Welcome!

Concluding Thoughts

2008-12-02T17:02:00.001-08:00

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

Touring the International Women's Museum

2008-12-02T17:01:00.001-08:00

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.

Queering Religion-Commentary on Rycenga

2008-12-02T17:00:00.001-08:00

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...

Blackwood

2008-12-02T16:59:00.002-08:00

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.

Sexing the Sacred-commentary on Maguire

2008-12-02T16:59:00.001-08:00

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?

Being a Student, Being a Parent, and nOt Losing it All...

2008-12-01T10:30:00.000-08:00

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).

Introducing the "Muslimwoman"... Commentary on Roundtable 3

2008-11-24T19:09:00.001-08:00

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.

Commentary on Shaheed's "Constructing Identities..."

2008-11-21T20:44:00.000-08:00

After reading Shaheed’s paper on Constructing Identities, I am admittedly still grappling with the term "feminism." (Thought this was resolved, didn't we?) My biggest problem is that the term feminism in itself does not adequately express my feelings on equality and what that means from a cultural sense. I am very aware that feminism is a universal movement which is ideally expressed as an egalitarian movement. I do not find feminism a "dirty" word. However, I do find it limiting in its ability to express effectively the universal needs of all women. I have always been concerned with feminism founded on and based in western ideals that do not always translate into every culture. There are certainly ways that feminism can be successfully integrated into most cultures. But, there are still concerns that exist for me.

In her article, Shaheed's main argument is that, due to the diversity of culture, experiences and personal identities in the Muslim world, it is a truly impossible task to provide a definition of Muslim women that would adequately represent their diversity. "[W]hen reference is made to the 'women of the Muslim world'," she explains, "I cannot help but myself ask which women in which world are being referred to. Chechynya or Fiji, South Africa or Turkey, Indonesia or Lebanon, India or the United Sates. The list is a fairly long and complicated one." (Shaheed, 62) This great diversity, then, means a diversity in the way women respond to and express themselves as Muslim women and/or as feminists.

Although this is quite a different view from those who wish to perpetuate the term Muslimwoman, as discussed in the Miriam Cooke roundtable, I tend to agree with Shaheed in her view that feminism, if it is to exist within the context of Muslim communities, needs to be reflective of the differences found within the community. Otherwise, it simply may not successfully integrate.

So how then, one has to wonder,does "feminism" integrate into these cultures or even, if it does at all? "If the term 'women's movement' is meant to refer to a cohesive identity, then it is not possible to speak of a women's movement in the Muslim world." I think this point is an essential one, particularly if we are speaking of feminism through a western lens. Can feminism, as most western women understand it, exist in the Muslim world as a whole? If not, is the "manifestation" of a movement that is not feminism as we understand it but IS feminism to someone living in a small village who lives a rather "normal," even "content" existence within a patriarchal community and wants only to get a fair price for her goat, as an example, still feminism? It is easy to say "yes, it would be." One could also easily argue that feminism comes in many different forms everywhere. But, for women who take a staunch view on feminism that includes the exclusion of men (which, if feminism truly means by definition "egalitarianism," this exclusion of men, in my eyes, would automatically make this form of feminism not a form of feminism at all), is this still feminism? How does the movement reconcile strands that are polar opposites?

Shaheed uses the term "women's empowerment" in her article and I love this term. For me, it is a term that seemingly could move rather easily through cultures, ideally referring to the empowerment of women within the context they currently live in-religiously, culturally or socio-economically-as opposed to the assimilation of a western idea into a culture that may not be ready, willing or able to assimilate it. However, Shaheed does acknowledge that a collective shift needs to occur when "redefinitions" of women's roles in society occur. These redefinitions "automatically necessitate a readjustment of the broader culture and collectivity concerned." (Shaheed, 63)

Shaheed speaks of the creation of the Women Living Under Muslim Laws organization. "The network had been shaped by the specific human rights advocacy campaigns that led to its creation," explains Shaheed. It is described by Shaheed as a network that is based on an "understanding of how issues of women's empowerment, and the challenges that women mount to patriarchal control, intersect with issues of collective identity, as well as with the creative or inhibiting tension that may exist between individual women (and men) and their community." It is, as Shaheed explains, not exclusive to "Muslim" or "Islamic" women, but to any women whose lives are effected by any of the many cultural manifestations of Muslim custom and law worldwide. The emphasis, claims Shaheed, is on women's individual experiences within their cultures.
It was interesting for me to read that these women come together less from a sense of Muslim identity but more of a sense of feminism. I found this both surprising and very hopeful. I really like the idea that these women are not coming together to "mobilize women affected by Muslim laws" but rather to strengthen women in their ongoing struggles. (Shaheed, 66) Additionally, although these women are all affected by their association with Muslim culture, they acknowledge that "individual women will have different strategies and priorities when challenging their oppression," those who will define their struggle within the Muslim religion and those who will choose to do so from a more secular position. (Shaheed, 66)

When Shaheed first mentioned in the article that she felt the use of the term "Islam" was problematic for the discussion, I had assumed what she was pointing toward was the fact that Muslim was the word used to refer to the people and hence, more appropriate than the term "Islam," which may isolate some people. I felt she was trying to differentiate between moderate Muslim ideology and the more fundamental Islamist ideology. I, again, stress the point that this was my initial assumption. I was surprised to find out (although clearly it makes complete sense!) that Shaheed feels that using the term Muslim is more appropriate as it is the Muslim people who make the laws within the culture, not the religion itself that makes or enforces the laws. I found this explanation very helpful in giving me additional context from which to further understand both the tradition and the stance the organization was taking when it came to a sense of identity and responsibility (that is the individual and collective responsibilities of humans within the framework of religion).
Further, when Shaheed goes on to explain that not all Muslims fall under the same laws due to a great variation within the cultures and practices of Islam, she raises another important point. In this "post 9/11" era, it is essential to understand that not all Muslims follow radical Islamist agendas and, from everything that I understand, only a very small portion of Muslims ever fall into that category. The information Shaheed gives of "Muslim law" is extremely helpful. Having lived in Indonesia, a country of great regional diversity, I am very aware that some sectors of the Muslim population fall under Sharia customary law while others do not-just as some women are veiled, while others are not. I think, again, this is a very valid point that expresses to western readers the great diversity of expressions and expectations in the faith. Not every Muslim woman has the same experience. As I have discussed before, there are women who feel very oppressed, for example, by being forced to wear the hijab. Still others, such as a woman I know in Indonesia, wear the hijab as a personal symbol representative of their faith. The woman I know comes from a relatively liberal family where none of the women regularly wear the hijab. Wearing the hijab daily was her personal choice and she expressed some frustration over the fact that her friends at college did not understand why she would wear it if she did not have to. For her, they missed the point.

Balzer, in her paper, brings up another interesting scenario. She cites a time when, after a group prayer, many of the Muslim students involved were upset that women were “forced to stay behind” in that they had to sit behind the men. “‘No’, explained the female president of Georgetown’s Muslim Student Association, ‘We want it that way, just as we wish to wear head scarves: to show our modesty, and through this, our purity of purpose’.” (Balzer, 177) Does this mean these women were not feminist? Clearly, they have been influenced by the idea that good Muslim women are pure women and, perhaps, wish to express their devoutness in comparison to that of others. Yet, if these young women have decided to “own” the idea of “purity” as an expression of their faith and relationship with Allah, who are we to say there is not room for them in feminism? I do not mean to say that anyone is saying there is no room for them. I bring this up to illustrate the great challenge feminism has as it moves into these cultures where ideas of what feminism should look like will be challenged on many levels.

The example that Shaheed herself raises is that of female genital mutilation. This practice, Shaheed explains, is though to be a "religious act." But, as Shaheed points out, it is, in fact, practiced by both Muslims and Non-Muslims and is "unknown to the majority of Muslim communities who not only have never heard of it, but are frequently shocked at the thought that it is deemed to be even remotely Islamic." (Shaheed, 68). It is this type of misunderstanding, both inside and outside Muslim communities, that lead to great misinterpretations of the larger Muslim culture, if one can even hope to describe a greater Muslim culture.

However, as Shaheed maintains, we do have to be aware of the reality that, for most Muslim women, when laws are put to the test in every day life, it is the ones "least favourable to women, offering them the least rights" that are actually enforced. According to the article, women are given the least rights in situations such as divorce, in cases of adultery, and in areas where polygyny is acceptable. (Shaheed, 69). As Morny Joy discusses in her article "The Role of Non Role of Women in Religion," there are some suprisingly egalitarian verses to be found in the Qu'ran. There are, however, verses that, if used in a certain context, can sufficiently support the suppression of women. It is all, one can argue, in how the verses are used and in who is using them and for what purpose. The article suggests that women can, in fact, liberate themselves through and with Islam and with the textual support of the Qu'ran. Particularly if women can educate themselves adequately enough in order to do so in a way that they can argue and counter-argue against those who will use the same text to subjugate them. Women, Morny argues, need to find their place and their power, not only in Islam bit all in all religions. Further, in many cases, they need to reclaim to their power.

In politics, as well, women face many challenges. Remembering, again, that Muslim communities are very diverse, what is acceptable behaviour for women in one community, may not translate into another. This can be problematic, clearly, for women in the political arena, whose voices may be heard in their own community but may be silenced in another. As well, the stigma that comes with being defined solely by "Islam" and being "Muslim," is seen as problematic for Shaheed. These labels can lead one to assume that concerns being expressed as "Muslim" concerns fall into a religious category rather than a political or socio-economic one. It is hard, Shaheed maintains, to separate the bigger, universal issues that women face when the assumption is made that any issues coming out of the Muslim community are exclusive to Islam.

For Shaheed, it is key for women to "break the isolation" of perceived cultural restraints through education and other forms of empowerment. "To even conceive of different realities," Shaheed explains, "women must first question the given parameters of their current lives, among other things unravelling the composite strands of the current identity imposed on them." (Shaheed, 71) This can be achieved with the help of groups such as WLUML, who, through outreach, can make both information and options available to women accessible. Along with international campaigning alongside organizations such as Amnesty International and offering immediate assistance to women who desperately need it (such as women who have been forced into marriage or who have been abducted), Shaheed hopes WLUML will be able to provide a "different set of support systems" that can be effective in working toward greater liberties and freedom for women at a structural level.

Perhaps most importantly for Shaheed, and I would agree with her, is the unique ability of WLUML to offer support to people who do no want to flee their communities or situations but rather "have a need to belong to a collective community." (Shaheed, 71). From personal experience, I am aware that in many Muslim cultures, a person's identity within the community is the most important aspect of their lives. To lose face in the community is the most horrible thing that can happen. Coming from western cultures where many people often say "I do what I want and don;t care what anyone else thinks" we may not understand this need to belong to a community that is seemingly oppressive. But,I would argue, it is not so much our job to understand it, but rather to accept that this is the situation. How can we, in a way that is not judgmental, be part of a system that will help support the greater community and, more importantly, the individual women within it? This is where I feel a possible conflict of interests can occur within the greater feminist community and the culture specific forms of feminism that have evolved. Many of us may be simply horrified at the conditions women are living in in some of these communities. We may also, simply, be as shocked by what these women will consider radical feminist ideas, and, as such, surprised by how little change some of them actually need to see to be satisfied. As I mentioned earlier, some women may be thrilled to say "I got as much money for my goat as neighbour did, and he is a man," while still much greater work needs to be done. But these little steps are still steps forward for both feminism and human rights in general. For me, feminism without an understanding of cultural assimilation does not work. This is why articles like this one by Shaheed are important, not only to those within Muslim cultures but to anyone who considers her or him self a "feminist".

Terms
I wish here to discuss only three terms: Muslim, Islam and feminist.
Clearly, Shaheed discussed these in her article but I found them to be critical to the greater understanding of the article.
The term Muslim refers to people who belong to Muslim communities and are followers of Islam. "Muslim" and "Islam" are hence, not interchangeable terms. The term Muslim does not refer to a religion or to a specific group of people in a certain region. It refers to the global population of people who define themselves as Muslim and whose religion is Islam. There is a great amount of diversity among communities whose people follow Islam and great diversity int he way they express themselves. Some are of Arab descent, others are African or Asian. Still others come from Europe and the Americas. Some follow under customary Sharia laws while most others do not.
The term "Islam" then refers to the religion of the Muslim people. It does not refer exclusively to fundamentalist strains of the faith, as I feel some people may believe During my travels overseas in Post 9/11, I have often heard people say "that person is a Muslim but is not 'Islamic'," meaning they are not "extreme." This misunderstanding has erroneously really dirtied the word "Islam" for some people. It is vital for the global community to realize that Islam does not mean radical.
Feminism. We have spent the past three months studying this term. Articles like this, however, remind us that their is no one path to "liberation" that every woman will take. Feminism needs to remain flexible and fluid as it assimilates into cultures markedly different from the ones it originated in. More importantly, feminist women need to realize that standards of life for humans are extremely diverse. The health and well being of one's children, a decidedly feminist issue I would argue, may not be seen as any sort of step up the feminist ladder to a woman in Sub-Saharan Africa. But it should be considered as one by feminists. The reality is that women in the west lead lives that are so different from women in the "global south" that it is impossible for those women to even imagine the liberties that we here take for granted, let alone visualize ever having them them themselves. I think is an incredibly point. Likewise, many Muslim women, and women in the global south in general, face hardships we will never know. Issues like female genital mutilation need to be dealt with. But, we also need to understand that some of these issues are so deeply entrenched in the cultures from which they originated that it will take time to affect change. For women in these situations, the perceived "radicalness" of feminism as a western ideal can likely be intimidating, threatening and, even, unwelcome. Shaheed's article points to a great need for cultural understanding and respect. In the future, it will likely be in these place where feminism will evolve and morph further.

So, what did I learn? I learned that feminism can, indeed, adapt and assimilate in cultures outside of western ones but that it is a "work in progress"-as it is everywhere else. There are going to be growing pains as feminism enters different cultures and, hopefully, this will impact feminism on a universal scale. Muslim women are ready to deal with women's issues, if only on comparably small scales. Yet, certainly, there are Muslim women, inside and outside the "global south," who are and have long been working hard to affect change for women on a much larger, structural scale. So, feminism has to work on several different levels and in different ways to serve different women at different times. All of this difference, however, will merge in the end to create a form of localized feminism that we in the west may not at first recognize as such. In that regard, it will be up to women outside of the Muslim communities and/or the "global south" communities to educate themselves on the beautiful ways feminism adapts and evolves to support women on a local scale and, hence, on a fuller, global scale. It will be up to women to realize that feminism will not always look or even feel the same as we expect it to.
I strongly believe that feminism is in need of a face lift that will allow it to look like a global human rights movement as opposed to a western idea that has lost it's steam, as many of the women I surveyed express. I would argue that if women are feeling this way, something beyond feminism being perceived as just a "dirty word" is happening. I still maintain that the problem is people are looking for a way to define themselves that goes beyond just what is typically associated with feminism. People want to see themselves as working to affect human and not only feminist rights. I am not claiming that feminism does not support human rights. I am claiming that the feminist movement has not worked hard enough to fully express this.
The work of Farida Shaheed and others is greatly needed and will, hopefully, gain more popular recognition so that feminism can be seen as more of an egalitarian, human rights movement as opposed to a movement of relatively elite, educated western women.

image retrieved from http://rasheedgonzales.wordpress.com/2007/12/26/obligation-or-mere-personal-choice/ Nov 22, 2008).

Review of Nikky Singh's "Why Did I not Light the Fire, Refeminization of Ritual in Sikhism"

2008-11-20T07:46:00.000-08:00

"The feminization of ritual entails a double transformation through which we will be active subjects, not passive objects; we will confidently lead, not timidly follow; we will be whole, not fragmented; we will be powerful, not weak; we will be liberated, not oppressed." (Singh, 67)

What a gift this article is! To have such an eloquently written account of Singh's emotional experiences at her mother's cremation ceremony truly offers up a rare and personal glimpse into Sikh ritual and the patriarchy it is entrenched in. The first few potent paragraphs set the stage for a powerful argument in defense of the "feminization" of ritual. Singh, who did not light the fire at her mother's funeral pyre,in part because she was not asked, in part because she accepted the patriarchal tradition that men are to light the pyre, grapples with this issue as she considers it within the depths of Sikhism as a whole.
Singh finds the basis of her argument in the teachings of the Sikh gurus. During times of the early "evolving Sikh tradition," "[W]omen spoke, saw and acted, and they were heard, seen and followed..." and were also "vibrantly present in the primal poetic and imaginative worldview."(Singh, 70) With this, Singh sets the reader up for her main question: If Sikhism was, in its earliest form, seemingly egalitarian, "what happened to the course of feminization begun by the gurus?" (Singh, 70) Why can women not light the ritual fires-in both literal and figurative senses?

Singh describes the Sikh rituals of today as "ritual's of patriarchy, which have created a false sense of consciousness," (Singh, 70) where women's roles are seemingly secondary. This gets to the heart of the West/Zimmerman article on "Doing Gender." If we consider West/Zimerman's argument that gender identity is based on false presumptions that are actually not natural but created by society, then these rituals would also, as Singh notes, be based on a false sense of consciousness. This sense of consciousness around rituals of patriarchy stem directly from culturally based false notions about gender identity.

More than this, even, Singh sees a silencing of women in Sikhism that has not been challenged, even, in the past, by Singh herself. Singh sees the inaccessibility of the full Sikh text to women as a real crux of the larger issue,arguing that the text is "closed to women by their social conditioning." "How can we link our rituals with the text if we cannot even approach it?" she asks. This seems to be a recurring theme in all forms of religion. It would seem, on the surface, that Sikhism is a rather egalitarian religion, at least in comparison to religions like Hinduism where women are enclosed in a box that often describes them as polluted and suspect. When we uncover the text, as we have done together in RS 284, it would seem that Guru Nanak did make a valiant attempt to include women and to rid them of stereotypes of pollution and caste. So, one has to wonder, as Singh does, what happened to take Sikhism off its original course? And perhaps I need to read your book, Dr J, as I feel trying to answer this using materials found over the internet or even if traditional text books would be inadequate and, likely not helpful. My sense is the answer lies in men feeling somewhat threatened by the amount of real or perceived power women were to achieve, and also in their desire to maintain some amount of control over women. Singh offers hope, however,outlining five "interlinking themes" to explain how she sees Sikhism could be reformed.

Singh argues, first, that worship itself needs to change. In the gurdwaras, women are kept at a distance from the Guru Granth. This text has replaced the actual human guru as the most important element of the faith tradition, hence is the "leader" of the tradition and is highly revered by all. Women are, in fact, able to have intimate access to the Granth in their home temples. The obvious question then is what is the rationale for keeping away from the text in the gudwara. This is the question Singh grapples with. If women are actually leading rituals within the home temple, as Singh maintains, why are they not engaged in ritualistic leadership roles in the greater community? She suggests that women simply "need to come out of our homes and gain entry into the outside world. We have to be full members [hence equal members] of the Sikh community." (Singh, 71)
I think Singh makes a huge and vital point when she states that women "unconsciously transferred the authority of the male bhaijis
to the men of her household and invested all men with this power in the social realm. This is so important as it suggest the involvement of women themselves in this transfer of power. I would suggest then that the actions of women,as they helped to shift the balance of power toward the men, have made them both complacent and accepting of these standards. I am not sure I fully understand Balzer's meaning of self-sexism in the way she presents it in her article yet I think she is likely what she means. I think Singh, herself, is also a "victim" of self-sexism in the sense that she quietly accepted the "norms" of her culture instead of going with what she felt inside.
I can see a parallel when I am Bali. The women I have come into contact with do not question the authority of men. Nor do they question the roles they play. They happily accept them and neither see, nor, for the most part, seemingly desire, anything beyond this. Admittedly, the Sikh movement was a movement away from Hinduism so to compare Sikhism to a Hindu community may seem inappropriate. Yet when one considers the close ties the two faiths have to one another and the fact that some of the Hindu beliefs, such as caste and status, are not altogether deserted by Sikhs today, as we discussed in class (Jakobsh, fall 2008 lectures) it makes more sense to look for a comparison between the ways these people, at times, view themselves. I have to say, I was shocked to learn that women have been banned from participating in morning sadhana at the Golden Temple. For someone who has some, albeit limited, knowledge of the Sikh faith, this astounded me. I had always assumed the Golden Temple would have been the "example" of egalitarianism in the faith. On a personal level, this is very disappointing to read.

