So this is a very academic paper dealing with the intersection of multiple studies in the humanities. I would suggest most people to start by reading the introduction, then the conclusion, and...
So this is a very academic paper dealing with the intersection of multiple studies in the humanities. I would suggest most people to start by reading the introduction, then the conclusion, and only explore the body if you are intrigued. Otherwise it is easy to lose the plot. I sure got lost a few times.
One conclusion of the paper seems to be that by creating a false dichotomy of feminism vs multiculturalism, we are furthering the oppression of immigrants across class lines, and that we should instead focus more on maximizing agency of all individuals rather than skirmishing along ideological lines. Or at least that is my lay person take on it.
That resonates with my personal ethos of avoiding reductionist categorizations, identifying and protecting agency (think Belmont report), and minimizing suffering.
Or I could be completely off; this is far, far outside my area.
Edit: I wanted to add the following except from the conclusion, both because it relates to what I mentioned above, but also I hope it encourages others to give reading the conclusion on their own a shot (skipping the footnotes, probably).
It does not seem coincidental that the way some feminists have depicted gender oppression in immigrant and Third World communities reflects a failure to think about how women's concerns in those communities might implicate their own identities. There is a strong desire for innocence in many strands of feminist politics, 145 supported by the definition of the essential female identity of woman as victim of male violence. But an individual can be subordinated in one social relation and dominant in another.146 There is an ease with which one slips into a position of subordination, for example, as a woman subject to the discrimination of the glass ceiling, without seeing how this very subordinate location may simultaneously reflect privilege, for example, as one that relies on domestic labor and child care by immigrant women of color. 147 The missionary impulse to save immigrant and Third World women from their subordination is rarely turned to uplift domestic workers from exploitative work situations.' 48 The repressive cultures of these women, on the other hand, are a subject of feminist concerns. Thus, women in the First World can feel as though they have autonomy and agency in contrast to women in the Third World, at the same time that they feel victimized by men in the First, but will not conceptualize themselves to be agents of subordinating practices. This absolution of responsibility rests on the assumption that relations between women are presumed to be non-oppressive, whereas the bonds of race are presumed to oppress women of color. But this ignores the oppression of race and class among women. While to some extent this is understood in the context of the domestic politics of the United States, the innocence of the category "woman" seems to have been repackaged in the wrapping of the discourses of feminism versus multiculturalism and transnational women's rights.
I like this except in part because it seems to highlight looking at things through appropriate contextual lenses rather than using the same lens on all people in so situations, while also underscoring the need to assess oneself.
some snippets (there's a lot of interesting stuff in this paper, although the introduction has a lot of standard academic boilerplate so might be worth skipping) – emphasis mine
some snippets (there's a lot of interesting stuff in this paper, although the introduction has a lot of standard academic boilerplate so might be worth skipping) – emphasis mine
I argue here that posing multiculturalism and feminism as oppositional results in a discourse of "feminism versus multiculturalism" that is premised on serious and fundamental logical flaws. Such a discourse relies upon a particular subject, the immigrant woman victim of minority culture. In examining how the figure of the immigrant woman victim is constructed, I address both the theoretical bases of the feminism versus multiculturalism discourse and the disturbing consequences of its adoption.
Part of the reason many believe the cultures of the Third World or immigrant communities are so much more sexist than Western ones is that incidents of sexual violence in the West are frequently thought to reflect the behavior of a few deviants-rather than as part of our culture. In contrast, incidents of violence in the Third World or immigrant communities are thought to characterize the cultures of entire nations
Recently an article in The New Yorker about arranged marriages in South Asian communities contained the suggestion that dowry murders are the cultural alternative to Western divorce-a way to
exit relationships. Instead, as some have pointed out, the more appropriate analogy is to equate dowry murders with domestic violence, and specifically, domestic violence murders in the United States.
We identify sexual violence in immigrant of color and Third World communities as cultural, while failing to recognize the cultural aspects of sexual violence affecting mainstream white women. This is related to the general failure to look at the behavior of white persons as cultural, while always ascribing the label of culture to the behavior of minoritygroups. Thus, to bolster her claim that we cannot embrace both feminism and the values of minority cultures, Okin invokes the recent Nebraska case of two sisters, thirteen and fourteen years of age, who were forced by their Iraqi immigrant father to marry twenty-eight and thirty-four-year-old men. But why are only the child marriages of nonwhite immigrants and not those of white Christian sects believed to threaten feminism?
Those with power appear to have no culture; those without power are culturally endowed. Western subjects are defined by their abilities to make choices, in contrast to Third World subjects, who are defined by their group-based determinism.
Thanks for highlighting a bunch of interesting excerpts. My first reaction having read these excerpts, is that multiculturalism merely correlates with apparent a-feminism, and generally - as is...
Thanks for highlighting a bunch of interesting excerpts.
My first reaction having read these excerpts, is that multiculturalism merely correlates with apparent a-feminism, and generally - as is observed in the penultimate quotation there - white Christians or other religious groups fit the bill similarly well?
Traditional values of any sort tend to maintain pre-exiating power structures, in this case religious ones supporting patriarchal ones. Secularism, whilst not preventing misogynist values, is - by nature of being principally an absence of a wide gamut of traditional values - more aligned with feminism, and the reverse follows. Maybe?
It's late, I'm sleepy, maybe this is all gibberish.
So this is a very academic paper dealing with the intersection of multiple studies in the humanities. I would suggest most people to start by reading the introduction, then the conclusion, and only explore the body if you are intrigued. Otherwise it is easy to lose the plot. I sure got lost a few times.
One conclusion of the paper seems to be that by creating a false dichotomy of feminism vs multiculturalism, we are furthering the oppression of immigrants across class lines, and that we should instead focus more on maximizing agency of all individuals rather than skirmishing along ideological lines. Or at least that is my lay person take on it.
That resonates with my personal ethos of avoiding reductionist categorizations, identifying and protecting agency (think Belmont report), and minimizing suffering.
Or I could be completely off; this is far, far outside my area.
Edit: I wanted to add the following except from the conclusion, both because it relates to what I mentioned above, but also I hope it encourages others to give reading the conclusion on their own a shot (skipping the footnotes, probably).
I like this except in part because it seems to highlight looking at things through appropriate contextual lenses rather than using the same lens on all people in so situations, while also underscoring the need to assess oneself.
some snippets (there's a lot of interesting stuff in this paper, although the introduction has a lot of standard academic boilerplate so might be worth skipping) – emphasis mine
Thanks for highlighting a bunch of interesting excerpts.
My first reaction having read these excerpts, is that multiculturalism merely correlates with apparent a-feminism, and generally - as is observed in the penultimate quotation there - white Christians or other religious groups fit the bill similarly well?
Traditional values of any sort tend to maintain pre-exiating power structures, in this case religious ones supporting patriarchal ones. Secularism, whilst not preventing misogynist values, is - by nature of being principally an absence of a wide gamut of traditional values - more aligned with feminism, and the reverse follows. Maybe?
It's late, I'm sleepy, maybe this is all gibberish.