Our Shared Shelf discussion
Intersectional Feminism
>
Intersectionality: What is it? What is it not?
So what this means to me is that if you are trying to understand how gender operates in a society, you can't actually do that very well without considering how it intersects with other social categories. Because those categories don't operate in isolation, they influence one another deeply. If you look at gender by itself without considering how it is affected by other social factors, you are really going to miss important things, your ideas are going to be flawed, and you may actually end up doing more harm than good no matter how pure your intentions.
Yes, hence my analogy of cocktail effect of pharmaceuticals in the body in some other thread.
Bunny --Since you are so passionate about the topic, this might be a good place for you to recommend some further reading material (books, papers, articles, etc.) for people to learn more.
These might as well be scientific papers or anything that has case studies in them as it is so hard to find things beyond opinion when you do not know exactly where to look.
Thanks.
Thanks Ines. I thought I'd start this topic to see if anyone else was interested in talking about it with me. If its just going to be me posting links to articles that no one else is interested in, that seems kind of pointless. I have other places I can talk about this if the members of this group aren't into it. No need to force things if they aren't going to happen.
So. Flavia Dzodan famously said, "My feminism will be intersectional or it will be bullshit." What do you think that means? Do you agree? In the words of Pink Floyd "is there anybody out there?" Hellooololololo?Note: It makes me giggle a lot that my spell check red flags intersectional and Flavia Dzodan, but not feminism or Pink Floyd. Bwahahahahahahhaa!!
I agree with that. Talking about feminism without including all types of situations in which gender equality is influenced by other issues is one-sided and only helps remove oppression from the least-oppressed group.
The one comment I read somewhere that made me think the most was "Feminism is not here to make everyone comfortable" or something like that... Unfortunately, to me the suggestions following on how to bring in more intersectional thinking were too abstract, so I am seeking more tangible ways. How did you (both of you) get introduced to the concept? Experience? Do you have pet peeves on what people do? E.g someone mentioned in a different thread the term "sanity check" as a ableist term. Considering that this is a expression I hear at work at least daily, it is probably good to be made aware... Are there other things you see or hear daily?
I've been following the other discussions on intersectionality, but withdraw from the discussion - I didn't really feel like I could contribute. I'm new to the word (my little feminist schooling probably was a bit old School - a lot of Butler, Greer and de Beauvoir). I think I am getting the basics by now, but language also complicates things. I'm trying to grasp something complex, and discuss it, in a language that isn't my native tongue.But I wanted to let you know that I am reading and googling and trying to learn.
Anja wrote: "I agree with that. Talking about feminism without including all types of situations in which gender equality is influenced by other issues is one-sided and only helps remove oppression from the lea..."I agree with it too Anja. I don't want to be complicit in the oppression of other people even unintentionally. I also feel like the more I learn the more I realize how my privilege makes me ignorant and clouds my thinking and I don't like that. I resent the ways in which I have been acculturated to accept things that don't make any sense as if they do. I don't like being fooled that way. I want to be fair and I want to be respectful of others and it makes me angry when I realize that I've been taught to do things that are just - awful.
Ines wrote: "The one comment I read somewhere that made me think the most was "Feminism is not here to make everyone comfortable" or something like that ..."]That is a great comment Ines! Because feminism is about changing the status quo so how is it even possible to do that and still make everyone comfortable?
Ines wrote: "Unfortunately, to me the suggestions following on how to bring in more intersectional thinking were too abstract, so I am seeking more tangible ways.
How did you (both of you) get introduced to the concept? Experience? Do you have pet peeves ..."
I think I got introduced to the concept before I knew there was really a name for it when I started to notice some really strong similarities between things said by people who were anti feminist and people who were pushing back on other kinds of social justice efforts. Like
"Why do we need gender sensitivity training? We don't have any women working in this section."
"We don't need a diversity workshop here, we don't have any diverse workers."
"Of course women do the majority of childcare, women are just naturally better at childcare."
"Why are there so many asians working in coding but so few in management? Because asians are just naturally better at math."
"If we give you a room to breast feed at work then we are going to have to make special concessions for every other minority that wants something."
"Its too expensive to put in wheelchair ramps, and if we do that what next? We can't keep changing our designs to accomodate every special interest group."
"Feminists are just over sensitive, they make a big fuss over nothing, anyway that stuff is all in the past now."
Replace feminist with any other social justice cause, and you will hear the same thing.
And so on. I felt like, hmmm doesn't this stuff sound kind of familiar? The specifics are different but the form of the argument... I recognize this, this is the same thing in a different hat. And the more I looked the more I started to see connections and similarities.
So it probably started from seeing likenesses. Then as I started to get more into trying to learn and trying to reach out and learn from people I started learning more about differences. I found out more and more about the ways in which the discrimination and exclusion and oppression is not the same. By which I don't mean worse, I mean actually different in how it happens. For example at one time I didn't know that black women are routinely followed around in department stores because its assumed that they are there to steal something. Because that had never happened to me I didn't understand that it happened to other women until I talked with them about it. Then I started to learn more. And more. So then I felt like I was finding out all this stuff and it was amazing.
Then probably the next thing that happened was that I started talking about the things I was learning to some of my friends and whoa, surprise. Turns out a lot of them didn't want to hear it. People who were supposedly feminist didn't want to hear about the experiences of black women because we aren't doing civil rights here we're doing feminism. Or didn't want to hear about trans experiences because trans women weren't "real" women. Or... it was very disappointing and really sad. I lost some people I thought were my friends. But I guess I'd just gone a step too far for them.
Then I started to learn about various movements and read more theory and essays and etc. because I was curious, and then I started to get into the history and I just kept learning more and I'm still learning. I get it wrong a lot but I keep on learning and trying and honestly its good. I mean sometimes it makes me really sad and angry but at least I feel like I'm getting to grips with something real.
