Eco feminism is kinda neat. It showed the link between man and nature. I did not read this section, but the group that presented highlighted how women are more frequently "one with nature" as opposed to men. Men are more focused on mind and reason whereas women use their body and emotion. Men kill (war) when women literally give life. Looking at the judeo-christian religions, all of which
were established by men. Women are more spiritual and see the interconnections within. Human destruction of nature can be compared to women oppression by man. The authors mentioned Carson's "Silent Spring." I read that book so long ago (back in my "I'm a boyscout and I am going to save the world" days) I don't recall much, but I do remember Rachel had such a passion for the conservation of nature. Maybe I'll go check it out again. I wonder if there were any big ecofeminists on the production team of Avatar.
The Marxist/socialist approach is pretty straight forward. Your class determines the amount of power exuded and the struggles within class only exists among genders differences. According to these feminists, materialism is the reason for women's expression. The division of labor keeps women in the domestic sphere and they feel that a revolution would equalize the workplace for women. They want to make domestic labor public. They feel trapped by reproductive limits. These feminists see children as an economic gain instead of human beings with potential. It is a very detached stance. There are not many emotions attached. I can't imagine having a family, in this day in age, for the sole puropse of more hands on the farm or the chance of getting more welfare. The blackeyed peas can help me out with this one, where is the love? it undermines family. It is more about capitalism--money for family or marxism-money for community, than social connections. Another critique is the question of what a revolution would actually do. If we look at past revolutions, true there is a chance for social change, but nothing happens over night. And history hasn't showed that much progress of you look at average pay rates of men vs women. I have never been a big fan of Karl or his theories, let alone his influence on feminism.
The multicultural/global feminist is super interesting. In the United States, every woman experiences her identity and status differently. It isn't just these black and white labels like in other parts of the world. There is more weight to mother or caretaker than just provider of children; same goes for career woman--it has more dimension to just that simple blocking together of women. At the same time, this challenges female essentialism. Is our essential role to cook, care, and clean? In that case, might as well bang our heads against a wall a million times to get rid of all those worthless brain cells. The term "workplace" sounds glamorous here in the US, but workplace for most abroad means sweatshops, house cleaner, etc. This devalues the idea of women in the workplace. The ongoing debate of feminism vs. womanism continues. We all understand the fundamentals of feminism, so I won't go there; however, womanism (at least in our class) is a new term. It creates a distinction for black feminism. Because of that other dimension for black women, it is safe to categorize them differently. BUT, if we categorize black women differently, and we are talking about feminism on a global level, shouldn't we do the same for all races? And there lies the discrepancy. Then lies the challenge of uniting women cross-culturally. Realizing a sisterhood exists isn't enough. We must accept and embrace that we don't all do things the same way and just because it isn't our way doesn't mean it is wrong (the common American mentality). The hard part is how to bridge that gap. Education seems like the obvious answer, but American women have the most agency to travel and educate/learn from others. Some women will never make it out of their hometowns, so their role would be to accept the strange woman into their home and listen and speak of their different worlds. In my personal experience (though it only goes as far as Latin America...and Canada is that counts), women are very prideful of their roots and traditions. Some do not see it as oppression, because it is all they know.
My host mom for example was stunned when I told her I really had no desire to get married or have kids. I told her I see my life as one to share with others in a different way--in my NPO endeavors. She questioned my faith and my femininity, and told me a woman's work is in her house for her family. Though I was boiling inside, I realized where my dear mother was coming from and I respect that. Her only experience was to have a family and do just that. When we got divorced, she struggled because she did not have her own education to fall back on (she relied on her husband completely). She is a very successful--don't be surprised--chef/cake decorator. And regardless of her unsupportive nature toward my dream career, I love her dearly. I do not know if it is my place to step in and raise the red flag. At this point, I have only shared "the American way" (and who is to say if we are even doing it right?) by telling my stories or hopes and dreams. So, is having the luxury to travel to 3rd world countries a waste of an opportunity to bridge that gap or do we ultimately just widen it?
No comments:
Post a Comment