This is amazing. Brownfemipower:
The thing is—I thought that those who were a part of a “feminist community” were held to the same sort of standards. That when a woman of color says that she will not be published thus the white women who are published need to spend more time than they feel comfortable talking about the needs of women of color—THEY WOULD DO IT. That they would say “It’s the least I can do” or “What else can I do” rather than JUST DO IT, JUST DO IT. Because we are all in a community together and we all are working to create something that challenges and dismantles gendered violence and inequality, right? And if it takes writing a book that does not assume all women are staying away from feminism because they are white and privileged and just don’t get it—well, ending gendered violence and inequality is worth it, right? Working together towards a common goal, right?
This?
It just took reading Hugo’s response for me to realize that I was fucked up wrong. That feminism’s goals and my goals are completly and totally opposite of each other. That in feminism’s eyes “dismantling” gendered violence= “shifting” gendered violence.
Well. To me, this looks like a really glaring fallacy. “Feminism” is not one thing, and I don’t accept the idea that one set of people (say, Hugo) has more right to the term than another (say, Sylvia), when both clearly are interested in ending patriarchy. Also, what Anxious Black Woman said:
I’m just reminding everyone that the “Feminist” label belongs to us, as women of color. We laid the foundations for feminist theory and practice. We are the bodies on which feminist theories are created. We are the “comparative” variable and the case study for why “life sucks for women.” It’s because of the combined effects of sexism, racism, imperialism, heterosexism, etc. why we’ve got it bad. And it’s because we “bleed at the intersections” why we, more than any other group of women, need feminist movement.
(By the way, that whole post is really amazing and informative and I recommend you read it.)
For me, it’s really problematic when BFP writes this:
“Feminists,” on the other hand, are not movement building, they are actively destroying women and blaming those women for the destruction. They are saying the point of feminism is “equality with men” without even thinking to acknowledge that “equality with women” is just as admirable of a goal and maybe even possibly the first step to achieving the goal of equality with men. They are saying, Just do it, just do it, JUST FUCKING DO IT.
BFP seems here to be defining feminists as people who subscribe to these behaviors. That ignores lots of women who don’t and who aren’t rejecting feminism. The fact that there *is* an argument in the feminist blogosphere indicates to me that there are feminists who believe as BFP is asking them to. Why write them off? Why are certain people more entitled to the label feminism?
I do fully understand that BFP is more educated than I am on these issues, and more articulate, and probably just plain smarter. But I find this part of her argument really frustrating.
When I stop to think “what am I missing here?”, I feel like what I’m missing is the real frustration and desperation and anger that accompanies these sentiments. I am truly missing them, and I do not wish to deny their legitimacy.
But at the same time when I think of my feminist influences — for instance Carolyn Martin Shaw, a black anthropology professor of mine who teaches on gender and sexuality and has organized women’s movements in Kenya — I… can’t really fathom ascribing to her the motives BFP professes belong to “feminists,” not can I fathom removing the label feminist from her because “feminism” — in BFP’s outline — means the (as far as I can tell) deliberate trampling of WOC. She’s a feminist.
I know, I know, if the shoe doesn’t fit, don’t wear it.
Still. The only way I can reconcile these thoughts is to assume that there’s a difference between feminists and “feminists,” the same way there’s a difference between nice guys and NiceGuysTM — but if that’s the case, why not say so? I’m not reading this as an accusation toward individuals, but toward the moral quality of the entire movement (which thus requires its rejection, instead of merely the renouncements of “feminists”).
Feminist, anti-racist comments only.
has more right to the term than another (say, Sylvia), when both clearly are interested in ending patriarchy
really? when was the last time sylvia wrote about “ending patriarchy”? Do you see how you just defined what feminism *really* is for everybody else?
also, I explicitly said that there are a group of women who call themselves feminists who I am willing to talk to to find out what they mean when they say “feminist”.
I apologize for short-handing. I was trying to refer to Amp’s definition of feminism. I chose the shorthand I did because I was attempting to frame patriarchy as that which causes the lack of equality between sexes.
I think it’s also important to note that I speak for no one other than myself. No one elected me the leader of the “liberal, mainstream, white middle-class Defenders of Amanda Marcotte” club. I’m fortunate to have a bigger readership than some (and a smaller readership than many), but honestly, I don’t know how many folks actually agreed with my post last week. I suspect the number who thought I was “spot on” was smaller than the number that thought I had “badly missed the mark” again.
BFP wrote:
It just took reading Hugoâs response for me to realize that I was fucked up wrong.
Let’s assume that I disagree with folks like BFP, Sylvia, Sudy, Chris Clarke, and Blackamazon about the purpose of feminism, the role of the marketplace, and so forth. It’s not like oodles of white feminists came out of the woodwork to take my side; citing me and my ramblings as reasons to abandon the feminist label vastly overestimates my influence and my representativeness.
Mandolin, I confess I’m failing to see what was so hard to understand, especially about the use of “feminist”, in inverted commas. I think BFP was quite clear on this point:
“If dabbling into and getting to know an actual community working in a certain way is too much work for feminism, then there is no fucking feminist movement.”
Yeah, this point is one I’d been thinking about, especially the “dismantling” and the “shifting”. And the impact of individual violence vs state violence (i.e. why even in cities where immigrants of color are a minority of undocumented immigrants, they are still the focus of state violence) and how that often differs between communities of women. That’s part of my issues with calling myself a “feminist” or embracing “feminism”. And ending patriarchy isn’t going to do much if the replacement matriarchy is just as problematic for many women.
And what I find problematic is when someone is explaining the problems, how they do so is what’s the problem rather than the problems themselves. Or how pointing out the obvious is seen as being divisive. But I’m cool with not calling myself feminist and I don’t think the women I work with a lot on issues impacting women care if I call myself one or not. Many of them don’t for a wide variety of reasons and all the insistance that they’re misinformed or misguided or simply looking at feminism the way they are told isn’t going to change that and it’s not going to bring them to the fold.
I’ve been influenced by feminists. And influenced by women who work with wome for women who aren’t though I do understand one point is to explain how feminists have influenced us.
And when you work on issues with women where feminists are nary to be found or perceive these issues either to not be relevant or to be detrimental to their own goals, you can’t wait for them to buy a clue and get involved. I’d love to see them more involved in CJS issues for example but many organized feminist groups are too busy pushing for laws that are more punitive to women of color and their communities. At least here.
btw, bfp nice to see you.
I don’t see how you think you have the right to condemn anyone for allegedly doing this when you’ve done the same thing here. Why is it you think you are the one who can determine who’s oppression is “worse” and who is marginalized (esp. when you clearly have no real understanding of this group of people)? Why is it you think you have the right to delegitimize and make invisible and “less than” the oppression of those you don’t understand and don’t work with and then think anyone should listen to you when you attempt to condemn people for doing the same thing to the group you are a part of (or who you work with, or who you understand)?
I don’t know you, but I have read your words (assuming you are the same radfem who posts in the other threads, and that there aren’t 2 or more of you here). You seem to think that you have the right to determine whose oppression is more real, more legitimate, more valuable; the right to determine whose issues should be addressed and whose can be ignored. How is that any different than what you are claiming white feminists have done?
Yeah, but now you’re using as reference the definition of feminism from a man. Not trying to be difficult and maybe I’m crabby today (oh yes I am), but I don’t think all women would define feminism as centered on the patriarchy or seeing it as what causes the lack of equality between the sexes. I know women including those who would define themselves as feminist (in a different way) would not and have not defined it that way.
Because sexism or patriarchy isn’t the only force of inequality. It’s certainly not the only one among women and that impacts many women. Maybe that’s what is meant by there being different forms of feminism?
But addressing these issues often is what’s seen as “divisive” and women who have a definition of feminism outside of viewing patriarchy as the source of inequality between the sexes and so forth are often told they are misinformed about feminism. That’s one way it appears monolithic.
But it’s the centering of feminism on the “patriarchy” and specifically ending it that’s part of the problem. And that’s one reason why there’s concern about whether patriarchy as it were would be dismantled or simply redefined with women’s faces.
These things are reasons why with all due respect I don’t view what bfp wrote as “fallacy” and having had similar language associated when I’ve said that I’m concerned about whether White feminists are truly interested in dismantling patriarchy or playing larger roles within the flawed system they call patriarchy, it sounds a bit familiar.
