What does it all mean?

The list of buzzwords that accompany feminist and gender-based analysis is long:
-Intersectionality
-_________-framework
-Androcentric
-Heteronormative
-Privilege/bias
-Hegemonic masculinities/femininities
-etc.

What these terms have in common, aside from a majority of them being rejected by spell-check software, is an unfortunate limitation found in a great deal of academic work: disconnection from reality. Although this type of jargon is meant to (and serves the purpose of) addressing the difficulties in creating a more complete, comprehensive analysis, they can also leave a disembodied impression of the situation on the ground.

The film "Taking Root" (see the trailer and more information here) is more than an explanation of a post-colonial, anti-oppressive, ecological movement. It is a film that documents real lives and histories as they are lived by the women and men of Kenya. The film shows a type of learning and illumination to which much of academia cannot compare. For, it is not only the women in the film who went through a process of learning, but also those who watch it gain an understanding of the implications of gender, ecology, and politics that would not be possible were it not for the embodied wisdom on screen.*

Often, the practical intersections of theory and practice are hard to understand or fully grasp when we are imbued with seemingly limitless PDF's and articles at the stroke of a key. Films and stories of real life narratives can tap in to an essential part of the human intellect that solidify meaning and consequence in a way that data simply cannot. For example, understanding that while under dictator Daniel arap Moi Kenyans had no freedom of assembly is an objectively simple fact to absorb. However, when the images and story of Wangari Maathai's Green Belt Movement are given as an example of non violent defiance, the concepts of authoritarianism, security, justice and political participation come alive with the men and women involved.

As the GBM website states:

The mission of the Green Belt Movement (GBM) is to mobilize community consciousness- using tree planting as an entry point- for self-determination, equity, improved livelihoods and security, and environmental conservation.*

The mention of security is paramount to the new conceptualizations of peacekeeping, and peacebuilding mentioned by Puechguirbal. As Ann Tickner explains, "The achievement of peace, economic justice, and ecological sustainability is inseparable from overcomming social relations of domination and subordination" (As quoted by Nadine Puechguirbal, 163). By highlighting security as a an objective of the movement, a human (or environmental) face can more clearly be attributed to its definition.

Puechguirbal asks what elements are needed to sustain women's involvement in post-conflict societies, and I suggest that part of the answer lies in the above ideas of Wangari Maathai's Green Belt Movement. Change requires a model of education that includes women and men in hands-on learning processes. The experiences of the Kenyan women reveal that learning is not only a classroom experience, but a deeply personal one which can challenge conceptions of self and ones place in society.

In conclusion, to me, the title of the film (Taking Root) is a reminder that we are all rooted in our cultures and places, and that as hard as we try to be global citizens, certain norms, institutions and values are virtually inescapable. Lest we continue to perpetuate and feed the "Tree of Patriarchy", it is imperative that we acknowledge the roots that bind us. We must start with what we know, where we are, and what we have. Taking the initiative to practice what we preach is the only way to give real meaning to the words on the page.

Wangari Muta Mary Jo Maathai (1 April 1940 – 25 September 2011)

-E.

*For further explanation of "embodiment" or the connections of social and ecological justice see Eco-sufficiency and Global Justice: Women Write Political Ecology, A. Salleh (ed.), Pluto Press 2009.

Works Cited:

Puechguirbal, Nadine. “Peacekeeping, Peacebuilding, and Post-Conflict Reconstruction”. Gender Matters in Global Politics: A Feminist Introduction to International Relations, Ed. Laura J. Shepherd, 2010. NY: Routledge.

Taking Root: The Vision of Wangari Maathai. Dir. Alan Dater and Lisa Merton. Marlboro Productions, 2008. DVD.

My Carbon Emissions Could Beat Up Your Carbon Emissions.

(This infographic can be found here)

*See below for comment.

