A Liberal Studies Major ePortfolio
Note: If you have not used Prezi before, simply use your right arrow key to go through the slides one by one as they have been organized. To go back to another slide, you can click out of the current slide using your cursor or use your arrow keys to navigate throughout the Prezi. Cheers!
When I was thirteen years old, I presented a self-written and researched speech to over one hundred people titled “The Rights of Women in Islamic Countries.” The speech opened with a translated verse from the Quran: “And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty…” The speech focused on the Niqab and the Burka as symbols of female oppression. I won second place for my speech in the final round.
When I was thirteen years old, I hadn’t yet learned the concept of cultural relativism or of ethnocentrism.
I was right, they were wrong, and they needed help.
Approaching the issue of women’s oppression in Islam with cultural relativism is imperative; while veiling might be degrading to me, to my Muslim sister veiling might be the paramount symbol of modesty.
The first person who encouraged me to approach this issue from a different perspective was an ex-boyfriend when I was eighteen years old. Ali, an Iranian-born, Canadian-raised, non-practicing Muslim, explained his perceived “pros” of the legally-enforced head scarf for women in Iran:
[paraphrased] In Western culture, women are taught to dress and act to appease men sexually. The opposite is true in Iran. In Canada, women are hyper-sexualized, as evident by the bombardment of images of nearly-naked women in the media, and the clear correlation between a woman’s popularity and her promiscuity or provocativeness (think Kim Kardashian – infamous for a sex tape and for the sexualization of her body). In Iran, the veil protects women from this exploitation and depravity. In Iran, women are not forced to sexually compete for men as they do in the West, rather, this is thought of as grossly immoral.
There were three clear flaws that I recognized in Ali’s argument: (1) his overgeneralizing of women in Western culture, (2) his lack of recognition for the idea of choice of dress – something that I have, and that women living under the forced implementation of any coverings do not, and (3) simply because one culture is oppressive to women because it encourages their sexualization, does not mean that another culture that forbids public spectacles of female sexualization is not oppressive.
It is easy then to assert all coverings that are enforced through legal, religious, and violent means are not just a symbol of female oppression but an overt instrument of female oppression. Let ‘oppression’ here be defined as the exercise of control over women by men, through sexist laws and or violence in any given culture.
The problem with this argument is of course that coverings are not forced unto all Muslim women, and that there exist multitudes of Muslim women who elect to wear some form of covering.
However, despite these sect-culture counterexamples of Muslim women who have choice, there exists overwhelming anti-female rhetoric in Islam, which is exemplified by the disproportionate amount of violence against Muslim women by Muslim men.
It is clear then that the issue of female oppression in Islam does not exist simply within, for example, a hijab, but rather within the patriarchal culture that defends and encourages the systematic oppression of women with religious doctrine. The issue of the veil, or other coverings, is then irrelevant, and discussions of the oppression of women in Islam should be more focused on reforming the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes.
Whether Muslim women need saving is up to Muslim women; as the best advocate for Muslim women is Muslim women themselves.
In a report, the Canadian Council of Muslim Women stated: “Since, for Muslims, the Qur’an is God’s word, the pervasive view is that God ‘himself’ gives men the license to control or ill-treat women.” Does this statement assert that all Muslims, men and women, are inherently anti-feminist?
Here’s a full version of the film Osama:
This film inspired my ongoing curiosity about the issue of women’s rights in Islamic countries. The film follows a mother and daughter through their tribulations under Taliban rule in Afghanistan.
In ‘Embodying Emergent Masculinities’, Marcia Inhorn and Emily Wentzell argue that “masculinity research within anthropology must account for ongoing, embodied changes in men’s enactments of masculinities over time on both individual and societal levels.”
The article focuses on two studies about men who are breaking the hegemonic masculinity-mold in their respective cultures, embracing what the authors coin “emergent masculinities”. The article concludes that studies about masculinity must recognize emergent masculinities because “an emergent masculinities approach that takes new forms of masculine embodiment seriously as an object of empirical investigation helps to challenge pernicious stereotypes of masculinity that still persist in many regions of the world.”
