Category Archives: PQfEW

PQfEW: The Sphinx’s Riddle

One morning recently, I opened a book on mother-daughter relationships in fiction and was struck by this epigraph. As far as I can tell this is the poem (or “prosem,” as I sometimes call such things) in its entirety. I’m very interesting in looking up more of this woman’s work.

“Myth” by Muriel Rukeyser

Long afterward, Oedipus, old and
blinded, walked the roads. He smelled a
familiar smell. It was the Sphinx. Oedipus
said, “I want to ask you one question.
Why didn’t I recognize my mother?” “You
gave the wrong answer,” said the Sphinx.
“But that was what made everything
possible,” said Oedipus. “No,” she said.
“When I asked, What walks on four legs
in the morning, two at noon and three in
the evening, you answered, Man. You
didn’t say anything about woman.”
“When you say Man,” said Oedipus, “you
include women too. Everyone knows
that.” She said, “That’s what you think.”


Filed under PQfEW

PQfEW: bell hooks on men and sexism

from Feminist Theory: from margin to center.

All men support and perpetuate sexism and sexist oppression in one form or another.  It is crucial that feminist activists not get bogged down in intensifying our awareness of this fact to the extent that we do not stress the more unemphasized point, which is that men can lead life-affirming, meaningful lives without exploiting and oppressing women.  Like women, men have been socialized to passively accept sexist ideology.  While they need not blame themselves for accepting sexism, they must assume responsibility for eliminating it. [. . .] Men are not exploited or oppressed by sexism, but there are ways in which they suffer as a result of it.  This suffering should not be ignored.

When I first read this paragraph months ago, I wrote in the margins “Wow!  Why is this so revolutionary?”

This is why I love bell hooks.  In one paragraph, she smoothly addresses the issues of male privilege and Patriarchy Hurts Men, Too – and with grace and surety.  Feminist Theory should be required reading for all undergrads, I think – I’ve never read such a plain and accessible yet sharp explanation of intersecting oppressions.


Filed under Gender, PQfEW

Many selves

Two conversations and the PQfEW that sparked their memories.

1. Between myself and my first love, a year or more after the romance had ended and the rupture it left had started to close painfully together:
I don’t remember the context – perhaps I remarked on how much he’d changed over the last year, how he’d gone from fervently religious to agnostic and back again. He said he felt that he was the same person he had always been. I’m me, he insisted. There are always certain characteristics that define me. I’m loyal. Hard-working. Passionate.
I didn’t know how to disagree aloud, but I could see cracks in these identities he had chosen. Loyal to what, at whose expense? Passionate when and at what cost?

2. Many years later, I was drinking sour ale and waiting for a table with a former flame – the flame part was already former to this occasion of waiting. We regaled one another with tales of our shared history, of what we’d been and done since then. He said, I think you’re the same. Older. More grown-up. But the same.
I said I wouldn’t like to think so; I didn’t like who I was then. I didn’t add whether I thought he was also the same. There were some continuous threads: same cockiness, an occasional startling tenderness. I remembered those characteristics from our adolescence, but in truth I felt that the object of my infatuation from so long ago was not relevant to the person drinking sour ale with me that night.
He said, you think there’s nothing in us that stays the same? That we’re endlessly changing from the forces external to us? He didn’t say it quite like that; I’m sure he said it more eloquently and with a note of tender derision.
I thought, because it seemed like so much blasphemy to say that there was no kernel that is me. Am I nothing? Just a bundle of repeated behaviors and related images? But for the sake of argument I said yes, there is nothing. I may or may not have added, the sameness that you see in me is what you desire and fear to be the same.

3. And then there is Trinh Minh-ha saying the same thing more beautifully and with more hope. She says,

A critical difference from myself means that I am not i, am within and within i. I/i can be I or i, you and me both involved. We (with capital W) sometimes include(s), other times exclude(s) me. You and I are close, we intertwine; you may stand on the other side of the hill once in a while, but you may also be me, while remaining what you are and what i am not. The differences made between entities comprehended as absolute presences – hence the notions of pure origin and true self – are an outgrowth of a dualistic system of thought peculiar to the Occident.

