How do we scourge out racism and classism in feminism?

No-one is saying feminism doesn’t need to consider other class issues. Obviously it does because women don’t just belong to one class.

What people are saying is don’t expect feminism to centre other class issues. Don’t expect feminism to start fighting other class issues. Expect feminism to be about females and to consider the impact of other class issues on females.

Expect to find all the ‘isms in feminist discourse, even sexism. Discuss and engage on the ideas and meanings. Challenge ideas if they negatively affect other class issues (or women as a class).

Don’t start tone policing and for goodness sake don’t start witch hunting and banning people because they said something in a way that you didn’t like, something you found offensive or something that is prejudiced/discriminatory. Engage on the idea, dont witch hunt the person.

Agree 100% with you Rat. It is essential that feminism confronts issues of classism and racism. This is a fundamental tenet of feminism. You cannot be fighting for 'all women' unless you address these questions, as we have seen played out in slow-motion on this thread. The only people who can confidently say that feminism has nothing to do with class or race are those who are unaffected by it, ie white middle-class women.

I keep plugging her but Priyamvada Gopal on Twitter @PriyamvadaGopal is great on this. I don't agree with her on everything, but on this she is spot on. She has been subjected to hideous online and media abuse but the white feminist core at Cambridge have failed to come out in support of her. She writes extensively about how she is often asked to pipe down about race by white feminists. It's quite an eye-opener.

Feminism is about women. We don't have to also be fighting class struggles, racism, or anything else, except in the sense of not adding to injustice

Also posting to mark place, but going back to this: Feminism really does need to consider class and race etc. or it will truly fail to benefit all women - as a pp points out.

It's the old example; feminists compel a company to achieve gender equality on their board. Race equality campaigners compel them to achieve race equality. They achieve both. Structural and unconscious prejudice means all the men are black and all the women are white. Who's helping the black women?

That's the very premise of intersectionality as I understand it.

Equally you can't discuss race and class separately because what you do to promote class equality may damage race equality and vice versa, as we've already seen evidenced on this thread re: exclusionary language vs. inoffensive language.

But that's your understanding of 'call out', to me that phrase means challenging a point of view. On the numerous threads I have never called for people to be shunned, I have said I don't agree with what they are saying and that it makes me examine what actually lies behind people's opinions. I am ' engaging' by saying I find their statements uncomfortable. I think it's also naive to think engagement is always the answer, I can engage with people who are anti abortion, however no conversation I have will make me alter my opinion on that subject, I would fight for the right for them to express their views, but I am not going to go to a pro life rally.

Surely we should correct them respectfully so that they know better in the future?

The idea that there is a "correct" from of language, and a self-appointed group of "woke" people get to go around correcting everyone else for not speaking the way they believe to be "correct" is exactly the problem here.

Yy Joan.

Tbh (and posting to mark my place), I think racism and classism could probably do with their own thread each, to prevent all of the cross posting and cross discussion. Because each has different issues and I guess different solutions.

Unless we're going to also discuss why disabilism needs to be scourged?

posh people using word salad to obscure an issue

Lol and yes.

When I speak using the terms expected in online/polite/feminist/woke spaces I am not unaware of the fact that some of my family and friends look at me like I'm an alien, or worse like I'm a snob who thinks I'm better than them. They don't necessarily disagree with the meaning of what I'm saying though, it's the vocab that is alienating.

But aren't you doing the exact same thing with your language gymnastics. You ask people to 'engage' rather than 'call out'

Well I wouldn't call for anyone who mistook 'engage' and 'call out' for each other to be shunned..

I'd point out to them (you) that engaging implies a process between peers who are committed to reaching a better understanding of each other, whereas calling out tends to consist of a social media pile on with people gathering on two opposing sides and shouting at each other.

LangCleg your DH example is a good one. If somebody from the working class uses the wrong language this isnt their fault because they dont know any better. But are you then saying that we shouldn't say anything about it?

Well. Not quite.

What I am trying to get across is that "woke" language and terminology is inherently classist because it assumes that everyone can tap into the same speech code to express an idea or concept. So in the DH's example, male performing femininity is synonymous with man in a dress. So why is one ok and the other not?

In middle class circles, I'd assert that male performing femininity is seen as polite and courteous while man in a dress is seen as crude and demeaning.

But in my working class family and friendship circle, male performing femininity is seen as posh people using word salad to obscure an issue (with a side dish of defensiveness - "they don't want me to understand what they're saying") and man in a dress is sensible plain speaking where everyone knows what you mean.

I am not suggesting anyone fails to challenge the attitudes themselves. I'm saying that male performing femininity and man in a dress are either both offensive if you believe in gender identity theory or both accurate and acceptable if you are gender critical. The only difference between them is likely to be the class of the person doing the speaking.

On a related note, does anyone have, or know where I can find, that stupendous thread from LucyLovesLife on Twitter? The one about the difficulties of translating middle class activism into working class communities? She has deactivated her account since posting it but I wonder if anyone transcribed it in full or put it through that Thread Unrolling app and I could get it back?

Thanks in advance.

LangCleg your DH example is a good one. If somebody from the working class uses the wrong language this isnt their fault because they dont know any better. But are you then saying that we shouldn't say anything about it? Surely we should correct them respectfully so that they know better in the future? If you apply it to racism then are you effectively telling WoC to stay silent when somebody from the working class uses hurtful language because they don't know any better?

on the subject of classism - I have a delivery from Waitrose due any minute and need to put some clothes on so as not to distress the driver!

LOL! I'm supposed to be heading off to the allotment to pick broad beans and faff about with the runners. I'm sure in the metro liberal world this is on a par with an avocado toast breakfast with the Magic Grandad, but I live in a farming community so will not be tarnishing my working class credentials.

