![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
warning: incoherent rant ahead
I had a rage-filled day! Some fandom things (antis, please gtfo) and then this, which is what dominated my day, really:
I spent two hours in the morning doing my readings for my afternoon Human Rights in Asia class focusing on women's rights. I also spent that time literally crying in rage over some of the things discussed. The readings were really good, actually. Thoughtful and observant of the divide in viewpoints, acknowledging a number of differing attitudes in ideologies, cultures, etc. but also not backing away from the more difficult positions. Really interesting to read and nuanced, which is always awesome. They also highlighted some examples of the awful situations women find themselves in all over the world today, as well as highlighted examples of progress and triumph by women. I just. I have a lot of feelings. I hate that so much crap still exist; I hate that people try to somehow justify it.
I posted in my end of year reflection meme last year that the issue that affected me most last year was feminism; race issues are still close to my heart too, but nothing gets me in the gut like feminist issues. I realized again it was true today when reading these articles and, you know, crying, raging, scribbling angrily all over my papers while "taking notes".
My readings today were on women's rights in Asia and touched on things from equality vs liberty, social/cultural/religious traditions, gender-based violence, son preference and femicide, public/private divide, poltical rights, socio-economic rights in the workplace, feminization of poverty, dowry murders, and honor killings. It left me in two states:
T___________________T
and also
(屮ಥ益ಥ)屮彡 ┻━┻
In human rights dialogue, there is always debate over the "univeralist" perspective and the "cultural relativism" perspective.
In short (and pertaining particularly to women's rights), univeralism argues the following:
Cultural relativism, on the other hand, protests the following;
...for a while, I was torn between the two perspectives because I can see legitimate concerns of both points of view. I wasn't sure exactly where I stood. However, as I continued reading further, a voice in my head basically started interpreting the cultural relativist argument as "UHUHUHU DUN JUDGE ME WHEN I DO SHITTY THINGS, HDU JUDGE ME, U IMPERIALIST".
askfdjfsdk evidently in my gut I feel very firmly that, although cultural relativism and context does matter to some extent, that cannot be denied, it is not a fucking excuse to treat women like shit. IT JUST ISN'T. I'M SORRY - wait, no I'm not - THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT ACTUALLY HAVE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS OF TRUTH. DEAL WITH IT.
The readings are really good though. Because they followed this up with an article/theory by one particular feminist legal theorist, who emphasizes that the question that should be asked "is not which perspective of the debate to support but rather how to address the legitimate concerns of both".
Which, you know, is way more helpful than my capslocking of rage. (Though let's not deny the fact that capslocking of rage is a legitimate way to express my frustrations. It has its place.)
This theory posits:
I am pretty much right there. You should've seen my vehement underlining and check-marking on that page.
A related approach that "attempts to moderate the contrapositions within feminist legal theory" (essentially, the seemingly-opposed theories of universalist (women's) rights and culturally relative (women's) rights) proposes:
I won't go on quoting basically everything from this compilation of articles, but suffice to say they are good readings even if they inspire a lot of thought and rage and feelings in me. Those are good things.
Actually, I just pulled this off Google: of all my readings, this was my favorite article, and I think it's well worth a read.
Then, here, please insert the following as there is way more to say than can ever be said in one entry: stuff about those so-called "Asian values" here, stuff about no black-and-white approach to these issues, stuff about how ~cultural traditions~ are not all monolithic and homogeneous and static (changes happen!), stuff about how different countries have addressed these issues (to some success, to some failure), stuff about how I still firmly believe in some objective standard of what is a human right, and so on.
But despite believing some core universal standard, I also can't object to the fact that there certainly are cultural and religious and societal contexts within which our rights operate. We can't divorce law from its context, however much scholars may try to. Sometimes law is inadequate; sometimes it is inappropriate; there is only so much it can do, in the end. But still, there is a place for law.
That doesn't mean there is any one answer, though, one solution that should apply across the board. That is just so...naive? Optimistic? Human rights law is essentially an exercise in frustration, I feel. Women are so diverse; we are not a homogeneous group. We have different wants and needs, whether it's access to water or the ability to break the glass ceiling in employment, to choose to wear the hijab or to choose to have/not have children. It's what makes lobbying for "women's rights" even more difficult, because we can't presume what one (or even some) women want is representative of the whole, that all women subscribe to a certain set of values or have a certain set of needs.