Nice to meet you too, I think.
No I don’t think I have that right. Like you, I have an opinion and I pointed out problems as I see them. And I’ve expressed my views like you have. Feel free to call it what you want as you have before.
Thanks for your post on the other thread. I didn’t know Russian and East European immigrants undocumented and otherwise were the majority in Portland. Most of what the news filters out about immigration in Portland is about the recent ICE raid on Mexican immigrants that took place there. My focus if you have read my posts like you say, is state violence. I would sincerely be interested in learning more about violence by the state against White immigrants as I clearly need to learn more in that area because most of the research I’ve seen and accounts I’ve read about have been involving Latino and Asian immigrants including at blogs like bfp and groups that address these issues in my region and others.
But I disagree that pointing out racism and racial privilege in Whites is tantamount to stacking the oppressions and ranking them. I would argue that feminism does so as well when it defines itself primarily from a gendered perspective because many women can’t define it as such. And often when other oppressions are brought into the mix, it’s seen as deviating or taking away attentions from feminism and almost always, it’s White feminists who make those complaints. The women I work with and know see it as a multi-layered dynamic, which is one reason many are disappointed with feminism. Especially its close identy as being about the “patriarchy”.
And often enough, I’ve been told that there’s no time to talk about racism for example because it’s taking time away from feminism.
And you are right, you really don’t know me at all.
I 100% agree that feminists should not try to destroy each others’ careers. Which is why this entire dust-up was fucked up—and renaming me “X” (I’m sure that Malcolm X would have appreciated that bit of history erasing)—doesn’t erase the attempts to pin the word “plagiarist” to my career in hopes that it could end it.
Amanda:
A quite comment from me. I don’t think anyone was trying to end your career. Nor could they. I think you need to look at the fact that you are in a privileged position because of your whiteness and your prolific blogger status as a mainstream feminist blogger and a blogging behemoth.
Also, in a society that is defined by white privilege and is driven by white supremacy that benefits poor proletarian whites (like me) and white women (such as yourself), just as much as it benefits rich white males, you should realize that there actually has never been an “attack” (per se) on you as an attack should be defined as an action which will cause actual harm and has the power to undoubtedly put you in a lower position than before and harm your career. In this system of white supremacy people like us are pretty much safe from “attacks against us” by people of color because those attacks won’t really affect our careers.
You are still considered a prolific blogger, you still benefit from white privilege, you still have a book deal (and will more than likely have more), etc. Not once did these “attacks” ever put you in a precarious situation that put your career in any actual danger (all though it may have felt that way).
Anyways. My short little comment.
Saying that feminism involves the attempt to dismantle patriarchial control (i.e. the cominance of men over women) does not, in any way, suggest that there aren’t other systems that need dismantling.
Oh, for crying out loud. Is that your idea of a “gotcha?” Too bad BfP’s explained twice now, publicly, why she changed your name to “X.” Address what was actually written?
Speaking of what was actually written, nowhere in this post does your name appear or is mention of you made, but don’t let that stop you.
Cite pls. Especially since the first place I saw “plagiarism” being used was at Hugo’s. Especially-especially because this post is about BfP, and BfP NEVER called you a plagiarist.
As for hope, again, in all seriousness: What would you know about what any of the people who wrote about this hope? You don’t talk to them and you don’t, apparently, read what they have to say when they s-p-e-l-l o-u-t their hopes. No, you know what they hope! You’re the expert. You have the psychic abilities. You see right through their lies and their schemes. They hope to destroy you! It’s just like that episode of Dynasty, when Krystle attacked Alexis for arranging that horse accident that led to Krystle’s miscarriage!
Well, you’re too clever for them and too clever for me, I guess. I give up. If you ever come back down to this planet, I would love to hear more about what life is like on the moon.
Thanks for this. It helped me put my finger on something about that shorthand that bothers me with regards to defining feminism–it defines it in terms of oppression, and a single form of it at that; whereas I think defining it in a more active way might be more effective and less alienating. Pardon my fumbling with this, and I’m not sure by any means that I have the right idea, but wouldn’t “working for the betterment of women” be both less negative and less reductive than “ending patriarchy?” Or am I just playing semantics now?
Well, I want to agree with that. Theoretically, it doesn’t. Or, it needn’t.
But practically speaking, I think it’s easy for that to become “after we break down patriarchy, then maybe we’ll have time to address all these other problems,” and that can be alienating to women who have “these other problems.”
9: okay, we’re actually venturing into self-parody mode here. -What?- WHAT.
…never mind, really. Just…right, get on with it then. -nods- -backs away slowly-
as per the question: you know, as I said over there: as far as I’m concerned, it’s the work by any other name. I call myself a “feminist” same as I always did, because for me, it’s basically just a convenient word, probably not the only one, no, for “concerned with that part of human rights which pertains to womens’ rights.” Also see: “is not Phyllis Schlafly, Dawn Eden, or Vox Day.” It’s also inextricable from, well, a number of things, but for me, particularly all the other movements for greater freedom in sexuality, the body politic in general, and gender roles. I can completely understand why some people are soured enough on the word that they no longer want anything to do with it.
And in any case, is that what this is really about? Is this about semantics? Or is this about, “look, these people who call themselves ___ apparently do not have goals that are compatible with mine, no matter how loudly they protest to the contrary.” Because the latter, I REALLY understand. It’s just a shame that it means losing one of the finest, if not the finest, voices in this neck of the blogosphere. Our loss.
That is, clearly, an enormous problem.
I mean, I don’t know. Not really my field of expertise, but to me it feels like someone losing her religion, and becoming thoroughly sick of, for example, the abuse and patronizing and exploitation she’s gone through at the hands of some uber-para-church, which was all about hustling and tithing and smarmy reactionary preachers and politicking and very little to do with the spirit of the message. and, unlike other people in a similar position who made their peace by finding another, smaller church to join, or simply going their own way while continuing to call themselves “Christian,” become so allergic to this identity, this community, this doctrine more or less, that they just can’t be associated with it at all anymore.
There’s a lot of that about.
And the thing is, if you’re too busy wringing your hands about losing a member because it makes the numbers go down and makes the -institution-, much less the current leaders, look bad? Because it makes you lose -power-, without stopping to think about what you actually wanted to -do- with that power? Then the problem is, indeed, with you; and it’s no fucking wonder you’ve lost these people, and it’s your loss as well as the institution’s, and the whole thing really blows.
“The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.”
THAT is the goddam bottom line here, not whether so-and-so calls herself “feminist” or “womanist” or “humanist” or “Ethel.”
And now for numerous irrelevant evil comments that cross every line that I am fully aware of crossing:
Oh, Hugo. Why assume? And are you oblivious to the fact that oodles of white feminists came out of the woodwork and did exactly that? Not to discredit the other…oodles (maybe I’ll call them noodles) who came out and actually listened and engaged with me and Sudy and BFP and Chris Clarke (who wrote a wonderful book recently) and Blackamazon and tried to at least interact with the idea of interacting.
Oi, you! How’s that navel gazing going? Any new pieces of lint in there?
Okay! *love*
And now for something completely different and relevant:
You are correct that feminism is not one thing, Mandolin; I agree fully with that assessment. However, I do not agree that BFP reached a faulty conclusion because she did not base her conclusion on the exceptions to the general rule that young white middle-to-upper-class heterosexual able-bodied American Feminists tend to think Feminism centers the priorities of young white middle-to-upper-class heterosexual able-bodied Americans. And even when it does look at other problems affecting women who dance in and out of those boundaries, it takes their directed gaze to generate interest in the feminisms that are generally tacked onto the end of something or fomented to increase credibility and to generate theoretical discussion.
And while you do recognize that relegation to the train of the shroud of Feminism to be an enormous problem, you also seem to find it unfathomable that many people’s reaction is to accept that their brand of fighting for women’s rights and human equality perhaps shouldn’t carry that capital F or that name “feminism” at all, because the more the capital F “Feminism” carries the day and bears the torch to replication in every institution that kills off all the little f “feminisms” in the world, the more the signifier doesn’t match the assumed signified of “wanting to fight for women’s rights and human equality.” So why cling to names? Why stick with a movement whose goals appear to exist in name only, whose writers care more about damaged perceptions of self than women’s rights (oh hai there Amanda), whose allies direct responsibility away from the few to instill guilt complexes in the many for whatever reason? Why bother?
