I sat in the panels for "What is Feminist Politics Now?" in awe of the differing opinions, the women coming from entirely different perspectives offering their opinions.  At a panel on Friday, Uma Narayan expressed serious concerns regarding microcredit in Third World countries as a one-way bridge from point A to point B.  Describing the issues when point A exploits point B, she made the comment that bridges aren't always a positive.  This made me wonder, where do we draw the line with these bridges?  In Lila Abu-Lughod's article, "Do Muslim Women Need Saving? Anthropological Reflections on Cultural Relativism and Its Others," she makes it clear that "we need to develop...a serious appreciation of differences among women in the world" (783).  I guess my question is how we avoid the negative bridges--with microcredit, for example--when we need to build the positive bridges like "[developing]...a serious appreciation of differences?"  When is the bridge worth the risk?  And if we don't build it, how can affluent white women learn to see --and accept for that matter-- that their view of feminism isn't universal?