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.

. Obvs women have got hit really hard by the austerity, but in the US they called the recession the 'mancession' because it hit the male, working class labour force really hard. Stereotypically male jobs are disappearing while the job market is being more and more feminised
From what I've read white working class men aren't prepared to do what they see as "women's work". Feeling a job is beneath you because of your gender is in itself a sign of privilege

Agreed Quentin

Obvs women have got hit really hard by the austerity, but in the US they called the recession the 'mancession' because it hit the male, working class labour force really hard. Stereotypically male jobs are disappearing while the job market is being more and more feminised

This narrative is almost universal in the US, used by both the left and right. I am not so sure.

It is handy....there's always an interviewer with a salt of the earth guy standing in front of a closed down factory saying, "I just want to go to work is all. I don't want welfare".

There is no doubt, looking at Detroit and Flint and many other rust-belt areas, that factories are indeed closed. But the entire area is affected by these things, not just men employed on an assembly line. And there were many women working in those industries and associated industries.

Both sides in the election talked about the p*ssed off, unemployed white dude swinging things. But polling data from the election seems to tell another story. There was an awful lot of residual racism left from Obama hate, and a lot of just plain sexism regarding Hillary. And education and income levels were significant.

I am not buying the "mancession" narrative. The bottom layer still suffers. The top has become greatly richer.

It's a comparison of two different things anyway - austerity and recession. Even if more U.S. men did lose their jobs in the recession, it doesn't mean that men are hit harder by austerity measures. It can still be women who end up poorer, because austerity often targets those carrying out unpaid labour.

Agreed with both of you again. I think 'feminisation of the workforce' is a deeply offensive turn of phrase. It is just a thin disguise for "since bloody women got out of the kitchen and started making us blokes compete for jobs we were entitled to before". Unfortunately for those "white working class men" brown people and women have worked fucking hard to get on a par with them [and maybe even better them] and the onus falls back on them to get educated and upskilled and face the humiliation of competing for a job like everyone else. But rather than face that humiliation - they voted Trump and Brexit to turn back the clock and give them a return to the unfair advantage they feel entitled to. Fucking 'mancession' indeed.

It's unfair to imply that white working class men are uneducated or unskilled.

If it is the case (and I don't know if it is) that more men in the U.S. were made redundant than women, that is not the same as being in the same position as everyone else. It means having to retrain, deal with job loss etc.

The reverse is true in the UK, where jobs mostly done by women were the ones cut. That meant that many women were made redundant and had to suddenly retrain and deal with unemployment.

It may be that mass redundancies of one sex leads to greater gender equality in the long term, but it is a pretty harsh way to go about doing it.

It's unfair to imply that white working class men are uneducated or unskilled

Of course - although I'd beg to differ on those WWCM who voted Trump or Brexit.

Anyway the reason why women were hit harder in the UK is because it was all about cutting jobs in the public sector [which has disproportionately high female employees] as an ideological right-wing austerity measure. The loss of the heavy industries in the USA is through globalisation making them no longer viable - similar to steelworks, etc in the UK. This is nothing to do with a 'feminised' workforce. Whatever the offensive fuck that is supposed to mean.

Both of those decisions are ideological.

Our steel works at one point were part of the public sector.

Many current public sector jobs can be done abroad.

There is nothing inherently offensive about the phrase 'feminised job market' although it isn't one I would choose to use, as its meaning is unclear.

And women were hit harder in the recession for a wide range of reasons, of which women losing their jobs was only one.

Yes agreed they are both ideological. What do you think 'feminised work force' means? Is it a) work that is more suitable for women ie - a sexist stereotype or b) a workplace more women are entering and advancing in ie - a misogynist comment on women's presence/progress in the workplace?

The reason more women have public sector jobs is because of better flexible arrangements suitable for primary carers and more stringent policies on equality and diversity than the private sector - ie - they can't get jobs in the private sector largely because they shoulder the majority of the society's caring responsibilities and the hours/policies are prohibitive.
Just because men traditionally worked in industries that require physical strength/operating heavy machinery, (that have not attracted women for various reasons), doesn't mean that they can't work in roles that do not require physical strength.

The real issue is not the [utterly sexist notion of the] 'feminised workplace', but the closure of industries whole towns were built up around in the days before women had much presence in the workplace.

The reason I object to this 'feminised workplace' bs so strongly is because it insinuates that the 'working class white men' who are real casualties of capitalism and globalisation are in fact victims of 'feminism' or as they disingenuously refer 'feminisation'.

