A Quick Comment on Part VII

In the introduction to Part VII: 1995-2003, Kolmar and Bartkowski write “Feminist politics in this period was being reshaped by a discourse about generations: second wave and third wave. While the third wave seemed to be articulating its developing identity in online zines, music lyrics, and websites, the second wave was consolidating and reframing the fast four decades of feminism through an outpouring of memoirs, documents collections, and histories” (531).

The first reading in this section--"Riot Grrrl Philosophy"--is written by Bikini Kill, a punk band comprised of members Kathleen Hanna, Kathi Wilcox and Tobi Vail. One of their assertions is "...doing/reading/seeing/hearing cool things that validate and challenge us can help us gain the strength and sense of community that we need in order to figure out how bullshit like racism, ablebodyism, ageism, speciesism, classism, thinism, sexism, anti-semitism and heterosexism figures in our own lives" (532).

To be honest, punk music isn't my thing. But I relate to what Bikini Kill is saying about the importance of engaging people--especially younger generations--with different forms of communication. For example the 30th anniversary edition of Our Bodies Ourselves and an old Janis Ian record comprise one of my first recollections of feeling feminist sentiment.

From my experiences as a teenager with "Society's Child" to the readings and theories I've discovered and dissected in this class, my progression as a young feminist is something I'm proud of. I certainly don't feel like I have all the answers. In fact, I hope I never feel like I have all the answers. What I've learned from feminism is that growth requires constant questioning of the powers that be. I've gained an ability to synthesize big picture and overarching issues which makes me feel confident that my understanding of women's issues, issues of gender and sexuality and other feminist topics has just begun to broaden.

Continued Reflections on the Handmaid's Tale...

In Maneuvers: The Internal Politics of Militarizing Women's Lives, Cynthia Enloe writes "[In Three Guineas] Woolf not only points to the continuing masculinized culture of the government's civil service, for instance, but warns readers that even supporting women's colleges or backing efforts to promote women in law and medicine could serve to make women complicit actors in militarism if those young women adopted uncritically those professions' masculinized norms of hierarchy and competitiveness" (562).

I'm unsure of how I feel about Woolf's statement that women in law and medicine could contribute to a militarized society. In part it makes alot of sense. However, I think the most important part of her argument is the addition of the word"if." Woolf is obviously saying that women's presence in these disciplines is only progressive if they questions the norms of their professions.

In a way I feel like Enloe's argument about the militarization of women's lives also relates to the growing tension between the East and the West and The Handmaid's Tale. Hasn't it been hypothesized that the Third World War will be between religions (I think by Fareed Zakaria)? Anway, the fact that there is ongoing military conflict in the Middle-East and the plot of The Handmaid's Tale is set against an insurgency makes it easy to envision the theory Enloe writes about.She describes militarization by saying "There is nothing automatic about militarization. None of the items listed here [laundry, girdles, feminine respectability, democracy, marriage, fashion, security, liberation, feminitity, to name a few] will inevitably be militarized. Militarization is the step-by-step process by which something becomes controlled by, dependent on, or derives its value from militaristic criteria" (562).

One example of women organizing against militarization that is happening on local, national and international scales is the Women in Black campaign. Women in Black hold vigils to protest the manifestion of violence, militarism and war in not just the lives of women, but in the lives of all people. Often a group of women--dressed in black--meets in downtown Meadville to protest the war and make a feminist statement. To put theory behind praxis, this excerpt from Enloe's piece reflects the Women in Black campaign "...feminists concerned about the masculinized privileging effects of militarization on society have become convinced that monitoring and responding to the militazion of women and of feminity are necessary activites during even what looks on the surface to be peacetime, or 'the postwar era'" (564). She concludes "A major stumbling block on the road to ongoing militarization--between and within states--could take the form of feminist curiosity" (568).

Feminist curiosity--in the form of questioning and protesting the status quo--seems to be a valuable tool in dismantling patriarchy, the underlying structure of militarization.

The Handmaid's Tale, Behind the Veil and Dislocating Cultures

The Handmaid’s Tale, written by Margaret Atwood is a dystopian, speculative work of fiction. The state of Gilead is essentially the worst-case scenario of how society may be in the future. However, because the novel was written in 1985 it could be argued that Atwood was writing then of events that are current now. Of the many themes that run through the novel the concept of “freedom to and freedom from” particularly struck me—especially in terms of the relatively recent and ongoing class between the West and Middle Eastern societies. Atwood writes “There is more than one kind of freedom, said Aunt Lydia. Freedom to and freedom from. In the days of anarchy, it was freedom to. Now you are being given freedom from. Don’t underrate it” (24).

The concept of freedom to and freedom from is eerily similar to Fatima Mernissi’s summary of the differences and similarities between Islamic and Western exploitation of women. In Beyond the Veil, she writes “While Muslim exploitation of the female is cloaked under veils and hidden behind walls, Western exploitation has the bad taste of being bare and over-exposed” (269).

Atwood’s and Mernissi’s commentaries further overlap in this passage, where Aunt Lydia says “The spectacles women used to make of themselves. Oiling themselves like roast meat on a spit, and bare backs and shoulders, on the street, in public, and legs, not even stockings on them” (55). This description represents the general appearances of women in the West. While Muslim women may be shrouded, most women living in Western societies are objectified and overexposed.

Another similarity between Gilead and some Middle-Eastern states is the government regulation of communication, transportation and public elections. In Gilead “Newspapers were censored and some were closed down, for security reasons they said. The roadblocks began to appear, and Identipasses. Everyone approved of that, since it was obvious you couldn’t be too careful. They said that new elections would be held, but that it would take some time to prepare for them…” (174).

These restrictions, coupled with the clothing women in Gilead must wear evoke the traditional view feminists in developed countries have of women in the East. But, such a dichotomy—between the West and East—is misleading and does not represent the true complexity of the clash between both cultures. Uma Narayan summarizes this dichotomy by writing “…the concerns and analyses of Third-World feminists are rooted in and responsive to the problems women face within their national contexts, and to argue that they are not simpleminded emulations of Western feminist political concerns” (543).

Neither way is ideal—both deny agency and choice, whether overtly or not.

One Indian-American Muslim woman, Asra Nomani, has written a memoir, Standing Alone, about her personal journey to bridge the gap between her cultures. To listen to a NPR interview with Nomani click here.