Week 4

Mohanty's critique of the various analyses of the "Third Wold Woman" by Western feminists was very intriguing. She talks about how these feminist capitalize on the fact that the objects of research have both 'third world' deficiencies such as the fact that they are "ignorant, poor, uneducated, tradition-bound, religious, domesticated, family-oriented, victimized, etc." as well as the feminine deficiency of being "sexually constrained" (65). They are doubly victimized and unnecessarily generalized. The feminist theories about women in Islam are similar to the Orientalist perspectives about the East - both groups of people have no history and are unchanging (71). They are accused of having certain 'third world' qualities, such as family, dignity, and service to others, that in reality could be said about any woman in the West.

This apparent superiority of the women's perception of themselves in the West was also discussed in Abu-Lughod's reading. Again, Muslim women as a whole are generalized, and there has been little to no attempt to understand them as individuals, or even to understand the culture of the Muslims in the Middle East. For example, the topic of the veil comes up. In Afghanistan, it is seen as a sign of respectability and protection, not oppression. Abu-Lughod goes on to say "If we think that US women live in a world of choice regarding clothing, all we need to do is remind ourselves of the expression, 'the tyranny of fashion'" (786). This is to remind us that the American way of life may not be the best for everyone and it is necessary to take time and understand the culture of others rather than generalizing all non-Western woman as needing to be saved.

Week 4- Mohanty and Abu-Lughod

This week's readings focus what is and isn't acceptable feminism for Muslim women, concluding that one must walk a very fine line to adequately portray Muslim women's reality and ideals. The first reading, by Mohanty, mainly rejects depictions of Muslim women through the framework of Western feminism. Mohanty finds that western feminism usually argues that all non-western women are objects of their male counterparts, incapable of agency and victims of discrimination. Mohanty disagrees with such broad statements for all women, binding them together as inferior not only to men, but also to western women. She argues that such knowledge production, a common theme in our class, is damaging to non-western women. The criticism I have with Mohanty is that she's completely against grouping people together. Everyone is unique and so are communities, cultures, countries, etc. But if we don't group people, then it's difficult to create any knowledge or action at all.

I preferred the Abu-Lughod readings, which I found to be more nuanced and realistic than Mohanty's. Abu-Lughod also argues that western political colonialism and feminism disregards the differences in what Muslim women want. Many of these women do not envy western models of feminism and look to create a new society, rather than copy a troubled western version. But she also contends that both Islamists and proponents of secularism in the Middle East are borrowing more from the west than they'd like to admit, such as ideals of equal education among genders. Yet, they retain a more cultural approach to many of their ideals, such as supporting the rights of women to wear the hijab and burqa. My criticism with Abu-Lughod was that at one point she seems to suggest that women's organizations that try to raise awareness about violence against women are perpetuating negative stereotypes. If there is violence against women anywhere, it should not be hidden just to improve public relations! I commend these organizations and find it ridiculous that Abu-Lughod doesn't even consider that such organizations are all over the world, especially in America, because violence against women is a global problem. Sorry Mohanty, I just grouped women together, but this is the reality.

Week 4 Post

The readings this week detail many of the problems associated with feminism itself along with the issues raised by imposing a generally Western notion of feminism onto different groups. There is first the problem of who exactly feminists are interested in helping. Mohanty points out the problem of feminism serving women as a group. It situates women as a homogeneous group despite the fact that in one society different members will have different motivations and priorities. For example, younger women may be more likely to care about access to education and reliable birth control, while older women may not be as concerned with this. There are also socioeconomic divisions in motives throughout the group “women.” While upper class women may be concerned about access to education, poor women are likely to be concerned with access to things like food, shelter and employment rather than if they will get to go to college. Therefore, feminism has to situate itself within any society. The idealism must confront the real issues women within the society face.

However, even if the idea of feminism were to situate itself in middle-class Arabia, that does not guarantee that the issues of this group are the same as in the West. Abu-Lughod proposes the question of what kind of feminism is appropriate for the Middle East? In a different socio-political climate and structure it may not be useful to rely on a discourse that is based on Western women, their public roles and ideas of domesticity. To do this would be to undermine the native culture, which should not be the goal. Rather, it would be more instructive to understand the role of women in the native society and find out what they would like their role to be. This course of action is distinct from presuming that these women have life desires identical to Western women. Abu-Lughod mentions that Islamists attempt to legitimate the practice of veiling through celebrities who are “coming home.” This discourse suggests a calling for freedom from Western ideology and a certain nostalgia for tradition. While this is likely an attempt to exploit discontent with Western influence, it highlights that this discontent exists nonetheless.

