Feminism, Colonialism and Selective Empathy: The Need for Inclusive Global Feminist Praxis

Feminists from the Global Majority navigate the intersecting challenges of identity, representation and global empathy, particularly as these relate to geopolitical crises. These sociopolitical struggles highlight how systemic biases shape whose suffering is acknowledged and whose is ignored. For example, while the victims of the Russian-Ukrainian war have garnered significant international attention and support, similar empathy is often absent for women in Gaza, who have faced displacement and life-threatening health challenges during the 2023–2025 war (UN Women 2024), or for women in Syria, whose struggles with war-related sexual violence under Al-Assad regime have been documented (Amnesty International, 2021) but rarely amplified globally.

In Sudan, women have been key voices in protest movements against military regimes (Tønnessen 2020), yet their sacrifices are frequently overlooked in Western narratives about democracy and human rights. Similarly, in Lebanon, the intersecting crises of economic collapse and political instability disproportionately impact women (UN Women, 2023), yet their suffering is seldom centered on global feminist advocacy. Beyond the Arab and Muslim world, Indigenous women in Canada face alarmingly high rates of violence and disappearances that remain underreported in international media (National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, 2019), while Black women in the United States experience higher maternal mortality rates due to systemic healthcare inequities (Mondestin and Osorio, 2024), a crisis rarely addressed with urgency in mainstream feminist discourse. Such stark disparities demand a critical reflection: Why are the lives of some women deemed more valuable than others in the international feminist imagination?

Selective empathy—or lack thereof—demands critical interrogation. An emerging discourse within feminist scholarship is beginning to address such disparities. For example, Culcasi (2024) explores the hijab as a contested symbol, often viewed in the West as a sign of Muslim women’s oppression and a symbol of incompatibility with liberal values. This perception is deeply rooted in Orientalist and Western feminist frameworks. Culcasi’s study highlights research indicating that images of Syrian refugee women wearing the hijab evoke less sympathy and greater perceptions of threat in Western contexts, particularly in the USA. The hijab, as a visual marker of cultural identity, contributes to framing Syrian refugees as an undesirable outgroup, reinforcing cultural biases and exclusionary policies. Such studies underscore how visual and cultural cues are weaponised to sustain inequities, casting Muslim women as outsiders in a global feminist narrative that should be inclusive if it is to remain loyal to its core values.

Such observations align closely with my academic work, which seeks to dismantle “double colonialism” (Ashcroft et al., 2007)—the imperial and patriarchal hierarchies that shape both the digital and physical landscapes of the Arab-Islamic world. Central to my research is “digital post/colonial feminism,” a proposed framework which critiques hierarchical structures within digital spaces and examines how women from the Global Majority, particularly Arab and Muslim women, assert agency and resist marginalisation. Through digital literary and artistic activism, Arab and Muslim women engage in dual resistance: challenging local patriarchal norms while dismantling Orientalist and exclusionary narratives embedded in global digital cultures (Hosny, 2024). My work also critiques “female Orientalism” (Zayzafoon, 2005), a reductive lens that flattens the diverse experiences of Eastern women into a singular narrative of oppression. By integrating Arab feminism with postcolonial studies, my research foregrounds the intersections of race, empire and gender to create a cultural record reflecting women’s global racial, religious, social and economic differences.

Grounded in the principles of intersectionality—a framework coined by Crenshaw (1989) to explore how overlapping systems of oppression, such as race, gender and class, create unique experiences of discrimination—my research challenges dominant Western paradigms to foster a feminist discourse that is inclusive and global. An inclusive feminist discourse is crucial because it moves beyond Eurocentric perspectives, acknowledging and addressing the diverse realities faced by women worldwide. Such a discourse not only amplifies marginalised voices but also promotes solidarity and shared strategies for resistance, ultimately contributing to a more equitable and empathetic global society. By advocating for inclusivity, my work underscores the transformative potential of feminist scholarship to deconstruct oppressive systems and envision alternative futures that value diversity and intersectional justice.

The commitment to addressing systemic silences and biases finds a striking example in feminist research, particularly in the marginalisation of Palestinian women’s suffering under the ongoing violence of settler colonialism (Pratt et al., 2025). Kynsilehto (2024) critiques such silences, attributing them to multiple factors: the framing of Palestinian issues in ways that obscure the systemic nature of settler colonialism, the diversion of focus to Muslim men as sole agents of patriarchal violence and the perceived complexity of the context, which often leads to avoidance. For European academics, the silence is further compounded by collective guilt tied to the Holocaust and the misconception that criticising Israeli state actions equates to antisemitism or Holocaust denial as believed by Kynsilehto. Such dynamics underscore the complicity of mainstream feminist discourses in perpetuating selective empathy and exclusion (Pratt et al., 2025), reinforcing the urgent need for alternative frameworks—like postcolonial and intersectional feminist approaches—that address these blind spots and center the voices of women in colonised and marginalised communities.        