Although the developed world often blames the developing world for environmental degradation, the picture becomes less clear when we ask who in fact the exploitation of the environment is benefiting. Articles and viewpoints such as this one from the libertarian CATO institute seem to think that market processes and the allocation and distribution of goods are inevitable. Indeed he posits that the Third World is more concerned with "following every trendy environmental fad that crosses their path than in promoting the economic freedoms and private property rights necessary to facilitate economic growth". As Ariel Salleh makes clear, this kind of dialogue completely misses the point that the ethos of "economic growth" largely glosses over differences between races, classes, genders and places in assuming that private property is an available and/or desirable ends for which to strive. For is it not private property and global capitalism that drives the kind of materialism making unsustainable production in the global South necessary?

Speaking of materialism: the CATO institute article, as well as Salleh both hint at the idea that post materialism (or affluence) are key to ecological consciousness, although both take complete opposite sides. The point in itself is an interesting one though, and one side is widely shared by many first world women, men, feminists, and otherwise: That the First World is more Eco-conscious that the Third.

It is this logic that would allow political solutions -global programs, international agreements- to presume having the answers (or at least the authority to draft "solutions") without input from those dealing with the environment everyday: namely the meta-industrial labour force around the world. Diplomatic remedies to practical realities negate the expertise inherent those who perform sustainability everyday, not to mention those who are face to face with climate change in a way that those of us separated from natural processes by technology cannot imagine.

All this to say that productivist/conventional economics like those espoused in the CATO article, as well as by self-righteous politicians making "agreements", "accords" and "directives" (no matter how well intentioned) are also reductionist. The logic seeks to perpetuate the American-Dream while chastising it's implementation, to keep the focus of economics squarely on exploitable resources and to not pay for regenerative ones which are seen as "givens", and to leave the invisible hand holding the bag when neo-liberal policies turn out to be detrimental to whole populations.

But the market does make choices of allocation and distribution on it's own, nor does it value or devalue reproductive work. It is us, the people of this world, who make these choices. It is time that each country, big or small, developed or developing, takes responsibility for it's role in climate change and social justice and start to not only re-frame the questions, but to include more actors in the solutions.

-E.

Works Cited:

Salleh, Ariel. "Ecological Debt : Embodied Debt". Eco-Sufficiency & Global Justice: Women write political ecology. Ed. Ariel Salleh, 2009. New York: Pluto Press.

Salleh, Ariel. "From Eco-Sufficiency to Global Justice".Eco-Sufficiency & Global Justice: Women write political ecology. Ed. Ariel Salleh, 2009. New York: Pluto Press.


*The infographic is a good example of how the framing of the question can distort the answer. Who is the biggest emitter of CO2? Does it matter if we all contribute to a narrative where nothing substantial is done about it anyways?

Media and the Message

The use of women's equality/ liberation in the media has indeed been prevalent in the marches to war of both the UK and the US and, as Gallagher notes, there is nothing inherently 'new' in using "the rhetoric of women's rights to peddle colonial expansion"(27), however this acknowledgement somewhat misses the point that women are often used to symbolically represent an ideal that they are at once the subject of and excluded from.

Women the world over are used as symbols of national values externally while being domestically reproached for seeking "special status" when attempting to claim those democratic rights (ex. equal opportunity) and values (ex. inclusion in the workplace). The fact that women are in a much higher proportion in lower level, highly visible roles in television and news-casting is just one exemplar of women's bodies being used symbolically while their opinions and narratives are being left off of the table.

For patriarchal power is not only active in deciding who or what to put on the screen, but is also played out in creating the setting that dissuades or encourages certain voices to speak up. This type of secondary power, or rather the "second face" of power (Bachrach and Barratz), is evidenced in the article when men are seemingly oblivious to women's oppression, and also in the comments below that were found on the YouTube page for the above video.

I would argue that this "second face" is where the "new" media exerts its greatest influence. While conventional mass media inundates the airwaves with biased images and discourses of "gender", "sexuality", "democracy", and "freedom", social media and user generated content are direct input from citizens that legitimate hate and gender based discrimination on a much more personal level. Whereas mass media has legitimacy in its removed position and (arguable) status as a mirror of society, social media reflects the opinions of real individuals from within (what seems like) one's own community.

