‘White’ Feminism

[Sociallydistancedcocktails]

I was recently on a thread which got me thinking about this.

Do you think ‘white’ feminism exists?

And your thoughts on the article below. I am quoting an excerpt

“White feminism is a term that has been on the tip of everyone's tongue since actor Emma Watson addressed past criticisms of her feminism in statement to her book club about the topic in early January. Though it's difficult to find an exact definition for "white feminism," it has come to describe a not-quite-feminist mindset that doesn't take into account the ways the women of color experience sexism, and how it differs from the way white women experience it. Simply put, white feminism is for white women who don't want to examine their white privilege. The term "intersectional feminism," which stands in opposition to white feminism, was coined by civil rights advocate and law professor Kimberlé Crenshaw in 1989 to help describe the experiences of Black women who not only face sexism, but systemic racism.

Understanding the ways race, gender, and other factors (such as disability, class, or sexuality) intersect is crucial to making our feminism more effective and impactful”

www.bustle.com/p/what-is-white-feminism-here-are-7-sneaky-ways-it-shows-up-into-your-life-7921450

@VladmirsPoutine

Surely it comes down to perception & visibility. You can't "see" someone who's grown up in an abusive and violent home in the same way you can "see" a black boy in a hoody.

Exactly, although unfortunately abusive men seem to be able to sniff abused women out very easily. But this is why I think we need less posturing on social media and more data collection on all these factors including race, so as to create policies that support all disadvantaged groups.

Both are equally important, but perhaps the systems of oppression around race and gender based on visibility/perception work differently to the systems around abuse or socioeconomic disadvantage.
I agree to an extent, but I'd argue that if you are seriously abused in childhood then you are discriminated against as well as having the internal mental health and health battles. Bullies, narcissists and abusers target you as they can see you have low boundaries. At work you might be passed over for promotion because you're not assertive enough, too much of a people pleaser. Of course, these ways in which you can be discriminated against are a lot less obvious than if someone uses a racial slur against you, difficult to quantify, but that's why it's important they are not neglected.

‘I agree privilege is an uncomfortable word that sometimes doesn’t feel appropriate to attach to a really vulnerable person. Not sure what the solution is though, because the concept works more generally. Maybe that’s it - we are using privilege as a general concept here, not a descriptor of a particular individual.’

Does it work as a concept? It seems to collapse things which are rights, things which if you own harm other people, things which are essential, things which are luxuries, things which not everyone can have, things which are valued differently by different cultures and so on into one confusing category.

The only thing which unites all of them is that they position one group against another, under the miserable and disturbing belief that the primary mode of human relationship and communication is one of power.

And it masks, perhaps deliberately, who actually does wield power in society.

All the systems of oppression work differently.

Much racial discrimination isn’t based on visible differences but on cultural ones. Much of sexism is based on women being different and not having those differences accommodated by society.

Socioeconomic disadvantage usually is visible - where you live for a start.

@LibertyMole

All the systems of oppression work differently.

Much racial discrimination isn’t based on visible differences but on cultural ones. Much of sexism is based on women being different and not having those differences accommodated by society.

Socioeconomic disadvantage usually is visible - where you live for a start.

I agree with all this. I guess I was trying to say factors other than sex and race are more subtle or taboo and so get ignored or pushed lower down on the list of priorities. There's people absolving themselves of their past generations' sins too, seeking to put right the wrongs of racism and sexism. Uniting over such issues gives a generation a kind of tribal identity, that they are better people than those who came before them, it's self-congratulatory. CSA for example is not specifically seen as belonging to past generations in the same way racism and sexism are, so it is a less appealing cause for youth to unite behind, because it doesn't set up the 'us' Vs 'them' dynamic in the same way.

Yes, there’s definitely something about the us vs. them dynamic going on.

@LibertyMole

Yes, there’s definitely something about the us vs. them dynamic going on.

The more I think about it, the more I see it's about a generation rebelling against the previous ones. The ageist and sexist term 'Karen' reducing every woman over 30 who questions any aspect of current orthodoxy as an out of touch old bigot. Same with 'white feminism'. On this thread, white women being blamed for slavery. It's a very sexist generation which ironically claims to be about 'women supporting women' - but only if you're one of the sexy young women who's cool with kink, being choked, anal, sex work etc.