I didn't hear about the term "intersectional feminism" until I joined this book club. Before, the most-heard-about example of feminism I had was Femen, who seem to be against Muslims and view abolishing the hijab as a suitable goal. As one half of my parents comes from a Muslim country (their family is not Muslim), and I am a WOC and half immigrant to Germany, I couldn't identify with this type of feminism. Often I also experienced that feminists would say something along the lines of: "First gender equality, then the rest of the problems."
When I started reading more into feminism and found out about ableism, I started to understand that I really have to be more intersectional. I didn't realise that there were many things I was doing that were discriminating others. I'm in a learning process.
When I started reading more into feminism and found out about ableism, I started to understand that I really have to be more intersectional. I didn't realise that there were many things I was doing that were discriminating others. I'm in a learning process.
Anja wrote: "I didn't hear about the term "intersectional feminism" until I joined this book club. Before, the most-heard-about example of feminism I had was Femen, who seem to be against Muslims and view aboli..."Anja --
This is a very interesting background. I myself am married to someone from Egypt who is not Muslim. Essentially, I am married to a refugee who had to flee the country because of religious persecution -- He moved to the US where we married and which is still our primary residency.
I have never heard anyone actively state: Gender first, rest second, but this does not mean people like this do not exist. I was fortunate, I have been involved in groups both at my kids school and at work in the US where I experienced more inclusiveness. For example the lactation room at work is also wheel chair accessible -- One of my coworkers is in a wheel chair and has three kids. The oddest life circumstances are being supported; for example my job moved to a different country when my husband had to move (we do not work for the same company). We also do have a very strong diversity council primarily because one of our top executives is openly gay and actively sponsoring diversity (e.g. there are two openly transgendered women working in my building).
Not saying everything is perfect, but it appears a lot better than some other places.
I learned that people are a lot more open than one might think. I think an open and most importantly friendly conversation is very important.
I would appreciate for example parking spots for pregnant women in my company or generally more females in the executive ranks with the same diversity the men are seeing.
Unfortunately, without clear examples of what can and needs to be done it will be very difficult to drive a conversation and a situation towards progress. This last comment is about my own experience (I work in change management and policy making).
I think the conversation is not about how to achieve perfection, but how we can give everyone very tangible advice on how to improve, be it to watch our for certain language or concrete examples as wheel chair accessibility, teaching togetherness at school (no gender or other segregation), and talk about marriage as a concept of sharing a life and responsibilities regardless of gender.
I ran the local marathon this weekend and I was very pleased to see that in the school division a kid with a wheel chair was pushed, so he could participate in the school relay. This is inclusiveness. I need more stories like this.
Maybe it is about sharing the good stories as much as the negative stories, so we can learn from each other what success can look like and where we still have to do more work.
Anja wrote: "Often I also experienced that feminists would say something along the lines of: "First gender equality, then the rest of the problems.""This is very problematic. Everyone should be allowed to choose the order of what to fix when. I can't recall whether it was here in the group or in Bad Feminist that I read about how WOC should feel free to pick racism before other feminist issues, without being any "less feminist" for this choice.
I can't grasp that anyone would like to tell another person how their particular problems are worth to said person, since it's a subjective experience. I also don't think a particular group should pick on behalf of the whole group a specific problem hierarchal order, but individuals should be allowed to choose for themselves.
Aglaea wrote: "Anja wrote: "Often I also experienced that feminists would say something along the lines of: "First gender equality, then the rest of the problems.""
This is very problematic. Everyone should be a..."
I'm not saying they do this directly. However, just what their actions and words end up implying.
This is very problematic. Everyone should be a..."
I'm not saying they do this directly. However, just what their actions and words end up implying.
Anja wrote: "I'm not saying they do this directly. However, just what their actions and words end up implying."Sorry it was unclear! I've heard it be said either in the book or the group how some POC have been actually told gender feminism is more important than racism.
Here's an example of some intersectional thinking that I saw pop up in my news feed recentlyhttp://mic.com/articles/140393/black-...
The North Carolina NAACP (National Organization for the Advancement of Colored People) is getting ready to organize sit ins to protest a recent law written to require people to use the bathroom of the gender listed on their birth certificate, a so called "bathroom bill."
Reverend Barber spoke at a press conference. "Hate Bill 2 ... is a race-based, class-based, homophobic discriminatory bill ... that is nothing more than the politics of Jesse Helms revisited," Barber said. Helms was a famous 1960s-era conservative from North Carolina who stridently opposed civil rights.
According to Barber, HB 2 was never about bathrooms. "It's not about bathrooms, just like segregated bathrooms was never about bathrooms," he said. "It was about a political statement; it was about oppression; it was about having public signs of domination."
Discrimination is discrimination whoever its aimed at and however its justified. People who experience discrimination know what it looks like, and should work together to understand how it happens and stand together to oppose it.
Great piece here about how to be in solidarity with trans people, and very applicable to how to be in solidarity with people of other marginalized identity groups too. http://feministing.com/2015/12/10/sol...
Here's the list of 201 level strategies for solidarity, what do you think of them?1. Imagine that your ‘allyship card’ expires at the end of the day, every day.
2. Invest in arts and culture.
3. Guilt is not useful; solidarity is.
4. Naming is powerful.
5. Layers not fractions.
I like all of them, but I especially like #3
I am seeing some discussion around the group, particularly in discussions of intersectionality issues with Moran's book where people are saying things like, "well she is white, and she doesn't know a lot of black people so how is she supposed to include them without being fake?"I'm trying to respect people's desire not to be challenged on every damn thread on the same subject because I can see how that can become a pain in the neck. At the same time I find myself wanting to point out that what is being talked about in the above example isn't intersectionality its inclusion. They are not the same thing.
