From: iview-AT-technologist.com
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 1998 11:34:17 -0700
Subject: Re: Nationalism...Re: Some thoughts On "the west"


Rinita,

I completely agree with you also...I have known and deplored for a long
time that our values are the values of the patriarchy...that patriarchal
women are the gatekeepers of patriarchal systems, and equally
responsible in perpetrating patriarchal oppression.  

The question is, really, what do we lose when we leave behind the
patriarchy?  The answer, as many of us would agree, is a very individual
one for every woman, within and outside of the patriarchy.  The second
important question is how do we survive outside of the patriarchal
system that dictates the market-based economy?  The final question is,
for me, why is the only alternative for leaving the patriarchy abject
poverty?  Many women live in it (as most activists are aware), and not
necessarily out of choice but an oppressive circumstance sourced in the
patriarchy...numbers of women and children have come close to it, or
many are very close to it.  Until and unless we look at how each of us
*contributes* (by our eager pursuit of patriarchal goals in education,
and jobs that fuel this market economy) to this distressing social
stigma, can we, really, change the status quo?  How can a society
nurture its children but to replicate in *them* what we already nurture
in ourselves...those who have and those who have not?  Isn't that the
ultimate in patriarchal oppression?

-Manjusree


Rinita Mazumdar wrote:
> 
> Manjusree, I totally agree with you. But remember we are at the same
> time oppressed AND oppressor, how to overcome this hegemony
> WITHIN us. How many of us are willing to de-class ourselves?
> Also, can we really make a cultural revolution and define our values
> other than patriarchy? Can we say that cleanogn, cooking, housework
> are `real' works, working in public is not?
> 
> if we can seriously (1) be de-classed (2) change our own value system,
> I am sure we can really thrash patriarachy,
> 
> rinita
> 
> >From owner-third-world-women-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu  Wed Oct  7 12:33:19 1998
>  >X-Authentication-Warning: lists.village.virginia.edu: domo set sender to owner-third-world-women-AT-localhost using -f
>  >X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I)
>  >MIME-Version: 1.0
>  >To: third-world-women-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>  >Subject: Nationalism...Re: Some thoughts On "the west"
>  >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>  >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>  >Sender: owner-third-world-women-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>  >Reply-To: third-world-women-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>  >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>  >
>  >It is time that we women divest ourselves of "national" identity in
>  >order to unite in a way never before possible...the internet empowers
>  >women who can provide the same empowerment to women "have-nots" -- right
>  >here, there are activists providing free computer training, in all
>  >aspects of the computer...there are computer retailers providing
>  >equipment to those have-nots, to schools etc.
>  >
>  >We don't have to abide by existing national/economic borders that are in
>  >our history.  The problem is compounded, though, by "patriarchal"
>  >women...women for whom the patriarchy *works*, usually providing the
>  >"protection" of class status.  It is these women who must also be
>  >willing to divest themselves of patriarchal crutches...but the risk of
>  >divesting is very great...not everyone can or is able to do it.  The
>  >physical, geographical borders will remain as long as nations want those
>  >borders.  Both men and women will protect those borders with their
>  >lives...that's the loss.  Post-colonial economic expansion is behind
>  >those borders.
>  >
>  >We must begin to address those borders and brainstorm on how to erase
>  >them.
>  >
>  >-Manjusree
>  >
>  >dharlem-AT-pipeline.com wrote:
>  >>
>  >> Dear Rinita-
>  >> I don't know what "essentializing" means.  But I am of the rightly
>  >> disparaged  "west", simultaneous to my persecution by it (sigh).
>  >> I'm therefore probably a little subjective about it.
>  >> I am opposed to being represented by the typically male and too often
>  >> religious-fundamentalist power queens, who are ruining AND running the
>  >> world-- EVEN to conscious women the world over, EVEN here, on our
>  >> third-world-women list.
>  >> I am "the west", Manjusree is "the west", you are "the west", and we all
>  >> agree about many many issues.  Still, we are being represented-- even to
>  >> each other(!)-- by so-called "leaders" who don't give a damn about us,
>  >> basically where EVER we live. So, while we are globally beset by utterly
>  >> despot dickistry, while they FEED on us;  we might want to remove ourselves
>  >> from THE MAN'S maps and corrals, so we can move forward; strategically, and
>  >> coalesced.  And a little less harmed by his toxins.
>  >> In this form (Email), where *the border* is the financial privilege of
>  >> affording it; establishing a nomenclature not bent on exclusions and
>  >> name-calling- particlularly of each other-- is muscular thinking.
>  >> And that's not to say that name-calling is always inappropriate.  When we
>  >> DO name-call, it should be precise and concise.  We must cast our
>  >> aspersions with accuracy.  By splitting ourselves into hemispheres and
>  >> hierarchies, I believe we lose; that there is a better way.
>  >> I say, let's win.
>  >> meg
>  >>
>  >> At 06:17 AM 10/7/98 -0600, you wrote:
>  >> >Meg,
>  >> >Are you not essentializing ``the west''. As a part of the diaspora
>  >> >I am opposed to the ``West'' also, yet I am considered ``Western''
>  >> >by my relatives back home and here in the mainstream immigrant
>  >> >community. interestingly, when I protested against Vietnam
>  >> >in College I was the ``left anti-American''. Now I protested
>  >> >against nuclear, I am pro-America!.
>  >> >
>  >> >
>  >> >The ``other'' I guess is always the other!
>  >> >
>  >> >Rinita
>  >> >
>  >> >
>  >> >
>  >