Post colonial feminism

[Diaryofamadwoman]

I'm not sure if I'm posting in the right place here - but I'm having trouble understanding some post colonial feminism. What does "attempting to advance a gendered analysis by overcoming constructed binaries reiterated by structuralist approaches to gender" actually mean and in what way does that benefit women in the global South? Maybe it does - can someone explain it like I'm 5 or direct me to somewhere to learn more about this

I completely understand the need to listen to women - particularly those who have been double colonised. But why then do a number of journal articles I've read on post colonial feminism not centre the voices of the actual women but seem to be imposing western Liberal feminist values on them?

If anyone can offer some thoughts on this, I find this all really confusing and the language doesn't help

It doesn’t mean much and I work in a related field 😂 it basically just says they want to look at gender in a non binary way, but structuralism hasn’t been in fashion for about sixty years now so it sounds to me like there’s a lot of straw-manning going on. What’s the context for this extract?

I completely understand the need to listen to women - particularly those who have been double colonised. But why then do a number of journal articles I've read on post colonial feminism not centre the voices of the actual women but seem to be imposing western Liberal feminist values on them?

Yes - ironically it’s the epitome of cultural imperialism. They don’t see it, though, because everything is fashion in academia, and woe betide you if you don’t go along with the dominant set of orthodoxies.

Thank you for replying - a narrative analysis of promotional tourism images

That was the impression I got. But I find it so mindbending I constantly doubt myself

It's drivel.

The implication is that before being invaded etc by Western empire building counties. Of which there were plenty.

All those areas. Didn't know what male and female were. And didn't impose sex roles.

It's bizarre.

Anything that talks about that. Read it or not. But assume it's drivel.

It's a colonialist view in itself. It takes a broad brush and applies it generally. It makes massive statements about how people in a load of different countries with different cultures and with vast populations diversity of religion etc etc were before and after. As if 'they' were all the same. As if the 'white man' coming was so powerful as to totally dismantle thousands of years of culture etc just like that. And before that. It was all lovely and everyone was free to live how they wanted etc etc.

It's utter drivel. That sounds fancy. To persuade people that... I'm not actually sure what now I think of it.

Omg I need "explain like I'm 5" for this whole thread.

Going back to the top

basically just says they want to look at gender in a non binary way

I may be dim (and I really may be) but gender (rather than sex) is binary. That's the problem.

Honestly, after recent brushes with current academia and students working at phd level I think they're all narcissistic and bonkers. Ffs go and do some thing that has actual hands on impact in the world.

"attempting to advance a gendered analysis by overcoming constructed binaries reiterated by structuralist approaches to gender"

Sounds like word vomit to me.

A lot of this kind of stuff seems geared towards creating pretentious job roles to keep academics and 'professionals' in various countries employed and on a payroll instead of having any practical value and genuine improvement in women's lives.

Maybe it does - can someone explain it like I'm 5 or direct me to somewhere to learn more about this

Why bother? Pretentious drivel all of it.

Does post colonialism assume that cultures were fixed prior to white western imperialism?

Yes - ironically it’s the epitome of cultural imperialism. They don’t see it, though, because everything is fashion in academia, and woe betide you if you don’t go along with the dominant set of orthodoxies.

Education too. It's hit me particularly over the last few years. Highlightergate was the peak.

33 I feel I need to understand where they're coming from in order to point out why it's rubbish.

The stuff spouted at me in teaching is using big words and bollocks as a way to flummox. When I ask why no one can answer. (SLT) So I'm asking why more and more. The bollocks is receding as they couldn't answer me. younger staff are too scared to.

Nonny is bang on. There's an epidemic of academic snake oil. And it's rancid.

Something tells me even the most 'savage' of communities liberated of their resources and culture by colonising powers still knew the difference between males and females.

As NiceGerbil said its a massively sweeping generalisation and made by people with agendas rather than genuine academic enterprise.

Why bother? Pretentious drivel all of it.

Quite. If someone has something true and important to say, they make the effort to say it as clearly as possible.

This is someone prioritising the etiquette of the speech modes of their peers. There's probably a conscious effort to avoid saying anything concrete that could be "problematic".

It keeps talking about 'overcoming essentialist dichotomies' - (man/woman) this is only a priority in western academia surely? And has no emancipatory potential for the women they're talking about?