The original theorist of “hegemonic masculinity,” R. W. Connell, defined hegemonic masculinity as “the strategy for being a man that legitimizes patriarchy and enables gendered social dominance in a given cultural context; it is shaped by, though not necessarily identical to, cultural ideals of manliness.” As we learned through the example of the Aka, “the strategy for being a man” does not always legitimize patriarchy nor does it always enable gendered social dominance; rather, the embodiment of hegemonic masculinity in Aka culture results in gender egalitarianism. The Aka example would render Connell’s definition incorrect. However, in North America, where hegemonic masculinity can be defined as white, middle to upper-middle class, able-bodied, and heterosexual, the masculine ideal does legitimize patriarchy and enable gendered social dominance. We must recognize that this is not because of what hegemonic masculinity is inherently as a concept, but rather because of what we have constructed hegemonic masculinity to serve as: an agent of legitimizing patriarchy, racism, and sexism.
While the cross-cultural examples provided by Inhorn and Wentzell serve to provide evidence of variations in masculinity, and a sort of “anti-hegemony” movement among some men, in North America, our fixation with gendered products would serve as evidence that North Americans are, overall, still fixated on portraying and embodying hegemonic gender.
But how can this be? We’re way more progressive and accepting than our forerunners. We’re millennials, we’re all about equality, “fighting the man”, “breaking the mold”, and accepting different races, genders, sexualities.
So, progressive generation Y, how is it then that “leading U.S. toy manufacturer Hasbro’s “girls” category raked in $300 million” in the early 1990’s but, “earned a record-breaking $1 billion” in 2013? According to this fact, we care about $700 million dollars more about not breaking the mold than our predecessors (and that’s just one company).
Still convinced this doesn’t apply to you?
Do you think that drinking a beer is “more manly” than having a fruity cocktail, or say, a glass of rosé? Is it the colour of these beverages that is offensive to your masculinity? North American millennial males were so offended by the idea of drinking pink wine that they felt forced to reinvent it – rename it – reclaim a genderless beverage for the sake of their masculinity.
“Pink wine was once just for girls, but this summer male drinkers are putting down their pint glasses and getting in on the act. Introducing Brosé.”
The viral sensation that is Brosé serves as evidence that North American millennial males’ masculinities are so tied up with the hegemonic ideal, that drinking something pink – a colour coded for females in our society through a process of enculturation – might somehow affect and or totally erase it.
If millennials were truly as progressive as they thought they were, Brosé wouldn’t have become a viral trend, and we wouldn’t spend billions of dollars on gendered products to publicly, and internally, reaffirm our masculinities and or femininities.
‘The Cultural Nexus of Aka Father-Infant Bonding,’ by Barry S. Hewlett, is a case study on the practices of the Aka hunter-gatherers of Central Africa and Northern Congo. Hewlett draws on observations to show that Aka fathers are more involved, more of the time with infants, compared to fathers in American society (in the 1980s). Hewlett’s evidence shows that Aka fathers “are within an arm’s reach of their infant more than 50 percent of 24-hour periods” allowing infant-bonding to take place through “regular and intimate (i.e., hugging, kissing, soothing) care.” In contrast, white American fathers, who are generally absent in order to provide for their families, engage in infant-bonding through “vigorous play.” (Hewlett)
“Aka fathers are very close and affectionate with their infants, and their attachment processes, as defined in Western bonding theory, appear to be similar to that of mothers.” Western bonding theory or Attachment Theory states that “a strong emotional and physical attachment to at least one primary caregiver is critical to personal development (for infants).”
“Parents’ and other caregivers’ engagement in caregiving…is critical for infants’ developing attachment, communication, and social cognition. Thus, infancy is a time in which fathers might uniquely influence their children’s rapidly developing social, cognitive, and language skills, influences that last beyond the earliest years.” (Cabrera, et al. 2011)
A 2011 study on ‘Patterns and Predictors of Father-Infant Engagement Across Race/Ethnic Groups’, showed that (in America) “minority fathers engage in care-giving activities with higher frequencies than white fathers.” (Cabrera, et al. 2011) This research would serve to complement the findings of the Aka case study, proving that fatherhood is cultural, rather than biological.
