White Feminism

[Brefugee]

suggested from another thread, is this something we should talk about. At the risk of being accused of being a TAAT it isn't that.

But on another thread a black MNer said that at a conference she had experienced racist comments from a panel, and she was the only one who pointed it out. And had been the only black person in the room.

The reason i brought up White Feminism on that thread was that the poster was instantly dismissed as a potential derailing troll. Which is... well not sure if the person dismissing the poster is white or not, but it was pretty much the very same treatment. Immediately written off as insignificant.

I've seen comments on the FWR board before that White Feminism rears its ugly head a lot, and that black mumsnetters don't feel comfortable on the board.

I find that shocking. But I'm not black or of any other minority. I'm a white 2nd waver - and i hope that i don't make racist comments or dismiss black women's experiences. I do hope that if i did, they would point that out to me. (and I'd be sorry they have to do that work)

So - should we talk about this? I do think it causes rifts where we should have bridges.

I've seen posts here where black British posters have movingly discussed their own personal experience of racism in this country and been told "oh that's just American Critical Race Theory making you think that, it's not valid here." Posters being told they must be American because racism doesn't exist here. You can't mention racism without someone rambling about CRT, it's some kind of get out of jail free card for racism.

I am deeply suspicious of the motives of anyone who starts harping on about American Critical Race Theory. At best it's an attempt to censor black Brits from talking about their experiences, at worst it's a far right wing conspiracy theory.

Acknowledging that racism exists, and acknowledging that white privilege exists, is not some kind of obscure "woke" ideology.

Thanks for sharing this, I appreciate the answer.

That's also a long way to get a glass of wine yikes 😅

She is. People tend to tell someone not to bright they aren't an Einstein. Well I like to say they aren't a Gladys West.

There is a movie about her called Hidden figures if you are interested.

It absolutely is a woke ideology when it's an excuse to demean the work of women.

It absolutely is a woke ideology when you get ridiculous posts like Socrateswasrightaboutvoting wrote just now asking for my "credentials" if I am black enough to have an opinion different from hers.

You all lost the plot. It's embarrassing.

In what what am I continuing that tradition? Calling you out for centring Whiteness? Why wouldn't I? You stated that you' are not white'. Does that mean you are not White but White passing? Lighter skinned Black? What does it mean? How can we assess your credentials?

Why does this matter? Would a white passing black woman or a lighter skinned Black woman not have the necessary credentials?

Genuine question. isn't that colourism?

@OneMorePlant is being vague about their own ethnicity/skin tone (credentials). Whilst all racism is deplorable, there is a marked difference in the experiences of white passing/ Light skinned Black women (positive) and a darker skinned Black women (negative). Credentials are important in debates because they allow us to understand where our experiences are likely to converge and diverge. (OMP says they were called the n word so I have assumed some proximity to Black but I could be wrong).

Whilst all racism is deplorable, there is a marked difference in the experiences of white passing/ Light skinned Black women (positive) and a darker skinned Black women (negative)
Meghan Markle doesn't think so

Meghan Markle knows so. Just because she has explained her own experience of racism doesn’t mean she doesn’t realise that she would have been treated differently if she was dark skinned.

Meghan Markle…explaining exactly that.

Thank you. That is a great example.

@Loulou599 I think you must be mistaking this for a Royal Family thread.

@Socrateswasrightaboutvoting I wish you were my friend in real life. Your poise is next level.

The most ironic part of this whole thread is that the bar for racism is being set (by some white females) considerably higher than the bar for misogyny (on FWR as a whole).

Dismissing lived experience and demanding evidence is ignorance at its highest level. Not even the slightest attempt to listen, learn, understand, respect, empathise.

I genuinely don’t understand why there is so little appreciation of the everyday issues facing black men, women and children in the UK when we (women) can recognise so clearly the systemic disadvantages and everyday differential treatment we face due to our sex. I also don’t understand why intersectionality is dismissed so readily; after all it is simply about recognising the parallels of all groups seeking to achieve change from those who hold the power.

I agree

I don't understand how it goes from "we believe her" for sexual assault to "we won't believe you unless you provide proof that we deem sufficient and we will dismiss your life experience as insufficient"

@Socrateswasrightaboutvoting - I’d be your girl too 😂

I think the reality is that the only thing uniting gender critical feminists as a whole is their criticism of gender. Within that group you have everything ranging from left wing Marxist feminists to right wing racist feminists like that Posie Parker. This forum is just that - a representation of all of those women. A while back on this thread someone reminded me of that Why I No Longer Talk to White People about Race (or similar title) and it made me realise that I’m expecting people on this thread to be different (better) than other white people because they’re feminists. But being gender critical doesn’t make them necessarily any more or less prejudice than any other selection of white women. White women are just half of all white people and we know that white people as a whole don’t exactly get it right when it comes to issues of race so why would the female half of that category?

Because the first example allows those with a victim complex to share the victimhood (is that a word!) of the woman in question - we believe her because we've experienced it too.

