Chicago!

In Chicago!
I am on a very impromptu (as in, bought ticket Wednesday night and got on the train at 8:28 am Thursday) trip to Chicago to see my babies. (I missed them…and I won’t get here for spring break, I don’t think, which is going to make it a long time till I see them again). Had a moment of panic this morning – for some reason, my front bike tire went totally flat in the week I was gone. But hooray! for the roommate salvation. Kelsey gave me a ride and, shockingly, the Amtrak train was not only on time but early. Thank heavens it and we came exactly when we did, or the train would have been blocking the road when we tried to turn around and I would have been stuck on the wrong side. And that would have SUCKED. But all is well, and here I am in good ol’ Chic.

Merry Christmas!

It is Christmas!
I have happily unwrapped toothbrushes, cooking ware, movies, a "Wicked" calendar, and a Mac laptop (!).
I'm in Mount Pleasant at Mum and Dad's; Gregory and Granna are with us. We watched "The Grinch" last night on the big screen at church after the 11 o'clock service. And now it's time for blueberry pancakes and scrambled eggs.
Je t'adore! Merry Christmas, my darlings.

Tea with the Profs

What started as an informal chat over tea with my thesis advisor to discuss next steps became a meeting with three James Madison professors to discuss my Truman application and policy proposal. But it did still happen at Wanderer's, a local tea joint. Fun! I'm such a dork...

All Grades

Well, I have 4.0ed everything else this semester. Current cumulative GPA: 3.8949. (Blasted Medical Anthropology. I would have hit 3.9 if I'd 4.0ed that. I suppose I can round up.)
My Madison four point remains, however. Take that, world.

ANP Grad Course Grade

Well, I have not 4.0ed the semester...I got a 3.5 in my Medical Anthropology graduate course. Oh well. Such is life.

Ahh...relaxation

There exists in the world this beautiful little thing called sloth...it's glorious. Reading, watching movies, seeing friends...wonderful things.
But, that being said: I really should get back to work.
Schedule for the week:

Tuesday:
Amy is coming over to make peppermint patties. (I don't know how this is going to work, since Kelsey's painting the cabinets and there is totally no space. I may make her accept lunch and a raincheck on the patties...)
4: Meeting with Shalom Center for Justice and Peace
7: Music and Meditation at Church (I may be doing childcare)

Wednesday:
8: Meeting with the Office for Inclusion re: MLK Celebrations
10: Meeting with Professors Axelrod and Zierler re: Truman App and Thesis Proposal
1: Work at GenCen

Thursday:
8: Work at GenCen
12: Megan Hangout Time
Drive to Mount Pleasant

Friday:
It's Christmas Eve! Present-wrapping, family-seeing, and church services. 'Twill be a good day, I expect.

And the To Do List for the break:
Create MLK Program Book (determine workshops, write letter of welcome, finalize resource fair)
Truman Application (Public Service Scholarship)
Udall Application (Environmental Studies Scholarship)
White House Application (Summer Internship)
CAL URI (undergraduate research hours)
Tunnel of Oppression: Scriptwriting
Act for Justice: Case Competition Application
Students for Peace and Justice: Homelessness Simulation Preparation
Reconciling Ministries: Preparation for January 22 Training re: LBGT Inclusion in the Church

Heehehee

I got a 4.0 in Honors International Economics...even though I shouldn't have, mathematically. Heehee. Go, Becca. Go, Professor.
Life is good.
No other grades are in, but I think I'm cool in everything else...

Econ Grade

Our professor was freakishly fast at grading...(We took the exam at 7:45 this morning.)
Technically, I did not receive a high enough grade on the final to 4.0 the course. (Close, so close, as I knew it was going to be.) There is a minuscule amount of extra credit coming my way...and he likes me. I haven't seen the official grade yet, so I can't say for sure. But I think I 3.5ed. Ahh, well. Such is life.

Sick...no, just tired

A massive bug went around the office. People were calling in right and left. I stayed healthy (I gave my body no choice, given the requirements of finals week). And I haven't felt sick at all...but I am absurdly tired and have been sleeping like you wouldn't believe. I think my body's fighting it well, just demanding sleep (fair enough). Bad news: I'm about to fall over at my desk. Good news: Maybe I won't get sick as soon as I'm done tomorrow! It would be nice to see my mother without my body deciding it should regress to a five-year-old pitiful and pathetic child incapable of self-care.

Oh...it's 8 degrees

That may explain why I was a bit chilly biking into work today...
1 paper
1 exam
1 meeting
8 hours of work

We're gonna make it, folks.

Women and Power - Done

Below you see the obnoxiously long final paper (exactly 25 pages, 11-point Garamond; though that includes the abstract and one small illustration). It's the first time I've cited myself in a paper...that was exciting!

Women and Power: Final Paper

Feminists in Fundamentalism: Orthodox Jewish Women and Empowerment

Abstract: Feminism and fundamentalism are often perceived as mutually exclusive ideologies. Common understanding holds that one cannot be a feminist Islamicist, a feminist evangelical, a feminist Orthodox, because the fundamentalist doctrines of these ideologies require a belief in the inequality of the sexes. This paper will explore the notions of “feminism” and “fundamentalism” in two case studies in Orthodox Jewish communities. The historical and socio-cultural contexts of the enforced gender roles at the Western Wall in Jerusalem will be analyzed as they relate to feminist and fundamentalist issues and individual lives, with particular attention given to the actions of the group “Women of the Wall.” The religious and societal pressures on married Orthodox women will be explored as they relate to power relations in and out of the home, with a focus on the multiplicity of ways in which women cover. Drawing on existing literature in anthropology, religious studies, and sociology and personal experiences in Israel, we will discuss the state of women’s empowerment and equality in Orthodox Jewish communities through these two issues. As the Orthodox Jewish community will be placed in the broader contexts of Judaism and other fundamentalist movements, particular attention will be given to how “feminism” is defined, the power relations implicit in who gets to define “feminism,” and the potential clash between universal human rights and cultural relativism.


Introduction
This study seeks to address the morality issues inherent in the complex relationships between fundamentalism and feminism as they are played out in the modern Jewish state of Israel. We will address the nuances involved in determining whether or not fundamental religious beliefs and institutions oppress women, confronting the debate between the universality of human rights and cultural relativism. The perception of “feminism” and “Orthodox Judaism” as mutually exclusive will be challenged.
We will first speak broadly to the interactions between fundamentalism and feminism, highlighting the multiplicity of relationships between varied ideologies. We will then discuss Jewish, Orthodox, and women’s experiences in Israel, presenting our understandings of these multifaceted identities and histories.
This paper will show that Jewish Orthodox women confront feminism and fundamentalism in a variety of ways in contemporary Israel. The ways in which Orthodox women interact with the tradition of hair-covering and the gender roles enforced at the Western Wall demonstrate that they believe in their own agency rather than feeling disempowered as some Western feminists perceive them to be.

Background
Feminism and Fundamentalism
Fundamentalist and feminist ideologies intersect in a number of different ways. Fundamentalism can work on feminism. This is seen regularly in the United States when evangelical, right-wing Christians ostracize females who attend college. This “fundamentalism on feminism” is perhaps the first thing the average American will think of when hearing these two words together: the apparent women’s oppression common in fundamentalist ideologies. Conversely, feminism on fundamentalism refers to feminist reactions to this perceived oppression. Hirschkind and Mahmoood’s “Feminism, the Taliban, and Politics of Counter-Insurgency ” discusses the role of Western feminism on a fundamentalist Islamic regime. Feminists assert themselves and their ideologies of women’s rights on other cultures and peoples.
We can also see interconnections in feminism and fundamentalism when exploring women in fundamentalist groups, feminists in fundamentalist groups, and fundamentalist in feminism. In chapter 3 of Participation and Protest, “Women and Revolutionary Movements,” Henderson and Jeydel explore the role of women in fundamentalist campaigns. Henderson and Jeydel assert that, oftentimes, women in revolutions are focused more on the goals of the revolution than strictly feminist objectives. This connects to their earlier assertion that not all discourses about women are feminist discourses. Being a woman activist does not make you a feminist. At the same time, being a woman in fundamentalist movement does not necessarily mean you cannot be a feminist. It is on this that we will focus in this paper: feminists in fundamentalism.
All too often, Western media is filled with images of female suicide bombers as the only depiction of feminist fundamentalists. International media and academic discourses tend to focus only on the “obvious,” the “biggies.” But one of the most problematic elements of gendered power structures is the way they become so fully ingrained into culture that they affect every individual in every aspect of private and public life. Gendered power does not affect only the obvious and the big. It affects every person, everywhere, every day. Thus it is crucial that feminist discourses take into consideration the voice of the “everyday.” It is this that we hope to achieve in this paper: A glimpse into feminist fundamentalists whose stories often go untold in international discourse because they are not sensational enough. Yet it is the quiet feminist fundamentalists who are the majority. Female suicide bombers are not the crux of any fundamentalist movement. We believe that the following discourse, one on feminist fundamentalist women in the everyday, is the minority in discussions about fundamentalism and feminism, and yet we believe it speaks to the majority of women in fundamentalist societies more than majority sensationalist media does.

Jewish Orthodox Women in Israel
There are three main movements within Judaism: Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform. The Orthodox branch is the most conservative of the three and our focus for this study. Conservative or “Masorti” Judaism holds the middle ground, working to uphold Jewish law while embracing modernity. Reform or “Renewal” Judaism is the most progressive of the three. Orthodox Judaism does not allow women to read from the Torah aloud or lead prayer services. Conservative Judaism varies in its acceptance of women’s leadership: Some congregations allow women to read from the Torah and many rabbinical schools will ordain women; others resemble Orthodox communities in their gender roles. Reform Judaism regularly ordains women, including open and practicing lesbians. (The inclusion of the queer community in Conservative Judaism, like the inclusion of women, varies by congregation.)
The Jewish people is diasporic. There are conservative, Orthodox Jews from and in the Middle East, Africa, Latin America, and other regions of the world. However, this study will focus on the Ashkenazi (of Eastern European descent) Haredi (ultra-Orthodox; plural: Haredim) Jews currently living in Israel. This is not to say that other communities are less fundamentalist or less Jewish; instead, it signifies the continuing power structures found in Israel’s and Judaism’s race and class systems. The European Jew, historically, has held more power than the African, Latin American, and Middle Eastern Jew (just as the European Christian has held more power than the African, Latin American, and Middle Eastern Christian).
In Judaism, the ultra-Orthodox Haredim refers to a community of Jews who focus on the continued observance of Jewish customs, seeing traditional practices as laws of the Torah that are binding through the ages. Ultra-Orthodoxy, the most conservative subset of the Orthodox community, is concerned with preserving Judaism against the changes of modernity. Haredi Judaism began in late 18th century Europe as a response to the Enlightenment and pressure to assimilate into a Christian, science-based culture. To preserve culture (which they saw as one and the same with their religion), the Haredi essentially “froze” three things: name, language, and dress. The Haredi community in Israel speaks Yiddish to this day; many of them refuse to speak Hebrew unless used in worship or Torah (Hebrew Bible) study and may not know English. Because of the freeze on dress, Haredi Jews are easy to pick out in Israel due to their full suits, conservative dress, sideburn curls, and fur hats. They are (not-so-affectionately) nicknamed “penguins” by many Israelis.
As we are claiming our paper deals with issues of fundamentalism while mostly addressing ultra-Orthodox women, we must account for the classification of ultra-Orthodox Judaism as “fundamental.” It is important to realize that fundamentalism is a Western idea that began as a descriptor of certain Christian groups. Thus it is with some hesitation that we call ultra-Orthodox Judaism in Israel a “fundamentalism;” however, the ultra-Orthodox group is the most conservative of the Jewish sects and thus in many ways parallels Christian evangelicals in the United States. The ultra-Orthodox community would not be analogous to the stereotypical suicide bomber Islamicist “fundamental” dominating Western media; this designation would go to militant Zionists who have used and currently use violent terrorist tactics to further the existence of a Jewish state (like in Islamicist movements, some of these militant Zionists are motivated more by a politico-cultural objective than a religious ideology). It should be noted, though, that many a Haredi Jew in Israel would not identify as a fundamentalist; instead simply saying “I’m a good Jew.”
Because the modern commercialized world is rejected by the Haredim, there is abject poverty in many ultra-Orthodox communities. This is exacerbated by the Haredi commitment to study Torah. Many men, rather than working paid jobs, spend their lives in the synagogue or bet midrash (house of study) reading and debating Torah. This cultural practice means that women are generally the family’s sole bread-winner. While this can place a “double burden” on women, also responsible for childrearing, it also gives them an incredible amount of power over the home, children, and society in general.

