Serendip is an independent site partnering with faculty at multiple colleges and universities around the world. Happy exploring!

Week 9--Expanding the Frontiers of Reading

Anne Dalke's picture
This week (with some help from Tamarinda Figueroa and Ingrid Paredes) we will move from Cherríe Moraga's discussion of Names We Call Home to Gayatri Spivak's attempt to "expand the frontiers of the politics of reading" for you. What questions do you have for Tamarinda and Ingrid? What do you make of this juxtaposition of the ideas of "home" and "frontier"? Where do you most comfortably locate yourself now as a reader/feminist/activist: @ "home," on the "frontier," or someplace inbetween? 
hpolak's picture

Something I found

Something I found interesting from this class was the acknowledgement from both Tamarinda and Ingrid that feminism within Latino culture is somewhat contradictory. They explained this by saying it is traditional for a woman to act submissive to a man, and spend her time in the house. However, when major decisions are being made it is the woman who has the power. Tamarinda presented an example of a man coming home very late (maybe he was out with his male friends or even another woman). The woman does not need to ask questions or even give him a chance- she can kick him out of the house, and he will obey! These contradictions that exist within Latino culture make it difficult for feminism to progress. Tamarinda and Ingrid both said that this Western form of feminism would be ideal for Latina women, but many improvements must be made until that point is reached.
ssherman's picture

This class opened my mind

This class opened my mind more to the idea of different definitions of feminism.  I believe most of the class has struggled with the idea that there is no one definition of feminism, but this day in class in particular, seemed to show me that was okay and it works out for the best that way.  People in different countries have different things to fit for, different needs they need feminism to fulfill.  We in America may have rights that feminists in Iraq are striving to achieve.  Also people of different ethincities, races, and religions, need feminism to be different things.  Orthodox Jewish women may be fine with the rights they have, so we shouldn't try to impose what rights we think they should have upon them.
Steph's picture

Global Feminism

I have learned so much in the past few days about other cultures and how varying cultures and their differences relate to the fact that there is no single definition of feminism. It varies by cultures and sub-cultures within those cultures. With the insight gained from Tamarinda and Ingrid's discussion, Spivak's reading of Jane Eyre, and from the articles I have read for my paper, I now understand what colonial feminism is and its implications towards "other" cultures. I never thought colonialism and feminism would be used so closely, never mind in the same phrase. However, my eyes have been opened to traces of it in American politics overseas and at home. This section of the course is remarkable and I am happy that it is opening my eyes to so many things I haven't noticed before. It has encouraged me to take charge of my learning and to replace ignorance with knowledge.

rchauhan's picture

Spivak's essay was somewhat

Spivak's essay was somewhat confusing but one line that struck me was "Rhys suggests that so intimate a thing as personal and human identity might be determined by the politics of imperialism." The thought of government having so much control over its people is scary. This made me think of our discussion about home. Some said that home was a place that they thought somewhat identified them, and home is a personal thing. Putting our discussion of home in the context of the quoted statement adds a new perspective to our discussion. There are some parts of the world that are controlled by government like China or places where there is war or was war. For example, in Persepolis, in Iran there were so many rules created by the government about the people and how they should live their lives. Satrapi thought of her home as her identity, and for a good amount of her life it was controlled by the government.  

EG's picture

I don't remember who said

I don't remember who said it, but I remember appreciating the comment that  the strive for a universal definition of feminism is a myopic and almost offensive cause.  Hearing Tamarinda and Ingrid's accounts of Latina feminism also made me think more about "home" and realize that striving for a universal definition of "home" is equally impossible.  It seems like we've been sort of walking on eggshells when we talk about what "home" and what "feminism" means to us because, in every case, our personal lives are put in the spotlight; for that reason, I really appreciated Ingrid and Tamarinda's dialogue on the differences between their own homes, and their own feminsim.  In some ways, it's hard I think, to even have a class on feminism, because what it means to me is entirely different from what it means to Tamarinda, who has a different take from, say, Becky who moved like 15 times, which makes her take different from Anne's, who was taken aback by Ingrid's claims that gender is logically rooted in all Spanish nouns. 

It makes me wonder if our different takes are useful to us, or if those circles are precisely what drives us in circles. 


kgbrown's picture

Malinche and defining her home

I was very interested in Moya's discussion of Malinche because she is a figure that I have discussed earlier this semester in the context of my Historical Imagination course. Something that was discussed in both courses was the idea of Malinche as a betrayer of "her people."

