Wost 4103H and 5104 - International Feminist Theories

For my paper, I'm looking at the global movement of queer identities and queer dilemas. I'm interested in how queer idenities and ideas about what it means to be queer are exported by the west, how and why these identities are incorported into cultures around the world (specifically in the Phillipine, but we'll see what I dig up as I continue this research) and what sorts of dilemas this brings up. I've read some stuff indicating that thw expotation of queer identites goes along with an exportation of queer anxieties and homophobia as well as Western organizing methods to deal with homophobia (like the civil rights focus on same-sex marriage). Obviously I need to narrow done at least a little bit, but I'm also interested in how ideas are exported at the same time as capital maybe through the queer tourism industry (maybe).

Posted by Pari McGarraugh at 03:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

To start of this idea (If I'm going to talk about it, I might as well do it) my paper for this class will be (no I don't have the thesis yet, its in progress) a look at the 1987 film Vera, which is for lack of a better description a Latin American Queer Movie. My secondary sorce will be Kaminsky's article on this movie and her (1990's) thoughts on it being about a lesbian woman. Though in talking with her, it sounds as though it is more of a transman, then a lesbian woman. Thus I will be looking at the idea of queer theory within Latin America, the language to become something, the language to discuss it. This is problematic since I am looking at it with Western Eyes. Though I have a pretty strong background in queer and GLBT theory (hint to anyone working within either, I may have resorces or ideas so feel free to contact me) I do not have any knowledge on Latin American Queer Theory, or queer/trans identity (if anyone does for the love of God, please help me) and I'm limited in my knowledge of what it means to look at something with Western Eyes (also please help).

To contact me- I usually check my email no less then 4 times a day, so that works (mohnk033 or jmohnkern@gmail--they go to the same spot). Phone is tricker thanks to Sprint and legal issues, but my home is 612
.871.4859 (very weird message, as my roommate and I are the caretaker, its her message, her name is Breanne) also I Live at the QSCC (2nd floor of Coffman room 205) and the number there is 612.626.2344.
Thats all for now. Information, Ideas, Questions, Random Tangents-all apply.

Posted by Jennifer Mohnkern at 02:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

first, i love how karpinski defined feminism:

“feminism remains an emancipatory project that I see as characterized broadly by an active interest in and commitment to women’s issues in multiple contexts and locations; a sense of ‘togetherness,’ shared responsibilities, and—despite power differentials—‘overlapping concerns’; a willingness to sustain dialogue among women; an alertness to different forms of oppression, injustice, and inequality; and a utopian belief in the possibility of a better world” (18).

i think this is how we’ve been trying to understand feminism all semester, from the “speaking for/with” conversation to the kartini discussion about the relationship between an javanese feminist and a dutch feminist. it seems like a very simple idea and i think what makes putting it into practice so hard is that we have trouble understanding our lives without borders, limits, categories.

i also had a number of questions about why certain ideas are masculinist, but i will have to ask in class.

sorry to be running so late!

Posted by Kristin Beamish-Brown at 08:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The idea that exile has historically be defined in masculine terms was a very interesting assertion and I wanted to know more. She put it out there as though it is an already established fact and as though I would automatically agree. I had never thought of it or heard of it, however. So either I'm out of that loop or Karpinski assumed too much of her audience. She alluded to one thing midway through the article that helped substantiate her claim: the idea that the way many have talked about exile comes dangerously close to fulfilling the masculine fantasy of the free and unencumbered, independent self.

For one thing, she says male fantasy, but I choose to say masculine fantasy. It seems to me that we need to be very diligent when we label something as male as opposed to masculine. Labeling this fantasy as a male fantasy implicates the bodies of men in one fell swoop into the creation of this fantasy. Obviously this fantasy is not something inherent to all men and thus is a masculine fantasy.

For another thing, I think it is important to look at how the general public views exile before passing judgment on it as a masculinist idea that needs to be reclaimed. I would expect that the general public would view exile as something involving hardship and marginalization, not happy go lucky freedom to roam the world. You are an exile, as opposed to just an immigrant, when you are not wanted in your home. This means sadness, missing your family, whatever, not just freedom. Just because Said talks about exile as being one thing doesn’t mean that changes the definition of the word.

Posted by Emily Cox at 07:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I liked how Karpinski describes the experience of being a feminist as a sort of metaphorical exile. I have found that feminism is something to keep mum about unless you are in a safe place (like the women's studies department, or with people whom you trust) and that my background and interest in feminist theory means that I have different reactions to the world even when I'm not in safe spaces and sometimes that makes it difficult to function.

Maybe I just like it because it allows me to relate to her experience as a literal exile and so the essay became personal and more meaningful to me. Which brings me to what I want to talk about: I know that the experiences of women (and men and I just read Harraway for ecofeminism so post-gender cyborgs too) over the world are markedly different, but I feel that I am so trapped in my self that it is difficult for me to relate unless there is something for me to relate to. And if I can't relate, then it's hard to care. This is totally confession time, so I hope that I will not be judged too harshly by my classmates. I guess my question is the same as it always is. How do we deal with difference? Is there value in continuity between people and ideas? Do we have to relate to something in order to appreciate it? I wonder what appreciating difference means in concrete real terms. How is it done? I want to know how to relate to experiences that I haven't had. It might be that people are just like that; they can only understand the world in relation to themselves and anything that cannot be tied to the self is opaque. But I feel like there must be a way and that feminism is doing important work (albeit slowly) to figure ways to do that. I feel like feminist discourse is on the cusp of change. I think we are learning how to address these questions, but the answers aren't entirely clear to me yet.

This post is only loosely tied to the reading, but the readings made me think about it some more, and the blog seems like the place to initiate dialogue.

Posted by Pari McGarraugh at 06:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Sorry that this is a little late, but I hope you may still find it a little helpful.

In reference to Lugones piece, and other entries, I at first was confused about the omission of periods throughout the text. I thought that it was just a printing error at first, but then came to realize that it was done purposefully. After finding it troubling at first, I did question why she decided to do it that way. As Maria stated, it was done in order to discreetly give an example of the themes she introduced us to, and for us to “critique our assumptions.”

