Men’s “token torturers” in feminist spaces

[EatsBrainsAndLeaves]

"Where men can?t reach women because the space is women-only, these women, most of whom are deeply damaged, serve as the perfect Trojan horses and cannon fodder for the destruction of feminist spaces. To use Mary Daly?s term, they are men?s ?token torturers? in feminist spaces, doing men?s dirty work of demolishing women?s capacity for resistance.[18]

In most cases, pseudo-feminist (masculinist) practices or ideologies are the perfect terrain for such abusive behaviours because they give both the sense of legitimacy and individual rationalisation for them. Token torturers within feminist or women-only spaces almost always justify their continual acts of women-bashing with male-identified ideologies disguised as feminism, and some may be more obvious than others. This is particularly true for pro-prostitution positions, BDSM practices, pseudo anti-racism, intersectionality, male-centric anti-capitalism or leftism, focus on male institutions or law, queer theory, butch-fem ideology, radical lesbianism, and the ?phobia? ideologies (Islamophobia, etc.)."

-- Féministe radicale francophon

Intersectionality is seen by some people as a useful concept for explaining discrimination by class, race, disability, age. Fair enough. It seems less useful to me as a concept to explain sex discrimination and inequality.

What does intersectionality add to the understanding and ending of discrimination against women?

How does feminism and society use the knowledge that rich white women discriminate against poor black women in only some of the ways that rich white men discriminate against poor black women?

Where does that actually get us in trying to stop of male discrimination against females?

I'm with goth.

I am also dying at the idea that fwr (well, eats, anyway) is now claiming academics as the epitome or public face of radhood.

You new?

So, it would seem we are at a stalemate.

Some here insist that because they believe the concept of intersectionality has been "highjacked" by "anti-feminists" for their own aims that the ideology is now too "tainted," serves to diminish the impact of feminism, is therefore in itself anti-feminist and must be wholly rejected. Some have suggested intersectionality can be used deliberately to minimise the importance of feminism.

Others (me included) believe the ever-narrowing concept of radical feminism increasingly excludes and invalidates the experiences of women who experience multiple and intersecting forms of oppression, thereby becoming a movement to emancipate only those women who already hold the most privilege. As above, some might suggest that radical feminism cold be used deliberately to minimise the importance of challenging multiple and intersecting forms of oppression.

Anybody got a road map that could lead us all to some common ground? My sat nav seems to be acting up at the moment.

(And Beach - to be fair, many a time here folks have taken personally criticisms of views that they hold. Imho, I think those who may have made a similar inference on this thread can surely be forgiven for responding likewise.)

The way I see it is that too much attention is always paid to what separates us as women not to what unites us. But then if we just all work from the basis that we are all only women then this does a great deal to silence anyone who faces any additional form of discrimination. A way forward is to see who MOST benefits from ALL discrimination. I propose rich white men, that means the rest of us have something that unites us, the other 80% should if they stop the infighting be able to tackle the root cause of all oppression. Maybe I'm just too naive and optimistic though

kritiq and gothanne thankyou for your posts

op are you ever going to tell us your opinion on the quote?

KRITIQ wrote - "radical feminism increasingly excludes and invalidates the experiences of women who experience multiple and intersecting forms of oppression, thereby becoming a movement to emancipate only those women who already hold the most privilege"

That gives me the impression that you are expecting radical feminism to solve all types of privilege imbalance, otherwise it will have failed. Is that what you mean?

The op might still be thinking about it. She's quite new to feminism, so I guess she is still working through the books. Maybe she just found it interesting and was having trouble working out her thoughts?

Eats, what was your motive? The problem with just posting quotes or a crappy 'discuss' topic (like the MRAs did) is that it looks like a way to start a bunfight, rather than you chatting about the topic.

I'm monumentally depressed that intersectionality is being trashed in some circles. But always interested in the ideas behind the thinking.

Selective quoting without refs is poor form though.

I was just summarising what seems to be the two positions being expressed.

However, I do believe that any version of feminism that chooses to address only misogynistic oppression, then it will be letting down those women who's experience of oppression stems from much more than institutionalised misogyny. And, as bell hooks, Patricia Hill Collins and many other feminists of colour continually assert, feminists who address only misogynistic oppression shouldn't be surprised or disappointed if women of colour (or others whose multiple or intersecting experience of oppression is relegated to being of less importance,) turn their backs on the movement.

Applauds KRITIQ & mini, I can't see any good argument against intersectionality as a principle of feminist political action.

Only against its misuse, but there are far easier ways for an anti-fem/MRA etc. to derail a discussion than throwing such concepts around. I've seen most of the Derailing for Dummies strategies and hardly ever spotted "intersectionality" being misused to send a discussion in an anti feminist direction.

And yes- we need to learn from the second wave mistakes. (WRT non-bourgeois/ non-white/ trans issues. I am pro-second wave on some sexual matters, far preferable to a Marcotte/Valenti pozzer fauxminism...)

Kritiq who says that intersectionality must be wholly rejected?

Saying a concept has been co-opted/hijacked is not the same as saying the concept is in and of itself invalid, flawed or must be rejected.

At all.