Singh was eager to point out her pride that women are becoming more involved and established as musicians of kirtan. I would agree as involvement on any level of worship-and I certainly see kirtan as an important form of worship-is beneficial. However, I share her desire for seeing women more involved in both worship within the gudwaras and within the political side of the religion-namely SGPG, as the "governing body" of Sikhism worldwide. I find it interesting that a religion that reveres the text as the true guru would also allow so much political power to fall into the hands of men (or, truly, anyone). I understand the need for a governing body to keep the community together. However, in the way Singh describes it, with the President of SGPG being the "Sikh equivalent of the pope" it seems as though there would likely be a lot of ego-based jockeying for power going on, as there likely is in all religions.

Singh is also concerned with the "reading" of the text, arguing that the text is currently transmitted from a very androcentric point of view. She argues that, in its current "androcentric" form, the text "has not been properly disclosed," continuing that the common gyanijis (Sikh intellectual) translations are male based and suggesting, even, that some female symbols have been turned into male ones. (Singh, 73)
Singh argues that the female body and the cycles involved with it have been traditionally "unambiguously and powerfully present in the Guru Granth." (Singh, 73) She presents some very liberating ideas from the original teachings of the Granth that go beyond even western acceptance and norms of the female body and its perceived mysteries. So, if this is in fact true, and I believe it is, what happened in the transference of Sikh "wisdom" from generation to generation that would change such a groundbreaking perception of the feminine-a perception that someone like myself, who is outside of Sikhism, sees as both very brave and admirable. Singh argues that scholars and adherents alike "miss the scriptural validation of the female." (Singh, 74) Yet, if the validation is as powerful as Singh suggests and if it is accessible to the greater masses, one has to wonder, as I am, whether it was simply missed or intentionally avoided.
Along with scholars, Sikh women themselves also need to become more aware of the traditional textualization. This is vital is, if women are not aware of the roles they have traditionally played and of how they were portrayed in the text, if they are complacent and satisfied with what is given to them now, change will likely not take place. It is going to be the Sikh women who have to hear the call and affect change in this case. Men have their history. It is up to the women (and the men who support the cause) to claim the "her-stories". This will also require a willingness on the part of women to become educated and familiarize themselves with the text, something that Singh is advocating for.

Singh feels there is a great need to create new translations. Although, as Singh explains, the vernacular of the original Guru Granth was accessible as opposed to elitist, new generations of Sikhs living in the greater diaspora do not have the language skills to understand the earliest incarnations of the text. Instead, they accept what is commonly held to be true based on newer, scholarly translations. Singh maintains that if these young people were to empower themselves through going back to the old texts, they would find a more inclusive, fuller story. As noted in the Balzer paper, a sense of nationalism and natalism can be problematic to overcome when one attempts to introduce new ideas. Ideas that threaten the sense of one's connection to a greater community and the roles one plays in that community are often not welcome. Likely, the attitude of many Sikhs who do not want to see the creation of new translations of the text, comes from a sense that their identity and tradition is being threatened, specifically in regards to the roles of women who traditionally have played the part of nurturing mother.
As well, the use of terms such as "God" and "Lord" are problematic for Singh as she feels those terms do not adequately express the transcendence of "the One...singular Reality" that is divine. (Singh, 76) Singh also speaks of the word "Lord" as being masculine and equates it to the word "lord." This is essential for me as it is something I have not considered. As I relate to Lord to lord, my sense of the capitalized term changes. As I sit here, I realize I will likely never see the word lord in the same light again but rather associate it with "masters" of colonialism and the slave trade. This seemingly simply realization is Huge (yes, with an intentional capital H) for me!

For Singh, rituals also need to be re-examined. She uses the traditional marriage ceremony as example. As she describes it, this ceremony seems to a beautiful acknowledgment of two people coming together through love-not as a man taking a bride. Singh argues, however, that in modern times, the ceremony has become quite commercial and is more about parents selling off their daughters by marketing their attributes almost as though to the highest bidder. If taken in this light, one must ask if in this way Sikhism has taken a giant step back into Indian (not necessarily Sikh) history. It is hard to imagine that a woman could be perceived as such a financial burden on a family that a great dowry fund needs to be created. As Singh puts it, simply, "[f]rom day one, daughters are a liability, sons an asset. A daughter is debt,a son is a credit. The refeminization of the marriage ritual, Singh argues, "demands an end to dowries." (Singh, 78)
In modern Sikh marriages, Singh argues that the way women are treated goes against the egalitarian origin of the union. Instead of a woman being part of an egalitarian
relationship "united to serve the transcendent One," she is instead "held a slave to the man to whom she is wedded," which is in stark contrast with the original teachings as Singh views them. This union, Singh maintains, is about "the rising of the individual spirit toward the absolute." (Singh, 82) Yet, for Singh, the true meaning of the ritual is lost in an androcentric translation. To affect change "we need to read the words correctly and we need to practice them correctly." (Singh, 82)

Finally, achieving the goals Singh lays out "involves a recognition of what we are refeminizing." (Singh, 82) For Singh, this means an investigation that starts with the earliest teachings of the Sikh Gurus, searching for true meaning in the text that has both outlived them and embodied their words. This is arguably Singh's most important message. To go back to the very beginning, to search for the heart of the message and to remember what Guru Nanak's main goals in forming Sikhism were is vital. If one remembers to view the development of Sikhism as a reaction to the oppressive teachings of Hinduism, Singh's arguments make a great deal of sense. In its earliest incarnation, Sikhism was about cultivating a sense of egalitarianism as a direct opposition to Hinduism. It was seemingly not based on egoism or power struggles. And certainly Guru Nanak doe snot seem to be setting a hierarchy in place that would discriminate on others based, I would imagine, on anything, including gender or caste. As demonstrated, the roles women in particular play if they choose to "light the fire" of refeminization will be of vital importance.

Terms
In this article, several temrs are of particular importance if we are understand Singh's message from the cultural context in which she writes.
The first term of importance is that of "Guru." Guru has several meanings which I am aware of personally from my studies of yoga. A Guru is typically defined as a spiritual teacher, one who brings the student out of darkness and into light. In modern times, the term is often associated with teachers of yoga and of meditation. This would be correct but I would argue that Guru in the Sikh tradition goes even deeper. Certainly the above definition would apply. yet it does not seem sufficient. The Guru is the one who conveyed the sacred texts to the adherents of Sikhism. He is one who committed himself to the calling and joined a lineage of great Sikh teachers who would define and shape the Sikh religion. Finally, the grace of the Gurus were transferred to the sacred Sikh text the Guru Granth Sahib, the final, eternal and only "living" Guru. This is how I would define the term Guru from my limited experience with the Sikh faith.
As noted above, it is important for western thinkers to understand the Guru Granth Sahib is, in fact, a book but that it goes beyond just simply being a book. This "book" is revered by Sikhs and treated reverently. The living Guru aspect of it is taken very seriously and is seen, in this light, as though alive-the living transference of the Guru's teachings into a bound book.
Dowry is a term used in this article. Dowry refers to the "debt" parents incur when they bear daughters. This "debt" is paid by the daughter's family to the family of the groom in order that he will marry her. Families spend their whole lives saving for the dowry and often wind up paying even more money during and after the marriage ceremony itself. Their have been cases in India where wives have been killed because the dowry their families offered were deemed insufficient.

Khalsa is another term it is good for the reader to understand. It was difficult for me to find a definition that was not from "Wikipedia" or that was not somewhat isolating in its wording to non-Sikh readers. The best I found was "The word "Khalsa" means "pure", Khalsa's are Sikhs which have undergone the sacred Amrit Ceremony initiated by the 10th Sikh Guru, Guru Gobind Singh...Total dedication to Sikhism. One who has has shed his ego and personality and truly honours the memory of Guru Gobind Singh through his actions and deeds." (retrieved from http://www.sikhs.org/khalsa.htm Nov 21, 2008) It is important to understand that not all Sikhs are members of the Khalsa and also to understand that the Khalsa Sikh movement is one that requires a great commitment to the Khalsa lifestyle from its adherents.

This article is an example of what was discussed in the Balzer article. This is a great example of how religion is under construction and the junctures where perceived tradition and reform meet are intriguing in their complexities. All three of Balzer's main themes-natalism/nationalism, women's leadership, and purity, danger and fundamentalism-play significant roles in Singh's article. The perceived sense of purity, danger and fundamentalism are what Sikh women need to overcome and, Singh argues, can be overcome through women's empowerment and leadership. The sense of natalism and nationalism can be found in Singh's descriptions of those who hold tight to the scholarly translations of Sikh texts and do not want this "tradition" to be disturbed.

This was a very important article for me, especially due to my past association with 3HO. I did have an image of Sikhism as an egalitarian tradition. Yet, I questioned why women needed to be taught separately, in "special" workshops by Yogi Bhajan. Yogi Bhajan discussed how women needed to learn how to walk in grace and described the use of makeup and other "decorative" items as making women look like "cheap hookers." (I am uncertain this is exactly what Yogi Bhajan said but I believe, from memory, that it was-certainly this is the essence from which he described the use of makeup, etc). There were also many arranged marriages going within 3H0 that were arranged by Bhajan himself. Many students believed it was important to take Yogi Bhajan's advice where marriage was concerned. I started to feel as though Yogi Bhajan and his immediate students were wielding too much power. I personally felt intimated by my own teacher as he tried to "control" his students, particularly the women. All of us as women were told the men in our lives were not good and that we should be committed to 3HO instead. Women were advised to divorce their husbands, leave their boyfriends or told destructive things about their fathers (like their father had an affair on their mother, etc.) Comparing 3H0 to Sikhism is, I realize, unfair and inadequate. 3H0 is a decidedly radical movement that, in my time with the group, was based on yoga and meditation (that always concerned me as, as I understood it, most Sikhs rejected yoga for being an ascetic practice). However, it is interesting to look at it as a stream of Sikhism that seemingly strove to "liberate" its members through yoga, yet was, essentially, controlling, specifically to women. In this sense, it is an example of how things can appear one way on the surface and be entirely different just underneath.
As an aside, I would love to learn more about the feminization of the "turban" (I am sure that is incorrect terminology but I am unsure what word to use. Chuni?).

So, yes I was quite enlightened by the article. Enlightened in the sense that I did not realize to what extreme women's identities were being suppressed by androcentrism, but also enlightened by the strength and insight of Nikky Singh. The fact that she was moved to write this as such a personal quest was inspiring. Alongside Dr J, she is now my favourite Sikh scholar!!! (I didn't say that for marks, I swear!)

(image retrieved from http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1197/534072609_b7e314e660.jpg Nov 21, 2008).

So...is it destiny??? Commentary on Knott's paper

2008-11-18T16:08:00.000-08:00

To consider one's destiny. This is something humans have been doing likely since the beginning of time. Why are we here? What is MY role? Do I have any control over my future? Much of our views on this are deeply connected with what our individual faith traditions tell us about life on earth and life after death. Knott approaches this question through the lens of what Zimmerman and West would consider "gender identity." How much of who we are and what we will become is dictated by our gender? Or, as West and Zimmerman ask, how much of who we are is influenced by socially accepted ideas about gender identity?

Knott's main theoretical perspective is that women see themselves as "destined" in certain ways. She exposes some of the thoughts women have about their own destinies in her paper. Do women see themselves as having a greater "destiny" somewhat in their control, or do they see themselves as being "destined" by a pre-determined fate, destined by being women? "Gender is decisive in what happens," says Knott, "In this sense women are destined." They are, she continues, destined by "what it means to be a woman." (Knott, 405) In this way, women's destinies are vastly different from men's. Hence, Knott's view is "one of a radical sexual difference." (Knott, 406)
It is helpful, here to further consider the West/Zimmerman paper on "Doing Gender." It is not simply gender alone that pre-determines fate. It is how society translates what gender and gender identity mean. "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, 128) This led to a distribution of responsibilities and labour based on gender identity and roles, as well as how women and men were viewed socially. So, in this respect, one could argue that our gender in fact does not pre-determine our destiny. It is the human made presuppositions associated with gender which can potentially impact one;s destiny.

Being a Good Woman
Knott, first, takes a look at what "being a good woman" has meant for the women's movement. As she points out, and I would agree, Hinduism gives a good example of this as women seem to rigidly identify with their roles as "good Hindu" women, wives and mothers. As Joy points out, "[b]a girl, by a young woman, or even an aged one, nothing must be done independently, even in her own house. In childhood, a female must be subject to her father, in youth to her husband, when her lord is dead to her sons, a woman must never be independent…. Though destitute of virtue, or seeking pleasure [elsewhere] or devoid of good qualities, a husband must be constantly worshipped as a god by a faithful wife." In this respect, it would seem that a Hindu women's destiny is directly predetermined by the men around her. What I noticed in Bali was that women could not imagine themselves beyond the confines of family and ritual responsibility, so much so that even going to work was for the main purpose of making more money for the family and ceremonies. Very little thought seemed to be given to what they could be doing as individuals. Women see their destinies through their commitment to their marriage, families and rituals. They believe that salvation will be attained for them through obedience toward, and praying for, their husbands.
As Knott notes, the example from Hinduism may be the most notable, but these views are certainly not isolated to Hinduism.

It is funny that I am writing on this today as earlier I caught a statement by a woman on television. It was, of course, the end of a show I was not paying great detail to and, by the time I caught it, this woman's name was no longer on the screen and I missed it in the credits so I have no source for her. But, what she said was the result of the women's movement has been largely "a legacy of stress." She based this on conversations with women and conversations with men. She noted that men admittedly said they felt they had not adequately stepped up to the plate to meet the expectations of women. Women, it seems to this scholar, are now putting themselves under a great deal of stress to be "good" at all sorts of things, while men have been, at worst, against the movement, or, at best, complacent, letting women do much more work while their responsibilities remain the same. There are, of course, many exceptions to be found. She was speaking "in general." Based on conversations I have had, I would say she is pretty much correct. In their paper "Doing Gender," West and Zimmerman also discuss this noting,"[w]ives, even when employed outside the home, do the vast majority of household and child-care tasks. Moreover, both wives and husbands tend to perceive this as a "fair" arrangement." I am not sure I know many working or even stay-at-home mothers who would agree with this but West and Zimmerman go on, citing research that concludes "[i]t is not simply that household labor is designated as "women's work," but that for a woman to engage in it and a man not to engage in it is to draw on and exhibit the "essential nature" of each." In other words, our ideas of gender identity and gender roles lead us to accept that this is the "natural way of things."
In my position (and I am aware I am in a unique situation in regards to the tradition I have married into) I work damn hard at being a "good" wife, mother, student, advocate, friend...all of it! And, I am exhausted all the time. More times than not, I arrive home to an empty house that is simply a mess waiting for me. I hear the same complaints from many of my friends. So, although women have achieved much through feminism, we are also in a situation where we are working longer days at harder tasks, often times without adequate support from our partners, who seem just fine with the situation. And, guess what? We, apparently, need to maintain our looks as well! Makes me wanna throw a fabulous and very expensive Manolo Blahnik stiletto through a plate glass window, as if I could afford to! (When did I turn into Carrie Bradshaw?)

Constructing Destiny
Knott takes a look into how women construct themselves within their own "destinies" and what that means. Some women, she notes, find their strength in religion. others have turned their back on religion in order to "construct" their sense of self. Knott acknowledges both of these views and, I feel, celebrates the fact that women choose to do so. However, she does point out that it is, first, difficult for women to do this in an exclusively secular way but also, second, that for women who turn to religion, "the answers [we seek]... are often of someone else's making and are generally closed answers, inviting conformity rather than creativity." (Knott, 408). So, how do we reconcile this. Where do women find their "middle ground?" How do we define our own roles and inspire ourselves in such an environment? I am still working on the answer for myself...

Becoming a Woman woman...
Here Knott poses the question "what can women become?" For men, Knott notes, this can be achievable through the sense that they have the image of "God"-the maleness of God-to aspire to or be inspired by. "Without her God/feminine divine, women lack the mirror they need to become,to accomplish their equivalent potential, their subjectivity." (Knott, 409) As Christ notes in her paper on "Why Women Need the Goddess, "[r]eligions centered on the worship of a male God create "moods" and "motivations" that keep women in a state of psychological dependence on men and male authority, while at the same legitimating the political and social authority of fathers and sons in the institutions of society." (Christ, 2)
I do have a strong sense of the feminine as divine and have images I connect to that sense of divine-ness, so I understand the need for the goddess. I don't believe this needs to come from outside of individual women to have meaning or justification. As noted, again, by Christ, it is individual and small groups of women who are finding the goddess for and within themselves. This is something that women themselves need to work on individually for themselves and in order to inspire change. However, admittedly and importantly, the absence of and lack of support for goddess images and traditions in western societies such as the one we leave in certainly does not encourage women to look toward the feminine as the divine.
Women have to discover this in large part on their own.
Who defined "God?" Men did. Men, who as Zimmerman and West point to, were constructing gender based societies. And, as Christ points out men also likely defined "Goddess," placing the image within a patriarchal belief system. Without the definition, God is just a word. All of that, it was all made by man-is all a human creation. Hence, it can be recreated. If people can "get" that-that all of these ideas are just ideas that have been accepted by the greater society and, hence, turned into norms, in the same way West and Zimmerman see gender itself as being a human created norm-we can realize that all of us are capable of creation, and recreation, in this way. It is up to us to put value on our sense of the divine feminine, whatever that means to us individually. It is through this realization, I would argue, that women can more easily come into their own sense of "fullness."

Terms...
The most obvious term to speak of here is "destiny." What does that mean? Is it predetermined through karma? Is one "destined" to a life of poverty and inequality, while another destined to a life of fame and wealth? Or, is destiny something more, something that we actually have a role in determining? Clearly, this is all subjective and, as such, up for debate.

As women, we are clearly "destined" in some way by our gender. But, being a "cup is half full" gal (is the term "gal" politically correct?), I tend to say "Wow! I was destined by my gender to give birth to an amazing daughter who is so full of life! I am destined to have a more intimate connection to the cycles of the earth and the moon than men are. I am destined to carry seemingly insurmountable burdens on my shoulder and not only survive but thrive as I overcome them." I think being a woman is a pretty damn good thing and I think it actually makes me holier in some ways than the men in my life. The other side of this is that I am very aware that some women are not encouraged to go beyond what they are born into, whether that be the caste system, a particularly androcentric Muslim community, or for a western woman living in a traditional or patriarchal household. This can only be changed as women becoming educated about their options and finding a source of support and encouragement to make any changes. Of course, the society one lives in must offer support for women to become empowered in the first place.

As far as my personal connection with God, I have no worries surrounding gender or the linguistic use of the terms "God" and "Goddess." For me, God, whoever God is, is so unimaginably transcendent that any definitions are inadequate. Yet, I also understand the importance of having a feminine image to connect with. I started my journey at the age of 18 so I feel rather comfortable with my idea of who God is. This is not at all to say that I am at the end of my journey or even that I am somehow right or more "advanced" than some people-not at all! I just feel comfortable with my relationship with the Divine. It is all the "stuff" surrounding religion and my place in it that throws me off. I truly think, as I described above, that if people connected more on an intimate level with their sense of the Divine, more people would feel more comfortable with themselves. Easier said that done, I admit. Many people need that connection with organized religion to give them a sense of God. My sense of God became so much clearer when I left organized religion the first time around.

