The problem with white feminism

What’s the point of talking about privilege though? It’s not something that is experienced by the individual is it? Just something that is noticed when analysing large groups. Do you think a homeless drug addict on the street personally experiences male privilege and the experience of not having people comment on what you’re wearing? I am guessing not and I think that the homeless person’s circumstances are such that ANY disadvantage faced by people who are middle class with secure income and accommodation, be they sex, race, disability, are actually trifling in comparison. It has absolutely no meaning to compare them. Trying to rank different groups alongside each other to see who has it worse (while totally missing out class and material assets from your analysis) is utterly pointless.

I've never gone through life thinking woe is me I was born into the oppressed class of women. I have however been extremely grateful that I was born into, and have remained in, the comfortable, educated, property owning middle-class.

She has class privilege, a wealth of opportunities and the world at her feet but he will still benefit from Male privilege in a way that she never will

On the contrary the man you describe is far more likely to be treated with disbelief and suspicion than the women. I think this is far too blunt an instrument to be of much use.

So you think only rich men benefit from Male privilege?

She has class privilege, a wealth of opportunities and the world at her feet but he will still benefit from Male privilege in a way that she never will. In terms of being less likely to be harassed, not having to worry about his choice of underwear being used against him in a rape trial, not having to hold his career to have children - or worry about the judgement if he doesn’t, being able to walk or drink alone without fear of being raped and many many more. Something a woman won’t have.

Class analysis, which comes from Marx, doesn't use the concept of privilege at all.

Classes aren't generally fluid either. It's impossible to move out of class male into class female for example.

Doesn’t change the fact that as a class white women have the privilege of their skin colour. Just like when you compare a man born into foster care to a women born with a silver spoon in her mouth

I lack the sociology expertise to know but does this statement fundamentally misunderstand class analysis?

Does class analysis make comment on the relative privilege of individuals? I thought it looks at the average effect of lots of individual interactions to make generalised observations. Thus translating class privilege as an academic model to actual personal privilege would be daft in all but the most simple, extreme examples, because most cases classes are fluid and most interactions complex.

(Fully expecting to be told I've misunderstood class analysis)

Doesn’t change the fact that as a class white women have the privilege of their skin colour. Just like when you compare a man born into foster care to a women born with a silver spoon in her mouth - no doubt she has privilege, doesn’t change the fact thatas a classthe man will benefit from Male privilege in his life in the same way a white person will benefit from white privilege

I think that comment shows exactly what the limitations of class analysis is. It is simply nonsense to compare the 2 examples you give and still come to the conclusion the man benefits from male privilege.

The type of feminism championed by TRAs / Queer Theory folk would have serious repercussions for women from poor backgrounds and ethnicities and countries that are not classed as 'white' or Western. Which is another reason why trans ideology should be resisted.

Exactly! It makes my eyes bleed that anyone thinks the fake anti-racism espoused by these people can do anything but make things worse, let alone accomplish anything.

White ,colonialism ...

Mhm because no white ,GC woman can possibly be non British,have nothing to do with colonialism or in fact actually be from a country that was invaded repeatedly at some point or another.

The type of feminism championed by TRAs / Queer Theory folk would have serious repercussions for women from poor backgrounds and ethnicities and countries that are not classed as 'white' or Western

And for working class & poor white women; none of whom have time in the day for the self indulgence of it all. TRA ideology just seems to be about privileging, and revering, some groups at the expense of others.

The type of feminism championed by TRAs / Queer Theory folk would have serious repercussions for women from poor backgrounds and ethnicities and countries that are not classed as 'white' or Western. Which is another reason why trans ideology should be resisted.

Transforming white heterosexual men into the least privileged group, isn’t that part of incel theory too?

It’s all a bit well I might be male white and heterosexual but I don’t seem to have got the list of possessions/status toxic masculinity and patriarchal society told me I was entitled to so - who can I blame that isn’t me?

I posit that finding a way to transform heterosexual white males into the official least privileged group is in fact rather the point for some.

I don’t agree that the ‘anti-Trans movement’ stems from racism. I agree it’s quite white, but white women are allowed to be ‘outraged’

I postulate that the' inter-sectional trans movement', itself, stems from, and encourages, the elevation of multiple & competing identities to the point of inevitable conflict - & to the point of racism and sexism itself.

But feminism and feminists should address how they include non white women in their feminism. The fact some people refuse to even believe black women could be at a disadvantage to white women, shows that something is failing in this aspect

And people with regional accents are also at a disadvantage and suffer oppression; and for certain types of jobs or positions there is prejudice against people who have not been to elite schools or universities......this is not to deny that various axis of oppression exist - on the contrary, of course they do.......but at the end of the day feminism is about WOMEN - and recognising the struggles that women face the world over.

