Emily Vrotsos
Jackie Mallan-King
WST 4415
29 January 2010
Naples and Desai/Feree and Tripp Assignment
One particular sentence that resonated with me is on the first page of chapter one in Naples and Desai. “Community-based social change efforts seem all too limited when placed up against the structures of inequality that shape the wider political and economic context” (Naples 1). This is interesting to me because I believe that it signifies a common belief that the grander scope of things on a macro and global level are more important than those changes that begin at the micro or meso levels. While global and macro are the levels that the majority of people witness issues and changes at, it must be appreciated that so many of these issues and changes have been occurring for longer periods of time at the micro and meso levels. The assumption that the macro and global levels are more important because they appear to affect the greatest number of people is unfair, because such significant changes always begin somewhere, and it is often in much smaller increments. However, what if it never expands from the smallest level to the largest but is still a huge issue to consider? Does the measured quantity of those affected by an issue truly determine the quality of the argument it presents? And there is no reason to assume that economic and politics are the only arenas where something becomes important. While patriarchy seems to reign supreme through these two particular systems as men have some of the highest positions in either industry, it does not need to be this way if we appreciate all of the issues that permeate human lives at all levels.
Ferree and Tripp mention on page 7 that “feminist activists and activism typically are embedded in organizations and institutions with multiple goals.” There is often the difficulty of categorizing and systematically focusing on the smallest increments of the a problem, and this is due to the fact that so many issues are intertwined in so many ways. This lack of efficient division and organization of causes separate from each other makes it extremely difficult for the people involved to go without biases and prejudices of the huge diversity of cultures included. While this obvious show of diversity seems to be a great chance to go without prejudice and stereotypes, there are times where it can only emphasize these differences and cause some resentment. The feminist movement requires understanding and camaraderie among all people that are involved at every level. All members of the feminist movement must understand and appreciate the differences of their neighbors, so that once those differences are realized we can move forward. Once the characteristics of the other populations have been defined, we can define ourselves by process of elimination of those characteristics which we are not. We define ourselves by comparing ourselves to others and determining what we share and then deciding what we do not. For how can we apply and work for changes when we do not understand ourselves?
1) Do you believe that we can combine all of our differences to have one successful global feminist movement? Or do you believe it would be feasible to accomplish more by allowing smaller interest groups to complete their own tasks separate from others?
2) Do you feel that there are any feminist goals that are out of date? If so, how would you redirect activity to attempt to improve the results from these goals?
1.) I don't think that we will ever really have one global feminist movement. We might be able to have one global "women's movement" but not feminist. The only reason I say this is because the different feminist movements seem to revolve around specific cultural ideals of each country. For instance in one of the readings there was a country heavily populated with African Americans and the country made it illegal to perform female genital circumcisions. The African American females then started circumcising themselves because it was part of their culture and they felt that their culture was being taken away from them.
ReplyDeleteAside from that I feel like a women's movement is more likely to happen globally just because there doesn't have to be a specific goal when talking about a women's movement. But in a feminist movement there would have to be a goal. The women just coming together to mobilize would be enough to maybe raise questions across the globe about change and the status of women transnationally.
1. I too don't believe that one homogeneous feminist movement will ever be successful- and if it was I don't think that it would be in the best interest women globally. Having one cohesive movement as opposed to having community- based feminist change runs the risk of generalizing women globally as well as making western feminist praxis the global standard for all women. Community- based movements are more in touch with the needs of local women and are more likely to be non- hierarchal. Whereas a global feminist movement would be extremely difficult without having a hierarchal system which innately places the needs of certain groups of women above others.
ReplyDeleteTo answer your first question I think that we need to adventually bring all aspects together to make one whole but I think that is going to be take a very long time. So, I think working as indiviuals to get the balls rooling is a good thing
ReplyDeleteIn response to your second question about any feminist goals being out of date, I think this once again is relative to where you are. Perhaps issues of the First Wave are not relevant to modern America, but women's right to vote may still be an issue some countries face that we aren't aware of. I think intersecting oppression is something that should always be part of the feminist discourse. There are so many ways women feel oppressed other than just being a woman. This concept is important when talking about transnational feminism as it allows us (Americans) to keep in mind our differences and to be sensitive to issues that may not affect us directly. I also think that feminism is a work in progress. It is constantly being redefined, however, the history is still important. The thing about feminist history is that we should learn about the movement globally rather than exclusively our own. I think that will also motivate us to support feminist movements occurring today.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's realistic to have global feminist movement nor would it be successful. There's too many problems with having one global goal, the first one being how would we agree on a goal? Women all over the world go through different struggles. The problems that women face in America are different than problems women face in Russia or Iraq or Iceland. Also how would we agree on how to go about solving these problems? Feminist in America have a hard enough time trying to have a cohesive movement so it would be able to happen on a world wide scale. We can't have a global goal but we can have global solidarity for feminist and women all over the world.
ReplyDelete