Feminism and multiculturalism
I’ve just been doing some reading for school, and I came across this article by Susan Moller Okin: “Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women?”, published in a volume by the same name and edited by Okin, Joshua Cohen, Matthew Howard, and Martha Nussbaum. In this piece, Okin defines feminism as the belief that “women should not be disadvantaged by their sex, that they should be recognized as having human dignity equal to that of men, and that they should have the opportunity to live as fulfilling and as freely chosen lives as men can.”
Okin’s basic argument is that feminism, by this definition, does not mix well with multiculturalism, which she defines, essentially, as policy establishing special group rights for minority cultures in order to preserve those cultures. She suggests quite forcefully that such multicultural policies tend to exempt minority groups from certain law in a way which can enable minority cultural groups to perpetuate and hide gender-based discrimination and human rights abuses.
The article is well worth reading, and it’s quite engaging — but regardless of whether you take the time to look at it, what do you all think of Okin’s argument as I’ve stated it here?
-Taryn
I think this goes back to, What sort of feminism? Do we want a feminism that establishes protectionism, or do we want a feminism that establishes equality?
If you look at the early roots of the women’s movement you see that even from the beginning it was a deeply divisive issue. Some suffragettes thought women should have the vote to protect and shore up their private sphere; some women thought women should have the vote to allow them to enter the public sphere. That same divide exists today, whether on the ERA or on abortion or any equal pay or any number of issues.
Comment by Quimby — February 26, 2009 @ 3:20 pm
Quimby said (much more eloquently of course) what I was thinking.
It depends on if one sees feminism as protectionism or eglatarianism (sp).
Comment by Sara — February 26, 2009 @ 3:50 pm
My careers thus far have been accountant, air traffic controller and attorney… I insist on holding my own and not being treated differently because of the fact that I have boobs. But then again, I dont like anyone being treated differently because they belong to any group. Just do the job.
Comment by StillConfused — February 26, 2009 @ 5:10 pm
So, are you saying that defining women as a minority group perpetuates our own discrimination and abuse?
Comment by Misty — February 26, 2009 @ 5:32 pm
As you’ve stated the argument, I’m with her. I’m thinking about how I’ve read that in some countries (not the US, not yet anyway), they’re allowing religious cultures to substitute their own laws and courts for the government’s laws and courts, especially with regard to family law such as children’s rights and divorce, and how problematic that is in light of the US Constitution as well as various treaties.
Comment by Kai Jones — February 26, 2009 @ 5:39 pm
I think the argument is that accepting other cultural traditions uncritically under the banner of “multiculturalism” means perpetuating sexist practices that harm women.
If this is indeed the argument (and intend to read the article, thanks Taryn), then I agree with it. We give similar deference to religious practices that harm women.
Comment by ECS — February 26, 2009 @ 5:54 pm
I think the author makes a convincing case that allowing some cultural practices by minority groups exempts them from some of the laws of their host country. When these practices are outside what would otherwise be against the laws that protect women then multiculturalism hurts women.
Comment by Claudia — February 26, 2009 @ 6:37 pm
Accepting the good of other cultures does not require accepting the misogynistic bullshit that those cultures may have built up.
FGM defenders regularly accuse womens rights activists of cultural imperialism, claiming that African women ought to be able to cut off their sex organs if they feel like it.
We don’t need to preserve or respect oppressive cultures that deny fundamental rights. We don’t treat Southern slavery as a culture that should be respected. And we shouldn’t give that kind of respect to institutionalized misogyny either — cultural or not.
Comment by Kaimi — February 26, 2009 @ 6:44 pm
Okay, sorry, I got too hung up on disputing her definition of feminism!
As an immigrant myself I am a firm believer in the importance of assimilation. I’m all for what I consider “token” multiculturalism - celebrating your national holidays, practising your religion, etc. But if you make a choice to live in a certain country, you agree to abide by the rules of that country. Don’t like it? Find a country that is more in keeping with your values. (This is sometimes a fairly simple matter - my understanding is that Malaysia will accept any Muslim as a permanent resident, so if you want some elements of Sha’ria family law, try Malaysia.)
Of course the argument becomes - “But what if the woman wants it.” What if the woman wants to wear a veil, or get a divorce following Sha’ria law, etc. It’s quite patronising to say, “Well, she just doesn’t know what’s in her best interests.”
Comment by Quimby — February 26, 2009 @ 6:45 pm
I’ve heard a story that, when the British were in India, they were approached by local leaders who asked about Sati — the tradition of burning widows alive on funeral pyres. They said, “it’s very important, we have a custom here. When a man dies, we burn his widow on his pyre.”
The response (usually attributed to British general Napier) is famous:
The burnings stopped.
I don’t see how this is anything but a positive outcome. When traditions are misogynistic and evil, why perpetuate them?
The British didn’t do everything right in India — they made lots of mistakes — but the end of Sati burning was an unalloyed good.
Comment by Kaimi — February 26, 2009 @ 6:53 pm
Just because a culture is established, it doesn’t mean all its elements are good or should be preserved. I’m with the author- preserving multiculturism at the expense of individual rights is not good.
