“Women Making Democracy”
On Friday, March 30, students from WMS 320: Feminist Thought Into Action, along with URI students from the Program in Gender and Women’s Studies and the Political Science Department, attended the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study’s “Women Making Democracy” conference. Each year the Institute organizes a conference that highlights the significance of gender in relation to the human experience. This year’s theme brought together a selection of preeminent journalists, scholars, and activists to discuss the role of women and gender in movements for social justice and political change. Much of the discussion centered on the role of women in the “Arab Spring,” but there were also comparative perspectives that opened the dialogue to include democratic movements in Eastern Europe and South Africa. The mix of speakers and topics created a space for interdisciplinary conversations that not only informed, but also raised new questions while challenging previous assumptions regarding gender and political unrest.
While the scope and depth of the information presented at the conference could be the springboard to a multitude of important discussions, I will limit my thoughts to points and questions raised that relate most directly to the concerns of WMS 320. As the day’s opening remarks suggested, when thinking about how the Arab Spring is unique, we should also consider its broader implications and the ways in which as “unique cases,” these uprisings also share similarities “across cases.” And, in this examination, specific attention should be paid to the ways in which these democratic movements challenged notions of space (both physical and virtual), gender, and human rights, and larger connections to structures of political and personal power. As Dalendra Larguèche noted, the Arab Spring opened new solidarities and spaces, but it also reinforced old ones. If new spaces of revolution have emerged, will they remain open, and for how long?
Of critical concern is the complex power dynamic between gender and “the state.” Heba Raouf Ezzat noted in her thrilling talk that there is a need to not only re-consider the idea of “state feminism,” but also to re-think the need and/or utility of feminist governance. These thoughts further problematized Shireen Hassim’s discussion of South Africa’s democratic struggles and the unfortunate ways in which the language of feminism did not speak to the situation of “ordinary people” in more rural areas. Or, as Rima Khalef succinctly noted, it is “easy to change laws,” but much “harder to change customs and traditions.”
With this in mind, one of the larger questions to come out of the conference is the need to constantly be mindful of who has the right to narrate, define, and defend revolution. In relation to activism and social media, I have asked my students to consider whether things like Facebook and Twitter are new ways to say the same old thing, or are new things being said by the very use of these technologies? That is, how might social media allow individuals to create a space of possibility from more general notions of “public space”?
The thoughts, observations, and lively conversation that my students engaged in via Twitter during the conference speak to this possibility, and I am incredibly proud of their participation during the day’s events. Through the diversity of voices, views, and opinions presented by the panelists, I believe the most important lesson learned by my students is perhaps one of the most simple: we all have the power to make a difference when we make our voices be heard. It is not enough for women to make history; they must also write and record it.
After the Women Making Democracy conference at Harvard’s Radcliffe Institute yesterday the take-away for me was such: That progress is slow for the marginalized to enter the public spaces post-revolution (specifically for women in the “Arab spring”-a problematic and inaccurate term). Also, that quotas in parliament and governing bodies are necessary but temporary measures and do not change the climate around women in governance or even ensure that the women elected are ideologically feminist (also a complicated term with mixed and various interpretations) . Gender, has and will continue to be a secondary concern due to that interpersonal relationships that hinder gender-consciousness building during euphoric revolutionary victories, i.e. the sexual attraction among revolutionaries. But yet these conversations are absolutely necessary if women are to be treated as citizens rather than “mothers”, “sex objects” or victims and thus relegated back into the private sphere.
The 2nd panel consisting of Dalia Mogahed, Rima Khalaf, Heba Raouf Ezzat, and Ann Snitow showed the complexities and intricacies of the conflicts within each state. Women on this panel spoke about the Gallup poll that Dalia insisted showed interesting insights into democracy, theocracy, and the want of Sharia as an influence in the drafting of new post-revolutionary constitutions. A member of the audience asked a controversial question about the 3rd speaker to the right of the moderator, Heba Raouf Ezzat, about her political affiliation. Heba was a passionate and fast-paced speaker, who is currently a professor and activist at Cairo University, in Egypt. The palpable disagreement about the role of Sufis in Egypt, illustrated to me the deeply entrenched and nuanced ethnic disagreements that also hindered peace-keeping efforts in the country. These panelists played well off each other in that they seemed to be more directly connected to the region than other speakers, had first hand, on the ground knowledge of the protesting, and also disagreed with each other at times. This to me was more illustrative of the fact that our attempts to essentialize the Arab Spring or even one countries ‘conflicts is impossible, inaccurate, and a hindrance to solutions.
