Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Tiya Miles/Audre Lord
Ariel Levy and other contemporary feminist writers often discuss an abstract, universal sisterhood that inherently exists between all women. They argue that it is this sisterhood that women ought to lean on in their struggle for equality. They claim that women should not compete with each other in the workplace because that is how the dominant patriarchy wins. However, Tiya Miles and Audre Lorde explain that this supposed universal sisterhood among women is rife with internal conflict and divisive factions. As both of these authors are black women, they are both very familiar with the way in which feminism has traditionally catered predominantly to the needs of middle to upper class white women. Lorde and Miles accurately highlight how women that do not fit into this narrowly defined group are often left feeling as though feminism cannot serve them, and herein lies a major problem confronting contemporary feminism. In order for a truly universal sisterhood amongst women of all backgrounds, ethnicities, and sexual orientation to be formed, those who have traditionally and are currently leading the modern women’s movement need to be aware of the need to incorporate those women whose needs and issues have been flagrantly ignored in the past. Lorde, being both a black woman and a lesbian, has a great deal of experience with various forms of oppression and is forced to fight through three separate boundaries in the way of equality in her life. As Miles explains in her depiction of the journal her and her friends started in college, women who are poor, minorities, or homosexual often feel that the because the women in charge are not similar to them in these ways that they therefore are incapable of identifying with or even caring about the needs of “different” women. In my opinion, women who are classified as “different” need to try and understand that the women in charge may have troubles identifying with their experiences; but also, those in charge need to recognize that not all women have the same needs and issues as they do because they come from different backgrounds and have had different experiences.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The feminist movement has traditionally been a white, middle and upper class movement. While it has at times allied with lower class women or minorities, the mainstream feminist movement has failed to expand to include many minority groups. As such the articles by Miles and Lorde explore the experiences of black feminists and their feelings of exclusion in the mainstream movement. As stated by John, this seriously puts into question the idea of "sisterhood" expressed by many second wave feminists. How can there be a universal sisterhood when the upper and middle class white feminists have failed to accommodate the views and needs of working class and minority women. Thus these two articles should serve as a reminder that many class and race boundaries affect even the feminist movement.
ReplyDeleteNice thoughts, all. John, one particularly salient point in your post is reminiscent of Johnson: it is everyone's responsibility to speak, because we all participate in the system. What Lorde emphasizes well, though (a la Frye), is the fact that it is often up to those "in power" to make room for women without power to speak. There's a need for self-critique. What about McIntosh and the notion of white privilege? How does relate to both Lorde's arguments and all of your points about the feminist movement and whiteness?
ReplyDelete