Critique of Okin

I think the most interesting critique of Okin's essay is her strange summation of the religions she talks about (but most specifically Christianity and Islam). She lacks a very important understanding of Islam, and seems to overlook the many contradictory factors in Christianity that do place women in powerful, revered, and very human positions. Okin claims that only "progressives" can save the women in these religions, especially from the "fundamentalists". But the truth is that Islam started out as a much more just and equal religion as regards concern for women, and the culture that adopted it sunk its teeth into it and basically misinterpreted the text so that they could twist it into whatever "they" wanted. This "progression" of Islam is what has made it so oppressive. It is not fundamental to the religion at all. I know she uses the term "progressive" more as a designation of an ideology than a statement of development over time, but it is still funny to juxtapose her love of progressivist thought with her hatred of how Islam has progressed. The Koran itself banned the practice of men inheriting wives against their will (4:19). Muhammed instructed his followers to remember that "they [your wives] also have rights over you." (Farewell Sermon) This was a natural consequence of his teaching that, "The most perfect in faith amongst believers is he who is best in manners and kindest to his wife." (Abu Dawud) Contarry to Okin's suggestions, rape victims are held to be innocent by Muslim tradition, while death is the punishment for the perpetrator. (Sunan Abu Dawud 38:4366) Another point which Okin fails to acknowledge in her round-up of creation stories is the fact that the Koran specifically exonerates women from any culpability in Adam's fall. (2:36, 7:20-24)

Christianity is subtler, but nonetheless has exalted the role of women. The cult of devotion to the Blessed Virgin which developed in the high Middle Ages, particularly out of the teaching of St. Bernard of Clairvaux, made a woman the indispensable conduit of the redeeming Grace of God to mankind. All that was good in the world was brought through a woman.

Following this theme, Christianity and Islam are the only major world religions which specifically acknowledge women as the possessors of souls who are eligible for salvation. This is made very explicit in the Koran. (16:97, 4:124) Although not mentioned in the Gospels, this belief is necessarily implicit in the Assumption of the Virgin Mary and the canonization of women into the Church Triumphant.

Response to Mohanty

I was surprised and disappointed by a few things in the Mohanty paper. Firstly, she gave no justification for the public sphere being superior to the private sphere. Liberal feminists seem to take it in stride that being recognized publicly is the only way to true "autonomy". However, I think there is a confusion of "having a voice" in the public sphere and living out your life there, and liberal feminists seem to advocate strenuously for the latter. This disappointed me. Similarly, she talks about the stereotype of women as "house-bound", but what about the simultaneous stereotype of men as "work-outside-the-house bound"?
Mohanty also takes a strange view of immigrant workers in the US. She seems not to understand the common sense logic that people with English as a second language will of course get less sought-after jobs in a country that speaks English. Then, she goes on to criticize the managers at the factory in CA for thinking of their employees as temporary, then also complained that they gave them easy jobs! You can have it one way or the other, but taken in that context, their perspective makes sense. It seemed to me that they were probably thinking they were giving women who needed some money but didn't have skills because they can't speak English well an opportunity to develop factory skills and move on (of course there are assumptions about who the majority of the workers are, not all immigrants are bad at speaking English, etc etc). It all seems pretty transparent to me, and it seemed like Mohanty was trying to fabricate a problem to support her thesis.
And, lastly, she has an underlying agenda of throwing the family unit into question, obvious through her rhetoric. But where would we be without it? And why should we try to throw it into the public sphere; how can we?

Harding

Strong objectivity, if I understand it coherently at all, places the "standpoint" of its epistemology at the feet of "marginalized peoples". The biggest criticism I have of this theory is that it claims that we will gain more knowledge by talking to the marginalized peoples and incorporating their viewpoints into our understanding of the world--but it nevertheless continues to compare these viewpoints and this knowledge to the dominant culture. This leads me to believe that although Harding is espousing an epistemology that is enraptured with marginalized peoples and wishes to cut off the diseased head of the dominant culture from any knowledge claims whatsoever, what she is actually describing seems to be a theory of "all access points", not just the ones from marginalized peoples, because she cannot escape the fact that these marginalized viewpoints must be compared to the dominant ones. She claims it matters where you start from. I am claiming it doesn't matter, as long as you consider them all, and I also think that she would have to concede to this point when she realizes that one cannot escape the dominant culture's viewpoints anyway.

I think Judith Butler would agree with me :) She also may propose the argument that since "gender" is most likely a social construct, it is problematic to start from the standpoint of persons whose identities have been constructed by (usually) the dominant culture in the first place.

