Before this course, I always felt the society I lived in, I always felt it in everything I tried to do, everywhere I went, whenever I watched television, and whenever I spoke to people. I always felt this fixed, rigid, and broken thing, but I could never put a name to it. Now that I've taken this course I can; its called patriarchy. The name to a face. Its much easier to understand the world I live in by understanding that single word alone, and I am different for it. The reading that particularly changed my view on the world was Allan G. Johnson's Patriarchy, the System, and the way he explained that "we are not patriarchy, no more than people who believe in Allah are Islam or Canadians are Canada." We exist in this system like the players Johnson mentioned in Monopoly. We can change the rules if we go against the path of least resistance, and we can end the cycle of socialization. This was the greatest thing that I learned.
Ive also benefited from learning about marginalization. I am a Puerto Rican girl who has grown up around whites my whole life and doesn't know a lick of Spanish. I don't quite fit in completely with white people because I am Spanish, and I don't fit in with Spanish people because I act "white." Finally, a name for what people like me go through.
The way I feel about women's health, reproductive rights, and violence toward women also changed me. It made me mad. I was having a conversation with my boyfriend one night about what us women are forced to endure-rape, physical, emotional, verbal abuse- and I was enraged! Hearing how passionate I was, I suppose he felt that he was personally being attacked, so he said, "Why are you so mad, it's not like YOU'VE ever been raped." I was mortified that he could say something so ignorant. Needless to say, we are no longer together. This class and all of the women author's voices in my head, is no longer something I can ignore. I'm not ignorant of it anymore, so I have no more excuses for why I let injustices occur right before my eyes.
I admire the multicultural feminist approach to problem solving, and the way it takes into account the intersectionality between not only gender differences, but class, race, and dis/ableist differences as well. I plan to take into account all of these things, when I go to formulate decisions and theories in the future.
This course has shown me that women's issues are real. They continue to be real, even though we have the right to vote. I have experienced the flaws of societal institutions through my service learning when I reached roadblocks trying to set up storefront tabling, and when men continued to ask me out instead of listen to the information I was trying to tell them. These causes are just not important to people, and it is almost like only an enlightened few are even aware that these issues exist.
I am seeing the world more clearly now and the system and institutions from which we all operate within. I can better recognize what is going on around me-the story behind the story. I feel stronger and smarter now that I know the scores of women from history's past to the present who are rooting for me, and know that I can do it.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Synthesis
The relationship between women's present situation and violence is a strong one. There is a pattern of violence in our patriarchal society where domination is key. In "Patriarchy, the System", Allan G. Johnson writes that "Above all, patriarchal culture is about the core value of control and domination in almost every area of human existence," and that to have "power over" is culturally defined as a good thing (Kirk, and Okazawa-Rey p.73). This value is ingrained into us from young through socialization, and is perhaps the root cause of violence against women.
While volunteering with Animal Safehouse, I saw that violence against women is more common than people think. The struggle against domestic violence is just as prevalent today as it ever was, and everyday women are fleeing for their lives. This is made clear to me by the amount of fosters we need, (and our lack thereof), and the never-ending fight Animal Safehouse continues to brave.
It is also significant to mention that most, if not all, of the women Animal Safehouse helps are abused by their intimate partner. This abuse involves physical, mental, and sexual abuse, including marital rape, which was not even recognized as a crime until the 20th century. According to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, there were 113,123 reported cases of domestic violence and 180 domestic violence related homicides in Florida in 2008" (www.ncadv.org). Animal Safehouse hopes to take more women out of their unsafe environments and away from those partners who promised to love them, by realizing the intersectionality between patriarchy, violence against women, and violence against animals. According to animalsafehousebrevard.org, "50 percent of women do not leave abusive situations for fear her pet will be injured or killed." The same power and force exerted upon women is often the same power exerted upon animals.