From the exchange of opinions during the conference I realized we have a duty as sisters to support and encourage education and the emancipation of women on a worldwide stage. But, also we must realize that not every country sees the U.S.’s path to development as desirable, nor appreciate Western feminism’s tendency to speak for others. In addition we must encourage local, on the ground empowerment and mobilization of women in these countries, instead of inserting foreign control. It is also our duty to continue to exchange in encouraging dialogue for the sharing of stories as points to ponder, and also that our government does not have all the answers but that we support democracy as the revolutionaries see fit.
I have a lot of thoughts on the Women Making Democracy conference. First of all, I’m really glad that we were able to have the opportunity to attend to begin with. I really enjoyed the first panel and how it discussed social media along with gender relations. I especially enjoyed Philip Howard’s discussion. Overall, I feel as though the speakers had a cautiously optimistic tone about the future of the countries affected by the “Arab Spring,” as long as everyone within those countries continues their efforts and inclusion of women as they did while the protesting was going on.
Looking over the tweets I posted during the conference, there is one in particular that sticks out to me (we also discussed it in our WMS 400 class today). It is a quote by Dr. Heba Raouf and it reads as follows: “When there is blood in the streets, is it better to close the gates, or leave the street open, so the public sees?” I think this is a very important question to consider. “Closing the gates” would prevent the outside public from understanding what was occurring and the cruelty that was going on. But, letting the public see could be disrespectful towards the dead and cause more issues. It is interesting to see the decisions that have to be made and to be able to understand the struggles of the protesters.
A second quote that I found to be important is that “elections are not to be equated with democracy.” I believe this quote is important to consider because people may believe that the progress made throughout the “Arab Spring” means that the fight is over. But, if anything was to be taken from the Women Making Democracy Conference it is that there is plenty of work still to be done. Just as elections occur, it does not necessarily mean that the work is over.
Attending Women Making Democracy was truly an amazing experience for me. One thing I have been cogitating on since the conference is how women’s political representation does and does not equate to positive advancements for women’s rights and feminism in general. To me, this is a significant concern as we see the struggle for democracy in the Arab Spring. Do numerical representations of women in politics mean anything in terms of female empowerment and their ability to stimulate social change? I struggle with this question because, as Rima Khalef noted, it is “much easier to change laws,” but much “harder to change customs and traditions.”
For example, just because “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” has been repealed doesn’t mean the military isn’t still fraught with discrimination and bias against homosexual soldiers. Even though there is a law that says I can legally breastfeed my baby in any public place in RI, I often found myself nursing in uncomfortable, unclean bathrooms because of the palpable contempt I felt from others if I dared to nurse him in public. In other words, laws do not necessarily directly or effectively change the system; they do not necessarily directly or effectively change the customs, traditions, ideologies, and societal norms that perpetuate and maintain discrimination and oppression. And what ends up being more powerful — the law that says I can breastfeed anywhere, or the societal notion that says breastfeeding is gross and influenced people to be rude to me if I breastfed in public?
Tunisia made a radical statement about equality and female representation in politics by passing a gender parity law in 2011. By requiring equal numbers of male and female candidates in the Constituent Assembly elections, it essentially guaranteed 50% female political participation; however, it also largely excluded women from leadership positions. In other words: women’s names were included, but they weren’t given a great deal of power in terms of leadership, authority, and decision-making privileges (but, hey fellow feminists, at least there were women’s names on the list, right?….) Of the total 217 seats in the Constituent Assembly, women won 57 of them (which is about 26%… higher than women currently serving in the U.S. Congress, might I add!). I cannot help but wonder: in Tunisia (and worldwide), are women being “allowed” to hold political positions so that governments can feel good about themselves? (Diversity is “in,” or haven’t you heard?) Will these women actually be given any power, or are they just there to look good? Once they are in power, will they be forced to uphold old structures and systems simply to hold their job?
