It’s unlikely that many women in “third-world” countries have the chance to take a women’s studies course and the Tulane women’s studies department seems dominated by white girls (correct me if I’m wrong).
Reflecting upon our assigned readings this semester, few (if any?) failed to discuss the perspectives and lives of third world women. There is a great amount of criticism about feminist writers (particularly in the early waves of feminism) and the tendency for their thought to focus on the issues of white women. I’ve readquite a bit of criticism about this phenomenon, but I hadn”t seen much of a response until this semester.
I was impressed when I read Women’s Activism and Globalization because I felt as though I was finally reading essays from women who, instead of criticizing other feminists from leaving them out of the story, finally illustrated the issues and activities they experience as women of the third world.
However, it was interesting to think back on the readings at the end of the semester only to realize that the issues discussed were not only entirely different from “white” feminist’s issues, but the focus was much more on activism than on theory.
We’ve learned that there is significant imbalance in the global conversations about women’s issues… which include perspectives of white women about issues of third world women. (For example, in discussing the successes of microcredit, only the organizers and sponsors spoke and the perspecitives of the recievers of the aid were not heard.)
My question to you all is how do you think these third world women should be integrated into the conversation? Without the theoretical background that we have as scholars focusing on feminist theory, how can these women “equally” participate? It seems as though every time a third world woman tries to voice her concern she is successfully overpowered by a white woman with a degree from a western university. (For example, when Sarah showed the debate between the Indian woman and the caucasion woman about microcredit, we all understood and sided with the caucasion woman’s standpoint– sorry, I can’t remember their names 
)
While we have read numerous articles from non-write feminist theorists, we have not read any theory by women living in the situations we discuss. It takes wealth to afford the education that it requires to substantially contribute to (and understand) a feminist conversation based in theory. Is it possible for women of different educational backgrounds to have an “equal” conversation without the educational background, or will we continue to view women living in poverty or in the third world as “case studies” to be discussed.
I don’t want to feel as though I am on a pedestal because of my education, but I cannot deny that I am significantly different than a maquila in Hondourus and we will undoubedly see any situation from a very different perspective.
As upper class feminists (by upper class, I mean not living on anywhere near a dollar a day) our focus doesn’t revolve around day to day survival. We are more concerned with issues such as what is “unfair.” We protest transnational corperations’ exploitation of women’s labor and even go as far as boycotting their products. Meanwhile, a woman is quoted in Women’s Activism as saying that while she understood she was being exploited, she was thankful for her job because it helped her to support her family and herself. We assume the responsibility to fight these corperations because these women don’t know that they should! Is this dynamic acceptable?
We (the North) have many ideas about how to “help” women suffering the consequences of globalization. Are there ways in which women of the third world can “help” us? What do we suffer? What have we got wrong? What is the proper way to go about a “transnational conversation?”
