Defiance within the Fire

“The night before she burned herself, Gul Zada took her children to her sister’s for a family party. All seemed well. Later it emerged that she had not brought a present, and a relative had chided her for it, said her son Juma Gul.

This small thing apparently broke her.”

This story is familiar. In fact two weeks ago, “The Stoning of Soraya M” demonstrated another version of this story – albeit without self-immolation. What does it say to us when it is the woman who perpetrates the violence against herself?

This New York Times article delves into the recent phenomenon of Afghani women committing suicide through self-immolation. The Herat burn hospital has had at least 75 women arriving with burns, and perhaps the most striking statistic is that this number is up almost 30 percent from the past year. The article states that the shame in discussing household troubles, inability to diagnose or treat mental illness, depression, and domestic violence are all contributing factors affecting this extraordinary choice. These women are often uneducated, incredibly poor, and are married young. Without any choices in their lives, perhaps for these women, this is the only choice that they can make for themselves – one between an oppressed life and death.

When discussing development in Afghanistan, especially after the fall of the Taliban, women’s rights took a forefront especially in establishing schools for women and releasing the mandate to wear a full burqa. However, much of the optimism seemed to rest upon the fact that, “the women in Afghanistan will be convinced of their need to ‘go to the barricades’ and march forward toward a bright and joyous future.” What such statements forgot was the actual situation on the ground. First, after five years of oppression, sudden changes in attitudes and lifestyle rarely happen. Second, as is the case with economic development in general, rural areas rarely tend to be allocated equal distribution of funds to combat domestic violence or other issues affecting women. Finally, rurality itself plays a significant fact as to why these women are not receiving adequate health care and therapy in Afghanistan.

Perhaps, and this is an open question, applying strict feminist theory such as essentialism, cultural difference, and radical feminism never will quite directly apply in such situations. These women need very rudimentary help – help that doesn’t fit within the structure of theory. What the stories of these women do have, however, in between the violence, the fire, and the pain is defiance. Ultimately, as feminists we all have some form of defiance within ourselves and within the theory we derive – and perhaps in that way we can best serve these Afghan women as we seek to give them the equality and help they so justly deserve.

Citizenship & sexism

As I was musing about blog-worthy topics recently, my roommate brought to my attention a case that is up for review before the Supreme Court, Flores-Villar v. United States. This case challenges the United States citizenship regulation that applies to children born oversees to parents where only one person has U.S. citizenship. The following rule shouldn't have surprised me given that stereotypical gender roles are alive and well in this country:

If the U.S.-citizen parent is a woman, the child can obtain U.S. citizenship if the mother has been physically present in the U.S. for 1 year before the child's birth. For U.S.-citizen fathers, however, this period is extended to 5 years!

Is this unconstitutional gender-based discrimination?

I think it is.

This type of regulation is damaging and sexist. It serves to perpetuate the notion that childcare is the responsibility of the mother by assuming that if there is a separation the child will be raised be her. It is also very unfair to fathers and downplays the reality that some parents are single fathers. When the federal public defender raised both of these points, Justice Scalia had this to say:

He asked if it wasn't generally true that with "an illegitimate child, it is much more likely that the woman will end up caring for it than that the father would?"

Wow. That's really helpful. Thank you Justice Scalia for the term "illegitimate child" as well as your adherence to an outdated/oppressive theory on child rearing.

For more information on this case and to read the briefs submitted before the Supreme Court click here.

Is it a reality that women are more likely to to be single parents than fathers so they should recieve more protection under the law? If this is true, is extra protection worth the risk of validating gender stereotypes? What do you think?

Women Wednesday - food for thought

I read an interesting quote this week by English novelist, Ivy Compton-Burnett. Iwanted to share it and would love to hear your thoughts, interpretations, and examples.

"There is more difference within the sexes than between them." ~Ivy Compton-Burnett

Sampaguita

This past week we discussed the different values that children place on their parents. It was interesting to learn that, despite her multiple accolades and accomplishments in law- especially in feminist jurisprudence, Professor Pruitt's son still thinks that his father, who is a doctor (which, granted, is arguably as impressive), is in fact more impressive. From his point of view, she is "just" a teacher, while his father is a "doctor."

I can't say this shocks me. As discussed in an earlier post, at a young age boys may already feel the superiority complex over girls. But, this also deals with the different roles and values that society has placed on men and women in the household. Similar to Professor Pruitt's son, I once perceived my dad's career as more important than my mom's. My dad had a Ph.d, worked for the governor, and owned his own consulting firm. My mom "only" had an M.A. and did social work for the county in child protective services. Growing up, I hoped to be like my dad. Since then, I have realized that people are important in many different ways. I still aspire to be like my dad, but I also aspire to be like my mom.