So then, that idea that I am myself and not more or less than that – it is just an idea. One way of comprehending the incomprehensible. She says,

“I” is, therefore, not a unified subject, a fixed identity, or that solid mass covered with layers of superficialities one has gradually to peel off before one can see its true face. “I” is, itself, infinite layers.

And if so, there is no need to limit oneself to one self. No need to find the self, in that sense that it is something concrete that got lost or covered in dust. No need to hang onto the same self that you projected when you didn’t know what that self could or ought to be. A web, infinitely built and rebuilt, not sediment. No kind of rock, precious or not.

Quotes from Woman, Native, Other.


Filed under Ideas, Navelgazing, PQfEW

Rey Chow on “the enemy”

Last fall I had a (brief) series that I called Powerful Quotes from Empowered Women.  Like many posts on my blog, it was mainly a tool to help me process material for my work – in the case of PQfEW, to gather thoughts for weekly response papers in Feminist Studies.  I’ve decided to continue that series, since in my reading I keep coming across staggering quotes from women who’ve managed to articulate my concerns or interests more accurately than I’ve yet learned how to do.  I may or may not comment on these excerpts, since my notes on them are usually for exam purposes, but you always should feel free to comment or ask questions about context.

From Rey Chow’s Writing Diaspora.  Italics are hers, bolding is mine (wanted to remember her names for the four tactics).

I use “enemy” to refer not to an individual but to the attitude that “women” is still not a legitimate scholarly concern.  Depending on the occasion, this enemy uses a number of different but related tactics.  The first tactic may be described as habitual myopia:  “You don’t exist because I don’t see you.”  The second is conscience-clearing genitalism:  “Women?  Well, of course! . . But I am not a woman myself, so I will keep my mouth shut.”  The third is scholarly dismissal:  “Yes, women’s issues are interesting, but they are separate and the feminist approach is too narrow to merit serious study.”  The fourth is strategic ghettoization:  since “women” are all talking about the same thing over and over again, give them a place in every conference all in one corner, let them have their say, and let’s get on with our business.  These tactics of the enemy – and it is important for us to think of the enemy in terms of a dominant symbolic rather than in terms of individuals, that is, a corpus of attitudes, expressions, discourses, and the value espoused in them – are not limited to the China field.  They are descriptive of the problems characteristic of the study of non-hegemonic subjects in general.

I find this passage useful because Chow describes acts of sexism that are performed or spoken by individuals, but emphasizes they are performed or spoken in the service of a larger system of ideas of which the performer or speaker may or may not be aware.  A lot of bloggers rely on the word patriarchy as shorthand for this ideology that minimizes or erases women, but I’ve noticed that some people are suspicious of the word or the anthropomorphization of a system of concepts.  Rey Chow, I think, nicely sums up the relationship of people and ideas in that system.

Besides, I can think of an example I’ve heard of every one one of those tactics.  Habitual myopia – the students of Dead White Guy literature who defend their narrow focus by insisting that it’s where all the Great Literature’s at.  Scholarly dismissal – the professor who waved away Eve Sedgwick in our weekly reading group because he just couldn’t see the applicability of her ideas, even though the rest of us could.  And so on and on. . . .

Leave a comment

Filed under Gender, PQfEW, Tales from the Ivory Tower

PQfEW: Pre- and Post-colonial feminisms

Better late than never.

These quotes come from the anthology that I quoted from last week, Feminist Genealogies, Colonial Legacies, Democratic Futures. The essays are mostly descriptive – they explain and contextualize some of the ways that feminism exists in so-called Third World countries. (The term Third World is problematic, but it is frequently used by these writers to refer to any country that is struggling to develop a national government, economy, and identity in the wake of American or European colonization.) But the essays are also a little prescriptive – they are warnings or maybe even chastisements to Western feminists who make Third World oppression their business without acquainting themselves with the colonial history that led to the present state.

Reading transnational feminism is challenging for me – world history is not my strong suit, and transnational feminists frequently employ sharp theoretical criticisms as well as material narratives. But the perspective is well worth the challenge – let me know if you want me to explain or clarify anything in this sampling.

