DPRK film on Western propaganda

This article has information to and a link for a really interesting documentary produced in the DPRK about Western propaganda. While most of what the documentary describes is obvious to me or (hopefully) any other leftist, it is really cool to hear the propaganda described from an outside perspective. 

http://superchief.tv/leaked-north-korean-documentary-exposes-western-propaganda-and-its-scary-how-true-it-is/

War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning by Chris Hedges

War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning 
by Chris Hedges

a Review by Lisa Grab

I picked up this book at a local book sale. I was excited to read it because I had heard Hedges speak on WBAI and found myself agreeing with his strong words, although many were also somewhat vague generalities of political rhetoric that any leftist could agree with without getting too deep into politics.

War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning is Hedges first major book. The cover mentions that it was chosen as a "First Year Book" in 2008 for University of Maryland, a finalist in the National Book Critics Circle Award for Nonfiction, and  "national bestseller." These are typically warning signs that the book is geared toward a broad audience and does not effectively challenge the imperialist paradigms created by society. I should have taken the warning more seriously.

Overall, I was disappointed by the book. Before getting into the content, I can say that it comes across as poorly written--as if Hedges pieced together multiple articles covering his experiences as a war correspondent and mixed in some incoherent, redundant arguments that leave concepts undefined and lack context and power analysis. While the book is divided into seven chapters, his arguments overlap with each individual chapter hardly elaborating on its actual topic. While I understand how these different parts of the arguments overlap and influence one another, he should have considered structuring the book differently. The individual chapters are all a mesh of paragraphs, sometimes with no transition that left me lost in regards to what Hedges is trying to relate to. Perhaps this is because it is his first major book, and he was not able to construct his argument in a way where it evolves rather than stagnates. Or, perhaps he assumed he could rely solely on his experience as a war correspondent and literature student as legitimacy for his arguments, while leaving out broader historical and political analysis.

Now to discuss the content of the book...

Hedges theory about war is divided into the seven different chapters of the book:

1. The Myth of War

2. The Plague of Nationalism

3. The Destruction of Culture

4. The Seduction of Battle and the Perversion of War

5. The Hijacking and Recovery of Memory

6. The Cause

7. Eros and Thanatos

Personally, I felt like "The Myth of War" could be reduced to one paragraph. Hedges' version of this is like a diluted version of Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky without the political context. Perhaps I feel this way because I am already familiar with the arguments, and perhaps Hedges is instead writing toward an audience that is not so familiar with the corruption of the media and our schools. Still, Hedges argument is problematic because it avoids a power analysis between the sides in a war, dismissing both sides as equally corrupt. While it may be true that each "side" in a war has its own historical narrative and interpretation of the war, Hedges seems to think people on both sides should be striving to find the "truth." But is it even possible or desirable to find this "truth" when certain powerful countries are clearly taking advantage of the weaker countries (AKA imperialism...)? Or maybe that is the "truth" that Hedges cannot come to terms with. I believe Hedges is focussing on the wrong points here and avoids confronting a class analysis. This is because it conflicts too much with the argument Hedges makes in his next chapter which is... 

"The Plague of Nationalism." Once again, Hedges seems to think both sides are equally wrong in rallying support behind a national cause, even if the nationalist cause is opposing imperialism. While it is important to critique nationalism, I believe it is even more important to critique imperialism, which Hedges completely avoids.

One of the ongoing experiences that Hedges cites is his time spent documenting the Bosnian War. I know little about this war (I am sure the majority of the US population also knows little about the war), and I was extremely uncomfortable with the claims Hedges was making, based on his experience, with little to no historical context. Whenever Hedges mentions an experience during this war, he puts in one or two sentences about what was going on politically to justify his claim. However, this was not nearly enough to understand whether Hedges had any legitimacy in making his claims, even after piecing together all the information mentioned throughout the book. Also, Hedges' arguments discuss war in a general broad sense; however, his examples are based on individuals' and their experiences. Hedges dismisses these individuals' political alliances as unimportant--showing the individualist roots of this argument and his complete avoidance of power analysis. 

The third chapter, "The Destruction of Culture" relies on the idea of "authentic culture" AKA bourgeois culture that is supposed to exist in isolation from nationalist motive but really does not. I think Hedges would have been much more accurate framing his critique of culture with a critique of propaganda and how all art, even apolitical art, is propaganda by either challenging or perpetuating the status quo. However, he does not get into this. Rather he discusses how tragic it is when any nation destroys art from a previous nation (even if it is a country destroying colonial art signifying colonial repression). Hedges' example of the Greek/Turk conflict in the chapter lacks historical and political context and does not mention which power is oppressing which. Also he does not really make much effort to tie this example in with the point he is trying to make. 

Chapters 4-6 do not offer much more to Hedges' argument--they only serve to expose even more how Hedges is avoiding historical context and indirectly blaming the victims of imperialism. I was disappointed the most with Hedges' framing of the Israeli / Palestinian conflict, where he seemed to express how both sides were equally guilty, while offering sympathy to the Palestinians. Hedges mentions the power of Israel on the nationalist level but avoids discussing the country's power and connections on an international level.

Although Hedges wrote the book shortly after the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, he almost completely avoids tying this into his analysis. He actually justifies the NATO intervention during the Bosnian War. He also hardly ever mentions the United States' involvement in the examples he cites, placing the responsibility on the reader to make this connection. But really, how many US citizens would make this connection? This has the (hopefully unwanted) effect that Hedges is justifying these wars and interventions.

The book would have been better structured as a memoir, where Hedges could share his experiences and theory without the danger of presenting his ideas as purely factual amidst his lack of historical and political analysis. I am absolutely sure that he has many interesting personal experiences that I think would be better framed around a narrative rather than around sloppily constructed arguments.

While I was disappointed by the book, recent articles by Hedges (which I will hopefully review soon) make me want to read his most recent book, Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt to see if his ideology has changed over the past decade.