In reading this paper, what I have learned is that women often need to walk a tightrope between what they may want for themselves and what society expects for them. Are women destined just through being women? I would say yes, absolutely. This has to do very much with what West and Zimmerman present in "Doing Gender," as I have pointed out in this commentary. I also believe that culture plays a huge role in this. Preconceptions around gender are not only humanly made but also culturally made. Hence one's culture will have a huge impact on their ideas about gender. This also plays into how feminism as a movement needs to be pliable as it enters different cultures. What is the norm in one culture can seem very radical to another. New ideas may not only be unacceptable to the men of some cultures but also to the women, regardless of how liberating those ideas may seem to us.

Mapping Feminist Histories-a Commentary on the roundtable

2008-11-16T13:46:00.000-08:00

"[H]istories have been written mostly by men about men for men." (Kassam, p 62)

With her round table discussion with Religious scholars Rita M Gross and Tazim R Kassam, Margaret Miles sets out to show that the histories of some of the world's great religions have been insufficiently able to portray women's involvement and histories, concluding that women have neither been successfully portrayed as being equal players nor as victims of wholly misogynistic agendas. Miles argues that these missing stories are needed to create the full picture of both women's roles and, essentially, of the traditions themselves. "[T]he larger
task of reconstructing inclusive histories remains to be done," she proclaims. (Miles, 45) The round table considers representations of women in Christianity (Miles), Buddhism (Gross) and Islam (Kassam).

Margaret Miles
In her consideration of women's histories in Christianity, Miles asks the question that many other feminist theologians and historians have asked, which is who is writing the stories. We can, in many cases, safely assumes that the "heroes," those who "won" historically wrote history. As noted by many, this writing of history undoubtedly came, for the most part, from elitist, white men of power. This can be problematic when one speaks of recreating the histories of women, those of colour, the poor, and anyone else who was not of the elite class of "thinkers." However, Miles argues, if one is to include in the study of history works of art and music, about, for and/or by women, one may come closer to a fuller picture, one that is more inclusive. Conclusions, although perhaps not concrete ones, can be made through study in this way that will help us better piece together the stories of those who, seemingly, don't seem to have a substantial place in history. Which is absurd, really, if we rightly acknowledge that women have always made up half the population and continue to do so. When one considers the absence of other groups in history, we can certainly conclude that it is, for the most part, an elitist, and therefore limited, telling of past events.
In times like the Renaissance where, Miles argues, women lost footing, one can question whether or not the stories of those women were adequately conveyed. (Miles, 45)
I really enjoyed Miles discussion on anecdotes (Miles, 48-49) and the way they "interrupt" the traditional telling of the story. I agree with her and find that, especially in cases where a power imbalance is evident, anecdotes remind us that there ca never be one side, or one exclusive telling, of any story. As Miles puts is, anecdotes have a way of resisting the "heroization" of the major figures in the stories. This is truly important if we are to understand the story in an unbiased way.
While typically the retelling of Christian history has been problematic when one attempts to examine th roles of women, Miles suggest three strategies that can assist us on our journey of understanding women's roles. These strategies are 1) the use of inclusion, 2) describing women's social experiences, and 3) examining and analyzing the reasons for the absence of text on women. I think Miles is right here and that a lot can be gleaned from, this type of re-examination. Including what we do already know about women who have been included in the texts, giving reader's a context from which to understand social restrictions put upon women, and explaining why women's voices are not heard creates the story that essentially has been missing from many Christian texts. This reminds me of a recent class I took on Judaism. We spoke of why the "fathers" were talked about so much more than the mothers. The professor explained that the rationalization was that Jewish lineage came from the mother. "We knew who the mother was," he said, "now, we had to confirm who the father was and that was what history noted." I am paraphrasing from memory here but I do feel I have gotten the essence of what he was saying-or, at the very least, my interpretation of it. In other words, mom's identity was already known and role was already assumed. The real story would be found in who the father is and what he was up to. This does not erase mom's role, it simply omits it. Which, for me, is hopeful. It is unfortunate that we do not have as good a record of women's stories but, with time and attention, we can salvage these stories of women as wives, mothers, daughters, sisters, lovers and give them a place in history. In salvaging these stories we will hopefully come across glimpses of women's own plights and victories and how their stories also shaped the early church. I think, in doing this, it is important to note, as Miles has, that "when feminist historians write about “fragmented, erased, and ephemeral voices” we cannot and should not “robustly reconstitute them.”16 What we can do instead is observe how “without their vague and fragile presence at the margins, the stalwart presences at the center would lose much of their vitality.” (Miles, 51)
Miles concludes her discussion, noting eloquently that any attempt to retell these "her"stories "does not attain but reaches for a feminist history of Christian thought. Many such attempts must be made before “herstory” can be adequately accomplished." (Miles, 52) This is, for me, perhaps the most important point she makes as it suggests that this exploration will be a complex one and one that will be ongoing. Understanding that we still, in this day, live in a society that is not wholly egalitarian and in times where women's voices are still not adequately represented or heard in certain, if not all religious traditions, means that this discourse will and needs to continue. The salvaging of

Rita M Gross
In her look at feminism in Buddhism, Gross describes a sense of layered “quadruple androcentrism” present within the tradition, ultimately resulting in the “unconscious assumptions that men are the normal, normative, important, and interesting human beings”. (Gross, 68) The four “layers” Gross describes are 1) the androcentric ways in which historical records are kept, created by men for men and supported by a sense of male dominance and a sexually segregated culture; 2) the abundant access the educated had to predominantly “male” texts at the exclusion of texts written for and by women, such as the Therigata; 3) the assimilation of predominantly androcentric texts into western Buddhist culture; and 4) the tradition of androcentrism in Western scholarship, which supported the study of male based texts and did not consider, at least early on, the works of female Buddhists.
I find these last two points particularly important as they rightly point to the androcentrism present in our own culture and, most sadly, specifically in academia, making this a problem not about “them” alone but also about us. We have own our responsibility for perpetuating this academic form of androcentrism. Clearly, Gross would agree when she states that Western androcentrism is the most devastating in this case. “[T]ime after time,” she continues, “I have found Western scholars’ assumptions that women are uninteresting and unimportant to be far more problematic than most of the norms and practices found in other religions and cultures.” (Gross, 70) As well, she claims Western scholarship has essentially “erased much of the information about women that was in plain sight,” along with overemphasizing a sense of disempowerment or helplessness they wish to portray about women in this tradition.
To fully start understanding women’s historical roles in Buddhism, Gross feels three areas need to be explored: “information about women’s religious lives; information generated from the study of cultural
norms pertaining to women, which do not always correspond to women’s actual religious lives; and information about goddesses and other mythological females, which may tell us almost nothing about women themselves, though their implications for contemporary feminist theology are profound.” (Gross, 70). Gross argues that information about women’s lives will be the most difficult to uncover, but also the most valuable of the information. I would agree with her. Information into goddess worship in a religion or into cultural norms can relatively easily be collected and quantified, however, while valuable, these observations do not give a real sense of what experience in their day to day lives as religious practitioners. Without a sense of these experiences, we are missing not only a part of the picture but nearly the whole picture.
Again in Buddhism, as in many other traditions, we find the token glorified woman who stands out for doing substantial for the tradition, something that goes beyond the confines of ordinary life. However, as Gross explains, many accomplishments achieved by women have been greatly eclipsed by the accomplishments of men, and by the academic practice of focusing in “his stories” as opposed to “her stories.”

Tazim R Kassam
Kassam, in her response, brings forth a very important point when she explains that "women were not the only unmarked subjects; so too were most Muslims who did not belong to the elite, urban, and ruling classes or did not represent positions of offi cial, mainstream, institutionalized religious authorities or did not center around the geographic “heartlands” of Islam, namely, the Middle East." It is very important to give women the place in history that they rightly deserve. However, it is also important to remember that those in the elite who have traditionally held power in the major religions excluded many people from the "conversation," and not only women. With this she suggest that we are looking at a human rights issue and not only a women's one. She also points out that one must realize western sholarship did not take women's issues into consideration in light of the history of the great religious traditions until the latter part of the twentieth century. (Kassam, 60)
Again, we find in Islam where women are not celebrated and, if so, are known for their connection to the men in their lives more than any contribution they, themselves gave to the tradition. Kassam also points to the reality that academia itself seems exclusive in its treatment of the roles of women. As noted in the introductory quote of this entry, Kassam describes Islamic, as well as Judaic and Christian, history as being written predominantly by men and for men, perpetuating a sense of "his"tory.
When, in the case of Islam "history is understood to mean a single narrative with official (often divine) sanction, it makes the question of history—how it is done, who may do it, and what sources are acceptable—a complicated and consequential enterprise, certainly one that was limited to a class of male specialists that protected its interests." (Kassam, 64) This attitude, hence, will make any attempt to "re-write" history so that it becomes more inclusive, problematic.
The idea of having the Prophet Muhammed as an example that is "both crucial and inspiring as bringer of the Qur’an" but also created a dilemma for women, in where "Muslim women would have a male body to aspire to as the exemplar of Muslim piety" has been problematic when it comes to the image of women. (Kassam, 64) A female example was, at this level of "holiness," absent. The depth of this dilemma is further understood as Kassam describes the importance of physical attributes, such as "wearing a beard and appreciating perfume."(Kassam, p 64) When one considers the fact that the hijab and burqa have been seen as cultural and not religious symbols, it is clear, then, that there is no firm example of how a Muslim woman should be physically defined. This may not seem problematic to women in the west, but to Muslim women, in a culture where devout men are clearly physically defined, the lack of a female image to aspire to could be problematic for some. Hence, argues Kassam, "the stakes of doing history are very high for Muslims, most of whom derive inspiration from and justify their present behavior using the past, particularly the formative period of Islam, as exemplary."
When Kassam presents the problem Muslim feminist scholars face in that they are at times discredited by those in their faith who see their messages influenced by western scholarship, while, in reality wanting to reinvent a sense of feminist theology that is rooted in tradition, the complexities of such an undertaking become apparent. For me, this may mean that the feminist undertakings in Islam may not look as such for those outside of the culture,particularly for those who are "western." It is important, hence that those of us studying such presentations realize that feminism will take many different forms. As religion has found, feminism will find itself morphing and evolving as it assimilates into the cultures it encounters. I think is an extremely important point that needs to be respected.

His and Her Stories
In regards to terms, I think it is essential for one to understand what is meant when they come across the terms "his" stories and "her" stories. Here, theologians are using language to point out that the past experiences of men and women-their histories-are not altogether one in the same. The accepted "history" or re-telling of past "facts" is essentially a biased telling, told through the words of those doing the telling. This means the story is essentially flawed in its ability to give a full and fair telling that is representative of the experiences of all involved. Well, that would mean that ANY re-telling of anything is flawed as a re-telling will always be biased. A feminist re-telling would then be biased. I do believe this is true. But the importance of this "bias" against the "bias" of the popularly accepted re-telling will also give a new perspective to the whole picture. It can then be argued that the biases of the two stories, when put together, simply give us a fuller, more inclusive picture. We can gather more about our own "her"stories as women (and of our collective histories as humans) if we acknowledge women's experiences than if our stories are based on men's experiences alone. Imagine if all that we knew of the slave trade was told through of the slave owners. Or what if we had been told the holocaust was a necessary evil, a result of the circumstances of war, without ever hearing the stories of the survivors. The result would be a very take on history which likely would have led to a very different looking present. These are extreme cases but I would argue that, because there have not been extreme mass "genocides" (for lack of a better word) against women (arguably there have, for example the witch hunts, but seemingly not on the same scale as the other two examples), their voices have sort of just been pushed to the sidelines and seen as not necessary in the retelling of history. I wonder what our present would have looked at if the emphasis would have been more on the "her"stories? My sense is it would have been decidedly different.

This is what has most affected me in the reading of this round table. How can we justify the biased-ness of accepted history? To think that women's voices have been so under represented for so long is amazing. For every great man there is an equally great woman. For every peasant man there is a peasant woman. For every son born there is a daughter. But these voices have been muted for so long!

When considering how this discussion ties into our intro readings, I go back to "Doing Gender" and the realization that one's present identity, at least the identity greater society imposes on individuals, is defined by their social experiences. What we are taught to believe about our histories and our socially formed notions of what is "man" and what is "woman" really do contribute to who are we are as people. But, how much do we want our own stories and, hence, present circumstances, to be defined by biased, external "accepted norms?" How much of this is the responsibility of the greater society in general to step up and admit this has been and is presently happening, and how much of it is our responsibility to say "No, I can find the answers myself, thank you." I would argue that the onus should be put on the greater society but the reality is we need to individually define our own experiences. Stories will be salvaged one by one and will then, hopefully, find their rightful place in history. But until our society can prove itself as completely egalitarian (which, by the way, is likely to never happen as there will always be an "underdog," "loser," or "scapegoat." John Lennon said "woman is the "N-----" of the world. If women can become equal players, it is likely another group will then take their place on the "N" list) much of this work will be done quietly by those who wish to take the time to discover lost truths. Similarly, our own experiences will either be overshadowed or defined by the greater society or will be uniquely chiseled out by individuals who choose to not only step outside the box but to remove themselves from the box completely.

We are women.
We are maternal nurturers. We make the meals and clean the houses. We stand behind our men. We are emotional and sensitive. We can rouse suspicion if we know too much. We are branded wives, witches, widows, and whores. Our heroines are burned at the stake or beheaded. We are the weaker sex.
We are women.
This is what I learned in my history books.

(image retrieved from http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/images1/joan_arc_rossetti.jpg Nov 15, 2008).

Review of Polinska "In Woman's Image"

2008-11-07T19:03:00.000-08:00

Main Theoretical Perspectives and Themes

With her article, Wioleta Polinska argues that, despite of the belief that "God" is transcendent and, hence, indefinable, Christians still overwhelmingly have a masculine image in mind when they think of or refer to God. Due to how we have been socialized, the association between God and the masculine seems to come naturally. This is a result in large part of the fact that the Christian religion has not offered up much in the way of feminine images of the divine. And what has been offered, Polinska describes as "ambivalent." However, Polinska concedes, these limited images have given more contemporary thinkers and artists a basis from which to develop a new image of such iconic women. Furthermore, she argues that along with the images of the Goddess or divine women, "visual images of God that represent women’s subjectivity could become powerful allies in our attempt to create a tradition that is inclusive of both genders." (Polinska, p 43)

Polinska starts her argument by investigating the literal meaning of "God" and how it has been portrayed in literature. This is an interesting investigation which points toward an early conclusion that God transcends all things and, hence, is indescribable, much in the way that Allah is referred to in Islam. Any images deemed "inadequate" in their portrayal of God should be rendered "meaningless." For me, this takes away all physical sense of what God could be. It leaves with me the feeling that God is genderless and, hence, the term itself could be deemed as such, regardless of what we may associate with it. This, in itself, is very liberating. Feminist theologians, however, would go one step further saying that, hence, the patriarchal images of God should be removed. (Polinska). The question is that, if we are to rid ourselves of "God" images in an attempt to create a transcendent, non-gendered non-image of God, should we then not be removing Goddess images as well? This is where the fun starts. As West and Zimmerman argued in their paper "Doing Gender," gender association and identity is created by the socialization of human beings and the messages we send out about what are and what are not "male" and "female" traits. So it is safe to assume, then, that we (that is to say humans) have imposed the notion of gender onto God and Goddess, as well as on to ourselves and those around us. Our need to create a gendered society has led to a gendering of everything, even those things we consider most sacred.
In a perfect world, it would either be no image at all, or balanced images of both, or one image that is representative of both the male and female as well as being transcendent of both at the same time. I would argue that ANY image of God,no matter how tastefully done, is in fact inadequate based solely on the fact that these images are created by humans who have no direct physical way of knowing how God should adequately be portrayed. This goes for misogynist and feminist artists alike, I'm afraid. Yet, clearly, we will continue to have the artist's rendition of "God." So, how can the divide be reconciled? As well, as individuals many of us will continue to imagine, in our own minds, what God looks like, pointing to a need for images. I believe that having a sense that God is transcendent but also having a need to create or connect with a certain image to help on ego deeper into their personal relationship with the Divine can be reconciled if people are to realize that our images, although arguably important and helpful are, in fact, insufficient in their attempt to wholly portray God. With this type of acknowledgment, I see no real conflict.

Again, we speak of God language. I have mentioned before that, for me, the ideal would be that the ultimate sense of God is referred to as the Divine who is free of all defining characteristics. Barring that, it would have been preferred if the term "God" had been presented in such a way historically that it was representative of both, and yet neither, genders. But perhaps the term "God" in itself could have been, had humans not associated gender with the term in the first place. Again, this is where the West/Zimmerman paper and our socially developed and accepted ideas of gender identity comes into play. Clearly, this all goes back to the creation story and "man's" supposed dominance over all other creatures. A sense of transcendence over gender and anything else would be ideal. Many in history have attempted to give the terms a non-gendered feeling. As Polinska cites, "[w]orks of Greek fathers from Clement, Origen, Irenaeus to Chrysostom, Ambrose and Augustine refer to Christ as mother." We are talking about powerful, male Greek thinkers here. Yet, these ideas have clearly not stood the test of time due likely to the gendered and self protectionist natures of human beings West and Zimmerman discuss, and the hierarchies created within their societies.

Polinska next considers the idea of spirit as mother. I find it interesting that what would likely be considered blasphemous now (Jesus as mother, the breasts of the father) were seen as "important theme[s] in medieval times." (Polinska, p 46) I found it very surprising that women were not the originators of such images and were not overly attracted to them. (Polinska, p 46) As Polinska points out, however, these images did contain gendered stereotypes such as the loving, nurturing role of Christ as the mother. This is starting to sound to me a lot like the Hindu pantheon with its many manifestations of the divine, to be honest. But, as Polinska points out, the fundamental problem with the images is that they "function within the male-dominated structure." (Polinska, p 47) I can see her point but I still find it incredible that these were the ways in which the divine was portrayed by the men of those times. I am more of a "the cup's half full" person myself and, in this case, I think the cup is pretty darn near half full with their attempts to expand the image of God. And, Polinska seems to agree with me when she says "we should
applaud the Church Fathers and Mothers who creatively engaged the
biblical sources picturing God with feminine aspects. Although their
efforts might not be satisfying for our needs, their resourcefulness in
expanding the familiar concept of God should encourage us to construct
more adequate theological paradigms." (Polinska, p 47)

The socially accepted images of God have predominantly been that of the male. Polinska contends that this is due to the fact that any female attributes God was depicted as having were only attributes and that God was, then, essentially always male. (Polinska, p 48). She points to the Trinitarian images as particularly apropos in relation to this theory. The trinitarian images of God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost have always been portrayed in ways that are decidedly masculine with each figure having similar features. (p 49) And, finally, we get the depiction of God the Father as most of us know him: as a wise looking old man with long white beard and hair, based on the Olympian God Jupiter. These images, though some of them condemned (Polinska), illustrate for Polinska how deeply rooted gender issues were in the early church, with the maleness of Christ, God and even the Holy Spirit trumping any other attributes.

With the exception of Mother Mary, there is not much iconography dedicated to women in the Christian church. Although Polinska cites the many ways that Mary has been exalted through these images, it is for her, again, the fact that these images were created by men for men that is problematic. (Polinska, 53) Again, these images portray characteristics that men have used to describe Mary and, even when pictured alone, her connection to the male trinity is clearly illustrated. Hence, the images seem to be less about the woman than about her place within the lives of the men around her.

In closing, however, Polinska does indeed delight in the idea of feminine depictions of the divine. She sees a real validness in them that would represent women as subjective and, hence, more equal partners in Christianity. I do agree with her that having more feminine images of the divine are needed to adequately represent women's roles in religion and their depictions of the divine itself. But, again, I do have to question the validity of any of it if we are talking about what can be considered acceptable representations and what cannot. For me, I think it is an "all or nothing" situation. If we maintain that some images can be considered idolatrous based on whether or not the image of the divine is adequately depicted, what makes other images acceptable? Can we look through only one lens and say "this is right and this is wrong" with such great certainty that we are correct? As much as I feel we need the image of the divine feminine, I do not think we can use those images to validate what we think is right about God. The truth is none of us know. So, I accept and appreciate the need to create but I think it needs to be done in an exclusive way from all sides.

