Posted by: mavra | September 21, 2007

week 2-readings

What I found interesting in Maria Mies and Chilla Bulbeck’s readings was how the word feminism alone falls short in representing the various women ideologues and can no longer be used as an all encompassing term. The notion of female solidarity, which is to be the premise of every approach, is however, subject to varying specifics such as class, sex, race each factor either dividing perspectives or combining them. This prioritising of what is central to identity not only differentiates feminist groups but also creates the question of the ‘self’ and the ‘other’ confining various discourses to categories, restricting their approach and also how they are perceived. There is always a need for labelling the ‘other’ and a need to define the ‘self’ as different, contributing to the continuing power struggles of this world. Chilla’s example of the Greenwich Meridian then is an apt one as it displays the antagonism between the First world women and Third world women in distinguishing oneself and undermining the other. Issues of White supremacy and colonialism divide perspective on the essential ‘woman question’ that becomes more area specific varying from the developed and underdeveloped quarters of the world. The readings show a trend of using class, sex, gender and so on as isolated standpoints for developing feminist approaches. Instead of dividing and subdividing into politically correct categories of Radical, Marxist and Liberal the focus should be on female solidarity against the capitalist patriarchal establishment. There is, however, an evident perpetual need to define oneself in context to another be it in the form of First world and Third world demarcations or under the banner of sameness-difference feminisms. I believe as everyone faces a different religious, socio-political reality such divisions inevitably do come into existence and internalise in one’s perception of self. If such is the case then as Chilla says in her introduction, one should use these different discourses to understand the larger perspective and make more flexible the process of constructing the ‘self’ in context to the ‘other’.




  1. 3.8

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: