I found this poem in my inbox from a friend of mine who considers me a strong women. It made me think about how the idea of feminists as "super women" could be another negative stereotype. I posted this poem on facebook, and got a comment from a male friend who wanted to know more about feminism. My reply to him is after this poem.
"For Strong Women"by Marge Piercy, 1936
A strong woman is a woman who is straining
A strong woman is a woman standingon tiptoe and lifting a barbell while trying to sing "Boris Godunov."
A strong woman is a woman at workcleaning out the cesspool of the ages,and while she shovels, she talks about how she doesn't mind crying, it opens the ducts of the eyes, and develops the stomach muscles, and she goes on shoveling with tears in her nose.
A strong woman is a woman in whose heada voice is repeating, I told you so,ugly, bad girl, bitch, nag, shrill, witch,ballbuster, nobody will ever love you back,why aren't you feminine, why aren'tyou soft, why aren't you quiet, why aren't you dead?
A strong woman is a woman determined to do something others are determinednot be done. She is pushing up on the bottomof a lead coffin lid. She is trying to raisea manhole cover with her head, she is tryingto butt her way through a steel wall.Her head hurts. People waiting for the hole to be made say, hurry, you're so strong. A strong woman is a woman bleeding inside.
A strong woman is a woman making herself strong every morning while her teethloosen and her back throbs. Every baby,a tooth, midwives used to say, and now every battle a scar.
A strong woman is a mass of scar tissue that acheswhen it rains and wounds that bleedwhen you bump them and memories that get upin the night and pace in boots to and fro.
A strong woman is a woman who craves lovelike oxygen or she turns blue choking.A strong woman is a woman who lovesstrongly and weeps strongly and is stronglyterrified and has strong needs. A strong woman is strongin words, in action, in connection, in feeling;she is not strong as a stone but as a wolfsuckling her young.
Strength is not in her, but she enacts it as the wind fills a sail.What comforts her is others lovingher equally for the strength and for the weakness from which it issues, lightning from a cloud. Lightning stuns. In rain, the clouds disperse. Only water of connection remains,flowing through us.
Strong is what we makeeach other.
Until we are all strong together, a strong woman is a woman strongly afraid.
My reply to my male friend's comments about the poem/feminism:
I think people don't see how feminism actually represents very broad interests partly because of the "fem" part of the word. In my English class today, someone actually used the word "feminism" by mistake when they wanted to say, "femininity." The french word, feministe, coined in 1851, started out meaning "state of femininity." After that, in the late 1800's, "feminist" started to connote a person who advocates for women's rights. After the third wave of feminism, though, feminists today are questioning the actual binary of "woman" and "man" and debating about the constructiveness of gender/sex itself.
Men have always actively participated in the feminist movements, and have benefited from the feminist movements, too. Just the fact that you had the choice to take home ec classes is because of the work of individual men and women who worked to give girls and boys access to all educational opportunities. But the fact that you were made of by your peers and called homosexual is revealing about how much work there is left to do.
The "definition" of feminism, at its basic core, is just about working for the social, economic and political equality of all people. It could mean different things for different feminists, but if you are comfortable with the term, "equalist," you probably also agree with the basic goals of feminism. But a lot of men and women who believe in equality don't want to call themselves feminists because they want to avoid associating themselves with the negative stereotypes surrounding feminists, or because they don't think the word feminist adequately represents everyone's interests.
In my opinion, I think that getting rid of the word feminist seems like a kind of giving up. The negative connotations about feminists has been deliberately put into place to undermine the movement, and when people who do believe in equality reject that word, it could seem as if they are condoning the silly stereotyping. But in all, I think people should not spend too much time arguing about or being afraid of words in general.
When I was a kid and first started thinking about why I felt like I had to do the things that I did, like dieting from grade 4 onwards, I gradually fell in love with the word, feminist. Even when my peers were playing make out games in the corner and calling each other freezes or homos or girls, sluts, feminism made me feel like I was a part of a critical movement, even though I felt isolated.