Rima Khalef noted that, while the initial euphoria of the revolution has dwindled, women have grown more assertive. She also said that challenges don’t necessarily have to mean “doomsday.” I hope that women in Tunisia (and throughout all Arab countries) do not see their participation in democracy as temporary. The dictator has been toppled, but the road to democracy is long and difficult — and desperately in need of women.
Of all the speakers and presenters of the day the individual who stood out to me the most was Egyptian Journalist, Shahira Amin. I was both moved and impressed by her strength to walk away from her job because she did not agree with the principles they were operating under. By taking that stand and protesting the television coverage that was taking place during the Egyptian uprising she inspired men and women alike to take stands of their own and let nothing stand in the way of doing what is right. Although these events are what initiated my interest in what she had to say, I was absolutely captivated when she started talking about Female Genital Mutilation or Cutting (FGM, FGC). As an American born and raised female I knew very little about FGM, the procedure, history, or meaning of it. I remember when I first learned what is was and my horror and disgust at what these girls are put through. It was in my mind, a literal hell on earth. So when Shahira Amin started talking about FGM I was enthralled.
Out of everything that was said, there was one comment that she made which really stood out to me. It went something like this “Education is key to ending [FMG]. If people understand the history, reasons, and harms it will end.” This was so profound to me on a number of levels.
In direct context with what she was discussing it seemed to be such a simple answer for such an unimaginable practice. The simplicity and sense of her solution was so interesting to me because by educating people about why we do this and how they are bad for us is something that happens on a world wide scale, as well in our own country. This was seen in oriental countries with women taking part in foot binding, with education this practice became less prevalent. In our own country we think of cesarean births as a medical procedure, just as some consider FGM a medical procedure. I’m sure some people looking in find C-sections just as barbaric as FGM. However you chose to look it though our education about each of these procedures is what determines our opinion on it. I can only hope that Shahira Amin was correct when she said that education about it will work to stop it.
On a broader scale we were all there that day to learn and make changes. The knowledge that we gained from this conference gave each of us some necessary tools and knowledge to go out and further our own and other feminist causes in the world. In my mind I could not think of a more appropriate statement to start off our own day of education.
The conference at the Radcliffe Institute for Women Making Democracy exceeded my high expectations. The entire event was extremely informative and intellectually stimulating. Each speaker left me with a great deal to think about, specifically regarding international feminism. I found it quite interesting when Rima Khalef suggested that it is easier to change laws than it is to change customs and traditions. I could not agree more, I think that policy makers often feel that change comes simply when a law is put in place. I realize that this is certainly not the case, tradition and culture is a powerful force. For example, if we observe the prevalence of female genital mutilation in Ethiopia we will find that FGM is banned by federal law. Despite the law against FGM in Ethiopia, FGM is still a very common practice. My analysis of this example is that the federal law does not change the fact that FGM is a cultural tradition in many parts of the world.
The second panel of the day was entitled “Women, Rights, and Power” and though I was impressed with each panel, this panel truly moved me. I was especially enlightened by Professor Ann Snitow’s presentation. Professor Ann Snitow spoke about the amount of American women who do not believe there is a need for feminism in America. Professor Ann Snitow continued to state that American women do see a need for feminism for the “poor Muslim women”. I think this speaks volumes to American culture, and the fact that ethnocentrism is not absent in our society. We hear about some of the events that take place in Muslim cultures and feel sorry for the women who become victims, but we often fail to see the gendered issues in our own country. I believe that there are gender concerns in all regions, and these gender concerns call for feminism.
I think one of the most important things I learned during the conference is that even small victories have long lasting impacts, and women do have the resources to promote change. Professor Heba Raouf Ezzat has encouraged many to use social media to promote awareness and change. The internet is accessible, and after Professor Heba Raouf Ezzat’s talk I am more inspired than ever to use social media as a means to be an activist. I think it is important that I never allow myself to feel hopeless when it comes to making change, especially having knowledge of all the young women working diligently with the “Arab Spring”. I am grateful that I had the opportunity to attend “Women Making Democracy”, and I am grateful for how empowered I have felt since the event.
