Week 3 Intro to Global Feminism

Naples/Desai

While reading Naples and Desai, I most definitely felt like I was forced to learn a lot of new terms very quickly. Among the many terms and concepts, the explanation of “Third World” in relation to the categorization of other worlds. I honestly never used the term “First World” to describe the country I live in, despite knowing this is probably the status both we (Americans) and the rest of the world ascribe to us. Naples and Desai “Third World” has received criticism because it “discursively justifies the construction of the First World countries as dominant and more advanced” (5). What I think Naples and Desai are trying to express is that by giving different countries and global regions a status, especially one primarily based on their affluence, only serves as tool of division rather than inclusion.

This description of the “worlds” reminds me of the very significant theme of invisible privilege. We never have to consider the issues of people of the Third World because they are, as the term describes, of a completely different world. Naples and Desai says this causes ‘othering’ women from non-Western countries”, which the authors go on to mention women of color born in American are “othered” too, and categorized as Third World (5). I think Third World is a term thrown around too freely without any thought of the attached connotation. I personally never really thought of the meaning of the terms and how it perpetuated divisiveness. I always thought of Third World as places that are likely to have issues we can help with but not necessarily how the terminology may be causing more damage than doing good.

Feree/Tripp

In the Ferree and Tripp reading I like the explanation of Transnational Mobilization broken down into the three waves of feminism (55-60). It was like a brief relearning of the significance and progress of each wave from a global view. When I was taught about the First Wave I remember talking about women’s suffrage but only in America. I never knew about suffrage in Japan or India at the time, let alone that there was the possibility their movements were more intense than America’s. I think this is particularly important because my experience is that when people think of feminism, positively or negatively, they think it is an American-centered movement.

Even Second Wave feminism was experienced differently than America. America experienced peaks and lows of feminism at certain times, specifically the 1950s, however in Latin America this decade was not a feminist “doldrums” but a time where “women and activists there were energized and internationally engaged” (Ferree and Tripp 59). This proved to me that the feminist waves are often defined America’s timeline rather than the world as a whole.

The Third Wave, globally, was the wave that seemed to have the same complaints as American feminists at the time. Many issues were focused and funded by white, middle-class international organizations, which of course is exclusive of many transnational feminists that have quite a different experience and set of complaints (Ferree and Tripp 60). The upside to this is it opens the conversation to solving problems affecting women in many different categories and broadens the very definition of feminism.

Questions

1) How do you think feminist movements can be better represented in learning about World History? Clearly not all of us are Political Science or History majors, so for those of us who experience this information as new how can terms be better incorporated in general education classes so we aren’t as green when taking an upper level class about issues we really should have some background on. For example, how do you think terms like “globalization” and “postcolonial”, which are often thrown around quite loosely, can be defined more broadly to include how it has affected women’s movements?

2) Since there may be some fuzziness (I know there is for me) about what wave we are currently part of, is it possible that a more globally unified definition of feminism is in the works or are our cultural, religious, ethnic differenced too extreme to be able to unite feminists across the world?

Kudos!

Hello fellow feminists!

Kudos to all of you on your fantastic, insightful comments on the readings so far. You bring up some excellent points, and your questions are so good that they merit further treatment on Monday, so I will pull some of them for class discussion. Continue with your discussions and responses to each other. I'm enjoying reading what you have to say. :-)

Cheers,

Jackie

Notes & Inquiries

Naples & Desai 1-44:

Looking at feminism in a transnational light is to look at the entirety of the interweaving, constellation-assortment of a movement that’s come to represent so much. Looking at the inequalities in the broadest of perspectives is the only foundation that a feminist movement that truly represents (all of) us can spawn from. As feminist scholars we’re very well aware of the divisions caused by race, class, ethnicity, etc.etc. historically within the movement. As we move into a transnational space we can meet feminists of different backgrounds and values and continue to redefine and expound on our overall mission statement of the kind of equality we’re reaching for (one which continues to strive to be inclusive of all women). Queries

