Feminist Hypocrisy

“The Masters Tool Will Never Dismantle the Masters House” by Audre Lorde represents a vivid metaphor (The Masters Tool) satirizing females for claiming to be feminists when, in fact, they seem to be following the patriarchal system previously set out by men by classifying and segregating women into groups (in this case, white, upper-class feminists vs. black, third-world, and/or lesbian feminists). Her central argument reflects upon the irony of this situation; she expresses frustration in the ignorance and hypocrisy of these women by falling into the same errors as the men they protested against. Further, Lorde emphasizes the need for a more unified everyday thought and existence between all feminist women, calling for an identity in “our [women] relative roles in joint survival” (27). 

While I agree with her point that it is hypocritical of certain feminists to classify themselves as better or more elite than others based on social rank, I find that Lorde seems to neglect that people are different and have different general outlooks on the world, even if they stand for feminism. The fact is some feminists come from white upper-class families and others from a third-world country so naturally they will view the world differently. Even if they share a common belief that men have mistreated women for thousands of years, the fact is white women did not go through slavery, wealthy women do not suffer the same as women in third-world countries, heterosexual women may not always agree with homosexuality, etc. Lorde makes a compelling argument, yet fails to fully consider the context between different classes of feminists and states, “This is a diversion of energies and a tragic repetition of racist patriarchal thought." (27). Maybe I am a cynic. Maybe I am a realist. Maybe being around an all-male environment severely sways my views towards feminism. I just do not believe bickering over the women involved in the movement serves a purpose; rather, feminists should focus on their commonalities and neglect their differences for the greater good of the cause.  

"Who is 'We'?" -- A Closer Look at Feminist Theory

Audre Lorde's The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle the Masters House and Adrienne Rich's Notes Toward a Politics of Location are both very critical reactions to the broad concept of Feminism. Both authors contest that the feminist theory derived from the white, middle to upper-class, educated, and Western-thinkers leaves out or marginalizes the views, contributions, and/or beliefs of women who do not fit that mold. In her essay, Lorde argues that the feminist movement cannot prosper so long as feminists reject or ignore the ideas of other feminists. She relates this ignorance of white feminism to the problems of patriarchy, the tool responsible for the inequality between man and woman:

"Women of today are still being called upon to stretch across the gap of male ignorance and to educate men as to our existence and our needs. This is an old and primary tool of all oppressors to keep the oppressed occupied with the master's concerns. Now we hear it is the task of women of Color to educate white women-in the face of tremendous resistance-as to our existence, our differences, our relative roles in our joint survival. This is a diversion of energies and a tragic repetition of racist patriarchal thought." (27)

Adrienne Rich makes a similar claim to including and embracing different views/takes on feminism. Rich goes on at length about how she has come to understand feminism through her own experiences through talking about "the body." Rich then goes on to critique many on feminists for attempting to speak for women as a whole. She argues that the concept of feminism must be inclusive to women of all race, religion, sexuality, socioeconomic status, political views, etc.

 

"There is no liberation that only knows how to say 'I'; there is no collective movement that speaks for each of us all the way through." (37)

Rich ends her argument by explaining that the shape of the feminist theory has deep roots in the African-American struggles for equality (41). This idea that Black feminism, in many ways, has a more legitimate claim to the harsh realities of discrimination and inequality shows that white liberal feminists need to fully commit themselves to including and understanding these arguments, as well as others, into their feminist rhetoric.

Lorde's Duplicitous Theory

Audre Lorde’s The Master’s Tools Will Never Dismantle The Master’s House, is bitey attack on the separation of feminist thought due to refusal for white feminist to recognize the inherent difference of the Black, lesbian and Third World woman.  While I applaud her gutsy and straight forward talking, her tactics were sort of cheap. She clumsily tried to clump the Third World, lesbian and black into one category. Which may be an identity for some, but for most these three things are quintessentially different.

I doubt Third World women care to much about “being” progressive feminist with the many pressing issues that cloud their existence.  Perhaps marriage or human rights is a little higher on the priority list of a lesbian Oh and lets steer clear of the whole “black struggle” for I can spend many moons and even some suns on that topic.

Lorde needs to be cognizant that her collectivizing is just as harmful as the white woman ignoring the house keeper’s feminist thoughts. By trying to sound “provocative”, Lorde accidentally perpetuates the very thought pattern she condemns. Under her paper the Third World, Black woman and lesbian become one and their individual differences are blurred. Their goals are simply to be recognized by white women.

Despite this error, Lorde’s sort of spill-the-beans method was intriguing. An image of three overweight white women, fumbling through contacts, hastily trying to find a diverse black woman at the “last hour” stayed with me. She hints at something much greater than placing poor Black lesbians at a conference. She sheds light on the “token”. White America has clung to its colored representation; a few specs here and there and now are conference is set. This is problematic and while Lorde doesn’t spend much time on it, her illumination is welcomed and notable.  

