Gender, Politics, and Global Cultures

In recent years, the plight of Afghan women has gained increasing attention, shedding light on the complex interplay between conflict, gender-based violence (GBV), and mental health. Ayesha Ahmad, a researcher committed to dismantling harmful ideologies and practices towards women and girls in conflict-ridden societies, presents a critical reflection on her work in global health. Her research, encapsulated in articles like “A Qualitative Study of Women’s Lived Experiences of Conflict and Domestic Violence in Afghanistan” and “Urgent Health and Humanitarian Needs of the Afghan Population Under the Taliban”, unveils the multifaceted challenges faced by Afghan women and the ethical obligations of researchers in this domain.

Afghanistan’s history, marred by conflict and oppressive regimes, has propelled activism as a crucial strategy for advancing women’s rights. However, as Ahmad points out, governmental approval hurdles and the lack of representation of Muslim women in academia create challenges for effective collaboration between international actors and Afghan activists. The dichotomy between global health actors and recipients further complicates power dynamics, risking the silencing and marginalization of Afghan women activists.

Ahmad emphasizes the need to distinguish between silence and silencing when understanding the experiences of Afghan women. The Where Is My Name campaign exemplifies the deep-seated violence engrained in women’s contextual experiences, prompting a call to create spaces, including academia, receptive to oppressed voices. Drawing on the works of Haideh Moghissi, Ahmad critiques prevailing narratives that portray Afghan women merely as victims, urging a more informed understanding of their lives.

The article furthermore challenges prevailing victimhood narratives by advocating for a comprehensive understanding of Afghan women’s agency and resistance against violence. Ahmad draws parallels with historical figures like Rabia Balkhi and Rabia al Basri, highlighting the instrumental role of narratives, especially poetry, in sustaining women under oppression. The intersectionality of narrative in global health emerges as a powerful tool for channeling activist objectives through academic collaboration.

Recognizing the urgent need for culturally relevant solutions, Ahmad introduces the Storytelling for Health: Acknowledgement, Recovery, and Expression (SHAER) network. This trauma therapeutic intervention, rooted in traditional storytelling, aims to address the mental health needs of women experiencing GBV in conflict settings. Ahmad acknowledges the challenges of balancing academic discourse with the danger faced by women sharing their stories on the frontline. Moreover, she encourages the collaboration between academia and activism and rejects the notion of their inseparability. The SHAER network becomes a symbol of resilience and a shared narrative that transcends geographical and cultural boundaries.

In unveiling the silence surrounding Afghan women’s experiences, Ayesha Ahmad’s work serves as a call for researchers, activists, and academics alike to actively engage with narratives that have been silenced, marginalized, and oppressed. The SHAER initiative stands as a testament to the potential of traditional storytelling in fostering healing, empowerment, and social change for women enduring the complexities of conflict and violence.

Ahmad’s work that I mentioned here can be found at the links below if you’d like to read more from her about these issues:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/bioe.12667
https://web.s.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=3bbaf0a7-02e8-42b6-a235-45264ecc63a6%40redis&bdata=JkF1dGhUeXBlPWlwLHNoaWImc2l0ZT1laG9zdC1saXZlJnNjb3BlPXNpdGU%3d#AN=151780449&db=fyh
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)01963-2/fulltext

In recent times, gender policies regarding school-aged children in the United States have become increasingly contentious, sparking debates and legal battles across the country. Two prominent cases shed light on the complexities and challenges faced by families and educators in addressing gender-related issues.

Families of transgender youth in Tennessee are grappling with a state law that bans gender-affirming care. Nearly half of U.S. states have passed similar legislation, leading to a patchwork of legal outcomes. Federal appeals courts in the southeast have generally favored the states, prompting Tennessee parents to seek intervention from the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Williams family, whose transgender daughter is directly affected by the law, faced a roller coaster of legal challenges. Despite a temporary injunction, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals lifted the ban, arguing that the law does not discriminate based on sex. ACLU attorney Lucas Cameron-Vaughn, representing families in similar situations, argues that the court’s rationale fails to acknowledge the broader applications of hormone therapy, impacting not only transgender teens but also individuals with other medical conditions.