I was happy to see Polinska herself question our need to portray the image of God, citing Islam, Judaism and the Eastern Orthodox church as faiths close to our own who have denounced this idea. However, as noted in the Joy paper, women of these traditions do not enjoy egalitarian relationships within their faiths, regardless of the absence of a gendered God. This would lead one to believe that the issues regarding a social need for gendering, as discussed by West and Zimmerman, trumps most everything else when it comes to identity and what one's identity means in a socio-cultural context.
Polinska concludes here that any struggles to arrive at a depiction of God within human limitations would render those depictions idolatrous according to many early Christian theorists such as Calvin. (Polinska, p 55) I would not say I would ever go that far as I do see the value and the beauty in different portrayals of the divine. The images of the Hindu pantheon are, for example, in part what is so attractive to me about the tradition. But, as I mentioned earlier, in light of this conversation, I would have to wonder whether any depiction of God can ever be deemed as having a likeness to God, or even as a necessary act in itself. I think we must, as well, be sensitive to the cultural depictions of the divine. As seemingly hard as it is for some to face, Jesus, Mary and all those other characters were not "western" and should not be portrayed as such. At times, I find these culturally sensitive issues much more pressing. And this is what I mean by "all or nothing." There is not room for bias from any direction. It is admittedly true that "western" men of power have had the monopoly when it comes to expressing most anything religiously. We need a more diverse representation. Yet, again, I do not think any of us can ever declare what depiction is more accurate.

Terms
In regards to terms, I did not find it overly necessary to understand certain terms in order to have a deeper understanding. One obvious exception, however, is the term "God" itself. For those of us who have a deep sense of what they feel or believe God to be and cannot see beyond this, this article may have been problematic. One's reaction to this article would have been deeply connected to their sense of "God" and what, if any, image God would take. Beyond that, I have no words to further describe God.

I did enjoy this article and feel some good points were raised. I feel strongly that our most important spiritual relationship is the one we have with our own concept of God/Goddess. So, for me, I love the idea of God being wholly transcendent and, hence, undefinable but think that whatever image we gravitate to, if it helpful, is fine. Yes, as Christ points out in her article, women DO need the goddess. But, I would go further saying people in general often need a personal, identifiable image. It is among these images where one can start to define their relationship with the divine. Having a sense of a personal image of the divine, an image that connects an individual to the divine, can also lead to greater feelings of connection and self worth (such as for women who can find themselves in the images of the Goddess and, likewise, find elements of the Goddess within themselves).
As Morny Joy discussed in her article, there is a tendency to define women as unclean or unholy due to perceived "pollution." Hence, having an image of the Divine Goddess that is seen as holy should give most people the perception that the Divine feminine is worthy, holy and good enough. These Goddess images really challenge the idea that the feminine cannot be seen as divine. In fact, as I have argued before, I believe the cycles women go through make us more divine than men and, in fact, closer to God-whoever God is...

Whose Pantheon is it anyway? A Review of the Gross article

2008-11-07T14:00:00.000-08:00

I am admittedly having a hard time wrapping my head around this article, which is challenging me to rethink what I presume to know about the Hindu pantheon. Because much of what I have been exposed to has celebrated the Goddess, I am confused as to what to do with Gross's examination. In Bali, at least, there is a sense of a higher God, who they refer to as Sanghyang Widhi Wasa and of the trimurti (trinity) of Brahma, Wishnu (Balinese sp)and Shiwa (Balinese sp). The Balinese, who are decidedly Shavaite (Skt) in their traditions, still accept Brahma as part of this trinity. The idea of Dewi (Balinese sp) as part of the trinity of major, shall we say, Hindu lineages, has not yet been accepted. Yet, the individual Goddesses, like Dewi Sri for fertility and Dewi Saraswati for the arts, are worshiped and celebrated on days devoted to them. Along with my relatively limited knowledge of Hinduism as it is presented in India (that's an impossible statement to defend!), this is the context from which I will attempt to respond to Gross's work. I in no way feel educated enough to consider myself an expert (ha ha!) on this topic, yet I do have some opinions about what she has presented.

(Since I am unable to appropriately footnote here, I would like to take a moment to explain that anytime that a "V" is used in Sanskrit, that "V" is replaced by a "W," in both spelling and pronunciation in Balinese and, likewise, in Indonesian. In the case of the word "Shavaite, I have not come across a Balinese translation, hence did not put one. As well, I have presented much of the above from memory and my own experiences, and also with verification through my husband, Nyoman Sumerta.)

Theoretical Perspective and a Counterargument...
Gross's main argument is that the Hindu pantheon in its current form is androcentric, meaning male centred and stemming from a patriarchal worldview. She feels as though the way the pantheon is presented incorrectly locates [a] "fault line in gender," which should be reconsidered. (Gross, p 325) Now, this will take much investigation to work out but I will attempt to do some of this work here. She is also concerned that, based on this, students studying religion will misinterpret the importance of the devi from the everyday practice of Hinduism based on what they are exposed to scholarly. I understand what she is saying insomuch that it would appear that Shiva and Vishnu are the predominant deities and then the goddesses are just lumped together under the term "Devi" or "Shakti." It is my understanding, however, that the Goddesses are interchangeable and are all respresentative of the aspects of one Divine Mother. Shiva is traditionally known as the destroyer, Vishnu the sustainer, and Brahma the creator. Devi would then refer to the sense of a Mother Goddess and her aspects, would it not? Well, let's see what I can find out...

According to exoticindiaart.com "[w]hatever the mode of her origin, attributes or aspects, the Puranas, at least the earlier ones, saw Devi as the personified sole female energy of the cosmos, the comprehensive dynamic principle, and the universe as its manifestation...the Devi has been perceived as the one dynamic principle that the universe manifested in its oneness." (retrieved from http://www.exoticindiaart.com/article/devi/2/ Nov 7th 2008). The sole female energy of the cosmos. Hhmmm. That seems to deliver a blow to the theory that the pantheon is androcentric, as, if the devis are all representative of the one "sole female energy," then presenting further devis would either be in contrast with this belief or, as I will argue, would be manifestations of the one divine. If we consider this theory, then maintaining that there is only one devi would be, in fact, correct. The website does, however, go on to explain that the union of deities is easier to understand in theory than in practice as most devotees accept the other manifestations of the divine as entities in their own rights. But, is it not also correct that many more devas beyond just Vishnu and Shiva are also offered up in the pantheon? I am not seeing how the presentation of the pantheon can be problematic in this light as each of the main deities-namely Shiva, Vishnu and Devi-create lineages in their own right and, within each lineage, many other gods and goddesses are also acknowledged and honoured. In fact, I see the accessibility to so many different aspects of the divine, whether male or female representations, liberating to not only women but to all individuals.
As Morny Joy points out in her paper "The Role (or Non Role) or Women in Religion," when speaking of "exceptional women" of historic India, "Female followers of the Divine Mother in the guise of the goddesses Kali or Durga, and thus regarded as embodiments of the divine feminine energy Shakti, while not as numerous [as those who followed male deities], are also in evidence." (Joy, 7)
At asia.si.edu, I came across this:
"Today hundreds of millions of Hindu men and women conduct regular pujas to the deity known as Devi, or sometimes simply the Goddess. For some she is their primary deity, while for others she is part of a greater pantheon. Embodying the feminine principle, she has innumerable aspects and manifestations. All Hindu goddesses, in fact, can be seen as different forms of Devi." Again,this website points to the fact that "Goddess worship was widespread in early prehistoric India. Later, invading populations brought with them new ideas and elevated the popularity of male gods. Although the primary deity worshiped in most major Hindu temples today is masculine, worship of the Goddess coexists in shrines and temples throughout India." (retrieved from http://www.asia.si.edu/pujaonline/puja/devi.html, Nov 7, 2008). We can clearly find some historical androcentrism here. But, as the goddess seems to have evolved into the idea of one major Divine Mother with many manifestations who is, as cited above, the "one dynamic principle that the universe manifested in its oneness," can it be argued that the pantheon is androcentric? I am unsure it can.
In her argument, Gross goes on to explain that "Hindu goddesses simply are not a poor third in comparison with the male deities in the affections of Hindu people or in the frequency with which they are worshipped. Nor are they all faceless identical versions of a generic goddess, any more than are the male deities, though in some versions of Hindu theology, both gods and goddesses are declared to be nothing more than diverse names for an underlying reality. Somehow, this theological point gets lost when discussing the anthropomorphic deities; Vishnu and Shiva are never lumped together as a generic god, while very diverse goddesses are reduced to a generic goddess." (Gross, 323) In response, I again return to how traditionally the major deities have been seen. Vishnu is considered the sustainer and has a lineage of followers who also tend to gravitate toward Krishna and to Lakshmi, the goddess representing prosperity. Shiva is considered the destroyer and is often linked to Parvati, Durga (who actually is often depicted as standing on top of a subservient Shiva) or Shakti power in general. Devi, as I understand it, is a representation of the divine feminine with many manifestations and also has her own followers, both male and female, in those who consider themselves Shaktas. As well, I do not see her as being represented by many nameless, faceless entities but by devis that represent a whole array of attributes.
As far as lumping together very diverse goddesses and not lumping together gods, what do we do then with Ganesha, who is lumped in with Shiva? Or Krishna who is seen as an avatar of Vishnu, along with Matseya and others? There are many lesser gods and goddesses in the Hindu pantheon who are not "lumped together" perse, but represented as different aspects of the divine. This is where I think Gross's argument really loses steam.
Where I am inclined to agree with Gross is when it comes to the scholarly presentation of the pantheon. Although I have not read all of the texts Gross points to, I have explored enough textbooks (thanks for the RAship, Dr J!) to know there is a sense that the goddess plays a less significant role in many texts. They do seem to be lumped together but, if I am to support my argument that the endless manifestations of devis are only manifestations of the one Divine Goddess or Mother, then this would make sense. The question would then be, is this how the texts present this argument? Are they doing it succinctly enough? One could also argue that it is unfair that Jainism and Sikhism seem to be lumped in together with Hinduism in many texts. So, the question, for me, comes down to one of scholarly representation as opposed to the reality of the faith traditions themselves. Ask a Jain or Sikh whether she would see herself as lesser than a Hindu, and you will, decidedly, have a fight on your hands, regardless of the fact that their faiths often seem to be represented as "lesser" in academic text books.

If one is to do an advanced .edu google search of the phrase "hindu pantheon," the first site to come up is http://ksuweb.kennesaw.edu/~tkeene/ogt0508pantheon.htm. In this presentation, the pantheon does, in fact, seem androcentric, although nothing appears to be uniform in the presentation, ouside of the fact that Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are seen as the major gods (similarly to the Balinese Hindu pantheon I am familiar with). Some of the devis seem to play a lesser role in comparison to their deva counterparts, and others seem to play a superior role to them (i.e. Lakshmi as compared to Krishna) But, is this a reflection of the pantheon or the scholarship around it, whether that scholarship be western or Indian? I would argue the latter. I actually feel that, upon further investigation, Gross would have been better to say the pantheon is androcentric when the major deities are presented as Brahma, Shiva and Vishnu without much mention of a Divine Devi. I think this would have made for a much more compelling argument.
If we go to the Power Point presentation by Laura Shulman found at www.nvcc.edu/home/lshulman/Rel231/resource/HinduPantheon2.ppt and at www.nvcc.edu/home/lshulman/rel231/resource/hinduism.ppt, we find yet another representation of the pantheon that does not seem nearly as androcentric. There is talk of the consorts of the major gods-who, again, are seen as Brahma, Shiva and Vishnu-but there is significant exploration into the Goddess and her manifestations. The presentation also maintains that there are "[m]any deities but a single, impersonal Ultimate Reality" in Hinduism. I think where Gross oversimplifies is in her inability to sufficiently describe the Devi as the Divine Mother with the other goddesses being manifest of her. Instead, she is compelled to argue that all the goddesses are being lumped together and presented as lesser than their male counterparts. I do not see it this way at all. If the devis are, in fact, lumped together, it would likely have much more to do with them being aspects of the one feminine divine. I do not see them as being lumped together but actually as represented all over the place in the pantheon. But, I would not stray from the argument that each devi is a manifestation or aspect of the one divine feminine Devi.
Gross argues that "[t]hose Hindus who put forth the androcentric model of the Hindu pantheon are an elite and a minority themselves, not necessarily sympathetic to the religious practices of non-elite Hindus." (Gross, p 320) I am certain there is much truth to this. But, as we all know by now, this is the case in most, if not all, major faith traditions.

I have another concern when Gross speaks of an inability to compare monotheistic religions with Hinduism (Gross, p 323). As most scholars are aware, the question as to whether Hinduism is polytheistic or monotheistic (the deities being representative of one divine aspect) is hotly debated. As found on a .edu page entitled "About Hinduism," "Hindu beliefs span monotheism, polytheism, monism, and atheism, but any such term is an oversimplification of the variations found in Hindu traditions. Most Hindus, however, believe that the atman, the true self of every person, is eternal." (retrieved from http://www-scf.usc.edu/~hso/index_files/Page457.htm). This description of Hinduism rightly implies that making any sweeping generalizations about the nature of Hinduism can be dangerous as there are countless expressions of the tradition, both within India and in the greater diaspora. I feel that there is a fair amount of research available that can support the theory that Hinduism could be, in fact, monotheistic or likely more aptly monist, and was only described as polytheistic by outsiders who did not fully understand the tradition. But, again, I have not yet come to a conclusion as I feel I need to further understand the tradition myself. I would also question whether or not the Christian trinity and the Catholic worship of Saints are truly representative of a wholly monotheistic tradition.
I most agree with Gross when she concedes that "the very idea of a model of the Hindu pantheon, even the idea that there is a pantheon, an organized collection of all the gods of Hindu polytheism, is somewhat artificial." (Gross, p 323) This is what I have been arguing all along when I have said the many deities are only representations of the one divine entity. The pantheon, which as Gross describes is itself constantly evolving, is only a man made representation of how the deities have been historically depicted. I would also agree with her when she suggests that [i]mmanent non-dualism, so commonly presented as the dominant Hindu doctrine is, I
would suggest, simply a philosophical and abstract reading of the sense of all-pervading sacred presence...If that is correct, then the many deities of Hindu polytheism are simply crystallizations—high points of energy—in the generally sacred phenomenal world." (Gross, p 6) This seems, however, somewhat counter to her main arguments and concerns.
As she closes her argument, Gross suggests a pantheon that would be "organized around a dyadic, ‘moksha-dharma’ model rather than around the triadic ‘Vishnu, Shiva, Devi’ model for several reasons. First, it builds upon one of the most illuminating models of Hinduism as a whole. Second, it is not hierarchical, regarding either number or gender. Oneness is not privileged over plurality, and maleness is not privileged over femaleness. Third, it is not androcentric and does give the impression that male deities are more normal and important than female deities." (Gross, p 325) It is with this suggestion that Gross comes back into favour for me. She explains her theory further: "The deities who patronize dharma—Vishnu, Laksmi, Krishna, Radha, Rama, Sita, Sarasvati—also patronise moksha in subterranean ways. The deities who patronise (sic) moksha—Shiva, Kali, Durga—also have a major concern with the continuity of dharma. By making it very clear that no deity is only a destroyer and no deity only a preserver, but that all deities manifest a symbolism of the coincidence of opposites in every detail of their mythology and iconography, we can easily present a much more vivid and accurate portrait of deities like Vishnu and Shiva." (Gross, p 326)
She goes on to concede that most Hindu deities are, in fact, essentially more hermaphrodite and "not ultimately single-sexed" and continues by saying, "[f]emale and male deities are interdependent and dominance flutters back and forth between them." (Gross, p 326)

A helpful term to understand is pantheon. Pantheon in this sense refers to the presentation of gods and goddesses within hinduism. The Hindu pantheon is a seemingly endless account of the gods and goddesses and how they are connected to one another.
Androcentrism is an extremely important word to understand within any study of feminism. Androcentrism refers to the male dominated ways of thinking and creating systems that are influenced by patriarchal societies. It is important to our discussion here as Gross rightly points out that the Hinduism is primarily a patriarchal system and its followers are, therefore, often to and influenced subject to androcentric ideals.
Polytheism is an important concept to understand. Polytheism is the belief in more than one god and is a polar opposite of monotheism, which is the belief in only one god. Monism is the belief that everything can be reduced to one divine substance. I think it is important to understand both monism and monotheism to fully understand polytheism.

I am having a harder time trying to tie this all into the introductory readings but I think I would have to say this could be tied into Balzer's article. Balzer herself explores identity and religion in Asian cultures and speaks of Buddhist nuns who abandon their own gender identity to achieve liberation, if not in this life than perhaps on the next. Although the Hindu pantheon seems to someone like me to be a relatively egalitarian expression of Hinduism, how does this translate to the Hindu women in their daily lives? On one level I would suggest it does as women could potentially connect with a sense of the goddess through the pantheon-something they could perhaps relate. Does this happen? We can look to ritualistic events for women within Hinduism. Balzer herself points to events within Buddhism, such as rituals honouring the Grain Mother where "[w]omen play key roles in the mostly domestic
rice fertility rituals that both augment and change Buddhist male-monk oriented ceremony by valorising indigenous De’ang myths." (Balzer, 178) We can also, of course, look to the Christ article on why women need the Goddess. "The strength and independence of female power can be intuited by contemplating ancient and modern images of the Goddess. This meaning of the symbol of Goddess is simple and obvious, and yet it is difficult for many to comprehend. It stands in sharp contrast to the paradigms of female dependence on males that have been predominant in Western religion and culture." (Christ)
The reality is, however, women in Hinduism struggle against androcentrism within their communities and within the caste system. Regardless of the fact that goddess traditions are alive and well within Hinduism, women are still considered impure and are unable to enter temples when they are menstruating or immediately after giving birth. This leads one to wonder whether the goddess as part of a patriarchal system actually does represent feminine divinity that is relatable to the female devotee. Likley,it would not. But, I also still maintain that no matter how the pantheon is organized and re-organized, it probably will not make much of a difference within the context of traditional Hinduism.

This has been mucky and exhausting work for me as I try to unravel my feelings paragraph by paragraph. I guess I would sum up my position as this: although I do not agree with much of Gross's attempts to support her argument, I do appreciate her final offering of a new pantheon. Do I think it is entirely necessary? No, I frankly do not. But, if asked to consider the value in it, I would argue it is a valuable way in which to "organize" a truly unorganizable pantheon. I suggest the pantheon is unorganizable due to the vast amount of deities that are ever growing and expanding. I almost find it futile to try to organize so many different deities that, at the core, arguably represent only one universal spirit. So, although I find Gross's adaptation a valid one, I did not see it as being fully necessary. The next question would be, do the millions of Hindus around the world see the value in changing their pantheon based on what a western scholar deems appropriate. Let the real controversy begin...

The Goddess Factor-Review of Christ article

2008-10-26T18:58:00.000-07:00

Upon reading Christ's article "Why Women Need the Goddess," I find myself thinking that she could not be more correct in making such a statement. I am attracted to the Goddess aspect in Hinduism and to the sense that women are profoundly connected to the cycle of life, the moon, the earth, and likely the greater universe in general, which is often spoken about in Goddess traditions. The sense of "Goddess," I believe, gives women a sense of the divine that they can at once identify and connect with. It also helps nurture the sense that there is a divine aspect in each of us. Finally, I think the sense of Goddess also heals many women who have in the past had negative experiences in regards to the patriarchal hierarchy of their respective faith traditions. It is enough to be a woman. In fact, it is exactly what is needed of us, both from without and from within.

