Feminism

 

I am of opinion that people who classify feminism ideology into several categories and narrow-mindedly think that feminists MUST fall into one of those categories do not know a lot about feminism itself. Or, they are still learning what feminism is. They still know the ‘outer’ part and then talk about feminism as if they know all the contents. As if there were no feminists who were ‘free’ from any of those classification. As if people who claimed themselves as feminists must then ‘follow’ the teachings of feminism category they embrace rigidly. They cannot mix one feminism category with another. For example: a radical feminist cannot embrace what a liberal feminist says.

Indeed there are some ‘waves’ in feminism history: the first—that referred to the struggle of early feminists starting in the middle of the eighteenth century America whose main, or perhaps the solely goal was to give women suffrage; the second—that referred to Betty Friedan’s contemporaries in 1960s whose struggle was to give women rights to work in public sphere; and the third, that recently has been also popularly known as post-feminism starting in the beginning of 1990s. There must be a very clear reason why this process took place and there must be a very strong tie among the first, the second, and the third ‘waves’ of women movement.

In this article, I will write the process as well as the tie in a nutshell. And, since my educational background is American Studies so that I read the history from books written by American authors, I will specifically refer to the history of women movement in America.

America declared its independence in 1776 and started having its own government ever since. From the very first general election, women were not included in the general election. American pious society thought that general election that would select president was considered as men’s affair. Before the industrial revolution really changed the life of American people, this means women were also considered as breadwinner in the agrarian lifestyle, not having right to vote in the general election was the main ‘scapegoat’ that women were considered weaker than men. It is understandable then if entering the eighteenth century, women thought that they would be equal with men when they got suffrage. The first women convention officially held in 1848 in Seneca Falls was the first formal appeal for women suffrage. The women involved in this movement—led by Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth Cady Stanton—worked hand in hand with the abolitionists.

American women eventually got their right to vote in the general election in 1920, after struggling for more than seven decades.

Getting the goal they had been struggling for a quite long period in fact ‘weakened’ women’s struggle. They thought that they had been ‘equal’ with men merely because they could join the general election.
The ‘boom’ of the industrial revolution resulted more and more factories that made more and more men leave their dwelling places to work. (Before, they had home industry besides relied their life on the agriculture. This made both men and women stayed home, to earn money together.) The ‘guilty’ feeling of being money-oriented creature due to the industrial revolution, selfish American men, working together with ‘the church’ bodies, created ‘the cult of True Womanhood’ that trapped women to be domestic creatures. When men could leave home to earn money, they insisted that their wife stay home.
The second world war—where many men had to go to war—needed women to leave their home to work in big industries. However, when the war was over, men resumed their position, they forced women to go back home. American society still embraced the cult of true womanhood with its four tenets: piety, purity, submissiveness, and domesticity.

This force made articulate and intellectual women like Betty Friedan question: “then what?” after being a good wife. Women did not have freedom to choose public sphere job. To be a ‘true’ woman, a woman had to give up her public life. While in fact, during the second world war, women had ‘obligation’ to continue American industrial life by leaving their home. This showed that women were as capable as men in public sphere. 

It is then understandable if Friedan and her contemporaries in the beginning of 1960s struggled for women to get right to pursue job outside home, because they believed that women were as good as men. Since men did not easily believe in women’s skills and capabilities, they thought that to be ‘similar’ to men, women also had to get dressed as men, to behave as men, women had to be masculine to ‘equalize’ themselves to men, etc.

Domestic chores were just as boring and made women left behind men.

As time went by, women started to realize that the core of equality between men and women lied on the control of our own bodies and mind, and not let other people control ourselves. Society could not force women to work in public spheres or to appear feminine/masculine. This was the main tenet in postfeminism, where in the beginning people mistakenly labeled it as anti-feminism. Working in public sphere or being feminine/masculine is fully women’s choice, and not right of the father, brother, or husband. There is no right or wrong in this matter. Women have full right to rule their own life.

There is nothing that does not change in this world, wise people say. This is natural law. People have to wisely recognize the history, though, how the changes happen.

I belong to the feminist who refuses to classify myself as a liberal, radical, Marxian, or any other feminists.
PT56 22.29 221208

Gender Equality

I am oftentimes bothered when finding well-educated people don’t understand the importance of gender equality in social life, for both sexes betterment, not only for women, but also for men. To me, this kind of well-educated people are people who limit their own interpretation of what a woman is born for; people who let themselves ‘blinded’ by their narrow-minded interpretation of their religious teachings, as well as the narrow-minded understanding of what a culture is.

One of its examples is when I read an article in one local tabloid. The article was about a profile of a woman who has been busy in social organizations in Central Java. She said that gender equality does not necessarily mean the equal number. It means that she criticized the affirmative action given to women in politic sphere. Women do not need affirmative action to show that they are as capable as men. Furthermore, she said that gender equality clashed religious teachings as well as Indonesian culture.

Unfortunately the article didn’t give thorough explanation of that woman what she meant by saying that the success of gender equality does not automatically result in the more number of women involved in public sphere. Therefore, I had to use my interpretation when reading such a limited accusation, “gender equality is a failure if the success of it lies in the quantity”.

To know my opinion on feminism (gender equality means feminist movement), read my previous post on “Feminism: a western culture?”

I am of opinion that it is necessary to give affirmative action to show that they are as capable as men in politics due to the fact that women have had limit access to politics because they have been considered incapable. Why incapable? Because they have been considered as domestic creatures so that their main duty is to take care of children and husbands. Take a look at the example of the number of students for vocational schools. Many vocational schools offering the skills to cook, to sew, and recently including for makeup have been full of female students. On the other hand, vocational schools offering the skills for machines, electricity, etc have been full of male students. Besides, one thing we cannot deny is that parents give sons more priority to continue their education than daughters when they have financial constraints, without trying to analyze who has a higher intellect.

Because women have been imprisoned in domestic sphere, they have had limited experience in public sphere.

So, how to find out that women are also as capable as men in public sphere, especially in politics? Give them a chance to show their capability. How? Give them affirmative action. Don’t limit them only as domestic creatures.

