A conflict which could have been avoided if those American feminists had taken the time to listen to listen and consider what those non-Western feminists had to say about their experiences and activism rather than presumptuously assuming their own inherent “superiority” along with their disgusting and ignorant orientalist attitudes and assumptions. :(

Dear Exholt,

In response to (A) -
First off, I totally agree with most of what you’re saying. Secondly, you are misreading my tone and missing my point. I was neither dismissing our own shameful history of exterminating the indigenous people of North American, enslaving Africans, and treating all women as chattel, etc. nor oversimplifying U.S. history/history of feminism. I guess like Claire, I should give you a little more background. I am a social worker with a joint master’s in sociology and women’s studies (currently a Ph.D. candidate in sociology) and the grandchild or Irish immigrants (also colonized and impoverished by the Brits, albeit a different history than India). I was not disregarding the history of colonialism. Rather I was shifting the focus of the conversation to women and what women can do to make themselves heard amidst all this tired bickering about western/non-western and environmental policy. I was pointing out some common ground and making a joke about the Brits. I am fully aware of what the American Revolution was really about. I think one of the problems with blogging and email is that tone and facial expressions are missing, so people often misunderstand each other’s points. I recognize the weight of our different histories but there are also important similarities. I certainly don’t believe we should ignore our differences but I DO think that we often allow those differences to paralyze us and keep us from making progress.

Like Dan said earlier, many of has have taken college & grad courses in postcolonial theory and are very much aware of this issues that you bring up. The question now is what TO DO about them and how to move forward. I have written more papers than I can count and had many, many discussions with professors (both western and non-western) on the complexities and the history of colonialism in relation to feminism. My thesis advisors were feminists from Grenada and India actually, which does not mean I think I somehow deserve a medal or a cookie, but rather that I do listen and I’m pretty aware of the issues you address.

YES, the first wave of the women’s movement in the U.S. with its focus on suffrage and the 2nd wave of American feminism with its focus on abortion rights are sadly tarnished and complicated by racism, classism, homophobia, and other forms of discrimination and at times tunnel vision. However, there were also black feminists in the suffrage movement like Soujourner Truth & Maria Stewart as well as partnerships in the 2nd wave such as that between Alice Walker & Gloria Steinem that I think are good examples of how feminism/womanism need not be elitist. There are plenty of feminists who hail from developing countries (like my profs Dessima Williams from Grenada and Harleen Singh from India) and Indian feminists are in no short supply (e.g. Gayatri Spivak, Jaya Arunachalam, and Medha Patkar). I also admire Indian-American filmmaker Mira Nair’s work. Based on their own words, I think they’d all agree that the way to move forward (as I said in my initial posting) is to meet women where their at with cultural sensitivity, treat them with dignity and respect, and give them voice.

It is also critical that we recognize feminism is NOT a western idea or construction. That is a very dangerous and frustratingly wide-spread misconception. If you have not yet had the chance to look into this topic, there’s a great book called “Feminism and Nationalism in the Third World” written by Kumari Jayawardena. In fact, there have been more female heads of states in the so-called “third world” countries than in many “developed” countries including the U.S. (e.g. the late Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan, Corazon Aquino of the Philippines, Sirimavo Bandaranaike of Sri Lanka, and Mary Eugenia Charles of Dominica). Another good read is “Women as National Leaders” by Michael A. Genovese.

(B)”exholt”:
# 1: I’m telling you all you’ll end up doing is to alienate the very non-Western women and progressive men you are ostensibly trying to help.

#2: I’ve witnessed this very conflict play out acrimoniously at my undergrad college where non-western feminists at my college were completely alienated from their American counterparts over this very issue because of the privileged White upper/middle-class patronizing attitudes and assumptions towards the non-Western feminists.

In response to (B)
#1: I understand where you’re coming from and am always looking for ways to move the conversation beyond what serves privileged white professional-class women. I come from a working-class family, worked my butt of to pay my own way through school, and my prof background is in social work – where I’ve def seen a lot more of the issues that affect ALL women (esp when I worked in the jails in CA) than many of my peers.

#2: I couldn’t agree with you more on this point! I think the only way to get beyond that is to have these kinds of honest dialogues. Thanks for taking the time to respond.

as for the itchy trigger fingers in the early replies (raja, liz), i can only say that maybe you need to take a deep breath and recognize that a lot of us also took classes in postcolonial theory and some of us also got good grades! in other words, read the post a bit more carefully rather than using this anonymous venue as a platform to try to recycle what you’ve heard/learned about how westerners should think/act. it’s tired stuff

I’ve known many upper/middle class White classmates who received good and even excellent grades in classes on post-colonial theory and yet, were still so wrapped up in their socio-economic and racial privilege that it was as if those theories went in one ear and out the other…especially when their attitudes, statements, and actions were such that they ended up acting in ways not too different from the stereotype of the overbearing European colonialist assured in his/her own inherent superiority in the understanding of all things….including understanding non-Western cultures better than the very “natives” who created, sustained, and have been socialized in those very cultures from birth.