I felt that while Lugones was conveying her perceptions of how each person has various identities and uses them in different ways, she was really also analyzing how the differences between dominant worlds and non dominant ones at some points run together.
What I mean is that sometimes even though one may not be of a certain culture, one has to understand some aspects of that culture in order to survive in it.

I did however enjoy reading this piece because it gave a real insight to her life as “a woman of color” and the relations and contradictions she found herself in. It was a little different to read about a “self analysis” in how she realizes what had been wrong and almost in a way hypocritical of “loving” her mom. While I’m sure that she has attachment to her mother, it was interesting to see through her analysis why it was that she cannot relate to her mom due to circumstances that were out of her control (because she had been taught to not “identify with a victim of enslavement,” and learning how to become a slave. I think a part about what her mother does/did would have been helpful to guide my thoughts more, but maybe this too was done for a reason.

It seems also that other people were hoping that this author would give more insight to Marylin Frye’s argument, but that is one area where she did not come through. It became very difficult to understand all of the negations of things that she was discussing. It seems that she was confused, and she tells us that she is confused, but she is playful, and she is not playful, she is a woman of color, but in another world she would not be a woman of color. It was important to see why she thought it was necessary to show the various world traveling that needed to be done in order for survival. Are there any people who do not get to experience this “traveling” between “worlds”? My answer would be no, everyone does this at some point. But the way that I am seeing it, in my life, is how I am at school, at home, and at work, and at all of these places I am interacting with completely different sorts of people, and I must change some things as to how I engage in conversation with, and how I interact with these people. Is that world traveling too, just on a smaller scale?

I was interested in this idea of “world traveling” and began to analyze my life, and how I have experienced this notion. But I was not sure if this would be appropriate, given that she was analyzing a group against white/Anglo women.

Posted by Desiree Bridell at 08:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Sorry everybody, I've had a sinus cold for a few days now and my rants about initial thoughts to our readings might be even more random because of my sickness. But here it goes . . .

A general thought is that I am not really a fan of feminism because I don't know what it means. How can we define something so big and that means different things to different people? One of the problems that we've encountered in class is the trouble of connecting all of "Third World" feminisms together in a monolithic idea but are we doing the same with the broad ideas of what we consider "Western" feminism. People are complex individuals, even white women's movements in the US is probably not as easily packagable as we believe. The Lugones piece really made me think of intersectionality and difference. My theory is even when the main differences are the same (ie gender and race) groups can still find differences to division themselves further - perhaps it is human nature. Anyways I was a little confused about the relationship with her mother. She does not love her mother because she looks at her mother as a servant but is in conflict because she really wants to love her mother? I believe she does not want to travel into her "world". I did enjoy her complex definition - or rather non-definition - of "world". This piece made me think of how often I use generalizations and stereotypes in my own life. That I believe because we are friends that I have any real insights into my friends' "worlds" without actually looking deeper and "world travelling".

Posted by Kimberly Mcglothlin at 07:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

As a women’s studies/psychology major, I have found that I have a tendency to look way too deeply into things sometimes and really overanalyze. But I am going to go out on a limb anyway with the Lugones article. Many people have commented on the lack of punctuation in the article, and how it was annoying. I think that this is Lugones’ way of giving an immediate example of the themes that she is referring to. This writing technique is ‘foreign’ to most of us, and we can look at it with an ‘arrogant’ perspective or a ‘loving’ perspective. She is depicting the automatic nature of these perspectives, and how we need to learn to critique our assumptions. Many of us automatically assumed that the lack of punctuation was an error, even though it happened consistently throughout the article. If it was written by Amy Kaminsky, would we still have assumed that it was an error? This style is different, out of the ordinary, unique – not necessarily bad. So let’s take a step back and appreciate this technique as a device that forces us to critique ourselves, and the red flags that we have been conditioned to throw up in circumstances of deviance from the norm. This device proves that it is not easy to maintain a loving, open-minded, and flexible attitude/perspective towards difference. It will probably be a constant struggle of internal checks and balances that force us to examine our assumptions.

Posted by Maria Volpe at 05:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

This week's readings, with the binding theme of the "struggle" (although I'm not entirely happy with that word) to belong in a world of shifting identities and loyalties spoke to me in the sense that I gave a lot of thought of how multiple identities and allegiances can torment an individual who either chooses or is forced to exist in multiple worlds.
Karpinski illustrates the tensions felt by a majority of women living in Communist states, in which they were promised gender equality through the revolution (including one of my favourite Soviet propaganda posters from the 1930’s, which proclaimed, “An End to Kitchen Slavery”), but found instead that their burdens increased, as they managed the state through their external labour and managed the home through domestic tasks. It is hardly surprising that the annual celebration of March 8 did little to take the sting out of the oppressive drudgery that Communism forced on most women. Karpinski’s desire to define her own maternity outside the boundaries of a state which viewed women as reproductive tools which were socially valorized through propaganda, but not supported in the practical implementation of reproduction and maternity, rendering women exiles within their own society- hardly unique to the socialist system. She chose the “nomad” path of the exile, which offered more promise than the illusory path of socialist achievement.
As Braidotti argues, “Identity is retrospective; representing it entails that we draw accurate maps, indeed, but only of where we have already been and consequently no longer are.” (35) In conjunction with Virgina Woolf’s claim that “As a woman my country is the whole world,” we can easily slip into a romanticized version of exile. It speaks to a notion of intrigue, adventure and power. But that often belies the harsh realties of exile. Entering the unknown from a place of ignorance (such as operating in a alien country, language, class structure, etc.) can easily shift from intrepid exploration to an impotent existence, where the necessary tools for surviving in a proper environment are not at one’s disposal. The polyglot, as set up by Braidotti, becomes skilled in negotiating these borders, which often requires realignments of the self that may be externally imperceptible, but can wreak havoc on an identity that starts to lose focus and may even become schizophrenic in many ways.
Maria Lugones talks about such negotiations as she, a women of colour, leaves her indigenous environment to interact with the wider world. She feels alienated by the “abandonment of [her] mother, while [she] longed not to abandon her,” yet has to navigate the external world. (6) Yet, as she explores these other worlds, she finds, “I am incomplete and unreal without other women.” (8) Here we can see how transnational feminism can work, when we allow for the intersections of commonality, without negating or ignoring difference. Finding the strength of unifying identities can allow feminists to take these messages, originating in “alien” environments, and apply them to their own experiences. Resisting the urge to exoticize the plight of the nomad or exile strengthens the commonality and respects the difference.