In North America, the discrepancy between mother-infant bonding versus father-infant bonding can be viewed as an extension of the Ethno- and Eurocentric constructs of gender norms and ideals in society, and the division of labour among the sexes. Men (particularly in white North American culture) are lead to believe that child-rearing is “woman’s work”, therefore, any excess time spent care-giving for an infant (past assumed necessity) is correlated to the feminine, and can result in emasculation and or hazing in homosocial networks. This is particularly true in cases where a child’s father takes paternity leave, allowing the child’s mother to re-enter the work force during a child’s infancy.
Hewlett explains that one reason for the shared division of infant-care among the Aka is due to the Aka’s gender egalitarian society: “Men do not have physical or institutional control over women, violence against women is rare or nonexistent, both women and men are valued for their different but complementary roles, there is femininity in these gender roles, and holding infants is not perceived as being feminine or “women’s work.” This is in contrast to the rigid (although shifting) gender roles present in white North American culture.
The Aka fathers case study, as well as the study comparing African-American, Latino, and white fathers within the United States, prove that definitions of fatherhood are culturally-derived and tied to the gender hierarchies within a given society or culture.
It is important to note the modern shift away from the rigid American-family model of “mother as primary nurturer/caregiver” and “father as distant financial provider.” A recent study would show that, “70% of men surveyed claimed that financial security ranked behind greater involvement with their children and the provision of love and emotional support in their order of preferences.”
Let’s hope this means that American fathers will also shift away from engaging in “rough play” with babies…
According to Sherry Ortner, the answer is, yes. In ‘Is Female to Male as Nature Is to Culture?’, Ortner argues, from an anthropological perspective, that women are universally subordinate to men, suggesting “the secondary status of woman in society is one of the true universals, a pan-cultural fact.” In this article, Ornter provides us with three pieces of evidences for her position and then elaborates on each:
“(1) Woman’s body and its functions, more involved more of the time with “Species life,” seem to place her closer to nature, in contrast to man’s physiology, which frees him more completely to take up the projects of culture; (2) woman’s body and its functions place her in social roles that in turn are considered to be at a lower order of the cultural process than man’s; and (3) woman’s traditional social roles, imposed because of her body and its functions, in turn give her a different psychic structure, which like her physiological nature, and her social roles, is seen as being closer to nature.”
Ortner argues that woman is subordinate to man because woman is closer to nature for physiological, social, and psychological reasons. This fact of woman being closer to nature forces and or allows man to create culture. Ortner claims that nature is inferior to culture because nature is perishable, while culture is composed of “lasting, eternal, transcendent objects.” Therefore, women are inferior to men, because women are closer to nature (inferior), and men are responsible for culture (superior).
Ortner posits:
“…The onus is no longer upon us to demonstrate that female subordination is a cultural universal; it is up to those who would argue against the point to bring forth counterexamples.”
Endicott and Endicott provide one such counterexample with the Batek peoples of Malaysia. The Batek are one of few (if not the only) known gender egalitarian societies. Gender egalitarian, here, is defined as “neither males nor females are prevented from doing whatever they want to do (short of things that are biologically impossible).” With the exception of terminologies for differentiating females from males during puberty and in the nuclear family (for example, pre-pubescent males and females are simply comprehensively referred to as “children”), gender is not a relevant or necessary divide in Batek culture.
“To Batek, gender was just one of many qualities of people-including personality, position in the kinship system, age, and ethnic identity-that might be relevant in particular situations.”
Although the Batek recognize the physiological differences between males and females, such as physical strength, these physiological differences do not inhibit either sex from undertaking various tasks and or activities. One such example is tree climbing, where Batek women are recognized as not being able to climb as high as men, but this physiological fact of women’s lesser “arm strength” does not make women inferior to men, or deter women from participation.