Intersectionality is the recognition that systems of excluding, oppressing and marginalizing people don't operate in isolation from one another but intersect and strengthen each other. You don't have to have a black friend to understand how racism and misogyny operate to reinforce one another. You don't have to know a gay or trans person to understand how rigid gender roles can be used to limit straight women and gay men and non gender conforming people and so on.
The point is not to create some sort of United Benetton Colors of Feminism where you have one representative of every possible marginalized group so you can check them off some kind of list. The point is that if you don't pay attention to how these systems interrelate then your understanding of feminism stays fairly shallow.
Intersectional analysis can be a good argument for inclusion, because including people who have first hand lived experience of how to fight the monster on a different front is good information, it gives you more tools, it gives you a deeper understanding. It helps you to find the blind spots you don't know you have. But intersectionality isn't inclusion. They are two related but separate things.
I like this thread. I like how it talks about intersectionality. I have a bit of a blended friendship group: a white questioning ciswomen who's deaf and hard of hearing like me, a white bisexual ciswoman who has health issues, a white straight transwoman, a straight cisgender WOC who is getting out of her abusive family, a cisgender WOC lesbian who has mood disorders, an older straight cisgender WOC, a fellow transman who's a bisexual POC and has the same chronic health issue I have (not as severe though), and my boyfriend who is a bisexual POC cisman and his POC family with gay cismen as parents. However, this is more for me outline to myself how they are diverse and in what ways, and I certainly don't ever say "I'm not racist because I have a black friend!" Why the hell does having one exclude the other? I keep hearing that too many times unfortunately that it makes me wanna punch someone if they go on that BS one more time. What my friends do is help me see the incredible amount of diversity there is in life and how different things all intersect each other. Which is kinda important since my family is pretty damn white, white, white and I'm breaking the mold on both sides of my family by even HAVING a hard of hearing disability let alone a severe chronic illness, let alone being gay, AND a transgender man. Yeah that gives you an idea for my family framework eheh.
I really got into intersectionality when I realized that having disabilities meant I was different than my transfriends who had none (ableism that came up), being gay when my transfriends are predominantly straight (the homophobia troubles come up), and having friends who are POC and WOC let me into their world a bit where the racism comes up and intersects with things in their lives too. I guess it was just like common sense to me that things would intersect and that in some occasions that one concern would be greater than the other, and in other occasions the reverse would happen, and that's only for two different concerns and changes to become a lot more bloody complicated when you add in even more to the mix.
When I started my research to figure out how to be respectful and realistic in my inclusion of diversity of different people, genders, sexualities, cultures, histories, ethnicities, religions, etc. I had to do a lot of research into history, progressions and trends over time, and I've seen the same pattern repeat itself time over time. I'm very interested in how the white invaders have oppressed and subjugated and even in many cases ripped to shreds the culture and society and peoples that lived here first and have the primary claim to this land we call America today.
And how even today, when I say POC or WOC you're gonna automatically think of a black person, or if you live here in the US, then you'll think of an African American. Probably did for the people I mentioned as my friends right? But its only the two WOC I mentioned that are half-black or all black. My transman friend is half-Japanese and half-Irish. My boyfriend and his family are a mix of Japanese and Native American. Yet they're all POC.
The Native Americans (or American Indians as some people prefer, it's up to the person to decide) often get even worse treatment with less awareness than the African Americans and the black community, with FAR FAR less representation in books and media, and less rights too, so I'm also diving in with the intent of trying to change that so that they'll will start to get more representation. I'm the person that does NOT believe that we should leave it all up to the oppressed minority to fight to change things around alone. That is simply the lazy way of thinking of a privileged person who refuses to get off their bum to break a sweat to help others who are less fortunate than them.
In any and ALL successful revolutions, revolts, societal changes, and progress made, there have to be a group of people from all sorts of different classes, social strata, both the privileged and the oppressed, all banding together to protest the way things are and make the change as one. I intend to fight and work alongside those who need the changes to move through, and I like to double-check whenever I can that I'm not saying or doing things that are disrespectful and hurtful and can even be cruel, and like to ask if I am just in case. :)
Also I'm trying to use my position of privilege, of being a white man, to get others especially other white men to start to listen. For SOOOOOOOOOOOME reason most of them do not listen to any but another white man. =.= *huff* So that's what I'm doing when I can, raising the awareness, linking back to what the actual people of that minority are saying about themselves and letting them talk for themselves even if I am needed to funnel the white men into a position where they will even listen in the first place. It's a team effort and I'm here to play my part. :3 <3
Thanks Indigo, I'm glad you found something valuable here. There are lots of things in your post I liked but one thing that jumped out at me in particular was when you said, friends who are POC and WOC let me into their world a bit where the racism comes up and intersects with things in their lives too.It probably jumped out at me because of some things I'm dealing with right now but I started thinking about people letting each other into their worlds. And how scary and dangerous that can be.
After reading the answers to the book announcement as well as the whole(!) "Can we appreciate the book for what it is" thread on Moran's book "How to be a woman", I really wanted to chime in. As this seems the most appropriate place, I’m doing it here: *Please bear with me, this has somehow turned into a pretty long rant…*
I was honestly baffled by the tone of the discussion about intersectionality. (Not in this thread obviously, but in the ones I just mentioned.) Tone is of course a difficult matter when commenting on the internet, but people were clearly being offended and started getting into one-on-one controversies. I think controversy and discussion are generally a good thing. However, to me at least, the tone seemed often defensive, sometimes offensive or even outright arrogant. Everybody might have had good intentions and as people were commenting in OSS and not under some random youtube video, the whole thing remained fairly civil. Still, some people on both sides seemed really pissed and kind of insulted.