I just feel pretty gaslit by the whole thing

Good point WarriorN and well done for calling it out.

The implication is that before being invaded etc by Western empire building counties. ...All those areas didn't know what male and female were and didn't impose sex roles.

All based on the premise that Western colonialism was entirely bad and no good came of it anywhere, in this case for women.

So no mention of the outlawing and suppression of widow-burning in Africa and India, for example, and no critique of rapes in Chinese prisons of Ouigha women. Etc.

Jaysmith71, I remember a quote from a senior British army officer at the time they were making suttee illegal in India.
The local leader told him “It is our culture, to burn widows on the husband’s funeral pyre.”
He replied words to the effect “If you continue, be aware - it is our culture to hang murderers.”
The burning stopped! And I doubt many potential victims complained about cultural imperialism.

And this assumes all colonized cultures were patriarchal. Where matriarchal lineage was respected, if there were any “gender non conforming” men were there they would still be men. See the Rae Rae in Tahiti, fa’faine in Samoa and Mahu in Hawaii. You would not ever call them women and to be so would be an affront to the gods and disrespectful to your mother and the women.

In these cultures mother is held in a place of honor next to god as your creator. (Not god from the colonizers… gods and ancestors from their traditional religion and pantheon of gods). As a female child is born she inherently holds creation possibility, therefore higher status than a man in general for that fact. To compare a man to her or to say he is a woman would be wrong and inaccurate and for them, even in a way blasphemous. You cannot be greater than what creates you. Your mother is your god, and you as a man cannot be your mother and give life, therefore you are not god and to be compared to your god as act as you are your god is highly disrespectful. Not every culture thinks like European cultures on men and women as we ourselves know it.

Also linguistically these cultures have words to exactly describe “gender non conforming” men so there is no need for western so called “liberal” feminism to “educate” them. They know exactly what a trans woman is. And for them it is a man who is gender non conforming. But he is not a woman and to say so in their culture is not only disrespectful, it shows a clear lack of understanding and shows a colonial mindset and disdain for these cultures.

They don’t need our help to understand “trans”. This is just an example of white people co opting and using people of colour for their own devices and to prop up nonsense.

I don’t get how they don’t see what kind of territory they are wading into here. I can’t imagine me as a white Swedish woman explaining to someone in Kenya or Papua New Guinea that they should accept my opinion on what they should believe about women and men.

I am GC and I don’t believe In trans ideaology. I also don’t think people have any business trying to educate any non western cultures or co opting the culture of people of colour and indigenous culture of the Americas (two spirit i hear often being trotted out by clueless white people who are deep into the TRA who have no idea what this actually means to indigenous ppl) to persuade people to accept the foolishness that is the western feminism ideas that anyone can change their sex. I’m pretty sure these people have seen and heard enough from us.

Babdoc

In the days of Company Rule, before the 'Mutiny,' after which such things were frowned upon, Indian women in droves attached themselves to British soldiers, who did not beat them or generally treat them as livestock put to work in the fields. These relationships created the so-called Anglo-Indians, and in the case of the soldiers from Staffs, left them with a longing for Indian chipatis that gave rise when they got home to Staffordhsire oatcakes.

@MarshmallowSwede

Well said.

MarshmallowSwede

After the 'Mutiny,' (or 'Revolt' or 'Uprising') in 1857, the East India Company stepped back and the Raj was nationalised. Then the discovery of quinine made it possible for more Westerners to live in the tropics without succumbing to malaria, and there was a wave of feminisation of the Raj, with the Memshahibs moving in and taking control of the big house and the estate while Sahib was away.

This 'feminsing of Empire' as Jan Morris calls it brought many changes and many resentments among Indian men, leading to the world portrayed by EM Forster where English women like Adela and Mrs Moore were central to the operation of the state and the law.

@Jaysmith71

I’m not sure of the cultural nuance because I’m not British. Can you explain a bit more about what you mean about Adela and Mrs. Moore? I think I miss something in there. Do you mean they play a part on the upholding of the colonial rule and ideaology ? I’m sorry as I mentioned before I’m Swedish so there are some nuances that I don’t think I have a point of reference to. Especially when it comes to the mindset to women in colonial India. Can you explain a bit more as it sound extremely interesting and some nuance that would be useful to know. Thanks so much!

Marshmallow

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Passage_to_India