Three women that I respect deeply and who work closely with fighting for women’s rights and equality and justice and respect for all people have rejected the label feminist so far. I don’t know what I think of that or what I think of a feminism in which they feel they have no place and no voice. I really don’t. But I refuse to stare into the navel of one woman to find out the answer of what’s hurting all women. Because the very act of staring into that hollowed out space will answer that question for me.
Dear Amanda,
Really now. Really. You need to just stop. Everything you say on this topic is just flat out wrong. Whining that everyone is out to get you because you’re so popular? We left the third grade a while ago, attempt to catch up. Sad that people are calling you a plagiarist? Setting aside the person most affected by this whole thing actually did NOT, the fact is that your behavior through all this has been less than stellar and to try and whine that it’s so horrible to be called something terrible that you’re not, well, all I can say is, hand me the world’s tiniest violin so I can play it while you talk.
What you DID do is bad enough. Even if we lay aside that nasty P word, there’s still appropriation, utter asshattery, and self-righteousness. Oh, and I forgot, white women’s syndrome. Put the back of your hand to your forehead, woman! And don’t forget to ask for smelling salts!
In the end, we’re just plain tired of your bull. You did wrong, you refuse to admit you did wrong, you tried to explain away your wrong and, when that wouldn’t work, you attacked other people’s wrong and still didn’t address your own. Guess what? No one else’s wrong, minor though it may be, cancels out YOUR wrong! get over it, get over yourself, and hush.
“I 100% agree that feminists should not try to destroy each others’ careers. ”
I used to be a professional journalist. As a former sportswriter for a major newspaper. I can’t count the number of times my descriptions of a football or basketball game resulted in calls for my job and my head. What kind of journalist are you, Amanda, that you can’t take the very basic level of criticism that every other journalist receives?
Turn on the news tonight and you will see ABC’s highest-paid news personalities getting crucified for their performance in last night’s debate in Philadelphia. And well they should be. Because they totally fucked up.
Did they fuck up because they lied or misled the public? No. They fucked up because the public was smarter than they were. The public didn’t want to listen to 45 minutes of gossip and mud-slinging before getting to the substantial issues that affect each of us.
And that’s what happened to you, Amanda. The public wasn’t fooled by your post on immigration. The public realized that you were coming in too late and less thoroughly than other popular bloggers. What you call “popularizing” an issue has worked for you on other issues, but it failed on this issue.
People are smarter about immigration than you gave them credit for. That’s something we should be celebrating. People didn’t need your “popularizing” article because they had already heard and learned about the issue from other bloggers. They’d already seen militant immigrants rights activists marching through their own streets and speaking up for their rights.
You can’t “popularize” and issue that is already popular and understood and supported. There are other issues that need your voice and your tactics. Praise be that this isn’t one of them.
So, please, quit whining and act like a professional. Criticism comes with the territory.
Um, so … awesome derailing of the original post.
Anyway…
I think belledame in comment 16 got it exactly right. It doesn’t matter if there are multiple ways of being a feminist, when the feminism that you encounter most often is based in racism, classism, or whatever power differential you want to talk about. I think that the problem is not that dismantling patriarchal control isn’t important, nor that a focus on that does or doesn’t take away from other movements, but that framing it in those terms seems to ignore the fact that all the lovelerly -isms are interconnected. I know that I have a tendency to talk in terms of power, and power differentials, probably in part because of this… but then, thats on the limited scale of commenting in various blogs and personal communications… Anyway, I mean, my social identity is more than just ‘female’ — I am also fairly feminine, bisexual, white, middle class, college educated, Southern — and all those things effect who I am. So, when I am attempting to ‘dismantle the patriarchy’ all those other things are going to come into effect, and be effected. We are not going to be able to get rid of patriarchy without getting rid of racism (etc) because that is all part of the power-conglomerate, and so when issues of racism are ignored, or talked down, one may be lead to question the actual goals of feminism. Because… there are still people who are implicitly ‘in charge’ of the movement.
*sigh* I’m tired, and so I hope that made sense. This kind of round and round makes me feel crazy. And tiny, because there is so much to know and understand, and I am only beginning to grasp the basics. How can even a group of people have the depth of knowledge to have a decent conversation, much less be able to change the dominate culture? It seems like most of what I am seeing is… maybe one could say educating the choir… assuming the choir doesn’t freak the hell out and revert to the going with the flow, as someone said (who I can’t remember). …okay, I’m done now because I think I’ve begun saying things that only I can understand.
mmm…incidentally, when I first heard the phrase ‘post-feminism’ I thought that it was referring to exactly what brownfemipower is talking about–the recognition that even though one may be working to deal with ‘women’s issues’ that the problem extended way beyond the female/male dialectic. *sigh*
…I don’t know that its relevant, so um, feel free to delete this comment (…not that you need my permission…)
BFP did make generalizations – valid, accurate generalizations in my experience. She’s not saying that all feminists are the same, but that a lot of women in feminism do the things she describes.
While you do acknowledge that she wrote a strong post, I feel kind of let down by the analysis here.
Sure, not all feminists engage in racist action and erase women of color contributions, and many women of color consider themselves to be feminists (BFP did before this happened), although I also see many WOC discussing what the label “feminist” means and whether it’s useful for them because of how it’s been used against them.
Take this particular case – the response from several feminists is to circle the wagons, recharacterize the criticisms as accusations of plagiarism and an attempt to destroy a white woman’s career. Pointing out that she did not credit work that has gone before is described as jealousy?
I’ve had my own share of negativity from feminists, who are offended that they don’t get to vote me off the “woman” island, or claiming that they have the right to vote me out of womanhood, or trying to use high school-level body shaming to “put me in my place.” That’s really made me question whether I want to call myself a feminist, even if a lot of feminists don’t hold those opinions – it’s clear that feminism has room for that bigotry, and that’s enough to make me wonder whether feminism is really a useful movement for me. I relate to what she’s saying.
Also,
I’m really curious if anyone said anything about plagiarism before Hugo started talking about zeitgeists, and I want to know how comparing being called “X” to Malcolm X in this way is not appropriating.
Wow, look how quickly this thread turned around. The only fallacy is for anyone who believed that somehow a discussion could take place about why there’s people and communities who won’t adopt the feminist label or struggle with that decision that doesn’t become about a White feminist or White feminists. Maybe some day.
Excuse me, what does this have to do with the thread? Except the fact that it’s been given so much attention simply shows what’s more important in feminism…again.
The problem is that there are White feminists who use “patriarchy” to cram all those “different systems” into but by defining it as “patriarchy” which one gets the focus and which gets addressed when there’s time to get to those other systems? I think everytime feminism says it’s about equality between the genders and it’s mainly about gender, it’s the movement or organization that’s trying to establish a heiarchy of oppressions. Equality between genders still means inequality within genders. If the two genders as a whole are equal but racial, sexual orientation, ablist inequalities remain within them, then who’s liberated?
White middle-class straight able-bodied women and men.
This quote below kind of expresses what I’m trying to say much better.
You think? The thing is that why feminists may talk about the patriarchy and how it’s the source of inequalities, frankly, online at blogs like this is the only place I hear about it. In the communities here, it’s racism, classism xenophobia, nativism (against brown people), violence by individuals yes, but also by the state. There’s a lot of discussions on these issues in grass-roots activism. Virtually all the activism involving immigration, police reform, CJS issues for example as has already been stated many times, is done within and by communities of color. Patriarchy isn’t a common word or idea expressed. Sexism, oh yes! Misogyny, yes! But the intersections too, in ways similar to the quote from Anxious Black Woman for example. It’s tied with racism for example, xenophobia in ways where it seems like there’s a more discrete barrier between patriarchy and these “other problems”.
Often time, I think that’s where White feminists and White progressives trip ourselves up when we address issues like violence, to not include state violence alongside with our platform like communities of color do when addressing these issues. I thought about that while attending a “Victims Rights” march. What’s a victim? Even that is politicized by race, class, crime, status of perpetrator (i.e. if you get raped by a cop or your husband is a prosecutor and he beats you, forget it, if a police officer kills you, forget it). White NOW chapters were present as were other feminist organizations but a lot of anti-violence organizations predominantly organized by men and women of color were absent. The kind of definition of “victim” including victim of violence defined by the event (not to mention that all the victim spokespeople at the event were White women). That was a reminder of some of the divisions that exist including within feminism, but you point them out and it’s about you being divisive.
