bashoGWSS1

Lorde and Gunn-Allen are both writers who have experienced gender oppression and can view it through a cultural perspective. Lorde is a Black lesbian feminist who feels that she always has to suppress part of her identity, depending on which situation she is in. For example, when she is around feminists, she must only be a feminist, suppressing the fact that she is also Black. She argues that people see only the oppression that they are experiencing and participate in the system of oppression by ignoring the oppression that people face from other things – such as race, sexuality, etc. She thinks that we need to recognize the different kinds of oppression and realize that individuals can experience oppression differently, depending on their own situation.

Gunn-Allen is a Native American woman who was stuck between two cultures – white and Native American. In her culture (Native American), gender oppression does not really exist – women are valued for many different reasons. It was only through her connection to white culture that she experienced gender oppression in this “white� way. To her, this meant that gender oppression was not innate. It was something learned. She also talked about how it was difficult to be caught between the two cultures. She, however, was able to conclude that she as a woman was strong, and not something delicate and inferior like in white culture.

Lorde and Gunn-Allen’s arguments are similar, in that they cross cultural boundaries. What makes them different, in my opinion, is that Gunn-Allen was able to simply choose one part of her to agree with, while Lorde is stuck with changing her outward identity in different situations. Lorde came up with suggestions as to what to do about it, while Gunn-Allen seemed very content with the fact that the Native American teachings would pass on to her children. What about the rest of us?