Feminism

I am of opinion that people who classify feminism ideology into several categories and narrow-mindedly think that feminists MUST fall into one of those categories do not know a lot about feminism itself. Or, they are still learning what feminism is. They still know the ‘outer’ part and then talk about feminism as if they know all the contents. As if there were no feminists who were ‘free’ from any of those classification. As if people who claimed themselves as feminists must then ‘follow’ the teachings of feminism category they embrace rigidly. They cannot mix one feminism category with another. For example: a radical feminist cannot embrace what a liberal feminist says.
Indeed there are some ‘waves’ in feminism history: the first—that referred to the struggle of early feminists starting in the middle of the eighteenth century America whose main, or perhaps the solely goal was to give women suffrage; the second—that referred to Betty Friedan’s contemporaries in 1960s whose struggle was to give women rights to work in public sphere; and the third, that recently has been also popularly known as post-feminism starting in the beginning of 1990s. There must be a very clear reason why this process took place and there must be a very strong tie among the first, the second, and the third ‘waves’ of women movement.
In this article, I will write the process as well as the tie in a nutshell. And, since my educational background is American Studies so that I read the history from books written by American authors, I will specifically refer to the history of women movement in America.
America declared its independence in 1776 and started having its own government ever since. From the very first general election, women were not included in the general election. American pious society thought that general election that would select president was considered as men’s affair. Before the industrial revolution really changed the life of American people, this means women were also considered as breadwinner in the agrarian lifestyle, not having right to vote in the general election was the main ‘scapegoat’ that women were considered weaker than men. It is understandable then if entering the eighteenth century, women thought that they would be equal with men when they got suffrage. The first women convention officially held in 1848 in Seneca Falls was the first formal appeal for women suffrage. The women involved in this movement—led by Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth Cady Stanton—worked hand in hand with the abolitionists.
American women eventually got their right to vote in the general election in 1920, after struggling for more than seven decades.
Getting the goal they had been struggling for a quite long period in fact ‘weakened’ women’s struggle. They thought that they had been ‘equal’ with men merely because they could join the general election.
The ‘boom’ of the industrial revolution resulted more and more factories that made more and more men leave their dwelling places to work. (Before, they had home industry besides relied their life on the agriculture. This made both men and women stayed home, to earn money together.) The ‘guilty’ feeling of being money-oriented creature due to the industrial revolution, selfish American men, working together with ‘the church’ bodies, created ‘the cult of True Womanhood’ that trapped women to be domestic creatures. When men could leave home to earn money, they insisted that their wife stay home.
The second world war—where many men had to go to war—needed women to leave their home to work in big industries. However, when the war was over, men resumed their position, they forced women to go back home. American society still embraced the cult of true womanhood with its four tenets: piety, purity, submissiveness, and domesticity.
This force made articulate and intellectual women like Betty Friedan question: “then what?” after being a good wife. Women did not have freedom to choose public sphere job. To be a ‘true’ woman, a woman had to give up her public life. While in fact, during the second world war, women had ‘obligation’ to continue American industrial life by leaving their home. This showed that women were as capable as men in public sphere.
It is then understandable if Friedan and her contemporaries in the beginning of 1960s struggled for women to get right to pursue job outside home, because they believed that women were as good as men. Since men did not easily believe in women’s skills and capabilities, they thought that to be ‘similar’ to men, women also had to get dressed as men, to behave as men, women had to be masculine to ‘equalize’ themselves to men, etc.
Domestic chores were just as boring and made women left behind men.
As time went by, women started to realize that the core of equality between men and women lied on the control of our own bodies and mind, and not let other people control ourselves. Society could not force women to work in public spheres or to appear feminine/masculine. This was the main tenet in postfeminism, where in the beginning people mistakenly labeled it as anti-feminism. Working in public sphere or being feminine/masculine is fully women’s choice, and not right of the father, brother, or husband. There is no right or wrong in this matter. Women have full right to rule their own life.
There is nothing that does not change in this world, wise people say. This is natural law. People have to wisely recognize the history, though, how the changes happen.
I belong to the feminist who refuses to classify myself as a liberal, radical, Marxian, or any other feminists.
PT56 22.29 221208

Women's Voice

“Suara kaum minoritas elite juga bisa dengan mudah kita jumpai di media semacam Jurnal Perempuan. Meskipun namanya menggunakan perempuan, justru terjadi dekonstruksi makna perempuan oleh Jurnal Perempuan.”