Week 4 Post

One of the themes in this week's readings was the construction of the "East" as antithetical to the "West." Said's Orientalism first brought this into our class discussion, and both Abu-Lughod and Mohanty build on orientalism in the context of feminism.

Chandra Mohanty's discussion of the "singular, 'third world woman'" (62) challenges the discourse surrounding third world women, and their production as one stereotypical image. This reproduction of the idea of the third world woman mirrors Orientalism as a "consistent archive." Mohanty also addresses the issue of western feminists' works, and how despite it being marginalized, their lack of inclusion of women in developing countries is problematic.

I found her claim that western contrast themselves to third world women in a similar way to orientalists fascinating, as I have read a decent amount of feminist works, yet I can't recall works in which this Orientalism is present. This also ties back to Foucault and the idea of knowledge as power: even though western feminist works are marginalized, they are still given the power of writing about third world women. The third world woman is "sexually constrained, ignorant, poor, uneducated..." while the western woman is "educated, modern, having control over their bodies..." (65). Some of this exact language is present in Said's works on Orientalism, as women in the third world are consistently written about as victims of oppressive native men. Ultimately, Mohanty believes that feminism must be built within the context of its histories and politics. Not only are they used as a foil to western life, but they also are held up to western standards.

Both Lila Abu-Lughod's article "Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving" and "Orientalism and Middle East Studies" also connected to the construction of the idea of the East being fundamentally dissimilar to the West. In "Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving," Abu-Lughod teased out the discourse surrounding recent Western involvement in the Middle East and its framing as saving the women of the country from oppression as justification for these wars. Similarly to Mohanty, Abu-Lughod insists on contexualizing a tradition rather than assuming that because a majority of women wear veils, a majority of women are oppressed. She discusses the difference in wearing veils in different cultures and the ways in which it is empowering to women in some areas. She touches on the oppression of Muslim women by American and European women in her quote "I do not think that it would be as easy to mobilize so many of these American and European women if it were not a case of Muslim men oppressing Muslim women--women of cover for whom they can feel sorry for and in relation tow hom they can feel smugly superior." That quote was crucial for me in understanding the relationship between western feminists and their counterparts in the east whom they stereotype (Mohanty) and then make use of this stereotype to justify invasion (Abu-Lughod). She talks about the problematic ethnocentrism that accompanies these stereotypes, and that perhaps they do not want "liberation" as we see it.

The quote "It is deeply problematic to construct the Afghan woman as someone in need of saving. When you save someone, you imply that you are saving her from something. You are also saving her to something" (788) resonated intensely with my political senses. I have certainly felt this way in terms of the US's foreign policies surrounding developing nations, but have not necessarily made this connection with politicians' discourse surrounding women.

In her discussion of "Orientalism and Middle East Studies," Abu-Lughod discusses the way in which Said's work impacted feminism. She talks about the issue of Middle Eastern feminist scholars being caught between "representing Middle Eastern women as complex agents" but also critiquing the patriarchal structures and thus playing into Orientalist ideas. This conflict is something I am interested in discussing more--I would love to read writings by "third world feminists," and see this firsthand. I also wonder to what extent these feminists who live in developing nations are aware of the influence western feminism has on their work.