Excerpt about love from Kahlil Gibran "The Prophet"

The full text is located here. 
From: The Prophet by Kahlil Gibran

On Love

      Then said Almitra, "Speak to us of Love." 
      And he raised his head and looked upon the people, and there fell a stillness upon them. And with a great voice he said: 
      When love beckons to you follow him, 
      Though his ways are hard and steep. 
      And when his wings enfold you yield to him, 
      Though the sword hidden among his pinions may wound you. And when he speaks to you believe in him, 
      Though his voice may shatter your dreams as the north wind lays waste the garden. 
      For even as love crowns you so shall he crucify you. Even as he is for your growth so is he for your pruning. 
      Even as he ascends to your height and caresses your tenderest branches that quiver in the sun, 
      So shall he descend to your roots and shake them in their clinging to the earth. Like sheaves of corn he gathers you unto himself. 
      He threshes you to make you naked. 
      He sifts you to free you from your husks. 
      He grinds you to whiteness. 
      He kneads you until you are pliant; 
      And then he assigns you to his sacred fire, that you may become sacred bread for God's sacred feast. 
      All these things shall love do unto you that you may know the secrets of your heart, and in that knowledge become a fragment of Life's heart. 
      But if in your fear you would seek only love's peace and love's pleasure, 
      Then it is better for you that you cover your nakedness and pass out of love's threshing-floor, 
      Into the seasonless world where you shall laugh, but not all of your laughter, and weep, but not all of your tears. 
      Love gives naught but itself and takes naught but from itself. 
      Love possesses not nor would it be possessed; For love is sufficient unto love. When you love you should not say, "God is in my heart," but rather, I am in the heart of God." 
      And think not you can direct the course of love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course. 
      Love has no other desire but to fulfil itself. 
      But if you love and must needs have desires, let these be your desires: 
      To melt and be like a running brook that sings its melody to the night. 
      To know the pain of too much tenderness. 
      To be wounded by your own understanding of love; 
      And to bleed willingly and joyfully. 
      To wake at dawn with a winged heart and give thanks for another day of loving; 
      To rest at the noon hour and meditate love's ecstasy; 
      To return home at eventide with gratitude; 
      And then to sleep with a prayer for the beloved in your heart and a song of praise upon your lips. 

Storyteller's Daughter by Saira Shah

Below is a short response I wrote about the Storyteller's Daughter by Saira Shah. I had to read the book for my Muslim Women Writer's class. My main issue with this book is a serious one. Since it is written in a way that is accessible and entertaining to the general Western population, I think it could help readers justify the US intervening in Afghanistan both during the Marxist Revolution and, later, to fight the Taliban. Additionally, she leaves out a huge part of the historical and political contest making it easy for the general reader to overlook the complexities she presents about Afghan society.
Here is the link to a documentary also made by Saira Shah called "Beneath the Veil."

While the book is interesting to read, I have several questions about the author’s motives and political alliances and what purpose this book is supposed to fulfill for this class.

Unlike the other writers we have studied, Saira Shah was born and raised in Britain, a Western nation. I wonder what effect this had on her beliefs about Afghanistan, despite her family history in the area. She seems to view the culture from an Orientalist perspective, by romanticizing the traditional aspects of the society. For example, she values the fearlessness and “barbarity” that the tribes exhibited toward Britain in the 1800’s (16). Her modern day perspective focuses on the oppression of women and children in refugee camps as well as in Afghanistan. However, she seems to exploit this as well by avoiding an in depth analysis of the USSR’s involvement in Afghanistan and the US funding of the fundamentalist opposition. Rather than give a full analysis, she gives bits and pieces that seem to blame the Soviet Union outside of any previous historical context. What really made me question her politics was her support and praise of her ancestor, Jan Fishan Khan, who sided with the British colonizers against his own people and helped the British capture  Delhi in India. She praises him: “rather than take part in the massacre and rout of the British, my ancestor had tried to save the lives of women and children” (23). Her framing of this situation seems to be from the pro-British perspective. She calls it a “massacre,” but who was invading who? Also, why were the British moving women and children into the area? What about the women and children that were sacrificed in Afghanistan and India for the sake of British colonization? Shah seems to lack a critical analysis of this, perhaps because of her family background and being raised in Britain.

Perhaps an explanation for this is that Shah’s purpose in writing this book is not to comment on the political or historical context. Rather, she seems to be exploring the relation between myth and reality while exploring the effects of the Taliban on Afghan society. But I am wondering, what is the underlying purpose of this, and who is Shah’s audience? As a filmmaker and reporter, she seems to like informing the West about Afghanistan, so maybe she just wants to raise awareness about the culture? Perhaps she is trying to raise awareness about how myths and stories can carry valuable information about living life--more so than Western “objective” accounts of history.  

Yoga Class Reflection

Below is a reflection paper I wrote for my yoga class. Overall it was a great class and helped me in many ways. I challenged the professor on several ideas he taught. For example, he argues that we should drink bottled water because tap water has fluoride in it. Also, he takes a individualistic approach to solving the problems in the world. While him and I may agree on the "ends," I believe his solution is not enough for achieving these goals. 

The yoga class helped strengthen different parts of me mentally, spiritually, and physically. Before taking the class, I had experience doing yoga in other places; however, I was never able to move past my desire to compete with myself and others to be the “strongest.” I think this was because the classes were not paired with instruction about the spirituality behind yoga.

            I thought it was useful how each week focused on a different chakra. It is interesting how I gained something from each class; it seemed like each lesson applied directly to something that was happening in my life. For example, with the first chakra, I was having trouble paying for food and did not have a good living situation; but was prioritizing other “needs” above this such as worrying about grad school applications. I was getting sick way more often than I used to. After the class, I realized that I was not taking care of myself and it was affecting my ability to focus and relax. The music helped with this as well. The second chakra taught me to reflect on my current and past relationships and come to peace with the engagement that I broke off several months ago. Also at the time of this class, I was dealing with some conflicts with “toxic” people and the class taught me to let go of them. The list goes on. Now, I have a new interest in studying the different chakras and using them to improve my health and interactions with others.

            I appreciated how the actual yoga we did was not very advanced compared to the other classes I took. This showed me that yoga is not about pushing myself to do advanced moves, but I should instead work on a gradual progress. Although the moves were not “advanced,” I found my muscles feeling sore after almost every class. This shows that the basic moves and poses are important if done properly.

            The lesson about food was interesting. I have a holistic healer in my hometown who has done similar things with my arm for the vitamins and medicine I was taking. He took me off all of these supplements and gave me herbal supplements and suggestions for diet. So coming into the lesson, I was already familiar with the process, but did not realize it could be applied to people and drinks. I went home and tried it with some friends. I have some disagreements with the argument about tap water. Water should be free for everyone and should not be a commodity. Additionally, private companies have less regulation for the chemicals and processes used in the water. Some bottled water is actually tap water too. Leaving tap water in an open container for several hours allows the most of the chlorine to evaporate. I am not sure if this includes the fluoride. I heard that the government puts fluoride in the water because lower income people do not have as much access to it. I do not necessarily agree with this argument, but prefer fluoride water to supporting companies that have tricked the population into buying a basic life necessity and creating tons of plastic waste from the bottles. Bottled water should not be thought of as a solution to having fluoride in tap water.

