How do we scourge out racism and classism in feminism?

[Treesybreezy]

I need to apologize upfront - I am disabled and also looking after a baby so I'm not going to be able to check back on this thread as frequently as I'd like. I will be back tho.

I've just read this by sister outrider sisteroutrider.wordpress.com/2018/01/15/dispatches-from-the-margins-on-women-race-and-class/amp/?__twitter_impression=true . I know there have been other threads where black women (or other ethnicities) have said, racism is a massive problem and there's been a large, reflexive defensive reaction from white women here.

I'm too tired to articulate this properly now in support of what sister outrider has said, but I've definitely seen both racism and classism in action.

How do we set this right?

This is an interesting talk by an American legal scholar at the LSE focusing on the differences between what is or isn't prized and valued by working class people vs middle class people - she's obviously concerned with American society but there's a lot that applies this side of the Pond too, I think, particularly with regard to how groups can understand where the other groups are coming from.

Book associated with the talk is also interesting, accessible and constructive:

www.amazon.co.uk/White-Working-Class-Overcoming-Cluelessness/dp/1633693783/?tag=mumsnetforum-21

And I'd be interested in responses to the DH's comment:

There is no qualitative difference in saying that transwomen are male people performing femininity and saying transwomen are men in dresses. The meaning is exactly the same. Yet the former is deemed controversial but acceptable while the latter is deemed offensive outright transphobia. Why, when the meaning is identical? Classism. The ability to access academic and/or philosophical language to make a point. This is as exclusionary as anything else.

really good post quixote9 - I'll forgive you for posting without reading the thread! You have articulated what I was very clumsily trying to say

Feminism is about women. We don't have to also be fighting class struggles, racism, or anything else, except in the sense of not adding to injustice

This is what I was trying to get at on the other thread. It seemed to me that people were suggesting a path of action in the name of feminism that would actually be damaging to girls because of the cultural factors in the mix.

It's important to talk that through.

Feminism is a social movement which centres women, all women. BAME women are oppressed on the basis of race as well as sex, if we don’t address that then we are not fighting for all women, only the white ones. The needs of BAME women should be centred in feminism to account for the additional obstacles they face. Describing their cultural attire as “disgusting” is not conducive to that. Racism is not a side issue or a diversion or a tool of TRAs to divide us. Mamaoya and Taco have explained things perfectly and it is very telling how consistently they have been dismissed and accused of woman-bashing and yes it is strikingly familiar to accusations by anti-feminists who dismiss our concerns and accuse of man-bashing. Why is it that lots of men are unable to hear us and our concerns? Why is it that lots of white women are unable to do the same for woc? The only conclusion I can draw is that sadly, some groups in society are seen as less than human and empathy only goes so far in such cases. After pages and pages of discussion there are practically no comments on how to root out racism and classism in feminism, the discussion has been derailed by the knee-jerk defensiveness of white women intent on stopping racism from being rooted out as they don’t see a problem and aren’t willing to listen.

Lang that has been said in threads. It's not projection, mama was esstentially told to be nicer. And when posters weren't this definition of nice, nice as in quiet to bigotry, they were accused of being TRAs.

It really went to far in a lot of ways. Mama, from what i saw had the patience of a saint. Taco was told she was bullying, it was inferred she was a terrorist. I mean ???? I was reporting comments to mumsnet hq speechless.

I agree with some phrases being polished getting by fine and that can be classism.

Polished phrases can still be bigoted but people will find it harder to point it out because they may not feel able to. I know that's how ive felt at times using MN and I'm real life. But that's quite embarrassing for me isn't it? I'm so uneducated I dont feel able to call something out when it's polished.

transwomen are male people performing femininity vs transwomen are men in dresses

hmm, well to me the second option would be a gross over simplification. Curt Cobain was on occasion a man in a dress, but was never a transwoman.

Man in a dress as a synonym for transwoman seems to me to buy into the idea that there is something inherently transgressive about men wearing stereotypically female clothes, which I don't agree with.

Lang that has been said in threads.

It hasn't been said in this thread. The other thread - which I repeat, I ignored because it was a fist fight, not a discussion - has been deleted.