The selective empathy issue, however, is not confined to the Palestinian context or the Arab-Islamic world. Similar patterns of selective empathy and marginalisation emerge globally. Indigenous women in the Americas face systemic erasure rooted in settler colonialism, as highlighted by Smith (2005), who critiques the exclusion of their struggles from mainstream feminist agendas. Meanwhile, Black women in the United States encounter systemic racial and gender-based discrimination, as underscored in Crenshaw’s (1991) foundational work on intersectionality. These examples illustrate how feminist movements often marginalise voices from the Global Majority, highlighting the need for a truly intersectional approach that builds solidarity across diverse socio-political contexts. By addressing these intersecting struggles, feminist discourse can create a movement that values all women’s experiences equally and works toward dismantling systemic inequities.

In this context, Full Stack Feminism (FSF) proposes valuable tools for addressing the limitations of conventional digital humanities and fostering a more inclusive feminist practice. As outlined on the project’s website, the “Full Stack” metaphor emphasises the need to critique all layers of social, cultural and technological infrastructures, from design to implementation and dissemination. By applying an intersectional feminist praxis throughout these layers, FSF’s proposed methodology challenges the biases and discrimination embedded in digital systems and narratives (ABOUT Full Stack Feminism). The emphasis on “feminist ethics of care” and “feminist listening as a practice” (Webb 2022) reflects a profound commitment to global solidarity, shifting the focus from speaking about women’s experiences to listening to them, enabling the amplification of voices that are often marginalised or silenced. By creating spaces for dialogue and exchange, feminist listening fosters the polyvocality necessary for an inclusive and intersectional feminist practice.

As I reflect on the possibilities offered by FSF, I am reminded of the urgency of these interventions in today’s geopolitical landscape. The ongoing women’s suffering in Gaza and Sudan, the plight of refugees, the systemic erasure of Arab and Muslim women’s voices further compounded by the western hegemonies of the Internet, the struggles of Indigenous women in the Americas against settler colonialism and the enduring racial and gender-based discrimination faced by Black women globally underscore the urgent need for a feminist framework that is inclusive, intersectional and transformative. FSF’s emphasis on critique, care and listening provides a robust foundation for such a framework, challenging us to rethink the assumptions and hierarchies that underpin our digital and cultural worlds.

My hope is that through initiatives like Full Stack Feminism, we can move closer to a feminism that is not only intersectional but also truly global—one that recognises and values the diversity of women’s experiences and strives for a future where all women’s lives are valued equally.

References

“ABOUT Full Stack Feminism.” https://fullstackfeminismdh.pubpub.org/about

Ashcroft, Bill, Gareth Griffiths, and Helen Tiffin. (2007). “Post-Colonial Studies: The Key Concepts.” 2nd ed. London and New York: Routledge.

Crenshaw, Kimberlé. (1991). “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color.” Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241-1299.

Crenshaw, Kimberlé W. (1989). “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics,” 1989 U. Chi. Legal F. 139. Available at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/3007

Culcasi, Karen. (2024) “Gendered Orientalism and the Agency of Syrian, Muslim Women Refugees.” Fennia 202(1) 13–25. https://doi.org/10.11143/fennia.129457

Hosny, Reham. (2024). “Digital Post/colonial Feminism: Poetics and Politics of Digital Literary Activism by Arab Women.” Journal of Postcolonial Writing, https://doi.org/10.1080/17449855.2024.2410344

Kynsilehto, Anitta. (2024). “Feminist Silences and Silencing the Critique of Gaza Genocide.” Gender, Place & Culture, https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2024.2409703

Mondestin, Tanesha. and Aubrianna Osorio. (2024). “Maternal Mortality Rates Decreased in 2022, But Disparities Persist.” Georgetown University Center for Children and Families. June 6, https://ccf.georgetown.edu/2024/06/06/maternal-mortality-rates-decreased-in-2022-but-disparities-persist/   

National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. (2019). “Reclaiming Power and Place: The Final Report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls – Executive Summary,” https://www.mmiwg-ffada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Executive_Summary.pdf

Pratt, Nicola, Afaf Jabiri, Ashjan Ajour, Hala Shoman, Maryam Aldossari, and Sara Ababneh. (2025). “Why Palestine Is a Feminist Issue: A Reckoning with Western Feminism in a Time of Genocide.” International Feminist Journal of Politics, February, 1–25. doi:10.1080/14616742.2025.2455477.

Smith, Andrea. (2005). Conquest: Sexual Violence and American Indian Genocide. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.

UN Women. (2024). “Gender Alert: Gaza: A War on Women’s Health,” September, https://www.unwomen.org/sites/default/files/2024-09/gender-alert-gaza-a-war-on-womens-health-en.pdf

UN Women. (2023). “Impact of Lebanon’s Financial Crisis on Women’s Economic Participation.” June, https://lebanon.unwomen.org/sites/default/files/2023-06/Impact%20of%20Lebanon%27s%20Financial%20Crisis%20on%20Women%27s%20Economic%20Empowerment_UNWLCO.pdf

Webb, Sharon and Izzy Fox. (2022). “A Feminist Framework for Research – Key Methods and Praxis (Overview),” Dec 08,  https://doi.org/10.21428/6094d7d2.52fc83d9 https://fullstackfeminismdh.pubpub.org/pub/7tfwk4v1/release/1?readingCollection=f5a0116a     

Zayzafoon, Lamia Ben Youssef. 2005. The Production of the Muslim Woman: Negotiating Text, History, and Ideology. Lanham: Lexington