Can white women be allies to BME women?

It was interesting for me because I acquired a nerve root injury in my spine due to a medical error. I was crying in severe pain during a procedure but I wasn't listened to enough - I was given more pain relief but the cause of the severe pain wasn't investigated until it was too late and the injury was permanent. So, are our two experiences connected? Was the pp not listened to because of her race? Were we both not listened to because of our sex and race didn't come into it? Was it a failing on behalf of our hcps unconnected to our personal characteristics eg was their arrogance on the part of the hcps, did their egos get in the way? Was it none of these and they were just unfortunate accidents

my father has been unfortunate enough to receive really terrible, unprofessional and almost downright negligent treatment by various arms of the NHS in recent years. He puts it down to his age, and thinks he gets written off and not taken seriously because he's over 70.

Sorry I don't know how to make clicky

Please write your MP about ensuring migrant women are protected in the new DV Bill. Southall Black Sisters have create d a template email. (Shamelessly copied from another thread, but I wanted to offer a practical way in which white women can support bame women today) southallblacksisters.org.uk/news/sbs-needs-your-help-to-protect-migrant-women-subject-to-domestic-abuse/

@Justhadathought but there are literal black women saying this is there experience with feminists, you can't just say it doesn't happen because you think it doesn't happen

Yes, but you cannot make global statements about whole groups of people - in this case 'feminists'. Have you spoken with all 'feminists'? No, of course not. Identity politics really is counter-productive and tends to trap people in rigid group identities, with accompanying dogma.

I think feminism, in some respects, certainly in the western liberal democracieshas become a bit indulgent ( which is why I no longer really identify myself asa feminist). There are now equal civil and legal rights and women in a whole range of roles and occupations, in ways there certainly weren't when I was younger. Yes, though, there are still issues around pornography and prostitution - both which hinge on the sexual differences, in my view, between women and men.

When I look out at the wider world and even to certain communities of women here in the U.k I see that many women are still subject to treatments and oppressions by their own communities on account of them being female. It is their human rights and liberations which we need to focus on.

However, if you are telling people not to' interfere' or speak out because you are a 'white feminist' and this is not your culture, so mind your own business.....what are you to do?

All of the TRA activism, for example, which many in the BLM movement seem to support, will cause direct, and immediate, oppression of women from some communities - who would be even more reduced in their public life should males be permitted into their spaces, services, sports.

@Justhadathought

I don't agree that transwomen suffer from 'sexism' in the same way at all. Baby girls, in some cultures, are killed, or abandoned, at birth - nothing to do with 'gender identity'; and young girls in other cultures, are subject to FGM - not something a young male is likely to experience ( yes, there is circumcision, but that is not of quite the same order, even though important)

As someone who works on this field, I would argue it has everything to do with gender identity. In FGM practicing contexts gender and womanhood are socially constructed so that a woman is not a complete woman without FGM (through beliefs that girl becomes a woman, FGM enforces women with gendered characteristics of caregiving, submissiveness, chastity and obedience, and makes their genitalia align with cultural perceptions of "normal" female bodies).
Whereas when these women move to non-practicing contexts, they face compeltely opposite views as their FGM status is constructed so that they are missing parts of their body and sexuality. Whereas uncut women in practicing context would be viewed as dirty and unruly. So the same biological body, can become subject to different treatment depending on it's socio-cultural context. In terms of men, although the circumcision debate is ongoing, they also are subject to other violent practices because of the way their bodies in certain cultural context are viewed to manifest gendered characteristics. Face scaring is one of these practices.

When it comes to FGM and White women's voice, Black women have been challenging the long-standing presumption that they cannot speak for themselves. So White women campaign for Black women's issues, without working to dismantle the barriers Black women face in being heard on the society.

I think this is very true. I've been accused of being a man on here many times - I'm not, I'm a white middle aged woman with a disability. Op assumed she was called a man because of her race, yet it's pretty much par for the course that anyone who presents a different argument on here is called a man, when the discussion has nothing at all to do with race

That is the worst thing about this board, for me. I only came to it a couple of years ago as a result of the upcoming proposed amendments to the GRA - as it has been just about the only on-line space in which there has been the possibility for discussion on this issue. Which has been great.

