"The problem with identity politics is not that it fails to transcend difference, as some critics charge, but rather the opposite-that it frequently conflates or ignores intragroup difference" (Crenshaw, 200). Although a group may identify as women, all women do not deal with the same problems. A major issue to a middle-class working women will differ from the problems faced by lower-class or higher class women. Ignoring problems causes issues and disorder in groups. The intersectional approach to gender matters, significantly, when analyzing women's issues because we then recognize the different issues faced within the group as opposed to one major issue that might not affect everyone or be of major importance to everyone in the group. Specifically with violence, although we're still dealing with domestic abuse, it varies from class to class and race to race. A women of higher status does not experience the amount of violence and constraints experienced by the lower-class or middle-class women. In "Mapping the Margins", Crenshaw says that strategies used based on women who do not share the same class or race will be of no to little help to women who face different obstacles because of their race. Intersectionality will help ease dissension among races and classes within one gender/sex and help the group to get more accomplished while also recognizing all of their group members concerns and issues from different perspectives and social statuses.
Violence can have detrimental and long lasting effects on its victims, psychologically and physically. We saw in all of the readings, how violence became a cycle and continued to be a
downfall and trap for the women in each of these texts. A question I posed to myself while after looking back on the reading is, "Does violence have the same universal effect on each women within that social class and race or does it depend on an individual's mindset?" "But inside me too is the teenager who armed herself and fought back, the dyke who did what she had to, the woman who learned to love without giving in to fear" (Allison,71). "Two or Three Things I Know For Sure" really helped me to see that it really depends more on the individual's drive to move on or "grow" from the abusive situation as opposed to their environment and generalized social class's reaction. The main character chose not to be a product of her environment but to fight back against the traps her family members fell into all too often. Her determination to not be a victims allowed her to overcome her environment and the same situations that her family members faced.
Violence is a substantially large problem in today's society and needs to be dealt with. The authors of our assigned reading suggests that we take a route of empowerment and not victimization in the journey to combat violence. People must STAND UP and SPEAK OUT against violence. We need to begin to look at women, not as victims, but as possible martyrs, heroes, etc. I think this would be a great way to possibly attack the violence problem in America. EMPOWER yourself, don't become a VICTIM!
I really like your post man! I agree with you man on the fact that based on socioeconomic class can determine what type of problems a woman may face in life. A woman of lower socioeconomic status may not have the funds to get out of a situation because they have nowhere to go and have to face beatings in order to just have a roof over her head in the cold of the night. Where as a middle class woman or higher class could move out get their own place and move away. Like you said man we tend to have that narrow point of view via identity politics that we have had put into our minds ever since we were in elementary school. So many times we try to be cut and dry with things that we fail to recognize that not all women are in the same situations. One thing i would say i agree with you on the women should be seen as martyrs and heroes who stand up for what they believe in, but i feel sometimes we glorify one or two women who do decided to stand up and that’s great but like i said in my post I think we do that and forget the masses of those who can’t speak up because they are not in a situation to do so. Like in Crenshaw’s article with the women raped in fields they lose their whole life and many don’t have a way to go and let their story out. I feel our focus should shift to people helping the masses of women through groups like Dorothy Allison has started and not focus so much on individual stories. Individual stories are great and still need to be told but if we ever want to see change like in the civil rights movement you had people like dr. king who were the voices but it was people like Anne moody in her novel coming of age in Mississippi who got out there and did the dirty work to make change happen. If we want to see women break out of violence I think it’s going to take movements like that ordinary common people taking a stand and being the change they want to see.
ReplyDeleteHeres a link i found that kinda goes along with the commercial you posted :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqfNekxvtbs
That our culture often "glorifies" women who escape, survive, and overcome violence, while often finding "contemptuous" those who are unable to leave or speak out about violence has come up in several posts. You both should bring this up in class so we can complicate this binary of weak/strong, powerful/powerless, hero/victim, etc.
ReplyDelete