Of course, a transnational & globalized world isn’t one that consists only of world conferences and new overarching policies set to expand equality; there are a lot of unjust and criminal aspects to a world that is starting to bridge toward the unruly, murky wilderness of global economics. Naples & Desai speak candidly about these unscrupulous goings-on, making examples of informal sub-contracts, the decline of social provisions offered by the state, and more specifically the detestable circumstances within which a Walmart CEO makes his 40 million a year— which would be on the backs of women who hand-weave their merchandise for 20 cents an hour (Naples 11). Transnational knowledge however, lets us keep our eyes (as combatants of inequality) on these worldwide political issues. After all, how is politics not going to shape the inner working of any political movement?

Ferree & Tripp 1-77

The knowledge offered with these readings were a good supplement for what I learned from Naples & Desai. Globalization is, of course, a huge impetus for political mobilization & for a more cohesive movement that looks closer to a quick-footed caterpillar than a snake that’s coiled into itself. After all, feminism is a huge tent, housing a bunch of smaller tents, and it’s very easy to lose your understanding of it. Attempt to make an overarching definition and it will get contested. The fact of the matter remains that women are over half of the world populous and each of us has a herstory of myriad circumstances, some of which will contradict with the perceived connotations of the word feminism. That’s a dirty word to many an ear, so we have to be clear and careful when we attempt to speak to it, so that it’s not confused for something else.

Ferree & Tripp make this assessment of the issue at hand, “No woman has a gender but not a race, a nationality but not a gender, an education but not an age” that is a very eloquent summation of the colossal diversity that one term is seeking to be applicable to; we’re talking innumerable variables (Ferre & Tripp 10). So the term has to be flexible, it has to be able to accommodate the individual and assemble the community if it is to garner equality for every woman.

Questions:

1) How would you define feminism for a woman who perceives it to be a tool of Westernization & a threat to their culture?

2) Can anyone explain Transnationalism from Above VS Below for someone who is slow to understand things.

Naples & Desai ; Ferree and Tripp (1)

I read first Naples & Desai: Women's Activism and Globalization.

My initial insight into the book was the photograph on the cover. That woman looks serious. Determined, educated, aware, organized. The woman next to her looks serious. They are youthful, their scorn carries the passion of life- of fight- of refusal to settle for the current happening of their society. The woman to the right looks-- Americanized. She is in the march just as the other women are. This is an understanding of transnational feminism.

I agree with the first statement; "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 3). As a participant of United States (Westernized) society, I am all too well a witness of the injustice bequeathed to the common person by the decisions of Capitalistic corporations [the status of 'people' granted to "them" by the 14th Amendment(!)]. How on earth can small, organized groups of women effect change upon an exploited circumstance, particularly when the exploitation is held by an incredibly powerful U.S. corporation? 'Their' country's government cannot even control the corporation itself- how can a group of women affect their progress? The United States, in marginalizing grassroots connections within "the international political stage" (Naples 4),cannot collectively understand a legitimate impact of movement or revolution, due in my opinion to the culture of individualism fostered among the Western culture.

It truly is important to understand the intersecting life customs in ways made invisible by ethnocentrism. So obviously, the first deconstruction we need to understand is the inherent ethnocentrism of Western feminism. And with that, comes language.

Desai's following essay begins on a positive, affirmative note; "global capital is fluid" (15), and existing thoroughly in dispersed locals, "resulting in 'scattered hegemonies'"(15), transnational feminist solidarities are just as active. Opening a network for a feminist agenda, and integrating feminist theory within the praxis of revolution. A following of statistics illustrates the real changes we have seen. Fortunately, woman as a political categorical member has proven the ability to organize and demand. And as they [we] should.

