This weeks assigned
articles focused on the ideologies and theories centered around the defining of
"woman". In the article entitled, "Under Western Eyes" by
Chandra Mohanty, the perspective was to focus on the re-presentation of "Woman"
as an arbitrary relation set up in particular cultural and historical context;
as stated in the text. This article was enticingly captivating to read from the
author's perspective. Mohanty brought light to the situations and issues
that are not often talked about when discussing woman and the unspoken
"differences" that are upheld but often never spoken of.
One passage in particular caught my attention, it spoke of the descriptive
gender differences between women and men; stating that women are constituted as
a group via dependency relationships whereas, the men are held responsible
for the relationship. In this instance you have a victim and oppressor
relationship giving the man the dominate position in the relationship, thus
leaving the woman to be the submissive/subordinate. This is considered to
be traditional or norm in most women and men relationships some with
little or more extremities than others. However, Mohanty focuses on this
briefly in an attempt to expand on the reference of all African women are
politically and economically dependent. When she refers to the ways 'women of
Africa' are oppressed, she finds this problematic because it presumes that men
and women are already connected in a sexual-political way prior to their
introduction to the social relation, but the crucial point that she states that
is often forgotten is that women are produced through these relations and are
implicated in forming these relations. This in my opinion goes to say that
women although, not viewed as strong components in some realms of
relationships, are the adhesive that not only helps to form it but keep it
together as well.
In Uma Narayan’s “Dislocating
Cultures” I found the article to be exceptionally personable. The personal
situations she used to correlate her argument to her personal experiences contributed
greatly to the overall foundation of the article. This article shed some light
on the lasting effect the home has on the woman based off of cultural norm.
Narayan spoke of being a young girl and being “silenced” often in her home by
her mother. The irony came when it was shared that the mother would speak of
hating being “silenced” by her husband and mother-in-law, she said in the beginning
she was so innocent she didn’t even know how to take up for herself when her
mother-in-law would get orally combative with her. It is ironic in a sense that
the mother would take it upon herself to be the one to “silence” her daughter
when she knew how it had made her feel when it was done to her. I looked at
this as form of the mother feeling, rather needing something to control or have
power over. It is not totally unheard of for the one who is at most feeling
powerless to find something to help then regain some sort of power. Narayan
argued that her feminist contestations of her culture had a lot to do with the
cultural dynamics of the family life that she was surrounded by, the “politics
of home.” I would like to think that if more people would allow their horizons
to be broaden and explore alternate ways would not majority of all traditional
aspects be somewhat altered or completely abolished by some? Or are we to
afraid to go against the grain and step out on our own personal optimism, why
are we so afraid to change the norm especially if we see them as problematic?
“Scattered
Hegemonies” by Inderpal Grewal and Caren Kaplan, continues to place focus on
more of transnational feminism placing emphasis on the “postmodern” theory of
woman. The article brought about a very
well thought out proposal trying to bring about transnational alliances the
purpose would be to acknowledge the different forms that feminisms take and the
different practices that can be seen as feminist movements, as stated in the
text. There will always be a difference that makes one thing different or not
exactly the same but that does not mean that the ultimate purpose is not the
same. The same can be said with the various approaches to feminism, is it not
the ultimate goal to gain equality? If women groups can form alliances, why shouldn’t
the various forms of feminism?
These
readings raised several questions for me to want to consider, as an African-American
woman that was raised in a “traditional” American home, do I want that type of
home for my children’s surroundings? Do I want their “politics of home” to be
the “traditional” view that I was surrounded by? Why must it be that the male
always, regardless of demographics have the dominating role in the relationship
and the home? Is this something that will ever change or is this a norm that
will always be upheld by generations to come?
No comments:
Post a Comment