So part of me is thinking SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP ALSO FUCK YOU to people and governments and ~cultures~ trying to justify reprehensibly misogynistic treatment of women. Another part of me is thinking WHY ARE YOU LIKE THIS WORLD, GDI, EVERYTHING IS SO HARD.
But, you know. Trying for the optimism and, hey look, we've had our victories too. Though I've seen people try to use those victories to justify the fact that "progress has been made" and we can just 放手 / stop being proactive now. Focus on something else!
...and then it goes back to the rage. D:
Well, then I went to class! And it was a great class, particularly because it was obvious our professor cared about this issue but managed to present the varying viewpoints without making her opinion blatantly obvious. She did a good job facilitating discussion, I think, and pointing out the nuances and difficulties in the discourse - and for the most part I think the class was more engaged than usual too. I know I...had some strong opinions at one point.
We entered a discussion on all-women advocacy groups and whether they should put men on them, or have men spearhead the movement for women's rights. Essentially because including men would bring more "legitimacy" (because we don't want to give the impression that only women care about women's rights) or be more meaningful, as they were "recognizing their previous misdeeds" (or whatever), and also men also have important opinions and perspectives to bring to the table! Because their mothers were women! And their wives were women! They had insight.
No, actually, someone said that. You should've seen the faces of outrage I made; they were great. = =;; (Our professor did joke with us about it, because everyone was making great faces throughout class. That is how you can tell you are having a good class, I guess?)
Is that kind of like saying, "Let's add a white guy to your black activism group BECAUSE HE HAS BLACK FRIENDS AND OPINIONS TOO"? "I know a lesbian! Let me tell you how we should fight for queer rights!"
I got a liiiittle ticked off. You know, yes, fuck yes, be an ally, do support and educate. Advocate! But do not fucking bully your way into a group to DROWN OUT important voices.
I absolutely think that men should also support women's rights, but they also have to keep in mind that this is not about them. This is not about their experience or their opinions. Stop trying to make this all about your ~apology~ or ~reparation~; don't try to dominate the discussion or the movement. In some ways that is practically suggesting that women need men's help in order to accomplish anything for their own movement. If some women's groups want to include both men and women, cool. But if some women's groups want to be women's only, then SHUT UP AND LET THEM.
Just. A man will NEVER KNOW what it's like to be a woman. (Trans* issues aside, and that is a whole other topic that I don't think I am qualified to get into at the moment - or ever, really - but please know I am not trying to exclude or be dismissive of those issues, complicated and varying as they also are. Argh. /highly emotional)
For me, I think, it all goes back up to the theory I quoted above, highlighting autonomy and choice and vocies of women in whatever context they live in. For me, feminism is not about telling other women what to do and how to feel or that they must be oppressed if they do X or that they just don't know better and are choosing to submit to oppression… (E.g., France banning the hijab and telling Muslim women who chose to wear it, essentially, that it was a sign of oppression and therefore their choice to wear it was uninformed and wrong. Yes, the issue is more complex than just that. Yes, everything is more complex than "just that". D:)
I mean, argh, Edward Said, Orientalism, Western standards, othering, etc etc etc.
I have no coherent thoughts. Is this obvious? Everything is complicated and everything is difficult and everything hurts. There is a lot of rage but there is a lot of depression too - our professor concluded class by saying, rather pessimistically, "It's hard to see that there is so much evil in the world and see further that there are so few solutions." It's true. There is no one-size-fits-all solution. And it's frustrating and it's so sad.
I have no answers, just a lot of feelings.
eta: Feeling a bit drained at the moment (too many feelings are exhausting? D:) so may not be responding to comments. Here, just have an outpouring of my jumbled thoughts...
I spent two hours in the morning doing my readings for my afternoon Human Rights in Asia class focusing on women's rights. I also spent that time literally crying in rage over some of the things discussed. The readings were really good, actually. Thoughtful and observant of the divide in viewpoints, acknowledging a number of differing attitudes in ideologies, cultures, etc. but also not backing away from the more difficult positions. Really interesting to read and nuanced, which is always awesome. They also highlighted some examples of the awful situations women find themselves in all over the world today, as well as highlighted examples of progress and triumph by women. I just. I have a lot of feelings. I hate that so much crap still exist; I hate that people try to somehow justify it.