This thread was having a robust but polite and productive discussion.

Threads about threads are forbidden here by talk guidelines. So please stop doing it and brigading this thread, where people who were interested in a productive conversation were having one.

I've now put several posts moving us on from those brigading about another thread and breaking talk guidelines. Please respect that and the site rules.

hmm, well to me the second option would be a gross over simplification

Right. So you're saying you can only comment with the view that trans is a performance if you have the articulacy and technical vocabulary to say performance rather than man in a dress?

But that this isn't classism?

I give up. I responded talking about classism as well but y'know that doesn't matter.

Consider me deleted in 5 mins.

I just want to thank mama for the history lesson on the working class I've screenshot it so I can read up about it.

yeah, I know it's tricky Lang

I think man in a dress does come across as pejorative though, where transwoman is simply factual.

I think that it's reasonable to expect people who aren't prejudiced to choose language that reflects that.

I think man in a dress does come across as pejorative though, where transwoman is simply factual.

But I'm not asking you to compare man in a dress and transwoman.

I'm asking you to compare a transwoman is a male person performing femininity and a transwoman is a man in a dress and asking why the former is deemed controversial but acceptable and the latter is deemed offensive transphobia.

There is no difference in the meaning.

Mist I hope you don't delete your account. Your contribution has been really valuable. It's sad that so much on here is dominated by people with a very set agenda who refuse point blank to see that the language used about trans people matters. I had to hide a thread where a poster invited me to look at some disgusting link to a fetish story on an erotic fiction website, with the insinuation that trans people might steal our used tampons from toilet bins. I don't know what to say really other than that every time you talk about 'dudes in dresses' and 'fetishists', you alienate people who would otherwise agree with you. Ultimately that will be so damaging.

Anyway, hope you don't go. I think we need more rational voices and open-mindedness. There are about 20 stalwarts on these boards and you get the impression that you are outnumbered, but remember that these people would not even fill a room and most open-minded people would agree with you, mamaoya, SuperDandy and others.

Just to be clear, people think the way to end racism isn’t, say, white people holding each other accountable and challenging bigotry and refusing to condone racism,

There are different ways to challenge bigotry. Failure to immediately apologise for things said by someone else is not 'condoning' racism. Some of us dont think call out culture is effective at building solidarity or solving problems. Instead of holding each other accountable with regular purity checks and excommunications, some us believe it would be more effective to engage with each other and hold ourselves accountable for committing to doing the work of listening and processing and discussing and learning and growing. This is what I understand to be feminist consciousness raising.

but rather WOC being nice to racists, accepting that racists just don’t know and couldn’t possibly learn better, not asserting ourselves, not posting to defend ourselves, not saying anything to challenge racist views,

That is the opposite of what I have seen on this thread where mostly people have been advocating for more speaking and learning with each other, and even been critical of the need to be polite.

accepting that the only problem with racism is the language we use,

Asking for a conversation to include people who use language differently isn't saying that the only problem with racism is language. Within a conversation a person can point out what and why they find certain language hurtful or bigoted and everyone has the opportunity to reflect and learn from that. These reflective conversations are totally swerved by 'calling out' which is a hierarchical process - even when the callout originates from genuine hurt (and it isnt always), online callouts are fuelled by people with ill intent (saboteurs, trolls, political opponents) looking to divide and punish.

and, in short, that the only problem with racism really is WOC who have the nerve to speak about it or expecting white people to do any work to educate themselves, listen, read, etc.

I think the idea that people need to "be educated' or 'educate themselves' assumes that we don't all have things to learn from each other. I don't want to sit in class being told by Teacher what is the correct way to think and speak, and then be pulled into the public punishment of people who failed to attend the lesson or got something wrong. I don't think that is the way forward. It's not engaging people and building awareness, it's silencing people and stifling growth.

Sorry everyone I was going back and forth doing things while trying to write that and missed all the posts in between.

Instead of holding each other accountable with regular purity checks and excommunications, some us believe it would be more effective to engage with each other and hold ourselves accountable for committing to doing the work of listening and processing and discussing and learning and growing. This is what I understand to be feminist consciousness raising.

people have been advocating for more speaking and learning with each other, and even been critical of the need to be polite

reflective conversations are totally swerved by 'calling out' which is a hierarchical process

This is my position, yes.