Main Theoretical Perspective and Themes

Christ's main theoretical perspective is that the religious imagery, symbols, etc society is exposed to-mainly male depictions-plays a significant part in how we individually connect to a sense of the divine. It is this imagery, in large part, that influences how we "imagine" or define our "personal" views of the divine in a "physical" sense (i.e.: God as a white bearded, wise old man seated on a throne amongst the Heavens). As a result, it is the overwhelming association and worship of a male God that we have been socialized to identify with that "keep women in a state of psychological dependence on men and male authority, while at the same legitimating the political and social authority of fathers and sons in the institutions of society." (Christ, p 2) Furthermore, Christ contends that this association gives the impression that women will never be as spiritually worthy or divine as men. As women continue to pray exclusively to a male image of the divine, they "acknowledge the anomaly of female power." (Christ, p 2)

One of the themes Christ considers is that of the modern day connection with Goddess from faiths such as Hinduism. This connection, Christ contends, is one that is filtered through the lens of modern day women and their interpretations of the traditions. "Traditions of Goddesses' subordination to Gods, for example, are ignored," in modern day interpretations, Christ maintains, continuing that "Ancient traditions are tapped selectively and eclectically, but they are not considered authoritative for modern consciousness. " (Christ, p 2) I agree with her here as I think an exploration into the "trend" of modern day "spiritualists" as they pick and choose their own religion as if at a salad bar, is something that needs to be questioned on many levels. On one hand, there is a sense that if an individual is empowered by certain aspects of one or more faith traditions and chooses to make that a part of their faith "regimen" (and to me it often looks like a regimen), what harm is there? On the other, is it appropriate for one to claim to be a Buddhist, Hindu, Jew (and I am specifically thinking of Kabbalists here-I love you but, sorry, Madonna. And yet perhaps she is versed in this so who am I to judge? God, so many layers! "God"...so many layers..), etc without a cultural or historical context that they have been exposed to, attempt to understand or are actively engaged in? This, for me, is problematic and was a big factor in why I stepped away from the 1990's incarnation of 3H0, to be honest. I struggle with this today when I think about any "role" I play in Hinduism. There is the side of Hinduism that I have idealized and there is the side I wish to completely reject. I have a relatively substantial amount of knowledge, at least in terms of Balinese Hinduism, but how do I reconcile all of it? How does anyone? It's a fine line to walk.

Christ also points to the importance of understanding what the term "Goddess" essentially means. "The simplest and most basic meaning of the symbol of Goddess is the acknowledgment of the legitimacy of female power as a beneficient and independent power." (Christ, p 4) Thinking of "Goddess" in this way is quite empowering as it points to the idea that the sense of Goddess is within our reach and not beyond it, which is contrary to what is often taught about "God." I admire this sense in many of the Goddess traditions that come across as very earthy to me and that speak of the "Goddess within you." Unfortunately that phrase in recent times has been exploited by the cosmetics industry. Again, one could argue here that the male dominated marketing hierarchy is attempting to convince women they can be "goddesses" by being cosmetic and using "divine" products. Makes one's stomach turn, does it not? Yes, there have been past attempts to make men look like Greco-Roman "Gods" in the media for marketing purposes. But, how often do we hear "Be a God...shave your beard!" How much more can the marketing industry exploit women? Have they really stooped so low now as to exploit the goddess traditions in such a paltry way? It appears the short answer is yes. This is something Christ did not touch upon but, I feel, needs attention.
To return to Christ's take on the term and the issues we bring up surrounding it, she points to a quote by the feminist priestess Starhawk who says "[My definition of Goddess] all depends on how I feel. When I feel weak, she is someone who can help and protect me. When I feel strong, she is the symbol of my own power. At other times I feel her as the natural energy in my body and the world." (Christ p 5). Christ seems to feel that this statement holds a wisdom that has been lost in western traditions. I would agree. I think this statement points to the strength and empowerment that women can find in the sense of Goddess. And yet, is there still here a concern that women who believe in this are, again, picking and choosing their own practices? Are they defining for themselves what religion should be and, if so, is that okay? Again, for me, this is a gray area. It speaks more of a sense of spirituality than of religion and, in that sense, is fine. But, do we need something more "defined" if we are talk of a religious movement? I really sense that I am evolving in big ways here as, a few weeks ago I may have said we need to stay somewhat true to tradition. But now, the more I am delving into this, I see that there should be room for some personal definition of a sacred relationship with the divine that goes beyond what religion offers. Having a fundamental base, I believe, is still very important. Yet the personal relationship is just that: personal. Hence, as such, I would argue, can be defined in that light.

Christ discusses the "important implication of the Goddess symbol for women is the affirmation of the female body and the life cycle expressed in it." (Christ, p 5). I think this is an incredibly important point. As women, we are not polluted or polluters who need to be cleansed. We are life givers. We birth and nurture (in the most natural sense) our children. I want to say I am not anti-cleansing as I have been ritually cleansed before alongside my husband. I am, however, anti-cleansing in a way that would express a unique need for women to be cleansed more intensely (due to menstruation, etc). Clearly, women DO need to worry about bodily fluids more than their male counterparts. What a woman does about this in the privacy of her own bathroom is up to her. But to publicly be seen as something that is impure and needs special cleansing is something I do not feel is appropriate. Christ argues, quite aptly, that the "symbol of Goddess aids the process of naming and reclaiming the female body and its cycles and processes." (Christ, p 6) I think this is an incredibly powerful statement. I have always felt connected to the cycles of the moon and to my own physical body through yoga. It is in yoga where I connect most deeply to a sense of Goddess, or shakti, power. Again, this is something that can be somewhat personified, that is within us. The celebration of womanhood is a sumptuous idea, and is one I hope to instill in my daughter. I have held Goddess parties in the past for pregnant friends where guests can bring gifts for baby if they wish but MUST bring pampering gifts for mama. The idea of celebrating my daughter's first menstruation is something new to me and something that I now long to do. The idea that women who are entering menopause and, essentially, the third stage in their lives, should also be celebrated is also exciting and desperately needed to adequately mark a time where women traditionally feel marginalized and "put away" (and, one could argue, men desperately need to be celebrated as they are "put out to pasture" as well). So, viewing these stages as rites that are holy and that need to be celebrated, as events that the Goddess herself, in her many incarnations, symbolically passes through, gives a sense of vitality to the stages of women's lives that is otherwise missing in modern day society.

The idea of women's ritualistic powers (such as witchcraft, magic, etc) are also discussed by Christ. Christ points to Christianity here and says that women's intuition and power is often seen as evil due to the connection between perceived evil powers and the fall of Eve/temptation of Adam. The Goddess centred traditions, Christ maintains, the intuition and "will" of the woman is valued. "A woman is encouraged to know her will, to believe that her will is valid, and to believe that her will can be achieved in the world, three powers traditionally denied to her in patriarchy." (Christ, p 7) Here, a woman's powers as valued as much as a man;s and are not feared or diluted but, rather, celebrated.
As a practitioner of yoga and one who suffers from scoliosis, I have often read that women cannot achieve the same heights as men and that those without a straight spine will never feel the full force of kundalini. Those have been pretty discouraging words to hear but they have also not stopped me from saying "who is to say how far my practice will take me?" So far,it has allowed me the luxury of teaching and practicing all over the world. Yoga may not be exactly what Christ is speaking of, yet it certainly feels quite similar to me (specifically if one considers the magic associated with the Yoga Sutras). Why is is that if men have "psychic" powers they are seen as great teachers yet, in many cases, if women have the same or similar powers, they are ostracized and hunted? I do know that many men have also been persecuted for this exact same thing, yet it does seem as if a double standard is often at play in regards to what is acceptable behaviour for women and what is not. I do, however, tend to shy away from the idea of withcraft and from women labeling themselves as witches, which I view as a derogatory word. I view it as derogatory not in its original essence (one who is wiccan) but rather in the way it has been historically misconstrued and exploited. If I was practicing wicca, I would likely refer to myself as a wiccan as opposed to a witch. And, yet, if women who consider themselves witches see the power in the reclaiming of that word, I think that is a wonderful thing.

Finally, Christ maintains that Goddess-centred traditions allow for a "revaluation of women's bonds and heritage" that could not occur in most other faith traditions. Again,I think this is an important aspect and explains the appeal of Goddess traditions. To be able to connect with other women in a place that is safe and that is not dictated by a androcentric, or male-centred, patriarchal hierarchy is likely very appealing to most women. As Christ maintains, female bonds and relationships are enriched in these types of traditions, such as the bond between mother and daughter, which is not often explored in Christianity. (Christ, 9). My question is, do we need a Goddess tradition in which to do this? Can this not be done in our own faith traditions among women as they come together in faith? I would argue that yes it can be but I also acknowledge the potency of the goddess tradition in supporting these types of relationships. There is something potent, however, in most meetings that are exclusive-either deliberately or unintentionally-to women. I would also suggest that a re-evaluation of women's roles in most religious faiths, particularly in how women can come together and support each other, is much needed. Where do we start? After reading this, I will start with my own daughter and also make an active attempt to revitalize and, perhaps, redefine my role as daughter and sister.

Terms
The term to understand here, clearly, is Goddess. How does one define Goddess? Should it be capitalized or should it not? Is it as potent as the term "God," or even "god." These are not, in themselves, questions Christ posed but are important questions to consider as we read her words. How one defines Goddess and how one connects or disconnects to the word (as I described my own feelings of the term "witch," for example) will really determine how one feels at the end of this paper. For many more "traditional" women who do not come from a faith where the Goddess is recognized, the idea of coming together as empowered women can mean many different things and yet can still be very empowering. But the idea of being empowered through the Goddess can seem very foreign, taboo and likely blasphemous to some. I can tie this in to Balzer's article on the construction sites of gender and religion. As women attempt to redefine (or even just define) themselves through the lens of their faith traditions, they will come up against many obstacles that are both external and internal. I believe the definitions of "Goddess" and "Goddess traditions" are smack in the middle of one of these intersections. How can one, who does not want to altogether leave their own faith tradition, reconcile a personal sense of "Goddess" or even just a feminine aspect of the divine if one has not been exposed to a sense of this or, worse, if one has been taught it is "idolatry." Is there middle ground for these people or will this be a constant internal battle against what they have been taught to believe in and what they perhaps desire to believe in? This can have huge ramifications for people!

I come away from this article with some great insights. The most important one, however, again goes back to the term Goddess. Just that word can be controversial and rock people to the core of their belief systems. It all comes back to the penis and vagina factor really, doesn't it?
Eve was bad. She fell down and broke her crown and Adam came tumbling after. And now we are all paying for it (even those other people who don't believe all our Christian rhetoric. Eve screwed them, too!) Lilith was worse because she was sort of a feminist version of Eve-likely even smarter-so she was erased from the picture altogether and, to be honest, most people don't even know about her so it doesn't matter anyway. Now, Mother Mary, well she was the virgin Mother of Christ and, hence, chaste, pure, almost asexual, so she is someone a good Christian woman can look up to. And let's not even speak about that other Mary because she was all mixed up in that low down dirty stuff that would make any God fearing woman blush. And now, after all of that you ask me to consider a hip swaying Goddess and whether or not our faith can accept her? Are you nuts???!!!

Yes, that's very stereotypical of me but I don't think I am far off the money...

(Image retrieved from http://www.eyeofhorus.biz/catalog/images/BH_Lilith.jpg Nov 7, 2008).

And the results are in...

2008-10-24T18:52:00.000-07:00

Well..I guess I should say these are the results so far as I am keeping the poll open until Oct 31st. So, this post will, in fact, evolve and change as I get more responses.

Before I go in to the results and comments themselves (I am soooo lucky to have friends who trust this process as much as they do!!!) I wanted to comment on the effect this poll has had on me individually.

After getting the responses that I did, I have started to rethink my own stance on whether or not I am feminist. I still prefer the term "humanist" as I think it more clearly represents how I feel about human rights in general. However, I now feel that instead of saying outright "I am not a feminist, I am a humanist," I can actually say "yes" to both terms, using humanist as sort of an umbrella term that would include feminism. Or, even getting to a point where I can use the terms interchangeably. That doesn't mean that, if asked, I would say "Yes, I am a feminist but under the bigger umbrella of humanism." I could actually just say "Yes, I am a feminist." A further discussion could convey my ideas more thoroughly but I don't think I would need to justify being a feminist now, not even to myself.
So, I have no intention of going back and rewriting my blog. Instead, I have a need to recognize that this is a work in progress. On one level, there may be a sense of contradiction throughout some of the posts. But, for me, this is all a process. There is no right or wrong answer. There is only what we feel and experience on our path to an individual sense of "truth." Having said all this, I still do understand the concern that many people do not connect with the movement as they do find it, in and of itself, too exclusive. We can argue that feminism is a human movement but, upon hearing the word, peoples seem to automatically think of women and women's issues. Clearly, a lot more needs to be done in the way of promoting the movement as human one and not just a women's one. Yet, then we have the problem of further marginalizing those women who, in fact, do see the movement as decidedly exclusive to women and already express a more fundamental view of the movement. Clearly, this is a multi-layered discussion.

Now, as promised, on to the results...

(image retrieved from http://child-of-africa.blogspot.com/2007/12/i-am-married-to-old-school-feminist.html Oct 26th, 2008)

RESULTS

Yes, I am feminist-53%
No I am not feminist-47%
Very, very close!

Submitted Comments (I posted many of them in their entirety as I wanted to properly covey the views of individual respondents...)

I honestly never really let it cross my mind whether I am a feminist or not anymore, that was something I did when I was probably 15-16 my girlfriends and I had discussions about it. I knew at a young age that women were and should be equal to men whether it be in the workforce, in a relationship in social standing etc. but I know it isn't always the way. I have a daughter and a son and they are treated equally, and I have always let them both know that they will be able to accomplish anything they set their mind to...I love the idea of people being treated as equals, in fact that is one reason I enjoy working (volunteer) with children, they mainly treat each other as equals and even when they don't you can teach them how to treat others with respect. I may not be a hardcore feminist, but yes I do believe I am a feminist. (35 year old)

The answer to your question is "yes" but probably not in the
typical way that is thought of as feminist.
From my standpoint, I believe women can embrace their
uniqueness from men (feminity) without having to "walk like a man"...
so to speak.
We are just as important as the opposite gender but yet to
feel we need be exactly like them in order to compete or gain
respect in the world is something many strive for but is not
necessary. We can hold our own just as we are naturally
born to be.
In fact, I believe women are capable of many diverse roles...
as empowered, intelligent, strong people who can also be soft and
compassionate and giving. It is okay to wear a skirt to work one day and
then a pair of pants the next. As long as we don't forget
who we really are... beautiful. (40's)

Yes, I believe in equality for women- and as far as I can tell, that's all that being a feminist means. And yes, I believe that in order to get equality we sometimes need to do a little 'affirmative action' cuz otherwise wouldn't we have 51% representation in the house of commons/ in the leadership of corporations/ in the 'richest' lists etc? YES, I am unequivocally a feminist and I bet a lot of the people who say they aren't are too! They're just scared off by extremists- we don't all believe that men are evil and that women should bark at the moon when they get their period. (35 y/o)

I believe myself to be a feminist in the meaning that I believe that I am created equal and can do the same things as men; some things better some things not so better - that I can have the choice to decide whether to get educated or work or to have a family. I feel that feminism has become something else lately and as a result I feel as woman we got screwed - we now still raise the family and have to work and get no respect for either one - in essence having to be supermom at the expense of ourselves, our children, our family and society. (late 30's)

I absolutely consider myself a feminist. I believe that feminism is the system of beliefs which supports equality between genders (and people in general.) I feel that some modern women are reluctant to identify with feminism due to ideas of radicalism which are often associated with feminism in the 80's. All systems of belief have radical factions and more "middle of the road" individuals as members. If more "average" women (who believe that women are men's equals and should be paid/respected/regarded as such) were willing to identify with the feminist label, feminism wouldn't be a "bad" word among young women of the new millenium...The reality of the world today is that we are not all that far ahead of our mothers or even our grandmothers who at least had the support of other stay-at-home women in their lives. I feel now (perhaps more than ever) women need to advocate for themselves and each other because of the pressures of both job and home. (36 y/o)

Yes, I am a feminist. Why? because I think the definition of feminist is
anybody who [feels] that women, like any other human beings, deserve to be
respected. but i do like to point out that i don't agree with MANY MANY MANY
mainstream feminists or popular feminism ideas (Pakistani Canadian, 21 y/o)

Yes. why - i have no idea. I feel like I'm in limbo but lean more towards the
feminist side than the other way, like most things in life I am left of
center. (35 y.o)

To answer the question, yes, I do consider myself a feminist. I believe that
women to this day are still held in a lower "caste" than men. I believe that
we are different and those differences complement each other. These
differences though should not be held against each gender though, and I
believe that women are still being penalized for those said differences. (37 y/o)

YES, I am a feminist. I believe in equality for all, but lets face it, as it is now women's rights are not equal to men's which to me means there is an imbalance and we yogis are always striving for balance. (39 y/o)

This is an interesting question you are posing - I do consider myself a moderate feminist. I am not actively involved in the feminist movement but if I am confronted with a situation where gender inequity is at play I will do my best to try and bring about change.
I think that many women are afraid of the label - seeing traditional feminists as a bunch of angry, manhating women. I do believe for the most part that the feminist movement has moved away from its radical roots, evolving into a less politically active and to a more theoretical approach. Those 80% of respondents [who early on in the poll said] they are not feminists are not really thinking about the real question - the question is really "do you believe women are equal to men" - I bet those 80% would say yes and in reality they are all feminists. The label is scarier than the definition.
(mid-30's)

Yes, I do consider myself a feminist. There are so many different ways one can be one, I think. I believe that men and women are completely equal, and that they should be treated [as] such in society. That being said, I think if a woman desires to be at home with her family that should be her right and remain unquestioned. (29 y/o)

I am a feminist in the sense that I believe women should be given the same opportunities as men and should not hold back in sharing their gifts just because they're women. I'm not a feminist in the sense that I don't believe women are better than men. I believe equality and freedom for everyone. (37 y/o)

yes, i would unequivocally define myself as a feminist. I'm a feminist
because, frankly, i can't think of one compelling reason not to identify as
such. we still live in a culture which systematically oppresses women sexually,
linguistically, economically, etc. until i can walk in my community at night
without fear of assault, don't have to work harder for equal recognition, and
people don't automatically assume that i am Mrs. whomever, i will call myself a
feminist! (35 y/o)

No, I don't consider myself a feminist, mainly because I don't do anything
to further the cause of feminism, nor do I read up on the topic. (mid-30's)

I consider myself a proponent for equal rights, but I find the term
feminist restricting. Not only does it have political baggage, it closes off
support that is needed by our GLBT community. As women, we will need to
continue to redefine our place in society and the balance between work/home
in particular. I don't think we'll get there under a label that was hijacked
by a few radical thinkers in the past. (36 y/o)

I would not consider myself a feminist, but an empowered woman. Why? I believe that the word feminist seems radical and as though I am out to change the world, whereas empowered to me, means that I am a strong, intelligent, confident woman, able to do and say what I want while evoking respect. (36 y/o)

I do not consider myself a feminist mainly due to the connotations the term holds for me. To me feminism [is] no longer merely a quest for equality and respect. It seems like that is still part of it but it has gone one step further by degrading men [in] attempting to over-[privilege] women. I am in no way saying that all women who consider themselves Feminists have these motivations, I speak only from my personal experience. I, instead, consider myself an equalist. (18 y/o)

I'm 35 y.o....and I'm not a feminist. I do have certain standard[s] that I uphold in my mind, and certainly appreciate added-value expressed by the male gender of the society, but expecting them to live up to those standard[s] will be impossible and will only cause unnecessary bitterness, unless I'm prepared to uproot myself from the hard-core [patriarchal] society I live in :) so in short, I tend to think that being a feminist is no better than being a male chauvinist, in a limited point of view, that is. (35 y.o.)

NO. Actually I had to look up the word, because i wasn´t even sure what it REALLY means... Well, of course I want us women to have rights, but I say no because I do not want us females to become males! (38 y.o.)