But there is a long standing group of self identified radical feminists who can seem very intolerant of disagreement on certain issues. Everything has to come back to 'global' statements, such as 'Male Privilege' or 'Male violence' - with women positioned as perpetual victims of the patriarchy, albeit with superior moral virtue. It can often seem quite hateful and relentlessly oppositional. Certainly to me.

And while we can all agree that most gender roles and stereotypes are socially manufactured, we don't all agree that there are never any behaviours, attitudes, tendencies and so on, that arise out of the consequences of biology, and women's role in childbirth and mothering.

The problem with such rigid identity politics, whether it be based on sex, race, or any other grouping - is that it traps one in perpetual conflict, always positioning whole groups of other people as the enemy. Getting stuck in anger is not the goal of liberation movements, in my view, even if it is often an inevitable stage on the journey.

It's so ironic how many (presumably) white women on here are basically saying their equivalent of #NAMALT they really can't understand the irony of it

NAMALT is often used as put down on here, for any woman who doesn't view things in such rigid, necessarily oppositional ways.
Not everyone want to be involved in an eternal battle of the sexes or the races, so that argument doesn't work on here. In spite of what some seem to think, this board is actually quite diverse. And it is better for that, in my view.

OP - has your current employer or its women's network proposed any action/ changes in light of the recent events? Is it going to look at its staff progression and recruitment practices? Or review its equality and diversity practices. It should be. My workplace is doing this, (well it says it is) with input from all staff and stakeholders.

However, I work in the public sector, my workplace does have a very recent history of Black women heading the organisation, has many Black HoDs, and currently an Asian woman is at the helm, so maybe it's very different from a corporate environment, and I have a more positive view of women Including ethnic minority women getting to the top from this experience.

I also have mentioned in my earlier posts, I have observed in my career that white women who reach positions of power tend to then support women who look like them. All this while running the company’s women's network and speaking at conferences on breaking the glass ceiling.

I think you attribute more influence to these women than they actually have. It's likely to be the people the men sponsor who get promoted- and if they are women, myexperience is they will be unthreatening women. Its racist that black women are in the threatening category - but I think outspoken women, openly feminist women, working class women, mothers, GNC women are also all there too.

Unfortunately a white, well groomed, acting appropriately with female socialisation, childless woman such less threatening to the patriarchy.

I am massively cartooning, obviously there are exceptions. One of the most inspirational talks I've ever seen was by a black woman running a company (Anne Marie Imafidon from Stemettes)

I do what I can to support women, including mentoring at work and putting the ladder down.
I am not a racist.
I recognise white privilege exists.

I don't have capacity to do any more at the moment.

Of course it happens! You just can't say "all" if anyone does anything. It's stereotyping. That's the whole issue with racism!

I'd just like to add I obviously am aware that not all feminists are like that, but I do agree with the poster that said the OP is being treated with the usual arguments against feminist ideology like NAMALT.

I can see definite denial of the issue without any evidence to say it doesn't happen.

@Justhadathought but there are literal black women saying this is there experience with feminists, you can't just say it doesn't happen because you think it doesn't happen!

Keep reading the rest of the thread, CloudyVanilla. There are lots of interesting perspectives on the topic.

Ayishat Akanbi shares some of hers in this interview -

I don't think women in business are necessarily feminists or committed to helping others, giving talks about breaking the glass ceiling notwithstanding. Not more than men in similar roles are. Something about being in that kind of position can favour people who are rather self-interested.