Global Feminism- Transnational Women's Activism, Organizing, and Human Rights, edited by Ferree and Tripp, also sets a disposition of globalization as simultaneous opportunity for reconstruction, amongst and abreast the imperialistic spread of "globalization". In providing clear examples differentiating "women's movements" and "feminism", Ferree establishes a guideline in which we the audience utilize in an understanding of the transnational agenda. Also, she provides the reader and audience a concise explanation of the perceived 'system', that citizens are "challenging their national governments for democratic participation, ethnic conflicts within states, and gender conflicts fed by religious fundamentalists" (Ferree 4). Gender entwines within all of these things, and comprehension of its value within social interaction is crucial in participating in change. Acknowledgment of the 'alternatives' to "male-dominated institutions...promot[ing] values...fundamentally destructive for all people, such as militarism, environmental exploitation, or competitive global capitalism" (Ferree 8-9)is a "stepping-stone solidly established within these beginning essays.

Questions: In that the distinction between "women's movement" and "feminism" is explained as separate forces, why then is feminism still so thoroughly entwined with the simplified idea of "women." Furthermore, in recollecting work by Judith Butler, is the category of "woman" detrimental in itself to the goals of rearranging power?

With women negotiating the "national and international arenas" (Desai 31) feminist agendas seem to coincide with goals of national and international groups, but are still displaced amongst the group in a way of being "different." Do you agree or disagree, and why or why not? Is it because this is a women's movement?

Introduction post: Naples and Desai

Ferree and Tripp:
I, like a few others who have posted, found the authors' distinction between women's movements and feminism particularly interesting (and important). I know many of us have had discussions, both in and out of class, of what makes something feminist, especially when discussing other women's groups.
I didn't expect the authors to actually have an answer to the question, so I was pleasantly surprised when they did. Essentially, women's movements view women as a constituency while feminism is viewed as a goal. I expect that the authors' definition might be too simple, but I think this is a good starting place and an adequate definition for the purposes of this class.
This is slightly off topic, but I'm reminded of Manifesta by Jennifer Baumgardner and Amy Richards. The final chapter of the book describes what a day with feminism would be like (access to a safe abortion, equal pay, etc.). If you haven't read it, I highly recommend it!

Prior to reading this, I didn't even realize that there have been three waves of transnational feminism, which makes me feel incredibly ignorant. I was left with a lot of questions after reading this part of the text. If individual countries have their own movements, then how can we group them collectively? I remember reading in another class that we shouldn't split feminism into waves because it signifies that feminism is not a constant thing. It seems like it would be even more unwise to attempt to split up transnational feminism. What do you think?

Naples & Desai:
I'd like to take the opportunity to expand on something I learned while reading this chapter.
On page 6, the author briefly mentions the center/periphery theory, but doesn't really explain what it is.

The centre–periphery (or core–periphery) model is a spatial metaphor which describes and attempts to explain the structural relationship between the advanced or metropolitan ‘centre’ and a less developed ‘periphery’, either within a particular country, or (more commonly) as applied to the relationship between capitalist and developing societies. The former usage is common in political geography, political sociology, and studies of labour-markets.

A center country is typically a more powerful country, but might be without resources (say, the United States). The periphery countries are usually less powerful, have more resources and might already be at an economic disadvantage. The center country creates agreements with the peripheries in order to extract resources, and even exploit the other countries. Commonly, the center/periphery countries are developed/developing as well.

It's going to be important for us to understand some political and economic theory for this class...I don't know about you all, but I don't know any. So thanks to Kevin for helping me through the reading. Ask him if you have any questions. :D


Questions:
Does the purpose of an organization influence whether it's considered part of a women's movement? If, by the authors' definition, women's movements are defined by the fact that they use women as a constituency, then can conservative groups claim to be part of the women's movement? For example, there is a new organization on campus billing itself as a “conservative women's book club.” They are adamant that feminism is not the answer, but still work for equality. They argue that “a woman can be a corporate executive and still have time to bake cookies and take the kids to soccer practice.” Obviously, they are not feminist. But they argue that they are working toward a better life for women. Are they part of the women's movement?


I personally feel like it's been a disadvantage to us that we've, for the post part, only had the opportunity to learn about American feminism in our Women's Studies classes. I feel like I am part of the American bourgeoisie that the texts frequently criticize Americans of. What do you think? Should there be an added emphasis of transnational issues in other classes? Or does one course suffice?