Since attending Radcliffe’s Women Making Democracy, I have been thinking about the question of whether or not social media is allowing people to say new things or to say old things in different ways. I believe it is allowing for both, along with many other positive advantages. Social networking sites, such as Twitter and Facebook, allow women to communicate, as well as inform and inspire each other, in a space that is public yet physically safe. For women who aren’t allowed to be alone in public, or who are not safe when protesting in the streets, the internet provides them a safe place to protest and get information without the threat of bodily harm. However, the women who need this most do not have access to the internet because they are not allowed on the computer without supervision. This was shocking and surprising to me because I never think of the internet as a “place”, much less a place where women are not allowed to go without supervision. It never would have occurred to me to think that a woman might not be allowed to use a computer in her own home, which made me feel very naïve and luck that I have access to such powerful tools, such as political blogs where I can learn about the bombing of abortion centers, or war on women’s health going on in my country. Because people are able to blog about it safely and without filtering in through news organizations like Fox, women like me are able to read about social injustice and are inspired to do something about it. Social media gives people the courage, space, and freedom to say things they could not say before, and it gives readers the knowledge, inspiration, and power to change the world.
One other theme that struck me was how deeply sexism is embedded into culture, and just how much of an impact it has on laws. Customs and traditions influence laws, and in a way, they can be even more dangerous because they are harder to change. Sexist behaviors, in the form of traditions, are culturally accepted, whether dangerous or not. Female genital mutilation is a perfect example. Though it has no medical benefits, and has connected to hepatitis, hemorrhages, extreme pain, HIV, wound infections, UTIs, and death, it is still widely accepted and practiced. According to the WHO, there are currently 100-140 million women living with FGM. While it is a cultural practice, I do have to voice that I an vehemently against this practice because it takes the metaphorical oppression that we see in America and makes it literal, excruciating, and life threatening. The “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” paradox American women face about sexual activity is faced in a much more literal way for women living with FGM because when they must be torn open during intercourse or childbirth. Not only is FGM painful and sometimes fatal, the thought about is women that they come into the world as damaged goods and can never be whole. Their vaginas can never belong to them, and can only be used when a man claims it as property, and FGM practicing counties make sure women know this from birth. This belief will last longer than any law forbidding FGM. Anna raised very striking similarities when she mentioned DADT and breastfeeding in her post. This is an example of sharing through safe spaces and brainstorming off of each other in order to make connections.
I am so grateful I got the opportunity to go to this eye opening conference. I feel incredibly lucky to have been able to hear such brave and influential women speak. Thank you to the WMS department for making it possible for us!
Women Making Democracy
I enjoyed my day at the Radcliffe event Women Making Democracy. The guest speakers all had something important to say and I learn so many things there. The things I found interesting or shocking that I am going to talk about in this post are; the Egyptian journalist, Shahira Amin for her wonderful presentation and her movie about women’s lives in Egypt. Dalia Mogahed and Heba Raouf ezzat on the panel “Women, Rights, and Power”. I will also address the issue of virginity test that was performed on many Egyptian girls and women during protests.
I loved Shahira Amin’s presentation on women’s lives in Egypt. I was amazed by how she quit working and refused to give out wrong information about what was going on in the country. She spoke clearly about what was going on with the girls that decided to go out and protest. She talked about different laws that were passed to benefit women such as; women can divorce their husband now and genital mutilation is criminalized. I liked the fact that now there is progress because according to Amin, “in the 90s about 97% of women were circumcised and last year the numbers went down to 75%.” The numbers are still high but at least now there are laws and people are more educated on the issue. One thing that she said that was a bit sad was that she mentioned that the “conservatives want to abolish genital mutilation and the right for women to divorce”. I loved her speech and the movies she had for us to see what is actually going on in that country.
I also loved Dalia and Heba’s speech on issues that are going on in the Middle East. They gave example and showed how much they knew about the situation that was going on. I wished they had more time to speak because they were both very smart. The kind that makes everyone just stop and listen to what they have to say.
