Wow! What a journey this has been! To have the exposure to academic work of such high calibre has been both extremely challenging and equally rewarding. There were moments of great enjoyment but also moments of great hesitation and discomfort for me. Some of my commentary I loved writing. Others, I just wanted to get through as quickly as I could as the process just seemed painful, either due to my own physical (I have a significant case of scoliosis that actually makes being a student quite physically uncomfortable and painful at times) or mental discomfort, or due to a lack of inspiration to comment on certain writing. Hands down, this has been the mostly challenging scholarly undertaking of my academic journey thus far. It was much more challenging that a fourth level course I took this term so, with that being noted, I would suggest you do not change the syllabus if you decide to make this a fourth year course. I am not sure it could be done with as much enthusiasm if additional requirements were added.
Before I get into the meat of my entry here, I wanted to explain the physical evolution of the entries. The earliest entries focused very much on a format that addresses each and every required question. I felt there was something artificial about presenting the work that way. hence, in later entries, I did deal with the questions but I dealt with them within the natural flow of the entry. I wanted to make the entries seem more cohesive and give them more of a flow. Having said that, I did take the journal format very seriously. I have edited all of my entries but did not change the essence of any of them. I wanted them to stay as true to my initial gut reactions to the readings as possible as opposed to trying to make them more readable, etc. This does not mean I do not care about presentation, grammar and all those other things. I do. It just means I did not want to compromise those first feelings and emotions to trying to "perfect" the entries. Maintaining the natural feel of each entry has been very important to me.
I have learned such a great deal from this exercise. First, for me, it has been very hard to critique these writings as I have, in some cases, done. I was often questioning myself. Do these opinions mean I am anti-feminist? Am I anti-woman? Do my thoughts even count in this arena? Even in some of the discussions we had as a group I felt at times my views were "wrong" and worried that people may find me to be somewhat archaic in them. About midway through the process, I decided I was ready to have a change of heart about my ideas but, in all honesty, that neither felt right nor natural for me. I still do not know whether or not I am comfortable with the word feminist. And I have gotten to a point where that is okay with me. This does not mean I disagree with much of what the feminist moving is doing and saying. I, in fact, do agree. Perhaps this makes me a feminist after all. But, I still feel a disconnect to that word, not due to dirtiness or ugliness around it but to limitations I see within it and, frankly, within some aspects of the movement. And, there are limitations to everything, I know. I just know and trust what I feel and need to listen to that. That is the only way I can explain myself without being overly apologetic. Furthermore, I feel that any way a movement can be challenged to become more inclusive, even through voices currently as small as mine, is a step in the right direction. Instead of feminists feeling as though they need the defend the cause, I think there should be open dialogue at all levels. I think this is indeed happening at scholarly levels, evidenced in many of our readings.
I have been challenged, as well, on a theoretical level. I have never done so much theoretical work, frankly and I can tell you as I sit here, at 1:38am on Monday December the 15th putting the final touches on this,I am exhausted. This has challenged me in more ways that I have expected. I feel very excited about some of the work I have done but not as much about other work. Other readings made me very anxious. But I have made my way through to the end.
I put this work behind me being grateful for the opportunity I have been given this term. Although a lot of work, the work has been very gratifying. I feel more prepared now for what the future holds in terms of grad work (and in terms of my thesis!)
Thanks very much.
Julie Sumerta
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Touring the International Women's Museum
When touring through the website for the International Women's Museum, it struck me how incredible a site it is. But what struck me most was the diversity of women;s voices represented who are all working toward one goal: equality through the women's movement and human rights. Listening to the five women up for discussion for this assignment speak and tell their stories was an incredible experience. They are a diverse group with much experience and offer up very interesting and unique ideas. I have been inspired by their stories and, as such, am not yet done exploring the website...
Geetanjali Misra
Misra's main perspective seems to be that as discussions around choice and option have changed, the movements have needed to change. As ideas around gender, largely constructed by societies perceptions, have been challenged by the LGBQT community and in other places, a deconstruction has need to happen. Is the women's movement keeping up with these changes? What needs to occur around these changes? It appears Misra feels the women's movement, and society at large, need to keep challneging themselves on these ideas and, hence, have a lot of work to keep up with the ever challenged and changing "constructs" of society
What I loved so much about Misra was her discussion around choice. Where does one's agenda become less about the agenda and more about the choice for the individual women one is attempting to assist? This goes right to the heart of women's agency. How do organizations who attempt to work effectively for women's rights on a level that exposes them directly to abuses suffered by women, work for women who may not feel what the agency would ideally suggest is the best option. Misra explains "it was only through working with many, many, many women that I understood that I had to listen to women, because they were capable of making their own choices from the best possible options available to them." And this, it seems, is her perspective. It is not about the right choice or the best choice according to a charitable organization or shelter. It is about the choice the woman makes. How can the woman be supported in her choice. Misra is correct to point out that many women may not understand the choices a woman who is being abused may make. But it is not about convincing her otherwise. It is about offering the best support possible to each woman in whatever choice she decides to make. This is a highly mature conclusion for those working in women's rights to come to.
Misra also steps away from only talking about a feminist movement but talking about a sexual movement, hence a movement based on options, choices and consent for humans. This was a very profound part of her conversation for me because it helped me see feminism as part of a bigger movement, a movement that, influenced by women's sexual rights has extended to include sexual rights for both heterosexual and LGBQT communities. Here I really could see the impact feminism has had in a more global and inclusive sense. However, most importantly, Misra points out the limitations in the women's movement when it comes to this. Yes, women have been given more sexually agency but it has been difficult to extend that agency to say, the example Misra used of sex workers. Gender issues no longer exclusively surround issues of men and women but have extended to include issues of trans gendered people. "You know, many times people are assigned a gender, and then you are expected to play the role of that gender, and therefore, you see men who are slightly feminine, they also face violence." It is this way that the idea of gender has been challenged and moved from being male/female based to a sense that gender is no longer cut and dry.
As pointed out in the West/Zimmerman article "the "doing" of gender is undertaken by women and men whose competence as members of society is hostage to its production. Doing gender involves a complex of socially guided perceptual, interactional, and micropolitical activities that cast particular pur-suits as expressions of masculine and feminine 'natures.'"
It has been the sexuality movement that has taken into consideration the fact that "when we talk, only men and women, who we are leaving out." (Misra, 8) For Misra, the sexual movement has "really gotten us to think through our identity politics in a more expansive way, because otherwise, you know, we will only be talking about a sub-group of people in the world." (Misra, 8)
When Misra goes onto describe this further, she speaks of society's constructs of gender in ways that have read int eh West/Zimmerman article. Where did our views on sexuality and gender identity come from? Who defined them? Ar they still valid? I think, for Misra, the women's movement has fallen short in dealing with these issues and I would have to agree. To illustrate this, Misra uses the example of people who may not associate with gender. Misra considers "men" who feel they are women and look toward the women's movement for support. But the movement itself seems unsure of its ability to help these people.
"I think the rigidity has only harmed us, and I think that rigidity has led to censorship of our speech. It has led to more moral policing. It has led to the idea that we need to protect women, and not protect their rights." (Misra, 11) For me, this again speaks to the fact that the women's movement does need to become more inclusive and re-explore who they are representing. The movement is likely gearing up to move into its next wave, a wave that will ideally be seen as representing women of all cultures, classes and world views and also inclusive of those who are bravely challenging very rigid constructs around gender.
Hadil El-Khouly
Khouly is a veiled Muslim feminist in Egypt leaving largely between the religious and secular worlds. She is an activist as well as a woman of faith. Her main perspective, then, comes out of her own life experience, leading her to maintain that one can lead both a life of faith and be an activist for women's rights. One can be both secular and religious. Western ideals do not need be deemed contradictory with eastern societies and vice versa.
Khouly certainly is the polar opposite of the socially and culturally constructed idea of a Muslimwoman as Cooke presents in her roundtable. Although, as a veiled woman, Khouly may physically appear to be a Muslimwoman to those who immediately and erroneously associate all veiled women with such a stereotypically accepted idea. Yet, Khouly seems to defy all stereotypes of what a Muslim woman, particularly a feminist one, should be.
She gives the example of being a veiled woman at a conference and asking by a teacher, no less, “How can you work for Women’s Rights and be veiled?,” as if veiled woman could not be feminists. Khouly's response was that there has never been a conflict between her faith and her activism, being both Muslim and feminist.
This brings to mind the importance of recognizing that there is great diversity in the Muslim community and, as pointed out by Farida Shaheed, if feminism is to succeed in the Muslim world, it must be able to recognize the diversity. Khouly points to societies such as Iran where Khouly sees a big problem with "space" for women's agency. "I don’t think it’s the same at all in different countries, but I think we’re inspiring each other." I think Khouly is a wonderful advocate for this and she maintains that this is actually happening. "Women’s Rights activists and women in general are becoming more politically aware and more demanding for space," leading to women wanting to be involved in the study of say, Shari, as Khouly points out, to become educated and help other women understand.
Khouly notes how easy and almost essential it is for people to categorize and be categorized, whether by gender as discussed in the West/Zimmerman article, faith tradition or by activism.
She maintains "it’s easier for [people] to deal with, deal with you when I categorize you when I say you’re secular, you’re religious, you’re feminist, I don’t know, for them I think it makes it easier to deal with you, but it’s unfair to you because you don’t want people to fragment you. But for me I just say I’m both I’m secular and religious." And for Khouly, these constructs are "what kept me, this belief that this is not the way it should be, and it actually helped me to have a stronger faith." (Khouly, 3)
Khouly also speaks of religious fundamentalism in the Muslim world and its effects on young women. For Khouly, the problem of fundamentalism for young women stems from these women not realizing that certain ideas people attempt to impose are, in fact, fundamentalist ideas. For a lot of young women, she says, "it’s not seen as fundamentalism. It’s seen as this is the way it should be." (Khouly, 6) She maintains, as well, that the idea that women feel becoming involved with fundamentalist groups will allow them to have an opportunity to connect with other women and discuss issues leads to them feeling "they are in a certain safe space and this is how they are exercising their political rights. And so they tend to be drawn to this in a very organized way." (Khouly, 6) These feelings perpetuate the problem of religious fundamentalism. As maintained by Alma Lopez in her contribution to the
Rycenga roundtable on queer religion, people strive to belong. They need to have a sense of community. Clearly, it is this same sense that is attracting Muslim women into communities that seem to support them , whether they be fundamentalist communities or not. One could seemingly conclude that those with fundamentalist agendas looking to bulk up their community are likely exploiting this need.
When asked about whether or not she feels pressure to within the feminist community to "disavow religion," something I have spoken of in an earlier blog, Khouly acknowledges that "there are feminists out there who are not working in any in the movement they’re just feminists as an identity and they find it difficult for example to relate to a secular feminist movement, because sometimes they are also judged." (Khouly, 7) Again, this points to a need for some level of change in order for the movement to evolve and become more inclusive. She brings the veil up as a further example, saying that some people within feminist may not support the wearing of the veil due to their views of what the veils perceivably represents. This is similar to Misra's discussion about the need for choice and the need, also, for advocates to realize where their opinions need to not infringe on the choices of those they wish to support.
Mahnaz Afkhami
As a woman who saw both the freedoms enjoyed by women in Iran several decades and the swift change after the Fundamentalist Revolution, a Revolution that instead of helping the cause of women greatly oppressed and subjugated them, Afkhami feels the women's movement in Iran was likely too visible and moved to fast to maintain the change women were enjoying. Further, the women's movement, Afkhami concedes, may have been in and of itself a reason for the Revolution.
However, regardless of where a woman finds herself in the world, it is Afkhami's perspective that as women "we struggle and we work and we convince and we mobilize and we bring about change," something women need to continue to do due to "centuries of subordination and oppression and lack of equality" built into systems around the world. (Afkhami, 2)
Afkhami sees part of the problem surrounding women's issues in places like Iran, but essentailly for all women, is that "much legislation concerning the status of women in the family and community is based on archaic interpretations of religion." As we have studied in the Balzer and the Joy article, women's histories in religion are not often egalitarian. If we look at how women's roles in religion are "constructed," I would argue they are constructed much in the way that West/Zimmerman contend gender itself is constructed. In other words, it is perceived notions of what women can "do" and what they can "offer" that constructs the roles. Certainly these roles are directly impacted by socially perceived ideas of gender as presented by West/Zimmerman.
When speaking specifically on women's roles within the feminist women, Afkhmai speaks about the importance of leadership for all the women involved. This idea of leadership is not based on hierarchy but rather emphasizes empowerment and the importance of relationships throughout an organizational hierarchy, with followers interacting with leaders and stepping into leadership roles when necessary. She extends this type of ideology to the way agendas and messages should be conveyed in the public arena saying "you don’t preach to people; you don’t dictate to them how things should be; but you provide situations with given scenarios or stories of real life people, real life leaders, and people decide among themselves what the decisions that these leaders made involved and (ask themselves) would they have done the same thing? Or would they have made different decisions?" (Afkhami, 6) In this way, the movement can cultivate a sense of learning and respect on many levels.
Afkhami extends her discussion on women's roles of leadership to public and political roles. For Afkhami, who sees that change is happening as more and more women move in to the public sphere, they still battle stereotypes regarding "strong women" being seen as too aggressive and power hungry, essentially as a threat to society, and "weak women" being deemed unable to lead with any amount of power. She also discusses how the system itself fails women who is deemed divergent within a specific society. She gives the example of a woman, the Minister of Education in Iran, being accused of being a prostitute and executed as such. The reality was this woman who achieved much status and power within the government and, as such, likely threatening. As Afkahmi explains aptly, "the charge of this woman, instead of being a political charge, being made into a moral charge, showed that the fundamentalist government thinks of any woman who transgresses, who moves across the boundary of private-public, is, in effect a prostitute." (Afkhami, 10). As Afkhami noted, these attacks on women's agency are devastating to individuals, their families and communities. Clearly, we can extend this to the whole feminist movement. The fact that women who achieve successes similar to or greater than men are still considered threatening to the stability of the patriarchal systems in place.
Regardless of mysogynist and androcentric views, women of the Muslim world, along with women in general, need to continue their uphill battle against repression at all levels of society. Afkahmi maintains this is the only way women will move forward, pointing out that this is not an overly loud or radical movement but rather a movement about women living their everyday lives. Although women continue to face inequality on a large scale in many sectors of society, the goal for Afkahmi is to continue to see women moving forward within and for the cause.
Sibongile Musuku Van Damme
Van Damme, a feminist and environmentalist, comes from the perspective that an "attack" on certain traditional plants, dubbed "alien species," is also an attack on those who are most impoverished in South Africa, namely black people and, more specifically, women. hence Van Damme sees the environmental movement as also a women's and human rights issue.
Due to the colonization of South Africa, there are issues regarding race that play into this. And as a conservationist, as someone who intimately knew about species of plants through traditional knowledge passed down to her, she was discriminated as a woman and, more specifically, a =black woman by a movement made up at the time of predominantly white men. Her knowledge was discredited.
For Van Damme, the inclusion of women, particularly South African women, in the conversation surrounding conservation and environmentalism is just natural. Women work more closely with the land. She provides the example of the "20/20 Vision of Water" project, run primarily by white men wanting to study the use of water. [W]hen I was asked to come in and join the project I said this is not making any sense, we can't only just be looking at water quantity, we also need to look at water quality," Van Damme explains. She went into the field, asking women about how water was being used in schools with children. Did they have access to potable water? What were the human rights issues involved? This was her focus, that the environment and women's rights-human rights-are intimately connected. And women, walking back and forth from wells to get water, dealing with household and children's issues, and working as teachers closely connected with children and their usage of water, would intimately understand all that was involved.
Van Damme's discussion on this topic illustrates how women and children of colour,the most vulnerable people in the world, are exploited when their voices are not considered in issues surrounding the environment. This was a very eye opening conversation to me as, although I was aware on some level of the problem, hearing this woman speak about reminded me that men of power control most every corner of the world. Where men hold control, women are often oppressed, as illustrated here by the disregard shown to Van Damme surrounding her knowledge of the environment. It is hard to understand fully why women would be seen as such a threat on the surface. Yet when one considers power politics, economics and status quo, it becomes clear that those whose issues should ultimately trump the issues of the elite, are considered a threat and often times are muted.
"Mama" Irene Natividad
Irene Natividad was mentored by many early feminists and sees mentoring as an important part of the movement. Natividad sees that, as women are not as politically powerful as men, not as politicized as men, women need mentors,or "mamas" who can teach them how to maneuver within the system. Much of her discussion speaks of the women she has known and what they have done. Yet, she is concerned that young women are not as politicized in this generation and that, with conservatism, laws instituted in the last several generations, such as issues surrounding pro choice legislation, are being threatened. As such, Natividad sees women;s rights being threatened. She is most interested,however, in seeing women regain power through achieving political and economic clout.