- Bianca

Development and Institutions - Week Three

Naples and Desai:

As I have done research on women's social, political, and economic rights in Nicaragua I began to understand concepts such as the restructuring of labor and unpaid domestic labor. What I never realized was the extent to which economic and political systems ignore gender realities when it comes to the impact of laws or economics. The example of the Ghanian women in trading markets being neglected by the government and not receiving credits is perfect. It is perfect in that we are shown the gender relations within the country when the overwhelming majority of companies that received these credits were owned by men. This highlights how “gender-blind” laws unequally affect women in that with rising unemployment, rising health care costs, women are overwhelmingly thought to be the mitigators for the state's dropping of a social safety net.
The string of effects from economic restructuring was also new to me. The string of consequences from economic restructuring seems to be a system that feeds into itself. As women lose the ability to organize, there is an increase in informal and part-time work, which leads to the restructuring of women's labor in the home and subsequently places an uneven burden on women. I had a nascent understanding of these effects but never fully grasped the influence and power of international monetary organizations.
Understanding the power of these organizations requires understanding how neoliberalism, globalization, and capitalism intertwine into a mess of inequality and disproportionate distribution of wealth. The problem when it comes to understanding these ideas is that you cannot take them out of context and try to understand each one individually because you will miss the intersectionality of these ideas and how they translate into a difficult environment for the people living in the “periphery.”

Ferree and Tripp:

Development has become one of the most important women's issues. Typically this is thought to be purely a matter for gender-neutral economics we are increasingly seeing that this is not the case, and the problem is becoming that women are not being viewed as agents for economic development. The introduction of women from developing countries to UNIFEM opened a wider dialogue on what the goals of institutional women's organizations should be. Prior to concerns over development UNIFEM and many international women's organizations were only concerned with the legal and political equality of women. These concerns were not valid for most women in the developing world because the institutions in their home countries oppressed all peoples with apartheid. The introduction of a plurality of former colonies into the U.N. changed this goal and widened it to involve gender-awareness in governments.
The section on the “levers” of policy machinery was particularly interesting because Desai and Naples seems to provide a critique on institutional feminist organs as inherently flawed because they operate in a male dominated system. Ferree and Tripp seem to realize this by including that these institutions are left to the whims of those in control of them; therefore, if conservative women are controlling institutions then they will not be seeking feminist goals. At the same time this machinery provides another “tool,” as Ferree and Tripp mention, for women's and feminist organizations to spark change within their governments.
The political scientist in me feels that this may be one of the more effective methods for instituting change in governments but that would be ignoring institutionalized gender discrimination, governments with no women's organs, governments with no female civil servants, etc. While the machinery of the female policy organs may be an efficient method for democracies that have bureaus such as these, but for nations lacking in more equal gender relations this method would fail.

Questions:
Naples and Desai mention differing methods of competing with the negative effects of globalization. What effects would you think are most effective? Local movements (like the Local Food Movement: a movement against mass produced food coming from thousands of miles away) or transnational movements like Landless Workers Movement or the Zapatista Army in Mexico?

Ferree and Tripp discuss the need to confront issues of development for women. Development would include social safety net issues, political and legal issues, and would require awareness of racial and gender needs within a society. The U.S. is not exempt from this. What kind of “development” issues would you think of when looking at the U.S.?

Week 3

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?

Naples and Desai/Feree and Tripp Assignment

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?

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).

week 3:

In the introduction of Naples and Desai’s book they discussed the impact of global economic restructuring in terms of the expansion of capitalism and focus on how this has affected working class women in developing countries. Their critique is mostly that capitalism has mostly created hardships and exploitation for these women. In the introduction the authors also attempt to make visible the feminist transnational organizing that is occurring in resistance to the exploitation of women resulting from global capitalism. One section that was particularly informative was the break down and simplification of the features of global economic restructuring which include, but are not limited to, a decrease in organized labor, an increase in internationalization of capital, loss of economic and natural resources, cutbacks in the “welfare state”, and a growing disparity between socio-economic class. So far from the text I have gathered that the authors are advocating transnational organizing amongst women and forming cross border solidarities in order to prevent the expansion of capitalism and oppressive labor demands. I hope that this is the stance that is taken throughout the book because thus far it has helped to fuel my hatred for the capitalist system by viewing the expansion of capitalism through the lens of how it exploits women, particularly women of color. My question to the class for these readings is how do you believe the intersections of socio-economic class and gender work in order to produce the particular exploitation seen within capitalism?