A “Jewish” State
The extent to which Israel is a “Jewish” state is a subject of much debate, in and out of Israel. The majority of the modern state’s founders were not overtly religious, instead seeing the concept of “Jewish” as a national and racial issue. The modern state of Israel is, in some ways, secular and there is, to some extent, a separation of church and state. However, the state hands authority for several public institutions over to various religious organizations. There is no civil marriage in Israel. (Within the country, one can be married by a Jewish, Christian, or Muslim authority as they are recognized by the state, and the nation will recognize marriages from all other countries, but one cannot have a non-religious wedding in Israel.) Food services and institutions receiving funding from the state must keep kosher (Jewish dietary restrictions). And the Western Wall in the Old City of Jerusalem is entirely under the authority of the Orthodox Jewish Rabbinate.
Why is this? How has a generally secular, Western, developed country come to have so many aspects of its life ruled by a conservative, fundamentalist religious institution? The answer lies in Israel’s history. The state declared itself on May 14th, 1948. The majority of Orthodox Jews living in their Holy Land at the time were against Zionism and the founding of the state. For Orthodox Jews, it is to God and God alone to restore the Jewish people to statehood in the land. Self-declaration of statehood was seen by the Orthodox community as a usurpation and dismissal of God’s authority. The Zionist leaders desperately needed the Orthodox to not loudly object to the Jewish State for political reasons; to keep the Haredim relatively quiet, they agreed that certain parts of the State would be in Orthodox control. The infamous “Status Quo Agreement” promised the Haredi would not oppose Zionism to international political actors; in return, they were promised autonomy in education, the observance of Shabbat and Kosher in the public sphere, military exemption, and religious control over marriage.
Today, the parliamentary republic government of Israel continues to give a great deal of voice to the Orthodox Rabbinate. This apparent endorsement of Orthodox Judaism by the only Jewish state has the effect of delegitimizing other interpretations of Judaism and how outsiders view Judaism and the Jewish State. Increasingly, though, there is disapproval of Orthodoxy’s power by other Jews and Israelis. Because of their general poverty, the ultra-Orthodox receive a greatly disproportionate level of welfare funding from the State, causing a large deal of resentment from other communities. Public organizing is ever more pushing harder for civil marriage, the elimination of mandatory kosher rules, etc. For the present, though, the Orthodox Rabbinate rules. And it does not appear that this will change in the near future.


Israel and Women Rights in Comparative Perspective
Israel ranks very high in global development indices for gender equality. In 2010, it was ranked fifteenth (soundly beating the United Kingdom). It is the highest-ranked Middle Eastern country (Egypt currently holds position 101).4 While no data is available for Lebanon in 2010; in 2009, it held position 83 compared to Israel’s 27 and Egypt’s 123. Egypt and Lebanon both also have fundamentalist movements involving women and women’s issues (in Egypt, the Islamic Revival and Women’s Mosque Movement; in Lebanon, Hizbullah, the Party of the Deprived and the Martyrs’ Association). Both in gender equality indices and in media coverage, Islamic women’s movements seem to be portrayed more in the negative than do Jewish. Part of this may be the result of Israel’s careful distinctions between state and religious authority, traditionally less clear in Islamic countries (at least through Western eyes). This also presumably has foreign policy and politico-economic causal factors. While these are too nuanced and politically-charged to discuss in detail here, it is important to bear in mind that these sources, including supposedly objective United Nations-generated data, are not free of bias. Women and women’s rights are often used as a political argument for international and outsider involvement in national sovereignty; the fact that all instances of women’s oppression are not given equal attention is an indicator that other political motivations are involved. Though it is in some countries, pressure is not placed internationally on Israel to “liberate” its “oppressed” Orthodox women. This does not mean that the West does not see Orthodoxy as oppressive. “Traditional orthodox Judaism dictates distinct, gender-determined roles and positions. Men and women are believed to be essentially different, with different natures, spiritual paths, and legal statuses. Women are seen primarily as domestic beings, whereas all public and official leadership roles (rabbis, cantors, judges, circumcisers, and ritual slaughterers) are the province of men.” That Western discourses portray Orthodox women as oppressed without trying to empower them greatly impacts the way Haredi women experience their state, their world, and their own agency.


Methodology
In summer 2010, one of this paper’s co-authors, Rebecca Farnum, studied abroad in Israel. Her trip was sponsored by the Michigan State University Office of Study Abroad and Jewish Studies Program. She was instructed by Eric Aronoff (“Nature, Culture, and Environmental Sustainability in a Green Israel”), Yael Aronoff (“Israeli Politics and Society”), and David Mendelson (“The Emergence of the Modern Jewish State”). Farnum lived and traveled in Israel for seven weeks, speaking with a variety of people and seeing most of the country’s currently-held territory. Her study included an exploration of the relationships between the state of Israel, the Orthodox Jewish community, and international tourism. Farnum’s field notes and experiences informed the majority of the background for this study; occurrences and interactions that took place during the field experience helped to shape the focus of the study.
Concerns over Western perceptions of women involved in fundamental religious communities and minimal attention to the lives of Jewish women brought us to the following research question:
How is “feminism” understood and enacted by Orthodox women as they participate in the gender roles enforced at the Western Wall and the practice of hair covering?
These two case studies allow us to explore women’s experiences at two different levels of authority and community. The case of the Western Wall is one of the state, formal religious institutions and authority, and public space. Hair covering is a much more individualized practice that affects women everyday and in every space, public and private.
To address these issues, we have reviewed ethnographic and academic data from Farnum’s travels in Israel and performed a literature search on sources such as JSTOR and anthrosource. Keywords included “orthodox,” “women,” “Judaism,” “hair,” “veil,” “wall,” and “kotel” (the Hebrew name for the Western Wall). Articles returned from these sources were skimmed for usefulness. Those with promising abstracts and introductions were selected for further review and incorporation into the paper. In selecting, we worked to include both the views held by Orthodox women regarding their own lives and movements and the perceptions of non-Orthodox Jewish women and non-Jewish feminists about Orthodox women’s lives.
Possible limitations of this study include the brevity of Farnum’s travels and the biases of those with whom she interacted, most of who were fairly liberal. Formal interviews were not conducted with Orthodox women, though a documentary containing interviews conducted by sociologists was viewed.
In regards to the literature search, potential problems lie in the power structures present in the Jewish Orthodox community and in academic publishing systems, resulting in the fact that our sources were written by non-Orthodox authors, some of whom are not religiously Jewish. This was exacerbated by the fact that our literature search was limited to English articles. Since most Orthodox Jews read and write only Polish and/or Hebrew, our language limitations may have seriously impacted our conclusions.

Women of the Wall: Unity in Division
Brief History of the Wall
In order to contextualize the gendered battle that the Women of the Wall has fought in recent years, it is important to frame the issues present at the Wall. The Western Wall is under the jurisdiction of the Orthodox Rabbinate, not the State. Within Haredi Judaism it is not considered appropriate for women to pray in groups, with prayer shawls or to read out of the Torah and as a result women are permitted to engage in these activities. Additionally, women are segregated into the smaller section without access to what is regarded as the holiest section of the Wall (Figure 1).
Figure 1. The Gendered Segregation of the Western Wall

A) The women’s section of the Wall;
B) The partition between the men and women’s sections of the Wall;
C) The men’s section of the Wall, including the holiest part in the center.
Since much of the resistance that the WOW has received is related to a long standing custom and history related to the traditions at the Wall, it is important to also problematize this claim in order to remove historical evidence from the pool of validation for the Haredi community. In his article “The Political Transformation of Gender Traditions at the Western Wall in Jerusalem,” Stuart Charmè dissects the history of the Wall showing that despite the assumption by many that regulations such as gender segregation are historically founded, “they are in fact relatively recent innovations to earlier practices observed at the Wall.” In actuality, the Wall has only been under Jewish authority since 1967 and these “customs” and “traditions” are not as established as the rabbinate would have the community at the Wall believe.

Profile of Women of the Wall
The Women of the Wall make up an organization which, according to their website, advocates for “the social and legal recognition of [their] right, as women, to wear prayer shawls, pray and read from the Torah collectively and out loud at the Western Wall.” It is worth noting that they are not challenging the segregation of men and women at the Wall, which has been largely contested by feminists who have addressed gendered issues there. This distinction can be largely attributed to their careful attention to the halacha (Jewish law) and texts in order to act within the fundamental jurisdiction. The Women take the stance that this is not an issue which prevents them from the prayer that they are seeking the right to practice, which results in the alienation of women who find this integration important to their method of prayer, but does open the goals of the WOW up to be more attractive to the strict Haredi Jewish community. According to Susan Sered, an anthropologist specializing in religious and gender studies, “the Women of the Wall consistently seek legitimacy not on the basis of sexual quality, but on the basis of halachic acceptability.” She also notes that they do not challenge the concrete teachings of Judaism and as a result “they do not recite certain prayers which can only be said by a minyan (quorum) of ten adult men.1”1 In terms of fundamental versus feminist, this approach seems to point to a careful compliance with the fundamental while pursuing an advancement of women's role in religious observance.
As far as the myriad of types of women and degrees of halachic observance, the WOW spans denominational and political boundaries. According to Bonna Devora Haberman, founder of the WOW, “Our group ran the gamut of young radical feminists to Orthodox halakhically observant traditionalists.” This variation is also represented on the WOW website which displays the affiliation of individuals varying from Progressive/Reform to Orthodox Jews who have all joined the Statement of Support for the cause. It has been suggested by Phyllis Chesler, Professor Emerita of Psychology and Women's Studies at City University of New York, that this variety allows the WOW's type of activism to be revolutionary “in that it brings Jewish women of every denomination together and gives Orthodox women access to public group prayer as only Orthodox men and non-Orthodox Jews currently enjoy it.” Their goals are intimately connected to their ability to fully express their piety, and this specific objective comes into play in their interactions with the opposition, which exist both on the Haredi side and on the self-proclaimed “feminist” side.

Resistance from Both Sides of the Issue
The WOW struggles with acceptance from both the fundamentalist and the feminist realm because they are perceived as making concessions on both sides. Charmè notes that “on the one hand, most Orthodox women did not support this group or its demand for change; on the other hand, many non-Orthodox Jewish feminists who supported truly egalitarian services complained that this approach conceded the entire system of Orthodox gender separation.”

Resistance by the Haredim
Addressing first the criticisms of the Haredi perspective which supports the status quo at the Wall, there is a disparity between what the rabbinate which controls the Wall gives as the reasoning for their resistance and what is assumed by scholarly analysis of the situation. The rabbi in charge of of the Western Wall has repeatedly referenced accepted customs and acceptable conduct as justification for their resistance. It has been stated that “even if there are opinions in halacha that allow a woman to wear tsitsit [the ritual fringe attached to a tallit], the custom is not to let women wear tsitsit and there is no place to change this custom...” There is some confusion even within the discourse among the Haredim as to why the women are unable to pray freely. Frances Raday, leading human rights and feminist academic, addresses the weakness that arises through this inconsistency by stating “it is considered by many Orthodox rabbinical authorities to be prohibited by halacha, or, even if it is not, to constitute an impermissible deviation from the custom of the place (the Kotel).” Additionally, the Religious Establishment been explicit in stating their unwillingness to “enter into halachic discourse with the Women.” Their opposition doesn’t seem to be united behind a solvent reasoning, which gives weight to the assumption of scholars such as Charmè, Sered and Raday that their regulations reflect a means to reinforce an environment fueled by “patriarchal hegemony” rather than supporting religious doctrine or expectations.19, ,
However, this brings up the question: If the Haredi argument is convoluted, why has WOW experienced so much resistance and difficulty in implementing their changes? This can be explained first by the political authority which the Haredi community has been slotted by the Israeli government. But, on a more individual level, it is an issue complicated by the presence of “women” as a symbol at the Wall. This is an idea which Susan Sered addresses, comparing the gendered issues at the Wall with other gendered issues within Israel. Sered concludes that, in other cases, women are viewed as agents; the perception of women as a symbol in the Wall situation makes it unique and a gendered battle. One example she uses to explain how this affects the ability for women to enact change is that in the United States women as agents have been able to concretely win the political battle for equality, but on a symbolic level they are still abused through situations such as exploitative advertising. Due to the construction of the Wall as an inherently sacred landmark, the roles associated with it are protected in the minds of those who observe it as precious and demanding protection from change. Sered notes that “the conflict was interpreted as a challenge to sacred power, and religious fundamentalists responded violently - as if to a revolution. ” In attempting to challenge traditions which are not necessarily founded in the basis of religious reasoning, women are still faced with a rigid wall of established customs which weave themselves into the language of fundamental religious law. These reactions from those attempting to maintain the status quo are often very strong because, according to Haberman, “these innovations cause fear and opposition among those who are invested with the authority of the holy text, the ones who consider their own interpretations to be authoritative. ” As a result “The point is that those in power are more likely to be able to package their version of tradition as ‘true.’ Given the outsider status of the Women of the Wall, they are in a poor position to be able to present their view of tradition in a persuasive way.”
WOW has responded to this resistance with perseverance. They reiterate that their actions are supported by halacha and continue to attend the Wall monthly and attempt to pray in their aforementioned method. Additionally, they petitioned to gain support from the state to protect them when they pray, but this was met with very little support and was ultimately unsuccessful due to the halachic control of the Wall. Haberman points out the lengths WOW went to to maintain peace between themselves and the Haredi community. After a particular occasion when they encountered a violent response they discussed when they could come back in a less abrasive way, reciting the prayers without actually reading from the Torah and without the prayer shawls. They also embraced praying with people of different degrees of religious observance, Haberman states that “Women of the Wall harbored no objection to praying alongside our ultra-Orthodox siblings. We respected their views and interpretations; we upheld their freedom to practice according to their convictions.” In this way, they are able to make their method of resistance take the form of benevolence and welcoming in an attempt to encourage a co-existence, although this proved to be ultimately unsuccessful thus far in changing the opinions of the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community.

