These three authors focused on something our previous authors skipped over: transnational feminism and American feminists’ responsibility to advocate for women’s rights as human rights. I agree whole-heartedly with Abu-Lughod when notes how the types of discussions we’re having about Muslim women tend to emphasize differences instead of looking at unifying factors. We tend to speak about Muslim women as the cultural other. This makes it harder for us to relate and I think it’s important to emphasize instead that this is a human rights issue, not just a cultural, historical, or political issue. Fundamentally, we are all human and we all share basic rights. Then why do we insist on having conversations that dissect the Muslim woman as if she’s a foreign object that needs to be studied in order to be saved? Our obsession with cultural things like the burqa may or may not reveal opportunities to lift oppressions, but I agree with Abu-Lughod when she says that it is besides the point. The point is not to lay value judgments and identify oppressing aspects of culture, but to find a balance between understanding cultural differences and committing cultural violence and to use this new mindset to advocate for human rights. After all, I wouldn’t want foreigners telling me all the reasons why I should not be binding my feet when I don’t even have the freedom to walk outside my door without the fear of being killed by one of my own, or by the hands of my “savior country.”
The topic of saving Muslim women is another that she brings up and it’s equally as fascinating. Abu-Lughod challenges us to think of our discussions as acts of cultural violence. Are we doing violence unto these women by measuring and judging them by Western standards and values? I think this is wrong as well. Why should we expect these women to look like us? Who has the right to say that Americans are the perfect picture of feminism and equality? This not only puts us in the position of superiority, like Abu-Lughod said, but also adds to the perceived end of feminism in America, Douglas’ point. By using rhetoric that frame Americans as saviors, we are emphasizing the perfection of our social order. This creates an illusion and is actually hindering feminists here in America. I agree with her when she says that it’s not a purely philanthropic venture to advocate for foreign women’s rights, but it also benefits women here too. Ibrahim also echoes this need for more spokespersons for these types of global issues. Though she doesn’t necessarily focus on merely women, she emphasizes on human rights, which is also interesting and something new.
On Bunch’s article, I had a different response from Callie regarding America’s obsession with 9/11. Callie found this statement to be harsh and a downplay of 9/11, but I agree with what was said. I do agree that it is a downplay of 9/11, but I understand what the author’s saying about the experience of other’ countries with terrorism. I think that America doesn’t take terrorism seriously unless it experiences it for itself. We seem to give off the impression that since we’re one of the superior nations, if not the superior nation, that we don’t deserve this type of treatment. All of a sudden, there is this obsession. My problem is not with the obsession, but my problem is how we use this obsession to justify war, to justify violence against culture and ethnicity. It clouds our judgment to the point where American citizens like Ibrihim are being detained at the airport, in their home country. Terrorism anywhere is wrong and terrorism in other countries should not cause us to turn our backs. As Ibrihim’s story revealed, we end up turning our backs on one of own. To what point can the government take away our rights on the basis of national security? When it ostracizes communities in America? When it alienates and perpetuates stereotypes of certain communities? These stereotypes play out when we discuss human rights, the war, and the status of global feminism and the discussion we may be having might not benefit who we want to benefit at all.
I definitely agree with Samantha’s point that we are constructing Muslim women as the cultural “other”. Therefore, just as women can be depicted as the other gender and thus deviant from the “normal” man, we can apply this to cultural differences. The uniqueness in cultural norms and expectations results in a vastly different environment than what we know in the US. It is important that we do not simply impose our view as this assumes that our perspective is both superior and correct. Furthermore, as Samantha emphasizes it is necessary to look at the commonalities rather than the cultural differences to foster a sense of unity among women cross-culturally. We are all human beings worthy of the same basic rights. It is imperative to focus on this rather than criticize other cultures and women for their differences.
ReplyDelete