The book by Ferree and Tripp took quite another stance on the role that global economic restructuring and globalization. In “Global Feminism” most of the topics deal a lot with policy and the way in which government organizations are organizing around women’s rights in the age of capitalist expansion. There is much written about the way in which international policy has affected women and various international women’s leagues and conferences which have influenced policy- making decisions. I felt that this book so far hasn’t really stressed the importance of having strong grass roots organizations within exploited communities like the other book did. Personally I’m far more interested in the ways in which women come together within their own communities to invoke change rather than how international women’s conferences are put together to represented women globally- because being able to participate in these conferences and be a part of international committees assumes an element of socio- economic privilege. Hopefully as this book goes on there will be more mention of the way in which women organize themselves in diverse communities instead of how women are appointed to be on committees. My question for the class on these readings is more for clarification purposes- when this book refers to globalization I assume this to mean the economic globalization in reference to capitalism, but globalization could also simply mean the increasing interconnectedness of the global population through new means of technology, which globalization is this book referring to or is the term meant to encompass both meanings? How do these two meanings go hand in hand?

Week 3: Defining Feminism in a Global World

In their introduction to Women’s Activism and Globalization: Linking Local Struggles and Transnational Politics, Naples and Desai make an excellent point about the conundrum of feminism within the new age of globalization. On page 9 they write, “ironically, ‘the very processes that produce a racialized feminized proletariat ... displace traditional and national patriarchies,’ thus generating ‘new possibilities precisely because they have led to a breakdown and a reformulation of the categories of nation, race, class, and gender’” (161-162; also see Kelly, Bayes, Hawkesworth, and Young 2001). I believe that this is one of the most important points made in Naples’ and Desai’s introduction because it stresses the importance of widening one’s perspective and looking for feminist action and/or resistance in unexpected places. For instance, one may view globalization as solely harmful to women because of the way it keeps women stuck in a service-level class, but one who looks further can see that while this is problematic, it also, as the authors point out, allows for a restructuring of previously held social norms and ideas. This one example, I believe, serves as a metaphor for the larger action vital to the feminist movement. Rather than succumbing to the weight of globalization and expanding control of those already in power, we as feminists must try to find the positives in a changing world and put our efforts into making those areas stronger, such as the ability to smash existing norms and replace them with an equalized standard. In a world where globalization creates smaller divides among all countries, we must use this to our advantage and learn from each other. As Naples and Desai write on page 9, “the contradictory processes associated with globalization reshape the possibilities for political action to ‘the interstitial sites of the social formation in which the national intersects with the international’” (172). This passage inspires me to look beyond the downside of globalization (while not ignoring the problems it creates, however) and encourages me to find means of political action on both a national and international level.

Question: Do you believe that the “bad” in a situation can/should be overlooked for the “better good?” In the previously discussed case, for example, are the positives of globalization enough to outweigh its negatives? When would this not be acceptable? If, for example, one minority group’s rights were silenced for the sake of another’s, would this be ok? Why or why not?

