political texts: really hard to understand the core of it

Right now what we are discussing about is, the ‘political issues’ which is a bit harder term than others. According to the oxford dictionary, politics is “activities aimed at improving someone’s status or increasing power within an organization”—from where we can define politics in a different way. Political texts can actually affect the norms of the society; it can bring a political change. Even most of the writer’s actually write their articles to impact the society for a change.

The articles which have been read throughout the class, most of the students were actually confused how are they political as most of them are related to women. Some students misunderstand that they are actually talking about feminism. But actually they are political papers as they showed how a certain group of people are being dominated by a powerful group of people by the name of society and they have the hidden urge to solve this problem.

In “a room of one’s own”, Virginia Woolf described how we have made the women the “worm” which has nothing to do by herself and the privileges which we are giving to the men are introduced as “wings of the eagle”. The society is so dominant towards the women that they kept them in a corner of the society and if they try to be like the men, they suffered because it doesn’t suit them actually—just like the wings on a worm. The author actually illuminated to the fact that how women were dominated by the society and her criticism implies to the persuasion for the betterment of women, which is a part of politics.

But in the text, “Women’s Capabilities and the Right to Education in Bangladesh”, we saw that women are being given the right for education. But for what do they need this right? To get married. To be educated has become a criterion to get married in the society. Isn’t it politics? To fulfill the demand of certain group of people we are targeting the women. They are still oppressed though they are allowed to be educated. This text focused on how the education rights of the women are misused as the society is actually using this right for a purpose. This is how this text is a political text, which seems to be a text about feminism but shows the politics of a certain group of people to dominate women. It shows how a powerful group in the society is ruling over another group of people to dominate them

“Politics”, this word is still not clear to us as it has a critical meaning. But I think why the texts we are reading are political readings, is clearer than before. And if it gets more confusing then it’s a great opportunity to discuss about this and come to a conclusion.

 

Works cited:

Arends-Kuenning, Mary and Amin, Sanjeda, “Women’s capability and right to education in Bangladesh.” International Journal of Politics and Society, Vol. 15, No.1, September 2001. Print

Woolf, Virginia. “A Room of One’s Own.” Fort Washington: Harvest Book. 1981. First published 1929.

a paragraph supporting the claim of the article

According to me, the fifth paragraph of the first section—in the second page—in Amartya Sen’s article “more than 100 million missing women” is the paragraph which has a strong significance to support his claim that is women are mostly deprived and victim of discrimination in Asia and Africa which is causing them to be “missing” by which means the death of the women. This paragraph describes about how the developed country like India and china is contributing in the deprivation of women though people have fallacy that the discrimination will be less in the developed country. Even their contribution is so big that it covers half of the actual numbers.
In this paragraph Amartya Sen uses evidences where most of them are statistics. He uses percentages and ratio and shows the facts about India and China. He shows that “the low ratio of 0.94 women to men in South Asia, West Asia” and also talks about China which has “6 percent deficit of women” which impacts the women rights. The strongest evidence in this paragraph is China alone covers the “50 million” of those 100 million women. And he shows the fact that when all the other part of the world—South Asia, West Asia and North Africa is added it just becomes more than 100 million as he states in his title. In this paragraph he shows the evidence even though the countries like India and China is developed, still there are inequality and negligibility towards women which causing the surplus death of the women.
This paragraph shows that if we think that the mortality rate is high in the east than west because they are more developed, then it’s wrong and he shows the facts about India and china. India and china is strongly developed while still there are discriminations and it’s much higher than the other countries. Only china has 50 million missing women, which is quite shocking. It strongly supports his claim and shows that the reason behind this discrimination in Asia and Africa is not just the development, it can also occur in a developed country and it is actually higher in the Asia and Africa in any condition.
Works cited:
Sen, Amartya, “More Than 100 Million Missing Women.” Nybooks Archives. Dec 20, 1990. Mar 4, 2013.

“a worm winged like an eagle” what happens to it?