Feminism-Rich and Lorde

In the pieces “The Masters Tools Will Never Dismantle the Masters House” by Audre Lorde and “Notes towards Politics of Location” by Adrienne Rich we discover that there are some serious road blocks in the Feminist theory.  Lorde’s main argument was that the whole field of feminism is largely white middle class feminism.  Which to an extent I agree with, after all there is very little input from the poor, black and third world women.  Lorde even comments on how her own voice was inadequately represented due to the fact that the lesbian voice was also underrepresented.  She goes onto say “Even the two black women who did present here were literally found at the last hour” (25).  What sort of message does that send?  Which is why Lorde goes on to critique the field of feminine theory.  By arguing against the oversimplification of ‘special third world women’ as one collective group and pushing for understanding of their difference—not tolerance—Lorde hopes to break down the ignorance that is holding them back.  Her arguments do make a lot of sense, because we often identify with our country, race, class or sexuality way before we even identify ourselves as a man or a woman.  For example, when asked to identify myself Latino is the first thing that comes to mind.  And it is this type of thinking that causes so much division in the field of Feminist theory. Rich focused on the question ‘who is we?’ (41) And continues Lorde’s claims about the division in their field. “I was defined as white before I was defined as female” (32) Rich does pose her solution to the problem though.  She argues that we can’t shirk from the challenge because it will only isolate white feminism from the other movements involving women.  Rich pushes for figuring out who the ‘we’ is.  Over all she is for the inclusion of other feminists, stating that she needs to realize that her feelings are not at the center.  Her claim is a good one, but things like that are easier said than done.

Identity in feminism

Both of these authors Audre Lorde, the author of an essay titled The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle the Masters House and Adrienne Rich the author of Notes Toward A Politics Of Location, seem to be from very different, contrasted backgrounds.  Lorde is a black, lesbian, feminist who feel that feminism cannot be defined by a single list of goals, motives and shared struggles; rather feminism is divided into many different categories like race, country of origin, class and so on and so forth.  Lorde expresses that she believes that woman are constantly called to fill men in where they are ignorant of woman and that men and the nature of a patriarchal society speaks volumes to the ignorance of men.  This sort of frustration, I find merited as Lorde points out that with different social-economic status and related factors such as race the struggles for women can be entirely different.  This seems to relate to a idea presented by Rich as she views the world and her existence as one small piece of an ever expanding universe with untold diversity.  There are signs in each essay that suggest that diversity is a source of power.  Lorde says this directly; however Rich seems to more subtly approach this conclusion as she addresses the it with questions like, "Who is we?" (41).  For Rich there are many questions involving identity of a personal and collective matter, nevertheless Rich recognizes on page 38 that once something that needs to be changed is identified that the "we" has the power to change it.  The only issue that remains is finding out who the we is.  Is the we feminists in general, or black feminists, or white, or third world, or lesbian feminist?  To what extent does the establishment of identity lend itself to power for change?  Do you need a large group or many small groups with similarities that bind them?

Unstable Language

…his Journals

assume a household use;

We learn to shape from them, where nothing was

The language of a race

It is through this journal that a different language is birthed. We must assume this for if this were not the case the journal would not have to “assume a household use” it would have already been one. Therefore we can also infer that through language another race has been created in the native’s eyes; for we can only really know our selves through the juxtaposition of the other. So essentially the “learning” of language is to comprehend the idea of other races and consequently, the idea of the human race. Before “his journal” came there were no other humans, but there were a variety of fish, different species. This formation of language that beget the idea of race, that begets the human race is ironic in that it would be more logical to invert the equation to human race=different race=language. Also if we were to look at this dilemma through a post-structuralist lens, it’s ironic that the journal, catalyst for the Native’s arduous journey on comprehending this idiom, is the source of knowledge for this language. Language can never fully be grasped because we do not have the means to understand this language due to its forever changing nature. So this idea of another race, consequently human race is predicated on a journal that inadequately represents language.

They must be savages if they don't believe what we do.

It seems at though the poem Crusoe's Journal by Robinson Crusoe, is centered on a binary associated with Catholicism and mission work.  Crusoe makes many Catholic references such as "He", referring to God, "Christofer", referring to St. Christofer, and "Genesis" referring to the beginning book of the Holy Bible.  The other half of the binary refers to "Savages", meaning people who have not yet been converted to Christianity or Catholicism.  This is interesting because of the nature of colonization initiated by eastern European countries in Africa and various other countries where religious beliefs were seen as a form of modernity and civilized life.  This connotation, however is not one shared by all; though in eastern European countries colonizing territories, this ideology seemed to be generally accepted.  At the root of this thinking is the thought that if they don't think and believe what we do then they must be uncivilized.  Crusoe, in his first stanza seems to see this as inherently bizarre for he finishes the first stanza by saying, "converted cannibals/ we learn with him to eat the flesh of Christ." (24/25).  These lines seem paradoxical to the colonizer's beliefs and seem to align with those of the colonized because of the symbolic reference to communion.  It is the consumption of the body of Christ, thus making the Catholic colonizers a form of cannibals.