I talked to my sister-in-law who like the rest of my inlaws is an immigrant in this country and my sisters are immigrants where they live now. Her community faces a lot of issues and she herself has been mistaken for a “mail order bride” because of where she comes from and she thinks more in terms of ethnicity than race, so she viewed that comment as being more a stereotype of nationality than race. But she raised interesting points about the difference in terms of state violence because when she moved to California, she noticed how the ICE was doing raids on Mexicans and in some cases, people from different countries in Central America and she paralleled not with the treatment of her immigrant community but with how her home country treated people that didn’t fit the status quo (for want of a better word) as her country of origin was Communist.
laura, I don’t think you’re off-topic. I think you make good points in my opinion.
It was – as it’s always been – wonderful to read bfp’s post, and the way she underlined the fact that it’s not about ‘plagiarism’ as such, and it’s not about whether or not Amanda is a nice person, it’s about something larger and more important. I will be going over there and commenting accordingly when I can get over my massive internet crush enough to have the nerve.
But in a broader way I was thinking about the ‘feminist’ label, and why I can’t imagine ever ditching it, however fucked up any self-described feminists were to be; I think that what it comes down to is that ultimately I’ve never seen feminism as a ‘movement’ – I’ve seen it as a project, one that gets worked on by different people at different times, one that gets put down and then taken up again, one where the work is sometimes so cack-handed it needs to be done all over again. Part of this is slowly working through things and getting it wrong, head-bashingly wrong at times. Part of this is starting with issues that affect you directly and then over time learning that there’s more in the world than that. When I was ten, feminism was about the intense debate our class was having about where boys and girls got to change into their gym kit.
Basically, I’m saying I understand bfp getting sick to the stomach of the level of bullshit that’s been taking place and has taken place (as I recall from her pre-deletion blog, the decision to give up the ‘feminist’ label was taken or at least was in the process of being taken even before this particular brouhaha), but I don’t agree with her that ‘either there is a feminist movement or there isn’t’.
(I should probably add at this point that I am not, in fact, a man, though I think men’s work is needed if the project I’m talking about is to extend as far as it can, and I don’t think that my comments should have some kind of extra cachet because I’m female.)
I don’t know. I’m still trying to figure out how Malcolm X even ties into this. But then I’m still trying to figure out how what in the original post had to do with plagerism.
This discussion came up before a meeting I attended tonight on something else. Though it’s not just the label. It’s how issues are examined. We talked about differential rape victims. My friend about her daughter who wasn’t viewed as being a rape victim because to many people Latinas can’t be rape victims or raped at all, whereas a White woman was raped and every Black man or dark-skinned Latino from 18-25 was dragged out of class or their homes to submit to DNA testing, and none of them were positive which shouldn’t have been surprising because none of them really fit the description or composite and interestingly enough, a suspected person named by several individuals was never tested.
Many White women would see the rape rightfully so as an act of violence but how it was handled in the community (in a way it would never be handled if the women weren’t White or the rapist was or a White neighborhood was involved) wasn’t also seen as an act of violence, especially since it wasn’t the young men who were the only ones impacted but their families which included mothers and sisters.
One of the mothers and one of the grandmothers in this case were women I knew and were community leaders as well, who worked to address community violence. But they were treated to it.
White women and men seemed to think that acting based on racial profiling is justified if it catches a criminal. And that included local feminists.
Having your home raided by men with guns or having your child open the door to see a man with a gun pointed at him or her is violence. Having it done solely because one house member is the same race as a suspected rapist is violence. And incidently, it doesn’t come any closer to bringing justice for the rape victim either.
One of the tragedies of this situation and many others like it is there is a way for justice for both the victim and the community to be protected and advocated for. It didn’t have to be this way. But until the sense of entitlement that yeah, it’s perfectly fine to raid homes and get justice with a broad sword rather than a scalpal by working harder to find the one who commits the crime, that’s going to be difficult to change.
I started calling myself a feminist around age 10. Even then, though, I knew that it didn’t exactly speak to me, not when The Important Feminist Book was The Feminine Mystique and my mother got up every day to go to work, just like her mother and my father’s mother had.
That said, I totally understand why BFP doesn’t feel like the label fits. How could it? Feminism is supposed to be about women working together to fight for equality, but clearly, some women are more equal than others. You want women of color to feel like we have a place at the table? Then stop moving the chairs around, or swapping them out for ones that aren’t the same size as the rest, or taking them away altogether.
When someone calls you on your white privilege–and yes, Amanda, I’m looking at you–instead of flouncing and blaming it all on those mean, jealous women of color, check yourself. Believe it or not, the Cabal doesn’t have meetings about who we’re going to go after this week. If we’re calling you out–especially someone we thought was an ally–it’s because we want things to be right. When you don’t seem to have the same goal, then yeah, a lot of us start wondering why we’re here.
That can be both good and bad — sure, we aren’t often subjected to the racist and bigoted slanderings of the media. But it’s also another way in which we are made invisible.
I understand that, but I think you are doing a huge disservice to the people (of all races and all nationalities) if you *only* focus on this one issue, as though other forms of violence don’t have just as harmful and just as silencing an effect on individuals and on communities.
And again, it’s just more proof that an entire community (several different communities) can be made invisible. As if we aren’t experiencing these same things. As if ICE officers aren’t pulling the same crap on women in my community that they are on Latina immigrants and African immigrants and Asian immigrants. As if the police aren’t just as bigoted against us as they are Latinas and Latinos, as they are against blacks and asians. As if the police aren’t using their assumptions about our culture and our legal status against us – to harass us, to incarcerate us, to violate us. As if we don’t have healthcare withheld or delayed because the hospital wants to “make sure we’re citizens/residents and “worthy” of treatment.
You get very upset (and rightly so) when you feel that issues and/or people are ignored, made invisible, even when others are screaming that they are right there. But you seem to be doing the same thing — people here (and I’m not the only one) are telling you that these things are happening, that your assumptions are not true, that you are aiding in making us invisible. And your response is that you don’t see it, you don’t hear about it, you don’t read about it.
But who are you to determine who is “white” and who has racial privilege? Because I can guarantee you that here, I am NOT considered or viewed as “white.” I can’t “pass.” I don’t need to talk with an accent or tell anyone my name before I’m treated as a “fucking Russian” (and I’m not even Russian — not that if I were the treatment would be any more deserved). The benefit of living in a city with a large community I belong to is obvious. The drawback is that the rest of the city can recognize us for what and who we are just by looking (I’m sure they probably aren’t 100% of the time, but more often than not). And, like any other immigrant community, even those who have been here for generations are assumed to be new immigrants, to be undocumented, to be “illegal.” And, whether we are documented or not, we are still resented for being here at all.
And, to bring this a bit more on topic — I wonder if going back to time before feminist theory became “academic” (and before the postmodern rejection of all things academic) would help. Because I really feel that what’s missing here is a deep understanding of feminist theory (the real kind, not the academic kind). I feel like there’s this lumping of all feminism into one big basket, as though there aren’t different forms of it out there, as if most feminists aren’t engaging in multiple forms of feminism.
Yes, radical feminism does tend to see the “roots” of oppression to be founded in sexism and misogyny, that misogyny is the “first” form of oppression that all other oppressions are built on. But radical feminism isn’t the only feminist belief system — in fact, I’d say it’s the minority view within feminism as it’s practiced today. Marxist and Socialist feminism sees the “first” or “root” oppression to be class, out of which sexism and misogyny were born, upon which sexism and misogyny built. Multicultural feminism, Black feminism, Liberal feminism, all of these have varying ideas on the “root” oppressions (or the lack thereof). What they do all have in common is the belief that women – all women – are oppressed as women. That oppression may be expressed in various ways, and it may be enhanced by other forms of oppression, but it’s there. (And, because I can’t just ignore this — the opposite of patriarchy is not matriarchy. And no feminist I have ever met, read, or heard of has ever or would ever support the idea of a matriarchy. The only place I’ve ever heard of the “matriarchy” scare tactic is from anti-feminists — the fact that anyone could bring it up in this thread just goes to show how much success anti-feminists have had in spreading their lies and propoganda.)