(The voice of elite minority community can be easily found in some media such as Jurnal Perempuan – Journal for Women. Although there is the word ‘women’ in it, in fact Jurnal Perempuan even deconstructed the significant meaning of the word “women”.)

I got the above statement from one article forwarded to Jurnal Perempuan mailing list some weeks ago. It was stated by a woman who was on the other (or even contradictory) boat of women “warriors” labelled as feminists. I remembered the first time I read Jurnal Perempuan (JP) around 2003; the first time I learned there was another ‘voice’ uttered by “women” that was different from “women’s voices” I read/heard from some other medias I had known for decades. I bet I recognized the ‘voice’ expressed by JP as the “real” voice of women – free from patriarchal culture – because at that time I was assigned to read Gilligan’s book “In a Different Voice” by one lecturer of American Studies Gadjah Mada University.
The “voice” expressed by JP was in fact the answer of so many questions having crowded my mind since I was a kid; such as women were not the weaker sex, Islam – the religion I have adhered since I was born – was not the religion that discriminated women because in fact the people – you can label them ulema or Islamic scholars – behind the religion were the ones who discriminated women by producing gender biased interpretation of Alquran and hadiths, etc.
Therefore I do agree if someone says that articles published at JP ‘deconstruct’ what patriarchal culture believes, especially on women’s ‘destiny’. Is it to corner women? The answer is a big NO. It is even to lift women’s position!!
*****
Several days ago I had a long talk with a good friend of mine who just went back from Kansas University. She claimed that she has believed in an equal relationship between husband and wife because her parents gave a good example towards the children. I told her that my parents also didn’t differentiate the treatments towards the children. My late father recognized the intelligence in me more than my big brother, that’s why he supported my education very highly because he didn’t want to see me end up as an exclusive cook for the husband and children. (So I ‘read’ the attention he gave me.) The way my parents divided household chores among the children also without gender stereotypes.
“So, where did you get the idea that a woman had to dedicate all her life for the husband as well as children and be submissive with whatever the husband does? Be the only one who takes care of all household chores, serve the husband, etc to provide ‘heaven’ on earth for the family? Therefore you felt like finding a very precious jewellery after you got to know the perspective conveyed by JP?” She shot me.
I could not answer that killing question.
That made me keep thinking about it and keep trying to find the ‘traces’ that resulted in a deep pain in my heart.
The first possibility was the indoctrination I got when I was at Islamic elementary school. I believe my teachers at that time cited many misogynist interpretations to indoctrinate the students. Besides, they also said there were no dialectics in religion. So? “Take it or leave it.” Read it as “take it if you want to enter heaven. Leave it if you want to accompany Satans in hell.” And usually the teachers frightened the young kids about hell.
I got the second possibility after for a few days trying hard to remember again my childhood and teenage years. I assume it was the beginning moment I shaped myself to be one victim in this patriarchal society because I wanted to fulfil the requirements to be a “true” woman. I remembered at that time my mom subscribed – or at least bought regularly – one magazine claimed for women. Since my reading was my hobby, I also often read some articles or stories – short stories or novella – in the magazine. I still remembered many articles and stories gave illustration of how to be a “true” and “good” woman, how to attract men, etc. The indoctrination of how to be a pious woman I got from my elementary school education plus the shaping of how to be a “true” and “good” woman viewed from patriarchal perspective amazingly shaped me to be a perfect example of Cinderella complex sufferer.
However, it was ruined by choosing a wrong guy to be my Lovely Star’s father.
The perfect example was broken into pieces.
Therefore when finding out my own “voice” I collected from scratch by my own readings – one of them is absolutely JP – I was like a woman warrior who “woke up late”. However, I do believe in an axiom saying that it is better late than never.
I still have to celebrate my awakening: by writing in my blog.
LL TBL 15.33 120708