I'm really interested in the comments about visible vs invisible disadvantages. I would regard myself as being an example of someone with a huge invisible advantage (loving, supportive family background that encouraged my work ethic) and a visible one (white, neutral accent that makes my very working class background hard to spot). I've needed both to do well in life, and they've allowed me to climb the class ladder because I can come across to a wide range of people as "someone like us."

"Someone like us" is a pretty pernicious factor when it comes to breaking down inequalities. I completely agree that in the UK, white people are superficially more likely to be the "faces that fit," but as soon as they open their mouths another sift happens based on class, regional background, education, etc. For Black and Asian people I suspect it's the other way around - they might walk in as "other," and then (assuming an interview process that's guarding against racial bias) have to make it very clear that they are very much "belong" over the course of the interview, using the markers of their educations to do so. (This is especially recognisable in ethnic minority Tories, btw.)

When it comes to the youth, I think that they are clubbing together into what they regard as a new "people like us" grouping that's reassuringly less "problematic" than the ones they view older generations as kowtowing to. Only... they are still majority white in this country, many of them will end up being heterosexual, and really the people who will do well (of any ethnicity or sexuality) will be from families who had more money and came from loving, stable homes. So there will be progress, I'm sure, for gay rights, and anti-racism, and even feminism - but homophobia, racism, sexism, poverty and inequality will still exist.

I'm really struggling with the lack of nuance in identity politics debates. I should say superficial, you're wrong, I'm right, social media debates, because that's what's driving all of this. There are oppressive intersections everywhere so Crenshaw's theory (which is spot on in regards to its specifics) applies nowadays is used to make blanket assumptions, entrench stereotypes, and is proving to be hugely divisive in public discourse. I'll be clear - it's the way "intersectionality" is used by special interest groups that sows division. It's true there are multiple axis of oppression, I understand White privilege in feminist discourse has been hugely unhelpful at times for black women, but I wish we were having these conversations amongst women and trying to find a solution. Instead this has all been swept up in critical race theory, which actually doesn't help Black women escape male violence or rape and isn't focused on women's issues as a priority. I just don't see how we're getting to the nub of any of the problems here if the outcome always = hair shirt humility.

But then I guess I'm a feminist first and foremost so that's where my route to solving these problems starts. Also problematic. I watch my dog endlessly chasing her tail and I feel that's where public debate has ended up.

@MissBarbary

Compare two working class kids from the same village with the same income level, one white and one black. Who has it worse?

And to answer@froggywentacourtingin regards to this situation, the black kid absolutely

I don't really know what people mean by "working class" but the quotes above are from a post about rural Scotland. Tbh I doubt that a black family in a village in rural Scotland would be anything other than middle class. They are likely to have moved relatively recently and likely will have bought a house rather than being provided with social housing.

I agree with your example @MissBarbary but if you read my post you'll see that wasn't was I was talking about

I chose as my specfic example something I am familiar with, mixed race kids born to white mothers in working class Scottish communities and I then listed three representative towns.
And neither Saltcoats or Irving are rural and whereas New Cummnock may be nominally rural it certainly isn't an idyll (along with most of the old "rural" industrial towns and villages of the Central Belt)

Those mixed race children are certainly not middle class and they have additional struggles their equally disadvantaged white peers do not have.
But as I said, in my experience it's particularly the boys who are struggling.

And actually @Novelusername had it right in her response
Using just race and economic status is far too simplistic an analysis anyway

Lots of interesting points being made in this thread. I especially like, cakedays: I note that just about any strand of thought propagated by men doesn't get the same treatment. "I don't want to read that white Marxism?" Nope. "White ecology"? Nope. It's pretty much only feminism that gets the put down that conveniently excuses people from actually reading it.
I never thought about that before but it's a good point. I think as well there's a general dismissal of feminism as an issue on its own which isn't seen as much in other movements.

@LibertyMole

It says this near the beginning:

‘The Commission was keen to gain a more forensic and rigorous understanding of underlying causes of disparities. However, we have argued for the use of the term ‘institutional racism’ to be applied only when deep-seated racism can be proven on a systemic level and not be used as a general catch-all phrase for any microaggression, witting or unwitting.’

This makes sense; microagressions by any semi-sensible definition isn't institutional racism, and a report that is really looking to hone in on structural differences could easily end up in the weeds. They are also almost impossible to quantify.

That's before you even get into real controversies around the idea of microagressions at all, it's hardly an undisputed idea.

If you want a useful report based on actual data, you have to define what you're looking at in a way that has some objectivity.