Just because one receives good/excellent grades in a given course does not necessarily mean s(he) has a decent understanding of the material….much less a degree of mastery of a tiny portion of it.

Regardless of the history of colonialism (one thing we have in common is that both India and the U.S. began under British rule and we both kicked them out!)

If one wants to oversimplify the historical consequences and context, then your comparison may hold.

Unfortunately, comparing the US experience under British rule with India’s colonization is comparing apples to oranges.

The American revolution was really a war between the British government and the elite landowning stratum of the Anglo-Americans who were British descendants themselves. The only way the American Revolution can be remotely analogous to India’s anti-colonialism is if the American Revolution was instigated and dominated by Native Americans. Unfortunately, that’s not how US history actually transpired.

I am also troubled by your seeming assertion that the history of colonialism is of little importance in the part where you said “Regardless of colonialism”. I’m sorry, but the history of colonialism in non-Western societies is something all Westerners….especially those who are ostensibly progressive need to be mindful of in light of what transpired in history. To do otherwise would not show historical ignorance and falling into the trap of White privilege, but further risk antagonizing those who have already had to suffer being under the colonialist yoke for decades or even centuries.

If this is the way you want to bridge the “divide”, as someone who is a POC and who has studied the effects of colonialism in non-Western societies for years……I’m telling you all you’ll end up doing is to alienate the very non-Western women and progressive men you are ostensibly trying to help.

I’ve witnessed this very conflict play out acrimoniously at my undergrad college where non-western feminists at my college were completely alienated from their American counterparts over this very issue because of the privileged White upper/middle-class patronizing attitudes and assumptions towards the non-Western feminists. A conflict which could have been avoided if those American feminists had taken the time to listen to listen and consider what those non-Western feminists had to say about their experiences and activism rather than presumptuously assuming their own inherent “superiority” along with their disgusting and ignorant orientalist attitudes and assumptions. :(

I’m really proud of the work you are doing in India and applaud your patience, your sincerity, and your diplomatic response to your feisty critics. As a “western” feminist who happens to be one of six children (my mom stopped taking birth control pills when she was converted to a fundamentalist branch of Catholicism known as “Opus Dei”) I see many sides to this issue. I can’t imagine life without any one of my 5 siblings and at the same time I see the need to limit our population growth for the sake of both the planet and women’s sanity. Ever hear of the old woman who lived in a shoe, had so many children she didn’t know what to do? Yes, she went crazy. As did my mother by child #4. Thought I’d try to lighten the tension with some humor there. :)

I have participated in many discussions both within and outside of academe regarding population issues, environmental issues, colonialism/imperialism, and feminism on a global scale and while I understand where Raja is coming from with the warning about imposing our “western” ideas I wholeheartedly disagree. The flaw in that argument is that we are comparing one patriarchal culture to another and saying, “Oh we shouldn’t impose our values on another country. It’s not our place.” However, it ignores the fact that women in BOTH the western/wealthy countries such as the U.S. and women in developing countries such as India are living under governments that continue to be predominantly run by men who know little (or care little even if they do know) about the real issues in women’s lives impacting their reproductive health and freedom. That is true in the U.S. (even Obama has not yet come out to strongly support women’s reproductive rights) and it is true in India.

Regardless of the history of colonialism (one thing we have in common is that both India and the U.S. began under British rule and we both kicked them out!) or the complicated puzzle of how to solve the environmental crisis we’re in, we need to remember that the ONLY way to address women’s fertility is to SERVE WOMEN no matter what country we’re talking about. When women are treated with respect, dignity, and compassion by their government and by the international community (I believe that Claire is just such an ambassador) the population problem will solve itself. By no means do I think this is easy to do or that it can be done by white western feminists such as myself imposing our ways on other cultures. Rather, it is being done by NGOs, Peace Corps volunteers, and non-profits such as Women for Women International. In other words, the work gets done when local women have voice and agency and when women work together across cultures for the empowerment of all women. Yes, there will be cultural differences but that is true even in the U.S. Western feminists still struggle to bridge the divides within the women’s movement across race, class, sexual orientation, age, etc. We just need to find better and more creative ways to communicate with each other.

When women in all countries are free from sexual assault, have the right to chose their own spouses, have the right to decide when to have sex with their husbands, have knowledge and access to contraception (not to mention safe and legal abortion) – only then will we begin to solve the population crisis. I do not believe that creating universal policies to tell people how many children to have (while in some contexts well-intended) is the smartest course of action. It is as flawed as the death penalty as an approach to stopping murder in the U.S. but that’s a whole different can of worms. Keep up the good work, Claire! I look forward to reading your future posts.

thanks to jill and then claire for clarifying some of the details and for contextualizing the couple of instances of hyperbole. and as for the itchy trigger fingers in the early replies (raja, liz), i can only say that maybe you need to take a deep breath and recognize that a lot of us also took classes in postcolonial theory and some of us also got good grades! in other words, read the post a bit more carefully rather than using this anonymous venue as a platform to try to recycle what you’ve heard/learned about how westerners should think/act. it’s tired stuff – i remember thinking so about my self-righteous/guilt ridden classmates back in college (i did it too – managed to grow out of it), and i encourage you too to grow out of the self-aggrandizing act of ripping down others, and instead produce something of value yourself, like claire and others have here. it just takes more courage to do so; go on and try it, it actually feels better than knee-jerk crapping on other people’s ideas. sorry if this is belligerent – it’s just that i spend time trying to teach 15 year olds that, rather than just looking for weakness in an opponent to expose, that they can exert energy to find points of critical intellectual convergence, to help grow each other’s ideas. now that takes intellectual strength and conviction!