The one thing that shocked me the most was the fact that the Egyptian military was performing virginity tests on the girls they had arrested during protests. I couldn’t figure out what was the reason they performed these tests if it had nothing to do with the situation. I feel like this issue was going to progress if that one girl didn’t speak up about it to the public. There is finally a law against performing these tests. As I talked more about it, I was able to understand the reasons why the military would want to perform the virginity test on the girls. The first reason is to embarrass them and devalue them. There is no one who would want to have to take a virginity test. The second reason is to teach the other girls who want to protest a lesson. They wanted girls to be inside the house and not outside protesting. That makes more girls stay indoors and just use social media as a form of protest instead of risking their dignity and going out in the public.
Overall I had an amazing day at the conference and I learned many things about the Arab world I didn’t know before. I was able to see some of the activists speaking up about their own experiences. I also enjoyed the fact that it fit with both my majors (Political Science and Women’s studies).
The Women Making Democracy Conference at the Radcliffe Institute last week was a very intellectually stimulating experience. I really appreciated that the URI Women’s Studies program brought us. The panels offered so much information about women’s experiences in the Middle East and Africa, as well as a few bits on Poland. After attending, I felt a further understanding of the third wave of feminism. It is easy to focus on one’s own culture as standard and disregard the problems of other countries. I wish that more people could attend conferences like this and open up to issues beyond our borders.
Some of the most shocking violences and inequities against women that were discussed at the conference were FGM or female genital mutilation, common in Egypt, “Virginity Tests” on women by the military in Egypt, “Corrective Rape” to South African homosexual women, and limitation of rights in many Middle Eastern countries, such as the right to a divorce. Many people in the US have a negative outlook on global activism. People think that we shouldn’t interfere with other cultures and they do not want our help. The speakers from these countries that are activists themselves are proving that this is not an issue of culture, this is an issue of humanity. Dalia Mogahed claims that her religion, Islam, is not to blame for the oppression of women. She says that many Muslim groups misinterpret this compassionate religion to be an oppressive one. She says that education and “human development” is what is needed to change the oppressors. Similarly, the conference was not asking for military aid in these countries, like many Americans think “help” means, but for awareness, education, and activism for human development and change.
Being in attendance at Radcliffe Institute’s “Women Making Democracy” conference was a thrilling and intellectually stimulating opportunity. I am beyond grateful that the Women’s Studies Program offered us such an amazing opportunity! It definitely gave me a lot to think about over the week. The main question I focused on was Jenn’s: “whether things like Facebook and Twitter are new ways to say the same old thing, or are new things being said by the very use of these technologies? That is, how might social media allow individuals to create a space of possibility from more general notions of ‘public space’?”
Immediately I thought of what Dr. Heba Raouf said regarding the movements in Egypt. Raouf stated, “When there is blood in the streets, is it better to close the gates, or leave the street open, so the public sees?” Like leaving the streets open to become an exhibition of the violence, social media sites offer activists the new and unique opportunity to keep the “streets open” worldwide. What I mean to say is, social media sites offer activists a platform through which to spread awareness and communicate what’s happening on the ground with the rest of the world. I believe this is an especially vital element as “revolution happens not in the political sphere but in the cultural sphere.” These social media activists are approaching revolution on the cultural sphere and making great strides.
For example, during the Arab Spring, young activists used facebook and YouTube to inform the global community about what was happening during the revolutions. They also used these social media sites as a means to communicate with each other. Protests are organized and messages are spread through twitter and Facebook, and the results are broadcast over YouTube. Mogahed stated that “1/3 of protestors in Egypt were women” according to statistics gathered from social media sites. Women were actively participating in the revolution while recording its progress and informing the public. This follows the insight from Baron that “it is not enough for women to make history, they must write and record it.”
One piece of recorded history of which I was completely ignorant of is the “corrective rapes” of black lesbians taking place in South Africa. I think this was one of the most troubling issues discussed at “Women Making Democracy.” I’ve learned a lot about Apartheid and the ANC, yet I had no idea of the oppression still raging in South Africa. It truly spoke to the slow progress of social change and the set backs facing women in revolutionary movements. It also illustrated how accepted sexism and sexual violence are by governments. This was further illustrated by the discussions regarding female genital mutilation (FGM) and the virginity tests. I absolutely appalled to learn that the law criminalizing FGM may be revoked. This would be a devastating blow to women’s rights. However, I believe if women and their allies continue to present a strong united presence, both in public and virtual space, they can be successful in assuring that this will not take place.