As the U.S. Supreme Court considers the petition, the outcome could set a national precedent for gender-affirming care, influencing the rights of transgender youth across the country.

In northeastern Pennsylvania, school board elections have transformed from debates about teacher salaries to issues surrounding gender identity policies. The Southern Lehigh school board race has become highly competitive and polarized, reflecting a broader trend in local politics becoming increasingly nationalized.

Candidates like Doug Durham and his slate of “true Republicans” have endorsed policies aiming to review curricula and restrict students from using bathrooms aligned with their gender identity. These positions have sparked criticism, with opponents arguing that such policies infringe on free speech and the rights of transgender students. The race exemplifies the shifting landscape of school board elections, where once nonpartisan contests are now influenced by national debates over the role of parents in schools.

University of Pennsylvania professor Dan Hopkins notes that school boards, traditionally considered local entities, have become battlegrounds for national political battles. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated this shift, with decisions about school closures and remote learning becoming focal points. Local candidates now draw inspiration and support from national groups, contributing to the polarization of school board races.

The controversies surrounding gender policies in schools highlight the intersection of local and national politics, impacting the lives of students and families. As legal battles unfold and school board races become increasingly polarized, the results will shape the educational landscape for school-aged children, emphasizing the need for informed and inclusive discussions around gender-related issues in educational settings.

If you’d like to learn more, I learned about these cases in these articles:

https://www.npr.org/2023/11/02/1210266250/trans-teens-families-ask-supreme-court-to-protect-gender-affirming-care-in-tenne
https://www.npr.org/2023/11/05/1210734107/a-school-board-race-is-pennsylvania-is-heating-up-with-gender-policies-on-the-ba

In a powerful display of unity, women and nonbinary individuals across Iceland, including Prime Minister Katrin Jakobsdottir, recently participated in a one-day strike to protest gender inequality. Organized by the Icelandic Federation of Public Workers, the strike aimed to bring attention to the persisting gender pay gap and the undervaluation of women’s work.

On the day of the strike, tens of thousands of people, including a quarter of Iceland’s population, walked off their jobs, refusing to engage in any work, paid or unpaid. The strike not only encompassed professional duties but also household errands and childcare. Freyja Steingrímsdóttir, the communications director for the Icelandic Federation of Public Workers, highlighted the noticeable impact, with closed stores, limited services, and a distinct change in traffic as only men were seen driving.

The strike’s slogan, “You call this equality?” challenged Iceland’s top-ranking status in gender equality indexes. Despite the country’s notable achievements, the organizers emphasized that these indexes often overlook issues such as gender-based and sexual violence, affecting almost 40% of Icelandic women. The focus also extended to the wage gap, primarily influenced by the undervaluation of women’s work in sectors like healthcare, childcare, and cleaning.

The strike drew attention to the burden of unpaid labor that women bear, affecting their earnings and perpetuating the wage gap. By emphasizing the importance of recognizing and addressing this issue, the organizers aimed to dismantle the societal structures that contribute to gender inequality.

This strike follows a legacy of activism in Iceland, with the first full-day strike for gender equality taking place almost 50 years ago. Freyja Steingrímsdóttir expressed hope for change within the decade, echoing Prime Minister Katrin Jakobsdottir’s vision of achieving full gender equality. Despite progress, the fight continues, with the hope that future generations will not need to repeat such strikes.

The strike has garnered attention beyond Iceland’s borders, showcasing the country’s commitment to addressing gender inequality. Organized by groups like the Icelandic Feminist Initiative, Women in Film and Tech, and the Delta Kappa Gamma Society International, the movement extends an invitation to men to stand in solidarity by filling in for women at work and at home.

Iceland’s recent national strike stands as a testament to the collective will to address gender inequality comprehensively. By challenging societal norms and shedding light on overlooked issues, the participants send a powerful message that resonates both nationally and internationally. As Iceland continues to lead the charge for gender equality, the hope is that such strikes will become unnecessary in the years to come.

