You need Your OWN Voice Sista: Lorde's theory of Master's tools

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.

Was Passiert zum “Mutterrecht” ?(i): Chodorow's Theory of Mothering

Chodorow’s article is basically arguing that “If woman is formed in a process of creating “the other” to man in society, then in parallel to this, mothering is attached to “the other” by differing both sexes.” For both sexes, taking up the social roles in the family grows from the very beginning of a biological and social “capacity” to hold and maintain the relationships with “others”, through which the man and woman identifies themselves. This capacity of relationship which has its own roots in seeing the children as in one position is connected to apprehension of heterosexual action by man and woman.

There was one story that I heard about the mothering and fathering in one of my classes; it was about one group of psychologists making an experiment on children about acting out the mother and father in the family. Not surprisingly, the girls who were asked to play mother were much more able to act the role out by cooking, taking care of the children, cleaning the house, washing the dishes and so on. The boys on the other hand who were asked to play father, at first there was a state of confusion then, they took their “suitcase” and said good bye to mother and children.

Beyond this experiment, the domestic labor is really important to analyze the capitalist! Way of our living. In the nuclear productive family, which I believe is a creation of capitalism, imposes the woman to be a mother in order to “get things done” in side of family for free. Housewifery, as a part of mothering, reproduces the well-being productive labors for the market and enslaves the woman over and over. In my opinion, if the discourse about mother or active parent being female finishes, much of the inequalities of patriarchy will be finished, then we will see woman in our societies not as “other” but “like us”.

i. What happened to Mother's right

Woman is the Indicator, Not the One Who Sees the Indication: on the Beauvoir's second sex

The self emerges within the society by the realization of “the differences” between the self and other. These differences are loaded into artificially constructed “roles” that are defined by the society in respect to their histories. The sexes, just like the self, “develop” in such way; “one” is man because there is a woman and “the other” is woman because there is a man. Human history tells us that; man is the one, the actor, the king, the hero, the god whereas woman is only an “object” that “pleases” “the natural needs” of the king, completes the hero “incompletely”, gives, and ought to give, the ground for “the one” to become the subject. All of this started with the control of man over woman’s “femininity”; man idealized woman with discourses of “true woman”(1) , and left no freedom to take decisions on their own. Therefore, one was not born as woman but rather becomes in socialization process.

Engels is essential here to understand woman’s stigmatized position in the society; private property brought senses religion, family, and state our lives to “secure” our interests and let men to accumulate them. The objectification of women took place in this process, then the man, because they are the ones who “works-out” became the absolute power and controller in the societies.

Universal suffrage was introduced in Turkey in 19 and almost all the course books manifests that the right to voting and being voted was “given” to Turkish women before many of European countries. However, in actuality there is no big deal about this, not many woman took an important place in Turkish history. But, by the law on suffrage, the memories of women in Ottoman wanted to be forgotten and the new memories of Turkish women wanted to “be produced”, it is crucial to note that, there is actually no difference between these memories and roles of the woman in the society. The difference was rather in the mentality of “new man”; who “acts-out” equality myth in the public sphere and enjoys his privileged role. Few years ago, after the general elections Erdoğan assigned Nimet Çubukçu as minister of education, for some people that was a radical shift for AKP and its fractions in terms of the perspective on woman’s role in politics. However, the former minister of education, once again, showed that there was no need for “excitement” by saying that “She doesn’t need to do something, but make the system (which I’ve setup in my years of ministry) work.” There, once again we have seen that the narration of the events (history) was controlled by man and woman cannot become an actor in it. But it is not the case for “Muslim-conservatives”; CHP was greatly illustrating this idea by supporting headscarf ban for many years and saying that “Wearing hijab is not their choice, but it was their families will” which in fact, again, makes decision for women’s reasons. I conclude that, the “problems” of women has never been discussed by women in Turkey and unless there will be a world-wide radical change, because all the history and life that we live is same, as it was proposed by Karl Marx in Communist Manifesto.
___________________________________________________________________________________

(1) Described by Barbara Welter in “The Cult of True Womanhood” in American Quarterly Vol. 18 (1966): as purity, piety, submissiveness and domesticity (pg. 152).