My guess is that the whole thing ‘escalated’ because it seems very difficult not get personal in a discussion that has to include parts of your personality. I think that in a debate about the lack of intersectionality in a book written as a feminist manifesto by a white cis-woman it is important for me to reveal that I too am a white cis-woman. It is even more important for me to be conscious about this. However, this also makes it very difficult to keep any discussion about the matter on a not too personal level – after all, my perspective is influenced by my gender, economic status etc..
When I started to read the “Can we appreciate the book for what it is” thread I quickly realized that I too was getting a little bit angry at some commenters who seemed to dismiss not only the book, but the author and everybody who had enjoyed the book – especially when they outed themselves as white cis-women. Some of those white cis-women got really defensive (this defensiveness was compared to “white fragility”). I am not sure, however, if this was only due to ignorance and kneejerk reactions based in the subconscious parts of their race and gender based identity. Or rather, I don’t think their reaction was just wrong and a sign of stupidity and ignorance and the whole dynamic was somehow their fault.
I feel that with such debates about intersectionality, we (as in everybody interested in debates about equality) are running the risk of repeating earlier mistakes of radical feminists who chose a language that blurred the line between criticism of sexist behaviour by men and criticism of men as in ‘being born with the biology of the male sex’. Similarly, the criticism of Moran seemed to blur the line between criticism of her work and criticism of her identity as a white cis-woman in an industrial country. Some comments basically boiled down to “no need to read this, just another white cis-woman’s life”. To be clear, I have a very ambivalent opinion about “How to be a woman”. On the one hand I enjoyed reading it, often nodding and laughing out loud. On the other hand I also furiously scribbled notes in it on how and why I don’t agree with her on some crucial points e.g. when she talks about women’s history.
I fully agree with the critique that her writing is neither inclusive nor aware of intersectional questions. (view spoiler) I don’t think, she does that with some vile (white, cis-female) intention or even because as a person she is totally ignorant about class, race and privilege. She is not a bad analyst, she is an entertainer who has done some pretty good (but not academically thorough) analysing. Me being a political scientist who comes at intersectionality from the specific angle of ‘structural violence’ etc., I would approach the whole thing differently. But then, my book wouldn’t be half that entertaining – unless you are a very enthusiastic political science nerd. (And I am so critical of everything I think being a white cis-woman that I will probably never write it…)
I think this boils down to the fact that she has written a witty book about her own experience growing up as a white cis-woman, but has given it a title and included some advice that makes it seem like a feminist manifesto – which we hold to higher standards than a memoir. This could be my main criticism of her book and maybe a synopsis of a kind of heated argument in the thread mentioned above.
Then again, I think it should be only that – criticism – and not condemnation. While she is obviously not a scholar of gender studies, while she is obviously not trying to be very inclusive or representative, she is out their loudly claiming that she has something to say that matters and that everybody should listen. It might be annoying – but frankly also inspiring. While her stance is far from ‘perfect’, it is still far more than I heard from grown up women when I was a teenager. The criticism is valid – the positive takeaway is real as well. I felt empowered by some parts of the book and I guess not only white cis women (can) do. And even if the empowering aspect would be limited to white cis-women that would still be something. It is empowering to see a woman that is out there, loud, rude, funny, provocative, and honest. Not because white cis-women are great or somehow better than anybody else. They surely aren’t. But while there are more oppressed groups in society, white cis-women aren’t free from oppression yet. I guess nobody is (free from structural violence) until there is some real equality, but white cis-men are less likely to write books about inequality as they profit more from the current order or at least think they do. (I would enjoy a well written book about the struggle of a stay at home dad as much as I enjoy every well written book…)
For me, it is inspiring to read about Moran’s experience with masturbation, child birth and abortion because there still aren’t a whole lot of women who talk about these issues as honestly as she does – and dare to be funny at the same time. I am glad people criticise the book and I think the discussion about it on OSS may have introduced a whole number of people to the concept of intersectionality. For me, the shortcomings in her work, however, do not somehow negate the good parts. I want to pick the parts that are empowering, say “more power to bold outspoken women like Moran” and then move on with my life in which I (in contrast to her character as represented in the book) am conscious of my privilege as well as the fact that violence and discrimination do not choose one of your characteristics at a time.
After all, I think we really can’t afford to just discard feminists like Moran. I dare to say that even feminism that is kind of ignorant of intersectionality and not really inclusive can contribute something to the discussion. It is clearly not thoughtful to implicitly link femaleness to having a vagina. I fear, however, that those who discard this kind of narrow feminism forget that we really haven’t come that far yet. While it would be stupid to tell somebody that “gender comes first, than race” or stuff like that, I find it equally ignorant to dismiss the experience of a white cis-woman who is groped in the working place and starts to mobilize her white female co-workers. I would applaud her and cheer when she writes a book about or gives an interview on the topic. At the same time I would expect her to speak up in real life when she sees that her gay co-worker is excluded from a bonding event or her lesbian Asian co-worker is not given the same raise as she is. Everybody should learn to call out every kind of discriminative bullshit.
And yes, there are pockets of radically critical people like on OSS or even more so in every gender class I have attended – but this hardly represents society. Society is a mess. Societies all over the world are changing slowly and not always and everywhere at the same pace. We should all strive to be learning, to be critical, mindful of the pitfalls of our own mind. (I am shocked when I do these tests on subconscious bias. I am ashamed of how ignorant, racist and sexist my subconscious seems to be despite my best effort. I wouldn’t befriend it on Facebook…) But we should not ignore the fact that there might as well be some white cis-girl for whom “How to be a woman” is an awakening that may well later trigger her interest into gender studies.