I can respect the fact that women of color may feel excluded and want to opt out of feminism, just as I respect Alice Walker and the many women of color who rejected feminism 30 years ago and became Womanists.
I can respect it, but I still have problems with it. I think that in rejecting feminism based on one view of feminism (especially when that view is being put forth by men!!!) is to simultaneously ignore and deem invisible the very, very hard work by feminists of color. bell hooks, Patricia Hill Collins, Gloria Anzaldua, Cherie Moraga, Barbara Smith, Angela Smith, June Jordan, Uma Naryan, Aishah Shahida Simmons — just a very small example of women of color who are defining feminism in ways that acknowledge and advocate for women of color.
I also wonder what the effect will be. By excluding oneself from that category, you give up much of your ability to affect change within that category. Is that really what anyone wants?
ok. Word to all you who try to quit the internet. It must be done in stages. because you think to yourself, “hooray I’m going to check the internet early, be done with it and that will be it!”–but in all reality, you check and get drawn in and can’t leave until you make one last comment. haha. This really is a fucking addiction.
Anyway.
I’m wondering why me continuing a long line of rejecting of “feminism” amongst women of color (this is our history for heaven’s sake–whether it’s right or wrong, for every woman who’s claimed feminism, there’s a woman who invented the word womanism or third wave) is insulting or horrible for all the woman of color feminists out there–but a white feminism that rejects an anti-racist agenda is NOT. Why the focus on how insulting I am being to those sisters who claimed feminism and not a focus on the institutionalization of feminism such that anti-racism within feminism is incompatible? Isn’t that far more insulting to those feminists of color who have worked their asses off to ensure that “feminism” means and actively works for “anti-racism”?
Ok. Now, I’m really and truly getting my butt off-line.
The word choice in your last question is fascinating. You ask who should be “entitled” to feminism. In a way, you are focusing on what one person should be able to acquire, to own, to label oneself. Which is what a major part of “feminism” is about: personal entitlement and success. That’s actually what some of these latest books are all about: “You, too, can be a feminist, because it’s all about you!”
There is, also, a feminism that is about movement building and activism. It’s about, when I get my foot in the door, I link arms with my sisters and brothers and we join forces to shove the door open so that everyone gets in. It’s understanding that my little piece of power isn’t worth a hill of beans if it rests on other people being powerless, silent, ignored.
BFP had, in her blog, a practice that was awesome. She pointed us to places and people who were doing this kind of movement building. It wasn’t just links. I remember post after post of her talking about her teachers, her mentors, the people who led the way for her, and she in turn passed on that activist ethic to the rest of us.
But on the internets, nobody knows you’re an activist.
All of a sudden bfp became the topic. People started talking about what bfp was “personally entitled” to say or not to say. That isn’t movement feminism. That isn’t activism. But it is something the internet is particularly good at.
We need to teach those who write articles or speak about our struggles the movement-building skills that will make a difference in the world. We need to follow the lead that bfp’s blog showed so clearly: connect with other activists, combine our work when possible, learn from each other and keep building a better world.
These days, “entitlement feminism” is becoming popular, and it’s discouraging. If that’s feminism, I don’t want it either.
I find these comment threads very helpful. I started off thinking that bfp was sorta mostly wrong (sorry, bfp) but through reading the various comments and posts and comments to the new posts my opinion has pretty much reversed itself.
And I think that as part of the reversal I’m feeling like it makes the most sense to stop doing, in this case, what everyone often does (and what I am notorious for doing myself):
bfp and a variety of other people seem to be making a compelling general, point. In doing so, she/they may have made some other points which aren’t correct–though I’m not going to go there. And although i am probably one of the last people from whom this suggestion makes sense: perhaps in this instance it is worth “forest forest forest forest” as a mantra, and (for the sake of talking about the forest) completely ignore the trees, even the problematic ones? Again, this isn’t a claim that the trees aren’t a problem, just that… well, I don’t know. It seems like it makes sense, at least to me.
I recommend to anyone, bell hooks’ Feminism is for Everybody, a somewhat bland but even-handed treatment of feminism, classism, racism, imperialism, violence, colonialism, masculinity and parenting with a heavy dose of the phrase, “white supremacist capitalist patriarchy,” and the Combahee River Collective Statement. Just because you’re not black doesn’t mean you shouldn’t fight sexism, racism and capitalism at the same time.
I don’t think anyone was trying to end your career. Nor could they.
I’ve seen comments calling for Marcotte to be fired from Alternet, a suggestion that was enthusiastically received, on the thread to ABW’s post on the issue. If this suggestion went beyond venting to, say, writing Alternet and asking or demanding that Marcotte be fired, then that is an attempt to end or at least damage her career.
My basic sympathy lies with BFP: I’ve been the person not cited often enough (in discussions, not necessarily on the internet) that I’m touchy about the issue. But saying that no one has made any attempt to damage Amanda Marcotte’s career is untrue. Say it’s a justified reprisal if you want, say that it’s a minor loss to her career, say that it’s just venting and no one will take it to the level of action. But saying “oh, deary, don’t be so paranoid” is just another dismissal of a woman’s concerns.
Word to all you who try to quit the internet. It must be done in stages. because you think to yourself, “hooray I’m going to check the internet early, be done with it and that will be it!”–but in all reality, you check and get drawn in and can’t leave until you make one last comment
I suggest that if you really want to quit the internet, you need to go cold turkey. Don’t read the comments, because then you’ll get angry and have to answer them (someone is wrong on the internet syndrome). Just let the other person have the last word. If you need to get off the internet, if it’s affecting your health or sanity, it’s not worth correcting that last person. Just get off.
That’s a skewed rendering of that thread. What I saw was Mnemosyne trying to pull a “gotcha” (lot of that going around lately for some reason):
That query earned two “yes” responses, one from commenter Angel H., another from commenter A. TWO. Maybe more agreed but stayed silent; I don’t know. What I do notice is that these statements appeared on a post written several days after the initial outcry, and these statements didn’t appear until they were drawn out by a white person trolling for controversy.
I don’t see where Amanda’s site is down or where Alternet took any action against her, but let’s keep fretting about the damage to her career, even if it’s purely hypothetical damage. That is far more important than figuring out why feminism is losing other voices.
You’ve said this quite a bit, to the exclusion of almost anything else. I think it’s time to listen now.
I don’t see where Amanda’s site is down or where Alternet took any action against her, but let’s keep fretting about the damage to her career, even if it’s purely hypothetical damage.
The comment I responded to implied (I thought anyway) that no one had taken or contemplated any action against Amanda Marcotte’s career. This is clearly not true since people have at least suggested such action. Maybe they were just venting and have no intent to follow up.Maybe they were justified. Either of those arguments would have probably met with agreement from me. But not the “don’t be a silly, paranoid little girl” argument which was made.
That is far more important than figuring out why feminism is losing other voices.
It is my impression that BFP took down her blog because she was tired of dealing with the whole mess and didn’t want anyone in the future to be able to use her work without consulting and attributing her. I’m sorry it came to the point and I wish Marcotte had simply apologized and cited rather than contributing to this blow up. But I don’t see how this makes it ok for people to attack Marcotte’s career, even if the attack is minor and possibly ineffective.
This is clearly not true since people have at least suggested such action.
Two people, at least on this thread–and not until Mnemosyne’s post, which was the first to suggest any action.
But I don’t see how this makes it ok for people to attack Marcotte’s career, even if the attack is minor and possibly ineffective.
*sigh* Because never mind that the thread isn’t about Amanda or her career–let’s make it all about the white woman!
It seems to me contradictory to simultaneously argue that 1) BFP’s voice on the internet was insignificant enough that her longstanding body of work on gendered violence and immigration had no influence on the article and 2) that her internet voice is powerful enough to “destroy” anyone’s career.
The fact that WOC bloggers get the most notice at the moments they raise issues of racism within the feminist blogosphere come up is not a strategy of attack on their part, its a reflection of the institutionalized racism they are pointing out.
Its disappointing that there are so many “neutral” white people who probably generally consider themselves “allies” in this brouhaha.
Because never mind that the thread isn’t about Amanda or her career–let’s make it all about the white woman!
Can you really, honestly tell me that this is not an attempt to silence a criticism? It’s more subtle than “shut up, girl”, but it’s the same sentiment.