I’m in agreement with Quimby about assimilation. Obey the laws of the land you visit or in which you reside. This can be a useful method of providing an oppressed minority the opportunity to break out of tyrannical cultural boundaries.
Go Kaimi! I second that.
Comment by Kimberly — February 26, 2009 @ 6:55 pm
Muticulturalisum is bad in general. People may feel good about checkingout all those versions of Cinderella (Chinese Cinderalla, Egyption Cinderella, Native American Cinderalla, etc) but it’s still a centrial Europian fairy story used to skew our understanding of another ethnic group and these are not accurate representations.
Should there be special laws for an ethnic group - NO. should there be special laws based on gender - NO. unfortunately the world isn’t a nice enough place to live without legislation.
Comment by 2cents — February 26, 2009 @ 7:00 pm
Judging a Cultural Practice We Don’t Understand.
I’ll state upfront that I don’t think forcing a widow to kill herself is good, but I want to point out something. Think about things from the others perspective. . . I think this British general Napier was quite narrow minded and insultingly rude.
What we of western culture viewed as barbaric was not viewed as such by that culture. They believe in reincarnation. These women believed they would come back to a better life or move on to nirvana (simplified I know). Who knows the roots of this practice - this may have arisen out of a basic need for the common survival; more people = less food = starving kids and old people.
Another example: think of a nomadic cultural group living in a harsh climate (desert or cold). They may leave babies that were overly weak or physically disabled exposed to the climate to die OR the elderly may chose a time to walk off into the wilderness to die. This would be viewed very differently by this group than by us sitting comfortably at desks with healthcare and fast food.
Likely their, life experiences, religion, and world views would teach then that it this was a better choice than forcing a cripled child or a fading elder to keep up with the demands of nomadic life in a harsh climate. They would be honored and morned.
For the longest time I thought that the ritual suicides of the Japanese were horrific, but then I learned a lot more about there culture and belief systems that led to this ritual. It makes sense to me and I honor those in my husbands past who may have chosen death before dishonor.
Walk a mile in their shoes, spends some time in their world. Thanks for letting play devil’s advocate.
Comment by Robin — February 26, 2009 @ 7:32 pm
“The British didn’t do everything right in India — they made lots of mistakes — but the end of Sati burning was an unalloyed good.”
wow i love that you used this example, kaimi because an Indian scholar (a woman) actually wrote a fascinating article on the subject (”Can the Subaltern Speak?” by Gayetri Spivak). Her argument is to do with this very issue. She basically suggests that because the British were coming from such a different culture which accepted only its own form of discourse as rational, they had no way of understanding the importance of Sati to the culture.
in a larger context, i would suggest we still aren’t equipped to actually understand other cultures, and while i am generally pro-western culture, i do think we run into a whole mess of problems when we start trying to ban, for example, female circumcision from women who desperately want it for their daughters (this is the example they use in social work classes), or veils, or the right to stay home and be supported by a man.
there is something called third world feminism which is an attempt to break from regular american modern feminism, because it perceives it as having been taken over by the market and turned women into de-humanized sex objects far more than veils and burkas. weird, wild stuff.
Comment by nobodyputsbabyinacorner — February 26, 2009 @ 7:33 pm
Okay, but can’t you make the argument that it’s one thing to do these things in their own country, and quite another to do them when it’s not the social norm? For the sake of argument let’s narrow it to things that physically hurt people. (If someone wants to dress a certain way or speak a language that is not the norm, it’s up to them. It might hurt their chances of success but if they make that choice knowing that there may be negative consequences, it’s up to them.) Why should people be able to physically harm another, and hide behind culture to do it?
If a woman “desperately wants” something for her daughter - Well, why is it the mother’s right to make that choice for her daughter? I feel the same way about piercing ears of infants - it is taking away the rights of the child. If a woman makes a choice, on her own, after the age of 18, to undergo FGM, that’s up to her. But parents do not and should not have the right to impose physical pain on their children, under the guise of “culture.”
To give another example of culture clash, fundamental Christians who use a strict interpretation of the Bible and take “spare the rod” to mean they are failing as parents if they don’t physically punish their children, risk losing their children. If we as a culture accept that we can do this to other Christians, why are we reluctant to do it to people who practice other religions?
Comment by Quimby — February 26, 2009 @ 8:01 pm
It comes down to choices - the maturity and ability to make them. Be it suicide, FGM or other forms of self-mutilation- whether we comprehend the cultural reasons for it or not, it’s not correct to impose any of it on another person. Who cares what a mother wants for her child if it takes away the child’s right to choose for his/himself as an informed adult? Also, you have the very real issue of these practices usually involving the enculturated subjection of women. Not having any other choice, they become participants in their own oppression- they have bought the party line since they never had an alternative.
I’ll be the first one to agree that if a 21 year old girl wishes to undergo FGM, she can have at it…but how about requiring she have a few orgasms first before she makes that decision. See what she might miss. But deciding it for a 12 year old girl? Especially when there is no burden on the men to do something commensurate with FMG to ensure their own fidelity… I may view this cultural practice with more equanamity in that case.