A worm—small, weak, negligible, considered useless, doesn’t have anything to do by its own, just worthless, depending on others, taking from others to save its life, to survive. It got a wing like an eagle. Wings of eagle which is so strong, significant, stunning, when a eagle files with them it looks like those wings are powerful enough to fly higher and higher without caring about anything. Is it possible for the worm to fly high with those strong wings of an eagle? It is not possible for the worm to take the burden of the wings. However it tries, it can’t fly. Even if it could fly a little high, it won’t last longer. It will fall down on the ground and it is enough for the worm to die.
In Woolf’s “A Room of One’s Own”, she mentioned “a worm winged like an eagle” (Woolf, 40) where she uses metaphor to describe a deep thought. In her fiction, she brought non-fiction characters just to show us what could happen if the woman tried to break the norms, that worm wanting to have wings like the eagle, fly high naturally. Here, a woman of Elizabethan times, Judith Shakespeare—sister of William Shakespeare, who could be considered genetically as intelligent as her brother William who was a famous playwright of that time and a legend still now. But she was deprived of the rights to be educated like him, to explore, to create and mostly, she was not “the apple of her father’s eye” (Woolf, 43). When she took the venture to join theater like his brother “she was beaten by her father” (Woolf, 43) as she was not allowed to do that. She had the potential like her brother so that the spirit to run away and join the theater. But she faced humiliation from different men. She roamed around the streets for works and an actor manager named Nick Greene showed mercy on her. But in return she got pregnant “by that gentleman” (Woolf, 44) which was totally against the rules of society and she killed herself finally.
Judith was just like that worm. She tried to get out of the norms of the society. The wings which is a symbol of freedom, create something by using her intellectual ability, when she tried to have the wings, she fell down and lost her life. She couldn’t be like her brother who used the same way and got fame, flied high and high. Society took it normally to see a man with the urge to do something as we see normally an eagle having the wings. When we see a worm with wings either we laugh at it or try to kill it for its foolishness. That’s what happened with Judith Shakespeare, a worm which tried to get the eagle wings.
Works Cited:
Woolf, Virginia. “A Room of One’s Own.” Fort Washington: Harvest Book. 1981. First published 1929.

To Veil or Not to Veil

Veil is such an important part of a Muslim woman. But if we consider ourselves as feminists, should veils be mandatory? To find this answer, let’s look at the history of the veil at first. The Islamic veil was introduced to protect women from the aggression of men, since later it was considered as modesty and upper class women used to practice veil to show their elitism as they don’t have to work like the other women in the field who used to wear loose clothes (wiegand). But do you think only Muslim women used to wear veils? No, the Christian and Jewish women also wear veils to show their modesty.
But in future in was took in such a way that veil became a must for the Muslim women and even Iran started to portray women in a veil, wearing chador. Feminists saw them as a “sign of oppression” (Berger). Western feminists consider veil “shaped by gender relations” (Majid). So, as a feminist, someone might go against the veil which is normal and even in some country like Arab veil is a must for women, they have to cover their heads wearing loose dark clothes (odeh). So, in this case veil is such a thing which is imposed on a woman by the society and feminists must go against it.
But what about those women who want to wear veils willingly because they are comfortable with it? After the occurrence of 9/11 many women were not allowed to wear veils as they were considered terrorists. In this case, it also goes against feminism. A woman has the right to do anything and if she wants to wear a veil society doesn’t have the right to stop her by calling her a terrorist.
I think feminism must think about the veil in a broader context. There should be laws for the women who are doing the veil forcefully and those who can’t do veil because of the society. feminists should give women the choice to veil or not to veil.

works cited:
“Unveiling Muslim Feminism.” – In These Times. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Feb. 2013.
“Project MUSE – The Newly Veiled Woman: Irigaray, Specularity, and the Islamic Veil.”Project MUSE – The Newly Veiled Woman: Irigaray, Specularity, and the Islamic Veil. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Feb. 2013.
Majid, Anouar. JSTOR. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Feb. 2013. .
Odeh, Lama Abu. JSTOR. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Feb. 2013. .

plato: a feminst of ancient greece

This must be a very controversial topic that is Plato a feminist or not? If we want to answer this question, at first we should know what is a ‘feminist’? According to the oxford dictionary, feminist is someone who supports the belief that women should have equal rights as men. So, now let’s think about Plato wanted the equality or not. If we can find it out, we will be able to answer that if he is feminist or not.
Plato was a great philosopher of ancient Greece. In that period it was totally ruled by men, women were mostly secluded from the society (Katz,71). In this certain situation of a society women were considered weaker for their physical strength or intelligence. And they were not given the opportunity to study. But Plato was little bit opposite of this term. May be all his statement didn’t go with the equality but we are talking about that time when the women were wholly dominated by the men. In that period, Plato raised his voice and talked for women as women were not allowed to talk for their rights.even in the ‘symposium’ we saw he talked mentioned diotima but he didn’t show her in that meeting by herself. in that time women were in a “domestic imprisonment”(richter,1). how can we expect diotima to come in the gathering and talk for her self? plato indirectly raised her voice in the gathering, he talked about her in the meeting where she was not allowed to come. Can’t we say that Plato was also a feminist but his feminism was latent as the society was not favourable?
In Plato’s guardian class of his Republic he mentioned few points which clearly state that Plato was a feminist. He said that the women who are involved with child rising they should be educated though they are supposed to reproduce and take of their children (vlastos,12). Through these words we can understand that Plato wanted a society where women should be educated but their main role is the motherhood. I think he mentioned this motherhood because in that time women’s only role was to give birth but at least he took a motion and said that the women should be educated. He was equally open for both men and women. He stated that men and women living “in the same house” eating “in common dining halls” (politics, 1300a6) to support the equality. Athenian law didn’t approve the equality of owning property among men and women. But Plato’s guardian law denied agreeing with this rules (Vlastos,13).