No not really.
Why? Because when I think of the term "feminist" I think of "activists"; people who are actively fighting for a cause and that's not something that I do. I think even the term "feminist" has a bit of a negative connotation to it, I automatically think of those "in-your-face" feminists that are always preaching about their cause ...and therefore would never call myself as such. (but I'm not strictly referring to feminists, I don't really like people who preach or are "in-your-face" about anything...lol).
However, I do believe in the arguments of feminists, that women are the equivalent of men and in turn should experience the same rights that men do. I also understand that we have come a long way as women and it took a lot of those "in-your-face" feminists for us to get to the point we are at. (mid 20's)

Can people really answer the question, 'Am I a feminist?', with a yes or no answer? I look at it as more of a discussion. Depends on your definition of it I guess, or not a definition but - ones perception of feminism...
If I have to choose yes or no, I guess I'd say that I do not consider myself a feminist. I do strongly believe in women's rights, the equality and the campaigns for the advancement of women. I am extremely thankful for the trailblazing women who have fought for the advancement and equality of my gender - that because of them I have been enabled to not only vote, but to have run in federal politics myself, owned my own business and solely manage a large store.
But when I think of the WORD feminism - I think of women who actively voice their opinions at such rallies, make monetary contributions and devote a large quality of time and energy to the cause. I do not, so I can't say that the word 'feminist' really applies to me for this reason. (29 y/o)

I try to steer CLEAR of any issues that revolve around any political
conversations or debates! It sucks the life out of me and I am tired of it
all to be completely honest! (36 y/o)

i am not a feminist, malist, or humanist. i believe in
"life" and i advocate on behalf of all living things
equally. (34 y/o)

Comments from those over 40 who did not fit into my specific demographic but wanted to share their feelings...

*I definitely consider myself a feminist.*
A new feminist is different from the early movement and that was probably
the reason why 80% of your pollers [who replied earlier] felt that they are* not* feminists. A new feminist doesn't have to go out in the street and yell angry slogans or make our counterparts, the precious male species, as enemies. Perhaps over the decades, the word has also lost its charge? Please remember that this
is one person's opinion, though.
As a non-native speaker of the English language, perhaps I also have a
different "definition" for the word feminist. The suffix —ist to me just
denotes what the word is for (pro?), such as the following:

Pacifist, when you're pro peace

Activist, when you're actively defending a cause

Idealist, when you're into certain ideas

Environmentalist, when you're passionate about the environment

Cyclist, well, you get the gist!

Being a feminist comes naturally to me, as I come from a long line of female
leaders, teachers and healers. All women are loving, peaceful and spiritual
warriors! (49 y/o)

a very tough question b/c I am to a certain extent. I am not an extremest. I
believe in equal rights. I feel the woman has a right to be who she is meant
to be. To have choices and to be free and [not to] be dominated. We have come a
long way since the bore war.
women are now dating younger men or older depending on their choice.
ok, I guess I am. (52 y/o)

Here are the guys results...
Out of 20 men, only 5 responded and 4 of those 5 claimed to be feminist. Their comments...

Image retrieved from http://www.vivalafeminista.com/2008/03/booger-is-feminist.html?widgetType=BlogArchive&widgetId=BlogArchive1&action=toggle&dir=close&toggle=MONTHLY-1222837200000&toggleopen=MONTHLY-1222837200000
Oct 26 2008

Yes, I'd consider myself a feminist... "Some of my best friends are women."
<(That's a joke, Julie, but actually the reality is that most of my best friends are
women!) (68 y/o)

I have called myself a feminist in the past, and have "manned" those barricades, but I would no longer self-identify that way--the label seems too restrictive. I feel that my full attention needs to be given to everyone, esp. those who find themselves in particularly vulnerable spots in their lives. Some of those people will be women, some men, some gays and lesbian (etc.), some immigrants, some people of colour, some children, etc. I also feel that my attention needs to be given to the other animals, and plants, that populate our world (we practice forms of speciesism to a staggering degree). 57 y/o

Yes, I agree that Feminism is a gender neutral movement in terms of membership.
I believe that women should be considered as complete equals in all
possible aspects. I believe in pro-choice and am sickened by
unenlightened views within various world religions to the contrary. If
this means that I am a Feminist then "Yes" to your second question. (29 y/o)

And, I conclude with the thoughts I sent out to those who participated...

So, on to the results... I'll look at the guys first. Only 35% of the men I attempted to poll actually responded which made this difficult as I have significantly more women in my contacts than men. So, the actual number of men who replied was quite small.
I first gave the men a statement that represented one view of feminism but was not, in itself, "the definition" of feminism. I found that 100% of the men I polled did agree with the statement that feminism is more than a women's movement but rather a human movement which, hence, allowed for men to own the term feminist should they choose to do so.
85% of the men who did reply say they consider themselves to be feminist, which I found quite interesting. Either I have a really liberal group of male friends (likely true) or the number of men who DID NOT reply actually speak louder than the men who did. I think it does have to do a great deal with the small amount of responses I received.
I do not think this would be consistent with any national finding, if there would be such a thing. The men who did consider themselves feminist seemed concerned with the fact that seemingly we still do not live in an egalitarian society. For some of the men, there did seem to be a sense that the word "feminism" was too exclusive and these men did define themselves as being activists involved in more generally human as opposed to just "feminist" issues.

And on to the women...I polled women from-or who originated from-each continent. Hence, we were quite a diverse group of women from differing cultural backgrounds and religious beliefs. The age group was 18-52 years. I was most interested however, in the results from ages ranging from 18-40 as I had noticed a shift away from feminism in this age group just in my everyday conversations with people.

The final results for the women was that, of the 43% of you who responded, 51% of you consider yourselves feminist. Although I received responses from only 8% more women than men, the actual comments I had to work with were much greater, a reflection of a substantially greater amount in the numbers of responses I received. The women also represented a much more diverse group both in regards to culture and faith traditions (this is based on what I know of you each individually as opposed from anything I received from you in the way of comments). The comments themselves were very similar to the last time I sent an update to you. I found the women's comments to be much more diverse from that of the men's, hence I hare taken more time here to discuss them.

Based on these results, I can make some general observations....
The majority of those of you who do not consider yourselves to be feminist do, in fact, consider yourselves to be either "humanist," or "equalist" (your terms) or define your beliefs in similar ways. Others of you do not consider yourselves feminist because you do not know enough about the term or movement or feel that you need to be "active" to be considered feminist. Still others expressed frustration with the term and, hence, movement in general. Some were turned off by what they felt was a movement that excluded men or women who do not agree with all the perceived ideas surrounding what people think feminism "is." A sense that feminism is too "radical" was also apparent in some responses.

Many of you who consider yourselves feminist really "own" the term. The sentiment that feminism is, at its essence, a movement for humanity based on egalitarianism, and not just for women, was also expressed. Some of you expressed amazement and even frustration at the poll results they were seeing, questioning how so many women could be saying they were not feminists. There was also a sense that feminism has moved away from being an "activist" movement to more of a theology.

It was also interesting that a notable amount in both groups could define yourselves as being feminist or non feminist but stated "I do not know why..." Several of you, also, made a decision yet still seemed to be on the fence.

An interesting concern from both groups for those who do not consider themselves feminist was a concern over where the LGBT group fits into this and whether or not feminism alone allows room for this group.

I was also struck by the success of using facebook in this way. Although my intention was and is not to make this a study of how social networking can be used, I can not ignore the fact that those of you who received my initial questions by facebook alone out-responded those who received the info by both facebook and email, or by email alone, by a landslide! 90% of you fit into this category. A few of you who received the query by both facebook and email (by being on other academic lists of mine) responded. I only received one response from those of you who received the poll via email only.

I would have liked to been able to make more of a conclusive thought about how each group looked in comparison tot he other but, because I received so few responses for the guys, I don't feel I can adequately do this here but am continuing to work with this in a more formal way. I would welcome you thoughts! Actually, I think it would be more compelling to hash it out here with some or all of you if any of you are up for the challenge. (Again, please do not engage in virtual assaults against anyone.)

Again, as before, I encourage continued searching and dialogue on such topics. Here there is no right or wrong, only the desire for opinions to work through, grapple with and try to understand. Thank you all, once again. I will keep you posted on future findings. If you have further questions or comments, please let me know...

The conversation has been started and that in itself is important. I encourage each of you to leave comments here but ask you not to use this space to judge other people individually or to hold a virtual argument. I further invite comments, questions and concerns that can be sent to my personal email, which all of you have received. I also ask you to delve deeper into this on your own or with friends as this is a great discussion to have with many layers. Always remember, however, that as individual humans it is our RIGHT to hold the opinions we do, whatever they may be. Please try to go about further discussion in a way that firmly expresses you beliefs but that also respects others and, as a result, yourself. Agreeing to disagree yet still ending the conversation as friends is always a good way to leave things. I would be curious to hear more about discussions that you have!

A conversation...

2008-10-24T10:34:00.000-07:00

So, I have suggested in prior posts that I do not, in fact, consider myself a feminist. This has led me to wonder about what other women who consider themselves to be "leftist" or even just "modern women" think of the term feminist and whether they resonate with it. I was particularly interested in having this conversation with women who were born in the 70's or 80's as, I feel , people born in these times would have similar experiences in the sense of what they have been culturally exposed to (within what we could consider mainstream culture) to the ones I have had.

I met with a young woman today who is in her mid-20's. I know her well enough to sit down and have tea with her but I know nothing of her life story, only of what she is currently doing academically. Our intent was only to meet for tea but as she spoke of her research on cultural diversity in the mental health field, the subject matter turned decidedly more personal. I decided to ask her whether or not she saw herself as a feminist. I was very interested to find out that she, in fact, does not consider herself to be feminist. She spoke a lot of feeling as though she was more worried about the state of the human race and found feminism too exclusive. In fact, her ideas seemed nearly identical to mine!

This has left me with a few questions. First, has there been (or was there) a movement away from feminism in later, post '60's generations (by this, I mean people who are now adults but were born after 1969)? Has the focus turned away from an idea of "feminism" toward an idea of "humanism?" Or, has it been the idea that "feminism" is a dirty word-something that you had questioned me to consider, Dr J. My tendency is to say that I feel as the collective sense of the world at large has grown and our knowledge of the issues become more informed, more and more people are considering themselves advocates for humanity as opposed to feminists. I want to make clear, however, that I do think that feminists are working for the greater good of society as a whole and can, therefore, be considered humanists in their own right. I do not see myself as feeling "feminism" is a dirty word. It is just not a term that I seem to need to connect with. I am wondering if this is a result of the generation I grew up in and what I was exposed to.

I have spoken to only one person and, clearly, more exploration needs to be done. But, I am going to take it upon myself to ask this question of more people in a formal way. I will, then, discuss my findings in a future post. I am thoroughly enjoying working through these questions!!!

Image retrieved from camila.ramos285.googlepages.com Oct 25 2008

Roundtable 1: Globalizations and Nationalisms, Theology and Women

2008-10-20T17:04:00.000-07:00

Having considered the roundtable discussions, I think I would like to come at this the way the other authors did, focusing much of my discussion on the Fiorenza contribution and then reflecting on the other discussions as necessary.

Main Theoretical Perspective and Themes
Fiorenza's main theoretical perspective is that nationalism, as a kyriarchal system, should be rejected by feminists and the whole of society if we are to ever see a shift toward egalitarianism.
In her discussion, she expresses her concern at the feminization of nationalistic symbols such as "lady liberty," "Mother India," and the notion of "mother church." I find it difficult to agree with Fiorenza here as I have always found the idea that "womanhood" can be so closely connected to a sense of the growth of a nation, empowering. Not in the sense, as Fiorenza would argue, that women are depicted as breeding strong men for the future of the nation but rather as a sense that women play a vital role in the continuation of individual nations and humanity as a whole. I also find a connection between the notion of "Mother India" or of Africa as being the "Mother Land," and the sense of the feminine aspect of nature in general (i.e.:Mother Earth, Mother Nature). I would agree with the concern that colonization has historically oppressed women, and, in fact, whole cultures. But, I am unsure whether these images themselves necessarily represent a sense of colonization. Indians, for example, speak of the "Mahabharata" or great nation of India. There is also a sense that Indians connect deeply to the idea that feminine spirits and goddesses indeed play an active role in daily life. They refer to some of the great female saints as "Ma" (ie: Anandayi Ma) and speak of the Divine Mother. I am not sure when Indians started referring to their nation as Mother India but, at first guess, would think this title had very little to do with the colonization of the nation (as an aside, I have just googled the phrase Mother India and see there is a "controversial" text of the same name, so I am taking up the challenge to educate myself about the term...). I think it seems almost unfair to compare the concept of Mother India to the Statue of Liberty.

Perhaps I am naive but I also do not see Lady Liberty or other feminine signs of national unity as wholly oppressive in and of themselves. Maybe it is due to the fact that I have never lived under the shadow of "Lady Liberty." But, personally, I find the American flag itself conjures up images that have much more to do with power and hegemony than the Statue of Liberty does. I also find it somewhat empowering that it is Lady Liberty (not Gentleman Liberty) who holds the constitution (I am unsure about that but I know she holds a very important historical document in her hands) and is representative of freedom. I am certainly aware that one could counter argue by saying it is incorrect that a feminine image should be representative of everything that is "ugly" about a certain nation, in this case, the United States. However, I would argue that the United States has been responsible for ground breaking research in women's studies and has provided the world with a sizable amount of intelligent women scholars in many fields. For me, America does not mean only one thing or only another, hence its images are not only representative of repression or empowerment. They are, instead, representative of the fragile balance needed to appropriately represent what is both beautiful and ugly about the country, which includes a history of colonization that is essential to recognize..

Fiorenza goes on to point out that , with the advent of postmodernism, a more fundamentalist idea of religion that would see women as being controlled by men has moved into "centre stage." (Fiorenza, 114) In regards to this issue, I agree with Fiorenza. Certainly, a decidedly fundamentalist view seems to be dominating discourse on religion, politics and social ethics in America. I would argue that there is a definite sense of "masculine" control currently dominating the society. I find it interesting that the only female contender in the US political race right now is a moose shooting Alaskan (not that all Alaskans shoot moose, or that all moose shooters are Alaskans-Palin just happens to be both!) whose ideas about women's lib seem to go back to a time when people we're publicly yelling "Off with her head!" What would Joan of Arc do with Sarah Palin...???

Turning her focus to the economic structure in America, Fiorenza finds it "troubling that feminist discourses in religion have for the most part not yet critically problematized American capitalist nationalism as a structure of domination. We have not critically asked how such imperial “Americanness” shapes our discourses, be they womanist, mujerista,Latina, black, or white feminist." (Fiorenza, 114) I agree with her. There needs to be some discussion around the dominating factor of "Americanization." Certainly women need to be not only in on the discussion but starting the discussion. This, for me, again points to the dominating male "psyche" (and I do see the current American "psyche" as being predominantly male) that stretches out to control a vast number of different sectors, affecting a vast number of people; women, men and children alike. Globalization, particularly under the guise of Americanization (and, more aptly, vice versa), is quite an ugly beast. Globalization is, I think, the updated and "politically corrected" great-grandson of colonization, and, as such, capable of as much devastation as colonization if left to its own devices.

Fiorenza sees a connection between the current American nationalist climate and the climate of World War II Germany. Having experienced both situations, Fiorenza is clearly able to express these views with a respectable amount of authority. Sadly, I do feel that America has become a country that has fooled itself into believing "our way is the right way-for everyone." When does democracy become oppression? Well, when it is delivered through intimidation and war. So, in this sense, the recent American climate that seemed so steeped in fighting a "war on terrorism" and bringing democracy, hence "freedom" to the world not long ago, is in a very similar mind set to that of World War II Germany.

What seems to be needed in the current era, in Fiorenza's opinion, is "a transnational articulation and organization of feminist the*logy and studies in religion." Again, I would agree with her here. I do not think, however, that women have to shy away from feminist images of nationalism. I think it would be much better to embrace and re-define them. Imagine the potency of an image like the Statue of Liberty under a more egalitarian government with women at the forefront and playing critical roles. I so wanted Hillary Clinton to win the presidency. Not because I think she is necessarily ideal but because I really wanted to see how America would look under the leadership of a woman. Was she the right woman? I don't necessarily think she was the "wrong" woman. I simply had real hopes for how a woman could potentially change the face of politics in America and, hopefully, internationally.

Terms
The term kyriarchy, a term Fiorenza herself has coined as "an analytic category to articulate the intersecting structures of domination: gender, race, class, and
imperialism/colonialism," (Fiorenza, 111) refers to "elite male domination" (Fiorenza, 111) which comes in the form of slavery, oppression and other forms of control. Fiorenza suggests that Americans do, in fact, live in a society that is both historically and currently based on a kyriarchal system.

Another important term to understand here is nationalism. Nationalism refers to the sense one has of "belonging" to a certain nation state-a sense of citizenship within a state, I would argue. It is important to understand that Fiorenza views nationalism as a "systemic kyriarchal system." (Fiorenza, 111) It is also important to understand that, for the purpose of this article, Fiorenza does not view ntaionalism in the way I have described it here but rather she views it in its more fundamentalist incarnation, the type of nationalism that consumes people in a sense of superiority and "excessive devotion." Fiorenza, p 111.

Understanding the concept of "feminist the*logy", as Fiorenza refers to it, is also central to our understanding of what Fiorenza is arguing. Here, Fiorenza is exploring feminist religious beliefs and theological ideas separately from, and in far greater consideration than, religious and theological ideas that are based from either a position that is kyriarchical or from a position that appears to be inclusive or gender neutral.

And, the discussion continues...
In investigating the responses of the other panelists, I was excited by such a diverse and informed amount of opinion and scholarship. Everyone gave a different and substantial spin to the larger topic introduced by Fiorenza.

Kathleen McPhillips
In her response, McPhillips puts forward some ideas that I found slightly more negotiable than those in the Fiorenza discussion. I wholeheartedly agree with McPhillips' statement that "just as we can speak of multiple modernities, so we should also speak of multiple nationalisms." (McPhillips, 147) I feel she captured some of the sentiment that I myself have already attempted to express, but in a much more succinct way. In addition, she makes the vitally important point that nationalism "cannot be reduced to a single expression."
I think it was also timely for McPhillips to point out that nationalism plagues societies that do not, on the surface, seem to use similar expressions of nationalism as used in the US. I, for one, was shocked when I read that Australian women continue to be denied full citizenship into the Christian church! And the effect that the post 9/11 era has had on giving more power to men and less to women in Australia was also a surprise. One could, however, easily argue this is happening everywhere as "western" societies seemingly move away from appearing "egalitarian" and move toward becoming further based on "rightist" values perpetuated by mainly white men of power, making Australia's reaction consistent with other western cultures.
Like Fiorenza, McPhillips explores the feminization of symbols that are representative of the collective nation state. The feminization of the "bush" is an excellent example (both literally and figuratively, although I am unsure whether McPhillips herself was making a connection between the Australian Outback and the slang used for the vagina in North American culture). I am still not adverse to nature being referred to in the feminine, as I do think there is something very powerful about that. Feminine "energy" has often been associated with nature and the mysteries surrounding nature. I find it very intriguing, however, that with the association comes a sense of blame. As McPhillips points out "[i]ndividual
women who survive traumatic experiences in the desert are often demonized." (McPhillips, 150). One can safely assume that men who survive a frightening experience in the bush are not demonized. McPhillips goes on to point to a case where a woman whose boyfriend disappears is interrogated meaninglessly about her sex life. (McPhillips 151) Astounding!
Much more important for me, however is when McPhillips speaks of the Aboriginal views of the bush as being life giving, divine and motherly. So, the connection to the sense of "bush" can either be empowering or subjugating, depending on whose lens you are peering through. But which experience is more right? Neither and both. Which is why one cannot simply come to any one conclusion. And, as McPhillips explains, when women look beyond their "nation" and view themselves as part of the vast and diverse landscapes and seascapes that are beyond their borders and part of their natural surroundings, their sense of themselves as part of a greater community should grow, as should their ideas of their roles within the communities. Her idea that looking through a transnational lens instead of only a national one, while not being the lone solution, may be a way to give women a greater sense of themselves as part of the world as opposed to only being tied to a sense of nationalism and, hence, the "definitions" that evolve from a particular nation state.

