Comments for Global Feminisms Fall 2008

Comment on Wheelchair Exercise by silverstar98121

silverstar98121 — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 22:51:18 +0000

Interesting post. As one who lives in a wheelchair, I see it more as freedom than being confined to a wheelchair, because I would have a very difficult time traveling without it. Most people are nice and open doors for you, although I think a lot of us wheelies would rather just have at least one door in every public building have a button. I'm fortunate to live in the US where the ADA has been law since 1991, and in a city that has good public transportation and all the buses have wheelchair lifts or ramps. That being said, some of the government policies still confine people to their homes, such as a lot of the Medicare rules that will only provide wheelchairs to navigate inside your home. My dad got one because there was a common dining area in his facility. I would not qualify as I can still get around my tiny apartment, but my dad bought me a wheelchair because he knows what it's like. You can read my rant about it here. The way we treat persons with disabilities reflects the way we treat other marginal groups like minorities and women. It's all a matter of respect and empowerment.

Comment on Intersectionality and “global feminisms” by loonatf

loonatf — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:05:54 +0000

These are really well thought out comments. I will confine my comments to just relationships between men and women and not the whole range of discrimination that women face. As women, we need each others’ support in a variety of ways, but I think that even as individual women we also have a very private, very personal struggle. For me, as much as support came (or more often than not, did not come) from the outside, much of the struggle was on the inside. And by this I mean the struggle against one’s own partner, father, brother, and son. How we redefine those relationships, and in some heartbreaking instances opt out of comfortable patterns of interactions with these men, is core to how it is that we move forward. I strongly believe that the biggest victories are often in the smallest spaces. If we can alter those spaces (with support from each other!) we will effect a change that is more enduring, because it will not only lie in documents in remote places but it will be us reclaiming our rightful place within our own spaces.

Comment on Thinking feminist activism by Lauren Page

Lauren Page — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 09:15:21 +0000

Janis,

I found your question “what is the answer” to be interesting. I’ll confess I’m not sure I even believe there is one. The earlier Pechesky reading about the “unstable marriage of reproductive and sexual rights” shed a different light on this week’s readings. Gatherings of feminists, such as the Tribunal discussed in the Joachim 2003 article, can bring to light the fissures between feminists in different countries, between feminists with different beliefs, income levels, etc. As Petchesky noted “reproductive rights” came out off the abortion discussion of the 70s and 80s. It should not be surprising that controversial issues stem from an issue that is still incredibly divisive. As feminist issues are splintered and then individually swallowed up by NGOs and other social institutions it makes it even easier for feminists to pit themselves against one another. As Desai comments, “a major consequence of this transnational understanding of social movements has been the rethinking of the concept of social movement itself. As many scholars have indicated, there has been a conflation of social movements, NGOs, and networks in transnational social movements” (pg. 320). So, “the challenge for NGOs, then, becomes to ‘‘align’’ or ‘‘extend’’ their issue frame in such a way that it ‘‘resonates’’ with the experiences and the empirical context of the targeted audience” (Snow et al., 1986; Joachim 2003). Considering the divisive nature of reproductive rights – even, and perhaps more so, amongst women – this extension is a challenge. Petchesky discusses the rights verse needs approach – which as I understand it was an attempt at framing discussions to calm some of the controversy, to allow for some of this alignment – to sexual and reproductive rights, finally coming to the conclusion that the dichotomy is a fallacy (pgs. 15-17). Clearly rights and needs are inter-related, as are sexual and reproductive rights. Unfortunately, I do not believe there is much hope for mutual respect and understanding for other feminist activist’s agendas, for alignment and extension of issues, especially considering the inseparable and inherently controversial connections between sexual and reproductive rights.

