One of my favorite feminist books is Bell Hooks’ ‘Ain’t I A Woman: Black Women and Feminism,’ which greatly details the unique struggles of Black feminists during our country’s most racist and sexist times. They faced both ugly racism and sexism during their fight for racial and gender equality for African-American women. Unfortunately, some times they were not welcomed by either the male leaders of the Black Civil Rights Movements or even White feminist leaders. So they formed their own activist groups dedicated to fighting both racism and sexism. Like all movements they faced hostility, but in their case from ‘both sides‘–Black men and White feminists. Some of the traditionalist male leaders of the Black Civil Rights Movement demanded that they submit themselves to sexist gender roles prescribed for women, and accept an inferior standing within the African-American Community. Some of the White feminist leaders of the Women’s Liberation Movement trivialized the sexism Black women faced not only from Whites but from Black men as well, and even told them that racism was the only form of oppression Black women suffered. So Black feminists (and Black women in general) had a “two-fer” when it came to backlashes and discrimination. In this particular case, via Prometheus 6, we see a classic sexist hyperbole made by reactionary Black men against Black feminism and Black women’s liberation from patriarchy–the very sort of misogynist defamation of Black feminist women Hooks’ highlighted in her book.
EXPOSING THE DAMAGE THAT 1970’s WOMEN’S LIBERATION HAS DONE TO THE BLACK COMMUNITY…
EXPOSING HOW BLACK FEMINISTS HAVE FAILED TO LEAD THE BLACK RACE ANYPLACE…
EXPOSING THE FAILURE OF BLACK LEADERSHIP…
(LIKE BILL COSBY!)REMINDING BLACK MEN THAT IT’S TIME TO JOIN THE GROWING MEN’S MOVEMENT…
WE ARE THE ONLY BLACK ORGANIZATION THAT EXPOSES AND OPPOSES LESBIAN FEMINISM WITCHCRAFT!!
Deeply ignorant.
Of course, there are reactionary slanders made by racist Whites against Black feminists as they also stride for racial equality. I’m sure it would reference some big evil “Black Panther ‘kill Whitey’ lesbian feminist witchcraft” conspiracy. Misogyny and patriarchy know no color. Thankfully the sexist sentiments of this particular group of African-American men does not reflect the ‘gender issue’ sentiments of all African-American men, and not all of the male leaders of the Black Civil Rights Movement were sexist (and not all White feminists were racist). There are sexists and racists found within just about every community. This is just an example of sexism perpetrated by the male members of a community against its female members. And I wonder since I’m only half-African-American and feminist, does this mean that I’m only bisexual and half-pagan to them?
Have I mentioned lately that P6 rocks my world?
God, he just shreds these morons and their apologists in his comments section.
ddin’t you read the NY Times? Bisexuals don’t exist.
You know, I was surprised an apologist would have the nerve to even try supporting that crap on my site. I’m not a feminist blogger, but I know right from wrong.
I’ve made it clear mysogyny is not acceptable under any circumstances on P6. And I’m prepared to get a lot uglier with my insistance.
I recall that amongst certain White feminists on a board that no longer exists, it was quite the popular sport to try and end an argument in which a Black feminist was in danger of getting the upper hand by announcing, “Oh, you’re not even really Black, are you ?” Or, “You’re really a man, aren’t you ?” Because, I suppose, if you were uppity enough to question a White woman’s expertise on everything, including race, you were obviously a liar or a sock puppet.
Blecch. >:
I have a special affinity for this post, being a bisexual Feminist Witch. ( a Feminist Witch is a particular type of Wiccan called a Dianic Witch) The white feminists are embarassed by me, I’m not ethnic enough (somehow Native American doesn’t count) for some groups, and the men generally hate me because I don’t back down. Ever. I’ll admit being wrong if I am, but if you can’t back it up, don’t start.
The interfaith groups and the religious freedom groups – most of which are run by liberal Christians and Jews, don’t want to be associated with us for fear of that “Satanic” label. It never occurs to them that not standing up against that bigotry IS bigotry.
I also recently got chastised by a Pagan woman because I had a post about a Satanist, which I want nothing to do with on a personal level, but support their rights not to be victimized by hate crimes because Goddess forbid some fanatic think my pentacle means anything other than air, earth, water, fire and spirit.
How uncomfortable did reading this make you? What does that tell you about you?
Oops – I wanted to add that I’m not trying to take anything away from the focus Pseudo-Adrienne was making about Black political movements. I’m commiserating more than anything else. It’s amazing how backwards some Progressives can be.
All religion makes me uncomfortable. Still, you can learn quite a lot of interesting and useful things if you’re prepared to dispense with your “right to constant comfort.” That’s definitely been true for me vis-a-vis race issues.
That no religion at all is better for me than any religion at all. There are enough other things for me to argue with myself and others about, and there are only so many hours in the day.
In learning about these issues faced by black feminists (largely from the Sisters Talk blog… I love Genia!) in the past and present, I was of course appalled.
This is what has made it easier for me to understand, if not approve of, the African-American community turning its back on the nascent gay rights movement, claiming the situations of THIS group of marginalized, second-class Americans are somehow different from their own. As with the powerful African-American men who ignored the feminists of their day because they refused to follow tradition, many leaders in the Af-Am community have called outright for the imposition of legislation that hurts the gay community– because, they claim, the “tradition” is “one man and one woman.”
I suppose the expression “Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose” holds true as ever. The more things change…
A sad reminder of the ‘my rights, not yours’ mentality.
Morgaine: Not at all until the two questions at the end, at which point my hackles immediately raised.
As for what it tells me about myself, it tells me that I have no particular problem with wiccans/pagans, feminists, people who are native american, bisexuals, women or opinionated people. Until someone questions that, or I perceive them questioning that, upon no factual basis, at which point I become annoyed.
That’s odd, since those two questions weren’t posed as judgment statements. She asked how uncomfortable her comment made us, and what it told us about ourselves.
For me the answers were: not at all and I’m kinda indifferent to religion.
Sheelzebub: But I see them as judgement statements, because of previous experience I have had with such questions. So what it says about me is that I get defensive about having attitudes assigned to me by others, and am sensitive to their appearance.
Huh? I can’t figure out if those questions were addressed to someone specific, to “the room,” or were completely rhetorical.
They were genuine questions. I wanted to know how people would perceive the post. I’m not assuming that people would be uncomfortable, I am asking if they are and how they feel about their reaction, whatever it is. I’ve learned the hard way lately that you never assume that a “Progressive” is on your side. I also wanted to see if the anti-religion bias came out. I run into that a lot on the Left.
There are progressives that think hating all religions equally is not bias; there are progressives that are fine with Buddhists and Muslims but think Pagans are too weird; there are gays who think bisexuals are lying to themselves; there are feminists that are embarassed by Witches, others by lesbians; men and women that assume all Pagans are kooks; Pagans that are embarassed that I’m calling attention to the lack of respect we’re often given.
Not being taken seriously is a form of oppression. When anything that comes out of your mouth is automatically suspect because of who you are, you are already a step below everyone around you.
I’m not judging anyone. I did hope to provoke some conversation. I’d hoped maybe someone would say that they never thought about it that way, or that they didn’t think it bothered them but it did. I knew a lot of people would have no reaction at all. I was a little afraid of the negative reaction that I was challenging them, but I decided to leave the wording as it was and see what the response was, because no challenge was intended.
I’m just trying to get a better understanding of where we stand in the Progressive community, because in other venues I’m having trouble getting people to work together. No offense, just curiosity.
Morgaine, if you need me to accept some religion before you can take me seriously, I guess we can’t work together. If you want to consider my lack of use for any religion at all as a crippling bias to common political ground, feel free. I don’t know why it should be, but whatever.
I don’t know if I really “hate all religions equally” so much as I wearied of them and put them away. “Hate” implies a much stronger emotional state than I’m prepared to claim for myself. There’s not all that much I can do about what you want to pin on me, other than express a puzzlement that’s going to ripen soon into full-blown irritation if you keep up with this particular tack.
If you can’t work with an atheist, I’m pretty sure that I can find other progressives who aren’t so picky about the spiritual life (or lack of same) of the woman holding the other end of the anti-war banner. Either that, or I can forsake the label of “progressive,” as there are days when I find it every bit as meaningless in dialouge as I personally find god (or gods) meaningless.
I wasn’t talking specifically about you. Why are you taking it personally? I don’t care if you accept “some religion” but I do care if the mention of religion automatically makes you stop listening.
I don’t care what you worship, whether you worship, whatever. I care if you look down on me for worshipping. Big difference there. I’ve been a supporter of rights for atheists/Brights just as consistently as I am for any minority religion. (Yeah, I know , it’s lack of religion, but it still defines some people as a group.)
Why would you say I couldn’t work with you? I never said any such thing.
Well Morgaine I guess the confusion for me comes in your expecting any reaction at all. Around here, being a bi-poly-pagan feminist is at least as common as being a coffee-drinking feminist or a pet-owning feminist. I know it’s common in other locales, also. Goddess religions are part of the approved feminist “lifestyle package” that has been latched onto for marketing purposes as well. So I don’t get what the big deal is supposed to be.
I do think it’s telling that this sidetracking is coming up in a discussion about black feminism, however. My observation has been that a woman of color can scarcely speak three words in a feminist space without a white woman jumping in to say “hey I am oppressed too because I’m a pagan/one two hundredth Native American on my dad’s side/bisexual/into anime!” It’s *most* telling.
Lilith: I am not black, nor have I lived in a predominately black community since I was ten, and so have little personal experience to bring to the table on that matter. What I know about it is academic and covered perfectly well above in the main post.
Morgaine’s posts are a perfectly relevant example of how so called progressives discriminate against those their movement should cover. Noone seems to be arguing about the main post, and Morgaine posed a direct question.
I find it interesting how you belittle Morgaine’s experience of discrimination because it is from her being native american, wiccan, etc, instead of her being a black feminist. You seem to be making her point for her, not to mention the point of the original post.
Kerlyssa: “I find it interesting how you belittle Morgaine’s experience of discrimination because it is from her being native american, wiccan, etc, instead of her being a black feminist. You seem to be making her point for her, not to mention the point of the original post.”
I don’t think that Lilith’s attention. (Lilith, if I’m wrong feel free to correct me.) I believe that her point- that conversations about the experience of black feminists tend to get derailed- is completely accurate. While I completely respect Morgaine’s first post, I also find it interesting how this thread has become a reaction to Morgaine’s post and only indirectly, P-A’s. I do NOT think Morgaine is intentionally doing this, but I cannot tell you how many conversations I have been in with other feminists where when the struggles of black feminists are brought up, people say, “well I have issues because I’m (insert your race/ethnicity/religion). Not that discussing the struggles other minority groups face is a bad thing, but when the conversation is about black feminism, it can get really annoying.
Now whether P-A meant for her original thread to be only about some of the issues black feminists face, is up for individual interpretation. I believe that it was and that Morgaine offered her experiences to generate discussion. However, I do wish, that more commenters had decided to respond to the issues black feminists face which P-A brought up as well as Morgaine’s post.
dammit, that should read “lilith’s intention”, NOT attention.
alsis39: “I recall that amongst certain White feminists on a board that no longer exists, it was quite the popular sport to try and end an argument in which a Black feminist was in danger of getting the upper hand by announcing, “Oh, you’re not even really Black, are you ?” Or, “You’re really a man, aren’t you ?” Because, I suppose, if you were uppity enough to question a White woman’s expertise on everything, including race, you were obviously a liar or a sock puppet.”
Blecch. >:
—————————————–
Oooh, yes, the good old days….oh, and remember if you challenged racism especially white privilage as exercised by white female feminists, then you are anti-feminist, and really a man. Women equalling white and race equaling male and all that…
***roll eyes smiley, where are you***
———————————–
Lilith: “I do think it’s telling that this sidetracking is coming up in a discussion about black feminism, however. My observation has been that a woman of color can scarcely speak three words in a feminist space without a white woman jumping in to say “hey I am oppressed too because I’m a pagan/one two hundredth Native American on my dad’s side/bisexual/into anime!” It’s *most* telling. ”
———————————————-
Indeed it is. Which also goes back to what alsis wrote in her original post.
One of the major problems with feminism is that when White women are confronted with racial privilage that they enjoy at the expense of women of color during any discussion of issues that do not pertain directly to their own oppression, they pull out the oppression card as a defense mechanism and close their ears.