Women are human beings, and not just the second sex. It means that they have full right to make a choice in their life, without any limitation based on religious teachings or the so-called cultures. They are free to choose

1. to be single, or married.
2. to be a full housewife or have career outside home
3. to be a full mother or a part time mother because they want to have career outside home
4. to be single parent when they don’t find any man suitable with their way of life
5. not to have a baby or to be a breeder
6. to work in public as well as domestic sphere
7. to be lesbian or straight
8. including to be a superwoman who is willing to fulfill their religious teaching requirement (read => to get married, having kids, be a super wife as well as mother, not to mention as money maker too, without forgetting her ‘main duty’ as the servant of their husband and children)

Once again, women are free to choose which suits their interest, without any burden in following religious teachings or cultures. Treat women as adult and human beings and then ask them to be responsible with their choices.

PT56 19.44 070108

Is Feminism Against Marriage?

Is feminism against marriage?

Indeed many feminists opine that marriage is one institution that often oppresses women. Moreover in Indonesia where the marriage document states that in a marriage

Husbands act as breadwinner while wives act as the housewife/homemaker. Therefore, the husband is to support the family’s daily/monthly needs (as much as the husband’s ability to earn money), and the wife gets financial support from the husband as much as the husband’s ability to earn money.

Husbands lead and guide the family while wives respect and obey the husbands.

Husbands protect wives and children while wives take care of the household.

Husbands find solutions for problems faced by the family and wives respect and obey the solutions.

Husbands help wives do wives’ household chores.

At a glance the statements in the marriage document seem fine. However, when we pay more attention to the statements and read between the lines, we can see the imbalance of husbands and wives’ position in a family. Let us discuss the items one by one.

The first point, the appointment of men as breadwinner and women as the homemaker is an oppression. The use of words “give financial support as much as (or as low as?) to the wives will give space for men to do violence. Moreover with some hadith proposed by many ulemas (experts in Islamic teachings), “A pious woman is a woman who receives the money from the husband no matter how small the amount is and thank God for that.” While in the culture, people believe that a good (and smart) woman is a woman who can manage the money well.

When a man is not lucky to get money to give the wife, the wife must understand that. As a pious, good, and smart woman, the wife even oftentimes has to be able to find a way to survive. For those who are familiar with literary work, you can refer to the similar situation with the marriage between Torvald and Nora in Henrik Ibsen’s A DOLL’S HOUSE.

In fact the oppression here is for both men and women. They cannot choose which role they want to have. They must take it for granted. If not, they must be ready to be labeled ‘not normal’. One college friend of mine who decided together with her husband that she was the breadwinner and the husband was the homemaker once told me that she often got insulting questions, not only from public, but also from their own relatives.

In this era where it is already common for women to work to earn money in public sphere, they are still obliged to be homemakers because the marriage document states so. This made the oppression to women bigger.

The second point to me shows a very clear oppression to women. Not only can men lead and guide the family, women can do it as well. It is better if the statement is changed into both men and women lead and guide the family together, and respect each other. The words RESPECT EACH OTHER is more important to be emphasized, in my opinion. I find many examples of oppression because of the consensus of “the husband loves the wife and the wife respects the husband.” Many men complain to their wives, “Don’t you consider me as a man anymore so that you don’t listen to me?” A very tricky question that miraculously shuts women’s mouth and obey their husband because they are afraid to be labeled not a good and pious wife,
RESPECTING EACH OTHER can also be applied to better the third point. When a man respects his wife’s rights to do things she wants to do, he will understand that. Automatically protecting the wife and also the children will happen. Doing the household chores together will be more fairly and beautifully seen rather than the chores are only done by one side, the wife, and the man just busily observes his wife doing while saying, “You were born to do those household chores, my sweety. On the contrary, I was born only to look at you doing them.” In Indonesia, cooking, cleaning the house, washing and ironing clothes are still often viewed as women’s duties at home (because those women do not get paid professionally for those things.)

The fourth point is very oppressive to women. When facing problems, both man and woman had better discuss them together, measure the positive and negative points of the problems together, and then find solutions together. Both man and woman have equally the same right to express their opinions. And? Doing and obeying the solutions together. No party will be forced to listen and obey the other party.

The last point is good. However, when it is related to the first point—women as the homemaker, doing household chores is the main duty of a wife—many men will avoid doing this. Besides, dividing duties based on sex is still very strong in Indonesia. Many people still consider it as a wonderful thing when the husband helps doing household chores. Instead of considering it as something natural, people still adore men who are willing to help the wife do the cooking or washing clothes, for example.

Is it possible to change what has been stated in the marriage document so that marriage becomes women-friendly? I am doubtful of it thinking that Indonesian government is still very patriarchal (although we already had a woman president). Besides, is the problem easily solved only by changing the statements if the mind of many Indonesian people are still patriarchal?

Whether a marriage is oppressive to women or not, it all comes back to the two parties, the husband and the wife. As long as they respect each other, no matter what is stated in the document, none of them will feel oppressed. However, I must say that it needs a big courage on the husband’s side to oppose the mainstream of patriarchal culture. The example is from my college friend’s marriage life. She acts as the breadwinner while the husband acts as the homemakers and takes care of the children. Another example is my ex workmate. She is a full housewife while her husband is a specialist. She has divided the household chores with her husband. She mostly takes care of the two children they have, the husband does the cooking, the washing and ironing clothes, and cleaning the house. My friend will help her husband when he is busy with the patients.

When this happens, it is NOT IMPOSSIBLE for feminist women to get married. Marriage is no longer a cage for talented women to actualize themselves.

PT56 10.20 160507

Feminism? Does it work?

Several days ago, someone posted an article in one mailing list I join. The article was written by a female Muslim who did not believe that feminist movement would succeed in its struggle to better women’s position in this patriarchal society. Instead, she suggested that Indonesian people use the teachings of Islam kaffah (perhaps I can translate this word into “the original and true”) to be applied in all aspects of life. She reasoned that since the feminist movement was brought into Indonesia in the middle of 1990s, we haven’t seen the fruit of it, although it was welcome warmly and many women have applied it in their life. She also mentioned that since feminist movement came from the West with its capitalist lifestyle, it is not really appropriate for Indonesia to “adopt” it. She opined that during Prophet Muhammad’s era, women never underwent oppression and injustice. They even got their ultimate happiness, their rights were “protected”—without any clear explanation what she meant with “protected rights” here.