At first glance, you wouldn't assume very much of her. She is small in size, 5'2" and about 130 pounds. Unlike my siblings and me, she doesn't talk very much and is often overshadowed by the people around her. Most people would consider her the typical, loyal Filipino daughter, wife, and mother. She cooks (banquets, daily), cleans (until her house is immaculate), and is devoted to her family. My dad would describe her has a "sampaguita," a native flower of the Philippines. It is also a term used to describe Filipino women who are modest and reserved in manner and behavior. However, do not let looks fool you. My mom is a powerful and strong woman. She has given birth to and raised four kids. She has experienced the loss of losing her best friend and greatest love- my dad. And now takes care of my grandmother.

Before this class, I didn't fully appreciate all the things she'd done and all the things she is capable of. Growing up, I never questioned how difficult and unfair it was for her to work full-time, especially as a social worker, and then have to come home for a "second shift," that involved cooking, cleaning, and taking care of my siblings and me. Also, although I am dealing with similar pressures today, I never thought of the pressures my mom had, and still has, to deal with as an Asian American woman closer to the generation that still highly values "tradition," which requires full and complete devotion to family instead of self.

Reflecting on all I have learned and taken away from this class, I realize how important it is to understand the concepts and themes presented over the semester. Formal equality and sameness, cultural feminism, dominance theory, radical feminism, essentialism, anti-essentialism, and the study of rural women are invaluable to living in and understanding the world around us. On a more personal level, however, this class has helped me grow and appreciate the women in my life, especially my mom.

In defense of MTV's Jackass:not just another adventure in misogynist hyper-masculinity

The Jackass movie and television series from MTV is a variety stunt show of the skate-punk genre whose primary methods of entertainment involve very crude jokes or pranks about body parts or bodily functions. Superficially, the show appears to be just another juvenile adventure in misogynist hyper-masculinity as it centers on men competing in very violent 'sporting" activities. In the last week, I have watched the second and third Jackass movie. This was my first re-exposure to Jackass since my MTV laden youth. To my great surprise, I found the last two movies to be almost intentionally free of the typical behaviors of misogynist competitive environments.

Wikipedia describes hegemonic masculinity as an expression of masculinity that includes the two key elements of males attempting to dominate other males while also subordinating females. Jackass certainly qualifies as an expression of hegemonic masculinity in that the entirely male cast focuses on constantly dominating each other in their abilities to withstand pain, humiliation, fear and true disgust. Where Jackass deviates from the norm of misogynist masculinity however, is in the show's attitudes towards women.

Typical misogynist competitive shows often include women cast in sexist roles (NFL cheerleaders for example). Evident in the last two movies and generally thematic throughout the Jackass series is an almost total lack of women cast members or references to women at all. The only woman on the show regularly is one of the cast member's mother. This sole woman tends to be regularly placed in the "all-mother" role for the entire cast. While the conception of women as only mothers is certainly misogynist, this representation is a great deviation from the usual heavily sexualized depiction of women in hyper-masculine shows. The show's only woman is also not protected from pranks, as traditionally misogynist behavior might encourage that she be.

Jackass's general lack of depictions of women might be viewed as misogynist in that the activities of the show may be considered to be so hyper-masculine that women are not considered participants at all (again the NFL for example). This idea could be supported with evidence of sexist language used to control, coerce and dominate each other. In misogynist environments, men use female associated slurs to subordinate other males during competition. For example, how common is the phrase "Don't be a pussy" among teenage males competing with each other? Using female associated language creates the misogyny of the behavior. It demonstrates that the intent of the social display of competition is to establish a dominant hierarchy of men based first upon the subordination of women as the other, the weaker, etc. Jackass seems to totally lack this intent.

The language of competition in Jackass remains almost constantly one of mutual camaraderie focused on the abilities of one's self, or one's own body. Not once in either of the two latest Jackass movies did I hear a cast member use a sexist slur towards another man. Most encouragement doesn't even focus on being a "man" at all either, or at the least the roles of manhood. Instead, if the cast members coerce each other, it is with phallus centric language. I often struggle with whether phallic symbols or imagery can be separated from patriarchal intent. They seem so deeply entangled with each other. Again, Jackass surprised me. For all of the encouragement based upon personal phallic symbology, I never once felt as though it came from a place of misogyny. In fact, hearing the cast members of Jackass empower each other by referencing their testicles, however crude, reminded me of feminist music artist's Bitch and Animal's old adage that "it takes eggs (ovaries)" to do something scary. I certainly never thought I would be drawing feminist relational lines between Jackass and Bitch and Animal.

