Week 3 discussion post

Feree and Trip brought up the interesting distinction between a “women's movement” and “feminism” that I had never considered before. They spoke about how a women's movement is basically defined by any mobilization of women gathering for any number of reasons, not necessarily “feminist” reasons. Feree/Trip say that “organizing women explicitly as women to make social change is what makes a 'women's movement'”. When speaking about feminism on the the other hand though, it was said that feminism is really any activism that has a goal, but specifically a goal of challenging or changing women's status. Why then when we think of a “women's movement” do we automatically assume it to be feminist? Maybe it's because we haven't really experienced quite as large or popular a women's movement as the feminist movement. They pose the question “when and why do women's movements embrace feminist goals – and when not?” This answer really depends on what issue the women are mobilizing around. For instance in the National Organization for Women women organize around “feminist” issues. This women's movement could be classified as a women's feminist movement. There is however a women's movement that is trying to come onto the UCF campus to promote it's strictly conservative beliefs and anti-feminist stances. While this is not embracing feminism it is still women organizing and can so be called a “women's movement”. The clear distinction between the two different organizations is what helps to define when and why some women's movements embrace feminist goals while others do not. It's all about the fight being fought and what the members of the movement are hoping to achieve.

Naples and Desai bring up the issue of the use of the term “grassroots” which I have never thought existed. First off, they asked the essential questions of who would be deemed “grassroots”. Upon answering the question it seems as though it is the disenfranchised groups or those who are less dominant in a corporate world where elites take the reigning status. When thinking about grassroots in relation to organizations, for instance the National Organization for Women, I wouldn’t have ever thought about the term “grassroots” in a negative context before. The fact that we are a grassroots organization and trying to make change without having much backing or support (both from people and financially) to begin with is what makes it feel empowering. Upon looking further into it though, I thought to myself “why are we the grassroots organizations?” and “who gave others a right to label us as so?” When looking at grassroots organizations as a whole then, would people from corporate America who want to help out be excluded because they just “aren’t like us”? or are we accepting of everyone because we are the underrepresented and are trying to make a change without discrimination. Even though grassroots organizations are made up of disenfranchised groups of people, I feel like some organizations are still oppressing others by leaving out other people who are disenfranchised for different reasons. Sometimes I think that the term grassroots is great and helps build a community because we can all relate. But then there are those other times when I wonder, do we really need to label ourselves and our mobilized group in order to make progress and create change?


Questions:

1.) Feree and Trip bring up the topic of the waves of Transnational Feminism. It seems as though the first wave of transnational feminism throughout the world can somehow be classified by either suffrage or the right for women to be politically involved. We have had discussions about how the third wave is clearly defined as being all about the personal being political. But then we get to the second wave. While the second wave is where most of our feminism stems from, it seems to be the wave about which we know the least. If we had to define in some way what makes up a second wave of feminism, what would it be? Is there a way to define it or are we really not knowledgeable about the subject?

2.) Naples and Desai state that "women's issues vary by society and require multiple strategies of liberation." I do agree with this but the question I'm wondering is, is it okay for women from other places and cultural backgrounds to step in and help out by showing or giving examples of different ways to be liberated? We all want a joint sisterhood and to help transnationally, but where is the line? When is it not okay for us to go to another country to help "liberate" their women?