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.

@quencher the feminist groups near here are full of TRAs and they made a loud noise on social media and in town about how the women's march was trans-exclusionary, how it was wrong to reduce people to their body parts and transmisogynist to focus on "pussies" etc etc.

Perhaps I misunderstood your post, but it sounded to me as if the sentence bolded below which you wrote - was saying that I had put a trans interpretation on events. It read to me as if you were minimising the reality of another attempt by TRAs to silence discussion of women's biology by implying I had put a slant on things, rather than accepting I was reporting what I experienced at the time.

But perhaps you meant something else by it?

Probably you saw it more in relation to trans than what the colour was.

Where has fauchevalent gone? Come back!

It would never have occurred to me to think pussy hats were pink because of real vulvas - I assumed (pussy ears - hence not literal pussies but a clever visual analogue of a play-on-words to remind everyone of the awfulness of Trump's remarks) that they were pink because pink is the colour popular culture associates with women's stuff.

FWIW, post pregnancy my vulva is more of an aubergine colour - and I'm white.

It's kind of odd, because most pussy hats are handmade and obviously can be knit/crocheted in any colour. So white people wearing pink hats is appropriate surely (although I'm not entirely sure many white womens bits are neon pink )

Wah posted too soon. Is there anything preventing women making hats of other shades? I'm not sure I fully understand the point.
I was reading a stupid Facebook thing about vulva cupcakes yonks ago (sadly deleted now) and a black trans woman was arguing that it was racist because "the vulva of POC is often drastically different than white people" despite the fact the event was providing chocolate cakes and icing. I thought that was pretty racist myself.

One of my American friends knitted herself a green one because she doesn't like the colour pink. (At least I hope that was the reason, because if not, she needs urgent medical attention).

The hats are just a play on the word pussycat, they have ears.. It's supposed to reference Trump's comments, not look like genitalia.

The pink was chosen because its bright, stereotypical female and would be different to most hats - so helicopters etc viewing the women's march from above would see a sea of pink.

There was a massive kerfuffle on ravelry where the designer of the pink pussy hat had her pattern. A designer posted a pattern of the same hat in blue and called it the freedom hat and it was seen by most as the opposite message of the pussy hat so I think the colours are significant for it.

It's not exclusionary that transwomen can't be 'grabbed by the pussy' by Trump. That's slipping into 'tit privilege' territory. They're bloody lucky they can't.And there was nothing to stop them being outraged in solidarity at this affront to women.
As for the pussy hats, white women's labias are not cerise pink with cat ears. Do I really need to point that out? Only someone with no understanding of female biology could have taken the pussy hats as an essentialist anatomical statement . . .oh. And only those with an agenda that hurts women could have given any credence to that complaint.

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

Maybe they were just not very good knitters? :)

MOstly - does your friend identify as a Leprechaun? :)

And there was nothing to stop them being outraged in solidarity at this affront to women

I fully admit I'm cranky and it isn't hormones. Having got that off my chest (should I say 'tits') this is what gets to the freaking heart of all this transwacktivism to me. Transwomen want us to simultaneously believe that they are women and that they are in some ways different, meaning that us natal women simply being who we are offends them and we need to pander to them like men have always expected us to. Which is it?

If they are women then surely they would stand with us and be as outraged as we are. And you know what? They'd probably be more fucking accepted by women than they are now. But instead, whilst they claim the be women they also want some extra special attention paid to them and their specialness that involves sacrifices on our part and us 'giving' whilst not receiving. No, just no. Can't they see that this is what it has been like for 1000s of years and now women finally have a public voice (which we've had for for only a little over 100 years) they want to take this away from us by robbing us of our very identity? This is patriarchy in a dress - it's the same old 'put men first', 'suck dick' and sacrifice yourself wearing a fucking frock and speaking in our name (but because women are actually the lowest of the low and everyone knows that) also making sure that everyone knows they are different and above and special (caveat - I don't mean 'old school' transexuals, just the TRAs).

Hell yes YetAnotherSpartacus

Well I'm glad I wasn't missing the anatomical aspects of the hats - mainly because I would need to make a doctor's appointment to get my missing ears looked at!

I don't think anyone here has any issue with intersectionality, only 'intersectionality'.

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.

This is how I feel. Thank you for articulating it so clearly Quencher.