In the article I entitled “God’s Law for Women?” I posted several days ago, I wrote that indeed the women movement started to get its solid struggle in the middle of the nineteenth century by having the first women convention in Seneca Falls New York. But then, is it fully true to say that this movement is merely from the West? Because only women in the West underwent oppression and violence? And women in the East in general and in Indonesia in particular did not undergo the same oppression and violence?

If I am not mistaken there were one or two people from Arabic countries that started to struggle for women’s betterment, especially struggle for women to get education. Qasim Amin is one example of this struggle.

I am of opinion that if women in the East have never undergone oppression and violence, they wouldn’t just “adopt” women movement that later on could be called as feminist movement. (the word ‘feminism’ itself was coiled in the last decade of the nineteenth century). At the very beginning, this feminist movement was indeed for white women coming from the middle and upper social class. Later on, since the movement could not answer the problems and challenge of life of other women (who were not white not coming from the middle and upper social class), the feminist movement developed with many other categories, such as multicultural feminism, eco-feminism, etc.

How many centuries have this world been dominated by male?

When we count feminist movement has been carried out for about two centuries (from the middle of the nineteenth century till now, the beginning of the twenty first century). Two hundred years means very short if it is compared to many thousands years of male-domination in the world. It is too quick to say that feminist movement has failed in its struggle for women’s betterment. Of course it is not as easy as turning down our palms with so many people—including women—trying to be loyal to the status quo of patriarchal culture.

A simple example. In my workplace, I am the only one who view the discrimination done to women as unfair while many other workmates of mine see it as something created by God instead of socially constructed. Therefore they consider me weird.

To say that feminist movement means to encourage women to forget their “proper” place as regulated by God’s law (which God’s law? That women were created as domestic creature? As weaker than men? As not rational as men?) is absolutely something very wrong. I do agree with the writer of that article’s statement that men and women were created by God to live side by side, to help each other, to be company of the other one. That is why when making a decision, making policy, women’s voice must be heard, women’s voice that really represent women’s point of view, and not women whose brain is full of patriarchal ideas. (the writer of the article is one proof that a woman can be patriarchal too, she used men’s perspective in viewing problems).

How can women have their own way of thinking, and not just adopt from men? Give them chances to get high education, give them chances to take part in public affair, give them chances to have their own experience, that then will be analysed using their own way of thinking.

Going back to the teachings of kaffah Islam?

Which teachings did she mean? I doubt if in this era there are people or a community where the people really practice the teachings of Islam the same way people in Prophet Muhammad’s era. We know that Khadija—the first wife of Prophet Muhammad—was a successful merchant that made her go to neighboring cities or countries. It shows that women in that era could have access to public life. Now in Arabic countries can women join public life? They are imprisoned at home, and then they are labelled as “to be protected”. Protection from whom? Men who always view them as seductive creatures?

Several centuries after Prophet Muhammad passed away, appeared classical fiqh (the result of Alquran interpretation, that then were referred to as Islamic Law) which was written by gender-biased ulema. They easily forgot the history that women also could join public affair, and even could become ruler (in Alquran we know the story of Belquees the Queen of Sheba). They also forgot that women could be the source of economic power. They forgot or ignore that fact so that they produced gender-biased interpretation of Alquran to imprison women and then they gave excuse “to protect women”.

If religion is “created” to humanize human being, can we say that the teachings of Islam found in those classical fiqh—that were misogynist—humanize women?

To end this article, I want to quote what Rosemary Ruether stated in her book entitled NEW WOMAN NEW EARTH: “The exclusion of women from education meant that each time a skill was professionalized, women were prevented from entering the educational institutions required for it, forbidden to exercise it on the basis of practical experience … Restricted to a sheltered sphere, kept from education and enlarging experiences, women can scarcely sense in themselves the diminishment of their true potential.” (1995:10)

PT56 22.36 290407

Feminism Ideology

Reading Aquarini Priyatna’s book entitled Kajian Budaya Feminis (published by Jalasutra in 2006, I bought it July 6, 2006) really suprised me many times, how I found similar experiences as a woman who happened to find awakening in feminism ideology. I must say that I agreed with Aquarini that a woman doesn’t need to be a feminist to realize their rights they deserve to get in this patriarchal society. Yet, Aquarini believed that she needed to be a “declared feminist” –and I am on her side absolutely—to emphasize that she doesn’t follow the path of a bulk of women in Indonesia that just follow the status quo.

My own experience having a blog at A Feminist Blog and interacting with my blog readers from (mostly) western countries made me realize that many western women have understood that they have equal position with men, deserve to enjoy their own life—without always being involved with men who “are supposed to possess them”; making their own choice in their life—without always asking for their men to make the choice for them. Some female readers of my blog said, “Nana, I already understand that women are independent creature, not always need to be related to men all the time. And to do that, I don’t need to be a feminist. I agreed with all those rights for women (e.g. to choose any profession they want, to choose whether they want to get married or stay single, to choose whether they want to have a baby or not, etc) without declaring myself as a feminist.”

I can see the difference between the awareness of women in western countries and in Indonesia about their own rights. Therefore, I commented that in Indonesia, I need to declare myself as a feminist, to show my identity.

This article was inspired by Aquarini’s article entitled “Menulis Saya—Perjalanan menuju Diri yang Baru” (I write—a journey to my new Self).

Women need to love themselves by sparing some precious time to do anyhing they like without being involved to their husbands/children. One culture I observe in Indonesia—especially in Javanese culture where I was brought up—is that women are not supposed to enjoy themselves once they get married. They must dedicate all their life to the husbands and then children. A woman will have time for herself after her husband goes to work and children go to school. However, after the beloved husband and the children go home, she must prepare herself to do anything these loved ones want her to do. No complaint. Even, when those loved ones are away from home, it doesn’t always mean that a woman can really enjoy her spare time for her own hobbies (suppose the woman is a full housewife); she has to finish doing the household chores and prepare meals for the husband and children. If she still has spare time after that, perhaps she can go shopping for pleasure, or hang around with her friends, with one BIG note: if the husband lets her do that. If not, she must stay home.

