Against White Feminism

[Allycott]

Yesterday I heard an interview with the author of this book. I listened to her views and rationale for writing the book.

Has anyone read it?

(Agreed re US produce BTW Princess, I know that good US produce is as good or better than anywhere else. I still have the impression that there is a lower floor in the US in terms of food safety regulations, which may or may not be a correct view, and which may or may not be important).

Re intersectionality, it was a brilliant insight in the original Crenshaw essay, and I have no doubt is directly relevant in the UK. Too often though 'you need to think intersectionally' is used as a vague code for 'we don't think sexism is relevant any more if it's related to sex, shut up about it'.

The problem with this subject is that there are undoubtably areas where feminism as a movement could be more inclusive to women who have been histroically marginalised, but the discouse always pretty quickly devolves into "white feminisim" being used as a slur to dismiss people for having the "wrong" opinions.

Honestly, having an opinions on American food is not "bigoted"!

That word used to mean something.

nauticant, I disagree with Roxane Gay's take on many subjects, but I really liked that particular article/essay.

Is it just feminists who are called on repeatedly to be inter-sectional?

For example, is Black Lives Matter called on to be inclusive of women's voices and of gay voices as well as those of Black men?

Is the gay rights movement called on to be inclusive of Black people? What about the disability rights movement?

It seems to me that feminists get far more stick than any other group for supposedly not being inter-sectional.

some people either honestly don't understand the context of American politics (in which the author is operating), so they honestly have a hard time evaluating what the author is getting at, and others are showing a genuinely bigoted reaction "Americans..like their bread...melting..."

I don't honestly understand the context of American politics, yep. And don't honestly care all that much, either. Why is the rest of the world exected to listen in respectful silence while the US sorts through its own issues? We have enough of our own to be getting on with.

• Melting bread? You what? Are you saying we are 'bigoted' for discussing American cuisine?

It seems to me that feminists get far more stick than any other group for supposedly not being inter-sectional.

That's because in practice intersectionality carries with it an implicit hierarchy of opression in which white women are seen as being near the top of the hierarchy and therefore more opressors than oppressed. Hence why "white feminsim" can be dismissed as the plaything of the privileged.

That's because in practice intersectionality carries with it an implicit hierarchy of opression in which white women are seen as being near the top of the hierarchy and therefore more opressors than oppressed. Hence why "white feminsim" can be dismissed as the plaything of the privileged.

Or possibly the opposite is true: that social hatred of women is so engrained people don't even notice it.

Not commenting on the book, or anything on the cesspit that is Twitter, but I always get a nasty taste in my mouth on any threads on MN to do with race, and FWR threads are sometimes worse, as the level of discourse is often quite highbrow, and no less uncomfortable to read.
They always go the same way:
White women in no way have priveledge, because some black people are rich, and some white women are poor. (even though, miraculously, male priveledge totally exists, with men as a class having priveledge..)
America is racist and the UK is totally not really racist, and all our problems are about class.
People claiming that recognising that Black women or Asian women may share some experiences in common is racist, because it lumps them all in together and that Nigerians do very well dontcha know..
Lots of random waffling about slavery, throwing the W word and the N-word around with abandon.

I agree that feminism is often asked to be all things to all people, that it is often supposed that feminism is about gender equality, or should include men, but you do understand that black women expecting to be included in feminism is not that...don't you?? That women of colour are, yanno, women, and not "some other group"??
I'm not at all sure that some of you do.

Where on this thread has anyone discounted the idea of racism in the UK being an issue, IfNot? I don't recognise any of what you say in this thread.

The comment I objected to was " American bread just disintegrates when you try to butter it. Same with their writers , celebs and politicians - If you ask a question that's not on the agreed list they melt into a puddle of simmering resentment." Is that not a rather bigoted statement that could be equally well applied to Tesco white bread and Owen Jones, Jolyon Maugham and some other Britons of note?

but you do understand that black women expecting to be included in feminism is not that...don't you??

Yes of course I want all women to be included in feminism and I recognise that they may feel alienated. I know there is structural racism in the U.K. The problem I have with these kind of comments is that no one can ever seem to articulate how positive change can practically be achieved, or what we need to do.

Identity politics can only go so far. And no it isn't for feminism to resolve every oppression in the world. And yes, both men as a class and white people as a class have privilege, but it's deeply crass to call a male sexual abuse victim living under a bypass "privileged" simply because he is white and male. As a feminist I try to avoid talking about privilege at an individual level because it then becomes completely relative and worse than useless.

Yes, Eresh, good point. We could probably have a more useful discussion on the issues surrounding black maternal mortality in the UK.

