Intersectional feminism

[Fauchelevent]

This is my first FWR thread but many of you will know me from the transactivism threads and posts about race and here and there.

On the Rachel Dolezal thread, quite an interesting discussion began about race, feminism and intersectional feminism with Quencher especially raising some very interesting and informed points. But this isn't a TAAT.

The question is intersectionality, intersectional feminism - the movement as it was intended and the movement as it stands.

I'm black, and I feel that discussions with some white women feminists often ignore race or I feel like when race is discussed, there are a lot of issues. Sometimes discussions go down the line of black women setting feminism back by being too hypersexual, muslim/orthodox women seen as backwards and so on. I see on MN a lot of people comparing gender issues to race and saying that if it were race, it would get dealt with but women are on the bottom of the heap. As a black woman i certainly feel shat on for my race as much as my gender. So intersectional feminism seems like the natural destination for women who want and need feminism but feel like mainstream feminism excludes them. Equally, intersectional feminism makes a point to make spaces accessible for disabled people, tackle homophobia and so on.

Yet intersectional feminism has also become a toxic space. It has become a space of stifled debate, regular misogyny and very orwellian. Women who disagree with the party line are blacklisted and sometimes sent death threats. Women who do not toe the party line are also guaranteed to lose any friends in this circle. For example, with student activism becoming increasingly intersectional, it also means there's less room for debate and very little dissent because anyone who disagrees will be ex communicated. So lots of people in their early twenties and younger will have this way of thinking.

I also hear from a lot of feminists who are white that they feel they cannot get involved in intersectional feminist debates because they're shut down as being "White Feminists" even by other (lower case) white feminists.

How do we balance the need for feminism that is aware of racial matters, sexuality, class and so on, because poor women, gay women, and women of colour should not feel shut out of feminism. We have to also understand that women tend to navigate their own cultures and communities differently, we all have different histories and so our feminism may look different and we may need to look outside our experience (making sure disabled feminists can access events and so on)

What we have at the moment is a post modern choice feminism where everyone is included and nothing - including the words woman, female and feminism - has meaning. It means tackling male violence and female oppression takes a back burner and in its place comes discussions of liberating oneself with make up and selfies, whatever you find on everyday feminism, and silencing and violence towards anyone who doesn't agree with absolutely everything in the ideology. Lots of young female feminists are also identifying as non-binary, possibly because they don't have the "feeling like a woman" experience that MTT speak of so assume they must not be women. Occasionally "cis scum" and "white feminists" will be told to shut the fuck up. So its currently full of a lot of issues - but a lot of aspects are it are necessary.

I'm not sure what I hope to get out of this thread really, other than a few thoughts from others. I'm happy to answer any questions - I'm black and early 20s so i have a lot of direct experience with extremely cult like intersectional feminism. Unfortunately I am spartacus though so I get very silenced. Posting on MN is a massive relief. This international womens day was like international virtue signalling day with everyone declaring that its international womens day for everyone who identifies as a woman, non binaries, and all non-cis men and anyone who disagrees should fuck off - so a bit tiresome!

Anyway - no real questions, just hoping for some thoughts and a discussion on intersectional feminism and its issues on the back of the RD thread.

Can see both sides of that M0stly. The work is easier physically but also standards are higher so there isn't that much less of it.
It's like computers - they were going to either steal all the jobs or give us loads of leisure time. Instead we now have a massive industry all about making/programming the computers and jobs endlessly emailing each other and creating electronic content.
It's why I can't get too worked up about robotics.

I thought we were of similar age but not after checking again. Am between late 20 and early 30s.

Ok! This is how I understand it. A few years ago on Mn. The running them before, around and after women's day has been about women who don't like feminism or see as something that's not necessary. I wish I could remember the names from two years. The only one is humanist. The other might have been absolutist. Something like that and liberals. Last year was all about liberals and those who don't see the need for feminism and the a newspaper printed an article with lost of views from these women.
Surprise! surprise! , this year is about trans. My argument here is that there is a link. The more women move away from the idea of feminism or reject the idea that we are not equal yet, the more space is left for people to fill. And no, don't blame black women for it. We have our own issues that ties in with feminism and that's not going anywhere soon. It s the more comfortable people who seem to give up because every thing is ok now. Why complain. You have your rights to vote/ work and so on.