I posted in my end of year reflection meme last year that the issue that affected me most last year was feminism; race issues are still close to my heart too, but nothing gets me in the gut like feminist issues. I realized again it was true today when reading these articles and, you know, crying, raging, scribbling angrily all over my papers while "taking notes".
My readings today were on women's rights in Asia and touched on things from equality vs liberty, social/cultural/religious traditions, gender-based violence, son preference and femicide, public/private divide, poltical rights, socio-economic rights in the workplace, feminization of poverty, dowry murders, and honor killings. It left me in two states:
T___________________T
and also
(屮ಥ益ಥ)屮彡 ┻━┻
In human rights dialogue, there is always debate over the "univeralist" perspective and the "cultural relativism" perspective.
In short (and pertaining particularly to women's rights), univeralism argues the following:
...that women's rights are "fundamental rights that all women should enjoy irrespective of the cultures or societies in which they live" and that "any 'dilution' of universal principles will permit renegade states to discard human rights provisions on the basis that they are contrary to the 'cultural practices of the region' and give 'the green light to tyrannical governments, torturers, and mutilators of women'..."
Cultural relativism, on the other hand, protests the following;
...that (1) notions of right and wrong differ throughout the word due to diverse indigenous traditions, political and religious ideologies and institutional structures [...] and imposition of universalist norms is likely to result in the erasure of cultural norms; (2) for many women, tradition is a source of identity. The individual rights of women, particularly in many non-western countries, are secondary to community's rights as human dignity is preserved not through individual rights but through membership in in a community. The imposition of western norms, which favor individual rights, fail to accommodate such a difference; (3) the assertions of western universal human rights are pretexts for intervention in the domestic affairs of other countries; and (4) since there are no legitimate cross-cultural standards, outsiders should not judge the moral rules and social institutions of others.
...for a while, I was torn between the two perspectives because I can see legitimate concerns of both points of view. I wasn't sure exactly where I stood. However, as I continued reading further, a voice in my head basically started interpreting the cultural relativist argument as "UHUHUHU DUN JUDGE ME WHEN I DO SHITTY THINGS, HDU JUDGE ME, U IMPERIALIST".
askfdjfsdk evidently in my gut I feel very firmly that, although cultural relativism and context does matter to some extent, that cannot be denied, it is not a fucking excuse to treat women like shit. IT JUST ISN'T. I'M SORRY - wait, no I'm not - THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT ACTUALLY HAVE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS OF TRUTH. DEAL WITH IT.
The readings are really good though. Because they followed this up with an article/theory by one particular feminist legal theorist, who emphasizes that the question that should be asked "is not which perspective of the debate to support but rather how to address the legitimate concerns of both".
Which, you know, is way more helpful than my capslocking of rage. (Though let's not deny the fact that capslocking of rage is a legitimate way to express my frustrations. It has its place.)
This theory posits:
...the body of feminist legal theory which focuses on the preservation of cultural diversity does so because of a desire to value the experiences of different women. [Therefoe] supporting women who oppose certain aspects of their culture is in accord with feminist objectives and those perspectives must be included in defining universal human rights.
[This theory] calls for the adoption of strategies that "listen to the voices of women" and argues that ignoring the voices of women who advocate for the abolition of cultural practices would amount to a failure to respect cultural diversity.
I am pretty much right there. You should've seen my vehement underlining and check-marking on that page.
A related approach that "attempts to moderate the contrapositions within feminist legal theory" (essentially, the seemingly-opposed theories of universalist (women's) rights and culturally relative (women's) rights) proposes:
...a "minimum core" rights approach [that suggests] that only those aspects of customary religions law and practice that preclude women from making important decisions about their lives should be scrutinized by national and international regimes, [...] with autonomy as a test for identifying which aspects of culture and tradition should be scrutinized.
I won't go on quoting basically everything from this compilation of articles, but suffice to say they are good readings even if they inspire a lot of thought and rage and feelings in me. Those are good things.
Actually, I just pulled this off Google: of all my readings, this was my favorite article, and I think it's well worth a read.
