For Lorde “women” have to understand some basic facts on their rise against patriarchy. First, it can never be destroyed with the existing feminist narratives, which views woman homogeneously, primarily because of the “patriarchal impact” on them. Second, toleration of the differences between women–in terms of race, sexuality, class and age– is actually means to ignore, with their eyes open, their capacity of creating unique “tools”. Therefore, in order to change “the thing”, what women need is a kind of polarization by which they will realize their differences, become mutually reliant on each other, work interdependently and create their own flourished narratives to achieve the ultimate goal. Otherwise, “the different ones” will not be able to speak for themselves and feminism will be the voice of white middle class woman. (Familiar from somewhere, see. White middle class man)
I think that, Beauvoir is a milestone for all the feminist theory by her question: What is a woman? Lorde’s argument basically grows on this question; in order to emancipate ourselves from patriarchy, we need to conceptualize the woman at first from many different dimensions, with pluralistic understandings. These multi-dimensional and pluralistic understanding of woman will do more than to define the woman in the society.
The western world was developed upon a civilization within conflict. The differences, extremes, polarizations brought dialectics, changes, improvements, innovations and new ways. In such world, one can, and should never think about seeing the woman as homogeneous category, the distinctions of some from other, when it is operated in non-dominant way, will bind them together even more than having the mutual sex. The history of woman will come to a body after this blindness I think.