If you’re interested in reading (or listening) to more about this topic, check out these articles:
https://www.npr.org/2023/10/25/1208577504/gender-inequality-protesters-in-iceland-refused-to-do-work-for-a-day-even-child
https://www.npr.org/2023/10/24/1208264449/iceland-women-nonbinary-strike

or this podcast:
https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2023/10/25/iceland-womens-strike

The article looks at how the intersectionality of race, gender, immigration, ethnicity, and womanhood affects older Chinese immigrant women in Canada. It takes the intersectionality framework to look at the gaps when it comes to their variable. “Influences of age, gender, immigrant status, and ethnicity” (Wang et.). Twelve in-depth interviews were used for this study. They found that using the intersectional perspective could better inform the demographic being studied. It breaks down what influence migrating may have on these immigrants.

The experience that older immigrants have is very different from the ones younger people who immigrate or have children. For instance, they lose their connection with their home country. This could lead to them feeling isolated. Not have people to talk to or friends with whom they can share their life stories. “Older immigrants were dependent on their adult children for both instrumental and financial support” (Wang et.) There could be many reasons for this, starting with the fact that it could be challenging for these older immigrants to learn a new language, which could be a barrier to getting into the workforce. They also can’t sign any documents in their host country’s language, so they must rely on their children. The article then goes into how gender can affect this isolation.

The intersection of gender and acculturation into a new country has some research on it. In a different study that the article cited, “it found that women did have less acculturation and were less likely to live independently compared to their male counterparts.” (Wang et) This could be because of widowhood, where the family feels the widower can’t stay in the house. So, they either live with the family or they live in the home. The study found that gender played a role in acculturation. Females were the ones tasked with caregiving responsibility. This could be because they spend so much time taking care of a dying family that they can’t acculturate into the culture. There needs to be more research done on this topic.

https://www.proquest.com/sociology/docview/2871782914/7E75D5A82F404767PQ/2?accountid=10639

This paper post will continue the conversation in my last paper post and will be continued in the next post as well. In this post I will discuss Spencerian selection and the next post will cover Marxian selection. Once defined and discussed I will then lay out the wholes that I have identified and where I will add a separate analysis, adding onto the discussion that the authors have discussed in their paper. 

Spencerian Selection:

Spencerian selection coined by Turner and Abrutyn is defined as two different types of selection. The first type is based on Spencer’s argument that when societies evolve they become more complex in their variances of social structures. These complexities are labeled on axes defined as production, reproduction, regulation, and distribution. The scholars define these as:

1. Production of resources needed for humans to survive and build social structures
2. Reproduction of individuals and the sociocultural formations organizing their activities; 
3. Regulation through the (a) consolidation of power, (b) codification of belief systems, and (c) formation of structural interdependencies through markets.
4. Distribution through the expansion of (a) infrastructures of moving resources, information, and people across territories, and (b) markets facilitating exchanges of resources, information, and even people.

When there are needs not being met there is pushback from “actors”  (which can be from the individual or corporate level) to create new ways to handle identified problems revolving around these four fundamental axes. This makes type one Spencerian selection be driven by needs, motives, interests, and power which can change the “sociocultural phenotype”. 

The second type of Spencerian selection is based on societal interaction in warfare. It is a brutal version of “survival of the fittest” and showcases how societies can change based on war outcomes. The author points out that it is typically countries with higher levels of economic and military resources, such as technology, economic surpluses, and other warfare advantages that might aid in war tactics that typically have the upper hand. This can have varying outcomes for local cultures, creating “subordinate societies” and sometimes even redefining geographical information. The authors do discuss how conquest increases inequality and these inequalities then coincide and relate back to type one Spencerian selection. Which then puts pressure on new forms of regulation in institutional systems such as polity, law, economy, and religion. 