Comment on Intersectionality and “global feminisms” by ljdillon

ljdillon — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 07:15:27 +0000

I think Susan makes a good point bringing up Petchesky asking, “How do movements become transnationalized? Who claims to speak for them and with what degree of authenticity?” I think that Manisha Desai’s, Transnationalism: the face of feminist politics post-Beijing, poses interesting insight into the questions posed by Petchesky. Desai finds that there are “…several structural and ideological reasons for the limitations of transnational feminism around the UN.” Desai finds there to be a variety of reasons for the limitations of transnational feminism. For one some feel that a unified call does not make sense because of the diversity of feminist perspectives and the inability to make claims on behalf of all women. This issue targets Petchesky’s question of “who claims to speak for them and with what degree of authenticity.” It is apparent that some women feel that no one can speak for all women because of the diversity of experiences. Another issue Desai highlights is that some women feel the UN to be a space for helping women of developing countries as oppose to women from their own.

At one conference women did decide that their differing agendas and views could be put under a “women’s humans rights frame.” While it was a means of putting women’s views together under one title, the rights approach has been criticized by many. Desai claims that there has been much discourse, but little strategy plans and little change even when the issue of women’s human rights has been taken up by the states. I argue that the incongruence of women’s views concerning what is important and who needs aid is setting back an effective transnational movement. Women have been organizing and discussing agendas for over a decade but seemingly have produced little transnational change which makes me wonder if feminism is best fought on local and state levels? In addition, even if a transnationalized movement is successful when does that entail? We discuss in class week after week how policy does not equate to change on the ground. Governments will agree to legislation for a variety of reasons (aid for the state or to appear progressive) but that often does not change the society a woman is in.

Comment on Strategies for Global Feminism by Robin

Robin — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 06:05:27 +0000

In response to Susan, I agree with your view in looking at Joachim’s analysis of the relationship of NGOs and women’s rights in the UN. This article was important for my understanding of the innerworkings of NGOs in the UN through definitions like problem stream, policy stream, and political stream, framing processes, and mobilizing structures.

In response to your question, “how do groups look past ‘cultural difference’ and disagreements among various demographics of women in order to advance the bigger cause and achieve GLOBAL rights for women?” I have asked the same question before in response to the secular and religious feminists, and I believe the key is in their personal experiences and understanding and respect of one another. If women accross the board experience discrimination in the form of similarity then they can have empathy with one another and a certain type of understanding is formed. Also, if they can find that common underlying issue after stripping away the “culture” that it is hiding behind then they can find a common ground. Somewhat like the FGM issue.

Comment on Intersectionality and “global feminisms” by jillianr

jillianr — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 05:59:54 +0000

I agree with both of your arguments. I think what prevents women from finding common ground is when women or feminist groups focus more on the differences between them and other women in the world. If women from all over the world can come together and realize that (almost) all women as a group are marginalized, I think that is a good first step. From there, we can create a rhetoric and a broader and more comprehensive vision of what women needs for their human rights to be protected. I am writing a paper on how the women’s movement in Chile helped in reestablishing democracy after the military regime of Pinochet had taken over. What is interesting about the women’s movement success is how it was incredibly unified. Although there were different feminisms across the nation depending on region, class, etc., they were able to combine forces and see that they could work together to fight one common enemy (the oppressive military regime.) Maybe it is that women need to come together from all over the world and find one thing they can agree on to fight against and then build from there.

Comment on Intersectionality and “global feminisms” by susan1987

susan1987 — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 04:47:43 +0000

Janis, I think you make a compelling argument. I can see where intersectionality can lead to a process that is unproductive, if we section groups so far that we are isolating discrimination into an individual experience. Yes, no two women or two people will experience oppression in the same exact way, but social movements against forms of oppression will never get off the ground unless there is some means of foundation. I like the idea of patterns joining women together. There may not be one ‘global feminism’ but there are certainly issues that fall into different patterns across a global context. Petchesky asks “How do movements become transnationalized? Who claims to speak for them and with what degree of authenticity?” This question is one that we have been grappling with all semester. If we don’t know whose “truth” we are considering, then how can we make the claim that feminism is a global movement? Reproductive rights and sexual health rights may take on many definitions when looked at by different groups of people (Northern white women, Northern Puerto Rican women, Southern women, etc.) but to say that the rights themselves are the product of one culture is misguided (as Petchesky points out on page 3 of “Transnationalizing Women’s Health Movements”) I think that it is fair to say that there are global human rights, and with such, there should be a common ground (however narrow) that every “feminism” shares.