What Would Gandhi Say? Reconciling Universalism, Cultural Relativism and Feminism Through Women's Use of CEDAW by Vedna Jivan and Christine Forster
*CEDAW = Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women
Then, here, please insert the following as there is way more to say than can ever be said in one entry: stuff about those so-called "Asian values" here, stuff about no black-and-white approach to these issues, stuff about how ~cultural traditions~ are not all monolithic and homogeneous and static (changes happen!), stuff about how different countries have addressed these issues (to some success, to some failure), stuff about how I still firmly believe in some objective standard of what is a human right, and so on.
But despite believing some core universal standard, I also can't object to the fact that there certainly are cultural and religious and societal contexts within which our rights operate. We can't divorce law from its context, however much scholars may try to. Sometimes law is inadequate; sometimes it is inappropriate; there is only so much it can do, in the end. But still, there is a place for law.
That doesn't mean there is any one answer, though, one solution that should apply across the board. That is just so...naive? Optimistic? Human rights law is essentially an exercise in frustration, I feel. Women are so diverse; we are not a homogeneous group. We have different wants and needs, whether it's access to water or the ability to break the glass ceiling in employment, to choose to wear the hijab or to choose to have/not have children. It's what makes lobbying for "women's rights" even more difficult, because we can't presume what one (or even some) women want is representative of the whole, that all women subscribe to a certain set of values or have a certain set of needs.
So part of me is thinking SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP ALSO FUCK YOU to people and governments and ~cultures~ trying to justify reprehensibly misogynistic treatment of women. Another part of me is thinking WHY ARE YOU LIKE THIS WORLD, GDI, EVERYTHING IS SO HARD.
But, you know. Trying for the optimism and, hey look, we've had our victories too. Though I've seen people try to use those victories to justify the fact that "progress has been made" and we can just 放手 / stop being proactive now. Focus on something else!
...and then it goes back to the rage. D:
Well, then I went to class! And it was a great class, particularly because it was obvious our professor cared about this issue but managed to present the varying viewpoints without making her opinion blatantly obvious. She did a good job facilitating discussion, I think, and pointing out the nuances and difficulties in the discourse - and for the most part I think the class was more engaged than usual too. I know I...had some strong opinions at one point.
We entered a discussion on all-women advocacy groups and whether they should put men on them, or have men spearhead the movement for women's rights. Essentially because including men would bring more "legitimacy" (because we don't want to give the impression that only women care about women's rights) or be more meaningful, as they were "recognizing their previous misdeeds" (or whatever), and also men also have important opinions and perspectives to bring to the table! Because their mothers were women! And their wives were women! They had insight.
No, actually, someone said that. You should've seen the faces of outrage I made; they were great. = =;; (Our professor did joke with us about it, because everyone was making great faces throughout class. That is how you can tell you are having a good class, I guess?)
Is that kind of like saying, "Let's add a white guy to your black activism group BECAUSE HE HAS BLACK FRIENDS AND OPINIONS TOO"? "I know a lesbian! Let me tell you how we should fight for queer rights!"
I got a liiiittle ticked off. You know, yes, fuck yes, be an ally, do support and educate. Advocate! But do not fucking bully your way into a group to DROWN OUT important voices.
I absolutely think that men should also support women's rights, but they also have to keep in mind that this is not about them. This is not about their experience or their opinions. Stop trying to make this all about your ~apology~ or ~reparation~; don't try to dominate the discussion or the movement. In some ways that is practically suggesting that women need men's help in order to accomplish anything for their own movement. If some women's groups want to include both men and women, cool. But if some women's groups want to be women's only, then SHUT UP AND LET THEM.
Just. A man will NEVER KNOW what it's like to be a woman. (Trans* issues aside, and that is a whole other topic that I don't think I am qualified to get into at the moment - or ever, really - but please know I am not trying to exclude or be dismissive of those issues, complicated and varying as they also are. Argh. /highly emotional)
For me, I think, it all goes back up to the theory I quoted above, highlighting autonomy and choice and vocies of women in whatever context they live in. For me, feminism is not about telling other women what to do and how to feel or that they must be oppressed if they do X or that they just don't know better and are choosing to submit to oppression… (E.g., France banning the hijab and telling Muslim women who chose to wear it, essentially, that it was a sign of oppression and therefore their choice to wear it was uninformed and wrong. Yes, the issue is more complex than just that. Yes, everything is more complex than "just that". D:)
I mean, argh, Edward Said, Orientalism, Western standards, othering, etc etc etc.
