This week's reading assignments definitely highlighted a majority point with feminism everywhere: it's complicated. It's never easy to talk about feminist issue without recognizing a variety of nuances that play into the way women experience society: sex versus gender, ethnicity, socio-economic status, etc. There was a clear distinction between the way Ashkenazi and Mizrahi women experience living in Israel, but they shared common feminist goals as well.
A key point was class transcending feminism. Further along that vein, the division is ethnic, which is directly related to class in that Ashkenazi women tend to be much wealthier than Mizrahi women. This issue has been seen throughout many social justice movements within history, including the feminism movement in the US in which white women were still racist against black women, the latter of which deals with an entirely set of problems that the former does not experience. There was also a distinction drawn between Haredi women and other Jewish women in general. I was glad that we read a variety of readings that noted that the many different experiences that women deal with depending upon their ethnic or religious group, and I'm sure we've only hit the tip of the iceberg.
The plight of Palestinian women in Israel was an issue in itself. Saar explains that Palestinian women must deal with multiple patriarchal regimes: the family, the state, national community, and others. Palestinian-Israeli as an identity in itself is oxymoronic, as the author notes. She also notes that while Palestinians in Israel are better off than their brethren under the Palestinian Authority, their quality of life is much lower--for both men and women. The identity is so complex and the state treats Palestinian-Israelis so much differently than Jewish-Israelis, as is highlighted by Samira, even if individuals do not discriminate. The complexity of this issue is fascinating to me and I'd love to talk about it more in class (as I'm sure we will).
On a related note that slightly strays from feminism, at the end of Galit Hasan-Rokem's article, she said that she hoped for an undivided city, which is to be the capital of two states of two nations. I have never really heard anyone discuss the idea of Jerusalem being the capital of both states in an undivided way. I just think that this idea is interesting and hope we get the chance to talk about it more in class.
Discussion Questions:
1. Do you think it's possible for Galit Hasan-Rokem's idea about Jerusalem being an undivided city, but the capital for both states?
2. In reading about Palestinian women's experiences in Israel, did you see their struggle as more politically motivated, gender-related, or a bit of both? In other words, do you think that if these women weren't Palestinian in a political sense, would they have the same struggles as Jewish women in Israel?
In response to your second question: yes, I think Palestinian women would have a separate struggle that of Israeli women. As you mentioned when talking about Ashkenazi vs. Mizrahi women, race plays a crucial role in feminism. You very rarely have one without the other.
ReplyDeleteI also noticed the hope that Galit Hasan-Rokem puts forth at the end of her piece: an undivided city, capital to two nations. I agree with you that we rarely, if ever, hear about this possibility. I feel that is likely because reaching a state where peace is so complete and lasting that such an existence would be possible seems to be so far from the current reality. I feel that ideally, Jerusalem will eventually be the capital of two nations. However, the realist in me feels such a step is far, far away.
ReplyDelete