Resistance by Self-Proclaimed “Feminists”
On the other side of the issue, often the more liberal Jewish feminists have not been accepting of the WOW agenda either. In this case it is a less active opposition and more an acknowledgment of the absence of support where it might be assumed due to the nature of the issues which challenge gender roles and the assumed customs associated with them. Phyllis Chesler, Professor of Psychology and active member of the WOW, experienced a series of disappointments in terms of feminist women that she assumed would support her cause, “it took [her] a while to understand that [their] struggle had no 'natural' constituency. ” Due to the complications of combining a feminist agenda with a fundamental religious structure, the WOW drastically narrows their potential member base. That being said, their openness to anyone who agrees to their mission statement frees up some of the limitations on other aspects of involvement. The main critique of Jewish feminists is that the WOW makes no attempt to integrate the Wall so that women can pray with men and have access to the center of the Wall, its holiest section. Some feminists who took this stance view the actions of the WOW as counterproductive. One such criticism by Judith Plaskow was published in Tikkun magazine and pointed out that because the WOW fights for segregated prayer with the equal rights of men it didn't go far enough in challenging the patriarchy and that it “sacrificed egalitarian principles to Orthodox principles, and that we would never ‘win by playing thing safe.’” In contrast to the careful consideration for respect and religious jurisdiction, Charmé asserts that “liberal Jews make no attempt to preserve all aspects of Orthodox worship.”
Much of the basis of the feminist opposition is that it isn't a strong enough stance to be empowering and that it doesn't allow enough freedom for the women at the Wall. Chesler asserts that “the act of women praying with a Torah at the Kotel has the power to psychologically transform the way Jewish women see themselves and each other.”28 She also argues that this freedom to practice religion freely and autonomously will lead women to see that they are “entitled to spiritual as well as physical and economic autonomy and integrity.” These statements imply an ideology based on the importance of small steps towards gender equality for the ends of complete worship rather than the motivation of gender equality itself and that this still leaves room for acquiring strength through the process. Also, along the lines of the criticism they receive for not reaching a level of egalitarian worship, Chesler counters this by asserting that they are the “only multidenominational and pluralist prayer group among Jews, that male Jews of different denominations do not pray together—anywhere, not even at the Kotel.” This unique perspective shows the advantage of uniting feminist and religious agendas in that it opens both issues up to a broader spectrum of potential members with which to establish solidarity, and this in itself has the potential for gaining power through this community.

Use (or Avoidance) of “Feminist” as a Label
Since most of this analysis has functioned within the assumption that the WOW is fighting for a feminist agenda, it is important to look at their avoidance of this word in describing themselves. This is rooted in a few different motivations based both on their personal goals and their reputation in the community. As far as their own goals, they make an effort to frame their actions not as gendered but as religiously based, they pushed for rights to which they argue they are entitled through the statements of the Torah. Sered states that “they compare their own ‘rights’ not to the ‘rights’ of men, but to the ‘rights’ of other women who come to pray at the Wall.”
On a broader scale, within the realm of Israeli culture feminist discourse is not regarded as popular. Sered asserts that “publicly, the Women rarely make feminist comments” and this functions to distance themselves from a movement which, if they associated themselves with, would end up alienating more people than it would attract. Because there are presumptions culturally about what this word means, it is something they want to distance themselves from in order to pursue their overall goals.
Despite the absence of the word itself, the Women are fighting for a feminist agenda. Sered explains that the WOW identifies as liberal feminists, but they don’t advertise this publicly “because liberal feminism is an unrecognized political stance in Israeli society.” It is possible that this circumvention of a term may remove their presence from the overarching solidarity of an international feminist community. However, within the realm of their political agenda it is more important to be a sympathetic entity in their interactions with the Haredi authority at the Wall which would be critical of this term in the context of their fundamental beliefs.

Covering Her Hair
Tzniut: The Codification of Covering
The archetype of the oppressed Muslim female is a woman dressed head-to-toe in black. The practice of veiling in Islam is regularly criticized as “anti-feminist” and a blight on women’s rights. Less publically condemned is a similar practice in Orthodox Judaism, in which a woman upon entering marriage covers her hair in public.
The idea of covering women’s hair is a part of the Jewish ideal of “tzniut,” or modesty. Whether or not women are required by Biblical law to cover their hair is a subject of debate amongst Jewish scholars and teachers. In the Talmud, the codified source of Jewish law, hair covering is classified as a “law of Moses,” declaring it a law of Torah, and thus unchangeable. Scholars have challenged this classification, but the majority of ultra-Orthodox women still believe it to be necessary for the proper observation of Judaism.
Women cover their hair in a variety of ways. What is done generally depends on the community in which a woman grew up, the one in which she lives now, and the status and beliefs of her husband. Some women wear the sheitel, or wig; others, the snood, a hair net that fits the head snugly; others, bandanas or hats. In some communities, a woman’s hair is shaved entirely on her wedding day. It is worth mentioning that the snood, perhaps the most iconic of Orthodox women, originated in Europe and was worn by the majority of women, not only Jewish wives. These different methods are also debated; some rabbis and scholars believe a wig is as inappropriate as uncovered hair. This argument stems from the idea of tziniut: If the point of covering your hair is modesty, fake hair does not eliminate the problem. Hair covering can be seen as purposeful non-beauty.
In “From veil to wig: Jewish women’s hair covering,” Leila Bronner discusses the Biblical, Talmudic, and historic practices surrounding hair. In many places, the Torah discusses the beauty and ornamental qualities of women’s hair. The Talmud, however, “not only regarded women’s hair as beautiful, but as erotic; and for that reason it had to be covered.”
It is not explicitly laid out in the Bible that married women must cover their hair; however, there are multiple examples of women who cover their hair for modesty’s sake. Thus, if you believe modesty to be a clear law of Judaism, hair covering becomes a logical rule to follow. Much less clear from a reading of the Torah, though, is why it is only married women whose hair should be covered. In today’s Jewish communities, this marks a transition in life (analogous to the fact that Muslim women do not generally begin wearing hijab or covering themselves until puberty, another major life stage transition). The Bible, however, has examples of unmarried women whose hair is covered. In short, “the Bible presents little information, only suggesting that some covering might have been worn, as was customary throughout the ancient Near East. In the Rabbinic Period, the practice became obligatory.”36 This brings into question whether the practice is “truly Jewish” or merely a custom. For the ultra-Orthodox Haredim, though, there is no clear distinction between the two, as evidenced by their eastern European black suits in the middle of the Middle Eastern desert (suits in no way prescribed by the Torah). Important in the study of how ultra-Orthodox women respond to the hair covering law is not whether or not an outside scholar determines the practice is or is not Biblical, but rather the fact that Haredi women believe the practice to be a vital part of their faith.

Women Who Cover Their Hair
In the Haredi communities of Israel, virtually every married woman covers her hair in some way. They do this in a variety of ways, which will be discussed in the “Pushing Standards” section. Outside of ultra-Orthodox Judaism, there is great variety. Most modern Orthodox (the most liberal of the Orthodox sects) women generally do not cover their hair unless in Temple. The same for conservative Jews; in more liberal congregations of Conservative Judaism, women are not required to cover in Temple either. Most Reform Jewish congregations have no requirements. That the more “liberal” you get in Judaism, the less likely you are to cover your head signals that women see hair covering as a custom of patriarchal culture rather than the Jewish religion. Most Jewish women who do not cover claim that covering is a sexist practice, against women’s rights and anti-egalitarian. These arguments will be fleshed out in “Arguments against Covering.”
Sherri Vishner, a conservative Jew in Florida, is one of an increasing number of Jewish women who wear the kippah, the skull cap traditionally worn by men. “I don’t wear my kippah because I want to be a man and I also don’t wear one because I think all women should.” She does, however, assert that she wears “the kippah for the same reasons a man wears one – to show that God is above us and to remind them that I am a Jew. I believe that these concepts are not limited to men. I believe in God and appreciate the daily, visible reminder of my Judaism.” Her final statement demonstrates her belief that differences in hair covering have been sexist: “Just because men have traditionally held a monopoly on the kippah does not mean this symbol must remain a symbol of gender inequality.” Her comments bring up a number of issues. For some, wearing the kippah is a sign of egalitarianism. Counter-arguments to this emerging practice can assert that women’s wearing the kippah is not egalitarian, but rather an attempt to erase valuable sex/gender differences and/or to have women enter into a male form of subjectivity. Some feminists are very careful to show that feminism is not about making women into men. Women’s wearing the kippah can be a challenge for them. On the other hand, Vishner fairly clearly feels empowered by wearing the kippah and regards it as a sign of her faith, not of her subjectivity to any other human being.

Feminism on Fundamentalism: Arguments against Covering
Feminist debates on tzniut explore whether or not the concept of “modesty” is inherently patriarchal. If “[m]odesty laws in rabbinic literature functionally acted to render the woman inaccessible and unavailable to all but her husband,” without doing the same to men, surely tziniut practices and laws are problematically sexist. In this line of thinking, hair covering can simply be another way in which men attempt to control women’s sexuality. Many non-Orthodox feminists argue that covering is inherently patriarchal. Scholarly debates about the origins of hair covering can convincingly prove that the custom began culturally (in a patriarchal culture) rather than religiously and thus should not continue, as it furthers sexism in a religious “really” intended to be egalitarian.
A Reform Jewish woman, then, might argue that she is “more capable” of being feminist than a Haredi. After all, she can be a rabbi, she can wear a kippah if she chooses, and she does not cover her hair at all times or wear any other symbol intending to show her enslavement to her husband. Some responses to these claims are discussed below in “Arguments for Covering.”

Feminism in Fundamentalism: Arguments for Covering
There are several arguments given in fundamentalism as to how covering and veiling helps to empower women. In a world of objectification, covering can be a forceful reminder to see women not as objects but as persons with diverse inner beauties.
As a purely practical manner, many Jewish women who choose to cover praise it as a time saver: “if I’m in a hurry and don't have time to brush my hair in the morning, it actually saves me time!” Women who cover have no need to spend time in the morning carefully brushing and styling their hair, allowing them to spend time on other (arguably more important) matters.
Jewish scholars have classified women’s hair as part of nakedness.- Men cannot pray or speak the words of the Torah while viewing nakedness; thus, in order for a man to worship, any woman within site must be covered. Though this line of thinking may be considered patriarchal or objectifying, it also gives an incredible amount of power over men to women. Because staring at nakedness is a sin, a woman whose hair is uncovered can essentially force men to sin. Covering does not only allow her to be a good Jew, but enables the people around her to worship God properly. This means she can take away that privilege should she choose to do so – the law works both ways and puts men in a vulnerable position.
Orthodox Judaism has a strong commitment to the continuation of what is “Jewish.” Non-Jews, at one time, also covered their hair. The average European and American no longer do so; if Jewish women were to discontinue covering their hair, they would be following the lead of non-Jews. This is seen as inappropriate and a lessening of religious values. Thus, women who cover their hair can be seen as having power against a Gentile world that has been traditionally hostile to Judaism.
The double-edged sword that is covering as a sign of sexual purity is well said by Rousselle, a cultural historian quoted by Bronner: “Although the veil was a symbol of subjection, it was also a badge of honor, of sexual reserve, and hence of mastery of the self.” This “mastery of self” is a commendation of women who have power not only over others, but over themselves. A key part of many religions is sacrificial abstaining from various bodily (“earthly”) desires. Individuals who practice this self-discipline well are viewed with great respect by their religious communities.
Thus, feminist arguments can be made for hair covering: it restricts the objectification of women, it allows a woman to spend her time on projects more valuable than her body’s appearance, it gives her power over men, it gives her power against other religions, and it allows her to practice her own faith more fully while gaining the respect of her community.