I certainly agree with Moya's statement that "Haraway's reading of the Malinche myth ignores the complexity of the situation" (Moya 131). However, I think that Haraway's most crutial mistake is viewing Malinche's betrayal (if we can even consider it one) as that of a sexual nature rather than as one based in language. The sexual "transgression" (if you can call it that) of having a child with a Spanish conquistador is something that became common, though I think that a discussion about rape (which I do not have enough information to accurately explain) is necessary to fully understand the sexual relationships between the male conquerers and the female conquered. I think that Malinche's more important "transgression" is that of language and if she can be viewed as a betrayer of "her people" I think that the linguistic nature of her involvement with the Spainards was more of a detriment to the people of ancient Mexico than any personal or sexual involvement with the Spainards could ever have been.

Further, I think that in claiming she is a betrayer, we need to be very careful in placing her in a context that was not present in her time and place. I cannot be certain how Malinche would have defined her "home," but I think that assuming that she did (or should have) felt an alliance with all of the people living on the same peninsula as her is quite a stretch. I think that in doing so, perhaps we are applying a sense of community that is present within the Latina community today (maybe because of a common language?) but was not the case for Malinche. It is also important to remember that, as far as "her people" were concerned, Malinche was a slave. I am not sure that anyone would feel a great deal of loyalty to "a people" (though I really do believe that considering the people of ancient Mexico as one people, the matter is being oversimplified) who enslaved them. I think that we really need to re-evaluate our conception of Malinche as a betrayer by considering how Malinche herself would have defined her "home" and whether or not this would have been based upon the people, the land, or many of the other factors we have discussed in class. I think that in general we (as a society) need to be more careful about our comfort with retrospectively defining who someone is and applying our conception of "home" to their actions and experiences.

ebock's picture


I was just very fortunate to be able to see the film Maquilapolis screened here at Haverford by filmmaker Vicky Funari who is teaching here next semester. Maquilapolis is about the effects of globalization on Tijuana, Mexico, and the factories that employ most of the population of Tijuana. The movie is filmed by women employees of some of these factories who have come together to combat the unfair labor practices used by the corporations and also the environmental destruction that has destroyed their health as well as the land around them. (Here's a link to the film's website:

I watched these women taking the initiative to fight these massive businesses despite a lack of resources (ex: these women live mostly in houses made of garage doors thrown out in the U.S. that are taken to Mexico) and education, and I couldn't help but think, "How was it ever fair for me or anyone else for that matter to believe in some 'universal' feminism?" These women don't have clean water for their families, they get paid $68 (US) a week for presumably 40+ hour weeks in these factories, they have health problems from these factories that will probably plague them for the rest of their lives, and I could go on and on...

But my point is: the idea of some "universal feminism" (all women in group despite differences in experience/social location/etc.) is completely ridiculous because of conditions like this. We are so privileged just as students at these colleges despite our backgrounds that we can ponder the prospect of our gender and experience being constructed and not have to worry about where our next meal is coming from. For me to say that those women and I are the same and have the same struggles and we should band together and refute the patriarchy is absurd.

Those women from Tijuana are so much more brave or intrepid or progressive than I think I will ever be; I am so angry at myself for ever considering myself as the same or even similar to women like this or even women of different social locations here in the U.S.

I think the only way to ever really understand each other is to quit the bullshit and try to wrap our brains around how different we are. It's not a bad thing; we don't have to try to have things in common: we just have to respect each other.

I'm sorry if this sounds really angry; mostly I am feeling frustrated with myself. I just figured this would be an appropriate forum seeing as it could make for some interesting food-for-thought in class.

Also: what do you all think about Moraga's article in relation to this issue I've presented?  Is Moraga's perspective a privileged one?

See you all tomorrow!



lrperry's picture

Cannot be contained...