--

Ferree and Tripp’s definition of feminism in Global Feminism: Transnational Women’s Activism, Organizing, and Human Rights was the most powerful passage to me. The authors describe feminism as “a goal, a target for social change, a purpose informing activism, not a constituency or a strategy” (6). They continue on to say that “feminist mobilizations are informed by feminist theory, beliefs, and practices, but they may take place in a variety of organizational contexts, from women’s movements to positions within governments. Feminism as a goal often informs all or part of the agenda of mixed-gender organizations such as socialist, pacifist, and democratization movements (Ferree and Tripp 9). I wish I had read this definition of feminism sooner in my academic career because I feel like it truly encapsulates and captures what feminism actually is. The questions of “what counts as feminism?” and “who can/not be a feminist?” have come up more times than I can count during my previous Women’s Studies classes, and I feel as if this definition puts an answer to them. As Ferree and Tripp write, “to have a feminist goal is in no way inconsistent with having other political and social goals as well. The question of where feminism stands on the list of priorities of any individual or group is an empirical one” (7). I like that this definition allows for freedom and individual autonomy. One is able to maintain their political/religious/personal beliefs while still working toward the goal of feminism. It is thus defined it as an end point and not an identity. By working with feminism under this definition, one can hope to change the stereotypes associated with the term and show others that it is a goal for everyone no matter how they identify. I am glad that Ferree and Tripp recognize the feminist potential in all organizations, be they elites in power or grassroots organizers, and I look forward to learning much more from their work.

Question: Would you consider “feminist” to be one of your main identifying features? Why/why not? Is it beneficial or problematic to define feminism in such broad terms so that people from all different organizations can be considered feminist? How will this aid/hurt the movement?

Week3

1. Naples & Desai- Talked about Grassroots feminism. Even though I have taken other feminism classes this is a new term for me. I can't wait to find out more about this term for a better understanding. I found it very interesting that in this day and age we have such a big split between the races and classes, I guess that may be something that will never change all though I wish that in the feminist movement we could put such petty things aside and work together to achieve a common goal. I also found it interesting that there was such a debate over the terms and how they should be used, like stated on page five (5) " The terms Third World and Postcolonial are them their selves contested constructs." I guess that it all depends on how we look at the terms and how the make you feel. I was also surprised that they stated on page five (5)" Third World"has been broadened to include women of color born in the so-called "First World". I found it very odd that the term Third World would be used to classify people born in a world of opportunity even if they were repressed. On page thirty one (31) Desai said " While transnational solidarity's among women have grown, they are not without problems." I wonder if we will ever get to a point where we can see eye to eye on any of the issues of feminism and come to a global understanding.

Ferree and Tripp-Talked about Transnationals and how it intersects feminism and globalization and how it has changed and the issues these changes bring up. The passage that I found most interesting is on page sixty-nine(69) "Causes of the Shift in Momentum" What I found interesting was the tools that were being used to up the momentum in some countries while the momentum was falling short in other countries. Like Stated on page seventy-one(71) "After the 1990's, the expanded use of the Internet,e-mail,faxes,and other forms of communication greatly facilitated networking globally. I am glad to see that technology is being used to help in connecting feminism on global level. What I was surprised about was the fact that the U.S. and Europe do not realize that their movements effect the movements in other countries. As stated on page seventy-one(71) In European and the U.S. women's movement organizations there is surprisingly little discussion of how their countries' policies and economic practices affect women in other parts of the world." I don't see how we can not see the connection we have to the world with everything that goes on it kind of makes me sad to realize how self involved we all are. It also saddened me to see that the U.S. does not adapt some of the better policies that other countries have put into place. As Stated on page seventy-two (72) "Moreover, the United States does not seem concerned about keeping up with other industrialized countries in terms of maternity and paternity leave, welfare, benefits that affect the well-being of women and of society." I wish that the U.S. would be more concerned with those issues we may have things figured out a little more if we worked together more. However I was happy to see that other countries were putting into effect some well needed policies that are for the well being of women in the countries. As stated on page seventy-two (72)"Most women worldwide,even in the Middle East, enjoy paid maternity leave. For example, women have fourteen weeks maternity leave in Algeria, and twelve weeks in Morocco with 100 percent of their wages paid by social security. My only hope is that we as third wave feminist can some how fight to make these policies come into play in all countries around the world.

2. My questions to you/ As a Feminist what do you think you you can do to help with spreading global feminism? and Why do you think that the U.S. is not implementing some of the more important health care policies for women that other countries have started?

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?