Two people, at least on this thread–and not until Mnemosyne’s post, which was the first to suggest any action.
2>0. A poster responding to Marcotte’s post said, “I don’t think anyone was trying to end your career. ” Well, at least two people were willing to try to damage, if not end, Marcotte’s career. If no one was trying to end her career, why didn’t people say “no” when she asked. Or “that’s disgusting” or just ignore it as too stupid to respond to? She may have said it first, but if people weren’t interested in calling for Marcotte’s firing, she couldn’t have provoked them into calling for it. At least not that easily.
I agree that this is not the most important point in the world. Two people, neither of whom probably took any action, is not a big deal. What worries me is the amount of effort that several people now have put into telling me that it’s wrong to point out an injustice, even if it is a trivial one. If you think that the call was justified, why not say that in a case like this, asking for someone to be fired is justified? If you don’t think it was justified, why not agree that the posters went to far?
Great. Fine. It’s a terrible injustice to suggest that people should write letters to Alternet demanding that Amanda be removed from her gig, because there’s no -proof- that she plagiarized anything. BadWrong, and I’m sure it would’ve been terrible if anyone had actually like done it, or if they had, anything whatsoever had come of it. Can we move on now?
for instance, back to Raven’s point: that the fact that this has become about one woman’s CAREER as opposed to y’know the -movement-, or rather, as bfp was concerned with, the -community-, is rather telling.
Can you really, honestly tell me that this is not an attempt to silence a criticism? It’s more subtle than “shut up, girl”, but it’s the same sentiment.
If I had meant “shut up girl”, I’d have said, “shut up girl”.
It’s just fascinating to me that in a discussion about a woman of color who feels that she was silenced, the thread will inevitably turn into a discussion of how white women were wronged.
If you think that the call was justified, why not say that in a case like this, asking for someone to be fired is justified? If you don’t think it was justified, why not agree that the posters went to far?
Possibly because I don’t actually care about Amanda’s career, and because I don’t consider responses to someone deliberately trying to provoke a response to be an “injustice”? And because that’s not what this thread is about?
But please keep telling us how it’s All About Amanda. I’m through.
On reflection, maybe I’m being obnoxiously literalist on this “2 versus 0 calls for firing” thing. I find this whole issue annoying for a number of reasons.
1. I think we’re playing crabs in a barrel with it. I think that Amanda Marcotte acted badly by not citing her sources and/or sources of inspiration better. But the amount of concentrated attention and bile that that act of bad behavior is receiving strikes me as excessive and destructive. As do the counterattacks (yes, I include my own…my apologies.)
2. I’m distraught that a feminist would be so insensitive to the whole issue of not acknowledging other people’s, particularly other women’s, work. Not acknowledging the work women and people of color have done is a classic white male move. A couple of famous examples: Watson and Crick/Rosalyn Franklin, Albert Einstein/his wife whose name I don’t even know. I think that there is a similar story with one of the people who pioneered cardiac surgery: the actual work was done by a (black) lab tech–to the point that the lab tech had to actually direct the doctor who ultimately got the credit in his first attempt at the operation in humans. (The tech had successfully completed a similar operation in dogs numerous times, IIRC). Sorry, I might have this story garbled, if anyone can correct me please do. Or consider Everett Just: he did work that was at least as revolutionary as that of Watson and Crick, but his name never appears in high school biology class the way theirs do…I could go on. The point being that if anyone should be sensitive to this issue, a woman who calls herself a feminist should be.
On the other hand, I consider quitting the “feminist movement” because of not being credited by one particular member of it to be a bad idea. The very controversy shows that the movement (and the anti-racist movemen) is highly necessary still. I suppose one could start a parallel movement made up of women of color and call it something else, but that would only double the amount of work being done without increasing the amount of actual progress being made.
You do realize that the “concentrated attention and bile” is now far more about how Amanda responded to BFP’s critique than the original outcry. And, in my opinion, every bit of it is deserved.
That is not what happened, and it’s angers me that you think that. Nowhere in BFP’s post about this did she say anything remotely resembling that. That is unfair to BFP and wrongly smears her as being overly sensitive and/or cowardly, when in fact she has weathered some of the worst kind of racism with incredible bravery. Hopefully you’re just ill-informed and not trying to deliberately lie about it.
Double the work? Are you serious? The whole point of the whole damned controversy was that WOC bloggers were doing work that the white feminists weren’t! And when the white bloggers finally “discovered” these issues, they acted like they were the only ones doing it. It wouldn’t “double” the work! The scenario you describe isn’t some hypothetical in the future, it’s what’s happening right now!
Your whole post just drips with the very privilege these women have been talking about. No wonder they don’t want to be called “feminists!”
>>Double the work? Are you serious? The whole point of the whole damned controversy was that WOC bloggers were doing work that the white feminists weren’t! And when the white bloggers finally “discovered” these issues, they acted like they were the only ones doing it. It wouldn’t “double” the work! The scenario you describe isn’t some hypothetical in the future, it’s what’s happening right now!>>
“It’s HAPPENING, Reg!! Something. is. actually HAPPENING, REG!!! AAAGHHHHH!!”
…um, yeah, what you said. :headsmack:
Pingback: And so we danced « Brown Shoes Don’t Make It
>>There is, also, a feminism that is about movement building and activism. It’s about, when I get my foot in the door, I link arms with my sisters and brothers and we join forces to shove the door open so that everyone gets in. It’s understanding that my little piece of power isn’t worth a hill of beans if it rests on other people being powerless, silent, ignored.
BFP had, in her blog, a practice that was awesome. She pointed us to places and people who were doing this kind of movement building. It wasn’t just links. I remember post after post of her talking about her teachers, her mentors, the people who led the way for her, and she in turn passed on that activist ethic to the rest of us.>>
Yes. Thank you. THAT.
Okay… I’m not going to cut off any avenues of conversation, because everyone participating in this conversation knows what they’re doing, and is probably much better informed than I am.
But I will say that it was not my intent in opening this thread to rehash Alternet & etc, but to open a slightly different conversation. If that conversation has played out, then so be it.
Dianne, read Sickle’s post above, about a hundred times. The others too, but especially that one. And then read Bfp’s piece again, about a hundred times. It’s not about dropping out of the “feminist movement” – that is simply a mischaracterization (and as if that would be such a *shame for them* – that reeks of condescension, frankly). Why shouldn’t anyone be allowed to call attention to problems within “feminism” or reject a label if it no longer resonates as relevant to their experience or representative of who they are, or if said label’s prominent “owners” / figureheads continually undermine what they are working toward (which, in this case, includes real-life activism as well as crediting the work of, and working for the interests of, ALL women, and engaging in anti-racist dialogue and work)? But really, in response to that comment of yours, Sickle’s is the more relevant counterpoint.
OK – I know I said “finally” above but this time, really FINALLY: failing to acknowledge, or directly / indirectly accepting credit for, the work of people of color is not just currently, and has not just hisorically been, a “white male” thing. It’s also been / also IS a “white female” thing, and that is the piece that you help continue to occlude with your (admitted!) hyperfocus on Amanda’s career (which, have you noticed, appears to be just fine) and nitpicking of *just how angry and reactive* people are allowed to be before it offends your sensibilities or seems *too* angry and reactive. People get away with all kinds of things by shifting the focus away from their own responsibility to how *fair* or *emotional* or *irrational* the reactions of others are.
um, my last blogpost was probably as much in response to this thread as anything else, now I think of it, so rather than rehash it all, I’ll just go ahead and post the link.
http://fetchmemyaxe.blogspot.com/2008/04/okay-as-long-as-were-all-in-examination.html
I want to point out that the thread was following your initial intent, until comment #9.
I don’t think I need to add anything else.
Argh! Could everyone stop trying to twist the intial complaints about Amanda’s Alternet article into something they weren’t? Can we actually talk about the real issue?
Also, since Amanda keeps posting the same comments over and over again and trying to derail what really is a conversation that we need to be having, I shall now summarise her comments in order to streamline things. Shorter Amanda.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlA3Fa5bgig
Can we get back to the real topic now? I second the recommendation of “Feminism For Everyone” as a good starting point. Also, PLEASE look at the assumptions you’re making with comments like “double the work”, people. The point isn’t to double the work that feminists do, the point is that mainstream feminism isn’t doing the work that WOC activists are. At all. And that’s something we need to take a good look at.