Posted by Jessica Curtis-Niesewand at 04:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I really liked Émigré Feminism. I was interested in the way émigrés who are feminists can translate feminist ideas across cultures. I also liked how the book pointed out the idea that there is no all-consuming concept of “Western feminism.” I had never thought of the significant differences between women’s movements in such places as Canada and Finland. Although I do not generalize with the term “Third World feminism”, I have used the term “Western feminism” when I really should be more specific.

The book touched on non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and feminism, which I think is an important topic. I’ve read an article that uses transnational feminist critiques to examine and problematize the ways NGOs can sometimes try to “give voice” to women considered “marginalized.”

I would like to know more about local women’s organizations in South Africa. I think the South African situation of transition from apartheid is really unique and shows how notions of race, citizenship, class and gender affect one another.

Posted by Kristin Hamon at 02:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I had the same question about the lugones piece as Lesli-- it seems like the lack of certain punctuation was just an error, but in my compulsive perfectionism I was kind of annoyed. But, on to more important things...
I enjoyed Karpinski's writing; it was fairly easy to read and I enjoyed her section in the beginning about her own experience. She refused to conform into the role she was expected to fill as a woman and mother in her country, and she remade the concept of exile into a personal freedom. I also liked her very long definition of feminism-- what is funny is that it is encompassing of many ideas and purposes of feminism, but of course does not cover everything, and yet people always ask me, "what is the definition of feminism?" not even in the interest of discussion but rather wanting an easy answer. I found it interesting that she described exile as feminized (in its passivity), yet exclusionary to women as individuals because of its connection to nationalism. I understand the feminization of exile, but are women's experiences excluded simply because they are women and therefore silenced, or because nationalism is often connected with men?

For the Lugones piece, I enjoyed the idea (and the truth of it) that we have different identities (or at least different expressions of our identities) in different "worlds." We all do this, but of course some must do this more than others just to socially survive. I was also confused about this "arrogant perception"/"loving perception" concept. I hope we can discuss it in class.

Posted by Jessica Lehrke at 12:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I have to say that the article by Braidotti made me identify with the woman and disagree with her on several levels. Her notions of polyglots hit more than close to home as I speak five, understand another, have lived (not mentioning traveled in many more) in three different countries, have had to dis-attach myself from some things and learn to agree with others. I believe that the politics of location is only as central as we allow it.

Her mentioning of the Americans as monolingual people made me smile. Though if you consider the degrees of hybridization that she has passed through on her way (the same – or similar - ones that she believes the American city-people to possess), I find it hard to agree with her in saying that you can forget the past; that you just keep moving from one to another (identity based on your current location) and that what you lived through doesn’t affect who you are – whether that is a particularly feminist identity or not. You may not adhere precisely to a particular ethnic group that would thus guarantee you a singular ethnic identity but – just as she says on page nine – identity is external and retrospective which puts the experiences in the past and allows one to realize who it is they belong to, who they are. After leaving (whether it was into exile or not), the immediacy and significance of the connectedness with what was one’s own, with what one identified with, is much stronger. In my opinion, the familiar at this point is contra positioned to that which one is immersed in. Just as learning a foreign language makes one realize details about one’s mother tongue, in a multi-cultural experience one’s previous knowledge and experience makes up sort of a puzzle that we identify with, containing all sorts of cultural and ideological constructs. (I finally found where to me it seems she is contradicting herself) “Our desires are that which evades us in the very act of propelling us forth, leaving as the only indicator of who we are, the traces of where we have already been – that is to say, of what we have already ceased to be. Identity is a retrospective notion.” Maybe I am misunderstanding this, but how can you – after having been somewhere and experienced something, all of a sudden cease to be that? That’s like saying that you can delete memory, recollections or history because it is passed. Then she goes on with her discussion of trusting of traces and resisting of settling into one particular vision of identity; ending coming back to the belief that the nomad’s identity is a map of where s/he has already been and thus the re-construction is possible at any point of desire. Hmm.

“The nomadic style is about transitions and passages without predetermined destinations or lost homelands.” I still think there is a part of the destination that is precisely based on your past experience (perhaps even of the loss of your homeland) that you are going to keep moving yourself toward or running from. Clearly, the destinations change all throughout life but I have to say that at least segments of our goal destination definite remain the same, though we might keep configuring and defining them.

The violence levels that are inter-connected with nomadism are dangerous; mostly because I feel like power relations are always going to be re-created in one way or another – whether that happens on the gender level, state level or national level.

March 21st, 2006 10:01pm

Posted by Danka Kerekretyova at 04:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

So having a previous interest in Frye, and yet not understanding the quote that Lugones sites, I decided to do some research. What I found when I did research on her "arrogant perception" was this. I'm including all of it in case it helps out others reading and trying to understand Lugones.

" The loving eye is a contrary of the arrogant eye.

The loving eye knows the independence of the other. It is the eye of a seer who knows that nature is indifferent. It is the eye of one who knows that to know the seen, one must consult some thing other than one's own will and interests and fears and imagination. One must look at the thing. One must look and listen and check and question.

The loving eye is one that pays a certain sort of attention. This attention can require a discipline but not a self-denial. The discipline is one of self-knowledge, knowledge of the scope and boundary of the self... In particular, it is a matter of being able to tell one's own interests from those of others and of knowing where one's self leaves off and another begins....

