Introduction post: Naples and Desai

Ferree and Tripp:
I, like a few others who have posted, found the authors' distinction between women's movements and feminism particularly interesting (and important). I know many of us have had discussions, both in and out of class, of what makes something feminist, especially when discussing other women's groups.
I didn't expect the authors to actually have an answer to the question, so I was pleasantly surprised when they did. Essentially, women's movements view women as a constituency while feminism is viewed as a goal. I expect that the authors' definition might be too simple, but I think this is a good starting place and an adequate definition for the purposes of this class.
This is slightly off topic, but I'm reminded of Manifesta by Jennifer Baumgardner and Amy Richards. The final chapter of the book describes what a day with feminism would be like (access to a safe abortion, equal pay, etc.). If you haven't read it, I highly recommend it!

Prior to reading this, I didn't even realize that there have been three waves of transnational feminism, which makes me feel incredibly ignorant. I was left with a lot of questions after reading this part of the text. If individual countries have their own movements, then how can we group them collectively? I remember reading in another class that we shouldn't split feminism into waves because it signifies that feminism is not a constant thing. It seems like it would be even more unwise to attempt to split up transnational feminism. What do you think?

Naples & Desai:
I'd like to take the opportunity to expand on something I learned while reading this chapter.
On page 6, the author briefly mentions the center/periphery theory, but doesn't really explain what it is.

The centre–periphery (or core–periphery) model is a spatial metaphor which describes and attempts to explain the structural relationship between the advanced or metropolitan ‘centre’ and a less developed ‘periphery’, either within a particular country, or (more commonly) as applied to the relationship between capitalist and developing societies. The former usage is common in political geography, political sociology, and studies of labour-markets.

A center country is typically a more powerful country, but might be without resources (say, the United States). The periphery countries are usually less powerful, have more resources and might already be at an economic disadvantage. The center country creates agreements with the peripheries in order to extract resources, and even exploit the other countries. Commonly, the center/periphery countries are developed/developing as well.

It's going to be important for us to understand some political and economic theory for this class...I don't know about you all, but I don't know any. So thanks to Kevin for helping me through the reading. Ask him if you have any questions. :D


Questions:
Does the purpose of an organization influence whether it's considered part of a women's movement? If, by the authors' definition, women's movements are defined by the fact that they use women as a constituency, then can conservative groups claim to be part of the women's movement? For example, there is a new organization on campus billing itself as a “conservative women's book club.” They are adamant that feminism is not the answer, but still work for equality. They argue that “a woman can be a corporate executive and still have time to bake cookies and take the kids to soccer practice.” Obviously, they are not feminist. But they argue that they are working toward a better life for women. Are they part of the women's movement?


I personally feel like it's been a disadvantage to us that we've, for the post part, only had the opportunity to learn about American feminism in our Women's Studies classes. I feel like I am part of the American bourgeoisie that the texts frequently criticize Americans of. What do you think? Should there be an added emphasis of transnational issues in other classes? Or does one course suffice?

- Bianca