I don’t know what the hell Amanda’s doing or what she thought happened, but it sure seems like people sniping on the Internet can cost her a job (even if they don’t urge her employer to fire her, even if they don’t talk to her employer and in fact want him to fail).
Right, which is why I didn’t say anything earlier.
Now we’re 44 comments after that.
On the other hand, I consider quitting the “feminist movement” because of not being credited by one particular member of it to be a bad idea.
Are we reading the same material? Two quotes come to mind, one from bfp’s most recent blog entry and one from her original post on the topic:
New rules for this thread:
* No discussion of Amanda, pro-or-con. That means no attacking and no defending. Let’s see if we can have a discussion about not-Amanda for a while. (Amanda can still post if she wants: This is about the subject of conversation, not who can be in it).
* No discussion of plagerism, accusations of plagerism, whether or not accusations are true, whether or not accusations of accusations are true.
How do we encourage the type of movement feminism that Mandolin spoke about and that bfp practiced in her blogging?
A couple of good ideas are already in the works:
On Shakespeare’s sister there are some valuable pledges:
Angry Black Woman has a Carnival of Allies asking allies to contribute posts by May 5.
It’s true, as we’ve seen, a lot of white feminists will never get it. Geraldine Ferraro didn’t get it. Gloria Steinem didn’t get it. So let’s start downplaying women who aren’t willing to grow and learn and work to trumpet those who are working for a better world.
If this rule also applies to Amanda, then it’s appreciated.
Ravenmn, one thing I think is critical for maintaining feminisms as movements is the realization that equal rights is not a popularity cause — in the sense of classifying people into categories of those who get it and those who do not. I know you have a sense of that knowledge already; but when I saw you talk about how Ferraro and Steinem don’t “get it” I thought about that connotative stretch of “popular” being applied to white middle-to-upper class het able-bodied feminism.
It’s part of what always irritated me when hearing people like Hugo Schwyzer talking about “popularizing” the movement and that 97% understanding 3% analogy. The movement is popular in its denotative sense — it’s for the people. Ran by the people. Geared to the people. The goal is not to trickle the ideas of one type of person to as many people as possible; the goal is to spread knowledge about different types of people among the people. We want 97% of the people to understand 97% about each other because the emphasis is on our shared humanity and how differences affect sharing that humanity. I think BFP hit on this point in her post —
She’s right. Hell, I mentioned engagement in a different thread and people don’t even want to dabble. There is work to be done. One core shift is realizing once you actually start getting to know people or getting to know new situations, your opinions will change. Therefore, it’s a great idea to walk in without the notion that preserving your opinions is sacrosanct.
Much easier said than done since the entire Western framework of gaining knowledge is based on a false framework of neutrality and objectivity; but that’s where the working against privilege sets in. That’s where allies get their hands dirty. And hell, it hurts.
You know, Lauren has a post over at her spot which feels related, even though she was using something else as a jumping off point.
http://fauxrealtho.com/2008/04/12/on-writing-atrocity-and-privilege-redux/
just, to repeat what I said at the end of a comment there:
…I’m going to go in a slightly different direction from the usual conclusion to this, i.e. “damn, I’m/we’re shallow and we suck, I Will Work Harder at intellectually understanding such and so, because it is my Duty,” maybe more: okay, I’m not feeling such and so terribly viscerally. Why not? Is it maybe partly because–in some cases at least–I don’t actually -know- any of the people directly affected by such and so?
And if not–maybe, does it make sense to go, “huh, maybe I could get to know ___ on a more personal level. Seek people out. Talk to people -as- people over the long haul, as an end in itself. Make real connections, not just ‘oh, i want to LEARN from you.’ See if the world maybe isn’t a little bit bigger than I thought, and maybe make some friends along the way.”
Because, ime, once you do that, the “difficult” stuff often becomes a lot easier to understand. Because, now it’s not just some abstract issue. Now, it’s personal.
**
…which brings us back, once again, to this notion of “community” that bfp was talking about.
Because, I don’t know, I keep reading all these accounts of, say, the WAM conference, and how de facto segregated it ended up being; how time and again this gets played out in various networking and social events;
and it’s like: you know, credit where credit is due is a start. But, like…ever try actually getting to -know- people who aren’t just like you? I don’t mean, just BECAUSE they’re not just like you, but because, you know, hey, cool person, maybe I could get over myself and my Fear Of Doing Something Wrong for five minutes and just making some overtures for their own sake?
maybe it sounds trite, but…shrug.
that was a general, rhetorical “you” there, by the way.
Good point. I screwed up. It definitely was getting back into personal popularity and I apologize for it.
I do want to say something about thread derailment. It happens a lot. And I’m at fault for responding to derailers both here and, especially over at BlackAmazon’s thread that Seal Press effectively derailed.
What if bloggers developed a practice that diverted derailers onto other threads? What if we moved the comment of the original derailer onto its own thread with a link to the new thread so that people who want to deal with the derailment can comment at will, but the original thread can continue the discussion without the derailing.
Belle, thanks for the link to Lauren. That’s awesome.
I think I was pretty impersonal when I responded the first time to the conception of feminism as a movement or a community. Here’s my personal, visceral response :This comment makes me think that there are people here who are living their lives completely differently to any way I could ever live my life. I can’t imagine thinking I was such a social asset to people that I actively went out and tried to fucking chat them up. I’m an awkward, socially ill-at-ease person who feels emotionally confused and vulnerable if I have more than about half-a-dozen friendships. I get to know people by accident. I don’t even feel part of a goddamned lesbian community. The people I know are varied, yes, though probably not representative of the population or anything at all – and neither of those things is on purpose because I don’t make friends on purpose.
If feminism is only a movement, only a community, then it’s still going to be exclusive because it’s going to exclude the geeky, introverted people who don’t happen to have fallen in with a set of nice likeminded folks. It’s still making it into a big social club where you have to know the right sort of people to get in at all. And I think that sucks. It doesn’t have such huge social consequences of feminism being racist or classist, but it still sucks and it seems unneccesary. Why can’t we all do feminism in our separate ways and concentrate on actually trying to achieve the same goals?
I agree with Acheman. If not being cripplingly shy is required to be part of your movement, then I can’t be in your movement.
As Emma Goldman never said, “If I must dance, I can’t be part of your revolution.”
Okay, let me be a little clearer: I actually used to be cripplingly shy. Still am quite shy, believe it or not, in many ways (the Internet can be deceptive that way. also a tool, it must be said, in getting over some of that shyness, at least in my case). And I wasn’t actually speaking to the people who are cripplingly shy and don’t really approach much of anyone. I was talking to the social butterflies, the movers and shakers, the people-who-shall-not-be-named, who DO go out to these events, DO chat people up…but stick to what and who’s familiar.
and you know, honestly, I think just leaving a comment on a blog is part of what I was talking about. Just, you know, maybe going to some of the blogs that aren’t part of one’s usual rounds. Having some curiosity, you know? At least reading them for their own sakes, even if one remains a lurker. I think a lot of people -do- do that. I also think there are a number of people, the ones who say “but how can we attract ___ to our movement/publishing company/knitting club/etc?” who never really think of ___ -except- when they’re in Recruit mode. -That’s- what/who I was talking about.
>>I don’t even feel part of a goddamned lesbian community.>>
I hear you on that one.
ABW has a brilliant post about editorial responsibilities toward diversity — How to Promote Diversity in Fiction Markets — which, it seems to me, is strangely applicable to a lot of other situations. In particular, I think it might be beneficial for the editors of Seal Press to read.
And for me to reread now that I’m running a magazine. In fact, I think I’ll do that now.
If feminism is only a movement, only a community, then it’s still going to be exclusive because it’s going to exclude the geeky, introverted people who don’t happen to have fallen in with a set of nice likeminded folks. It’s still making it into a big social club where you have to know the right sort of people to get in at all. And I think that sucks. It doesn’t have such huge social consequences of feminism being racist or classist, but it still sucks and it seems unneccesary. Why can’t we all do feminism in our separate ways and concentrate on actually trying to achieve the same goals?
