I think we need to be really cautious about making such generalizations.  But, for a more helpful answer, I think you'd need to consult the work of Chandra Talpade Mohanty and Gayatri Spivak.

Good luck.

-- 

Interesting questiong but like Jamie stated, "we need to be really cautious about making such generalizations".  However, you bring up a very valid point - that some feminists in the West may not understand the issues of many women in the East.  I think it transends gender issues; women of the West not understanding women of the East based on the cultural norms.  But what you mean by "understand" is far too complex.  What one could be saying is that we need to show empathy for another individual's perspective and cultural norms or, one might also say that such tolerance or acceptance is just a way of providing excuses for the injustices that occur.  This topic is (IMO) far too complex to answer without 1 million different interpretations.  I'm curious as to why you ask this question and what was the original question that fueled this current inquiry. I think if I were you, I would begin looking at the influences of Western feminism - I think that would help you find some answers to your questions.

I think a large majority of western feminists are beginning to focus on... almost knitpicky rights. Many are pushing hard through what is now only a margin of a few cents in wage differences and pushing to have more women to have leading roles in the entertainment industry. Yes, they still do have very valid cases, but these are rare and usually are on a very individual basis. I think that Western Feminism has already run it's course as a Movement for the most part and is about due to take on a more subdued role... perhaps similar to the transition that the Civil Rights Movement made once rights were achieved, and now organazations like the NAACP still exist, but only really rear their heads whenever specific injustices are taking place.

In third world countries, on a general scale, are pretty strictly patriarchal, not like the western equalitists. Their movements have only just begun. In Brazil, white women make a little less than 75% what men make, whereas "black" (non-white) women make roughly 50% what men earn in the same job (I'm not sure the date of info). However, it is much more progressive than some countries, where women are still restricted to the home. Plus the fact that arranged marriages are still very much a reality, where women have little to no choice in who they marry in some places.

So, directly answering your question, I think that Western Feminists probably do understand the struggle of Feminists in 3rd world countries, but have lost sight of their issues, considering the different points of progress.

I understand what you're trying to say, char chick, but making a generalization like that will get you into loads of trouble with whomever is marking your paper. bell hooks is a western feminist, but I don't think that her views are necessarily the same as say, Betty Friedan's or other Western feminists.

What you're driving at, in my estimation, would be White Western liberal feminism (which, in my opinion, is a contradiction in terms) and other equality-seeking measures. If I'm correct, the "Western" a.k.a. the White Western liberal feminism of which you speak is the one that immediately condemns the veil, prostitution etc. etc. It's what Mohanty calls the "feminist as tourist" model where Whiteness and White, middle-class, Western experience is the centre around which their feminism revolves. Majority World women, in this model, are looked at with pity for their "backward" or "unequal" standing in their respective cultures.

White Western liberal feminism's other big problem is that it tends to treat women of the Majority World as an one analogous entity, where obviously, this is not the case, nor are regional differences at all accounted for. For example, women doing sweatshop labour would be regarded in exactly the same manner (as "bad" "unsafe" and "unfair") rather than delving into the regional issues with the maquiladoras in Mexico or the situation of women in textile factories in the Hindi Belt in India.

To me, feminism ought not to be merely about more women in parliament (or congress) or wages that are precisely equal to that of men's--though these are important issues--but of a complete overhaul of the patriarchal/capitalist system. What good is it to have women in government who think that abortion ought to be illegal and welfare abolished? Margaret Thatcher certainly didn't do women (or queers) any favours. And what difference does it make if women have the same wage as men, but are harassed constantly in the workplace? Or, something that's even more likely to take place, some women won't be hired at all because they were born with male genitalia and/or haven't fully transitioned. We need a cultural shift and equality-seeking is a band-aid solution--a necessary one--but one that appears to have made us feel like everything's kosher.

/rant.

Like girls? Like Clothes? So do we. Tune in. Trust.

www.lefashioncast.podomatic.com

Firstly there is no such thing as "Nitpicky Human Rights."  the only way Cultural Shifts happen is when individuals and small groups of committed people Make It Happen. Unfortunately as Shygurl99 pointed out we have all been duped into believing that "Western Women" have Achieved equality - That is the BIG LIE of "Western (media highjacked) Feminism" Poor Women, Women of Colour, & Queer women have experienced very little change in the overall improvment of rights and options. Generalizations will do you little good and if I were marking your paper I would want hard facts & analysis not generalizations. For example in May 2004 the country with almost 50/50 representation was Rwanda!!! Followed by Sweden ... so called Equal countries like the U.S.A - U.K. and Australia all had less than 25% representation. The Welsh assembly at the point had reached 50/50. (Nov. 2004 - New Internationalist) These are just examples of the Reality underlying the myth that women are actually better off in some parts of the world than in others. This is the legacy of Colonialism and the unhindered virus of sexism. Some of us have to fight for girls to go to school and some of us have to fight to keep Roe V. Wade protected, some of us get burned for our dowry and some of us struggle because there is zero government support for single Moms who want to improve their standards of living. All of these issues are important... My Advice to you Char Chick is to read bell hooks!     Also F.Y.I the country where the most male to female surgeries have been performed: IRAN!   Reality is not what you see on T.V.

 Freedom is not something you are given, but something you have to take.

" Is it fair to say that western world feminists don't really understand issues that women in third world countries face?"

In a word, no. You can't generalize either "western world feminists" or "women in third world countries", or the issues they have (issues that change with income, class and race to start with.) I am a feminist who lives in the western world and I frequently disagree with other feminists who might live on the same street as me. There is not a unified voice of feminism, particularly globally. I think many "western" feminists recognize this now, and there is a lot of attention paid to a variety of feminisms and individual women's voices compared to say, 20 years ago.

The idea of who is a "western world feminist" is also somewhat complicated. What about immigration, or feminists from the global south who may research in their home country and teach in a western country, in a university setting? How do you categorize them?

It might be helpful to narrow down your topic.

Marx and Engels said that the idea of human rights and the struggle to gain them was a distraction from the real issue of oppression. For example, Canada has lots of equality measures in place (substantive rights like marriage and equality before the law) but calling another guy "fag" on the playground or at a club is a great way to pick a fight. So, we have all the rights we want in Canada, but queerphobia and oppression is still relatively rampant. Being able to get married (read: having substantive rights) has not done away with gender roles and queerphobia (read: cued a cultural shift and ended oppression of a particular group). Rather, having same-sex marriage reflects the change in attitude of Canadians toward homosexuality and same-sex relationships.

So, let's extend this to feminism. Laws punishing rape and having the right to not be raped are in place, but rape still happens. This is why pushing for rights and things on paper saying "you can have this!" (a habit of White Western liberal feminism)may not mean much without a cultural/grassroots shift. So, when people--rather understandably--are of the opinion that issues for women of colour, poor women and queer women fall under human rights, rather than feminism, I get squirmy. Technically, in Canada, all these groups have protection under the law, yet differences in socioeconomic status, levels of assault, substandard quality of life and poverty still rage among these groups. Substantive rights have been achieved, but people are still hungry, discriminated against and bashed.

The thing is that misogyny is impossible to detach from queerphobia, racism, classism and corporate hegemony. Therefore, issues of class race and queerness ought not to be detached from feminism. If one is a poor queer woman of colour, how does one separate these facets? We have to stop drawing lines in the sand and atomizing these problems; feminism is about sex, gender, colour, class and queerness and this umbrella-like nature of feminism is advantageous and ought to be embraced...in my humble opinion.

Like girls? Like Clothes? So do we. Tune in. Trust.

www.lefashioncast.podomatic.com