Fact is, that the asynchrony of social development means that not everybody will always be at the same page/pace and not every defensive reaction will be a perfect example of “white fragility” or something similar on a gender level. Sometimes people are just temporarily overwhelmed when they feel what is empowering to them on some level is not only criticised, but discarded. It is absolutely important that those who have done an even more thorough analysis keep pushing for more equality, remind those who are privileged in different ways to be conscious of their own status and remind us all to create space for those who still aren’t heard. In fact, I often feel ashamed of my privilege. And that’s great if it pushes me to be more active and political. It doesn’t help, however, if it just makes me feel bad about myself. Knowing more about intersectionality doesn’t make you a better person and being defensive because you feel you are being looked down upon because of your privilege doesn’t make you a bad person. Both just calls for patience, listening skills and perspective. We should acknowledge people’s realities and not talk down to each other. After all, that’s been done for us by the patriarchy, exclusive structures and authorities in general. While it might be that I have read more about intersectionality than Caitlin Moran (I really don’t know) or am more versed in gender studies than her (I doubt that), after all – and compared to her – I haven’t done a lot to further equality for all or written a book about intersectionality yet … at least, she is out there doing something – and she has provoked quite a debate by doing so.
My God, I hope this makes sense to some of you although it is almost entirely related to a different thread…
It makes sense to me and I'm glad you are seeking to engage with this topic in a way that is thoughtful and open. For me what was difficult in some of the discussion of Moran's book was that people got so offended at criticism of the book and/or those who liked it as if not liking the book was some kind of personal insult to the writer and readers. This is why I brought up white fragility, but then that got taken as a personal insult too and just raised the temperature even further. But the whole reason I brought it up in the first place is that part of the theory of white fragility is that people believe wrongly that when someone suggests you are exhibiting implicit bias that automatically means they are saying you are a bad person.
That's part of why its called fragility, because taking everything so personally makes you fragile and unable to continue the conversation. It makes you feel like your identity as a good person who means well is being challenged and dismissed. And as long as that's what people think is happening (that they are being accused) then they are going to be focused on trying to defend themselves. Which makes it very difficult to move on to discuss the social structures that create implicit bias because you have keep reassuring people no you aren't bad, no you aren't being rejected, no, no - look its not about you personally its about you as a person affected by her society as we ALL are.
But if you can't ever get past that personal thing you can't get to the wider implications. And its like there isn't enough reassurance in the world, unless you can actually tackle the underlying belief that a person can't be a good person and also suffer from bias. That's what has to go first, before we can try to move forward, but its so defended! I don't know how to get past it.
Do you see what I'm saying? Does that make any sense to you?
On a different topic under the category of intersectionality"we’ve got to stand side by side with all our neighbors –- straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender; Muslim, Jew, Christian, Hindu immigrant, Native American — because the march for civil rights isn’t just about African-Americans, it’s about all Americans,” she added. “It’s about making things more just, more equal, more free for all our kids and grandkids. That’s the story you all have the opportunity to write. "
Michelle Obama giving a commencement address in Jackson Mississippi this week.
Wow, that was a pretty fast reaction. :)I see the problem with people taking things very personally. As I said, I think it is especially difficult not to get personal on this topic as we regard our gender as such a crucial part of our personality. I mean, at least when we engage in discussions with others – on gender related issues. For me, I mostly just feel like a human called Sophie. When I am by myself I wouldn't yell: "Cis-Woman! Why the hell did you just spill a whole mug of tea over your own pants?!!!" It’s more: “Sophie! That was stupid! Clean this up, it burns!”
In any social context, things are different of course. When I am ‘out there’ I identify as a woman, because I am a cis-woman, but mostly because I am identified and treated as one. (Still, I often feel that many aspects of femaleness really have nothing to do with me – unless I really force myself to care about them. Something I found partly mirrored in Moran’s book.) Also, I am conscious of the fact that I am white and biased and privileged and should take into account my race, gender, economic status and how it influences my position in the power pyramid. I often feel bad about my bias and as I admitted – I too have felt slightly defensive about some of the earlier posts in the “appreciate it for what it is” thread. I am not sure if this is due to some “fragility”.
In that special debate, the author was outright dismissed and in the thread about the book announcement people where discouraged to read the book. I understand how that could make you feel like being white or cis is somehow inherently wrong and that you are kind of ‘suspect’ if you are not especially militant about your views on race and gender as a white cis-woman. Such a rhetoric can lead to (false?) solidarity with other people who are cis and white. This is what I meant when I compared the inherent risk of this style of debate to the pitfalls of radical feminism that comes across as men hating. It’s still mostly the patriarchy’s fault that calling yourself a “feminist” is unsexy, but (some) feminists have their share in it.
Why do the same thing in the broader gender or even broader equality debate? I just think, both sides need to work on it. “Us” defensive people need to work on being conscious of our bias and privilege – after all it is annoying that there people who conform less to the supposed normality of gender norms would very likely not have gotten such a publishing opportunity. In that sense it is annoying to see yet another cis-woman’s account – not rivalled by a more diverse crowd of books. Those who are annoyed by another cis-woman’s account need to be open and patient and not turn equality-ism into cis-shaming – after all, it is an achievement that this book has been published and some of its content can truly be empowering. We need to acknowledge each other’s realities instead of discarding a book as a ‘wasted opportunity’ because it does not address intersectionality and is not very inclusive. In this vein, I don’t really think I like the term “cissexism”. Why don’t we just say “sexism”? Why single out people who are cis? This somehow translates to me as the notion that being more privileged makes you somehow inherently inferior or evil. Being privileged makes me privileged. This whole dynamic surely seems somehow similar to the concept of ‘fragility’, but I still think these are two distinct things.