I thought the site was a joke at first, but apparently it’s not. I thought within it, some good issues were raised that would make good discussion but it was hard to see them through all the blatent misogyny on that site.
I’m an atheist and highly involved in a local atheist student activisim group called SOMA, the Society of Open-Minded Atheists/Agnostics. We spend a lot of our time fighting for the rights and privileges of people of all faiths and creeds — including the Wiccan/Pagan groups. My own twin sister is a pagan, while my parents are fundamentalist Christians. I take both their religions equally seriously (that is, not at all) while fighting vehemently for the laws to reflect an equal ability for them to practice whatever silly rituals they feel get them in touch with the universe. Great. And you’re right, there is often a great deal of resistance and even fear regarding the Pagan/Wiccan communities, which must be addressed and fought against — but don’t you dare suggest that we’re against you because of your faith.
When you asked the questions you did, I thought “it doesn’t bother me at all.” That fact tells me only a tiny bit about myself. Now the issue has come up of you trying to sound magnanimous while effectively accusing anyone who won’t call you goddess of being a bigot. Now, after years of standing up for people of your faith, recognizing them as fellow minorities, I have become angry. I highly ***HIGHLY*** recommend that you apologize for your tone here and try to come down on the level of your fellow human beings, and then you can try again to ask us to treat you as an equal.
“I’m just trying to get a better understanding of where we stand in the Progressive community, because in other venues I’m having trouble getting people to work together. No offense, just curiosity.”
Might I suggest that it’s because you sound like you’re talking down your nose at us, while meanwhile insisting that you’re being absolutely respectful… which is more insulting. I’m hardly surprised that Alsis reacted to you in that way. I had the same thought but kept it to myself until now. Your questions were valid and even wise to add to this discussion– but you have REALLY got to work on learning how to deal with others, online. I’ve remained fairly quiet on this up to this point… but I’ll go ahead and take the lumps as the “jerk” so this can be moved along.
This blog entry makes an excellent point about how the groups don’t work together and often betray other sub-groups in order to make gains for the majority within their minority (forgetting the entire purpose of having a minority-rights group). We should be discussing that, not worrying about whether we’re taking ourselves seriously enough.
The above is more a general observation, and one that seems to be unfortunately universal on the internet and IRL. You can take it to the bank that a discussion of Black feminism will get sidetracked.
Makes me embarassed to call myself a feminist some times, how the heiarchy of feminism so closely matches that of patriarchy, yet we’re willing to (rightfully) slam patriarchy for it, but not criticize ourselves.
As far as religion, to each his or her own, imo. Respect people’s right to practice the religion of their choice. Respect people’s right to abstain from it. And don’t promote your religion as the one true religion. Feminists often do that to each other, even though considering how long and how often, we’ve had the religious right try to force its religious beliefs about gender roles on us, this should come easier to us than it does. And as for needing religion to discuss feminism or progressive activisim or politics, that’s not true either.
Makes me ashamed to be called a progressive some times. But like alsis, I think that term is getting awfully diluted in meaning.
Hold up—I don’t think within the context of this particular discussion that considering how Pagans and Witches are demonized by “progressives” as well as the public at large is necessarily a sidetrack. If you hold your nose and wade through the incredible amount of misogyny at that site, you’ll see that the author of the site keeps on pounding on that one note “lesbian-feminist-witchcraft” theme. There’s a reason he uses it. Not every visitor to the site who might be a potential “regular” is all that worked up about white folks in general, so simple bigotry isn’t going to draw them in. Nor is every visitor going to be all bent-out-of-shape about women, either. But throw in those three magic words, “lesbian”, “feminist” and “witch”, and you’ll grab they’re attention. Disliking and disregarding, if not outright hating those particular groups, is more universally condoned or tolerated.
And black women have to face that sort of shit all the time; being accused of not having the “proper” loyalties. Years ago, I bought a book written by Victoria King, an IBEW sister out of New York’s Local 3 (who has since left the trade to become a civil rights attorney); in it she discussed the barriers black women face when entering the trade—not only from white males on the job, but from white females and from within the black community. She was a single mother determined to provide a good living for herself and her son, but she received a helluva lotta harsh judgement and accusations against her “femininity” and/or sexuality. Reading interviews of black tradeswomen over the years, I found that most talked about the alienation they experienced on becoming tradeswomen; being targeted from within the black community for transgressing the boundaries of who and what a “proper” black woman is. In my trade, there are very few women (one percent!), but even fewer black women. As an ally, it behooves me to pay attention to this, and be vocal about my support—‘cuz too damn many people are vocal with their hostility. And silence might as well equal assent—it has the same effect.
Divide and conquer, all day long—that’s the name of the game. Portray feminism as “lesbian feminist witchcraft”, and guess what? You’ll have fewer women identifying as feminists. And this makes a difference politically. Morgaine didn’t derail the thread; witches were burned at the stake. So were queers. No small wonder that even some “progressives” don’t want to be allied with them (lavender menace, anyone?). The man who runs that twisted site is invoking the power of the stake when he uses those turns of phrase. The same stake his ancestors were tied to. It’s a stake that’ll be driven through all our hearts if we don’t start making crucial alliances, and not just as individuals, but as a MOVEMENT.
Unlike, of course, what’s going on at the AFL-CIO convention, but don’t get me started….
Yeah, I’ve heard the “divide and conquer” argument used by all different kinds of people in all different kinds of ways. I’m not surprised it has shown up here.
Syndey’s post, though earlier than mine, wasn’t up when I responded. I agree with what she wrote. It’s an observation that’s been made and explained by her and others. And the response has been, how progressives divide and conquer.
I got that the words, “lesbian” “feminist” “witch” were used on the Web site, and they’ve been thrown around a lot by antifeminists(Pat Robertson, anyone?), no doubt as has been said to attract people to the cause and away from feminism, which goes parallel with the site’s main argument that feminism is a White women’s movement that has stolen Black women away from fighting for civil rights. Ironic, because within feminism, Black women are often criticized unfairly by White women for not being 24/7 focused on women’s issues(as defined by White women, though)
Homophobia, anti-feminism and anti-paganism is a problem in all racial groups as well as in both genders, as well.
But, the thrust of the site seems to be sexist attitudes toward Black women and Black women and feminism(which is not given any recognition on this site separate from other types of feminism movements including those which are racist towards Black women).
That’s just my opinion. I think that it goes a lot towards what bell hooks and other feminists have said, as P-A made in her original post.
I’m not trying to invalidate Morgaine. I’m just expressing an opinion, which may be different from most here.
Rafdem: “But, the thrust of the site seems to be sexist attitudes toward Black women and Black women and feminism(which is not given any recognition on this site separate from other types of feminism movements including those which are racist towards Black women).”
Rafdem, I agree with your analysis. I came to the conclusion that P-A’s original thread was about black feminism in large part because of the nature of P6’s website. He wasn’t talking about lesbian feminists or pagan feminists. He was defending black women.
La Lubu: “Morgaine didn’t derail the thread; witches were burned at the stake. So were queers. No small wonder that even some “progressives” don’t want to be allied with them (lavender menace, anyone?). The man who runs that twisted site is invoking the power of the stake when he uses those turns of phrase.”
What you’re saying about witches and queers is completely true. However, the offensive website in question is talking about witches and queers in the context of black women. Blacktown’s main focus is on black women. And the comment thread about this article on P6 focuses on the misogynistic behavior being displayed toward black women. So while I’m not saying that Morgaine’s post is not accurate, I do feel that it was somewhat off topic.
Sydney, point taken. But look at the comment thread at P6’s joint. That’s another example of what I was thinking of when I said that dislike of those groups is more universally tolerated. If the dude at Blacktown had put up all those insults about black women sans references to feminism, lesbians, or witchcraft, he’d’a had a helluva lot fewer black men willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I’ve seen similar, but more soft-pedaled crapola at “men’s rights” sites, and without fail they also reference the impact that the “feminist gay agenda” has had on black women.
Another damned-if-you, damned-if-you-don’t double dose for black women. And of course, a helluva lotta white men, and even women, can be counted on to try and “understand” this twisted mug’s “point of view”. I’ve seen it in the so-called “progressive” community—whitefolks who wouldn’t tolerate that level of misogyny toward white women tolerating it towards black women, as long as the invective came from a black man.
Thanks, U-A. The trouble with the internet is that sometimes you really can pick up on someone’s tone, and sometimes you can’t. :o
Anyway, closer to the original topic: The thing that puzzles me the most about Blacktown-net’s defenders is this mysterious link-up between a sort of women’s fashion glossy-materialism and this concept of “lesbian feminists.” I scarcely read any women’s magazines, Black or White, but I used to read a few back when I worked the “floater”/reception job at a law firm. The co-worker who did most of my training was Black, so she –like most of the White women– brought her mags in to read at the reception desk when things were slow. So I started reading some of them, too. I can recall one article that talked about the works of women like June Jordan and Alice Walker. But I don’t recall any of the relationship-oriented articles as even acknowledging the existence of lesbians in the Black community.
I’m completely clueless as to how the aesthetic espoused in fashion magazines got fixed in the site author’s eyes as a “lesbian” ideal. I know that there’s more than one ideal of beauty in White lesbian circles, so I’ll go out on a limb and guess that there’s more than one in Black lesbian circles as well.
Prometheus 6’s exchanges with the site’s defenders were interesting, but after reading them, I’m more confused than I was before about Blacktown. (I believe bean linked to it once, long ago, on another board we were both on.)
Sounds to me like its capitalism that the author is really angry at, or he would be if he weren’t so in love with his own misogyny.
To those of you who felt this was off-topic, I apologize. Also, if anyone misunderstood my “tone” I’m sorry. I don’t look down my nose at anyone, but people do sometimes not understand the way I write. My language tends to be a little formal and some people misinterpret that as snottiness, or something like that.
Now to this post:
1) I didn’t say it was a big deal; I asked if it was, because in many places, no matter how liberal, it is.
2)”Goddess religions are part of the approved feminist “lifestyle package” that has been latched onto for marketing purposes as well.”
No, it isn’t. It’s marginalized by mainstream feminists, and we are treated as an embarassment.
3) I’m Cherokee, not white, but thank you for making my point about progressives sometimes being bigots. I don’t know where the Anime crack adds in, but I’ll infer it’s part of your stereotype for Pagan women. Very enlightened. Glad it’s not a “big deal”.
4) I identify more with black women than white because I’ve been through similar, though not as intense, prejudice. When I worked for the government, I tended to get lumped in with other minorities, but had no protection through affirmative action because I was in the “other” category and there was an Asian woman in my agency within 2 grades of me, so that’s all they needed to promote. White women were given preference over Native Americans, Pacific Islanders, and Asians.
Again, if I distracted from the main point, I apologize for assuming that a lesbian feminist Witch was allowed to comment on a post including the words “lesbian feminist Witchcraft.” How silly of me.
Thanks very much to those of you who were supportive. It is most appreciated. Bright Blessings.
Whoo- I missed a lot when I left work. Well, let me try and jump back in this.
La Lubu: “If the dude at Blacktown had put up all those insults about black women sans references to feminism, lesbians, or witchcraft, he’d’a had a helluva lot fewer black men willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.”
You might be right about this. I’d like to believe that intelligent, respectful black males like P6 would step up and still say something, but not all black men would. Hell, not all men of any race would step up and defend misogynistic attitudes towards women of their same race/ethnicity. Hence women’s continual problem with patriarchy.
Morgaine:” Again, if I distracted from the main point, I apologize for assuming that a lesbian feminist Witch was allowed to comment on a post including the words “lesbian feminist Witchcraft.” How silly of me.”
No one is saying that you can’t comment on your experiences as a lesbian feminist Witch. I understand what you were trying to say. Comment #6 makes it clear that you weren’t trying to distract from black political issues, but rather express shared feelings. However your post didn’t really address the issues black feminists face, but rather the issues you’ve faced. In that sense, your post was a distraction. This doesn’t mean it wasn’t a valuable distraction, but it was a distraction nonetheless. That’s all I’m trying to say.
Morgaine – Are you kidding? If I was Cherokee I’d be furious. You have every right to feel that you have been intentionally smashed by the establishment– from the Daws Act to the Trail of Tears, we know that it was absolutely brutal for your people. I happen to agree that we owe all the remaining native peoples of this continent an apology (verbal, legal/property, and financial) big enough that it is almost inconceivable in size, to me. And I will do everything in my power to support people who support the rights of every type of American… not just European Colonials.