Intersectionality to me was not a movement but a methodology and it still is for black women to get people to understand their plight. It's there to explain the issues faced by women of colour that is not by white women specifically. Seeing that it's a method the same way you would have a mathematical one, any one is allowed to use it to pin point different conundrums that contradicts what society accepts as the norm.

Op, the black women blame are sometimes done without naming names but we can always tell. It does not take a genius to work it out on a post. What I will say is that I have to stand a long side my black men and children to fight for racism. then fight against black men and men in general against sexism and misogyny or misogynior. I don't have to chose one or the other because for black women it comes hand in hand.

FGM. I think for every child in the west should be protected from FGM the same way you would do if a child was beaten, starved or neglected by those responsible or in caring position for that child.
even though we're all equally outraged and together we could get some shit done) and also the fact it happens to females seems to piss off the transactivists who don't want vaginas equated with womanhood think about it and why? My simple explanation is that some of them will mutilate their penis to have a vagina. If we campaign to say that it's wrong, that is placing quilt or putting them in awkward positions. on those who will wilfully do it as adults or even advocate for it for young boys. Not just give five year olds hormones but cut them off early too. They want that option open. I think people need to start thinking beyond what females think, but also, what other people are thinking and why, for us to find solutions before they happen. I know cutting a penis off is not FGM but am using it as an explanation for why they might be fighting against FGM. It infringes on their possibility of having a vagina as long as the debate continues.

I think much can be done if we stick to what is important- freeing ALL women from the oppression of the patriarchy. And leaving other people's issues alone. Nice thought! But almost all issues comes down to the setup of our society, Patriarchy and who it benefits. That includes wars, feminism, cultural, trans issues (because I believe that if they were comfortable to be who they are, they would not have the need to be women), class and others I cannot think of at the moment. In order for feminism to become a non issues, you need everyone involved to fight their own corners against patriarchy and dismantle it. If we do it alone, we hit walls after walls with lots of push backs. Raise your son a feminist. Teach young boys feminism too.
Patriarchy is not just a system but a mental state of being. It's like
brain-washing. You can change the system, but it's the people who will need to change to stop uprising against it. Example, how trump won.

Have you read Claire Heuchan on this issue. She makes a lot of sense to me. Her blog is here: sisteroutrider.wordpress.com and she has also just contributed to a book of essays: Nasty Women.
She is a young black lesbian radfem, active on twitter as @ClaireShrugged. She recently had to come off twitter for a bit after an article she wrote on Scottish nationalism brought down a massive shit storm on her head, which brought it home that while women come in for a load of vile shit on social media, black women come in for even more, hence misogynoir.

What intersectionality means to me.
It certainly does not mean centring transwomen in my politics. My feminism always centres women not men, but it means being aware that women may experience multiple oppressions- not just sex, but race, class, age, disability, etc.
I am white and I am a feminist, but I see the term 'white feminist/m' used as a way of telling me to shut up (especially when uttered by white trans women such as Paris Lees).

Black women should have any less rights than me as a white woman. They have the same rights not to be subjected to FGM, forced marriage, sharia law, as I do as a white woman, and I will campaign alongside them for those rights. Women who have the burden of multiple discriminations should not be expected to do all the work to fight those discriminations. As a white woman I can add my voice to theirs to help them be heard. I can also listen to the experience of other women in different situations and with different experiences.

Intentionally or not, intersectionalism seems to have become a means of dividing, distracting and silencing women. It is concept that is being manipulated so that women argue amongst themselves, preventing any useful progress towards equality for all groups of women. Technically not true. I knew intersectionality before i came across the word. It's the basis for black women's feminism existing wether they know the word or not. Basically before the word was coined in 1989. It's the part that racism plays in segregating women of colour.