This consensus for many decades (centuries perhaps) will make women feel guilty if they don’t do this. Society (especially other women) consequently will easily call a woman as a bad one if she doesn’t follow it. And to be called as a bad woman is something undesirable by women so they are willing to sacrifice their own happiness to be called as a “good” woman. 

Aquarini almost rejected a very valuable scholarship to study in Britain only because she didnt want to leave her husband and babies. She was worried to be considered as a bad woman who was not responsible toward her beloved family?

I almost thought of leaving the scholarship I got to study in one local university in Indonesia (but different city from my hometown) in 2002 because I didn’t want to leave my daughter and her dad at that time; because I was still a conventional woman who followed the status quo of patriarchal culture.

The same as Aquarini that thought of feminism ideology as her awakening to love herself—to appreciate her own rights more highly than before—I always think that my Master’s study as the awakening where I got to know feminism ideology, where I love myself more, I appreciate my rights more, and at the same time, I “killed” my role as the “angel of the house”, also as a mother who has to be worshipped by my daughter because I am just a human being and Angie is also a human being, just as stated by Henrik Ibsen below.

HELMER: Before all else, you are a wife and a mother.

NORA: I don’t believe that any longer. I believe that before all else I am a reasonable human being.

A Doll’s House, by Henrik Ibsen, (1999:68)

When a woman is willing to be trapped in a pedestal position as a wife and a mother, she mostly then forgets that she is just a human being, just like her husband and children. When she forgets, she will easily shape herself to follow society’s norm of a good woman, that unfortunately sometimes makes her unhappy.

One example of my workmate. She got married in 2002, and she wanted to follow my step to get a scholarship to study in the same program with me the following year. Unfortunately her spoilt husband didn’t let her go. “Who will take care of me if you continue your study there?” Perhaps she idolized the role of a woman to be a wife and a mother and forgot that in fact she has full right to do anything she wanted—including to pursue her study—so that she chose to stay. I know until now sometimes she still regrets that ‘accident’, but she always says, “Well, for my husband’s happiness.” When will she think of her own happiness?

Wish I could make my folk—women in Indonesia—realize their rights that they deserve to do things they want to do without feeling worried to be considered as bad women. Wish to see men in Indonesia more confident to see women pursue career and study so that those men no longer “imprison” their wives in “good women” confinement.

PT56 13.29 031106

Feminism

“You’re a feminist, but you are married. How come?”

Aquarini started her article entitled “(Hetero)sexuality redefined” with the above question.

Some days ago I just bought a book entitled FEMINIST THOUGHT: A MORE COMPREHENSIVE INTRODUCTION by Rosemarie Putnam Tong. I bought the Indonesian version coz I cannot find the English one in Indonesia. In the book, I can find the background, and the development, besides the principles of some feminisms; Liberal Feminism, Radical Feminism, Marxist and Socialist Feminism, Psychoanalytical and Gender Feminism, Existentialist Feminism, Postmodern Feminism, Multicultural and Global Feminism, and Ecofeminism.

Feminism is not just about one definition. Feminism is not just “I am a feminist so I will not get married.” It is not as simple as that.

It is right that in 1960s, American feminists interpreted feminism as ‘being like men’, so that many feminists at that time got dressed like men, walked like men too, besides their way of thinking to be the breadwinner outside house. They didn’t like—and a bit despised—women who decided to be homemakers. They just represented the white middle-class women. They didn’t represent any other group of women, such as colored women and low class women. Gradually, women all over the world were awaken to follow their predecessors and started to define what feminism was for them. It is understandable then if they came to the different definition from those white middle class American women.

Many radical feminists chose to live single or be lesbians coz in their eyes, men are just creators of violence in this life. However, many other feminists get married. There is no problem with that.

The main idea of feminism, to me, is equality for women in all aspects. Women have full right to decide what they want to do in their life without depending on anybody else, moreover on men to make decision for them. Women can choose to be astronauts, scientists, or even feminist homemakers to shape feminist children. Women can choose to be lesbian, or to live single and happy with that, or marry men they love. Women can become feminine by wearing dress, high-heeled shoes, makeup, carrying a cute handbag or choose to wear trousers, sneakers, no makeup at all, carrying backpack. Women can choose to be motherly but they can also choose not to be like that.

Women are not supposed to be forced to be like this or like that; or to do this and that only because they were born as women, as having female bodies.

PT56 22.21 170806

Si Parasit Lajang

SI PARASIT LAJANG by Ayu Utami, a feminist writer of Indonesia is one of my favorite books. I bought it in one book fair held in Yogyakarta on October 12, 2003. FYI, I always write the date and the place where I buy my books on the last page so that it is easy for me to check it next time. :) So, it is not coz I have a very great memory. LOL. How can I remember the time and the place where I buy all my books that until now comprise more than 700 titles? LOL.

I was still shaping myself to be a feminist at that time, after I bought a book entitled STUDI ALQURAN KONTEMPORER some months before that. This is the first book that opened my mind that there will always be new things in anything, including in interpreting Alquran, moreover in any other thing. When something is socially constructed, there will always be changes in re-viewing it. Naïve Nana was still very naïve at that time, and oftentimes saw social constructions as something created, as a “destiny”. A new Nana was born in 2003. LOL. “Do you feel happier with the new you?” a workmate asked me such a question some time ago. “Everything has risk and responsibility in this life. In one side, probably I am happier with the new me. However, in another side, I also easily become hurt when seeing the unfairness done to women, something that probably didn’t bother me in the past; such as a woman will always be the second in the family after the husband, sometimes even the third after the husband and the children. Aquarini illustrated in her book KAJIAN BUDAYA FEMINIS, “an ordinary woman is a woman who is willing to lose her old self, who always gives the first priority to the husband first, the children second, and herself the last, if she still has time to take care of herself.”

Many provoking ideas I got when reading Ayu Utami’s book. Therefore, I often promote the book to my workmates and friends. LOL. I also bought the book to two male friends of mine to show my gratitude to them. Well, two reasons behind it: I wanted to thank them for spending their special time for me, and making me very special. LOL. The second reason was that I wanted to provoke them too in viewing man-woman relationship when reading the book. Tricky of me, huh? LOL.