I have found that comments such as those above are typical of a trend being expressed in response to many feminist, women's oriented, or gender based videos on YouTube and other user-generated social-media. This type of discourse clearly demonstrates how the anonymity allowed for in non-conventional media contributes to an environment that is not conducive to debate, but is rather a continued platform for the status quo.

The most I can muster at the moment for something of a conclusion to this post is a hope that my own contributions to the media/environment are not for naught. And that a community of committed feminists the world over will refuse to be silent or anonymous such as the new platform encourages, but use our real voices, names and faces to stand up and include ourselves whether we're invited or not.

-Elyse.


Works Cited:

Bachrach and Baratz. "Two Faces of Power". The American Political Science Review. 56: 4 (1962): 947-952. Online.

Gallagher, Margaret. "Feminist Issues and the Global Media System". Feminist interventions in international communication: minding the gap. Ed. Katharine Sarikakis and Leslie Regan Shade, 2008. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Women's Work.

Ghodsee's conceptualization of the "producerist" identity as one in which "individual subjectivity was primarily determined by one's relationship to work", is reminiscent of the neo-liberal value of productive work/masculine qualities that is present in modern capitalist societies. Ghodsee discusses how many women were happy to becomes stay-at-home moms and housewives, because they assumed the option to work would be there should they decide to return. However, she does not explore, to my satisfaction, the implications on women's "producerist" identities who tried and failed to stay in their jobs due their employment in sectors "most vulnerable to redundancies". The implications of job loss, and the expectations around them are invariably gendered, and it is an interesting topic that I will explore briefly in this blog post.

A recent MSNBC article breifly touches on two of the conflicting pulls on women: does work or family lead to more fulfillment? Many of the women in the article claim that they are happy to be able to spend time with their children (although this has heavy class connotaions for those women who are financially secure enough to enjoy time without income). On the other hand, some women felt as though their lives outside of the home mattered just as much as that within. Sasha Emmons, a former editor, remarked "I just felt kind of lost without a job". A statement like this is almost expected from men, whose job loss is supposed to have had implications for their mental health, self esteem and identity. However it is rare that we consider the "productive" identities that women hold on to and require for their own well being.

The current "Mancession" sees men as being disproportionately laid off compared to women. However, what is neglected is the double burden that is placed upon women who on average earn less, and do more of the household work. In Bulgaria, when women lost their jobs, men were not adversely affected other than having to occupy jobs that may have been seen as previously "feminized". As economic downturns are framed in neo-liberal/ "producerist" terms, the reproductive labor of women is forgotten and taken for granted when women lose their jobs. There is an overarching idea that women, as wives and mothers, can (or should) go back to the home.

When men are laid off, however, the emphasis is on how women or feminized men (e.g. migrants) are taking jobs away from the "burly men" (McKelway, 2010). Articles such as this by Doug McKelway on the Fox News website points to women and more explicitly "feminist groups" as having lobbied for "softer sector" jobs. Even this one in the Atlantic makes use of statistics to showcase how women are faring better than men, the implication being that women's success is detrimental to men.

The Ghodsee article was an interesting look at how gendered roles play out in capitalist economies. In looking at how women were affected in the transition to a market economy it is easier to pinpoint trends and assumptions about gender roles in more established capitalist societies. The recent Mancession is just one area in which we might look to understand how the economy shapes and is shaped by a gendered labor force and norms about gender roles, and it will be interesting to see what the mainstream media will focus on in the coming years and developments in this new, more uncertain, phase of the free market.

Works Cited

Ghodsee, Kristin. "Potions, lotions and lipstick:The gendered consumption of cosmetics and perfumery in socialist and post-socialist urban Bulgaria". Women's International Forum, 30 (2007): 26-39.Online.

McKelway, Doug. "'Mancession' Threatens American Dream". Fox News 9 December 2010. http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/12/09/mancession-threatens-american-dream. Online.

