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?

What do you think us as white middle class feminists should actually do? I have enough going on fighting for my own bit of space and acceptance.

Listen to the views of those who are not white, middle-class and heterosexual. You don't need to 'do' anything. There is a perfect example of that on the Cornwall thread. A poster has eloquently explained how exclusionary comments make her feel unwelcome at a meeting. The response is that it's irrelevant, that the movement 'needs the Daily Mail vote', that comments made by speakers that seem to exclude marginalised groups are not important because this is a single-issue debate. This is clear evidence of only thinking about it from a white heterosexual viewpoint. They cannot see the issue because for them it doesn't exist. They feel welcome, so they cannot understand how anyone would feel unwelcome. It just requires some empathy.

👏 yes peakpants

Check out Mamaoya's posts she's a

PeakPants

The response is that “it's irrelevant,” that the movement 'needs the Daily Mail vote',
You have added the words “it's irrelevant” to change the meaning of that. Deliberately.

that comments made by speakers that seem to exclude marginalised groups are not important because this is a single-issue debate.
You have added the words “not important” to change the meaning of that. Deliberately.

This is clear evidence of only thinking about it from a white heterosexual viewpoint.
In your opinion.

They cannot see the issue because for them it doesn't exist.
In your opinion.

They feel welcome, so they cannot understand how anyone would feel unwelcome.
In your opinion.

It just requires some empathy.(*
Give it a rest.

Picasso and that last post from you shows what the problem is. Deconstructing, minimising, denying, picking on individual words. Maybe people can read the posts by mamaoya and the responses they got and decide for themselves. Broadly, the issue is that white feminists deny there is a problem.

Yeah picassospaintbrush you have just proved PeakPants' point there.

Also PeakPants I can't find the Cornwall thread, is there a chance you could link it?

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3264750-Let-a-Woman-Speak-in-Truro-9-June

Here it is Taco

Not at all. She has lied about what I said and what other posters said.

I honestly was not referring to your post. It was the OP of that thread who said it was irrelevant actually.

PeakPants thank you! Her posts were everything that was jumbled in my head sorted out into coherent sentences

That was my thoughts on mama's post Taco

I hope she keeps posting.

I agree. She just said it so plainly and clearly. I don't know how anyone could read that and still think that it makes no difference what views a speaker has outside self-ID.

I've had a feminist rollercoaster past 24hrs, not welcome here, ok yes welcomed here, not, yes, not, yes, not... argh!

When all women get together it is the best thing in the world. I don't get why some just don't want that to happen or don't see why it currently doesn't happen much.

Taco I saw your post on the other thread it read really well much better than anything I could do

Thank you

@Tacolover: thank you for your posts. Ironic isn’t it for people arguing their only purpose is to let women speak, but only some women apparently since women who speak about racism or Islamophobia or lesbophobia are being “tedious”, “irrelevant” “boring” etc. So let women speak but only some women’s voices are valuable, other women are just so annoying when they want to speak about oppression in their lives that doesn’t affect white women!

I'm white and middle class. You can support women from ethnic minority and working class backgrounds by reading their books, tweets and blogs, watch their YouTube videos, donating to causes that benefit women of colour or women in poverty and not make assumptions that Muslim women, for example, are one homogeneous group with one set of viewpoints and opinions on the issues that matter to them- including the patriarchal nature of some of their religious beliefs and practices. The key is to listen, and offer help if help is needed (financial, or a wider platform). What doesn't help is getting offended if you get told you are only looking at an issue from a white, middle-class POV, and that there are things you may have not considered. And don't automatically dismiss the concerns of WOC (which is what I've seen on the Truro thread in response to @mamaoya's thoughtful post).

👏 yes whatthewatershowedme agree!

I saw it mama it makes me dizzy to think of the mental flips some women go through to justify shutting up other women to let a white woman (who clearly states she finds a religious symbolism 'disgusting') speak freely.

I think intersectional feminism is intended to be less racist, classist, etc.

If you start with that then you have a no '-ism' policy, and everything's a safe space so to speak.

But obviously you include transwomen.

On the other hand if are gender-critical then you are automatically going to attract people who don't necessarily employ the same general standards of inclusion, privilege-questioning, and so on.