            I am reconsidering the phrase “politics of intimacy” in the face of our discussion on home, and what several people have posted about: that feminism is supposed to be about inclusion, not exclusion. On the one hand, I agree – feminism should be about inclusion. But, like the safety of homes, at what cost does this inclusion come? When Alex visited us, he claimed our classroom as a safe space. When Katie visited us, she talked about her brother’s worry that she would be hurt by going public. Both Katie and Alex have chosen to live their lives publicly in one way or another, but that’s not the only option. What has occasionally made me uncomfortable in this class is the level of personal sharing sometimes required by class discussions – name your categories, circle your gender stereo, give a metaphor for your home, etc. I recognize that opting out would no doubt be allowed, or that lying is always an option… but these moments paradoxically create both a public space (by forcing formerly private facts out in the open), and a politics of intimacy. As Anne mentioned once in class, we are able to list each others’ names, but these moments of required personal sharing perhaps move us towards ‘knowing’ each other…inasmuch as that is ever possible.

But must a politics of intimacy always involve making privacy public? I think it might, in that politics involves communication, and that is what Katie, Alex, Tamarinda, and Ingrid engaged in when they visited our class and told us their personal stories. But I also wonder about a politics that depends on disclosing your personal story. This hesitation is related to our discussion of whether or not it is appropriate to link experience with knowledge (I know about the X experience, because I am X. My own experience is what gives me the authority to speak about the experience of all of those who are like me), but it is also related to a point Takagi makes in her discussion of “coming out”. She writes: “To be out is really to be in – inside the realm of the visible, the speakable, the culturally intelligible” (27). I think this is more than just an issue of privacy, or of protecting yourself from other people’s assumptions. I think sometimes engaging in a politics of intimacy, or engaging in dialogue about “personal” or “private” aspects of yourself (however you define those aspects), can make you TOO easy to understand. Sometimes maintaining the liminal or mysterious position, while perhaps exclusive, means that you do not become “culturally intelligible”. You can’t be mainstreamed; your deviance cannot be absorbed into the dominant discourse. I guess what I am getting at with this is that inclusive is not always better than exclusive, that dialogue is not always better than silence… As Spivak suggests, there is existence “outside” the text. It may be marginal subjects who are outside and remain outside – women and monsters – but they are not necessarily excluded or oppressed. Rather, they “cannot be contained” (162).

tbarryfigu's picture

Personal Testimony

It's unclear if you've touched on personal testimony in this section, but for me, it was a huge lens through which i viewed the rest of the class and all of our readings. Personal testimony is a way to shut people up, like you said: "I know X because I am X, and you should listen to me because you do not know what it's like to be X like me." There is much to be learned from personal testimony and yet, it is a way of shutting down the conversation. You can not argue with someone who claims the experience of an ethnicity. It was an odd experience preaching Latina feminism (as I said in class) when I myself am struggling to understand its implications. There is a delicate balance to life-story-telling that requires leaving the parameters of identity open for interpretation; there is a relatedness between individuals in our endless search to understand ourselves as people, as women, as feminists!!! (are you there yet???) 
sarahk's picture

A thought that came to mind

A thought that came to mind during discussion last class was the idea that a biracial person sometimes feels as though she has to choose which race she identifies as, and when she doesn't, the world still asks, "what race are you REALLY?" And the idea that people self-edit and airbrush in their minds to really observe the race of another person. I made this connection to our discussion of transgendered people, and the idea that the world self-edits in its observation of gender. So, then, I asked myself, is being mixed race but considering oneself black essentially the same as a transgendered person considering themselves one sex they don't necessarily have the genes of? And is "passing" as a black person essentially the same as "passing" as a man or woman? More importantly, what are the differences between these two categories, race and gender, that might make "passing" in each category a distinct endeavor?

Moraga talks of being seen as a different color by people of different colors. From her writing, it almost seems as though people want her to fit in with their race. White people see her as white, latina people see her as darker. For a man transitioning to woman, the women might not be so quick to welcome him into their community, because of certain bodily appearances that might make it impossible for him to "pass" as a woman. This goes back to the theory of socially constructed gender. So, then, if gender transitions are in fact harder to make than racial transitions, is the body a more important statement than a home?

tbarryfigu's picture


I'm really taken with your response. It's an interesting argument---

That the choice to identify with one half of your ethnicity may be the same as choosing to identify with one of the two sexes. I suppose it's a question, then, of accesibility. My ethnicity is "available" to me in a way a different gender may not be available to a transgendered individual. I am "both" not by choice, but by biology. The truth is, no matter how hard I try to portray myself as strictly Latina, it is a certainty that I will not be seen that way (100% Latinas aren't seen that way!). Similarly, a transgendered person may find it difficult to shed their born-sex, while they choose to identify as the opposite. Yet, they are not "both." They are one or the other (or sometimes, neither). They are attempting to access an identity that is not biologically tangible.

