User:Lwinsp2019/sandbox

Peer Editing

The majority of the article that I edited was on the “Intersectionality on a global context” section. I added two paragraphs that expanded the theory of non-western intersectionality. One was from Chandra Mohanty which discussed the “third world woman” and how colonialism has continued to pervade the attitude of feminists toward countries in the global south. The other was from Christine Bose who discussed analyzing gender inequalities over multiple nations and the importance of not homogenizing the global South. In particular, Bose made sure to differentiate the national identities from the global ones. I was hoping for Naiti to read over these two paragraphs, in context with the current paragraph, and make sure that it added necessary information and that it was cohesive with the original information. Ultimately I wanted this section to provide a narrative that not only wasn’t seen on the page, but also is often ignored in academic teachings of intersectionality.

For example, Chandra Mohanty discusses alliances between women throughout the world as intersectionality in a global context. She rejects western feminist theory, especially when it writes about global women of color and generally associated “third world women.” She argues that “third world women” are often thought of as a homogenous entity, when, in fact, their experience of oppression is informed by their geography, history, and culture. When western feminists write about women in the global South in this way, they dismiss the inherent intersecting identities that are present in the dynamic of feminism in the global South. Mohanty questions the performance of intersectionality and relationality of power structures within the USA and colonialism and how to work across identities with this history of colonial power structures. This lack of homogeneity and intersecting identities can be seen through Feminism in India which goes over how women in India practice feminism within social structures and continuing effects of colonization that differ from that of Western and other non-Western countries.

This is elaborated on by Christine Bose who discusses a global use of intersectionality which works to remove associations of specific inequalities with specific institutions, while showing that these systems generate intersectional effects. She uses this approach to develop a framework that can analyze gender inequalities across different nations and differentiates this from an approach (the one that Mohanty was referring to) which, one, paints national-level inequalities as the same and, two, differentiates only between the global North and South. This is manifested through the intersection of global dynamics like economics, migration, or violence, with regional dynamics, like histories of the nation or gendered inequalities in education and property education.

In her speech, “Ain’t I a Woman?,” Truth identifies the difference between the oppression of white and black women. She says that white women are often treated as emotional and delicate while black women are subjected to racist abuse and demeaned as a woman. However, this was largely dismissed and pushed down by white feminists who worried that this would distract from their goal of women’s suffrage and instead focus attention on emancipation.

Peer Review

I like how you are focusing on the historical background of intersectionality, the section certainly excludes information and makes statements that are not contextualized or expanded upon. As you have done by adding the information about Sojourner Truth to this section (a much more appropriate place for this information than in the Feminist Thought section), it might be worthwhile to precede and surround the examples and references in the Historical Background section with an accessible explanation of the problematic dynamics of first-wave feminism.

The first sentence references “dynamics that have often been overlooked by feminist movements and theory,” but rather than clearly stating those dynamics, the writers proceed to quote bell hooks without explaining the quote. As an amateur in feminist theory and movements, I definitely needed more context to understand what exactly intersectionality challenged – perhaps linking the page for first-wave feminism and adding a modifier explaining early feminist theory before the quote would give all readers sufficient background to understanding the context of the notion bell hooks states – a clarifying modifier on what hooks means by “a woman’s fate” would also be helpful. In these ways, people who are unfamiliar with all concepts of feminism could better understand the context of bell hooks’ apt quote on the emergence of intersectionality.

The very next sentence discusses the historical exclusion of black women – these first two sentences alone demonstrate the issue of presenting information without facts. It is not until the last sentence of the paragraph that the writers reference the multi-faceted homogeneity of first-wave feminism. The sentence: “Recognizing that the forms of oppression experienced by white middle-class women were different from those experienced by black, poor, or disabled women, feminists began seeking to understand the ways in which gender, race, and class combine to ‘determine the female destiny’,” is explanatory, but the semantics could be worded to be more inclusive of the groups that were excluded from the feminist movement, as you recognized and fixed in your edits in the section on Intersectionality in a global context by adding perspectives of feminists in the global south that challenge the western feminist ideologies that impose American intersectionality everywhere, without considering how the conditions of women of color vary across cultures. These additions are exceptional, and I have no commentary on your pertinent

While intersectionality was conceptualized by black feminists recognizing and acting to fix the racial and socio-economic inequality in first-wave feminism, in a general description of the “issues that were ignored by early social justice movements,” it is important to explicitly note that these movements were exclusionary to all who were not cis-gendered, heterosexual, white, middle-class, and able-bodied women. Generalizing the language while discussing the shortcomings of first-wave feminism in this section emphasizes the need for intersectionality, without taking away from the factual account of how black feminists were the first to challenge the exclusivity of feminist thought, leading to third-wave feminism, as described in the second paragraph. Another worthwhile addition might be a link to the third-wave feminism Wikipedia page when you mention it as the first to include intersectionality. Adding more context is important; the Wikipedia page is meant for an audience that may or may not know anything about feminism, so clarifying the incoherency of this section by expanding on some ideas with examples and edits to make sure the concepts are accurately portrayed in an understandable way is essential. I really liked the addition of Chandra Mohanty’s work. It also might be useful to look into or mention examples of the difference experiences of oppression and how feminism in these experiences is different. Perhaps link the page for Feminism in India or Bengal Renaissance, which explains how Indian feminism catapulted with the activism of men, or the page for African feminism, which emphasizes your point and references the lack of homogeneity in different feminisms, including within the African context.