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

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

Or anyone's lives. I did hope that along with losing the office Christmas party one of the few positive aspects to come out of Covid/ lockdown might be a reassessment of what really matters and the ditching of this sort of rubbish academia.

It does seem extraordinary that the "rules" of identity came from the "boomer" generation so despised by the very same young academics now uncritically disseminating this antiquated sexist rubbish. They have been had.

The abolishment of sati has a more fascinating and nuanced history - little to do with any actual concern for the women involved, but more about British and Hindu men trying to influence different aspects of culture and religious practices, according to a paper from 1987.
It is summarised in the link below.
indiaink.org/2021/03/04/sati/

The mediocre 'activist academic' types seem incapable of understanding the complexities of history and its outcomes, preferring simplistic narratives of goodies vs baddies. Actual scholars are able to examine the different motivations of key players and can see that even relatively positive developments might have evolved out of self-interest and power struggles. There's rarely a simple 'good' and 'bad' side because humans aren't one dimensional.

Well straight off that speaks of "The British Government" allowing Sati when this was under Company rule, before the creation of the India Office in 1858.

Talk of "British Courts" is also problematic as this seems at cursory reading to imply the High Court in London etc, when what is being spoken of here are Indian courts in India with Indian judges and an Indian Bar administering colonial law imposed by the Viceroy.

Rather like the discourse on the abolition of slavery that says white policians like Wilberforce had nothing to do with it, it was all down to black campaigners like Equiano etc, this is a facile overreaction to previous narratives that neglected the role of non-white abolitionists.

The campaign to abolish Sati was led by Christian and Hindu lobbyists, and Christianity is not a Western imposition on India where it arrived with Saint Thomas in the first century. The point is the abolition was imposed by British power enforced with British guns, but for which it would not have been suppressed.

@WarriorN

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.

Isn't gender more or less binary because it is based on sex, which IS binary. It's just binary is a somewhat more fuzzy way? Of course it depends on the definition of "gender".

@Diaryofamadwoman

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

Jane Clare Jones site discusses some of these matters, including essentialism.

@Jaysmith71

Well straight off that speaks of "The British Government" allowing Sati when this was under Company rule, before the creation of the India Office in 1858.

Talk of "British Courts" is also problematic as this seems at cursory reading to imply the High Court in London etc, when what is being spoken of here are Indian courts in India with Indian judges and an Indian Bar administering colonial law imposed by the Viceroy.

Rather like the discourse on the abolition of slavery that says white policians like Wilberforce had nothing to do with it, it was all down to black campaigners like Equiano etc, this is a facile overreaction to previous narratives that neglected the role of non-white abolitionists.

The campaign to abolish Sati was led by Christian and Hindu lobbyists, and Christianity is not a Western imposition on India where it arrived with Saint Thomas in the first century. The point is the abolition was imposed by British power enforced with British guns, but for which it would not have been suppressed.

Yes, Christianity was introduced to India much earlier. The paper, or rather the summary of it, talked more about Victorian values. Quite keen to read other sources if you know of any papers on the subject.

Yes exactly ComprehensiveTea!

Great post Marshmallow at 8:30.

I'm confused by one of my own posts now. (Blaming chest infection.)

😣 heavy stuff for a sat am.

All great posts btw.

Didn't know that about the staff cakes

[quote MarshmallowSwede]@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[/quote]
They do not name countries.

They use a broad brush.

Many European countries had colonies. And still have countries that are linked to them.

I also query whether saying oh X had no hierarchy based on sex at all is always true? And/ or gender roles. Whether or not they also had some other roles that (usually afaik) males could assume.

The countries colonised is a massive range of religions cultures, massive differences with countries. Societal norms etc.

India was the largest country in the English empire. It's vast the population huge. A myriad of differences between regions religions etc. To sweep all that diversity in so many things into. Oh they didn't know about gender roles before the British. Is.

The definition of imperialist/ colonialist thinking.

I imagine that depending on where you live you know more about different countries who were subject to this.

I'd say in the UK well mainly England?. India is probably the most well known. The jewel in the empires crown and that.

I'm not at all convinced that all was love and equality before we came?

I don't want to get into the different argument about the impact because that is a separate and very shouty topic.

I would cite the caste system as indicating that many it wasn't all lovely before the British? No comment on whether it was better or worse after like I say another topic.

But surely no one can see the caste system as a thing that indicates a society that it yay everyone is accepted? In India it's illegal and they are still fighting to end it.

Which incidentally leads to the other point.

The idea that thousands of years of religious cultural etc beliefs can be altered by the white man saying no do it like this. Assumes surely. That those told to change were ready to forget all that. To just fold. And not just on surface to get by. But to totally ditch all that history just like that. To think that would happen esp in such a massive area across all those people with so many differences etc. I think that's kind of. Well it's not imagining that there would be any depth to what was before for so so long. That the culture etc was not really that strong in the first place.

Someone mentioned suttee. I don't know how widespread it was but it was definitely a practice.

That doesn't shout super sex/ gender roles really, does it.

@Eucalyptustrees

It does seem extraordinary that the "rules" of identity came from the "boomer" generation so despised by the very same young academics now uncritically disseminating this antiquated sexist rubbish. They have been had.

Now I have never been interested much in history (for various reasons) so this is scant and certainly incomplete.

The puritans were a wide influence on our culture esp English and I'm guessing more in the SE and more populated areas? This is what I thought when going round Cromwell house which is a really good museum by the way. Even I found it interesting!

I have always wondered why English weddings that I've been to I mean the standard set up. Are so much less.. fun? Celebratory. Etc. Jewish, Hindu and Greek weddings are so joyful in comparison. And in Somerset and Devon there's been some with more of a different tradition more lively etc.

Cromwell? I mean fun was banned. Essentially. Dancing bad. Etc.