@JustSpeculation

It seems to me that intersectionality makes sense when talking about law. In Crenshaw's example, if I recall correctly, she talks of a company in which black women miss out on their rights because the law only recognised race and sex as protected characteristics. So black women who were discriminated against as black women had to sue for racial discrimination or for sex discrimination. The company could then defend themselves against race discrimination by pointing at all the black men they employed, and against sex discrimination by pointing at all the white women they employed. The way the law was structured made it actually impossible for black women to take action. The law needs to take account of the intersection of two protected characteristics.

But this is a process of creating a tool, recognising intersectionality between protected characteristics, to deal with a clear and identifiable lack in another tool (the law) which has been consciously and intentionally created for a specific purpose. Law is required to be coherent and, well, systematic so that it can be used to decide issues in the business of a variety of different interests, institutions, individuals and groups, as well as people's relationship to the state and state institutions.

But I don't think "society as a whole" has been consciously and intentionally created in the same way. It isn't systematic, though it does contain different systems within it. It comprises a whole bunch of different people who will not agree with each other, will not have exactly the same values and beliefs, and also should not really have to. So when applied to "society as a whole", the theory of intersectionality just creates a totalitarian pecking order that will not allow people to be different and to disagree. It creates a view of the world where there is only ever one right answer, only one viewpoint is correct. That's why it turns into an "Olympics of oppression", as one PP upthread called it.

It's a great ideology for authoritarians, as it justifies coercion as much as any religion ever has and enables control through "divide and rule", such as suggesting that "white feminists" aren't real feminists, pitting women against women. Intersectionality is one of the most anti feminist ideologies out there in the world today because it denies that women can have issues and interests purely as women. This implies that there is no right for women to organise politically as women. They always have to step aside for other people (which, clearly, means men).

The points froggy brought up in her excellent post upthread need to be taken very seriously and dealt with. But they can't be if other people are systematically denigrated for "privilege" (yes, I know froggy isn't doing that. I'm talking generally). The absence of oppression is not a privilege. It's a situation which needs balancing, but there is nothing unjustifiable in not being oppressed.

That's an interesting and insightful post.

It's interesting with the example of the black women in the company, that it's difficult to see how they might legally be protected specifically as black women. It's easy enough to think why or how that kind of situation could occur, in terms of psychology, or similar situations. But the way we frame discrimination laws doesn't seem amenable to that kind of specificity.

Can I ask views on this? White tears theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/08/how-white-women-use-strategic-tears-to-avoid-accountability

I must say, I can’t recall a time when I have been in this scenario, as in, been called out by a person of colour and then cried in response to escape the repercussions, but I can definitely imagine it happening. I can’t say with any certainty whether it’s something I would or wouldn’t do - obviously I’d like to think I wouldn’t.

The closest I can think of that I have done is when a friend of mine said she had been a victim of racism and I felt the room get tense so I made a joke so that we could all just skirt past the awkwardness. I would say that I made that joke because partly because I felt that my role - my role as a woman, in fact - was to be a peace maker and to try to make everyone feel comfortable and kind of like re bond everyone. I’m sure my friend would have felt better if we had spent more time acknowledging the racism so clearly what I did wasn’t the right thing, it was probably damaging for her. But I did what I was socialised to do, I think.

The explanation given for the tears is that it allows white women to escape accountability. I’m sure that’s part of it and that’s definitely the impact. I’m just wondering if there are also other reasons- if there is more to it, psychologically, that links to the socialisation of whiteness? Is it partly because, as well as obviously the fact that you could escape accountability, maybe because white women are socialised to avoid conflict at all costs? Is it because our sense of self is called into question? I think there might be more to it than just avoiding accountability. The article connects the tears to ideas of femininity and learned helplessness and protection seeking. I think that’s probably accurate too.

I think it would be really helpful to know how exactly whiteness and womanhood operates in these scenarios. I don’t feel like I completely understand it.

Jewish women often look white (not all, as not all Jewish people are white). They absolutely experience racism. Just look at the David Baddiel zoom chat thread and you'll see what I mean. It's shocking actually.

I agree privilege is an uncomfortable word that sometimes doesn’t feel appropriate to attach to a really vulnerable person. Not sure what the solution is though, because the concept works more generally. Maybe that’s it - we are using privilege as a general concept here, not a descriptor of a particular individual.

Does the concept work more generally? I'm not convinced that it's really very well defined.