The loving eye does not make the object of perception into something edible, does not try to assimilate it, does not reduce it to the size of the seer's desire, fear and imagination, and hence does not have to simplify. It knows the complexity of the other as something which will forever present new things to be known. The science of the loving eye would favor The Complexity Theory of Truth [in contrast to The Simplicity Theory of Truth] and presuppose The Endless Interestingness of the Universe." (http://www.greenspirit.org.uk/resources/EcoFeminism.htm)

I found a great interest in the line "being able to tell one's own interests from those of others and of knowing where one's self leaves off and another begins" Mostly what I questioned within Lugones article was the idea of perception. When is it a good thing? When is it not? I think Lugones makes an excellent point about racism being partially the "internalization of the property of abuse without the identification". Within that is it a good idea or bad idea to identify with someone? We attempt as scholarly students to identify frequently; reading articles about places and times we have no connection to, and yet trying to understand how this connects to our lives. But how much of doing this is dangerous, because its colonizing others thoughts and ideas. My conclusion was perhaps its good to attempt to identify, blatantly put it means you might just give a damn. But we also must realize our own arrogance, and how we can be drastically wrong. My favorite example of this is (and this is someone else's example) coming out to someone and having them say "oh I know exactly how you feel, cause see I'm a packers fan, and my family is all Vikings fans, and sometimes I just feel like I can't talk about the packers." Nevertheless, I feel as though the idea of the attempt is still important. Simply put one of the biggest wall within feminism is our inability to identify with other women. It creates "women's failure to love women across racial and cultural boundaries".
Like other students I felt very lost in the lack of punctuation, and a discussion of class. I also feel confused about "in part, constituted by identification with her, my seeing myself in her to love her was supposed to be a piece with both my abusing her, and with my being open to being abused." Does anyone have any thought on the idea of identification, and the "openness to being abused" because I just feel lost?

Posted by Jennifer Mohnkern at 02:52 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I like Braidotti’s piece a lot because some of the things she mentions I have read about/studied before. Couldn’t explain half of them if my life depended on it, but recognized them none the less.

It’s funny because I took an entire class on epistemology and not once did any of this stuff come up. In fact, I think I tried to incorporate standpoint theory/subjectivity (I think that’s what it’s called?) into one of my papers and was told to omit it because it detracted from the paper. What!?!

I found her comment on American’s being viewed as monolingual significant. When I was studying in Italy, I remember the other American students and I talking about how unfortunate it was that “Americans” weren’t brought up learning another language. It never occurred to me that this notion of “American” that we were all basing our discussion on was in reality a small subset of the population – the small, Midwestern school systems and colleges we attended. I feel like a moron for overlooking the fact that much of America does speak 2 or more languages.

I know she mentions this a little, but I really was confused by her lack of attention to class. I mean, she talks about her travels between various countries, but never about the financial status that insured her ability to do so. Moreover, the comment she made on nomad being a classless unit puzzled me…how can something be a classless unit? Thoughts?

Posted by Sarah Oakland at 11:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

For the first several pages of Lugones’ article I waited for a clear explanation of what “arrogant perception” was, hoping that she wouldn’t assume for the whole article that I knew Marilyn Frye’s work. Not the case. My second option was to assume that it referred to the belief that one understands another’s “world,” or, that this understanding is only in relation to (as with the U.S/White/Anglo perspective) one’s own “world.”
While I felt that the underlying tone of Lugones’ work was that of frustration and searching for some sort of productive solution. Perhaps it has to do with the fact that I’m reading this article twenty years after it’s authorship, but it seems that her statement that “there is a complex failure of love in the failure to identify with another woman, the failure to see oneself in other women who are quite different from oneself” (7). This same idea seems to lie at the basis of much of the ‘talking-back’ feminist criticism of bell hooks and other minority feminists who reacted with frustration to the non-inclusive U.S/White/Anglo/Euro? feminism. While her ultimate goal seems to suggest a way of “world-traveling” that does not rely on ignoring, ostracizing, enslaving or deception I’m not sure that I understood the method for accomplishing this goal. Maybe the process is merely not being too comfortable in one’s world, so as to inspire desire to move about in others; or, also, the playful openness to surprise and self-construction. Am I looking for depth/complication that just isn’t there or am I missing something completely?

I just read Leslie's entry so I must go on a little more...I liked how you (Leslie) put this piece in conversation with Karpinski. One issue that I had with Karpinski and the exiled body (person) (allegory) is that it seems that at some level there is a longing for access to the dominant. I feel like a lot of the discourse that we create and read has to do with "not fitting in" to some degree or another: being in another world, being exiled or nomadic. Call it what you will, it is "different." Yet, on another level we are constantly trying to assert our individuality (at least in this culture) and prove difference so as not to be usurped by dominance. How do we reconcileinter-world travelling and exiled vantage points?
I guess I'm just a little confused by our culture, this theory and the conflict between individual and collective identities in general. help!

Posted by Naomi Wood at 08:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I'm going to comment on, Maria Lugones article. First, her writing style or lack of punctuation, threw me off. I don't know if this was done purposefully because she is trying to be a "rupture" upon the white male, literary junta acceptable way of writing, as I feel Audrey Yue was doing, or it was just a printing error. Any way, there were a few things that I didn't quite understand, first when she speaks of her "world-traveling' is it similar to Eva Karpinski's self-imposed or non-voluntary exile, in that it is a "...post colonial framework, can be seen as a model of this interstitial space of interogation of identity...in the sense of shifting its positioning in relation to all kinds of borders, boundaries, and frames"?(page 26) That is, Lugones, because she is a marginalized person has to live in many different worlds, and act out in these worlds in culturally/sexually/racially acceptable ways?, but after her "coming to consciousness as a woman of color " was able to subvert this "world-traveling" or imposed "exile" and then reclaim it as a way of loving herself, her people, culture. Where as before, she had been acting out or "animating that worlds caricature of her"(Page 13) without agency but now that she has agency she can be stereotypically "animated" or not? I'm just not sure what she means. I do however, grasp a little of what she is writing about on page 11 when she state's, "I think most of us who are outside the mainstream of, for example, the US dominant construction or organization of life are "world travelers" as a matter of necessity and of survival." I am sure pepole of color to survive here, have to have knowledge of the "master's world" and also have to survive within their own world, although the "master" does not have to have knowledge of their world to survive, which is what she is refering to on Page 5, "When I came to the US I learned that part of racism is the internalization of the propriety of abuse without identificaiton....without their act of attempting to graft my substance onto theirs, rubbing off on them at all. They could remain untouched, without any sense of loss". And what she is experiencing is a great loss of always having to operate outside their world, with full knowledge of it , but it is not reciprocated, doesn't have to be. And what she is asking is for these women, to acknowledge this and allow her substance to be grafted onto them. By stepping outside of their world and traveling to her world and seeing her world through her eyes. And not as the stereotype, or the Exotic, or the Victim. But someone who is a subject. I also am not quite sure what she means by being playful in these "worlds". Does she mean that once she has agency she can be her true self in all these worlds because she is no longer being "animated" by them, but she is "animating" herself in a purposeful way, because she is now aware of this animation? I am so confused!!!