I've seen few cases where black men / anti-racism activists have been warned to think about women / sexism and where men of the left have been warned to think about multiple other oppressions (just as examples). And rich, white, able-bodied men are rarely called on their privilege at all. Oh no! They wouldn't. Don't you know they are an endangered species according to head of Tesco.
An article I read recently was attaching liberals because they are the groups that think there has been a enough change. Radical people should shut up because everything is not as bad as it was before. I will post the link. It was about racism but I think the same would apply to feminism. You just have to fill in the gaps and translate it to how you understand feminism now.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/your-calls-for-unity-are-divisive-as-fckuss_58c19b3fe4b070e55af9ec79?
In 1963, while sitting in a jail cell in Alabama, Martin Luther King decided not to write about his jailers, but instead opted to drag “white moderates” who deemed his outspokenness “unwise and untimelyly_.” Sound familiar? Liberals of the day felt King was being divisive. Today, liberals quote King out of context, in order to silence Black radicals; and the circle of life continues.
When we suggest that critiques of liberal movements are problematic, what we’re really doing is telling marginalized people they need to shut up and be thankful for the hand they’ve been dealt. This is white supremacy (and cis-hetero patriarchy) in action. And it actually pushes those of us with the most to lose further away from aligning with those movements. It succeeds in doing the very thing it claims to be against — dividing and alienating. Using energy to chastise oppressed people with minimal privilege will ALWAYS be counterproductive to liberation work. Like good satire, a revolution requires directing our resistance upward, towards those in power. Anything else is just oppression in blue lipstick without lip liner. So what can we do?*

I read and follow Claire.
Having been part of international networks, I'm very aware that women have always used feminism and feminist critiques to mobilise and organise for change.
What tools do you think intersectionality has provided that were lacking? What results has it achieved?

@fairy, I like your link and am going to read through it.

telling women we can't wear "pussy" hats in direct protest to Trump advising someone to "grab her by the pussy". I think that was lost in translation.
The assumption was that all of women's labium and the surrounding areas were pink. The people who did the design made it all pink. Some women of colour took offence to that because of the image and the hats was made to make a statement. It's like saying all skin colours are nude. Lots of people would take offence if I was to say that. But it was the norm not so long ago.
Probably you saw it more in relation to trans than what the colour was.

I'm also not entirely convinced (although am happy to be persuaded otherwise) that feminism was leaving all these 'sections' behind. Personally I can tick 2 other minority boxes (any DD could tick 3). My feminism didn't ignore those intersectional oppressions. It was informed by them. Yes they were. Some were willing for white women to have the vote and other rights before any black person. (thats for both men and women). Their interest was before anyone else's. Some of these women still exist and walk among us preaching feminism. Probably they have changed. Who knows. We know people are still racist.

What we don't need is silencing of women's voices because they are "wrong" (too white, too rich, too thin, too educated). That's how it became acceptable to not support Clinton in the US election and look how t how come black women backed her? Didn't we see all that you mentioned? Why would all those women who voted for trump turn away from Hilary? The bottom line is racism, backlash against change (that's why they are taking America back with the slogan. A place in time where white men ruled and their women stood by them) having a woman at the top would have broken them. It would have been too far. Yes! Trump has black people round him. But the are the type of black people who are slavery deniers.

I wonder if this has anything to do with women having to do and be everything for everyone it's about our issues being intertwined with other issues. Like I mentioned before. The only people it does not affect negatively are middle class and above men. Why would they care if they can't see the issue?

Some were willing for white women to have the vote and other rights before any black person. (thats for both men and women). Their interest was before anyone else's. Some of these women still exist and walk among us preaching feminism. Probably they have changed. Who knows. We know people are still racist

I'm a bit confused here. My understanding of this history (bearing in mind that I am not from the US) is that white women were instrumental in getting black men the vote - in fact women were told that the rights of black men to the franchise trumped anything else, including the rights of white women. Many white women worked tirelessly for black men's right to vote. This was granted in 1870. Black and white women did not gain the vote until 1920. I also understand that there were precious few men, white or black, who helped black and white women in the same way that women helped black men in their struggle for the franchise.

The problem with the concept of intersectionality is that it conflates discrimination and oppression. Consequently everyone can claim to be oppressed and everyone can be considered an oppressor. And that is nonsensical and dangerous.