Hopkins

It is undoubtedly Hopkins' thesis that the best way to eliminate homophobia and heterosexism is to dismantle the categories of male and female. He achieves his point by highlighting the fact that although the masculine identity is supposedly "natural", there is a cultural impetus for boys and men to purposefully maintain their masculine aura, which (he says) contradictorily implies that the masculine identity is something that one has to intentionally work at and hone. It is necessary at this point to remember that natural abilities do need honing; if someone naturally is talented at music or sports, to actually achieve any prowess at said natural talent, one must "practice, practice, practice". Moving on, Hopkins chooses not to enlighten us with a discussion on just how socially constructed masculinity is, especially in comparison with "homosexual behavior". He does not make any claims about whether sexual orientation is constructed or not, and he also does not make any claims about how constructed the anti-masculine (or homosexual) identity is. This is important to know because there is a huge difference in the assertion that A) masculinity is a constructed identity and those who do not play into this identity are embracing a more natural state of being, and the other possibility B) that the homosexual identity is also a construction, just not one sired by society. I have a feeling that Hopkins is sympathetic with option A, but it is also possible that he is a social constructionist. But not knowing his point of view on this matter greatly distracts from the acceptance or rejection of his proposal. His proposal is slightly different than his thesis; his thesis is that "heterosexism" can only be completely eradicated if there are no sex-compulsory identities... his underlying proposal is that we should eradicate these identities because it would be better to not have gender have any influence over personhood whatsoever. In the end, I agree with Hopkins' thesis (if I allow myself the assumption of his categories of what heterosexism is), but I disagree with his proposal.

Being a woman implies heterosexuality, simply because that is accepted as the natural, healthy biological fact of being a woman for most of society. I am not sure in what way the word "enforce" is being used in the second part of the question.

"Women"

I tried to make a list to see if anything on it would constitute a universally inclusive state or experience that could group together all people who see themselves or are seen as women. But I could not do it. And even if I could function on the assumption that I only have to find a 99% majority similarity, there then would have to be made yet another list that would determine why that 1% that were not originally included, but maybe wanted to be, could be included as exceptions... and then I was just back at the beginning again.

It seems that it is true that the founders of feminism felt that the factor in-common was their oppression by men. But then, as people like Spelman have pointed out, this oppression, if it existed at all, basically had only a common history with white women. So why then, once this fallacy of the movement was revealed, didn't women who were not white declare feminism an inherently exclusionary movement that could never express the history and experience of all women, and therefore could not move forward any coherent agendas? The only answer I can think of right now is because of the initial emotive pull of feminism's use of the word "women"... its claim to represent all women made those who felt their voices were not included inclined to move in and change what feminism was so that they were part of the movement. But now that they are acknowledged and included... what is "feminism", anyway? If there is no specific identity of who feminism represents, and no shared goals and platforms that feminism promotes... is it even a meaningful term any longer? Or is there still some underlying assumption on the part of all feminists that they are in fact oppressed by men? And if so, what kind of oppression is this that is universally claimable by all women? And how are we to determine and persuade that it is indeed oppression if some women reject that premise entirely?

__________________________________________________________________

Basically it seems like the only thing the feminist movement can do at this point is either 1) dismantle the embedded stereotypes (/platonic ideals) of "women" (but why and to what extent?) OR 2) create a new meaning/platonic ideal of women that will be something to live up to (but why and to what extent...) OR both. But why and to... ...yeah

Spelman

I cannot pull a good example out of my head of stereotypes that have one meaning for white women and another for black women that Spelman did not touch upon, although those particular differences she mentions (delicate, passive) can possibly be attributed to the fact that they are black, and have only found their "public voice" in more recent times, where women are expected to be more outgoing. I do, however, think that she could have talked more about how these differences are arguably more exacerbated by the type of class or even geographical location one inhabits. There is more distance between the stereotype of a poor white woman in the South and a poor white woman in Chicago than there is between a poor white woman in Chigaco and a poor black woman in Chicago. Spelman does a service by pointing out the complexity of stereotypes and oppression, but her scope is certainly ignoring many groups that completely change stereotypes, and I am sure she would agree with me that things like location, age, class, political disposition, etc., sometimes end up obfuscating certain groups, such as conservative black women. Obviously this is not the best example because "conservatism" is not usually seen as an identity that is oppressed, but hopefully you understand my point.

On to some easily identifiable differences in stereotypes for my brain right now, thinking of white housewives (or grandmothers), it could be said that there is a stereotype of them drinking an awful lot of wine. Lots of movies and television shows show them almost constantly with a wine glass in hand. But if you put an Alaska Native, or any American Indian, in said position, it would start to become another, much more negative stereotype of a dangerous, crazy alcoholic. The truth of someone constantly with a wine glass in hand probably lies somewhere between the two stereotypes (the first mostly neutral, the second certainly negative), but there is probably no dispute that they are treated differently. I suppose this is more a case of how stereotypes shape our conceptions of people in the same position rather than pointing out what we believe the different positions to be because of stereotypes, but I believe it basically gets across the same point.