Nationalism without a Nation

Gendered performances of nationalism can be seen around the world, weather it is American "Minute Men" who guard their nations border from illegal immigrants, or Muslim women who wear headscarves as a symbol of their cultural-religious, and national pride. However, these performances of gender and nationalism reflect a more established nationalism, one that stems from what Anand refers to as "a coherent and bounded political collective that has supremacy over itself"(285). Under the Instrumentalist/Modernist theory put forth by Anand, the state precedes the nation and its role is of massive importance (284). In this post, I will respond to what I see as a lack of analysis of nations without states. By using the Roma people as an example, it is interesting to note the effects of nationalism on a people who have no national sovereignty and the resulting oppression of women from within and outside of the community.

When "nations" are constituted by stateless groups such as the Roma in Europe, gendered performances of nationalism are seen as necessary to the survival of the nation. Thus, it is no wonder that Romani women face extreme discriminatory practices from within their nation to be "biological reproducers of members of [sic] the collective" and to participate "centrally in the ideological reproduction of the collectivity and as transmitters of its culture" (Anand 284). As Rozalija Iliæ describes, "patriarchy has built up a hierarchy of power, based on age and gender, in which Romani women and girls have very little control, if any, over their sexual or married life, the number of children they have and the time between births" (ERRC, 2000).

The discussion of women's rights is contentious within the Roma community for fear of a dis-unifying threat to the nation. Katalin Sztojka, head of Phralipe the Independent Roma Association takes the view that:

"I’m afraid that the forces of assimilation will go to work within the field of women’s rights as well. The Romani women’s movement is not yet very large, but it is possible that it will grow. What if this whole fight for the rights of Romani women is a part of a bigger plan? Communists had a method to destroy Romani communities and forcibly assimilate Roma. I think there are some parallels between Communism and the Romani women’s movement today. If you hear often enough that Romani traditions are bad, and that you are bad, you will believe it in the end."(ERRC, 2000)

The fear of cultural assimilation contributes to nationalist rhetoric that not only dis-empowers women, but highly devalues the feminine and prioritizes the masculine as a matter of "necessity" to the group. In this way, the highly controlled role of women within Romani society is bound up in visions of national self determination, and is unlikely to end or evolve in a as the group sees itself as constantly under threat of assimilation (aka under attack by other nations). As "active participants in [the] national struggle" (Anand 285), Romani women's bodies are seen as part of the battle ground over which the national struggle is being waged. Both Romani men and women's adherence to culturally defined gender roles is of utmost importance lest the nation disintegrate into the surrounding cultures. Although these characteristics are perhaps not unique to the Roma, one way in the situation the Roma and Romani women is further complicated is by the influence of several outside states into the reproduction of Roma culture.

For instance, in 1972 the Czechoslovakian government took specific steps to inhibit the reproduction of the Romani race through a practice of coercive sterilization of women, including a Public Decree on Sterilization. The practice of sterilizing Romani women without their full consent has been practiced in other countries, such as Hungary and Sweden, and instances have been reported as recently as 2008. This kind of discrimination based on ethnicity carried out through a gendered policy is reminiscent of rape in wartime to the effect of ethnic cleansing. However, the explicit involvement of various modern states no doubt makes the situation of the Roma somewhat different though no less appalling.

It is impossible to cover all of the implications of nationalism on gender and women in the Roma community, however it is interesting to use this example as a reminder that nationalism comes in multiple forms and is performed differently depending on the status of the nation in question. The intersectional discrimination of Roma women from within and from outside of their communities reminds us of the need to dissect the various circumstances in which gender is performed, and that trying to enforce a westernized view of women's rights needs to take in to account the ways in which group identity is tied to gender roles and understand nationalist complications if change or improvement is ever to take place.

-E.

Works cited:

Anand, Dibyesh. "Nationalism". Gender Matters in Global Politics: A Feminist Introduction to International Relations, Ed. Laura J. Shepherd, 2010. NY: Routledge.

European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC). "Roundtable: Romani activists on women’s rights." Romani women in Romani and majority societies. 12 April 2000. http://www.errc.org/cikk.php?cikk=626. Accessed October 18, 2011.