Posted by Lesli Asher at 11:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

thank you for writing such a long entry! (i feel slightly less embarrassed about my endless entries.)

Posted by Kristin Beamish-Brown at 08:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

sorry i’m so late! i was reading _erotic justice_!

had i read yue before wittig and valenzuela, i would have been like “what the heck?” as it was, i don’t think i understood a whole lot. but i definitely recognized that she subverted a lot of conventions—not only so called “accepted” gender and sex roles, but also grammatical, thematic, and semantic rules. i think she is putting into practice what wittig proposes, subverting all these rules we are conned into thinking are natural, but really were manufactured to take power away from most of the human population. i think it’s interesting that yue seems to find categories of race more difficult to escape than categories of gender and sex, and the privileging of heterosexuality.

i think the way these three readings fit together is really cool, like wittig proscribes a solution, yue demonstrates it in practice, and valenzuela shows us the alternative if we don’t fight. reading valenzuela’s awful depiction of patriarchy, i initially saw it as hyperbolic, extreme. but now i wonder, are there places where this is close to being literally true? and how many rapists (here and elsewhere) are trying to take back the power they used to (rightfully, they might think) hold over women? how many men limit their female relatives’ freedom by scaring them and then offering them protection?

(i am reminded of an interchange i witnessed in a class last year in which a male professor and a male student, both from latin america, defended machismo: it’s really a very nice thing, they agreed; they are taking care of their wives and sisters. ...Of course, as Sofía Villa de Buentello, a Mexican teacher in the 1920s, asked why not punish the rapists instead of imprisoning women?

Posted by Kristin Beamish-Brown at 08:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

You guys are so cute about copying me. :) Aw shucks...

In the Valenzuela story I think one of the most striking parts is the fact that the company has its headquarters in Iowa. Sari hit it right on the head. I wonder if this could be illustrating the comodification of rape as a US import. Along with importing certain ideas of how a government and capitalist structure works (the police, the yellow pages), the US is also importing the societal construction of rape. Literally importing it. A US company is planting rapes in Argentina.

When I read the following comment by Wittig:

Furthermore, not only is this conception still imprisoned in the categories of sex (woman and man), but it holds onto the idea that the capacity to give birth (biology) is what defines a woman.

I thought to myself: people are going to think she is saying that giving birth is not a worth while endeavor, it's not something we should cherish or define ourselves by. I completely understand why people see this as what she is saying and there is a distinct possibility that this is what she is saying; she doesn't seem to have much sentimentality for giving birth. However, I wonder if this is just poor communication on her part. I wonder if what she is saying is that we can't solely base our identity on our body. That we certainly cannot deny its presence, but that we cannot let it totally define us into the box of woman. Perhaps this is just what I think is true and is not what Wittig thinks, but either way I think this is true. : )

Posted by Emily Cox at 05:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Honestly the Valenzuela story really confused me. What do URU and FR do exactly? It seems to me like they rape women to make sure that women still report rape, but becuase it isn't completely clear I feel like that might just be a production of my own demented mind. It's possible that that is what she is trying to do. By not specifying exactly, she allows the reader's biggest fears/anxieties to come into the story. It's unnerving to have this violent imagery of rape inserted into a "happy home." Not that I don't recognize what I consider exploitation of labor by the husband in the marriage.

I also think the way that the state (the police), the capitalist world (URU and FR) and the family interact in the story is really interesting. I think it's interesting that the state as represented by the police are only interested in rapes so far as they are reported, but that the FR is monitering people. I find it strange that anxiety about being watched is directed at an international company and not at the local government because I've found that people who are apt to be paranoid about being watched (and I include myself in this category) are often as worried or more worried about the state than they are about international businesses. Of course the concerns in the story about the well-being of women also seem misplaced. The husband is concerned about his wife's safety outside the home, but never considers her feelings within the home. It is strange that he feels that his personal life, as represented by his relationship with his wife is entirely separate from the state or the corporate world, but that her personal life, in something as intimate as her sexuality, is his concern, the concern of FR, the concern of the police, but never explicitly her own concern.

I thought that the format Audrey Yue chose for her article highlighted her point about confusion in the queer community surrounding race. On the one hand, race is eroticized, power is made sexual and sexuality happens in all sorts of politically incorrect ways while on the other, a focused, but clearly not very realistic effort is made to address issues of diversity within the queer community. I think that by allowing a lot of differnent formats in her article, different voices and different levels of academic language, Yue communicates the complexity of sexuality in general, queer sexuality and racially diverse queer sexuality in particular. She also exposes how hopeless inadequete the tools that we use to deal with this diversity truly are. I'm not sure how to address the issues she brings up better, but I'll mull it over, at the very least, she gave me some stuff to think about.

Posted by Pari McGarraugh at 04:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Valenzuela’s piece was extraordinary. I love the woman that is present and surrounded with the wonderful adjectives, who is supposed to believe that this man that is making the phone call stands behind her, is there to protect her, and has HER best interest in mind. It just makes me laugh. She is supposed to understand that she can’t have lunch with him because it is for the benefit of the greater community. I like how she gets to go to bed earlier because there aren’t as many dishes to wash. He calls the newspaper because he wants HER to be able to go out and do things, walking to the market, bringing HIS cigarettes or HIS paper. Good grief, he will even give up his one time a week that he can have her all to herself and skip dinner in order to make this phone call. WOW.

I like how there are no rapes/robberies/deaths necessary – the only part of the deal that we require is the reporting of them so that for the society of the whole the equation is well balanced out. In order for life to remain NORMAL, in order for us to find the contents in the newspaper unchanged, we have to have these happen. And the reversal of roles is quite delicate as well. Can you all tell that I really enjoyed it?? ;-)

The Yue piece was a little more confusing but even there, I see the repeated notion of racism in the queer discourse which just has me puzzled to say the least for the oh-so-obvious reasons. That we all live our lives as numbers isn’t all that surprising. It seems that by now we should be able to cross genre boundaries as well as race boundaries as well as political boundaries AND cultural boundaries. How can we even talk ‘culture’ and think ‘white’? That is the biggest controversy I have yet seen. The ladies not able to enter a queer club because of their skin tone. Oh, and also, is it just words that can decode gendercodes, racecodes or sexcodes? And, if white is blank, does that mean that it can be filled with any color and any contents that one fills it with? What is it with the whole desires of being white? The re-considered question of identity makes it harder for one to identify him/herself with anyone/thing. If “I am like you. I am different” is true, doesn’t that mean that we are all like one another, we are different from each other? I am really looking forward to the discussion tomorrow.