The book consists of 33 articles, not all about gender things. Some are about Ayu’s witty criticism on life (such as, why writers in Indonesia seldom include animals in the stories, does it show that Indonesian people don’t love animals? About urine therapy, etc), also her criticism on the national politics of Indonesia (e.g. why until now PKI (Indonesia Communist Party) is still considered as latent danger. After Soeharto diminished the party in 1966, the offspring of the party is still considered as danger, to enliven this Communist Party again so that they don’t get appropriate treatment from the nation. Indonesian people easily get provoked with this PKI term until now.

I also take two articles from the book to discuss in my SPEAKING class. I didn’t bother myself to translate the articles into English. I let my students read the articles in Bahasa Indonesia. However, of course, the discussion in the class was conducted in English.

Until now, I have read some articles in SI PARASIT LAJANG many times. I never find it a bore. :) Perhaps next time I will give an interpretation of one article and post it in my blog. :)

PT56 13.19 020806

Who is afraid of feminists?

REASSURANCE

Can you imagine nothing better, brother,
Than that which you have always had before?
Have you been so content with "wife and mother,"
You dare hope nothing more?

Have you forever prized her, praised her, sung her,
The happy queen of a most happy reign?
Never dishonored her, despised her, flung her
Derision and disdain?

Go ask the literature of all the ages!
Books that were written before women read!
Pagan and Christian, satirists and sages–
Read what the world has said.

There was no power on earth to bid you slacken
The generous hand that painted her disgrace!
There was no shame on earth too black to blacken
That much-praised woman-face.

Eve and Pandora!–always you begin it–
The ancients called her Sin and Shame and Death.
"There is no evil without woman in it,"
The modern proverb saith.

She has been yours in uttermost possession–
Your slave, your mother, your well-chosen bride–
And you have owned in million-fold confession,
You were not satisfied.

Peace then! Fear not the coming woman, brother.
Owning herself, she giveth all the more.
She shall be better woman, wife and mother,
Than man hath known before.

The above poem was written by Charlotte Perkins Gilman, who lived in 1860-1935. Twentieth century critics considered her a feminist, coz during most of her life, she spent to write novels, short stories, poems, and books that always illustrated about women’s lives. She also traveled across America and Europe to give lectures about women’s movement. However, she herself didn’t call her as a feminist, but a humanist.

During Gilman’s era, most women who were involved in women’s movement struggled for one thing—to ask for the government to give women suffrage. They thought that what made women not equal with men was coz men got suffrage while women didn’t. Getting involved in general election, men were superior; i.e. to be president, ministers, House of Representatives, etc. Women didn’t. Therefore, to make women equal with men was by getting right to vote in general election.

Gilman saw the basic problem for the inequality between men and women was not that. Women’s financial dependence toward men made women inferior. It is understandable then if Gilman opined to make women equal to men, women must work, get their own income, so that they no longer depend on men.

I believe Gilman agreed with Marx theory that women became marginalized coz they didn’t have money.

However, for some inferior men who think that they deserve to be superior to women coz of money, they don’t like the idea of women become financially independent.

I remember some years ago, a male workmate of mine said to me that he wouldn’t like to let his wife-to-be work. “Women who work don’t respect their husbands. I want my wife-to-be to stay home, to serve me, to do the household chores, no need to think of money. I will provide all the money she needs.”

From one side, it seems that he is a very responsible man “who will provide all the money his wife needs.” However, it is also clearly seen that he is not confident—his wife will not respect him if she has her own money. Is money the only thing that will make someone respects other people? Don’t we have to always respect one another no matter someone has money or not?

Referring to Gilman’s poem I quoted above, Gilman illustrated it very well how some—maybe many—men don’t feel confident that women will become “better creatures” when they are financially independent. Men don’t need to feel burdened heavily to do all things (especially related to money, and other public affairs) by themselves coz women will help them do it. However, of course, men must decrease their feeling superior. It will make both men and women equal.

And let’s welcome a better world.

I absolutely agree with what Gadis Arivia said in one of her article that men must thank feminists. Feminists really want to make a better future for both men and women. FYI, Gadis Arivia is the founder of the first feminist journal in Indonesia with its motto “for awakening and equality”.
PT56 08.50 100506

Feminism starts to die?

Some days ago, in one mailing list I joined, there was a message about women’s movement is leading back to “sunnatullah” (read è God’s law). She said that feminists started to realize that their struggle for equality between men and women doesn’t get any advancement; therefore they are tired and start to give up. They start to take things for granted, as “sunnatullah”; that men were created to be leaders and women as followers; that men were created to be the superior, women the submissive; that men dominate public sphere, women domestic., etc.

By mentioning the word SUNNATULLAH or God’s law, she opined that indeed God created men to be the dominant and women the dominated; that is exactly what God wanted to see in this world when God created all this universe with the creatures—human beings, animals, and plants.

Well, honestly speaking, I suspected that this woman joining this mailing list (the name of the mailing list is “perempuan” or women) was not coz she was a feminist, just like me. However, she even wanted to “ruin” from inside.

It reminded me of what I got from my teachers in elementary school. They always used the word SUNNATULLAH to say that women were created to stay home, to do household chores, to serve the husband, to take care of the children, etc. it also reminded me of one scene in The Stepford Wives movie where one husband refused to help his wife to do household chores with a very ridiculous reason, “I have a penis.”

What is SUNNATULLAH? What is God’s law? How sure are we to interpret what God meant when creating all this universe? How sure are we that God created men to be the dominant and women the dominated so that that particular woman used the word SUNNATULLAH as if she interpreted all of this the best, the most right?

When learning about literary theory and coming to hermeneutics as one theory used to interpret literary works, I concluded that people really cannot ignore what they have stored in their minds when interpreting something. Until now, the ones who have interpreted Al-Quran, the Holy Book for Muslim are men. Obviously when interpreting this Holy Book, they also use their gender-biased perspective, saying that women are the weaker sex so that they need protection from men; saying that men are the strong sex so that they can do anything they want; including that public-domestic dichotomy.

I believe when that woman used the word SUNNATULLAH, she also used what she has stored in her mind, things she got from her gender-biased teachers. I am of opinion that NO ONE KNOWS WELL WHAT GOD WANTED THIS WORLD. They are just busy with their own interpretation; selfish men with their gender biased ideas; (not confident) women with those gender-biased ideas planted on their mind and believe them as something gifted from God.