DADT vs. DOMA

-

On September 20th 2011, 18 years of institutional discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered service people came to an end. Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT) was passed during the Clinton administration as a "compromise" that allowed LGBTQ men and women to serve in the military, although not openly, and under constant threat of being "outted" and thus terminated.

In Charlotte Hooper's article Masculinities, IR and the ‘Gender Variable’, I was drawn to the sections in which she discusses how military combat has served to influence, and has been influenced by, constructions of masculinity within our culture; does the end to DADT signify a shift in prevailing norms about masculinity? Or are continuing inequalities, such as the ban on gay marriage, just cast in relief by this one positive step in public policy?

Hooper comments that the popular myth in our culture casts military service as the fullest expression of masculinity, as it is an enduring demonstration of men's "natural aggression" (479), as well as being explicitly tied to civic duty and fulfillment of the requirements of citizenship. She notes that, "Full citizenship rights are often denied to men who do not participate in defending the state, in much the same way as they have been for women" (481). Interestingly, in his remarks after signing the DADT repeal Act of 2010, President Obama acknowledged this fact when stating to LGBTQ service people:

"You've been asked to carry the added burden of secrecy and isolation. And all the while, you've put your lives on the line for the freedoms and privileges of citizenship that are not fully granted to you."

The reason I found this particular part of his speech so interesting was that the context in which he talked of the privileges of citizenship were explicitly in the public sphere. Indeed, he was not alluding to the ability to marry, adopt children, or a host of other "privileges" that belong to private sphere, but only to the "privilege" of serving one's country. With regards to the Defence of Mariage Act (DOMA), the President has been decidedly less activist, deciding not to repeal it, but has instead decided not to defend the statute. This kind of deliberate non-action for DOMA contrasted to the action taken in striking down DADT speaks volumes to the masculine norms which are held most sacred in our culture, particularly those that require both men and women to define themselves in the public sphere, and keep quiet about their private lives. A sentiment that is echoed by Republican Candidate Rick Santorum's in his comments during a televised debate that "any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military".

I feel that Mr. Santorum's perspective feeds in to why DADT is taken more seriously than DOMA. It is directly related to what Cynthia Enloe is getting at when she points out that debate often centres around a "shrunken definition of what is political" (97) or what is an acceptable topic to broach in an arena full of "real issues" if one wants to be taken seriously. Topics such as marriage may be "too hot to handle" (Enloe, 95) for the Commander in Chief, as he cannot politically afford to be feminized by championing a "private" issue.

Going back to Hooper's argument, another reason for the more high profile nature of DADT over DOMA could be the particular importance that the military holds, both symbolically and practically, in society. Perhaps the military, as a particularly significant institution and bastion of hegemonic masculinity, has an interest in accepting service people's different gender identities so that the military's core beliefs and structure remain unchallenged. By celebrating DADT and ignoring DOMA, the government and the military embrace the gays and lesbians who most conform to and already perform institutionalized masculinity, while shunning those who seek to challenge gender roles in the private sphere. In this way, as Hooper suggests, masculinity is still reinforced by the system regardless of the gender of the soldier.

By choosing to legitimize LGBTQ soldiers but not LGBTQ husbands, wives, mothers and fathers, I find it hard to be sure that DADT doesn't further validate the preferences for masculine values and traits in society by effectively offering the LGBTQ community equality for the price of service, instead of granting them the "privileges of citizenship" that heterosexual couples enjoy and that Obama and others are so eager to point out. So, although I am fully supportive of its repeal and am glad to see that Obama has come through on one of a long list of promises, I remain skeptical that this constitutes any real shift in how gender is perceived, and won't hold my breath for DOMA's demise.

-E.

Works Cited:

Enloe, Cynthia. "III 'Gender' is not enough: the need for a feminist consciousness", International Affairs, 80:1 (2004): 95-97. Online.

Hooper, Charlotte. "Masculinities, IR and the 'gender variable': a cost benefit analysis for (sympathetic) gender sceptics", Review of International Studies, 25 (1999): 475-491. Online.

Obama, Barack. (2010, December). Remarks on Signing the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010. Speech presented at the Department of the Interior, Washington D.C.