Although Natividad does see same type of activism she once did, she comes to the movement with a "solutionist approach." She sees areas where there is great potential for women to gain agency.
In areas of economics she feels women need to gain more power as paid workers and consumers, as well as through business enterprises. As women recognize their potential economic power and then start mobilizing it, they become agents of change for their own lives and the lives of other women.
Natividad sees a trend in that women seem to become politicized over time, when they have entered the work force and have gone pretty much as far as they can go. She would like to see more young women interested in politics by utilizing new technologies and communication such as the internet and by becoming active which, for Natividad, starts with voting. As well, Natividad sees a place for women within politics, as agents for change.
As a mentor, a "mama," Natividad sees a need for women to become empowered and active, such as they were in the '60's. When listening to her, I realize that there is a need for a revitalization of women's activism. I think of the responses I received to my survey in feminism and see that there seems to be a lack of enthusiasm around this movement. I am still trying to figure this all out. I did notice that, similarly to what I felt I was noticing, Natividad sees a movement away from feminist activism and seems to feel it is due to a more conservative world view currently leading the way as the "babyboomers" age. I would agree. I would also say that, although there is a lot to be outraged about in the world today, my generation has not really lived through times of great political unrest, at least in Canada. Sure, there is outrage surrounding the Iraq wars, Afghanistan and Darfur yet there is not the same level of activism behind any of these movements as there was, say, surrounding the Viet Nam war. I wonder why? Have we become desensitized to these issues? I think partly people feel they have no power and that politicians themselves essentially have no power. But, what if, as Natividad suggest, women become empowered enough to want to become engaged? America is about to inaugurate its first black president. This is thrilling and certainly a step in the right direction for humanity in general. But, what if Hillary had won? I wonder would that would have done for the psyche of women. Fortunately, in the case of Obama, we will likely see a shift to more moderate or liberal political ideals which will help liberate and inspire many. Yet, it's encouraging that our own country's politics seem to stir and inspire us even less. Yet, Natividad certainly offers up many ways one can become empowered in their own right. These are ideas I will definitely be considering for myself.
Perhaps it was because this was presented as interviews and not as written bodies of works by the women, but this forum spoke the most profoundly to me than any of the other readings. This were some exceptional women. Yet, what dos this have to religion? i would say everything. As I become more familiar with ideas of constructivism, I realize that gender certainly is socially constructed. Upon this realization and through further investigation, it is clear to see everything has been constructed, except for the fact that we exist as humans. And all of these constructs were conceived by those of the elite with power, namely men. These constructs, as well, influence one another. How women are treated in general is going to affect them in all aspects of their life.
As Navudad noted, women have very little economic or political power. How much religious power do they hold? Not much. It does not take much investigation to realize that historically religious power has been intimately connected to economic and political power. They all impacted each other. Hence, a lack of economic and political power is reflected in the lack of power, or roles, as Morny Joy would say, within religion.
Both Khouly and Afkhami, as Muslim women deal with issues of gender within religion head in and discuss this here. Religious fundamentalism has clearly impacted Muslim women. But fundamentalism in any religion impacts its women. As noted by Natividad, a swing to the conservative right is affecting women on issues such as the right to an abortion. Although political issues, they are religiously charged and can find their start in ideas presented by Balzer and in the globalization roundtable that considered the impact of nationalism and natalism on women.
In closing, my point is that these issues impact each other and are intimately connected. It is not possible, as far as I can see, to have a prolonged disconnect between any one area in society, even if we argue we are a secular country. The mainstream religious views of the society will play a part and, as such, are affected by economic and political change. As such, all of these areas as they impact are also intimately tied. Should women continue to face oppression politically and economically, they will continue to face oppression religiously.
Geetanjali Misra
Misra's main perspective seems to be that as discussions around choice and option have changed, the movements have needed to change. As ideas around gender, largely constructed by societies perceptions, have been challenged by the LGBQT community and in other places, a deconstruction has need to happen. Is the women's movement keeping up with these changes? What needs to occur around these changes? It appears Misra feels the women's movement, and society at large, need to keep challneging themselves on these ideas and, hence, have a lot of work to keep up with the ever challenged and changing "constructs" of society
What I loved so much about Misra was her discussion around choice. Where does one's agenda become less about the agenda and more about the choice for the individual women one is attempting to assist? This goes right to the heart of women's agency. How do organizations who attempt to work effectively for women's rights on a level that exposes them directly to abuses suffered by women, work for women who may not feel what the agency would ideally suggest is the best option. Misra explains "it was only through working with many, many, many women that I understood that I had to listen to women, because they were capable of making their own choices from the best possible options available to them." And this, it seems, is her perspective. It is not about the right choice or the best choice according to a charitable organization or shelter. It is about the choice the woman makes. How can the woman be supported in her choice. Misra is correct to point out that many women may not understand the choices a woman who is being abused may make. But it is not about convincing her otherwise. It is about offering the best support possible to each woman in whatever choice she decides to make. This is a highly mature conclusion for those working in women's rights to come to.
Misra also steps away from only talking about a feminist movement but talking about a sexual movement, hence a movement based on options, choices and consent for humans. This was a very profound part of her conversation for me because it helped me see feminism as part of a bigger movement, a movement that, influenced by women's sexual rights has extended to include sexual rights for both heterosexual and LGBQT communities. Here I really could see the impact feminism has had in a more global and inclusive sense. However, most importantly, Misra points out the limitations in the women's movement when it comes to this. Yes, women have been given more sexually agency but it has been difficult to extend that agency to say, the example Misra used of sex workers. Gender issues no longer exclusively surround issues of men and women but have extended to include issues of trans gendered people. "You know, many times people are assigned a gender, and then you are expected to play the role of that gender, and therefore, you see men who are slightly feminine, they also face violence." It is this way that the idea of gender has been challenged and moved from being male/female based to a sense that gender is no longer cut and dry.
As pointed out in the West/Zimmerman article "the "doing" of gender is undertaken by women and men whose competence as members of society is hostage to its production. Doing gender involves a complex of socially guided perceptual, interactional, and micropolitical activities that cast particular pur-suits as expressions of masculine and feminine 'natures.'"
It has been the sexuality movement that has taken into consideration the fact that "when we talk, only men and women, who we are leaving out." (Misra, 8) For Misra, the sexual movement has "really gotten us to think through our identity politics in a more expansive way, because otherwise, you know, we will only be talking about a sub-group of people in the world." (Misra, 8)
When Misra goes onto describe this further, she speaks of society's constructs of gender in ways that have read int eh West/Zimmerman article. Where did our views on sexuality and gender identity come from? Who defined them? Ar they still valid? I think, for Misra, the women's movement has fallen short in dealing with these issues and I would have to agree. To illustrate this, Misra uses the example of people who may not associate with gender. Misra considers "men" who feel they are women and look toward the women's movement for support. But the movement itself seems unsure of its ability to help these people.
"I think the rigidity has only harmed us, and I think that rigidity has led to censorship of our speech. It has led to more moral policing. It has led to the idea that we need to protect women, and not protect their rights." (Misra, 11) For me, this again speaks to the fact that the women's movement does need to become more inclusive and re-explore who they are representing. The movement is likely gearing up to move into its next wave, a wave that will ideally be seen as representing women of all cultures, classes and world views and also inclusive of those who are bravely challenging very rigid constructs around gender.
Hadil El-Khouly
Khouly is a veiled Muslim feminist in Egypt leaving largely between the religious and secular worlds. She is an activist as well as a woman of faith. Her main perspective, then, comes out of her own life experience, leading her to maintain that one can lead both a life of faith and be an activist for women's rights. One can be both secular and religious. Western ideals do not need be deemed contradictory with eastern societies and vice versa.
Khouly certainly is the polar opposite of the socially and culturally constructed idea of a Muslimwoman as Cooke presents in her roundtable. Although, as a veiled woman, Khouly may physically appear to be a Muslimwoman to those who immediately and erroneously associate all veiled women with such a stereotypically accepted idea. Yet, Khouly seems to defy all stereotypes of what a Muslim woman, particularly a feminist one, should be.
She gives the example of being a veiled woman at a conference and asking by a teacher, no less, “How can you work for Women’s Rights and be veiled?,” as if veiled woman could not be feminists. Khouly's response was that there has never been a conflict between her faith and her activism, being both Muslim and feminist.
This brings to mind the importance of recognizing that there is great diversity in the Muslim community and, as pointed out by Farida Shaheed, if feminism is to succeed in the Muslim world, it must be able to recognize the diversity. Khouly points to societies such as Iran where Khouly sees a big problem with "space" for women's agency. "I don’t think it’s the same at all in different countries, but I think we’re inspiring each other." I think Khouly is a wonderful advocate for this and she maintains that this is actually happening. "Women’s Rights activists and women in general are becoming more politically aware and more demanding for space," leading to women wanting to be involved in the study of say, Shari, as Khouly points out, to become educated and help other women understand.
Khouly notes how easy and almost essential it is for people to categorize and be categorized, whether by gender as discussed in the West/Zimmerman article, faith tradition or by activism.
She maintains "it’s easier for [people] to deal with, deal with you when I categorize you when I say you’re secular, you’re religious, you’re feminist, I don’t know, for them I think it makes it easier to deal with you, but it’s unfair to you because you don’t want people to fragment you. But for me I just say I’m both I’m secular and religious." And for Khouly, these constructs are "what kept me, this belief that this is not the way it should be, and it actually helped me to have a stronger faith." (Khouly, 3)
Khouly also speaks of religious fundamentalism in the Muslim world and its effects on young women. For Khouly, the problem of fundamentalism for young women stems from these women not realizing that certain ideas people attempt to impose are, in fact, fundamentalist ideas. For a lot of young women, she says, "it’s not seen as fundamentalism. It’s seen as this is the way it should be." (Khouly, 6) She maintains, as well, that the idea that women feel becoming involved with fundamentalist groups will allow them to have an opportunity to connect with other women and discuss issues leads to them feeling "they are in a certain safe space and this is how they are exercising their political rights. And so they tend to be drawn to this in a very organized way." (Khouly, 6) These feelings perpetuate the problem of religious fundamentalism. As maintained by Alma Lopez in her contribution to the
Rycenga roundtable on queer religion, people strive to belong. They need to have a sense of community. Clearly, it is this same sense that is attracting Muslim women into communities that seem to support them , whether they be fundamentalist communities or not. One could seemingly conclude that those with fundamentalist agendas looking to bulk up their community are likely exploiting this need.
When asked about whether or not she feels pressure to within the feminist community to "disavow religion," something I have spoken of in an earlier blog, Khouly acknowledges that "there are feminists out there who are not working in any in the movement they’re just feminists as an identity and they find it difficult for example to relate to a secular feminist movement, because sometimes they are also judged." (Khouly, 7) Again, this points to a need for some level of change in order for the movement to evolve and become more inclusive. She brings the veil up as a further example, saying that some people within feminist may not support the wearing of the veil due to their views of what the veils perceivably represents. This is similar to Misra's discussion about the need for choice and the need, also, for advocates to realize where their opinions need to not infringe on the choices of those they wish to support.
Mahnaz Afkhami
As a woman who saw both the freedoms enjoyed by women in Iran several decades and the swift change after the Fundamentalist Revolution, a Revolution that instead of helping the cause of women greatly oppressed and subjugated them, Afkhami feels the women's movement in Iran was likely too visible and moved to fast to maintain the change women were enjoying. Further, the women's movement, Afkhami concedes, may have been in and of itself a reason for the Revolution.
However, regardless of where a woman finds herself in the world, it is Afkhami's perspective that as women "we struggle and we work and we convince and we mobilize and we bring about change," something women need to continue to do due to "centuries of subordination and oppression and lack of equality" built into systems around the world. (Afkhami, 2)
Afkhami sees part of the problem surrounding women's issues in places like Iran, but essentailly for all women, is that "much legislation concerning the status of women in the family and community is based on archaic interpretations of religion." As we have studied in the Balzer and the Joy article, women's histories in religion are not often egalitarian. If we look at how women's roles in religion are "constructed," I would argue they are constructed much in the way that West/Zimmerman contend gender itself is constructed. In other words, it is perceived notions of what women can "do" and what they can "offer" that constructs the roles. Certainly these roles are directly impacted by socially perceived ideas of gender as presented by West/Zimmerman.
When speaking specifically on women's roles within the feminist women, Afkhmai speaks about the importance of leadership for all the women involved. This idea of leadership is not based on hierarchy but rather emphasizes empowerment and the importance of relationships throughout an organizational hierarchy, with followers interacting with leaders and stepping into leadership roles when necessary. She extends this type of ideology to the way agendas and messages should be conveyed in the public arena saying "you don’t preach to people; you don’t dictate to them how things should be; but you provide situations with given scenarios or stories of real life people, real life leaders, and people decide among themselves what the decisions that these leaders made involved and (ask themselves) would they have done the same thing? Or would they have made different decisions?" (Afkhami, 6) In this way, the movement can cultivate a sense of learning and respect on many levels.
Afkhami extends her discussion on women's roles of leadership to public and political roles. For Afkhami, who sees that change is happening as more and more women move in to the public sphere, they still battle stereotypes regarding "strong women" being seen as too aggressive and power hungry, essentially as a threat to society, and "weak women" being deemed unable to lead with any amount of power. She also discusses how the system itself fails women who is deemed divergent within a specific society. She gives the example of a woman, the Minister of Education in Iran, being accused of being a prostitute and executed as such. The reality was this woman who achieved much status and power within the government and, as such, likely threatening. As Afkahmi explains aptly, "the charge of this woman, instead of being a political charge, being made into a moral charge, showed that the fundamentalist government thinks of any woman who transgresses, who moves across the boundary of private-public, is, in effect a prostitute." (Afkhami, 10). As Afkhami noted, these attacks on women's agency are devastating to individuals, their families and communities. Clearly, we can extend this to the whole feminist movement. The fact that women who achieve successes similar to or greater than men are still considered threatening to the stability of the patriarchal systems in place.
Regardless of mysogynist and androcentric views, women of the Muslim world, along with women in general, need to continue their uphill battle against repression at all levels of society. Afkahmi maintains this is the only way women will move forward, pointing out that this is not an overly loud or radical movement but rather a movement about women living their everyday lives. Although women continue to face inequality on a large scale in many sectors of society, the goal for Afkahmi is to continue to see women moving forward within and for the cause.
Sibongile Musuku Van Damme
Van Damme, a feminist and environmentalist, comes from the perspective that an "attack" on certain traditional plants, dubbed "alien species," is also an attack on those who are most impoverished in South Africa, namely black people and, more specifically, women. hence Van Damme sees the environmental movement as also a women's and human rights issue.
Due to the colonization of South Africa, there are issues regarding race that play into this. And as a conservationist, as someone who intimately knew about species of plants through traditional knowledge passed down to her, she was discriminated as a woman and, more specifically, a =black woman by a movement made up at the time of predominantly white men. Her knowledge was discredited.
For Van Damme, the inclusion of women, particularly South African women, in the conversation surrounding conservation and environmentalism is just natural. Women work more closely with the land. She provides the example of the "20/20 Vision of Water" project, run primarily by white men wanting to study the use of water. [W]hen I was asked to come in and join the project I said this is not making any sense, we can't only just be looking at water quantity, we also need to look at water quality," Van Damme explains. She went into the field, asking women about how water was being used in schools with children. Did they have access to potable water? What were the human rights issues involved? This was her focus, that the environment and women's rights-human rights-are intimately connected. And women, walking back and forth from wells to get water, dealing with household and children's issues, and working as teachers closely connected with children and their usage of water, would intimately understand all that was involved.
Van Damme's discussion on this topic illustrates how women and children of colour,the most vulnerable people in the world, are exploited when their voices are not considered in issues surrounding the environment. This was a very eye opening conversation to me as, although I was aware on some level of the problem, hearing this woman speak about reminded me that men of power control most every corner of the world. Where men hold control, women are often oppressed, as illustrated here by the disregard shown to Van Damme surrounding her knowledge of the environment. It is hard to understand fully why women would be seen as such a threat on the surface. Yet when one considers power politics, economics and status quo, it becomes clear that those whose issues should ultimately trump the issues of the elite, are considered a threat and often times are muted.
"Mama" Irene Natividad
Irene Natividad was mentored by many early feminists and sees mentoring as an important part of the movement. Natividad sees that, as women are not as politically powerful as men, not as politicized as men, women need mentors,or "mamas" who can teach them how to maneuver within the system. Much of her discussion speaks of the women she has known and what they have done. Yet, she is concerned that young women are not as politicized in this generation and that, with conservatism, laws instituted in the last several generations, such as issues surrounding pro choice legislation, are being threatened. As such, Natividad sees women;s rights being threatened. She is most interested,however, in seeing women regain power through achieving political and economic clout.