All these statements clearly state that Plato is a feminist according to his period as the society was not that much favourable to women but still he thought about bringing equality between men and women.

Works cited:
Feminist Interpretations of Plato. N.p.: University Park, Pa. : Pennsylvania State Univ., 1994. Google Books. Web. 10 Feb. 2013. .
Katz, Marilyn. “Ideology and “The Status of Women” in Ancient Greece.” 31.4 (1992): n. pag. Print.
Oxford advanced learner’s dictionary. 8th edition.
Plato, Alexander Nehamas, and Paul Woodruff. Symposium. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub., 1989. Print.
Richter, Donald C. “The Position of Women in Classical Athens.” JSTOR. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Mar. 2013. .

Heavenly love and common love! differentiating between loves or between men and women?

In the ‘Symposium’, Pausanias has talked about two kinds of love: heavenly love which came from heavenly Aphrodite and common love which came from common Aphrodite (465). Pausanias even stated the common love as vulgar love (466). According to Pausanias, the love will be vulgar love when a man is attracted to the woman or a young boy because this love is mostly connected with the sexual act. On the other hand, heavenly love is the pure love which is felt by a male for another male. While differentiating between these two types of love Pausanias actually used two bases which is male and female and created a mystery between two types of love. If we are successful to know that what are the things which made him differentiate, maybe we will be able to step ahead to solve the mysterious labyrinth of love.
Pausanias stated that people who fell in heavenly love, they searched for the stronger and the more intelligent one. What did he actually mean by that? Does it mean that in the Greek civilization the men were considered stronger and more intelligent than women? The answer is partially yes because the women were inferior to the men that time. Pausanias compared the women with the young boy. In his words, we can infer that Women were only seen as a creature which is full of beauty and which had least intelligence and they could be just used for the physical fulfillment. A young boy was no less than a woman as he didn’t have any sense of right or wrong. Women and young boy they both were considered beautiful for their body. However, heavenly love was stated as the pure love which had no connection with beauty but with intelligence and strength and that’s why it could be happened between two matured men who had intelligence, not a young boy who was immature.
If we think about Plato’s famous theory of forms, he stated the two forms: one is “real” which is tangible and worldly and another one is “ideal” which is spiritual and beyond worldly things. In the real world, things are individual but in the ideal world which is considered as heaven, things are same, in equal form. So, we may say that, the heavenly love is supposed to happen between two same things and if it occurs between two different things it will be worldly which is common. But now the question may rise, why did the heavenly love only include the love between a man and a man? Why not a woman and woman? The answer is women had no importance or rights in the society which leaded them to have no ‘spirit’ in themselves. They were more considered beautiful physically, not spiritually. People who were intelligent or scholars were considered having spirituality and they were considered as a part of heavenly love.
Intelligence and strength were two key points of heavenly love; sex and beauty were part of common love. But subconsciously didn’t they differentiate between men and women? Didn’t they undermine the ability of the women?

Analysis of The Looking Glass

In the poem ‘the looking glass’ written by Kamala das, it tried to show how women are confined in their physical activities. She actually used irony to state all the facts. She criticized the women that it’s easy for them to get love by a man. If the men and women both get naked in front of a mirror the women will see that the men are stronger and they will admire their beauty. The writer criticizes this thing by calling themselves “Softer, younger, lovelier” (6, das). She meant that women are symbol of beauty and women like to be introduced in this way.
And she states how every single nasty thing is attractive to the women and they are admiring them. She provokes the women to give them everything and she used all the physical terms like “the scent of Long hair, the musk of sweat between the breasts, the warm shock of menstrual blood, and all your Endless female hungers.”(11-14, das) which are the common things about femininity. Kamala tried to show the women that the way they are behaving and admiring themselves their role is nothing but to fulfill the physical needs. And she stated that women were being so dependent on the men that they can’t forget them when they are gone. All the happiness, all the lightheartedness goes away with them. They are making themselves so weak that they can’t live a happy life without a man.