            As far as the philosophy presented in the class—I agree with most of it, but I think more is necessary. The world cannot wait for every individual to “convert” to be a better person. We are all shaped by our culture and are given prejudices that can be harmful. I think we need to change the institutions that shape our culture such as the education system, legal system, “democratic” process, economic system, etc. We need to redistribute the wealth and get rid of the idea that the US should control all other countries for economic profit. 

Conclusions About Tent State University

My previous post about Tent State opened up some conversations that clarified my feelings about the event. First of all, I no longer suspect that what we did can be considered as "wrong." Doing anything on campus to get students thinking is extremely important because it is necessary to disrupt students' complacency and make them question. We were very effective in doing this. Secondly, it is important to note that the strongest reactions were from the people who were already political and who were perhaps dogmatic about their beliefs. This is a very small population of the actual students, and therefore we should not worry about them or waste our time arguing with them. If some of them want to have a civil conversation, that is fine; but overall they are a distraction from the real audience. The regular students did not strongly reject what Tent State was presenting, and many were curious and open to conversation.

Moving forward, I hope that SDS can find a way to address both international struggles and issues that students can relate to, while making the connection between the two. My previous experience with SDS can confirm the necessity for working for both audiences to appeal to a wide variety of students. For example, at the prolonged times where SDS was engaged in student issues, many people who were more interested in international issues stopped being involved; now that our focus has shifted to international issues the opposite has occurred. One practical way we can do overcome this obstacle is by having two campaigns.

Regardless of the direction SDS takes, I hope the leadership avoids becoming distracted by the critical minority of students. Many students seem to think it is adequate to criticize those who take action, while abstaining from actually doing anything on campus. A more productive response from those who are critical would be to design their own actions and campaigns--then we will be more successful in achieving our goal for a more active campus. 

Fall of the Imam by Nawal El-Saadawi

NEW FAVORITE BOOK!

The Fall of the Imam is a novel by Nawal El-Saadawi, an Egyptian feminist writer and activist. I really hope this post makes you decide to read the book.

Nawal-El-Saadawi-001.jpg

From reading El-Saadawi's memoir about her time in women's prison, I was under the impression that she denounced religion. This assumption made me believe she was not a spiritual person. However, I was pleasantly surprised, when I found that The Fall of the Imam was entirely about spirituality and what it should be. Her story weaves in heavy criticism of organized religion as a tool of patriarchy. She exposes how these institutions fear any challenge that can empower the people and cause them to question. While depicting this, Nawal shows how children are born with a natural form of spirituality that recognizes "god" as both a mother and father.

Additionally, Nawal portrays the mother and the daughter are the heroic and revolutionary figures who fight against the male dominated society. By doing this with such a poetic and mystical style, Nawal taught me how to love women and see them as strong. I do not now why it took a book to do that for me, but the message was so strong throughout the entire novel that it had a huge impact in making me appreciate the relationships between women in their struggle against patriarchy.

fall-imam.jpg

The most powerful part of the novel is the structure. It is written in a cyclical style with a strong and tragic recurring image. While the image stays the same for the most part, the perspective and context changes throughout the novel. For me, the effect of this was that the image became related to a feeling--a feeling of love for the mother and life, how these two forms can be interconnected, and how this feeling can be deadly in a patriarchal society. It combines the beauty of life with the tragedy of repression. The image reminds me of pagan beliefs and an appreciation for "mother nature." The image is first described in the passage below:

She would have escaped had she not been halted by the smell of the land and the sea, bringing back her whole life in one moment. She halted, took a deep breath, and just at that moment the bullet struck her in the back and bored its way through like an arrow straight to her heart. She dropped to the ground, bleeding slowly. Her dog whimpered once and was silent, and the birds flew up in fright, filling the universe with their cries." 

What is interesting about the recurring theme in these passages is that Bint Allah ("daughter of God") never really "dies." She continues to have consciousness and relates memories to this one moment throughout the book. This also shows that "Bint Allah" can be seen as an idea for liberation that cannot be killed.

Victimization and Empowerment:

I also appreciate how Nawal shows women as strong, even when they are in situations where they are the victims. For example in the chapter titled "The Imam and Bint Allah," the Imam tries to devour Bint Allah. Since he cannot do this intellectually (she will neither give into his demands for respect nor follow his patriarchal religion), he tries to physically devour her. The context of this scene leads me to believe he is raping her; however, Nawal shows how Bint Allah has power over the Imam because he cannot devour or conquer the part of her that he fears--her ability to challenge male dominion, which makes the Imam fearful and insecure, and eventually destroys the Imam.

He sat in front of her sucking her bones, cracking them like sticks of sugar cane and extracting the marrow from the inside, with his tongue and lips. She watched him as she would watch a sheep fattened for the Big Feast enter the butcher's shop, his eyes sinking into their sockets with fear, for in his eyes there was nothing but fear, a terrible fear. No matter how much he ate he was never satisfied and no matter how much he protected himself with all sorts of things he never felt secure. She handed him bone after bone, then gave him the shoulder blade followed by the rump and the spleen. His belly was full, swollen like a goat skin, but she continued to hand him one piece after the other until she heard the sound of an explosion and his face fell to the ground. His eyes opened wide with surprise as though he could not believe what was happening and she said to him in a bantering tone: It begins as a game and ends in ruin. Then she lept away, light-footed as a doe, with her dog running close behind her. (144-145)

This suggests that women, as a force that challenges patriarchy, cannot be killed or suppressed, even though individuals might be. In the above passage, it is interesting how Bint Allah willfully gives the Imam her "bones" to suck on. I think this is perhaps because she knows that she can destroy him with her intellect. It is as if her body is a trap that she uses to lure him towards death. She recognizes the Imam's desire to devour her as "game," which she plays along with, knowing that it will end in ruin for the Imam. In this sense, the rape is allegorical for all relations between patriarchal men and women and should not be thought of as a literal scenario where Bint Allah willingly allows the Imam to rape her.

I think the above passage is an extremely interesting depiction of rape. It seems like most male authors always focus on the sexual aspects of rape, which objectifies the victim, even if they are still trying to gain sympathy for the female character. However, Nawal associates the act with a self-destructive gluttony that shows how patriarchy itself is self-destructive because its repression creates females who challenge it. I also think that the metaphor of the Imam sucking the marrow out of Bint Allah's bones depicts the emotional and physical pain better than realistic accounts might. This is because rape is more than a physical action and therefore can only be accurately described in ways that illustrate the violence in physical, emotional, and spiritual ways.