Women today stay in domestic violence situations for more reasons than their pets. There are unfortunately multiple barriers that prevent women from fleeing. One of the reasons is lack of resources. "Many women have children to support, yet they are not employed outside the home. Often the car, house, bank accounts and credit cards are in the abuser's name." (HealthyWomen) Another factor is institutional responses. Religious institutions are trained to save the marriage at all costs, police officers often treat victims of domestic abuse as active participants, and restraining orders often do little to help the situation. Many women just don't believe that they will get support if they leave (HealthyWomen). Another barrier is traditional ideology. Women rationalize their partners behavior or hold themselves responsible. The fear of losing their children is also an enormous reason women don't leave (HealthyWomen).
More women than men are victims of violence by strangers, family, friends, and intimate partners. The violence is extremely prevalent and it needs attention. Animal Safehouse is one organization that helps animals, while at the same time saving women from the violence in their lives.
Works Cited
Kirk, Gwyn, and Margo Okazawa-Rey. Women's Lives, Multicultural Perspectives. 5th. New York, New York: McGraw-Hill, 2010. p.73. Print.
"Animal Safehouse Brevard." animalsafehousebrevard.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Nov 2010. <http://www.animalsafehousebrevard.org/>.
"Violence, against women, also known as interpersonal violence, is a crime of power and control." HealthyWomen 01 06 2010. n. pag. Contemporary Women's Issues. Web. 30 Nov 2010. <http://search.rdsinc.com.ezproxy.lib.ucf.edu/texis/rds/suite/+KGZeKVpBwFqzdGcw9s8W_TFqnh1ccewx1qmzwww/showdoc.html?thisTbl=CWI>.
While volunteering with Animal Safehouse, I saw that violence against women is more common than people think. The struggle against domestic violence is just as prevalent today as it ever was, and everyday women are fleeing for their lives. This is made clear to me by the amount of fosters we need, (and our lack thereof), and the never-ending fight Animal Safehouse continues to brave.
It is also significant to mention that most, if not all, of the women Animal Safehouse helps are abused by their intimate partner. This abuse involves physical, mental, and sexual abuse, including marital rape, which was not even recognized as a crime until the 20th century. According to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, there were 113,123 reported cases of domestic violence and 180 domestic violence related homicides in Florida in 2008" (www.ncadv.org). Animal Safehouse hopes to take more women out of their unsafe environments and away from those partners who promised to love them, by realizing the intersectionality between patriarchy, violence against women, and violence against animals. According to animalsafehousebrevard.org, "50 percent of women do not leave abusive situations for fear her pet will be injured or killed." The same power and force exerted upon women is often the same power exerted upon animals.
Women today stay in domestic violence situations for more reasons than their pets. There are unfortunately multiple barriers that prevent women from fleeing. One of the reasons is lack of resources. "Many women have children to support, yet they are not employed outside the home. Often the car, house, bank accounts and credit cards are in the abuser's name." (HealthyWomen) Another factor is institutional responses. Religious institutions are trained to save the marriage at all costs, police officers often treat victims of domestic abuse as active participants, and restraining orders often do little to help the situation. Many women just don't believe that they will get support if they leave (HealthyWomen). Another barrier is traditional ideology. Women rationalize their partners behavior or hold themselves responsible. The fear of losing their children is also an enormous reason women don't leave (HealthyWomen).
More women than men are victims of violence by strangers, family, friends, and intimate partners. The violence is extremely prevalent and it needs attention. Animal Safehouse is one organization that helps animals, while at the same time saving women from the violence in their lives.
Works Cited
Kirk, Gwyn, and Margo Okazawa-Rey. Women's Lives, Multicultural Perspectives. 5th. New York, New York: McGraw-Hill, 2010. p.73. Print.
"Animal Safehouse Brevard." animalsafehousebrevard.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Nov 2010. <http://www.animalsafehousebrevard.org/>.
"Violence, against women, also known as interpersonal violence, is a crime of power and control." HealthyWomen 01 06 2010. n. pag. Contemporary Women's Issues. Web. 30 Nov 2010. <http://search.rdsinc.com.ezproxy.lib.ucf.edu/texis/rds/suite/+KGZeKVpBwFqzdGcw9s8W_TFqnh1ccewx1qmzwww/showdoc.html?thisTbl=CWI>.
Service Learning Project Summary
For my service learning project I chose to work with Animal Safehouse of Brevard, a non-profit organization that mobilizes fosters for animals whose owners' are fleeing domestic violence. This is such a special organization, in that there are not many like it out there.
