The experience and effects of sexism are different for Third World and white women in America. For example, more Third World women have worked outside the home and within the context of a female “kinship” system than have many middle-class white women. More white women have had more education put to less use, and more fathers and husbands economically supporting them in isolated family units than have most Third World women. However, the employed Third World woman really has no more mobility, psychologically or economically, than her white non-employed counterpart. The ghetto “kinship” system is as much a structure of bitter necessity as is female isolation within the middle-class family. The feminist desire to overcome dependence on men cannot be shared by those Third World women who, because of racism and class warfare, have never been allowed a similar dependence. (Although they may indeed have longed for such dependence and for the privileges and safety it represents.)
From my point of view, women have never fared as well as men in traditional Africa, Asia, the Middle East, or South America. The maternal death rate and infant death rate are very high on both continents. While most women in Africa have traditionally always worked strenuously in childbearing and rearing, in agriculture and/or commerce, they have not been political, military, or religious leaders as men have, nor has polyandry existed as often as polygamy. There have, of course, been many African queens and militarists, and many matriarchal cultures in “pre-historical” Asia, Africa, South America, and Europe. Once European intervention occurred, the African women’s position was even further downgraded in comparison to her male counterpart: African men were forced and/or encouraged to participate in education, modern farming, land ownership, factory work, etc. Female warriors ceased to exist almost entirely. To date, most African revolutionary or traditional nationalist leaders, militarists, judges, and priests are men, not women.
This is one of the many reasons that those Third World women who can afford to be politically active in any sense are not feminists. An alliance of women either representing or fighting for women’s rights belongs more to the future than to the past. For example, men have always been seen as more physically and intellectually powerful than women. To strictly heterosexual women, they are also the only possible sexual partners. For these reasons alone, Third World women, like most white women, will “stick” by their men sooner than they will “become” their own men, i.e., sooner than they will incorporate “male” or all human characteristics. The real gender revolution is harder and more threatening to people of both sexes, and of all classes and races, than are even other extremely difficult revolutions.
I understand what an African-, Hispanic-, or Asian American working woman feels and means when she says: “I want to stop working. I want to be able to stay home with my children. I want to be able to have a man care for me.” She is talking about having one full-time job instead of two. But she doesn’t necessarily feel, any more than white women do, that being a mother and “housewife” is an invaluable form of labor without which her husband (or the government) could not survive. Women of all classes and races are not socialized to regard the family as a public institution, or as particularly oppressive to women.
My hypothetical Third World woman is also talking about the many privileges of having white skin in America, especially if it belongs to a middle-income wallet. She is talking about racial differences in housing, schooling, and employment. (Lower income white women suffer these tragedies, also). She is talking about feeling safe on the streets or in her home—something that, whether realistic or not, most white women, even in cities, have always felt. [More reports of rape exist for Third World than for white women]. She is also talking about the privilege of psychological dependence and material security: even if these are temporary privileges, and purchased at the expense of human dignity and freedom, the pleasure of such female privileges is real and has kept many of us alive. From a psychological point of view, as long as a particular group is still “profiting” from the misery of the less fortunate, it is as cruel as it is foolish to expect the less fortunate to be self-sacrificial, noble, etc. Let all men (all white people) give up all their powers and privileges first—their wives, secretaries, prostitutes, their material comforts, their information, their privileged childhoods—then, and only then, will women or people of color begin to consider the redemptive features of “goodness” or “equality.” Until then, women and people of color will want all the free drinks, the handshakes, the trophies, the inside tips—the “killings.” Oppressed groups do not internalize the values of power any less than other groups.
The fact is, it is probably better to be the slave of a rich man than the slave of a poor man; better to be at the mercy of power than at the mercy of powerlessness. Strength can often afford mercy; weakness, rarely. It is even better to be the slave of one man whom you know—a husband—than the slave of many strange men—such as the men in the state legislature or in industry.
Many male theoreticians of color, and more recently, female theoreticians of color, have written about the “Third World” woman in America, and in the Third World proper. Frantz Fanon, an eloquent and brilliant black male psychiatrist, was, unfortunately, embarrassingly, painfully a sexist in his writing about Algerian women. I read Fanon in 1969 on a long bus ride on my way to a meeting. Furiously, I underlined nearly all of his A Dying Colonialism, as impressed as I was angry and disappointed by it.6 A group of feminists must have been on a bus ride too, because their conclusions are similar to some of my own.7 They say:
Fanon is correct in saying that the French tried to destroy Algerian [male] culture and that this is a typical colonial tactic of one male culture vs. another colonized male culture. But Fanon shows a typical male inability to see the brutal colonization of females by males. In his use of the veil, as a symbol of Algerian culture that the French were trying to destroy, he oversimplifies in order to avoid a recognition of his own male guilt and the Algerian males’ culpability towards the Algerian females’ repressed and demeaned culture.