Definition of Love:

One of the most beautiful aspects of the book Bint Allah's recollection of falling in love, described in the chapters, "Ecstasy of Love" and "Together in the Trench." Below is a passage from "Ecstasy of Love":

During the day I moved from one wounded man to the other, carrying a pot for urine and another for stools. At night I kept wide-awake straining my ears to catch a moan. I could see his face as he turned it towards me in the dim light. It was thin and pale and wan. Over his chest there was a deep wound and from his eyes looked out a tender yearning. In the dark of night I go towards him and say: Fadl Allah was at the war front, did you see him there? Is he alive? Who is Fadl Allah? he asked. Is he your husband? He is my milk brother and he was with me in the orphanage, I said. Then I fell silent. Why are you silent? he said. What shall I say? Tell me about yourself, he said. But what can I tell you? Tell me everything, he said. 

But I did not know what to say. My life seemed full of secrets and yet when I started to talk it looked empty as though there was nothing in it to talk about. He surrounded me with his arms like a mother and whispered to me, Go to sleep, and as I slept all my fears slipped away from me. I began to talk about myself and each time I recounted something my tongue became freer and freer and my heart grew lighter and lighter. My body seemed to be flying like a body without weight. As I climbed higher and higher up the hill a gasp escaped my lips. I had always dreamt of going up to the top of the hill. For twenty long years, ever since I had been born, I had continued to see the hill between the river and the sea, there were my mother stood waiting for me. I could never forget the smell of the air, nor the damp earth under my palms, nor could I forget the tree and the rock and the slope of the hill rising up. Here was my land, my country. Its smells were the smell of my life, strong and penetrating. I opened my arms, filled my lungs with a deep breath of air like the first breath of life at the moment of birth, like the last breath of life at the moment of death. And for the first time since I was born I took in everything in one deep breath, the smell of the sea, of salt water, of iodine, of seaweed and molluscs and fresh fish. I abandoned myself to the sea air, let it seep into me, fill me up, drown me in its softness. Its white waves rose up in the night reaching to the sky, enfolding me like the arms of God. And he was by my side holding me in his arms and saying: 

Do you like fish grilled on charcoal?
I love it.
Do you prefer the head of the fish or its tail?
I like both of them.

His laughter rang out, filling the universe like the laughter of children, like an oyster shell opening its lips to desire. The air of the sea filled her with a lust for life, with a deep hunger hungry for everything. All her senses were suddenly awakened like waves in wonderful turmoil. The stars glittering over the sea were like lighted pearls. The rustle of leaves, the sound of the waves, the whisper of the wind, joined in a single call going deep. Her black eyes opened wide in abandonment to the ecstasy of love, to the moment when everything else is excluded. Then when it is over, she closes her eyes and sleeps on his chest like a child being rocked slowly, and his voice wafted to her from a distance whispers: I love you. (83-84)

I think this passage captures the comfort of finding someone to listen to your story. In a society where most people do not care about one another, it is empowering to find someone who is curious and cares. Additionally, in a patriarchal society, where women and their stories are often silenced, he provides Bint Allah the opportunity to express herself.

Here is another beautiful passage from "Together in the Trench," a poetic chapter where Bint Allah reunites with her childhood friend Fadl Allah in a trench during a war:

She closed her eyes and said: I see you as though it was only yesterday when you left. I see you as you are, as you always have been. You have never been absent, you have always been with me. He closed his eyes and rested his head on her breast just as he used to do when still a child, then suddenly awakening opened his eyes and looked at her, seeing her as she was now, a woman. They were still in the trench and time had stopped moving. He put his arms around her, and the trench became too narrow for the two of them, too narrow for his arms stretching out to enfold her, too narrow for the vast universe, as vast as the burning disc of the sun up in the heavens. And she too wound her arms around him and the trench was now too narrow for her, for her to hold the universe in her embrace. And when light revealed them in the trench holding each other, they did not unwind their arms or move apart but held each other in a long embrace, their bodies slowly merging into one and the whole world stood still to watch a scene of love, to see two beings changing into one, never to part again, never afraid of the light, never afraid of death, for each of them had known what dying was. Now he and she were gone, lost in one another, dissolved. Now no force in the world could make them part again, neither the noise of guns and rockets all around nor the loud abuse of enemies or the whispers of their friends, nor the orders of the Imam or the Devil or the Chief of Security himself. 

I opened my eyes and found myself standing in the trench alone with the letter folded in my hand. Where was Fadl Allah? I wondered. Where had he disappeared to? Had he died in the war? Had he died in prison? In the distance I could hear their panting breath draw nearer, their feet treading on the ground with the sound of their iron-heeled shoes. So I started to run in the dark of night, trying to save my life. They kept coming after me, their dogs yapping and barking behind them, and I kept on running, now knowing why I was running like this all the time. I had got as far as the spot where the hill begins to rise. It was just before the break of day and I was on the verge of giving them the slip when one of them took aim at me and got me in the back. My body continued to run a few steps, then fell to the ground, but before the letters of the alphabet had disappeared from my mind I said: He was my brother and he was with me in the children's home. Your sins are without end and shall be counted against you, in this world and in the world to come, I heard them say. You are a child of sin and so is he, and his name is not written either on the lists of Hizb Allah or on those of Hizb al-Shaitan. 

I was running and the night was black as ever. I could hear them tread with their iron feet as they chased after me. I touched my belly with my hand, feeling for it in the night as I ran. It was round and smooth and loving, warm under my palm. His voice reached me, calling from a distance, sounding like the voice of my mother: Bint Allah, come here. He moved nearer to me until our bodies almost touched. I wound my arms around him and we locked in a tight embrace. A shiver like a strange fever went right through me deep inside. A voice whispered softly in the night: Fear not, I am God and you shall give birth to Christ. It was dark and I was still running with the letter held tightly in my hand. I hid it in my bosom when I heard them panting close behind. I delivered his letter to her. I will risk my life to save it. It is more precious to me than the most precious thing I have. I will risk being stoned to death, like the Virgin Mary who risked her life to give birth to her son, like my mother who died to bring me to the world. When I reached the place where the hill starts to rise upwards midway between the river and the sea, the smell of the earth came back to me. Suddenly I felt safe and just at the moment when I could have escaped I stopped to thank God for saving me. As I knelt in prayer they hit me in the back. They always strike me from behind and when I turn around to face them they quickly disappeared. They never look me in the face. Before I fell to the ground wounded in the back I said to myself. My belly was full of the fruit of love when I kneeled on the ground to pray, but I hear the Chief of Security say: Love does not exist, only the fruit of sin. (88-90)

The above passage illustrates how true love is forbidden in the patriarchal society. While it is overtly forbidden in the society Nawal illustrates, it is also forbidden in any patriarchal society because of the gender binary. Lovers have to challenge this binary in order to find true love and doing so breaks the rules of patriarchy.