(posted on Wed 12:17pm)

Posted by Danka Kerekretyova at 06:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

First of all, let me say that these readings were quite refreshing because they were so different from what we have been reading. It seems like I always have a hard time truly understanding a piece until we talk about it in class. After we engage with it and ask questions, the meaning becomes much less foggy. But I’ll have a go anyway:
Valenzuela
Like others, I found this to be a disturbing commentary on our culture of rape. “Reports of rapes in the papers…is normal” (40). This made me wonder why it’s never a big deal (in the media) if a woman is attacked and fights back. You’ll never hear of ‘breaking news’ in which a woman successfully defended herself against an attacker. I took a different spin on the end of this article than most people. The operator says that there are “no real ladies left” but the man asserts that his wife is a real lady (41). The operator then proceeds to confirm the membership number. To my suspicious mind, it seems like the operator wants to look up the address of this ‘real lady’ so that they can come rape her. I wonder what the man would say then.
Yue
I like what she says about power. She states that “power is always there, it is never, ever absent” (121). Then she says what most people have quoted – that “power is erotic. In same-sex relationships”. I wish she would have elaborated more on this because she doesn’t specifically say that power is erotic in heterosexual relationships. It’s as if she eroticizes power, but then qualifies it as only applying to same-sex couples. This takes a negative view on hetero-sex, reminding me of (Dworkin?) the argument that all heterosexual sex is rape.

Posted by Maria Volpe at 05:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I think for this week's readings, nothing struck me so much as the concept of choice laid out by Ratna Kapur in her first essay. This is primarily because I have been concerned for the past several years with the idea of recognizing the array, not to mention the vailidity, of choices available to women. As someone who studies the confrontation between western and non-western women in the colonial and post-colonial experience, it is always interesting (and necessary) to assess the individual and cultural needs of women, particularly when we think of "needs" as "choices."
Although it was actually a point of Nussbaum's, I am convinced of her statement that Western women are just as bound by tradition as subaltern women. The invention of tradition (as put out by Hobsbawm) and the construction of sexual identities are powerful forces of shaping individual natures, not to mention cultural or national identities. When thinking of the Other (particularly using the Other to define oneself in a comparatively superior light) it is essential to not negate the vailidty of that experience, not to mention its import to women who root their own identities within a larger cultural framework.
Kapur problematizes the issues of subaltern traditions and identities by illustrating that while the experience is valid for many Other women, oppressive institutions/practices (such as sati, seclusion or hnour killings) are also used by the Hindu Right to subjugate women. It is interesting to note that in Hindu fundamentalist movement women are valued, but not as women, but rather as wives and mothers.

Posted by Jessica Curtis-Niesewand at 05:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Wittig’s conclusion that lesbianism is a successful alternative to heterosexuality and that it is beyond categories of sex seems problematic to me. While I agree that it is a way of “living freely” to an extent, I am not convinced that the lesbian body is still not seen and objectified economically, politically or ideologically. It seems to me that my body, whether it is known to be lesbian or not, still remains subsumed under the larger category of woman which Wittig says exists only to confuse us. While the lesbian body is not designated as woman for lack of compliance with historically inscribed gender norms and for its out of reach position for lesbians (from what I understand), it is still part of the socially economy and male political domination. Similarly, while the call to destroy heterosexuality as a social system seems like a great idea, and we even have a suggestion as to where to begin (language), I can’t help but think that designating another category, lesbianism, in its place isn’t the goal Wittig wishes to accomplish.

My second point of contention is regarding the emphasis on individuality. Truly, it is important to remember that at the core of every category lie the individuals; however, it seems that Wittig highlights the fact that one must first fight for one’s self and then for others. This perspective seems highly Anglo (U.S/Euro) Centric. I’m wondering what the effects of such ego-centric thought processes have on our discourse and on our identity-development. It seems like identity formation, self-identification etc. has become a hot topic over the past 15(?) years. It is a key word with multiple definitions and with greater semantic value than what it seems to have had in the past. It seems that as our identity options and modes of identity articulation become gain multiplicity, so too does our isolation from other cultural discourses. I guess that fits right into this class ;)

One thing that I really did like was the idea of women as a class, therefore creating a concrete term for labeling and disintegrating. I wasn’t quite sure what she meant by “materialist feminist approach” but it seems like it relates to the idea of women as objects, instead of subjects, functioning within a historically created class category.

As a side note, I loved the Luisa Valenzuela story. I’m hoping to get a hold of the Spanish version before commenting on that.

Posted by Naomi Wood at 04:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Okay, i had just finished a huge long entry, and it was deleted. I don't have the time and especially not the patience to do that all over again, so I'm just going to comment on Wittig, which was the last one I did and so is on my mind.

I found myself both agreeing and disagreeing with this piece, arguing with her, then arguing with myself... which I think is great. For example, the part on childbirth... she calls it a "forced production" and a "social phenomena which express[es] our oppression," which we naturalize. I'm not sure about this. I mean, yes, society does naturalize childbirth as something that "of course all women would want to do," and certainly this is not the case. And yes, I do see connections between the ability to give birth and women's oppression. However, is there not something biological in human beings that makes us want to procreate? And shouldn't we be seeing childbirth as an empowering ability? It is giving life, the most powerful thing ever known. Women, at least, should recognize that, and I think anyone who has been in the room when a woman was in labor would agree.

Posted by Jessica Lehrke at 11:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Reading everyone else's comments helped me think about the Valenzuela story. At first, i was thinking that the meaning of the wife being "good/decent" was that she was married and of a higher social class. Along the lines of something like, abuse /rape/beat the women of the lower classes to "protect" those of the higher class. It is the degradation of the lower class women that elevates the upper class women into beign "decent" because you can't have "good" women without "bad" women.

I read a Valenzuela book last year in which a younger sister watched her beautiful dead sister be raped by the mortician who came to tend her body. Seems like a common theme? I don't know if that relates but it might.