Oppression (real oppression not tumblr pomo identity politics oppression) involves exploitation plus a social construction that justifies that exploitation as "the natural order". Real oppression is structural and systematic, it creates classes and a rigid hierarchy is enforced using those classes. This is called a social order. An entire culture and hegemony is constructed which maintains and reinforces this social order as natural, inevitable and unquestionable. Not all systems of oppression distribute power in the same way but they all involve power and they all involve exploitation and control.

Discrimination is different. All oppressed peoples are discriminated against but not all people who experience discrimination are oppressed.

So girls and women experience sex based oppression via the social construct of gender.

People of colour experience skin colour oppression via the social construct of race.

Poor people experience economic/labour oppression via the social construct of socioeconomic class.

Of course these systems of oppression intersect. Women and people of colour are very often also poor. Black women experience skin colour oppression and sex oppression.

But that doesn't mean that there is a massive Venn diagram or matrix of oppression. There may be of discrimination but not of oppression. I can only think of the above three systems of oppression.

So young earnest postmodernist people who claim via intersectionality that they are somehow oppressed need to explain to second wave feminists like me under what system and social construction they are being oppressed if it isn't one of the above. What is the system or the supremacy that oppresses them. Oppression is not about individuals or even groups, it is about systems and class. What oppressed class do they find themselves in? And which class is benefiting from their supposed oppression?

Black people are structurally oppressed by a white supremacist system. Women are structurally oppressed by a male supremacist system. Poor people are oppressed by a capitalist system.

Under what system are all these young intersectionality fans being oppressed?

I can only think of the above three systems of oppression

Well some Jewish folk may feel they have had a bit of oppression.

I think of what has been done to Jews as persecution.

But I'm totally open to you expanding on your above post if you want to.

Thanks for the Claire Heuchan link. I'd never heard of her but I broadly agree with the points she makes in her article about Scottish nationalism. I'm personally tired of hearing about how non racist Scotland is. I dare say if we had a major port in Aberdeen with immigrants trying to get in, our tolerance would quickly vanish. I also wonder if any of the utopian Scotland crowd have ever enjoyed the inclusive atmosphere in Ibrox on Old Firm day.

As a white Scottish woman, I have her back for making those brave points. However, what I don't agree with are accusations that she was trolled and harassed for being black, or even for being a woman. The indy debate rages so very fiercely and there is zealotry on both sides. Siding with an Englishman calling Scotland racist was always going to attract the absolute worst online bullying, regardless of the ethnic background of the speakers.

That's what indy/brexit does. Causes bitter, bitter division.

Well I am not Jewish so I would have to be careful. But I think with the Holocaust and pogroms you may very well have a point that they were persecution. If that is even a strong enough word.

But the Holocaust was just part of the story. The full history of mistreatment stretches back quite a ways - Jewish people were restricted on where they could live, suffrage was limited and antisemitism was woven into the fabric of society and the state.

'Intersectionality to me was not a movement but a methodology'

This, exactly.
I don't remember Crenshaw's article calling for a movement - she gives us a clear and useful tool.
It makes me uncomfortable when I see people blame intersectionality for the liberal oppression Olympics mess that feminism is embroiled in at the moment because it didn't have to be used like that at all.

Listen I am withdrawing my objection - I just realised I am the guy in the back of the room who raises his hand and says, "What about the Inuit?"

Persecution is an extremely strong word.

Persecution of the Jews is a widely used and understood term.

X post. OK makeourfuture. I suspect our exchange has the makings of a derail.

Countess how do you think the tool could be used better?

This was granted in 1870. Black and white women did not gain the vote until 1920.

The Voting Rights Act, signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson (1908-73) on August 6, 1965, aimed to overcome legal barriers at the state and local levels that prevented African Americans from exercising their right to vote under the 15th Amendment (1870) to the Constitution of the United States. The act significantly widened the franchise and is considered among the most far-reaching pieces of civil rights legislation in U.S. history. The year before the law was passed you had the match from Selma to Montgomery for this very purpose.
After the U.S. Civil War (1861-65), the 15th Amendment, ratified in 1870, prohibited states from denying a male citizen the right to vote based on “race, color or previous condition of servitude.” Nevertheless, in the ensuing decades, various discriminatory practices were used to prevent African Americans, particularly those in the South, from exercising their right to vote.

