I’m really glad that Polly Vernon is writing about this to keep it on the agenda. I don’t think she fundamentally gets ‘feminism’ based on that one article but maybe it’s over edited or maybe she’ll show up here and stay for the chat. I hope so. Times journalists who do get it can really make a difference. Her article says:
‘Equally, I have plenty of issues around modern feminism. It’s a while, actually, since I’ve even called myself a “feminist”, so righteous, proscriptive and in-fighty is the scene these days, so fired up on Twitter fury and faction. I’d agree that the face of that feminism, the voices dominating it, are largely white and middle class, and that has serious limitations. But I’m also entirely capable of seeing the impact of feminism beyond those it serves on social media.’
Polly Vernon then approvingly cites the government’s recently legislating of telemedical abortion to become permanent as a win for feminism. Which it certainly was.
However I’d also personally call it a win for feminists (the ones that she claims to think are self-servingly scrapping it out all day on Twitter). I would say that, having lobbied for that legal change alongside a lot of other women and not used Twitter once, but hey whatever.
What’s odd about this point is that Polly Vernon also doesn’t mention that the government OPPOSED this change. The change to keep it permanent was only made thanks to the MPs of all parties who defied the government position.
The government position was to require women seeking abortion to resume travelling more than once to a specific premises to take their medication based on a law that predated safe early medical abortion. The government wanted to put those barriers to early access to treatment back up for all women, knowing full well that it would impact most on the most economically and socially vulnerable women. because feminists told them about that.
So Polly Vernon’s quite correct that removing these barriers has helped some of the least privileged women, something my Tory MP made quite plain he couldn’t give a fuck about when talking about his intentions and then voting with the government against it.
I’m a bit curious how she first became aware of this important fact about which women stand to benefit most from this practical legal change though. Can’t possibly have have been from the self serving all middle class all white 
Feminists making that point repeatedly in the public domain, obviously.
Absolutely there’s crucial discussions to have about race and culture and feminism as there absolutely is about race and culture across the whole of society. We need to talk.
But I don’t think damning feminists as all white and all middle class is accurate, or helps us get to a place where women can be with each other freely and be active on their issues.
Or freely set up their own things to organise on issues they want to campaign for separately and specifically- which is also great.
I’m very suspicious of how often feminists are described as one identical blob. Also suspicious of how feminists are criticised for not having sorted out everyone else’s issues before they’re ‘allowed’ to campaign on their own issues.
Nobody needs permission to organise. The enforcers of the patriarchy (usually men but not exclusively) should be getting the bile for constantly creating the shitty conditions that feminists constantly need to fight against.
Feminism whatever it is, is just women saying things, almost always unpaid and in their own time and at their own cost in different ways. It’s not a force of nature that automatically happens regardless like the sun or rain. If only!