I think that the majority of women do have some things universally in common, and that these things are enough to support a movement that benefits their mutual welfare; although the things I think they have in common can easily be seen as things that most humans have in common.

Oppression

After Young begins the chapter with a brief introduction and defines her "new" use of the word oppression, she lays out the way she will be using the term "social group". This is important in her work because oppression, in her definition, only happens to social groups but is not necessarily perpetrated by a separate, identifiable oppressing group. She says that "a social group is a collective of persons differentiated from at least one other group by cultural forms, practices, or a way of life." She explains her use of the term is beyond mere aggregates or associations, it is defined primarily by a sense of identity, one of which usually emerges because of aggregate or associational differences. Those are necessary, but not sufficient, categories in defining a social group. Young allows for the fact that groups can be oppressed before they are even conscious of being a separate group, as in the case of secular Jews in Germany, but once they experience the common history of being oppressed, they necessarily begin to inhabit a new identity as a separate social group.

According to Young, the "five faces of oppression" are exploitation, marginalization, powerlessness, cultural imperialism, and violence. Exploitation basically means that one group benefits from anothers expenditure of energy, without reciprocation. Marginalization means keeping certain social groups "down" by not allowing them equal access to means for wealth (keeping them out of the workforce), as well as not giving them equal basic rights that the rest of society may enjoy. Marginalization basically has to do with certain social groups' lack of equality in the public sphere. Powerlessness, as defined by Young, means a division of "planners" and "executers", where the executers have no real voice in the decision-making, and are thus left "powerless" due to their inability to contribute to decisions that affect the conditions of their lives due to their working class status. Usually these two groups are divded as "professionals" and "non-professionals". The fourth category of oppression is culturual imperialism, which is the most indirect and psychological of the categories. Cultural imperialism means that a dominant group has "exclusive and primary access to... the means of interpretation and communication in a society". This is achived by the dominant group calling their own cultural expression the normal or universal expression, which leads to usually both a dismissal and stereotyping of other, different cultural expressions that may be present. These non-dominant cultural groups are oppressed because their perspective is marked as deviant and not taken seriously. The final category of oppression is violence. Young srgues that systemic violence against certain groups is not only an individual moral failing of those who perpetrate it, but it is usually societally expected and in that way becomes a form of oppression. As long as it is tolerated and approaches legitimacy through this toleration (basically meaning punishment is not issued), it continues to be a form of oppression.

According to these categories that define oppression, and Young's assertion that any social group that fits any of them is oppressed, I believe there certianly are a high number of oppressed groups in today's society. Although there are definitely many oppressed groups who exist outside of America, for the purposes of this assignment, I will mean "American society" when I say "society". The first example that springs to mind is Muslims/Arabs. They are certainly marginalized in that they may find it more difficult to get hired than other groups, and they most likely have less privacy than most other social groups in America as of now. They also suffer from "cultural imperialism" and violence. Aged people also suffer from marginalization and cultural imperialism, though this particular social group may be the most interesting of them all because they may very well have contributed to the marginlization and cultural oppression of the elderly when they themselves were young, and now are suffering a cruel fate drawn by their own hands. These are social groups that are widely accepted as being oppressed in some way, no matter whose definition is being used; now I want to point out some social groups that are oppressed (using Young's definitions) that one does not typically think of as being oppressed. First, ugly people. They are marginalized and suffer from cultural imperialism in a culture obsessed with beauty. Second, nerds. They also suffer from cultural imperialism and suffer from systemic violence (although this tide can be seen as turning in the last decade). Drug dealers suffer from exploitation similar to that of the working class, and since they belong to the drug sub-culture, they also suffer from cultural imperialism. If they are in jail for dealing drugs or even are ex-cons, they suffer state-supported marginalization by being refused jobs as well as the right to vote in some cases. This also applies to all persons who are in or have previously been in jail. Another absurd example is sex offenders. Not only are they marginalized in the same way jailbirds are, they aditionally lose a right to privacy and suffer systemic violence in, and out of, the jail system. Every single sub-culture that exists suffers from cultural imperialism. In particular we should think of the rave culture, the goth culture, the punk culture, the pro-anorexia culture, the vegan culture, and more! It can even be argued that as philosophy students, we suffer from cultural imperialism because our culture reveres science and has turned its back on the humanities. It is even possible to argue further that we are marginalized because of our degree in the humanities, in that it is much more difficult to get a job for us than it is for the societally respected persons with scientific degrees.

*All quotes taken from chapter 2 of: Iris Young. Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton University Press: New Jersey, 1990.