Although Natividad does see same type of activism she once did, she comes to the movement with a "solutionist approach." She sees areas where there is great potential for women to gain agency.
In areas of economics she feels women need to gain more power as paid workers and consumers, as well as through business enterprises. As women recognize their potential economic power and then start mobilizing it, they become agents of change for their own lives and the lives of other women.
Natividad sees a trend in that women seem to become politicized over time, when they have entered the work force and have gone pretty much as far as they can go. She would like to see more young women interested in politics by utilizing new technologies and communication such as the internet and by becoming active which, for Natividad, starts with voting. As well, Natividad sees a place for women within politics, as agents for change.
As a mentor, a "mama," Natividad sees a need for women to become empowered and active, such as they were in the '60's. When listening to her, I realize that there is a need for a revitalization of women's activism. I think of the responses I received to my survey in feminism and see that there seems to be a lack of enthusiasm around this movement. I am still trying to figure this all out. I did notice that, similarly to what I felt I was noticing, Natividad sees a movement away from feminist activism and seems to feel it is due to a more conservative world view currently leading the way as the "babyboomers" age. I would agree. I would also say that, although there is a lot to be outraged about in the world today, my generation has not really lived through times of great political unrest, at least in Canada. Sure, there is outrage surrounding the Iraq wars, Afghanistan and Darfur yet there is not the same level of activism behind any of these movements as there was, say, surrounding the Viet Nam war. I wonder why? Have we become desensitized to these issues? I think partly people feel they have no power and that politicians themselves essentially have no power. But, what if, as Natividad suggest, women become empowered enough to want to become engaged? America is about to inaugurate its first black president. This is thrilling and certainly a step in the right direction for humanity in general. But, what if Hillary had won? I wonder would that would have done for the psyche of women. Fortunately, in the case of Obama, we will likely see a shift to more moderate or liberal political ideals which will help liberate and inspire many. Yet, it's encouraging that our own country's politics seem to stir and inspire us even less. Yet, Natividad certainly offers up many ways one can become empowered in their own right. These are ideas I will definitely be considering for myself.
Perhaps it was because this was presented as interviews and not as written bodies of works by the women, but this forum spoke the most profoundly to me than any of the other readings. This were some exceptional women. Yet, what dos this have to religion? i would say everything. As I become more familiar with ideas of constructivism, I realize that gender certainly is socially constructed. Upon this realization and through further investigation, it is clear to see everything has been constructed, except for the fact that we exist as humans. And all of these constructs were conceived by those of the elite with power, namely men. These constructs, as well, influence one another. How women are treated in general is going to affect them in all aspects of their life.
As Navudad noted, women have very little economic or political power. How much religious power do they hold? Not much. It does not take much investigation to realize that historically religious power has been intimately connected to economic and political power. They all impacted each other. Hence, a lack of economic and political power is reflected in the lack of power, or roles, as Morny Joy would say, within religion.
Both Khouly and Afkhami, as Muslim women deal with issues of gender within religion head in and discuss this here. Religious fundamentalism has clearly impacted Muslim women. But fundamentalism in any religion impacts its women. As noted by Natividad, a swing to the conservative right is affecting women on issues such as the right to an abortion. Although political issues, they are religiously charged and can find their start in ideas presented by Balzer and in the globalization roundtable that considered the impact of nationalism and natalism on women.
In closing, my point is that these issues impact each other and are intimately connected. It is not possible, as far as I can see, to have a prolonged disconnect between any one area in society, even if we argue we are a secular country. The mainstream religious views of the society will play a part and, as such, are affected by economic and political change. As such, all of these areas as they impact are also intimately tied. Should women continue to face oppression politically and economically, they will continue to face oppression religiously.
Queering Religion-Commentary on Rycenga
I really loved this roundtable discussion on the future of queer religion and studies initiated by Jennifer Rycenga. To be honest, I cringed at the thought of reading this, not because I do not see validity in this discourse but rather because I have never considered it my cause. Well, I learned a great deal about "my cause" from reading this. Every single writer offered a new and refreshing outlook to the discussion. Each paper got me thinking in new ways, challenging my own beliefs and comfort level. i think I have come out of this discussion much more enlightened about queer religion and the stakes involved in it for all of us who are concerned about human rights and freedoms. I know I have learned a great deal.
Jennifer Rycenga
What a powerful and interesting stance Rycenga takes on the issues surrounding religion, "non-coventional" sexuality and power politics. Rycenga essentially wants to turn conventional ideas of religion upside down and shake them out. Seeing a need for inclusion of all religions and of all people within their religions, Rycenga sets out to challenge widely held beliefs about religion, claiming that thinkers such as Mary Daly and others need to be held in as high regard as those such as Pat Robertson. Essentially, she would like to see a new and inclusive approach to the discourse on religion, the way we think about and approach religion, and the way religion is presented and taught.
To illustrate her point, Rycenga looks at widely held Christian puritanical beliefs and contends that queers and others that are somehow different from those in white-bred, Christian centred middle America, were blamed for events like 9/11 due to being considered "other" and also due to what could plausibly be considered by those on the Christian right as the queer antisocial and deviant behaviour. Again, as in many of the other papers we have considered, this goes right to the heart of the West/Zimmerman argument. "In Western societies, the accepted cultural perspective on gender views women and men as naturally and unequivocally defined categories of being...with distinctive psychological and behavioral propensities that can be predicted from their reproductive functions." (West/Zimmerman, 127) Those who do not fit into these categories, are hence considered "other" and, as such, perceived as going against the "norm."
Rycenga sees dualism, the sense of their being an "us" and a "them," largely resulting from post 9/11 attitudes, as extremely detrimental to the development of queer studies within religion. It seems for Rycenga that anytime anyone outside of the queer community speaks of the "us", that "us" rarely includes the queer community. The "us" of most western societies often does not extend to the gay community, and, as such, the gay community is not seen as being included in the larger, globally communal sense of "us." Rycenga goes further, defining the "them" as only the gay community but also the "workers, immigrants, refugees, free-thinkers, queers, women, mammals, birds, waters, the skies," (Rycenga, 268) seemingly anyone who does not fit the distinction of the white, privileged, male elite. As being "other" and not of the collective "us," Rycenga concludes that queers (and, as noted above, others) were considered to be on the side of "them," a side that for many in the west included Bin Laden's Taliban. Yet, queers would never been considered the "us" of the Taliban (nor would they arguably want to be), resulting in being once again considered part of "them." Her point is, simply, that there seems to be no room for queers when it comes to religion and the politics surrounding it, regardless what side of the religious fence you are on.
Rycenga sees a need for the renewal of "radical critique of all religions," such as the past feminist critique that, by Rycenga's account, has been "soft-petalled." This “soft-petalling” Rycenga see as unfortunate as she sees religion as a great place for engaging in radical discourse and thought. "We all know that many religious traditions look back to a golden age, but I don’t think we Queers can afford to indulge in that kind of thinking. There wasn’t a past golden age that included us in its vision, at least not the kind of community we’ve created now." (Rycenga, 270)
This is the case not only for queers but for many others who find themselves on the margins of society. We need only to look at the Hindu caste system to realize there was not a golden age for those of untouchable and lower classes. Nor was their particularly a golden age for women in general in Hinduism or in most other religions. In her paper on The Role or Non Role of Women, Morny Joy sets out to consider the “her-stories”-or lack of her-stories-in religious history and what that has done for religion today. Joy concludes that there is a great need for people to look beyond the boundaries of their own faiths and start looking at different traditions to get a sense of where we currently are as a global community. “I would recommend that particular attention be paid to the role that women are playing in the many of the major religions today – when women's voices are perhaps been heard loud and strong for the first time.” (Joy, 16) Perhaps this a good starting point for conversations between women and the queer community. Both communities have a need to define and create their own religious experiences and both communities have experienced discrimination and suppression when trying to do so. As Joy laments “[m]y hope is that the twenty-first century will be an age of insight and of tolerance, where there will be a growing understanding of the ways of all religions, and where the collaborative voices of both wise women and men will prevail.” (Joy, 16) Seeing these two communities as possible collaborators in their desire to recreate traditions could well help us see into the future of where religion may be going.
Mary A Tolbert
With her contribution, Tolbert seems quite hopeful we are on the verge of a tremendous surge in queer religious scholarship (Tolbert, 271) but also concedes that the road will be a long one with many challenges. As Rycenga, Tolbert sees a need for change, especially in the way we, and more specifically, Queers, speak about religion in general. "We need to move to a time when we are not just defending ourselves or arguing against something but actually articulating a positive statement: ‘These are what the new ways need to be. These are what the new visions are. These are what the new structures need to be’. I think, in fact, that we may actually be moving into that time already when we should start thinking constructively rather than just deconstructively." (Tolbert, 271) Here, I fully agree with her. As we have discussed quite at length this term, there needs to be sense of creation and constructivism. I see no sense in only arguing that change is needed but not also giving any thought to what that change will be. How will it look? How will it feel? How does it feel? These are all things that need to be considered and, I believe, are being considered by not only those in the Queer community but also by those who support reform in many different ways through many different traditions. There is room for deconstruction but not for simply the sake of deconstruction alone. The construction of new ideas, thoughts and actions will, in the end, be what is vital to the success of these movements within religion.
Tolbert goes on to point to what she feels does need to be deconstructed. First, she discusses the "disciplinary binding" of thoughts and actions that keep new ideas from coming into full fruition. I wholeheartedly agree here. Many of the doctrines and teachings are simply not applicable to today's culture. A change in the way religion is applied to the realities of modern day living and thought is strongly needed. Religion, and by association those who enforce religion, upholds standards and practices that are in many ways archaic.
Heteronormativity is the sense that heterosexuality is the norm of society hence our "morals" (the morals of the "us") are based on heterosexual world views and norms. Again, all of this is considered at length when West and Zimmerman discuss gender identity, gender roles, sex and all of the socially accepted preconceived ideas they are based on. Because everyone is so influenced by this, it is hard, Tolbert argues, for even queers to avoid perpetuating the problem of binary attitudes and systems. I love when she says "As we are articulating a queer vision of why we should have the right to gay marriage, we are at the same time confirming the heteronormative value of marriage." Same goes for gays in the military, and in other seemingly conservative areas of society. So, the question then is, do queers need to force a queer vision onto traditional marriage or should they be creating their own traditions? That is a tough question to answer as I strongly feel queers should have the right to marry and should be acknowledged as legally married once they do. Yet, Tolbert makes a very good point. At the end of the day, is the goal to "change" standards set within the heteronormative systems, hence perpetuating these systems, or is it to carve out a system outside of the heteronormative one instead of simply changing norms and standards that already exist. That is a complex, important and exciting question to ask if we are to consider the future of the queer lifestyle in general.
Tolbert sees a need for not only a deconstruction of sexual identities within religion but also of religious identities themselves. Tolbert describes a tendency for "rigid," monolithic and simplistic understandings within Christianity that leaves people with a very one sided understanding of Christian historicity. This is something Tolbert would like to see challenged with further investigation of historical Christianity and the growth of Christian identity, particularly looking at the 1920's onward. Morny Joy also points to the importance of such an investigation, as was discussed earlier in this paper.
Tolbert sees all of this happening with strong coalitions with other groups outside of the LGBQT community and, most importantly, with a "need to locate and preserve the resources for LGBTQ work in Religious Studies." (Tolbert, 273) This is clearly vitally important. All traditions look to their past writings and teachings as they move toward the future. The queer community needs this type of salvaging and storing happening as well. This goes hand in hand with the continuation of studies and research, and the need for available funding, something that Tolbert sees is very lacking in this field of study. When I consider what I am doing now, right at this very minute, I see the importance of scholarship and everything surrounding scholarship. If young scholars in any field did not have resources for research available to them, to inspire and challenge them, there would be no future for scholarship. Clearly, scholarship surrounding the queer community is very valid and needs to be treated as such. A lack of respect for this area of study in the general "us" mentality is problematic and will continue to be problematic for the queer scholarly community until respect for the queer community in general is firmly in place.
Jose Cazebon
Cazebon offered yet another interesting and important voice, a voice that I enjoyed and appreciated immensely. Instead of acceptance, Cazebon seems to embrace the fact that the queer community and, hence, queer scholarship is marginalized. Cazebon even questions whether, once accepted as normal, queers will continue to be "queer." In other words, will full acceptance into the greater society remove the need for a special place from which marginalized individuals and communities can so eloquently voice themselves.
In Cazebon's opinion, queer forms of scholarship and activism "must be that of the bricoleurs, those who cobble together out of bits and pieces a world that they can survive in." (Cazebon, 275) He further feels that attempts to create boundaries around what is the acceptable queer experience and voice only leads to a fractured community. In its divisive state then, the queer voice could then be conquered by those outside the community who may want to ensure boundaries are in place and adhered to. And this makes complete sense. If we are to consider scholarship in its present form, voices that radically go against the norm are often up against attempts to dilute or mute them. This is a disheartening and important truth about scholarship and one that, at first, can be quite shocking to understand.
Cazebon looks at what he considers false dichotomies that need to be deconstructed within the queer community itself. I found this interesting as it points to the concern West/Zimmerman have about preconceived notions and “false dichotomies” surrounding issues of gender within society in general. The concerns may appear to be different but are of the same essence. The first for Cazebon is that there is a perceived division between queer activism and scholarship. Cazebon says hogwash. He effectively points to how activism has allowed for queer scholarships itself and how even just discussion about queer studies and activism are acts of activism. I tend to agree with him and feel this is how scholarship starts. The divide may exist in the action one takes but I think scholarship in general owes a lot to activism and would agree that there is a good amount of scholarship out there that can be considered activism.
As well, Cazebon views the notion of a divide between religious and theological studies a false dichotomy. This results, Cazebon argues, in a state where religious studies students are needing to "portray themselves over and against theological studies, creating a very deep chasm between the two." (Cazebon, 275) As someone who has family members who ask "Why is Julie taking religious studies if she does not want to be a minister?" I would agree. I think students in both disciplines need to validate the existence and the importance of the other for the greater importance and existence of both. As well, I think the general public needs to become further educated in what those who study religious and theological studies have to offer society as a whole. These disciplines are much more complex than many might assume them to be. The fact that most people relate religious studies with going in to the ministry shows how uneducated society is about the way religious study is taught. From my experience, it is typically taught from a place that considers many faith traditions and cultures in a way that allows one to look outside their own tradition in order to further understand their own tradition and those of others.
Finally, Cazebon discusses the issue of religious isolationism and how important it is to engage with many people in multi-religious conversations. This for me is essential. If we are to chip away the negative effects of discrimination, should we not be doing it from all angles? This for me means issues of gender, class, culture, race, faith tradition, sexual orientation, etc are all of equal importance. These are human issues that need to be dealt with on human levels.
Alma Lopez
Lopez seems to take over where Cazebon left off. Admittedly and honestly she says that she does not know what the future of queer religion is. She describes herself as being outside the norm due to the fact that she is "Latina/Chicana" or a Latin American woman, and because she is an artist.
Although she did not focus on queer religion, she focused on the need for spirituality, particularly for those considered outsiders and what that means. Describing a movie she had seen, Trembling Before G-d, she says that what most affected her was the disconnection between the outsider and the community. "And that, more than anything, was the source of the pain. It wasn’t just about not being able to practise (sic) a religion in community spaces; it was about not being able to practise (sic) with family. It was just deeper than the religious; it was very much about the individual connection that people make with spirituality, but also with the culture and the community."
I think she raises a very important point here. Whatever the bias or forms of discrimination, people have a desire to come together and connect with other people. Discrimination is not only about disagreeing with someone else’s opinion, it is about isolating a person from others. It is a conscious decision to disconnect from a person or group of people based on an inability to agree. And, it is a conscious attempt to ostracize people on a social level, significantly based on those preconceived notions brought up about identity and roles in the West Zimmerman paper. One could argue all people have the need to be social and, hence, are affected deeply when this opportunity is not available to them. And this is the heart of the issue, really.
Ibrahim Farajaje
Okay, this is some RADICAL thinking and I think Farajaje did a wonderful job both in presenting and owning his thoughts on both the sexing and the browning of religion AND the queer community! Farajaje sees a need for not only a sexing of religious and of queer studies but also a "browning" of them, a need for representation of voices of visible minorities within the queer community.
Farajaje challenges "us" at every step, saying that erotophobia, the fears people hold about truly enjoying, God forbid, sex, is really a driving force in all of this. "I think that what people are frightened about...[and] what they get upset about is thinking about two or more women, two or more men, two or more transgender people, butch-femme, bottom-top, green-red, whatever, having sex. That’s what gets people really all upset. And it’s not just because it’s queer people having sex, just sex period. And I think that that’s connected to the browning of our work." (Farajaje, 278) This takes the West/Zimmerman arguments one step further, right into the arena of the act of sexuality, and adding race into the discussion. He challenges us in this way not only on ideas surrounding gender identity but also sexual activity and the role culture and race play. He points to a lack of academic voices of colour in the queer community, voices that Farajaje feels are desperately needed. Farajaje cites a need for coalition fundraising, mentoring and creating connections. In this way, more members of this community will be educated, empowered and likely more motivated to become active on all levels, including scholarly ones. And, in dealing with sex, Farajaje sees a need for more exposure to works of art and academia that deal specifically with queer sex.