Fauchelevent
From what I have observed over time, with the rise of popular intersectional feminism, which has really been the 'social media age' feminism, is that there appeared to have been hijacking of the movement in a deliberate effort to try to break the radical feminist movement - in my opinion -because radical feminism is the only feminism that is a genuine threat to male dominance. Lots of younger feminists were wrongly led to believe that radical feminism = white feminism - contrary to the many significant black radical feminists past and present who kick patriarchy''s arse.
We live in a sexist, racist world and I noticed all the rage and anger (by people who claimed to be intersectional feminists) about this directed at 'White Feminists/Feminism' [radical feminism] rather than at men or antifeminists.
I noticed that intersectional feminism was hijacked online by MRA''s and TRA''s posing as WoC trying to shepherd the harassment and silencing of radical feminists by intersectional feminists so as an outsider it was hard to tell who was a real person and who was being suckered in. I also noticed the sex industry had a big hand in there - rebranding sexual exploitation as sexual orientation so that 'White' ie 'radical' feminism could be called transphobic, whorephobic, racist and a product of 'white privilege'.
I agree it's annoying when people compare oppressions as though one is worse than the other, but white-dominance, just like male-dominance can be scrutinised with a radical analysis.
From what I observed about recent intersectional feminism, was too many interested and unhelpful parties jumped on the intersectional feminist bandwagon. Although I have not been part of it, I imagine that a meaningful examination of sexism/racism and how they intersect to oppress WoC would be really tough in the midst of all that.
WoC have historically had to fight to stop being sidelined in both the civil rights and the feminist movement and that obviously has to stop.
Sorry for the garbled post - I am writing on my phone.

BTW - I haven't seen the RD thread, but I know that her example is often used in trans arguments to say that there''s a double standard for 'social slumming down the privilege gradient' okay along the sex axis, not okay along the race axis. I'd be interested in your thoughts about that - or maybe you could direct me to the thread?

I watched Crenshaw's TED talk recently and I recommend it, particularly to anyone who has got a bit sick of hearing the word as it's a good reminder about the importance of the concept.

Totally agree with you GuardianLions. Great post.

An attack on "white feminism" is an attack on radical feminism.

Liberal feminism is just as white as radical feminism but it has been "defanged", as Gail Dines says, by neoliberalism + postmodernism.

It's such a dishonest tactic, to appropriate the struggle of women of colour in order to shut down second wave radical feminism. Most of the people that are lead on by this to distance themselves from radical feminism haven't read a word of what these women have written (which of course is the plan).

And then we have the no platforming of women like Bindel, Greer and Jeffreys. All radicals who are accused of being white "whorephobic" (ugh) transphobic, dinosaurs (nice bit of ageism).

It's a scam.

May I suggest some bedtime reading:

www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/the-case-against-contemporary-feminism

And this:

www.commondreams.org/views/2015/06/15/jenner-dolezal-one-trans-good-other-not-so-much

All I would say is that much third wave feminism has failed to integrate issues of economic class into its analysis.

You can stick as many privileged, white women into the higher echelons of morally bankrupt neoliberal institutions as you like, but there will still be poor women cleaning their offices for a pittance. If the economy is not restructured so that all women (and men) have the time and remunerative employment to raise children either independently or on an equal footing, then there will no gender equality - or equality of any kind.

Of course, it's not that simple, but such an economic reconfiguration is the bare minimum precondition of any deeper cultural change. Cosmo fems who think it's all about getting rich quick and buying loads of stuff fail to appreciate that lots of women can't join the capitalist middle-class. Therefore, their feminism excludes women from other marginalised groups, and is therefore is not really feminist. All that 'Lean In' bollocks needs to be roundly rejected.

Sorry that was the wrong Jessa Crispin piece I linked to. Should have been this:

nymag.com/thecut/2017/02/self-empowerment-is-just-another-word-for-narcissism.html

@user1490125033 there are two more articles I saw about that book. I will try and find it. That was a while ago though.

This is one of the ones I remember reading. It doesn't sit with me but it's very Mn. People here would love it.

themuse.jezebel.com/a-frank-talk-with-jessa-crispin-about-why-modern-day-fe-1792367458

The whole piece is worth a read though.

A lot of the rhetoric in your book is a call to arms—this idea that “we need you on the side of radical feminism.” Do you view yourself as someone who manages to live outside of the patriarchy?

One is always trying to get to that space, right? I mean, if you have sex with a man, you’re automatically in the patriarchy, so that’s a problem for heterosexual girls like myself, but, you know, you try!

I agree with Crispin insofar as she's saying that much third wave feminism is more about personal achievement within an oppressive system. But even she doesn't really propose anything in its place.