Reflections on "Tent State University"

tent-state-e1366210562772.jpg

I have heard talk about people's frustrations with this year's Tent State. I have thought of three different ways of mentally processing these frustrations, all with different implications. I am going to try to analyze these thoughts, while being as honest to myself as possible because I can probably learn something from this experience:

1) There were only a handful of people willing to organize this year's Tent State. These people organized it how they saw fit. If other people want to criticize this year's Tent State, then that is fine, but they should accept how they were not willing to help or do their own. Additionally, this was the only action taken all semester. Those who are criticizing should be putting their criticism to good use by organizing actions in ways in which they see fit. Similarly, I have heard the argument that this is not how "Tent State University" is supposed to be, and I find myself asking, "Who is the decider of what Tent State is supposed to be?" Why can't it manifest itself in different forms of different campuses based on the activist groups which are present and willing to contribute? As far as I am aware, I do not believe there is not any copyright on the idea of "Tent State," and even if there was it seems oppressive to enforce standards on a model for educating and raising awareness. 

The implications of looking at the criticisms allow me to justify our actions, while still considering their criticisms. I do not have to go insane at the thought of having done something wrong.

2) My next way of mentally processing Tent State is a worry that lingers over my mind like a dark cloud. What if we were wrong? Maybe we are a bunch of phony radicals who tricked ourselves into thinking that waving red flags will magically lead us toward communism? Are we just fooling ourselves? What if we were being elitist against the other leftists organizing on campuses? With these questions come anxieties and worries: What if they hate us? What if we are doing more harm than good? Then I get depressed and think about how it is not satisfying to simply be campaigning for lower tuition. I cannot morally justify doing this while I now that it is tied in with such larger and more pressing issues. I cannot care more about the college population that I do about the people dying as a result of US imperialism. Similarly, I cannot take groups seriously that fail to make these connections and that seemingly (through their inaction and direct or indirect support of Obama) contribute to much of the oppression that occurs on a larger scale. I have heard about working within these groups with these goals to recruit a broader range of students and having them be radicalized through experience, but I feel so alone in fighting for this and find myself lacking patience. Have I fallen into some sort of self-destructive ideological trap? I am afraid and want to crawl into a cave and hide from these attacks. 

3) My third way of handling it is more of an internal struggle. As one person, who am I to voice support for the nations that have challenged US imperialism? Have I turned into an ideologue who is no longer able to relate to the proletariat because of the consciousness that I have gained? I feel so alienated--from the beliefs of my family and old friends AND from the beliefs of comrades who I used to work with on the left. I no longer gain satisfaction from listening to leftist speakers--I just find myself criticizing them for not doing enough and angry with them for settling with small reforms. I think this ties in with the reform vs revolutionary action debate that I have not yet completely solved. While I know that certain reforms can serve to empower groups of people, I also feel like they mislead leftists into believing that all problems can be solved through reform. This allows many lefts to feed into the very system that oppresses them. One example is activism around school reform. While I admire how they can work toward improving public schools, I find myself being fatalistic about the ultimate fate of public schools. I find myself believing that any positive reforms gained can easily be undone. I see all of the energy going into changing the smallest aspects of the school system by navigating the capitalist bureaucracy--and I can't help but feel like a large part of it is wasted. Who are we--small ants--to beg the system for crumbs of reform when other ants are being stepped on all over the world? And yet, what else is there to do when that is what the majority of the people on the left are doing? By straying from this model am I being a mere individualist? 

POSITIVES:

1) The conversations we were able to have with people about how tuition ties in with the larger issues of imperialism and capitalism. 

2) Many people who were never exposed to the positive aspects of communism were able to talk about it and rethink their thoughts on it

3) People across campus were talking about tent state and asking questions about if we were being too extreme. We provoked many people.

NEGATIVES:

1) We alienated potential allies that we could have had during the occupation.

2) It is possible that, for some people, the message about lower tuition was lost in the ideology that we were expressing. 

3) We did not communicate transparently with the volunteers who joined us about how to handle the cops and when we were planning on cleaning up.

4) We did not fit Tent State into an ongoing campaign that carried through the semester. This ongoing campaign did not occur due to internal issues.

I honestly do think that the positives balanced with the negatives. If we did Tent State in a different way (given the resources we had) that was more focussed on tuition, I believe the positives and negatives would have balanced out in a similar way. For example, more people would have responded to the issue relating to tuition, but we would not have raised as much awareness about how education funding connects with broader issues of capitalism and imperialism. 

This raises important questions about tactics. Is it better to dilute the message to appeal to a broader range of people, or to have a strong and defined message that provokes people into questioning their own ideology? I think it is important to have a little bit of both, when possible. I do not think having Tent State the way we did means we can no longer engage in campaigns that are purely against tuition. Perhaps we can solve the problem by opening up conversations within the organization about balance. 

_____________

I hope I have been humble with my thoughts. This is as honest of a picture as I can make of the thoughts in my head.

______________

Below is a comment I received from someone through email that I thought was worth sharing:

I think there is a lot of complexity to the situation. Thanks for writing so much of your thoughts, Lisa. I would like to find a way to make this event even better for next year. I think that overall the event was pretty good. It got people talking and was something concrete that we were able to work on together and pull off successfully. After a semester of only doing water issues stuff it was nice to discuss other issues.

Because of the split at the beginning of the semester, there as not as big or broad of a group willing to put things together. I only got involved the day things started. So this definitely was reflected in what issues were the focus of the event. I think that if more people had been involved in the planning that the focus would have had to be on common ground issues such as tuition. But this year there was so much tension between people, I don't think anyone had much of a real taste for cooperation. For next year we can reach out to more people to get many groups to co sponsor the event. It involves camping out in the springtime and chatting on the grass, so it shouldn't be hard to attract people if we do it right.

I dont think the use of the name Tent State University is a too big of an issue but I think it is poor taste. There are no shootings or violence involved in our event and I think it is not good to have an event name that recalls Kent State. I've been told this is an NJUS name and I want to know how they thought this could be a good name for an event. For next year I would like a name that doesn't focus on such a negative event in history and instead has a more unifying and community-building feel to it.

I think that it is more important right now to focus on what unites us instead of on the issues that separate us. Montclair doesn't have a big activist community so we need to focus on building one here. This year's focus on radical issues such as the North Korea stuff pushed away people who otherwise could have been drawn in. The grad students in my office are fairly liberal and many are in a very tough situation because of rising tuition and significantly decreased school funding for the teaching and research jobs that let us work for our professors instead of working at Walmart. If this event had a different focus I imagine many of them could have been convinced to camp out because they basically sleep at the school anyway. But instead, they were laughing about the crazy NK stuff they saw in the quad and not discussing issues that could have gotten them actually involved.