A poem like this one now makes me feel less isolated as well. I've been calling myself a feminist for years, and although the stereotype of feminists as butch man-haters doesn't bother me very much, I do struggle with the alternative stereotype about feminists that is more positive: the idea that all feminists are strong, independent women, who do not require loving relationships, and who do not succumb to self-doubt and anxiety.
In reality, many women who happily identify themselves as feminists are unhappy about their bodies, or want to "fit in" and pursue the feminine beauty ideal. A lot of feminists also worry about their loveability or worth as romantic partners. I think the poem, "For Strong Women," focuses on raising solidarity amongst all people--even if they do not consider themselves strong women, or are not women.
Reading the poem made me feel relieved because it says that I am still a strong woman even if I am afraid, or do not feel strong or powerful to effect change at all sometimes. A strong woman is not strong all the time, but can demonstrate strength even if she is struggling with different things. She also needs the strength, love and support of other people. Same goes for strong men of course.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Feminism and Cultural Relativism
In the late nineteenth century, Christian missionaries helped initiate efforts to abolish the practice of foot binding in China, rousing Europeans and North Americans to join in collective disapproval against a thousand-year old tradition. The idealization of the 3-inch "golden lotus" foot in China meant that starting at as young as four years old, girls from all social classes in most parts of China began the process of binding and rebinding their feet. This drew the heels of their feet to their toes, causing severe pain, decreased mobility and high chance of infection.
It was a shock to many Westerners, including feminists participating in the first wave of the women's movement, to learn that mothers and grandmothers were able to personally inflict such pain on their daughters and granddaughters. The West largely understood foot binding as an extreme beauty practice that oppressed and deformed women in order to secure men's pleasure and power. Many Westerners did not think twice about interpreting a Chinese custom through the belief systems of their own culture.
As European print media supplied curious Europeans with images of Chinese women whom they bribed to expose their feet for the camera, Christian missionaries tried to discourage foot binding by banning girls with bound feet from entering missionary schools. Western positions on foot binding ranged from exoticism and exploitation to well-intentioned advocacy for the rights of women and girls in China. However, it still stands to question whether the Western attention towards foot binding acted as an impetus for China's eradication of foot binding process that took place over a matter of decades in the early 20th century.
Now, if foot binding were still a common practice today, global responses would most likely be quite different. First of all, "The West" is no longer a geographical location, but a contested political entity, and perhaps equally indefinite is the justifiability of outside intervention into practices that could make sense when viewed within cultural contexts.
Cultural relativism, a guiding principle behind modern anthropology, involves approaching the study of a culture through the viewpoint of that particular culture, in order to avoid stereotyping or essentializing. Anthropologists first popularized this concept in the latter half of the twentieth century, and cultural relativism has since reflected parallel movements to recognize the complexities of cultural, gender, and class differences.
Despite recognition of varying beliefs about morality, cultural relativism does not necessarily propose that there are no grounds for universal basic human rights. Neither does cultural relativism discourage the identification of cross-cultural trends. One commonality amongst all cultures is that the power relationships between the sexes are often unequal. Females are more likely to live in extreme poverty, suffer more in times of famine or natural disaster, become more stigmatized if they have diseases such as HIV/AIDS and experience more barriers to accessing essential public services such as healthcare and education.
It seems much less problematic, however, to stand opposed to general inequalities, without speaking out against specific practices. For example, it would probably be easier to say that you believe women should have better representation in governments, rather than to say that you think families in Kwa-Zulu Natal should not receive a bride-price for marrying their daughters because that is treating women like property.
