Unity Feminism
Fri, 2008-07-11 06:12
#1
Unity Feminism
Fri, 2008-07-11 06:12
#2
On AlterNet, a rousing, experience-based argument for acknowledging the common plight of women.
quote:
(...) Like many women, I too, have an eclectic and complex history of experiences. I'm ethnically Caucasian, and my family is from a small rural town in Western Europe, but I strongly identify with my Latino family by marriage, and my child is considered a person of color. I've lived in extremely varied environments -- a small town in West Africa, a rural farm in the Midwest, the projects in Manhattan, next to crack houses in Brooklyn, in a posh, gay neighborhood in Southern California, and even a temporary stint on the obscure island of Malta. I tell you this: Women have as much, if not more, in common with each other than they do with the men in their respective communities, countries and demographics. I've also come under fire from intersectionalist feminists for making statements like this. They say this type of thinking diminishes other problems that women of varied backgrounds face. I say no, all those other problems diminish the unique plight of women, who all exist under male power and oppression.(...)
From the article [url=http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/89703/]"Think 70s Feminists are Out-of-Touch? Not So Fast"[/url]
Fri, 2008-07-11 09:47
#3
remind
Excellent article martin thank you.
quote:
A lesson from second-wave feminism: Women will continue to be oppressed unless they stop prioritizing other causes over their ownSince the Civil Rights movement, hate crimes, which the FBI defines as crimes against individuals based on nationality, race, disability or sexual orientation, have fallen to extremely low levels: There were only three confirmed hate-related homicides nationwide in 2004, for example. However, gender-based crime -- not included in the U.S. description of hate crimes -- continues to plague women in the United States and all over the world at alarming levels. According to the World Health Organization, all violence against women is committed almost exclusively by men. Sex trafficking and forced prostitution are on the rise, and female infanticide is still widely practiced. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, more than a quarter of U.S. women are still being raped. With the exception of Native American women, the percentage of rapes per capita of white women and women of color are almost identical -- 18 percent of all white women and 19 percent of all women of color. Of the thousands of women killed each year in the United States, roughly 50 percent are killed because of their gender.[b] The United Nations reports that almost 50 percent of the world's population of women will suffer from gender-based violence in her lifetime.[/b]
In post-modern times, the single most destructive force in many women's lives is male hatred and oppression of women. I think it is this bigger picture that probably frustrates feminist leaders like Steinem and Hirshman. One major reason why women continue to be oppressed is because they continue to place other causes before their own. Intersectionalist feminism is a nice idea, if all the other intersecting ideas didn't constantly take priority over women's rights. Besides, traditional feminism believes that in order to solve the rest of the world's problems, women should be empowered first, not the other way around. The United Nations says that the fastest and best means of advancing human development is done by investing in women and girls, first and foremost. This is the backbone of feminism also, and our "out of touch" white feminist leaders simply ask that we not lose sight of our mission.
Tue, 2008-07-15 06:52
#4
Maysie
Interesting article by Ms Heidi Schnakenberg. I agree with many of her points, if not her overall tone.
The problem with her piece, ideologically, is that she thinks that because she married a Latino man, has a mixed race child who's seen as a person of colour, and has lived all over the world in different settings and contexts, that she thinks she can speak on behalf of the women she met there, which in fact, she does. This speaks to her huge level of entitlement which is one problem that characterizes the white feminists that she tries to defend.
What about the voices of self-identified feminists of colour? There are many in the U.S., of varied generations, take your pick. Why can she not refer to them?
She completely misrepresents coalition feminism, or intersectionality, which she can only see in terms of either/or, not because of her social location as a white person, but because she can't see that her own privileges are front and center, and unexamined.
Her story of her mother, and it's a sad and moving story, provides no counter-balance to the reality that white feminists like her [i]don't[/i] get race and how when women are affected by both racism and sexism it's often simultaneous and inseparable.
I try to frame this as, using only gender as a lens is a flawed approach. Because only someone who's identity is problematized only by gender would do so. Men of colour have male privilege, yes, but nobody would argue, in our racist society, that they have the same male privilege as white men, right? So how can sexism possibly affect white women and women of colour in the same ways? And for white women to insist that women of colour set aside all the other ways in which their lives are marginalized/oppressed/problematized to join the "gender lens only" feminist movement, I don't blame such women of colour from disassociating themselves from feminism.
[url=http://theangryblackwoman.wordpress.com/2008/06/18/you-say-angry-black-w... Say Angry Black Woman Like It's a Bad Thing[/url]
[url=http://theangryblackwoman.wordpress.com/2008/04/15/standing-is-solidarit... Is Solidarity With My Sisters[/url]
[url=http://theangryblackwoman.wordpress.com/2008/04/28/on-feminism-2/]On Feminism Part 2[/url]
The two above links refer to a complicated online angry-fest that happened after a conference in the early spring. Check out all the links to get the full story.
[url=http://resistracism.wordpress.com/2007/03/21/an-exercise-in-isms/]An exercise in isms[/url]
[url=http://resistracism.wordpress.com/2008/05/21/those-tears/]Those Tears, poem by Chrystos, Aboriginal lesbian woman[/url]. I posted this poem on babble, I don't think there was tons of discussion.