What I planned to accomplish was to be a useful part of the AS team. I wanted to champion the cause and help them get the word out there, raise awareness, raise money, and make a difference in at least one person's life; because I have never known what it is like to do something that is truly important.
I began to make frequent contact with my community partner Arielle Schwartz, and I was able to assist in, what was to me, the most rewarding part of the project, which was an animal transport. I was able to bring a cat from the foster home back to the owner who had recently come out of a shelter. In that moment, it was like I was watching everything come into full circle for her, like she was able to put one more piece of the puzzle back into place. Then is when I understood why AS does what it does, and how rewarding their work truly is. From there I put up fliers, participated in a tabling, and made some jewelry for the organization, and although my attempts to attract volunteers, funds, and fosters were not as significant as I wanted, at least the word got out there, and people that once didn't know we existed now do. The limitations were many, as passer-byes simply did not want to be bothered to donate, or even know who we were. When I tried a number of times to see if any local Publix would allow us to table there, all of the store managers said no. What I learned from that is activism is an upward climb, and "No" just means a need for persistence, but then again, anything worth fighting for is never easy.
My project interacted within the existing institutional frameworks of family, and government. AS has to interact with families, and also help different families, through individuals and families. Inside this and the governmental framework we try to work within and push through to get the mission out.
As far as significance goes, this project was a living breathing testament to the printed words I read throughout the course. I saw the survivors of the domestic violence that remains so prevelant, and I spoke with the women that are fighting to stop it. I worked within the system that would not allow me to set up a table, and I dealt with the men that didnt care about the information I had to give but only about if I had a boyfriend. This project showed me real life examples of patriarchy and what the women's plight was, and still is. My understanding of the texts and issues learned throughout the course was upheld, indeed.
I hope that my audience will learn the connection between animal abuse and domestic violence, and that both are causes crying out for attention.
What I planned to accomplish was to be a useful part of the AS team. I wanted to champion the cause and help them get the word out there, raise awareness, raise money, and make a difference in at least one person's life; because I have never known what it is like to do something that is truly important.
I began to make frequent contact with my community partner Arielle Schwartz, and I was able to assist in, what was to me, the most rewarding part of the project, which was an animal transport. I was able to bring a cat from the foster home back to the owner who had recently come out of a shelter. In that moment, it was like I was watching everything come into full circle for her, like she was able to put one more piece of the puzzle back into place. Then is when I understood why AS does what it does, and how rewarding their work truly is. From there I put up fliers, participated in a tabling, and made some jewelry for the organization, and although my attempts to attract volunteers, funds, and fosters were not as significant as I wanted, at least the word got out there, and people that once didn't know we existed now do. The limitations were many, as passer-byes simply did not want to be bothered to donate, or even know who we were. When I tried a number of times to see if any local Publix would allow us to table there, all of the store managers said no. What I learned from that is activism is an upward climb, and "No" just means a need for persistence, but then again, anything worth fighting for is never easy.
My project interacted within the existing institutional frameworks of family, and government. AS has to interact with families, and also help different families, through individuals and families. Inside this and the governmental framework we try to work within and push through to get the mission out.
As far as significance goes, this project was a living breathing testament to the printed words I read throughout the course. I saw the survivors of the domestic violence that remains so prevelant, and I spoke with the women that are fighting to stop it. I worked within the system that would not allow me to set up a table, and I dealt with the men that didnt care about the information I had to give but only about if I had a boyfriend. This project showed me real life examples of patriarchy and what the women's plight was, and still is. My understanding of the texts and issues learned throughout the course was upheld, indeed.
I hope that my audience will learn the connection between animal abuse and domestic violence, and that both are causes crying out for attention.
Friday, November 19, 2010
Weekly Activism
1.This week was a little bit of a slow week. I didn't quite know what to do next and when I e-mailed Leandra she didnt write back so I asked Arielle and she told me to try and set up another tabling. I was put in contact with Christine Sepulveda, who called ikiwi, and got them to allow us to set up a table on December 1st! I will be in charge of passing out flyers for the event and getting all of the Animal Safehouse information and supplies to the event. I was very happy that now Animal Safehouse can add one more event to their monthly calender!
