Theorizing Activism

          In taking a Women’s Studies class online, I was skeptical at first.  I though, how do I express what I truly feel in words, how do I get to know my classmates?  Although I feel I had a firm grasp on the subject of feminism, I feel that this class has widened my knowledge on the subject greatly.  Through lectures that provided historical and concrete information, classmate’s blogs, and the discussion boards, I have learned the facts, but also a to a great degree, the opinions of my generation.  I have learned that the difference in these opinions depend greatly on the intersectionality of our lives.  We are all from different places, we have grown up in different ways, our lives are unique.  At the end of this class, whether or not we all assign to feminism or not, we are taking away an in-depth perspective on gender, class, race, identity, etc.  The topics that we have grasped in such a short time are problems present in everyday life—welfare, politics, discrimination, abuse/violence, and much more.  
           Lisa Maria Hogeland states in her article “Fear of Feminism: Why Young Women Get the Willies,” “Feminism requires an expansion of the self—an expansion of empathy, interest, intelligence, and responsibility across differences, histories, cultures, ethnicities, sexual identities, otherness.  The differences between women […] are our most precious resources in thinking and acting toward change” (http://www.rapereliefshelter.bc.ca/learn/resources/fear-feminism-why-young-women-get-willies).  This is exactly why I think that our virtual classroom is so beneficial.  All of us are different and coming together to educate one another.  I know personally that many writings from my classmates have made an impact on my life.  It is important to embrace our differences; this is what I take away from the class.  

Policy Issue: Reproductive Rights

                The thing that I want to focus on primarily is a woman’s right to her own body.  How far does this go?  When a woman is pregnant and has decided to keep the baby, does the baby not have equal rights?  Claire Andre and Manuel Velasquez explore this in their article, “Forcing Pregnant Women to do as They’re Told: Maternal vs. Fetal Rights.”  In this article, they provide the example of a woman named Janet who refuses to stop drinking during her pregnancy.  The article states,

Those who support forced treatment of pregnant women agree that every person has a right to freedom of choice.  But when a woman decides to carry her pregnancy to term, we can expect a child will be born, and this future child has a right to be protected from avoidable harm.  Certain behaviors during pregnancy are known to cause harm to offspring.  […]  Heavy alcohol use can cause mental retardation and physical malformations.  Altering one’s diet or refraining from alcohol or drugs presents no serious risk to a pregnant woman’s life or health.  When a pregnant woman who has decided to give birth to a child engages in activities that she could reasonably avoid and that will damage that child, society has a duty to protect the future child, even if this means forcing the pregnant woman to change her behavior.  (http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v1n2/pregnant.html)

                So does a woman who actively chooses to carry out her pregnancy, have the right to do as she pleases regardless of any damage her behavior may do to the unborn child?  No, I do not think she does.  When a woman harms another human being, she will be punished.  When a woman harms a helpless child due to selfish wants, she should be punished.  Alcohol and drug use have negative effects on a person’s body; they can also kill or seriously injure an unborn child.  In my eyes, that is not justifiable.  A child entails responsibility; that responsibility begins in the womb when the mother makes the choice to keep the child.  If a woman is not responsible enough to take care of a child, she should not have one.  I am not by any means suggesting that a woman should sacrifice her own life to save an unborn child, but if a woman is behaving recklessly and wants to keep the child, I feel that forced treatment is acceptable.

Policy Issue: Gendered Violence

In our lecture, we learned that gendered violence “usually occurs when masculine entitlements produce power that manifests itself in harm and injury (physical, sexual, emotional/psychological) towards women.”  This means that our society gives men so much power that men feel the need to exert it upon women in destructive ways.  Although men and women can perpetuate this violence, it is much more likely for a man to be violent against a woman.  A highly prevalent myth present within our society holds that men are biologically prone to be abusive towards women; it is in their blood.  The UNFPA article “Ending Widespread Violence Against Women” states, “Cross-cultural studies of wife abuse have found that nearly a fifth of peasant and small-scale societies are essentially free of family violence.  The existence of such cultures proves that male violence against women is not the inevitable result of male biology or sexuality, but more a matter of how society views masculinity […] The way men view themselves as men, and the way they view women, will determine whether they use violence or coercion against women.” (http://www.unfpa.org/gender/violence.htm).  In other words, identity is socially constructed, if a society accentuates male virility, men of that society are more likely to respect themselves and behave  violently towards women.  This ideology is definitely present within our patriarchal society where marital rape did not become illegal in all 50 states until 1993.  Even with these laws, 10-14 % of married women in the U.S. have been raped by their husbands.  What does this say about our society’s priorities?  3 women die every day due to intimate partner violence.  Obviously violence is gendered in our world.   

Policy Issue: Social Welfare

                In reading Gwendolyn Mink’s chapter, “Aren’t Poor Single Mothers Women?  Feminists, Welfare Reform, and Welfare Justice” from Whose Welfare?, Mink makes some truly valid points about the invasiveness of welfare reforms.  This invasion of women’s rights is the subject that I felt was truly important due to the fact that welfare is meant to better one’s wellbeing, not subtract from it.  Mink states,

            The Personal Responsibility Act makes government responsible for how poor mothers lead their lives.  Under the act, government tells poor single mothers with whom to associate, under what conditions to have and raise children, and what kind of work is appropriate.  These instructions invade poor single mothers’ freedom of association and freedom of vocation.  They curtail their fundamental rights to sexual privacy and to make parenting decisions about their own children.  (173)

Although I am quite weary of accepting or rejecting certain factors of welfare, it is highly evident how welfare reforms may harm women in the process of helping them.  So is welfare a woman’s issue?  In my mind, there is no doubt about it.  If any woman’s rights are at stake, all women’s rights are at stake.  Mink provides examples that are highly persuading. 