Week 3 Response

The justification of past versus present with Mernissi’s story of her unfortunate trip to the grocery, and that of A’isha, much longer ago, was something I found to be a very interesting aspect of the first chapter of Mernissi’s book. I greatly enjoyed that Mernissi compiled her thoughts into a much easier read, as she is far easier for me to relate to than other authors we have read.
In this reading, Mernissi takes offense at the Hadith that gets thrown at her at the store scene in the beginning of the chapter, which states “ those who entrust their affairs to a woman will never know prosperity.” Now that is an extremely blunt and biased statement. This Hadith was also used to criticize A’isha, a character whom it seems Mernissi can relate well to. I found it ironic that while A’isha was taking on a battlefield at the head of an army and challenging a powerful caliph, her huband, Muhammad ‘Arafa, who was supposedly quite supportive of her, was the one who wrote books expressing that women virtually have no rights, no do they have political history. I view this as a sad irony that is unfortunately a continuation of the double-talk that Wa’dud wrote extensively on in our past readings. Traditionally, in Muslim households, men are brought up to develop ideas of manhood as unlimited and exclusive empowerment, yet supposedly men and women are said to sit at equal levels. This is an example of the strange gender disparity that is even more magnified within the family, where things are really not transparent.
It also angered me to read that A’isha was also slandered by writer al-Afghani, who published two books essentially blaming A’isha for any and all bloodshed involved in the civil war, and for the split between Sunni and Shi’a. Al-Afghani uses A’isha as an example of why women should never meddle in politics, and this is just so unfair, because there are various other reasons, but because a man was the one who took the authority to write the book, he basically holds authority of what happened.

Week 3 Response

In the assigned chapters from Fatima Mernissi’s text The Veil and the Male Elite, Mernissi delineates the origins of misogyny within certain Hadith and the use of hijab in modern Islamic practices. In working to create an alternative reading of the Qur’an, Mernissi raises questions power, authenticity, and gender. Beginning by investigating the Hadith brought forward by Abu Bakra and Abu Hurayra, Mernissi investigates the credibility of the hegemonic narrative surrounding their validity. Reconstructing history in such a way that she illuminates the personal motives both Abu Bakra and Abu Hurayra may have had for fabricating of misrepresenting particular Hadith. Furthermore, Mernissi’s argument speaks to larger cultural and religious anxieties. Using Abu Bakra’s unstable paternity and Abu Hurayra’s Yemen heritage as reasons why both would be motivated to propagate misogynistic Hadith, Mernissi suggest that religious and national identity were solidified through misogyny. In espousing these Hadith, both Abu Bakra and Abu Hurayra gained a more secure identity. It is in this way that Mernissi demonstrates how, “manipulation of them [sacred texts] is a structural characteristic of the practice of power in Muslim societies” (Mernessi, 7). This manipulation, Mernissi argues, is the true purpose of misogyny within Islam.

In addition to critiquing the use of Hadith to justify misogyny, Mernissi also questions contemporary discourses of the hijab. Arguing that the hijab was intended to be a physical and ideological separation between the public and the private spheres, Mernissi questions the connection between its origin and its modern significance. She notes a shift from the hijab as either a way of separating pedestrians and religious leaders or as a separation between private and public space to the hijab being the barrier between men and women. And while she does not explicitly state the reasons for this shift, she seems to suggest that that shift, (like the earlier use of Hadith) was a tool in securing male power and stability. Just as Mernissi argues the Hadith was descended in a time of uncertainty in regards to the Prophet’s military strength, the hijab in its current use is a tool with which the certainty of male dominance is gained. Thus, Mernissi seems to elucidate the relationship between misogyny and power within these particular Islamic discourses.

Sources: Fatima Mernissi. 1992. "Introduction," "A Tradition of Misogyny (I)," "A Tradition of Misogyny (II)" and "The Hijab, The Veil" The Veil and the Male Elite. Basic Books.

Blog Post- Week3

This weeks readings were shocking and disappointing to me, especially when it comes from a woman who has pretty good knowledge about the Islam and the Quran. What’s disappointing is that she didn’t take the effort of looking at Islam from anther perspective, where we see Islam is completely not sexist and actually supports women in all fields, its like she was waiting for anything to find in Islam to prove that it is a sexist religion. As a Muslim woman that was raised in a fairly religious yet modernized culture and environment, I find this reading very bias and the analysis did not persuade me at all.

What caught my attention mostly was her talking about Hadith and her interpretation of it. Before her talking about Hadith, she should have explained the different types of hadith. Mernissi saying that the Hadith is fabricated is completely offending and unacceptable. Her interpretation of the Hadith is that a woman and a dog are the on the same level, what is meant by the hadith that women can be a source of distraction to men and by saying “dog” its satan.

Also, she spoke about the Abu- huraira “name” and that story is not true. The actual story is that Abu-Huraira saw a kitten on the road and took it and put in in his sleeve and took care of it and when the prophet (PBUH) saw him he gave a nickname “Abu-Huraira”.