read this. i found it quite interesting. here's an excerpt:
The idea of a superstructure transnational feminism does not make a lot of sense to me. In fact, I find discussing global sisterhood boring and a little pointless. I attended the Feminist Theory and Activism in Global Perspective conference at SOAS today wondering what it really wanted to achieve, and left the conference still wondering. On the one – more positive – hand, there exists the idea that transnational feminism breeds solidarity. No doubt showing support as an emblem of solidarity is great, but effective activism needs a real understanding of the multiple contexts that influence it. Solidarity alone is not enough.
the whole post raises some very interesting issues. for example, feminists around the world would agree on common issues and the value of global collective action. yet such collective action can only be successful when all women around the world have equal status and input. the current global environment has one group of women as champions of progress and another group as the target of their efforts.
it's not an equal relationship. rather, it reminds me of a missionary set-up, where the devout set out to civilise the natives, not believing that they have anything to learn from said natives because they are in posession of "the truth". in such a set-up, progress towards common goals isn't possible because there is an absence of mutual respect.
i'm not sure if that's what this writer was trying to say, but that's how i reacted.