Then the other one I know was the Victorians. Covering table legs and whatnot. Of course out in real life there was massive debauchery criminality. But the part that seemed to stick was this idea of what's respectable.

So I don't think it's 'boomers' who did. Whatever is meant by rules of identity? I don't even know whether that means setting them or breaking them but either way they weren't the first or the last to impose strong sex roles, nor to try to dismantle them. (Dismantle eg women through the ages, 70s feminists here etc.)

I was referring to the current gender identity "rules" and the age group of the people that negotiated the GRA.

Aren’t they arguing against their own facts again - saying on the one hand that we’ve always had Two Spirit, Fakaleiti, Hijra etc around the world, but on the other hand saying that gender roles are imposed by colonialists.

Thanks eucalyptus. Understand now!

Operation-
It's just more appropation.
Anything that is found that can be used is taken.
The history, the actual facts, the reality, the actual reasons etc of these things is not of any interest.
Arguments and aspects etc of so many things have been just nicked without a second thought or any actual interest in whoever's thing they have purloined
eg

USA racism all the history of that huge civil rights movement. Saying no to us is like segregation. Keeping a group of women out of women's toilets.

Women's rights. So much.
Women should be able to wear what they want. Judgement of women not being feminine enough is oppressive.
Intersectionality.
'one is not born but becomes a woman'
We must not be defined or constrained by our reproductive function
Etc

Those with DSDs

In this case, any and all cultures that have or had or have more than one category for males in terms of sex role (with its own membership criteria roles social position etc) and / or for females.
I can think of one example and expect there are more. Of females (in this case children) having an additional sex role. Due to the oppression of women and girls. I've never seen that cited. Funny that.

Gay rights. So so much to long to list.

And so many others.

Oh and this constantly using arguments related to USA. Picking them up and using them as if universal. Applying them to countries with totally different histories so they are nonsensical. Refusing to acknowledge this in any way when pointed out. Insisting that it's valid 100%.

THAT is surely a mindset that is reminiscent of an imperialist mindset . Enforcing your view on others. Ignoring any differences if they don't get the result you want, insisting that your way is right and others are wrong. You are and have been whatever I say. I know best about your culture history etc than you do.

@OperationDessertStorm

Aren’t they arguing against their own facts again - saying on the one hand that we’ve always had Two Spirit, Fakaleiti, Hijra etc around the world, but on the other hand saying that gender roles are imposed by colonialists.

Yeah, it's kind of odd. This is an over generalization I'm sure, but straight off, to put feminine men into another class doesn't stand out as entirely accepting of male femininity.

It also totally ignores any gender role expectations, restrictions, hierarchy, etc.

Which is totally half arsed.

Eg hirja have existed for ages but were in shit position in society.

@WarriorN

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.

thank god someone said it.

I really believe the academic class, not necessarily in the western model but in some form, is an important part of civilization.

And there is a lot to be said for academics having some more practical experience in the world, however they get it. If it's about their area of study, it seems necessary to me, or you get these people that can give you a list of the characteristics that make something a horse without any real relationship to what a horse actually is. They wouldn't know if their list was complete bollocks.

At the same time I'm not sure the problem in universities now is mostly about people being in an ivory tower, though that exacerbates it. I tend to blame to drive to constant innovation and change, as if any new idea is better than any old idea. It distorts the way people think about ideas, and it also distorts the process of acquiring degrees and publishing.

Gender isn't binary though. In that.

Different male/ female people have always had different expectations and roles applied.

Depending on loads of things.

Eg in the UK.

Women and girls now (but through history this has happened but differing).

The gender role for women and girls will be massively different depending on so many factors. Including how acceptable it is to be GNC. Eg-

Religion esp closed groups.
Wealth/ class.
Area growing up and/ or family from non UK culture. (Even different UK countries).
Prevailing political views of different sorts in family/ area.

Yes of course there are expectations and behaviours that are universal. And the hierarchy (men above women) is not violated.

The only difference though is that we don't give different specific names for the groups that are kind of recognised. Usually not nice and to do with wealth/ class generally I'd say.

The hierarchical situation in the cultures usually cited is not usually / ever mentioned is it.

Lobster interesting points. Thank you for raising the point about academic class/ uni.

Reading it I thought-

Agree not about ivory towers. Linked to my massive dislike of the lazy/ handy dismissal of women with voices who take the gender> sex view as middle class which apparently means you never have and never will experience what men can be like.

Anyway.

• I'd say a LOT of the behaviour of universities is because fees were introduced. Fees that unless you're really well off, represent a large amount of money. And that's on top of other costs often not insubstantial. The student has become the customer. In general there is competition to attract customers. To make your offering as attractive as possible you naturally will ensure you meet their requirements. It's a big purchase/ sale every time.

Most students don't care. Of either sex. I'm sure. Don't know/ don't care. Studying french or physics or architecture. Irrelevant. Unlikely to be put off by this stuff.

Lgbtqi+ and allies the stonewall section. Care VERY much and are NOISY. and things get column inches. So. Important to appeal to them. Gender studies etc. Important to attract.

I think a lot of it to do with cold hard cash.

And totally agree academics v important.

Without those who learn, research, discover, theorise etc then we wouldn't have.. well anything much. Even if restricting to those in uni posts. Loads of important output. Esp areas like astronomy, physics, computing, archeology, and so many more. If wider. Labs etc all over the place doing work that improves lives etc. New cancer drugs eg. And onto all the people all over the world who studied and applied etc outside the current system.

It would be interesting to see if there has been more resilience around academic freedoms in places where there aren't university fees.

The other side of that coin is how many people teaching in university now are not tenured, and not even in tenure track positions, they are just hired on contract to teach a course for a term. They have no security and are paid a pittance. They aren't in a position to rock any boats.