Thomas Schrader - Globalization & Feminism - 4/9/12

            This week’s articles revealed the complicated debate over feminism and multiculturalism. This week made me question if my ideas about feminism have largely be constructed through a Western ideology. Similarly, it seems that feminism can take many forms and meanings for different groups and even individuals within cultural groups. Some the facts and statistics on female genital mutilation were very surprising. The information provided by the World Health Organization presented the issue clearly as a human rights issue and seems to be taking a strong stance against it, rejecting a more cultural relativist view of the act. The information provided that exposed the act as a “cultural tradition,” and one “upheld” by community leaders, religious leaders, and medical personnel, seemed to further hit the point that this was a cultural practice that exposed the primitive/barbaric nature of the culture. While the information was obviously used as an educational piece to show how one could attempt to make a difference within these communities, I couldn’t help but think that some may interpret this as even the medical personnel and leaders are embracing the practice, which means something is very backwards with the culture. These statistics should be a starting point perhaps for finding out more information as to why this practice goes on. As we read this week, no issue can be explained so simply.

            In the article “Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving?” Abu-Lughod (2002) took a more critical stance on the justification made for American intervention in Afghanistan, in terms of saving Afghan women. The author, in analyzing new special and radio interview, found constant resorting to “culture” in both explaining why the 9/11 attacks occurred and why Americans needed to intervene. What was left out was the historical background of all the current issues that were being talked about, the global interconnectedness of the whole situation, and America’s role in the current situation dating back twenty-five years ago. Once again, we see a sign of “colonial feminism,” justifying American actions without any true intention to provide women with the same mobility which typically associated with feminism. Furthermore, I find it interesting, in acknowledging my own ignorance of Islam. To hear of the burqa as a “liberating invention” that allowed women to leave the home, I was surprised I had never seen it in this way before. So if we take the burqa away form these women, many of which don’t know any other way, are we not simply imposing a more Westernized ideology of feminism. It would seems so. How would we know when we reach our goal, which is fairly general: free the women. What is going to happen after? What systems will be put in place to make a real difference? We cannot simply decide as Westerners what women from other cultures and another part of the world want.

            Jafar’s (2007) study of NGOs in Pakistan revealed the increasingly important and contested role of these non-governmental organizations, focusing on women’s rights and feminism. Some of the methods used by the NGOs that Jafar observed included reinterpreting  the Quran. Women are consistently trying to show how that laws of the Quran that have caused their gender to be viewed as “less” must be examined once again, considering the contextual nature of the laws, often descriptive of a certain time period instead of normative.  This effort is probably the greatest cause of conflict because it involved redefining many of the foundational beliefs. Questioning such values today could put into question the knowledge and trust theologians and any other interpretations. Another strategy implemented was networking and establishing ties with the religious community, resolving and severs there may be with the moderate religious community. Even then, fundamentalists are still the maim (and most reluctant) targets of these discussions. Another “engagement” strategy is using religion strategically, showing that this movement for women is not one that rejects Islam but one that plans to combine more moderate interpretations with more positive views of women. A final “disengagement” strategy was becoming isolated or self-censoring. This strategy was more focused on not compounding “the negative stereotypes be revealing potentially damaging information” to the outside world. Reflecting on the way this culture is viewed by Western societies, some women are more fearful of “cementing negative stereotype.”

            After reading this article, I feel that the feminist movement appears to be continuing on a very steep hill. It seems that the movement is being hit with opposition on every front even its individual members question the risk of even attempting to get all the issues on the table. From what I read, it would seem that by not getting issues on the table, Westerners will continue to conceptualize Pakistan as an ever more distorted “Other.” For many of us, we truly want to take the time to hear what the real situation is from the people themselves. Only then can justified and helpful policy be implemented.

            In Okin’s “Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women?” we are asked “What should be done when the claims of minority cultures or religions clash with the norm of gender equality that is at least formally endorsed by liberal states. The article points to several topics, one being the hypocritical nature of some Western governments when it comes to dealing with non-Western immigrants cultural practices within Western countries. What seems like the biggest issue is inconsistency in these matters. Even advocates for group rights of minorities must develop a more critical analysis on individual gendered differences within minority groups, which also come from gendered countries. Perhaps by focusing on more internal differences within country, Westerners would be able to see our own problems more clearly as well. The author also brings up the issues that cultural minorities need special rights, then, because their culture may otherwise be threatened with extinction, and the cultural extinction would likely undermine the self-respect and freedom of group members. But what is most difficult is ensuring women’s respect within the private sphere of the household. This article still left me with the hopeful thought that somehow a balance can be made between respecting cultures while not fully embracing any sort of attitude that completely reject human rights. As long as the West does nothing to critically analyze these matters, no truly justified solution will be reached it seems.

            Jafar’s blog post furthered the complicated nature of the issue. Do we allow the “dirty laundry” to stay in the private sphere, or do we stop being fearful of telling the whole story of the “other side.” It seems that we have gotten to a point where we have no choice but to put everything on the table. But where and when the means to do so will arise is another question. Who will be there to listen?