But when you make statements that amount to “we are terribly under-supported” without first checking to see who your allies might be (many more of us might be present than you suspect), you potentially alienate those very people who would most back you up. Thanks for recognizing that it’s hard to communicate tone online, and not expecting others to see speech exactly as it was intended.
Syd – I definitely agree that males (and females!) of all races should speak out against misogyny among all races. There is never a time or an excuse for it. Only by standing up and supporting those who speak out will more be encouraged to do so. Many guys are misogynistic largely because they see that as part of being a ‘successful’ male, aka “guy who gets the honeys”, and they imitate that way of thinking/communicating. Reward the guys who stand up next you, with the attention, and it will allow the *real* nice guys blogged about recently to fight for the fairnesses and equalities that benefit everyone.
Hell, not all men of any race would step up and defend misogynistic attitudes towards women of their same race/ethnicity. Hence women’s continual problem with patriarchy.
Damn straight! And this is part and parcel of the cultural script we’re all indoctrinated into at an early age; that women are the moral gatekeepers of society. That if society is taking a fall in any arena, that somehow, someway, a woman can be blamed for it. We are alternately depicted as being “more moral” and “less moral” than men, depending on the issue and direction the speaker wants it. The end goal is always “putting us in our place”.
That book I mentioned, “Manhandled: Black Females” by Victoria King really delved into the double-standards black women face from all corners. It was originally written to be an answer book (you know, like an answer song?) to Shahrazad Ali’s “The Blackman’s Guide to Understanding the Blackwoman”; but as she wrote it she just kept going from there, diving into her experiences as a single mother, as a tradeswoman, as a black woman. I constantly refer anyone interested in the subject of women in the trades to it; even though it’s a decade and a half old, it’s still right on point. And it’s very telling to me that it has never been mentioned in the IBEW journal, nor has it ever been mentioned at any of the IBEW Women’s Conferences that I’m aware of. Another bright and shining example of insuring the invisibility of black women, and making sure that any time that issues affecting black women diverge from those of white women, that critical silencing takes place.
La Lubu: I haven’t read the book you mention, but I’m writing it down as a book to buy. I agree with you: women of all races are expected by society to act as beacons of morality. For some reason, our society has accepted the idea that women are somehow more capable of burdening moral responsibility than men- except when it come to issues concerning personal autonomy and ownership of course. At that point, men just simply know better (i.e. abortion, female sexuality). But besides this, women should be pure beacons of light and chastity- just like the virgin Mary.
So after re-reading parts of blacktown as well as the comment thread at P6, I just want to highlight some interesting comments and give my observations:
Via the P6 comment thread:
“…..I’m finding myself hard pressed to consider this either psychotic or truly vicious considering the really hardcore misogyny surfacing with increasing frequency from across the autistic spectrum. I mean, really dough, who is it – demographically – that’s labelling boys ADD/ADHD or “oppositional defiant” and channelling them respectively toward ritalin and the criminal justice system?”
Umm, who does he think, demographically, is labeling boys- black women? Not that the above comment makes much sense, but it shows how quickly male misogyny is being justified by blacktown’s readers. Based on the above statement, the commenter is attributing misogynistic behavior to women because ADD/ADHD (may) over-diagnosed? Then it appears he is blaming the over-diagnosis on women (surprise). And he is saying that black women are channeling these boys into the criminal justice system. So because of all this, any misogyny women face is okay?
Honestly, I don’t even know wtf the commenter is trying to say.
Then there is the blacktown intro page. The page states “blacktown.net- its time for a men’s movement. What ever happened to the black power movement”. And it goes on to list what I can only guess are goals/accomplishments. 3 of the 5 reasons directly target black women and feminism by labeling them as reasons why black men have failed or ‘need to wake up’. My favorite is “Exposing how black feminists have failed to lead the black race anyplace”. What he meant was “black men, not black race”. Leaving aside the veracity of such a statement, the author of Blacktown appears to be trying to blame the “failure” of the black power movement on black feminists. Because when black women engage in feminist activities- demanding that they be acknowledged & heard, not be referred to as bitch or a ho, have full control over their sexuality and body choices, and be able to live independently from a man- they are destroying the black community. The primary goal of black feminists should’ve been to empower men.
Websites like Blacktown are dangerous because it makes misogynistic behaviors ‘okay’ by using racial conflict. What I mean is this- they encourage African-Americans to unite together under the guise of unity and social progress. Then when disturbing attitudes, such as misogyny are pointed out, the leaders (who often are male) tell you that “it’s part of black culture/tradition” or that “misogyny is a term whitefolks use”. So when people try to bring it up, they are ridiculed or looked at as y betraying black culture. As one woman told me after I reamed into the tendency of black young adult males to create and support negative images of black women- “why are you dogging black men? White people already do so much of that. We need to stick together”. Blacktown is essentially doing the same thing: brushing aside feminism and blaming the leadership of black women in the name of advancing the black community (i.e. black men).
Unapologetic atheist: “Many guys are misogynistic largely because they see that as part of being a ‘successful’ male, aka “guy who gets the honeys”, and they imitate that way of thinking/communicating. Reward the guys who stand up next you, with the attention, and it will allow the *real* nice guys blogged about recently to fight for the fairnesses and equalities that benefit everyone.”
I agree with you as to why guys are misogynistic. But can we agree that using the term “reward” seems wrong? I mean, I will treat a truly un-misogynistic guy with respect and he may even become a friend. But I am not going to reward him for doing what he should do. I know that’s not what you meant, but I think that even using the word “reward” implies privilege to me. As if a man who isn’t showered with praise from women for NOT being a misogynistic prick has a right to say, “well this bites” and then be a misogynistic prick. I will treat a truly nice guy well, but I don’t feel that my attention should be what he is aiming for- it should be equality.
I’m sorry but I just made the mistake of going to the second page of blacktown.net and I had to post something. Apparently I missed the blacktown.net mission statement. For all of those who had more sense than I did and didn’t go to the next page, allow me to share:
Blacktown.net: Teaching the black man how to claim, tame, train, and dominate the black woman to make her his queen once again! …BECAUSE IT IS INDEED WOMEN’S PRIMORDIAL NATURE TO BE ATTRACTED TO AND REPRODUCE WITH STRONG MEN!!!
The page then goes on to list reasons for claiming, taming, training, and dominating black women. I really wish I didn’t click on the next page button. But since I did…….
Blacktown.net presents itself as an extreme site. I can read this off to my friends and they would be like “that’s crazy, I would never do that”. Yet the stereotypes and ideas that Blacktown uses to justify their existence are more pervasive than people realize. An issue I struggle against as a black feminist is (IMO) an antiquated sense of chivalry, a desire to protect and provide for women because if they can’t they aren’t “real men”. I do not exist to re-enforce your masculinity. If I want to provide for myself I will. And if we have an arrangement where I am at home and you are in the workplace, I’m not doing it because I know my place or because you’ve tamed me. I’m doing it because it’s our arrangement.
Another issue I find myself arguing about it actually on the Blacktown’s website: the notion that black women are supposed to help/heal black men by silently supporting them and being a steadfast rock no matter what stupid ass thing they may do. Blacktown takes it further and basically says a women’s place is in the kitchen, but I’m not even going to go there. Just because I’m a female and I support my male partner doesn’t mean that my support is unconditional. Black men are not children and should not be treated as such. If I think you’re making a stupid decision, I’m going to tell you. I’m certainly not going to say nothing, let you fuck up, and pat your back in a comforting fashion and tell you its just a boo-boo. If this makes me an uppity bitch, fine. But the idea that women have the god ordained “right” or “ability” to put up with intolerable amounts of bullshit is unacceptable.
There is just so much more I can say, but I need to take a timeout to breathe.
Sydney, I remember reading about the pressure put on black women to “not dog on black men” that existed in the seventies. The fact that it continues is more than a little depressing. Even more depressing that so many white feminists don’t seem to get the fact that they often behave in alienating and diminishing ways to black women. I’ve been involved in way too many feminist discussions about reproductive rights where I’ve mentioned Depo-Provera and all of the other white women in the room have looked at me like I’ve just sprouted a second head, then shrugged and said some variation of “let’s get back to the important stuff”. Other than calling other white feminists on their shit when they do stuff like that I’m not quite sure what to do about it. I admit that when I first started to get involved in feminist circles I was genuinely shocked by the amount of racism that exists and the way non-white women are marginalised (in the UK it’s often our Indian and Pakistani sisters who bear the brunt of this treatment).
Also. I second the desire not to use the word or even the concept “reward” when we talk about positively reinforcing non-misogynistic behaviour in men. This whole idea sounds to me too similar to the kind of pressure for women to “reward” male good behaviour with sexual favours that’s happened in every leftist movement in history (talk to any woman who was part of the hippy generation for some good examples).
Also, the whole “women need to uncritically support everything their man does” thing is a crock of shit no matter which race the person spouting it belongs to. My answer to this has always been – I’m your girlfriend, not your mommy.
Sydney – you actually made my point for me, thanks. One of the big reasons guys like that exist at blacktown.net is because they are so often “rewarded” with the attention of beautiful women (sorry, I can’t think of a better way to phrase that). I’ve not now nor have I ever suggested that men deserve to be rewarded just for not being jerks, but when the jerks are VISIBLY getting more attention from females while the more respectful guys are VISIBLY not… the paradigm being encouraged by blacktown.net there with that misogynisic bullsh… then the “guys in the middle” who are just trying to figure out how to not sit at home every Saturday night are going to emulate the jerks, and not the nicer guys. There are plenty of other threads discussing this particular issue, but look at the message being promoted to the young men in our sports-competition society that they must be “manlier” — then, if women who understand the problem are not actively seeking to help, then I don’t know how the problem is going to correct itself.
In other words, me telling another guy he shouldn’t use the same misogynistic slurs like the Neandertal with the gorgeous girlfriend just used isn’t all that effective when I haven’t been on a date in weeks that didn’t involve listening to someone else’s “gorgeous girlfriend” telling me about the latest abuse from her Neandertal, and assuring me that I’m a “really good friend.”
We *need* to address the misogynistic training being encouraged by groups like this… but I think that trying to develop a society that encourages mutual respect AS a sexual attraction factor instead of better-at-competition as the sexual attraction factor. To at least try to illustrate this… I’m in really good shape, work out all the time, and am fairly conversational in person — assuming an equal number of social interactions (parties), how many dates do you suppose I had last year, compared to a member of our school’s basketball team?
Sydney writes:
My observation vis-a-vis the ADD/ADHD business is that the blacktown writer believes that the majority of Social Workers (perhaps teachers, too) looking after young Black men are Black women. Ergo, it’s the fault of Black women that the young men are getting diagnosed with these problems.
For the love of pete, please nobody think I’m saying men should be rewarded just for being nice. That’s retarded… we’re not babies, and I don’t realy appreciate the suggestion that we’re just looking for mommies. I’m saying that we need to find a way to stop rewarding men for NOT being nice, thereby effectively punishing men who are. We need to look for what the messages being pushed upon men are– feminists are so quick to talk about the negative messages being forced upon young, impressionable women on “how to be an appealing woman and get boys” but then sneer at men as “asking for a reward” when we try to point out that we’re deluged with “if you are a ‘bad boy’ you will get way more girls” message. If we cannot address the pressures on both groups equally then we cannot progress. That is what I am saying here.
UnApologetic Atheist, please back up a second and stop getting defensive. I did not mean that YOU were saying “I’m a nice guy, now give me a cookie”, I meant that that idea has indeed been promoted before by many leftist movements and women are sick to death of it.
As far as I can see the “if you’re a bad boy/frat boy/asshole you’ll get the girls” message is primarily coming from other men, not from women. Your argument is with the culture, not with me or Syd. And I think that most feminists are already very much in the business of not rewarding men for being assholes. If you read the contributions that Sydney and I have both made to many other threads on Alas that should be pretty clear. I avoid frat boys like they were carrying Ebola. Like I said, your anger is aimed at the wrong target.
“Also, the whole “women need to uncritically support everything their man does” thing is a crock of shit no matter which race the person spouting it belongs to. My answer to this has always been – I’m your girlfriend, not your mommy. ”
—————————————-
A bit of a rueful LOL here, b/c I’ve been here more than I can count.