One thing that was made apparent by the speakers at the “Women Making Democracy” conference is that, despite major setbacks and continued sexism, women have the power, intelligence, and ability to create change both through laws and in culture and tradition. I look forward to hearing more from these speakers and keeping up with their work and other news regarding global women’s movements.
I feel that the main message of the “Women Making Democracy” conference was to bring awareness to the fact that men are not the only people who can be involved in politics. Most of the conference was about the women who were involved with the “Arab Spring” and how they were impacted by it. I personally enjoyed how the conference started with a very powerful idea about how the Arab Spring was the end and the beginning of new uprisings. It was a movement that touched women all over the world who realized that they could have opinions and stand up for themselves, which is opening a door for women to fight for their equal rights.
The way that I understood the message the best was through The Keynote Address, which was stated by Shahira Amin. When she spoke she gave statistics about how 60% of women are the breadwinners that shows the change in how women are becoming equal to men. She also had a PowerPoint, which was enjoyable because it was a visual of what she was speaking about in her presentation. I could see where she was coming from when she said that the media had a huge part in how women have been stepping up in the world. Shahira Amin stated that knowledge is power and that just by a video going viral is caused women to speak up. She spoke about FGM and how it was a cultural wanting and I couldn’t bring myself to understand why women would allow this to happen to their own daughters until she mentioned that FGM was what they were accustomed to and it was compared to circumcision of boys in America. I still don’t believe FGM is something that should be occurring around the world but it won’t stop until awareness is brought to it through the media.
Although I thoroughly enjoyed being a part of the Radcliff Institute’s Conference there was only one thing that made it hard for me to understand what some of the speakers’ points were. This problem was that when the questions were being asked to the speakers, the questions were asked first and then the answers were given. I understand that this idea was for them to save more time but it made it hard for me to understand which answer was going to each question and sometimes I wanted to hear more than one opinion when it came to the answer of that question.
The Panel that interested me most was the first panel that spoke mostly about women making their opinions through not only face to face action but as well as through the media. I enjoyed this panel because each speaker had a PowerPoint that ended with a very powerful image that related to their topic. In the protesting video that was showed in the beginning it brought up the idea that you have to do what’s right for the future and not what your family thinks. Some of the most important ideas that stuck to me were the fact that new technologies used to not allow women to be on the Internet and now that is equal. In fact women are taking over the Internet with 30% of twitter users being women. Also, women’s bodies are taking over the media with the blue bra image. This image was appalling to me because the thought that people actually think it’s okay to be violent towards women. This image was also appalling because it shows how disrespectful those people are. Women are humans just like men. They should all have equality and should not be discriminated against. The fact that Nadje al-Ali spoke about how Iraqi women were treated but they couldn’t have time to fight back because of the war broke my heart. I know that those women most definitely wanted to do something about it but their time was cut short because of the war and the world didn’t even get to know about it through the media because the only thing the media cared about was the war that was occurring.
Overall, after attending the Radcliff Instituted Conference I was glad. I was glad that I came back with more knowledge than when I entered the conference. I was glad to be granted the opportunity to see the speakers, which all consisted of different perspectives and different careers, state their opinions and personal stories. I was also glad that is was over because that meant that I wasn’t the only person leaving with more knowledge. I learned that one person could make a difference no matter how small you think it is. I also learned that quotas are important to politics because I know that walking into this conference I knew absolutely nothing when it came to politics. Lastly, I was struck with a powerful ending quote stating, “With the outrage, you can’t get the hope.” This quote was important to me because it’s so true. Without struggle you can’t get change and that is exactly what “Women Making Democracy” was about.
Jenn,
Really thought-provoking post. I particularly liked your question about who has “the right to narrate, define, and defend revolution.” Spivak’s “Can the Subaltern Speak” comes to mind. It also strikes me how women in other regions of the world risk so much fighting for democracy, while some of our students take it for granted. I’m routinely shocked at how unaware many of my students are about the recent attacks by the GOP on women’s reproductive freedom. Food for thought…
The women making democracy conference was definitely an eye opener. All of the speakers were so great and I felt extremely informed after the conference. I must say that one of my favorite speakers was Shirha Amin, the Egyptian journalist. I really liked how she connected her personal stories into the ways that Egyptian women will bring democracy. Amin gave us an inside look as to where women are now in Egypt and even gave some statistics that were shocking, such as that there are only 8 women out of 508 in parliament seats.
