In a number of Western radical and liberal feminist writings Mohanty detects the so-called 'colonialist move' which consists of producing the third world Woman as a singular and monolithic subject. This constituting of a colonial Other in these white Western feminist texts on women in the third world is, according to Mohanty, due to three analytical presuppositions in these texts.

First of all, the assumption of the category of '(third world) women' as a coherent group with identical interests experiences and goals prior to their entry in the socio-political and historical field. This Western feminist discourse defines third world women as being subjects 'outside' social relations instead of looking at the way these women are constituted through these social structures. Economic, religious and familial structures are judged by Western standards; the 'typical' Third world Woman is thus being defined as religious, family-oriented, legal minors, illiterate and domestic. The attitude of white feminists towards third world women is thus very paternalistic, as if it is saying to them that 'they' are not yet that far in feminism but we will impose our Western ideas upon them and show them how to get feministic. Through this producing of a Third World Other, white Western feminists are discursively representing themselves as being sexually liberated, free-minded, in control of their own lives and secular. Behind all this lies the Western universalistic notion that the 'third world' hasn't yet evolved to the extend the West has. Mohanty's position on this arrogant Western universalism implicitly carries also a anti-humanist message, as she wants to do away with the humanist notion of the subject as a coherent rational secular monolith. Note also that Mohanty here is referring to a self-representation of Western feminists and not to a material reality. We also saw this slippage being criticized by De Lauretis.

Secondly, the model of power which these Western feminist writings imply, namely the humanist, classical notion of men as oppressors and women as oppressed is taken up by these white scholars. This concept is defenitely not adequate, says Mohanty, as it implies a universal notion of patriarchy and thus only stresses the binary 'men versus women'. Furthermore, in not taking into account the various socio-political contexts, women are 'robbed' of their historical and political agency. This also was a strong argument De Lauretis in a way made in her article. Mohanty is thus, like De Lauretis, pleading for a politics of location and a more Foucaulian model of power, so that both the colonialist move made by some Western feminist scholars can be made explicit as being a discursive institution, and that third world women, placed in their own particular historical and political contexts, now can have moments of empowerment and with this a diverse, heterogeneous sort of subjectivity. In this way, Mohanty is deconstructing the idea of 'first world woman as subject' versus the 'third world woman as object' which eventually leads to an opening up of theoretical space to talk about differences among third world women, and women in general.

And thirdly, Mohanty criticizes Western methodological practices which are over-simplified and are in fact just trying to find 'proof' of various cases of powerless women in order to support the above mentioned classical notion of (third world) women as powerless victims. The white feminist concept of 'sisterhood' is therefore also criticized by Mohanty, as it implies a false sense of common experiences and goals; as if all women are oppressed by a monolithic, conspiring sort of patriarchal dominance. This idea certainly can't be fruitful, says Mohanty; it only paralyses women. Rather than 'sisterhood', the idea of solidarity appeals more to her.

http://www.klari.net/ingrid/articles/femtheo.html#mohanty

EmanuelaOrlandi posted:
well w/r/t the end of that article I think it's ridiculous to claim that 'standpoint feminism' i in anyway outdated. I think standpoint is where it's at and all that anti- shit is juts white 'postmodernist' bullshit trying to reclaim dominance because it's ilke 'oh god we can't have it be standard practice in academia to make it expected for people to speak for themselves all the time!'

it doesnt argue that

However, I certainly wouldn't agree that standpoint feminism is nowadays completely outdated, though it has being criticized for it's essentialistic tendencies and singular notion of identity. Standpoint feminism is still a useful strategy, as we can see what's still hapening in a lot of paternalistic 'development' literature. I would suggest that for the complete 'development' idea as a whole we must still repeat Mohanty's words: "... only from the vantage point of the west is it possible to define the third world as underdeveloped and economically dependent". Also, Mohanty is criticizing the Western feminist idea that secularization is the first step towards feminism. Secularization may have played a big role in the becoming of a white Western feminist consciousness, but this may certainly not be so for women globally. Moreover, white feminists tend to forget the diversity, the importance and the posibilities for empowerment of religions in other places of the world, she says.

Ironicwarcriminal posted:
All my information about the south comes from True Blood

it's pretty cool you've come such a long way that steamy gay interracial relationships are acceptable even in backwoods Louisiana bayous.

true blood is a far more accurate representation of life in the south than anyone will ever admit

discipline posted:
I'd watch True Blood but Anna Paquin's revoltingly fake southern accent makes me literally nauseous. Literally nauseous. There is literally nothing more nauseating to a Southerner than someone who pretends to affect the accent in a serious way.

watch the Arabic fandub problem solved