I do not believe that if Jamaica Kincaid wrote in a different style that it would have the same affect.  It was honest in a satirical way.  Indeed, there were points where I thought she had a rather masculine tone due to her sense of ownership and forthrightness.  For instance, her examination of the tourist was rather harsh I felt given that I have been one on multiple occasions, nevertheless, she boldly states that, "A tourist is an ugly human being."  She designated a fine line when she stated that the English were simple "ill-mannered" and not racist.  Is that how Western feminism is to the supposed Third World?  Are we simply ill-mannered for our lack of understanding of various cultures and their structural systems of daily life?  Can transnationalism produce nothing but "ill-manners?"  I was puzzled by her fixation on a delapidated library.  Is the earthquake that ruined the library a metaphor for the English and Europeans that came over and ruined Antigua?  However, I thought Kincaid made the point that Antiguans are self-colonizing if there car be such a thing.  That would account for the vast corruption with Antigua.  She does a wonderful job at belittling the problems of Antigua to further her point for she states that Antigua is "just a little island."  And while it may be just a little island, it is also the product of transnationalism, colonialization, and westernization.  In her very last sentence she make a point similar to Simone de Beauvoir wherein once one ceases to be a slave, in this case, they are just human beings.  And in women's case, Beauvoir states that "surely woman is, like man, a human being."
         In the mode of colonialism, Mohantly gives specific examples as to how "woman" as a category is used by Western feminists  to define "Third World women."  These include women as victims of male violence, women as universal dependents, and women as victims of a colonial process of marriage.  But I questioned these categories, these definitions because don't Western women face the same things?  Western women are not immune to male violence or from being dependent on another (man).  So does that make Western women the same as Third World women?  Then there should be no distinction between "Western" and "Third World" all that should remain is "women."  Grewals discussion on postmodernity was troubling me. I never felt like I had a good understanding of what postmodernity means, much less how it applied to transnationalism.  But I was more aware of Narayan's discussion. I like the point made that Third World feminists have similar critiques to Western feminism as nonfeminists have.  But again if we remember Mohantly, what Western feminists attribute to Third World women are exactly the same things that happen to Western women.  So can there be such a thing as a Third World feminist?  And in turn can there be any Western feminists?  Can there ever be feminists if Third World "feminists" has the same sentiments as non feminists?