I do think that this explanation accounts for some aspects of societal interactions on the basis of societal evolution but I believe it places too much trust in the true adaptability of structural institutions. While it does explain some social inequalities in some settings it does not showcase how institutions adapt in ways that still keep the status quo in power and does not emphasize power relationship dynamics to “change” for the needs of others but rather reinvent inequalities. Tactics such as these have been used across countries and cross-culturally to keep the powerful in power while “catering” to what the “actors” identify without giving too much resources.

Returning the “Social” to Evolutionary Sociology; Reconsidering Spencer, Durkheim, and Marx’s Models of “Natural” Selection by Johnathan Turner and Seth Arutyn

Frias (2023) first gives an overview of how the term “femicide” came to be. Often, in Mexico, the terms femicide and feminicide are used to refer to gender-based violence against women. Diana H. Russell coined the term femicide at the first International Tribunal on Crimes against Women in 1976 to describe the murder of women by men due to their gender. The term already existed, but Russell gave it a political connotation and used it to describe feminist politics. In the course of its development, the term has come to mean both the killing of women by men because they are women as well as the killing of women simply because they are women. The purpose of this was to capture the possibility that gender-based killings may extend beyond male perpetrators, women may be capable of killing women as well. In 2006 Lagarde adopted the term femicide but added a twist, she coined the term “feminicide” or in Spanish “feminicidio” This term was similar to femicide but different in that it added on to Russel’s definition so that it included the dimension where it addressed the state’s role in neglecting cases and the impunity for these crimes.

Feminicidal violence is the extreme, the culmination of many forms of gender violence against women that represent an attack on their human rights and that lead them to various forms of violent death. In many cases, these forms of gender violence are tolerated by society and the State; at other times, citizens live feminicidal violence with powerlessness, for there are few channels available for the enforcement of rights.

Lagarde

As Frias points out, quantitative methods fail to reveal the full extent of feminicide because not all feminicides are labeled as such, and not all female murders are feminicides. Moreover, she argues that female homicides and feminicides are two different phenomena, and it is difficult to distinguish between the two based on the available records. There is a scarcity of details in death records like perpetrator and victim characteristics, making it difficult to identify femicide adequately. Among the challenges Frias points out in feminicide research is that it fails to consider that the “female” category is not the only important feature and that other factors, such as age and race/ethnicity, may further marginalize females. To illustrate her point, she uses the example of indigenous women, who are more likely to experience gender-based violence like partner violence or sexual violence in their childhood than non-indigenous women. She draws attention to the fact that official statistics and administrative records fail to separate homicide and feminicide information by race or ethnicity. Moreover, she points out that indigenous communities are marginalized because they are usually far from large cities, where law enforcement resources such as feminicide specialized state attorneys are located. A lack of medical services, which would be useful in identifying feminicide cases, is another problem. She argues that this largely contributes to the invisibility of indigenous women’s feminicide. Moreover, this study by Frias aims to accomplish three objectives: (one) differentiate female homicides that occurred between 2001-2017 as feminicides or not feminicides, (second) examine the relationship between gender inequality, feminicide, and female homicides in Mexico, (third) assess feminicides and female homicide trends in indigenous and non-indigenous municipalities and to analyze how homicides differ from feminicides according to victims’ sociodemographic characteristics and the means by which the crimes are committed.

Frías, Sonia M. 2023. “Femicide and Feminicide in Mexico: Patterns and Trends in Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Regions.” Feminist Criminology 18(1): 3–23.

The article started talking about how feminists of both Palestine and Israel came together. The reason why they called for this meeting was a call for peace. They first meet at the wall of the west bank and West Jerusalem. Their protest took them to the Dead Sea. This protest involved diplomats and public figures. They read a mother’s call and demanded that this conflict end in a nonviolent solution. A jointly written declaration stated, “We, Palestinian and Israeli mothers, are determined to stop the vicious cycle of bloodshed and to change the reality of the difficult conflict between both nations for the benefit of our children.” This was to show that the people who may be the most affected by this conflict are the children. The innocent ones don’t even know what is happening with this conflict. All they know is that their friends and family are dying.

