“The Need for Female Solidarity and the Deterring Oppression” Critical Essay

Throughout the anthology, This Bridge Called My Back, several of the female writers mention the need for solidarity between women in the struggle for justice. Popular culture pushes women to focus on differences between one another instead of unite as a powerful, cohesive front in society. Cherríe Moraga, along with other writers, calls for this practice to be changed. Rather than concentrating on how women are divided through experiences, females should use the differences to connect to each other and employ them, as a unified force, against the dominant culture. However, the oppression which women have been subjected to hinders this solidarity. The extensive oppression of women has resulted in women themselves internalizing their subjugation. In turn, the oppressed become the oppressors of their own kind. In order to overcome the internalization hindering women’s solidarity one must confront the issues and begin a dialogue with others, one that will bridge together women.

Unity can be seen as a major motif throughout the entirety of This Bridge Called My Back, however internalized oppression complicates the issue. Genny Lim in her poem, “Wonder Woman,” questions whether if there is a commonality between women, and if so, why women are not recognizing it. Lim ponders, “I look at them and wonder if/They are a part of me/I look in their eyes and wonder if/They share my dreams…Why must woman stand divided?/Building the walls that tear them down?” (Lim, 25-26) Instead of accepting one another, women harm each other like the rest of society does. Cherríe Moraga also discusses the need for the collectivity of all women. Moraga states, “The real power, as you and I well know, is collective. I can’t afford to be afraid of you, nor you of me…this polite timidity is killing us.” (Moraga, 34) Women have been trying to fight against oppression individually, when they should be assembling together to compound their power. However, the internalized oppression of women actually results in women contributing to the oppression of their own gender. With women taking the dual role of both the oppressed and the oppressor, they become afraid of discourse. Moraga discusses, “…each of us in some way has been both oppressed and the oppressor. We are afraid to look at how we have failed each other. We are afraid to see how we have taken the values of our oppressor into our hearts and turned them against ourselves and one another. We are afraid to admit how deeply ‘the man’s’ words have been ingrained in us.” (Moraga, 32) In addition to this fear of self-recognition, popular culture has taught women to observe differences and tolerate them, but not engage with them. This pressure, along with women’s fear, completely impedes beneficial discourse. Moraga argues, “…one voice is not enough, nor two, although this is where dialogue begins. It is essential that radical feminists confront their fear of and resistance to each other, because without this…we will not survive.” (Moraga, 34) A discussion needs to be started, which means women must face their discomfort. With a dialogue, differences between females can change from forces of separation to forces of strength. Audre Lorde expounds, “Only within that interdependency of different strengths, acknowledged and equal, can the power to seek new ways to actively ‘be’ in the world generate, as well as the courage and sustenance to act where there are no charters…Difference is that raw and powerful connection from which our personal power is forged.” (Lorde, 99) Only through engagement of differences will women gain a common understanding. With a new understanding of differences, women would be able to work together as a cohesive unit to accomplish their goals.

The need for solidarity between women is extremely necessary in the fight against the dominant culture. However, internalized oppression along with institutional pressure against engaging with experiential differences impedes the solidarity effort. The writers of This Bridge Called My Back argue that women should confront their fear of self-awareness and fully engage with the differences, beginning dialogues with other women. These discourses between females would result in a new understanding of differences, giving women tools to employ when acting as a unified group in the struggle for justice.

“Vendida Logic in the Chicana Movement” Critical Essay

In Maylei Blackwell’s work, ¡Chicana Power!, vendida logic is given as a major setback for the Chicana feminist movement of the 1960s and 1970s. Used by males with the desire to suppress the feminist cause, vendida logic was established by Blackwell as an issue in the history of the Chicana feminist. Effects of vendida logic could be found even at the level of personal histories of former feminist activists. However, vendida logic also played a much more distinct role in damaging the Chicana feminist cause: Chicanas themselves using the logic on each other. With the prevalence of vendida logic, it slipped into the feminist activists mindset, resulting in them using it against each other and disintegrating the 1971 Conferencia de Mujeres por la Raza, and the activists’ hope for national organization.

