Remembering Liberal Feminism In Radical Ways: Locating Conservative Strategies In The Narratives Of Dr. Christina Hoff Sommers, Tammy Bruce, And Dr. Laura Schlessinger

This dissertation identifies and challenges post-feminist narratives that remember the second wave or 1960s and 1970s liberal feminism as a radical form of activism. The narratives of three prominent post-feminist authors: Dr. Christina Hoff Sommers, Tammy Bruce and Dr. Laura Schlessinger are used as examples of how identification works as a rhetorical device that motivates individual actors to join in a struggle against liberal and radical feminist ideologies. I argue that each author draws on classically liberal and politically conservative virtues to define a "true" feminism that is at odds with alternative feminist commitments. I demonstrate how these authors create a subject position of a "true feminist" that is reminiscent of the classically liberal suffragist. In Burkean terms, each author constitutes the suffragist as a friend and juxtaposes her with the enemy--modern liberal and radical feminists. I articulate the consequences of such dialectical portrayals of feminist activism and further suggest that these authors' visions of feminism reinforce patriarchal practices, urging women to assimilate into a classically liberal society at the cost of social justice. In opposition to their memories of feminism, I offer a radical democratic approach of remembering feminism that is less concerned with the definition of feminism or feminist than it is with holistically addressing oppression and what oppression means to subjugated populations.

The Hybrid Spirit Animating Chinese Pentecostals in Malaysia

This dissertation interrogates the assertion in postcolonial scholarship, especially from the work of Homi Bhabha that the construction and performance of hybrid identities act as a form of resistance for marginalized communities against structures of oppression. While this study supports this assertion, it also critiques how hybridity fails to address issues of unequal power relations. This has led to an uncritical use of hybridity that reproduces the very idea of static identity which its proponents claim to transcend. Through qualitative study of Chinese members of a Pentecostal church in Malaysia, this study argues that church members engage in "unequal belonging" where they privilege certain elements of their identities over others. In concert with Pierre Bourdieu's conceptions of habitus, field, and capital, unequal belonging highlights how hybridity fails to capture the intersecting and competing loyalties, strategies, and complexities of identity formation on a contextual level. Unequal belonging challenges postcolonial scholars to locate the subtle workings of power and privilege that manifest even among marginalized communities. The study first situates the Chinese through an analysis of the historical legacy of British colonialism that has structured the country's current socio-political configuration along bounded categories of identification. The habitus constrains church members to accept certain Chinese ethnic markers as "givens." Although they face continuous marginalization, interviewee data demonstrates that church members negotiate their Chineseness and construct a "Modern Chinese" ethnic identity as a strategic move away from Chinese stereotypes. Moreover, conversion to Christianity affords church members access to cultural capital. Yet, it is limited and unequal capital. In particular, the "Chinese Chinese," who church members have demarcated as backward and traditional, are unable to gain access to this capital because they lack fluency in English and knowledge in modern, westernized worldviews. Unequal belonging nuances monolithic conceptions of hybridity. It demonstrates how church members' privilege of Christianity over Chineseness exposes the complex processes of power and privilege that makes westernized-English-speaking Chinese Christians culturally "higher" than non-English-speaking, non-Christian, Chinese. This study provides significant contribution to the complex aspect of hybridity where it is both a site of resistance and oppression.

Is Diversity Inclusiveness?" A Personal and Empirical Exploration"

While psychology recognizes and celebrates multicultural diversity connoting the inclusivity of all, it seems to ignore sociopolitical and religious diversity. Within contemporary multiculturalism, conservative voices are often found wanting. In this study, a "liberal" privilege survey was developed to examine the inclusion and limits of conservative ideology within the multicultural paradigm of psychology training programs and workplaces. It was hypothesized that mental health professionals who identified as more conservative would express more oppression of views/values in their workplace than individuals who did not identify as being conservative and those who identified as more liberal would express bias and concerns against those holding conservative views. Results did not support an overall generalization of conservative bias or intolerance, but did provide some evidence of discontent among individuals holding more conservative religious and sociopolitical values. Overall, findings reinforce the need for gathering more data on sociopolitical and religious variables within the context of multiculturalism and broadening the dialogue on diversity issues surrounding sociopolitical views and bias among colleagues and in training programs.

Adding Color to Feminism: White Privilege Within the Women's Liberation Movement.

This paper will explore how white privilege has been intertwined with the women's liberation movement in the United States. Feminism and its goals are described briefly and linked to an evaluation of white privilege within the movement. The feminist movement is explored throughout its three waves, including a class and race analysis of each separate period. In addition, this analysis focuses on how Black and Chicana women have been excluded from the mainstream, White, middle-class movement. Through the use of Social Dominance Theory (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999), the prevalence and impact of oppression and hierarchy are explored. The implications of oppression and exclusion in the current political climate are followed by suggestions for aligning the goals and direction of feminism with social justice.

Women Who Kill Women

This article focuses on the phenomenon of women who kill women in the context of India’s dowry murders. Killing by females is rare, and killing of other females is rarer still. India’s dowry deaths, where mothers-in-law are, next to husbands, the most accused and convicted, represents a unique opportunity to examine the mechanics around women who kill, especially in the context of a gender violence crime. The article examines both the roots of the dowry system and the current anti-dowry and dowry-violence legislation to demonstrate the implicit and accepted gender inequities within marriage that serve to under gird an overall system of female oppression within the marital relationship. This inequity is understood to be a positive aspect within marriage, but ironically negative within public Indian society. The article then considers various theories of agency and motivation from social science and feminist literature to answer why some women participate in oppressing other women in Indian society. Finally, the article notes some of the ways in which Indian courts are contributing to the oppressive power structure by limiting the application of the anti-dowry and dowry-violence laws.

Double Reasonableness and the Fourth Amendment

Recently the Supreme Court has placed new limits on both the substance of the Fourth Amendment and the exclusionary that serves as the principal remedy for Fourth Amendment violations. In this Article we briefly summarize these limitations and then argue that the curtailment of the exclusionary rule has the potential to ameliorate substantive Fourth Amendment doctrine. The limited reach of the modern exclusionary rule provides the Court with license to develop an expansive new substantive framework free of the specter of a correspondingly expansive remedial framework. One point on which nearly all jurists and commentators agree is that current Fourth Amendment doctrine is a mess. We argue that the Court’s exclusionary rule cases, while frustrating and ill-conceived if viewed in isolation, provide the Court with an opportunity to revisit problematic Fourth Amendment doctrine that was born under a very different remedial regime. Such an approach would allow the Court to adhere to its current view of the exclusionary rule as a remedy of last resort while creating a Fourth Amendment with teeth. The goal is a Fourth Amendment right that is more substantial and clearly defined, but a remedy that remains limited to egregious violations of clear substantive rules. The time is now to lift the Fourth Amendment fog.