å November 2017

In the piece “Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving” by Lila Abu-Lughod discusses the ethics about the current war on terrorism. She also explains how cultural difference causes a strong divide in people and causes people to judge others based off of what they believe in. Ever since the terrorist attacks on 9/11, Muslims have been attacked for their beliefs and are the cause to all terrorist activities around the world. The kind of questions that news programs posed on women after 9/11, showed how they were being magnified for everything they believed in. Did Islam allow this activity? What did Muslim women believe in? The question being posed is why are people looking into the culture of a region, particularly beliefs and religion, as if it would help explain why these terrorist attacks occur.On the topic of the cultural mode of explanation, she explains how Muslim women were symbolic of the war on terror. In the speech given by Laura Bush, she wanted Muslim women wanted to justify American bombing. This would allow women to live in fear without punishment, and how the war on terrorism also involved the fight for the rights of Muslim women. The discussion of the veil or burqas displays the importance that this holds to women in Muslim society. The wearing of the burqas is a big sign in the oppression against women. Although, it is sign of oppression against women, it is also a sign of respect to the Muslim religion. Muslim women are not gonna throw their burqas on the floor to symbolize rebellion. Taking off the burqa does not give them freedom. The Taliban did not invent the burqa, it was meant to symbolize a women’s modesty. It protected women against the strangers in society. A women throwing off a burqa would essentially cause a woman to disrespect herself and lose her modesty. The culture is essentially voluntary, not forced on women. The certain cultures such as wearing a burqa is a choice made by the Muslim women and not by society.

In “Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving,” Lila Abu-Lughod criticizes how Muslim women and Islamic faith are being utilized to portray War on Terror and why that poses a problem. First of all, in regards to addressing recent terrorist attacks, there is a tendency of focusing on the cultural aspect, such as religious beliefs and the treatment of Muslim women. Abu-Lughod mentions how media likes to talk about women and religious rituals, as though understanding such aspects brings insight into terrorism. As a result, the real root of the problem rarely gets discussed; the historical and political issues are often left unveiled. By addressing and emphasizing how culturally different it is on the other side of the world, it creates a division that further impairs the ability to seek out the truth as to why such sufferings exist and find the appropriate solution.

Such “cultural mode of explanation,” and the unnecessary focus on the role of women in regards to the War on Terror can be seen as a justification for the “right” of Americans to interfere and “take over” Afghanistan. Portraying Afghan women as being inappropriately treated by the Taliban-and-the-terrorist has linked the fight against terrorism to the fight for women’s rights. Abu-Lughod seems skeptical as to whether the desire to intervene by the U.S. forces solely lies upon liberating these women. And if so, what really is the right way of saving these women? Abu-Lughod emphasizes the importance of recognizing differences and accepting that what Afghan women consider to be “liberating” may be different from what the rest of the world is trying to impose on them. As exemplified by the case regarding burqas, what many fail to realize is that it serves as a symbol for women’s modesty, not something that the Taliban has imposed upon women against their very will. As noted by anthropologist Hanna Poparek, it’s like a “portable seclusion” that allows women to be liberated out of their isolated lifestyles. However, the world often portrays women wearing burqas as being confined and repressed, while taking out the burqas means being liberated. Abu-Loghod warns against such misconceptions and hopes to instill the right solutions that is appropriately aimed to bring safety and better life for all.

In the Article by Amelia Cabezas, she is talking about countries benefit from sex industry all over the world but especially Dominican Republic and Cuba. The two countries are different each other, but they are similar at some points. Both countries used to be under control of the United States. She approaches to “sex tourism” in different points of view which is from the tourists who pays for sex and from the sex workers who get money for having sex with the tourists. It is so easy to be a sex worker in those countries. If you are struggling with living, you will easily consider to be a sex worker because that the only way to get out of poorness.  For the workers, the labor helps people to get out of the counties where women only can get enough money by doing that job to survive.  For example, there is one lady in this article who was a young mother of three children. She was working as a sex worker and the working condition was terrible. However, she had some opportunity to get helped by that job. She found some boyfriends who helped her financially. Some people actually find men taking them to their home countries. For the government, they knows allowing sex industries are immoral, but they have to pretend what is going on in that kind of industry. For the tourists, they are traveling to the countries because there are less restrictions on prostitution or other sexual industries. It is hard for the workers fell in love with them because the tourists are just coming to those countries to have fun, and they are not looking for nothing serious. I think it is very important to think about the country or people’s situation and understand the complicated relationship between citizens, industries, and the government instead of just judge them if it is morally bad or not.

