From: iview-AT-technologist.com
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 08:50:01 -0800
Subject: Re: Woman Judge in Lahore Deprives Woman of Property R


Meg,

Congratulations on having the courage and the honesty to really tell it
like it is.  I, too, am quite weary of the typical representation of
oppressed women (usually, of color) by women outside of that experience
whether by birth or circumstance.  

There are indeed, in my experience, many women of color who wear
blinders as well to minority problems because of the former's power
positions in academe, government, or business, usually within their
respective cultures.  I see these privileged women as being *of* the
patriarchy.  Such women cannot do much more than to study oppressed
women much as scientists study rats in a laboratory.  Is this a viable
contribution?  Whom does it help besides ensuring one's tenure,
political power, and promotions? 

Since *patriarchally*-privileged women (both of color and not) are also
fighting against the patriarchy, it is difficult for us, I think, to
observe in ourselves and in our actions/inactions patriarchal motives,
flaws, and pitfalls.

I applaud your bravery in bringing up a very real problem about who is
representing whom.

-Manjusree


Meg Henson Scales wrote:
> 
> Lizzy-
> I have a very bad cold, so forgive me for not jumping on this topic
> immediately. You're pretty naive if you think that "women" are one, and I
> DON'T think you're naive.  I just think you're white.
> I don't know your background, but I've always assumed you were white.
> I don't know Enrica's, but I'm pretty sure she's white as well.  White
> women have privileges globally, that they're typically unwilling to "own".
> In Enrica's case, she seemed concerned with bride-burning- a circumstance
> that involves Indian women.  When questioned about what she was bringing to
> the conversation, she became defensive, offensive, and disrespectful.
> Immediately.
> This, in my life experience, is typical of white women.  They want to be
> considered in the highest light and solely for what they "do"-- and they
> don't want to be questioned about whatever else they might be bringing to
> the table- which frequently includes attitude, prejudice, and privilege.
> This is NOT to say that women of color are devoid of attitude and
> prejudice- it means that they typically don't have the privilege of
> representing white women, while they're doing it.
> Women of color want (futilely) to be AT the table as well- representing
> THEMSELVES--  AND that white women (already at the table) don't typically
> interfere with that lack of women of color at the table at all.
> That you consider this "squabbling"-- 'i.e. "arguing over a trivial matter" -
> is - uh- typical.  Yet, it is NOT trivial when white women are called upon
> to represent women of color's interests, in the enforced absence of women
> of color.  It IS vital to discuss this in ways where we're not shut down-
> as you attempted to do, by labeling the debate "squabbling" and inferring
> that I am patriarchal by arguing the point.
> The exclusion of women of color is obviously not important to you-- it's
> not your issue.  This IS the third-world-women list, though--  Not the
> let-the-white-women-run-everything-and-shut-up-about-it- List.
> I'm sure white women will still feel that they're not getting their due-
> which all too frequently means Everything. I can live with that.
> Meg
> 
> At 02:31 AM 11/12/98 -0500, you wrote:
> >third-world-women-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu wrote:
> >
> >> If women in power were supportive of women (but how can that be in a
> >> true patriarchal context?), then perhaps travesties such as the
> >> following wouldn't occur.  I find women in power no different from their
> >> male counterparts to make snap, erroneous judgements and divide us among
> >> ourselves.  But then, isn't that the foundation on which the patriarchy
> >> firmly stands?
> >>
> >> -Manjusree
> >
> >Exactly my sentiments. Have been thinking - the patriarchy would rejoice
> >and congratulate itself over some of the dialog on this list. To get
> >women squabbling with each other, instead of focusing on the problem
> >would warm the cockles of the patriarchy's little heart. The only other
> >time I've run into this kind of dialog was during the lobbing of caustic
> >mudballs over the Jane Gallop debate - disecting her book, her, and
> >anyone who had anything positive to say. And the mudballs were being
> >slung by males, for the most part. (remember, Radhika?)
> >
> >
> >As to the email address provided (thanks) of witzel -AT- harvard etc.,
> >now that I've shot my mouth off about wanting to help, I realize I don't
> >know what to say to him - maybe because I don't know his role in all
> >this. Guess I need more information.
> >Lizzy
> >