The problem with white feminism

I was commenting on the article in the previous post, not the article in the OP. And you're assuming my ethnicity.

I think current feminism does have issues with being too ‘white’
In terms of there aren’t enough black/brown women at the forefront and also that issues that predominantly affect EM women aren’t vocalised much when speaking up for women. I think as a whole, there is a lack of support and voices addressing difficulties and oppression which solely or predominantly affect non white women and it would be nice to recognise that.
Certainly doesnt mean white feminists shouldn’t speak and address issues they are passionate about or that they feel affects them/could affect them but given that feminism is about all women, it would be good if more also considered the additional oppression minority women face and how we can all group together to combat that.

I have seen comments (including on MN FWR) dismissing that white privilege even exists multiple times so I personally think it is an issue. To deny that white people as a class have privilege over non white people as a class is an issue. The whole ‘I don’t see colour’ thing is frankly BS.

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. I don’t want anybody to shut up because of the colour of their skin, far from it. 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.

My goodness, a sensible attitude in the Guardian.

Definitely it's weaponised, with the main role when used in this way often being to silence and subordinate inconvenient people and their views, and to imbue some groups with perceived virtue by sheer existence and to dismiss and degrade others with perceived shame and wrongness by sheer existence. Highly black and white thinking, and yes, we are very much more than just the technical sum of privilege points. Life is wholly more complicated than this, and it does nothing to really address and forward improvement for people as opposed to empty political point scoring.

The problem with any feminist movement which threatens the patriarchal status quo, is that dividing and conquering has always worked.

White feminists, disabled feminists, black, asian and oriental feminists are set against each other and the movement fails to move anything.

We need solidarity.

I'm white. I'm a woman.

I clearly don't know what it's like to be a West Indian black woman in a mainly white society.

That doesn't mean that I don't respect any black West Indian woman who speaks out, who needs someone to rattle a bucket in support of a cause and it doesn't mean I won't sign a petition on her behalf.

Yes, we, as white feminists have very little to complain about compared to Mexican women who are faced with rampant murder rates, many women and girls facing vaginal mutilation in the name of tradition and forced and arranged marriages across the world.

That doesn't mean we don't support our 'sisters', won't hep if we can and not speak out against persecution in other countries.

We have our own battles here, our relative privilege doesn't mean that

A) we need to stop fighting for our cause,

B) we need to listen to those with a vested interest in closing us down and

C) we don't give two hoots about anyone else.

In fact, our 'privilege' enables us to speak out on behalf of others who would not otherwise be heard by those with the power to do something to help them.

I agree with this line in particular In fact, to speak of “privilege” in the way that is now customary is to suppose that whiteness, or blackness, or maleness, or other such attributes, must signify to all of us the same things. It is to consider a white person primarily as a white person, a black person primarily as a black person, and to consign to irrelevance the many other qualities that make humans different from each other.

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.

Good article, GCAcademic. A pleasant surprise to see it in the Guardian.

Also, the striking thing to me about all this is that once again it's DARVO in action. It's harder to think of a more white, middle-class political movement than trans activism.

Interesting article in today’s Guardian on the problem with the problem of privilege:

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/08/the-term-privilege-has-been-weaponized-its-time-to-retire-it

Pretty much sums it up.

White vs "POC" is Americanised crap and irrelevant to 99% of women here.

Also Frack could I ask whether you agree with this statement and if not could you explain how grouping say a black Christian Englishwoman raised in Birmingham together with a brown Muslim woman who has recently arrived in small town Scotland via an arranged marriage together on one side and a white first language Welsh speaker living on a council estate in Bangor woman with a white privately educated upper middle class woman living in the home counties on the other is a useful division? I can't see it myself but am happy to learn.

“White feminism” seems to be a put-down used almost exclusively by white women against... other white women.

I think it has overtones of racism itself, by seeing only the white feminists as representative of the school of thought. There are some black and brown women who are libfems.

I've said this on the other thread but Alison Phipps, as a feminist, might have her time better served looking at the white supremacist, male supremacist, colonial traditions of the three institutions in the West - politics, medicine and the law - which are currently upholding and implementing trans ideology. We could add that media to the mix, who were also great cheerleaders for colonialism in their time.

Please could you comment @Frackofff

Do you see any shortsightedness and hypocrisy in assuming "the historical roots of our traditions" have their "roots in a colonialist philosophy" for all feminists who happen to have slightly less melanin?

Yes, please do answer this question. Perhaps with reference to UK feminists of Irish decent so we can understand your thinking.

And given GrumpyHoonMain's excellent posts about the experiences of non-white minorities in medical settings perhaps you could expand upon how UK feminists can address these issues while also ensuring white minorities, such as travellers who are one of the hardest to reach groups in terms of healthcare and education, are not overlooked?

Please be specific as to which areas and for which specific groups you feel UK feminists are failing due to 'roots in a colonialist philosophy'.

I think I have better ways to spend my time than listening to a podcast telling me that, despite being a woman, I don't have a right to have views about women, be a feminist etc etc because I am white. I intend to carry on being a gender critical feminist and I really don't care who thinks I am doing it "wrong" and/or should not call myself a feminist.