Comment on Strategies for Global Feminism by jillianr

jillianr — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 19:14:21 +0000

Douglas, i really liked your analysis of the four articles. I’d like to follow up on Andrew’s comment that we “cannot worry about other rights if one is hungry, uneducated, and homeless.” I think this point resonates with Petchesky’s article. When we think about women’s movements, it is important to remember they there are conflicts among them which reflect regional, class and ideological differences. It is also important to recognize that an idea never belongs to a certain nation or culture because they “travel” and take on new meanings. I think it will be very helpful for women’s health activists working transnationally to develop a broader vision, and a more comprehensive and affirmative agenda. A more inclusive and broader vision will help ease some of the conflicts among women’s movements. For example, in Desai’s article, she writes, “women from the South…challenging Northern women’s conceptions of women’s issues based solely on gender and sexuality and insisting on bringinf in issues of development, nationalism, and neo-colonialism” (322). I was reminded of my input paper and the readings last week when I read the section on DAWN. DAWN has been adamant about placing women’s reproductive health within a comprehensive human development framework. DAWN links health needs like access to contraceptive information to a wide range of enabling conditions like access to housing, legal equality, and freedom from harassment. Moreover, DAWN argues that this vision would restore state responsibility for basic needs and take priority over market forces. It is obvious that Mexico is placing market forces as a priority over the basic needs of the female employees working in the maquiladoras (this is from my input paper). We need to stay away from the notion of viewing development in terms of only economic development, as we read last week in Sen’s “Development as Freedom.” I thought an interesting point of Petchesky’s was when she says that infrastructural conditions and macroecoomic policies must be incorporated into our ethical framework and seen not only as basic needs but as fundamental rights because those conditions and policies create the enabling environment for reproductive and sexual rights to become practical realities (7). All of our rights are intertwined. I don’t think you can fully have one right without the others. I agree with Andrew that perhaps basic human needs and rights is the first step that global feminists should take, which includes things such as safe drinking water and food. What would even be better though is if we can use a more comprehensive vision, as DAWN pushes for, so that we do not have to choose which rights we want as the first goal. In my mind, they all are so connected that it is difficult to choose one right to bring forward first. I don’t remember what country Professor Ackerly was talking about when she said the feminists from the country were not interested in sexuality rights, and our response was, but they are connected to everything you are fighting for. Because without sexuality rights, the other rights you are pushing for will be diminished. So, I would argue that we need to create a comprehensive human development framework that is inclusive of many different types of rights.

Comment on Strategies for Global Feminism by Andrew Duncan III

Andrew Duncan III — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 17:33:10 +0000

Susan, i think that your question is intresting. This has always been a problem with coalitions. This occurs in the US, where both the Republican and Democratic Parties are made up of different coalitions that do not agree with one another. I think that there needs to be certain issues that the coalition of global feminist needs to agree on, aor it will not succeed. I think that they should first focus on basic rights such as bodily integrity rights. Rape and forced abortions should be one priority that feminist should work on because these problems violate human and women rights. These are problems that occur everwhere in the world, even countries like the U.S. The 2nd area they should work on is basic needs being meet like food, shelter, and clothing. One cannot worry about other rights if one is hungry, uneducated, and homeless. I think other rights such as reproductive rights, should still be on the table, but they should be vigrously debated on how far to go. I think that meeting basic human needs and rights is the first step that global feminists should use in order to solidify thier coalition.

Comment on Government Inaction and the Spread of AIDS in South Africa by Andrew Duncan III

Andrew Duncan III — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 17:27:15 +0000

Anti- apartheid claiming the AIDS was created by the government seems similar to what some African Americans also claim to that the government created AIDS. I think this comes as a fact that both blacks in South Africa and the US are marganilizd people. They were abused by medical trials like the Tuskegee syphillis tradgegy and they do not trust the government, or medicine. I think that these reactions have proved deadly and costly to people of color and that the government and the medical community need to build more trust among these people in order for them to be treated.