Men’s “token torturers” in feminist spaces

Extro because in some contexts there are privileges attached to being Most Martyred.

It's used to deflect criticism from actual behaviour and undermine the validity of the critic.

Doesn't have to be structural - plenty of it going on at the personal level as people build narratives to excuse their affair, their drinking, their failure in whatever. But it works at the macro level as well.

Not this again!

Thank you KRITIQ for doing the heavy lifting here.

O.P the feminism you're espousing throws women under the bus if they don't fit a very narrow definition and have certain concerns. It is exclusionary and belittling to women (ironic, huh).

You have no right to dismiss prejudices that you have never actually experienced.

I am a feminist.

What I can't quite follow is why there is even the need to debate which form of oppression is the greatest, the first, the most pervasive or the most damaging.

Ah, the Oppression Olympics crew. Gold medal for derailment is what I give'em. What does motivate them except narcissism and the belief their lived experience matters more than that of any other human being (or has more explanatory power in relation to structural injustice)

Wot KRITIQ said again. And Eldritch and others.

Feminist women of colour and womanists DO acknowledge the impact of class, as well as racism and sexism in sustaining the oppression of women of colour and yes Mini, the points you raise are relevant to the foundations of this.

What I can't quite follow is why there is even the need to debate which form of oppression is the greatest, the first, the most pervasive or the most damaging. Seeking to elevate one form of oppression above others will immediately alienate those who don't "fit" the definition neatly and sends the message to those affected by multiple forms of oppression that some aspects of their experience are not so important as others.

So, for example a white, working class, trans woman, a Black, working class, well-educated man and an Asian, disabled, working class Lesbian will all experience discrimination and marginalisation because of their class identity. However, other aspects of their identity mean they will experience a mixture of disadvantages and privileges and their experience of that will be pretty subjective. Addressing just the class aspect - smashing capitalism, will not automatically make any difference in their experience of those other forms of oppression. Ditto if we only address the sex/gender aspect.

Surely if we pan out, we can see that many versions of the same mechanisms of oppression are used against people who have various different characteristics for the purpose of maintaining the status quo. I think we have a lot better chance of toppling the structures and mechanisms that perpetuate oppression if we work together, rather than squabbling about who's got it worst or scapegoating other groups of folks who experience oppression (which I think sometimes happens with some anti-capitalist men's ire towards women and some radical feminists seeking to invalidate the experience and even existence of trans women.)

Eldritch and Extro make an important point here. Acknowledging and wishing to address the wider mechanisms of oppression doesn't not mean a dilution of feminism, or any other movement for liberation of an oppressed group.

I agree Obama as an educated black man still faces huge discrimination on the grounds of colour but this is because we have complex social systems born out of materialist causes, we are socialised by those materialist causes, just as a stated with the example of the slave trade. This is the cause of this deep and genuine hatred. It's evolutionary because if you consider early human development you find that we had to very quickly elicit information about other tribes, based primarily on sight, so we would know if someone was of our kin by the way they looked. We would know if they posed a threat. Did other tribes always pose a threat? Yes they did. With scant resources and a need to survive all new comers were treated with suspicion. When we raped Africa of her resources (just as we do now) we found that justification must be made to exonerate us. We proposed that the black man did not have the education or technology (we were right!) we proposed that he was a lesser being (we were wrong) but the guiding motivation is always materialist.

We probably have the technological means to free women from the biological enslavement of reproduction and the technology to feed the world but we choose not to because our social consciousness is always somewhat behind our technological development BUT is eventually shaped by those material forces. Socialisation and the complex social hierarchies we have developed are because of our need to eat and reproduce, when we have mastered how to do this without squabbling over scant resources we will have the conditions in which all inequality can be overcome IMO

There is no reason that working together with other anti-oppression movements makes one antifeminist, nor is there a contradiction between seeing discrete vectors of oppression and the male oppression of females. This is the same issue as "kyriarchy" vs "Patriarchy": using the word kyriarchy does NOT imply that the classical understanding of patriarchy, men as a class oppressing women as a class through the institutions of society, is false. It only extends the understanding of privilege and power beyond gender to other important issues. Thus, even rad fems do not need to reject intersectional theory.

For example, I was discussing parents' rights on another thread: a white [color privileged], upper middle class [class privileged], professing Christian [religion privileged] female deputy head teacher at an all GIRLS school was providing a secret service where pupils could discuss their sexual development, relationships & experimentations in detail without the parents being told anything. This anti-parent policy not only subverted the families of adolescent females and denied them the right to know (thus being misogynist) but the school had an intake of mainly girls of colour, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs and minority evangelical sects of Christianity. The parents had little choice as most could not afford a private school and were largely working-class unlike the "sophisticate" who was keeping secrets from them.

So there was racial, religious, class AND sexist oppression going on all at once in an anti-parent, anti-family context.

This is why intersectionality can NEVER be ignored.

