Is the Child Free movement anti-feminist?

The thing is, that implicit in that argument is the assumption that there are no hierachal (sp?) power dynamicsin play within feminism, unlike the other political movements. When in fact there is, race being a critical one (class is another).

I have witnessed startling, shocking and life-altering acts of oppresion by black men - using patriarchy - in the name of anti-racisim and by white woment - using racism - in the name of feminism. The latter example, being particularly true if you delve into the neo-colonial world of 'development aid'.

However, I refuse to believe that political movements have nothing to offer black women (or other groups), simply because there is a risk you can get screwed by them, it is too defeatist for me. In fact by interlinking the political movements you have more chance of revealing these 'other sites of oppression' and addressing rather than working in divisive silos within which the most marginalised groups (say black women, but you can use lots of other examples) remain the most disadvantaged.

but we're not all stronger. Men are stronger if women expend their finite energies on other movements.
IN fact men would prefer us to do just that. The last thing men-as-a-group want is for feminism to succeed because then there would be no more male privilege. It's as simple as that. Keep women's energies focused elsewhere and it's one less thing men have to worry about.

But there comes a point when women have to smash the cultural taboo and put themselves first. They have to look at history and the way they have been royally screwed after every single revolution they helped men fight for.

Completely agreed sprogger, that was my (slightly simplistic) point. We can't /shouldn't separate them out, because they do not exist in isolation and by actively linking feminism in with other political movements we all stronger.

Then we are in agreement, and indeed you don't need to belong to any of those groups to to fight those oppressions.

....and yes women have been screwed within those groups, but not sure it is entirely true to say black women in the US have got nowhere, it is not that simple. Whilst there is huge poverty, it also has produced leading black feminist academics, business women etc......that would not be possible if black people were still disenfranchised in the US.

I see what you mean Sakura.

Depressing isn't it?

I'll just add that you don't have to be black to fight racism, or a lesbian to fight homophobia, or disabled to fight ableism, but a lot of derailing is going on these days driven by male academia, I believe. Women need to see that if you don'T fight against sexism, then fighting anything else is fruitless. Where did fighting against racism get the black women who were dumped by black men as soon as they made a political gain? Absolutely nowhere.

snowmama, I was refering to the Black US experience

I am certainly not saying you have to choose between movements. Of course a black woman should fight against racism, and a working class woman against classism, and a disabled woman against ableism/

Nobody (except garlicbutter) is saying a woman has to choose.

What I am saying is that IF a woman prioritizes ANY other movement OVER feminism, then she is a mug, and fighting a losing battle. Do you honestly think that fighting for the rights of disabled 'people' will really help disabled women in the long run? Because I don't. THe doctors who treat them, the staff who care for them will remain as misogynistic as ever. Women are treated so differently to men by public institutions it's unreal.

I very much agree with you here Sakura;

""That's a bit like cutting weeds off without pulling out the roots; they'll just grow back double"

I'm glad you mentioned that analogy, garlicbutter, because when you take the focus of any oppressive movement away from sexism, that's exactly what you're doing: cutting off a few branches and leaving the root intact.

the ROOT of all oppression is sex-based oppression. Black women found that out quick sharp when black men sold them out to white men. Black men threw black women under the bus and got the vote,leaving black women to rot.

The Bros against Hos slogan that followed the last US election told you all you needed to know about women's place in the hierarchy.

If a woman fights for racism, or for class without making sexism a priority, then she is a mug.

Russia women found that out quick sharp after the communist revolution. There was no longer a class system, but women were still the underclass, the second class citizens, the second sex.

Sex based oppression is the root ."

Sakura, I don't disagree with those examples, though would comment that the black UK experience is not completely the same historically...however, I think my conclusions are different. It reminds me of when I was little in the early 80s and watching my mum verbally anialating those who said she should choose between feminism and black anti racism movements. They went as far as saying that she should choose between being a woman and being black. Which unsurprisingly she took issue with.

My reading would be we need a substantial feminist engagement with/in all those movements..otherwise it remains that we remain the admin assistants to other movements which is indeed insane. Engagement with other political movements needs to be at grassroots and leadership levels. Otherwise we remain on the outside getting screwed....I just don't see it as choice or prioritisation between movements, they are fundamentally interlinked...

sorry rephrase.

They did it with the Iranian revolution too. THe women took to the streets against the imperialist Shah to fight for their culture and as soon as the revolution was over in the 1970s they were forced to submit to an extreme version of Islamic fundamentalism.

Black men threw .....

snowmama, it's true that it ended up not looking anything like communism because after they killed off the original upper class and bourgoisie, it was just replaced by a new upper class, who were originally peasants.

But my point is that women never got a look in in any of that. THat's what I mean when I say women who prioritize any other movement over the feminist movement are mugs.

So dispersing women's (limited) energies into other movements such as race and class and trans and blah blah ultimately is fruitless for women.
It's very fucking useful for men however, who get to yoke our "secretarial" and "administrative" skills to organize their revolution.