The reason that American politics are relevant to this discussion is because this book discusses them. So understanding them in their complexity is useful. One aspect of this is understanding just how Susan B. Anthony's debates with Frederick Douglass foreshadow what is going on in the world today. The Abolition Movement started in the 1830s and women had to struggle to be allowed to become the respected leaders they did become in that movement. But figures such as Lucretia Mott and others did. And this fight, plus the Temperance movement, also made some women start to think about the rights of women., hence the groundbreaking work of Elizabeth Cady Stanton in 1849 and the Seneca Falls Convention. Stanton, Anthony, and many, many other women gave their lives and their hearts to fighting for African-American freedom. Rightly so. The Civil War was an unbelievably bitter wound that tore our country apart. I have at least three great-great grandfathers who fought in it. One was a 44-year old man who was the father of 12 children and who was drafted to fight in the Union Army. They marched him east and he fought in terrible battles and died of dysentery. I think of how he had probably never seen a Black person before, but the nation needed its sins paid for in blood, and that's what it cost. The innocent go in the hole along with the guilty and that's the way it is. It needed to be done. 1.

But here's the thing. Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton were both "White Feminists." They both made bitter comments that could be called racist. They compared their (white) intelligence favorably to the intelligence of the people they had worked to free. And that was racist. They were women of the 19th century. They weren't perfect. They probably were more educated than most people of color they knew--outside of exalted company like Frederick Douglass and Sojourner Truth. That racism that slipped out is a sin.
BUT. It is very telling that we punish these women so seriously for their slips of the tongue, but that we do not address the fact that they never got the rights they deserved. These white women did not get legal equality with black men in their lifetimes. Now, we know that in private, there were many ways that women could have influence blah blah blah. But legally, they stated their case. And Frederick Douglass, who had a black wife and a white mistress, basically laughed. And the whole world laughed with him. "White feminists" had no power then. We have damn little power now.

Well, maybe the book needs to be titled 'Against US White Feminism' or something, in that case. It's being sold here, the author is doing interviews on Woman's Hour, one would expect with that title it had at least something of relevance to women in the UK.

but you do understand that black women expecting to be included in feminism is not that...don't you?? That women of colour are, yanno, women, and not "some other group"??

Can you explain what you mean by those statements? What exactly does being included in feminism mean to you?

Arabella--I understand that sentiment completely. There's no particular reason why this book that is written entirely about US politics should be sold to the UK public as if it is universal (except in the occasional anecdotal sense I gave above). I agree with you.

I've not read the full thread but I'm getting tired of seeing women blame other women for not feminisming in the right way. I don't think its helpful and it causes way more division than it illuminates real issues.
Every time I see feminists criticised by someone on this way, I note that I rarely see them holding men to account in the same way.
It feels like they're picking on women as an easy target and that doesn't feel like feminism to me at all.

RoyalCorgi

I dimly remember BLM shutting down Toronto Pride, and I think there have been other such events (though I can't think of any further examples right now).

Haven't heard of anything going the other way though (LGBT activists protesting against BLM etc).

Fine, if I am being a bit facetious but I'm still right about the tone of all of these threads, and there's been lots of them lately.
Also I don't believe that pointing out that Black and Asian women can be looked on as being an added extra to women's rights is "identity politics". People visibly being a race minority is a material fact, which affects material things in their lives, whether some Black people talk posh or not
What exactly does being included in feminism mean to you?
It just means that feminism is for all women and girls. And that people on here carping about how feminists are always being expected to solve everything is irrelevant in this context.
It's just interesting that men are not to take sweeping generalisations (that I generally agree with actually) personally, but try to point out that different sections of the female population can have different experiences, and those experiences are not often really understood by white women, and you get pages of "yes but" and history lessons.
Not much actual considering if there may be a kernel of truth.
Anyway, please, go back to discussing the book, I will go somewhere where people are not enjoying saying the word "wog" just a little too much.

'Is the gay rights movement called on to be inclusive of Black people? What about the disability rights movement?'

Was the quote I was replying to btw - just realised it's not very obvious!

IfNot
'I will go somewhere where people are not enjoying saying the word "wog" just a little too much'.

That's quite an accusation and one that I really don't think is justified going by the previous posts in this thread.

....and rather like the Knights of Ni, you just said it yourself.

You may have noticed that I have cautioned people to take care with their use of the word 'thug.' I deplore any use of abusive language to abuse anyone, but if you are going to discuss racism, then you have to call it by its name, otherwise we shall reach the situation in some US universities where Chinese students have been asked/told to stop saying the Chinese word for nothing/not much/shrug of shoulders, because some people think it sounds like the N -word.

WTF @IfNot? One person has used that term. One.

I'm not sure why you just didn't shout YOU'RE ALL RACIST and leave it at that really? Could have saved yourself a load of typing energy.