“Throughout global history, with few exceptions, women, the feminine, and figures of gender, have traditionally anchored the nationalist imaginary – that undisclosed ideological matrix of nationalist culture. For example, at some point of their historical emergence, nations and nationalisms inevitably posit and naturalize a strategic set of relationships linking land, language, history, and people to produce a crucial nexus of pivotal terms – “motherland,” “mother tongue,” historical or traditional “mother culture,” “founding fathers,” etc.- that will hold together the affective conditions, the emotive core, of nationalist ideology and pull a collection of disparate peoples into a self-identified nation.”
“Nationalism is so powerful a force in the Third World that to counter the charge if anti-nationalism – the assertion that feminism is of foreign origin and influence, and therefore implicitly or expressly anti-national – the strategic response of a Third World feminism under threat must be, and has sometimes been, to assume the nationalist mantle itself.” Geraldine Heng, “’A Great Way to Fly’: Nationalism, the State, and the Varieties of Third-World Feminism.”
There are two important prongs to this argument. 1, sexism is often built right into the foundations of a developing nation – the metaphors Heng lists are certainly familiar, and they do reflect a pattern of figuring the nation as a female body that both nurtures/generates its citizens and requires those citizens to protect and possess it. Sometimes this weird gendering of land and people remains at the metaphorical level, but often enough it reifies a preexisting division of labor and urges the nation’s men to protect their women from the political sphere, and the women to replenish the supply of protective men. Heng quotes some staggering speechs from the Singapore prime minister along these lines. She also gives a very literal example of this appropriation of the female body for national image and ideology: the Singapore Girl, the sexy air hostess/mascot for Singapore Airlines. Publicity for SIA revolved around this sexualized, Orientalized image of a passive woman eager to provide comfort and satisfaction. This image crystallizes a number of ideological problems – the appropriated female body, the hypermasculine business world, the Westernization of the business world, without which this Orientalized icon wouldn’t have so much currency – but criticism from women’s activist groups was not successful in addressing those issues. Why? They were accused of trying to sabotage the Airline’s key to successful business – which leads to quote 2: feminism in the Third World might be seen as anti-modern when it attacks processes of development that disadvantage women, but it might also be seen as too modern as it is a product of the West.
Thus, despite all of the internal contradictions, feminism may very well take on the “mantle of nationalism” (a phrase that conjures an image of hiding underneath a big national flag, to me) in order to carry on the business of protecting women’s more immediate interests.


“Prevailing gender ideologies have much bearing on the types of violence that are manifested in a given context. The confinement of women to the economically dependent role of housewife is a condition that has made it difficult for many women to leave otherwise unbearably violent situations. In other words, the domestication of women is a precondition for the crime we define as domestic violence.” Amina Mama, “Sheroes and Villains.”This is a line in a larger argument about the types of oppression experienced by women in sub-Saharan African countries, and the ways in which women resist – that resistance is a huge point in each essay I read last week. The writers insist that we avoid falling into the trap of considering “other” women helplessly victimized – where there is oppression, as I said in an earlier post, there will be resistance.
But this quote jumped out because it could certainly apply to American women as well. I find the phrase “the domestication of women” particularly compelling… it sounds like the women are animals that are housetrained for practical use or enjoyment. In the instance Mama describes – the Congolese housewives hand-picked and trained to espouse the local men employed by the colonial regime there – this is not an exaggeration; one can observe vestiges of this kind of sexism in family values talk in our own political arena.


“To fully comprehend the struggles of native peoples, and specifically native women, we must also understand the US as an advanced colonial state, because territorial colonization remains integral to the relationship between the state and native peoples.”
“Unlike other racially subordinated groups whose relationship to the American state have been defined largely by forced exclusion, the relationships of native peoples have been predicated on practices of forced inclusion.” Marie Anna Jaimes Guerrero, “Civil Rights versus Sovereignty.”
In case you forgot, the United States began as a colony – and, although we like the heroic story of breaking off from the big mean empire, the first and continuous story is one of disenfranchising a pre-existing nation – well, a multitude of pre-existing nations. This essay describes the ways in which the United States not only rewrote the citizenship and government of the indigenous people, but also superimposed a patriarchy onto cultures that practiced various degrees of matriarchy, gender equality, or gender fluidity.
Two phrases that are useful and meaningful: I’m not completely sure what Guerrero means by advanced colonial state, but it does seem that the US is one of few colonies that has not only maintained its political control over the land and indigenous people for centuries, but is pretty successful at disabling the indigenous culture: Native Americans can choose reservation or assimilation, both of which are largely dictated by US standards. Also, forced inclusion is a succinct way of describing exactly what “assimilation” means – it is not a synonym of integration, which suggests agency and cooperation.