In Canada, the current debate about whether or not it should be legal for Muslim women to wear the hijab (head covering) to the voting booth reflects the problems of having a majority group pass judgment on which cultural practices are acceptable, and which cultural practices are unacceptable. People may understand that some Muslim women wear the hijab voluntarily to create a safe space for themselves free from the male gaze, but the stares that Muslim women who wear the hijab encounter during day to day life, and the depiction of the hijab as oppressive in the media, has made many Muslim women feel misunderstood and unaccepted in Canadian society.
Although cultural relativism may encourage better understanding of complicated issues through appropriate perspectives, cultural relativism also underscores the barriers that arise when trying to speak out and take action for universal human rightsithout providing methods to surmount these barriers. Many people are now conscious that they should use cultural standpoints to interpret particular customs and beliefs. Yet it is still very difficult for those in "the West" to address "other" customs and beliefs without supporting the notion that the West is static and developed, with the ability to swoop in and save people in the developing world from their own ignorance.
Some people believe that cultural relativism is a constraining standard, which can seriously hinder the capacity of individuals, organizations and governments to take part in making change. Especially in regard to potentially lethal practices such as female genital mutilation, individuals are calling for the global community to take immediate action and help save lives.
Female genital mutilation ranges from the mildest form, the removal of the clitoris and clitoral hood, to the most extreme form, the cutting of the clitoris, labia minora, and the stitching together of the labia majora. Female genital mutilation is usually performed without anaesthetics to girls between ages two and six, with instruments such as knives or thorns, causing shock and severe pain that have led to immediate death. Female genital mutilation is practised among some Muslims, Christians and Animists, and the area where the most extreme form of female genital mutilation persists is in North Africa from Somalia to Djibouti, where an estimated 95% of women have had the procedure.
On a wedding night, in areas that practice the most extreme form of female genital mutilation, the husband or a hired excisor would use a knife to open the woman's vulva for sexual intercourse. The vulva must be opened completely for child birth, and restored after delivery, which requires tying together the woman's legs for two to six weeks in order for the wound to heal. This process is repeated for each instance of child birth or sexual intercourse.
Some similarities can be drawn between female genital mutilation and foot binding. Foot binding was also a practice that was surrounded by ritual and ceremony, began in childhood, and gave females certain social rewards that they otherwise would not have been able to have. In societies where women had few options to make a livelihood for themselves, foot binding and female genital mutilation helped ensure that women would find husbands, and thus bring economic benefits and honour to their families. Both practices also altered the female physiology, in ways that were believed to enhance male pleasure.
In the case of female genital mutilation, cultural relativism can act as a barrier when individuals, organizations or governments dismiss the practice as unworthy of trying to change, because of its complex cultural meanings. Every practice has a cultural meaning, and this alone does not mean that people should not support local efforts to bring about change.
The United Nations has designated February 8th as the "International Day of Zero Tolerance of Female Genital Mutilation" and developed a plan "to bring about a major decline in female genital mutilation in 10 years and completely eliminate this practice within three generations."
Although education and awareness-building is the best way to change attitudes that support practices such as female genital mutilation, it is usually more effective to deliver education programs through local organizations. All too often, the West downplays the work of locals who are working in their communities to bring about sustainable change.
Local activists are able to understand their own culture's attitudes and beliefs better, and their efforts are usually more effective in reaching more people because they don't have to struggle with the distrust that foreign aid workers encounter.
One example of a successful program started in South Asia, which organizations and individuals around the world have been able to help make a success, is the "We Can" campaign to end all forms of violence against women. The campaign seeks to bring about large-scale change starting from the individual, to change attitudes that support violence against women through asking people to pledge as "Change Makers." Change Makers work to change their attitudes and practices relating to violence against women and try to influence ten others to do the same. The campaign has met high levels of success in South Asia where 50 million women are missing because of violence.