So really you're NOT going to eliminate racism and classism and so on (overt or perceived), because some subset of the people who agree with you, on say, gender-critical feminism are going to be say, right-wing Christians.

So either you include these 'unsound' people within a specific context where their problematic attitudes are not relevant (if you have a campaign for, say, sanitary products, you don't need to consider people's views on other topics). Or you go for a purity test and deplatform people.

I don't think the latter approach is a winner, personally. Both political parties include individuals who might be a bit dubious. But it's a grand coalition to fulfill the overriding goals of the party.

Interesting sudden appearance of mutually supporting new feminists telling the rest of us where we're going wrong.

"On the other hand if are gender-critical then you are automatically going to attract people who don't necessarily employ the same general standards of inclusion, privilege-questioning, and so on.

So really you're NOT going to eliminate racism and classism and so on (overt or perceived), because some subset of the people who agree with you, on say, gender-critical feminism are going to be say, right-wing Christians."

Why are gender critical feminist automatically going to attract people who aren't inclusive/privilege questioning etc? What evidence do you have that supports this claim?

Not including male bodied people in the definition of women doesn't make you automatically a bigot, much as some people would like to think.

Why would right wing Christians be feminists? That seems unlikely.

"Why are gender critical feminist automatically going to attract people who aren't inclusive/privilege questioning etc? What evidence do you have that supports this claim? "

Some decent proportion of gender-critical content is hosted on fairly right-wing websites. David Davies is definitely somewhere in the top few % of most right-wing MPs, and he has been responsible for giving the movement an audience.

"Not including male bodied people in the definition of women doesn't make you automatically a bigot, much as some people would like to think. "

No, it doesn't. I'm just pointing out that being trans-critical is obviously attractive to the hard right.

"Why would right wing Christians be feminists? That seems unlikely."

This is the 'hands across the aisle' thing. I'm not sure if they identify as 'feminists', but they may be working for the same goal, regardless of their chosen label.

I sense that the right is generally happy to accept the left (or some part of it)'s aid for pragmatic reasons, but I'm not sure that always works in reverse.

It's culture wars in a way really isn't it.

But Caitlyns that is what I do not understand. The right-wingers, David Davis, and the Christians are not gender-critical in the slightest. They would laugh in your face if you said gender was socially constructed in order to oppress women. They believe gender roles are innate- women were born to bear children and nurture while men are natural leaders. To call them GC is absurd. Donald Trump is very critical of trans people for instance. He is also a misogynistic, abusive dick.

The point in common is that they are very suspicious of trans ideology. But for entirely different reasons and for similar reasons to their (in the case of Christians) objections to same sex marriage and other things that go against their norms.

I just cannot see how anyone could want to join forces with them when much of what they say is so extremely anti-feminist. Aren't you hugely undermining your own argument there? Yes, the end result might be that self-ID is not enacted. However, once that is over, you will realise that life with right-wingers is not a bed of roses and the issues that have been overlooked in the quest for opposing self-ID suddenly become much more apparent again.

"Some decent proportion of gender-critical content is hosted on fairly right-wing websites"

Is it? What proportion? Can you give examples? Anti-trans is not the same as gender critical.

"Is it? What proportion? Can you give examples? Anti-trans is not the same as gender critical."

blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/05/the-silencing-of-the-lesbians/
www.dangerous.com/41476/truth-autogynephilia-really-wears-pants-transgender-coup/
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4743036/800-children-young-10-puberty-blockers.html
www.conservativewoman.co.uk/vogues-transgender-suffragette-licence-bully-women/
www.dailysignal.com/2015/12/21/why-these-high-school-girls-dont-want-transgender-student-a-in-their-locker-room/
thefederalist.com/2015/11/23/a-rape-survivor-speaks-out-about-transgender-bathrooms/
www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2016/05/17033/
womanmeanssomething.com/arguments-vs-gender-based-rights/

PeakPants
They would laugh in your face if you said gender was socially constructed in order to oppress women

David Davis did not laugh in anyone's face. He agreed with this. He sat on the platform and told us. Were you there? And yet you are telling everyone what he thinks despite the fact there are people here that were there and heard him speak.
He has since started asking about the prison situation, doing something about it, I've watched the recording of the debate.

Where you there?