As I understand the concept of “white fragility” it is about white people having very low thresholds when it comes to feeling discomfort in discussions about race. Not being used to being openly addressed and challenged about their race and privilege, they get angry and defensive about it really fast. Now, I cannot be an hundred percent sure that such a dynamic wasn’t at play when I got defensive, because my evil subconscious could be messing with me. (No sarcasm intended!) However, I think I was defensive because I felt the exact same thing you felt – only opposite. It seemed to me – and still seems – that you were basically not allowed to like the book, because that would make you a moron. That as a cis-woman I had to dislike it in its entirety, because everything else would make me somehow suspect. People were actually discouraged from reading the book which was framed as a total waste. To me, that’s a senseless exaggeration. And really, I don’t think it helps anybody’s cause – except for the patriarchy of course. ;)
All in all, I would say that it is absolutely okay to be offended if you feel that you are not allowed to have a weighed opinion of your own. Getting defensive about that to me is different than just not being able to handle a debate about your privilege.
About your comment on “white fragility” in that thread and the reaction to it; I think the comment was a bit out of context and within the unholy atmosphere and dynamic it just lent itself wonderfully to misunderstandings. I think some commenters had already felt talked down to and thus just interpreted it to be insulting.
I hope we are not derailing this conversation too much. I just felt that this is no small issue as it is at some level also about ‘the movement’ – people who have similar intentions of fostering equality – tearing itself apart. And regarding the fact that resources are scarce to start with that seems really dangerous and unnecessary to me.
P.S.: I think Michelle Obama gives great speeches and especially commencement addresses. Thank you for that quote.
P.P.S.: Hm, I just asumed that people want to be part of 'the movement'. There might of course be some people who don't give a damn about equality in a broader sense and who don't want to think about their own bias. Indeed, there was a clever remark in the thread we are discussing on how upper class cis-women might not necessarily care about the broader struggle of women in general (being of colour, poor and in need of an abortion, a single parent etc.). Which brings us back to intersectionality... I just didn't really see that in the comments.
Sophie wrote: "Wow, that was a pretty fast reaction. :)I see the problem with people taking things very personally. As I said, I think it is especially difficult not to get personal on this topic as we regard o..."
Fast reaction because I just happened to be at the computer at the time, and here I am again, we must be in synch ;-)
You said, "As I understand the concept of “white fragility” it is about white people having very low thresholds when it comes to feeling discomfort in discussions about race. Not being used to being openly addressed and challenged about their race and privilege, they get angry and defensive about it really fast.
That is definitely a good description of part of the concept. The idea of having very low thresholds for discomfort because of being unused to being openly addressed and challenged about that part of their social identity - yes. You described that well. Its a big part of the concept. Then there are implications that flow from that too.
If I can push forward just a little more? I hope? Another big part of the concept is that the reason for having such a low threshold and being so unused to dealing with these uncomfortable conversations is that privilege provides a kind of shelter or cushion. Part of being privileged is that the world is organized more to support people who are privileged - that's a significant part of what being privileged means, right?
So as a hetero woman my sexuality is more socially supported, I get legal recognition and ceremonial observances and and lots of stories in books and on tv and photographs in magazines and songs on the radio that all support my identity. I can look everywhere and see my own experience reflected back to me, maybe not exactly in the way I experience it but substantially supported by the culture around me. So I have an experience where I don't really have to think about being heterosexual I can just sort of go with the flow.
So then when someone challenges me, or says well the world doesn't look that way to everyone, that feels really weird because I've never actually had to think about any of it in the way that someone who is gay has to. So there's a discomfort, and if I'm not careful and especially if I'm very new to the idea, I can end up blaming the discomfort on the person who is trying to talk to me. Like, well I was fine until you came in here challenging me with your weird ideas you weird gay person!!
That discomfort, that push back, that I don't like you because you make me feel weird, it creates a defensiveness. It makes people feel attacked where they aren't actually being attacked. When someone says your experience isn't universal, that doesn't mean your experience is wrong it means its not shared by everyone else. When someone says your experience is more socially supported, that doesn't mean you are a terrible plutocrat oppressor holding other people down on purpose. But it can still feel really uncomfortable, and there is this impulse to want to say I don't like this and I want it to go away, I want YOU to go away.
So about the defensive reaction, please understand I'm not singling you out here, I have that reaction too, we all have that reaction, its really normal to have that reaction. These conversations are not comfortable for anyone. Its just some people have a bit more experience with managing the discomfort because they really don't have as much of an option to opt out of having the hard conversations. If you are hetero you can pretty much float along not thinking about sexuality, because you don't have to. If you aren't you kind of don't get that choice, you do have to think about it, a lot. Just to understand yourself you have to think about it a lot.Same thing with other aspects of identity. If you are male you don't have to think about gender as much because you just don't run aground on it as often. If you are white you can forget about race a lot of the time but if you aren't, you pretty much can't avoid it. So the people who aren't on the privileged side of the identity are joften forced by the circumstances of their lives to think about it more, talk about it more, analyze it more fully and just get past the discomfort more, because they have to.
Doesn't make them superior, just makes them experienced.
Same way being a political science student you end up with more insight into power dynamics because you've had occasion to think and read and study them more. Which doesn't make you a better person than someone who doesn't have a background in political science but probably makes you more comfortable with certain concepts.
I totally agree with everything you wrote and I don't even think it is taking it that much farther. That of course is the dynamic of "white fragility" if you don't press it in two lines because you are already writing a text that is far too long. ;) (I am of course refering to me...)Still, I don't think the defensiveness in the debate about Moran's book is necessarily all about 'fragility'. I am pretty comfortable with a deabte about my privilege. Apart from gender, I also daily feel kind of guilty about the fact that I am an EU citizen when I hear/read about new developments in the refugee crisis. That doesn't make me a better person of course.
I know, however, that I was slightly defensive about the whole thing because I felt that cis-women (like me) were all lumped together no matter how conscious we are of our privilege and bias. There might have been somebody in that thread who just thought "Go away, I felt so comfortable before you started talking about this". This was not my thinking. As you know I agree with the critique, still, I felt that I could never have commented during the most heated debate in that thread as a cis-woman and praised the good parts of the book. Looking at the reaction to other cis-women's comments, I literally thought "However strong your emphasis on your understanding (and sharing) of the criticism will be, they will focus on you just liking parts of the book because you are a cis-woman." To me, that's not about fragility.
