Mies, Maria exquisitely packs her entire thought of the chapter in a few lines saying, ‘ the battle is not between particular groups with common interests or political goals and some external enemy, but takes place within women and men and between women and men’.   The most intriguing facet of her chapter is how she strongly propogands the internal struggle for women that is predominately structured between women and women. Feminism had to at it’s heart be a collective phenomenon, however, what was not foreseen was the opposition that would be encountered by the different spectrum of women spread around the arena.  Mies, Maria expediates by constantly reaverting to the word ‘Freminism’ as it was the term that was considered Western and bad. Feminists were looked down upon by other stratas of women because it was seen as an off shoot of colonialism. Feminism has to still face it’s biggest enemy that is the derogatory connotation of the term ‘other women’. It is this struggle between the ‘other’ and the ’self’. Where as women from the third world countries sought to personally disassociate themselves from the ‘other women’ and furthered themselves away from this western branch of thought.The women from the third world were concerned with issues related more to the heart; those of poverty and graver in nature. Their battle is a more necessity based one and a more internal one. But, that is what the feminists tried stripping away, this notion of feminism not being just as important an issue to be dealt with. They needed to be a collective force to be an effective one and thus they sought to achieve some common ground.  However, women from the Third world had issues of survival at stake, not of men.That is what Bulbeck introduces by differentiating between the First world and third world. Her introductory chapter is then focused more on the history of history itself.   Therefore, Feminism can not only be seen as a theory alone, it has to be understood in the structures and history that it is born and cultivated in. 

The name of the chapter itself stands tall amongst this race of the giants in an undeniably stratified society. Bulbeck has furthered these stratifications by eroding the differences that are safely hidden but they do exist even within particular stratas themselves. This on going debate of women being ‘oppressed’ and ’suppressed’ identities in a man’s world is delved more deeply in this chapter. the questions however shifts to a more universal one of what are the first and third worlds?Another more embedded questions in our histories is whether colonized societies saw a rise of the status of women or not? Bulbeck has given individual examples of China, India and Japan to shed light on both sides of the debate.In the Declension narratives of colonialism, the end of the argument is supported; that men and women both lost their status under white colonizers. Edward Said claims as quoted by Bulbeck that it is ‘the politics of blame’, where the white are colonizers are blamed for everything.However, it is the theory of Hybridisation that breaks into the binarism. Frantz Fenon’s writing is shown of ‘black skins wearing white masks’. This evokes feelings of internal cultural dilemna that is buried much deeper than one would assume. Who are we? It is not just black and white, it is what is in between that safely covered empty space in between them that deserves to be understood.This is what outlines’ traditional’ and ‘western’  dualist notions. This dualism of cultures and colors and people, which part of the world do they belong to then? The est way to summarise this chapter in my opinion is what Susanne Keppeler saus (1995:44, 48, 83) as used by Bulbeck that ‘ The expedition ot the Other is invariably also a journey to oneself’. 

This chapter focuses on liberal feminism and how it started and emerged as an entity through the centuries and through rigorous struggles. However, the actual content of the chapter managed to leave my appetite unfulfilled and it was only the critique that gripped my attention. One of the most common critique of liberal feminism is that it was considered as a ‘bourgeois, white movement’. The black women were completely excluded and treated as invisibles, where as lesbians on the other hand had to fight for their right to be just as much a part of liberal feminism as others.

            There are two branches of liberal feminism that focus on different pressing issues and do not blend well together. These offshoots cannot be combined for a collective motive as their aims are set a part. The Classical liberals: the protection of civil liberties and Welfare liberals: focuses on economic justice.

            Liberal feminism’s determination to achieve equality has led up to the question of whether it is only equality that they are seeking or if it is power, the domination over men, or like men. This is the most intriguing critique as well, that a draw back of liberal feminists is that they want women to be like men. This role-play comes into question only because liberal feminism does not consider biological differences to play any part is deciding gender roles. For them the distinction between men and women only arises due to cultural, social and societal categories. This oblivion to accept some fundamental biological differences that might also have been used to shape gender roles is a downfall of it.

            In my opinion, liberal feminism has kept working around the peripherals; accepted that men do exist but women co-exist parallel to them. By edging towards voting rights, economic equality or even domestic violence abolition, it wishes to overturn and take over the very structure of society. However, the failure to realize that men have created all the structures themselves, disallows liberal feminism to establish itself completely. For the only way for liberal feminists to achieve what they might be gearing after would be by breaking down the structures and then re-constructing them with a feminist approach. This obviously is a Herculean task that in it self might be an impossibility, but another decades of centuries could bring the answer to all these questions.