I have no coherent thoughts. Is this obvious? Everything is complicated and everything is difficult and everything hurts. There is a lot of rage but there is a lot of depression too - our professor concluded class by saying, rather pessimistically, "It's hard to see that there is so much evil in the world and see further that there are so few solutions." It's true. There is no one-size-fits-all solution. And it's frustrating and it's so sad.
I have no answers, just a lot of feelings.
eta: Feeling a bit drained at the moment (too many feelings are exhausting? D:) so may not be responding to comments. Here, just have an outpouring of my jumbled thoughts...
no subject
♥ Your rage was very coherent though, and enlightening. The cultural relativistic position makes me sigh a little. It always treads so close to ethnocentricism. So close.
Need to get to class, but ♥
no subject
no subject
I enjoyed reading this. ;-; I realize how hard it is for me to keep up with theories on feminism when I'm not assigned readings in class or have to do a research project. :( I'm glad I still have you in my life to remind me of the important things, when I'm all wrapped up in myself.
♥
Now on the content of your post, I don't know what to say, because a lot of me was just going IA! lol Because I do.
I struggled with universalist and culturalist theories, as well - and ultimately I kind of decided the same as you. Though culture is important and the context in which we live defines what we consider to be "universal values" - culture is not an excuse to continue practices that withhold rights from women.
The definition of rights implies inherency. It's not the same as laws, which are ever-changing. And I consider cultural norms more like laws - because *culture* is always changing. But there are some things about the way we treat other people that *should* always be constant.
Now, not all cultures will agree with this. Because TRADITION! VALUES! THINK OF THE CHILDREN AND THEIR FUTURE IF WE INTRODUCE THESE RADICAL IDEAS! But of course they can't, because culture is so deeply embedded in us that we believe what we know *is* the only right way.
I also agree that women's rights isn't about telling women what they *should* want for themselves. It's about leaving that choice open to them. Not all women are the same - of course not all women want the same things. I am reminded of Sojourner Truth's speech (I think that was her, anyway) "Ain't I a Woman?" It's always what I turn to, to point out to people just how different women can be, even if it's just between classes or race.
no subject
idk. I never know what to tell V when he asks me how he can help be an ally (usually when I'm raging about something or other, lol) and he is as new to all this as I am. There are some things we don't agree on yet, but I think it's important that we get the guys to understand what prevailing misogyny means for the women that they love.
no subject
That said, I think political and cultural concerns should have a very minimal role in the feminism movement. There is no justification for mysogynist treatment, which I define as anything that violates the universal human rights. But if a woman want to honor traditions including (what would be considered) mysogynist aspects, then that's her perogative.
Again, I totally oversimplified the issue, probably.
no subject
no subject
When I think on it, it just feels like (scattered matriarchal societies nonwithstanding) women are second class citizens EVERYWHERE. Even accounting for cultural differences, having to just TAKE abuse because it's just how a society rolls undermines the basic fact that women don't deserve the treatment they get for a LOT of things but have to deal.
Don't even get me started on the guy who was speaking about men needing to join women's rights groups to provide "legitimacy". Oh, because women are too hormonal/Emotional/Lacking in the testosterone/ no penis or testicles in the crotch region/etc. to be taken seriously? Are we supposed to just shut up and make you a fucking sandwich? I think not, sir.
This reminds me of the democratic party having to decide between race or sex for our ballot in the last election. Black Man or White Woman? Are we ready for a black president or are we ready for a woman president? I have a couple ideas on that but I won't get into them cuz they piss me the fuck off.
But if I think of anything else, I'll try and post it later.
no subject
but look at the comments. LOOK AT ALL THE MEN LIKE, ~IT'S IN OUR NATURE~. dude, it is fucking NOT. the only reason you think it's acceptable is because society has told you it's your fucking right. urgh, honestly, there were some men like, yeah, it's wrong, but others were getting so defensive. some of them were like, when women shout stuff at me in the streets, it makes me feel really confident!
FUCK YOU. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT IT'S LIKE TO BE A WOMAN AND TO FEEL SCARED WHEN THIS SHIT HAPPENS. DON'T EVEN START. >:
which reminds me of a quote i read the other day; it went along the lines of:
privilege is so ingrained in people that when that privilege is taken away, they feel there is an imbalance instead of a levying.
SOMETHING TO THAT EXTENT, ANYWAY /horrendously misquoted.
/rant. /dies.