Western Feminism and South Asian Women ``it`s not our job to explain this field to you; its your job to do your own legwork``...

I like.

Two books I particularly liked:
1. No Turning Back: A History of Feminism and the Future of Women by Estelle B Freedman

Freedman is a professor of history at Stanford and wrote this book because, she says, someone once asked her what book she would recommend if they wanted the history of feminism summed up. While Freedman could think of numerous books that covered various aspects of feminism and its growth, she couldn`t name a single volume that contained everything, so she decided to write one.

What I particularly liked about this book is that it tackles the issue of multiple feminisms and the different priorities of women around the world. I also like the fact that she states up front that her area is feminism in the US and that her knowledge of other cultures is comparatively limited, and yet manages to include the feminism found in other cultures in her book *without* sounding the least bit condescending. I usually expect to cringe when I begin reading something written about one culture by a person belonging to another, often hostile culture, but I actually found nothing cringe-worthy at all: just a frank account of the issues women have faced and are facing and the manner in which they have done it.

2 Colonize This! Young Women of Color on Today`s Feminism, edited by Daisy Hernandez and Bushra Rehman

This is ``a broad collection of essays by young women writers, academics, and activists from a range of cultures and sexual orientations...Several writers critique ``white, middle class feminism`` for failing to take into account the impact of classism and racism on women of color. `` I loved the way the book was put together and, even though I`m not American and no longer live in the US, found myself nodding while I read some of the essays. It`s a good, good read and a fine follow-up (of sorts) to This Bridge Called My Back.

Western Feminism and South Asian Women ``it`s not our job to explain this field to you; its your job to do your own legwork``...

I like.

Two books I particularly liked:
1. No Turning Back: A History of Feminism and the Future of Women by Estelle B Freedman

Freedman is a professor of history at Stanford and wrote this book because, she says, someone once asked her what book she would recommend if they wanted the history of feminism summed up. While Freedman could think of numerous books that covered various aspects of feminism and its growth, she couldn`t name a single volume that contained everything, so she decided to write one.

What I particularly liked about this book is that it tackles the issue of multiple feminisms and the different priorities of women around the world. I also like the fact that she states up front that her area is feminism in the US and that her knowledge of other cultures is comparatively limited, and yet manages to include the feminism found in other cultures in her book *without* sounding the least bit condescending. I usually expect to cringe when I begin reading something written about one culture by a person belonging to another, often hostile culture, but I actually found nothing cringe-worthy at all: just a frank account of the issues women have faced and are facing and the manner in which they have done it.

2 Colonize This! Young Women of Color on Today`s Feminism, edited by Daisy Hernandez and Bushra Rehman

This is ``a broad collection of essays by young women writers, academics, and activists from a range of cultures and sexual orientations...Several writers critique ``white, middle class feminism`` for failing to take into account the impact of classism and racism on women of color. `` I loved the way the book was put together and, even though I`m not American and no longer live in the US, found myself nodding while I read some of the essays. It`s a good, good read and a fine follow-up (of sorts) to This Bridge Called My Back.

Western Feminism and South Asian Women It`s funny how, at the mere mention of feminism, some people automatically start squealing in fear at the imagined approach of some sort of big bad castrating lesbian mother-figure who wants nothing more than to lock them into concentration camps to die while she steals their women--oh and pee standing up, thank you, because that`s *such* a cool thing to do, really. Personally, I think that image has more to do with their own fantasies, but that`s just my take on it.

*sigh* Feminists do not `hate` men--hell, many of them *are* men. It`s not really all that difficult a concept to grasp. Women would like to be treated as human. In places where basic human rights are not accessible, many feminist organizations work toward bettering the lot of both men and women because, as any rational person will understand, `women`s` rights are essentially human rights: the right to life, the right to food, the right to health care and access to sanitation, the right to shelter, the right to education, the right to self-determination, etc. The term `women`s rights` exists because, in poor societies and classes, it is often the women who are deprived of these rights first, but it does not automatically mean that men have no right to these things or should give them up. At this level, we all are , or at least should be, feminists in that we promote human rights for all.

Only once people`s basic survival needs are taken care of can you address their social and economic needs. People need access to jobs and money to sustain their survival or they will slip into the first mode again. If one particular group of people is banned from or hindered in their attempt to work, we have a problem. If one group is discriminated against on the basis of something that does not have a bearing on their job performance, we have a problem. If one group is forced into particular situations without regard for their own preferences, we have a problem(and no, that doesn`t mean we should let serial killers have their fun. I`m assuming a certain level of reason from the people reading this). To be a feminist at this level means to be proactive in asserting a woman`s social and economic worth as a human being and perhaps, in the process, redefining what it means to be human, since the default has been `whatever the men are like` for centuries, and that simply isn`t accurate.

