Women of the world, unite!...Or not!

In looking at the work of feminists as an American citizen it is clear how it applies to me and how the achievements and goals of the feminist movement impact my daily life. Since I am able to make these connections does that mean that what I call feminism is biased and egocentric?
The question becomes is this Feminism or is what we think of as feminism just a western movement for western women? And if it is then is that allowed? Can we as women accept that and support it, or should we fight for sweeping reforms.
Winnie Woodhull argues that feminism needs to be universal. That women in the western world need to link their causes to women around the globe. She asserts that women in the western hemisphere often turn a blind eye toward the plight of women in other places. She argues that this is vitally important because our world is becoming globalized. We are becoming linked with other countries, through better communication, media, and also through the move of countries to produce in other countries and become multinational corporations. In speaking about the process of globalization that has included moves like NAFTA and production of products for US consumption in other countries. Woodhull argues that in response to globalization feminism needs to:

“…take seriously the repressive effects of that process [globalization], which stem from the operations of exploitative multinational corporations and traditional institutions…”

I agree globalization has some horrid effects and women suffer to a great deal. The I Live Here projects novel about Juarez, Mexico reveals some of these atrocities such as the disappearance of many girls, and the hand that big business has had in changing the landscape of Juarez. Martha McMahon explores the effects of globalization on farming and how food is now an industry. In speaking globalization in this sector she states that:

“...modern globalized agriculture is a closed, raced, and gendered project that produces inequality, hunger, and environmental degradation.”

While all this sounds great it does not necessitate that women in the western hemisphere need to dictate an agenda for the world. I beg to differ with Woodhull. The answer can lie within a western feminism. I do not mean to diminish the importance of embracing and supporting our sisters in other countries, but part of doing that is to demand more at home. It not up to us to determine the most important causes for other women. But, we can slowly become more global by making choices that work within the western system to demand the same treatment we expect at home from the companies in our countries. If the western feminist movement strives for a living wage then we need to not accept less for all women. That may mean working to change the practices from our domestic companies that employ women in other countries in deplorable conditions. We as women can strive for our sisters by refusing to buy food from the multinational machine. By demanding that jobs be given out locally with standards that support living wages, good working conditions, and equity we can marry the needs of women to the burden and distraction of focusing on our own economies. We can be advocating for these women by not accepting that companies act unjustly elsewhere to feed our materialistic demands. The goals of western feminism may be egocentric and narrow, but we betray womanhood by accepting products that are created in conditions that we would boycott in the US. That is the first step of a global feminism. One that does not accept less just because the women being harmed are not our same nationality.

A look at how globalization affects women abroad:


Even if you don't agree with me on the points about feminism there are still steps you can take locally to fight globalization of food:
Farm fresh delivery in Cincinnati supports local small scale agriculture and reduces farmings environmental impact.