This does not mean, however, that people who do not live in North Africa are powerless to effect change. The "We Can" campaign has just launched in British Columbia this past summer and is giving Canadians the chance to become "Change Makers." There are also organizations, such as Oxfam Canada, who fundraise to support overseas programs financially, and campaigns in Canada to garner public support and increase knowledge about issues such as HIV/AIDS and violence against women. Oxfam, like many human rights organizations, is run primarily through volunteers (although volunteers do not go overseas to work on projects), and sustained through individual donors. To conclude, although cultural relativism can bring up factors that complicate or deride efforts to create sustainable change, these factors would exist regardless of whether we acknowledge them. At this point in time, perhaps a re-evaluation is necessary in order to identify the best ways to reach cross-cultural understanding and enable critical analyses of our own culture, in order to stimulate global change from a local level.
For more information about how you can join the We Can End All Violence Against Women campaign, visit http://www.wecanbc.ca/. To find out more about Oxfam's support of overseas partners, and how you can help, visit http://www.oxfam.ca/.
It was a shock to many Westerners, including feminists participating in the first wave of the women's movement, to learn that mothers and grandmothers were able to personally inflict such pain on their daughters and granddaughters. The West largely understood foot binding as an extreme beauty practice that oppressed and deformed women in order to secure men's pleasure and power. Many Westerners did not think twice about interpreting a Chinese custom through the belief systems of their own culture.
As European print media supplied curious Europeans with images of Chinese women whom they bribed to expose their feet for the camera, Christian missionaries tried to discourage foot binding by banning girls with bound feet from entering missionary schools. Western positions on foot binding ranged from exoticism and exploitation to well-intentioned advocacy for the rights of women and girls in China. However, it still stands to question whether the Western attention towards foot binding acted as an impetus for China's eradication of foot binding process that took place over a matter of decades in the early 20th century.
Now, if foot binding were still a common practice today, global responses would most likely be quite different. First of all, "The West" is no longer a geographical location, but a contested political entity, and perhaps equally indefinite is the justifiability of outside intervention into practices that could make sense when viewed within cultural contexts.
Cultural relativism, a guiding principle behind modern anthropology, involves approaching the study of a culture through the viewpoint of that particular culture, in order to avoid stereotyping or essentializing. Anthropologists first popularized this concept in the latter half of the twentieth century, and cultural relativism has since reflected parallel movements to recognize the complexities of cultural, gender, and class differences.
Despite recognition of varying beliefs about morality, cultural relativism does not necessarily propose that there are no grounds for universal basic human rights. Neither does cultural relativism discourage the identification of cross-cultural trends. One commonality amongst all cultures is that the power relationships between the sexes are often unequal. Females are more likely to live in extreme poverty, suffer more in times of famine or natural disaster, become more stigmatized if they have diseases such as HIV/AIDS and experience more barriers to accessing essential public services such as healthcare and education.
It seems much less problematic, however, to stand opposed to general inequalities, without speaking out against specific practices. For example, it would probably be easier to say that you believe women should have better representation in governments, rather than to say that you think families in Kwa-Zulu Natal should not receive a bride-price for marrying their daughters because that is treating women like property.
In Canada, the current debate about whether or not it should be legal for Muslim women to wear the hijab (head covering) to the voting booth reflects the problems of having a majority group pass judgment on which cultural practices are acceptable, and which cultural practices are unacceptable. People may understand that some Muslim women wear the hijab voluntarily to create a safe space for themselves free from the male gaze, but the stares that Muslim women who wear the hijab encounter during day to day life, and the depiction of the hijab as oppressive in the media, has made many Muslim women feel misunderstood and unaccepted in Canadian society.
Although cultural relativism may encourage better understanding of complicated issues through appropriate perspectives, cultural relativism also underscores the barriers that arise when trying to speak out and take action for universal human rightsithout providing methods to surmount these barriers. Many people are now conscious that they should use cultural standpoints to interpret particular customs and beliefs. Yet it is still very difficult for those in "the West" to address "other" customs and beliefs without supporting the notion that the West is static and developed, with the ability to swoop in and save people in the developing world from their own ignorance.
