Sharon is my CMLT teacher. On the first day she introduced herself to my class and told us that she was writing her thesis on Holocaust survivors, how they deal with trauma. She also distributed our reading lists for the semester which included works by Sandra Cisneros and Toni Morrison; books that echoed the topics we covered in our WMST class: prejudice versus acceptance, being “native” versus being “foreign”, tradition versus modernity. Thus when assigned this project, she was the first person I contacted for an interview. After speaking with her for an hour, Sharon made me realize that even now the feminist message must to be spread; that even today there are those who are oblivious to the fact that there is a population, a movement attempting to bring women and the oppressed to the forefront. Nevertheless, she also illuminated the fact that everyday someone new is discovering the need for the movement, everyday someone new is bringing their part to the fight. Feminism is a much needed force in the world without which human prejudice and ignorance could easily blot out the sun, therefore those who are aware of how feminism can bring peace must continue raising the consciousness of those who do not.
If I were not enrolled in her class, I probably would never be able to pick her face out in a crowd. Her dirty blond hair drapes over her shoulders onto her back, barely audible is her voice over the respectful silence that follows her entrance through the classroom door. Her attire is neat and modern but neutral in color and style. Nothing in her presence hinted at any inkling of fire beneath the tan slacks and cream blouses, the steady smile and subtle voice. Regardless, I had high hopes going into the interview; her thesis alone was enough motivation for me to converse with her for hours. Yet, I was still uncertain of how she would respond to my questions on feminism. My fears were quickly alleviated for when I explained to her the nature of my interview, her eyes brightened and she began her story.
Sharon grew up in a stringently pious environment. The denomination of the dominant religion in the area had a major impact on how she was raised. Parents and teachers alike relentlessly intoned the mantra that women were to be seen but seldom heard. Women had a specific role in life and it should never be questioned. Women were homemakers and wives, mothers and caretakers, pacifistic and obedient. And feminism? When I asked Sharon about the role feminism played in her upbringing, she said that as a child it was seen as a “way of undermining society”, a taboo philosophy that took “away from the family structure”. Her childhood was the complete antithesis to feminism. It was archaic in that she was conditioned to be docile and second-class in nature merely because she was born a female. Slowly, she become buried under what Betty Friedan called “the problem that has no name” (46). Without knowing that it was happening, Sharon was relinquishing her rights before she could realize the extent of their power.
When the time came, Sharon went to college. The institution she attended for her undergraduate studies was a religious one and enforced her patriarchal upbringing. At this point Sharon felt that men and women could not be equal – this was an indisputable fact set in stone with her upbringing. However, one professor begged to differ. Sharon remembers her as very respectable in appearance and manner, but her respectability lost much of its luster due to the radical ideals she supported. The professor insisted that women were on the same plane as men and that they possess rights that should not be overlooked due to their sex. Sharon recalls how conflicted she felt after meeting this teacher – could it be that a woman of such repute was capable of spewing such blasphemy? Nevertheless, the professor was the catalyst Sharon needed to push her towards a new way of thinking. Afterwards she attended a Lilly Grant conference at which Audre Lorde was the center of discussion. Seeing other women speak about their experiences and validating them with printed documents from other women opened Sharon's mind to an entirely new world. Sharon along with her comrades and the help of a few supportive faculty members founded a women's center on campus. The small group met regularly to discuss articles and personal experiences and to give each other support. However, founding the group was merely the beginning. Their university was still a very traditional and patriarchal one thus it was extremely difficult to raise money or to receive funding for their organization. Although the group managed to procure an office on campus, it was an arduous task to try to hold events and promote their cause. Nevertheless, Sharon claims that forming the women's center and becoming its director in her senior year was one of the “hardest but best” things she has ever done.
By the time she finished her anecdote I was in awe. The woman sitting next to me was the physical embodiment of all the articles I had been reading in WMST. She carried the invisible knapsack as described by Peggy McIntosh; she – at first – judged feminist women by the stereotypes and clichés detailed by Susan Faludi; she questioned the justice of a patriarchal society in a world where women made up half of the population. If asked I would not be able to recount how many times I uttered the word “wow” during our interview; Sharon's story was remarkable. Everything in her upbringing pointed to an anti-feminist lifestyle for her future but she turned the tables and is one of the most feminist women I know. Which led me to ask her about her thesis.
If I were not enrolled in her class, I probably would never be able to pick her face out in a crowd. Her dirty blond hair drapes over her shoulders onto her back, barely audible is her voice over the respectful silence that follows her entrance through the classroom door. Her attire is neat and modern but neutral in color and style. Nothing in her presence hinted at any inkling of fire beneath the tan slacks and cream blouses, the steady smile and subtle voice. Regardless, I had high hopes going into the interview; her thesis alone was enough motivation for me to converse with her for hours. Yet, I was still uncertain of how she would respond to my questions on feminism. My fears were quickly alleviated for when I explained to her the nature of my interview, her eyes brightened and she began her story.