Farajaje feels there is a need for "ownership of the role of being public intellectuals" (Farajaje, 279) representing the queer community. In this, Farajaje sees the opportunity for scholarly thinkers to not only be a part of the discourse but to also reframe and shape the discourse. He extends this to include conversations on religion saying there needs to be an acknowledgement that religion does change.
What comes across strongly in Farajaje's piece is the need for the queer community to come together, regardless of race, culture or religious affiliation. I loved the fact that Farajaje could identify with four or five different cultures within his background and then declare himself a Sufi. That is fabulous and illustrates the many ways in which the world is becoming much smaller than it once was perceived to be. And, it reminds us that this is not only a Christian issue. Queer religious studies as I understand it does not refer queer Christian studies. This is both interfaith and cross-cultural dialogue. Farajaje definitely could be defined as marginalized. But, from what I have just read, I think he is far from seeing himself as marginalized. It seems to me he is a well educated, well rounded, well versed academic who can shed light on many issues facing the queer community and visible minorities within that community. My sense is he is very empowered but also empowering. The queer community is lucky to have people such as he representing them-at least as one man can attempt to represent the diversity of a whole community.
There are a few terms worth noting here. The first is the term queer. The problem is, I do not fully understand what this term means. Does it refer to the gay community as a whole? Is it correct to call a lesbian a queer? I had always felt that the word queer had negative connotations associated with it and until recently did not realize it had been claimed by the LGQBT community. Well, I'm googling...
After doing a regular google search and then a .edu specific search, I found that most effective definition for my needs at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/queer which defines queer as 1) being worthless or questionable, 2)differing in some way, eccentric, unconventional, touched, obsessed and 3)homosexual, sometimes offensive. I did not find this very helpful until I came to the following on the usage of the word: "Over the past two decades, an important change has occurred in the use of queer in sense 2d. The older, strongly pejorative use has certainly not vanished, but a use by some gay people and some academics as a neutral or even positive term has established itself. This development is most noticeable in the adjective but is reflected in the corresponding noun as well. The newer use is sometimes taken to be offensive, especially by older gay men who fostered the acceptance of gay in these uses and still have a strong preference for it." (retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/queer Nov 31st, 2008) To be honest, this really does not tell me too much. I find it to be a very ambiguous definition and perhaps this is intentional, referring to a certain degree of ambiguity around the word. So, I think queer is now used as a neutral term that refers to someone who is gay, but that can also still be deemed derogatory by those who are referred to as queer. I am slightly confused but I think that perhaps this is a relatively new usage of the word and that, in time, the term will either embraced or replaced by the community.
Another term worth noting is heteronormative. As I explained earlier, heteronormative refers to the sense that society considers heterosexual behaviours and world views as the "norm." Hence, anything not of a "hetero" nature, would be considered divergent or not normal. It is argued, then, that society is largely based on heteronormative world views. This type of attitude creates problems for people who do not consider themselves heterosexual and leads to discrimination against those in the LGBQT community and against others who do not see the world through a decidedly heteronormative lens.
After reading this roundtable, I am very excited about the potential direction queer religious studies will take. There are some very innovative ideas here, ideas that could work well not only when looking at queer communities but all communities, particularly marginalized "them" communities.
I am starting to understand more and more how these communities are all connected. When the feminist movement gains headway, other movements can also move ahead. When the queer community can overcome obstacles, other minorities are also able to overcome some of these same obstacles. This is, again, however, why there is still a “disconnect” for me between feminism and the much larger goal of human rights-not in the work of the movement but in the word "feminism" itself. It just simply does not seem big enough or adequate enough for me. Yes, 50% of the world's population is female and hence is working for the largest group of repressed persons worldwide. Yet, when I think "feminist," I do not think of gay men being ostracized. I do not think about poverty and hunger in third world countries. I think of equal rights for women. I am aware that all of the above things I have just mentioned are intimately connected. Yet, as I have already said, I think the feminist movement really needs to work on presenting itself in the greater public as a movement that is working toward human rights and not just feminist ones. This past term we have looked at writers who even question whether or not feminism can translate into different cultures. That is problematic for me when it comes to my views of feminism as a human rights movement. It IS indeed a human rights movement but if I am to consider whether it is represented as a human rights movement and, as such, representing all humans in their struggles for egalitarianism, my answer is no. I need something more. Not a move away from feminism. Just something more inclusive, something more encompassing… something more...
Jennifer Rycenga
What a powerful and interesting stance Rycenga takes on the issues surrounding religion, "non-coventional" sexuality and power politics. Rycenga essentially wants to turn conventional ideas of religion upside down and shake them out. Seeing a need for inclusion of all religions and of all people within their religions, Rycenga sets out to challenge widely held beliefs about religion, claiming that thinkers such as Mary Daly and others need to be held in as high regard as those such as Pat Robertson. Essentially, she would like to see a new and inclusive approach to the discourse on religion, the way we think about and approach religion, and the way religion is presented and taught.
To illustrate her point, Rycenga looks at widely held Christian puritanical beliefs and contends that queers and others that are somehow different from those in white-bred, Christian centred middle America, were blamed for events like 9/11 due to being considered "other" and also due to what could plausibly be considered by those on the Christian right as the queer antisocial and deviant behaviour. Again, as in many of the other papers we have considered, this goes right to the heart of the West/Zimmerman argument. "In Western societies, the accepted cultural perspective on gender views women and men as naturally and unequivocally defined categories of being...with distinctive psychological and behavioral propensities that can be predicted from their reproductive functions." (West/Zimmerman, 127) Those who do not fit into these categories, are hence considered "other" and, as such, perceived as going against the "norm."
Rycenga sees dualism, the sense of their being an "us" and a "them," largely resulting from post 9/11 attitudes, as extremely detrimental to the development of queer studies within religion. It seems for Rycenga that anytime anyone outside of the queer community speaks of the "us", that "us" rarely includes the queer community. The "us" of most western societies often does not extend to the gay community, and, as such, the gay community is not seen as being included in the larger, globally communal sense of "us." Rycenga goes further, defining the "them" as only the gay community but also the "workers, immigrants, refugees, free-thinkers, queers, women, mammals, birds, waters, the skies," (Rycenga, 268) seemingly anyone who does not fit the distinction of the white, privileged, male elite. As being "other" and not of the collective "us," Rycenga concludes that queers (and, as noted above, others) were considered to be on the side of "them," a side that for many in the west included Bin Laden's Taliban. Yet, queers would never been considered the "us" of the Taliban (nor would they arguably want to be), resulting in being once again considered part of "them." Her point is, simply, that there seems to be no room for queers when it comes to religion and the politics surrounding it, regardless what side of the religious fence you are on.
Rycenga sees a need for the renewal of "radical critique of all religions," such as the past feminist critique that, by Rycenga's account, has been "soft-petalled." This “soft-petalling” Rycenga see as unfortunate as she sees religion as a great place for engaging in radical discourse and thought. "We all know that many religious traditions look back to a golden age, but I don’t think we Queers can afford to indulge in that kind of thinking. There wasn’t a past golden age that included us in its vision, at least not the kind of community we’ve created now." (Rycenga, 270)
This is the case not only for queers but for many others who find themselves on the margins of society. We need only to look at the Hindu caste system to realize there was not a golden age for those of untouchable and lower classes. Nor was their particularly a golden age for women in general in Hinduism or in most other religions. In her paper on The Role or Non Role of Women, Morny Joy sets out to consider the “her-stories”-or lack of her-stories-in religious history and what that has done for religion today. Joy concludes that there is a great need for people to look beyond the boundaries of their own faiths and start looking at different traditions to get a sense of where we currently are as a global community. “I would recommend that particular attention be paid to the role that women are playing in the many of the major religions today – when women's voices are perhaps been heard loud and strong for the first time.” (Joy, 16) Perhaps this a good starting point for conversations between women and the queer community. Both communities have a need to define and create their own religious experiences and both communities have experienced discrimination and suppression when trying to do so. As Joy laments “[m]y hope is that the twenty-first century will be an age of insight and of tolerance, where there will be a growing understanding of the ways of all religions, and where the collaborative voices of both wise women and men will prevail.” (Joy, 16) Seeing these two communities as possible collaborators in their desire to recreate traditions could well help us see into the future of where religion may be going.
Mary A Tolbert
With her contribution, Tolbert seems quite hopeful we are on the verge of a tremendous surge in queer religious scholarship (Tolbert, 271) but also concedes that the road will be a long one with many challenges. As Rycenga, Tolbert sees a need for change, especially in the way we, and more specifically, Queers, speak about religion in general. "We need to move to a time when we are not just defending ourselves or arguing against something but actually articulating a positive statement: ‘These are what the new ways need to be. These are what the new visions are. These are what the new structures need to be’. I think, in fact, that we may actually be moving into that time already when we should start thinking constructively rather than just deconstructively." (Tolbert, 271) Here, I fully agree with her. As we have discussed quite at length this term, there needs to be sense of creation and constructivism. I see no sense in only arguing that change is needed but not also giving any thought to what that change will be. How will it look? How will it feel? How does it feel? These are all things that need to be considered and, I believe, are being considered by not only those in the Queer community but also by those who support reform in many different ways through many different traditions. There is room for deconstruction but not for simply the sake of deconstruction alone. The construction of new ideas, thoughts and actions will, in the end, be what is vital to the success of these movements within religion.
Tolbert goes on to point to what she feels does need to be deconstructed. First, she discusses the "disciplinary binding" of thoughts and actions that keep new ideas from coming into full fruition. I wholeheartedly agree here. Many of the doctrines and teachings are simply not applicable to today's culture. A change in the way religion is applied to the realities of modern day living and thought is strongly needed. Religion, and by association those who enforce religion, upholds standards and practices that are in many ways archaic.
Heteronormativity is the sense that heterosexuality is the norm of society hence our "morals" (the morals of the "us") are based on heterosexual world views and norms. Again, all of this is considered at length when West and Zimmerman discuss gender identity, gender roles, sex and all of the socially accepted preconceived ideas they are based on. Because everyone is so influenced by this, it is hard, Tolbert argues, for even queers to avoid perpetuating the problem of binary attitudes and systems. I love when she says "As we are articulating a queer vision of why we should have the right to gay marriage, we are at the same time confirming the heteronormative value of marriage." Same goes for gays in the military, and in other seemingly conservative areas of society. So, the question then is, do queers need to force a queer vision onto traditional marriage or should they be creating their own traditions? That is a tough question to answer as I strongly feel queers should have the right to marry and should be acknowledged as legally married once they do. Yet, Tolbert makes a very good point. At the end of the day, is the goal to "change" standards set within the heteronormative systems, hence perpetuating these systems, or is it to carve out a system outside of the heteronormative one instead of simply changing norms and standards that already exist. That is a complex, important and exciting question to ask if we are to consider the future of the queer lifestyle in general.
Tolbert sees a need for not only a deconstruction of sexual identities within religion but also of religious identities themselves. Tolbert describes a tendency for "rigid," monolithic and simplistic understandings within Christianity that leaves people with a very one sided understanding of Christian historicity. This is something Tolbert would like to see challenged with further investigation of historical Christianity and the growth of Christian identity, particularly looking at the 1920's onward. Morny Joy also points to the importance of such an investigation, as was discussed earlier in this paper.
Tolbert sees all of this happening with strong coalitions with other groups outside of the LGBQT community and, most importantly, with a "need to locate and preserve the resources for LGBTQ work in Religious Studies." (Tolbert, 273) This is clearly vitally important. All traditions look to their past writings and teachings as they move toward the future. The queer community needs this type of salvaging and storing happening as well. This goes hand in hand with the continuation of studies and research, and the need for available funding, something that Tolbert sees is very lacking in this field of study. When I consider what I am doing now, right at this very minute, I see the importance of scholarship and everything surrounding scholarship. If young scholars in any field did not have resources for research available to them, to inspire and challenge them, there would be no future for scholarship. Clearly, scholarship surrounding the queer community is very valid and needs to be treated as such. A lack of respect for this area of study in the general "us" mentality is problematic and will continue to be problematic for the queer scholarly community until respect for the queer community in general is firmly in place.
Jose Cazebon
Cazebon offered yet another interesting and important voice, a voice that I enjoyed and appreciated immensely. Instead of acceptance, Cazebon seems to embrace the fact that the queer community and, hence, queer scholarship is marginalized. Cazebon even questions whether, once accepted as normal, queers will continue to be "queer." In other words, will full acceptance into the greater society remove the need for a special place from which marginalized individuals and communities can so eloquently voice themselves.
In Cazebon's opinion, queer forms of scholarship and activism "must be that of the bricoleurs, those who cobble together out of bits and pieces a world that they can survive in." (Cazebon, 275) He further feels that attempts to create boundaries around what is the acceptable queer experience and voice only leads to a fractured community. In its divisive state then, the queer voice could then be conquered by those outside the community who may want to ensure boundaries are in place and adhered to. And this makes complete sense. If we are to consider scholarship in its present form, voices that radically go against the norm are often up against attempts to dilute or mute them. This is a disheartening and important truth about scholarship and one that, at first, can be quite shocking to understand.
Cazebon looks at what he considers false dichotomies that need to be deconstructed within the queer community itself. I found this interesting as it points to the concern West/Zimmerman have about preconceived notions and “false dichotomies” surrounding issues of gender within society in general. The concerns may appear to be different but are of the same essence. The first for Cazebon is that there is a perceived division between queer activism and scholarship. Cazebon says hogwash. He effectively points to how activism has allowed for queer scholarships itself and how even just discussion about queer studies and activism are acts of activism. I tend to agree with him and feel this is how scholarship starts. The divide may exist in the action one takes but I think scholarship in general owes a lot to activism and would agree that there is a good amount of scholarship out there that can be considered activism.
As well, Cazebon views the notion of a divide between religious and theological studies a false dichotomy. This results, Cazebon argues, in a state where religious studies students are needing to "portray themselves over and against theological studies, creating a very deep chasm between the two." (Cazebon, 275) As someone who has family members who ask "Why is Julie taking religious studies if she does not want to be a minister?" I would agree. I think students in both disciplines need to validate the existence and the importance of the other for the greater importance and existence of both. As well, I think the general public needs to become further educated in what those who study religious and theological studies have to offer society as a whole. These disciplines are much more complex than many might assume them to be. The fact that most people relate religious studies with going in to the ministry shows how uneducated society is about the way religious study is taught. From my experience, it is typically taught from a place that considers many faith traditions and cultures in a way that allows one to look outside their own tradition in order to further understand their own tradition and those of others.
Finally, Cazebon discusses the issue of religious isolationism and how important it is to engage with many people in multi-religious conversations. This for me is essential. If we are to chip away the negative effects of discrimination, should we not be doing it from all angles? This for me means issues of gender, class, culture, race, faith tradition, sexual orientation, etc are all of equal importance. These are human issues that need to be dealt with on human levels.
Alma Lopez
Lopez seems to take over where Cazebon left off. Admittedly and honestly she says that she does not know what the future of queer religion is. She describes herself as being outside the norm due to the fact that she is "Latina/Chicana" or a Latin American woman, and because she is an artist.
Although she did not focus on queer religion, she focused on the need for spirituality, particularly for those considered outsiders and what that means. Describing a movie she had seen, Trembling Before G-d, she says that what most affected her was the disconnection between the outsider and the community. "And that, more than anything, was the source of the pain. It wasn’t just about not being able to practise (sic) a religion in community spaces; it was about not being able to practise (sic) with family. It was just deeper than the religious; it was very much about the individual connection that people make with spirituality, but also with the culture and the community."
I think she raises a very important point here. Whatever the bias or forms of discrimination, people have a desire to come together and connect with other people. Discrimination is not only about disagreeing with someone else’s opinion, it is about isolating a person from others. It is a conscious decision to disconnect from a person or group of people based on an inability to agree. And, it is a conscious attempt to ostracize people on a social level, significantly based on those preconceived notions brought up about identity and roles in the West Zimmerman paper. One could argue all people have the need to be social and, hence, are affected deeply when this opportunity is not available to them. And this is the heart of the issue, really.
Ibrahim Farajaje
Okay, this is some RADICAL thinking and I think Farajaje did a wonderful job both in presenting and owning his thoughts on both the sexing and the browning of religion AND the queer community! Farajaje sees a need for not only a sexing of religious and of queer studies but also a "browning" of them, a need for representation of voices of visible minorities within the queer community.