The trouble with protecting these multicultural practices is that the majority of them are being used to hurt or control women…their choices, their sexuality, their freedom, their happiness. Sorry, I can’t support that.
I completely support keeping traditional foods, dances, holidays and clothing (if the women like it and choose to maintain it). But I refuse to understand or support the willful imposition of suffering upon another human being.
Comment by Kimberly — February 26, 2009 @ 8:38 pm
I recently attended a talk by Catharine MacKinnon where she said that when working against racism, international bodies say, “People are equal, regardless of race.” In other words, they make it a statement of fact, and they plainly say that those who would call one race superior or inferior are factually wrong.
But when working against sexism, international bodies say, “Women should be not be abused. Women should be given the same opportunities men have.” In other words, they say it’s bad to treat women as lesser, but why is it bad? Because the international community said so. (Not a very strong reason. That reason has trouble standing up to the respect we must accord minority cultures’ values.) MacKinnon would prefer the statement to say flat out, “It’s a fact. People are equal, regardless of sex.”
So, one way out of the “my culture has these moral values; your culture has those moral values” morass might be to take the “should”s out of Okin’s definition of feminism, and make it factual instead moral.
Comment by Beijing — February 26, 2009 @ 8:48 pm
You don’t have to look far to see a culture that is sacrificing itself on the alter of multiculturalism. Britain’s leaders are slowly, but surely, ceding it’s centuries-old traditions in order to placate Muslim activists. The rest of Europe is also having to come to terms with its efforts to accomodate cultures with a fundamental animosity toward its liberal-with-a-small-”l” traditions.
This is not good.
Multiculturalism run amok is the enemy of free societies, because it presupposes, like comment #13, that it is not possible to understand traditions that systematically subjugate females. Excusing barbaric behavior FGM, ritualistic suicide, what-have-you by masking it with a “we can’t possibly understand it” is unacceptable to this classical liberal.
Comment by Jana — February 26, 2009 @ 10:23 pm
I’m glad to see that most of you are not falling into the “all cultures are equal” trap. All cultures are not equal. If every person had completely different needs and goals then cultures could be equal. If the basic goals of the North Laplanders was to have as many tattoos on their face as possible, and the supreme goal of the West Tumukuans was to juggle coconuts better than anyone else in the world, and the principle need of the South Fenicians was to appease the God of Fire by throwing virgins into a volcano, then all those cultures could be equal because they would all be able to satisfy their peoples’ basic goals and needs. But all people have the same basic needs and wants (life, material improvement, protection from harm,etc) and it is a matter of observation which culture(s) is(are) best able to meet those goals and needs. If the West Tumukuans really can juggle coconuts better than anyone in the world but most of their children die at birth because their mothers are malnurished, their culture has failed in meeting their basic needs (life and material improvement). Canadians may not be able to juggle coconuts worth a darn, but they are able to feed themselves, provide opportunities for material improvement and protect themselves. Their culture, however much the multiculturalists may want it to be otherwise, is superior to that of the West Tumukuans. Until you can find a culture whose basic goals are poverty, early death and hunger, the culture that is able to satisfy those universal needs is superior to the one than does not, cannot or will not. In fact, I submit to you that Western culture is superior to other cultures for that very reason. Show me millions of people trying to emigrate to India or Thailand or Ethiopia or Russia. They don’t exist. Until then, millions of people are voting with their feet every day trying to emigrate to western cultures.
Comment by Mikey — February 26, 2009 @ 10:33 pm
I’ve read Okins book and did a paper on multicultural human rights vs universal human rights in regards to feminism. After my research I came basically to the same conclusions as #8 and # 10 . Most interviews of the mothers who “desperately want FGM” for their daughters, want it because they do not want their daughters to be shunned by the community at large. Fear is the motivation. In my opinion, a paradigm shift is essential. However, increasing respect for womens sexuality, intellect and spirituality around the globe is not such an easy task. But it is something that the UN, governments, and NGOs are actively trying to promote.
Post # 14 raises interesting points. It seems to me however that the only way the West, myself included, can be comfortable with allowing ritual killings of widows or FGM etc, is if we put aside our feelings of universal truths and allow for moral relativism. However, as Westerners, Christians and Mormons it is not an easy thing to do. Nor am i convinced that it would be beneficial.
(On a side note, Yesterday I spoke with a UNDP representative who works on behalf of Somalian female students. The hope is that through education these women will have the opportunity to be contributing members of society and decrease gender biases in their country. The website is: www.undp-usa.org/somalia, if you want to check it out!)
Comment by a non — February 26, 2009 @ 10:39 pm
Mikey-
Although I agree with your basic premise that a culture or society should attend to the basic needs of its people first and for most, I do not think that simply because a lot of people want to emigrate to America means that we have a superior “culture”. America definitely is superior to many third world countries in terms of guaranteed ( on paper at least) civil rights, freedom of speech & press and legal recourse. The political human rights America offers are undeniably wonderful. However, i think America’s morally bankrupt consumer culture can probably learn a thing or two from the art, music, cuisine, homeopathic medicine, natural beauty, clothing, etc of other even third world cultures. I see both political human rights (America’s strong front) and cultural human rights (not in my opinion america’s strong front) as important. My point is, multiculturalism on its face is not negative, tolerance and openness are wonderful as long as its not used to justify “evils” for lack of a better word.