Great posts. I’ve usually been cautious when discussing sexism involving Black men towards Black women with Black women, whether as friends, or women that I work with because it’s not the same as White women having that conversation with other White women, as it is having it as a White woman, with Black women, I’ve found. In the past, I think I’ve stepped over a line that I shouldn’t have in some discussions and learned from them. Not that I haven’t seen sexism by Black men towards women that I did recognize, I did when I was involved in local organizations here though there’s probably a lot I missed b/c my own experiences with sexism left me with a different manifest in which to recognize it.
In these organizations, like most political movements, it seems that men do the leading, speaking, women do the “support” work, keep in the background, but I think that’s a universal state of things among all men/women in progressive movements to a great extent and that’s one major reason why the different waves of feminism arose, especially the second wave.
I know several Black women who are preachers, one in evangelist, one in Seventh Day Adventist and both faced sexism among men and women in their congregations and other ministers to varying degrees. Especially, the Seventh Day Adventist minister(though I know a White female minister from the same religious discipline who also faced immense sexism) I have had interesting discussions on that sexism they faced in becoming religous leaders.
A lot of Christian sects as a whole have been slow to accept women into the ministry too. So in some ways, maybe a shared experience.
It’s not difficult for White women to put themselves in the position of criticizing Black men and bringing our race and our racism into it, and not just gender alone(the two gender and race are so intertwined, they’re difficult to separate)sometimes unintentionally but often intentionally, then often Black women will defend Black men which of course White women will be terribly offended by this “desertion”. But Black women’s histories and realities with them are different than White women’s histories and realities with White men and we all bring individual experiences into discussions as well. And we got to respect that, shut off our knee-jerk tendacies to try to define other women’s experiences, or else we’ve got nothing except body parts to unite us.
Often, Black women just bring in perspectives of being women(not even mentioning men directly) that are different than those of White women, and are unfairly accused of siding with Black men against White women.
Then White women get defensive b/c we think too often that the experiences faced by White women are identical to those faced by the entire gender of women and that it’s one group of women’s right to decide what every women’s experiences of sexism are
White women, FTMP, do not share an oppression with White men, like Black women and men do. We share racial privilage. So White women can be oppressed by White men, personally, individually and as a gender. Black men can oppress Black women, but the two also experience racism in similiar and different ways, from Whites. So I’m not sure that getting together with other White women and saying, how sexist White men are, is the same as talking with a Black woman or women and making comments about Black men. In my experience, it hasn’t been.
So I listen more or try to to what women say about their experiences with sexism within the same race, FTMP. If it comes up at work, i.e. domestic violence, I’ll ask questions from that standpoint. Among close friends, these discussions are more give and take(for want of better words)among each other, sometimes through experiences that we do share as women and then, sometimes separate experiences with sexism. But I’m still more of a listener.
brit feminist: depo prevara, yeah, had that discussion and other issues of choice(which for most if not all women, is really much larger than just abortion access). Also, issues with the criminal justice system, i.e. the Central Park rape at one unnamed location. Oooh-yeah!
You’re right, Brit, I should not have directed that at anyone specific… it’s just really frustrating to know a problem exists, and watch feminists discuss society’s harmful messages to women… and then dismiss or call men “immature/selfish” in some way when they try to say that they too may experience the same types of pressures to behave in a manner that is harmful to real gender equality. It certainly is a societal problem, and I’d try to figure out a solution to it… but right now, I have to stop blogging a second to pay more attention to the Enzyte commercial playing on my TV right now (seriously!) and learn about how “Bob has a big new swing of confidence!”
Note that the Enzyte commercial is essentially a conversation between men. The women are basically just props, as they usually are when men are in the business of enforcing masculine gender roles upon each other.
RadFem – my college feminism seminars got into some nasty arguments about reproductive rights between women of different races. I’ve never quite understood why it’s so difficult for so many white feminists to grasp the idea that some other women feel that they are being denied the right to have kids rather than having childbearing forced upon them. White privilege rears its ugly head.
Hrm, that’s not how I see that commercial.
I see, “look how much happier Bob’s wife is now that he’s got a huge, manly penis” and “oooooooh his friend’s wife looks very sad because he’s not manly enough.” Over and over and over. Of COURSE the women in the commercial are essentially props/caricatures, the commerical is not advertising to them. In a recent commercial for Orbitz I saw, the only men in the commercial were props/caricatures: one Australian athlete-stud who wanted to borrow her towels, and one obnoxious “ugly guy” from work who interrupted her to tell her about donuts in the breakroom. The commercial was clearly advertising to working women with money to spend on vacations, and so it targeted them as commercials are all designed to do.
To call the Enzyte commercial a “conversation among men, ignoring the women” is, to me, dangerously dismissive of the men involved. Just as you would ask me not to dismiss a woman under attack, I ask you not to do the same of us in return.
I’m not sure I see your point. My point was that the whole penis size anxiety thing seems to be more about competition between men than about what women want in a man. When they start advertising to men based on their cunnilingus skills then I’ll buy the idea that it’s about pleasing or competing for women. My point was that it’s usually men who police the gender “appropriateness” of other men’s behaviour, persona etc. I’m not sure that there’s anything women can do to help stop men from attacking each other for not meeting some arbitary standard of manliness. The conversation/competition is designed in such a way as to exclude us. What is it that you think women can do about this?
You could notice that the Enzyte commercial is primarily victimizing men by putting them into a destructive competition with one another – instead of focusing on how women are being oppressed by the ad because they aren’t central to it.
Though, I have to admit, I’d kind of like to see a commercial based on skill at cunnilingus!
Robert, I didn’t claim that women were being victimized by the ad. The ad is neutral as far as women are concerned – we’re not the intended audience. My point was that women are completely irrelevant in the context of the ad except as a sort of prize for winning the competition for who has the biggest penis. The competition is amongst the men.
UnApologetic Atheist, I wonder what that commercial would look like? Trying to do it in such a way as to get the point across without annoying the censors would be quite a challenge.
Damm, I missed a lot. I’m just going to go through and try to respond to each post.
BritGirlSF: “Sydney, I remember reading about the pressure put on black women to “not dog on black men” that existed in the seventies. The fact that it continues is more than a little depressing. Even more depressing that so many white feminists don’t seem to get the fact that they often behave in alienating and diminishing ways to black women.”
You know, sometimes I wonder if one reason why white feminists have a hard time seeing how they alienate black women (and other female racial minorities) is because they believe that as a minority themselves they are less vulnerable to certain behaviors. Meaning that they can’t act in sexist ways because they’re female. Do you think this is the case?
Unapologetic Atheist: “We *need* to address the misogynistic training being encouraged by groups like this… but I think that trying to develop a society that encourages mutual respect AS a sexual attraction factor instead of better-at-competition as the sexual attraction factor.”
I agree- this would be the best way of going about things. And I totally get this is what you were trying to say. I just wanted to point out how easy it is to fall into language of the patriarchy. But I firmly agree with Britgirl- your argument is with the culture that rewards asshole behavior. I definitely think that women do need to reject that behavior, and feminists already do. The problem is that men don’t do the same for their peers.
Alsis39: “My observation vis-a-vis the ADD/ADHD business is that the blacktown writer believes that the majority of Social Workers (perhaps teachers, too) looking after young Black men are Black women. Ergo, it’s the fault of Black women that the young men are getting diagnosed with these problems.”
If this is what the blacktown writer thought, it just further demonstrates that he has no clue. While I don’t know the exact stats, the logical part of me says this is probably just all wrong. Can social workers give official diagnoses of ADD/ADHD? And what is the causal link between being diagnosed with ADD/ADHD and the criminal justice system?
Rafdem: I love your analysis, I truly do. I think you’ve highlighted some of the major issues that occur when black women and white women talk about feminism and sexist behavior. At least you have in my experience. I think you make an important point when you say:
“It’s not difficult for White women to put themselves in the position of criticizing Black men and bringing our race and our racism into it, and not just gender alone(the two gender and race are so intertwined, they’re difficult to separate)sometimes unintentionally but often intentionally, then often Black women will defend Black men which of course White women will be terribly offended by this “desertion”.”
I personally have trouble with this because I get pissed off at the sexism that black men can display all the time. But when I hear a white female feminist criticize black men, I automatically start questioning their possible prejudices because its been my experience that most of the time when people bitch about the way black guys are, a significant lack of actual interaction with black men has actually taken place. When that’s the case, I have to wonder how much of what they’re saying is internalized racist beliefs and how much is genuine feminist concern. And if I call out the person in question, all of a sudden I’m “condoning” or “defending” black male misogyny when nothing could be further from the truth. So I think your observation is a particularly great one.
Brit – I think “the competition is amongst the men” is a bit weak, with all due respect. It’s not like guys ever have the idea that we can declare ourselves the victor amongst men, and declare unto the room, “I am the greatest man here, now whar’s mah wummun?!” The end message here is the same as my message above: “If you do ____ (in this case, use our product), women will choose you.” The competition is among the men– to be the womens’ choice. What I’m really trying to do here is emphasize that the social messages ARE what are destructive, and that I think it’s important to not forget the boys in this destruction while our Gender Studies classes busily examine the ways in which this culture is destructive to the girls. Last night, I quipped to one of my close friends, a Womens’ Studies major at KU, who was visiting and reading the conversation over my shoulder, “I so desperately want to be a feminist, but sometimes I feel like too much of an egalitarian.” She, of course, said that ideally, the two words mean the same thing.
As for the commercial, I never expect a commercial to really show respect for humans of any kind, regardless of what it’s peddling– the whole point of the media campaigns is to saturate us with messages that we’re not good enough, but WILL be if we buy the product. My favorite line from an AdBusters magazine I read once: “You are too fat. Your teeth are not white enough. Your eyeballs are not white enough.”
I thought it was a pretty funny joke, until later that day I saw a Visine commercial (Pfizer, Inc).
Shit, I messed up.
Britgirl, that should say “meaning they can’t see how they may exhibit racist behaviors” and NOT sexist.
My bad.
Wow, talk about thread drift. We’ve gone from misogyny directed at black women to the perennial “nice guy” (why can’t I get the hot chicks by tipping my feminist hat?) argument, and on to erections?
BritGirlSF and Radfem, I also find it maddening that too many white feminists can’t seem to get that reproductive rights has more aspects to it for women of color than just the right to have an abortion. And I think that dynamic boils down to a combination of racism and classism. I can’t really think of any modern-day mainstream, majority white feminist groups that aren’t also operating from a distinctly middle-class perspective. Working class women of any color find it hard to relate to these groups, if indeed we would ever have access to them to begin with.
And I think it’s also demonstrative of how whiteness functions. How whiteness as a state of mind (yes, state of mind; race is a biological fiction and a social fact) is reified and reinforced. White women seem to be especially discouraged from identifying with black women. Look at the reproductive rights issue; a lot of the white women who aren’t “getting it” had mothers or grandmothers who faced those issues that black/Latina/Native/Asian women are bringing up—like sterilization, access to health care for themselves and their children, etc. But whiteness washed over that history, y’know? I’ve seen too many white “progressives” over the years turn a blind eye to misogyny that is particularly directed at black women—including domestic violence. There’s this idea that “it’s a black thing; we wouldn’t understand”. No small wonder that black women who are already transgressing boundaries of femininity, identity or politics aren’t lining up at the door to ally with white feminist (or hell, other progressive) groups whose history is one of dismissal and abandonment. And I don’t just mean to “pick on” mainstream feminism, either…..it’s just that I grew up in the seventies, when a lot of shit was happening, and I expected so much more. I have that sense of betrayal, too.
I mean, shit. I have yet to see the disproportionate amount of union jobs lost by black women last year framed as a demonstration of a race issue, not just a labor issue, anywhere except in media operated specifically by and for people of color! Whatever happened to “an injury to one is an injury to all?!”
You know, sometimes I wonder if one reason why white feminists have a hard time seeing how they alienate black women (and other female racial minorities) is because they believe that as a minority themselves they are less vulnerable to certain behaviors. Meaning that they can’t act in sexist ways because they’re female. Do you think this is the case?
Boom! Yes, I think that’s the case. Internalized sexism is a problem; I also think that many white feminists expect a “pass” from black and other women of color on inadvertant racism, because hey—-“at least I’m on your side!” And it’s a classic white learned behavior to deal with inadvertant offense by ignoring it, instead of exposing it.