I don't get what feminism is about anymore, or what its overall goals are supposed to be. We still live in a shittily sexist society in which piece of shit men rape girls on video and stick it on Facebook and all a lot of feminists do is have stupid arguments about identity politics. Sure, we bitch about it, but no one is prepared to take on Facebook or the porn industry. In fact, many think the answer is for middle-class women to get jobs in Facebook, and then it'll presumably all be fine just by virtue of some women being there. Because women are like, so much more compassionate and caring than men and will make all these ruthless capitalist operations all nice and cuddly. Or is the idea of women being nicer than men not just a patriarchal myth? Why have we gone back to believing it then?

And hardly any feminists mention economics. Some give this vague suggestion that capitalism is, like, a bad thing; but they don't have any idea of what kind of an economic system would be better for women. Most of them want to just do better in the existing one and get cushy jobs in elite industries while the working-class women get all but forgotten.

Finally, while I'm loathe to defend for men, and certainly don't think it's feminism's job to do so - the kind of crass scorn with which an entire gender is regarded is not doing anyone any good. In fact, it just reinforces gender boundaries. Isn't it the feminist principle that we're all equally human? And why can't we just all agree that middle-class women effectively telling poor, working-class men to 'check their privilege' is fucking whack? Because it is.

Sorry, don't meant to ascribe any of this to people on here, just sick of the hijacking of feminism by wankers like Dunham.

It's great that she wants to get back to basics of old feminism, however, the world has moved on and it's moving even faster.
I agree with probably a quarter of what she says. The other points, some, sound great but might not be applicable to the current world and environment.
Take for example; eradicating capitalism. Capitalism is now global system that's interlinked. Her view on how to dismantle capitalism is regressive. Patriarchy works within that system because it's easy to ascribe gender and race in order to distribute work load and wealth within societies that it exist.
What she should focus on is tackling issues within that system. By doing that, we as a whole should be able to change it into a completely different system. No! And I don't think matriarchy is the answer. That's just taking one system and replacing it with one that mirrors the negative other. We want A system which would evolve into what it is that we want. We can't predict the future to change of events. But what we can do is help put laws and educate people in ways that would help change mindsets and structures. Whatever that structure may be. As long as it's not racist, sexist, homophobic or anyway shape or form that has a disregard for other people in which ever way big or mall. That's how you tackle issues. Taking your self away from the equation of something you can never leave is pointless. It leaves you powerless. She has her book being sold for profit. That's within the capitalist system. She has been able to do what she did because the capitalist system and patriarchy enabled that. She was able to make money and quite the social media where she lived and spouting her views. Taking her self way and creating something she thinks it's worth wild within the capitalist system.

Also, patriarchy does not have to be the driving force for how capitalism morphs into something different. With more young girls doing stem subjects, law changes, and views changes, we can only fight for space, and hope there will be even more young girls joining in. Hopefully too many that they can't be ignored. They will have to fight for there spaces but opening more for those who come through.
Let's not for get that men should join the moving and forward thinking that men are not the only people in the world. The world does not belong to them a lone and nor does race.

Our fight is for the future and not now for our selves. I say this because it takes time to see the change and most it's generational.

What I didn't like about her stance is the belief in the glory days of feminism. For me, my feminism, our feminism can only get better. My feminism walks hand in hand with racism. And any feminist think piece that comes my way will be racially evaluated too. What I found distasteful was her attack on a few people I believe have done a lot of change and good. Attacking Adichie without even mentioning her name but only looking at it from the perspective of L.Dunham. Her lack of perspective in understanding in differentiating the white women vs the women of colour and how their feminism will play out differently in our society and also, from the basis of history.
The other thing was, being oblivious that her attack on Durham does not included the racist (mysognior) take on what she and her friends thought was a feminist stand point. (Maybe it's mentioned in the book. But I doubt it because it would have been mentioned in the attacked. Unless I missed it).

A general conclusion, from reading her work, I feel that her recreation back to where she thinks feminism stoped being being feminism, to me is the turning point at which black women's voices become prominent. Black feminist discourse become scholastic. I don't want to go back where I would not have heard a voice, no! thank you! It sounds very much like trump a policy to me.

And why can't we just all agree that middle-class women effectively telling poor, working-class men to 'check their privilege' is fucking whack? Because it is. Let me ask you this. A middle class women walks into a room full of sexist misogynistic men, what do you think would happen? Would she she get the same treatment a middle class man would if he walked into the room? I doubt it.