And what exactly is it about the women not reporting having been raped taht is disturbing to this husband? "Nothing could stop teh wave of patriotic indignation that made him breathe heavily as he turned the pages." The FR is the Argentine branch of the URU, which is based in Iowa and has headquarters all over the US. Is this supposed to be like the US raping Argentina, or bringing this business/capitalism/violence there? What is the significance that the organization is based in the US? I'm sure its something.

And what is this getting at? "Poor darling, and all for her, so she could go safely to the market, so she wouldn't be afraid if a stranger followed her at night when SHE went to get HIM cigarettes or the evening paper. In a city as dangerous as this she could go her way without worry becuase he was looking after her and protesting when things went wrong." It is as if the wife KNOWs she will never be raped. Like if she or her husband pay these people, they will not rape her. Does that mean they will rape anyone who does NOT pay them?

"...No girl, a minor, had to go to a psychiatric clinic to recover from a man's exposing himself to her. Nothing. Aren't you ashamed?" They do this to children and minors?

Is it implying that women are accepting rape passively and not reporting? What good does reporting do them anyway? probably not much, and then there is probably stigma and repercusions for telling. but what about the fighting back then?

ok, so there are no real ladies left becuase they either: fight back or don't tell. so what would his wife, teh real lady do? what is the other option? to be raped and tell?

There are terrorists to whom they may fall at mercy of. Are they raping their own women so the terrorists will have one less tool of war?

About the Yue article, I really liked it. i think what she was saying when she says "power is erotic. In same-sex relationships. In cross-cultural relationships." is that in heterosexual relationships, it has become more norm to try to entangle the power relations that exist between men and women. I thihnk power is also erotic for many in heterosexual realtionships as well. But I think she is getting at that we haven't thought about cross cultural relationships in the same way. there are power dynamics at play in all relationships, including cross cultural ones, and that in same sex relationships we often feel more equlity and less power struggle (at least I have felt more equality in my same sex relationships, I know that). But when you enter into a same sex realtionship with someone of a different race, more power dynamics come into play. i hope that made sense.

I liked how she included an african women in her group of ethnic toygirl (" celebrating the fashionably acceptable black lesbian as a virtue of the ethnic toygirl"). I think a lot of foreign women experince these same feelings here in the us, even though she is writing from australia, with their own spin on it of course.

I think its also really interesting in the last two paragraphs. I interpret it as her feeling used, like a plaything someone wanted to experiment with, when living doll breaks it off with her. She is transported to a place where fans scream, " We Want All You Can Eat". I think ithis is illustrative of feeling like everyone wants some, but only as a play thing and to play, not for anything serious. They want some tonight but They don't want it for dinner every night. thats a shitty feeling.

I liked the Wittig article and when she said that matriarchy is no less heterosexual than patriarchy; it is only the sex of teh oppressor that changes. This reminds me of a great book called Egalia's Daughters that i read when i was in high school and first coming into feminism that really opened my eyes about how oppressed women are. It is a story about a society in which women hold all power over men, who are abused physically, emotionally, financially and sexually. For me at the time, i was so used to the abuses of women that i found it hard to see them in everydaylife sometimes. But when you flip the script, and see the exact same thing happening to boys in a story, it seems so shocking and rality invoking. So i would recommend it, its fiction, ya know. easy yet intellectually stimulating at the same time. Nice how that is possible.

Posted by Sarah Graham at 08:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I’m going to choose to focus my blog on Yue and Wittig, because I found Yue very interesting, and Wittig awesome. Also because, honestly, the Valenzuela piece was disturbing to me.
I’m going to agree with Sarah that the Yue piece is confusing, largely because of the small focus of her audience. I think because I’m at least immersed in the gay community, I feel a bit more comfortable with it then most, I will assume. However, I’m only connected to a small part of her audience. On a personal note, I found the quote about her postcolonial body interesting. I once told an Asian-American woman that she was beautiful, and the first thing she asked me was if I was into Asian-American women, as if that was the only way that I could desire her. However Yue does bring up an honest point. In my limited experience with women, and thus also limited with women of color, it seems as though the relationship is defined by social creations on what it means to be of that race, and the power structures that lie within that.
I believe that Yue may be pointing out that race can play a stronger role in same-sex relationships then in heterosexual relationships, in relation to power. Power is brought up in a different way. Yue states “Power is erotic. In same-sex relationships. In cross-cultural relationships.” I think the reason for this is that one can’t have normal gay sex, thus we become more open to ‘abnormal’ sex, which explains the higher rate of BDSM in GLBT relationships. Also power is not obvious, its not the power of one gender over another, thus its not as if it can be contested, it must be created.
Another aspect that I find interesting that Yue barely touched on what the ease of confusion of gender within racial minorities. Commonly its easier for a person of color to pass as someone of another gender, at least in white culture, then it is for a white person.
Which brings me to Wittig, which I find very interesting. Wittig calls women “a racial group of a special kind”. She also brings to question the idea of oppression not being biological. I’m pleased to have read this article because it explains both my distaste for the belief in a biological difference, but also for the difficulty of getting rid of it. To what extent are we defined by others, and to what extent have we deified ourselves? And is she right, can ones deviation from one’s sexual preference thus deviate one’s “natural” gender? Is a lesbian a not-woman, and a gay man a not-man? If this is the case then what would she define a bisexual as? Once again I’m going to call on my belief that this theory, like many others, would be simpler if sexuality and gender were not a box, but instead a percentage, a continuum. But do other’s feel its possible; to escape the “myth of gender”?

Posted by Jennifer Mohnkern at 06:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Way to set a trend Emily! I like this idea too, it helps us know and visualize who is writing the words to these pieces. Regarding the readings for this week, as I understood it, we pushed back Erotic Justice, and were to have read the readings for April 7th. I hope I am right, because Sarah thought so too. If not, we will unfortunately not know too much about Erotic Justice.

I really liked the Valenzuela article as well, although I had to read it a number of times before it finally hit me as to what was going on. Sarah’s entry really helped me validate my own thoughts as to what Valenzuela was writing. It is clearer now what the “FR” is, which I read as a for-profit sector of the economy, in which privileged men pay to read about rapes and rapists. It seemed to me that this husband pays for rapists to rape women, and so that he can keep his wife safe by knowing what these rapists are doing, so he can keep his wife out of their way. However, in the end, it seems as though his complaint about not enough rapes ultimately beats him, as his membership number gives his “decent” wife away.