Leave a comment

Filed under Gender, Ideas, PQfEW, Race

PQfEW and the price of an ethical dilemma

Which is nine dollars, if you’re curious.

I had jury duty today.  I reorganized my comp class’s readings for the prior three sessions and cancelled today’s session.  I packed two books, one of which was the source for this week’s quotes.

Curiously, I was Juror Number 1.  That meant I got to be the line leader as we marched up to the second waiting room and down to the courtroom.  In the courtroom they gave us all numbered placards, which we were to hold up if we answered “yes” to any of the judge’s questions.  Would anyone be incapable of walking down nine flights in case of an emergency?  No response.  Is anyone related or closely acquainted with the defendant, any of the lawyers, or the judge?  No response.  This is a criminal trial for multiple charges.  The primary charge is murder.  There is a chance – not a certainty, but a chance – that the jury would be asked to consider capital punishment.  Does anyone have a religious, ethical, or conscientious objection with the death penalty?

Pause.  Do you?

I mean, I have a vague distaste for the death penalty.  I think the entire justice system would benefit the community more if it focused on rehabilitation instead of punishment.  Punishment might take the criminal out of the world for a little while or for life, but it doesn’t solve the conditions that lead to crime in the first place.  That’s as far as I’ve ever gotten when reflecting on the death penalty, except in cases where I was so horrified by the scope of the crime that my gut reaction was this man does not deserve to live

But to make that call?  When someone says to you, Citizen you must look at this man who may have killed a human being.  If he did, would you object to the responsibility for killing him in return?  Quick now.

Resume.  I slowly raised my placard, as did about twenty others in the sixty of us.  I’m still not sure if that was the right answer.

Being Number 1 meant that I was first to be called into a little room, where a man asked me why I raised my placard on a question about hardship.  (The trial will probably go on for a week, and I would not be able to cancel or find a substitute for all of multiple classes.)  Then I read for a little while longer, and by 1pm I was released into the hall with a dozen or so others, and was handed a check for $9. 

Interestingly, my reading for this week had much to do with law.  I was reading the introduction to Feminist Geneaologies, Colonial Legacies, and Democratic Futures in which M Jacqui Alexander and Chandra Mohanty do more than just criticize the state of globalization and the stumbling development of transnational feminism: they describe what a real democracy might look like.  To do so, they have to dismantle some of the preconceptions of Democracy (they capitalize this intentionally) in the US is practiced. 

“The citizenship machinery is not ‘blind’ to differences; in fact, it uses a legal apparatus to transform difference into inequality.  In its efforts to remain ‘blind’ to differences in the name of equal treatment, the law often perpetuates the naturalization of heterosexuality and the production of psychic economies that conform to the dictates of the ideological superiority of the heterosexual family… on questions of homosexuality the state reneges on its promise to protect all citizens from terrorist violence.”

That’s just the first of several built-in inequalities they pick apart in this introduction.  They describe the imagined recipient of welfare as a young black female (although this is not always the case) and the consequent erasure of young black females as citizens due full rights.  Alexander and Mohanty both immigrated to America, and they have quite a bit to say about the process of gaining citizenship legally and ideologically.  (By the way, how do you love “psychic economies” as a creative way of talking about ideologies?)  But the overvaluation of the heterosexual family seems like a good place to start, since ENDA was recently revised in a way that doesn’t sufficiently protect transgendered people from workplace discrimination.

Actually, discussing how not-blind the law is makes a good connection to last week’s quotes about objectivity and who is presumed to possess it… additionally, Thinking Girl recently read an article questioning whether women and blacks could be impartial judges.

The second quote is a good one for me to remember – it’s so easy when discussing the cultures of hate in our own society (not to mention other ones!) to think of the objects of this hate as, well, objects.  And victims.  The example Mohanty likes to use is the veil… Westerners just love to go on rants about the veil and the seclusion of women in other countries, but the veil can also have significant personal and religious meaning.  The trouble is not the veil itself, but the forced choice of whether to wear it or not.  Regardless, it’s not useful to think of veiled women (or any women) as victims of the veil or their womanhood, because to do so erases the personhood right out of the picture.

