In "Worlding Women," it says that "the female and the domestic sphere in which she belongs 'naturally' is obscured, although the female labour and sexual services within it support and allow the male/public/political to function."  When I read that, I can't help but think about the quotation --as cliche and annoying as it can be-- "Behind every great man there is a great woman."  Women are constantly behind men, helping them succeed.   It just fascinates me that, "female labour and sexual services" back men and "allow" them to get anywhere at all.  By acquiescing to the situation of existing in an "obscured" sphere, are many women enabling men?  Are they allowing men to use them?  And in that sense, are they enabling themselves, avoiding a more difficult road of dissent?  Or is this simply a western feminist view that limits the definition of feminism? 

In Worlding Women, on page 9, Pettman says that "the state is the main organizer of the power relations of gender through its legislation and policies." So does this mean that the state is responsible for organizing "men's disembodied political sphere and women's sexualised domestic one, reflect[ing] the saturation of the female but not male body with sex" (8)? Or do you even agree? Pettman also points out that "it is often agents of the state, especially police and military, who are major abusers of women's rights" (10) and that "not all men were admitted to public power, but all men were admitted to sex right, to women's unpaid labour, sexual services and reproductive powers--to women's bodies" (7). How do these two statements relate? Are these truths in our own lives or has the "state" improved any in overcoming the sexualization of women? Finally, how does the relationship between women and the state in Scandinavian countries claim to overcome this? (Pettman mentions this on page 11, and during the Feminist Politics conference, in the "Liberalism and its Others" panel, Hirdman discussed gender equality in Sweden at length, if anyone remembers.)

On J.J. Pettman

Among the many interesting and new topics about which people have posted, Pettman also sheds light on certain concepts we have discussed thus far.
On page 8, she says "Women are then constructed as needing disciplining; for the female passions can ensnare or distract men, or set them up in competition with each other.....she needs to be under the protection/control of a man (to protect her-- or to protect the polis/the man from her?)". I found this to be similar to our discussion about the veil and how it is to protect the men from sinning and giving into their temptations.
Also, on page 10, she mentions, "...equality feminists seek to end state-directed or -sanctioned discrimination against women.......Feminist commentators remark upon the ironies of appealing to a masculinist state for protection against the violence of individual men." The leads us back to a concept introduced in The Second Sex in that women can only stop being the "other" when they stop depending on men.
Finally, Pettman introduces some very interesting questions: "How do women experience citizenship?"(pg 15) and one should ask, "what the citizen is a citizen of". (pg 23)

Lastly, I would like to hear how people responded to Pettman's remark on page 8. "TA failure to 'see' women makes possible the transformation of 'man' into a supposedly neutral and universal being. his repression that excludes female difference can only allow female inclusion at the cost of homologising them--of making women become or be seen as being like men."

Diana Taylor's article reinforced the idea of an "imagined" nation through her examination of the Dirty War in Argentina.  I find it extensively fascinating that the idea of 'citizenship' and 'the nation/nationalism' are so malleable -- we can look within America's past to see examples of this flexibility.  I wonder whether (and why or why not) ideas of "womanhood" and its meaning/practice succumb to changes much like citizenship and nationalism.  I know they altered within the sphere of redefining the nation, yet have definitions of "woman" really run the gamut?  This question is applicable to more than just the US.  Really, I'm looking for an example where 'womanhood' is broader than usual in this redefinition of nation and citizen. 

In "What is in a Rim?" Professor Tadiar explains how the Philippines is "the mistress of the United States" (p.223) and how this relationship between a first-world and third-world country can be so devastatingly destructive, but only on the third-world country's part. I loved this article because it exposed me to so many injustices that not only are still in effect, but are probably getting worse with time. That being said, I wonder if there is something I, in the first world, could actually do. Tadiar writes that we must "realize a more just form of community" by "dreaming other worlds in other ways" (242) but that's not a "real" solution, or at least an immediate solution. Is this, then, another example of how feminism may not be translatable? This article represents why feminism can be so divisive, but I want to believe that there is an effective way of reaching out without imposing western feminist agendas on those of the Philippines. To achieve feminist goals, is it necessary to first leave feminism out of the picture, restructure government/international relations, and then get into issues concerning women, or would that make feminist concerns an afterthought? Should the west stay out of this process, lest it become another example of the west imposing western ideals on foreign countries?

In Professor Kessler-Harris's lecture she paralleled Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton, and Wollstoncraft's idea of a feminist dilemma. In addition, she brought up the idea being a "mother" both symbolically and metaphorically in society. Professor Kessler Harris discussed the different tactics women used to gain their rights; arguing they were so similar to men that they should receive equal rights and/or arguing that they were drastically different and therefore should be given their own rights. All of these ideas are shown through Petman, Taylor, and Tadiar articles. In regard to Petman's article the argument that State sovereignty is based on notions of differences of gender-on exclusion or exclusiveness. How is this paralleled to Professor Harris's lecture about both the past and the future (what we are seeing in this election)? 