Blackwell described the idea of vendida logic into four major types of reasoning against the feminist cause. When considering la Conferencia de Mujeres por la Raza, the majority of the variations of the logic can be found in the behavior of actual members of the conference. Individuals who employed vendida logic either focused on, “…(1) race (feminists were agringadas, or race traitors); (2) ideological purity (feminists were sellouts dividing the movement from the primary struggle that they, as members of the movement, did not have the right to shape and articulate); (3) sexual (feminists were sexual deviants or lesbians); [or] (4) culturalist (feminists were inauthentic/outside of/antagonistic to Chicano culture.” (Blackwell, 31) These ways of rejecting feminism, used in such an insidious and frequent manner, became engrained in feminist activist thoughts. Their constant need to dispute against the vendida logic placed on them actually resulted in suggesting that there were some women in the Chicano movement who did conform to the vendida logic arguments. Both the rooting of vendida logic in Chicana activists and the unintended result of growing suspicion of activists pushed Chicana women into using vendida logic themselves inside the feminist activist group, “…shap[ing] the political terrain for years to come…[by] disrupt[ing] the sense of a collective identity and political agenda.” (162) Vendida logic played a significant role in dismantling la Conferencia de Mujeres por la Raza in 1971, which in turn shifted the Chicana political community nationwide. In complaints about the conference leading up to the walkout, roots of vendida logic can be seen. Individuals wanting to protest the convention stated, “‘that Chicanas had no business holding the conference at the YWCA because it was run by gavachas.’” (176) This statement suggests the racial tension found in the vendida arguments. By Chicana activists cooperating with the YWCA and thus white women, some Chicanas saw them as collaborating with the movement’s enemy. Further reiterating this point, the discontented activists explain how the movement’s, “‘…enemy is not with the macho but with the gavacho.’” By stating this, the critics are invalidating the feminist movement. While the statement continues to demonstrate the racial junction of vendida logic, it also shows parts of the ideological facet of vendida logic. The assertion that the true enemy of the Chicano movement rests in the white race, not the Chicano men, stresses that the feminist activists are influencing female movement members into focusing on the wrong issues and the wrong adversary. Many women also criticized other female activists during the conference because they saw them as inauthentic to the Chicano culture, directly relating to the culturalist portion of vendida logic. When needing food for the conference goers, the community contributed hot dogs, however activists criticized this choice of food as not Chicano enough. While unhappy Chicana women voiced their complaints at the conference, there was a general theme of a lack of authentic culture at the conference. One woman, looking back on the events before the walkout states, “‘We had hot dogs; they wanted rice and beans. Bertha [the activist from Magnolia neighborhood who was speaking on stage when the walkout organizers took the mic] wasn’t Chicana enough; we weren’t Chicana enough. They were barrio people, they wanted barrio issues. They wanted you to know they were gung-ho on Chicano things and we weren’t Chicano enough.’” (181) The walkout supporters understood the conference and individuals at the conference to be lacking true Chicana culture. The criticisms stated and subsequent walkout categorized some activists as not Chicana enough, while also seemingly elevating the supporters of walkout for being the true Chicana women.

Men employed vendida logic to restrain the Chicana feminist movement and causes; and due to pervasiveness of the vendida arguments the feminist activists actually internalized vendida logic though time. Actions made at la Conferencia de Mujeres por la Raza demonstrated how Chicana feminists actually took a criticism on themselves and used it against one another. Racial, cultural and ideological vendida logic roots can be seen throughout the criticisms of the conference and its patrons. Vendida logic, first used as a tool to oppose the feminist cause, slowly moved into Chicana feminist activists mentalities, transforming into a mechanism in which the Chicana feminists could actually bring their own movement down by using it. Roots of vendida logic seen in the 1971 conference significantly altered the Chicana feminist movement, obstructing the crusade from reaching a greater level of understanding and constructing a national organization of Chicana feminists.

The “Whiteness” of Mexican Americans Critical Essay

In 1848, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo recognized the legal status of Mexican Americans as white. Though in society Mexican immigrants were not treated as such, during the wartime of the 1940s, Mexican American men and women asserted this “whiteness” to differentiate themselves from the other minority populations as well as claim certain privileges. The government enacted the change in legal status, using it a tool to uphold the racial hierarchical structure previously established in United States. However, the “whiteness” actually resulted in Mexican American youth moving away from homogenizing with white culture, instead forming their own unique culture and identity through the pachuca figure.

The status of Mexican Americans as technically white altered the racial relationship in the United States, principally when women gained access to the workforce and began to interact with other races. Though people of Mexican descent were not received as white in any aspect of society, their legal status of being white, or at least not being defined as “colored” shifted the relationship between Mexican Americans and other minority groups. This “whiteness,” “…shield[ed] Mexicans, to some extent, from the legalized and at times more pervasive forms of segregation and exclusion blacks faced.” (Escobedo, 97) In employment opportunities, Mexican Americans were preferred over African Americans. Though people of Mexican descent had the lowest level factory jobs, they were still seen as superior to African Americans who were, “…completely shut out of industrial jobs for much of the twentieth century.” (89) The United States government used the “almost white” legal status of Mexican Americans to their advantage, employing it as a tactic to pit marginalized groups against each other. As minority women joined the workforce in wartime, suddenly anti-Black racism from Mexican Americans could be seen. In 1943, a group of Mexican workers, “…made pointed claims to privileges of ‘whiteness’ by refusing to share facilities and work side by side with African Americans.” (98) With their “whiteness,” Mexican Americans had been given a commonality with white citizens, thus elevating them above the African American population. This legal ploy prevented minority groups from banning together to upset the established hierarchy of race. Instead, it placed groups as enemies through an invented, imbalanced relationship.