I definitely agree it wasn't all about fragility, I do think that was one element but I don't think it was the only element at all. I think things broke down on several fronts simultaneously! ;-)I think there's a conversation we didn't manage to have over there somehow, about how to be personal without being exclusionary? Because everyone has their own life experience, and sharing those can be really powerful. I love reading something that is sort of making a window into another person's world, seeing what it might be like to be them for a little while. It can also be really powerful and affirming if you recognize yourself in some of it, too.
On the other hand if you don't recognize yourself it's kind of nice if there's at least some recognition that it's a personal experience not a universal one? Someone posted a piece that Moran wrote for Esquire telling men the secret things women really think and as I was reading it she kept saying "women think," and "women feel," and "what a woman won't tell you is," and I kept thinking hang on a minute I don't think that, and I'm pretty sure I am actually a woman, so um...maybe not tell guys this is what we all secretly think?
I said over on the other thread that I have a t-shirt that I really love that says "Women are not a Hive mind." Because when men ask me what do women think or what do women want I always say I can't tell you that I'm not women, I'm a woman. I can tell you what I think and what I want (currently a cheese pizza) but...
I'm probably just babbling at this point, it's late and I'm really tired. Glad you've joined the conversation! Talk more soon!
Yes, I agree, she is overly generalizing sometimes. I thought so when I read the passage about imagining a whole lifetime with somebody who isn't really your partner. I don't do that. Acutally, I think I have scribbled 'I don't do that!' in my book on several pages. :D
Oh, and yes to the point that there wasn't really a debate about how to be personal, but not exclusionary! This could actually bring us right back to the topic of this thread. I mean: How do you talk about your reality while not being overly exclusive or glossing over your own privilege. I think privilege brings responsiblity, but intersectionality opens up such a wide range of topics and groups who need more advocates. And of course first and foremost need their own platform. How do you 'choose? Or is there no need to choose if you just openly acknowledge your bias and the existence of intersectionality? Would the problem go away if it would all just be about an autobiography with heavy feminist overtonse? But then, being the feminist author, will I still be criticised as practicing narrow feminism when I don't really actively encourage anybody than white cis-women like me to join in? I mean, if in that position I guess I would not be selective in that way, I would want to be open to everbody and help everybody who I see really needs to be heard. But is there an intersectional duty to actively do so?
Sophie wrote: "I mean: How do you talk about your reality while not being overly exclusive or glossing over your own privilege ..."Yes! Exactly that! Sadly I now have to run away and work, and I have kind of a heavy schedule today grrr having to earn a living when things are being interesting on the internet! (Hope its obvious that's a joke). Anyway I definitely want to go on talking but right now I have to run!
As for cissexism, it's not the same thing as sexism. I wrote about it in another thread:Just to clarify about cissexism - this doesn't mean cis people who are sexist or anything like that. It's much closer to heteronormativity, it's the idea that all people fit one of the two categories, consistent between their chromosomes, genitals, secondary sex characteristics, self-expression etc. For example when a celebrity gets pregnant, the media's obsession with "will it be a boy or a girl" is cissexist. I use this word because Moran's generally not being actively transphobic, she just generalizes about women and vaginas and periods, which alienates even a subset of cis women. cissexism is what happens when people speak about gender issues but don't bother to put on their trans ally cap (or have none).
(note that i'm cis myself. I encourage everyone who's not very familiar with cissexism to see what actual people who identify as transgender and/or non-binary write about this)
The concept might actually be clearer if the word was Cissism instead of sexism but since we aren't in charge of all the words... ;-). We are kind of stuck with the ones that already exist until we manage to popularize new ones.Actually I really like the word (obviously not the actual thing but the word) heteronormativity because it's so clearly describes what the problem is in that case. It's not being heterosexual that's the problem it's operating as if heterosexual is the norm and everything else isn't.
I'm reading Rebecca Traister's book All the Single Ladies: Unmarried Women and the Rise of an Independent Nation and I just noticed a passage that seemed to me a good example of intersectionality. She's talking about the rise of single women and their influence in the US, and she saysSingle female life is not prescription, but its opposite: liberation. This liberation is at the heart of our national promise, but that promise of freedom has often been elusive for many of this country’s residents. This makes it all the more important to acknowledge that while the victories of independent life are often emblematized by the country’s most privileged women, the war was fought by many Americans who have always had far fewer options to live free: women of color, poor, and working-class women.
I like this because it places what she is saying in a context that isn't just about one kind of woman but about how it affects and is affected by many kinds of women.
In a later chapter she says,
In 1970, the median age of first marriage for women remained under twenty-one, and 69.4 percent of Americans over the age of eighteen were married. 15 This is remarkable, in part, because of other social and political upheavals already well underway: In 1960, the FDA had approved the birth control pill for contraceptive use, an early step toward (or symptom of) what would become the sexual revolution. And, in 1969, the Stonewall riots had kicked off a gay rights movement that would be driven explicitly by the fight for acceptance by women and men who had no desire to partner with members of the opposite sex. The emergence of gay women as a political faction was not an altogether welcome development within the Second Wave. Friedan herself would famously refer to lesbians as a “lavender menace”
I like how she is keeping her perspective open to how different communities are responding and interacting around her central topic of the influence and position of unmarried women.