Farajaje challenges "us" at every step, saying that erotophobia, the fears people hold about truly enjoying, God forbid, sex, is really a driving force in all of this. "I think that what people are frightened about...[and] what they get upset about is thinking about two or more women, two or more men, two or more transgender people, butch-femme, bottom-top, green-red, whatever, having sex. That’s what gets people really all upset. And it’s not just because it’s queer people having sex, just sex period. And I think that that’s connected to the browning of our work." (Farajaje, 278) This takes the West/Zimmerman arguments one step further, right into the arena of the act of sexuality, and adding race into the discussion. He challenges us in this way not only on ideas surrounding gender identity but also sexual activity and the role culture and race play. He points to a lack of academic voices of colour in the queer community, voices that Farajaje feels are desperately needed. Farajaje cites a need for coalition fundraising, mentoring and creating connections. In this way, more members of this community will be educated, empowered and likely more motivated to become active on all levels, including scholarly ones. And, in dealing with sex, Farajaje sees a need for more exposure to works of art and academia that deal specifically with queer sex.
Farajaje feels there is a need for "ownership of the role of being public intellectuals" (Farajaje, 279) representing the queer community. In this, Farajaje sees the opportunity for scholarly thinkers to not only be a part of the discourse but to also reframe and shape the discourse. He extends this to include conversations on religion saying there needs to be an acknowledgement that religion does change.
What comes across strongly in Farajaje's piece is the need for the queer community to come together, regardless of race, culture or religious affiliation. I loved the fact that Farajaje could identify with four or five different cultures within his background and then declare himself a Sufi. That is fabulous and illustrates the many ways in which the world is becoming much smaller than it once was perceived to be. And, it reminds us that this is not only a Christian issue. Queer religious studies as I understand it does not refer queer Christian studies. This is both interfaith and cross-cultural dialogue. Farajaje definitely could be defined as marginalized. But, from what I have just read, I think he is far from seeing himself as marginalized. It seems to me he is a well educated, well rounded, well versed academic who can shed light on many issues facing the queer community and visible minorities within that community. My sense is he is very empowered but also empowering. The queer community is lucky to have people such as he representing them-at least as one man can attempt to represent the diversity of a whole community.
There are a few terms worth noting here. The first is the term queer. The problem is, I do not fully understand what this term means. Does it refer to the gay community as a whole? Is it correct to call a lesbian a queer? I had always felt that the word queer had negative connotations associated with it and until recently did not realize it had been claimed by the LGQBT community. Well, I'm googling...
After doing a regular google search and then a .edu specific search, I found that most effective definition for my needs at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/queer which defines queer as 1) being worthless or questionable, 2)differing in some way, eccentric, unconventional, touched, obsessed and 3)homosexual, sometimes offensive. I did not find this very helpful until I came to the following on the usage of the word: "Over the past two decades, an important change has occurred in the use of queer in sense 2d. The older, strongly pejorative use has certainly not vanished, but a use by some gay people and some academics as a neutral or even positive term has established itself. This development is most noticeable in the adjective but is reflected in the corresponding noun as well. The newer use is sometimes taken to be offensive, especially by older gay men who fostered the acceptance of gay in these uses and still have a strong preference for it." (retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/queer Nov 31st, 2008) To be honest, this really does not tell me too much. I find it to be a very ambiguous definition and perhaps this is intentional, referring to a certain degree of ambiguity around the word. So, I think queer is now used as a neutral term that refers to someone who is gay, but that can also still be deemed derogatory by those who are referred to as queer. I am slightly confused but I think that perhaps this is a relatively new usage of the word and that, in time, the term will either embraced or replaced by the community.
Another term worth noting is heteronormative. As I explained earlier, heteronormative refers to the sense that society considers heterosexual behaviours and world views as the "norm." Hence, anything not of a "hetero" nature, would be considered divergent or not normal. It is argued, then, that society is largely based on heteronormative world views. This type of attitude creates problems for people who do not consider themselves heterosexual and leads to discrimination against those in the LGBQT community and against others who do not see the world through a decidedly heteronormative lens.
After reading this roundtable, I am very excited about the potential direction queer religious studies will take. There are some very innovative ideas here, ideas that could work well not only when looking at queer communities but all communities, particularly marginalized "them" communities.
I am starting to understand more and more how these communities are all connected. When the feminist movement gains headway, other movements can also move ahead. When the queer community can overcome obstacles, other minorities are also able to overcome some of these same obstacles. This is, again, however, why there is still a “disconnect” for me between feminism and the much larger goal of human rights-not in the work of the movement but in the word "feminism" itself. It just simply does not seem big enough or adequate enough for me. Yes, 50% of the world's population is female and hence is working for the largest group of repressed persons worldwide. Yet, when I think "feminist," I do not think of gay men being ostracized. I do not think about poverty and hunger in third world countries. I think of equal rights for women. I am aware that all of the above things I have just mentioned are intimately connected. Yet, as I have already said, I think the feminist movement really needs to work on presenting itself in the greater public as a movement that is working toward human rights and not just feminist ones. This past term we have looked at writers who even question whether or not feminism can translate into different cultures. That is problematic for me when it comes to my views of feminism as a human rights movement. It IS indeed a human rights movement but if I am to consider whether it is represented as a human rights movement and, as such, representing all humans in their struggles for egalitarianism, my answer is no. I need something more. Not a move away from feminism. Just something more inclusive, something more encompassing… something more...
Blackwood
What do our individual views on sexuality say about us and within the context of our own societies? Are we, in the west, really as liberal and democratic when it comes to ideas about sex as we think we are? How does identity and our own personal attachment to our identities affect our ability to have fulfilling sex lives based on true desire? All of these questions came up for me when I read Blackwood's paper "Culture and Women's Sexualities."
Blackwood’s paper seems to come out of the same school of thought as the West/Zimmerman article on “Doing Gender” and its thoughts on socially constructed theories and presumptions surrounding gender. As West and Zimmerman note,"When we view gender as an accomplishment, an achieved property of situated conduct, our attention shifts from matters internal to the individual and focuses on interactional and, ultimately, institutional arenas." (West/Zimmerman, 126) Hence, this makes gender less about the individual and more about their place or role within their own society.
Blackwood extends and really puts to the test these ideas by not only looking at how gender is influenced by culture but also how our ideas on gender influence women’s sexuality cross-culturally. Blackwood’s perspective is that cultural and social processes “produce sexualities through discourses of desire, religion, gender and so on.” (Blackwood, 224) As is the view of West and Zimmerman, Blackwood sees sexual meanings as being produced on a social level through “ideologies of religion, ethnicity, class, gender, family, and reproduction, as well as the material and social conditions of everyday life. These factors provide the context for the production of sexual relationships, desires and longings.” (Blackwood, 224) Blackwood investigates all of this through the lens of anthropology, looking at case studies to further her argument.
With her case studies, Blackwood considers three different relationships that are good representations of same sex sexuality and relationships. The first of these is the intimate friendship. She speaks here of the “mummy-baby” relationship between school girls in Lesotho, South Africa, relationships that are encouraged and expected by the greater community. This relationship is considered a very important part of a girl’s development and coming of age. The elder girl, the “mummy,” acts as a mentor to the younger “baby” girl, helping her through “initiation.” This becomes a relationship where the two exchange love letters and gifts. The mummy is allowed to have other relationships, with men even, but the baby can only have one mummy who will teach her about romantic and sexual relationships. “They view their relationship as an affair or romance: hugging, kissing and sexual relations are part of it.” (Blackwood, 225) It is clear here that the idea of same sex relationships are not considered at all taboo but rather are a natural and healthy way for a young women to enter adolescence. Blackwood also points out that many of these relationships end when either woman becomes married. The relationships surprisingly provide “important emotional and economic ties” for women within their communities.
It is important to note, as Blackwood has, that these are culturally constructed relationships that seemingly serve the good of the community as a whole. Initiation schools traditionally offered girls this training based on these relationships so the local system was built on this idea. As well, these relationships are based on culturally held “ideologies of sexuality” that do not deny a woman’s sensuality and actually allow for women’s sexual agency. (Blackwood, 226) Another very interesting factor is the tradition of a “special friend,” known as motosalle. This friend is actually a sexual partner that a man or woman could take outside of their marriage. Extramarital relationships are not frowned upon for these people but are accepted as a normal, healthy part of a person’s sexuality. Not only are they accepted but also celebrated within the community.
These types of ideas, while foreign to many of us, illustrate the importance and effects of cultural constructivism. As noted in the West/Zimmerman article, it is socio-cultural influences outside of oneself that define what we think about sex, gender and, as such, our own identities. Clearly, for the women of Lesotho, ideas about gender and what is acceptable are markedly different from those in the west.
The second relationship Blackwood considers is that of erotic ritual practices. Here, women engage in sexual acts together that are deemed ritualistic and, as such, appropriate. Blackwood considers the Australian aborigines and their practices of coming of age rituals for young women which included homoerotic acts taking place ritualistically between the women. Again, this supports the idea that women’s sexuality is valid and gives women agency within the culture as they move into different developmental stages in their lives.
The final relationship Blackwood looks it is that of adolescent sexual play. This is, as Blackwood notes, quite common in many cultures, likely even our own although it seems to taboo to be discussed. She illustrates this with the example of the !Kung people, whose children and adolescents engage in both hetero and homosexual play. Because adults lived in such close quarters with children, the children wee exposed to all aspects of adult life, including sexual relations. The children, Blackwood says, would imitate what the adults did through play, which included imitating intimate sexual relations. Hence, their society has “constructed an adolescent phase of sexual experimentation that includes both same-sex and other-sex partners,” (Blackwood, 229) giving children and adolescents of both sexes sexual agency. This is seemingly extends into adult life, with coupled partners having more than one sexual partner.
Blackwood also importantly points out in regards to the !Kung that due to a lack of lineage and inheritance concerns, their relationships are fully egalitarian, allowing women the same agency as men. Again, this clearly all comes to ideas of socially and culturally constructed norms surrounding gender, sex and identity, such as the ones discussed at length by West/Zimmerman. Due to the vast difference between western cultures and the cultures outlined above, we clearly can see how different ways of constructing culture can lead to different results. One could assume that as much as these cultures seem to be a stretch for us to imagine, likely the rigid way we view sex, gender and identity in the west, particularly with taboos regarding homosexuality, many in these cultures would likely not understand why we create so much anxiety around issues of sexual development. What we consider divergent, these cultures seem to not only accept but also embrace and encourage.
Blackwood makes strong a case for how gender ideologies construct men’s and women’s sexualities differently. “Sexualities are informed by and embedded in conceptions of gender,” she says, giving several examples of how this can play out culturally. In Papua New Guinea, a girl is seen as inherently feminine while boys are not considered masculine. Masculinity is something they need to acquire through rituals, such as ingesting the semen of adult men, something Blackwood feels could be viewed as homosexual under western constructs. For the men of Papua New Guinea, however, these rituals are simply seen as rituals with no homosexual connotations surround them. Women, on the other hand, are subject to pollution taboos rendering them sexually dangerous and polluting, a reminder of the pollution taboos discussed in Balzer’s paper. This had much to with the society at that time which was based on patriarchy and a sense of nationalism. Again, we can look at the Balzer paper on her discussion on nationalism. For Balzer, this type of situation would exist to promote the strength of the nation through women’s fertility and the ability to provide the nation with healthy, strong citizens. Some women exhibited agency, however, in deciding to take a vow not to marry, establishing adulthood for herself and often joining “sisterhoods” of other women who had taken this vow, living in communes of sorts. These sisters also formed sexual relationships.
As Blackwood concludes form this, gender ideologies based on culturally perceived notions create different sex roles. In very patriarchal cultures where lineage and property rights play a role, the subjugation of women potentially lead to the subjugation of women but also to women having agency through their own creations, such as the sisterhoods described above. In cultures where issues of gender and sexuality are based largely on taboo, different understandings in regards to one’s gender and sexuality vs. another’s can come into play, creating standards around sexuality and desire that differ by gender.
Blackwood speaks of the importance of not only constructing ideologies but also deconstructing them by pointing to further case studies, such as the Creole Mati women, who engage in sex with both men and women. Here, one’s idea of self is based on the Afro-Surinamese folk religion Winti which sees identity as not being rigidly fixed but as “multiplicitous, malleable, dynamic, and contextually salient.” This is stark contrast with the western sense of self as something being relatively static. For those who follow Winti, men and women are composed of both make and female aspects. “Sexual fulfillment is important, but the gender of one’s object choice is considered less important.” The female tombois of Sumatra also challenge our ideas. These women act and see themselves as men and are attracted to women, not other tombois.
These type of worldview challenge our western worldview, a view that is stringently based around ideas of identity, head-on. For westerners, choices around gender and, hence, around sexual partners, are intimately connected with our identity-who we are. As such, one places much importance on not only who they partner with, but specifically what gender that partner is. Attractiveness also plays a significant role. One could argue then that partnering in the west is less about sexual desire and more about identity. As desire becomes muted, issues around identity and what ones partner says about one’s identity become paramount. As sexuality is hidden under taboo, impressions surrounding identity trump everything in the social arena. Although many of the ideas expressed in Blackwood’s article would not translate well here, at least publicly, it could be argued that issues surrounding identity, based strongly on traditional Christian morals, have taken the joy out of sexual relationships.
Same-sex sexuality vs lesbianism
Blackwood makes an important distinction between these two terms and is very wise in doing so. What we perceive as lesbianism, an idea that has been constructed culturally for us, women in other cultures see as part of a normal stage in development. The idea of same-sex sexuality is much more fitting. These women are experiencing sexual encounters together and there is no taboo around this, as there largely is with lesbianism and homosexuality in the west. It is the lack of a sense of taboo that makes them relationships fully acceptable and considered the norm of the culture in which they have developed and exist.
This is a very interesting presentation of how culture truly does construct sexuality. For women, this means their gender identity is largely based on culturally perceived notions created mainly by men. How women find their agency within these cultures, if they do, is based largely in how their cultures are constructed.
I find it also interesting that when we consider our own western culture, a culture that is considered quite democratic and liberal, many of the cultures discussed by Blackwood offer up seemingly very controversial and cutting edge ideas about sexuality. This is very surprising as many of us presume cultures of the global south to be very traditional and patriarchal. However, for many of these cultures, the ideas Blackwood expressed are based in tradition. So, who is liberal? Is it those of us who claim to be leading the way while pushing down notions of sexual desire and hiding our sexuality behind our "personality?" Or is it the cultures that do not shy away from issues of sexuality, that do not try to protect children or women from notions that are seemingly taboo? Are the acts they are engaging in liberal to the point of being divergent or are they actually primitive acts of an underdeveloped society? Whatever answers we individually come up with, these notions certainly challenge us on issues surrounding culturally constructed ideas of gender, sex and identity.
Blackwood’s paper seems to come out of the same school of thought as the West/Zimmerman article on “Doing Gender” and its thoughts on socially constructed theories and presumptions surrounding gender. As West and Zimmerman note,"When we view gender as an accomplishment, an achieved property of situated conduct, our attention shifts from matters internal to the individual and focuses on interactional and, ultimately, institutional arenas." (West/Zimmerman, 126) Hence, this makes gender less about the individual and more about their place or role within their own society.
Blackwood extends and really puts to the test these ideas by not only looking at how gender is influenced by culture but also how our ideas on gender influence women’s sexuality cross-culturally. Blackwood’s perspective is that cultural and social processes “produce sexualities through discourses of desire, religion, gender and so on.” (Blackwood, 224) As is the view of West and Zimmerman, Blackwood sees sexual meanings as being produced on a social level through “ideologies of religion, ethnicity, class, gender, family, and reproduction, as well as the material and social conditions of everyday life. These factors provide the context for the production of sexual relationships, desires and longings.” (Blackwood, 224) Blackwood investigates all of this through the lens of anthropology, looking at case studies to further her argument.
With her case studies, Blackwood considers three different relationships that are good representations of same sex sexuality and relationships. The first of these is the intimate friendship. She speaks here of the “mummy-baby” relationship between school girls in Lesotho, South Africa, relationships that are encouraged and expected by the greater community. This relationship is considered a very important part of a girl’s development and coming of age. The elder girl, the “mummy,” acts as a mentor to the younger “baby” girl, helping her through “initiation.” This becomes a relationship where the two exchange love letters and gifts. The mummy is allowed to have other relationships, with men even, but the baby can only have one mummy who will teach her about romantic and sexual relationships. “They view their relationship as an affair or romance: hugging, kissing and sexual relations are part of it.” (Blackwood, 225) It is clear here that the idea of same sex relationships are not considered at all taboo but rather are a natural and healthy way for a young women to enter adolescence. Blackwood also points out that many of these relationships end when either woman becomes married. The relationships surprisingly provide “important emotional and economic ties” for women within their communities.
