ‘oppression’ and ‘control of women’s images’) over that of the more “modern” women in the spread is one that highlights some main issues of representing groups of people.

            One detail I found really interesting was the conversation Jafar had with a woman in Pakistan about “washing our dirty linens in public”. Jafar, as an academic and feminist, feels strongly about heading into these confrontations of questioning mainstream media and representation of women’s issues. It is important to ask questions and challenge the representation, even as depicted on so broadly known a magazine as Times Magazine.

            The blogpost also reminds us that traditions (which are often used as a justifier for a certain behavior or action) are invented, and if they are invented, they can be amended. This point really connected strongly with the Okin article entitled “Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women?” Her point centers on the fact that legal exceptions made for immigrant or minority groups in host countries due to “tradition” or “cultural practices” can be more harmful to women’s rights.

            Oftentimes, the examination of these cultural practices are fairly superficial and do not dig deep into the private sphere, which is where most of the gendered inequalities are taking place and coming to light.  Okin examines the examples of polygamist families in Paris, suicide-murders of women and children, child marriages and other issues that expose the abuse of women’s rights. Although it can be seen as oppressive to force a group of people to fully assimilate to a host country, I agree with the general point of the article that, simply as human beings, we have a responsibility to look out for abusive situations where women may have no say at all in the way their culture and their tradition governs their private sphere.

            Why should minority groups get special treatment in the justice system on the grounds of their cultural invented traditions if the values of individual freedom are not being respected? This is a tricky topic because it returns to our conversation from last week: are there universal human rights? Are there universal women’s rights? Who created them? Are they respected? Where do we draw the line between dictating the rights and limitations of a cultural system in the name of women’s rights?

            Lila Abu-Lughod’s article entitled “Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving?” takes us back to the article on using women as the cause and justification of wars. Here, Abu-Lughod takes a slightly different approach, looking at the role of anthropology in essentializing our image of the “Muslim woman”. She also examines the historical significance of covering oneself, and the traditional connections with Islam and the wide possibility for different interpretations.

            I particularly appreciate how she traces the history of Christians salvation of Muslims back to the 19^th century missionaries. This really served to contextualize the complex of the Westerner who so quickly adopts the role of savior in the face of those who appear less fortunate that he. But the critical thinking she encourages us to pursue when discussing the topic of Muslim women extends beyond male politicians and into the realm of feminists. It is not enough for women to embody the same “savior” values as their Western male counterparts – they must be ready to educate themselves about the complexity of Muslim women’s situations and appreciate the different variables that make each woman’s situation unique and hard to summarize on the cover of a Times Magazine.

            Finally, Jafar’s writing on “Engaging Fundamentalism: The Case of Women’s NGOs in Pakistan” takes a closer look at how NGOs really function and how they react to issues regarding women’s rights and Islamic fundamentalism. Firstly, the term “NGOs” cover such a wide and vague range of organizations that it is hard to define them. For the purpose of this article, Jafar focuses specifically on NGOs in Pakistan that define themselves as working towards improved living conditions for women in Pakistan.

            Jafar then chose to work with three very different women’s NGOs in Pakistan. The first is an international NGO with a hefty budget, thus able to undertake large-scale project around the country. This NGO was tied with human rights and women’s rights groups. The second NGO was known for being very active in developing programs for female empowerment. Finally, the third NGO has existed since the independence of Pakistan in 1947 and had offices around the country, dealing mostly with service-oriented issues, acting (as I understood it) almost as a Planned Parenthood for women around the nation.

            I thought it was important that, while acknowledging that these women’s rights NGOs had been the target of Islamic fundamentalists, they were by no means victims. They do collaborate and work with international organizations but by no means do they depend entirely upon them. Instead, they have found ways to deal with their day-to-day challenges.

            Overall, while reading these articles and the statistics from the UN on female genitalia cutting, I kept mulling over this question of who gets to define universal human rights. To me, it seems necessary that those be in place, but how do I get to say that what I believe to be right would work for everyone? I think we all agree that from the moment someone feels oppressed or endangered, a culture/tradition has to re-examine itself and ponder the abuses it may be subjecting onto its followers. But who draws the line and defines when something is abusive? How do we know when the line is crossed if those who are the victims of such behaviors are silenced and locked in the private sphere?