Comment by a non — February 26, 2009 @ 11:21 pm
I’m not sure you should include Thailand on that list, Mikey. I know quite a few people who would jump at the chance to move to Thailand. Great beaches!
And I’m not really sure how much importance we should put on civil rights. Mind you, I’m quite fond of mine; but there are countries that do very well without them. I’m thinking for instance of Singapore - everything carries a fine, but you’d be hard-pressed to find a nicer place.
I really like what Beijing says, about how we need to start phrasing it as a fact - “Women are equal to men.” However Western societies play a part in this not happening. Feminism is so tied up in issues of reproductive rights which is so threatening to many Western cultures and traditions, and so we in the West do quite a bit to hold back progress on this front. I don’t think it’s possible to have a feminism that doesn’t embrace reproductive rights (be it abortion or merely some form of family planning or the recognition that a woman - even a wife - has the right to say no to sex); but the very idea of giving women that sort of freedom to control their own bodies is frightening to many, not only in the developing world but closer to home. It’s a pretty big hurdle.
Comment by Quimby — February 27, 2009 @ 12:04 am
I don’t think anyone will dispute that there are elements of non-Western culture that are “of good report and praiseworthy.” But art, music, cuisine, homeopathic medicine, natural beauty and clothing are not the culture. Principles and practices are what make a culture. Security, dignity and opportunity are what make Western culture, by and large, superior to other cultures. That doesn’t mean westerners are superior to non-westerners. It happens over and over and over when someone from Nigeria, or China or Indonesia is placed in a western culture that values and provides security, dignity and opportunity, they thrive. The person didn’t suddenly become superior; she was just placed in a superior culture. Try telling the Pakistani immigrant that she really should go back to Pakistan because the art, music and cuisine are so wonderful and she will look at you like you’re crazy. She can live the lifestyle of a Pakistani (clothes, music, food, etc) there or here, but she chooses here because of our culture provides security, dignity and opportunity.
Comment by Mikey — February 27, 2009 @ 12:10 am
The following link contains a variety of articles and news stories very pertinent to this topic.
http://www.awid.org/eng
The problem with multiculturalism is that you can not please everyone.
Numerous news reports recently in the UK have been dealing with the issue of the use of Sharia law in family matters, or more recently cases of the government ignoring situations involving polygamy for fear of offending these people’s culture. On the flip side of course numerous occasions over Christmas there were celebrations and events cancelled because councils etc were worried about offending non Christian constituents.
So maybe the question is are we talking about culture or Religion? Are they one in the same or are they perhaps so entwined that you can’t have one without the other?
Comment by Le Ginge — February 27, 2009 @ 4:56 am
Multiculturalism has inherent risks for everyone, not just women.
Comment by MAC — February 27, 2009 @ 6:18 am
The pattern of assimilation that was noted with earlier migrations began with the first generation of immigrants trying to hold onto their language, traditions and culture. The second generation was bilingual, went to school and made friends with people from the mainstream. They considered themselves Italian Americans, German Americans or some other kind of American. By the fourth generation they became fully Americanized and were Americans of Italian or German or some other descent.
It seems that multiculturalism might disrupt this progression. This will create a tension in the society that will have a negatived effect on the greater culture. It will be in danger of losing its identity as groups flourish and transplant their traditions and cultures. When the Jews wanted their own state in the Midwest, the Congress refused to grant it. Their concern was that a state dedicated to one group would be divisive. Or, maybe they were anti Semitic. They said they wanted immigrant groups to assimilate
It won’t be many years until there will not be a real majority of any particular racial or ethnic group in the United States.
Insofar as multiculturalism has a negative impact on assimilation its impact will be a detriment to the mainstream culture.
Comment by Claudia — February 27, 2009 @ 8:02 am
Okin on one of my heroes. She played an important role in my masters thesis. I am hoping to extend her perspective into the global justice debate.
It is sad that she died shortly after entering this discussion.
The above definition of feminism is wonderful. Gender, Justice, and the Family she defines feminism as the belief that woman should be treated with human dignity.
I appreciate that you point out that her concern is with group rights or protections that shield abusive practices against woman (including FGM but also other forms of female oppression). While the protection of language and religious practices are one thing, they cannot be used to undermine human dignity. Multiculturalism can also refer to other things. I am not sure if she really includes them.
Okin is pretty harsh on traditional religious views of woman. Nussbaum counters that we should not dismiss all religious views just because there are certain groups that are problematic. I am torn between the two perspectives.
Susan Okin is great. Thanks for the post.
Comment by Chris H. — February 27, 2009 @ 11:25 am
I’d recommend checking out some of Martha Nussbaum’s other writing–I think it might offer a better context and be slightly less reductive. I generally find her fairly nuanced. Don’t know much about the other authors, though.
I would argue, as have others, that multiculturalism has both risks and benefits. You have to judge individual circumstances rather than use blanket statements, I think, for certainly monoculturalism offers no panacea.