Alfie Corteza

Professor Bullock

Assignment #12

In “Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving,” by Lila Abu-Lughod she explains the dilemmas that Islamic woman face in the eyes of Western countries. An example would be Western missionaries making attempts to rescue Muslim sisters, in the early 20th century by correcting their incorrect religion of being a Muslim to Christianity. As if they were in the wrong for practicing such religion that is different from their own, in the eyes of the West the missionaries had thought they were enhancing the lives of women and the society, but in truth, they were only creating problems. It is in a similar case with the Americans once the Taliban were removed from the region, they had expected that the freedom would cause the women to throw off their burqas and rejoice in the freedom that they had not felt before. However, it was revealed that they did not throw away their burqas but remained in use as it was used to maintain the image of respectability and modesty. Also, it was a way for the woman to roam around the city without a male companion because it covered them with separating and protecting them from unrelated men. Thus questioning whether or not if the Muslim woman does not need any rescuing of any kind. Besides, the fact that Westerners are “rescuing” these women in the Middle-East implies that they cannot take care of themselves and are inferior, while the West displays themselves as superior as they have the power to rescue them. Lughod questions the priorities of these non-profit and government initiatives as they focus on a small detail, for example, the liberation of the woman’s veil, instead of the importance of making the world itself a better place to live. Lughod mentions that the only reason why the United States and the West involve themselves is to benefit their military and economic goals.

In Lila Abu-Lughod’s essay she talks about the need to define what it means to be a Muslim women and have Islamic beliefs from the western world perspective. In doing so, an us versus them atmosphere was created between the two regions. There was a focus put on analyzing the culture, faith and gender dynamics rather than the history behind the current state of the government that the U.S was involved in. Everyone wanted an explanation, so religion and culture became the scapegoat instead of getting to the real root of the problem. There was a very specific picture that was being created where the westerners had to go in a save the Muslim women from a life of oppression as seen in the juxtaposition between first lady’s speech and the women in burqas. Muslim women were used to justify the war. In Laura Bush’s speech she made a distinction between people she saw as civilized, or the westerners, and Taliban. She expressed sympathy for the women and children sustaining the idea that we need to intervene and they need to be saved. She wanted to make it seem as if the American bombings were necessary to save the women and children saying that our intervention women have more freedoms. She equated the war on terrorism to be the war against the oppression of Muslim women. This was critiqued because it simplified the struggles of Muslim women ignoring the poverty and malnutrition they faced which can only be worsened with bombings. She believed that they had “selective concern” where they focus on specific issues that are seen on the surface but ignore the root of the problems. Often times the root of the problem is also similar to the issues in the west. For example, there was a fight to end the practice of sati and child marriage in South Asia, but there was no effort to give women a solid educational foundation where marriage wouldn’t be such a focus or necessity. Some of the men fighting to liberate these women were against women in their countries voting. It can make you question if the real goal is to liberate women or is it to make everyone oppress women in the more “acceptable” way.

Due Tuesday, November 28th, by midnight. Word count, at least 300 words. You may include a brief quotation, but be sure this is followed by your interpretation of the text and include the proper citation (either MLA or APA). Late assignments will be accepted for partial credit if they are submitted no later than one week after the original deadline.

In her essay, “Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving,” Lila Abu-Lughod describes an explanatory power that is attributed to the Islamic faith and Muslim women in particular. How does she characterize and critique this connection affiliated with the War on Terror, part of what she calls a “cultural mode of explanation”?