            The article then talks about how Israel is infantilizing the women of their country. Even though they pride themselves on being very high in gender equality. One way they do this is by requiring every adult Israeli to be in the army. Unless the person is an Arabic woman or an Orthodox Jew. The article states that this view is insulting since women from both sides are the most vocal when it comes to peace talks. The author says that feminists must speak out against war. Hannah Safran stated, “How can you ask for freedom for yourself if you don’t ask it for other people?”

            The author then shifts to talk about how women are disproportionately attacked in this conflict. About how Israeli policies make life more complicated for Palestinians in general and how the Palestinian policies disproportionally affect women in the region.  The article also shows how violence is gender, and it negatively affects women. These women started focusing on the liberation of Palestine and a nonviolent solution to this conflict.

            The report then talks about the outside feminists who are helping with this conflict. Looking at the past feminists and how their work will help today’s feminists regarding this conflict. Then, they go into detail about how Israel treated Gaza before the bombing. It ends on a positive note about how feminists can lead the charge into having Israel and Palestine come to a non-conflict agreement.

It’s Feminist to Demand a Ceasefire in Israel–Palestine

In our class, we have read numerous papers on varying feminist theories. The feminist theories we have covered include intersectionality, lesbianism, orientalism, and more. Additionally, we have read the book Unfree: Migrant Domestic Work in Arab States by Rhacel Parrenas. This book studies the livelihood of female domestic workers in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), providing evidence and showcasing how to measure good/safe employment in this line of work. In this op-ed, I want to focus on Kandiyoti’s paper on “Bargaining with Patriarchy” and how domestic workers in the UAE resist their subjugation and increase their opportunities/livelihood by bargaining with their employer. 

In Unfree, Parrenas talks about how these domestic workers face a different kind of inequality. This inequality, dubbed by Parrenas as “unfreedom”, is different because these workers immigrate from the Phillipines to the UAE. The conditions at their home in the Philippines has them starting from a point of unfreedom, as there are no opportunities for success or a great life. This leads many women to having to leave their families and children behind in search of gainful employment. Since there are recruiting agencies who specifically seek these kinds of women in these kinds of situations who are sent to the Philippines, it is proposed to these women as a great option. They are told that they should pray to get a good employer. 

In Unfree, Parrenas identifies three ways in which domestic workers are treated by employers. They are either treated like children that must be constantly watched over and told what to do, recognized as adults with needs and wants and provided with an actual livelihood, or completely disregarded and abused. While Parrenas tells us that abuse is not common and most of the women are either treated like a child or recognized as a human, she brings in the concept of “unfreedom”. Because these women travel from afar and have no way to control their life without repercussions or surveillance by their employer, plus the UAE and Philippine government essentially do nothing to protect these workers, even the nicest employer could turn on their employee at any time. Imagine that you are living in a strange place with a strange family, they treat you nicely and you do the work, and one day they tell you that they will no longer allow breaks, holidays, food, a bed, pay you on time, let you have your passport, or they start to emotionally/physically abuse you. And you can’t do anything about any of it. 

Patriarchal bargaining comes into play here as seemingly the only route to combat this compromised position that the domestic workers face. Kandiyoti paints this picture that patriarchal bargaining is when women use the patriarchy to their advantage, using information and manipulation to gain power and opportunities. While Kandiyoti is mainly examining this theory within cases of “classic patriarchy” – a patriarchal system in which a woman is married off, has no possessions or wealth of her own because of this, moves in with her in-laws, and the one who assumes control over her is the mother-in-law – we can see it working throughout Parrenas exploration of how these workers navigate the system in the UAE. 

One example of this kind of bargaining is when workers tell their employers that they know of other workers getting paid more, doing the same or similar things as them. In the book, there are several employers that Parrenas talks to who go so far as to boast how good of an employer they are, and if their employee came to them talking about pay in this way, they would likely increase their pay to maintain their status as a good employer. Other examples include employees bargaining with their employer about getting more days off, visiting family, and more. 