It is important to note, as Blackwood has, that these are culturally constructed relationships that seemingly serve the good of the community as a whole. Initiation schools traditionally offered girls this training based on these relationships so the local system was built on this idea. As well, these relationships are based on culturally held “ideologies of sexuality” that do not deny a woman’s sensuality and actually allow for women’s sexual agency. (Blackwood, 226) Another very interesting factor is the tradition of a “special friend,” known as motosalle. This friend is actually a sexual partner that a man or woman could take outside of their marriage. Extramarital relationships are not frowned upon for these people but are accepted as a normal, healthy part of a person’s sexuality. Not only are they accepted but also celebrated within the community.
These types of ideas, while foreign to many of us, illustrate the importance and effects of cultural constructivism. As noted in the West/Zimmerman article, it is socio-cultural influences outside of oneself that define what we think about sex, gender and, as such, our own identities. Clearly, for the women of Lesotho, ideas about gender and what is acceptable are markedly different from those in the west.
The second relationship Blackwood considers is that of erotic ritual practices. Here, women engage in sexual acts together that are deemed ritualistic and, as such, appropriate. Blackwood considers the Australian aborigines and their practices of coming of age rituals for young women which included homoerotic acts taking place ritualistically between the women. Again, this supports the idea that women’s sexuality is valid and gives women agency within the culture as they move into different developmental stages in their lives.
The final relationship Blackwood looks it is that of adolescent sexual play. This is, as Blackwood notes, quite common in many cultures, likely even our own although it seems to taboo to be discussed. She illustrates this with the example of the !Kung people, whose children and adolescents engage in both hetero and homosexual play. Because adults lived in such close quarters with children, the children wee exposed to all aspects of adult life, including sexual relations. The children, Blackwood says, would imitate what the adults did through play, which included imitating intimate sexual relations. Hence, their society has “constructed an adolescent phase of sexual experimentation that includes both same-sex and other-sex partners,” (Blackwood, 229) giving children and adolescents of both sexes sexual agency. This is seemingly extends into adult life, with coupled partners having more than one sexual partner.
Blackwood also importantly points out in regards to the !Kung that due to a lack of lineage and inheritance concerns, their relationships are fully egalitarian, allowing women the same agency as men. Again, this clearly all comes to ideas of socially and culturally constructed norms surrounding gender, sex and identity, such as the ones discussed at length by West/Zimmerman. Due to the vast difference between western cultures and the cultures outlined above, we clearly can see how different ways of constructing culture can lead to different results. One could assume that as much as these cultures seem to be a stretch for us to imagine, likely the rigid way we view sex, gender and identity in the west, particularly with taboos regarding homosexuality, many in these cultures would likely not understand why we create so much anxiety around issues of sexual development. What we consider divergent, these cultures seem to not only accept but also embrace and encourage.
Blackwood makes strong a case for how gender ideologies construct men’s and women’s sexualities differently. “Sexualities are informed by and embedded in conceptions of gender,” she says, giving several examples of how this can play out culturally. In Papua New Guinea, a girl is seen as inherently feminine while boys are not considered masculine. Masculinity is something they need to acquire through rituals, such as ingesting the semen of adult men, something Blackwood feels could be viewed as homosexual under western constructs. For the men of Papua New Guinea, however, these rituals are simply seen as rituals with no homosexual connotations surround them. Women, on the other hand, are subject to pollution taboos rendering them sexually dangerous and polluting, a reminder of the pollution taboos discussed in Balzer’s paper. This had much to with the society at that time which was based on patriarchy and a sense of nationalism. Again, we can look at the Balzer paper on her discussion on nationalism. For Balzer, this type of situation would exist to promote the strength of the nation through women’s fertility and the ability to provide the nation with healthy, strong citizens. Some women exhibited agency, however, in deciding to take a vow not to marry, establishing adulthood for herself and often joining “sisterhoods” of other women who had taken this vow, living in communes of sorts. These sisters also formed sexual relationships.
As Blackwood concludes form this, gender ideologies based on culturally perceived notions create different sex roles. In very patriarchal cultures where lineage and property rights play a role, the subjugation of women potentially lead to the subjugation of women but also to women having agency through their own creations, such as the sisterhoods described above. In cultures where issues of gender and sexuality are based largely on taboo, different understandings in regards to one’s gender and sexuality vs. another’s can come into play, creating standards around sexuality and desire that differ by gender.
Blackwood speaks of the importance of not only constructing ideologies but also deconstructing them by pointing to further case studies, such as the Creole Mati women, who engage in sex with both men and women. Here, one’s idea of self is based on the Afro-Surinamese folk religion Winti which sees identity as not being rigidly fixed but as “multiplicitous, malleable, dynamic, and contextually salient.” This is stark contrast with the western sense of self as something being relatively static. For those who follow Winti, men and women are composed of both make and female aspects. “Sexual fulfillment is important, but the gender of one’s object choice is considered less important.” The female tombois of Sumatra also challenge our ideas. These women act and see themselves as men and are attracted to women, not other tombois.
These type of worldview challenge our western worldview, a view that is stringently based around ideas of identity, head-on. For westerners, choices around gender and, hence, around sexual partners, are intimately connected with our identity-who we are. As such, one places much importance on not only who they partner with, but specifically what gender that partner is. Attractiveness also plays a significant role. One could argue then that partnering in the west is less about sexual desire and more about identity. As desire becomes muted, issues around identity and what ones partner says about one’s identity become paramount. As sexuality is hidden under taboo, impressions surrounding identity trump everything in the social arena. Although many of the ideas expressed in Blackwood’s article would not translate well here, at least publicly, it could be argued that issues surrounding identity, based strongly on traditional Christian morals, have taken the joy out of sexual relationships.
Same-sex sexuality vs lesbianism
Blackwood makes an important distinction between these two terms and is very wise in doing so. What we perceive as lesbianism, an idea that has been constructed culturally for us, women in other cultures see as part of a normal stage in development. The idea of same-sex sexuality is much more fitting. These women are experiencing sexual encounters together and there is no taboo around this, as there largely is with lesbianism and homosexuality in the west. It is the lack of a sense of taboo that makes them relationships fully acceptable and considered the norm of the culture in which they have developed and exist.
This is a very interesting presentation of how culture truly does construct sexuality. For women, this means their gender identity is largely based on culturally perceived notions created mainly by men. How women find their agency within these cultures, if they do, is based largely in how their cultures are constructed.
I find it also interesting that when we consider our own western culture, a culture that is considered quite democratic and liberal, many of the cultures discussed by Blackwood offer up seemingly very controversial and cutting edge ideas about sexuality. This is very surprising as many of us presume cultures of the global south to be very traditional and patriarchal. However, for many of these cultures, the ideas Blackwood expressed are based in tradition. So, who is liberal? Is it those of us who claim to be leading the way while pushing down notions of sexual desire and hiding our sexuality behind our "personality?" Or is it the cultures that do not shy away from issues of sexuality, that do not try to protect children or women from notions that are seemingly taboo? Are the acts they are engaging in liberal to the point of being divergent or are they actually primitive acts of an underdeveloped society? Whatever answers we individually come up with, these notions certainly challenge us on issues surrounding culturally constructed ideas of gender, sex and identity.
Sexing the Sacred-commentary on Maguire
The Maguire article is wonderful in its ability to challenge what we know or what we think we know about America. This important article will likely make many people squirm in its frankness. Many people maintain that change needs to occur in “other” cultures and “other” religions in order to bring democracy, in the most American sense, to the world. Not often enough do we see America being challenged when it comes to the American manifestation-the Americanization-of democracy.
Maguire's main thesis, which I found to be fabulous, is that the "land of the free" that is America is, in actuality, a theocratic nation state. That is, it is a nation founded on Christian ideals and those ideals still have a strong hold on the overall psyche of the country. This means that essentially America is a nation without a clear distinction between politics and religious beliefs regardless of the "separation of church and state" banter that seems to be tossed about so often when Americans compare themselves to, say, "Muslim" countries. This further translates into an America that is run, in large part, by those Christian ideals and, as such, into a culture that connects sin, guilt and fear when it comes to individual sexuality. If Americans can reconcile this through "healthy spirituality," Maguire argues Americans will be able to enjoy themselves more fully as human, hence sexual, beings. What an enlightening suggestion!
In my experience, many people from Europe who I have met in my travels tend to agree and often comment on how "uptight" Americans (and, they usually extend this to North Americans) are and how the "freedom" we think we have in the Americas, Europeans believe they are, in large part, enjoying. This is, again, based on my conversations with Europeans as they travel and has led me to make the conclusion that Europeans do seem to be much more liberal in their ideas and do seem generally "freer" than North Americans-particularly Americans-to me.
Maguire is particularly concerned when it comes to America's stance on sex and sex related topics. "In areas of sexuality and reproduction, the First Amendment has failed," Maguire says. "Alleged divine inspiration is national policy on embryonic stem cell research and therapeutic cloning. Even when national policy and constitutional law permit women to choose abortion, the theocratic culture rebels and manages by harassment, political pressure, and terror to make abortion unavailable in 80 percent of the nation." (Maguire, 1) My sense is Maguire is unfortunately correct. I look at my own experience as a mother, an experience that has affected me profoundly. This experience has dramatically altered my opinion of abortion YET I still realize the importance of the availability of abortion and am decidedly pro-choice in this regard. It is terribly unfortunate that so many women do not support a woman's right to choose, regardless of the fact that they would themselves likely never choose to have an abortion. The frenzy regarding both abortion and homosexuality in America does nothing to further the liberties of those living in a supposed "land of the free."
Maguire goes further, alleging an "inability to faced our sexually" which is largely grounded in Christianity. Our fear of sexual enjoyment as sinful, based on Christian teachings, has, for Maguire, dramatically impacted the way Americans view sex. This is such an interesting and, when fully considered, correct conclusion to come to. Again, I look to America's relationships with those living "across the pond" known as the Atlantic Ocean. Americans speak, on one hand, of how Muslim women are "forced" to veil and do not enjoy the freedoms that Americans enjoy. This can be easily argued and found, in many cases, to be true. Yet, on the other hand, Americans look toward many European countries and speak of being shocked by the openness of nudity. Topless beaches (NOT nudist colonies) are looked upon as indecent and immoral by many, not to mention centres like Amsterdam where drug use and prostitution are legalized. Is America ready to legalize drugs and prostitution? Arguably no, and with the amount of street crime that occurs in America, there is good reason to be concerned. Yet, how can America, on the one hand, condemn cultures that seemingly oppress women and, on the other, condemn cultures that offer them the freedom to bare themselves in wholly appropriate ways (within the context of their cultures). It seems to me that if a culture does not fit into a balanced middle ground as defined by American values, that culture is seen as somewhat profane if held up to American standards. Women-people in general really-can be free to do what they want, if what they want fits into a cookie cutter mold of American ideals.
Maguire claims it is these values that seep into our socio-cultural psyche and affect us in our daily lives as sexual beings. The ability to enjoy sex is inhibited by people's sense of guilt and shame. This is particularly notable, says Maguire, when it comes to female sexuality. The more devout women were, one finding concluded, the more detrimental it was to their sexual livelihood. (Maguire, 3) Maguire describes other countries as "more honest" in the ways they approach sexuality. Maguire cites statistics that pronounce "[e]ach year, one million American teenage girls become pregnant, a per- thousand rate twice that of Canada, England, and Sweden, and ten times that of the Netherlands," indicating higher rates of sexual activity but lower rates of pregnancy within those countries when compared with the US. (Maguire, 3) "Errors about sexuality do not remain on the written page. They invade human life and sicken it, leading to destructive behavior and to what has been called ecclesiogenic psychoneurosis. In 1953 Kinsey and his colleagues in Sexual Behavior in the Human Female reported that Christianity has had a negative impact on women's sexual pleasure; the more devout they were, they fewer orgasms they had. In the United States where religious sexual neurosis took deep root in the dominant culture, the results show up in what I have called "the surprised virgin syndrome," referring to a controlling dishonesty and inability to admit much less cherish our capacity for sexual joy. Counselors are familiar with young women, pregnant before they are ready for pregnancy--and pregnancy is a 25 year condition and commitment--claim they do not know "how it happened," as though the onset of sexual ardor were not noticeable. More honest cultures face their sexuality and prepare for it with sexual education and contraceptive availability. Statistics tell the tale. "Each year, one million American teenage girls become pregnant, a per- thousand rate twice that of Canada, England, and Sweden, and ten times that of the Netherlands." (Maguire, 3) The research indicates that there are much higher rates of sexual activity in these other countries, but far fewer pregnancies. "Contraceptive availability is key, along with honesty about when a relationship is about to go sexual," concludes Maguire.
Maguire also considers spirituality in his paper, essentially equating spirituality with religion. I agree with Maguire when he says both spirituality and religion can be defined as a "response to the sacred." (Maguire, 4) However, I would not fully agree with the equation between spirituality and religion. It is my opinion that many people find spirituality without religion and, in some cases, despite it. However, Maguire's discussion of spirituality here is a valid one and I agree with him on many other points. For Maguire, a spiritually mature person is "released from the isolation of ego," has a "passion for justice," and "an undefeatable conviction that hope and joy can be at home in this universe." (Maguire, 5) Hence, if one's spirituality is "healthy spirituality" as defined by Maguire, one would then be able to enjoy all aspects of human being, including sexuality. " A true spirituality is convinced that, against all the odds, ecstasy not misery is our destiny. Spirituality reaches out and takes a great big bite out of life." (Maguire, 5) So, through the connection of spirituality and sexuality, we can move beyond feelings of guilt and shame and move into what Maguire considers "healthy spirituality" leading to "good sex." (Maguire, 5) Instead of America's religious ideals leading to an inhibition of sexuality, Americans would be able to see themselves as normal, sexual beings who need not fear sex but rather can embrace it as an important part of their lives.
Maguire defines sex as a form of "liturgy," a symbol that "throws together more meaning than we can say in mere words...unless those words are poetized, and thus symbolized." (Maguire, 6) These liturgies, Maguire explains, manifest in different ways in different cultures yet, nevertheless, are understood globally. In some cultures, such as the Balinese cultures, meals are very informal and, more often than not, food is eaten with the hands. The food itself would be very different from the food we find served more "formally" on our kitchen tables in the west. Yet we recognize the act of eating a meal, with both physical and symbolic meanings surrounding it. This recognition cuts through both cultural and linguistic barriers. Sex, like eating a meal, may manifest itself differently across cultures yet is also understood cross culturally as having both powerful physical and symbolic meanings. Sex affects us not only on a physical level but also an emotional, mental and spiritual level.
What makes healthy spirituality so healthy is also what makes sexual ones healthy, Maguire contends. "The touchstones of healthy spirituality, respect, justice, hope and joy are the hallmarks of good sex." (Maguire, 7) I will also add the word trust to the list as trust in one's self and one's partner is also vital. With trust, we can express ourselves fully in many ways, including sexual ones. Again, Maguire's point is that if we can "marry" healthy spirituality with sexuality, we then arrive at a place of healthy sexuality. If people can realize that sexuality deserves the same type of attention and maturation as the other areas in our lives, we can achieve a sense of sexual maturation that leads to pleasure, comfort and ideally a sense of sacredness surrounding sex.
Maguire makes the potentially uncomfortable statement that "[p]art of homophobia comes from the fact that gay and lesbian sex is simply about pleasure, and that is threatening to those who are pleasure-phobic." (Maguire, 8) I find this both a relevant and important observation to make. Are those who are "homophobic" actually just sexually miserable and, as such, threatened by those who go against the American moral majority and engage in sex for pleasure, regardless of their sexual orientation? I would argue yes and also say that those who are threatened by any other person's sexuality, are clearly sexually immature in their own lives. Being sexually mature does not maker one homosexual. Yet, many homosexuals may enjoy a sense of enviable sexual maturity that many unhappy heterosexuals may indeed be threatened by. As noted by West and Zimmerman “genitalia are conventionally hidden from public inspection in everyday life; yet we continue through our social rounds to "observe" a world of two naturally, normally sexed persons.” (West/Zimmerman 132) Once we are challenged on this idea either by unconventional ideas of gender identity often going hand in hand with unconventional ideas of sexuality, we are threatened. Questions of natalism and nationalism as presented in the Balzer article also play into this. If heterosexuality represents the potential for reproduction and reproduction in turn leads to a continuation of one’s culture, homosexuality clearly threatens this. Hence, homosexuals could be deemed unpatriotic. Could this be, in part, why homosexuals are not typically welcomed recruits in the military? I would argue it is.
Perhaps if those who are threatened by homosexuality paid more attention to their own sexual maturity and less attention to what was happening in other people's bedrooms, we would have less cases of homophobia and more cases of healthy sexual beings enjoying themselves in their own lives. Clearly, we're not there yet as people. And certainly, America has not reached a point of national sexual maturation, if there can ever be such a thing.