It is, in my opinion, that cultural constructs are responsible for the subordination of women, for gender roles and for gender norms. While gender hierarchies may be a cultural universal, strong feminist women and men are making (and achieving) great leaps at challenging and overcoming the sham system.
Ornter is living in the past, or, at the very least, around some very sexist individuals and should immediately find a new social group. While I cannot disagree with Ortner that women’s bodies and its functions are different than men’s, I disagree that woman’s physiology makes her inferior, and that woman’s ability to birth children places her in a different and lesser social role. I don’t see how the female anatomy can be considered lesser because of it’s naturalness. Aside from the fact that males and females are both mammals, both natural beings – just because a man can’t birth a baby doesn’t make him any less apart of “species life” – Ortner, how do you think babies are made? Sure, being pregnant causes women to become a little “slower” during pregnancy but I have known women that run every day during their pregnancy (stopping maybe around the 8 month mark). I have known a female CEO who worked at her office until her water broke and then stopped at her office on the way back from the hospital to pick up briefs. Breastfeeding? So far, I have known two female doctors who have had their babies at work with them every day so that they can do their jobs and breastfeed their babies. Woman’s physiology causes her confinement to the domestic sphere? It was already 23 years ago that my best friend’s father became the first male employee at BC Rail to take paternity leave. Ortner’s example of “women as teachers” and “men as professors”? From my high school, the only individuals to become teachers were male, and this term, 4 out of 5 of my professors are female.
While these are just my experiences, and that scale is too small to make any landmark statements, it is, in my opinion, that female is both nature and culture, just as male is both nature and culture. I cannot argue the universal facts that Ortner posits, that is, I do not disagree that much of the world is still living in the dark ages of gender hierarchy, and that the feminist movement has a ways to go – but Ortner’s evidence doesn’t allow for the clear change that is happening, for the advancement of women’s rights and roles in society.
The following video gives a brief synopsis of some of the feminist philosophies presented in Simone de Beauvior’s ‘The Second Sex’:
This next video is a Ted Talk by speaker Jackson Katz, following the topic of ‘straying away from blaming women for the oppression of women’, Katz discusses the necessary movement away from domestic violence as a “women’s issue” to domestic violence as a men’s issue.
This week’s reading, ‘Sex, Syntax, and Semantics’ by Boroditsky, Schmidt, and Phillips is about the effects of language, especially grammatical gender, on the perceived nature of various objects (i.e. description and similarities), and memory capability. Applying the research results broadly, the study concludes that the “private mental lives of people who speak different languages may differ much more than previously thought.” This study examines precise research questions to expand on the discredited and overly broad Saphir-Worf hypothesis, that “thought and action are entirely determined by language.” (Click here to learn more about the Saphir-Worf hypothesis)
The studies in this article focus on the differences between people who speak either Spanish, Russian, and German along with English. This was of particular interest to me because I have been learning German alongside English since infancy. As well, I have been learning Spanish since middle school and continue to here at Capilano. I say that I have been learning German for 23 years because I have never become fluent in the language. My mother is German, my grandparents were German, and I spent much of my child hood in Germany, and yet, whenever I speak German, I find that my grammar is constantly being corrected by native-German speakers. After reading this article and it’s mention of Mark Twain’s ‘A Tramp Abroad’, I went on to read Twain’s essay ‘The Terrible German Language’:
(Read the rest of Mark Twain’s ‘The Terrible German Language’ here)
The arbitrary nature of gender assignment to otherwise genderless objects (nouns) has always been what I have found most challenging about the German language (that, and the ridiculously long compounded words). To reflect on the correlation between learned gender grammar and the perceived nature of the noun in question, as a child, I remember thinking that all cats were female and all dogs were male. I wonder now, if this is because I learned the German words “die Katze” (the [feminine] cat) and “der Hund” (the [masculine] dog) before learning the English words for these animals, thus translating my German understanding of cats as inherently feminine and dogs as inherently masculine into my English understanding of the two animals. If this is the case, my perception of various nouns was, and perhaps still is, altered because of my learning German grammatical gender as an infant.