The difference may be this:

I cannot be judged for my decision to identify as a Latina (my skin is tan)

My decision to identify as German (not tan enough whitey!)

Or biracial (oh...yeah, that explains it)

My ethnicity is my own to claim. 

A transgendered person, however, is often told the opposite. Regardless of the gender they claim, they are commonly told that they do not have the rights to a gender that was not born to them, do not have the right to try to bend common perceptions of what a man is or what a woman is. They are not granted access to their chosen identity.    

jzarate's picture

“And as long as injustice

“And as long as injustice prevails, we do not have the luxury of calling ourselves either.” 

      I was thinking about the in class discussion of this quote. As was mentioned, it is difficult to form a racial/ethnic/national identity if there is not equal representation and respect of cultures. In forming an identity, one feels torn over placing priority of one racial/ethnic/national identity over another. Most of the discussion of identity was centered on doing justice to the minority culture.  

           While the discussion of identity was worthwhile, I felt we neglected the people who have started to lose the connection with their heritage.  Personally, I feel detached from my Bolivian heritage. When my father came to the States, he faced discrimination because he was viewed as a foreigner. He hoped his children wouldn’t face the same situation. Because he felt his accent caused people to treat him differently, he didn’t teach his children how to speak Spanish. In high school, I became curious about this “lost” half of my heritage. As I visited my family in La Paz and struggled to learn Spanish, I started to feel that I would not be able to fit in either Bolivian or American culture completely. I felt guilty about losing the connection with this heritage and ashamed of way I would pass with heritage that was easier. It can be difficult to define views on Latino/a culture because I don’t feel worthy critiquing the culture I lost a connection with. Forming an ethnic/racial/national identity is complicated by this mystery space which is usually filled by guilt.

      This “empty” space complicates my views on what feminism is and what it means to me. I find myself using broad terms and avoiding specifics. As I considered a potential universal feminism, its definition is similar to my metamorphosing definition of feminism. It would be openness to varying sexual/gender/ethnic/racial/national/political/religious identities. There would be the freedom to develop and express this identity without fear of persecution. Of course this accepting environment wouldn’t happen over night, so feminism would work to create and support these communities.


aaclh's picture

luxury??? what does injustice have to do with it?

Is it really a luxury to try to identify as a little of both and a little of neither? Isn't it much harder to claim to be both and neither as the same time? Perhaps the luxury mentioned here is a reference to the luxury of having the ability to self-identify.

How does injusticeinfluence (determine?) someone's ability to claim an identity? The more we talk about different categories in this class the more it seems to me that all of these partial injustices stem from the (inability? unwillingness?) of people to recognize that our categories do and do not make sense, they are and are not well-defined, they influence us and we influence them... If this is true then wouldn't the hardest but most productive (in terms of combatting injustice) thing to do is claim being both and neither?

jlustick's picture

Some off topic thoughts

I am currently taking a Political Psychology course in which we focus on inter-group conflict and the causes of genocide and terrorism. In class the other day, my professor, Rick McCauley, presented the concept of feminism and asked the class to consider why there has never been violent group conflict surrounding feminism/gender. I have been thinking about this question the past couple of days and have come up with a few ideas.

  1. Most groups that move towards violent conflict feel threatened due to an awareness of their mortality. A group will attempt to defeat other groups in an effort to outlast them and establish a kind of immortality. Women, like men, will never be immortal. As long as humans exist, approximately half of them will be female. Thus neither gender experiences a sense of immortality.
  2. You cannot have a self-perpetuating, self-reproducing gender group. The two sexes exhibit a mutual dependence in terms of reproduction. This inability to isolate the group limits the cohesiveness and thus the saliency of an individual's gender identity.
  3. I would argue that the current feminist agenda is about breaking down boundaries; thus, essentializing the outgroup and acting negatively towards it would be counterproductive.The feminist mission is one of inclusion not exclusion. The inclusive nature of feminism is also significant in that it pulls individuals from all sorts of different groups, women, black, whites, latinos, etc.... making it difficult to essentialize the ingroup or the outgroup. I'm not even sure if feminists have an essence.

My professor then asked why women's sports have not been an arena for feminists to rally behind. Are they upset that male sports get more attention and money?