Or that if it was dropped, it would cause any lack of clarity in discussing ideas - the opposite if anything, they cause obscurity in a lot of cases. Which is true of a lot of the jargon that gets used, intersectionality being another example.

Can I ask views on this? White tears theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/08/how-white-women-use-strategic-tears-to-avoid-accountability

I found it badly written. Why give vague examples and not explain them properly. Someone used a sentence with the words "white people" and "shit" in it. LOL, why not just tell us what was said? Also, what's "a self-identified white woman"? I could have told you a paragraph in that the person writing the article either has a PhD or is studying for it as they talk in academic-speak that just doesn't fit well onto the real world. That's not to say there isn't a discussion on that topic and that the examples given by people aren't issues.

@ATieLikeRichardGere

Can I ask views on this? White tears theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/08/how-white-women-use-strategic-tears-to-avoid-accountability

I must say, I can’t recall a time when I have been in this scenario, as in, been called out by a person of colour and then cried in response to escape the repercussions, but I can definitely imagine it happening. I can’t say with any certainty whether it’s something I would or wouldn’t do - obviously I’d like to think I wouldn’t.

The closest I can think of that I have done is when a friend of mine said she had been a victim of racism and I felt the room get tense so I made a joke so that we could all just skirt past the awkwardness. I would say that I made that joke because partly because I felt that my role - my role as a woman, in fact - was to be a peace maker and to try to make everyone feel comfortable and kind of like re bond everyone. I’m sure my friend would have felt better if we had spent more time acknowledging the racism so clearly what I did wasn’t the right thing, it was probably damaging for her. But I did what I was socialised to do, I think.

The explanation given for the tears is that it allows white women to escape accountability. I’m sure that’s part of it and that’s definitely the impact. I’m just wondering if there are also other reasons- if there is more to it, psychologically, that links to the socialisation of whiteness? Is it partly because, as well as obviously the fact that you could escape accountability, maybe because white women are socialised to avoid conflict at all costs? Is it because our sense of self is called into question? I think there might be more to it than just avoiding accountability. The article connects the tears to ideas of femininity and learned helplessness and protection seeking. I think that’s probably accurate too.

I think it would be really helpful to know how exactly whiteness and womanhood operates in these scenarios. I don’t feel like I completely understand it.

Well, I sure as hell cried when being verbally abused by my Brown SE Asian ex.

I'm sure some of these proponents of white feminism would call it toxic and oppressive that I, a white woman, manipulated a major colour with my white tears.

It's misogynist crap

*man of colour

ATieLikeRichardGere
I had a quick skim of that Guardian article and I'm not saying it never happens, but I can't relate to it at all.
"A WW kept touching my hair. Pulling my curls to watch them bounce back. Rubbing the top. Smelling it. So when I told her to stop and complained to HR and my supervisor, she complained that I wasn’t a people person or team member and I had to leave that position for being ‘threatening’ to a coworker."
Obviously, this example is horrendous. I know that black people talk about white people touching their hair and it's a common problem. Are white women really being racist towards another woman and then crying about it en masse though? What about the white men? They are completely guilt free, I suppose? I've no doubt some women in general can try to get out of all sorts of situations by crying. But again, what about men, what do they do? Get aggressive? Why aren't their behaviours being mentioned? I'd be interested to hear from MNers this has happened to, but it's not something I've ever seen or done myself. It seems to be another incarnation of the sexist 'Karen' trope, which is rooted in American culture and doesn't translate well to the UK for lots of reasons.

Seriously, fuck this toxicity coming over from the US.

Left wing feminism where I am has always involved actions aimed at alleviating disadvantage for Blak women, refugee women, poor women, disabled women. Literally never been involved in glass ceiling lean in 'white' actions.

I'm sure some of these proponents of white feminism would call it toxic and oppressive that I, a white woman, manipulated a major colour with my white tears.

I feel the same about this article now as when it came out: it's a shitty misogynistic trope that women use tears to manipulate. That's what my abusive partner said to me, that he didn't take my tears seriously because they were fake. You cant write women's feelings off because they are white.

That Guardian article...... Christ on a bike, it's no wonder their readership has been abandoning them.

Some people can use tears to manipulate, and I daresay that is something women do more often than men. But most people cry because they are actually upset or very stressed.

But the whole thing to me seems to be deeply woman-hating, though seemingly coming from other women. I always think this kind of shit is really not very representative though, most people do not think that way.