I think JoanSummers nailed it here for me too. It was how I felt on the other thread. I’ve been reading this thread with great interest but I’ve been reluctant to join in. I feel I’m having to walk on eggshells.

I think man in a dress does come across as pejorative though, where transwoman is simply factual.

I don't understand this. 'Man in a dress' is factual about any man in a dress. I am a woman in trousers - there is no value judgement in stating what something is - the judgement comes if we say it is wrong for men to wear dresses or that wearing a dress makes a man not a man.

'Transwoman' written all like that with no spaces is considered offensive by many (online) self identifying transgender people, btw.

I don't see what is factual about the term 'trans' though. What does it mean to "transition" from one sex to another? There is no evidence transitioning like this is possible in humans. It is ideological - and in the context of this thread, the fact people are supposed to just know about this ideology and accept it and use all the correct vocabulary to talk about it, or they should just shut up, is a problem.

Good post JoanSummers

regular purity checks and excommunications

Part of the problem is some people excommunicate themselves (don't do it Mist).

I'm not completely clear on the difference between calling out and engaging. yes, don't denounce people (aside from anything else it ultimately makes for a very boring forum if it's constant drama), but respectfully challenging what people say? That's a good thing surely?

I'm always very uncomfortable with questions like this because it is an eggshells walk in the dark and unsupported and especially when the question contains 'scourge out'. No matter what is said it is always up for criticism.

It reminds me of the Three Girls mini series that I watched in horror. A brave and insightful production that had feminism at its very core.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Girls_(miniseries)

yeah, I think I'm not massively qualified to have the 'man in a dress' discussion. I don't quiver with outrage when I see the phrase and have never corrected someone.

I wouldn't use it myself and was trying to figure out why really. I think man performing femininity seems more accurate.

on the subject of classism - I have a delivery from Waitrose due any minute and need to put some clothes on so as not to distress the driver!

But aren't you doing the exact same thing with your language gymnastics. You ask people to 'engage' rather than 'call out', just another way of telling people what language they should use and how they should use it.

on the subject of classism - I have a delivery from Waitrose due any minute and need to put some clothes on so as not to distress the driver!

LOL! I'm supposed to be heading off to the allotment to pick broad beans and faff about with the runners. I'm sure in the metro liberal world this is on a par with an avocado toast breakfast with the Magic Grandad, but I live in a farming community so will not be tarnishing my working class credentials.

LangCleg your DH example is a good one. If somebody from the working class uses the wrong language this isnt their fault because they dont know any better. But are you then saying that we shouldn't say anything about it? Surely we should correct them respectfully so that they know better in the future? If you apply it to racism then are you effectively telling WoC to stay silent when somebody from the working class uses hurtful language because they don't know any better?

On a related note, does anyone have, or know where I can find, that stupendous thread from LucyLovesLife on Twitter? The one about the difficulties of translating middle class activism into working class communities? She has deactivated her account since posting it but I wonder if anyone transcribed it in full or put it through that Thread Unrolling app and I could get it back?

Thanks in advance.

LangCleg your DH example is a good one. If somebody from the working class uses the wrong language this isnt their fault because they dont know any better. But are you then saying that we shouldn't say anything about it?

Well. Not quite.

What I am trying to get across is that "woke" language and terminology is inherently classist because it assumes that everyone can tap into the same speech code to express an idea or concept. So in the DH's example, male performing femininity is synonymous with man in a dress. So why is one ok and the other not?

In middle class circles, I'd assert that male performing femininity is seen as polite and courteous while man in a dress is seen as crude and demeaning.

But in my working class family and friendship circle, male performing femininity is seen as posh people using word salad to obscure an issue (with a side dish of defensiveness - "they don't want me to understand what they're saying") and man in a dress is sensible plain speaking where everyone knows what you mean.

I am not suggesting anyone fails to challenge the attitudes themselves. I'm saying that male performing femininity and man in a dress are either both offensive if you believe in gender identity theory or both accurate and acceptable if you are gender critical. The only difference between them is likely to be the class of the person doing the speaking.