Putting a different meaning to “gendered language”, Nu Shu, the disappearing (if not extinct) secret language of oppressed women of 19th century Guilin Hills of China, was a language created by women, unreadable by men, and written in a poetic format and sung aloud rather than read. One wonders what very unique perception of the world that women who created and learned Nu Shu must have shared, given that the studies by Boroditsky et. al show that language influences various thoughts and perceptions.
English used to have a grammatical gender system similar to modern german, classifying nouns as feminine, masculine, and neuter. ” For example, “woman” in Old English is a neuter noun, so referring to a woman, you’d call her “it.” To learn more about the grammatical system of Old English click here.
Only last week, a friend explained to me over coffee that (heterosexual) men are “biologically programmed” to prefer women with “big boobs and a big butt.” This “scientific fact” conveyed to me seemed a little problematic, however, I had heard this fact before, and so I didn’t ask how or where she heard this.
I have never doubted the validity of this information. I have read similar behaviour-based-on-evolution-facts with accrediting Ph.Ds scattered throughout the various articles, and so, I had been assuming that the professionals were providing objective, verifiable/falsifiable, scientific fact. How wrong I was…
Sociobiology as a discipline, was established by E. O. Wilson, who spent his career as an ant taxonomist (up until deciding that humans and ants were similar enough to draw parallels to). Moreover, some of the founding ideas of the discipline can be paralleled to the generally discredited studies of social Darwinism by scholars such as Herbert Spencer.(see: http://www.allaboutscience.org/what-is-social-darwinism-faq.htm)
Sociobiology is defined as:
The study of the biological determinants of social behaviour, based on the theory that such behaviour is often genetically transmitted and subject to evolutionary processes. (dictionary.com)
The notion that straight men are genetically programmed to prefer women with big boobs and a big butt because of their perceived fertility is a sociobiological theory and should be treated as such; it should not be portrayed as fact.
“Sociobiology even breaks the standard rules of science since its studies are tautological “just-so stories” with hypotheses that are not verifiable or falsifiable: even the most sophisticated scholarship is never able to offer more than speculation…” (Hasinoff)
Various sociobiological theories come loaded with inferences that are degrading to both women and men, and create excuses for human (especially male) behaviour, however unethical or immoral, simply, “because it’s in our DNA.”
“…Sociobiology maintains a model of gender essentialism: men are driven by psychological and physiological urges ingrained in the era of “cavemen” while women’s domestic labor, nurturing behaviours, and adherence to ideals of white middle-class Western femininity are likewise genetically predetermined.” (Hasinoff)
Sociobiology is problematic for various reasons related to the scientific authority it holds to reiterate historical culturally indoctrinated notions of racism, sexism, and ageism (to list a few).
“Sociobiology is particularly insidious in its legitimation of patriarchy and capitalism under the guise of objective science.” (Hasinoff)
In the 1880s (before the invention of cars or toilet paper) it was understood in the scientific community that it was women’s genetic mental “inadequacies, which made women unsuited for important activities…” due to a “long evolutionary process that selected those women dedicated to their duties in the domestic sphere.” (The Evolution of Gender and Difference)
Today, these same gender roles and sexist notions occur under the scientific cloak of sociobiology, with anecdotes such as “…women are also biologically better suited to cleaning, and must instruct men in the practices of domesticity: “Women have more rods in their eyes, which allows them to spot particles like dust and crumbs more easily…”” (Hasinoff)
Sociobiological anecdotes should be approached with the same wariness and skepticism with which one approaches tabloid headlines; keeping in mind that the not-so-scientific field of sociobiology often manifests potentially dangerous narratives.
According to Hasinoff, sociobiology posits that”…human nature is a direct product of “selfish genes” striving to maximize their reproductive profit…”
Click below for a video of Richard Dawkins explaining the “Selfish Gene.”