It seems Cabezas approaches sex tourism as less of an explicit and formal exchange than many may think. Contemporary sex tourism is steeped in social dynamics. In exchange for their labor, sex workers will sometimes receive, in addition to money, food, clothing, and other necessities, or luxuries. Some tourist will even establish a means of communication with their foreign companion while over seas at home. This what many sex workers hope to get into. The desire for a long term relationship through the means of sex tourism is highly sought after because it provides a lasting security.

On both sides of the market the consumer and provider of service (sex workers) have a social status assigned to them. These assignments are usually dictated by the government (Cabezas 1008). Male sex workers are considered heroes while female sex workers are considered as being negatively impactful to society   (Cabezas 1008). It seems Cabezas links how this social perception affects the relationship between these sex workers and the government. They are unfairly treated based on the way they dress, their sexuality, and gender. Women, it would seem, are weighed more heavily in their actions and how they affect society. This leads to wrongful punishment through law enforcement and dehumanization of women in general as this does not happen to only sex workers (Cabezas 1007).

Cabezas asserts that, moving forward, government should work towards representing women’s rights and sexual rights more. Women’s body is currently controlled by social groups and the state whereas it’s agency should be depend solely on the individual herself.

In Cabeza’s passage “Between Love and Money: Sex, Tourism, and Citizenship in Cuba and the Dominican Republic”, she discusses how the sexual relationships may be viewed as forced or cultural. Some ways in which sexual relationships were viewed as cultural was that because of the citizens of Cuba having interracial sexual relationships it attracted a huge pool of tourists which in turn has spurred their economy. Because of these vast array of sexual relationships, it was seen as a cultural movement because it was a regular occurrence that everyone seemed to be doing. It was also seen as forced because of the dramatic difference in social and economic inequality. It was a way for those who were considered minorities to make a living since they saw that tourists were paying money to fund sex – trade relationships. Additionally, since this is what most people were doing to rise up the social ladder some of the minorities may have felt forced to do the same. Cabeza makes an implication that women were seen as those who were monstrous and were capitalistic invaders. On the other hand  she compares men as those who stole capital and attempted to get sex for free. It was also seen as an economic movement in that women refused to give away sex for free. Not all minorities were capable of having a sexual relationship. Physical appearance and where one went in Cuba or even the Dominican Republic had a lot to do with who would be able to rise up the social ladder and who would feel forced to stay where they were. Cabeza explains that some women felt a sense of sexual citizenship in  that in order for women to be protected from oppression that they had to have felt threatened first. On the other hand, some women did not see themselves that way, instead, they felt that not  being able to make a family and not being able to procreate was a huge concern/central focus for them.

In the article, “Between love and money”, Cabezas discusses the topic of sex tourism in the countries of Cuba and the Dominican Republic. The levels of poverty in both countries pushes people to want to search for new ways to get a little bit more money than minimum wage. In both countries minimum wage does not support a family financially which makes people go for what some might consider ‘easy’ work. The political structures in both countries differs from each other, but in both they put their own people down and welcome tourist into the country to the point where the country relies mostly on tourism to make a profit. With the governments encouraging tourism to both countries, people see the opportunities to get some benefits from these tourist too. People move to these tourist areas in hopes to get some sort to benefits from these tourist, it could be directly or indirectly with sex. Everyone knows that these tourist go in the search for some companionship which sometimes do not include sex favors in returns. Groups of people in both countries who go for these foreigners in search of some financial benefit are referred to as Jinetero/a or as Sanky panky, wich are the general terms for these workers. But it all comes down to their appearance and job and gender. As long as these people have a ‘stable’ job on the side, as long as they are light-skin, and are females or males around certain areas they are considered to be normal, but when you are somebody of dark complexion and with no job, you are just considered to be a prostitute. People have seem obligated to try to fool the tourist and make them think that they are  not doing it for money only, that they are having sex with them because they feel some sort of love for this person. But sometimes they also hide their interest for money by not discussing money with them directly and accepting other types of gifts, which could eventually lead to opportunities that would get them out of their financial citations in their countries.