Change happens very slowly sometimes. Women got the right to vote in 1920 but my grandma still had to get permission from my grandpa to get a credit card in the 1950s. We are all very small and we live in a huge world, so sometimes it feels like the little changes we can accomplish don't matter at all and that we need to find a way to make a big impact. But then I try so hard and still see that I am just one person and society all around me is so sick and apathetic that even my hardest effort rounds down to 0. I get really frustrated and sad and want to give up, but I was talking to a close friend who is much older than me and she was telling me about all the changes she has seen in her life and how over time it does all add up to something. So now I am trying to moderate my efforts so I don't get burnt out like I have felt so often before. I try to pick issues that give me joy to work on and not constant frustration. There is of course a big goal to see people finally find a way to live together peacefully and with love, but who knows if I will see it in my life time? So I need to still pay attention to creating as much positive change as I can see in my own lifetime, so that it will inspire me and make the world that I do live in now better now. 

I think that developing a larger and more active group on campus is very possible. Working aggressively toward that goal together would serve many purposes. We would be able to make concrete changes now on issues like lower tuition. Maybe tuition is a stupid idea in the first place, but even just accomplishing the short-term goal of no hikes next year works towards a more long-term goal of educational equality because it prevents an increase that would restrict access. These little successes can develop into big successes by changing our culture over time. We will also improve our own lives by being able to enjoy the company of a strong community. Maybe we will never see capitalism go down in our lives. Maybe we will get hit by an asteroid and all of this will have been pointless anyway. I would much prefer to have good friends that I can have good discussions (and disagreements!) with and work together on the things we agree on than to have divisiveness.

My response:
Thanks for the response. I hope you don't mind that I posted it on my blog for others to see. 

I agree with most of what you are saying. When I originally started SDS, I wanted to work on unifying issues and achieve small goals, while still trying to work to end capitalism. I think I became disillusioned with this process as a result of frustrations with NJUS and the voter reg drive, and am still facing that disillusionment. This is weird because, in case anyone remembers, I used to be one of the most positive and optimistic members in SDS.

This does not mean that I think doing the above would be a bad or good thing. I am still undecided. So basically, I need to sort out these personal issues and confusions. Thea, this does not mean I am questioning whether or not I am a communist (of course I am!)--I just think it is always good for me to question my tactics. Also--I feel really bad when my ideas for tactics, that I am actually sometimes unsure or insecure about, are applied to SDS and then face criticism. I feel guilty and wonder if the organization would be better off without me until i sort  out my confusion. But at the same time, it is hard to not be involved. Luckily, I won't be around SDS any more pretty soon and I will have time to start fresh with other organizations and to study these issues in more depth. 

Regardless of how I feel, I am going to try to come up with an objective summary of what SDS should be like: 

1) I think SDS needs to find a balance between student issues and outside issues. Historically, SDS is a student group that is against war and tries to tie in education issues with a broader critique of our undemocratic government and capitalism. I think in the future, SDS should be careful to try to include anyone who is sympathetic to any these issues, while making it clear that SDS is neither just a student union nor a communist group. We need to try to include all sorts of people on the left, as long as they understand the need for balance between issues. 

2) I think what happened with the split was that certain students were under the impression that SDS could serve as a student union and therefore should not mix in other issues that could alienate students sympathetic to tuition issues. However, this strays from the mission of SDS. Then, as a result of the split, those of us who remained in SDS strayed from the student issues aspect of the mission because of the tensions and not wanting to work with the people we split from. 

3) To prevent these conflicts in the future, we need to make it clear what SDS is and recruit people accordingly. We can also make it clear that people can participate in some of the actions that apply to their interests and do not have to participate in other sorts of actions. I know that I used to pretend we focussed mostly on student issues to try to "win" over new recruits. I think this was misleading and is not something that we should do. I don't think this necessarily means we need more structure in SDS. I think it has to do with how we market ourselves to the student population and how we present ourselves to new recruits. 

Regardless about how I feel about those tactics, that is as accurate of a portrayal as I can make of what SDS should be from now on. Those of us who are disillusioned, mostly myself, should use this image to get ourselves back on track. 

Does this mean tent state was wrong? NO! Like I said, there needs to be a balance between student issues and international issues. There were good things and there were bad things about Tent State. Tent State heavily emphasized international issues, so maybe the next thing we do can be about student issues. Also maybe for future tent states, we could try to have tuition and international issues more equally balanced. And there are always things we could do to make the connection between the two more clear. 

"Racism in the name of Feminism" or "Ideological Rant about Frustrations with Myself and the Left"

Article:

http://theaerogram.com/no-means-no-femens-assault-on-muslim-women/#comments

It seems to me like FEMEN's actions operate under the assumption that there is one way for a woman to liberate herself--by flinging off all of her clothes. Traditional clothing vs. modern clothing vs. nudity are lifestyles that can either be oppressing or liberating. Each society has its own code imbedded in it where, if broken, people become alarmed. Traditional clothing can be oppressive if it is forced on someone who would prefer individual expression; or it can be liberating in that it symbolizes a rejection of Western culture. Similarly, nudity can be oppressive when it is used to objective women in the media; or it can be liberating to display the body as it is without covering. This all depends on the individual and the context of the situation. 

It is because of this that FEMEN should not look at nudity as a definite means for liberation; and should not look at traditional Muslim clothing as a definite means for oppression. 

"Defiant exposure of the body may very well be how some women feel empowered, but it is ignorant to presume that this is true of all women. This is especially true of female Muslims, who can be shamed by both outsiders and fellow Muslims because of the way they chose to dress."

I learned in my Muslim Women Writers class that it is not the religion itself that is oppressive to women, but the patriarchal interpretations of religion. There are feminist interpretations of Islam that can be quite empowering. It is the patriarchal interpretations which are fueled by the political institutions, that need to be targeted, NOT the religion itself. 

mw.voice_.fb_.jpg

"Little surprise then that Muslim women are distrustful of other (usually white) women who try to “liberate” them. In fighting for the liberation of Muslim women, non-Muslim women rarely engage Muslim women in a way that allows Muslim women to keep their own agency. Instead, non-Muslim women try to “liberate” Muslim women through control — imposing Western perspectives and in essence, causing Muslim women to become invisible in their own battle."