If Fanon were more honest he would recognize that the French, as a male culture, had no more interest in the Algerian woman’s freedom than had the Algerian male. But Fanon, who has such angry passion against the French colonizers, does not extend his vision to demand justice for the Algerian female. In fact, he pooh-poohs the idea that Algerian women are oppressed at all. Nowhere, except in things which he does not realize that he is revealing, does he admit the fact of female oppression by the male in Algeria….
Through the imposition of a servant status on women the female culture has elaborated a whole servile ethic of “self-sacrifice.” Self-sacrifice—as the major ethic of the female culture—has been one of the most effective psychological blocks to women’s open rebellion and demand for self-determination. It has also been a major tool of male manipulation of females.
Kardiner8 and Moynihan,9 less eloquent than Fanon, are white male professionals. Their writing about black women and black “matriarchs” in America is racist and sexist, as well as uninspired. Grier and Cobbs, two black male psychiatrists, are, at best, mediocre in their ascribing a second-class humanity to black women. Let me quote from their chapters entitled “Achieving Womanhood” and “Marriage and Love” in Black Rage10:
So it may be that after a brief struggle a black woman feels that femininity, as it is defined in these times, is something she cannot achieve. Rather than having her heart broken every day, she relinquishes the struggle and diverts her interest elsewhere. She has derived none of the intensely personal satisfaction she might have received as an honored and desirable sexual object. The full flowering of a woman’s sexual function and her capacity to enjoy it are based on her evaluation of herself. If she considers herself an especially worthwhile person, she can joyfully submit to her lover, knowing that he will likewise prize and value her. Her enjoyment of the sexual function will not be impaired by the feeling of being degraded by the man. There is a natural inclination for a woman to yield hers
elf to a powerful lover, gaining additional narcissistic supplies in her possession of him. Her own high evaluation of herself, in turn, evokes in the man a similar high evaluation of her. If her narcissism is impaired, the sexual act is a degrading submission to a man who does not value her, and she arises from it feeling a loss of self-esteem rather than a personal enhancement.
With youthful narcissism crushed and sexual life perverted, [black women] drew back from these modes as a primary means of life expression. Letting youth go, and sex go, they narrowed their vision to the most essential feminine function—mothering, nurturing, and protecting their children. In such a role the black woman has been the salvation of many a family. To call such a family matriarchal, as many have done, is to obscure the essential maternal function and to suggest an authoritarian for authority’s sake. We suggest that the black woman has been beset by cruelty on all sides and as a result, centered her concern on the most essential quality of womanhood.
It is difficult to document racist practices in the selection and treatment of the “mentally ill.” First, the statistics, like those on child molestation or rape, are not easily available. Second, most Third World people are simply too poor to be able to afford private therapeutic treatment: they are socially controlled and condemned in more direct, physical ways. (Henley points out that women, like blacks, are steered into heavy drug use, but into drugs that tend to pacify rather than eliminate them, perhaps illustrating that women are less expendable from the point of view of the dominant culture than are blacks.)11 Third, racism, in psychiatric diagnosis and treatment, is usually further confused by class and gender biases. Nevertheless, it is undeniable that women and men of color are often discriminated against and misunderstood when they make contact with the psychiatric world. It is also undeniable that employees of the psychiatric establishment, such as attendants, orderlies, and nurses, particularly in low-paying jobs in state and county asylums, are brutal to inmates of all races. People internalize the oppressive values; they also do what they think they’re expected to do—and what they can get away with.12
When an African-, Hispanic-, Asian-, or immigrant woman is hospitalized, her “treatment” is probably very similar to that of a white woman. It consists of domestic and “maternal” tasks—or of psychological preparation for domestic, maternal, and heterosexual tasks. Psychiatrically hospitalized black men are mistreated but not in this way. Despite differences between black, Puerto Rican and white women, and differences in how they are perceived by male professionals, the fact that they are women makes them all equally vulnerable to the predominantly masculine standard of mental health. Also, despite differences, crucial (and devalued) aspects of the female role are probably shared by women of all races and classes. For example, a study has suggested that significantly more women than men, both among the black and white populations, have reported nervous breakdowns, impending nervous breakdowns, psychological inertia, and dizziness. Both African- and white American women also report higher rates than men for the following symptoms: nervousness, insomnia, trembling hands, nightmares, fainting, and headaches.13
THE INTERVIEWS
I spoke with nine Third World women, six of African descent and three of Latin American descent. Their ages ranged from twenty-seven to forty-eight. Two women had some high school experience, four had some college experience, two had completed college, and one woman had some graduate school experience. Five women were legally single, one was legally married, two were divorced, and one was widowed. With one exception, a schoolteacher, none of the women earned more than five thousand dollars yearly, if that, and usually in a secretarial or clerical capacity. Three of the women were unemployed or living on welfare. Two of the women, both black Americans, were feminists.
Three of the women had been psychiatrically hospitalized: one woman briefly, for attempting suicide, another several times for “paranoid schizophrenia,” and a third woman many times for a total of more than five years for “involutional schizophrenia.” None were hospitalized in private institutions.