I myself don’t see that women’s movement has lost its spirit to move on. I have seen more and more organizations dealing with women established in Indonesia; more and more feminists have seminars, workshop, conference and those sorts of things to spread feminism ideology, for a more equal community between men and women; more and more books on feminism written, and more and more people buy those kinds of books. I have seen the proof. For example, when a new book on feminism is published, it will be sold out in a shorter time than some years ago; more and more people know about this ideology and accept it (I am included). It means there will be more people struggling for a free gender-biased society.

Referring that patriarchy has dominated this world since time immemorial, of course, we need a very long time to create a more equal community, not just in one decade, two decades, or even a century. It needs a daring and tireless effort from people who are concerned with that.

PT 56 22.55 070506

Sexuality

Feminism ideology has come to Indonesia since the twentieth century, perhaps around the beginning of 1990s, although talking about giving suffrage to women in the general election, Indonesia has done that since the first general election in 1955 under Soekarno presidency. (For comparison, American women got their suffrage in 1920 after struggling for many decades since the first women summit in 1848. Indonesia got its independence in 1945 and had the first general election in 1955.)


The word “gender” has become quite familiar to Indonesian people, though perhaps only in big cities, and I have proven it that many of my teenage students don’t know yet what the word “gender” means. When I talked about stereotyping of male and female was not a fair thing to do, I could see they didn’t have any idea why I opined that; why I said, “If you say a woman will not make a good mother because she often leaves her children due to her profession, I can also say that a man will not be a good father when he also often leaves his children due to his job outside.” They still think that public sphere belongs to men and domestic sphere belongs to women; that women are created to be a housewife, so when a woman wants to have a job outside, it is just FAIR to give her double burden, to work outside but still has to be responsible for all household chores. (FYI, The New Order regime under Soeharto successfully planted this “ideology”—about double burden for women who want to work professionally outside their domestic sphere—into Indonesian people’s minds.)


Many Non Governmental Organizations dealing with women’s betterment in lives have done a lot to socialize the unfair stereotyping; that it is all only socially constructed, and not naturally created. (But, still I must say that those feminists have to struggle hard to realize the more equal chances for women in all facets in this life, e.g. chances to choose any profession to their heart’s content according to their skill, talent, and capability, chances to get equal pay for the same job as men, chances to make a name for themselves, and not just as “Mrs. X”, chances to use family name as they want, etc.)


That stereotyping in gender is socially constructed has been known in Indonesia. However, that sexual orientation is also socially constructed is not publicly known yet. Even, there are some steps people do to restrict this; that the only NORMAL sexuality is HETEROSEXUALITY and the other kinds of sexuality (read è homosexuality, bisexuality, asexuality, and transgender) are ABNORMAL. And as in other parts of the world, RELIGION plays a very important role in constructing that “if you are female, your sexual orientation is male, and vice versa, if you want to be considered NORMAL, NOT SINFUL, NOT DISEASED.” Society negates the existence of people who were born as gay/lesbian/ transgender. Society easily judges such people as opposing “destiny”.


Gayle Rubin, Michel Foucault, and Judith Butler opined that sexuality is in fact also socially constructed, and not biological chromosomal fact. They claimed the theoretical orthodoxy on sexuality whose all principles were based on sexual essentialism; that is principle that consider sexuality is biological phenomenon, natural fact that exceeds social fact. For those three thinkers, sexuality is not something that is consistent, asocial, and trans-historical. Sexuality is strongly involved with history and social changes. It is not based on hormone, psyche, moreover God’s law.


Rubin: Logocentrist and Heteronormativism


Gayle Rubin, a feminist anthropologist, agreed with Derrida that “there is nothing out of the text.” It refers to there is no destiny or biological construction that comes before language signs. For example, male and female categories with all their attributes and stereotypes are not natural created but constitute products of history and representation. Women become the second sex is not based on biological identity, but it is caused by negative image given to them based on science and religion discourses. One meaning never comes alone without any other meaning. For example, the word “male” exists coz of its counterpart—female. Meaning doesn’t come from biology, a writer’s intention, or God’s divine revelation, but as the impact of a complex relation in language signs. Meaning comes as the impact of differance.


That is how body and sexuality come from. There is no pre-discursive body. No identity, gender or sexuality comes before a discourse. Gender and sexuality are not rooted in biology; not the extension of biological sex, but comes from language signs relation. There is no original sexuality; no sexuality precedes meaning process. Everything is constructed under logocentrist procedures. In this procedure, heterosexuality is not based on quality but based on negative label applied to other sexual practice that is non-procreative; such as homosexuality, and masturbation.


In logocentrist, heterosexuality is labeled the good, the right, higher than the other kind of sexuality.
Homosexuality and masturbation are labeled negative, the bad, the wrong, the abnormal and the criminal.


In Thinking About Sex (1984), Rubin stated:

… sexuality that is good, normal, and natural should ideally be heterosexual, marital, monogamous, reproductive, and non-commercial. It should be coupled, relational, within the same generation and occur at home. It should not involve pornography, fetish objects, sex toys of any sort, or roles other than male and female. Any sex that validates this rules is bad, abnormal, or unnatural. Bad sex may be homosexual, unmarried, promiscuous, non-procreative, or commercial. It may be masturbatory or take place at orgies, may be casual, may cross generational lines, and may take place in public, or at least in the bushes or the baths. It may involve the use of pornography, fetish objects or unusual roles.

Foucault: Power-Knowledge-Pleasure and Sexuality


Sexuality is one most-discussed theme in Foucault’s books, such as Herculine Barbine; Being The Recently Discovered Memoirs of a Nineteenth-Century French Hermaphrodite (1979), and his very well-known trilogy of The History of Sexuality, The History of Sexuality I; The Will to Know (1983), The History of Sexuality II; The Use of Pleasure (1985), and The History of Sexuality III; The Care of the Self (1986). In these books, Foucault asserted that femininity, masculinity, and sexuality are the results of “disciplined practice” or the result of power and knowledge relation. Foucault disclosed the univocal heterosexuality regime that has been considered as the norm, the universal and the essence of human beings.


