Alex Phistry on Sudbury

            In this first blog post, I am going to be writing about Julia Sudbury’s perspective on colonial paternalism influencing how society views violence at the hands of women, particularly women of color. Sudbury makes this argument by emphasizing how violence at the hands of women goes against societal expectations of women, which are perpetuated by colonial paternalism. Colonial paternalism, as it relates to Sudbury’s argument, can be understood as British beliefs/values/expectations being imposed on cultures under British occupancy or control.

            Sudbury writes that it was (is) believed that women who commit violence, mainly killing their abusive husbands, go against the paternalistic notion that women are inherently non-aggressive. This led me to think about the number of studies in psychology and neuroscience which argue that there are many more inherent similarities between men and women than there are differences. This also led me to think about how the “rise in the violence of women” occurred just as the second wave feminist movement was losing steam and society’s perspective on empowering women was able to be shifted from increasingly positive to increasingly negative. Meaning that there was more than likely no “rise” in the number of crimes committed by women, just more statistics being tracked and more attention being paid to them. This mythical “rise in violent women” that Sudbury writes about gave paternalistic credibility to the notion that empowering women meant that women would steal power as well as masculinity/masculine qualities away from men. The argument also led me to consider that systematic patriarchy in which women are considered less than or unequal to men is due, at least in part, to the male ego and their feeling threatened by self-sufficient, independent women.

            Sudbury also writes that there is a dominant idea that South Asian women need to be protected by British law from “brutal South Asian patriarchy,” (16). In doing so, she expresses that the British assumed the role of “white knights” and the atrocities committed against the South Asian people, particularly the women, were rendered invisible. This argument led me to consider how in most cases of colonization, the brutalities committed by the colonizers, such as rape, theft, murder, etc. tend to not be discussed due to their being done “for the greater good.” The colonizers also impose their belief/value systems onto those being colonized. This, in turn, can lead to certain expectations of how people should behave. In doing so, colonizers would wrongly criminalize certain behaviors which could have been normal, or even traditional, to those being colonized. This led me to think about how colonial paternalism is a system working against women. When women are argumentative, aggressive, or even violent, they are judged harder and receive harsher punishments, especially when their motivations are being considered. This led me to think that more women, particularly women of color, are being imprisoned and harshly judged, not only based solely on their crimes, but by how challenging they are to the societal expectations set forth by colonial paternalism. It seems as though this is what Sudbury is talking about when describing how colonial paternalism helped Kiranjit in her criminal trial, but hurt Zoora in hers.

            To go off of Sudbury’s argument, I feel that colonial paternalism wrongly criminalizes those being colonized, but I also feel that it works even more so against women, especially women of color. Colonial paternalism places men at the top of the food chain, and women are considered less-than. However, women of color under colonial paternalism, or any patriarchal society, are also expected to adhere to a set of behavioral standards set forth by men and typically perpetuated by white women. Anything that challenges those social expectations is considered problematic and must be resolved. This can create new opportunities for women to be arrested and put in jail due to their being more vulnerable to having to protect themselves against an abusive spouse, like in the cases of Kiranjit and Zoora. I feel that in creating more visibility of violence by women, colonial paternalism and the overall patriarchal society of the West condemns women for violent behavior while it excuses, and even tries to normalize, those same behaviors in men.

It seems that while more women are standing up for themselves and protecting themselves against abuse and violence, there are not more men on trial for actually being the ones to perpetuate the abuse. Why is that? Does colonial paternalism create a system where violence by men is considered natural and understandable but violence by women is considered atypical and more dangerous?