One of the most interesting things about the Arab Spring is the social media
involvement; to me it is just fascinating. I mean who knew that things such as facebook and twitter can start a revolution. I have always been extremely interested in media and social networks, but I am usually looking at the bad outcomes of those things, it is very refreshing to see the good that comes out of them. Someone else who I found very interesting was Philip Howard. I thought that his description about how social media is impacting family structure was fascinating. Again I liked Howard’s personal stories of being in Tunisia and Egypt and his talk about the “super polling stations.”
But the question is what now? How will the Arab spring change these countries, and how will democracy come about. Also the impact on women and the backlash specifically in Egypt post revolution. These dictators such as Mubarak who were more Western did believe in some more modern laws such as being anti FGM and for the right to divorce. Now with Mubarak no longer in power these laws are being cast aside, does these mean two steps back for women? With the power and strength of Arab women I believe not. These women were at the forefront of the protests and were able to overrule a 30 year dictatorship; I don’t think that they are going to let their rights go that easily.
Time, everything is about time; Democracy does not happen overnight, it takes years to achieve, but the Arab people are on their way. I am interested to see how the Shaira Law will play into affect with democracy, and what changes it will bring, if any, though I am sure it will.
“Women making democracy” was a very insightful and remarkable conference that I am glad to have attended. It was very interesting to have seen so many different people of different ages, races and gender coming together to discuss problems. What struck me was how little I knew about the Arab Spring. Likewise, when reading burning Baghdad, i did not feel as though I was kept in the dark about what was going on. So many misconceptions and biased illogical information is presented to us and we soak it up as absolute truth without ever reall questioning. I vaguely remember the Arab Spring on the news, but I feel as though this kind of information isn’t something that is given to us. It is not easy to to find, and you need to really look to learn all the facts (which may or may not be biased). So gaining some knowledge on the topic itself was certainly important to me, but to hear it from sources who have been there and experienced these issues, it’s amazing.
There was something that really struck me, which was the use of social media to connect With people all over. I think that the Internet and social media provides a domain and opportunity to women (and others) to have their voices heard with little consequence. It is a portal in which a person can organize a rally or write a blog about an issue that can initiate change without actually having to go out and do it.
I was very shocked about the things I heard about and saw. I think that the violence portrayed in the clip about the girl and the blue bra was shocking because I’ve never seen that in real life. It also made me angry and uncomfortable that the clip was played on a loop. I’m guessing it was to get feeling from the audience about how awful these issues are, but I feel it would have been more effective to shoe it once and discuss other incidences of this brutality. I was also frusrtated that everyone kept referring her to “the girl with the blue bra” because her blue bra is irrelevant to what the issue is. Im sure if they said “the girl that got the stomped on” would still be as memorable. So why is it that her blue bra is so important? She has a name. She has a face and if she is supposed to be a symbol, shouldn’t she as a person be a symbol rather than her clothing? Isn’t she as a person, the one who experienced this pain and humility in front of thousands of people, and then millions over video? Yet her bra is the focus, her bra has no feelings. I think that people often forget that humans hav feelings.
“corrective rape” is also an issue that try’s to illegitimize a persons feelings and change them. This is so messed up. I cannot even find words to describe how upset this makes me, or how someone could think this is okay. I think that there is an issue with culture not being able to accept difference or undermin the legitimacy of difference. People always think that because someone is different, their feelings and beliefs aren’t legit. This is why it is so important to be proactive in accepting difference and embracing it. I think that being active and vocal of your thoughts and of others thoughs is important for peopl to see. It’s important to see a situation where difference doesn’t make you any better than anyone else. I also think it is impotprtant to talk about touchy subjects out loud with many people. I was so unaware, and probably still am. But to have issues out there being talked about all over and by everyone, even if they aren’t directly related to our nation is important. And I must say that if our country cannot address and communicate about many issues openly, how can our people ever be diverse and free when we place them on a hierarchal scale based on difference in beliefs?