Both the chapters fuse an idea so great together that it comes alive, so much so, that women would listen and feel. They will for the sake of their own responsibility and the need to speak- just listen. They would speak not in the form of the voice of words, but that of the magic of poetry. Words with hidden meanings and hidden meanings revealing life itself. That is when women will survive and thrive on their own reality.

In ‘Claiming Education’, Rich emphasizes on the crucial need of the ‘contract’ being fulfilled by all the parties involved; be that the teachers and the students. The chapter invoked a feelings of satisfaction, as if our time had come to awake us. And we women needed to grab it and take responsibility of our own right.

The major themes that are interwoven are that education is in fact the right of women and that women should not allow themselves to be siddled and answered for. Women have to become authoratative, even if that comes from dictatorship because women need to be taken seriously. The objectifying of women is a practice that will be not exercised on the students of the university( another aspect of the contract). For the women who will follow the contract- they will talk and they will speak. This will inevitably come by not adopting silence as a means of communication. That women will not be put aside like all the marganilized communities; all the minorities.

This theme of the woman’s voice is further played into potry as Audre argues. Stressing that poetry is the means of survival for women. That poetry is the perfect disguise to shed light on what women really are, and who women are. The best way to mould the entire chapter of poetry is in this exquisite line:

“This is poetry as illumination, for it is through poetry that we can give name to those ideas which are- until the poem- nameless and formless, about to be birthed, but already felt’.

‘Desires are constituted through the narratived and storylines, the metaphors, the very language and patterns of existence through which we are “interpellated” into the social world’.

In this article, this was one description of desires that in capsulated so many different layers. The basic problem that the word ‘desire’ has are the various connatations aligned with it. If a “good girl” was to hear it, her reaction would be different from that of a “bad boy”. The reason why this distinction has been discussed is because it is these contradictories, these classifications, these categories and this labeling that further elaborates ones own self. When one is coined into any one of the numerous categories then the concept of the ’self’ and the ‘other’ comes into play. It is these divisions that give us more open space to think and formulate a more informed opinion.

It is Kristeva’s paper that acts as a catalyst to understanding how different branches of feminism view desire. The three being, the liberal feminists, the radical ones and the third tier where the aspects of womanly and masculine are condemned and abandoned. This is so because a woman is considered whole just as she is not as a counter part of a man or to become like him.

These three generations of feminists are collaborated together to create the basis of desire. It is in fact the Radical feminists who shield against the degration and attack if questioned.

Desire has been glassed through psychoanalysis which reaffirms the projection of women as being liberated to some degree since women can re-create their past and themselves. Re-write their history. As every meaning and action resides in language, when psychoanalysis is used, language is the spectrum that is dealt with, allowing women to have a platform to talk in.

When the third tier is considered, the bi-module falls into place. However, it is the same ‘bi’ terminology that further complicates matters. Since no lines are chalked between a woman and a man, the basic acknowledgement of the two sexes being different is ignored. Hence, the masculinity and feminity concept that reside over them are fairly non-existant. Moreover, as critiqued in the article as well that the obvious relation between men and women is over looked and thus we move away from the binary logic, stuck once again, but this time, in a new age dilemna

The Introduction by Nivedita Menon starts of as defining the Vedic period as the ‘golden age of womanhood.’ She argues that women enjoyed a higher status and blames the advent of Muslim invaders, ‘that restriction began to be placed on women,’ in terms of purdah, sati etc. Menon contradicts herself when she later argues that even in the Vedic period, women had a ‘certain and limited recognition’, where her chores were confined to the house and their status limited and defined by the men to whom they belonged.

 

The Social Reforms Movement saw the emergence of various campaigns which were targeted to eradicate the ‘colonized’ version of traditional Hindu practices. The issues that were raised in these movements were mostly elitist issues of purdah and sati, which the largely agricultural women could not relate to. The Nationalist Movement however brought back the old debate of the colonizer versus the colonized. While the British allowed lenient reforms for women in some circumstances, they tightened the hold on others.

 

Menon builds a strong case in pointing out that ‘family is the continuing emotional and material support to which women’s groups have been unable to provide an alternative, for women in struggle.’ If an alternative system is in fact created, it will undermine the patriarchal structure and crush the basis of feminism. Menon firmly believes that laws against rape, marriage and property rights regarding women are ‘protectors of patriarchal values.’ Issues concerning sexuality and work place discrimination have surrounded feminism, where women are sexually harassed; given lesser wages than men hired for the same job etc. what is even more disturbing is the concept of the glass ceiling that states that women can reach a to a certain point in the corporate ladder, after which they can see above, yet not be part of the highest rank of officials.