Feminism in Fundamentalism: Pushing Standards
Though Haredi women have been covering their hair since the movement began in Eastern Europe; how they have covered has gone through a great deal of change. Wigs have become a common form of hair covering, in addition to cloth and other materials. The wig came to Jewish communities by non-Jews (particularly the French in the 16th century).42 Its arrival created debate in the community. Did wearing a wig defeat the purpose of hair covering? Even if the rabbinical authorities ruled that wearing a wig was an acceptable form of hair covering, the fact that wigs have purpose and value outside of Judaism created a potential problem, as it was a version of assimilation, and thus a threat to Orthodoxy. Over time, though, the wig became used by more and more women, and rabbinical rulings bowed to their practice. This historical example shows how women have agency in their own practices and traditions. The women who wore wigs were not mass slaughtered or excommunicated; rather, the ruling patriarchal institution eventually changed to accommodate their actions as they continued quietly exerting their agency.
Today, few Orthodox Jews deny the appropriateness of wig-wearing as a form of hair covering. However, a new issue has emerged. A film by Israeli sociologists Yanay Ofran and Oren Harman provides some insight into the lives of Haredi women in 2007. The documentary addresses the fact that increasing numbers of Haredi are wearing “sexy wigs.” These wigs are styled in very modern and popular haircuts.
These “sexy wigs” are contested by many a religious and community leader. Does not wearing an attractive wig defeat the purpose of hair covering? If the religious argument for covering hair is modesty and women are covering with sexy wigs that will either draw or not detract attention, how is their action one of tziniut? The enhanced attention from women to popular hair styling and the need for stylish wigs appears to be modern consumerism, something Orthodox Judaism actively works to combat.
A complex question arises here: Is using a sexy wig feminist? On one hand, the sexy wig is empowering, as it allows individual women to push boundaries, expressing themselves while remaining true to what they see as important religious practices. On the other hand, the apparent need to be pretty seems to further and legitimize the objectification of women, which seems to be anti-feminist and disempowering. Bronner and other authors, though, speak about women’s “legitimate claim to the right to make themselves attractive.” The use of modern-looking wigs not only allows Haredi women to feel attractive, it also allows them to move about in greater society without being instantaneously judged by non-Orthodox individuals. As more and more Orthodox women are working outside the home to provide financial support, this can be helpful and empowering. Women who continue to wear attractive wigs while insisting they are carrying out the religious law are declaring their agency by interpreting Jewish laws for themselves and finding a faith practice that fits their lives and wishes.
Being Uncovered
Pushing at the other end of covering standards, some women are taking on the “sal.” Around one hundred Jerusalem women are now covering more than the average Orthodox wife. Some cover their entire face except their eyes. The resemblance to more extreme versions of the Islamic veil is strong: So strong that some Jews cannot tell the difference. “Some people are rude — they shout things at me because they think I am Arab,” says one sal-wearer. The speaker lives in Beit Shemesh, a western Jerusalem neighborhood known for its Haredi population. (While in Israel, Farnum’s cab driver during a drive to Beit Shemesh asked why she was going to see the “penguins,” grumbling about their customs and the way they feed off the state.) Jewish women are “claiming back” their tradition from Muslims. “The full body, or full face covering that people think is only part of the Arab world actually started with Jewish women,” said another woman.45 For this woman, Muslims threaten Jews’ position by wearing more modest dress: “The truth is that the women of Israel are lessening in God's eyes because the Arabs are more modest in dress. If the Jews want to conquer the Arabs in this land they must enhance their modesty.”
Men are not encouraging women to wear the sal. Instead, most men criticize the custom. “Many women have stopped wearing the sal because of pressure from their husbands or rabbis,” said the second speaker, who herself no longer wears the sal due to familial pressure. In this case, it seems that women are being pressured not to cover, but to uncover. This can be as great an affront to women’s empowerment as forceful covering. A liaison between the ultra-Orthodox in Beit Shemesh and its political leadership, Chevy Weiss, speaks well to why women are taking on the sal: “If that is what these women need to do to feel a stronger connection to God, I have respect for them.”45 A sal-wearer affirms this statement: “In my heart I know this is what God wants me to wear. God willing, more women will see the truth.”45

Orthodykes: The Heterosexism of Hair Covering and Gendered Piety
The documentary “Trembling before G-d” highlights some of the issues homosexual Orthodox Jews face in Orthodox institutions. It mentions “Orthodykes,” a group of lesbian women in Israel who identify as Jewish Orthodox. These women face struggles of a seemingly patriarchal and heterosexist institution while truly feeling that they belong as a member of that community. The movie interviews a number of Orthodox lesbian women, some of whom have life partners. These women do not cover their hair…after all, they are not married.
It is worth mentioning that nearly all men in Orthodox communities also engage in some form of hair covering (best-known is the kippah, or yarmulke; ultra-Orthodox Haredi men generally wear the same fur hats they did in Eastern Europe centuries ago). The idea of “tziniut” does not apply only to women, but rather is heteronormatively gendered in how it applies to men and women differently. In this way, it is perhaps more heterosexist than sexist, assuming that certain body parts of men will distract women and vice versa, heteronormatively defining what is “modest.”

“Liberating” Hair
In modern America, many a non-religious bride wears a veil on her wedding day. The majority of these women, we presume, do not believe they are entirely submitting to their husbands or see their gorgeous bridal ensemble as an anti-feminist act. Is it right, then, that we assume Orthodox women’s hair covers are oppressive, signify submission, and are anti-feminist?
“[H]air has diverse socioreligious and symbolic value in many civilizations.” Women and men in many religious traditions cover their hair to some extent. Amish women regularly cover their hair in ways similar to Haredi Jewish women. Catholic nuns, upon taking vows, also take the veil. The practice of hijab and other forms of veiling in Islam has been mentioned. Similar debates (about the feminist and anti-feminist qualities of these traditions) rage in each of these communities. That Islam faces the most outsider criticism is a strong indication that “feminist” arguments are often co-opted by other political motivations.
Feminists who wish to empower Orthodox (and other fundamentalist) women must grapple with this contention and with serious arguments that some women find empowerment through practices such as hair covering. If you wish to give women voice and agency, you must first listen to them. A complex question arises if feminists argue for women’s rights in regards to hair veiling and covering. Are you fighting to let them wear it or take it off? As seen in the “Being Uncovered” section, some women have felt oppressed more by community norms against covering than they have by the practice of covering. If you fight for a law forbidding women’s “submission” through hair covering, how are you any better than religious customs encouraging them to wear it? Hair covering, along with every religious practice, must be an individual choice. Non-Orthodox women must be aware that they are unlikely to be able to forcibly further women’s empowerment from the outside. Instead, they must stand in solidarity if and when Orthodox women ask them to, as Haredi women grapple with their own understandings of feminism, empowerment, and agency.
“Many religious women have internalized the value of hair covering and find meaning in it. Many others, however, find it restrictive and burdensome; and they feel that there is sufficient precedent in Jewish law that they can…be modest, observant women with or without covering their hair.” It is egotistical and paternalistic to assume that an Orthodox woman needs our permission to uncover her hair. Movements such as women wearing the sal and sexy wigs demonstrate that ultra-Orthodox women are expressing and living their own convictions in regards to these gendered principles.

Conclusion
This examination of Orthodox Jewish women has sought to demonstrate how they understand power and agency. While many Jewish feminists deplore Orthodoxy because they see it as anti-feminism, we assert that Orthodoxy is only anti-certain forms of feminism. Women can find empowerment and be empowered through Orthodoxy as well as through other religious traditions and expressions. This conclusion has a parallel in Mahmood’s discussions of the Egyptian Islamic Revival and Women’s Mosque Movement.
Though we speak with some hesitation about similarities between cultural and religious movements (no analogy is perfect), there are some clear corresponding techniques used to argue for women’s rights. Islamic, Jewish, and Christian feminists often argue that the “true fundamentals” of each of these Abrahamic religions are gender equitable. Certain practices that have come to be important components of religious life may thus be discarded without losing the “real meaning” of the faith. It is this line of thought that feminism on fundamentalism often uses. We have tried to show the importance of feminism in fundamentalism, highlighting the real and valuable experiences of voices of women in fundamental movements who choose, for a variety of reasons, to continue cultural and religious practices deemed “anti-feminist” by those outside the tradition.

Issues for Further Research
Further research could expand these notions of feminism and fundamentalism, seeking to understand how the terms are understood and applied in other regions, religions, and communities. Does what we heard from a multiplicity of Jewish voices mirror the thoughts and desires of women and women’s groups in Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, etc.? How do women in other fundamentalist and/or non-egalitarian religions (Christian evangelicals, Amish, Mormonism, Islamicist) respond to feminism?
Other areas of empowerment and equality for Orthodox women could also be explored (such as greater employment opportunities for women, women’s participation in religious services, women’s leadership in prayer services, and the desegregation of public and religious spaces (the Western Wall, temples, buses, etc.)). It may be that Orthodox women would not feel empowered by being allowed to sit next to men in synagogue. These issues, rather than simply being assumed as unfeminist, should be discussed with the women they actually affect.

Feminist, But…
A major question we are left with after exploring the multiplicity of Jewish women’s voices is whether or not multiple feminisms can coexist if they contradict each other. Is it possible for an Orthodox woman who believes she is expressing her agency through praying in a segregated place to be a feminist if the white Christian tourist who travels to Israel and wants to walk along the full Wall without gender separation is also a feminist? The answer, we believe, lies in an analogy using the existence of fundamental religious groups. Christian evangelicals exist alongside Christian liberal universalists. Both claim the term “Christian,” though they may have entirely different ideologies and worldviews. Ultra-Orthodox, Haredi Jews live next to secular Jewish Israelis; both call themselves “Jewish.” Fundamentalist groups do not own religion or a religious term; instead, they apply their own meanings to the concept. Feminism is the same. Western, white, privileged women do not own the term “feminism” anymore than a suicide bomber owns the word “Islam.”
The hesitance to describe themselves as “feminists” would initially seem to indicate that the women of our study are not. However, as we address the relationships, similarities, and differences between feminism and fundamentalism, we see a possible rational for this hesitancy that has little to do with whether or not women believe in equality, women’s rights, empowerment, etc. We believe that there has come to be a “fundamentalist feminism.” This version of feminism, originating in the 1960s and ‘70s during the second wave of feminism, is perhaps embodied by Marilyn Frye. It is a radical, almost militant feminism, which at times alienates men, religion, and other preexisting power structures. It is this perception of “feminism” as man-hating and bra-burning that Israeli Jewish women seem to object to, not the goals of women’s empowerment and agency-building. A parallel can be seen in the United States regarding fundamentalist religion: more and more, young people hesitate to call themselves Christians, for fear of being assumed a gay-bashing, Bible-thumping, Islamophobic jerk. “Christian, but” syndrome develops. “I’m a Christian, BUT I don’t hate you just because you’re gay.” “I’m a Christian, BUT I’m not one of those Christians.” It is fully possible for a Jewish woman to be a feminist even if she does not claim the name.
This is not to say that we believe every Orthodox Jewish woman is a feminist. A critical part of empowerment and individual agency is the ability to classify yourself, rather than being classified by another. Jewish women in Israel could develop a “Feminist, but” syndrome. But if they do not find any power in this association, why should they do so? If the Women of the Wall do not find power in claiming the term “feminism,” we must not try to force it on them. But nor should we automatically classify them as “anti-feminist” if they choose not to use this label. In the words of Lam, “your feminism is not mine. ” Given the diversity of views in Orthodox Judaism, many can also say “your fundamentalism is not mine.” But that does not mean it is not feminism or fundamentalism.
 
Works Cited and Suggested Reading
About This Particular Macintosh, “Wailing Western Wall.” Accessed December 9, 2010. http://www.atpm.com/7.09/israel/western-wailing-wall.shtml.
Allen, Amy. “Rethinking Power.” Hypatia 13.1 (Winter 1998): 20-41.
Bronner, Leila Leah. “From veil to wig: Jewish women’s hair covering.” Judaism: A Quarterly Journal of Jewish Life and Thought. 42.4 (Fall 1993): 465-477.
Charmè, Stuart. “The Political Transformation of Gender Traditions at the Western Wall in Jerusalem” Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion 21.1 (2001): 5-34.
Chesler, Phyllis. “Toward a Psychology of Liberation: Feminism and Religion – A Conclusion” in Women of the wall: claiming sacred ground at Judaism’s holy site, ed. Phyllis Chesler and Rivka Hunt (Woodstock, Vermont: Jewish Lights, 2003): 335-354.
Davidman, Lynn. “Accommodation and Resistance to Modernity: A Comparison of Two Contemporary Orthodox.” Sociology Analysis. 51.1 (1990): 35-51.
Deeb, Lara. An enchanted modern: gender and public piety in Shi’i Lebanon. Princeton studies in Muslim politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006.
Dubowski, Sandi Simcha, and Steven Greenberg. Trembling before G-d Le-fanekha bi-reʻadah. New York: New Yorker Video, 2001. DVD.
Farnum, Rebecca L. Field Notes: Study Abroad through Michigan State University, 2010.
Frenkel, Sheera. “Going under cover: the Jewish women who are taking the veil.” The Times March 7, 2008. Accessed December 12, 2010. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3499122.ece.
Frye, Marilyn. “Willful Virgin or Do You Have to Be a Lesbian to Be a Feminist?” Willful Virgin: Essays in Feminism. Freedom, CA: Crossing Press, 1992. 124-37.
Gubar, Susan. “Eating the Bread of Affliction: Judaism and Feminist Criticism.” Studies in Women’s Literature 13.2 (1994): 293-316.
Haberman, Bonna Devora. “Women beyond the Wall: From Text to Praxis.” Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion 13.1 (1997): 5-34.
Henderson, Sarah L. and Alana S. Jeydel. Participation and Protest: Women and Politics in a Global World. New York: Oxford, 2007.
Hirschkind, Charles and Saba Mahmoood. “Feminism, the Taliban, and Politics of Counter-Insurgency.” Anthropological Quarterly 75.2 (Spring 2002): 339-54.
Kaufman, Debra Renee. “Women Who Return to Orthodox Judaism: A Feminist Analysis.” Journal of Marriage and Family, 47.3 (1985): 543-551.
Lam, Maivan Clech. “Feeling Foreign in Feminism.” Signs 19.4 (Summer 1994): 865-93.
Mahmood, S. “Feminist Theory, Embodiment, and the Docile Agent: Some Reflections on the Egyptian Islamic Revival.” Cultural Anthropology 16.2 (2001): 202-236.
Ofran, Yanay and Oren Harman. I’m a 2007 Haredi. Israel: Shula Spiegel Productions, 2007. DVD.
Raday, Frances. “The Fight Against Being Silenced” in Women of the wall: claiming sacred ground at Judaism’s holy site, ed. Phyllis Chesler and Rivka Hunt (Woodstock, Vermont: Jewish Lights, 2003): 115-133.
Resnick, Lynn. “Sifting through Tradition: The Creation of Jewish Feminist Identities.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 39.1(2000): 90-106.
Safir, Marilyn P., Jessica Nevo, and Barbara Swirski. “The Interface of Feminism and Women’s Studies in Israel” Women's Studies Quarterly. 22.3/4 (1994): 116-131.
Schiller, Mayer. “The Obligation of Married Women To Cover Their Hair.” The Journal of Halacha. 30 (1995): 81-108.
Sered, Susan. “Women and Religious Change in Israel: Rebellion or Revolution.” Sociology of Religion. 58.1 (1997): 1-24.
T., Anna. Domestic Felicity Blog. http://ccostello.blogspot.com/.
United Nations. “Gender-related development index and its components.” Human Development Report 2009. Accessed December 11, 2010. http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/indicators/113.html.
------. “Table 1: Human Development Index and its components.” Human Development Report 2010: 143-214. Accessed December 11, 2010. http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2010_EN_Tables_reprint.pdf.
Vishner, Sherri. “When a Kippah is not just a Kippah.” Last modified December 10, 2007. Accessed December 12, 2010. http://www.uscj.org/koach/koc_5768_tevet_svishner.htm.
Women of the Wall. “The official Women of the Wall website.” Accessed December 2, 2010. http://womenofthewall.org.il/.
------. “Take a Stand: Sign the Statement of Support.” Accessed December 2, 2010. http://womenofthewall.org.il/solidarity/take-a-stand.

