At the beginning of this reading I was confused about why someone would think about splitting women up in different groups or classes, phrases like “all for one, one for all” and “we are stronger together” came to mind. I was thinking that women could only be taken seriously if they acted as one entity. What I did not take into consideration was that there are differences between classes as well as races. Some of them might even be intended. The problem is now that not every group in the group of women will be satisfied with one goal achieved. So how are we going to decide what the next step is? Should one group be the leader and when their goal is achieved should they help the others achieve theirs? Or is it more important to stop thinking in different classes, races or groups first so that women could agree on one action? But no matter where we start (and I really cannot decide where that should be) it always comes down to one thing: the various gaps between the genders as well as the races have to be closed.
Furthermore what I found very disturbing was the story of the Spanish speaking woman who was turned away from a shelter many times just because her English was not good enough, after all her safety should stand above everything else. This is one occasion where I think that the before mentioned concept of “one group as the leader in order the help the others” failed completely. On the other hand: would there even be such a thing as a shelter if one group hadn’t taken the lead? And here we go again…
October 21, 2009 at 2:10 am |
A very thoughtful analysis of the problems with identity politics!