Feminism in Globalization

Allison Terlizzi

            The articles from this week were centered around the question that we focused on last week, “How do we judge cultural practices in other cultures and to what extent do we intervene?” This week we looked at the globalization of feminism and how women can either reject or benefit in regards to the new roles they take on. How does feminism conflict with cultural practices, and when it does, how do we react?

            The article, “The Burden of Representation” by Virginia Rutter discusses the Time magazine cover that we had looked at in class with the image of the Afghan woman Aisha and the images of the women who did not fit the stereotypes of Afghan women. She encourages us to look inward at our own culture. She asks the question: how was this practice invented? And who does it benefit?

            In Susan Okin’s article, “Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women?” she states that the assimilationist expectation is considered oppressive, so we must find ways to allow people to express their individual culture. The situation of polygamy in France that she brings up is a perfect example of how feminism and multiculturalism intersect. French officials allowed polygamy, an oppressive system that women are forced into. After many years, they decided it was anti-feminist, so they banned polygamy. She states, “The French accommodation of polygamy illustrates a deep and growing tension between feminism and multiculturalism concerns to protect cultural diversity,” and by banning polygamy they have supported feminism, but rejected multiculturalism. In history we have lived in control of women by men in religious texts, control sexual impulses has been softened in progressive reforms. The cultural customs we create aim to control women and render them to men’s desires. Even in the United States sex discrimination is in our media expecting women to look a certain way. To what extent should we favor feminism over multiculturalism?

            The WHO article on FGM discusses a cultural tradition aimed to control women’s bodies. By constructing the practice as essential for femininity and modesty and women become clean and beautiful after removal of the body parts that are for male sexual desire, the custom is perpetuated. In reality, it is a harmful practice that is perpetuated by social pressure to conform. When girls see others doing it, is becomes their motivation and many cultures consider it necessary in raising a girl properly. This was one of the most disturbing reading for this week because it is the clearest example of the way culture can shape us into believing we should change our bodies or behave a certain way. In countries that partake in FGM, women are pressured into believing it is the right thing to do, and with that they lose control of their bodies.

            “Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving?” by Lila Abu-Lughod explores the American intervention in Afghanistan and whether our handling of culture difference is justified or not. She argues that we need to develop an appreciation among women in the world. The “white man’s burden” to illicit cultural change to “save” women from their oppressive culture should not be sought after, but instead approach the situation more peacefully and less militaristic. As Americans, our aim should not be to impose certain cultural values upon societies we feel need saving, but instead make rational determinations for what we are supporting by “recognizing and respecting differences as products of different histories and expressions of different circumstances (Abu-Lughod, 787)”. I think this was a really important message to take away from this article because if we look at every issue through using cultural relativism it will not help us understand and accept an “other”. She writes, “When you save someone, you imply that you are saving her from something. You are also saving her to something (788). What she suggests is that we need to challenge Western superiority and arrogance that we think we have.

            In Afshan Jafar’s “Engaging Fundamentalism: The Case of Women’s NGOs in Pakistan”, Jafar explores how NGOs function and the reactions they have to issues regarding women’s rights and Islamic fundamentalism. While they work to improve conditions for women in Pakistan, they had been the target of Islamic fundamentalists. The NGO she discusses first is one with a large budget that had affiliations with human rights and women’s groups. The second was heavily involved in female rights groups and programs. The final dealt primarily with services offered for women’s rights. One of the most important pieces I took away from this last article was how the fundamentalist thinking of a threatened Muslim identity and of us versus them has been internalized to a great extent. She says, “Internalizing the concept of the “West” as their enemy has led activists to retreat into a destructive isolation and self-censorship that hinders progress on women’s issues at home (Jafar, 267).” Going back to our role in intervening, by having ideals of the West imposed on you, it almost has created more of a sense of rejection. I think this is crucial for us to consider as we continue involving ourselves in cultural manipulation in the Middle East.