Comment by Janet — February 27, 2009 @ 12:06 pm
mikey
you wrote– millions of people are voting with their feet every day trying to emigrate to western cultures.
Migration has to do with natural resource allocation and population pressures.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — February 27, 2009 @ 1:06 pm
Mikey I’m going to have to disagree with you on the ” art, music, cuisine, homeopathic medicine, natural beauty and clothing are not the culture” and I think the dictionary is going to have to
disagree with you too. These elements are the very essence of a culture.
The little dictionary on my desk states: “Culture (n) The Arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement. The customs, arts, social institutions, and achievements of a particular nation, people or group”
In regards to cultural assimilation. I think it’s not always a good thing. I firmly believe that just because you are LDS doesn’t mean you should be forced to wear a white shirt, black slacks and a tie or that women should wear western style dresses to church. I think the overshadowing of Utahan Mormon culture on other cultural regions is appalling. You can be LDS without being a BPK “look the look” fanatic. I personally wear Salwar Kameez - those are long tunic tops over pants - I don’t really like dresses.
Comment by Robin — February 27, 2009 @ 1:21 pm
Suzanne is right. It is as much, if not more, about the push factors as it is about the pull factors.
Comment by Chris H. — February 27, 2009 @ 1:27 pm
A great book that deals with this issue is “Infidel”.
She speaks specifically to practices in Europe that protect Islamic traditions and beliefs that most definitely harm women. In our attempt to respect and value other cultures, we can legally allow sexist and discriminatory practices. This is a very complex and contradictory issue.
Comment by Natasha Helfer Parker — February 27, 2009 @ 1:39 pm
Taryn,
What are you studying?
Comment by Chris H. — February 27, 2009 @ 2:21 pm
“I’ll be the first one to agree that if a 21 year old girl wishes to undergo FGM, she can have at it…but how about requiring she have a few orgasms first before she makes that decision. See what she might miss.”
do you realize how condescending this sounds? oh, those poor third world women, too stupid to realize how miserable they are? this is precisely the attitude from western feminists that third world feminists hate. what if someone had written, “if a mormon girl wants to stay chaste/dress modestly that’s fine, but let her have sex a few times first before she makes the decision.” it would be outrageous! (im not trying to equate FGM and sex on the level of suffering, but on the level of the importance of beliefs).
everyone on here seems to be arguing that suffering is bad and any cultural beliefs that allow or cause suffering are bad too. i have studied human sacrifice in mesoamerican cultures, and i have learned that it is often these very beliefs that can explain suffering and make it tolerable in a culture. the biggest problem with western culture is that we have set out to relieve suffering rather than deal with it. of course this is good in lots of ways, but we have no cultural parameters to deal with the suffering that still occurs and is part of being alive.
i have travelled fairly widely and there is a lot of good about western culture; im usually glad to be back. i certainly dont want more people starving. but taking away people’s cultural beliefs that give their worlds meaning because they dont conform to your version of what is right and wrong is imperial, patronizing, and dangerous as we’ve seen time and time again (Iraq, anyone?) the “spread of civilization” has been the driving force of colonialism and one of the west’s most deeply seated demons.
i do think multiculturalism is a tricky issue, however, since i dont think western cultures should break down to accomodate other cultures on any larger scale than the other cultures should break down and accomodate western culture. its a tricky bag.
Comment by nobodyputsbabyinacorner — February 27, 2009 @ 3:00 pm
I’ve also travelled widely, and I’ve also studied these issues. I’ve done extensive research into global feminisms, and in particular into Muslim feminisms and issues of gender and Islam. Just because you’ve got that in your favor doesn’t make you the ultimate source of knowledge and the rest of us ignorant neocolonialists.
I’ve also had a few experiences that you have not had. I’m an immigrant. I’ve had that experience of having to integrate into a different country. I had that experience at a time when my new country was going through a particularly xenophobic time. I’ve had ample time to reflect upon issues relating to assimilation and multiculturalism, and because of my own personal experiences, I’ve had plenty of time to reconsider my stance.
I’m as liberal a person as you are likely to find. And as I said before, I’m a total advocate of token assimiliations. But ultimately when you make the decision to live in another country, you make the decision to embrace its laws and customs and cultures. (This, by the way, is not some neoconservative thought - it dates back to Socrates, who wanted open borders so that people could congregate in those city-states that best met their social standards.) If you are not willing to do that, ultimately you will hurt yourself.
The West is not the repository of all of the world’s evils. There are many problems - I would even go so far as to call them evils - that are organic to other cultures. You will no doubt lambast me for making such a loaded statement; but my definition of evil is fairly mild, really. (After all, I’m the gal who has a giant poster of Mao dating from the Cultural Revolution hanging over my couch.) Things like FGM, foot binding, dowry murder - these are evils. Things like rampant rape in refugee camps in Chad - these are evils. Things like honor killings - those are evils. It doesn’t matter if it’s culturally acceptable to some people. The underlying concept is that women are property and are to be controlled - and that is evil.
All of the education and travelling in the world will fail you if you are not able to see that.
Comment by Quimby — February 27, 2009 @ 4:19 pm
Why, oh, why dear quimby do you have a picture of the Chairman?