FEMEN's actions targeting the Muslim religion are racist because they take away the agency of the Muslim women. Additionally, they target the religion in isolation from the patriarchal political institutions, which they should be criticizing. Rather than asking Muslim women how they want to liberate themselves, FEMEN forces their own interpretation of liberation on them. Additionally, it should be noted that all Muslim women should not be lumped into one category--religion is one small sliver of their identity. Subscribing one method of liberation for such a broad group of people is not productive. Perhaps FEMEN should look at a more unifying category such as class and find ways to liberate women within a particular class. Issues such as unpaid work are much more pressing than issues related to fashion. 
_____________________________

From my own experiences, I know what it is like to have someone (in this case, it was a male) try to force me toward "liberation" through persuasion. By giving into his definition of liberation, I was actually allowing myself to be oppressed by his impositions. At the time, I thought I was being liberated; however, looking back, I can see that it was something I did not want. Rather, it was something that he thought would liberate me. Without getting into the specifics, I hope you can understand what I am talking about. 

How does this fit in with the larger struggle? First of all, a lot of these forms of liberation deal with an individual's lifestyle. While they can be empowering to some individuals, others might not be ready or might not see them as empowering. These lifestyle liberations are not what particularly matters to the movement. Individuals can liberate themselves in a variety of ways that can empower themselves within a movement--and they should be able to choose which way fits them best. Otherwise they are not empowered. People should not judge one another on their lifestyle decisions unless they negatively affect another person. 

Concepts of liberation should instead be based on a broader analysis of oppression and how it is manifested in different forms for different groups of people. What matters is the ideological analysis that people have on collective oppression. FEMEN probably thinks it has an ideological analysis of how Islam oppresses groups of women. But they address this analysis in the wrong way--by calling on individuals to denounce their religion instead of targeting and addressing the political institutions as a whole. 

But even then, wouldn't that alnalysis still be imposing its Western view of what is "liberation" onto the collective? I believe this is different. What organizations should be doing is supporting the option that gives the oppressed the agency to recognize the cause of their oppression and to liberate themselves. However, this is easier said than done. Sometimes these "options" are not even available.

fantasia-algerian-cavalcade-assia-djebar-paperback-cover-art.jpg

For example, I just finished reading Fantasia: An Algerian Cavalcade by Djebar. In this novel, she poetically illustrates how the French's colonization of Algeria had some positive aspects for some women. For example, some women, even from lower classes, learned how to read and write in French, which allowed them to challenge their patriarchal institutions to a certain extent. However, overall, the French occupation had a negative effect on Algerian society. Then there was the revolution. Now, had I been alive during the time, I would have definitely supported the nationalist movement (while still being critical of the groups that were likely to come to power after). However, when the nationalist movement won, there was a return a political institution that practiced a traditional patriarchal form of Islam, and the promises that were given to women were taken away. 

In this example, there is not really a clear option that would give the oppressed the agency to recognize the cause of their oppression and liberate themselves. Their analysis of their oppression ended with the French and did not include capitalism. So what I would think is right is the following: support the nationalists because they are clearly against the oppression of the French. Once the nationalists have gained liberation, be critical of the new regime and support a new revolutionary group that will continue on the trajectory toward liberation. 

I am only starting to realize how complicated these issues are when applied to the real world! No wonder the left is so scattered and scared to take stances on anything. Studying Marxist theory makes it seem so simple, but the world has divided itself into multiple classes all pitted against one another, while allowing the ruling class to continue domination! It seems so difficult to untangle this mess, but people must be patient. It seems like it is so easy to take the "wrong" stance on issues when there are so many options. In the long run, we need to unite somehow, and we should all appreciate one another for at least trying to make the world a better place. Our criticism should exist without hate, and we should reserve the hatred for those actually in power. 

Yet this is so difficult when I have the strong conviction that certain groups on the left are actually helping the ruling class by reinforcing some of their institutions... 

I don't know! I am even more confused than I was before I started writing. 

Board of Trustees Tuition Hearing Speech

Each year, the Board of Trustees at Montclair State University allows the students to speak about the rising cost of tuition. Students were given three minutes to speak. When I went up to speak, I turned the podium to face the students and faculty in the audience instead of the board members and administrators. Below is my speech:

Good Afternoon,

I am addressing you, the students and faculty, and not the administrators or the board members because they are not listening. And even if they were listening, they will certainly dismiss these comments from this lowly student as they have always dismissed my comments.

This event is put on to make it look like the administrators and board members care about what the students have to say. They can mention this event whenever a student feels they have representation. However, they do not actually care. For example, students have sent the board countless letters all of which have been ignored. Additionally, when students protested their lack of voice at the other board meetings, and when students protested the tuition increase, rules were changed to ban this form of speech and cops were placed in the meetings. Threatening letters were sent to some of the students involved. So it is pretty easy to conclude that they do not care about what we have to say, even though they are pretending to today.

Rather than beg for lower tuition to people who are not listening, we need to demand lower tuition and demand that we be heard. On October 17th, Susan Cole announced to the Student Government that, if the Bond Referendum is passed, there will be no need to increase tuition. I think we not only need to hold her to her word, but we need to demand more. (And we need to not stop demanding more from those in power until all education is free and all oppression is ended, but that's another speech).

We need to find ways to work together to stop this structure. It will not be easy to challenge it. A student was put on probation by one of our fascist administrators simply for sitting at a table in University Hall. But what if we got one thousand students put on probation or, even better, one thousand students expelled for ousting the administration? Then we might be getting somewhere--the administration would become jammed with its bureaucratic paperwork and would destroy itself.

The board members and administrators claim that their job is to represent the interests of higher education to the state, which is supposed to provide for its people. However, we cannot wait to "convince" these board members and administrators to do this job because their REAL job is to NOT do that job. These board members unanimously voted to increase tuition last summer, and there is no reason why they would not do it again. I am disgusted to say that even the student trustee voted to increase tuition. They do not actively challenge the state because they are comfortable in their positions of power.

And the problem is not these particular board members or administrators. Even if we somehow got rid of all of them, they will be replaced by an endless supply of businesspeople who love to support the status quo and sell their souls for individualistic dignity and money. It is inherently their job to uphold the interests of the state, which are NOT the interests of the students--but are the interests of the elite and the ideological apparatus that works endlessly to keep the people down.

Those in power will not give anything to the people unless they demand it, unless they feel threatened enough in their position of power. And we aren't doing enough to threaten. We need to do more if we want to get anywhere.

Thank you.

Here is video footage of me giving the speech:



Here is the YouTube playlist for the other students who spoke at the tuition hearing:

Yonnondio: From the Thirties by Tillie Olsen

Yonnondio: From the Thirties by Tillie Olsen is one of my new favorite books. I just finished reading it for my Social Protest Literature class. Although it is an unfinished novel, it is worth the read because the author focuses more on depicting the realities from different perspectives than she does on where the story is going. In fact, I never found myself wishing something more exciting would happen because the descriptions and minute everyday tasks needed for survival written in a way that gave them so much depth and revealed the weight of capitalism and exploitaton. Actually, in some ways, it is more interesting becuase it is unfinished because it requires me to ask questions: Why did Tillie Olsen stop writing the novel? What made her decide to piece it together 30-40 years after not touching it? There are also scraps and drafts of parts that are not published with the full story. I have not read them yet but I hope to soon!