This form of patriarchal bargaining that the domestic workers use in the UAE is important to note and follow for the same reason that Kandiyoti studied this in the first place – to showcase that women don’t just take injustice and inequality “lying down”. In fact, activism comes in many different forms in our daily lives, in ways that most people wouldn’t recognize. There is obvious power in a picket line and boycotting, but there is also power in using your current position to shift norms and allowances. Furthermore, many people simply aren’t in the position to throw away their financial stability (which their families back home also rely upon), so bargaining is not only effective, but less risky.  

Written by: Lily Philbrook

Many of the connections between the book UnFree by Rhacel Parrenas and the book “feminist Theory Reader” by Carole McCann, Seung-Kyung Kin, and Emek Ergun are connected to Orientalism. A framework that shows us how we perceive, connect with, and treat countries outside of our own that we may deem as “exotic” or even just “different”. There are a lot of things even within our own culture that vary and leave us to fill in the blanks with our own explanations; however, explaining things without context can diminish the problem at hand. This gap in understanding and knowledge grows even more when we do not have a cultural understanding of the group one is discussing. 

The book UnFree not only discusses Filipino workers who find work in the United Arab Emirates and how the kafala system used to find work is one that creates a vulnerable work environment but it also discusses how many of the scholarly conversations around this system involve a orientalist perspective. A perspective that does not account for all the cultural context needed to truly give an analysis without placing judgment or colonialistic ideals on the individuals of another country. Many Western scholars placed the kafala system in the same category as contract slavery which is defined as “the contractual binding of workers so as to subject them to slave-like conditions in which they are denied freedom of movement and not adequately compensated for their labor”. However, this definition does not fit a wide portion of Filipino workers’ experiences; the workers who did experience extreme and unsafe workplace environments were not the majority. This system however does aid a lot of Filipino citizens and the Philippines as a country because this is a big portion of how they provide for themselves, and their families, and helps aid their economy. 

Scholars focus a lot of their dialog on the negative experiences of Filipino workers and these conversations can be framed too easily as a foreign issue rather than a domestic one. This issue is one that we see all too often in the United States but is never really discussed. Recently in the United States, we have seen violations against child labor laws on the rise with the Labor Department announcing that it has concluded 955 investigations in 2023 with 800 investigations underway. That is just one example of how this is a domestic problem and how framing conversations in a Eurocentric light can be damaging to citizens who are undermined by the shadow of how we want the United States to look. Our labor standards in America are heavily built off of our idea of heteronormative Capitalism that contributes directly to the patriarchy which is the ideal “free market”. Our market and economy are seen as pure and other countries need our help but this market at best equates our productivity to profit and at worst equates us to property or even erases us. 

Our system is somehow “better” in the eyes of some, and we are more forward than other countries because we are “modern”. Picking apart which systems are better than others and which ones need to be completely eroded and rebuilt is one that is easily subjected to what the majority sees as correct rather than understanding the little intricacies that work for a country and what does not work for a country. Parrenas does a great job at discussing a pressing topic but also being careful to make sure the viewpoint of her study is not to diminish the kafala system but to understand the experiences of the workers and frame the conversation to be about labor standards. As we work to learn how to have conversations about other countries whether it be in a scholarly article, news article, or a random class paper, we should always put an effort forward to write and understand from a culturally educated perspective.

Child labor violations soared in fiscal 2023

UnFree by Rhacel Parrenas

Feminist Theory Reader by Carole McCann, Seung-Kyung Kim, and Emek Ergun

The UNRWA – United Nations Relief and Works Agency – is said to run out of fuel supply in three days, according to the Director-General Philippe Lazzarini today in a press conference. The UNRWA provides relief for Palestinian refugees. Without fuel, the UNRWA cannot perform its job and provide aid to its fullest extent. With it being such a large component in relief for Gaza, the effects of this would be highly detrimental. Additionally, the news article states that 29 staff members have been killed and 17 injured in the area. With violence increasing daily, relief is necessary to help sustain the community.

News Article

Written by: Lily Philbrook