I would consider femininity to be the gender role ascribed to women that varies by culture. A feminised job market (which is what the other poster said when she introduced the phrase) is one in which the number of jobs that require feminine skills has increased.

So an increase in social etiquette based roles, such as customer services, or nurturing jobs such as nursing and childcare.

It isn't to say that women are inherently better at such jobs, but that women have been encouraged and trained in such skills during girlhood and encouraged into such roles as adults.

I would suggest that in the future there is going to be an increase in computing roles, and computer science is currently within amasculine gender role. I would like to see girls strongly encouraged to develop those skills now. I would not be happy to see many women jobless in 10-20 years and then called unskilled or uneducated or refusers for not having those skills.

I feel the same about men coming out of heavy industry with no particular skills or experience of social or nurturing roles. I don't think such roles are easy and anyone can just decide to do them without being taught and prepared for them. Although I appreciate that during the war women had to acquire 'masculine' skills very rapidly.

It also isn't just white men. Poverty among British Pakistani men is connected to them moving to the UK to work in industries that then went into decline.

And yes, I agree that it is due to capitalism not feminism.

The fact that we consider feminisation in this context to mean completely different things is probably a good reason to all avoid the phrase.

unskilled or uneducated or refusers is not what I call 'working class white men' in industrial ghost towns.
I would call anyone who believes feminisation of the workplace is an acceptable shorthand for the various forces of capitalism that have led to these ghost town, either antifeminist, a blamer of women, sexist or misogynist.
And the capitalist casualties that are inappropriately angry with women and ethnic minorities about these forces, I would call worse than 'uneducated or unskilled refusers' - I would call pig-ignorant, bigoted fuckwits.
Having said that, the plight of people who are left stranded by these forces of capitalism is extremely important. I don't blame a steelworker for not wanting to work in a call centre, I wouldn't blame anyone from not wanting to work in a call centre, male or female - I would absolutely hate it. It's shit work involving a lot of self-repression and smiles - nothing 'feminine' about it - unless you subscribe to sexist stereotypes.

I think people are confused about the service industry on this page. Most where not feminine jobs before globalism. You do have the jobs in caring roles and reception work and so on, but finance is one of, if not the biggest. Running technology and offering technology is a big thing too. That all falls into the service industry.

Financial services (which is part of the service industry) have always existed and has been very male dominated.
Accountancy, and places like London would crumble without the service industry because that is what brings in 90% of its money. I doubt the people who work in the city will feel less macho to a Welsh steel worker.

Most manual labourers like painters and decorators are within the service industry. Those sales people that come to our doors are all part of it.

I love all your posts. Good points got put forward.

You pretty much did, GL, in your post of 12.49.

Nobody really is conflating feminisation and the forces of capitalism.

Self repression and smiles is one of the major components of feminity in our society! I can't imagine what description of feminity wouldn't be sexist. Gender roles are sexist.

Quencher, I don't think anyone has mentioned the service industry specifically.

That's how you interpreted it almondpudding. I took great umbrage to the non-critical use of the antifeminist terms 'feminisation of the workplace' and 'mancession' being used on a feminist chat forum, when they are clearly terms loaded with male entitlement and woman-blaming, Trump-justifying, MRA rhetoric.

'Unfortunately for those "white working class men" brown people and women have worked fucking hard to get on a par with them [and maybe even better them] and the onus falls back on them to get educated and upskilled and face the humiliation of competing for a job like everyone else. But rather than face that humiliation - they voted Trump and Brexit to turn back the clock and give them a return to the unfair advantage they feel entitled to. Fucking 'mancession' indeed.'

I'm referring to you saying there was an onus on them to get educated and up skilled and compete.

I think this comes back to the issue of intersectionality. Women (like me) from the communities you are discussing are not going to have the same perspective. The same is very much the case with ethnicity.

I agree with guardian
As I understand it, it's not that men can't do the jobs that currently exist it's that they won't. By accepting that as a reasonable position the implications is certain jobs are "women's work". It's not helpful.

www.usatoday.com/story/99384206/

Totally relevant article

Sorry crap link try this
www.google.co.uk/amp/amp.usatoday.com/story/99384206/

Then I think both of your feminism is based on class prejudice.

Both feminists and GLB rights activists supported coal mining and steel working communities in the UK when they were targeted.

But this discussion has demonstrated the validity of intersectionality to me.

Ouch. What?
I'm actually very confused. How is having an issue with a narrative that assumes women are intrinsically "better" at lower value, widespread jobs demonstrating a class privilege?