OK, starting to lose my patience with this.
“What I’m really trying to do here is emphasize that the social messages ARE what are destructive, and that I think it’s important to not forget the boys in this destruction while our Gender Studies classes busily examine the ways in which this culture is destructive to the girls. Last night, I quipped to one of my close friends, a Womens’ Studies major at KU, who was visiting and reading the conversation over my shoulder, “I so desperately want to be a feminist, but sometimes I feel like too much of an egalitarian.” She, of course, said that ideally, the two words mean the same thing.”
In the commercial you were talking about, theoretically the men are competing for the women. Fine. As I have already pointed out, it’s not feminists who’re imposing the “you must have a huge penis to be a desireable man” frame. Guys are imposing it on each other. Every women I know will tell you that there really is such a thing as TOO BIG. Yes, I get why the commercial sucks. What I don’t get is why you don’t grasp that in this particular case of gender role enforcement the people doing the enforcing are other men. It’s not like there’s some group of women sitting there with rulers saying “you must be this long to ride this ride”.
So blame the culture by all means. The culture sucks, for everyone. But why the refusal to admit that it isn’t women who’re putting on the pressure in this scenario?
Also, the last couple of sentences of your statement are veering dangerously close to exactly the kind of “I’m a man with a boo-boo, Mommy make it better” stuff we were talking about upthread. Can’t you find a way to make your point without little anti-feminist dig (ie feminists are just so un-egalitarian).
“You know, sometimes I wonder if one reason why white feminists have a hard time seeing how they alienate black women (and other female racial minorities) is because they believe that as a minority themselves they are less vulnerable to certain behaviors. Meaning that they can’t act in sexist ways because they’re female. Do you think this is the case?”
Syd, I don’t think it’s anything as conscious as that, I think it’s pretty much pure cluelessness and white privilege. It just never occurs to them that their experiences do not represent the sum total of reality for all women.
Also, PA, why did the system eat Syd’s last comment? I’m seeing that she made one but I can’t read it.
Actually, I think you are both right. I do think that because white women, as women, are an oppressed minority they don’t see how they could oppress others, particularly because they aren’t aware of their own privileges as whites. Although, I would preface that too by saying that some white feminists do consciously deny ANY oppressive behaviour because they think gender trumps all, which is beyond dumbarse.
I’ll also say that a lot of white feminists’ critiques of masculinity is emphatically bound up with racial perceptions.
I say this because white masculinity is a world that white feminists are daily emmersed in (as not only a ‘white’ community emmersion, but as a society default) that to a certain extent that masculinity becomes seen as a expression of general patriarchy. Hence, it is not seen as a racialised gender performance, but simply as a gendered performance.
Black masculinity, on the other hand, is approached by white feminists AS a racialised gender performance (or, a gendered racial performance, depending on how you are viewing these two intersections) . In that unconscious approach then as deracialising the white masculinity and racialising the black masculinity that they cannot see as white feminists, that is SO obvious to feminists of colour, that the ‘defenses’ of black men made by black feminists is characterised as ‘defending’ black male sexism.
I think a step white feminists MUST make in addressing this, is to see white masculinity as a racial gender performance, which I would argue more oftenn than not is not done.
Sarah, personally I think that all gendered behavior is a kind of performance. In extreme cases it’s like gender Kabuki.
In extreme cases it’s like gender Kabuki.)
LOL! I love that!
BG – have you read Goffman’s ‘Dramaturgy’? If you haven’t, to give you an idea, I’ve often thought Judith Butler was his postmodern bastard love-child with Lacan.
Hmm.. I see. Well, I guess I shouldn’t find this too surprising seeing as I’ve encountered the same thing within the black community. Cluelessness, refusal to accept that as members of target groups we’re vulnerable to existing systems of oppression, and simple privilege all explain why these divisions between racial minority feminists and white feminists keep happening.
So I’ll just admit upfront that I haven’t seen the commercial UA and Britgirl have been talking about, but I’m going to try and comment based on the posts I’ve read. I think Britgirl has the right idea here- in THIS EXAMPLE guys reinforce the pressure to be big. However, I don’t believe that it’s fair to say that in ALL instances women do not reinforce certain male stereotypes. Women definitely say things like they want a “strong, unemotional, take charge” kind of guy. But I also think that those character traits are the result of the patriarchy, a system we’re all vulnerable to.
Does this make sense UA?
Makes total sense. I guess the reason I’m starting to lose my patience is that, in my experience, the women who do the “I need a big strong man” crap are not feminists.
The commercial is incredibly dumb, you’re not missing anything. It’s kind of a fifties pastiche that’s trying really hard to be funny and failing miserably.
Also, did the “I’d be a feminist but I’m too much of an egalitarian” comment annoy anyone else or is that just me?
Sarah: “I think a step white feminists MUST make in addressing this, is to see white masculinity as a racial gender performance, which I would argue more oftenn than not is not done.”
Very nicely stated! This statement led me to think about how often white Americans I talk to don’t really think of themselves as a race. What I mean is that I identify as black (well technically Nigerian, but being black is a central aspect of my identity). Most of my white friends think slightly differently. They see themselves as a heritage- Irish, Dutch, French, German- but wouldn’t say that being white is a central aspect of their identity. And if you don’t have your race as a central aspect of your identity, I can imagine how easy it would be to de-racialize gender performance. But as a black women, I don’t have that luxury. So the lens I apply to gender performance will always have the duality of race and gender.
Britgirl: Umm, yeah, that comment pissed me off, but I decided to let it slide because a) you addressed it quite eloquently in your response and b) because UA’s posting history has led me to believe there wasn’t any maliciousness in the comment, just lack of consideration.
But yeah- wasn’t happy about the offhand insult.
Sydney –
They see themselves as a heritage- Irish, Dutch, French, German- but wouldn’t say that being white is a central aspect of their identity
Precisely! :)
Moreover, what is happening here is that the white experience of their ethnicity (ie something that they can pick and chose from and has no real impact/consequences on their daily lives – this is called “symbolic ethnicity”, but for the life of me I can’t remember the researcher/theorist that coined the term) is being applied as how they expect minorities of colour to experience their race. Which, of course, is not the same, being a not even mostly self-articulated identitfy category (ie it is imposed from without to a large extent) AND has large real-world consequences.
Again, I think it’s, in large part, a product of having one’s race/ethnicity as the default.
Syd, I think that the only white people who really have “white” as a conscious part of their identity are, well, racists. This is the case in the UK too. For the most part whiteness is invisible – it’s assumed.
On the other hand I’m a bad person to address this question. I’m a Third Culture kid so I tend to see myself as belonging to the same “group” as other TCKs regardless of which race, ethnicity etc they happen to belong to. We’re a wierd group.
To clarify, when I say racists I mean out and out, blatant, KKK or the British BNP style racists. They’re the only white people I can think of who very conciously identify as “white” rather than Irish, German, Swedish, Italian, whatever.
Britgirl: “Syd, I think that the only white people who really have “white” as a conscious part of their identity are, well, racists. This is the case in the UK too. For the most part whiteness is invisible – it’s assumed.”
Hmm.. well perhaps this shouldn’t be the case. Maybe we really should encourage white people to see white as a central aspect of their identity and not as flaunting their racial status (I say this because I’ve encountered people who truly think that saying their whiteness is central will mean their perceived as assholes when they’re really not). Otherwise, the problems, which Sarah very neatly laid out, will only continue. But even as I type this I realize that this is much more complicated because of a resistance to think in that manner. This is seen in the adoption of ‘color-blind’ statements or in a refusal to process the guilt that comes with racial privilege which then leads to the denial of its existence. Goddammit, sometimes seeing the amount of work that needs to be done just intimidates the hell out of me.
Sydney, I also think that resistance stems from the way “whiteness” functions, at least in the U.S. I mean, “white” and “black” are categories that had to be created by law in the U.S., as part and parcel of the history of slavery. And every group of Caucasians that came to the U.S. had to then learn to become “white”, which by default was the WASP majority. So, you’ve got a mix of reasons for Caucasians not wanting to identify primarily as white—not wanting to be identified with avowed white racists, not wanting their own ethnicity to be “white”-washed out, and not wanting to sign on to the full history of what being white in the United States of America means.
“Where and when I enter” (progressive movement) is a question that is only now getting to be parsed out by white folks due to “whiteness studies” and such. Black folks were answering these questions for themselves for generations. White people now have to follow suit. I think it’s crucial for white people to understand the interplay of how ethnicity intersects with whiteness, how it is alternately at odds with and reinforces whiteness. I think it’s a conversation that needs to take place amongst white people as opposed to irritating and/or boring the shit out of folks of color with it. Without that conversation, without that level of understanding, white progressives are going to be swimming in the same soup bowl of denial—denial of white privilege, denial of responsibility for changing the status quo, etc.
I think a lot of white people who make statements like “oh, I don’t really have a culture” or “there’s no such thing as ‘white’ culture” or (as I saw years ago on a feminist parenting board during a discussion of cultural appropriation) “what’s white culture…like, a McDonald’s logo?”, aren’t just operating from the point that whiteness is the mainstream U.S. cultural default…..I think they’re also operating from aspect that their own cultural origins have been taken from them, usually by parents or grandparents that wanted them to assimilate. And that there’s some sense of loss there. I think that’s where the anger that some white folks express about people of color not having assimiliated comes from—there’s a sense of “I had to assimilate, dammit! I didn’t get to be myself, so you don’t either!!” and a denial that people who can’t pass for white aren’t allowed to assimilate.
I’ve always identified as white- I’ve noticed there’s a major difference in how people identify depending on their community. Currently living in maine(whitest state in the union) people (whites) very much identify by being french, irish, etc. Growing up in San Francisco, I was white as opposed to latino, black, asian, etc. here in Maine, I’m apparently Scottish(go figure).
However- is this thread about white privilege? There’s some obvious derails, like the nice guy one, but overall the theme seems to be how white woman discriminate against black. Meanwhile, all these apparently long standing arguments and discussions are being referenced, and I’m clueless. I’ve dropped into the middle of a war older than I am. Anyone care to point the way to ‘black feminism 101’?
Britgirl, UA’s “too egalitarian” remark raised my hackles also, since you asked.
UA, I tend to think a lot about male-male competition, and I really think there’s more to it, and that it’s more abstracted from the direct competition for sexual contact with women, than you recognize. I recognize that I try to compete with and one-up men for the lead-dog spot all the time. (Frankly, it’s not something I’m working on stopping, either.) And I recognize when other men are trying to do it to me. Male competition happens even when there are no women around — think about the locker-room fights and staredowns of schoolboys, or of competitions in strongly male subcultures like hacking and tagging. Or traders on Wall Street — just about no women there. Or, hell, look at the New York skyline. Empire State, Chrysler. Bigger dick competition. Is there actually a female body as a prize? No. The “women are the stakes” element is abstract and theoretical, the level of abstraction varying widely, but at an abstract level, it is “I’m the real man, hand over my woman-prize.”
Now, certainly there are women who reinforce gender norms, but usually those are women who are vested in the existing power-structure, kissing up to advantaged males and getting a boost over other women as a result. If you read Pandagon, Amanda wrote very thoughtfully on this about two weeks ago.
The function of all this male competition is to make access to the privileged hierarchy a scarce resource: an exclusive club that men can toss other men out of, say, by deriding them as “pussy-whipped.” That’s how men keep other men in line and keep them from recognizing and opposing social structures that are really bad for women.
Kerlyssa: Well the discussion didn’t evolve into a discussion about white feminists discriminating against black feminists so much as create a discussion about an issue black feminists frequently face-which is discrimination by white women. So the main theme hasn’t really been derailed. And it’s the same with white privilege. It ties in so closely with issues between racial minority feminists and white feminists that its impossible not to talk about it…at least in a constructive dialogue.
As for a link to black feminism 101….. I am speaking a lot from my personal experiences as a black woman, but also from reading and discussions I’ve participated in. I couldn’t give you a link to a website that gives you a summary of issues that concern black feminists. I’m sure they exist, but I don’t go to them. Every black woman has different experiences and understandings of feminism so you’ll never find a list that gives you all the issues black women care about. And I think that leads us back to an important point- that the best way to learn about black feminism is to listen to (and believe) black women.