Post-9/11 post

I begin this blog only a few days after the 10th anniversary of an event that changed global politics forever, what is known locally and abroad simply as 9/11. On the day of the anniversary, I read an article by David Bromwich on the Huffington Post entitled "What 9/11 Makes Us Forget". The article is essentially a reminder of the hegemonic nature of US foreign policy, the events directly leading up to the unprovoked war in Iraq, and the lack of accountability in both political camps. Bromwith's post prompted me to think about how such a major event can alter our realities, and limit the scope of questions we ask, as well as the answers we seek, in order to justify self-serving military intervention. In a similar fashion, the articles written by Jan Jindy Pettman, Ann Tickner, and Marysia Zalewski prompted me to question how feminist IR responds to, and is responded to, in a post 9/11 world that is seemingly less welcoming of criticism.

My first thoughts to write about this topic came to me as I read Ann Tickner's article and came across a section in which she points out the criticisms levied against teaching about women, other cultures, and non-western thought. William Bennett, the United States Secretary of Education from 1985-1988 is said to blame the unpreparedness for 9/11 on what he called "an easy-going relativism and tolerant multiculturalism that has pervaded our universities and sapped our intellectual and moral energy". Bennett seemed to belong to a camp which might be tolerant of feminist thought, so long as the "real matters" of IR (those dominated by the interests and subjects of men, i.e. war, trade, alliance) are not interfered with. I found myself wondering whether Bennett, and Lynne Cheney who is also noted in Tickner's article as being against feminism in education, have a bias against feminist disciplines because of their backgrounds in the Cold War era marked by uncertainty and militarism, and whether the similarly uncertain post 9/11 generation will see feminism as an interference and distracion from the current political and economic uncertainties we face today. Does the post 9/11 world see feminism as a threat to solving the more "pressing" issues traditionally privileged by IR?

Although no doubt some people see feminist IR as threatening the status quo in governance and cultural expectations of gender, this post is more concerned with whether or not the status quo is a threat to feminist IR. On the international relations themed website "Theory Talks", Marysia Zalewski gave an interview which directly applied to what I've been thinking about, and afraid of. She notes that,

"9-11 IR has vigorously returned to an explicit focus on the supposed ‘big questions/issues’; the ‘evil enemy’; good versus bad, war against terror, the axis of evil… We’ve seen these ‘big questions/issues’ clearly emerge through the Bush administration, which deflected attention away from a whole other range of issues that we might have been looking at."

Jan Jindy Pettman also recognizes a shift in feminist IR since 9/11 in her article when she noted the disappearance of women from public view unless they reinforced the justification of military action (Pettman, 6). Her point brought to mind how the acceptable expressions of gender are used to continue and perpetuate a narrative of militarization, while unconventional expressions or criticisms of gender norms are ignored, or condemned. Is the role of feminism overshadowed by the "big issues", or can feminist scholars on the front and side lines influence the ontology and methodology used in contemporary IR?

In her article, Ann Tickner goes on to describe how the intellectual, which for this post I will take to be synonymous with "feminist intellectual", is "an exile in his or her own society, who raises embarrassing questions, is unsettled, unsettles others, and stands on the side of the weak and unrepresented."(Tickner, 386) I can only hope that the discipline of feminism is such that its activist roots, connections to real men and women, and interdisciplinary nature will help those who are exiled find a place for their voice elsewhere, whether on the side or front lines, so that even when placed in the periphery, it might end up encircling the center.

Works Cited:
Pettman, Jan Jindy. "IFjP: Tenth Anniversary Reflections: In the Beginning…", International Feminist Journal of Politics 11.1 (2009): 2-9. Online.

Tickner, Ann. "On the Frontlines or Sidelines of Knowledge and Power? Feminist Practices of Responsible Scholarship", International Studies Review 8 (2006): 383-395. Online.

Zalewski, Marysia. “Feminist International Relations: Making Sense…”, Gender Matters in Global Politics: A Feminist Introduction to International Relations, Ed. Laura J. Shepherd, 2010. NY: Routledge.