I know it's not what you're saying Mini but your post reads as if you don't think racism exists/is a big issue.

does the colour of someone's skin dictate their ability to be educated?

Their ability, no. Their opportunity, sometimes very much so.

Instead intersectionality is used to argue - there are all these different oppressions class, race, fat oppression, etc that mean everyone is oppressed in a different way. So it is anti feminist because it fails to recognise how men as a class oppress women as a class - which is basic feminist theory.

To me, those two sentences just don't hang together. You can believe everyone is oppressed in a different way and also believe that men as a class oppress women as a class. I don't see any tension between those two positions.

And Mini, I see what you're saying, but your post glosses over the very deep and genuine hatred that many people have for people of other races which often motivates them to terrible acts of discrimination. You can't explain that away using class.

Wouldn't the test of that be whether a rich, high-class, black man suffered prejudice, Minx? All other things being equal ... I'd posit that Obama faces an additional obstacle in his skin colour; bigger than the obstacle faced by a white man of lesser status. I think this but am not sure. It must have been discussed at length.

This is the FWR chat section, non?

I have just had a read of the WOC blog, really interesting thank you KRITIQ.

Although I agree that some women are oppressed in multiple ways, race, class & sex, I still question where this oppression originates from. Unlike radical feminists many of whom think the original oppression from which all other forms spring is sex, I think it's class.

Reading the WOC blog the writer talks about the women's movement in the seventies, headed up my mainly educated middle class white women who left their children in the care of exploited working class black women. Why were these black women exploited for their labour.....because they were working class. Why are black women working class and not middle class intellectuals? because they chose not to study or because of their colour? does the colour of someone's skin dictate their ability to be educated?

If you consider the slave trade in terms of the historical materialist analysis you conclude that the inequality was rationalised after the economic inducement to employ free labour. It was a purely capitalistic/materialistic thing which was then rationalised through racism and bigotry which would make the inequality seems entirely justified. Britain depended upon cheap cotton, the american's supplied it on the back of free labour. If the WOC were/are exploited by their white sisters, the basis for this exploitation and inequality is class first, race second.

Daly has always been apt to say some rather strange things. (first thoughts) will now read the whole thread.

Sorry about the bad linky. Here's the correct one to Kimberle Crenshaw's Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color in Stanford Law Review.

She is generally credited with coining the term "intersectionality," although the concept that oppression was not linear nor static in form was considered much earlier, including in some form amongst the African American lesbian collective that Audre Lorde was a member of in the 70's. Actually, some of the discussion at the Seneca Falls Conference and speeches by Sojourner Truth in the mid 1900's alluded to the need for an intersectional analysis of oppression, even if they didn't call it that.

Crenshaw has a book and a couple of collaborations in the pipeline, but in the mean time, for those interested, get hold of anything from bell hooks (I'm nearly through re-reading "Ain't I A Woman? Black Women and Feminism,) or Patricia Hill Collins ("Race, Class and Gender: An Anthology" which she co-wrote is a good start.)

Eats,Intersectionalityis not now being used to hide the patriarchy. It is now being used to distinguish between different way's of looking at difference and equality. It recognises all forms of oppression including feminist against trans btw, and seeks to provide a space and a way of working that once all the different forms of oppression have been identified then they are methodically eliminated allowing PEOPLE to be themselves without fear of repression or isolation.

It is currently a term much in favour with the Scottish government who are funding a worker, looking to encourage use of the practice, and of a growing number of not for profit organisations who want to practice equality or promote equality to a more diverse audience.
www.equality-network.org/Equality/website.nsf/home?OpenForm

It sounds a lot like religions saying "don't listen to that, it is the work of the devil sent to tempt you" or dictators saying "don't listen to them, they are capitalist running dogs" or homeopathists saying "don't listen to them they are in league with big pharma".

That is how ideas protect themselves against competing ideas, and ultimately stagnate. I don't think feminism should be a walled garden.

It is not really hiding it though it is pointing out other factors which affect people's lives. People may discuss things which they feel has a greater impact on them than their sex does. A black working class woman may feel that she has more problems associated with her race than her sex but putting other factors above patriarchy is not the same as saying it does not exist.

Please could you relink to the Crenshaw article, KRITIQ, as the current link leads to Wikipedia. I'd be really interested to read it, as your views seem wise.

Thank you so much for your post at 09:39, KRITIQ. I didn't know the lingo, but you have given coherent form to my precise position, and made clear to me exactly why I'm so uncomfortable with some stuff I read in FWR.

I'm sorry what? It is anti feminist to point out that people can be oppressed by things other than their sex. I think you are guilty of what you accuse privileged men of doing, because of their position in society they fail to recognise the difficulty other groups of people can have.

It means that a percentage of radical feminists are whining bucketheads who not only can't stand to be disagreed with but will attack anyone who questions anything they say.
Twas ever thus.

Good question, Woffling.

Also what Emmeline said.