Feminism is only for middle-class, white women, apparently

CM is from a very working class left wing background, very pro benefits claimants etc.

Feminist is really simple. It is ensuring men and women are treated equally, allowing men to stay home, giving men children half the time after divorce, forcing men to wash the floor, allowing women to go to work etc etc. It cannot also seek to lobby for no racism although it can intervene in issues where races damage women or men eg killing of baby girls in India and China, FMG in Somalia and Egypt.

Of course men can be feminists.

Although many feminists disagree for example with my stance that capitalism is wonderful and I like power and money and want more women earning a lot more than men, we all agree on the fundamentals - that people should not be discriminated on the grounds of sex whether they are male or female.

I have read about but not watched Girls. I presume eveni ts title is pernicious as they are women.

Kritique, that's a very interesting point and I and I can see what you mean. However I feel that the term feminist is problematic enough (e.g. lots of young women nowadays run a mile from it) without trying to ban some people from using it because of their sex. Why can't it be inclusive? I personally would welcome any man who calls themselves a feminist.

Mama, there are many women of colour who acknowledge the existence of patriarchal oppression and agree with the principles of feminism. However, they do not adopt the term "feminist," because they feel historically and politically they have been marginalised within and from the main body of feminism. They prefer to use the term "womanist."

Even if I agree with the views of womanists, as a visibly white person, I do not feel I have the right to call myself a "womanist," if women of colour believe the term should be reserved for women of colour. I would be content to say I am womanist-supporting or support the ideals of womanism, without the need to exert my racial privilege in saying that I have a "right" to define myself as a womanist if I want to.

Similarly, I would be sceptical about a man who states that he agrees with feminist principles, but insists he is entitled to call himself a feminist, knowing that some feminists believe that term should be reserved for those who both experience the impact of patriarchal oppression and are at the forefront of the movement to tackle that. Surely, one should be content enough to use the term "feminist supporting" or "pro feminist," to make clear what one's position is.

namechangeguy, I know several men who are proud to call themselves feminists. It is a real shame if you feel you can't identify as a feminist: of course you should.

Leith, perhaps I didn't express what I meant particularly well. I do understand that the disability rights movement has had to contend a range of lived experiences probably much more varied than can be found in any other social or political movement.

What I meant though is that disability activists aren't necessarily better at addressing racism, or homophobia say than feminists or anti-capitalists are. The civil rights movement isn't necessarily that clued up on homophobia or sexism. The gay rights movement doesn't automatically deal well with class privilege/oppression or sexism.

What I mean is it's not ONLY feminists who, at least in some quarters, struggle to fully grasp the impact of multiple and intersecting oppression on many people within their own identity group.

Does that make a bit more sense?

Perhaps they would like to tell that to Pearl Clege( Reasons to Riot)?
Also, I really don't know much about Caitlin Moran but the title of her book has seriously put me off wanting to find out more. I am a women and I don't need someone telling me how to be one!

In terms of disability activism, I do not think you are correct kritiq to say that we have struggled with identity. Indeed it is because we are split by our identities be it medical, born with, or aquired, physical, learning or mental health, or indeed the vast numbers of support and advocacy groups, that we have had to embrace diversity as we have failed to even come up with a common language.

I would suggest that part of the issue is the "one size" fits all feminism that you allude to that is promoted in some camps. No one size ever fits anybody and diversity must be at the root of a common understanding. I am pleased that intersectional is being used more on mn as a way to think about feminism and I agree absolutely that unless people are allowed to see how they need to change identities depending on location and role, and that at times they are several identities at the same time which cannot be a competition, then people get used to thinking of themselves in one or two dimensional boxes not as full human beings.

Why thanks! :) I don't think though this is just a "thing" with feminism. It seems that most social/political movements concerned with tackling oppression DO seem to focus on one aspect of identity as the "big 'un," when the experience of oppression isn't quite that straightforward for most people.

bell hooks talks extensively of how working class African American women have felt let down both by the feminist and civil rights movements - each expecting them to prioritise one aspect of their identity over the other. In reality, their experience of oppression is never an "either or," but actually something quite unique as result of being at that intersection. And, they experience the painful dilemma of people who want them as allies and SHOULD be their allies (e.g. white feminist women, Black civil rights activist men,) still wielding privilege over them - and often being completely oblivious, or at least in denial about that fact.

It doesn't HAVE to be that way, but it does mean alot of serious examination both the mechanisms of oppression we suffer under AND the mechanisms of privilege we benefit from. Perhaps we fear that acknowledging our privilege will somehow undermine, even negate the significance of our oppression, but no, it doesn't have to be like that.

Love kritiqs post.

In my experience, many feminists do leave a lot to be desired in terms of their willingness to really effectively engage with racism and other forms of oppression at both the radical and the liberal ends of the spectrum.

Both ends will cite political reasons as to why multiple and intersecting forms of oppression many women experience can't be "top of the pops" for feminism. In reality, it boils down to the fact that both strands do tend to be largely made up of women who don't have to deal with the realities of multiple and intersecting oppression in their own lives. They don't actually have to think about it if they don't want to (but don't always see that in itself as a form of privilege.)

That's not of course to say that all white and otherwise relatively privileged women who are feminists have no time for an intersectional understanding of oppression and privilege. I think though sometimes, we may have "high hopes" that people with whom we share ideals, values and a commitment to social justice will also share some of our other ideals and values. We may also believe that commitment to justice for one oppressed group means an understanding of how similar mechanisms of oppression impact on other groups. This isn't always the case though, which can lead some times to confusion, misunderstanding and frustration.

Grab anything you can find from bell hooks or Patricia Hill Collins on women of colour and Feminism. Some of it's a tough read, but a very, very important read.

But the article does also say: "What feminism needs is more voices - a whole chorus of them. By all means, we can criticise those already at the top, but we should be combining that with a real desire to listen to women from all walks of life and their experiences: to actively seek them out, rather than waiting for the lucky few to claw their way into our ranks."

But surely this is true for some brands of feminism - i.e. those written about by white, middle-class feminists?

As a man I cannot identify as a feminist (apparently) because I am a man. Fair enough. How could I therefore know what it is like to be a woman? Therefore, if most of the writing and analysis within feminism is done by white, middle-class women, surely they can only write about their own experience?

You can certainly wish to include other groups and minorities, whether they are identified by skin colour, religion or sexuality (amongst others), but you can't represent them, can you? You can't write or discuss how it feels to be them, any more than I can represent white working-class women who may have grown up in the same environment as me. We have some stuff in common, but not enough for me to be able to say how society treats them.

Have I understood your point, or missed it completely?