Third World Women’s Rights— tinged with Imperialism

Last week one of New York Times’ most shared article was “The Women’s Crusade” by Nicholas Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn, a philanthropist. While I was pleased that the piece raised the issue of women rights, the tone of First World benevolence bothered me. Does anyone else see it too?

A few examples include that while the article is entitled “The Women’s Crusade,” the subtitle is the first thing you see in larger print reading: “Saving the World’s Women.” This places the writers of this essay and their audience in the position of those doing the “saving” of women, not the women themselves.

Kristof and WuDunn highlight the story of Saima Muhammad, who turns her life around with a $65 microloan to start a business. Great news. Yet her present life seems to a reification of sexism. I think of women’s “double shift” as I read her obligation to support her family and community while running her business.

When economist Esther Duflo is quoted saying, “When women command greater power, child health and nutrition improves,” I fear this portion of the article reinforces ideas that women are inherently better caretakers than men. The idea that men and women are born innately different undergirds sexism.

The discussion of the illogical spending of (brown/Third World) men, who are portrayed as the enemy, led me to recall Gayatri Spivak’s essay, “Can the Subaltern Speak?”, in which she discusses at length the British abolition of the Indian practice of widow sacrifice. She writes, “The abolition of this rite by the British has been generally understood as a case of ‘White men saving brown women from brown men.’” Spivak points out the paradox of anti-sexist work in the Third World. While she regards the abolition of widow sacrifice as admirable, the British law pre-determines the women’s Indian cultural self (as Subject).

And finally, the desire to do “good” in “Western intellectual production is, in many ways, complicit with Western international economic interests,” tied to our capitalism and imperialism. This line is fitting considering how women’s rights is becoming a new approach to US foreign affairs, particularly as a way to fight terrorism. Is it wrong?