Finals Week!

We are officially done with classes for the semester. Now just gotta finish up the exams and projects...
Ready...set...GO!

Hope everyone has a good weekend. I'll be frantically writing.
: )

Happy Friday!

Today is the last day in the office hosting the Malawian delegation. It's been really fun chatting with them during the in-between meeting moments.
One of the a cappela groups on campus has a concert tonight; several friends are in the group. So I'll be "Raving with the Fifths." (No, I will not be participating in the Rave itself.) Hopefully between work and the concert I'll get some work done.

Let it snow!

That's a command more than a celebratory remark, in this context. There isn't really any snow on the ground..and that's sad. It's way too cold for there to not be pretty white stuff everywhere.
Can we work on that, please?

On the plus, the version of "Baby, It's Cold Outside" on "Glee" is super adorable.

Paper Time!

As you can see by the absurdly lengthy posts below, it's paper time! Welcome to the end of the semester. Still to come:
1. Jewish Fundamentalism and its Intersections with Feminism
2. Ethics and Development: Capabilities, Rights, and Needs
3. Thesis Proposal: Food and Water Economic Integration in the Middle East and North Africa

Shifting Theories and Discourses in Women, Gender, and International Development

Abstract: Feminism has changed drastically since its beginnings in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries as European and American women struggled for legal voting rights. In its second wave, occurring in the 1960s and 1970s, women argued that biological differences should not lead to gender inequalities, pushing for full legal and social equality. The 1990s introduced feminism’s third wave, focused on “democratizing” feminism, incorporating post-colonial and third world feminisms. Feminist theory and discourse shifted dramatically at each new wave. The Women and International Development (WID) Program began at Michigan State University in 1978 and published its first paper in 1981, at the end of the second wave of feminism. The Working Papers project published the scholarly work of academics from a wide variety of disciplines and research foci. In 1990, right as the third wave of feminism began, the WID program was renamed the Gender, Development, and Globalization (GDG) Program and later the Working Papers were renamed Gendered Perspectives on International Development (GPID). At this time, many Women’s Studies programs around the world became Gender Studies programs, signaling a shift toward a less binary vision of gender and sex in feminism in addition to the integration of more global perspectives. Using the WID and GPID Working Papers, I will explore how the theoretical frameworks and linguistic discourses in issues of women, gender, and development have shifted from the 1980s to the 2000s.


Introduction
What is feminism? What is development? What is feminist development? And who gets to decide? This paper will explore the shifting discourses of feminism, development, and academia from the 1980s to today through a case study of the working papers of the Center for Gender in Global Context (GenCen) at Michigan State University. I will first describe my methodology in this investigation, including an introduction of the GenCen program at MSU. A shift in discourse about issues of feminism, development, and ethics that took place during the move from Second Wave to Third Wave Feminism will be discussed, as will its impacts on GenCen’s Working Papers. The results of this change will be evaluated, concluding with a discussion about the extensiveness of the shift and what is still missing. I will argue that feminist ideology has experienced a gradual (rather than discrete) change and is continuing to face challenges as it seeks to become fully-encompassing of all forms of gender expressions and roles around the world.

Methodology
The Center for Gender in Global Context serves as the Women’s Studies department at Michigan State University. Its advisor oversees a variety of academic majors, minors, and specializations (interdisciplinary minors). In addition to academic advising, GenCen hosts the “Gender, Development, and Globalization” (GDG) program of International Studies and Programs at MSU. GDG focuses on development and global change as they effect women and gender relations. The program is run through Title VI funding (part of the United States Higher Education Act, awarded by the US Department of Education).
A major component of the Gender, Development, and Globalization Program is its “Gendered Perspectives on Development” (GPID) Working Papers Series. The working papers are manuscripts (article length, up to 9000 words) from many different disciplines that highlight research on economic, social, and political change and their impacts on gender relations. The program’s goals, as stated in GPID’s “Call for Papers,” are
1. to promote research that contributes to gendered analysis of social change;
2. to highlight the effects of international development policy and globalization on gender roles and gender relations; and
3. to encourage new approaches to international development policy and programming.
This research is based on a selection of papers from the GPID Series. Papers were selected based on discipline, geographic region, and research foci to obtain a diverse cross-sample in the study collection. The full list of titles, authors, and publication dates was also reviewed for an overall understanding of the shifting foci.
Papers focused on in this study are (listed in order of publication):
• “The Separation of Women’s Remunerated and Household Work: Theoretical Perspectives on ‘Women in Development’” by Susan Tiano (1981),
• “Sexual Division of Labor in Old World Agriculture” by Michael Burton, Douglas R. White, and Malcolm M. Dow (1982),
• “Greater Education Opportunities for Women Related to Population Growth” by Léa Melo da Silva (1982),
• “Women’s Politics and Capitalist Transformation in Subsaharan Africa” by Kathleen Staudt (1984),
• “Feminine or (Un)feminine: Struggles over the Meanings of Femininity in Chinese Women’s Literature” by Hong Jiang (2001),
• “Development, Democracy, and Women’s Legislative Representation: Re-Visiting Existing Explanations of Gender Variations in the World’s Parliaments” by Jocelyn Viterna, Kathleen M. Fallon, and Jason Beckfield (2007),
• “Promoting Gender Equality Through Development: Land Ownership and Domestic Violence in Nicaragua” by Shelly Grabe and Carlos Arenas (2009), and
• “Choosing Silence: Rethinking Voice, Agency, and Women’s Empowerment” by Jane Parpart (2010) with comments from Naila Kabeer.

What’s in a Name?
Feminism, broadly speaking, is a sociopolitical theory focused on the power relations leading to gender-based inequalities. Historians of feminism discuss three “waves” (periods) of feminism. The first wave, taking place in the late 19th century and early 20th, focused on women’s rights to vote, own property, and control her body. It was most obvious in the British and American women’s suffrage movements. The 1960s and 70s saw the rise of feminism’s second wave, which focused on legal and social equality for women. Feminists of this era argued that biological sexual differences should not yield gender inequality. The “social construction of gender” became prominent at this time, as feminist authors argued that gender roles were made distinct between boys and girls based more on how they were socialized than biological imperatives. The third wave of feminism, beginning in the 1990s and still present today, seeks to include post-colonial, post-modern, third world, and developing world feminisms. The first two waves were highly Euro-American-centric; the third wave can be viewed as a “democraticization” of feminism.
Along with this shift in focus from the third to second waves of feminism came a shift in academic discourse. Around the world (including Canada (Carlson 2010) and Australia (Korenman 2010)), “Women’s Studies” Departments became “Gender Studies,” “Women’s and Gender Studies,” “Gender and Social Justice,” or “Gender, Sexuality and Women’s Studies” Departments. For some, the name change signals a “progress” in feminism to address other issues; for others, it is a perversion of the struggle women had gone through to achieve the relative equality in developed countries today. The angst expressed in dropping the name “Women’s Studies” is demonstrated in the inclusion of “women” in most names that have added “gender” and the fact that this shift has been a long time coming; though feminism’s third wave began in the early 1990s, many names are just now being changed.
These name changes are often heavily debated and only partially implemented. At Michigan State University, the office has the name “Center for Gender in Global Context,” without women in the name anywhere, but the official administrative department name (according to the MSU Registrar) is “Women, Gender, and Social Justice.” A variety of academic programs are available to students. An undergraduate may major or minor in “Women’s and Gender Studies,” but students can also specialize in either “Women, Gender, and Social Justice” or “Gender and Global Change.” Graduate programs include “Gender, Justice, and Environmental Change” and (available in Spring 2011) “Women’s and Gender Studies” specializations. The majority of courses offered in these programs still hold the department code “Women’s Studies.”
The GenCen Working Papers also saw a name change. When the department began publishing in 1981, it published under the name “Women and International Development.” In 2008, the series became “Gendered Perspectives on International Development.”

A Shift by Any Other Name…
The fact that departments have changed their names is indicative of shifting frameworks. The change from second to third wave feminism can also be seen in the altered foci of the WID/GPID Working Papers, both administratively (in how papers are solicited and the stated objectives of the program) and on the ground (in how papers are written and on what feminist development research is focused).
The use of “gender” versus “sex” when referring to women is nuanced. “Gender” refers to the social construction of different roles given to individuals based on their sex, where “sex” refers to biological, physiological differences between male and female. Discourses around “third sex” and intersexed individuals point to the lack of a concrete dichotomy between the biological sexes as well, though, further complicating the distinction. Generally, though, today’s feminists prefer “gender” when referring to women; this is reflected by the fact that “sex” has not been used in one of the Working Papers’ titles since 1991 (other than to refer to sexual intercourse); while Burton, et. al’s 1982 paper focuses on “Sexual Division of Labor” (emphasis mine). The same topic explored by one of today’s feminists would likely be titled “Gendered Divisions of Labor.” The word “gender” is also more likely to be used in titles, as opposed to merely “women,” in the 2000s. Often, though, this naming is in title only; the article itself focuses solely on women (such as Grabe and Arenas’ “Promoting Gender Equality Through Development: Land Ownership and Domestic Violence in Nicaragua,” emphasis mine, which look only at women’s domestic abuse by men and women’s land ownership, not any of the reverse).
A shift in assumptions about gender roles in the home has occurred. The first four articles reviewed assumed “women” to have places in the home; what makes a “woman” is the role of wife, mother, houseworker. Later articles do not assume this as explicitly; though, again, there is some question as to whether this is merely a careful use of language rather than a true change in belief and research methodology.
Also altered is the way in which developing communities are portrayed by Western academics. Language of the “Third World” has shifted to “global South.” The word “developing” is used with some caution. More and more, comparative studies are comparing communities with the same community at a different time or neighboring communities, rather than assuming the “development” necessarily looks like the United States. Later working papers are more likely to involve interviews with local women. More and more working papers are written or co-written by authors currently living or born outside the United States.
Perhaps the most progress has been made in shifting from women as an instrument of development (focusing on women’s work helps to build economic capacity, educate children for better jobs, etc.) to women’s social and economic development intrinsically (we should help to improve women’s lives for their sakes rather than merely to help others). This can be seen by reading the papers at either temporal end of the series; it is also evident in how the name of the series was changed. Rather than merely switching “Women and International Development” to
“Gender and International Development,” the name was changed to “Gendered Perspectives on International Development” (emphasis mine), indicating the need to consider gender power relations as one of the issues of development rather than women as a tool in development. It is important to contextualize this change: Development itself has been critiqued as focused too much on overall economic progress as measured by capitalism rather than paying attention to the social and political advancement of individuals. The shift in women as instruments in development to women as benefitting from development is part of a greater focus in development on making the main goal the enhancement of individual lives.
Along with the shift from instrumental to intrinsic benefits of women and development have come greater value judgments by the authors of papers. In the more recent working papers, authors are more explicit about what they would like changed and on what they think is important to focus. The early papers almost exclusively focused on describing trends as they were rather than making any sort of value judgment or prescribing methods for changing situations.