In her article, "Worlding Women", Jan Jindy Pettman discusses the gender dichotomy which exists within and is perpetuated by the sovereign state. She argues that this sovereign state is patriarchal and often operates onthe basis of excluding women, resulting in a system based on "men, states, and wars.. not women." This discussion makes me wonder what a female-dominated society would look like-- would "masculine" institutions like violence and war be issues, or are those elements the natural products of a gender-unequal society?

In "Worlding Women", Pettman discusses the issues of invisibility and hypervisibility for minority groups: "Women, gay men, and racialised-minority men suffer both from invisibility, where they and their interests are routinely ignored, and from hypervisibility, which places them in danger when they appear in public space. In these circumstances, some people restrict their own movements and claims. They cannot exercise full citizenship rights, even where they are legally entitled to them. Their insecurities demonstrate something that political theory often ignores -- that identities are embodied, and bodies are inscribed in ways that are 'read' to grant or deny their rights" (21). Should the political process of citizenship bypass identity politics and simply focus on treating everyone as equal? Or should these groups get special rights based on their "embodied identity"? And in the process of gaining rights on the basis of embodied identity: Do you think that it is necessary for these groups to be hypervisible, so that less tolerant citizens within the general population get used to their presence (and thus see them as citizens)? Or should they try to blend as much as possible, to avoid personal harm, at risk of their civil rights being overshadowed? Is there a median?

In her article, The Theatre of Operations: Performing Nationness in the Public Sphere, Diana Taylor discusses the expression of nationness as a performance and links it with the performance of gender. She writes, "Both gender and nation-ness (which, I will argue, are the product of each other's performance and therefore difficult to imagine separately) are oppositional and exclusionary - just as one is male as opposed to female, one is Argentinean as opposed to something else. Both are inscribed on physical bodies" (92). She laments the idea of nationness as one that,  like gender, is fundamentally oppositional; by definition it creates a subject and an other. We have discussed redefining the oppositional gender roles, so what about redefining ideas of nationness? How can nationality be expressed without automatically creating exclusionary boundaries? Taylor seems to suggest this is inherently impossible. If so, then is it important, or even necessary, to express nationality?

I have a couple of question/comments after thinking about the readings for this week. First, Prof. Tadiar's article engenders nations - Western vs. Eastern; US as male in comparison with Japan as "wife" (222) or "mistress" (223), with Philippines, in turn, being the "wife" in relation with Japan. I wonder whether defining "masculinity" and "femininity" in the suggested manner in which male is clearly dominant to the female is not simply perpetuating the discrepancy that feminists are trying to fight against. Second, both Taylor's and Pettman's articles depict masculinity as exclusive, either as military, governmental or societal forces. Based on the readings, I imagine that the opposite feminine position is inclusive; Pettman describes the goals of different feminist groups as "increasing women's access and power", "using the state for feminist goals" and "urg[ing] state action in defence of women's rights" (10), all of which attempt to include women in existing institutions. On the other hand Pettman also states that women are faced with Wollstonecraft's dilemma, in which one can either seek "a politics where gender does not matter" or "assert the special work that women do as women" (18). I find the dilemma to be inherently gendered. In the first case, women would be attempting to assimilate bodily into traditionally male roles in society. In the second, women would be unabashedly declaring their femininity - but at the same time exerting an exclusion principle that mimics the masculine exclusion that has been so often protested. The question then is whether there might be a third (or fourth or fifth, etc.) option in which a female power can be formed and exercised without ostracizing one or more parties?

nation with a capital N

Jan Pettman wrote in her piece, Worlding Women- A Feminist International Politics, on the nature of the state, state formation, and international state relations as being deeply gendered. She reveals several layers of gendered-ness, including through the law, through the military, through discipline, through normativity- ultimately asking not "what citizenship does or should mean... or what citizenship means or might become for women," (23) but "what the citizen is a citizen of?" (23) In order to understand what is happening to and around women, we must understand the center of power, through a gendered analysis. She points to the dangers presented by globalization, including the growing imposition of powerful transnational capitalist interests. I am very interested in the inter-national aspect, where nations with a capital 'N' interact- not citizens. What does it mean for women that we let these nations do the talking for us? Is representation in the state enough?