In The History of Sexuality I, Foucault explained that sexuality is not considered as something given naturally, a secret sphere that has to be disclosed and found. Sexuality was formed historically, and not naturally fact.


Foucault stated:

Sexuality must not be thought of as a kind of natural given which power tries to hold in check, or as an obscure domain which knowledge tries gradually to uncover. It is the name that can be given to a historical construct: not a furtive reality that is difficult to grasp, but a great surface network in which the stimulation of bodies, the intensification of pleasures, the incitement to discourse, the formation of special knowledge, the strengthening of controls and resistances, are linked to one another.

In general, Foucault identified five strategic unities to reproduce and multiply sexuality discourses. First, the psychiatrisation of perverse pleasure is an opinion that human beings are to have one only sex (true mono-sexed human being). Via medical science, law and course, everybody is to have only one true sex. As an example, Foucault illustrated what happened bo Herculine Barbine, a hermaphrodite living in the nineteenth century France. When Barbine was born, Barbine was identified as female. However, as some time, some doctors and ministers claimed that Barbine had to change Barbine’s sex to be “male” due to masculine characters Barbine had. Feeling oppressed and depressed, Barbine eventually committed suicide. This case showed how medical field, court and law held a very important role to found mono-sexed human being during Modern Western history. When a human is anatomically male, he must be masculine. When a human is anatomically female, she must be feminine. There is no in-between identity.


Second, the socialization of procreative behavior. Contradictory from Ancient Greek and Roman sexuality discourses, modern western sexuality of nineteenth century was more oriented to procreative goals, not just for pleasure. Foucault called it scientia sexual-is, while Ancient Roman sexuality oriented on pleasure or aphrodisia as ars erotica. The goal of scientia sexual-is is to maximize the strength, efficiency in marriage and sexuality. Therefore, heterosexuality is baptized as the most legal sexuality. Lust or sexual pleasure is caged in heteronormativity. The married couple is also burdened with social and medical responsibility that is to protect family from sexual pathogenic diseases.


Third, the pleasure psychiatrisation. This strategy works by pathologizing all kinds of deviation from “normally procreative sexuality” principles. Therefore, sex for pleasures is cursed. Masturbation and homosexuality that often engender erotic pleasures are considered abnormal, deviant, and need to be medicated. Different from Ancient Greek sexuality, homosexuality and masturbation were not rejected, not labeled abnormal.


Fourth, female body historization. In this strategy, feminine body is analyzed, integrated into medical practice sphere coz the inherent diseases and then placed into “organic communication with social body”. Foucault wrote:


A three fold process whereby the feminine body was analyzed—qualified and disqualified—as being thoroughly saturated with sexuality, whereby it was integrated into the sphere of medical practices, by reason of a pathology intrinsic to it; whereby, finally, it was placed in organic communication with the social body (whose regulated fecundity it was supposed to ensure), the family space (of which it had to be substantial and functional element), and the life of children (which it produced and had to guarantee, by virtue of biologico-moral responsibility lasting through the entire period of children’s education): the Mother, with her negative image of nervous women, constituted the most visible form of this hysterization.


Here, female sexuality is constituted as their central identity, women are their biology, and sexuality is the core of their biology. Sexuality is not only having sex, but also involves masturbation experience, pregnancy, childbirth, and menopause. This hysterization claims women to be deregulated, made into the legal object psychological and medical intervention and control.


Fifth, child sexuality pedagogy. This strategy considers practice of child sexuality as potentially dangerous coz it will engender “physical and moral ruins, individually and collectively. Masturbation and other non-procreative sexual practices are labeled dangerous and opposing nature. The natural, safe and true sex pedagogy toward children become significant instrument in legalizing heterosexuality as the norm.


These five strategies have functions to regulate and deploy aphrodiasia (lust), and encratia (self control, and self fight). The impact of this transformation is, new oppression of chresis (the use of lust) to epimeleia (attention to oneself), and practices to know oneself.


Judith Butler: Heterosexual matrix versus Performativity


Butler developed the theory of performativity in the beginning of 1990s via her monumental works Gender Trouble and Bodies That Matter. Butler claimed that gender or sexuality is the imitative structure, reiteration and ‘performativity’.


Butler stated:

Imitation is at the heart of the heterosexual project and its gender bynarisms, that drag is not a secondary imitation that presupposes a prior and original gender, but that hegemonic heterosexuality is itself a constant and repeated effort to imitate its own idealization. That it must repeat this imitation, that it sets up pathologizing practices and normalizing sciences in order to produce and consecrate its own claim on originality and propriety, suggest that heterosexual performativity is beset by an anxiety that it can never fully overcome, that its effort to become its own idealization can never be fully achieved, and that it is consistently haunted by that domain of sexual possibility that must be excluded for heterosexualized gender to produce itself.

Butler believed that there is no gender identity behind gender expression. Identity is shaped performatively, reiteratively until it reaches the original identity. For Butler, gender or sexuality is like drag, beauty contest followed by male-to-female transgender to show that they are “perfect women”. Those contestants that have anatomically male bodies have become “women”—slim bodies, smooth skin, spotless complexion, beautiful faces, etc. Realness on gender, identity, and sexuality is produced and reproduced under a series of actions, gestures, and ambition that are articulated and done so that it creates the illusion of an interior and organizing gender core.


Gestures, action and body movement are not only expressive but also constitutive. Therefore we can identify that what we have considered as the essence is in fact only the result of body movement and other discourses.


Butler identified several structural integrity used to eternalize heterosexuality naturally. One of them is “sex materialism”. To explain this concept, Butler deconstructed gender and sexuality definition proposed by feminism. In feminist discourses, it is stated that gender is socially constructed while sex is a biological phenomenon that cannot be changed. This way of thinking assumed sexual materialism, that is an idea that sex is a construct outside history and language. For Butler, sex is also a biology constructed ideally or materialized forcefully through time.


Butler wrote:

Sex is not simple fact or static condition of a body, but a process whereby regulatory norms materialize “sex” and achieve this materialization through a forcible reiteration of those norms. That this reiteration is necessary is a sign that materialization is never quite complete, that body never quite comply with the norms by which their materialization is impelled.