To me this paper struck at the heart of the West/Zimmerman article. In it, the authors argue that gender-more aptly, our concepts of gender- is socially influenced. Like gender, our attitudes about sexuality are also socially influenced, as clearly pointed out through Maguire's work. It really makes one stop and think! How much of our identity in general then, is really, truly "ours?" How much of our whole experience as humans here for the short time we are here is as a direct result of socio-cultural exposure and influence? The more I think about it, the more I believe we are almost wholly influenced by these outside factors. Finding the true "self" really can become the battle. If our gender is dictated for us and we are told how we should act sexually, keeping in mind these are supposed to be aspects of the "base" that makes us human, how much of us is actually "us?" This is a discussion that is clearly based in philosophy and it would take a very lengthy investigation to answer. Yet, it is an important question to ask. I would argue that very little of what we show to the world is actually a reflection of who we truly are at our base. Do we even remember wholly who we are? I think this is clear when we here of the struggles so many face when they decide to express their "true selves" and are judged, chastised or discriminated against for it. It is those that struggle most to stay true to their convictions that likely have the truest sense of "who they are."
I think this paper has huge ramifications for women. As women, we often carry the burden of sex and are often considered "damned if we do, damned if we don't." I, for one, waited well into adulthood before having sex and was accused of being untruthful when I told my partner he was my first. I knew other young women who, of course, had sex well before I did. They were branded "sluts" or "whores" and, as such, "easy." young women who make the choice to have sex not only face the "stigma" of the act but also need to make painful decisions. Women faced with pregnancy have to choose between being a mother, abortion, or adoption. None of those options are ideal for a young woman who finds herself without a partner, or a partner who tries to force one option over another. All of these things lead to feelings of shame, guilt and overall confusion when it comes to sexuality. With a woman's sexual life being so intimately tied to the way society in general will view her likely leads to a sexual life that is anything but healthy. Often the act of sex itself is perceived has having much more to do with what the man wants than what the woman does. Women seem to be encouraged to be almost asexual. Which leads one to ask the question: who is having sex with all of these men, who are encouraged to be sexual, if women are often encouraged to be chaste. The answer is that the women who are encouraged to be chaste and live up to socially accepted norms are having sex with these men and are likely feeling very torn and confused about their part in the "act." But, as Maguire illustrates, sex is not about an act alone but is about achieving sexual health and maturity. If our society does not encourage this maturity in people, and in women in particular, how can we expect to have an abundance of sexually mature members of society. Simply put, we can not. And shouldn't having sexually mature members of society as not just an exception but as a rule be the goal?
Maguire's main thesis, which I found to be fabulous, is that the "land of the free" that is America is, in actuality, a theocratic nation state. That is, it is a nation founded on Christian ideals and those ideals still have a strong hold on the overall psyche of the country. This means that essentially America is a nation without a clear distinction between politics and religious beliefs regardless of the "separation of church and state" banter that seems to be tossed about so often when Americans compare themselves to, say, "Muslim" countries. This further translates into an America that is run, in large part, by those Christian ideals and, as such, into a culture that connects sin, guilt and fear when it comes to individual sexuality. If Americans can reconcile this through "healthy spirituality," Maguire argues Americans will be able to enjoy themselves more fully as human, hence sexual, beings. What an enlightening suggestion!
In my experience, many people from Europe who I have met in my travels tend to agree and often comment on how "uptight" Americans (and, they usually extend this to North Americans) are and how the "freedom" we think we have in the Americas, Europeans believe they are, in large part, enjoying. This is, again, based on my conversations with Europeans as they travel and has led me to make the conclusion that Europeans do seem to be much more liberal in their ideas and do seem generally "freer" than North Americans-particularly Americans-to me.
Maguire is particularly concerned when it comes to America's stance on sex and sex related topics. "In areas of sexuality and reproduction, the First Amendment has failed," Maguire says. "Alleged divine inspiration is national policy on embryonic stem cell research and therapeutic cloning. Even when national policy and constitutional law permit women to choose abortion, the theocratic culture rebels and manages by harassment, political pressure, and terror to make abortion unavailable in 80 percent of the nation." (Maguire, 1) My sense is Maguire is unfortunately correct. I look at my own experience as a mother, an experience that has affected me profoundly. This experience has dramatically altered my opinion of abortion YET I still realize the importance of the availability of abortion and am decidedly pro-choice in this regard. It is terribly unfortunate that so many women do not support a woman's right to choose, regardless of the fact that they would themselves likely never choose to have an abortion. The frenzy regarding both abortion and homosexuality in America does nothing to further the liberties of those living in a supposed "land of the free."
Maguire goes further, alleging an "inability to faced our sexually" which is largely grounded in Christianity. Our fear of sexual enjoyment as sinful, based on Christian teachings, has, for Maguire, dramatically impacted the way Americans view sex. This is such an interesting and, when fully considered, correct conclusion to come to. Again, I look to America's relationships with those living "across the pond" known as the Atlantic Ocean. Americans speak, on one hand, of how Muslim women are "forced" to veil and do not enjoy the freedoms that Americans enjoy. This can be easily argued and found, in many cases, to be true. Yet, on the other hand, Americans look toward many European countries and speak of being shocked by the openness of nudity. Topless beaches (NOT nudist colonies) are looked upon as indecent and immoral by many, not to mention centres like Amsterdam where drug use and prostitution are legalized. Is America ready to legalize drugs and prostitution? Arguably no, and with the amount of street crime that occurs in America, there is good reason to be concerned. Yet, how can America, on the one hand, condemn cultures that seemingly oppress women and, on the other, condemn cultures that offer them the freedom to bare themselves in wholly appropriate ways (within the context of their cultures). It seems to me that if a culture does not fit into a balanced middle ground as defined by American values, that culture is seen as somewhat profane if held up to American standards. Women-people in general really-can be free to do what they want, if what they want fits into a cookie cutter mold of American ideals.
Maguire claims it is these values that seep into our socio-cultural psyche and affect us in our daily lives as sexual beings. The ability to enjoy sex is inhibited by people's sense of guilt and shame. This is particularly notable, says Maguire, when it comes to female sexuality. The more devout women were, one finding concluded, the more detrimental it was to their sexual livelihood. (Maguire, 3) Maguire describes other countries as "more honest" in the ways they approach sexuality. Maguire cites statistics that pronounce "[e]ach year, one million American teenage girls become pregnant, a per- thousand rate twice that of Canada, England, and Sweden, and ten times that of the Netherlands," indicating higher rates of sexual activity but lower rates of pregnancy within those countries when compared with the US. (Maguire, 3) "Errors about sexuality do not remain on the written page. They invade human life and sicken it, leading to destructive behavior and to what has been called ecclesiogenic psychoneurosis. In 1953 Kinsey and his colleagues in Sexual Behavior in the Human Female reported that Christianity has had a negative impact on women's sexual pleasure; the more devout they were, they fewer orgasms they had. In the United States where religious sexual neurosis took deep root in the dominant culture, the results show up in what I have called "the surprised virgin syndrome," referring to a controlling dishonesty and inability to admit much less cherish our capacity for sexual joy. Counselors are familiar with young women, pregnant before they are ready for pregnancy--and pregnancy is a 25 year condition and commitment--claim they do not know "how it happened," as though the onset of sexual ardor were not noticeable. More honest cultures face their sexuality and prepare for it with sexual education and contraceptive availability. Statistics tell the tale. "Each year, one million American teenage girls become pregnant, a per- thousand rate twice that of Canada, England, and Sweden, and ten times that of the Netherlands." (Maguire, 3) The research indicates that there are much higher rates of sexual activity in these other countries, but far fewer pregnancies. "Contraceptive availability is key, along with honesty about when a relationship is about to go sexual," concludes Maguire.
Maguire also considers spirituality in his paper, essentially equating spirituality with religion. I agree with Maguire when he says both spirituality and religion can be defined as a "response to the sacred." (Maguire, 4) However, I would not fully agree with the equation between spirituality and religion. It is my opinion that many people find spirituality without religion and, in some cases, despite it. However, Maguire's discussion of spirituality here is a valid one and I agree with him on many other points. For Maguire, a spiritually mature person is "released from the isolation of ego," has a "passion for justice," and "an undefeatable conviction that hope and joy can be at home in this universe." (Maguire, 5) Hence, if one's spirituality is "healthy spirituality" as defined by Maguire, one would then be able to enjoy all aspects of human being, including sexuality. " A true spirituality is convinced that, against all the odds, ecstasy not misery is our destiny. Spirituality reaches out and takes a great big bite out of life." (Maguire, 5) So, through the connection of spirituality and sexuality, we can move beyond feelings of guilt and shame and move into what Maguire considers "healthy spirituality" leading to "good sex." (Maguire, 5) Instead of America's religious ideals leading to an inhibition of sexuality, Americans would be able to see themselves as normal, sexual beings who need not fear sex but rather can embrace it as an important part of their lives.
Maguire defines sex as a form of "liturgy," a symbol that "throws together more meaning than we can say in mere words...unless those words are poetized, and thus symbolized." (Maguire, 6) These liturgies, Maguire explains, manifest in different ways in different cultures yet, nevertheless, are understood globally. In some cultures, such as the Balinese cultures, meals are very informal and, more often than not, food is eaten with the hands. The food itself would be very different from the food we find served more "formally" on our kitchen tables in the west. Yet we recognize the act of eating a meal, with both physical and symbolic meanings surrounding it. This recognition cuts through both cultural and linguistic barriers. Sex, like eating a meal, may manifest itself differently across cultures yet is also understood cross culturally as having both powerful physical and symbolic meanings. Sex affects us not only on a physical level but also an emotional, mental and spiritual level.
What makes healthy spirituality so healthy is also what makes sexual ones healthy, Maguire contends. "The touchstones of healthy spirituality, respect, justice, hope and joy are the hallmarks of good sex." (Maguire, 7) I will also add the word trust to the list as trust in one's self and one's partner is also vital. With trust, we can express ourselves fully in many ways, including sexual ones. Again, Maguire's point is that if we can "marry" healthy spirituality with sexuality, we then arrive at a place of healthy sexuality. If people can realize that sexuality deserves the same type of attention and maturation as the other areas in our lives, we can achieve a sense of sexual maturation that leads to pleasure, comfort and ideally a sense of sacredness surrounding sex.
Maguire makes the potentially uncomfortable statement that "[p]art of homophobia comes from the fact that gay and lesbian sex is simply about pleasure, and that is threatening to those who are pleasure-phobic." (Maguire, 8) I find this both a relevant and important observation to make. Are those who are "homophobic" actually just sexually miserable and, as such, threatened by those who go against the American moral majority and engage in sex for pleasure, regardless of their sexual orientation? I would argue yes and also say that those who are threatened by any other person's sexuality, are clearly sexually immature in their own lives. Being sexually mature does not maker one homosexual. Yet, many homosexuals may enjoy a sense of enviable sexual maturity that many unhappy heterosexuals may indeed be threatened by. As noted by West and Zimmerman “genitalia are conventionally hidden from public inspection in everyday life; yet we continue through our social rounds to "observe" a world of two naturally, normally sexed persons.” (West/Zimmerman 132) Once we are challenged on this idea either by unconventional ideas of gender identity often going hand in hand with unconventional ideas of sexuality, we are threatened. Questions of natalism and nationalism as presented in the Balzer article also play into this. If heterosexuality represents the potential for reproduction and reproduction in turn leads to a continuation of one’s culture, homosexuality clearly threatens this. Hence, homosexuals could be deemed unpatriotic. Could this be, in part, why homosexuals are not typically welcomed recruits in the military? I would argue it is.
Perhaps if those who are threatened by homosexuality paid more attention to their own sexual maturity and less attention to what was happening in other people's bedrooms, we would have less cases of homophobia and more cases of healthy sexual beings enjoying themselves in their own lives. Clearly, we're not there yet as people. And certainly, America has not reached a point of national sexual maturation, if there can ever be such a thing.
To me this paper struck at the heart of the West/Zimmerman article. In it, the authors argue that gender-more aptly, our concepts of gender- is socially influenced. Like gender, our attitudes about sexuality are also socially influenced, as clearly pointed out through Maguire's work. It really makes one stop and think! How much of our identity in general then, is really, truly "ours?" How much of our whole experience as humans here for the short time we are here is as a direct result of socio-cultural exposure and influence? The more I think about it, the more I believe we are almost wholly influenced by these outside factors. Finding the true "self" really can become the battle. If our gender is dictated for us and we are told how we should act sexually, keeping in mind these are supposed to be aspects of the "base" that makes us human, how much of us is actually "us?" This is a discussion that is clearly based in philosophy and it would take a very lengthy investigation to answer. Yet, it is an important question to ask. I would argue that very little of what we show to the world is actually a reflection of who we truly are at our base. Do we even remember wholly who we are? I think this is clear when we here of the struggles so many face when they decide to express their "true selves" and are judged, chastised or discriminated against for it. It is those that struggle most to stay true to their convictions that likely have the truest sense of "who they are."
I think this paper has huge ramifications for women. As women, we often carry the burden of sex and are often considered "damned if we do, damned if we don't." I, for one, waited well into adulthood before having sex and was accused of being untruthful when I told my partner he was my first. I knew other young women who, of course, had sex well before I did. They were branded "sluts" or "whores" and, as such, "easy." young women who make the choice to have sex not only face the "stigma" of the act but also need to make painful decisions. Women faced with pregnancy have to choose between being a mother, abortion, or adoption. None of those options are ideal for a young woman who finds herself without a partner, or a partner who tries to force one option over another. All of these things lead to feelings of shame, guilt and overall confusion when it comes to sexuality. With a woman's sexual life being so intimately tied to the way society in general will view her likely leads to a sexual life that is anything but healthy. Often the act of sex itself is perceived has having much more to do with what the man wants than what the woman does. Women seem to be encouraged to be almost asexual. Which leads one to ask the question: who is having sex with all of these men, who are encouraged to be sexual, if women are often encouraged to be chaste. The answer is that the women who are encouraged to be chaste and live up to socially accepted norms are having sex with these men and are likely feeling very torn and confused about their part in the "act." But, as Maguire illustrates, sex is not about an act alone but is about achieving sexual health and maturity. If our society does not encourage this maturity in people, and in women in particular, how can we expect to have an abundance of sexually mature members of society. Simply put, we can not. And shouldn't having sexually mature members of society as not just an exception but as a rule be the goal?
Monday, December 1, 2008
Being a Student, Being a Parent, and nOt Losing it All...
This is something that will be posted in the Voices magazine run by the UW Women's Centre...
Being a Student, Being a Parent, and Not Losing it All...
“You’re a full time student and a mom? How do you do it all?”
That’s a question I get asked a lot as a mature full time student on campus, who also happens to be a wife and mother. I started my studies at UW in 1991 but left after only one dismal year to follow my dreams of being involved in some capacity in the music industry and/or traveling. In the end, my desire to travel trumped my patience for working toward any notable position in music. So, I left to travel with no solid plans of ever getting married or having children… or, frankly, of returning to university.
However, things always just seem to have a funny way of working out. I met my husband in Bali, Indonesia, where we lived for several years. After I became pregnant we returned to Canada. And, after birthing one child, I knew I had to start paying attention to the academic “child” I had left behind in 1991, who seemed to be adamantly calling me back, regardless of the fact that I had a newborn who demanded my full attention.
This article was not initially, in fact, meant to be about me in anyway. However, I use the story to illustrate something. Contrary to popular belief, parents do not stop being interested in their academic or professional development after having children. A submission published in “More Than a Vessel” a while ago discussed another student’s desire not to get married or to have children. I appreciate that. But I do not agree with the general sweeping view of so many students who feel that once you have left your studies you will never come back to them, especially if you become a parent. I also do not agree that once you are married and have children, you lose yourself. Or, more aptly, we as women lose ourselves. To be honest, it was having a child that brought me back to myself and I feel more like myself now with every passing day.
Mothers, in particular seem to face this type of view. I am not saying it is easy juggling motherhood, being a wife, and completing my fourth year at UW. I have a full course load this term. And, I have applied for graduate school in the fall and will likely get in. I also know single mothers who are traveling down the same road as I am, with half the help, and doing it incredibly well, all things considered.
In light of this, a working group called UW Parents on Campus has been started to provide parents (women and men) with information about what services are available for parents here at UW. Where services are lacking, UW PoC advocates for parents in hopes to affect change. We also work as a support group for one another as we bring students, who happen to be parents, together to share their stories, struggles and ideas. We are only just beginning our time together and expect to face some growing pains. Yet, we have already brought awareness to the UW campus. I noticed in Imprint today not one, but two, “microfile” submissions had been printed in regards to parenting and I wonder whether that would have happened had our group, who has been featured in Imprint twice this term, not come together.
