Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Is this really necessary?

15 replies

OptimisticPessimist · 30/05/2012 14:33

Came across the page for this event via a post by The F Word on FB. Scrolling down to the comments, there are comments from women who seem put out that their particular circumstances (sexuality or disability) have not been specifically mentioned, meaning that they "don't know whether they are welcome". Do events like this really need to specifically state that lesbians, or disabled women are welcome, in order to be truly inclusive? Surely all women are welcome?

(I have never been to such an event in fairness, so I appreciate I may be missing something Grin)

OP posts:
StarsAndBoulevards · 30/05/2012 14:39

Have you missed the RadFem2012 backlash? Grin Would explain a lot...

OptimisticPessimist · 30/05/2012 14:43

Lol, no I am aware of the context, and I appreciate that for example the accessibility question is a fair point, but it's the way the comments are phased, it just seems really unnecessarily rude Confused

(I am reading the RadFem thread in between various other things, has been a great read so far).

OP posts:
KRITIQ · 31/05/2012 12:47

Thank you for flagging this up. I've just added a post which is awaiting moderation on the Women Up North page. Perhaps it will be of interest to some here, so here it is below.

--------

As a feminist from even further ?up north,? I?m sorry that I won?t have the chance to join you all and wish those taking part all the best for a successful event.

However, I am saddened to see a reflection in the comments here of what I think is a wider, increasing anxiety amongst feminists about who can/should be included, excluded or partly included within the feminist movement and feminist events.

I understand disabled feminists? concern the lack of access details and specific sessions on disability. While I?m sure the intention was not to exclude, the omission reflects the intersectional oppression they face in every day life. Assuming there are no barriers to access is a privilege that disabled women don?t enjoy. The same applies for other women who can never just assume that they will be welcomed or that provision will be made to enable their involvement. That?s why it is so very, very important to be absolutely clear about inclusion.

I think most feminists have recognised for some time the importance of those who experience specific intersectional oppression coming together to share experiences and mutual support, outwith the wider group of feminists. At times, this has led to tensions though. Should bisexual women come to a session for Lesbians? Who can be involved in a group for women of colour? In my view, dilemmas surrounding the inclusion or exclusion of trans women follow on in this vein.

There are enormous challenges in creating ?safe? spaces for survivors of misogynist abuse. Both women who were identified as female from birth and trans women suffer male abuse in the context of misogyny. But, trans women may not be welcomed because some women may see them as identified with male perpetrators rather than as victims ? different from the identity they hold for themselves. Also, survivors of Lesbian relationship abuse can feel unwelcome or not understood because their abusers were women (even where patriarchy formed the context for that abuse.) The hurt felt by all involved can escalate to anger and personal attacks, in real life and cyberspace, as we?ve seen recently. This is helpful to no one, no one at all, except of course the patriarchy!

I know there are no easy answers to this. However, I?m not convinced the right way forward is avoidance of dialogue between strands of feminism, further prescription of what one must believe and do to be a feminist or preoccupation on biological definitions of womanhood (bizarrely, a tool used to oppress women past and present.)

I hope we can unite around our diverse yet shared experiences at the sharp end of misogynist oppression and common goal of dismantling gender and patriarchal hegemony. The struggle is too huge for us to waste valuable time and energy fighting amongst ourselves.

Again, best wishes to all sisters for a successful event and in all your endeavours. Peace.

kim147 · 31/05/2012 12:53

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

TheWomanFormerlyKnownAsSGM · 31/05/2012 18:18

I think they were very silly not to include accessibility of the building inthe notes. Surely, that's just standard practise for any event: you say whether or not the building is wheelchair accessible, if there are lift access issues, and if you have translators in BSL etc. sometimes funding issues will make certain things difficult (ie BSL interpretor). I would find it very odd for a feminist event to be held in an non-inclusive space.

I didn't understand the question about lesbian women being included. I would have thought that was a given at a feminist event.

EthelMoorhead · 02/06/2012 16:55

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

KalSkirata · 02/06/2012 19:10

what does 'intersectional' mean? I'd never heard the word until a few weeks ago and now its everywhere.

EthelMoorhead · 02/06/2012 19:16

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

KRITIQ · 03/06/2012 01:50

Intersectionality isn't quite as simple as acknowledging that one person can experience 2 or more kinds of oppression. I first encountered this article "Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color" by Kimberle Williams Crenshaw's back in the mid 1990's and it has a massive influence on my thinking as a feminist.

This was around the time of the OJ Simpson trial after the murder of his wife Nicole. Many African American feminists were being criticised by white feminists for pointing to the racism inherent in the case rather than conceptualising it simply as the misogynist murder of a woman. Male civil rights leaders criticised them for highlighting Simpson's previous abuse of his wife and the inherent misogyny of the case, rather than just viewing it as evidence of a racist criminal justice system. It was as if feminists of colour were expected to choose between two intrinsic parts of their identity by those leading movements for advancement/liberation/emancipation of people with those two identities. But, the white feminists and male civil rights leaders both held greater privilege than the women of colour.