I have seen intersectionality used as a really grass roots concept to recognise and give power to all manner of oppressed groups. Which is brilliant.

I have also seen the concept co-opted in order to take focus off an oppressed group. Generally in a way that suggests that if the focus is not displaced that is evidence of racism. Which is not brilliant.

I've typed that and am now questioning the relevance to the OP!

NO... Kritiq supports intersectionality! Where did you get that from?

She says that any feminism that doesn't address intersectional issues is wrong as we only have ourselves to blame if people oppressed by more than one system then refuse to adopt the feminist label/cause.

Extrospektiv I think the co-opting of intersectionalty is in Derailing for Dummies. They just don't call it that.

It is the; stop talking about that and concentrate on this - otherwise it is proof that you don't care about .

Okay, I perhaps I misunderstood your post Beach, but there are posts on this thread that do seem to reject that there is any benefit in taking an intersectional approach - one reason being some folks feel it's been misappropriated by others.

Extro, I think that's perhaps part of the problem - the labelling. I find there is often a "short hand" assumption that there are radical feminists (with a prescribed set of acceptable beliefs and actions) and there are "sex positive" feminists (with a different prescribed set of acceptable beliefs and actions.)

So, if you don't fit into one, the assumption is that you must be in the other. That simply ain't the case. I'm always more interested in what people believe and why rather than the labels they choose.

Extrospektiv, thanks but I understand Kritiq's posts.

I was asking her who she thinks says that intersectionality should be wholly rejected just because it is unfortunately co-opted by some.

It seems such an odd thought process/analysis so I was wondering where she had come across it.

Extrospektiv wrote "any feminism that doesn't address intersectional issues is wrong as we only have ourselves to blame if people oppressed by more than one system then refuse to adopt the feminist label/cause."

Do anti-racism, anti-disability, anti-poverty groups etc. also only have themselves to blame if they don't act as a one-stop shop for fighting multiple forms of oppression?

EatsBrainsAndLeaves Sun 23-Sep-12 10:27:56, "These days however intersectionality is used to largely obscure men and patrirachy. Instead intersectionality is used to argue - there are all these different oppressions class, race, fat oppression, etc that mean everyone is oppressed in a different way. So it is anti feminist because it fails to recognise how men as a class oppress women as a class . . . "

ArmyOfPenguins Mon 24-Sep-12 16:37:36 "I have seen "intersectionality" used to obscure male-dominance; it's the same kind of thing as 'but what about the menz' - ie, putting feminism at the bottom of the heap - except far more dishonest."

Okay, neither have said directly that "intersectionality should be wholly rejected," but both posts describe it in very negative terms and strongly suggest that adopting such a perspective is in itself anti-feminist.

I hope that helps with the query.

Out of interest what is an anti-disability group?. Anti-poverty group.....where? It's crying shame we can't just all get together and agree who this bogey man is, maybe then we set about tackling all forms of injustice and discrimination. All roads lead in the same direction!

Vesuvia - very quick response to our post of 18:19:25.

yes!

You'll find much bandwith taken up by blogs of women of colour who express frustration not only that mainstream and also radical feminists fail to acknowledge multiple and intersecting forms of oppression. They also express identical disappointment that anti-racist and anti-capitalist movements fail to acknowledge these phenomenon in a meaningful way, too.

Mini, "Amen sister!"

Intersectional theory was taken up by feminists first. I don't really mind who fights oppression as long as someone is doing it successfully, but once it entered the movement, I am saying there are no good grounds to oppose it because the multiply oppressed can see it as erasure.

If a specific group has always been just anti-racism then that's a different matter... Would you say that ethnic studies and critical race theory should be integrated with other movements? Or how can they explain the full experience of the population they were founded in support of? e.g. black studies, half of black people's experience is of women, and the issues of misogyny have always intersected with racism. Do you not accept that academic work should at least consider that? I'm not trying to say everything must always be subsumed into one generic "social liberation movement"... just arguing for the recognition that so many things are interconnected and so the superiority of this approach over working as isolated "silos".

MiniTheMinx wrote - "Out of interest what is an anti-disability group?"

That should read anti-disability discrimination group.

Beach that was a punctuation issue. I read it as "Kritiq, (the person) who..." and not as a question addressed to her. Understand now

Was it Sheila Rowbotham who said that Women, feminists could teach the left a thing or two. That women should fight for positions on the left and unite all in tackling all forms of discrimination. She said that the radical movement had a great deal of positive experience/energy that could be co-opted to drive social change. I think she is right, we should focus on what unites but pay heed to what distinguishes and acknowledge differences so that everyone has a stake.

I think 'wholly rejected' was a bit of a misrepresentation.

Thanks for explaining though - I read those posts too but I didn't read 'wholly rejected' in them. I didn't see a rejection of the concept but a critique of how the concept (like pretty much any concept I guess) can be hijacked.

Which is interesting

For example, intersectionality is often hijacked to accuse radical feminists of racism - even though feminists of colour had the same objections to white liberal/socialist/whatever feminism as white radical feminism. Their thought provoking objections were with white feminism. In general.

No worries Extrospektiv, I thought that might be the case. Thanks.