At the third level, we need to address human beings` more abstract needs on a meaningful scale. This is when people can actually take on concepts and ideas and contribute academically. This is when theories regarding androcentric culture, phallocentrism, discrimination on the basis of sex, gender studies, etc. can be examined, debated, thought about, and so on. Feminism is a concept/area of study within which various schools of thought exist. At various times, various schools of thought will hold sway. None of these is defninitive and none of these really intends to be. Feminists at this level are people who examine the social and gender differences between the sexes, take on the definition of `human` at the purely intellectual level, as opposed to the practical, applied level discussed previously. The ideas expressed at this level are more likely to be radical than at the previous two levels and should not be misconstrued as fact. You wouldn`t read a scientific journal article describing the design of life-sustaining biospheres on Mars and start packing your bags immediately, would you?

Anyway, this sort of careened out of control and became a bit of a lecture...I only wanted to explain why it`s silly to assume that feminism is anti-men or harmful to women (unless you mean in the way abolitionists were bad for slaves` productivity on antebellum cotton plantations!) or any such thing. Lunatics exist in every movement, extremists will show up and make life uncomfortable in every group (except maybe Quakers?? hmm)--it`s a pretty normal occurence and we should know better than to assume that they speak for all members of that group.

But seriously, why, oh why, would anyone care how somebody else pees?

Western Feminism and South Asian Women ``Feminism`` is a tricky term to define rprecisely because it has so many different faces, hence the wordy and ultimately vague definition given by ``a feminist Chowk interactor``. Sometimes, I think that bumper sticker got to the crux of it best: ``Feminism is the radical notion that women are people.`` It`s a little sharp, but it works.

I don`t want to be antagonistic because the point that `feminism` perforce must have many faces is valid, although a bit old. But that very point makes me take issue with the term `Western` feminism. First you state that feminism is not monolithic, which is true, but you follow that by carelessly lumping all the feminisms of two entire regions of the world into a single entity that wants to stop south asian and african women from having babies. Do I really have to tell you that it isn`t so simple?

The term, incidentally, is ``phallocentric``. Perhaps you`d prefer androcentric? Either way, it doesn`t constitute an `attack` on men; it is simply a statement of fact. Most of the world`s societies are geared towards and cater to the lives, tastes, proclivities, and preferences of men. If society were an equation, men would be the `given` and women the mark of progress, `proof` or openmindedness, result of affirmative action or an afterthought. One may feel about the situation as one chooses, but the fact remains that power automatically belongs or is given to men, while women must work for it. Maybe things will be more equitable someday, but it sure isn`t at the moment.

Media: Defining Roles Samina,

I can believe that! This thinking business is what`s done us in, I tell ya.

Media: Defining Roles Temporal:

Nature-nurture...I was watching a program on Discovery the other day about feral children (children raised by animals or kept in extreme isolation from infancy). Kids raised by dogs (a four-year old boy, an eight-year old boy, and a sixteen-year-old girl--all individual cases) behaved like dogs, a child who spent one year of his early infancy with a chimp of the same age as an experiment (his father wanted to see what would happen to the chimp, not to the kid) started adopting the mannerisms and vocalization of the chimpanzee. Most of these were reversed to some extent. The younger the child, the easier it was to change its behavior and teach it language--something you begin to gradually lose the ability to do if you don`t hear language from early infancy. By about 18, you lose the ability to learn meaningful language altogether.

All this indicates, as you said, that early influence is vital to a child`s development. But is the mother the only person the child has any contact with? The mother may be the primary caregiver, but it is extremely unusual for the child to not come into contact with other people as well, and isolated experiences can sometimes cause a more extreme reaction than something that is constant. Phobias that haunt us in our adult life can often have their roots in such trauma.

But this happens when we are unable to exert any control on our environment. After a point, we can exert better control on our own environment and can choose what to believe and see. We are programmed both genetically and by our early experiences, but only to an extent. Our capacity for growth is stunning and while we cannot ignore what is instilled in us at an early age, we can actively choose to grow past it. That`s the great thing about this lump of greasy gray mush we`ve got behind our eyes.

So are the mothers responsible? They probably laid the groundwork at some point that made such further development possible, but, ultimately, no. We spend too many years exerting too much control over ourselves for us to blame parents exclusively for the way we turned out.

History of the World There there, niki jee, it`s ok if you can`t write, really it is. Now go wash your face, you`re foaming.

History of the World Wow, Kyla. I love the tone of your poems--the silences and pauses in this one in particular are stunning. Excellent job.