Egypt is a case in point. They used the women to bring on the revolution and within weeks it was 'get back in the kitchen where you belong' and women ended up being assasinated by the very men they were fighting with just because they had the audacity to demand the rights they were promised.

Men do it every single time. They did it with the Iranian revolution too. Black men threw black women under the bus as soon as they'd got the right to vote. They did nothing to help black women get the right to vote and in fact pretty much didn't want them to get it.

But I think that men have done a very good job of convincing women that feminism is irrelevant compared to all the other Important Political Movements. Irrelevant to them, yes, or perhaps even threatening to them. But to women, the liberation movement is all that counts.

garlicbutter, have you actually studied the communist revolution?

I AM NOT HAVING A GO AT ANYONE IN PARTICULAR, Sakura, but this sort of question can be very alienating. I've just picked out your comment because it's recent. If we're discussing our understanding of social constructs and lessons to be drawn from history, then I hope my posts demonstrate a sufficient grasp of the topics in hand for the discussion. Not just mine, btw: many other provocative contributions are informed by experience, intelligence & curiosity.

But why would you need to know if I've studied it? Is this an exam? I wish more people here would comprehend that it's possible to get the facts, and have enough brains to work things out, without chapter-and-verse reference and/or tedious demonstrations of academic superiority.

But Sakura, haven't many others made the argument that communism was never true communism, precisely because it did not ever get close to any form of equality? And so had never truly broken original oppressions anyway?

This possibly signifies me as not a radical feminist, but it is too sweeping and passive for me to say we all pawns within which we are only allowed to access power given to us from men. It suggests that nothing has changed, which I would dispute....life is simply not that clear cut. If we return to the work example, corporate changes haven't been made because of a new found respect for women, but because of a combination of feminists within the system forcing change through and businesses being convinced of the financial business benefit of women making it within the system. Now many may not like the capitalist take on feminism, but nevertheless this model offers more women a path to financial autonomy and wealth than previously...and more access to power to enact change.

In fact all of us will approach feminism through our own filters...be it race, economic, environment, sex and reproduction..etc. I really think this is a strength not a weakness....we need feminist activists and advocates, those which fight for the importance of motherhood, those who invoke the right to be childless, those go for power in business and politics, academics etc....

garlicbutter, have you actually studied the communist revolution? Have you looked at how it smashed the class system so all males were equal but then left women behind

and wot is this " you have to fight one at a time nonsense"

MEN have created the class system
MEN have created racism

white men, in fact/ In order to serve their needs and maintain their power.

All women are just pawns in this game. ALl women have the same amount of power: i.e the amount that men allow them.

"That's a bit like cutting weeds off without pulling out the roots; they'll just grow back double"

I'm glad you mentioned that analogy, garlicbutter, because when you take the focus of any oppressive movement away from sexism, that's exactly what you're doing: cutting off a few branches and leaving the root intact.

the ROOT of all oppression is sex-based oppression. Black women found that out quick sharp when black men sold them out to white men. Black men threw black women under the bus and got the vote,leaving black women to rot.

The Bros against Hos slogan that followed the last US election told you all you needed to know about women's place in the hierarchy.

If a woman fights for racism, or for class without making sexism a priority, then she is a mug.

Russia women found that out quick sharp after the communist revolution. There was no longer a class system, but women were still the underclass, the second class citizens, the second sex.

Sex based oppression is the root .

"If you want to fight economic oppression you become a socialist.

If you want to fight race based oppression in the west you join the anti-racism movement.

If you want to fight the oppression of women you become a feminist."

I just can't see how anyone one of those things can be effective on it's own. They are all linked.

D: I agree it's pointless fighting one at a time. That's a bit like cutting weeds off without pulling out the roots; they'll just grow back double. (heh, guess what I've been doing today.)

All: As other replies have highlighted - thanks, Ormirian, I love Alice Walker! - there is always an oppressed group in society. Any society. In fact, the more 'under' groups can be designated, the richer the 'over' group becomes. As women, and the most prolific 'under' group, it behoves us to address this unnecessary feature of human societal structures.

You have to address the whole thing, because otherwise it just goes round. Before you decide oppression of women is the only issue, try talking to a black, disabled woman about inequality. Especially if she's over 45.

I've been discovering ageism over the past decade. It's - umm, instructive. It's still a bit of a taboo topic in England, but people my age will discuss it amongst ourselves. And, guess what? The (white) men are just beginning to discover what it's like to be discriminated against. They may have paid equality lip service until now, but they had n-o- i-d-e-a-.

No-one.

But to have to fight only one fight at a time suggests that one has to take primacy.

I remember reading Meridian by Alice Walker and at one point she reacts to the white woman's movement saying that 'women are getting angry' by saying that in the experience of black people, white women always have been - always ready to oppress black people as subjects and inferiors. And it made me sad at the time because it seemed to me that there should be an innate understanding and sympathy between movements for liberation of any kind. I still find it quite strange that there isn't.

Maybe that is because the patriarchy has done such a job on me that I can't see my oppression as a woman as any worse than that of black people or the poverty-stricken.