I wish I could remember her name. She is a prominent feminist from the sixties. she was quite racist. Not every one was as nice as those who joined the matches during the civil rights movement.

Oh OK ... I didn't realise you were talking about more recent history. I'm not sure exactly which feminist you were talking about either. I know that Betty Friedan was roundly criticised for discriminatory practices against lesbians - what we'd probably now call homophobia. But, at the same time some black men in the civil rights movement treated women (both black and white) appallingly and were decidedly anti-feminist. Stokely Carmichael comes to mind ....

quencher I thought the pussy hats had cat ears - and that was the pussy joke. Have I completely missed the point? I thought they were pink because that's the colour 'for girls', and it was picked in the same way the breast cancer campaigns use it.

@quencher

The people who did the design made it all pink. Some women of colour took offence to that because of the image and the hats was made to make a statement.
Probably you saw it more in relation to trans than what the colour was.

Nope, sorry that's not what happened. You seem to be saying that some WOC took offence but that I have misinterpreted it as being a trans issue? Why are you trying to minimise the TRA's anti-woman stance?

The complaints about the pussy hats from the intersectional feminists near me were ALL from TRAs or those supporting them.

Examples:

Trans community: Women’s March protesters’ focus on female genitalia was ‘oppressive’

On Pussy Hats and Transmisogyny

How the Women's March's "genital-based" feminism isolated the transgender community
"pussy hats set the tone for a march that would focus acutely on genitalia at the expense of the transgender community. Signs like "Pussy power," "Viva la Vulva" and "Pussy grabs back" all sent a clear and oppressive message to trans women"

Not on our TERF "Alex Lythall has seen a growth in casual trans-misogyny following the US elections, using the infamous ‘pussy hats’ worn at the Women’s Marches as a prime example. “They are extremely harmful to transwomen who might be standing there without a vagina”."

etc etc et-fucking-c

WOC may well have had a very reasonable objection, but if they did, I didn't hear it above the cries of "transmisogyny" from my local feminist groups.

This is women being silenced when we want to talk about our biology, yet again. I thought we'd past that stage but no, here we are again, just a different angle. But the same thing at the end of the day.

@thoethecatpurred.
Why are you trying to minimise the TRA's anti-woman stance?
Am only talking about what I came across. It was an article after the women's match, talking about women of colour and not trans. yes! am allowed to mention it here and how I understood it. And no! am not trying to minimise anything. They had their issue and women of colour had their issue with it too. Do I have an issue with it my self? no! because I didn't even notice it as anything more than the feminised gendered colour pink. Wondered why they would use pink but never equated it to skin colour. Months later someone else brought it up again in a debate and it was still referring to women of colour and skin colour. The only trans links I come across are on Mn and yes I have learnt a lot from here and those links.

Black people are structurally oppressed by a white supremacist system. Women are structurally oppressed by a male supremacist system. Poor people are oppressed by a capitalist system.
Under what system are all these young intersectionality fans being oppressed? Maybe, because the people who came up with it fell into all those three groups you mentioned? And are still struggling to make it.
yes! there are white working class women struggling too, not forgetting the poor people in third world countries not forgetting the war ton ones.

And talking of grass roots, I do know about grass roots and was part of one. seeing that I was not born in the uk. I know what experiences people have that does not involve race but only gender as the attributing factor to the mistreatment of women.

I thawt I thaw the original puddy hat, I thawt I thaw it!

Actually, I think I have traced the original and it is pink because pink is a women's colour and it is shaped like pussy cat ears.

drive.google.com/file/d/0BwBjtQGbV7gEZU1TdUd2b1JIZGM/view

I don't think it is meant to be a vulva / vagina - if it did it would put a new slant on 'dickhead' I suppose :).

I can understand where the confusion happened though.

Some people did have it shaped like the labia. That's the one I saw with the article.