I really appreciated this week's readings as an objective analysis of feminism and Islam without saying that Muslim women are either oppressed or autonomous. For example, in "Unholy Matrimony? Feminism, Orientalism, and the Possibility of Double Critique," Juliet A. Williams, presents both sides of the temporary marriage debate instead of arguing for or against either argument. She wrote that in her personal experience with Ali, she "found [herself] toggling between images of temporary wives as pawns of a state-sanctioned sex industry on the one hand and as liberated sexual free agents on the other hand" (Williams 616). Williams goes on to discuss the ways in which the media portrays opposing views on topics such as temporary marriage.
Saba Mahmoud also focused on the bigger picture when she wrote, "My intention here is not to question the profound transformation that the liberal discourse of freedom and individual autonomy has enabled in women's lives around the world," (Mahmoud 13). Instead, Mahmoud defines her own ideas of positive and negative freedom, and leaves the application of those definitions mostly up for interpretation.
Instead on dwelling on the truth of western perceptions, both writers tried to identify the sources of these perceptions, and they then leave the ultimate decision to believe (or not) to the reader. "In other words, it is not the substance...but its 'origin that matters in judgments about autonomy' (Christman 1991, 359)" (Mahmoud 12).
Side note: I did find it interesting that both women DID take a clear stance on one topic: Self-Representation. Williams explicitly supported the concept: "It is now a matter of disciplinary common sense that studies of non-Western women... should emphasize self-representation" (Williams 615). Mahmoud agreed, attributing the restoration of "the absent voice of women" to "feminist scholarship" (Mahmoud 6).
No comments:
Post a Comment