            Child support rules require nonmarital mothers to associate with biological fathers, and in doing so to stoke such fathers’ claims to parental rights.  […] But some mothers do not have support orders because the do not want them.  A mother may not want to identify her child’s father because she may fear abuse for herself or her child.  She may not want to seek child support because she has chosen to parent alone—or with someone else.  She may know her child’s father is poor and may fear exposing him to harsh penalties when he cannot pay what a court tells him he owes.  (179)

Regardless of the mother’s reasoning, there is almost always a reason for the mother and father to be separated.  Contrary to common belief, not all women are sluts who get pregnant after one night stands, or do not know who their baby’s father is.  Some women make the rational choice to live apart from the child’s father.  The government should respect women’s choice of disassociation with a child’s father.

Socio-economic Status

            In reading for this week of class, many statistics were given that pinpoint women, especially women of color as the ones who are affected by welfare reforms.  Although some men do utilize welfare benefits, Theresa Funiciello, author of “Poverty Wears a Female Face” states, “As of 1999, single-mother families comprise about 23 percent of all families with children under age 18—yet represent 60 percent of all such households in poverty. […] The poverty rate of single-father families is higher: 16.2 percent.  The poverty rate of single-mother families is 35.7 percent” (Sisterhood is Forever, 225).

            With this information in mind, I began thinking about the woman’s role within the home.  Due to gender norms, women are typically obligated to perform 2/3 of weekly household work.  On average, women perform 27 hours a week in house work as opposed to the 16 hours a week that men perform.  Imagine a single mother on welfare—required to work in order to continue receiving welfare, and performing not only her 27 hours a week but also the absent male’s 16 hours a week.  It almost seems impossible.  Not to mention, the time that the mother spends caring for her children, or relatives who are no longer able to care for themselves.      

            In contemplating these statistics, I began to imagine the quality of life that these women lead.  It is clear that they definitely to not lead comfortable lives.  Why are women the majority of the impoverished society?  Funiciello provides a possibility: “Poor men skip out, poor women screw up” (225).  Although this cannot possibly be the only answer to women’s unfortunate circumstances, it certainly seems pliable.     

Nationality

During lecture for our Women’s Studies class, we were provided with the following quotation from Stephen D. Levitt’s Freakonomics:

            In a sample of 13 African countries between 1999 and 2004, 52% of women surveyed say they think that wife-beating is justified if she neglects the children; around 45% think it's justified if she goes out without telling the husband or argues with him; 36% if she refuses sex, and 30% if she burns the food. And this is what the women think.

 

To be quite honest, in reading these statistics, I immediately thought, “I can’t believe this!  I want to go over there and do something to make them see different.”  This is exactly what we should not do.  We as westerners, have a tendency to go in to countries and change them to meet our standards.  Johanna Brenner in her article “Transnational Feminism and the Struggle for Global Justice” states, “Women Living Under Muslim Law (WLUML) challenges religions/political fundamentalism from within an Islamic framework of discourse, re-defining just as men have done historically, what constitutes an ‘Islamic’ practice” (The WSF: Challenging Empires, 27).  In other words, these women do not feel that a new system is necessary; they simply want to correct the one that they currently live in. 

            This is what I feel transnational feminism is all about.  Western feminists must lend a hand to their neighboring feminists, but we must not take over.  Even if we only provide support, in order for the women to fully succeed, I feel that it is necessary they do the work on their own.   Within transnational feminism, women from all over the world can share information, and ideas on how to correct certain issues.  The key factor is recognizing the differences among cultures, and realizing that what is suitable for our culture may not be applicable to a totally different culture.  Intersectionality Theory proves that there is no cookie cutter design of feminism that can apply to all cultures.  We “women” are all unique.  

Hetero/sexuality

               As I have mentioned in prior posts, I have grown up with homosexuality as a prevalent factor in my family life.  Although my parents are seemingly abnormal in their acceptance of this, it is important to notice the remaining prejudice in the older members of my extended family.  My grandfather for instance…ever since my uncle—the drag queen, was a young boy, everyone said they knew he was going to be gay.  So, my grandfather had 30 or so years to adjust to his son’s homosexuality but the stigmatization of gays is so deeply imbedded in his mind that it ruined their relationship.  In fact, my grandfather refuses to call homosexual’s gays; instead he calls them “fuddy duddys.”  Similarly, my older aunts will not even acknowledge his existence.

                What I want to discover if these prejudices have a sort of colander effect, that is it takes many years for these beliefs to be separated from typical societal beliefs.  I wonder this because it is clear that some of these prejudices have been passed down to younger generations…can they ever just die out?  The study Hatred in the Hallways, by the Human Right’s Watch observed harassment in schools among LGB students.  Some students reported hearing the word “gay” 10-20 times a day in the hallways.  Is this what is left of the prejudices from our older generations.   First gays are brutalized and ostracized, although this is still present, now their sexuality is demeaned through the use of the word “gay” as a common negative connotation that fits in almost every situation (according to our generation).  My little brother who is 14 calls everything “gay.”  It is really upsetting to see this prejudice being passed down.