Was clearly responding to above posters in that, not to the podcast.

I’m not quite sure what I make of the women on the podcast. I agree with her on selective outrage in general and she makes some interesting points. However, I don’t agree that the ‘anti-Trans movement’ stems from racism. I agree it’s quite white, but white women are allowed to be ‘outraged’. I have some issues around white feminism but in different ways to the woman on the podcast.

I think Pragna Patel is someone who cares greatly about women and has and will continue to do a lot for all women.

My issue is with the poise Parker following brand of ‘feminism’, That’s white feminism on steroids.

But feminism and feminists should address how they include non white women in their feminism. The fact some people refuse to even believe black women could be at a disadvantage to white women, shows that something is failing in this aspect

The feminism that i have been around has always recognised the struggles of women of other religions, nationalities and ethnicities; to the point that the oppressions 'those' women face being the absolute benchmark for how far we've come.

What I see is that the most oppressed person, at the bottom of any particular pile will always be a woman - regardless of her other identities or features.

This thread is about the analysis presented in the podcast, Early.

Nobody is disputing race as an axis of inequality. What's being disputed is the Alison Phipps interpretation of it - to whit, she uses the term "white feminism" as a misdirection to obscure what she is actually advocating for, which has nothing at all to do with race, but is everything to do with centring males and bourgeois (mostly bloody white!) women.

What's your view of the podcast? Which brand of feminism do you think can do more for black and brown women in Britain? The one espoused by Alison Phipps or the one espoused by Pragna Patel? I'm saying Pragna. What about you?

Entirely agree that of course some non white women will have far more opportunities etc in life than some white women.

Just like plenty of women have more opportunities, greater chances and benefit from money or social privilege over many men.

Doesn’t change the fact that as a class white women have the privilege of their skin colour. Just like when you compare a man born into foster care to a women born with a silver spoon in her mouth - no doubt she has privilege, doesn’t change the fact that as a class the man will benefit from Male privilege in his life in the same way a white person will benefit from white privilege.

It’s so easy to say it’s wrong to ‘white’ and ‘other’ people but that is what happens in life. Black/brown people face many injustices solely based on the colour of their skin and until that changes, denying it helps nobody.

It strikes me that simplisticly splitting people into 'white' and 'other', far from encouraging 'diversity' in any meaningful sense encourages people to ignore the rich diversity of human cultures

Yes indeed, several posters have spotted that. Having the category "white women" and "women of colour" is no different really as "white women" as and "non white women"

"Privilege" is a weak liberal piece of analysis, designed to make us ignore who has power, who doesn't and what that means in the real world.

Most white feminists also won't have experienced the life of a disabled feminist. So long as you learn from us and we all act together what is the problem? I don't even get annoyed when the TRAs are referred to as insane. When being a nutter is a much bigger problem to me than my mobility issues. That's mainly because I can see all this crap is often down to personality disorders. I have bipolar, it's a different kind of mental

I'm a South Asian middle class woman with a reasonably well paid job and a master's degree. I actually have more privilege compared to a white woman who is poorly educated and from a deprived background. She is more at risk of exploitation and trafficking, substance abuse, violence, homelessness etc.

The fact that I am articulate and able to advocate for myself means people are far more likely to take me seriously, I'm more capable of finding the resources I need in case of problems and so on. The fact that I'm brown is also to my advantage (employers love to tick diversity checkboxes).

The woke incarnation of 'privilege' turns it into a farce by making blanket assumptions about people based on the colour of their skin. It doesn't take economic class into account and how this shapes people's experiences and opportunities.

The whole ‘I don’t see colour’ thing is frankly BS.

Absolutely no one has said any such thing. What is being said is that dividing people into simplistic white and non white groupings misses the complex realities of women's lives for both groups. The needs of non white women vary hugely. The needs of white women vary hugely. Some white women are ethnic minorities. Some non white ethnic minorities are much more able to advocate for themselves than others. You miss all the nuance and ignore complex needs by such simplistic division.

In terms of there aren’t enough black/brown women at the forefront

Loads in GC feminism, thanks. Think Linda, Raquel, Allison, Lucy, Aysha, Catia, Zlakha and many more (including plenty contributing here).

I think it’s easy to say that comments on white feminism are used as a tool to shut people up than to actually look at what the issue is.

But that's not the objection to Alison Phipps's ridiculous podcast is, is it? The objection is that Alison herself, with her bourgeois WHITE faux intersectionalist version of feminism is in no way liberationary for black and brown women in the UK. Alison uses "white feminism" as a cover for bourgeois, male inclusive feminism. She's no friend to non-white working class British women.