Yet, the status of “almost white” did not result in Mexican Americans assimilating with the white culture. In actuality, Mexican American youth responded by “…blatantly rebel[ing] against social conventions.” (18) Though legal “whiteness” placed them above other minorities, second-generation Mexican youth began to understand that they would never be truly seen as a white Americans. Always, there would be things inherently out of their reach. In response to their racial ambiguity in American society, Mexican American youth formed the pachuco identity. Soon young women were altering this image to construct the pachuca image. Through the creation of the pachuca, “…women who wore the zoot style participated in a racialized, collective identity that helped them escape their feelings about being outsiders in the United States by claiming an affirming identity as outsiders in the United States.” (38) Instead of being placed in the role of “other” by the American society, young Mexican American women chose to build their own identity, actively marking themselves as abnormal in the current society. The creation of the pachuca character illustrated an awareness from the Mexican American youth. They recognized the reality of their place in the United States and chose to change it. The second generation of Mexican immigrants understood the complex concept that, “…being American did not necessitate erasure of every semblance of their cultural heritage.” (39) Mexican Americans did not need to assimilate to the white culture to embody the American spirit; rather they could preserve their cultural traditions and choose their own identity for how they wished to be seen.

The United States government employed the legal status of Mexican American citizens’ race for their own advantage. Though the division of minority groups did occur, Mexican American youth resisted conforming to white culture. Instead, the younger generations created the pachuca identity, one that clearly pushed social norms and conventions. Ultimately the new character let the second-generation Mexican Americans escape their position in the nation. The identity gave young Mexican Americans freedom from the indistinctness of their role in the United States, as well as ultimate control over how larger society perceived them.

“The Shifting of Women’s Agency in 19th-Century California” Critical Essay

Throughout the nineteenth century, three separate nations: Spain, Mexico and the United States, occupied the territory of California. The constant transitioning of cultures, political systems and languages significantly affected the gender roles and agency of Californians, specifically those of women. In the transitional periods of California, women lost property rights, decreasing their role and agency in the regional economy, but they gained social and legal rights, improving their agency in the community. However, the large role of tradition and culture rooted in Californian society in the nineteenth century hindered women from using this agency to its full advantage.

In the process of shifting from Mexican-California to American-California, Californian women lost a substantial amount of their property rights, which they had previously understood as inherent. From 1821 to 1847, while the territory of California was under the governance of Mexico, female citizens “…had the right to acquire property not only through grants but also through endowments, purchases, gifts and inheritance…[Women] could also administer, protect, and invest their property…” (Chávez-Garcia, 54)  With these rights, it can be understood that women were serious players in the local economy. Women had the ability to be businesswomen through land ownership, investment, and cultivation. When the United States acquired the region of California, it converted the political and legal structure to the English system, severely limiting these progressive rights of women. In 1850, a California law, “…gave married women an equal interest in marital or common property, but a husband had the authority to manage his wife’s property as if it were his own.” (126) This small change in dynamics dramatically shifted power away from women. With the new statute, men resumed their former role of regulating things, fundamentally not theirs, in place of the woman, such as with women’s sexuality in Spanish-California. (33) This suppression of Californian women’s rights could be due to the United States’ desire to exert control over the newly attained territory. By enacting these laws against women, the United States implicitly demonstrated its conquest of California.

The transition of power of the California region also resulted in increased social and legal agency for Californian women. In Spanish and Mexican cultures, “…stable marriages were the bedrock of a well-ordered society.” (90) This permeated Californian society during the periods of conquest. With the United States’ procurement of California, Western concepts of divorce marital prosecutions began to spread into California. This change unsettled the normative gender roles that had become standard over the past two centuries. In 1850, the California Assembly government formally passed the common law, including the granting of women, “…the opportunity to sue to sever the bond of matrimony…” (93) This decree resulted in women gaining significant legal and social agency compared to before. Not only could women use local judicial institutions for criminal indictments, but also they could actively participate in social situations, such as marriage, “bring[ing] their spouses before a tribunal and charg[ing] them with marital indiscretions or other inappropriate behavior…” (91) However, those women gained this ability, only a minute amount of women actually used it. In almost thirty years, from 1851 to 1879, “…less than one percent of the Californio-Mexican population in Los Angeles, challenged fundamental notions of marriage and the family by seeking a divorce.” (95-96) Due to such deep-rooted traditional values and social taboos, the majority of women stayed loyal to their husbands regardless if they wanted to become independent of him. A pervasive notion in California society instructed, “…women with abusive spouses to ‘suffer patiently’ and remain in the household for the good of the family and the larger community.” (114) Traditional ideas such as this help explain the minimal number of women who sought to active use their marital rights. The large role of tradition and community in the Californian society hindered women from using their agency to its full extent. Due to the importance of both, many women seemed to have held back from taking action to help themselves, thinking more about the honor and collective of California.

The multiple transitional periods of California both improved and deteriorated the agency of women in different realms of society. However, it is clear that the gender roles of women were drastically and permanently altered due to the changing governing nations. Women’s property rights, and thus economic agency, weakened as a result of the major shift to the United States’ legal system and the new governing body exerting their dominance over California. Women gained a level of social and legal agency from the enactment of common law in California, containing the right for women to separate from their husbands. However, only a minority of women actually ended up using this newly gained agency due to the traditional values of marriage and community.