“Women do not imagine themselves as victims or dependents of governing structures but as agents of theur own lives.  Agency is understood here as the conscious and ongoing reproduction of the terms of one’s existence while taking responsibility for this process.”


Filed under Gender, Ideas, Navelgazing, PQfEW

PQfEW: Feminist epistemology and standpoint

I’m quite late for Feminist Friday – my family was in town over the weekend.  I also only managed to cobble together two quotes and some general discussion… but that’s probably good, since the ideas are quite abstract. 

Epistemology, you probably already know, is the study of knowledge and how knowledge is, well, known. Feminist epistemology seeks to affirm women as people who can know and create knowledge – still a relevant point to make, since people still get up in front of the APA and make up theories about why women have no substantial contribution to science and culture.  (For a good rundown and smackdown on this speech, try here.)

“Vision can be good for avoiding binary oppositions. I would like to insist on the embodied nature of all vision and so reclaim the sensory system that has been used to signify a leap out of the marked body and into a conquering gaze from nowhere. . . Vision in this technological feast [as it currently is] becomes unregulated gluttony; all seems not just mythically about the god trick of seeing everything from nowhere, but to have put the myth into ordinary practice. And like the god trick, the eye fucks the world to make techno-monsters.”
Donna Haraway, “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective.”
I love this article. Haraway is no Adrienne Rich, but she does have a way with words and makes a kind of poetry out of a serious critique of scientific methodology. Her overall argument in this piece is that it’s all very well and good for women to become social and natural scientists and participate in making knowledge, but it’s also important to understand how the current understanding of “making knowledge” is necessarily limited. If science seeks total, objective, and abstract knowledge, then it is ignoring its own blind spots, irrelevancies, and biases. But if one can situate one’s knowledge as originating from a particular standpoint (I’m white, female, overeducated, middle-class, etc.) then one can acknowledge one’s partial knowledge of what there is to know… and my partial knowledge is relevant and interesting but only part of a bigger picture.


This particular pair of quotes appear in her discussion of the obsession with vision in science. Vision is useful, she says, if we understand it as seeing from a body in a particular place. The text I omitted was a description of how science and medicine enhanced the “primate” eye, make it see further and more and differently – which is not a problem for Haraway, except when it seduces our primate brains into thinking we can see everything. This imagined omnivision is a “god trick,” a phrase she invokes frequently to characterize various scientific aspirations that ignore their human limitations.  The eye seduced into believing in its own omniscience becomes an invasive, destructive eye:  it actively and hungrily devours what it can see (c.f. “male gaze“).  The solution, then, might mean acknowledging that no single eye (naked or not) can claim true objectivity – objectivity can only be approached by conversations among multiple subjective standpoints.

“Feminist inquiry joins other ‘underclass’ approaches in insisting on the importance of ‘studying up,’ instead of ‘studying down.’ While employers have often commissioned studies of how to make workers happy with less power and pay, workers have rarely been in a position to undertake or commission studies of anything at all, let alone how to make employers happy with less power and profit. Similarly, psychiatrists have endlessly studied what they regard as women’s peculiar mental and behavioral characteristics, but women have only recently begun to study the bizarre mental and behavioural characteristics of psychiatrists.”
Sandra Harding, “Is there a Feminist Method?”

As the title of this piece suggests, Harding is attempting to answer the demand for feminism to account for itself in terms of method and methodology – there was plenty of feminist theory floating about, but how you could possibly take that seriously if it didn’t have a system? Harding, along with previously quoted women, notes that there are and should be many feminisms. There are, however, ways to characterize and systematize a feminist approach. It largely has to do with recognizing your standpoint and how it affects your worldview; it is, kind of consequentially, also about critiquing systems of power and distribution. This quote points out the recentness of this institution analysis, and makes some very striking material examples – how many centuries did philosophers and doctors explain away the weirdness of women on behalf of the women? It also points out the possible good intentions of the clueless… employers want their employees happy, obviously, because they have an investment in the labor. Likewise, people of either sex might participate in sexism and misogyny without realizing it because they don’t, of course, hate women… or at least they think they don’t… but they are nonetheless invested in systems that disadvantage or dehumanize women.

 Feel free to demand explanations or ask for more detail!


Filed under Gender, Ideas, PQfEW, Vision