Seven of the women had been in private therapy with approximately three therapists apiece, for approximately twenty-five months: seventeen months with male therapists and twenty-four months with female therapists. (“Approximately” means a total average for the group of seven.) The women saw a total number of ten male therapists and eight female therapists. With the exception of two black male psychiatrists and one Puerto Rican female social worker, the therapists were all white.
I spoke to five of the women with another Third World woman present. Two of the interviews were conducted without me by a Third World woman. I spoke to one woman with a white friend and former therapist present, and to one woman alone, at her request.
Why did these women seek, accept, or feel comfortable with male therapists? Naivete? Race hatred? Same-sex hatred? An opportunity to finally be with a white man who couldn’t seduce or buy them? Or who would, but “nicely?” In general, most of the women were as “hooked” on heterosexuality, “love,” and marriage as their white counterparts.
WILMA: I couldn’t stand being without a man. Every time a guy left me I would do three things: be afraid I’d kill myself, run to a therapist, and find another boy friend as soon as possible.
CAROLINE: Dr. B. is a very handsome black man. Very attractive. Great personality. Good doctor. And he tried everything. He almost stood on his head. I just did not talk to him about what was really bothering me. He never got to me. I didn’t relate to him. It was so terrible. I sat there for six months before we even talked a little bit about what I was feeling. You see he has this thing if I didn’t talk he very rarely said anything. And I don’t talk sometimes about things that are that close to me very well. So we sat through about twenty-five minutes in the session looking at each other and I sat there being miserable, and that’s kinda what happened. I suppose I was resisting. I don’t know what it was. He just couldn’t seem to open me up. It was a long waste.
PHYLLIS: You don’t blame him, though?
CAROLINE: No, I liked him. He was very nice, like a nice vase. You put it on the shelf to be admired and I wouldn’t run in there and say anything intimate or earth-shaking to break the vase. I actually used to replace the flowers in his outer office (he neglected them terribly) and I really liked him but I just couldn’t talk to him. [After my suicide attempt] I started seeing Dr. L., a white man, who I also liked a lot. He’s really helped me. But you know, no matter what I say, he brings it back to me. If I got bubonic plague it would still be my fault. No, I can’t talk to him about orgasms, I’m too embarrassed.
EVELYN: I started therapy primarily because of a guy I’d had a brief relationship with and he rejected me. And I had actually made a humiliating telephone call. The first time I’d ever done anything like that in my life—to just simply confront him verbally and this was after I’d drunk about three quarters of a bottle of vodka. I was absolutely smashed out of my skull in order to work myself up to this chance to call him and say, “Why did you put me down?” And he told me that there had been someone else in his life who had returned or some such jazz and I was just out of my skull with depression. My whole view of therapy had always been that it was only sick people that did it. It was an admission that you were weak and I was not weak. I was a strong, strong person and I don’t need anybody and I don’t need nothing. I don’t even know how I got up the stuff to go the first time, but I did. I think I was attracted to him. He was white, male, and over twenty-one and I guess I viewed him as available and single. Whether or not he was I never did know, anyways. Then I remembered early fantasies about having sex with him and that kind of thing. And then I went through the thing where I’m sure I was trying to seduce him and he didn’t turn on to it although he was very friendly and so forth. And I remember my being angry about his not turning on to it.
The problems of being both a woman of color in a racist and sexist society are staggering, the permutations of violence, self-destructiveness, and paran
oia endless. I worked out one traditional permutation with an African American woman: for most of her life, it was clear to her that black men don’t like black women, prefer white women, can’t earn money, beat you up, run around, and aren’t really as “acceptable” as white men; white women—they’re bitchy, childish, rich, and racist: even the poor ones are rich, and anyway Lady Jane just isn’t important, she can’t love, she isn’t strong, my God! why do the men want her? Black women—they’re made of stronger stuff, but they’re also bitchy, poor, racist, and would cut your throat to get a white man or a “good” black man. Ask me, I know, I’m a black woman; white men—don’t ask, just don’t ask.
How nice, white, verbal therapy can really help with these seemingly bottomless tragedies is quite beyond me.
Most of the women I talked to had childhood and marriage experiences of physical brutality, double-standard puritanism, and sexual dissatisfaction. I do not mean to imply that Third World men are less sexually giving than white men; however, twentieth-century poverty, racism, and doctrines of machismo or “primitive” pride aren’t helpful to the sexual and sensual liberation of Third World women—who are already sexually repressed as a function of white patriarchal culture.
WILMA: I was never attracted to white men. I only went to bed with brothers. I really bought that myth of black male superiority in bed and kept going to bed with them—but it’s not true! Practically none of them could screw; I mean they were incompetent. No, I really mean they didn’t care about me, and they figured they were just such hot shit naturally that a natural screw ought to be good enough for any woman so, with three exceptions, they were pretty cold and clumsy—and they didn’t want to learn. Eventually I would explain what I wanted—in words of one syllable—and that didn’t work either…. They’re just incompetent. Men are sexually incompetent.
Women and Madness Page 30
