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?
Friday, August 21, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
testing...
You recognize a similar assumption with the U.S. legal system. In most custody cases, unless the mother is incapacitated or otherwise "unable" to raise a child, she will get custody. There's an underlying belief that women are better at raising children, which in turn augments other sexist assumptions (men better at bringing in the income...). Like you point out, those who try to nullify such discrimination end up adding to a woman's work, enhancing her role as the sole worker. I'm very wary of this new obsession of micro-loans.
As I concluded this post, I was considering if it was even fair to critique the resulting conditions. Of course (speaking practically) having a viable job is better than starving, which leads me to think that the history of third-world poverty develops some resignation to extra/heavy responsibility. Even Kristof and WuDunn admit that-- considering the options--sweatshop work is not so bad. Sounds almost like this "feminism" is the new driving force of capitalism. Scary.
On another note, you should connect with Sasha at AC. Last I heard, he's writing a thesis on micro-loans as neo-imperialism in Africa. Thanks for the comment!
Post a Comment