Some people believe that cultural relativism is a constraining standard, which can seriously hinder the capacity of individuals, organizations and governments to take part in making change. Especially in regard to potentially lethal practices such as female genital mutilation, individuals are calling for the global community to take immediate action and help save lives.
Female genital mutilation ranges from the mildest form, the removal of the clitoris and clitoral hood, to the most extreme form, the cutting of the clitoris, labia minora, and the stitching together of the labia majora. Female genital mutilation is usually performed without anaesthetics to girls between ages two and six, with instruments such as knives or thorns, causing shock and severe pain that have led to immediate death. Female genital mutilation is practised among some Muslims, Christians and Animists, and the area where the most extreme form of female genital mutilation persists is in North Africa from Somalia to Djibouti, where an estimated 95% of women have had the procedure.
On a wedding night, in areas that practice the most extreme form of female genital mutilation, the husband or a hired excisor would use a knife to open the woman's vulva for sexual intercourse. The vulva must be opened completely for child birth, and restored after delivery, which requires tying together the woman's legs for two to six weeks in order for the wound to heal. This process is repeated for each instance of child birth or sexual intercourse.
Some similarities can be drawn between female genital mutilation and foot binding. Foot binding was also a practice that was surrounded by ritual and ceremony, began in childhood, and gave females certain social rewards that they otherwise would not have been able to have. In societies where women had few options to make a livelihood for themselves, foot binding and female genital mutilation helped ensure that women would find husbands, and thus bring economic benefits and honour to their families. Both practices also altered the female physiology, in ways that were believed to enhance male pleasure.
In the case of female genital mutilation, cultural relativism can act as a barrier when individuals, organizations or governments dismiss the practice as unworthy of trying to change, because of its complex cultural meanings. Every practice has a cultural meaning, and this alone does not mean that people should not support local efforts to bring about change.
The United Nations has designated February 8th as the "International Day of Zero Tolerance of Female Genital Mutilation" and developed a plan "to bring about a major decline in female genital mutilation in 10 years and completely eliminate this practice within three generations."
Although education and awareness-building is the best way to change attitudes that support practices such as female genital mutilation, it is usually more effective to deliver education programs through local organizations. All too often, the West downplays the work of locals who are working in their communities to bring about sustainable change.
Local activists are able to understand their own culture's attitudes and beliefs better, and their efforts are usually more effective in reaching more people because they don't have to struggle with the distrust that foreign aid workers encounter.
One example of a successful program started in South Asia, which organizations and individuals around the world have been able to help make a success, is the "We Can" campaign to end all forms of violence against women. The campaign seeks to bring about large-scale change starting from the individual, to change attitudes that support violence against women through asking people to pledge as "Change Makers." Change Makers work to change their attitudes and practices relating to violence against women and try to influence ten others to do the same. The campaign has met high levels of success in South Asia where 50 million women are missing because of violence.
This does not mean, however, that people who do not live in North Africa are powerless to effect change. The "We Can" campaign has just launched in British Columbia this past summer and is giving Canadians the chance to become "Change Makers." There are also organizations, such as Oxfam Canada, who fundraise to support overseas programs financially, and campaigns in Canada to garner public support and increase knowledge about issues such as HIV/AIDS and violence against women. Oxfam, like many human rights organizations, is run primarily through volunteers (although volunteers do not go overseas to work on projects), and sustained through individual donors. To conclude, although cultural relativism can bring up factors that complicate or deride efforts to create sustainable change, these factors would exist regardless of whether we acknowledge them. At this point in time, perhaps a re-evaluation is necessary in order to identify the best ways to reach cross-cultural understanding and enable critical analyses of our own culture, in order to stimulate global change from a local level.
For more information about how you can join the We Can End All Violence Against Women campaign, visit http://www.wecanbc.ca/. To find out more about Oxfam's support of overseas partners, and how you can help, visit http://www.oxfam.ca/.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