Aquino
Aquino starts her response by describing her own allegiances: "I think of myself primarily as a Mexican woman linked by background to the migrant-worker
bracero tradition;1 as a Latin American feminist scholar who lives and works in
the United States but is linked by moral imperative and intellectual demand to
the worldwide critical feminist theologies of liberation; and as a Roman
Catholic Christian woman linked by hope to all those around the world who
believe that another world of justice for the well-being of all is possible." Hence, her world view, and her response, reflects this.
I was moved to the core by Aquino's honesty in sharing her fears about tackling her response from that perspective so as not to be accused of "reinscribing" nationalistic rhetoric, something Fiorenza warned of. I can relate to this as often times I have felt a need to be apologetic about having more moderate, yet still relatively liberal, opinions than some of my more outspoken leftist friends. I welcomed, as well, Aquino's sentiment that "power and nationalism are intrinsically connected" (Aquino, 134) and it is that connection that needs to be considered. I agree and question whether a sense of nationalism always unconditionally equals a sense of power and vice versa. My guess is it does not.
As well, Aquino points to a possible sense that "most of U.S. feminist theological and religious scholarship may be trapped in the dynamics of ignorance, self-deception, and outright denial, characteristics of processes that bring together nationalist rhetoric and empire building." I am aware that Fiorenza's article was a reaction to what she views as American nationalism in particular. However, I think it is very important to note that a world does exist beyond the borders of the US. Aquino's impression that "feminist theological and religious scholarship in the context of the United States, for the most part, has remained insensitive to the socioreligious causes and devastating consequences of American capitalist nationalism
around the world," is something I strongly agree with and feel needs to be further explored. If I can be stereotypical for a moment, my dealings with Americans overseas have been very eye opening in the sense that many Americans I have come across (certainly not everyone, however) seem to convey a certain sense of self importance that I did not typically view in others.
As well, I agree with Aquino's sense that it should be noted that those in academia lead relatively privileged lives, that automatically put them on a higher rung than others in the greater socio/economic/political hierarchy.
Overall, I felt Aquino's focus on the experiences of individual people, bringing all of their diversity with them, was eloquently presented. I tend to lean toward ideas that seem to be more inclusive of all situations, truths and realities as opposed to only a few or just one. This is why I find it difficult at times to define myself as being associated with any one political or social expression (liberal, feminist, environmentalist, etc) as I feel that any label is, out of necessity and by definition, exclusive.

Kim
Since Kim dealt with similar concerns as the last two, I will not spend a considerable amount of time on what she wrote. However, I do want to point out that she delves deep into the sense of "regionalism" beyond just nationalism, reminding us that a sense of regionalism can be equally dangerous. I agree with this and point to the example of "Asianness" that Kim uses as an important one. I find that there is much caution to be taken when dealing with "regional" or "transnational" associations. In particular, those that are not "western," not "white," have the danger of, again being stereotyped by region and considered "third world," regardless of the fact that many of the people that may be lumped into this category are actually living in developing or fully developed nations. This regionally based type of world view only further perpetuates stereotypes and racism. Which is why this topic, first introduced by Fiorenza, is so very complex and goes beyond the boundaries of gender and nationalism alone. God forbid we ever return to the time of calling Asians "Orientals" or Vietnamese "boat people."

Hunt
With her response, Hunt turns her focus back to America, citing the current political system (or failure of it, as in the 2004 American election) as hosting a decidedly "conservative theopolitical agenda." (Hunt, 120) She agrees with Fiorenza's opinion that religion has become an arena of male dominated fundamentalism.
Hunt brings up the American national anthem "God Bless America," which is, seemingly, as politically correct for the numerous immigrants, new residents and citizens from a multitude of nations, cultures and religions, as saying the Lord's Prayer in school. But, does every national anthem not, by definition, do the very same thing? It seems much harder to justify a national anthem in a country that is seemingly so very diverse as America (reality check!) than it would in, say, Saudi Arabia where national identity and religion seem inextricably connected. And, because, America is, of course, secular...right? That seems to be the image that is sometimes portrayed about the "land of the free." Yet, I think most people get a shock when they understand just how non-secular and actually xenophobic-as Hunt points out-that America can be. And, no matter how many different versions of the Lord's Prayer or the national anthem one can come up with to make everyone feel good, the facts will still remain. That is not to say we should not welcome change or, at least, discussion. It is just to point out that these issues go much deeper than what we see on the surface and, hence, need to be "fixed" from the inside out rather than the other way around.

Cruz
Again, Cruz provides a voice that is not American and brings a unique perspective to the table. Cruz's desire to be gender specific instead of using terms such as "wo/man" (Fiorenza, p 112), and further, class specific, separating the "haves" from the "have nots," is important. Having lived in the "developing world" as an outsider, I have a good deal of understanding of the plights these people and, in particular, these women, face. I experienced first hand some of these plights. But, I also knew that only a phone call away was extra money and security and, if needed, a "way out." This was vastly different from the experiences of the Balinese women themselves. The "have nots" of the world-men, women and children alike-all suffer much more than most of us who lead a relatively privileged existence in the west ever can even understand. And they are exploited well beyond what we could consider acceptable levels of exploitation,if there is such a thing. As I have earlier mentioned, I feel a look at the unique experiences of all individuals and, in this case, more specifically women, would be beneficial. We cannot make sweeping generalizations about any one individual, gender, religion, culture, etc and making sweeping generalizations about how to "fix" problems is never the answer.

In closing, what I find most important here is that the conversation has been started. Fiorenza's introductory discussion led to, I believe, responses that go further in their scope than Fiorenza's introductory itself. Important questions have been raised, not only about gender but also cultural identity, religious identity and individual identity in itself. As for the question, did I learn anything about feminism from these readings, I think the answer lies in my discussion of the individual responses themselves. I will just say that the discussion clearly shows that these topics are not ones that are easily definable. Everyone, every woman, every feminist, will see the world through the lens of their own experiences, making feminism a constantly evolving lens from which to view the world. From this perspective, the whole idea of feminism could be described as indescribable.

Image retrieved from www.wo-magazine.com Oct 25 2008

Crazy for Courtney (aka a look at feminism and religion through the lens of "Riot Grrl" rock and other stuff worth noting...:

2008-10-18T19:08:00.001-07:00

So, this is a random entry. At least random for this class. For me, this blog is years in the making. I have always wanted to talk about this and now am taking the opportunity. This is not for marks but rather something cathartic for me. You can stop reading now or be a voyeur...
Anyway, I LOVE Courtney Love. For me, she is the quintessential rock goddess. When I was 21 and disillusioned about school and everything else, it was listening to Courtney's music through her band Hole that got me through. When I first heard her music, it was like nothing I had ever heard before. Here was a woman who was angry-like I was- and not afraid to show it. She was up on stage, swearing and throwing her skirt up over her head. She was getting bruised from jumping into mosh pits. Her lyrics spoke of rage, rape, abuse, sex, genitalia...you name it. It was fierce and ferocious and sexual and vital. And she was as brutal and disgusting in her performance as the next guy.
I could go on ad nauseum here about Courtney and her influence on me but I would rather like to look at two issues, namely the riot "grrrl" culture and its influence on who I am today and, secondly, which anywhere else would actually be a fully separate chapter or likely in an all together different book, Courtney's exploration into Buddhism.

"Stumbling" Riot Grrrl!
If I could be anything in the whole world, it would definitely be a rock star. This would include the sweat and grit that comes with all of it. My desire to be involved in rock led to a "sudden" disinterest in academics, eventually leading to my departure from UW. After leaving academics behind, I spent five years chasing my rock star dream. I was the lead singer in an acoustic band called Stumble-hence the "stumbling" reference in the title of this section. We did not garner any great successes but we did get attention. We were "riot grrrls" and this was important to us. Riot grrrls, at least in my experience of being one, were girls and young women expressing themselves loudly and creatively-usually but not always through music-who had a desire to not only be "luv'd" by the guys we were around but also respected by them. We wanted to be in equal "alternative rock" relations with the guys who played in the bands, who we at once desired and competed against. It was what made our relationships so complex. Was this a form of "feminism?" Likely, it was. And if one is to speak to the pioneers of this genre, like Kat Bjelland and Kim Gordon, both women who define themselves as feminists, likely they would say it was a form of feminism. I think many them also would have squirmed at the term "riot grrl." Yet, for the incarnation of "riot grrl-ness" that I was involved in, everything was about being a strong, alt. rock goddess with the hidden or not so hidden goal of getting the cooler than shit strong alt rock guy to notice you. I remember Courtney Love saying that she definitely did NOT wear the pants in her marriage. One of the lines in a beloved Courtney Love song frequently rang out loudly into my ears... "I am NOT a femin-i-ist!!!" These are things that have stayed with me for 15 years! Yet, these women were at the same time speaking of equality and citing Joni Mitchell, Patti Smith and Blondie as influential.
When I think back to my experience, I DID feel liberated to be the singer in a band of a genre of music that was somewhat controversial. I felt strong, empowered, influential even. But, I also knew that being sexual and sensual was also important. We wore tight, short, black dresses, ripped pantyhose, and bright lipstick. Glamour played a big part. And it was, at the end of the day, about who was sleeping with who. Oddly enough, I was often told guys found me extremely intimidating which I found so wonderful. Yet, I was also at odds with this as it was preferable, in my eyes, to be lusted after rather than intimidating...
I think that this period in time, a period that I look back upon fondly, has been extremely influential on me. As I start to question what it means to be a "feminist," I do not yet know if I can own that term for myself. I do agree with feminist ideals. Of course I do. But can I identify with myself being a feminist? I never have thought of myself in that light and have never felt I have needed to. Like Polly Jean Harvey (another rock goddess) once explained (and I am paraphrasing from memory) "I have never felt I have had to identify with being feminist. I just do what I do and get on with it. I support a lot of different people in the music industry and many of those people are men." I think she said what I feel quite well. I have always considered myself a "humanist" to be honest-contrary to what I earlier defined myself to be, which was a "womanist". My issues have always been around human rights-which clearly include women's rights-and children's rights. Being a humanist is what is most important for me and fighting for the rights of women is as important as fighting for the rights of anyone else. I am aware that the treatment of women across the world is inextricably tied to the overall rights of humans everywhere. I just do not make a disconnect between human rights and women's rights, except probably in the way I would look at handling the unique issues of women from that of men.

I would, when I think of it now, LOVE to do an exploration into the Riot Grrl movement and what it did for women in rock. I do think this genre proved that women could rock as hard as the men around. It was the mixed messages and hidden agendas of those involved-at least in my experience-that make me wonder whether or not it could be considered a "feminist" movement in rock. But then when one looks further into women like Ani DiFranco, the movement takes on a whole different vibe, one with more political overtones. Something to ponder...

Today's "Courtney" factor-A Religious Experience?
Fast forward to 2008. Courtney Love is still around making music but has reportedly led a "train wreck" of a life. For the most part, most of the other "riot grrls" have dropped off into obscurity. But, if you google them they are up to all kinds of interesting things from running their own fashion lines to starring in films. Few of them, however, are still musically "potent" in the eyes of the masses.
Courtney is still very much in the public eye, if only because people are either entertained or appalled by her. I read her blogs from time to time which are generally very entertaining. After her husband, Kurt, died in 1994, I remember Courtney speaking about how her "buddhist stuff" was getting her through. This intrigued me. Over the past 15 years, she has experimented with an array of drugs, but also with yoga, meditation and other forms of eastern religion. In her latest interviews and blogs, she claims she has stopped doing drugs after intense, court ordered rehabilitation. She claims, as well, that she has returned to Buddhism and reportedly chants daily for lengthy sessions with her guru. This has got me wondering about the westernization of eastern religions such as Buddhism and, furthermore, the celebritization (Yes, I made that up! I think...) of these religions. Can someone who chants with a guru daily really claim to a Buddhist? Am I making an assumption based on just a sliver of her experience? What is her experience? In light of all of our conversations, I think these are important questions. When a religion makes its way to the west, what of its traditions remain intact? How much is sacrificed at the altar of the "west," as the religion is assimilated into our culture? Would celebrities like Courtney still be interested in Buddhism-Tibetan, Mahayana, or otherwise-if they were aware that women are, in fact, not considered or treated as equal?
But, should that be the point? Is the point not that at least they have found a spiritual path to follow and for that we all should be grateful? I don't know. I grapple with this in my own life as I search to define what spirituality is for me and what role Hinduism will play in that. I just know that, for myself now as someone relatively "educated" on the topic of religion, I feel people who convert and start to follow a religion without the historical context of that religion are in the same boat as those who are solidly in their own traditions yet have never questioned, only accepted them. The blind leading the blind, I guess.
Anyway, I have exploited an opportunity to rant but, all in all, feel as though I have released a whole lot and am grateful for having done so...

Under Construction-the Balzer article

2008-10-18T18:28:00.000-07:00

Review of Balzer's "Construction Sites at the Junction of Religion and Gender

I really love the title of this article. For me, it is a reminder that there is always work that needs to be done around the topics of gender and religion both individually and as the two meet and, sometimes, collide.

Main Points
Looking primarily at the experiences of women in Asian cultures, Balzer sets out to describe three "provocative themes" surrounding the study of gender and religion, which are also three main points I have found in the article. The first of these themes is the idea of "purity, danger and fundamentalism" (Balzer, p 176). With this, Balzer does not only wish to look at the past, studying how these themes have become a part of many societies. Rather, she acknowledges that we may never truly understand the possibly of prehistoric connections to modern day beliefs. She, instead, focuses on why these beliefs-such as the "pollution taboos" surrounding women-exist today. She considers what aspects of culture have allowed these taboos to survive and express themselves in our modern day world. An example is Balzer's look at Buddhist nuns who, after abandoning traditional ideas of "womanhood" in their own cultural context of the term, have declared themselves to be "men," believing that, since no longer relating to the world through the lens of being a woman, they can now achieve the same spiritual states as men. "Of course they can!", I argue, "They could have anyway!" perplexed at their desire to declare themselves men as opposed to declaring themselves non-woman/non-man, transcending attachment to the human shell overall rather than perceived attachment to biological sex and gender. To me, THAT would make much more sense. However, a tradition like this, where these ideas around gender, specifically as it relates to religion, are so deeply embedded in one's psyche are, I would argue, nearly impossible to change. The fact the nuns themselves are working for structural change within Buddhism-and succeeding on some levels-is incredibly encouraging. But the fact that they feel they must declare themselves men to attain the same type of liberation is, in my opinion, contrary to the very essence of what they are working so hard to attain socially for themselves. It is mind blowing, really. The question remains, however, can we really go back and change thousands of years of scripture and belief? I think the social issues are much easier dealt with than issues of scripture, yet clearly they are issues that intertwine with each other.
It is the same, in essence, as the Muslim issue, really. How can things be changed within the context of the culture and society when there are some women who accept the conservative issues surrounding the hijab and women's rights in Islam as correct? Arguably, many women do not think anything is wrong with Islam in this context and would never change their opinion, regardless of the ways in which more moderate or liberal Muslim women (and men) are trying to do to affect change in their religion. And, many women are, in fact, embracing the hijab as a powerful religious symbol. These women who have chosen to wear the hijab in this light are, in fact, also working for women's rights. The fact that they do not view the Hijab as restricting or as something that is forced upon them and instead embrace it as a personal symbol for their own journey is amazing! As you have pointed out in many lectures, Dr J, it comes down to the word "choice," doesn't it. If there is a choice, we can embrace many things from many different perspectives. Where there is no choice, what can be done? I don't have an answer. This is clearly a huge question that goes beyond religious, cultural and social boundaries.

The second theme Balzer raises is that of "female leadership, mediumship and self-sexism" (Balzer, p 178). As Balzer herself aptly explains "here, women’s abilities to take religious leadership roles are constrained by competing cultural values, yet social-political limits are creatively bent in diverse ways." She brings up rituals in which women play key roles that are based around goddess myths and looks at cases where women have become shamanesses or play other important religious roles. Many women do hold roles within the spiritual hierarchy of their community. However, overall it seems as though these roles are still under the wider control of the male hierarchies of the communities within which they are found.

Finally, Balzer considers the theme of "natalism and nationalism." This is the idea that women play an important role in birthing children for their "Motherland." As noted by the author, this is not only a socio-political issues but also a religious one. The author rightly cites the examples of Hinduism and Orthodox Christianity as traditions that support this idea and discuss it in their scriptures. An important exception, she acknowledges, is Buddhism. But, one could argue, Buddhism values the enlightenment of individuals over everything else. The Buddhist canon points to suffering for everyone-not just women-throughout life and not just in childbirth or motherhood, so I would suggest this seems consistent with the overall Buddhist doctrine that expresses there is a vast amount of suffering for everyone to overcome.
Again, as pointed out earlier, it is the lack of choice that is really endemic here. I see no shame in women wanting to have children. As a mother, I know this will be the most important job I ever do. I sometimes feel that, in our western society, not enough emphasis is put on how hard women work at home and in their lives in general, nor how difficult it is to have to sacrifice as much as women do to be professionals and/or mothers-in any choice they seem to make, really. It is very difficult. However, we have choice going for us for the most part and are not generally treated as though we are "producing" children for the greater good of society (in fact, we are-sans the term "producing"-but in a different context than the one discussed in the article). I think there has to be a balance. More value most be given to the hard work women do to be stay-at-home wives and mothers in our culture. But more value needs to also be given to the importance of choice for those who may not have the same amount of freedoms as we do. There is as much value to be found in a homemaker as a CEO and vice versa. The balance, however, needs to be found and expressed cross-culturally so that the diversity of women's roles can be celebrated universally. And we start with the education of our children...

Another important point Balzer brought up was distinguishing between "folk" and "world" religions. As Balzer argues, it is the newer religions or, likely more aptly, newer strains of older religions, that seem to be affecting the most change for women and society as a whole. "Women and men find their own ways to be Muslim or Buddhist. Interviews with them illuminate processes of change...Our definitions of ‘world’ religions can expand in the process, although keepers of ‘fundamentalist’ canon may balk." (Balzer, pg 180) I love this quote and find it to be very representative of what is happening in religion today. More and more, individuals seem to be moving toward their own spiritual interpretations of their faith traditions and looking, also, toward strains that support their understandings. These are the people our own traditional world religions need to be looking at if these traditions are to survive future generations. It is those people who do not want to altogether desert their faith traditions yet also feel disillusioned or marginalized by them that faith leaders should be listening to. I question whether our world traditions of faith will be able to withstand the effects of technology and globalism-not only for women but also for men- in their current incarnations.

Terms
There are quite a few important terms to be discussed here. First, an understanding of what is meant by "world religion" versus what is meant by "folk" religions is important. Here, world religion refers to one of the greater faith traditions recognized in the world such as Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism and Hinduism, among others. By folk tradition, the author points toward traditions that are more closely related to the history of a specific culture. These traditions would generally be isolated to only one or several specific cultures. As well, Balzer looks at some "new religions" and newer strains of world religions as "folk" religions.
The idea of purity and pollution as they relate to the study of women in religion are also important. Purity refers to religious purity and an idea of being religiously or spiritually "clean." For women, we can look at the Mother Mary or Virgin Mary as examples. Something that is religiously "pure" has not been "polluted." But, how is one deemed polluted? Women in many traditions are automatically deemed polluted just based on the fact that they are women. This is due to the association with menstrual blood, child birth and other "cycles" women go through. One could argue that by disassociating with the fact that they are women, some Buddhist nuns can be deemed to be "pure" by declaring that they are men. However, this will not change the biological fact that they are, indeed, women who are "inflicted" with the "polluting" factors of womanhood. This is the crux of the issue for the Buddhist nuns.

