Grasping Global Feminism CULTURAL CONTEXT TAKES THE WOMEN'S MOVEMENT BEYOND THE MAINSTREAM by Anantha Sudhakar Words like oppression, patriarchy, and submission first shaped my vocabulary for understanding the problems of women around the world. Theorists like Betty Friedan, Naomi Wolf, and Susan Faludi formed my decidedly mainstream feminist views. Now I recognize that while these terms and ideas were useful to my growth as a feminist, they hindered my understanding of women in other parts of the world. I often pitied women in other cultures because I felt they were subjected to cruel treatment without a chance for rebellion or even objection. However, this view stemmed from my adherence to the mainstream feminist movement, which does not speak for the whole world. Instead, this movement addresses the very audience that created it‹white and middle-class women. This is not a critique, though, as white middle-class women are by no means freed from experiencing sexism in society. Yet the movement has the tendency to classify the problems of other cultures and classes using American feminist terms. Our issues of abortion rights and equal pay do not necessarily apply to or have the same significance for other cultures. It is important to understand fully a culture before you label its women oppressed or no. The issue of genital mutilation is an excellent example. Upon hearing of the circumcision of women in some parts of Africa, many western feminists labeled it a horrible practice which destroys women's sexual pleasure so they are not tempted to stray from their husbands. Hanny Lightfoot-Klein observes in her book Prisoners of Ritual, however, such circumcision is as much a rite of passage as a protective practice. In fact, much festivity surrounds this ritual performed by women on women. It is seen as the most important day of a woman's life. Many view it as a beautification and cleansing process, much the way Western women view shaving or waxing their legs and underarms. Regarding sex, one woman responds to a question about whether she enjoys intercourse: "A body is a body. No matter what they cut away from you‹they cannot change that!" Granted, there are definite problems with genital mutilation, but even the term used to describe it implies an incorrect labeling on the part of mainstream feminism. Do American women not mutilate themselves through plastic surgery? Complications like these make judging women's lives around the world difficult. Even in America, socialist feminists argue that the mainstream women's movement does not speak for all people, especially members of the working classes. The economic stability of the middle-class women who make up the mainstream movement affords them job and education opportunities, child care, and leisure time in which to think about the body, sexuality, and relationships. Thus, issues such as fighting unequal pay in the workplace evolve from a middle-class standpoint and do not speak for less fortunate American women. South Asian feminist and sociologist Shamita DasGupta agrees that the mainstream movement is exclusionary. In her essay "Journeys," she writes, "the insidious racism, classism, and imperialism ingrained in the mainstream women's movement renders it ineffectual in bringing about all-encompassing social change." Although the women's movement has experienced race and class conflicts since the fight for suffrage, I think DasGupta's blanket statements are unfair. The mainstream feminist movement could not possibly tackle issues of gender to include the particular issues of every race and class, although it sometimes tries to. It only speaks for a certain sect of society, just as DasGupta's own South Asian feminism speaks to issues of race, language, class, and immigrant status specific to the South Asian female experience. Dividing the women's movement into these cultural and class pockets does not mean dismantling it. Globally- aimed feminism can only be strengthened by recognizing and respecting differences. Sometimes I feel that the mainstream movement has a long way to go before it recognizes its limits and unintentional hypocrisies. For example, in the same essay, DasGupta's daughter, Sayanti, writes about her college experience: "Although my white feminist peers were fascinated by Indian clothing, nose rings, and religion, they were convinced that I was the feminist exception to South Asian womanhood." I, too, aligned myself with this way of thinking when I first learned about feminism and sought to disassociate myself from my female relatives, whom I viewed as powerless and passive in the face of oppression. Yet the more I read about India, and the more I actually listened to the views of my aunts and cousins, the more I realized that they are active, strong, and generally happy with their lives. In fact, the women's movement in India rose largely in opposition to the surge of western influence that has flooded Indian society through TV and magazines, causing many Indian women to become increasingly concerned with their body image and appearance. Clearly, universal sisterhood does not require that we all follow the same rules. India's shunning of Western influence obviously conflicts with American interests, but strives for the overall benefit of women in society. African women's movements view genital mutilation differently than Western women's movements, but both seek to ensure female safety and education. Socialist feminists may hold a different agenda than the mainstream movement, yet both seek to increase opportunity and fight gender discrimination. The possible coalition of all these different sects of feminism is best described by the Moroccan feminist and sociologist Fatima Mernissi. In her book Dreams of Trespass, she writes, "I wanted to dance with the community, but also to my own secret music, springing from a mysterious source deep within." Women of different cultures, classes, and races must dance to their own secret music, while keeping the universal beat of working to attain the ever-subjective and disputed freedom of women.

back to Decweb main