Sharon grew up in a stringently pious environment. The denomination of the dominant religion in the area had a major impact on how she was raised. Parents and teachers alike relentlessly intoned the mantra that women were to be seen but seldom heard. Women had a specific role in life and it should never be questioned. Women were homemakers and wives, mothers and caretakers, pacifistic and obedient. And feminism? When I asked Sharon about the role feminism played in her upbringing, she said that as a child it was seen as a “way of undermining society”, a taboo philosophy that took “away from the family structure”. Her childhood was the complete antithesis to feminism. It was archaic in that she was conditioned to be docile and second-class in nature merely because she was born a female. Slowly, she become buried under what Betty Friedan called “the problem that has no name” (46). Without knowing that it was happening, Sharon was relinquishing her rights before she could realize the extent of their power.
When the time came, Sharon went to college. The institution she attended for her undergraduate studies was a religious one and enforced her patriarchal upbringing. At this point Sharon felt that men and women could not be equal – this was an indisputable fact set in stone with her upbringing. However, one professor begged to differ. Sharon remembers her as very respectable in appearance and manner, but her respectability lost much of its luster due to the radical ideals she supported. The professor insisted that women were on the same plane as men and that they possess rights that should not be overlooked due to their sex. Sharon recalls how conflicted she felt after meeting this teacher – could it be that a woman of such repute was capable of spewing such blasphemy? Nevertheless, the professor was the catalyst Sharon needed to push her towards a new way of thinking. Afterwards she attended a Lilly Grant conference at which Audre Lorde was the center of discussion. Seeing other women speak about their experiences and validating them with printed documents from other women opened Sharon's mind to an entirely new world. Sharon along with her comrades and the help of a few supportive faculty members founded a women's center on campus. The small group met regularly to discuss articles and personal experiences and to give each other support. However, founding the group was merely the beginning. Their university was still a very traditional and patriarchal one thus it was extremely difficult to raise money or to receive funding for their organization. Although the group managed to procure an office on campus, it was an arduous task to try to hold events and promote their cause. Nevertheless, Sharon claims that forming the women's center and becoming its director in her senior year was one of the “hardest but best” things she has ever done.
By the time she finished her anecdote I was in awe. The woman sitting next to me was the physical embodiment of all the articles I had been reading in WMST. She carried the invisible knapsack as described by Peggy McIntosh; she – at first – judged feminist women by the stereotypes and clichés detailed by Susan Faludi; she questioned the justice of a patriarchal society in a world where women made up half of the population. If asked I would not be able to recount how many times I uttered the word “wow” during our interview; Sharon's story was remarkable. Everything in her upbringing pointed to an anti-feminist lifestyle for her future but she turned the tables and is one of the most feminist women I know. Which led me to ask her about her thesis.
In my mind, feminism and the Holocaust had a major connection: feminism seeks to liberate the oppressed and the Holocaust was human oppression on the largest scale. During the Holocaust, human rights as a whole were disregarded and people of all ages, of both sexes, of numerous religions, were treated as one massive, parasitic cancer on society in need of eradication. Feminism exists because the voices of (mainly) women have historically been silenced or ignored. I wanted to hear Sharon's views on the issue so I brought it up. Surprisingly she had never considered the relation between the two before. After a moment's consideration, she agreed, there was indeed a relation between the two. The reason she chose such a specific thesis was because she was drawn to the trauma that the survivors had to endure. Trauma often paralyzes the victim; survivors are often speechless when asked about their past experiences. She also told me about new methods people are using to help those affected by trauma talk about their experiences. I was impressed by how many different schools of thought were involved in her thesis – psychology, philosophy, history. Furthermore, I was intrigued by the fact that she had not considered the relation between feminism and the Holocaust before. They seemed to me to be extremely intertwined: Nazis forced the Jews and others whom they felt to be inferior into concentration camps where they were stripped of their rights; patriarchal societies reduced women to nonsensical vessels for their lust, their entertainment, and their procreation. In both instances, the dominating group degraded their victims to the point where the victims could no longer contain themselves; women were compelled to run from their houses and concentration camp victims would run towards the electric wires. I cannot help but feel that neither Betty Friedan nor Simone DeBeauvoir would ever allow such atrocities to happen.
Overall the interview was a success. Though she is only twenty-four, her life is speckled with many achievements – both personal and in her community – that few have the privilege to claim. My conversation with Sharon showed me that feminism does not happen over the hills and far far away but in the halls of small town universities. The struggle is not fought by rabid radicals in protest marches at abortion clinics but within the hearts and minds of young intellectuals questioning the integrity of the establishment.
Overall the interview was a success. Though she is only twenty-four, her life is speckled with many achievements – both personal and in her community – that few have the privilege to claim. My conversation with Sharon showed me that feminism does not happen over the hills and far far away but in the halls of small town universities. The struggle is not fought by rabid radicals in protest marches at abortion clinics but within the hearts and minds of young intellectuals questioning the integrity of the establishment.
No comments:
Post a Comment