Another common trait of hyper-masculine competitive environments is compliance with heteronormative behaviors, including tolerating or participating in expressions of homophobia. Jackass so completely fails to display such heteronormative behavior that after critical analysis I believe Jackass is an intentionally queered expression of masculinity. Robert Heasley of Indiana University of Pennsylvania created a typology of queer masculinities among straight men. One type of queer expression of straight masculinity he defines is the "Social Justice Straight-Queer." The social justice straight-queer is a man who exhibits non-heteronormative behavior and alignment with queer politics to intentionally disrupt heteronormative standards. I identify Jackass with this type of masculinity. While Jackass has always been thick with homoeroticism, during the second movie there was an intentional statement by one of the stars that their homoerotic behavior was not meant to be homophobic in any way,that it was meant to make you think and finally he went on to strongly discourage homophobics from viewing their show.

I am not suggesting Jackass is a golden egg of good boy masculinity. The second movie had one scene that was incredibly sexist, racist and fatphobic that could and should have been avoided. It is also possible that sexist language is actually used and then edited out. With a critical lens that can look past all the poop humor and sadomasochism, Jackass can be seen as an expression of competitive hyper-masculinity that frees itself (mostly) from the oppressive constraints of the patriarchy and provides a good example for how to be a crude, strong, competitive, pain tolerant and risky (all traits of hegemonic masculinity) while not participating in misogyny.

A personal attempt to promote anti-essentialist thinking.

"According to the Department of Health and Human Services, depression is the second leading cause of death for Asian-American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) women between 15 and 24, who consistently have the highest suicide rates among women in that age group. AAPI women over 65 have the highest rates of suicide among all races in that age group.” Also, according to the Suicide Prevention Resource Center, studies have come up with statistics that find that Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders are much less likely than Caucasians to mention their mental health concerns to friends and family (12% vs. 25%), or mental health professionals (4% vs. 26%).

After having read and watched the movie adaptation of Amy Tan’s “The Joy Luck Club,” a movie that addresses many struggles that ring very personal to me, from the responsibilities of filial piety, how to deal with interracial relationships, generational conflicts, and the struggle of a 2nd generation Asian American on the whole, I’ve come to realize that Angela Harris’ criticisms of essentialism in general and her support and urge for a general push toward multiple consciousness in the feminist movement is something I adamantly agree with. Growing up as an Asian American female, the struggles that I have come across have never just been colored by one shade of any issue, but have often been layered with different facets of my life by many qualities of mine, most of which are intrinsic to who I am – being a female, being an ethnic minority, being a 2nd generation American, etc.

The push toward this movement, while not an entirely novel or new concept, is one that should most definitely be furthered. Suicide rates amongst Asian American tend to be higher than Caucasians, and according to UC Davis psychology professor, Stanley Sue, a part of that can be attributed to the fact that because there is such an emphasis on collectivist or a group mentality amongst families of Asian descent, there is often a common sense of failure that stems from cultural pressures to succeed that often becomes overwhelming, to say the least. One of Harris’ main criticisms of essentialism is that an “essential” experience is often isolated from other very important realities of experience. This is not the ideal way to go about it, obviously, if we turn exclusively to just the idea of gender essentialism. Different women come from different cultures, and different cultures produce different expectations of their children, or even adults.

It really stuck with me the fact that suicide rates in general were higher amongst Asian American women than men, especially considering I myself don’t stray too far from that age range. I have grown up with amazingly supportive and fairly liberal parents, especially considering the fact that they are 1st generation Americans, but a lot of my other Asian female friends and family while growing up, I’ve noticed, have had entirely more weighty pressures put on them than their brothers or boyfriends or husbands have had to deal with. Especially in East Asian culture, Confucianism spills over into every nook and cranny of their value system – and with that comes the ultimate obligation for a woman to bear her husband’s child, to take care of his parents as if they are more important than her own, and to not shame the family name – to understand and know the harsh consequences of doing so. Because she is already not carrying on the family name or is not considered biologically superior, she is apparently set to a higher standard and will ultimately be let go or exiled if she defaces the family name in any way, shape or form. Most Asian families, I’ve noticed, still have a strong sense of collectivist thinking – individual pursuits are squelched to pave way for a stronger group mentality and they act more as a collective unit, rather than anything else. More pressure is put on the female, especially the unmarried, younger female, than anyone else

Some of these notions come across as archaic and outdated, especially for someone like me having grown up in the very diverse and liberal city of San Francisco and as someone who was born in this country. But the fact of the matter is, one’s race and culture is something that is intrinsically tied to them for life. There are centuries and centuries of values and a system that is the bedrock of how one group of people function, and unfortunately it makes a huge difference whether or not you are female or male.

A step is not required toward necessarily solving any problem, but is just required in the right direction of how to understand and approach the struggles that one is facing. For someone like me, and I’m sure many, many others, it is essential (pun intended) to not essentialize or neatly shelf someone’s struggles into just one box. We are not merely one “type” of person with only one “type” of issue. We come with layers, shades, and everyone has a story.

On another general, but very important, note if you or someone you know may be suicidal, please seek help as soon as possible and call 1-800-273-TALK.