Via deconstruction toward “sex” and demonstrating the discourse limit, Butler proposed concept of the materialization of the body that exceeded Foucault’s concept on the construction of sexuality. Bodies are not just plate that then are shaped into a certain gender and sex, but that gender and sex are two elements materialized to be bodies themselves.


Butler then attacked a must coherence between gender and sexual identity. In the primary discourse, everybody is to have only clear mono-sexed, without friction that needs a must coherence between genitals (the inside) and gender (clothes, roles, and identity—the outside). This coherence has been used as basic to decide the normal and abnormal situation of someone; that penis has no other choice but masculinity, and on the contrary, vagina has no other choice but femininity.

Here, Butler insists that gender and sexuality overlap each other seriously. Gender and sexuality simultaneously interact to decide the content and limit of masculinity and femininity and shape gender relation.


I remember some time ago when proposing this idea (that sexuality is socially constructed; that homosexuality is also given naturally), I got a very strange look from a classmate, and she said, “Aha … you belong to post modern thinkers, eh?” When talking in a classroom some time ago that “It is just okay for boys to wear pink clothes, and that the wearer is not necessarily a gay”, my students complained to me simultaneously. I laughed a little.


Well, I know, it still needs a long time for Indonesian culture to understand this. The conviction that heterosexuality is the only normal sexuality has been planted in Indonesian people’s minds for ages, and they don’t welcome the new thing.


It reminds me of my favorite motto from Emerson, “The foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.”


Well …I am just a human being who wants everybody to live peacefully in this world, not considered as the criminal, abnormal, the sinful, the diseased, the weird, while in fact they don’t really harm other people’s lives. Nobody has right to interfere other people’s lives by calling them as the wrong, and generously wants other people to follow their way of thinking that they consider the best one only because it follows the majority.


Anybody has right to live to what they think right for their way of life, as long as they don’t harm or ruin other people’s lives.


Let us live peacefully.


Reference:
Alimi, Yasir, M. “Tidak Hanya Gender, Seks Juga Konstruksi Sosial…” (“Not only Gender, Sex is also socially constructed”) Jurnal Perempuan (Women’s Journal) no. 41, 2005
Butler, Judith, Gender Trouble, London: Routledge, 1999
Butler, Judith, Bodies that Matter, London: Routledge, 1993
Butler, Judith, “Imitation and Gender Insubordination in Fuss”, Diana (ed.) Inside/Out: Lesbian Theories, Gay Theories, London: Routledge, 1991
Butler, Judith and Joan W. Scott (eds), Feminists Theorize the Political, New York: Routledge, 1992
Foucault, Michel, Herculine Barbine: Being the Recently Discovered Memoirs of a Nineteenth-Century French Hermaphrodite, Sussex: The Harvester Press, 1980
Foucault, Michel, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, London: Allen Lane, 1997
Foucault, Michel, The History of Sexuality I, Middlesex: Penguin, 1988
Foucault, Michel, The History of Sexuality II, Middlesex: Penguin, 1986
Foucault, Michel, The History of Sexuality III, Middlesex: Penguin, 1986
McHoul, Alec and Wendy Grace, A Foucault Primer: Discourse, Power and the Subject, Melbourne: Melbourne University, 1993
Weedon, Chris, Feminist Practice and Poststructuralist Theory, Monash: Monash University Press, 1998

EQUALITY

Some days ago, I went online and had a chat with a well-educated Jakarta twenty-nine-year-old guy who is already married. When I told him that I am a feminist and right now I am shaping my teenage daughter to be a feminist too, he commented, “Men don’t like feminists.”

“Well, I know many men consider feminists as enemies.”

“Not really as enemies, though.”

“Yeah … maybe that’s too much. The word “threat” may be more suitable. But I believe broad-minded, open-minded, independent, intelligent, and confident men will not think that way. They will not consider feminists as threat.”

Jokingly, I added, “Well, if all women in the world become radical feminists—many radical feminists are lesbians—those men will be jobless.” LOL.

That’s why straight men don’t like feminists. Their existence as superior creature over women is threatened. They will no longer be needed.

That short chat reminded me of a movie entitled The Stepford Wives where men feel threatened by their wives who are more intelligent, more successful, more powerful. So, to “make” their wives submissive and domestic, they put a certain chip in their wives’ brain, and voila … those women become robots, very submissive to their husbands, do what women “are supposed to do”, e.g. taking care of husband and children, serving their husbands in bed anytime they are wanted, taking care of their appearance (slim, pretty, tidy), behavior (dependent, weak, sensual, emotional, illogical) and do all household chores flawlessly. By the end of the movie, Walter Eberhart shows his confidence by rebelling that women-created-to-be-robot “tradition” in Stepford. He believes that communicating with his successful wife is a better choice to make their marriage work well and live together happily rather than making his wife—Joanna Eberhart—become a “robot”.

Men who are indoctrinated to be superior, more powerful, more successful, more intelligent than women will be inferior to find out the fact that they are even the weaker, less successful and less intelligent than women. In the past, before women went to school to get knowledge, they accepted their “destiny” as the second sex for granted. Men enjoyed their “golden” years as the superior. When women got their right to get knowledge and then actualize themselves in public sphere, inferior men found it as a threat. To silence those intelligent, creative, and active women, men are supposed to work harder, they are supposed to be happier because their life partner are more reliable. They are supposed to feel challenged to show their guts.

Read the following two stanzas of Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s poem entitled “Reassurance”:

Can you imagine nothing better, brother,
Than that which you have always had before?
Have you been so content with “wife and mother,”
You dare hope nothing more?
…
Peace then! Fear not the coming woman, brother.
Owning herself, she giveth all the more.
She shall be better woman, wife, and mother,
Than man hath known before.

When feminists just want to reduce men’s burden, why should men even consider feminists as enemies? Why should they feel threatened and frightened? Why should they want to go on the status quo? It shows their inferiority, doesn’t it? It even shows they are the weaker sex, right?

That’s why as I mentioned above, broad-minded, open-minded, confident, and intelligent men will not feel inferior in front of feminists (read  women who are aware that they have exactly equal right with men in all facets in life, women who realize that they are as good as men in public sphere, and consequently, men are also as good as women in domestic sphere). Equal relationship is much better than superior-submissive relationship, isn’t it?