2.I think that this week showed me that activists must be creative. Just because someone tells you "no" is irrelevant.If you care enough about the cause, you will find a way to get the information out there. Just because the calender had no more events on it didnt mean that the activism was over. Create a NEW schedule. The idea is to keep it moving because the fight is never over so persistance is a virtue. In Fight Like A Girl, Seely is always stressing this point. In activism, things are rarely ever going to be handed to you.You have to depend on yourself and your fellow activists, and never give up.
3.I'm proud that we are the first event taking place in the new month, and I feel a sense of accomplishment knowing that I'm part of a fantastic team that is absolutely dedicated to getting the cause out there to the public.
2.I think that this week showed me that activists must be creative. Just because someone tells you "no" is irrelevant.If you care enough about the cause, you will find a way to get the information out there. Just because the calender had no more events on it didnt mean that the activism was over. Create a NEW schedule. The idea is to keep it moving because the fight is never over so persistance is a virtue. In Fight Like A Girl, Seely is always stressing this point. In activism, things are rarely ever going to be handed to you.You have to depend on yourself and your fellow activists, and never give up.
3.I'm proud that we are the first event taking place in the new month, and I feel a sense of accomplishment knowing that I'm part of a fantastic team that is absolutely dedicated to getting the cause out there to the public.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Case Study Memo
In 1985, the Indian Supreme Court had a very important decision to make regarding women's rights in the case of Mohammad Ahmed Khan vs. Shah Bano Begum and Others. A 62 year old Muslim woman named Shah Bano was a mother of five from Indore, Madhya Pradesh, and was divorced by her husband in 1978. The Muslim "personal law" allows the husband to do this without her agreement and, also exempts him from having to pay her maintenance (alimony) after three months after the divorce. After three months it is the responsibility of the woman's family and community to support her (Jenkins pg.2). She tried to get alimony through the Indian courts for seven years prior to the case reaching the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had to make the decision to go by the Code of Criminal Procedure and not the civil laws which "define and govern the rights and obligations of the parties belonging to particular regions" (Jenkins pg.3). In essence, they had to choose between a common civil code which further advocates national integration or the personal laws of the minority religions. They also had to choose between the rights of women and other people who are destitute and unable to take maintain themselves or, the rights of religious laws (particularly of the minority). Ultimately the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Shah Bano and ordered the husband to give her the entitled maintenance. While a lot of women and Hindus were pleased with the decision, a lot of Muslims and members of other minority religions were outraged. All of this was taking place during a time of political and religious unrest in India. Trying to attract Hindu nationalists Prime Minister Rajiv Ghandi's congress let the Muslim sacred place of worship The Babri Mosque to be reopened after Hindu's argued that it had been built on the site of the destroyed Hindu temple honoring the God, Ram. This made Muslims question the Congress Party's loyalties (Jenkins pg.5). Out of these minority religion insecurities and unrest came the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Bill, which ironically would reinforce Muslim law's denial of ongoing maintenance of women. Rajiv then had to decide if he would uphold to Supreme Court decision to grant maintenance to Shah Bano or reinforce Muslim personal law through the Muslim Women Bill. By overturning the ruling, it would ultimately decide that women had no rights under their religion and by reinforcing the decision it would decide that minority religious law is invalid. My argument is, why is it that if a woman wants her God-given rights, it must always come down to taking rights away from others? There must be a way to appease both sides.
This case is not unique. When it comes to women and marriage rights, we have been in this fight for hundreds of years. This case not only defines marriage rights but it also defines women's rights for equality and against violence against women in the US and around the world. After reading this case I made the connection that it seems that whenever women ask for rights, it means that we are taking some away from others. For example, under Title 9, discrimination based on gender, marital, or parental status in education is prohibited, particularly in sports. However, "this criterion means that women and girls are often blamed for cuts to men's sports" (Seely, pg.109). Why is it that we can't ask for rights without being considered selfish or putting ourselves before other institutions like patriarchy or religion? Also, taking away women's marriage rights is also conected to violence against women such as the stoning of women accused of adultery in some Middle East regions and marriage rape. In the US, marital rape wasn't considered a crime in all 50 states until 1993 and in 2005, 33 percent of women were murdered by their boyfriends or husbands (Kirk/Okazawa-Rey pg.258). Marriage rights are directly connected to women's rights for equality and violence against women. With this case, it is so much more than alimony that is on the line; its women's lives.