It's difficult to speak to people's personal experiences, since there is no real way to evaluate them or see how common similar things are in many cases. FWIW I tend to think many feminists can be over-ready to interpret issues as sexism when that's not particularly clear, so it might make sense that they are more likely to say that is happening than agree to other scenarios. .

have lots of the same concerns as you, op, and constantly dismayed by lack of analysis around race on MN

It comes down to principles, and if you are anti-patriarchal without being anti- racist, or committed to racial justice but homophobic, then all you really are is self-interested and not an ally or proponent of freedom for all oppressed groups

I think this is what BLM is getting at in its 'inclusive' manifesto. Although I am dismayed at centring of trans with no proper analysis

I do notice that many of the best GC voices that I follow are white feminists and not particularly analytical or thoughtful about race (Julie bindel/ Hadley freeman). Meanwhile, those who loudly support trans rights (eg Owen jones/ ash sarkar) are brilliant on racial justice

It jars with me as a bme woman and would be v interested to hear recommendations of other black GC voices

Goosefoot within black communities, there are a variety of viewpoints. I don’t know any black people personally who disagree that racism exists and is fairly prevalent. However people differ on the responses. Some think if you focus on education and a middle class career, that’s the best way to overcome bias. Some people think being Afrocentric in hairstyle and dress is very important, while others say blend in and straighten your hair. Some want to protest, some say better to keep your head down and not make waves.

I'm not sure I've heard many people at all deny that racism exists, but I've heard a number from various racial profiles disagree that systemic racism is real, or more often that it is not a useful way to talk about what it is trying to talk about.

The thing is, a phrase like "systemic racism" is an abstraction, it's trying to describe certain things it believes occur and have a specific kind of origin and relationship to each other. But is it really grouping those things in a way that is helpful?

I think a big part of the reason you may be seeing this now is many social justice causes, including feminism, have been very invaded by critical theory and identity politics. Those are a very specific way of thinking about the material conditions they are referring to, among black communities, among women, whatever. Lot's of people dislike this analytical approach, but the way it tends to treat it's critics, no matter what their disagreement, is to call them bigots of some kind. In fact they may be very concerned about injustices but they don't think they are being described with enough precision.

Feminism has however begun to push back somewhat against critical theory. There is still a lot of it around, but largely because of gender ideology a fair number of feminists suddenly had their eyes open to the problems it has. And once you see this, you begin to see it embedded everywhere you find identity politics, creating all kinds of problems, and you start to question the language and the narrative.

So many of these feminists are not going to just accept a lens or language convention that they see as so destructive in other areas.

However - the thing about listening to experiences is this - you can listen, and even believe the person is being entirely truthful, but not agree with their assessment of the situation. Even with pretty simple things, two people can interpret the exact same situation differently. And while someone with little experience of racism might be too inclined to dismiss it, the corollary of that is someone who does more often experience racism may interpret situations as racist which aren't. Because both are seeing it through the lens of their experiences.

I think this is very true. I've been accused of being a man on here many times - I'm not, I'm a white middle aged woman with a disability. Op assumed she was called a man because of her race, yet it's pretty much par for the course that anyone who presents a different argument on here is called a man, when the discussion has nothing at all to do with race.

It was interesting to me to read s po account of suffering an injury due to hcps not listening to her and she attributed it to race.

It was interesting for me because I acquired a nerve root injury in my spine due to a medical error. I was crying in severe pain during a procedure but I wasn't listened to enough - I was given more pain relief but the cause of the severe pain wasn't investigated until it was too late and the injury was permanent. So, are our two experiences connected? Was the pp not listened to because of her race? Were we both not listened to because of our sex and race didn't come into it? Was it a failing on behalf of our hcps unconnected to our personal characteristics eg was their arrogance on the part of the hcps, did their egos get in the way? Was it none of these and they were just unfortunate accidents?

As Goosefoot says, we all view our experiences through our own lens don't we? If I attribute a different reason for my injury does that make me wrong?

I will be somewhat ironic here given the topic and say, that may not be about race specially, because I see it happen to posters quite a lot in FWR and I myself have been accused of being a man.

There is a certain type of person who seems to think that if you don't say what they expect, you must not really think that way. They are, I imagine, the kind f people who think that there is really only one way to see a situation and anyone who says they don't must be fibbing for some reason of their own.

However - the thing about listening to experiences is this - you can listen, and even believe the person is being entirely truthful, but not agree with their assessment of the situation. Even with pretty simple things, two people can interpret the exact same situation differently. And while someone with little experience of racism might be too inclined to dismiss it, the corollary of that is someone who does more often experience racism may interpret situations as racist which aren't. Because both are seeing it through the lens of their experiences.