Comment by fmoc — February 27, 2009 @ 4:23 pm
I think it was in Toni Morrison’s Bluest Eye when the black woman who was being abused by her husband refused to accept safe shelter with the white woman. The black woman identified more with being Black than with being Woman. This still happens today, but the point is what you want to do about it.
To say that cultures have their ways so let them be makes no sense to me. I believe in understanding processes in which power/knowledge are transmitted and disbursed, and ways in which to resist exploitative power - particularly subtly manifested power - towards the goal of reducing inequality. But understanding feminism and the feminist movement as apart from culture is too reductive.
Comment by fmoc — February 27, 2009 @ 4:36 pm
You’ve got to pick and choose your heroes, fmoc!
You want to hear the full story? Here goes . . . We have a gay dog, Oscar. Before Oscar turned into such a bitter old queen (which I think is directly responsible to the loss of his lover Max, although, as Oscar’s mummy, I have to say that I did not approve of the relationship - Max was so ugly and selfish, Oscar deserved better) he had a striking profile. He looked exactly like a canine version of Lenin. Indeed, the resemblence was so astounding, we decided he had to be Lenin reincarnated. It all fits - the look, the fact that he’s a bit of a tyrant; the only thing working against it is that he’s dognostic (he believes there is a Dog but he’s not sure which Breed has the truth). (Our other dog was a cheerleader in her last life. She’s anorexic and thinks she’s the centre of the universe and she’s convinced everyone loves her.) In honor of Oscar, aka Lenin reincarnated, I decided that we needed a poster of Lenin above our couch. However, in discussing it with my husband, we decided we really should go with a picture of Mao instead, because if we hung up a picture of Lenin than Oscar might think he was Top Dog, and we needed to make sure he knew we were Alpha Dog.
Every Christmas, Mao gets a Santa hat and beard. It’s my favorite part of the holiday, subversively turning him into a symbol of Christianity and capitalism.
I enjoy the irony of propaganda: Mao’s crimes are so little-remembered in the West that a poster of Mao comes across as quirky and artistic. On the other hand, imagine the outcry if we hung a poster of Hitler above our couch - although Hitler was a lighweight comparatively. My poster of Mao reminds me of the fickle nature of Western interactions with the rest of the world. It is also a good reminder of the way Westerners will take one part of a culture, without actually having any understanding of the deeper meanings and history behind that culture, and co-opt it. Not to mention, it’s just plain awesome from a graphics design perspective.
(I have a small collection of propaganda. Love the stuff. I wanted to do our kitchen in WWII-era American propaganda but DH said no. He was afraid people wouldn’t get the irony.)
Comment by Quimby — February 27, 2009 @ 4:37 pm
“just because you’ve got that in your favor doesn’t make you the ultimate source of knowledge and the rest of us ignorant neocolonialists.”
wowsers, quimby. i never said anything like this, and i certainly have no desire to lambast you for anything. i fully agree (and said in my prior post) that the West is by no means the repository for the world’s evils (a word which i have no problem at all with). i am not a relativist and i dont want to say that the things you list are not bad. however i am not comfortable with the simple assertion that Western culture is superior to these things - we may not bind feet but we put on heels and corsets and eating disorders, which create the same effect for the same purpose. we conquer and colonize, we control with fear and with money, we manipulate people for market values, we create world wars, holocausts, and genocides. in short, while the western culture may be objectively better, or at least more comfortable, than some (im in no hurry to go live in bangladesh), we do not have THE answer and in fact, have a ton of problems which get conveniently ignored when we’re trying to ship our culture overseas. it’s problematic to think that our perspective on things are somehow “neutral”. should we make judgements? yes of course. but they should be compassionate and nuanced with the knowledge of our own flaws and failings.
ps i have a photo of me giving thumbs up in front of the chairman in tiananmen square. we could be kitsch friends if not multiculturalist friends.
Comment by nobodyputsbabyinacorner — February 27, 2009 @ 4:58 pm
Here I was thinking you were another subscriber to MAoist consumerist culture…so as a Westerner, you are actually engaging in the performative act of ironically misunderstanding the iconic figure behind millions of deaths? Send me your address and I’ll send you a picture of Liu Shaoqi, my hero, second man to Mao who was responsible for Mao not getting in any more sh*t than he already had; who was responsible for much of the “good” ideas that came out of that era.
If I ever meet a cat I’m not allergic to, I’d adopt him and name him Chairman Meow. He’d have to be the laziest, fattest, most womanizing cat - that I’m not allergic to.
I own a worn out little red book and I’ve talked to women who miss the simple, collectivist days of group indoctrination and ideology over today’s frantic gold rush. HEre’s the irony in China: no one likes Mao these days, but they understand his cool factor so they’ll take down his picture from Tiananmen
Comment by fmoc — February 27, 2009 @ 5:00 pm
they’ll NEVER take down his picture, I should say.
Anyway, funny story about Oscar. Maybe he’ll meet a younger dog who will breathe new life into him and he’ll go back to looking like Lenin
Comment by fmoc — February 27, 2009 @ 5:02 pm
nobodyputsbabyinacorner - Thank you for that explanation.