When thinking of a solution to this problem, our group came up with a transnational feminist solution that we believe will appease both sides of the spectrum (women's rights and minority religions rights and personal laws). We didnt want to essentially "rape" Muslim culture by telling them that their personal laws are invalid in favor of a national integration approach. We also knew that it would be impractical to try and press for one uniform civil code when there are so many small religious communities with different laws and ideals. So we proposed the option of enacting the Special Marriages Act of 1954 which offers couples a non-religious alternative to personal laws (Jenkins, pg.8). With this a couple could have three choices. They could choose to get married through the state law under which women in particular would be eligible for benefits such as maintenance under the Special Marriages Act. If a couple chooses to get married through their religious community alone, they must abide by their personal laws. The third option is getting married through the state and through the church, in which upon the dissolvement of the marriage the woman is still protected under state law. We also came up with two exemptions undr this Civil Code, one of them being a grandfather clause and the other called the Coercive Marriage Clause. Under the grandfather clause, women who have gotten married prior to the enacting of this civil code are still eligible to have their marriage recognized by the state and be protected under the Special Marriages Act. The Coercive Marriage Clause is for women who have been coerced to get married through the church alone, under which they would have to show proof that they were coerced before they could be recognized by the state. This Civil Code would protect women's marriage rights without forcing it upon the minority religions and invalidating their personal laws. More importantly it offers women options instead of telling them they're on their own.
word count: 1016
Works Cited:
Kirk, Gwyn, and Margo Okazawa-Rey. Women's Lives Multicultural Perspectives. 5th. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1998. p.258. Print.
Seely, Megan. Fight Like A Girl. 1st. New York, NY: New York University Press, 2007. 109. Print.
Jenkins, Laura Dudley. "Shah Bano: Muslim Women's Rights Case Study." (2000): p.2-8. Print.
This case is not unique. When it comes to women and marriage rights, we have been in this fight for hundreds of years. This case not only defines marriage rights but it also defines women's rights for equality and against violence against women in the US and around the world. After reading this case I made the connection that it seems that whenever women ask for rights, it means that we are taking some away from others. For example, under Title 9, discrimination based on gender, marital, or parental status in education is prohibited, particularly in sports. However, "this criterion means that women and girls are often blamed for cuts to men's sports" (Seely, pg.109). Why is it that we can't ask for rights without being considered selfish or putting ourselves before other institutions like patriarchy or religion? Also, taking away women's marriage rights is also conected to violence against women such as the stoning of women accused of adultery in some Middle East regions and marriage rape. In the US, marital rape wasn't considered a crime in all 50 states until 1993 and in 2005, 33 percent of women were murdered by their boyfriends or husbands (Kirk/Okazawa-Rey pg.258). Marriage rights are directly connected to women's rights for equality and violence against women. With this case, it is so much more than alimony that is on the line; its women's lives.
When thinking of a solution to this problem, our group came up with a transnational feminist solution that we believe will appease both sides of the spectrum (women's rights and minority religions rights and personal laws). We didnt want to essentially "rape" Muslim culture by telling them that their personal laws are invalid in favor of a national integration approach. We also knew that it would be impractical to try and press for one uniform civil code when there are so many small religious communities with different laws and ideals. So we proposed the option of enacting the Special Marriages Act of 1954 which offers couples a non-religious alternative to personal laws (Jenkins, pg.8). With this a couple could have three choices. They could choose to get married through the state law under which women in particular would be eligible for benefits such as maintenance under the Special Marriages Act. If a couple chooses to get married through their religious community alone, they must abide by their personal laws. The third option is getting married through the state and through the church, in which upon the dissolvement of the marriage the woman is still protected under state law. We also came up with two exemptions undr this Civil Code, one of them being a grandfather clause and the other called the Coercive Marriage Clause. Under the grandfather clause, women who have gotten married prior to the enacting of this civil code are still eligible to have their marriage recognized by the state and be protected under the Special Marriages Act. The Coercive Marriage Clause is for women who have been coerced to get married through the church alone, under which they would have to show proof that they were coerced before they could be recognized by the state. This Civil Code would protect women's marriage rights without forcing it upon the minority religions and invalidating their personal laws. More importantly it offers women options instead of telling them they're on their own.
word count: 1016
Works Cited:
Kirk, Gwyn, and Margo Okazawa-Rey. Women's Lives Multicultural Perspectives. 5th. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1998. p.258. Print.