"writing books"

I read that as "writing bollocks".

That still doesn't answer how that works for white people whose countries were themselves colonised? White vs "POC" is Americanised crap and irrelevant to 99% of women here.

Again - Do you see any shortsightedness and hypocrisy in assuming "the historical roots of our traditions" have their "roots in a colonialist philosophy" for all feminists who happen to have slightly less melanin?

I think I'm going to call the above 'the Sally Hines hypothesis' and write a book about it

academics have to work, don't they? and that means writing books.

and if you have a pretty unremarkable mind (nothing wrong with that, I've got one myself), and are thus unlikely to produce genuinely original thought, making bold statements like white feminists should understand the historical roots of our traditions and to recognise their roots in a colonialist philosophy could pass for it in a poor light.

the fact that she produces nothing to back this up, makes no concrete suggestions beyond some vague handwaving about not locking up rapists and seems ignorant of the history of the subjects she chooses to speak and write about should alert people to the fact that she is unreliable and best ignored.

it sounds like her students have got there way ahead of us. truly I believe the children are our future (treat them well and let them lead the way....)

understand the historical roots of our traditions and to recognise their roots in a colonialist philosophy which benefitted from dividing people into acceptable humans and unacceptable humans

Can you provide some evidence for this statement? Which traditions are you referring to? How has feminist thought been rooted in Colonialist philosophy? I'm not spoiling for a fight I am genuinely interested. Can you provide some examples?

I think she is asking white feminists to try to understand the historical roots of our traditions and to recognise their roots in a colonialist philosophy which benefitted from dividing people into acceptable humans and unacceptable humans

This sounds like a case of post-modern revisionism to me.

The feminism I was brought up with recognised women as a discrete social group based on their shared biology, and the lived experiences as a result of that.

I suggest that it is clear that many 'transactional' feminists have not really read the length and breadth of feminist history/herstory. They, therefore, think they are re-inventing the wheel.

It's really not, it's out there, it's just the mainstream has latched onto American history and applied it to the UK

Good point!

I think she is asking white feminists to try to understand the historical roots of our traditions and to recognise their roots in a colonialist philosophy which benefitted from dividing people into acceptable humans and unacceptable humans

Wouldn't it help if she had any understanding of those things herself?

Perhaps, for example, the concept of political blackness in the liberation politics of the UK - which took into account the shared struggle of postcolonial/Commonwealth post-war immigrants to the UK? A concept rooted in class structures intersecting with racism. Does Alison wonder why the Southall Black Sisters are so-named, despite comprising mostly of and catering mostly for, South Asian women? Has Alison even heard of SBS?

Does Alison understand how class was a vital component in historical anti-racism work in the UK? Does her analysis incorporate this vital difference between the concepts of (liberational) political blackness and (identifarian) PoC?

Can Alison explain why up until a few years ago, her US culturally imperialist "brand" of analysis reacted with fury to the concept of political blackness (see, for example, the many critiques of the Sky show Guerrilla) yet now espouse the term PoC with such enthusiasm? Could it be because the axis of class has been removed and so it suits her bourgeois sensibilities?

I could go on.

I think she is asking white feminists to try to understand the historical roots of our traditions and to recognise their roots in a colonialist philosophy which benefitted from dividing people into acceptable humans and unacceptable humans

It seems like you see her message as fairly simple really, and most of what she says just as supporting that.

I've noticed that's a not uncommon with this kind of talk or an article - for some people it's not looked at in a ton of detail, it's about what ther sense of the gist of the message is.

I think with this talk though, if you dig into what she's really saying, a lot of it is gobblygook, and a lot is fairly objectionable identity politics. Things that are either historically inaccurate or shallow, or would, if we took them seriously, lead to some unpalatable conclusions.So they tend to undermine the idea of being careful about taking too narrow a perspective.

Personally I have a hard time listening to anyone who talks about white fragility. There is something very distasteful about telling people their considered objections to a POV are inadmissible because of their race, and that if that annoys them it's a sign of some sort of special fragility. The only proper response, apparently, is obedience.

@FrackOff

I I think she is asking white feminists to try to understand the historical roots of our traditions and to recognise their roots in a colonialist philosophy which benefitted from dividing people into acceptable humans and unacceptable humans

Why would anyone listen to that?

1. She provides no evidence for her assertion that all feminism is 'colonialist'.

1. Saying white women's views are inherently bad is dividing people into acceptable and unacceptable humans.

1. She has no specific suggestions beyond, perhaps, not locking up rapists and not sacking sexual harassers (though even these positions are poorly defined), it's all just 'waaaa, feminism bad'.

I don't really see this as different from other racists who make wild, baseless claims and then see their rejection as evidence they are correct but everyone is against them.

why do you support her in doing this @FrackOff?

In 6 to 10 days Frac will make a thread responding to this message with a fairly reasonable block of text spanning 6 posts with most of the text copied from google scholar and answering nothing.

If you Call them Band Aid's in the UK Bob Geldof will sue you.