And Raja, the problem is not necessarily reproductive limits but the fact that they exist only for the underprivileged and that they are used to explicitly keep them underprivileged. The whole point of the post is that the reproductive law is much, much more than that. In a sense, that again is what is meant by failure–the failure to grasp the extent of those ramifications.

That said, here’s some more background. I am doing my MPH at the University of Washington in a program I specifically chose because of it’s community-oriented focus. Our theses, unlike majority of theses in this field, are all community-defined projects and the product of our work is left with the community. Which is to say, I’m not publishing anything. I am working with the Center for Health and Social Justice here, in New Delhi, which is an Indian founded and Indian-run organization, and the research I am doing is what they’ve asked me to undertake on their behalf.

With regard to my feeling as though I’ve failed women here– Ok, you’re right. That was pretty sappy and a bit much to ask you to swallow. Even if I do really feel it. To explain that a bit more, even though Jill did a good job of it herself in her above comment– the feeling of failure comes in the fact that I, admittedly, have spent my career and activist work up to now defending women’s reproductive rights *in America* believing at some level that my knowledge of the reproductive rights needs and experiences of women in America was enough to give me wisdom to understand, in some limited way, the experience and needs of women worldwide. Working here on this project, I am face to face with how totally wrong and imperialist that idea was. And I am not by any means saying that that means I have the right to say I know how all women in India are feeling now, because the range is unlimited– that much, I do know. But it does mean that I am understanding how much more there is to learn bit by bit, and the magnitude is humbling.

With regard to the first comment to my post though, I do need to disagree: I do not think, and I know this opinion is shared by many of the Indian-founded and led social justice organizations in India (should you worry I am again speaking from my imperialist side), that the possibility of “another billlion people” should ever mean the right of a government to violate human rights. Especially when we know from the field data that restrictive population control policies, at least in India, are not effective at curbing population growth. Whatever your position on population growth (is it a problem, isn’t it a problem), the data indicates that population control policies here do not stop population growth. If anything, they exacerbate it. Southern Indian states like Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and others have achieved the Indian Government’s goal of replacement-level total fertility before the government’s deadline of 2013. And none of them have the Two Child Norm policy. It’s reductionist to say that they achieved their replacement level TFR by any one measure, but I find it interesting that Kerala was the state asked first to try out the Two Child Norm. At the end of the trial period, Kerala announced they would not implement the policy and would instead invest in education and health and social services. Meanwhile, states that continue to introduce population control policies at the local level have been experiencing continued growth, not to mention spikes in maternal mortality, unsafe abortions, sex selective abortions (for those who can afford it), and female infanticide (for those who cannot afford an abortion). The sex ratios in Northern India particularly, where the population control policies are most abundant at the state level, are so skewed that in some villages it is difficult to find a girl child. So, again, whatever your position on the “population bomb” issue, I think there are viable and persuasive arguments for why punitive population control policies like the Two Child Norm policy at the Panchayat Raj level are just bad policy. And then there is my personal belief that much of the eagerness to implement and defend policies of this sort is rooted in racism, be it from within India or from the West imposed upon India.

I will do my best to write more carefully next time I post. I won’t have regular access to internet in the next week, and apologize if my number of posts or response to comments is limited. But thanks for all of your comments already. I appreciate constructive dialogue and am genuinely grateful for the chance to get it from you while I’m here doing this work.

People are simply not built, as a whole, to be rational about anything.

Shah8,

Ok…corrected that for ya….and in so doing….strengthened your argument. ;)

We *should* care about reproductive rights, education for women, financial power to the powerless. However, like what we saw above, population coercion is quickly and readily used to defeat all of those purposes. Just empower people, and have equitable access to justice and resources, without worrying about whether that may mean women will turn out to be sluts and pop out baby after baby, and harm the planet, or something.

One good question to be asked is how much of this concern about “overpopulation”/population control by governments and certain special interests/activist groups dominated by the socio-economically privileged is really about the issues of scarce resources….and how much of it is really about the desires and needs of the socio-economic elite to maintain and augment their already great privileges at the expense of everyone else?? From studying how this policy is actually practiced in China along with the insidious rhetoric I’ve heard from some activists…whether self-proclaimed as progressive or not…whether from non-Westerners or Westerners of both progressive and non-progressive stripes….it tends to lean far more toward the latter.