Well you didn't ask me, but for me the answer is no, it is not necessarily wiser. It is paternalistic. Yes, feminists all women should be concerned with the situations of women in other parts of the world, but it has proven unhelpful to the extreme when western feminist groups try to involve themselves in the struggles of third world women. First, Islamists use these things against women -- it's more imperialist intervention in *our* culture, in *our* society, etc. -- and second, since so many feminists are so ignorant about some of the subtleties or the mindset in general, they can be really offensive and create a backlash even among feminists of the Muslim variety. I'm not saying the mindset is right, I'm saying you have to have a specific understanding of it before you can speak to it or try to create change. So western feminist input or action on Muslim women's issues can be condescending, wrong headed, misguided, come off as smacking of western superiority, and so on.
Good point but I was thinking more about funding. I wasn't suggesting that Western feminists should campaign against Hijab in the streets of Baghdad or Cairo. And I think there is a lot we can do without upsetting the majority of the population. For example, when I was in Egypt in 2008 there was a big government-sanctioned campaign against FGM. It would be great if Western feminist movements would help by donating some money to such a non-controversial campaign which can be used to print more booklets and make more banners. Another example is
FINCA's Village Banking.
Also, just as a note, although I know you don't intend it this way, but the whole "but this issue is more important than that one, therefore, direct your energies away from the second until the first is fixed" thing has been used against feminists all over the third world as a means of stopping debate and change on women's issues and guilting women into thinking it is selfish for them to want basic liberties when Palestine/Kashmir / Iraq is occupied, children are starving, etc.
Well I said nothing about wars or famines. I said
women in the Third World.
Look Manat I'm not saying that women in the West should accept the status quo. What I'm saying is that feminists in the West specially in countries where they are best off (such as Scandinavia) should give a percentage of their budget to their sister organizations in Third World countries.
Now if (FSM forbids) Roe v. Wade is back on the table again and there is a risk that abortion might be restricted/outlawed, in that case feminists in America should focus on that and only that and I wouldn't be asking them to focus on women in Saudi.
I would say the same thing to British LGBT organizations. I personally think that gay marriage should be legalized and that LGBT groups should definitely campaign for it. But it wouldn't hurt to allocate some (as in 10-20%) of their resources to LGBT organizations worldwide specially since the UK has a very good record of LGBT rights (
adoption by gay couples is legal, gays can serve openly in the military, there are anti-discrimination laws, ad civil partnerships are legally recognized in all aspects like marriage.)
This has nothing to do with guilting women or gays into abandoning their rights. I'm not saying feminist and LGBT organizations should shut down and accept reality. I just don't think these organizations should be limited by borders.
Topic: Mrs. Rambo radical feminist/nihilist/romantic anarchist/atheist/