My feeling is that sports are a difficult topic for feminists because professional athletics depend upon a gender binary. Perhaps feminists would argue that all genders should compete together, but many people would disagree, saying that this is not a fair competition because men are naturally stronger, faster, etc. At this point, feminists would then have to confront the issue of whether there is a biological difference between genders. Are men really stronger? More athletically capable? This is a very messy topic.


Finally, and this is totally separate, I was interested in Ingrid's comment on Tuesday that feminism should fight to celebrate gender, not erase it. I entirely agree. I think that it might be easier to work towards an acceptance of all genders than an elimination of gender. I think that the problem is not gender but gender roles and the gender binary.

skumar's picture

Discussion with Tamarinda and Ingrid

Class today, with a visit by Tamarinda and Ingrid, was striking to me in a number of ways. For the sake of continuing the conversation of the role of the "home" in identity, though, I would like to discuss the notion of Latina feminism as a type of feminism as a sub-set to a more generalized feminism.

Up until this part of the course (reading Persepolis/Latina feminism readings/student visits), I felt that I wrongly defined feminism as celebrating women and women only. Several people replied to my image of a woman-only feminism, saying that I did not effectively account for men (who could be activists) or the transgender community (who, in some instances, identify as women).

To assuage the concerns, I then acknowledged that feminism was a term and this term was fluid, changing with each "wave". I thought, perhaps, feminism could be more than just about women...that maybe feminism could include men and transgenders. However, Ingrid strongly claimed that feminism was notion that prided womanhood. This traditionalist claim was refreshing, in that it reinforced what I had originally asserted. I realized, then, that an identity of feminism is entirely dependent on the culture of one's home.

In class, I asked Tamarinda and Ingrid whether they could imagine a universal definition of feminism, one that would not barricade cultural differences of people. No. The two made very clear that their Latina culture was entirely dependent on their views of feminism, views that had little accordance with Western feminist, particularly new wave feminism. I was intially frustrated. I expressed the isolation I felt. Even if Ingrid and Tamarinda thought feminism was a pride of womanhood, how could it be that I was being excluded, regardless of my identity as a woman? (This reminded me of Anne's experience: "If you were in the community, you would understand.")

I searched online for a bit, searching for "cultural" feminism. I was suprised to find published texts on South Asian feminism--a feminism I was not aware my culture even had! I also saw an image of Islamic feminism. I found that feminism is cultural.

Before reading Moya and Moraga and listening to Tamarinda and Ingrid, I had never known there was a culturally-defined feminism. It resonated with me, the experiences of Latina culture, simply because some of the gender inforcements are mirrored in my culture, the South Asian culture. I understood, at that moment, how my culture, my "home" influenced my identity as well as my understanding of feminism. Like Ingrid, this course is my first explicit encounter with what I would pronounce "liberal" ideas of transgender and intersex. So, I was overwhelmed with the revoluntionary claims/arguments people were making about feminism being non-women oriented.

I believe there was a post in which I (publically) deliberated my definition of feminism. Feminism was choice. Looking back, I feel like that was not an accurate reflection of my culturally defined feminism. Instead, it was stirred up guilt from leaving out people, enhancing "otherness" with my woman-only feminism. I tried too hard, it seems, to incorporate everyone and used feminism an umbrella term that shelters everyone.

I really think, though, that it is impossible to create an idealistic framework that satisfies or includes everyone. I am not being pessimistic, here. Instead, I realize that people hail from different homes-- geographically and cultural ly-- and that these differences result in varying images of feminism that cannot intermingle because they do not intermingle.

I am sure people will disagree with me. It does not bother me anymore because I accept that it is impossible to please everyone.



anorton's picture

Destroying "feminism"

When I entered this course, I had only studied second-wave feminism during college.  So, I was only knew feminism as an intensely women-centered philosophy/political stance.  When we were studying transgender and intersex, I placed those under a feminist heading mainly because I felt that, by virtue of being included in a feminist studies course, they had to be part of feminism.  I think that the time has come to, as Virginia Woolf advocated in Three Guineas, destroy the word "feminism."  As western feminists, we take it to mean so much, to include so many groups, that when someone wants to talk about specifically women-centered feminism, we have to shed possible meanings of the word.  This could possibly contribute to the idea that feminists who only include women in their understanding of the word are somehow less advanced or developed than third-wave western feminists.  This creates an unfortunate hierarchy in the ways of thinking about feminism that would be eliminated if we had new words to talk about all the different kinds of feminism.
sarina's picture

Cultural feminism

(I don't know who skumar really is in the class, so please forgive me for not addressing the writer by name).