…Would Smell as Sweet
This literature review has made it clear that the shift from second to third wave feminism was not a discrete change, but rather a nuanced and continuously shifting understanding. Name changes were completed as part of already-shifting foci; the changes of name did not instantly alter all components of various programs.
Great progress has been made in opening the definition of “feminism” to minorities around the world. Development’s priorities have shifted to focus more on individual lives and improvement.
But we are far from at the ideal. Changes in name alone are not enough. The assumptions and basic foci of feminist research must shift to more fully incorporate the interconnections of all forms of social injustice and inequality (race, nationality, religion, ability status, etc.) to live up to feminism’s full calling. There are those who raise the question of whether or not opening feminism up to other justice issues and focusing on other minority groups means it is no longer “feminism,” but I believe ignoring the intersections of all forms of privilege with gendered power relations does a great injustice to the overall goal of equality.
While the third wave of feminism has in many ways “democratized” feminism, drawing its attention to the various roles and statuses of women around the world, it still primarily exists as white, privileged women becoming aware of the inequalities existing for underprivileged women. A key component in democratizing feminism must be actively seeking and hearing the voices of all women. The GPID Working Papers have begun to do this, as authors are increasingly non-Caucasian and research subjects are increasingly interviewed rather than simply theorized about, but feminism must push further to properly include all voices.
This concept of “women’s voices” is explored in one of the most recent Working Papers, Jane Parpart’s “Choosing Silence: Rethinking Voice, Agency, and Women’s Empowerment.” This Working Paper helps to push the idea of women’s voices not only by being about voice, but also by welcoming a discussion between different feminist views. For the first time in the history of the Working Papers Series, Parpart’s Working Paper received criticism and comments from another academic and these comments were published in the Series. Naila Kabeer responded with another voice, attempting to raise women’s voices she felt Parpart did not include. Parpart responded back; these comments are also included. By including this discussion in an academic Working Paper, the GenCen is highlighting the multiplicity of voices found within feminism and providing a platform for these multiple voices to be heard.
Most obviously intersecting with equality for women is equality for individuals of all sexual identities and gender orientations. This is what, to me, is most strikingly missing in the shift from “Women and International Development” papers to “Gendered Perspectives on International Development” articles. “Gender” is too often merely a buzzword for “women,” and the gender binary of men-women is still much too strongly in place. Heterosexist norms are prevalent in both the early and recent working papers. Even when the word “partner” is used, a woman’s partner is explicitly assumed to be a man (Grabe and Arenas 2009).
The third wave of feminism has opened the movement to women around the world. Over time, the “new feminism” is being incorporated in other disciplines and issues. We are early yet, in the shift. The Working Papers of GenCen, the longest-standing program of its kind in the United States, were given a name change only in 2008. We can only hope that this name change, and similar shifts in administrative language around the world, signal and initiate true transformations in research and funding foci for issues of gender relations and gendered power in the world.


 
Works Cited
Burton, Michael, Douglas R. White, and Malcolm M. Dow. April 1982. “Sexual Division of Labor in Old World Agriculture.” Michigan State University Women and International Development: Working Paper #5.
Carlson, Kathryn Blaze. “Women’s Studies, R.I.P.” National Post 24 January 2010. Accessed 8 November 2010 at .
Center for Gender in Global Context. “GPID Call for Papers.” Accessed 8 November 2010 at .
Center for Gender in Global Context. “Working Papers.” Accessed 15 November 2010 at .
Center for Gender in Global Context. “Archived Working Papers.” Accessed 15 November 2010 at .
Grabe, Shelly and Carlos Arenas. April 2009. “Promoting Gender Equality Through Development: Land Ownership and Domestic Violence in Nicaragua.” Michigan State University Gender, Development, and Globalization: Working Paper #295.
Jiang, Hong. May 2001. “Struggles over the Meanings of Femininity in Chinese Women’s Literature.” Michigan State University Women and International Development: Working Paper #272.
Korenman, Joan. 2010. “Women’s Studies vs. Gender Studies.” Online Discussion Thread. Accessed 8 November 2010 at .
Melo da Silva, Léa. September 1982. “Greater Education Opportunities for Women Related to Population Growth.” Michigan State University Women and International Development: Working Paper #11.
Parpart, Jane. July 2010. “Choosing Silence: Rethinking Voice, Agency, and Womens Empowerment.” with Kabeer, Naila “Voice, Agency and the Sounds of Silence: A Comment on Jane L. Parpart’s Paper.” Michigan State University Women and International Development: Working Paper #297.
Staudt, Kathleen. April 1984. “Women’s Politics and Capitalist Transformation in Subsaharan Africa.” Michigan State University Women and International Development: Working Paper #54.
Tiano, Susan. December 1981. “The Separation of Women’s Remunerated and Household Work: Theoretical Perspectives on ‘Women in Development.’” Michigan State University Women and International Development: Working Paper #2.
Viterna, Jocelyn et al. April 2007. “Development, Democracy, and Women’s Legislative Representation: Re-Visiting Existing Explanations of Gender Variations in the World’s Parliaments.” Michigan State University Women and International Development: Working Paper #288.

Gender, Health, and Development

Introduction
Academic and practical discourses surrounding feminism, health, and international development have shifted in the past several decades. A literature review of the Women and International Development Working Paper Series of Michigan State University’s Center for Gender in Global Context shows that academic and research foci about issues in women’s health have also changed. I will argue that, though health and development discourses are improving (that is, becoming more focused on women as autonomous agents, regarding women’s health as more than just pregnancy and childbirth, and more fully integrating health with development issues), this change is slower to come than other improvements in feminist development discourse and more progress needs to be made. Understandings of what is “health” must expand to include the social determinants of health and recognize how deeply connected physiological and mental health are with the other aspects and goals of development. Health should be viewed, not as a specific focus of development, but rather as one of many issues that should be integrated into all development work.

Background
Feminism
“Feminism,” referring to the sociopolitical theory focused on the power relations of gender-based inequalities, has gone through dramatic changes since it began in the late nineteenth century. Feminist historians classify feminist movements in three “waves.” American and European women organized for suffrage in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, focusing on women’s rights to vote, own property, and control her body. In the 1960s and ‘70s, feminism’s second wave argued against gender inequalities based upon biological differences in sex and physiology. During this era, the “social construction of gender” became a popular concept, as feminists argued that gender roles were created more through socialization than biology. The current third wave of feminism, which began in the 1990s, is beginning to include post-colonial, post-modern, third world, and developing world feminisms, in an attempt to “democratize” feminism, a movement previously incredibly Euro-American-centric.

International Development
“Development” as “change” has been ongoing since the beginning of time. As used here, “international development” refers to a specific process of “advancement” for countries in the Global South (primarily Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, and Latin America) beginning in the 1940s at the end of the Second World War. Like feminism, the international development movement has experienced shifts in ideologies and priorities. What began with American and European approaches to development as economic growth can be criticized in relation to priorities and cultural relativism. Critics of mainstream development thought argue that economic growth should not be seen as the “true” or “only” form of development. Amartya Sen, perhaps one of the best-known development ethicists and economists, argues that a capability-based approach focused on individual agency is more important than increasing a country’s gross domestic product (GDP). Some anthropologists and other proponents of cultural relativism take issue with a development practice that assumes the Western understanding of development should be imposed in all regions.
Though these criticisms of development have enjoyed increased presence in academic discourses, including theories of post-development (the notion that the West should disengage altogether, as it does more harm than good in its attempts to aid the rest of the world) and alternative development (such as Sen’s capability approach), mainstream development continues to focus on economic growth. Most funding for development comes from international and national organizations such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and USAID. These organizations are generally headed by traditionally-trained economists and politically-minded leaders, whose priorities are not necessarily in the best interest of the “developees.” As political priorities and security concerns have shifted, so too has funding, and not necessarily in the direction scholars and justice-seekers would wish. Thus, though academic work has begun to pay attention to grassroots movements and people on the ground, funding (with its stipulations and conditionality greatly affecting the practical work that can be and is done) has not done so as fully.

The Center for Gender in Global Context (GenCen)
One organization that receives such stipulated funding is the Center for Gender in Global Context (GenCen) at Michigan State University (MSU). The Center for Gender holds the Women’s Studies academic department at MSU. Gender-focused majors, minors, and specializations (topical minors) are administered by the GenCen. Additionally, the Center hosts the “Gender, Development, and Globalization” (GDG) Program. GDG explores issues of global change and international development as they affect and are affected by women and gender relations.
Funding for GenCen and the GDG Program comes from Title VI funding, part of the United States Higher Education Act, awarded by the US Department of Education. The GenCen also works on a variety of gender and development projects funded by international organizations and USAID, generally in collaboration with other universities and institutions.

The Working Papers
The Gender, Development, and Globalization Program publishes a triannual resource bulletin on gendered issues in development. Additionally, GDG publishes a Working Papers Series. These article-length manuscripts (up to nine thousand words) come from a variety of disciplinary and regional foci. They address cultural, economic, political, and social change as they impact local and global gender relations. The series’ goals, as stated in GPID’s “Call for Papers,” are
• to promote research that contributes to gendered analysis of social change;
• to highlight the effects of international development policy and globalization on gender roles and gender relations; and
• to encourage new approaches to international development policy and programming.
The GenCen’s Working Paper Series has changed since its beginnings in 1981 just after the Second Wave of feminism and before the beginnings of the Third. The Resource Bulletin and Working Paper Series were originally published under the name “Women and International Development.” In 2008, facing the effects of feminism’s Third Wave, GenCen renamed its publications “Gendered Perspectives on International Development” (GPID).

Methodology
Research Foci
This study sought to explore the complex relationships between gender, development, and health. My primary research questions were:
• What are the relationships between gender, development, and health?
• How are these intersections addressed in academic discourses and how have these frameworks changed as feminism shifted from its second to third wave?
These questions were explored through a literature review of the GenCen’s GPID Working Paper Series. Specifically,
• How has the concept of “health” been present or absent in the Working Papers of the Center for Gender in Global Context?
• How have discussions and understandings of “health” changed since the series’ inception?
While performing a review of what can be found within the Working Paper Series, I engage in discussion about the implications of what development workers see as “health” and its interconnections with “development,” exploring possible ramifications for women, their health, and society as a whole.

Selecting GenCen’s Working Papers Series
I have selected to focus this study on the GPID Working Papers because the Gender, Development, and Globalization Program is the oldest of its kind in the United States. MSU established the program in 1978; the program published its first Working Paper in 1981. Interning for the Center, I have easy access to the Working Papers and have encountered some of the program’s background in my current work. This has been helpful in writing a more comprehensive review exploring not only the literature itself but also its development.
Because the Working Paper Series dates to 1981, the series includes work done during the second wave of feminism (papers written in 1981 discuss research completed in the ‘70s), work from the transition phase of feminism’s waves, and work completed during the third wave.

Review Process
I determined that forty-two of the total two hundred ninety-eight Working Papers dealt with health issues and reviewed these forty-two articles in detail (see section below for selection criteria). I examined the full list of WID/GPID Working Paper titles to contextualize these forty-two “health papers.” To help determine shifting frameworks, I read many of the health papers completely, skimmed others, and performed very basic mathematical analyses (percentage of working papers dealing with health; percentage of health-focused papers dealing with fertility, etc.).

Defining “Health:” Selecting Papers
In seeking to explore how the GPID Working Papers discuss issues of health, I was first obliged to determine what I meant by “health.” The full list of Working Paper titles and abstracts is available online (I also had access to the list and records kept by GenCen). I read the list of titles for health issues, searching for the following keywords and variations: AIDS, birth, breastfeeding, Cesarean, contraception, death, diet, doctor, fertility, genital, health, illness, medical, menopause, midwife, nurse, nutrition, obstetrics, physician, pregnant, prenatal, reproduction, sick, and, survival. When the title left some doubt, I read the abstract to determine if the paper should be included. I then reviewed the selected papers in more detail.
By including words such as “fertility” and “contraception” in the search, I have essentially defined “health” as including all reproductive issues. While this is helpful in expanding the number of papers explored, it also serves to increase the proportion of Working Papers focused on reproduction health relative to other health issues. This can be counter-productive to feminism, as it strengthens the perception of women merely as child-bearers. However, it is reproduction and fertility that has and continues to dominate discussion about women’s health, and I believe it is important to include in this discussion with accompanying critique about the dilemma and concerns raised by naming these issues as women’s health concern.

Limitations of Methodology
This literature review was limited to those Working Papers explicitly focusing on health issues, in which “health issues” were determined by my biased understanding of what constitutes “health.” Arguably, each of these papers deal with health, as development issues such as socioeconomic status and personal agency all greatly affect individual and community health. A more complete review would aid in more fully understanding changing discussions and conceptions of the intersections between health, development, and gender. There may be several papers which incorporate health issues without indicating this in the article’s title. Indeed, it may even be these articles, in which health is seen as one of many issues involved in gender and development, that will best indicate shifting discourses. However, I have completed a previous review of these papers, exploring papers not explicitly dealing with health issues, and found virtually no references to health in these other papers. While I have not read each of the two hundred ninety-eight articles comprising the Working Paper Series, the samples explored in this and a previous literature review clearly indicate that health is explored either centrally or not at all in this development work. I will later discuss the implications of this for women’s health and overall development.