 

Over the years numerous issues have been added to “empower women.” Menon ends on an optimistic note, asking for a ‘shared concern’ hoping that gender can be ‘defined, institutionalized and mobilized in perpetuating inequality and injustice.

 

Amina Jamal tries to explain through the Saima case, the various dichotomies that exist in Pakistani society. The paper throws light on the social, political and religious of gender and citizenship. The paper is successful in tackling various issues regarding Islam and modernization, Shariah versus civil law. Issues concerning women sexuality, the choice of marriage and family reactions are realistically portrayed through the paper.

The Saima case discusses women sexuality and whether it is acceptable for a girl to marry through her own choice. The loop holes of Shariah law provide much room for confusion and twisting the laws to a desired conclusion. The identity of women is crucial in a state like Pakistan, where women are defined by notions that are part of our national narrative. A woman can be a daughter, a mother, a wife, but not a lover.

The tactics used by Saima’s family in trying to gain custody over her, question the fact that does not a woman know what’s best for her? Does she not know what she is getting into? To use moderisation and westernisation against women to subjugate their rights and prefrences is just morally, ethically and religiously wrong.  The Saima case is the perfect example of the confusion regarding laws, nationality, Islam, modernisation, gender, and societal expectations of women. One may ask why are men exempted from all such pressures of confomity.

 -Madiha

Amina Jamal’s paper takes the Saima case as an example and seeks to highlight the relationship that  exists between gender and citizenship. It explores the political, social, religious aspects of gender and how each is dictated by notions of nationalism and citizenship. Through her paper she makes evident the integral question of whether being a female citizen of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan inherently means that one has to forfeit all rights that every individual should have.

Amina Jamal’s picks up the most common debate of Pakistani society which weighs down on the issue of women liberation. It is one the encompasses the conflict of western modernism versus Islamic thought, constitution versus Shariah law and social conformity versus sexual autonomy. In this context any issue especially one concerning marriage or the institution of family takes up negative connotations because of its gender implications.

One can relate to the example she takes of Saima’s case as through it she is exploring the issues that are present in the heterosexual middle class nuclear family. conforming to a particular national narrative in this society suggests that women rights have to be different and more carefully regulated than universal human rights. As with Saima’s the case, the choice that is present in a marriage contract is compromised because of social pressure and misuse of tradition under the ambiguous space provided by Shariah laws.

The threat that comes with sexual autonomy for women works like a chain reaction in a society such as ours. it dangers the the identity of the nation-state, threatens the societal structure and displaces the norm of the nuclear family. It challenges the role of the father figure and dependency created by the patriarchal structure. Particular identities are constructed for women which coincide with the national narrative with its political, religious and cultural aspects. Every woman has to conform to these in order to have the status of being a respected citizen. The concluding statements of the three judges presiding over Saima’s case echo the same notion of how important it is for a woman to uphold the socio-religious framework of this society. It is important to ask if the conflict between modernism and Islam means that first and foremost women civil rights have to be altered?

This 1996 Saima case raised the issues of the legality of a marriage contract, a woman’s right to choose her husband, and the degree of her independence as at anytime a woman’s custody can be claimed. This is highly problematic because the lapse between religious and legal framework allows such ambiguities to exist concerning such matters that can be easily used against a woman in order to regulate her freedom as an individual on the grounds that she has been misled by western ideas and is too ignorant to realize what is good for her. One can ask then, what autonomy does a woman have in the private, public, religious, political sphere of our society? 

The second reading by Nivideta Menon focuses of women’s movement in India and how it has changed shape over the years. She begins her discussion at the ‘Golden Vedic age’ and talks about how women had a much higher, and in a sense liberated, status in that time. This changed with the on set of Muslim invasions as notions of protecting the Mother Earth and hence their women from the ‘other’ became the most important concern. However, she points out that this was not completely true. Even in the Vedic age when the female energy was celebrated, women were still awarded a lower status than men and the scriptures mostly talked about their role in the household. As society became organized with time gender was institutionalized. The social reform movement that developed in India concentrated on women issues that mostly existed in the Upper class strata like purdah and unequal education opportunities. This movement in some instances aggravated the issues that were being faced by women. The National movement for women simply highlighted the power struggle between the British and the Indians as the debate of women liberation was used by each at a political front. Over the years various women movements have developed all over India and many serious issues have been addressed, however, to this date there are still institutions in place that maintain a gendered society.

Both the readings show how the status of women as citizens can be manipulated politcally, socially and religiously to provide a morphed form of autonomy which works well in a patriarchal society.

-Mavra