Week Three

Women’s Activism and Globalization
Naples and Desai have a section entitled “Transnational Organizing and the Politics of Naming” (page 5) where they focus on the pros and cons of certain terms and titles for “transnational feminism.” In my Feminist Theory class we briefly discussed why the term third world is problematic. The classification of nations as first, second, and third world came about during the cold war- you were either against communism (first), a country practicing communism (second) and then all other countries (third). Since the end of the cold war we have done away with the second world but for some reason still insist on using first and third. I don’t agree with using the term third world to classify other countries. It’s very classist for us to name a country third world just because they don’t live up to our standards of western society or have the technology we do.
Naples and Desai then discuss the problem with using the term grassroots. As someone who as used the term grassroots activism and grassroots organizing, I have never thought about it the way Naples and Desai discussed. “This privileging of the so-called grassroots can also lead to a romanticization of this site of struggle as well as a tendency to “other” women said to be of the grassroots” (4). Grassroots also does not translate in other cultures, for example there is no literal translation of grassroots in Arabic.
Finally, I want to discuss the name of this course and what Naples and Desai say about the terms global and transnational. Inderpal Grewal and Caren Kaplan prefer the term transnational over global. Global feminism “has elided the diversity of women’s agency in favor of a universalized Western model of women’s liberation that celebrates individuality and modernity.” Yet Meyer and Prugl prefer the term global because “it signals a movement beyond the narrow study of international organizations” (6). Some view globalism as a more radical construct when compared to the term transnational.

Question: While we will probably never be able to agree on a term to describe “transnational feminism,” what term do you find problematic and what term would you prefer to use? Also should this course be called global and transnational feminism?


Global Feminism
Ferree and Tripp have a section entitled, Feminism and Women’s Movement: A Difference that makes a Difference (6), which was very insightful. In this section they differentiate between feminism and a women’s movement. A women’s movement is the organization of women to make a social change. A women’s movement is just another form of a caucus or interest group that is made up strictly of women. The goal of a women’s movement does not have to be based on gender but is focused on “mobilizing and building a strategy, organizing, and politics around issues defined as being particularly women’s concerns.
They then go on to define feminism. “Activism for the purpose of challenging and changing women’s subordination to men is what defines feminism” (6). Feminism can be adopted by any gender as long as they are working towards the “goals” of feminism. “Because feminism challenges all of gender relations, it also addresses those norms and processes of gender construction and oppression that differentially advantage some women and men relative to others, such as devaluing “sissy” men or the women who do care work for others” (7).
Feminism is a goal while a women’s movement is an interest group. I think this was an important section to go over before starting the course. Knowing the difference between a women’s movement and feminism will help us identify what women are the trying to achieve around the world and make sure we use the correct terminology.

Question: The question that I pose was actually asked in the reading, but wanted to know how you all felt. When women mobilize, as they do, to pursue a wide variety of interests, are all such “women’s movements” automatically to be considered feminist? (6).