Results, Analysis, and Discussion
Health-Focused Working Papers
The titles of the Working Papers focusing on health issues are given in Table 1, listed in order of publication.
Table 1. Health-Focused WID/GPID Working Papers
# Publication Year Title Author
8 1983 Women’s Reproductive Histories and Demographic Change: A Case from Rural Mexico Millard, Ann V.
20 1983 Toward a New Model of Fertility: The Effects of the World Economic System and the Status of Women on Fertility Behavior Ward, Kathryn B.
22 1983 Genital Mutilation: Every Woman’s Problem Moen, Elizabeth Williams
34 1983 A Social-Evolutionary Investigation of Factors Affecting Female Employment in the Medical Profession Kang, Gay E. and Mary Ellen Heim
40 1983 Determinants of Natural Fertility in Matlab, Bangladesh Becker, Stan and Alauddin Chowdhury
41 1983 The Impact of Expected Child Survival on Husbands’ and Wives’ Desired Fertility in Malaysia: A Log-Linear Probability Model Lehrer, Evelyn and Marc Nerlove
48 1984 Breastfeeding and Demography in Two Mexican Villages Millard, Ann V. and Margaret A. Graham
49 1984 Causes of Death to Women of Reproductive Age in Egypt Fortney, et al.
66 1984 Cesarean Delivery in the Northeast of Brazil Janowitz, et al.
68 1984. Women’s Productive and Reproductive Roles in the Family Wage Economy: A Colombian Example Rosenberg, Terry Jean
76 1984 Women’s Work, Family Formation and Reproduction Among Caribbean Slaves Morrissey, Marietta
95 1985 Development, Women’s Situation and Fertility: The Mexican Case Ireson, Carol J.
96 1985 The “Wild,” the “Lazy,” and the “Matriarchal”: Nutrition and Cultural Survival in the Zairian Copperbelt Schoepf, Brooke Grundfest
101 1985 I’m Sick ... I'm Coming: Illness Among Zairian Elite Women Kornfield, Ruth
103 1985 Birth Planning in Rural China: A Cultural Account Potter, Sulamith Heins
107 1985 Prenatal and Postnatal Sex-Selection in India: The Patriarchal Context, Ethical Questions, and Public Policy Miller, Barbara D.
126 1986 Technology Transfer in Obstetrics: Theory and Practice in Developing Countries Jordan, Brigitte
127 1986 Women and Work in Rural Taiwan: Building a Contextual Model Linking Employment and Health Gallin, Rita S.
130 1986 Health, Women’s Work, and Industrialization: Women Workers in the Semiconductor Industry in Singapore and Malaysia Lin, Vivian
137 1987 Folk Dietary Practices and Ethnophysiology of Pregnant Women in Rural Bangladesh Hossain, Zakir and Ahmed F. H. Choudhury
154 1987 The Selfish Housewife and Menopausal Syndrome in Japan Lock, Margaret
164 1988 Underdevelopment, Women's Work and Fertility in Zimbabwe Mazur, Robert E.
169 Knowing by Doing: Lessons Traditional Midwives Taught Me Jordan, Brigitte
178 1989 Religion and Reproduction in Philippine Society: A New Test of the Minority-Group Status Hypothesis Johnson, Nan E. and Linda M. Burton
191 1989 Women’s Status as a Factor in Male and Female Decision Making About the Use of Contraception: A Case Study From Rural Peru Maynard-Tucker, Gisele
198 1989 Family Planning: More Than Fertility Control? Keysers, Loes and Ines Smyth
203 1990 Sometimes Available But Not Always What the Patient Needs: Gendered Health Policy in Bangladesh Feldman, Shelley
210 1990 Development, Gender Inequality, and Fertility in Iran Aghajanian, Akbar
211 1990 Variations in Reproductive Goals Among Indonesian Spouses Williams, Linda B.
215 1990 Nuer Women in Southern Sudan: Health, Reproduction, and Work Gruenbaum, Ellen
220 1991 Economic Factors of High Fertility in Traditional Households Chojnacka, Helena
232 1992 The Rural-Urban Difference in Contraceptive Use in Pakistan: The Effects of Women’s Literacy and Desired Fertility Zaki, Khalida P. and Nan E. Johnson
234 1992 The Flowers of Spring Garden: A Study of Primary Health Care in Brazil Using Rapid Assessment Procedures Novaes da Mota, Clarice
244 1994 The Mexico City Policy: An Examination of the Conservative Assault on US International Population Policy and Women’s Reproductive Rights Mehra, Malini
248 1994 Men's and Women's Reproductive and Contraceptive Decisions: A Case Study from Highland Peru Maynard-Tucker, Gisele
249 1994 Impacts of AIDS on Women in Uganda Durrant, Valerie
251 1995 Routine Herbal Treatment for Pregnant Women, Neonates, and Postpartum Care Among the Mahafaly of Southwest Madagascar Sussman, Linda K.
258 1996 Women’s Health Status Differentials in China Lin, Vivian
259 1996 Reproductive Imperialism: Population and Labor Control of Underdeveloped World Women Kuumba, M. Bahati
283 2004 Between “Modern Women” and “Woman-Mothers”: Reproduction and Gender Identity among Low-Income Brazilian Women de Bessa, Gina Hunter
284 2005 Some Unexpected Consequences of Implementing Gender “Neutral” Reproductive Programs and Policies Browner, C. H.
286 2006 Health and Development Policies and the Emerging “Smart Woman” in Rural Bangladesh: Local Perceptions Schuler, Sidney Ruth et al.

Numerical Analysis
A basic mathematical “glance” at the Working Papers was helpful in understanding the overall pattern and participation of health discourses in feminist development work from the 1980s to now. Table 2 shows the total number of papers, percentage of the total number of working papers (n=298), and percentage of the health-based working papers (n=42) dealing with several issues. A used here, “reproductive” refers to birthing and reproductive systems as they produce children. Health issues affecting reproductive systems are not included (i.e., Margaret Lock’s 1987 “The Selfish Housewife and Menopausal Syndrome in Japan” is classified as dealing with a non-reproductive issue).

Table 2. Numerical Snapshot of Health-Focused WID/GPID Working Papers
Issue Total # of Papers % of Total Working Papers % of Health-Focused Working Papers
Health-Focused 42 14% 100%
Health-Focused; “Fertility” in the Title 9 3% 21%
Health-Focused; “Fertility” not in the Title 33 11% 79%
Health-Focused; Dealing with Reproductive Issues 30 10% 71%
Health-Focused; Dealing with
Non-Reproductive Issues 12 4% 29%
Health-Focused; African-Focused 6 2% 14%
Health-Focused; Asian-Focused 13 4% 31%
Health-Focused; Latin American-Focused 12 4% 29%
Health-Focused; Middle Eastern-Focused 3 1$ 7%

Reproduction and Fertility
By far, the majority of the Working Papers dealing with issues in women’s health focus on reproduction and fertility. Again, it is debatable whether or not discussions of fertility should automatically be considered to involve “women’s health.” Depending on how the research is conducted, some fertility-based projects have ramifications for women’s health; others do not, instead focusing on child survival or dismissing the influences to an individual’s health that childbirth processes have.
A shift can be seen along the Working Paper Timeline. Though a few of the early papers focus on women’s health while exploring fertility, focusing on women becomes the norm later in the series. This is most marked by presence or absence of the word “fertility” in paper titles. Up to 1992, “fertility” was commonly included in the title of a working paper. Past 1992, though, at the beginning of feminism’s third wave, “fertility” disappears from titles. This is not to say that reproductive issues disappear; rather, the notion of “fertility” is replaced with concepts such as “contraceptive decisions” and “reproductive rights” (Maynard-Tucker, 1994; Mehra, 1994). These later working papers focus more on women’s autonomy and agency in making reproductive choices, as opposed to the earlier articles that looked at overall fertility patterns and institutional change mechanisms.
At the same time, conversations about how the West has imposed fertility control rose to the forefront, as evidenced by titles such as “The Mexico City Policy: An Examination of the Conservative Assault on US International Population Policy and Women's Reproductive Rights” (Mehra, 1994) and “Reproductive Imperialism: Population and Labor Control of Underdeveloped World Women” (Kuumba, 1996).
These shifts reflect the changing discourse in feminism, seeking to address women’s experiences as they intersect with global power relations of class, race, ethnicity, nationality, etc. The critique of Western health and population-control policies mirrors critiques of second-wave feminism as being too American- and Euro-centric and also parallels shifting discourses around development itself.

Non-Reproductive Issues in Health and Development
Of the “non-reproductive” issues, many of them nonetheless focus on issues related to sexual and reproductive systems (genital mutilation, menopause, AIDS). Very few of the papers look at more general health issues. Those that do are generally focused on rural and/or upper-class women in developing countries (women in the medical profession, friend and family healthcare systems (in which women are generally viewed as health providers), intersections of employment and health, etc.). The two most holistic papers, those that look at issues of women’s overall health and how important it is in development, were both written well after the turn of the third wave of feminism (Vivian Lin’s “Women’s Health Status Differentials in China” and Schuler et al.’s “Health and Development Policies and the Emerging ‘Smart Woman’ in Rural Bangladesh: Local Perceptions”).

Mental Health Issues
Issues of mental health are virtually nonexistent in the Working Papers. Though this reflects a greater focus in development work on the biological and “basic” (i.e., issues such as mental health tend to be seen as “luxuries” that should be tackled only after “basic” development has occurred), this does not excuse the Working Papers from their lack. Feminist discourses should seek to push development to incorporate a greater variety of issues important to women and their lives. With the focus on reproductive concerns, issues in post-partum depression would seem a natural starting place for researchers cautious about “rocking the boat.”

Geographic Foci
The Women and International Development/Gender, Development, and Globalization Program concentrates its work in the “global South,” recognizing that “the ‘South’ is a set of relationships rather than a place” (Center for Gender in Global Context, “Gender, Development, and Globalization”). Generally speaking, the global South includes Latin America, Africa, and Asia. The complete Working Papers include research from each of these regions, with country-specific discussion for most countries. There are some countries/regions with more papers; I believe this is caused primarily by funding foci and safety (for example, there are no papers specific to Palestine or Rwanda, though these countries certainly have a strong need).
Health-focused papers have been written on communities in Bangladesh (4), Brazil (3), the Caribbean, China (2), Colombia, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Japan, Madagascar, Malaysia/Singapore (2), Mexico (4), Pakistan, Peru (2), Philippines, Sudan, Taiwan, Uganda, Zaire (2), and Zimbabwe. Table 3 shows again the numerical analysis of the regionally-focused papers taken from Table 1 with the addition of a column showing the percentage relative only to those working papers that are health-focused and concentrate on a specific geographic region.

Table 3. Numerical Snapshot of Health-Focused and Regionally-Focused WID/GPID Working Papers
Issue Total # of Papers % of Total Working Papers % of Health-Focused Working Papers % of Health-Focused; Regionally-Focused Working Papers
Health-Focused; Regionally-Focused 34 11% 81% 100%
Health-Focused; African-Focused 6 2% 14% 18%
Health-Focused; Asian-Focused 13 4% 31% 38%
Health-Focused; Latin American-Focused 12 4% 29% 35%
Health-Focused; Middle Eastern-Focused 3 1% 7% 9%

Though no clear spatial change can be seen temporally (that is, regional foci have not shifted from one geographic location to another across time in the Working Papers), a disproportionate number of health-focused and regionally-focused working papers look at Asian societies. The non-health-related working papers do not seem so “Asia-heavy.” Though someone might guess this is due to the inclusion of fertility discussions in the health-focused papers, and the large number of studies done on China’s one-child policy; in fact, only two of the thirteen health-focused and Asian-focused papers are about China, and only one of those focused on birth planning. Four of the papers come from Bangladesh; they are temporally spread out. The high proportion of research coming from Bangladesh may be due to its status as a well-functioning Asian democracy that has made good strides in development indices, particularly in educational gender parity and fertility rates, making it an attractive target for gender-based research (World Bank).
Even if the Middle East and Africa are combined as a single geographic region (often done in academic discourses), they contribute eleven percent less to the regionally-focused, health-focused papers than Asia does, and eight percent less than Latin America. This may be in part because Asian and Latin American countries generally have more Westernized economies and healthcare systems, making health and development research easier (or, at least, more obvious when “health” and “development” are defined in Western terms).