Feminine vs Feminist

Before resuming my study to American Studies Graduate Program at UGM in 2002, I was a ‘conventional’ woman who followed the stereotyping of men and women. Much before 2001 (the year when that Californian left me, when I started to create a new identity for myself as Ms. Black—wearing black most of my time when going to my workplace), I loved to wear different kind of colors for skirt/trousers, and I would carry the handbag and wear high-heeled shoes with similar colors. I believed that women had to be feminine to attract the opposite sex. LOL. As if I wouldn’t be able to attract men without being feminine; as if I wouldn’t be able to survive without getting attraction from men. LOL. (oh poor me!!! LOL.)

In the beginning of the first semester of American Studies, I still sometimes wore my high-heeled shoes when going to campus. It easily made me tired coz I usually went to campus or the library on foot! Therefore, not long after that, I put my high-heeled shoes in their box peacefully, LOL, and changed to wear sneakers together with jeans and T-shirt.

In the third semester, I started to teach again in my workplace coz not enough teachers. It made me busy commute from Yogya to Semarang (around 120 kms away, about three hours by bus) every week. With ‘being student’ mood on my mind, of course, I felt very lazy to wear my high-heeled shoes. I oftentimes came to class by wearing jeans and a polo shirt too. Moreover, I was still a new feminist, by reading Friedan’s book, The Feminine Mystique. Just like feminists in 1960s America, I didn’t want to make myself look feminine. LOL.

Time passed by.

I read more books about feminism and gender. My favorite is Jurnal Perempuan (Women’s Journal). Its online website is on www.jurnalperempuan.com The articles there really support women to be like what they want; women are free to do anything, to be anything, free from any intimidation from society, moreover from a selfish husband who probably would say, “I love you sweetie, stay at home please for me.” or “I love you my darling one. I want to ease your burden by having another wife.” LOL. Or “I do care about you dearest. Please cover all part of your body coz it is all mine.” LOL.

At the time of my coming back to my workplace fully (after I finished my Master’s Degree), I still loved wearing sneakers to go to the office behind my long black dress and blazer. I didn’t give a damn to people looked at me strangely. LOL. Even, sometimes some students laughed when seeing my sneakers under my long dress. LOL. (FYI, I wear dress not coz I want to look feminine, but I really feel comfortable wearing it.)

Recently I oftentimes wear my black high-heeled boots together with my long black dress and black blazer. I find it comfortable too. I enjoy the feeling of being feminine though I am not really a feminine person. LOL. (Ups… what is feminine anyway? LOL.) And I am still a feminist.