Having said this, I realize that living in Maine may not give one an opportunity to talk to many black women. So I recommend reading certain authors: bell hooks, Audre Lourde, Angela Davis and then visit blogs written by black women and either participate or simply just read discussions. Amp has a good list on his blog roll- from there you can get to even more. The Depo-Provera issue… I’m looking for a website that gives a good explanation of the situation. If I find one, I’ll post it.
La Lubu: For some reason I didn’t see your newer comments earlier. But I think your example of reproductive rights and the lost union jobs is a great one. That is an issue that concerns black feminists which tends to be looked at as an women’s issue and labor issue. What I’m personally looking for is the acceptance of intersectionality, or the understanding that nothing is ever just “one” thing for everyone. The idea that to black feminists, lost reproductive rights will have an even harsher effect given the role racism plays in our country. The idea that an individual’s multiple identities will have an impact on how they understand an issue. For the sake of simplicity or maybe clarity, white feminists will sometimes attempt to create a singular experience that they feel represents all women. But I say fuck that. Give me a complexity that is more representative and I will jump right on the bandwagon. In my critical race theory studies, intersectionality is a theme that is frequently discussed and is one which I would love to see more publicly applied to white feminism.
La Lubu, again I just now saw post #70. But I love this:
” “Where and when I enter” (progressive movement) is a question that is only now getting to be parsed out by white folks due to “whiteness studies” and such. Black folks were answering these questions for themselves for generations. White people now have to follow suit. I think it’s crucial for white people to understand the interplay of how ethnicity intersects with whiteness, how it is alternately at odds with and reinforces whiteness. I think it’s a conversation that needs to take place amongst white people as opposed to irritating and/or boring the shit out of folks of color with it. Without that conversation, without that level of understanding, white progressives are going to be swimming in the same soup bowl of denial…denial of white privilege, denial of responsibility for changing the status quo, etc.”
You better believe that I’m sitting here nodding my head and saying “for real”. If only what you said happened on a more regular basis. But unfortunately privilege prevents that from happening and what ends up happening is that people of color have to enter these discussions and be irritated/bored, or even worse, make the conversants feel better about themselves.
But I have to say, the insight being presented on this thread is not making me bored/irritated/like a therapist. Rather, I feel hopeful and grateful that this conversation is actually taking place!
I , in fact, feel equally gratified and jealous when reading.
Thank you for this discussion. I’ve learned a lot, and have enjoyed reading the posts.
“Syd, I think that the only white people who really have “white” as a conscious part of their identity are, well, racists. This is the case in the UK too. For the most part whiteness is invisible – it’s assumed.”
—————————————————
Yeah, we have white supremacism in these parts. I recently moved from a working class neighborhood where I was an ethnic and racial minority, into one that’s more racially mixed and middle class, but further to the south, I’ve been shopping a few times and saw White men walking around with “White Pride” and SS(twin bolts) tattoos. That area is kind of a “white flight” stop on the way further south into cities like Temecula and Murrieta where there’s been a lot of problems with White gangs like the NLRs, Hammarskins and Tom Metzger’s groups(Metzger owns a house in Fallbrook, which is next to Temecula). The identity of being White is a big part of the philosophy, but what supercedes that, is that to them, being White means being superior to members of other races in a very conscious way(as opposed to the hundreds of different more unconscious ways this is expressed). Most of the background that I learned about these gangs was through people at the ADL, and Dr. Brian Levin, from Cal State, San Bernardino who do the majority of their work in this area. I had no idea that there was such heavy recruitment going on for these gangs among White kids and teens who are left unsupervised most of the time(Temecula and Murrieta are mostly populated by families where the breadwinners commute to other counties on the parking-lot freeways to their jobs) especially on the Internet. A lot of it is multi-generational racial hatred as well that’s passed down. One of the White members of Hammarskins who was on trial for attempted murder of a Black man had a mother who defended his right to own and wear a variation of the “I went on a vacation but all I got was a lousy tee-shirt” clothing that was just so racist and offensive. When she was ousted by the bailiff for yelling racist slurs, she tried to spit at everyone as she left.
I’ve also talked to men and women who’ve experienced hate crimes perpetuated by members of these groups, particularly the Hammarskins. The law enforcement agencies do not seem to give the crimes committed by these gangs the attention they deserve, but when they do busts, they always find arsenals of automatic weapons, armor piercing bullets and loads of nazi and other white supremacist propaganda. There’s always much higher LE security at these press conferences too than with others. But any busts of white supremacists are still very rare.
(I thought that was because of the racism and often white-supremacism in many LE agencies including that one, but that’s a whole topic in itself)
There’s an active civil rights law suit against the Western Hammarskins, as there was in the past against the KKK.(who are also somewhat active, but much more fragmented than the other gangs) for an attack by 20 of its members against a young Black man, where he was injured and if it hadn’t been for a bystander at a nearby house, he would have been killed.
————————————————
For the most part whiteness is invisible – it’s assumed.”
Yeah. It’s also a default used. That in the absense of racial or ethnic labels, a person is white? Almost like if the gender isn’t mentioned, the person’s male? Or if sexual orientation’s not mentioned, he or she is straight? The fewer identity labels you have assigned to you that differ from the “norm” of White straight able-bodied man, the more privilage you have in this society.
I was reviewing traffic citations written by LE officers where they were required to include racial identity, either from information on the license or from their own opinion of what a person looks like. I noticed that for many officers, they left the racial category blank, I asked about it, and a lot of the cops chalked it off to it being more of a default thing for White motorists. IMO, that’s a problem, because if White equals default, or status quo, then no wonder there’s so much of a problem in LE agencies with racial profiling particularly Black and Latino motorists, because they’ve from the beginning, been placed in groups of “others” deviating from the norm or status quo of those motorists of which the racial category is blank.
( I won’t go into the traffic officer who created his own racial labels to put in the racial classification on citations. Instead of “H” for Hispanic, he put “M” for Mexican. I found one ticket, and the department’s rep told me it wasn’t an official classification but it wasn’t anything to concern myself about, but I found two others. Oooh, guess I did go into it. :-o )
As a Cajun-French American, I know very well what it is like (even though I am white) to have your ethnicity intentionally and blatantly surpressed, enslaved, raped, and then stolen from you by mainstream culture. I certainly can’t understand what it’s been like to be an American of African origins, but I can empathize to a large degree if I am allowed to do so honestly, and from the standpoint of a newly-equal. As a half-butch, half-effeminte, bisexual man, who has been battling pressures from the patriarchal system his whole life, I know very well the problems faced in trying to overcome it. I certainly can’t understand what it’s been like to be an American with a vagina, but I can empathize to a large degree if I am allowed to do so honestly, and from the standpoint of a newly-equal.
Women have by and large learned to help one another overcome the divide-and-conquer pressures by banding together and supporting one another– something men have yet to do– we can’t even touch each other yet without fearing to catch “the gay.” It’s one of the reasons I make everyone who comes into my home hug and or kiss one another, even the boys… I’ve been amazed to watch the walls that this will break down, once they get over their programmed discomfort at entering another man’s personal space.
All too-often, mostly online, I have seen the accusation of “momma’s boy” for any guy who seeks group-support from his female comrades after raising an unpopular idea on an issue he senses is a problem in his attempt to gain real empathy with the struggles of his fellow humn beings (this is the first time, I think, that it’s happened to me) … a bit of remaining “you should suck it up and deal with it yourself, man” patriarchy-training, ironically.
Dismissing me in that way is one of the factors that leads to schisms where alliances could instead form. It’s what happened when the black feminists tried to explain to their white sisters that they had issues which were not being addressed, and the white feminists said to them “yes they are, we’re solving (white issue) and more closely examining (white issue) so you will be improved by proxy.” The issues needed to be resolved from a PURELY feminist perspective, not a white-feminist perspective… though of course the white feminists of the day didn’t see it that way, i.e. they had no malice involved, they simply thought the two were synonymous.
When a boy feminist comes to you and says that reaching regular men is proving difficult for him because of (boy issue), and he is told that “it will improve because we are dealing with (girl issue) and studying (girl issue), and you will be improved by proxy”… it seems the same kind of thing is hppening. A first- or second-wave feminist would not have though of herself as racist… quite the opposite, even though the black feminists were still being largely dismissed and even ignored. It is only now in looking back at it that the accidental ignorance becomes clear, and becomes discussable. I just do not want to have to see the next generation finally beginning to accept that the conventional wisdom among feminists of this wave *might* have been better served by more closely listening to the guys in the middle and trying to understand all perspectives thoroughly. Thomas, for instance, gave me quite a bit to think about.
Sydney’s point is dead-on… the more we can look at everyone as an individual composed of hundreds of contributing parts, rather than simply “a white man”, “a black woman”, or any of a thousand other cultural-origin labels, the better off we are in dealing with the problems of privilege that have led us to confront one another in the first place. For a number of reasons, I’ve always been a cultural outsider– from my refusal to compete with other boys as a child, to discovering I was bisexual and not straight or gay, to coming from a “white” culture that was destroyed intentionally by another “white” culture. I think we all have much to learn and far to go.
This is essentially why I raised everyone’s hackles in the first place, and what I’ve been babbling about through this reply, trying to get across– by insisting that you already have a complete grasp on the idea of intra-/inter-gender competition while problems CLEARLY continue to exist, and only talking about them in purely-feminist terminologies, you’re going to isolate the very people who most need to be reached so THEY can start a discussion on it: the men who find it most suitable to perpetuate the patriarchy, or who (as in my case) find their lives greatly facilitated by joining the traditional, patriarchal behaviors. By pish-poshing the guys who try to stutter out a coherent reason they can’t reach their fellow men, you come across as the type of feminists charicatured by the likes of Pat Robertson, and make it harder for me to reach my fellow men.
We do need to discuss the issues faced by black feminists of the past and present, but I was attempting to deal with these two statements from the original quotation:
“EXPOSING THE DAMAGE THAT 1970’s WOMEN’S LIBERATION HAS DONE TO THE BLACK COMMUNITY… REMINDING BLACK MEN THAT IT’S TIME TO JOIN THE GROWING MEN’S MOVEMENT…”
I am not at any point excusing the behavior of the jackasses involved in writing those sentences… but I am trying to deal with some of how otherwise-reasonable men can be taken in by these arguments, and how we might be losing allies by pish-poshing. So any of you who, right now, are thinking I am stupid, or malicious, or “typical” are exactly the problems to which I refer when I call myself egalitarian “rather” than feminist, when as I (and my best friend) say, they should be the exact same thing. No, I don’t want a cookie, I want support. I want to stop the “growing mens’ movement”, because it’s utter crap. What I definitely don’t want are cookies (rocks?) thrown at me when I say something unpopular.
A few times, I’ve seen online personal ads from white women in which they’d make a point of insisting they were looking for a “real WHITE man.” Needless to say, I wasn’t responding to those.
One thing that gets tricky is that many white supremacists will go on about being “Celtic” — as will many who aren’t racist, but who are simply trying to retain a connection to their ancestry. When someone proudly identifies themselves as “Celtic,” I don’t know if I’m dealing with a racist skinhead, or someone who’s second generation Irish American and trying to maintain their ties — and it’s gone either way often enough that I’ve had to be cautious a few times. I’ve seen swastikas on “Celtic Rock” albums more than once. It’s more obvious what’s going on when I run into talk of “Celto-Germanic unity.” There’s a lot of this kind of thing going on in nearly all-white suburbs of the San Francisco Bay Area. So, simply reaffirming ties to a European ethnicity doesn’t get one out of the “white” trap.
Also, speaking for myself, all the ancestors I know of, for several generations back, were born in North America — calling myself “Welsh” because I have a Welsh surname would be even more artificial than calling myself “white.”
In my critical race theory studies, intersectionality is a theme that is frequently discussed and is one which I would love to see more publicly applied to white feminism.
Yes, yes, yes! Intersectionality! (I learned a new word today! ;-)
That’s a common refrain I hear from black women involved in majority-white feminist or progressive settings. About the negation of the typical black woman’s experience in the supposedly ‘universal’ representative experiences trotted out as “women’s” experience. How silencing that can feel. And then how white women immediately get their backs up when *gasp!* race is brought up! Like we’re all just supposed to hold hands and sing kum-bi-ya off into the moonlight, and not pick through those stickier moments where different aspects of identity insert themselves.