Self-sexism is an interesting term. It refers to women (generally, I would assume) accepting perceived limitations, due to biological sex, that society imposes on them. Again, looking at the experience of Buddhist nuns as Balzer has is helpful. These women are taught that they are not on the same level as men due to characteristics that are believed to make them "women" (jealousy, greed, lusty, etc) (Balzer, pg 178-179). They are, hence, taught it is better to be men and that abandoning these female characteristics will help them achieve the status of manhood in the next life (as, clearly, women are not viewed as being capable of reaching enlightenment in this particular culture).

Main Theoretical Perspective
I would argue that the main theoretical perspective is that as women's experiences change within the societies they live in, their religious experiences and expectations are also changing. Is religion keeping up with this? If so, how? If not, why not? This article is a journey that leads us to the "construction sites" of change happening within both religion and gender and at the "junctures" of the two. Balzer clearly feels that change is happening and needs to continue to do so in the areas of religion and gender and is most interested in the way changing ideals in gender are affecting religion and vice versa.

I take away a lot from this article. What is clear to me is that in dealing with religion on its own and gender on its own we are looking at two independent, complex issues. When gender and religion meet, it becomes much more confusing and complex. How can gender be reconciled in religion and how can religion be reconciled in gender? Again, there is no one, definitive answer as, if there was, we would likely not be taking this course-at least not in the context under which it is presented.
Also, what does one do with the faith tradition that they have based so much of their history and current life on when suddenly it is clear that one's own social and political views are at odds with this tradition? Disillusioned with in-fighting that was happening in our own church, I was part of a group of youth (under 18 years old) who left the church disgusted and who never individually returned to it. In fact, one member of our group (a male, who also had other issues going on) left Ontario the following year and has not been, from my understanding, back to Ontario since. So, my decision was to leave. However, I now find myself immersed in a different religion and culture that I am, on one hand, enamored with and, on the other, repulsed by what I perceive as its oppressive treatment of women. If we can never find the "ideal" (and I believe that is impossible to find an ideal as a faith tradition is not constructed to "fit" one person but to work for the greater community it serves) where does one "give up the fight?" Does one "give up the fight?'"Is it possible to be attempting to affect change in an environment that is not at all accepting of one's views. You have spoken of how you once had to leave your church for a prolonged period, Dr J. But I don't think you ever gave up on the fight. But, as you have said, I agree that one can find themselves in a terribly lonely place if they are not willing to conform on some level...

(image retrieved Oct 20th 208 from http://www.worldofstock.com/closeups/TAM1294.php)

Joy and the Roles of Women

2008-10-13T12:21:00.000-07:00

In her article “The Role (or Non Role) of Women in Religion,” Morny Joy sets out on an exploration of the development (or non-development) of women’s identities within their faith traditions, specifically considering the “official roles” women have historically played. By looking at the histories of and the current states of the major faith traditions, Joy attempts to track the different stages of development women have gone through. In considering the faiths alongside each other, she presents her arguments not as faith specific issues but rather as fundamentally women’s issues, arguing further that it is vital for one to look at all religions to gain the fullest understanding of others and, essentially, of ourselves.

To live in the contemporary world, it is, I believe, necessary to have an informed awareness of not just the grounding of our own particular religious allegiances and formation – even if we no longer adhere to them – but also of the other religions in the world which will play a decisive role in the formation of the future. (Joy, p 15-16)

I really enjoyed the way Joy looked at women in religion historically, pointing out times and places in which women in certain religions were oppressed as well those in which women thrived and were considered essential. I find much wisdom in the idea of modern women working to affect change through their own current experiences and expressions of their faith, but without abandoning their faith tradition-an idea, I would argue, of feminism that works to celebrate one’s own current tradition and the history which created it. The idea that a woman (or anyone) can become empowered by going back to the origins and essence of the traditional texts is an idea that is both beautiful and exciting for me. This has always been important as I do not feel it is necessary to give up one’s tradition or beliefs to also support women’s rights or issues. In some cases, I think women do in fact silently feel they need to abandon or even hide certain aspects of their own traditions to truly claim the title of feminist, womanist, etc instead of accepting these things are part of their past experiences of faith-parts that do not hold them back or define them, but that have still been of some significance.

Taking a look at history in particular, I sometimes wonder whether women are taking steps forward or taking steps back when it comes to the roles we play in faith traditions. These changing tides in the roles women play is something Joy considered as well, pointing the finger to an attempt to control women's sexuality and the concept of "pollution" as the culprits. It seems to me that in the earliest recordings of some traditions (and very likely in pre-historic traditions as well) women played significant roles as images of the divine (fertility images, goddesses, etc) and as strong leaders (shamanesses, priestesses, etc). As time went on, however, as culture allegedly became more “civilized,” one could argue that restrictions on women became tighter. I am curious as to why that is. Were we too much of a threat to men? Was there a realization that women were in fact as strong as or stronger than men in the sense that women were and are firmly connected to the cycles of nature (moon, etc) and to child birth?

There is much talk, as Joy noted, around women’s bodies and the cycles they go through as something that can be deemed “unclean” and “detrimental” to the spiritual or professional growth of the woman and, in fact, to the man who comes in contact with these “polluting” properties. I wholly disagree with this argument. I feel these natural processes are, in fact, a tribute to the amazing strength and power of women as the true givers of life. The deep connection women have to the cycles of life and nature are what make us so unique and powerful and are the properties that likely made us pre-historic and early historic goddesses in the first place. This is also where I personally find so much power in the Hindu pantheon which offers goddesses that are firmly connected with the cycles and powers of life and death such as Durga and Kali in contrast to, yet alongside, goddesses who are represented as beautiful, yet mystical, consorts. These goddesses individually, I believe, represent all aspects of the Divine Mother who has the potential to be both the kind, gentle and beautiful aspect of mother and the powerful, purifying, disciplinarian aspect of mother. I am not saying that this translates into reality for the typical Hindu woman who is faced with both gender issues as well as issues surrounding caste. I would, however, suggest that there seems to be much in this faith tradition that does, in fact, celebrate the female entity as divine. I certainly did not find nearly as many feminine aspects of the divine in my own Christian faith tradition. When I did find them (Mother Mary and Mary Magdalene in particular) it was their association with the powerful men in their lives that made them “divine” or it was aspects of them that made them something other than women such as Mother Mary’s virginity and Mary Magdalene’s supposed salvation from a life of prostitution. In other words, it was not enough that they were significant women in their own right. They needed to be something other than just women to be considered holy, or had to be saved from something that would make them mere women.

I wanted to take some time to consider the hijab as well, as Morny discusses it in her paper. Morny argues that the hijab unfortunately has negative connotations surrounding it that are not always appropriate. Having lived in several comparatively liberal Islamic country (Indonesia and Malaysia), I would agree with what Morny and the other scholars she cites claim. In Indonesia in particular, a country where, aside from regions like Aceh which fall under regional Sharia law, women generally have the right to choose between wearing or not wearing the hijab. The majority of the Islamic women I know from Indonesia have chosen not to wear the hijab. However, it was interesting for me to see what I perceived to be a shift in the way many younger women were viewing the hijab. Many were deciding to wear it of their own free will, saying they felt empowered and had a sense of pride in wearing it. Again, realizing that this in a country that is viewed as decidedly more liberal than some of their Islamic counterparts in the Middle East, it is safe to say that most of the women here truly did have a choice and were exercising their right to choose. This in no way makes up for the millions of women in the Muslim world who simply by way of law or cultural norms have no choice and must be at least veiled and, seemingly in some areas more often than not, covered by burqas or chadors. But it does serve as an important reminder that how the western world views the wearing of the hijab is not always correct. It is certainly not true that every Muslim woman feels forced to wear the hijab or does not want to wear it. One must determine-if possible and appropriate-whether free will and choice have played a role. I would agree with Joy that the hijab has been negatively and unfortunately stigmatized for those women who choose to embrace it as a symbol of their faith.

None of this is to say that religious scriptures have not placed women into a position of subordination to men. Clearly most have. As Joy pointed out, women in Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Hinduism alike have enjoyed periods of empowerment and subordination which have been backed up by scripture and tradition. Women have had to work very hard over the past few centuries in particular to mark places for themselves that allow them the freedoms to be educated and hold positions in their faith traditions. And, as we know only all too well, this perceived “freedom” is still very controversial for those in the extreme right of most faith traditions. I found it very helpful that Joy looked critically at each religion, holding them up against each other. Hence, it could be seem that women have played significant roles in every religion and have been oppressed in every religion. It is very easy to point the finger toward another, different faith tradition beyond our own, negating the other religion and glorifying our own. But, when we take the time to consider these “herstories” side by side, we can really see compelling arguments for both the liberation of women through faith and the oppression of women through faith in each one.

As noted earlier, I love the idea of seeing this as not a religious issue but rather a women’s issue. If we look at it this way, I think we can look beyond the boundaries of religion and culture and into the heart of the experiences of the women in each tradition, seeing similarities and differences when set against our own individual stories. I think there is real empowerment to be gained when we can see “us in them” and “them in us.”

(image retrieved Oct 12th, 2008 from http://www.geocities.com/zen_appeal/angels.html)

REVIEW OF DOING GENDER by Candace West and Don H. Zimmerman

2008-10-05T10:19:00.000-07:00

This article was really an eye opener for me in regards to how simple it is for the collective “we” of society to categorize people and their perceived personality traits based on gender or what we feel is an individual’s sex category based on the superficial alone. “There aren’t as many women professionals.” “Men are typically stronger than women.” “He walks and talks funny-he must be gay.” “She’s really butch.” These are not, as the article pointed to, thoughts that we even necessarily need to think consciously or be aware of.

It has also been interesting because it made me think of my mother. She is a relatively liberal Christian woman who says she feels that someone’s sexual orientation is not her business and should not matter. Yet, she has commented more than once that she is so happy that her granddaughter-my daughter Anjali-is a “real little girl” who plays dress-up and loves her babies. “I am so happy she is girly and not a ‘tom boy’,” she says with relief, almost as if she feared that, in this day and age, her grandchild could possibly be showing signs of being something other than heterosexual. And that bothers me because, when I first heard my mom make this comment, I was surprised, yet I also realized I was pleased about my daughter's perceived girly-ness as well. Is this an indicator that I am raising a “healthy, heterosexual child?” At this point in her life, it is likely not. But it made me question my own beliefs. I consider myself relatively liberal and I do support the queer/lesbian/trans/bi lifestyles for people who choose it. Gay marriage? I am all for it. What about gays adopting children or creating families in other “controversial” ways? Why not, after all, a good parent is a good parent. But what about my little girl? Could I accept that she is, something other than heterosexual? In all honesty, I will always unconditionally accept her. I would find it hard, however, to accept the “it” that would be a lesbian or bi lifestyle. I think I would work very hard to try and “help” her steer away from that, although consciously I recognize it is something I can not steer in any direction. And I worry myself sick about it when I think of it.

And all this awareness makes me one sad mama…

5 Key Points of the Essay

First, the idea that the development of one's gender is socially influenced and even dictated as opposed to something wholly independent is strongly argued here. In other words, what we learn as we grow from those around us and the society in which we live will socialize us to how we see, feel and act when it comes to gender and how we feel we are defined (or not defined) by our gender and how we, in turn, define ourselves and others. How we interact with others socially and how we see others interact will become ingrained in us as we grow and learn to differentiate between what is acceptable behaviour for a “male” and what is acceptable behaviour for a “female.”

Second, a deep understanding of how to differentiate the terms "sex," "gender," and "sex category," is argued to be essential to our growth as individuals. This is important, argue the authors, as society needs to understand that one is not always defined by one’s biological sex. The more ambiguous “sex category” and the socially defined role of “gender” seemingly play a much more important part in our understanding of what makes us “male,” “female,” or, in some cases and cultures, “other.” These terms will be delved into more deeply below under the sub-heading “Important Terms/Definitions.”

Going deeper into the first key point, the authors argue that “participants in interaction organize their various and manifold activities to reflect or express gender, and they are disposed to perceive the behavior of others in a similar light.” (p 4) This seems to me to hint at the idea that these are consciously made, intentional decisions to express gender, however it is clear the intent of the authors is to argue that this is so deeply engrained in the individual that it becomes second nature.

Another important point raised is the idea that “doing gender is unavoidable.” (p 3). I found this an extremely simple yet critical idea if we are to understand how we view others today. In other words, because our ideas of gender and our expectations of others as being “gendered” in certain ways are so engrained in us that we unconsciously take for granted the appropriate actions of the “male” and the “female” as being appropriate. We make an immediate unconscious judgment when what we see is “acceptable”, as when a man is “masculine” and a woman is “feminine.” However, we make a very conscious judgment about what we perceive as being unacceptable-for example, when a man acts “gay” or effeminate or when a woman acts “butch” or masculine-in terms of our preconceived notions. Hence our unconscious and conscious “gendering” of others occurs as we go about our daily lives. We go throughout our days making mental judgments about all the people we come in contact with and much of our judgments will be based around how we categorize others as far as “sex” and “gender.”

Finally, the authors argue that our ideas about gender and how our society is built around these ideas ultimately subordinate women (P 129). For example, the use of the word “physician” is generally used as a neutral term. However, without the qualifier “woman” in front of the term, most of us would jump to the conclusion that the physician, surgeon, doctor (in both medical and academic uses), accountant, lawyer, etc would be male. As the essay argues, the qualifying term “woman” or “female” in front of otherwise neutral gendered titles such as “physician,” has several deep rooted connotations. First the idea that the sex of the woman must be made clear so that others have the understanding that this physician is not simply a physician but a woman physician which often could lead to the idea that perhaps a woman’s experience or training in this field would be different from the “norm” (male) experience. Would this woman have the same skills as her male counterpart? Will she be “different” somehow in her interpretation of the task at hand? Likewise, the sense that this professional woman has veered away from the traditional idea of wife and mother can also be problematic. People may question if she is able to handle all of her responsibilities. For women who choose not to have a family, they may face the nagging questions of others wondering WHY they would “sacrifice” so much for their career.

Important Terms/Definition

I found several terms to be essential to the argument proposed by the authors. Along with the terms, I am giving definitions that paraphrase the way West and Zimmerman define them in their article. “Sex” refers to how we are biologically defined as “woman” or “man.” Our “gender”, while seemingly similar, refers to the traits that define as being feminine or masculine, hence that make us seemingly “male” or “female.” “Sex category” refers to how society categorizes an individual based on “displays” that would define one to be either seemingly male or female, regardless of biological sex. “Gender display” refers to ways gender can be explicitly portrayed through social interaction. “Doing gender” refers to the ways in which society creates differences between male and female that are, essentially, unnatural but nevertheless accepted as normal and perceived to be natural. “Role conflict” refers to situations in which an individual, due to circumstances, is acting out of character based on acceptable norms of gender.

Theoretical Perspective of the Article

I would argue that the theoretical perspective of the authors is that our ideas on sex, gender, and sex category are so engrained in us from an early age that we cannot separate ourselves from them. These deeply engrained ideas come from our social interaction with family, friends, social networks and our society as a whole where they have developed and became engrained in the first place. Because these ideas are individually and socially accepted, anyone who does not fit the “norm” (women who act as main breadwinners in a family; men who act effeminate or who are queer, bi or transgendered; women who identify themselves as lesbian, dyke, or bi or who are presumed to be so) does not “fit and, hence, essentially is stereotyped or discriminated against, either on a conscious or subconscious level.

The article did, in fact, enhance my understanding of feminism and gender. At least, it challenges me to evaluate my own views on feminism and where I fit in or even if I have to fit in. This is a question I often struggle with as I do support many of the feminist values and ideals but find the extremes quite polarizing (hence, they are extremes, of course). I have a hard time defining myself as anything beyond just woman when it comes to these types of issues and I find this is often enough for me.

I found the in depth discussion of terms helpful. The understanding that these types of gender based ideas are heavily and forever engrained in us was truly eye opening. We take all of this for granted as normal. In fact, more likely than not, we do not pay much attention to how we categorize people. We just do. The implications of these categorizations, however, are apparent in how society treats those who “fit” and how it treats those who do not.

A poem...

2008-10-05T09:45:00.000-07:00

I published some poems in a self-published collection in 1999 entitled January On...Poems of Bali and other Strange Places and I wanted to share one of them...

Daughters

You dress them up like candy
In your velvets and your jewels
And you wrap them in your oils
To smell like Asian roses
Their faces
Sweet like honey
You can wear them in your crown
They will dance
And they will laugh
Until the morning
For you...

Image of Balinese girl retrieved from http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2405/2147751929_11b9ea61a8.jpg&imgrefurl=http://colloidfarl.blogspot.com/2007/12/portraits-in-temple.html&h=500&w=333&sz=100&hl=en&start=6&um=1&usg=__8FxvCetX8nO__4A5KQsdgaY5F3c=&tbnid=dGMhbPJEgDUmfM:&tbnh=130&tbnw=87&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dbalinese%2Bwomen%2Bimages%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1B2GGIC_enCA203CA205%26sa%3DX
October 4th 2008.

Welcome to my blog...

2008-10-05T08:10:00.000-07:00

Before getting into the meat of my blogs, I wanted to share some of my thoughts going into this work and why I have chosen to take such a class. As many people know, I am married to a Balinese Hindu. Before ever meeting my husband, I was very involved in the study of yoga. I loved the physical practice but it was the academic study that truly radiated with me. Studying the Vedas, reading the Yoga Sutras and looking at works by contemporary researchers like Georg Feuerstein and David Frawley was so enriching and inspiring to me. So, I came into my marriage with a really romantic idea of what I thought Hinduism was supposed to "be." I was enchanted by the pantheon of gods and goddesses, the thought that EVERYONE was a meditating vegetarian, and that the women were just gorgeous in their saris. I COULDN'T WAIT TO BE ONE OF THOSE WOMEN! Those were my thoughts! I was terribly disappointed to realize that Balinese Hinduism was indeed an expression of Hinduism but was not easily comparable on the surface to Indian Hinduism. The Balinese do not dress the same way, they do not celebrate the same holidays, they do not always recognize the same deities and they use water and not fire for their "puja." This was quite isolating for me. As well, the realization that I was considered Hindu for family and legal reasons and was, in fact, to identify myself as Hindu if ever asked, but, that I would in theory never truly be considered Hindu or accepted as such, disturbed me greatly.

Along with this came the realization that seeing "Hinduism" through a western lens (that is, to see Hinduism through the eyes of western practitioners who choose to identify with certain aspects of Hinduism only-yoga, meditation, devotion to a particular deity-but who are not actually involved in the greater Indian Hindu diaspora, and hence are not "practicing Hindus.") gave me a false sense of the true tradition of Hinduism. I was immersed in all the good things and, because I was not identified by any caste or exposed to the issues surrounding the rights and well-being of women, children and the untouchables, I was able to selectively create my own Hindu experience. This did wonders for my spiritual practice but was certainly not representative of what it means to be Hindu in the larger sense or what it means to be a Hindu woman.

I grapple with this nearly everyday of my life. Where do I fit in to Hinduism? As beautiful as it is, Balinese Hinduism does not resonate with me the same way Indian Hinduism does. But my world view is vastly different from that of the Indian Hindu. Can I reconcile that in some way? Can I ever find a place or be accepted? Should it matter? I do not know if it should but it does. I feel very isolated as I don't have a community but there is also a fear of being "accepted" as a western "Hindu" who belongs to the lowest caste sudra (Balinese sp) community of Bali (almost everyone in Bali is in this caste but will the Indian Hindu understand this?) I do not want to be faced with any of that but I also have a desire to be a part of a community. It is quite difficult to know what to do.

So, I am taking this class to learn about the experience of women in world religions and to help me figure out some of my own concerns. In the meantime, having exposure to the great writings and to the experiences of women from vastly different world views is so fascinating! This is going to be, I think, helpful for me as I attempt to identify my "place." And, also as I attempt to identify why this is so important as it would likely be much easier to be content with what I have already gleaned from my spiritual and academic study and remain content in being the Hindu I want to be in my heart...

Image retrieved from http://www.yenmag.net/contributors/brooke-robinson/ Oct 5, 2008.