Week 3

In Global Feminism I enjoyed how word Feminism was challenged and what it actually means. Feminism is seen as a white, upper to middle-class thing, and in turn is difficult to relay to anyone else, for example "migrant women's ability to earn a living wage by their domestic work" (10). Also, starting on page 69-73, Tripp's argument on the fact that American womyn's rights have fallen behind. I find it so interesting that one of the selling points of Bush's war was to liberate the womyn of the Middle East, and yet there was no emphasis on American womyn. Other countries actually support their womyn financially when they have children, unlike encouraging all womyn to have children, but expecting them to get back to work as soon as possible, and silently discriminating against pregnant womyn trying to get jobs. It is crucial to have both maternity and paternity leave, that way the focus is not on one party to take care of the child and the other party to work. The United States is simply perpetuating the notion that womyn take care of the children, and men work. But what if there is no partner present to help, then what? There still needs to be help for single mothers more so then what is evident today. For such an industrialized country, it seems pretty ridiculous. This helps to prove the concept that capitalism and patriarchy are intertwined. 

In Women's Activism and Globalization, I have learned so much just from the beginning of the book. I had no idea about all of the organizations that exist for womyn, healthcare, and the environment around the world. Also, transnational solidarity I understand to a certain extent. The concept is still a little hazy to me. I understand when it states, 

"Similarly, the transnational feminist solidarities, while they reproduce existing inequalities, are forged not on preconceived identities and experiences but in the context of struggle and as such are more reflexive about these inequalities. To what extent can these fluid, multiple, reflexive transnational feminist solidarities change the shape of the global political economy? We offer this collection of case studies as an indication of the limits and possibilities of transnational feminist organizing to improve the lives of women in diverse locales around the world" (33).  

What I am unsure of is whether or not we should help each others efforts. I know that all womyn have different levels of inequality and struggle, but what transnational feminism has turned into is knowing that we have different struggle, but joining together on that. I realize that anything I read in this book, I bring it back to The United States and compare what it is like for American womyn versus the rest of the world. Should I be relating everything to myself, or simply taking it as it is and not comparing? But how do we help one another in becoming allies, but not putting our issues above others' issues? Is it possible to become completely unified under this umbrella term called feminism, when the simple phrase "grass roots" does not even have a literal Arabic translation? It is difficult to say, and I'm sure that all of my questions will get answered later on throughout this semester by the readings and discussions, but as of right now, I am unclear for some reason. 

Questions:

1.) Do you think by having sufficient time and money for both maternity and paternity leave that this would encourage equality in parenting?

2.) Is it possible for womyn's movements to work together to make a change globally, or does it have to stay local, and then later on become global?