Thing is, since I encountered plenty of “The West is all bad and every other culture is superior” attitude when I was studying these issues, I’m just a tad sensitive. I’m particularly sensitive to people trying to pass off abhorrent practices as “culture”. Culture changes across time, ethnicities, and classes. (For instance my understanding is that foot binding was a practice of the elite, and only of the elite of a certain ethnicity; so to say that China has a tradition of foot-binding is accurate, but it’s not the full story.) And even if a thing is, legitimately, a part of a culture, that doesn’t automatically make it good. Slavery was a part of the culture in the southern US. There are a number of factors that contributed to that - One factor that is often overlooked is that the area was ripe with yellow fever, and Africans are much better at surviving yellow fever than Europeans. (As an adult you have something like a 25% chance of dying if you come into contact with yellow fever. It’s a disease you need to build up immunity to from childhood.) So, culturally, it made sense to import African workers to settle the area. That doesn’t justify slavery.
FGM is not justified simply because some cultures do think that women are property and must be protected from their own rampant sexuality. It’s still a bad practice. Of course there are varying forms. Some women who have undergone FGM can still orgasm; it’s all about degrees. I believe it’s a practice that will die out as education spreads. Until then, I would like to see a two-pronged approach: 1. FGM Is bad and should not be done. Period. 2. If you don’t believe us that FGM is bad and should not be done, period - if you truly believe this is the only way to keep your daughter safe - then doing a mild form of FGM will be just as effective as lopping off her clitoris and sewing her shut. Instead of doing something that invasive, remove a part of the lower labia. And oh yeah, when you do it, make sure you use sterilised equipment to stop the spread of disease.
Comment by Quimby — February 27, 2009 @ 5:16 pm
I KNEW A GIRL WHO HAD A CAT NAMED CHAIRMAN MEOW! i was so jealous. adorable then, adorable now.
Comment by nobodyputsbabyinacorner — February 27, 2009 @ 5:18 pm
Yeah, let’s go with that version, and not the “I did it to piss off my dog” version.
Comment by Quimby — February 27, 2009 @ 5:19 pm
im just hanging out on here now, so sorry about all the back to back comments. ill be done after this. but quimby thanks for the qualification of your stance. i COMPLETELY understand your sensitivities. i have them too, but the other way around. tired of patriotism and naive ethnocentrism, i get carried away condemning western society without qualifying it like i should. certainly im grateful to live here.
although i DO think southeast asians at least have toilet paper right. they have hoses, not paper. gets you so clean. ah, so much to learn from other cultures.
Comment by nobodyputsbabyinacorner — February 27, 2009 @ 5:21 pm
npb in a c: my longer comment is lost either in moderation or computer la-la land.
But the gist of it is this: informed consent. Anything else, in regard to human health is the ultimate in condescension, since some of the stated reasons for performing FGM are scientifically incorrect. Informed consent should is a basic human right, especially as it applies to a permanant surgical procedure. It’s what keeps me (a medical person) from arbitrarily deciding you should be sterilized- or donate a kidney. It’s not at all commensurate with wearing modest clothes- it is akin to foot binding, another barbaric, mutilating practice that required an outside influence to abolish. Somehow the Chinese men have managed to accept women who can walk and I think I can safely say that Chinese women would say this is a good thing…something tells me they don’t miss it.
Comment by Kimberly — February 27, 2009 @ 5:51 pm
Re: Enforced sterilisation (something that happens quite a bit actually) . . . When I was living in Egypt I knew a man who advocated it as a form of birth control. His idea was that you do it on X number of infants, without their parents ever knowing about it, and voila, instant population control.
Comment by Quimby — February 27, 2009 @ 6:04 pm
We did it in America too- the eugenics project was hush-hush, but we sterilized alcoholics, mentally ill people, criminals and vagrants without their knowledge or consent. It was supposed to select them out of the gene pool.
Comment by Kimberly — February 27, 2009 @ 6:20 pm
“Slavery was a part of the culture in the southern US. There are a number of factors that contributed to that - One factor that is often overlooked is that the area was ripe with yellow fever, and Africans are much better at surviving yellow fever than Europeans. (As an adult you have something like a 25% chance of dying if you come into contact with yellow fever. It’s a disease you need to build up immunity to from childhood.) So, culturally, it made sense to import African workers to settle the area. That does not justify slavery.”
The yellow fever explanation is new to me, although it is true that half of all colonial settlers died during the first year in Virginia and children born in Virginia survived. That sounds plausible.
Another factor has to do with the clash of immigrants and native inhabitants. Because of the law of primogenitor the settlers were largely from the gentry who could not inherit. They were not used to working the land. They colonized Virginia (the only history I really know well enough to speak to) in hopes of becoming rich. The native inhabitants refused to work for them. When they tried to force them to work they ran away or picked up and moved far enough away to be out reach. African slaves didn’t know the land and couldn’t run away as easily. Because they were far away from their roots and family conections they were easier to control.
Maybe it was the colonist’s culture that needed to change. It is difficult to overlook power relationships between groups. It looks like whoever holds the most power dictates the norms. Certainly informed consent helps level the field.