I was in a conversation with a friend of mine—a union sister. She was carrying on about “why can’t people just learn English when they come to this country?!” She is from Chicago. She was born in the United States. Neither of her parents were, and both of her parents had to learn English as adults. So. I kept picking at that scab, and sure enough….that was it—she admitted that most people who come here do learn English, yet may choose to speak their first language amongst other speakers of that language (very common in Chicago, with its myriad ethnic neighborhoods. Many years ago, my grandfather was in the hospital up there for a bypass—I went to the cafeteria for a cup of coffee, and there was a different language being spoken at practically every table there!). She wasn’t really upset about folks “taking advantage of American hospitality” or any of that shit. She was really upset at what she felt was taken from her. That her parents transmitted enough of their cultures to keep her from feeling peaceful with assimilating; that discordant message to assimilate, yet don’t assimilate too much. I noticed that after our conversation, she started asserting her ethnic identity more. And she communicates a solidarity with non-English speakers that she may not have felt comfortable expressing before.
I see parallels between the setup of “whiteness” and the setup of “masculinity”. Both are structured as a state that can be “lost” by those who aren’t vigilant; not as something that is inherent in one’s being. Just as a male has to continually “prove” his masculinity, Caucasians have to “prove” whiteness. There’s a cost to that ticket to ride.
It’s one of the reasons I make everyone who comes into my home hug and or kiss one another, even the boys… I’ve been amazed to watch the walls that this will break down, once they get over their programmed discomfort at entering another man’s personal space.
Hey, look—-it’s Leo Buscaglia! (hugs, U-A!!) ;-)
Just wanted to say, that’s another aspect of white culture; the “touch-me-not” idea of personal space! One I tend to view as particularly toxic, as touch is fundamental to the proper growth and mental health of human beings….we’re social animals, fer cryin’ out loud!
Unapologetic Atheist –
You and I have agreed most of the time on a number of things and while I agree with the far majority of what you have wrote immediately above, there are some things I really need to address.
The reason why a lot of us react negatively to the “but boys are hurt by sexism/patriarchy too” line, or variations on that (no matter how well intentioned, or well phrased) is that generally, in our experience, the line is used either to minimise women’s experiences (witness previous discussion of domestic violence on this blog, where we can virtually count the no of comments posted before some idiots says “but women hit men too!”) , or the inclusion ends up having male issues and concerns come to dominate the discussion (both in terms of men dominating a discussion, and/or their definitions of core conerns subverting those of women). A lot of us then have a “Oh, here we go again” when these kinds of things occur.
Further, I don’t think it behoves women feminists to reach out to men as much as you seem to think it does (although, if I am misreading you here, please excuse me). Just as I feel that it shouldn’t be up to ethnic minority groups to reach out and educate whites, and it needs to be (primarily) whites that should be taking it on themselves to educate and reform other whites on their racism and racial privileges, feminist men need to take the lead on educating and reforming other men. Women, in terms of power inequalities of gender, are positioned on the same side of the balance as ethnic minorities are, in terms of power inequalities of race (although, of course, the substantive expressions of such are different). Just as it shoudn’t be up to the ethnic minorities to reach out or change their language to pull in us whites, niether, I feel, should women much either.
Of course, I certainly feel that gender is an oppressive system that requires all (for their are more than two) groups therein to work together in order to solve the problems with it, and I certainly agree with you in the points you were making above that fit with this, and moreover that we do need to address the way in which the system constructs men and masculinity. But I do also think you need to revisit the way in which you are looking at gender in terms of being a system of power and the differential placements that puts on women and men within that system. Yes, women currently hold positions of power within feminism, but that is not the system of inequality we are operating under here.
It is those that have the position of power in any inequality system that have the largest burden of responsibility when it comes to changing language and reaching out to the other, less privileged, groups within that system.
Course, this is all just my opinion mind you, so take it with a grain of salt (I also feel that feminists, men and women, do need to revisit their strategies with the goal of more contemporary approaches to masculinity and femininity today) and please don’t take it as an attack.
No, your points are well-taken, Sarah. Thanks. Much to keep thinking about, much to keep thinking about. Good thing I like thinking.
I second what Sarah said . My question to UA (and he’s not to only one by any means) is why you think that fixing the ways in which the current social system damages men is the job of feminist women rather than the job of other men, and why you feel attacked when feminists point out to you that you’re being a bit obtuse in characterising the ways in which men impose gender norms on each other as simply competition for women. There’s a lot more to it, as Thomas pointed out, and as I originally said a lot of it is stuff which women aren’t really in a position to do much about. In a system that positions us as the trophy for male success, what can we do to make men stop forcing other men to compete for us as prizes? Assuming that it’s the job of women feminists to stop men from competing in unhealthy ways is, frankly, both unreasonable and destined to fail. We can talk to our sisters and try to wean them away from the patriarchy and from unhealthy gender stereotypes, but we can’t force them to stop favouring stereotypical masculine behavior. We certainly can’t stop men from participating in the kinds of behaviors Thomas describes. Don’t you get it? Women are only marginally involved in this particular battle. Feminist women are essentially nothing more than sympathetic bystanders. We’ve been trying to challenge the cultural definition of masculinty for years, and without men rolling up their sleeves and getting in the trenches alongside us we’re doomed to failure. Men are not going to stop forcing other men into confining little boxes labelled “proper masculinity” just because feminists tell them to. If men like yourself hope to succeed they’re going to have to do a great deal of the work themselves. There’s just no way to get around that.
Also, reacting to any criticism of your ideas by implying that those who don’t agree with you are evil second wave feminist harpies (way to insult a group of women who worked very hard to get us this far, by the way) and are playing into the hands of the religious right is most definately NOT helping to fix the problem. When you react to disagreement with caricatures and wounded ego, do you really think that’s going to help to move the discussion forward or encourage feminist women to want to work with you? Because honestly, I was right there with you on most issues until you got to “this is all about men competing for women” and “I’m too much of an egalitarian to be a feminist”. The first is just missing the point of what’s really going on at a deeper level (as Thomas explained), and the second is a nasty little backhanded swipe at feminits. At that point you lost me, and I’m willing to bet I’m not the only one.
Also, a thought to ponder. Why does it take hearing the point about what’s really going on in the men apparently competing for female attention scenario from another man (ie Thomas) in order for you to understand what’s actually happening? And what does that tell you about the the idea that maybe it really does need to be men who fight this particular battle?
No, I’m quite glad I “lost you.” The very fact that the backhand swipe cuts you so deeply demonstrates to me you’re not someone I’d want to “hold on to” in this particular analogy. Because if you think men like me don’t have to deal with backhand swipes every six seconds, you’re absolutely and utterly insane. I think my personal favorite (most recent one, anyway), was Bitch PhD’s recent, “Well we all know how men need their egos flattered, the poor dears.” When discussing this very issue. The fact that you think this is about my ego makes me find you pathetic – I happen to be a recovering version of “the bad boy” who dated juuuust fine once he STOPPED respecting his fellow women. As soon as I became what amounted to a misogynist, self-absorbed prick, I started getting far more attention even though little else changed in my life. I was still a biker, I was still a biochem major. The experiment seemed to work– and no it wasn’t just the mice that then found me appealing, it was largely the self-styled intellectual women around me (most of whom were in fact quite brilliant, champions of womens’ rights– in this case, to choose an asshole biker over one of my nicer friends). After a few years, realizing why that was not a good thing, I stopped, and have worked to overcome it in the years I have been with a single mate.
There are hundreds of ways in which feminist women can help, but the main one is the same as you prescribe for male action: getting out there “in the trenches” and convincing women, say, at Valentines’ day, that the wifey who got the most flowers is not now the most powerful woman in the office. I get to watch that mini-party play out among the cubicles every year.
The other big way you can help the fight is by not sounding so self-righteous, so that you make ALLIES among other women… exactly as I am trying desperately (STILL) to point out to you that you are (and why you are) not doing among the general population of men, despite those of us trying to polish away your caricatured bad-name. When you react emotionally to a simple jab at a caricature and pitch a hissy-fit that includes “well you had me until you said the Prohibited Words” then you confirm everything I said, and make my point for me.
Which, while I appreciate, is not what I really wanted to see, here.
Oh, and is Thomas a man? I can’t tell. You’re all just letters here, to me. What does it tell you about yourself that you think the gender of a poster on a bulletin board matters, in terms of who I’d listen to or not…?
UA, I don’t buy that you didn’t assume I’m a man. Even if you didn’t assume that the name “Thomas” implied that I was a man, my prior post clearly stated that I participated in the man vs. man competition.
For the record, I am the person with pretty much all the privileges. I’m a thirtysomething straight white man with an advanced degree and a high income, married to a woman, raising a son and living in the suburbs.
About sounding self-righteous, your reaction to pissing off some of the women that read this blog is to claim that you did it on purpose, to test them, and that those that are annoyed by your comment failed your test. That’s disingenuous, too. I think you screwed up and offended unintentionally, but you have too much ego invested to take a step back and reexamine what you said.
Please don’t think I’m not listening when you say, “patriarchy hurts men too.” I hear you, and I know that. But what Sarah and BritGirl say is right: there’s not much women can do about that. Women who date guys who are jerks have unexamined biases about masculinity, and to the extent feminism can get support for un-privileging this kind of manhood, women like Britgirl and Sarah are doing everything they can. They can get women to stop accepting that real men treat them like crap. They’re doing that as fast as they can.
Fixing men is our problem. Men need to tell other men that treating women like shit is cheap and weak, and their masculinity is a thin facade. We need to cast nasty stares at men who lie to, use and mistreat women. We need to challenge other men on their homophobia and biphobia. We need to change the playing field of inter-male competition so it’s not destructive and doesn’t encourage miosgyny. We have to do that, because masculinity is a conversation among men, and the men we need to change are not listening to women. If they were listening to women, we wouldn’t need to change so much.
U-A: Sigh. Where to begin? Especially since so many others have eloquently broke it down already?
Years ago, I saw a similar dynamic expressed on a feminist, radical, parenting board concerning race. There were women of various colors, cultures and backgrounds there, representing a spectrum of consciousness of critical race theory from the “racism 101” level to women who really could have been teaching postgraduate studies on the subject. Anyway, no matter the topic, it wasn’t long before some white woman or another would get huffy because of a fairly mild rebuke from a woman of color, and she would then more-or-less accuse the woman of color as being “too angry” and “how can you expect me to be your ally if you’re going to get mad at me” type of shit. And then, that would really bring the noise!
“So you wanna be an ally….” The first thing a responsible ally has to do is check ego at the door. Yes, ego. Believe it or not, it ain’t all about you. I love the title of Sydney’s blog, Shut Up and Listen, because that is exactly what an ally has to do. Do I really need to mention that it is another trait of white culture, and especially the masculine version thereof, to not listen to those perceived to be beneath them on the social scale? That such folks can’t possibly have anything to say worth hearing? Yes, it’s tiring to have you come here and act like your feminist analysis is superior to ours, particularly since your prime concern seems to be the quality of your dating life. Mesca!
Being an ally is work. Don’t kid yourself. It’s real work. And yes, you’re going to piss people off in the process. But you know what separates the workers from the players? Who gets pissy, picks up the ball, and goes home. Those who stay and do the work are for keeps.
This isn’t about how to “play nice” and “be polite”. This is strictly about survival. Anger is not a sign of disrespect. Think on that, because you have been indoctrinated into a culture that says anger is a sign of disrespect, and that the only socially-condoned expression of anger is that which flows from the top on down. Learning to shut up and listen is subverting the paradigm.
You have the privilege of going back and being the “asshole biker” any time you wish. And there isn’t a damn thing that anyone else on this board can do about it. It really is your choice; no sweat off my back. I don’t really intend to get into a “your blues ain’t like mine” showdown, though I know I’d have ya beat hands down. No, I just want you to recognize that on a feminist board, the voices of women are the voices that sing lead, ok? You make the assumption that we aren’t doing feminist work with men in our real lives. Lemme tellya—there isn’t a day that goes by that I’m not doing feminist work with men. I have to choose my words and form of expression very carefully in that work. I get to tiptoe through the landmines all the got-damn time. But here? This is feminist space. Here is where I get to put my feet up, pour myself a margarita, and get comfortable. This is where I get to use phrases like “subvert the paradigm”, which would get me laughed off the break table at work.