Mod
I read that book last month. I had some problems with the general polemic, which relied on a sort of binary understanding of single vs. married, but I really liked that she spent a lot of time pointing out how relationships and families have differed in communities of color historically. IIRC, she also separated chapters based on wealth and poverty? I might be confusing with another book... either way, it was appreciated :)
I'm only on chapter three at this point so I don't know yet if there are separate chapters on wealth and poverty in this one or if its another. I guess I'll find out as I move forward! Also I haven't yet seen the binary understanding but there's certainly a lot of book still to go! I am definitely appreciating that she seems to pay some attention to how the same events or themes will play out differently depending on things like income, class, ethnicity, race, orientation. For example she talked about marriage in early America and notes that while white women were strongly pressured to marry, enslaved black women were prevented from marrying. I posted before about Chimamanda Adichie talking about the dangers of the single story, and so I like to see here that she isn't telling a single story.
Kimberle Crenshaw has excellent work involving the intersectionality topic.
Tawny wrote: "Kimberle Crenshaw has excellent work involving the intersectionality topic."That is true, Tawny. Kimberle Crenshaw coined the term and has done a great deal of excellent work analyzing the idea and its implications.
Here is a good article about Pauli Murray, .another legal scholar who did excellent and foundational work in this area and has been largely forgotten.
http://www.salon.com/2015/02/18/black...
Ginsburg named Murray and Judge Dorothy Kenyon as co-authors of her brief in the Reed case, because even though they didn’t help to write it, these two women had been pioneers in creating the legal strategy for fighting sex discrimination. Ginsburg’s choice to name these women as co-authors is a model for how to solve contemporary issues among young feminists over white feminists’ appropriation without attribution of the intellectual and political labor of women of color...
Pauli Murray...argued that Plessy v. Ferguson was inherently immoral and discriminatory and should be overturned. When she brought up this argument to her classmates, she noted that her suggestion was received with “hoots of derisive laughter.” Murray coined the term “Jane Crow” to name the forms of sexist derision she frequently encountered during her time at Howard. It was the piece she co-authored in 1965 called “Jane Crow and the Law” that Ginsburg cites as so influential in her thinking about legal remedies for sex discrimination.
The Black Feminist’s Guide to the Racist Sh*t That Too Many White Feminists Sayhttp://everydayfeminism.com/2015/06/b...
Thanks for those links Marina, I enjoyed reading both. I particularly noted this from the piece by the Nashwa Khan:At its core, feminism’s allure is equity – and understanding that older waves of feminism erased that is a first step. But, as a movement, feminists are still erasing Muslim women’s experiences. And we need a more inclusive feminist framework in place to rectify that.
And with Islamophobic sentiment rising in the West, it’s more important now than ever to support Muslim women in feminist spaces instead of paternalistically speaking for or erasing Muslim women from conversations entirely.
I liked that very much. I feel very strongly that if people with all sorts of different life experiences can come together around a common goal the movement is so much stronger because we each see something or understand something that someone else with a different life experience might miss. So as a team we can be amazing. For me that's the hope of intersectionality, that we can be so much more together than apart.
But we still get really stuck a lot of the time. Part of it I think is that we still have a hard time figuring out which differences are contributing to our strength as a coalition and which differences are taking away from it. The example Ms Khan gave about sex positivity taken too far for example:
Notions of sex positive feminism are in need of repair if the presumption is always that being sexually active means being liberated, while abstention from sexual activity means being oppress(ed).
*Bumping up this older thread*Does anyone of you have an idea about the conflict between some Feminists around Alice Schwarzer in Germany who publishes the "Emma" magazine and who is a very prominent Feminist for many years and between intersectionalist Feminists like Anne Wizorek? Alice Schwarzer insults intersecionalist Feminists as "Hetzfeministinnen" (agitation feminists) instead of "Netzfeministinnen" (web feminists). Schwarzer seems to be very critical about intersectionalism. And I don't really understand what this conflict is about. Does anyone of you know more?
In the final analysis does it all matter all these fractions have the same goals the same opposition. Why can't we just declare ourselves feminist and get on with it. When equity is achieved will it matters what labels where used. Just a thought I am off to see Beauty and the Beast tonight and thinking of how Belle and Beast consolidate there attachment when confronted by the braying mob it occurred to mw maybe now with current events the same could happen for global feminism.
Sascha wrote: "Does anyone of you have an idea about the conflict between some Feminists around Alice Schwarzer in Germany who publishes the "Emma" magazine and who is a very prominent Feminist for many years and between intersectionalist Feminists like Anne Wizorek? Alice Schwarzer insults intersecionalist Feminists as "Hetzfeministinnen" (agitation feminists) instead of "Netzfeministinnen" (web feminists). Schwarzer seems to be very critical about intersectionalism. And I don't really understand what this conflict is about. Does anyone of you know more? "I've heard similar things but I don't have more details, sorry... you could also ask on the "Feminism in Germany" thread!
This thread is so worth reading, be sure that I bump in reading here in the future sometimes.I think everything is said and I won't comment for now.
Thanks, Laure! :)I have looked now in the other thread and Alice Schwarzer actually is an issue there but not this special conflict.
Mod
I am glad that I now understand. A few years ago, I wouldn't have.
Also, I sorta wish my group of friends was more diverse. Not as a badge or brownie points for zomg diversity, just in order to go through some of what Indigo said. As it is currently, I am happy it's no longer 100% white and straight, but I still think it's very much a comfortable bubble.
Our Shared Shelf
Books mentioned in this topic
All the Single Ladies (other topics)All the Single Ladies (other topics)
Bad Feminist (other topics)
So to begin with a definition, this one is from the Geek Feminist Wiki:
Intersectionality is a concept often used in critical theories to describe the ways in which oppressive institutions (racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, xenophobia, classism, etc.) are interconnected and cannot be examined separately from one another. The concept first came from legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw in 1989 and is largely used in critical theories, especially Feminist theory, when discussing systematic oppression. When possible, credit Kimberlé Crenshaw for coining the term "intersectionality" and bringing the concept to wider attention.