UW Parents on Campus is here to assist students, both undergrad and graduate, who also happen to be parents, on campus by providing information and opportunities to meet other parents. We invite you to join us! If you are interested in our group in anyway, if you are a parent here at UW who wants further info or wants to meet other parents, OR if you are a student who wants to help volunteer your services to us, contact us at uwparentsoncampus@gmail.com or contact the Women’s Centre for more information.
Julie Sumerta, Director, UW Parents on Campus
(image retrieved from http://a.abcnews.com/images/WN/nm_working_mom_080521_mn.jpg Dec 8th, 2008).
Monday, November 24, 2008
Introducing the "Muslimwoman"... Commentary on Roundtable 3
Miriam Cooke
Cooke sets the tone of the discussion with her introduction of the "Muslimwoman
," a term she rightly compares to "blackamerican." The term clearly refers to the fact that their is a seemingly global belief that "a Muslim woman, is a Muslim woman, is a Muslimwoman. In other words, all Muslim women are perceived as having had similar expressions. Their religious affiliation equals their identity,as does their gender. All of the "baggage" that comes with this identity is what people focus on, regardless of whether this baggage is, in actuality, the realities of individual women's experiences as being Muslim (i.e.: the wearing of the veil, fundamentalism, etc) or as being women. This is obviously very presumptuous, and erroneously so.
"Muslimwoman locates a boundary between “us” and “them,"" maintains Cooke. She continues: "As women, Muslim women are outsider/insiders within Muslim communities where, to belong, their identity increasingly is tied to the idea of the veil. As Muslims, they are negotiating cultural outsider/insider roles in Muslim-minority societies." (Cooke, 91) This clearly suggests that not only are Muslim women not fully accepted by those outside of their faith tradition, they are not fully accepted within the patriarchal order of the cultures they exist in. This hints at the sense that these women can be considered "other" and all of the connotations that come with being "other" can be applied to them, which is a very unsettling thought. This view neither adequately recognizes the great diversity between Muslin women themselves nor does it acknowledge the important roles Muslim women play in their own communities and as members of the greater global community.
This "primary identity" as Muslimwomen is, Cooke maintains, only reinforced with technology. Telecommunications and the internet have made connectivity much easier but have also, inadvertently, threatened some in Muslim cultures who do not want to see reform. As Cooke eloquently puts it, "[t]hose threatened by such hybridity in Muslim women may try to cage the proliferating identities. The sign of the cage is the veil (whether mandated or forbidden)." (Cooke, 92)
Cooke maintains that the Muslimwoman has "become the cultural standard for the umma, or collective Muslim society worldwide." (Cooke, 92) This I found shocking at first. How could Muslim women or even the ubiquitous Muslimwoman surpass men in being representatives of the Muslim faith? And, then it dawned on me. The image would be used to suppress women, molding them into the image of the "good Mulsimwoman". The image would serve as inspiration for other Muslim women and would serve as a reminder to the rest of the world that Muslim women were respectable, devout, God fearing women. In this way, they could be a powerful message representative of androcentrism in the Muslim world.
"The logic of the argument," claims Cooke, "is that women are the potential outsiders whom insiders must keep pure or purify in order to save the purity of the inside. To uphold this moral regime, insiders must cooperate in maintaining and monitoring the Muslimwoman’s appearance and behaviour." How convenient is that?! In all honesty, I wonder how Muslim women feel about this? I am not meaning scholars but rather the women who live in the villages and city centres of the Middle East, Africa and Asia. I wonder what their take on this would be? My sense is, and this is just my sense, that they would be quite proud to see a Muslim woman as representing the umma.
I have already spoken at length in regards to my feelings on the veil in several other entires and feel it is likely not necessary to rehash that here. All that I will say is it a shame that the veil has become such a negative symbol for Islam. This, I believe, is due to the fact that women more often than not are not given the choice to wear the veil or not wear the veil (and, as Cooke, notes, this can go both ways), resulting in sweeping and erroneous assumptions being made about the veil itself. This is terribly unfortunate and the only way to resolve it, in my mind, is to give women complete choice to wear or not the veil, or any other religious symbol they feel appropriate.
As a personal aside, I am shocked to read that the reins of patriarchy have tightened on Indonesian women since 2004. I have not been in Indonesia since 2005 and the last I was there, women had choice over whether or not they wanted to wear the hijab, etc. I get the impression from this article that this has changed, which is something I need to explore further...
Margot Badran
In her response, Badran immediately points out that the merging of the words Muslim and woman is a "collapsing [of] two components of identity—religion and gender— into a “singular identity.” (Badran, 101) The Muslimwoman, Badras contends, is a construction of those outside of Muslim communities who base their construct on expected "norms." The reality, as Badran points out, is that Muslim women look many ways anbd play many roles in modern society worldwide. However, with 9/11 and the resulting public opinion regarding Islam and Muslims, Badran argues that the west may now be perpetuating the Muslimwoman image and, essentially, backing the patriarchal societies which often times suppress them.
Badran argues that movements away from patriarchy and the Muslimwoman image gained headway in the '80's adn '90's when more and more women in the Muslim world were linked to a "global Islamic feminist movement." (Badran, 103) However, the Islamaphobia resulting from and/or perpetuated by 9/11, would set this movement back. "In the West, the Muslimwoman was conjured as the symbol of degradation in this demonizing frenzy. September 11 laid bare what many really thought and what they “knew” about Islam and Muslims, which they typically rolled into one." (Badras, 103). Yet,Muslim women world wide continued their activism, while some moved into a defensive, apologetic mode, resulting in a perpetuation of the Muslimwoman.
Badras sees much hope in this time where the diversity of Muslim women is starting to sink in to the collective global psyche, allowing for further momentum of a Islamic feminist movement. However, the desire for the west to see "moderate" Muslim men and Muslimwomen concerns Badras.
Badras concludes saying that the Muslimwoman identity has "limited utility and limited credibility," as Muslim women are proving. I agree with Badras on many of her points. I certainly feel that the resurgence of Islamaphobia resulting from terrorist acts such as 9/11 has only harmed those Mulsim women who strive to break free from societal restrictions that tend to not only suppress but also define women. I also agree that the answer to this problem comes in the realization and acceptance of the great diversity among Muslim women. Without this, Muslim women will continue to be lumped together under one banner and defined, simply, as oppressed, veiled women, often of Arabic descent. Clearly this definition is stereotypical and grossly inadequate.
Minoo Moallem
While agreeing with much of what Cooke's original argument is, Moallem takes a departure and focuses on "complexities involved
in and contradictions between this identity and multiple historical and
geopolitical locations." (Moallem, 106) Moallem argues that as the world has become a transnational place with uneven balances in power, it is vial to keep in mind the agendas colonialism and empires and the role this plays in terms of status based on race, gender, religion, etc. She then discusses three important aspects of her argument. First, she is concerned with the idea that the world is broken down into the West and "the Rest" and how this attitude sets up an "us and them" type of world view that may bastardize ideas and systems not generally understood by the west, including those of Islam and Muslim cultures. In terms of the "Muslimwoman," this idea is only perpetuated by this type of "us and them" thinking that is rather vacuous in assuming that all Muslim women can be put into one sweeping category, a category that does not consider cultural, religious and ideological differences between individual Muslim women. With this in mind, Moallem questions when and how the issues of Muslim women will be handled in a way that will be of benefit to both Muslim women and nation states. Once these women stop becoming the "other," their problems become "our" problems as global citizens, hence it would benefit everyone if the status of Muslim women was discussed as a substantial global concern.
Second, Maollem asserts that "we cannot examine the question of Muslim women outside the framework of civilizational thinking because, to put it bluntly, the borders of barbarism and civilization and the terms of entry into the civilized world are drawn via women’s bodies and their conditions of belonging to either a civilized or a barbaric community of brothers." In other words, they way women are treated says much about the culture from which they find themselves in. How do we in the west grapple with issues of gender and culture that seem so foreign and repugnant, in some cases, to us? How does the balance between tradition and modernization play out in a way that is globally inclusive, yet also takes into consideration human rights around gender and race?
Finally, Moallen raises her concern over the representation of Muslim women and, hence, ideas of the Muslimwoman." How are Muslim women represented within the context of western societies? Are the voices we are hearing, so influenced by western culture, "credible" in their representations? I love living in the UW CLV North community because it is so diverse. We have a huge multinational Muslim population here. Within the community, there is a rumour that Muslim women from certain countries have to sign a contract saying they will adhere to cultural norms and rules of the society of which they belong when they enter Canada. If this is true, then these women are being watched and, in fact, there is a community "leader" for them here. One woman, the wife of a UW student, took her hijab off while on a walk, saying to her western friends, "I don't have to and I don't want to wear this when I am out of CLV," admittedly hoping that no one from her faith community would see her. This really blew me away as it turned the notion that women were coming here wearing these clothes and symbols freely on its head. It made me wonder what the real story was. But, my sense is the real story is that the story is going to be different from each women's perspective. I have spoken about the hijab before and my thoughts on it. But the majority of women I know who are here now as Canadians from Lebanon, Iran, etc, do not wear it and admit they would likely have to if they went home. I do not think we will ever fully understand the issues of Muslim women as a group because they simply cannot be narrowed down to a group. Unfortunately, until as a society we can see individual Muslim women and not groups of Muslimwomen, we will likely not get to heart of the problem, nor to the heart of who each of these women are.
Fawzia Ahmad
In her contribution, Ahmad tackled the issue of the veil head on. And I agree with her on many points. The fact that the veil "upsets" and has become a symbol of repression does not mean that it is. There are women who must wear the veil due to cultural or familial ideology being imposed on them. She also, however, pointed to the fact that some women wear it seemingly as a type of "moral badge," isolating women-Muslim and non-Muslim alike-who wish to understand more about this.
Additionally, Ahmad poses the question of where do non-veiled Muslims fit into a society that views Muslims women through the stereotypical lens of Muslimwomen." Where is their place and what of their voices? Are they "Muslim enough" to be viewed as Muslim women in this context? Are they Muslim enough for other Muslim women who may appear more devout due to the use the hijab? And, as Ahmad suggests, will this lead to oppression from within the community of Muslim women who may wish to send the message that wearing the veil is equated with devoutness?
Ahmad contends, and I agree with her, that if the veil is "disassociated from “strategy” and (re)associated with an ontological dimension of Islam, it will become a nonissue," leaving the veil in a "neutral" position and Muslim communities in a better position to tackle real problems such as poverty and violence within their communities. (Ahmad, 101) For fear of yet again rehashing my own opinions on the topic, I will conclude here by saying that I am in strong agreement with Ahmad and feel the veil ideally would be best left to choice. Clearly, this would help liberate Muslim women and also take a great cultural load off the shoulders of many.
Jasmin Zine
I found Zine's contribution to most compelling, as she discusses the fact that the identity of Muslim women is not in their control and their ontology has, in effect been "hijacked.' "As Muslim women, we are not in control of the meanings mapped onto our bodies." (Zine, 110) Is this not terribly sad? Likely, many women of many different faith and cultural backgrounds could argue the same. Yet, Muslim women are victims of this on a much grander scale. They are subject to cultural, familial and androcentric definitions of who and what they are and what they represent. They are subject to discrimination based on differences in accepted norms from culture to culture within the greater Muslim community. And, they are subject to scrutiny and views from people from without their faith community, namely western Orientalists. As Orientalists, it is important to understand, view those of Asian descent as people who can be associated with Asian or "Oriental" characteristics and qualities, therefore further subjecting them to sweeping conclusions of "who" they should be and how they should act based on outside observations. The term Oriental itself, as it is used to refer to human beings, is, thankfully, not used nearly as often as it once was. Presumbaly this is due to the fact that Orientalist thinkers were able to see how limiting and offensive the term was to many diverse cultures found in the vast continent of Asia. Similarly, the idea of the Muslimwoman is limiting and offensive.
For Zine, even women such as Irshad Manji are now subject to labels such as "refusenik" (which I think Manji welcomes). It would seem that there is very little room for individual expressions of Muslim femaleness under these conditions. One is either repressed, sympathized or seen as a renegade. Arguably however, most women likely fit into the seemingly unexplored and indefinable realm of "middle ground" in Islam. Women who may wish to wear hijab when it is religiously appropriate but may also enjoy the freedom of not having to wear it all the time. Women who are devout but may also see a need for great reform.
As many of her colleauges have, Zine also sees a need for further investiagation into the issues surrounding and meanings behind the terms "woman," "muslim," "race," "culture," all "markers" of one's "identity." These are all areas in which women can be further repressed.
Zine makes a striking point when she suggests "[n]ot enough attention is directed at the resistance of us Muslim women as social actors and the various ways in which we choose to mark and claim our identities within and against Orientalist/fundamentalist binaries and other meanings imposed on us." As Muslim women struggle to claim their won identities, those in power seemingly scramble to keep them neatly organized in categories within the "Muslimwomen" umbrella.
Zine also makes the important distinction between elite Muslim women who seem to be benefit from a more cosmopolitan lifestyle as a result of globalization, pointing out it is typically only the elite who have access to new technologies and forms of communication not from within their culture. The realities of impoverished Muslim women may lead them to be concerned only with issues of poverty, issues that are clearly tied into issues of gender equality and human rights but may not manifest that way for people whose only concerned is to get through the day with enough food to eat. This becomes, as Zine points out, another example of how divided the global community is along lines of North and South, haves and have not's, us and them. For me, this points to a greater need, or perhaps a greater understanding, for human rights and women's rights to be seen as one in the same. For feminism to represent not only the struggle for women's rights through identity but also the struggle of the woman who is starving and having feminism dealing with her immediate human needs first. I am not saying feminism does not do this. I am saying that perhaps feminism needs is underrepresented or under-recognized as a movement that does this. I think too often people still relate to feminism as a wholly western and somewhat elitist movement. Clearly, the focus of feminism has shifted to become much more inclusive.
Zine concludes by reminding those in the feminist movement, particularly Muslim women in activist movements, to consider who they represent when they use "us" and "we." Who does that refer to? Does it leave room for cultural and regional differences? Does it extend to those who are not elite?
This roundtable discussion is a good example of what Morny Joy discusses in her paper "The Role (or Non Role) of Women in Religion." Here, the argument is even more potent, however, as this is not only about the oppression women have faced through androcentrism and patriarchal ideals. This is a woman's discussion at a very intimate level. When women can not come to some sort of consensus in regards to the fact that women are not simply "women," or more aptly in this case, "Muslimwomen ," how can we expect men within the culture or those from without the culture to view women beyond just the perceived collective identity? It is easy to say "these women just need to realize that not everyone is going to be the same and just accept it." But, it is a much more complicated issue here. These are women who have been subjected, as Morny points out when she discusses women in religious history and the impact that has had today, to a history of androcentrism based on patriarchy. These are women who have long been told who they are and what their roles are. If we look at Iran, for example, women fought a long battle for rights and when they were truly enjoying them, those rights were taken away from them literally over night. In reality, the lives of many Muslim women are still under the immediate control of patriarchy. And this is not an issue for women "over there." It is an issue facing Muslim women everywhere. And, when this issue moves into the realm of feminism, it becomes every woman's issue. But then, the question arises. Is feminism up to the task of handling these types of complex issues intimately based in cultural, and religious traditions. I would argue that it is as long as the voice of the Muslim woman does not get lost or become tied to the idea of the Muslimwoman." Clearly, when it comes to issues of religion and culture, one must tread lightly as an outsider, and even as an insider. Change, I would argue, can be influenced from without but has to manifest from within. It must be an expression representative not of all women but of the women immediately affected in order to be accepted, trusted and to succeed as an ideal. For example, how do Muslim women tackle the issue of female genital mutilation? If they look to western women for guidance, they are looking toward women who, while horrified by the practice and seeing a need to change it, have no cultural context from which to understand it. This is a woman's issue but is immediately connected to the women living in cultures who adhere to this. This is an issue, I would argue, that needs to initially be dealt with and resolved at local, regional and national levels, not at global, western activist ones. This does not mean we do not get involved as concerned women and humans. It means we support and offer advice yet we also let the issue be dealt with in a way that is culturally sensitive and within a system that is created for and by a specific group of people. Once the process is well established within the unique circumstances of one's own community, only then can it be extended to the greater community. And, I would also argue, Muslim women will be better able to deal with their own identity crisis if allowed to define themselves and their struggles independently of outside influences-whether the intent of the influences of bad or good.
As I conclude, I will leave you with the eloquent words of Jasmin Zine herself...
In the end, I feel lost in translation. The Muslimwoman industry has dissected
my identity, pulled my subjectivity into fragments that I do not recognize
(and which, like Humpty Dumpty, I need to piece back together), and at the
same time, managed to reduce me to a singular trope. And so the struggle for
agency and self-representation continues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)