The book is different from the other proletarian literature that I've read so far because it is written with an experimental style. Different passages are written in different voices and Olsen uses flowery and poetic language to describe the the evils of capitalism and corporations. It is interesting to me that the book seems to become less experimental and more realistic toward the second half. I'm not sure why Olsen does this. 

The following are my comments on Olsen's depiction of the structure of the family in the novel, based on Barbara Foley's talk that she gave my class:

A central theme in Yonnondio by Tillie Olson is how the institution of the family coerces the exploited into adhering to capitalism. According to Barbara Foley, the family institution consists of the following: the father, who on the micro level represents the boss at home while producing paid labor to materially support the family; and the mother, who is responsible for the reproduction of labor both by taking care of food and home and by raising the next generation of laborers. Of course, the mother's labor is unpaid, and therefore not thought of as valuable by society and usually her own family--she is essentially a slave.

This structure of the family is seen in several passages in Yonnondio. The opening passage of the book shows how Jim believes women are inherently made for the home (2). Jim's behavior not only limits the collectivity and solidarity of his family and society on a larger scale, but also, according to Barbara Foley, hurts himself. This is evident in his strained relationship with his wife and children shown throughout the book.

Another passage where the structure of the family benefits capitalism is the scene where Jim rapes Anna, who is clearly sick (75). This shows that, in a patriarchal system, men believe that women should be their property, like a slave. In this passage, the structure of the family benefits capitalism because it reproduces the hierarchy of exploitation and prevents Jim from seeing Anna as his equal in terms of class and potential. If everyone in the town could understand how patriarchy divides the family and society, they would work together and have cooperative collective that would no longer require the meat packing plant and the corporations.

A final passage is at the end of the book, when Anna is working all day in the heat. Jim comes home and falls asleep, while Anna continues working. This shows how her labor goes unrecognized and is seen more as a duty. Meanwhile, Jim's hours are set. An interesting aspect of this passage that I noticed is how, if Anna does not take care of the house, food or children, then her children will die. Meanwhile, Jim's labor can be easily replaced, and his coercion to work is more overt. Also, Anna is required to multi-task and use her own intellect to solve any problems and obstacles; Jim's work is mindless and the tasks and tools are laid out to him. This shows that Anna's unrecognized and unpaid labor requires tremendous amounts of skill, endurance, and intellect--something that Tillie Olsen depicts well that other authors, such as Thomas Bell gloss over.

Scheherazade Goes West by Fatema Mernissi

For my Muslim Women Writers course, I had to read Scheherazade Goes West by Fatema Mernissi. I thought the book was interesting and definitely worth reading. It is about the author Fatema Mernissi's quest to understand the varying perceptions about harems--women's prisons--in the East and the West. In this book, Mernissi makes an interesting argument about Muslim feminists by emphasizing the strong female historical and traditional characters.

Mernissi argues that in both cultures, patriarchy is manifested in two different ways. In the Muslim world, women are more spatially repressed by veils and where they are allowed to physically go. However, according to Mernissi, the culture does not pretend that women do not have intellectual capacities. Rather, higher percentages of women are in high ranking science and business positions than in the Western world. Additionally, female characters in Muslim folk tales and in their history are depicted as strong; and women in harems were often expected to entertain men with intellectual and artistic skill. This means that these skills were important to the science of attraction in the Muslim world.  One example Mernissi gives is the character, Scheherazade, in One Thousand and One Nights. Scheherazade is a female character who cleverly tricks a cruel tyrant into allowing her to live--after he repeatedly killed his lover. She tells him stories that require psychological and intellectual skills, as well as the ability to control her fear of losing her life (47-48). Scheherazade not only convinces the king to fall in love with her and allow her to live, but she also helps solve the kind's sociopathic psychological problems and guides his decisions to be a more humane ruler.

Conversely, the West controls women in a more subliminal fashion--by controlling their physical appearance through definitions of beauty that are defined by men, and by stripping intellect from the list of characteristics that are deemed "attractive." The western form of patriarchy reduces the definition of the desirable woman to a mere body, without intellectual capacity. While western women are allowed to be more mobile society--they are free to attend school, participate in most social events, and are technically allowed into all positions of work (although few women achieve these positions). Mernissi illustrates this by observing how the Western versions of the Scheherazade story strip her of her intellectual power and reduce her to a beautiful creature who enchants the king (68). However, Mernissi argues that, if this was the case, the king would have killed her just like all of the other women. Additionally, the Western form of patriarchy pressures women to conform to an appearance that is unnatural for women--they expect women to remain skinny like children. This is symbolic of how western men also expect women to have the intellect of a child so they can patronize them. Ironically, women who try to be skinny often suffer from malnutrition, which makes them more passive, emotional, weak, and unable to think clearly (218). Coincidence?

I believe this book definitely makes an important argument about Eastern vs. Western culture. Thanks to the mass media, Westerners commonly believe that Muslim women (in general--yet Muslim women are just as varied as Christian women) are extremely oppressed simply because they wear a veil. However, Mernissi shows that many Muslim women are actually empowered by the belief that their intelligence matters. Additionally, they do not have to fulfill the same beauty expectations that women in the West have to fulfill.

Scheherazade Goes West confirms my suspicion that, in some ways (excluding extreme circumstances where women are killed or seriously abused), the subliminal oppression of women in the West is worse. This is because many women in the West do not recognize the extent to which they are oppressed, objectified, and stripped of their intellect; or the extent to which men are encouraged to force themselves on women and view them as mere bodies. This prevents them from taking any action to challenge or overcome this patriarchy.

I do have some criticisms of the book. For example, Mernissi spends all of her time studying the manifestation of patriarchy in Western and Eastern bourgeois culture. While, in many cases, the ruling class defines how men should treat women, I do not think this could even hint at the conditions of the poorer classes in Muslim societies and Western societies. Mernissi also ignores the political realities of many Muslim countries that interpret the Koran in ways that oppress women. I think these realities are much more important than abstract manifestations of women in stories. However, the information in Mernissi's writing is potentially empowering for women.

This book has inspired me to study feminism more. In the past, studying issues that western women face has frustrated me beyond the ability to further pursue research. However, now I can see how taking tid-bits from each culture can empower me and show me that different visions of attraction exist and therefore I do not have to conform to any particular vision of attraction.