PT56 23.14 170806

Feminist Critical Studies

I am reading a book entitled KAJIAN BUDAYA FEMINIS (Feminist Cultural Studies) written by Aquarini Priyatna, one feminist writer in Indonesia. This book contains the collection of her papers having been published before in some journals or presented in some seminars.
The way she writes in those papers is like the way someone writes autobiography; it is similar to my way of writing articles in my blogs. That’s why I easily like reading it. And I agree with her that this way wil make the readers—especially women—feel like the “I” in the papers is themselves with their daily experiences dealing with patriarchal soceity.
One thing that I want to write here is her complaint on the local language used mostly in Central Java,East Jave, and DIY, three provinces located in Java island. Javanese language—so it is called, just like the ethnic group is also called Javanese—applies three different hierarchies. The highest is called Kromo Inggil, the middle is Kromo Madyo while the lowest is Ngoko.
People speak Ngoko to other people who are about the same level (social class including age). They speak Kromo Madyo to people they are not really close to although they are about the same level. They speak Kromo Inggil to people they respect. On the contrary, people who are respected can speak Ngoko to people who come from lower level.
Husbands speak Ngoko to their wives while wives speak Kromo Inggil. It shows that men have a higher level than the wives so that they must show their respect by using Kromo Inggil when speaking to the husbands.
Aquarini who is married to a Javanese man didn’t know this. When one day she used Ngoko language to the husband, the husband’s family members didn’t like it and consider Aquarini an impolite woman. As a feminist, It directly left a bad taste in her mouth coz using Javanese language made her less important than her husband. Then she asked her husband to speak the national language—Bahasa Indonesia—that doesn’t have such a hierarchy. She is lucky, I suppose, coz her husband didn’t complain and agreed with her.
In a way, it is a dilemma. When more and more people think like this, it will make Javanese language vanish. However, I agree with Aquarini that the application of three different hierarchies in this local language will make women feel inferior, as someone less important.
It reminded me of my own bitter experience in my first marriage. I didn’t use Kromo Inggil to speak to him in the past. However, I used to call Angie’s dad “Mas”, one term mostly used by Javanese people to show respect to men. He just called me my name. After we got divorced, I no longer call him “Mas”. It left a bad taste in my mouth! It really made me forced to be the less important party only coz I was born female; and he the respected one only coz he was born male!
Perhaps for many people it is just a trivial thing. But to me—also to Aquarini—and perhaps also to some other feminists—this is a principle thing in life.
It reminds me of questions asked by many people to me, “Why do you feminists bother those things taken for granted for centuries and try to deconstruct them? Why don’t you just live in peace by accepting everything just the way it is? (Read => to accept that men are the better sex, the superior, the smarter, the stronger, etc.)
We just want to have equality. It sounds easy but difficult to make it real.
PT56 11.26 100706

Perempuan

Dear blog readers,
Artikel berikut ini aku post di sini adalah respons yang aku berikan dalam salah satu milis yang aku ikuti.