But aren't you doing the exact same thing with your language gymnastics. You ask people to 'engage' rather than 'call out', just another way of telling people what language they should use and how they should use it.

yeah, I think I'm not massively qualified to have the 'man in a dress' discussion. I don't quiver with outrage when I see the phrase and have never corrected someone.

I wouldn't use it myself and was trying to figure out why really. I think man performing femininity seems more accurate.

on the subject of classism - I have a delivery from Waitrose due any minute and need to put some clothes on so as not to distress the driver!

I'm always very uncomfortable with questions like this because it is an eggshells walk in the dark and unsupported and especially when the question contains 'scourge out'. No matter what is said it is always up for criticism.

It reminds me of the Three Girls mini series that I watched in horror. A brave and insightful production that had feminism at its very core.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Girls_(miniseries)

Good post JoanSummers

regular purity checks and excommunications

Part of the problem is some people excommunicate themselves (don't do it Mist).

I'm not completely clear on the difference between calling out and engaging. yes, don't denounce people (aside from anything else it ultimately makes for a very boring forum if it's constant drama), but respectfully challenging what people say? That's a good thing surely?

I think man in a dress does come across as pejorative though, where transwoman is simply factual.

I don't understand this. 'Man in a dress' is factual about any man in a dress. I am a woman in trousers - there is no value judgement in stating what something is - the judgement comes if we say it is wrong for men to wear dresses or that wearing a dress makes a man not a man.

'Transwoman' written all like that with no spaces is considered offensive by many (online) self identifying transgender people, btw.

I don't see what is factual about the term 'trans' though. What does it mean to "transition" from one sex to another? There is no evidence transitioning like this is possible in humans. It is ideological - and in the context of this thread, the fact people are supposed to just know about this ideology and accept it and use all the correct vocabulary to talk about it, or they should just shut up, is a problem.

I think JoanSummers nailed it here for me too. It was how I felt on the other thread. I’ve been reading this thread with great interest but I’ve been reluctant to join in. I feel I’m having to walk on eggshells.

Instead of holding each other accountable with regular purity checks and excommunications, some us believe it would be more effective to engage with each other and hold ourselves accountable for committing to doing the work of listening and processing and discussing and learning and growing. This is what I understand to be feminist consciousness raising.

people have been advocating for more speaking and learning with each other, and even been critical of the need to be polite

reflective conversations are totally swerved by 'calling out' which is a hierarchical process

This is my position, yes.

Sorry everyone I was going back and forth doing things while trying to write that and missed all the posts in between.

Just to be clear, people think the way to end racism isn’t, say, white people holding each other accountable and challenging bigotry and refusing to condone racism,

There are different ways to challenge bigotry. Failure to immediately apologise for things said by someone else is not 'condoning' racism. Some of us dont think call out culture is effective at building solidarity or solving problems. Instead of holding each other accountable with regular purity checks and excommunications, some us believe it would be more effective to engage with each other and hold ourselves accountable for committing to doing the work of listening and processing and discussing and learning and growing. This is what I understand to be feminist consciousness raising.

but rather WOC being nice to racists, accepting that racists just don’t know and couldn’t possibly learn better, not asserting ourselves, not posting to defend ourselves, not saying anything to challenge racist views,

That is the opposite of what I have seen on this thread where mostly people have been advocating for more speaking and learning with each other, and even been critical of the need to be polite.

accepting that the only problem with racism is the language we use,

Asking for a conversation to include people who use language differently isn't saying that the only problem with racism is language. Within a conversation a person can point out what and why they find certain language hurtful or bigoted and everyone has the opportunity to reflect and learn from that. These reflective conversations are totally swerved by 'calling out' which is a hierarchical process - even when the callout originates from genuine hurt (and it isnt always), online callouts are fuelled by people with ill intent (saboteurs, trolls, political opponents) looking to divide and punish.

and, in short, that the only problem with racism really is WOC who have the nerve to speak about it or expecting white people to do any work to educate themselves, listen, read, etc.

I think the idea that people need to "be educated' or 'educate themselves' assumes that we don't all have things to learn from each other. I don't want to sit in class being told by Teacher what is the correct way to think and speak, and then be pulled into the public punishment of people who failed to attend the lesson or got something wrong. I don't think that is the way forward. It's not engaging people and building awareness, it's silencing people and stifling growth.

Mist I hope you don't delete your account. Your contribution has been really valuable. It's sad that so much on here is dominated by people with a very set agenda who refuse point blank to see that the language used about trans people matters. I had to hide a thread where a poster invited me to look at some disgusting link to a fetish story on an erotic fiction website, with the insinuation that trans people might steal our used tampons from toilet bins. I don't know what to say really other than that every time you talk about 'dudes in dresses' and 'fetishists', you alienate people who would otherwise agree with you. Ultimately that will be so damaging.

Anyway, hope you don't go. I think we need more rational voices and open-mindedness. There are about 20 stalwarts on these boards and you get the impression that you are outnumbered, but remember that these people would not even fill a room and most open-minded people would agree with you, mamaoya, SuperDandy and others.

I think man in a dress does come across as pejorative though, where transwoman is simply factual.

But I'm not asking you to compare man in a dress and transwoman.

I'm asking you to compare a transwoman is a male person performing femininity and a transwoman is a man in a dress and asking why the former is deemed controversial but acceptable and the latter is deemed offensive transphobia.

There is no difference in the meaning.

yeah, I know it's tricky Lang

I think man in a dress does come across as pejorative though, where transwoman is simply factual.

I think that it's reasonable to expect people who aren't prejudiced to choose language that reflects that.