I love this idea of feminism as an ideology rooted in cultural. It just makes so much sense. So many ideas we have are cultural. Think about the US "liberating" Iraq. While some Americans believed we were removing a corrupt government, some Iraqis disagreed and did not want the US presence. If our definition of democracy comes from our culture, then our definition of feminism will too.

Going back to the home: If you consider the home a strong shaping force of your ideas and values, and home is cultural (one example is the Latino/Latina culture with strong gender role enforcement), then of course feminism is cultural. 

 I first heard about different types of feminism my senior year of high school, when I took a class titled "Women in Society". We learned about womynism. The concept that feminism wasn't a one-size-fits-all theory shocked me at first. I wondered, why can't all the women (or womyn) agree on equality between the genders (my definition of feminism at the time)? It is very hard to step out of your own lens, and it was difficult for me to step out of my lens as a white, middle-class girl (girl then, woman now). The idea of only one feminism baffled me because I was so used to seeing my culture (white culture) as the standard, that a feminism coming from it seemed like the only natural option.

To me, it now makes sense for there to be multiple branches (or types? maybe we could make a map of the different kinds of feminism). We are not all the same. While there will be some things we can agree on, maybe not enough for one definition of feminism to fit everyone.

skumar's picture

Sarina, (This is Sonal).


(This is Sonal). Thank you for your reply to my post!

I agree with you that we are all different; we are not "sisters." The only thing we share in common is our motive to advance our gender...but even those ways are different (Western feminism vs. Latina feminism). I wonder what others in the class would say, and if they would agree with a "cultural feminism."

ebock's picture

Questions for Tamarinda and Ingrid

What factors are most significant for you in how you define yourself? Do you call yourself a feminist? If so, what is your personal definition of feminism?

How do you feel about the essentialist/post-modernist/realist debate in the Moya article? How do you feel about Moya's claim that some of Moraga's ideas were being used out of context in some post-modernist feminist works?

And along those lines, do you agree with Moraga in that "the physical realities of [women of colors'] lives - [their] skin color, the land or concrete [they] grew up on, [their] sexual longings" influence their identity, but they "do not define a person's politics?" [taken from the Moya article pg. 135] To what extent do you feel that these things influence your "politics", if you have "politics," per se?

mpottash's picture

Feminism and Differences

In Moya's article, she discusses different views of "difference", and how these views relate to feminism and identity.  Towards the beginning of the article, she discusses the fact that postmodern theorists want to shows that " 'difference' is merely a discursive illusion'" (126).  What does this mean for the feminist movement.  It seems that historically, one of the key points of the feminist movement has been that women occupy a different place from men in society.  Would a postmodern theory erase this difference?  In another one of the classes, we have been talking about postmodernism and poststructuralism, and the ways in which these theorists deal with words, groups or categories.  From my understanding, postmodernists believe that categories, and reality in general, is constructed.  If we are to say that the idea of male or female is constructed, and that in reality, everyone is the same, is there a need for feminism?  As a point of clarification, I would like to discuss what exactly postmodern feminist theory is.  

I am also interested in the claim that Moya makes that "the feminist scholar who persists in using categories such as "race" or "gender" can be presumably charged with essentialism..." (126).  Can feminism be called essentialist?  This makes me think back to Three Guineas, when Wolf questions her ability to even respond to the man's letter because she is a woman.  It seems to me, though, that by fighting for equal rights, women are combating this essentialist notions by saying that there is nothing that is completely male or completely female.   

Moving on through Moya's article, I found the section on Chicana history most interesting.  In order to consider anyone's identity, it is essential to consider where that person came from.  To me, it should be these different identities, these different backgrounds, that form a modern feminist movement and make is special and unique. 

skumar's picture

Questions for Tamarinda and Ingrid

1) What are the facets of Western feminism that differ from the feminist thought in your place of origin?

2) In which ways has "home" shaped your identity?... your thoughts on feminism?

3) Do you think the Western notion of feminism differs from the non-Western notion of feminism? How so?