Asal kamu tahu, kita-kita kaum yang menyebut diri 'feminis' atau, well, para pejuang untuk kesetaraan laki-laki dan perempuan, tidak menyukai pilihan kata WANITA, karena kata WAN itu berarti = yang diinginkan, berarti WANITA adalah yang diinginkan, dan di kultur yang memuja heteroseksualitas sebagai satu-satunya seksualitas yang NORMAL, tentu saja WANITA berkonotasi "yang diinginkan oleh kaum laki-laki".
Kita kaum feminis (well, mungkin tidak semua orang yang berjuang untuk kesetaraan laki-laki dan perempuan suka disebut 'feminis' karena bagi sebagian orang kata 'feminis' ini bisa jadi berkonotasi negatif, tapi, aku bangga-bangga aja menyebut diri sebagai seorang feminis. LOL) lebih memilih kata PEREMPUAN yang berasal dari PER-EMPU-AN. Kata 'empu' berarti yang ahli, berarti kita kaum perempuan adalah kaum ahli, yang mampu melakukan apa pun yang kita inginkan, mampu memilih, dan bukan hanya dipilih, apalagi YANG DIINGINKAN.
Menilik dari cerita-ceritamu, kita harus cari tahu sampai ke akar-akarnya mengapa perempuan-perempuan yang kamu ceritakan itu bertingkah laku seperti itu?
Kebetulan kita hidup di Indonesia yang kultur patriarki nya masih sangat kental walaupun ideologi feminisme (baca  kesetaraan laki-laki dan perempuan) telah masuk ke Indonesia sejak dekade-dekade terakhir abad ke 20. ditambah lagi dengan kultur “marriage-oriented society”, plus ‘sok’ relijius (contoh: kalau terjadi kekerasan dalam rumah tangga terhadap kaum perempuan, mereka diminta, atau bahkan DIHARUSKAN oleh anggota keluarga mereka sendiri untuk merahasiakan hal tersebut, karena pengindoktrinasian melalui pelajaran agama bahwa para kaum perempuan harus menjaga rahasia suami, meskipun si istri menderita batin.) seandainya terjadi ‘apa-apa’ dalam sebuah rumah tangga, masyarakat dengan mudah menuding bahwa si perempuan lah yang salah.
Hal ini tentu saja akan amat sangat mempengaruhi para kaum perempuan dalam mengambil tindakan untuk mengambil solusi suatu permasalahan. Khawatir dicap sebagai perempuan yang tidak mampu menjaga roda rumah tangga, para perempuan itu kemudian melakukan apa saja agar rumah tangga mereka tetap aman-aman saja (namun hanya terlihat dari luar saja), termasuk melakukan hal-hal yang di nalar orang lain (baca  kaum patriarki) tidak masuk akal.
Seberapa yakin kamu bahwa para perempuan yang ‘tidak masuk akal’ itu melakan semua hal tersebut hanya demi cinta terhadap suami mereka yang telah menyakiti mereka? Bagaimana dengan tudingan masyarakat yang dengan gampang menyalahkan kaum perempuan?
Juga dengan tumbuh suburnya FAIRY TALES sebangsa Cinderella (ingat? Kisah-kisah dongeng itu selalu berakhir dengan “and then the prince and the princess got married and they live happily together ever after). Seolah-olah semua permasalahan akan usai setelah pernikahan, tak ada lagi air mata, tak ada lagi nestapa. Juga bahwa “kebahagiaan hakiki” dalam hidup di dunia ini hanya bisa didapatkan dari pernikahan, hal ini akan mendorong semua orang menikah hanya untuk dianggap NORMAL, BAHAGIA.
Demi dianggap sebagai seseorang yang NORMAL dan BAHAGIA di mata masyarakat, kaum perempuan itu akan berusaha sekuat tenaga untuk menjaga rumah tangganya, meskipun mereka hancur lebur dalam hati.
Juga mitos bahwa orang-orang yang mudah melakukan perceraian dalam hidupnya adalah orang-orang yang ‘rendah’ karena tidak mampu menjaga keutuhan rumah tangga (misal: tudingan masyarakat, “Kok loe mudah amat sih cere? Gitu aja cere, emang ga ada jalan lain? Loe gampangan amat yah?”) disertai dengan mitos bahwa “broken family” akan menghasilkan ‘broken future generations’, semakin memperparah keadaan.
Padahal kalo dipikir-pikir daripada hidup bersama namun laksana hidup di neraka (bertengkar tiap hari, ataupun terjadi kekerasan terhadap perempuan tiap hari), bukankah perceraian adalah jalan yang lebih baik, untuk lebih menyelamatkan mental anak-anak dari melihat pertengkaran setiap hari? Atau menghindari ‘modelling’ bahwa sebagai seorang laki-laki, seseorang boleh melakukan apa saja terhadap perempuan (karena melihat sang ayah yang selalu melakukan kekerasan terhadap sang ibu), atau sebagai seorang perempuan, harus diam saja tatkala sang suami melakukan kekerasan terhadapnya (besar kemungkinan si anak perempuan akan mencontohnya). Penyakit yang akan terus menerus turun temurun bukan?
Sekarang mengenai seorang perempuan yang terus menerus sibuk membubuhkan bedak dan lain lain ke wajahnya.
Sepengetahuanku, di kultur patriarki ini, ada stereotipe bahwa perempuan itu harus cantik (agar mampu menarik perhatian laki-laki). Bagi para kaum perempuan yang tidak pede dengan yang mereka miliki, toh mereka hanya melakukan apa yang dituntut oleh masyarakat untuk selalu tampil cantik? Mengapa mereka yang disalahkan? Mengapa tidak mulai diubah saja cara berpikir masyarakat? Bahwa cantik luar itu tidak ada apa-apanya? Bahwa meningkatkan kemampuan intelektual itu jauh lebih bermakna daripada sekedar membubuhkan bedak dan lipstik? Dan hentikanlah itu iklan-iklan menggelikan di televisi yang memandang perempuan hanya dari kecantikan saja, dari kulit mulus saja, dari rambut yang lurus dan sehat saja! Agar kaum perempuan berhenti untuk hanya membubuhkan bedak, lipstik, body lotion ke seluruh tubuhnya. Agar kaum perempuan berhenti untuk membelanjakan uangnya hanya untuk benda-benda tersebut.
Hentikan juga itu iklan-iklan yang memposisikan perempuan hanya sebagai tukang masak! Dan dunia kapitalis akan berteriak-teriak dari mana mereka akan mendapatkan keuntungan? Ganti dengan iklan-iklan yang jauh lebih mendidik.
Kalau sampai terjadi kaum laki-laki merasa dikendalikan oleh perempuan. Nah ... itu berarti laki-lakinya yang tidak pede. Seperti juga kaum perempuan yang dikendalikan oleh laki-laki (untuk selalu melakukan apa pun yang laki-laki inginkan dari mereka) itu adalah orang-orang yang tidak pede juga.
Mengenai perempuan yang KONON diciptakan dari tulang rusuk laki-laki, sebagai kaum Muslim, baca deh buku Quran Menurut Perempuan tulisan Amina Wadud atau Setara di Hadapan Allah tulisan Riffat Hassan dan Fatima Mernissi.
Mengenai pendapatmu bahwa perempuan adalah satu bentuk keindahan yang diciptakan oleh Allah di dunia ini, well, kamu baca lagi deh mengapa dalam Al-Quran ada surat ANNISA. Itu bukan karena perempuan adalah satu bentuk keindahan, namun untuk menghormati kedudukan perempuan dalam masyarakat, yang kebetulan ketika Nabi Muhammad lahir tengah berada dalam masa jahiliyah di mana kedudukan perempuan sangat direndahkan. Allah ingin mengangkat harkat perempuan dengan turunnya surat tersebut, dan bukan untuk “hati-hatilah kepada kaum perempuan yang diciptakan dari tulang rusuk yang bengkok itu. BUKAN.
Untuk lebih lengkapnya baca artikel di sini
http://www.themodernreligion.com/women/w_comparison_full.htm
terlihat dalam artikel di sini bahwa tidak ada itu “HATI-HATILAH TERHADAP KAUM PEREMPUAN YANG AKAN MAMPU MENJATUHKAN MARTABATMU”.