The second example does the opposite. Believing the WOC elevates the victim status of somebody else whilst arguably emphasising the privilege of the white feminist. At the very least it sidelines her victimship as she's lower on the oppression ladder.

A lot of people heavily invested in identity politics really do not like it when they're not the victim/have to acknowledge their privilege.

A lot of people heavily invested in identity politics really do not like it when they're not the victim/have to acknowledge their privilege
I think that's a really good thought provoking point - it's uncomfortable to have your privilege pointed out, or highlighted - you either think "hmm" and sit and listen and think about it, or go into the "how very dare you!" defensive mode/ deny it instead.

That was in response to @ReginaRegina 's post

'We Believe You' is an excellent example of the shortcomings of this approach.

I understood the point - women who have been raped or sexually assaulted are not even believed enough to properly investigate their reports. They are automatically disbelieved. The aim was for women and girls to be believed at least enough to be taken seriously when they reported a sexual attack and for the police and CPS to do their jobs.

The trouble was that 'We Believe You' needed explaining every single time. We had to explain over and over again that of course we still believed in proper investigation, 'innocent until proven guilty' and in fair trials and all the rest.

Any slogan you have to explain every time is a shit slogan.

Women who have been raped or sexually assaulted are still not even believed enough to properly investigate their reports. They are still automatically disbelieved. Rape still might as well be legal in practical terms, if anything this has got worse since 'We Believe You' was coined.

We don't hear 'We Believe You' much any more because it achieved precisely nothing except to make feminists look credulous and irrational.

@PencilsInSpace I share similar sentiments about 'NAMALT', apparently, quite astonishingly it's possible to discuss violence against women and girls without the the aforementioned disclaimer. Make it make sense!!

Sorry I don't understand, can you elaborate?

I should have added context; from TheHoover's original post which you've quoted a quoted response mentions that women can often and readily so recognise the systemic challenges and differing treatment they face as a result of their sex therefore on the many threads in which women discuss these issues - and in my reference above - violence against women and girls as it pertains to the issue of male violence, no-one takes seriously a poster popping up out of nowhere to shout that 'Not All Men Are Like That'. It carries no significance to the discussion, nor is it conducive to the discussion at hand. I'm reminded of the threads where Black women speak about their experiences and are oft met with 'so you're saying all white women should be tried at The Hague' or something to that effect.

Thank you for explaining.

The thing about NAMALT is that we can easily answer 'that's true but too many men are like that', or 'that's true but only men are like that' and we can show the evidence - stats or whatever - to back up our arguments.

Without that evidence we would just be having an 'aren't men awful' whingefest which nobody would listen to except other women who already agree that a significant proportion of men are indeed awful.

I think there are a few straw feminism arguments on this thread which have much more to do with the early 00's libfem than with FWR style feminism. NAMALT, 'We Believe You', corporate feminism, 'Everyday Feminism' ...

I can't remember the last time I saw a thread that lambasted men wholesale as a category (although I do note a couple of thread titles in this low traffic 'Feminist Chat' topic that none of us wanted, that might fit the bill).

I can't remember the last time I saw a thread about women's representation on corporate boards (aside from the Scottish bill that redefined woman in law and the Haldane judgment, which has implications for ALL women, not just the high flyers).

The threads I read are about male violence against women and girls or about men who impose their fetishes publicly on everyone else or about child safeguarding or about women being silenced or having their careers ruined for wrongthink, or about legal fights for women to be protected in law on the ground of sex.

I no longer expect anything to make sense. I'm just interested in what works.

To clarify - the Scottish bill and the Haldane judgment were about representation on public boards not corporate boards but the same applies - opposition was not particularly to do with the rights of the kind of women who get to sit on those boards, it was to do with the definition of sex in law and how that affects every single woman in Scotland and potentially the whole of the UK.

'Gender critical' is a very wide uncomfortable umbrella.

It includes feminists and also free speech advocates, child safeguarding advocates, LGB advocates, biologists, people who care about fairness in sports, people who care about their religious traditions, detransitioners, transwidows, children of trans, parents of trans, DSD advocates, 'rational transsexuals' ... of all political persuasions and none.

EVERYONE knows that the sky is blue, that there are two sexes, that you can't change sex, that the earth goes round the sun.

It says something about the power of this vicious, hypervocal minority that all sorts of different incompatible political tribes are having to unite under the 'GC' umbrella. If there was any sanity in the world everyone would just say 'Don't be so bloody ridiculous' and that would be that.

The feminist forum was tons better and far more feminist before it was split in two, against the wishes of those who post here. Since the split we have 'sex and gender discussion' which is mostly general GC with a somewhat feminist slant, and 'feminist chat' which is a backwater low traffic forum for those who didn't want to be faced with the redefinition of woman and the erasure of sex but still wanted to think of themselves as 'feminists' as if it's an identity and not a political movement.

You seem to have libeled KJK there by calling her a right wing racist.