Shifting Discourses
The early papers of GenCen’s Working Paper Series, like the mainstream development ideologies of the eighties, are prevalent with paternalistic and patronizing language. Problems arise not only with what the authors say (though oftentimes this is problematic enough), but the way they say it:
“If the extraordinary pronatalism of traditional culture is overcome, then what it means to have a child in China and to be a child in China will change completely, yielding dramatic new cultural and structural forms. There will be the resources to provide decently for those who are born and to care for them so that they can indeed be healthy and superior. If the extraordinary Chinese pronatalism is not modified, future generations of Chinese children will suffer increasingly until they are destroyed by the weight of their own numbers” (Potter, 1985, 23).
Language such as tradition being “overcome” and assumed hopes of being “superior” is both inappropriate and unhelpful.
Authors of the early working papers tend to assume that women have little to no agency or abilities. Fortney, et al. declare a lack of “optimal medical supervision” in contraceptive use in developing countries, assuming that people will be unable use contraceptives appropriately themselves (1984, 10). Moen shares the concern that older women are unable to safely perform female circumcision because the procedure necessary is too “medically advanced” and requires knowledge of anatomy (1983).
The early papers, along with early development ideologies, tend to see women more as the tools of development than as important beneficiaries of progress. The early Women and International Development literature is replete with the notion that women’s education will help to reduce fertility rates rather than the idea that women’s education is important for the women’s sakes and their own health rather than the health of their family members.
Some of the early papers critique this dominant language. For example, Jordan asserts that “technology, because it defines what is authoritative knowledge, in turn establishes a particular regime of power” (1986, 14). These critiques are the minority, however, and those that do not explicitly critique the dominant language often fall into the trap of accidentally furthering the problematic ideologies. Maynard-Tucker expresses greater faith in “modern contraceptives,” devaluing traditional knowledge of practices such as the “rhythm method” (1989). Maynard-Tucker (1989) and Miller and Graham (1984) both address rural women’s preference for these traditional methods rather than “modern” or “medical” contraceptives. The authors assert that women consciously choose this based on a rationality fearing for their health (contraceptives were thought to cause certain types of cancer, birth defects, etc.). Though it is good that authors are giving voice to women’s opinions, often the tone is accusatory (rural women as irrationally susceptible to believing rumors, etc.), sometimes carrying undertones of “silly natives.”
Though the authors of early papers will occasionally point out issues that arise for women and women’s health due to various development practices, they often do so only nominally and without suggesting how policies need to change. Yuan, while discussing the ramifications of China’s minimal reproduction policies, points out that “[b]ecause of son preference, some husbands, frequently with the encouragement of their mothers and other close relatives, have abused and battered their wives following the birth of girl babies; they hope to force their wives to seek divorce” (1984, 8). This he does without fully critiquing these policies, suggesting alternatives, or providing a means by which to care for battered wives.
The later working papers (“later” defined as coming from the 1990s and beyond, written during the third wave of feminism) have made great improvements both in which issues they address in women, health, and development and how they address these issues.
Schuler, et al. discuss the changing gender roles in Bangladesh drawing on data collected through in-depth interviews. This is a clear trend in the Working Papers: with the passage of time, authors are more likely to incorporate significant amounts of qualitative data from community members’ voices rather than theoretical assertions or governmentally-gathered census-like data. With this data, Schuler et al. assert that people in rural Bangladesh have more agency and reasoning capabilities that previous authors and officials have generally assumed. This is evidenced through quotations such as “women were not nearly as dependent on home distribution of contraceptives as many had believed” and “ordinary people in rural Bangladesh have considerable insights into the effects of social policies on norms related to gender, even though they do not label ‘gender’ as such” (2006, 15). Schuler et al. also focus on improvements in health and development as a way to improve gender equality (“health and development policies, along with other factors, have been contributing to an evolution towards gender equality and equity”), asserting that gender equality is intrinsically valuable, rather than seeing gender equality as a mechanism to development, valuing gender equality only instrumentally (16).
Another Working Paper highlights a place where a well-intended policy negatively impacted gender equality and women’s empowerment. Browner explores how policies in reproductive health meant to more fully include male partners in decision making processes end up furthering male dominance (2005). Exploring genetic testing and counseling in “high risk” pregnancy situations in Mexican communities living in California, Browner finds that “[w]hen genetic counselors sensed ambivalence from women, they clearly allied themselves with the male partners to gain consent for procedures” (Abstract). Browner is critiquing a Western policy while raising the voices and concerns of minority women, goals characteristic of the third wave of feminism.
In Sussman’s 1995 paper on the medicinal uses of indigenous plants, she too focuses on listening to the voices of women previously assumed to be disempowered. She asserts that “botanists who exclusively survey plants used by healers, may also miss relevant information on their knowledge and use by the lay population” (Abstract). Though she gives heed to the voices of rural women, then, acknowledging their systems of knowledge and power, she also argues for the importance of determining the “pharmacological properties” of these plants. If this paper were to be written today rather than in 1995, the shifting discourse about indigenous rights and sovereignty might cause a change in how the importance of, and our right to, study and utilize these indigenous plants is discussed.
Sussman’s paper was written in 1995, during the early stages of the third wave of feminism. That her paper assumes a right and value to investigating indigenous persons’ plants without much attention to her rights further demonstrates that these shifting discourses are not discrete changes. Though feminist historians classify the third wave as beginning with the 1990s, this does not mean that on January 1, 1990, suddenly all Westernly-ethnocentric language was eradicated or all feminist theorists automatically considered all the nuances of the intersections with race, class, ethnicity, nationality, gender, socioeconomic status, etc.

Conclusion
As seen in the discussion of “Shifting Discourses,” the changes wrought by feminism’s third wave were not discrete. Nor, I argue, are they complete. More recent papers more directly incorporate native women’s voices in studies and are more likely to give attention to the importance of power structures and intersections between race, class, ethnicity, gender, etc. This shift is reflective of the changing discourses in feminism from the 1970s to today. But we must not become complacent. Too often, ethnocentric language of Western superiority tends to “creep in” when feminist writers are not explicitly trying to heed to the voice of the “other.” We must remain vigilant in order to make this shift not only permanent, but so ingrained that it feels “natural.”
These shifting foci have not equally affected all areas of development. The effects of feminism’s shift are less apparent is in discourses about health. Too often, “women’s health” is still code for “reproductive issues.” The health of women must be seen as important for their sake, not merely for the sake of the children they will bear. And the impacts of women’s lives on their health must be taken into account. The Gendered Perspectives of International Development Working Papers are the perfect venue for discussing the interconnections between development, gender, and health, addressing the social determinants of health and how these are affected (negatively or positively) by attempts at development.
Development and gender work should not view health as a distinct issue, but rather as one of many factors influencing people’s lives, voices, and agency. This is a prime opportunity for medical anthropology to voice its unique contributions. Medical anthropologists have a chance to work towards incorporating themselves more fully in anthropological discourse and in interdisciplinary discussions about issues in gender and development. By doing so, medical anthropologists can show how useful their discipline can be in policy and practice, rather as simply a chance to explore the “curiosities” of “native” medical cultures.
The Women and International Development Working Papers became the Gendered Perspectives on International Development Working Papers in 2008. Since this time, none of the papers published have focused on health. Though the name change of the papers in no way indicates a discrete shift in the foci and discourse of the series, it does indicate institutional moves in work surrounding women and development. It is up to medical anthropologists to ensure that health is incorporated as a part of these changing discourses as we move toward a world that is more just for all.

References
Aghajanian, Akbar. 1990. “Development, Gender Inequality, and Fertility in Iran.” Michigan State University Women and International Development: Working Paper #210.
Becker, Stan and Alauddin Chowdhury. 1983. “Determinants of Natural Fertility in Matlab, Bangladesh.” Michigan State University Women and International Development: Working Paper #40.
Browner, C. H. 2005. “Some Unexpected Consequences of Implementing Gender ‘Neutral’ Reproductive Programs and Policies.” Michigan State University Women and International Development: Working Paper #284.
Center for Gender in Global Context. 2010. “Archived Working Papers.” Accessed 15 November 2010 at .
Center for Gender in Global Context. 2010. “Gender, Development, and Globalization.” Accessed 6 December 2010 at < http://gencen.isp.msu.edu/gdg/>.
Center for Gender in Global Context. 2010. “GPID Call for Papers.” Accessed 8 November 2010 at .
Center for Gender in Global Context. 2010. “Working Papers.” Accessed 15 November 2010 at .
Chojnacka, Helena. 1991. “Economic Factors of High Fertility in Traditional Households.” Michigan State University Women and International Development: Working Paper #220.
de Bessa, Gina Hunter. 2004. “Between ‘Modern Women’ and ‘Woman-Mothers’: Reproduction and Gender Identity among Low-Income Brazilian Women.” Michigan State University Women and International Development: Working Paper #283.
Durrant, Valerie. 1994. “Impacts of AIDS on Women in Uganda.” Michigan State University Women and International Development: Working Paper #249.
Feldman, Shelley. 1990. “Sometimes Available But Not Always What the Patient Needs: Gendered Health Policy in Bangladesh.” Michigan State University Women and International Development: Working Paper #203.
Fortney, Judith A., Saneya Saleh, Saad Gadalla, and Susan M. Rogers. 1984. “Causes of Death to Women of Reproductive Age in Egypt.” Michigan State University Women and International Development: Working Paper #49.
Gallin, Rita S. 1986. “Women and Work in Rural Taiwan: Building a Contextual Model Linking Employment and Health.” Michigan State University Women and International Development: Working Paper #127.
Gruenbaum, Ellen. 1990. “Nuer Women in Southern Sudan: Health, Reproduction, and Work.” Michigan State University Women and International Development: Working Paper #215.
Hossain, Zakir and Ahmed F. H. Choudhury. 1987. “Folk Dietary Practices and Ethnophysiology of Pregnant Women in Rural Bangladesh.” Michigan State University Women and International Development: Working Paper #137.
Ireson, Carol J. 1985. “Development, Women's Situation and Fertility: The Mexican Case.” Michigan State University Women and International Development: Working Paper #95.
Janowitz, Barbara, Walter Rodriques, Deborah L. Covington, Jose Maria Arruda, and Leo Morris. 1984. “Cesarean Delivery in the Northeast of Brazil.” Michigan State University Women and International Development: Working Paper #66.
Johnson, Nan E. and Linda M. Burton. 1989. “Religion and Reproduction in Philippine Society: A New Test of the Minority-Group Status Hypothesis.” Michigan State University Women and International Development: Working Paper #178.
Jordan, Brigitte. 1986. “Technology Transfer in Obstetrics: Theory and Practice in Developing Countries.” Michigan State University Women and International Development: Working Paper #126.
Jordan, Brigitte. 1988. “Knowing by Doing: Lessons Traditional Midwives Taught Me.” Michigan State University Women and International Development: Working Paper #169.
Kang, Gay E. and Mary Ellen Heim. 1983. “A Social-Evolutionary Investigation of Factors Affecting Female Employment in the Medical Profession.” Michigan State University Women and International Development: Working Paper #34.
Keysers, Loes and Ines Smyth. 1989. “Family Planning: More Than Fertility Control?” Michigan State University Women and International Development: Working Paper #198.
Kornfield, Ruth. 1985. “I’m Sick ... I’m Coming: Illness Among Zairian Elite Women.” Michigan State University Women and International Development: Working Paper #101.
Kuumba, M. Bahati. 1996. “Reproductive Imperialism: Population and Labor Control of Underdeveloped World Women.” Michigan State University Women and International Development: Working Paper #259.
Lehrer, Evelyn and Marc Nerlove. 1983. “The Impact of Expected Child Survival on Husbands’ and Wives’ Desired Fertility in Malaysia: A Log-Linear Probability Model.” Michigan State University Women and International Development: Working Paper #41.
Lin, Vivian. 1986. “Health, Women’s Work, and Industrialization: Women Workers in the Semiconductor Industry in Singapore and Malaysia.” Michigan State University Women and International Development: Working Paper #130.
Lin, Vivian. 1996. “Women’s Health Status Differentials in China.” Michigan State University Women and International Development: Working Paper #258.
Lock, Margaret. 1987. “The Selfish Housewife and Menopausal Syndrome in Japan.” Michigan State University Women and International Development: Working Paper #154.
Maynard-Tucker, Gisele. 1989. “Women’s Status as a Factor in Male and Female Decision Making About the Use of Contraception: A Case Study From Rural Peru.” Michigan State University Women and International Development: Working Paper #191.
Maynard-Tucker, Gisele. 1994. “Men’s and Women’s Reproductive and Contraceptive Decisions: A Case Study from Highland Peru.” Michigan State University Women and International Development: Working Paper #248.
Mazur, Robert E. 1988. “Underdevelopment, Women's Work and Fertility in Zimbabwe.” Michigan State University Women and International Development: Working Paper #164.
Mehra, Malini. 1994. “The Mexico City Policy: An Examination of the Conservative Assault on US International Population Policy and Women’s Reproductive Rights.” Michigan State University Women and International Development: Working Paper #244.
Millard, Ann V. 1982. “Women’s Reproductive Histories and Demographic Change: A Case from Rural Mexico.” Michigan State University Women and International Development: Working Paper #8.
Millard, Ann V. and Margaret A. Graham. 1984. “Breastfeeding and Demography in Two Mexican Villages.” Michigan State University Women and International Development: Working Paper #48.
Miller, Barbara D. 1985. “Prenatal and Postnatal Sex-Selection in India: The Patriarchal Context, Ethical Questions, and Public Policy.” Michigan State University Women and International Development: Working Paper #107.
Moen, Elizabeth Williams. 1983. “Genital Mutilation: Every Woman’s Problem.” Michigan State University Women and International Development: Working Paper #22.
Morrissey, Marietta. 1984. “Women’s Work, Family Formation and Reproduction Among Caribbean Slaves.” Michigan State University Women and International Development: Working Paper #76.
Novaes da Mota, Clarice. 1992. “The Flowers of Spring Garden: A Study of Primary Health Care in Brazil Using Rapid Assessment Procedures.” Michigan State University Women and International Development: Working Paper #234.
Potter, Sulamith Heins. 1985. “Birth Planning in Rural China: A Cultural Account.” Michigan State University Women and International Development: Working Paper #103.
Rosenberg, Terry Jean. 1984. “Women’s Productive and Reproductive Roles in the Family Wage Economy: A Colombian Example.” Michigan State University Women and International Development: Working Paper #68.
Schoepf, Brooke Grundfest. 1985. “The ‘Wild,’ the ‘Lazy,’ and the ‘Matriarchal’: Nutrition and Cultural Survival in the Zairian Copperbelt.” Michigan State University Women and International Development: Working Paper #96.
Schuler, Sidney Ruth et al. 2006. “Health and Development Policies and the Emerging ‘Smart Woman’ in Rural Bangladesh: Local Perceptions.” Michigan State University Women and International Development: Working Paper #286.
Sussman, Linda K. 1995. “Routine Herbal Treatment for Pregnant Women, Neonates, and Postpartum Care Among the Mahafaly of Southwest Madagascar.” Michigan State University Women and International Development: Working Paper #251.
Ward, Kathryn B. 1983. “Toward a New Model of Fertility: The Effects of the World Economic System and the Status of Women on Fertility Behavior.” Michigan State University Women and International Development: Working Paper #20.
Williams, Linda B. 1990. “Variations in Reproductive Goals Among Indonesian Spouses.” Michigan State University Women and International Development: Working Paper #211.
World Bank. 2010. “Bangladesh Country Overview 2010.” Accessed online 6 December 2010 at .
Zaki, Khalida P. and Nan E. Johnson. 1992. “The Rural-Urban Difference in Contraceptive Use in Pakistan: The Effects of Women’s Literacy and Desired Fertility.” Michigan State University Women and International Development: Working Paper #232.