Salam.
Nana P
http://afeministblog.blogspot.com
http://afemaleguest.blog.co.uk

Feminine? Who cares?

I have one female workmate who likes carrying backpack when going to the office. With she wearing a suit (trousers and a blazer), I believe people will find her look weird. It is widely assumed that when women wear a suit, they are supposed to carry a handbag, and not a backpack. Some students of ours comment on this habit of hers by saying, “She is really funky.” LOL. My workmate’s simple reason is, “Well, with this backpack, I can carry lots of books and many other things too.” It is absolutely logical, isn’t it?
Another workmate of mine who likes wearing a long dress and a blazer, likes wearing sneakers and sometimes I see her carrying backpack too. One day she told me that it was very common for her to find people on the bus look at her big backpack weirdly while she looked feminine with her long dress. I bet those bus passengers thought that my workmate was supposed to carry a handbag. LOL. People who carry backpack mostly wear jeans and a T-shirt; and they don’t go to the office but going hiking or camping. LOL. Some months ago, a student bought her a handbag. My friend commented, “So, you give me this handbag coz you consider it is not appropriate for a female employee like me carrying a backpack or what?” LOL. That particular student didn’t answer, just smiled. In the meantime, some other students commented on her wearing sneakers. (Perhaps on the bus, the passengers didn’t have time to look at her till her feet wearing sneakers. ) “Why does that Ms. X like wearing her child’s sneakers? She doesn’t have high-heeled shoes?” LOL. Well, her simple reason is, “It is really much more comfortable wearing sneakers rather than high-heeled shoes. I can run faster when the situation obliges me to do it.” LOL. Whenever she comes to a new class, and she realizes that the students in that class look at her sneakers weirdly, she says that reason.
Well, this happens in Indonesia where people easily judge other people ABNORMAL only coz they don’t follow society’s norms, including those simple things, such as wearing sneakers or high-heeled shoes, carrying a backpack or a handbag for female employees.
I really like this new generation of women who don’t really give a damn on stereotypical feminine roles for women. Who says that women must be feminine?
21.53 13042006