The experience of being someone at an "intersection" of identities is unique, more than just experiencing one kind of oppression with a helping of another oppression ladled on. Intersectionality also recognises that it's not appropriate to assume that one type of oppression (say misogyny) is more serious or has a greater impact than others (say racism or classism.) That's what happened with the condemnation of Feminists of colour related to the OJ Simpson case.

I've heard some feminists here insist they understand intersectionality, then go on to demonstrate that they really haven't a clue - that they still believe patriarchal oppression is absolutely at the root of all forms oppression, trumps all other forms of oppression, but oh yes, of course we know it's extra bad for black women, disabled women, Muslim women, etc. Nope, that doesn't cut it.

And this actually is something that worries me alot. Ten or 15 years ago, I would have never countenanced organising a women's event without including the full access details in the publicity info, without stating clearly who the event was for and other measures taken to ensure inclusivity. I'd have been working with and learning from both organisations working for and with women who experience intersectional oppression and those that work with people generally who experience other forms of oppression (e.g. mental health, disability, LBGTQ, young people, older people, Black, Asian & Minority Ethnic, etc.) I certainly wouldn't be expecting participants to contact a venue directly to find out about disability access. I wouldn't be suggesting those wanting a quiet room (for prayer, for resting, for breastfeeding, for whatever,) go to a nearby garden or Starbucks! I wouldn't be excusing the lack of info and facilities on not having enough money.

I'm gobsmacked and quite despaired that feminists seem to be moving away from an understanding of intersectionality both in their analysis of oppression, but by indirectly excluding those who experience intersectional oppression from discussions and events. So, I'm not surprised someone asked whether Lesbians were welcome at the Manchester event, and someone else pointed out angrily that there was no information on access and no specific sessions on disability, and someone else asked about whether trans women were welcome. I'm guessing the organisers probably just didn't think about these things. And not thinking is exactly the problem.

On this thread, Goth Anne pointed out (Sat 02-Jun-12 02:30:57) a perfect example of failing to site patriarchal oppression within an intersectional framework, and it was 'splained away - clearly not important enough to worry about.

Just wanted to clarify the misunderstanding/misrepresentation of intersectionality for those genuinely interested. While I don't think this message board represents the broad swathe of opinions within feminism, I do worry that the lurch to more fundamentalism, efforts to reboot selected 2nd wave feminist thinking with the prescriptive views and behaviour is at the expense of intersectionality, inclusion, and the opportunity to work with others who experience oppression to have a stronger voice and better chance of achieving shared goals.

So, I don't think it's "safe" to assume people will know whether or not they are genuinely welcome at a feminist event, nor that they actually will be if the organisers are unable or unwilling to engage with intersectionality. Similarly, on this message board, it seems few members are willing to engage with intersectionality, so there's not alot of point in me being here either.

Night all.

EthelMoorhead · 03/06/2012 06:44

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

PrideOfChanur · 03/06/2012 11:49

KRITIQ,those were interesting posts.Since I've been reading MN feminism I've struggled to clarify both what I believe and how I can articulate that,with varying amounts of success.It is good to be able to get the viewpoint of posters who express clearly and with knowlege what I feel I am,sort of,groping towards.
(so I hope you won't go...)

KalSkirata · 03/06/2012 12:56

'I'm gobsmacked and quite despaired that feminists seem to be moving away from an understanding of intersectionality both in their analysis of oppression, but by indirectly excluding those who experience intersectional oppression from discussions and events. So, I'm not surprised someone asked whether Lesbians were welcome at the Manchester event, and someone else pointed out angrily that there was no information on access and no specific sessions on disability, and someone else asked about whether trans women were welcome. I'm guessing the organisers probably just didn't think about these things. And not thinking is exactly the problem.'

Thanks for the explanantion.
Did it need a whole new word though? One thing I find about conferences is all the academic jargon. It leads to confusion.
Why not just said 'quit leaving someone out'? I've managed to tackle various groups on excluding disabled people using clear speech for years.

TheWomanFormerlyKnownAsSGM · 05/06/2012 09:30

Erm, we all know that Kritique didn't invent the word right?

Because, increasingly, I'm finding the attempts to silence women who disagree with others on this board increasingly uncomfortable. I think the treatment Kritique is getting on this board is appalling.

KalSkirata · 05/06/2012 10:05

really SGM? Im noticing a discussion on what intersectionality means. I still dont quite understand though. But then I am thick and use direct words with regards to oppression.
I'd be crap at an academic conference Grin

GothAnneGeddes · 05/06/2012 14:08

KRITIQ - I really wish you weren't going. I've been on and off these boards for a while now, but they seem to be going in a particular direction which is not comfortable with dissent and I think that's a massive shame.

Thank you also for pointing out my words elsewhere. I thought I'd made a reasonable point but the response was rather underwhelming.

Kal - I get what you mean about language. I dislike unnecessarily academic language, but on the other hand, the oppressed and marginalised often don't have much say in the creation of "mainstream" language, so words have to be created which express their truth.

I think intersectionality is one such word and is a very valuable term.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page