Being an ally is hard work. It’s rewarding work too. Don’t pick up your ball and go home just ‘cuz you got dinged on the shin. That’s a superficial wound. The larger wounds of ‘isms’ go all the way down to the bone; a cancer on the body politic.
It’s plenty disingenuous– probably even moreso when I do it in person, because none of our genders are in question there. Here, where NICK Kiddle is woman… it was worth playing with. And the point remains that it doesn’t matter whether or not you had a penis– the points you made could have been made by a woman just as easily.
I’m a 29 year old white professional deliberately unmarried to a woman and living in a liberal-heavy college town. BFD. But I’m a southerner who knows a damned thing or two about patriarchal thinking and its effects on all involved. Read some of my other posts and see if you think ANYTHING I say is accidental/unintentional. And if I make people uncomfortable, not sounding like I “should”, then great, I consider that a victory. Disingenuous or not.
U-A, it’s obvious that the way to communicate and be persuasive on a feminist site isn’t to make anti-feminist digs (such as your “egalitarian” remark). Now, maybe you’re not interested in communicating or being persuasive; but if that’s the case, I kind of think you’re wasting our time by participating in this conversation.
I also thought your defense of your “egalitarian” dig was weak. Because you’ve suffered unjustified digs, therefore it’s justified for you to make unjustified digs? Even when the people you’re digging at aren’t the same people who offended you? That’s ridiculous.
The claim that feminism is contrary to egalitarianism is a shallow antifeminist cliche. It didn’t “cut me deeply” that you said it; it bored me that you said it.
There’s so much wrong with this paragraph, it’s hard to know where to begin.
First of all, you complain that when people sound self-righteous, they tend not to be persuasive. But your participation in this thread has been about as arrogant and self-righteous as it could imaginably have been.
Then you describe yourself as “desparately” trying to communicate. But if you really were desparate to communicate, presumably you’d discipline your writing style to not sound so condesending and self-righteous, since these elements of your writing get in the way of your ability to communicate. Similarly, you wouldn’t be making cheap anti-feminist shots at feminism, to a room full of feminists, if you actually cared at all about being heard. So it’s hard to trust your sincerity when you say you’re “desparately” trying to communicate.
Then you describe yourself as “trying to polish away your caricatured bad-name.” But earlier this thread, you yourself introduced and endorsed an anti-feminist caricature (the “egalitarian” swipe), which makes it hard to believe that you actually oppose that sort of thing.
It would be one thing if, when called on it, you said “okay, I can’t quite justify that; I guess this shows that even people who honestly want to be on your side can mess up now and then.” If you had said that, then that woudl be cool (everyone messes up now and then, let’s move on). Or you could have said “well, I think that’s a fair statement I made, and here’s how I’d defend it.” Instead, you said that the fact that someone here didn’t like the backhand swipe proves that they’re not someone worth talking to. That’s arrogant, condesending bullshit, U-A.
Finally, when feminists disagree with you – in terms far less emotional and anti-rational than your own posts on this thread – you fall once more on sexist cliches, saying they’ve thrown a “hissy fit.”
The paragraph I’ve quoted is a good example of why you’re not seeming credible, either as a feminist or as someone capable of following logical arguments. If you want to communicate, then consider altering your rhetoric. My experience is that if you want to be heard, then it’s essential to treat the people you wish to be heard by with respect. That aspect seems to be missing from most of your recent posts here.
La Luba, thanks for your post.
“This isn’t about how to “play nice” and “be polite”. This is strictly about survival. Anger is not a sign of disrespect. Think on that, because you have been indoctrinated into a culture that says anger is a sign of disrespect, and that the only socially-condoned expression of anger is that which flows from the top on down. Learning to shut up and listen is subverting the paradigm. ”
———————————————–
Most definitely….I think this applies in so many different ways, in feminist work. Between men and women. Between women and women…Very important.
I really had a lot to say on the topic of men as allies of feminism to women, but personally, would rather that discussion took place in a separate thread than this one. It’s a very important topic which should have its own space, but so is the topic already being discussed here, which began with P-A’s post on blacktown.net.
And a margarita would taste really good right now…
:-)
Look, if you guys can’t figure out why an intentionally cruel/rude dig might be USEFUL in bringing about true feelings in an argument, then I can’t help *anyone* get to see my point. Fine. In reacting as you all have to my statement, predictably enough that I was able to pre-call about 75 percent of the things said to me so far, laughing, as I typed it. Whatever the case, the fact that almost nobody here seems to posess the ability to see beyond the ” cheap anti-feminist shots at feminism, to a room full of feminists, if you actually cared at all about being heard” misses AGAIN that I did it to show what happens in alienating the people you claim to be trying to reach– I consider myself an ally, and yet look at how this as gone, all over one comment and then following attempts to explain the back-issue behind it to a room full of newly (even if predictably) hostile non-listeners.
I’ve stated it about as many ways as I can think to state it… people I have been reading these paragraphs to, standing right next to me, all seem to get it… I just don’t know how else I can get it through, clearly I cannot, so I guess I’m done trying. Everyone can rejoice in that.
Um… and it totally misses that I never intend to justify the statement I knew was bullshit when I made it (thus the sentence immediately following it about how they are equal things), nor apologize for messing up. I did not mess up with that statement, I did exactly what I wanted to do. I hoped after the firestorm died down that I could make my point about HOW miscommunication between supposedly-allied groups breaks down, since I wasn’t making it by simple, polite rhetoric. As Lubu pointed out in her paragraph, that’s not always what the game is about.
My version of respect was to talk to you like I talk to people around me– to give you equal credit. I expected you to figure out when you had been had, and shift the focus of the discussion to what had happened, rather than what was said. It works just fine when I do this face to face with people; but online, clearly that is not possible, so I end my time on this site, here… quite disappointed. I guess I’m picking up Lubu’s ball and going home.
I’m sorry if I gave any of you stress you didn’t need… I figured people here would be quicker on the pickup than this… able to see past the standard views… I really did. But if even Amp can’t get it then it’s either impossible to communicate here or no one wants to get it. Either way, time for another court. Good luck with the haters, everyone.
If you ever manage to pull your condesending attitude back about ten notches, UA, then I for one would welcome you back. Best wishes to you.
I hoped after the firestorm died down that I could make my point about HOW miscommunication between supposedly-allied groups breaks down….
Why? Because you think we don’t already experience this in real life, just going about our daily business? I’ve had plenty of experience meeting up with false “allies”; as we say on the job, “ya ain’t got my cherry, pal.”
Which brings me to another point—communication on the Internet is vastly different than communication in real life. This is a colder medium. All you have are your words—words that can sometimes be interpreted any number of ways other than how you intend. This isn’t the place to be throwing caution to the wind when it comes to choice of phrasing or expression. Now me, I’m a stereotypical Sicilian when it comes to communicating—I speak with my hands, flash or narrow my eyes, toss my hair, point with my chin, raise/lower or otherwise modulate my voice….and what all of those things have in common is their pure uselessness on the Internet. It was a difficult lesson for me to learn; how to use words to get my point across.
Communicating with friends in your living room or kitchen ought to be easier than communicating with strangers on the ‘net. For one thing, they know you. They know your personality, your usual mode of communication, your intentions, your history—they can see and hear you communicate in 3-D. And since they’re your friends, you probably share a background (or two or three). Your friends will understand your “in phrases” and “in jokes” that may leave a stranger bewildered or offended. I can use phrases like the “cherry” comment above, and have the full meaning and nuances understood by my brethren and sistren on the jobsite. Non-construction workers are either shocked, offended, or don’t get the full meaning, anyhow. So, I leave that talk at the jobsite. Because what is the purpose of language if not to communicate? One upmanship? No thanks. I’m a worker, not a player. Feminism isn’t my entertainment; it’s my life.
>>It’s plenty disingenuous”“ probably even moreso when I do it in person, because none of our genders are in question there. Here, where NICK Kiddle is woman… it was worth playing with. And the point remains that it doesn’t matter whether or not you had a penis”“ the points you made could have been made by a woman just as easily. >>
Well, no, for one thing. Nick is pregnant, which is not the same as female. You need to read Nick’s posts more carefully–and everyone else’s, it would seem.
And his gender is not relevant to his ability to _make_ these points, but to your ability to _listen_ to his comments. You were much nicer and much more respectful. God knows why.
>>Whatever the case, the fact that almost nobody here seems to posess the ability to see beyond the “ cheap anti-feminist shots at feminism, to a room full of feminists, if you actually cared at all about being heard” misses AGAIN that I did it to show what happens in alienating the people you claim to be trying to reach”“ I consider myself an ally, and yet look at how this as gone, all over one comment and then following attempts to explain the back-issue behind it to a room full of newly (even if predictably) hostile non-listeners.>>
The first duty of any ally should be refraining from dumbass cracks at the culture or politics of the community said ally is allying with. It’s easy, it’s straightforward, and it doesn’t require the ability to define “performativity.” It’s like typing skills for an administrative assistant: necessary and basic. If you can’t understand why joking about feminism as anti-egalitarian is deserving of a little snippiness from feminist women, or how it doesn’t compare to–for example–BPhD’s cracks about _male entitlement as defined by patriarchy_, you’re unqualified to be a pro-feminist. Your talent for taking umbrage at anything but uncritical acceptance of your snippy comments and callow glosses of feminist theory makes you pretty useless as an intern, too.
The first duty of any ally should be refraining from dumbass cracks at the culture or politics of the community said ally is allying with.
Odd. I would think that the first duty of an ally is to fight on your side against your mutual enemies. “Not being a dickhead” is certainly on the priority list, down in the “C”s somewhere.
But that’s just me.
How about calling it the most elementary duty, Robert? My point was not that it’s the most important thing, but that without it, no one can be expected to value you at all. If you can’t manage this basic task, what good could you possibly be? How can a dickhead make himself useful if he doesn’t have the wherewithal or the intention to refrain from being a dickhead to the people he’s supposedly committed to helping?
OK, now that self-righteous dude has decided to leave us (yeah, that’s a big loss), can we get back to talking about what white feminists can do to support their black sisters and ensure that they aren’t marginalised and silenced? Because honestly that’s a more important topic, and we’ve gotten sidetracked from it just as PA and Sydney predicted.
This link isn’t literally on-topic, but the writer talks in great detail about the history of cosmetic skin-lightening cosmetics around the world. There are a couple of blood-chilling ads that are blatantly racist in their appeal to Asian and African women to spend lots of money to have supposedly cleaner and disease-free (ie– whiter, skin). At the same time, the article shows that these same expensive and dangerous compounds are being marketed to White women as anti-wrinkle agents. It’s a long article but worth damn near every word.
http://www.counterpunch.org/mire07282005.html
Despite the diversions –some caused by Yours Truly– sorry, it’s been a good thread. Thanks especially to Sydney. You rock. 8)
How can a dickhead make himself useful if he doesn’t have the wherewithal or the intention to refrain from being a dickhead to the people he’s supposedly committed to helping?
If I’m in a fight for my survival (or something of equal importance), then I’m not engaged in a therapy session. The language and the thinking you’re employing are appropriate for a therapy session. They’re inappropriate for a war.
If you can’t manage this basic task, what good could you possibly be?
You can fight the mutual enemy, that’s what good you can be.
Your criteria seems appropriate for a friend. We need our friends to be nice to us. Our allies, not so much.
To put it in military terms: during WWII, the other western Allies were contemptuous of the French. They tried to hide it, for diplomatic reasons, but the representatives of the Free French were always the low man on the totem pole and they knew it and they knew why. The Americans and the Brits did not value the French, or honor them.
And yet the Americans and the British were quite a lot of help to the French – in that they were killing Nazis and driving them out of France. Utter contempt, complete disdain – but on the same side.
Now of course this is your prerogative to decide what kind of treatment you want from allies and your friends and everyone in between. I don’t mean to be lecturing you on your foolish ways. (Heck, I encourage you to embrace even more foolish ways if you can find some.)
I’m just observing that from my POV, you’re engaging in behavior that can cause you to lose the war. People who are willing to fight for you, even if they think you’re loopy, even if they don’t take seriously things that you take seriously, are sent away, either by your hand or by their own, because they won’t or can’t hush up about the things in your culture they find risible or crack-worthy.
The French were a joke and we all knew it; it’s lucky for them that they didn’t send us away. Nazism was a much worse enemy than wiseass Brits.
But again – this is just me.