A movement isn’t a social club… I think that was the point. However, I do think there is a need to form some connection with others as you work and “do” feminism. Like what’s happening here is connection forming but it’s not like you’re out shaking hands. Honestly, I’m an introverted, socially awkward, shy person myself. But when it comes to activism and it comes to doing work for a cause, I’ve been placed in situations where I have to bite the bullet. Just in my personal experience.
And to elaborate more on that — what’s happening here is an example of interaction you can do without having to go through the actual, social awkwardness and still achieve goals.
(Also, another outsider for the GLBTQ community files.)
Pingback: On Being an Ally : The Curvature
No time to read the responses here but appropriation happened throughout the three waves of feminism. Of course it’s not just feminism but whites appropriating POC ideas or culture. A year ago, bfp said appropriation went on. If you are white and read POC writing, don’t appropriate ideas for your writing.
If you can’t do that, don’t read our writing.
Better, read and do not appropriate.
Best, read and give us credit.
The best, newest innovations seem to come from POC and WOC. This has been going on for decades, centuries. Admit it, it’s still going on. We deserve better. When I look at white men and women’s writing, they can’t seem to come up with innovative ideas on their own. It’s quite bland. So do something. Make a committment to giving credit.
I see a movement as a struggle to benefit a group of people rather than a struggle to benefit a certain person. So you can definitely be part of a movement without being a social butterfly. There are all kinds of ways to contribute to a movement. In the past few years, I’ve found it difficult to attend committee meetings without getting pissed off in a totally unproductive way. So my personal commitment to the antiwar movement has been by sharing my graphic arts skills. This is something I do at home, away from other people. The content is decided in a committee meeting, brought to me to work on, my work goes to the next meeting and edits are made.
I have a good friend who produces the newsletter for a local organization. Again, she does this work at home, has contact with one or two people in the organization, but she makes a huge contribution to the organization.
Perhaps you have skills that would be valued. Can you write a letter to the editor? Can you write a grant proposal? Can you help set up a web site? Can you create T-shirts or buttons? Can you create a product (quilts, canoes, furniture) that could be used as a prize in a fundraising raffle?
Mandolin,
Sorry, but I’m going to chime in with those expressing disappointment in your analysis. It seems you’re saying, “But BFP, that’s not what feminism is *really* about.” But getting into the semantics of whether “feminist” refers to oppressive white feminists or includes WoC/anti-racist feminists is missing the point.
Instead of looking at the problems of feminism that BFP points out in her rejection of it, you’re saying, “but it’s not all like that” — and ignoring the bulk of BFP’s critique. This may not be what you mean to be doing, but that’s what it amounts to (I know because I’ve done the exact same thing in the past, and it sidelines the concerns of WoC). It’s a defensive maneuver and it’s not productive, IMO, because it doesn’t actually address *any* of the criticisms of the feminist movement BFP put forth; all it does is distract attention from those criticisms.
I think it would be a far more beneficial thing for us to figure out what’s wrong with *ourselves,* rather than pointing out what we think is wrong with the arguments of WoC.
And this is a huge problem – it should be a feminist issue that any women are considered “unrapeable” because of their race (like Judge Deni, who considers herself a feminist, but considers a black prostitute’s rape to be “theft of services”). Ignoring that this happens, or treating it as a lesser crime than rape against a white woman is just about as anti-feminist as it gets, to me.
And the racial profiling:
Yes, this really points out a big part of the problem in general – not just in a feminist context, but in general. Racial profiling is not okay, and isn’t guaranteed to get justice any faster than doing things in a just manner.
It’s possible to track white people down with composite sketches and descriptions, it’s no different for people of color. Doing it like that just shows investment in white supremacy. An opportunity to put the people of color in their proper place and let them know they’re only seen as criminals, not people with the same rights everyone should have.
And that should make every feminist angry.
Apologies for not coming back to this right away – my first impulse was to respond to something else and I wanted to let it sit until that went away, due to Amp’s instructions.
I think that’s true but that’s one area that needs serious work because it’s too much about women should be equal but some should be more equal than others. That’s why I have problems among other reasons with the definition of feminism being about equal rights of men and women because within these genders, there’s so much inequality. The only people who stand to benefit from this definition are White straight able-bodied men (who are sympathetic to women facing sexism) and women within those demographics essentially. Similarily eliminating the “patriarchy” will positively impact some women perhaps, but many others, probably not.
bfp’s statement (and she’s blogged on this a lot too):
is viewed as part of text which is ” really problematic” when it’s so spot on that what’s problematic in my opinion is not only that she’s right but that it’s going on within feminism met with little but defensiveness and downright hostility by White feminists as shown by different threads here. bfp and her statement are not the problem here and what’s harming feminism. What she’s talking about and what she’s been writing about are what are the problems and are what are harming feminism. That’s my opinion and maybe other views may vary.
One major problem is how can you fight for equality between women and men when you’re not even willing to fight for equality between women? How can you seriously hold any credibility in the fight for equality between the genders when you can’t fight for it in your own? None of us are perfect. I clearly have areas that I need to improve in my understanding but feminism is what you make of it or what you don’t. Is it about women, or is it about some women?
I’m thinking locally of what side the White feminists were on during the furor about naming a new school after MLK, jr. and they were on the side of most of the White women who were on the side of most of the White men who were afraid their kids wouldn’t get into Ivy League if it was perceived they went to a “Black school”. The big excuse was that MLK, jr. wasn’t a local hero, but schools were named after a female astronaut/teacher killed in the Challenger explosion and one of the female Kennedys without any similiar protest only that it was great that schools could bear the name of such great women.
It put the city on the map, fortunately not in the good way. I mean, CNN doesn’t usually cover school board meetings live and New York Times doesn’t usually write them up either. But the lines drawn between who thought MLK, jr. was a worthy person to name a school either and who didn’t and they were pretty close to being racial, sitting on two different seating sections separated by an aisle. I remember being disappointed in my demographic for sitting on the wrong side, just as I was when 56% of them voted to ban A.A. in the state (and a similar voting trend by White women’s been seen in other places that passed or voted on similar laws), a rate that was lower than the White male rate but still more than half. These women screwed themselves (as I wonder how many of them read Section C of prop. 209) to align themselves with the men in their racial group (and away from their gender) but they chose their race. But at another site, I think Rachel’s Tavern, Ann provided plenty of information on this in her comments.
Fortunately, the women will get a second chance in my city b/c the suggestion of naming another school after former USSC Justice Thurgood Marshall is already sending up howls of protest. Why? He’s not local, of course. King’s not, Marshall’s not, (neither was Cesar Chavez btw) but Rose Kennedy and Christa McAuliffe are. Hopefully, there will have been something learned by or at least since the MLK, jr. controversy. If it had been a famous Black woman, it wouldn’t have made any difference because those against it would still be upset that their kids would be perceived as going to a “Black school”.
It’s “controversies” like these which shouldn’t be but are (and many women would deny that racism could still be overt enough so that contesting the naming of a school after MLK, jr. could even happen) that are part of reasons to at the very least question feminism and its assumption of who it’s for. Because when White women and Black women are sitting on the opposite sides of the aisle at a meeting or on an issue that impacts them, it always seems like the White feminists choose race over gender (while accusing women of color of doing like or choosing “their men” over their women or not calling their men on their sexism (and I know at least once I was asked to do so!)). On so many different levels, White feminists *d0* choose race over gender even while they point fingers at women of color, accusing them of doing so.
Who defends feminism? I don’t know and I’m not sure I care. But I can definitely understand why women walk away from it, many without looking back. Until the opinions of these women are taken seriously and not labeled as them being misinformed or misconstruing feminism or listening to lies about it because apparently they’re not as smart as White feminists or even being essentially called liars or lying to others, feminism may move forward but probably not in any real meaningful way.
Many great women of color who blog are closing their blogs or taking breaks. I respect their reasons for doing so and support their decisions but I do hope that people are paying attention to what’s happening with these blogs the next time a discussion about women of color and feminism turns around to being about the poor White woman.
Fair cop. I did think this sentence was one of the brilliant parts of BFP’s post. It’s absolutely true, and important.
I just wanted to clarify that I did think that sentence was brilliant, and I should have said so in the post.
[Deleted by Amp. Please see comment #56 for reason why.]
“theft of services”
More commonly know as slavery?
Pingback: » BFP Summarizes Her Thoughts - By ¡Para Justicia y Libertad!
Pingback: not "a feminist" but advocating feminism « strength never power