On the other hand the greater society in the US believed if Utah women could vote they would not support polygamy. It didn’t make any difference so the vote was taken away.
Comment by Claudia — February 28, 2009 @ 11:49 am
Everyone,
Wow, thanks for the conversation; I’ve really enjoyed following it. I’m struggling intellectually with questions related to this now — I’ve been reading up on post-colonial and third world feminisms. I get the basic point that my origin in an affluent, powerful culture and nation does not privilege either my understanding of morality or my assessment of the structure of and best solutions for gender-based inequality. However, I’m very wary of the way this basic, irrefutable fact can be used to obscure human rights abuses. This is very, very difficult for me to negotiate.
Chris, I’m pursuing a Ph.D. in sociology (political soc, more specifically). My research focuses on the impact of social provision programs (welfare or pensions, for example) on individual identity, and vice versa, and the consequences of any such impact for political outcomes. I focus on Latin America. I’m not really a women’s studies person per se - I don’t focus on gender issues exclusively, I mean - but I think it’s impossible to study issues of economic redistribution without paying close attention to gender. Hence my recent interest in feminist theory.
Comment by Serenity Valley — February 28, 2009 @ 4:54 pm
I’m very wary of the way this basic, irrefutable fact can be used to obscure human rights abuses. This is very, very difficult for me to negotiate.
Comment by fmoc — February 28, 2009 @ 8:30 pm
Okay, not getting the blockquoting right all of a sudden…sorry fmh.. here it is again:
“I’m very wary of the way this basic, irrefutable fact can be used to obscure human rights abuses. This is very, very difficult for me to negotiate.”
SV, I also stumbled on feminist theory by way of economic inequality. Might I suggest looking into Standpoint Theory (Nancy Hartsock and Sandra Harding, also Donna Haraway). I’m with you that these are difficult issues to deal with, but I’m certain my work is for women’s rights regardless of cultural hegemony, or rather, because there is a cultural hegemony that is perpetuated by privileged males. I see us (subjects and agents = thinking humans) as part of a large balancing act. Whatever argument you make, whatever side you promote, there will always be a counterargument. So I find myself trying to be careful about picking sides. Not because I fear other people’s critiques but because of the fear that I haven’t thought about the argument thoroughly enough. Does that make sense? Sorry for the tangent that’s more about the researcher than the research.
Comment by fmoc — February 28, 2009 @ 8:31 pm
“I think I can safely say that Chinese women would say this [foot binding] is a good thing…something tells me they don’t miss it.”
on the contrary foot binding was performed by women on other women. there are numerous stories (try the Wild Swans memoir) by chinese women that discuss the cultural importance and sense of pride and femininity that came along with foot binding. the practice continued among women (as always, performed by women) long after mao instituted the ban. you dont have to look far (wikipedia) to read that banning foot binding was as culturally damaging to chinese women as banning makeup or something else western women use to feel feminine would be.
again, im not saying its good. im saying its cultural, which makes it far more complex than “informed consent.”
Comment by nobodyputsbabyinacorner — February 28, 2009 @ 8:47 pm
Taryn,
Thanks for responding! Your research sounds very interesting and related to my interests. Kieran Healey has a cool essay about he relation between sociology and political philosophy.
Like you, my interests in gender and feminism are more part of my interest in social justice and questions of inequality. I do not have too much interest in womens studies because that field seems overly dominated by postmoderns. As a liberal/socialist-type I have little use for that. That might be why I like Okin. She is a strong feminist but at the same time she did not reject the entire liberal egalitarian project–my project.
Good luck in your studies.
Comment by Chris H. — March 1, 2009 @ 6:24 pm
Multiculturalism is a lie. It is a credo set by the Leftist elite to give privilege to some while making the rest feel guilty for not supporting the privilege of the some. Feminism is beautiful because all women can choose how to be and what to do in their own lives. Multiculturalism tells the world that you are only valued if you have connection to a minority or some special interest group. I suggest that we separate the two, because feminism, when inclusive of men and women of all positions, is much stronger, more prevailing, and more, well, inclusive that the notion of divisive multiculturalism.
Comment by greengirl — March 5, 2009 @ 2:49 pm
“I suggest that we separate the two, because feminism, when inclusive of men and women of all positions, is much stronger, more prevailing, and more, well, inclusive that the notion of divisive multiculturalism.”
Where should women of color stand? Feminism loses its strength when it makes women choose between their ethnicity and gender.
Comment by fmoc — March 10, 2009 @ 12:19 pm
#15, As a mother I make “cultural” choices everyday for my children, it is my job as their mother to make these decisions. I chose to have my sons circumcised, (knowing what I know now I would have made a different decision). I chose to have my children vaccinated (knowing what I know now I would have chose differently). What looks like medical practices are really deeply wrenched in what society thought that I should do. If we take these rights away from mothers who will make the decision, the government, the church, my next door neighbor? What we need to provide is education so people can make educated choices about what is best for their families. In the end mothers must make these decisions because it is our job. If we believe that women are not “smart” enough to chose for their children than we should be providing better birth control and education until they are.
Comment by kandi and salt — June 2, 2009 @ 4:54 pm