Seely, Megan. Fight Like A Girl. 1st. New York, NY: New York University Press, 2007. 109. Print.
Jenkins, Laura Dudley. "Shah Bano: Muslim Women's Rights Case Study." (2000): p.2-8. Print.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Weekly Activism #6
1. This week I contacted Arielle to ask her what I could do. She suggested that I keep calling Publix to try and set up a tabling but when I called two more they insisted that they were all booked up until January and that all of the Publix’s would be like that. So I decided this week I would make some jewelry to sell at the next festival. The jewelry we had was just not attracting any of the children that were with their parents. I figure the best way to attract people is by presenting things that will catch children’s attention, and they will drag their parents over. With this in mind I bought a jewelry kit and called another volunteer Danielle over and got to work! We made about a dozen bracelets that said things like “girl power” “paws” and “pets for peace”. They came out great, and I think that we will be able to get some much needed donations for them! Next week I have to call UNOS and get them to let us set up a table to raise some money.
2. It was interesting, but while I was putting together the jewelry, snipping strong, and tying knots, I made a joke to Danielle about how I felt like a little ol’ grandma knitting sweaters or something. When I was younger, I would see my grandma sitting at the dining room table in New York sewing curtains for a little extra money. And there I was, making bracelets for a little bit of money to fundraise. I know the two situations were incredibly different but it reminded me of the whole gendered division of labor and the decline in organized labor in globalization. It makes sense that when women need money to support their families they would turn to work that is not in the public sphere when NOONE else will give them a chance. If I were in serious need of cash, and maybe have a child to support and can’t afford child-care, I might have to be at the table, making jewelry for my life.
3. I felt very accomplished at the end of the night when we laid all of our jewelry out on the table. I felt like I had done something productive in my day and no matter how small the deed, it always feels good when I can help Animal Safehouse in any way. Women helping women that’s what it’s all about, and when I speak as a woman explaining to people why I’m making jewelry, or why I’m at this table, it is an incredibly empowering feeling.
Monday, November 8, 2010
Women and the Workforce
I chose to do an analysis of 19 Kids and Counting. I have always been fascinated by the show, and how a woman could handle all of that hard work. However, according to some modern economists, her work is “unproductive.” Michelle Duggar is a stay-at-home mom who devotes all of her time to running the household and her 19 kids in it. Michelle home schools them, teaching them not only about education, but about life and the real world. She takes care of them, and is raising all of her kids to be productive citizens, yet just because her work is not contributing to the Gross National Product and isn’t “market-oriented” it is considered “unproductive.”(Kirk, and Okazawa-Rey 305) It is amazing to me that all of the work that this woman puts in day after day would be considered unproductive! She is seen as a stay at home mom without a job. If you ask me, her “non-existent” job is more intense than other “jobs” that are considered productive so it makes no sense. I think the fact that this kind of intensive work is not considered valuable just because she isn’t working for some company and contributing to the GNP illustrates how little women’s work is valued in this society. It also illustrates the gendered division of labor. Jim Bob is the provider that makes money for the family while Michelle is at home caring for the children. In the gendered division of labor, “there is an emphasis on caring for and serving others in many women’s jobs.” I believe this show illustrates the typical family dynamic where men are the “productive” providers and women’s work is devalued in the gendered division of labor. This representation of women’s work matches my expectations of women as the care-givers that can do it all but are not completely recognized and appreciated for it.
Works Cited:
Kirk, Gwyn, and Margo Okazawa-Rey. Women's Lives Multicultural Perspectives. 5th. New York, New York: McGraw Hill, 305. Print.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)