Jane Sternbach- Response to Feminism

Jane Sternbach

4/9/12

Sociology of Globalization

Response to Feminism

            All of these readings touched upon what Narayan wrote about last week: the importance of context when dealing with feminism. Jafar’s main article described the feminist NGOs context of fundamental Islam, and the ways the NGOs try to deal with what seems to be irreconcilable differences between the two. She lists the six strategies that these women’s NGOs have employed to deal with the issue of Islamic fundamentalists trying to counteract all of their work by restricting women’s rights and freedoms. It is clear that these NGOs have had to make sacrifices and compromises to the Islamic fundamentalists, especially in certain areas of Pakistan. However, how can these organizations ever hope to achieve their goals while placating fundamentalists? Can the two groups ever live in harmony? Are they polar opposites? The strategy that I liked most out all that were listed was the first one: reinterpreting the Quran. This is the only one that diffuses the problem of fundamentalism, while also promoting feminism within an acceptable religious context. It is also, of course, the hardest to succeed with. It calls for a more liberal Islam that allows for personal interpretation over traditional/clerical ones. In addition, all institutionalized religions are at least, in some part, patriarchal. So, as long religion effects policy/culture in these countries, there will be subordination of women.

            Although Abu-Lughod brought up many of the themes we have already discussed this semester, her interpretation and articulation of them were very persuasive. She describes the way in which the West sees the veil as a symbol of injustice and restriction to the point of justifying wars on this view. However, this is really a narrow-minded view, and even when given the choice, a lot of women choose the veil. Abu-Lughod makes the point that Turkey banning all types of veiling and forcing men to wear western clothes is just as restrictive. This shows how we are accepting, but only if you play by our rules, which is, of course, the opposite of accepting. On page 786, Abu-Lughod brings up an interesting point: “What does freedom mean if we accept the fundamental premise that humans are social beings, always raised in certain social and historical contexts and belonging to particular communities that shape their desires and understandings of the world?” Here she is saying that we all make choices based on our socialization and societal context, so as long as we care about conforming to societal norms, we are not truly free. Therefore, we can overthrow all kinds of governments in the pursuit of “freedom,” but does it really do anything if the societal pressures to conform still bind everyone? Abu-Lughod also brings up the point that as Americans we hold the values of “freedom” and “equality” at the highest of standards, but do we ever stop think that other societies could value other things more? That we say Afghanistan needs to be liberated, but perhaps liberty is less pressing than other ideals to most Afghani people. Finally, she brings up the point that the West is fixated on the veil, when there are far worse atrocities being done to women in Afghanistan and around the world. Why aren’t those other issues more important? The answer is that we don’t really care about these women, we only care about our personal agendas and goals.

            Okin brings up the point that perhaps multiculturalism is actually a deterrent to women’s rights. She argues that because most cultures are deeply patriarchal, therefore, trying to “preserve” it entails preserving those patriarchal norms and beliefs. This brings up the question of authentic culture again. Are these cultures so entrenched with patriarchy that if steps were taken to give women more rights and power, that those cultures would cease to be those cultures? If so, is preserving culture so much more important than half of the population’s well being? Does the new country in which the immigrant group now resides have the right to ask these immigrants to give up their “authentic” culture and adopt ideals of a new one? Does a harmonious balance exist?

            The World Health Organization’s fact sheet on female genital mutilation (FGM) is an example in which culture is not hailed as more important than women’s rights, and where the international community banded together to try to help the women who are oppressed by this culture. But why is FGM an international problem while being forced to marry your rapist in many places (see Okin’s article) is not? Why are universal rights not the goal?