This piece also shows the role that the Argentinean police and government are playing in the discourse of rape. It is they, the officials, who get to tell the reporters about the terrifying crimes committed against them, not the victims themselves. Thus the citizens are funneled to view these crimes through a different lens. I’m not sure exactly what it is that Valenzuela is getting at, but there is something which causes the normalization of the crime. It also shows what may happen if something is not done about predators right now. But, “these are hard times and women don’t resist the way they used to” (40). This shows what the destroyer could say once women stop resisting to rape, however, it also seems that there are women fighting back. Valenzuela writes: “[Women] laugh in our faces when we trap them in a dark corner,” and “They criticize our equipment,” referring to the intimidations that the rapists have under “strong” women (41).

In reply to Sarah’s comment, I think that this is a statement as to what rape will progress to in the future if we are not watching and responding to what is happening now. I also think that it is also about the violence against Argentinean women.

Posted by Desiree Bridell at 06:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I was especially interested in the section on “Death by culture” in Erotic Justice. I read an article a while ago on dowry murders, so it was interesting to connect the two. I do believe it is problematic when certain forms of violence in the Third World are “cultural,” whereas similar violence towards women in the United States is not thought of as “cultural.” I believe the article I read stated that domestic murders of women in the US are around the same number of deaths as “deaths by culture,” but this is not considered “cultural.” I think it is often easier to see “barbary” in other cultures than in one’s own.

I also was interested when Kapur brought up how some First World feminists use sensationalism when viewing certain aspects of the Third World, like the 1993 Vienna Tribunal on Violence Against Women’s focus on dowry murder. I do not believe that these deaths are extremely common, yet they appear to be focused on over other issues that affect more women, like poverty.

Stoning is another instance where “death by culture” is used and the act itself is often sensationalized. I remember a stoning sensationalized in a book review I read in the New Yorker. I believe the book was about Zimbabwe, but the review starts out with a long story about the upcoming stoning of a Nigerian woman for adultery. The book review makes sure to include gruesome details of what will happen at the stoning. This Nigerian stoning has nothing to do with the book that is being reviewed, and is not even about the same part of Africa as the book being reviewed. This shows some of the cultural generalization and sensationalism that Kapur depicts.

I am a little torn on this issue, as I do not think dowry murders and stonings should be taking place, but I still believe it is problematic how some Western feminist go about trying to stop these practices.

Posted by Kristin Hamon at 03:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I'm really hoping I went over the right readings for this week. Can someone tell me if I'm wrong? Thanks.
Anyhow...
I found the Valenzuela piece simply fascinating, and, as I’m sure everyone agrees, extremely disturbing. A few things:
1. There’s this intersection between capitalism, class, and violence that seems significant. Rape in the story is presented as a business, one in which, it appears, middle to upper class men pay for. Is this a comment on rape now, or what rape could progress to be, or violence against women, or am I off completely?

2. Valenzuela is making an important comment on the media’s role in creating an environment of fear. It is the newspaper, and its publication of the rapes, that maintains normalcy through this fear. What’s more, the rape information has to come from a governmental authority (the police), implicating the government in participating in perpetuating rape and the fear of rape.

3. One of the scarier aspects of this story is that it has this conspiracy theory theme to it. There’s a business out there orchestrating rapes because of the fear of rapes stopping and what is “normal” – seeing rapes in the paper, “decent” submissive housewives – slipping away. Maybe Valenzuela is making a critique of society’s adherence to normality. How far could it go if we as a society maintain this obsessive attachment to the norm, to “normal” life?

4. The juxtaposition of this “perfect” husband-wife relationship, one that seems to be filled with love and respect, with the desire to promote the rape of women (and not just women in general, but women who are significant to the members paying for these rapes), is what I find most sick. Rape in this story has progressed to an act of love.

5. I don’t understand something. So is it that real women, the “decent” women of the past, were the ones that resisted? And the women who are not decent are the ones that are ridiculing the men, but not reporting it to the police? What are the implications of this? What is Valenzuela trying to say?

PS. I got to say, the Yue piece is a little confusing. I understand some parts, but I feel as if I’m missing the bigger argument. Anyone want to shed some light on this one?

PSS. Sorry this is so long.

Posted by Sarah Oakland at 04:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

It's interesting; I have mixed feelings about Erotic Justice. Anytime anyone brought up the book, people in class cooed about how awesome it was. And I can see say they would say so; I just am frustrated at the scope of the book. Admittedly this is only after having read the introduction, perhaps things are different in the rest of the book, but there doesn't seem to be a movement toward solving the problems she is pointing out.
Of course, the critique is the first step in solving the problem, but she doesn't seem to go much farther than this. She says that x, y, and z are what current formulations of human rights discourse does and that's bad (horribly simplified, I know). She clearly articulates why these practices are harmful and why they need to be changed. But she seems to skirt around the question of what to do instead. She seems to simultaneously say that using law in the ways that some well intentioned people use it is not a good idea and that using law as a place to emancipate people is a bad idea all together, especially for the subaltern subject. So which is it? Does the law have any emancipatory potential? I would say so, but I'm also looking to become someone who works with public policy, so I might be biased.
She says that this book is not about developing legal strategies to liberate the Other, but is instead focused on evaluating projects that attempt to develop these legal strategies. So here's my question: If in her evaluation she is not here to recommend legal strategies for solving the short-comings of the projects, then any strategy she would recommend would have to be outside the legal arena. But what about all the repressive things that happen within the legal arena? How do we counter those things without engaging with law?
As I read more, if I am totally off base with this analysis, I will come back and revise. But! if I am wrong, then maybe Kapur needs to revise her introduction to be more clear about her thesis. (or maybe I missed her point...)
I love her comment about how post-colonial feminism is not simply a counter to Western feminism. I love that she allows room for collaboration between the movements while maintaining post-colonial feminism's difference and as importantly separate from Western feminism. I also love that this positioning of post-colonial feminism places it as not only at odds with Western feminism. Kaspur doesn't say this, but it seems that this post-colonial fe