You know, I get the feeling ol nik is jealous.

Mute Goat Dilemma Three responses:

Kewlfi,

Hats off to you for not backing down and toughing it out with the harassers. The more we speak up, the more other women will see that they can do it too, and who knows, maybe, just maybe, we`ll get enough women out and visible for our presence to be a given.

SharkO,

Given the current Arab/Muslim image, I can understand why you`d expect Muslim countries to be more `dangerous` places for women. That is not, in fact, the case. While Saudi Arabia does actively enforce its ridiculously restrictive laws regarding women`s movement outside their homes, places like the UAE, Qatar, Oman, Egypt, etc. do not. I do not know what their specific laws are, but I do know that women`s movement is not generally restricted, and it is not uncommon to see people in all manner of dress, from ultra-conservative/traditional to what is generally termed `Western` garb walking around without being harassed.

Muslim countries do not automatically oppress women. A large number do, but then again, many other countries manage to oppress women without the aid of Islam. We need to understand that this oppression is more socio-political than religious, but I suppose that`s a whole other discussion.

and ladies,

AGAIN, while Samina is right in saying that posture and confidence are deterrents, I urge you to check the website I mentioned earlier for a no-nonsense approach to both harassment and the techniques that supposedly `deal` with it.

Mute Goat Dilemma AND it`s not just the `blue collar` majority, either. Try crossing Jail Road or any other main street on foot, morning, afternoon, or night--all those idiots in their shiny cars will speed up and screech to a stop inches from you and then call out all manner of rubbish. One of my friends got slapped across the face by a guy in a pickup while we were standing outside college waiting for the bus.

As for it happening all over the world, it doesn, certainly. But I will add that there is a difference. In New York, at 14, you can get quite an education passing by a construction site, but graphic as what they yell out is, you can laugh it off even if it does gross you out. Here, all the majority does is stare or mutter, but it carries so much more malice. I can`t explain it any better than that, I`m afraid. It may have to do with the idea that your being outside the home here is still not necessarily perceived as a right, while no one will think to question that in NY, no matter what they yell out.

Mute Goat Dilemma Martini`s right. Staying quiet, not going out, not driving, taking the hijab, even, all encourage this sort of behavior by implying that all women who are out there are fair game. The funny thing is, when you actually make a noise about it, all those would-be oglers suddenly turn into enraged older brothers. I have heard many accounts of how the harasser has been beaten or chased off by shopkeepers, bystanders, and all manner of males, and seen it on occasion as well. I think this has to do with the way the injunction to treat all women as ones sisters/mothers interacts with the idea that all women outside their homes are fair game. It`s a contradiction, but if it can be used to get you out of a sticky situation, you may as well use it.

I know what the writer`s talking about though. The constant, incessant staring, ogling, singing, `Mashallah`s, pinching, stalking, and the harassment from other drivers when one is on the road. BUT, the majority will look away or run off if you look them in the eye and indicate or say `what?`. When that fails, drive to the nearest police station or chowkie. That said, policemen aren`t above harassment themselves, so be careful.

A word about self defense. PLEASE visit this site before you attempt to carry knives and things to defend yourselves with. www.nononsenseselfdefense.com
Pepper spray and things that can be used at a distance are more likely to be effective than something you have to use at close range.

The FM Boom A lot of radio is entertainment, and that in itself is fine, but if its scope can be (and is being) expanded to provide vital information to people about their rights, their options, and possibilities that they might otherwise be unaware of, it should be considered indispensible. Given that the majority of this country is illiterate and poor, radio may well be THE medium of empowerment. Good article.

Two Poems lovely. A brilliant example of using the least possible words for the most possible effect. I hope you`re writing more!

Trailing End of the Middle Class at Shaadi Online ``Maybe if you stopped reading everything as an india-pak comparo you would then be objective.I pray for the day pakistanis will stop being so hung up on india.``

generalizations, anyone?

Trailing End of the Middle Class at Shaadi Online nikki,

I think the reason you manage to offend so many people is that you persist in making sweeping generalizations that amount to ``India Good, You Lot Bad``. We all know no one here is a saint, but when you make generalizations about , for instance, south asian women and contrast them with the new crop of Indian women you`re so proud of, you sound, well, a bit thick, really. Are there no women who fall into the `traditional south asian woman` category in India? Are there no socially conscious young women entering the work force in other south asian countries? Expressing opinion is one thing. Expressing ignorance of facts is quite another.

Stargazing eeeek. thanks Sobia. Am expecting to be ripped to shreds sooner or later, but for the time being am enjoying being happy to be here. :D