The readings this week all addressed the inherent relationship between the construction of nations, and the gender binary that exists within them. Diana Taylor asserts that the performance of gender and the performance of “nation-ness” are “mutually reinforcing.” (95). Tadiar talks about the global economy as a gendered construction, favoring the “masculine ranks of global management” and oppressing feminine characters (241). And Pettman gives reason to both Tadiar and Taylor’s evaluations of nations, identifying motherhood as the force that molds nations into masculine entities. As we talk about reconstructing the gender binary in this country and around the world, how can we expect to make any true change when it seems the gender binary is such an intrinsic aspect of the “state”? The very system that facilitates life on earth (states and the government) is based on a hierarchy between genders, then how can we presume to limit (if not eliminate) the dichotomy between men and women? Humans have formed a culture around identifying women as mothers, child-bearers and the source of the next generation. How do we steer away from a stereotype that is biologically-based? Basically, if generations of people have come to depend on a governmental structure in which men are favored and women underappreciated, what can we do to really change this without complete anarchy?

Oct. 9th

In "Disappearing Acts," Diana Taylor describes the processes by which citizens in Argentina internalize different conceptions of national identity as proscribed by the political and military authority in power (first the Perons, and then the military junta). This idea of internalization, and the focus on being seen performing these acts of identification, play out in Prof. Tadiar's description of a "deterritorialized Third World" as created by the global economy. As immigrants, specifically migrant workers, spread across the globe, there is the creation of "a new race of infantilized, feminized, commodified peoples...motoring globalized production. It is no longer, therefore, a matter of nations acting like people, but of people embodying their nations" (241). The roles of different nations in the global economy become internalized by citizens as a part of their national identity, which then must be performed in the public sphere in order to belong to the nation. Thus the use of the word "oriental" to distinguish Japanese superiority from other Asians in an international community becomes a necessary assertion of Japanese identity. The denigrating treatment of Filipina prostitutes by Japanese johns, and the general inferior treatment of migrant workers by citizens, is also part of this assertion of identity.  It follows that equality is only possible if there is an equal relationship between countries, which, given the state of the current global economy, seems impossible. How can we change national identities and imaginings of nations in the current global economy? Does it require a complete restructuring of economic relations?

October 9th Discussion Post

Nandita Sharma's WHITE NATIONALISM, ILLEGALITY, AND IMPERIALISM from last week and Professor Tadiar's SEXUAL ECONOMIES IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC COMMUNITY for this week both criticize nationalism as a tool to keep a global hierarchy in place. However, the authors seem to come up with different conclusions as to how to fight the dangers of nationalism. Sharma's piece focuses on "unwanted migrants," individuals or groups of people that do not fit in the imagined, "national community" of a state. Therefore, she concludes by discussing a No Borders movement with their declaration, "No One is Illegal" (139). Unfortunately, the No Borders movement would not resolved the issues described in Tadiar's piece.

Tadiar explores a structure already in place in which Filipino women and children are used as commodities, and move freely among state borders throughout different countries, including Japan. She examines the exportation of Filipino women and children to other countries for sexual exploitation. Tadiar writes, "...nationalities are used as instruments of exploitation. The fact that Filipino girls are imported in Japan to replace the Japanese prostitutes who used to service U.S. soldiers in Okinawa demonstrates that certain national ideologies of discrimination are at work" (238). In this passage, she asserts that Filipino women and children are imported into Japan, because they are outside of the Japanese identity. By outsourcing prostitutes to imported Filipinos, rather than using Japanese women, a power structure is formed based on nationalism in which Japan comes out on top. The use of Filipinos to provide and satiate Japanese consumption and desire, disassociates prostitution from Japanese national identity. The outsourcing of prostitutes implies that there is a market for prostitution in Japan, because there is a Filipino supply, and not the other way around.

Therefore, Sharma and Tadiar provide two ways in which nationalism upholds a global hierarchy. First, it uses state borders and national identities to exclude unwanted "outsiders." Second, it welcomes and imports "outsiders" in order to provide the "dirty" work/commodities that are "beneath" its particular people or community. Is there a way to amend/change Sharma's proposal of the No Borders movement to address both these issues?

Crimes Against Our Own?

In her writings on feminist international politics, Jan Jindy Pettman points out that by promoting the notion that women belong in domestic settings, many societies also promote the idea that men are those who belong in the public sphere, as opposed to women. They thereby promote the masculinization of politics and the male monopolization of authority. Many women take part in allowing for this phenomenon to occur, by submitting to the limitations that these male-dominated societies have outlined for them.
As Pettman's argument progresses, she points out that "while states treat women differently from men, states also treat women differently, as citizens or not, or as members of dominant or minority groups, for example" (14). Might one suggest that even women who protest their being treated unequally from men engage in behavior that promotes unfair and unequal treatment of fellow women who belong to minority groups? If so, how can we change this occurrence?