Global Feminism: Transnational Women’ Activism, Organizing, and Human Rights had many interesting passages about the evolving movement of eastern and western feminists mobilizing to organize around this particular strain of feminism. The section I appreciated the most was Aili Mari Tripp’s article “The Evolution of Transnational Feminisms: Consensus, Conflict, and New Dynamics”. She spoke on the shifting lens from Global North to South and what it meant to the movement. I was particularly intrigued by her analysis of the broadening of the term “violence against women” to not only mean, “domestic violence and rape to violence against women caused by economic deprivation, structural adjustment, environmental degradation, war and political repression.” (p. 62). I have always viewed the state as a whole as a large perpetuator of violence against women simply in the way that it consistently has kept women, especially women of color, at the bottom of an economic totem pole. Tripp discusses how now that people are recognizing economic repression as a form of violence against women they are seeing women’s rights more as human rights. I have a few concerns with the language politics that this brings up. While I feel it is important to remember that yes, especially in the global south many people as a whole are economically repressed, it is still crucial to retain the knowledge that women are still far more affected by this than men. By shifting the focus from women specifically to human rights in general I feel this movement could get muddled, watered down, and eventually forgotten.
In Women’s Activism and Globalization I was immediately drawn to the very first chapter, “Changing the Terms: Community Activism, Globalization, and the Dilemmas of Transnational Feminist Praxis”. This section is all about language, naming, and practice and action coming together. I have always been very interested in what Nancy A. Naples decribes as the, “politics of naming” because I find that language and the way we frame things are often the greatest barrier keeping people away from movements. I enjoyed the way Naples dedicated time to unpacking the terms Third World and postcolonial because it is incredibly important to remember that it is not the people of these nations that are placing these terms upon themselves, rather it is the supposed “first world-ers” that are. As many of us have learned, by titling, naming, and categorizing things we are ultimately “othering” someone else. Even if the intention is not horrific in coining the term “first world” it automatically insinuates that there is a “not-first-world” or an “other”. I also found it interesting how she brought up the distinct language barrier that contributes to the separation of eat/west, north/south. Naples discusses how in countries such as Egypt there is no translation for grassroots. While in the United States so many feminists are quick to use this term to describe anything and everything they are doing. I feel many times as though “western” feminists are giving up on trying to communicate with global feminists because it is “to hard” or “not worth it” and I feel a lot of these complaints simply boil down to language.
Discussion Questions:
1.) I discussed earlier the broadening use of the term “violence against women”. Do you also acknowledge this term as including state, government, and economical violence against women or do you think that is broadening the term too much?
2.) If western feminists are operating in a frame that global feminists cannot even translate is that frame still legitimate? Should we be doing more to change the politics of our language so that we really can operate as a global sisterhood?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1.) I think that this is a great question and have honestly never thought of it like this before. I think that when most people hear or read the word "violence" it is automatically associated with something that is physical as opposed to something that just further oppresses someone. I don't think that it's broadening the term too much but people might need to put the types of violence against women into categories so as to keep things clear when they are talking about the different issues.
ReplyDelete1. I definitely agree that violence against women includes violence perpetrated by the state. Women (in particular women of color) are the main victim of exploitation resulting from capitalism, and women are victims of institutionalized sexism resulting from discriminatory state policies (feminization of poverty). Women who are victims of state violence are at even greater odds because for the most part they are living in poverty and have been overlooked by their liberal feminist counterparts.
ReplyDeleteI had never thought about the term being broadened to mean acts of violence against womyn from varying sources. I think by expanding the meaning and putting "economic deprivation, structural adjustment, environmental degradation, war and political repression," as perpetraitors of violence against womyn it takes the issue out of the home and into a public sphere. It also shows a correlation to womyn and the policies being made FOR them and that those policymakers can/should be held accountable.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to language, it seems that if western feminist's framework is not translatable or obsolete to womyn globally, there needs to be changes made. "Global feminism is not a new phenomenon, but it is a more South-centered movement than ever before." The global North needs to become more involved and support the steps already being made by the global South. I think the global south leading initiatives has allowed for western ideals to not be the focus, which I feel they have been in the past. But along with language revision, "It is now up to feminist organizations in the global North to become more active participants in this worldwide movement."
With regards to your first question, I think you're bringing up an excellent, too often neglected issue. I think we most definitely need to expand the definition of violence to fit the social contexts within which we live our lives: economically & politically. Who can fight back against the state? Especially when the list of rights offered a citizen is a shorter one than our own?
ReplyDeleteAnd economically, you have women who are never allowed to manage their own income. Who are never let work. Who don't know how to balance a checkbook, etc.etc. Money is increasingly important, it's powerful, which is why it is one of the most common ways in which women are oppressed by their abusive partners.