Tue, 2008-07-15 07:25
#5
remind
quote:
Originally posted by bigcitygal:
[b]I try to frame this as, using only gender as a lens is a flawed approach. Because only someone who's identity is problematized only by gender would do so. Men of colour have male privilege, yes, but nobody would argue, in our racist society, that they have the same male privilege as white men, right? [/b]
I disagree, if we step outside of the western world, men of colour, in their countries of origin, have the same dominant privilege of gender bias as do white men in western world, if not more.
quote:
[b]So how can sexism possibly affect white women and women of colour in the same ways? [/b]
Because it can and does, yes, WOC in the western world have the added dynamic of racism for WOC, which further marginalizes them. However, even in the western world, WOC experience sexism within their own communities, and sexism and racism in the external communities at large.
Ms Heidi Schnakenberg, is suggesting that women need to be united to confront sexism first, and foremost, as it premiates all societies, everywhere in the world.
I want to also add, that women, also experience racism, when they enter into marriages of differing races, may they be white or POC, and from both sides of the racial divide.
For myself, I get racism, directed at me from both white persons and FN, because of my mixed race relationship. And I would expect that Ms Schnakenberg has also experienced this being in a mixed marriage herself.
My white privilege does not exist when I with my partner in certain situations, in fact, I am treated with distain, at best, by many store clerks, bank personal, and servers when I am with my partner. Using a credit card when my partner is with me becomes an endurance contest, where all my ID and credit card come under enormous scruntiny, and phone calls to managers, that does not happen when I shop alone using a CC. When we shop together, we now usually use cash, to avoid the embarassment, and time spent having the CC triple verified.
[ 15 July 2008: Message edited by: remind ]
Tue, 2008-07-15 08:28
#6
Maysie
quote:
remind: WOC in the western world have the added dynamic of racism for WOC, which further marginalizes them.
No. Racism is not an added dynamic. It does not [i]further[/i] marginalize them/us, racism is experienced simultaneously with sexism, sometimes on its own, and sometimes they experience only sexism.
quote:
remind: However, even in the western world, WOC experience sexism within their own communities, and [b]sexism and racism in the external communities at large.[/b]
Yes. And, the bolded part can refer also to the racism that WOC experience from white women.
quote:
remind: Ms Heidi Schnakenberg, is suggesting that women need to be united to confront sexism first, and foremost, as it premiates all societies everywhere in the world.
I know what she's saying. I agree sexism permeates. I disagree with her notion that women must be united, on her terms. She is presuming that WOC will join white women in the confronting of sexism. The ranking of needing to confront sexism first, I'll say it again, is something only white women do.
And if this "coming together" hasn't happened in significant numbers in the 40 years of the Western feminist movement then clearly something needs to change in order for WOC to feel their issues are heard, and front and center, in the mainstream feminist movement of US and Canada. (I refer to these since they are the movements I'm most familiar with.)
Let's look at the VAW field, and the shelter system specifically. In the Canadian context. The shelter system was mostly formed by the women of the second wave feminist movement, during the late 70s mostly and these women did incredible work for, at this point in 2008, tens and perhaps hundreds of thousands of women fleeing abuse. This accomplishment is huge and those women deserve every amount of praise we could give them.
Over the past two decades, the shelter system has had to change some of its philosophies to reflect the changing demographics of women in abusive situations seeking support. The past had been centered on getting her and her children out, safe, and into independent living apart from the abuser. In real terms today, for a number of reasons, this is not an option for some WOC, particularly immigrant women whose immigration and economic status remains at risk if they leave their partners permanently. There's the added pieces of loss (or fear of loss) of community, culture, connection to people who speak their language of origin, and other factors that are not in play with white and Canadian-born women in the same way. Nor is calling the police always an option, which some WOC deliberately refrain from doing, knowing the racism that their abusers will likely face, as well as the other reasons why women don't call the police. Today, these WOC still seek out shelters for support, for a night or two free from abuse, and rather than safety plans and leaving plans, make shorter term contingency plans.
The shelter system, founded in a feminism of a certain time period and demographic of clientele, changed because if they didn't they would be unable to serve ALL the women they do effectively, appropriate to their needs, and with respect and autonomy, since one thing that abused women need is to have support in the choices they make, within the parameters they set, for their own lives and their children's lives.
I use this as a practical example that I've experienced in my organizational work with shelters, as a way to explain that the issues faced by WOC are not "add ons" nor can they be thought of as separate from their experiences as women. Shelters had to [b]completely[/b] overhaul how they did outreach, how they hired staff, job expectations, language requirements, procuring resources for interpretation services, culturally appropriate food, and more. Some are still in process.
If we had more women of colour on babble it would sound less like I'm just making all this up.
Tue, 2008-07-15 09:14
#7
remind
quote:
Originally posted by bigcitygal:
[b]No. Racism is not an added dynamic. It does not further marginalize them/us, racism is experienced simultaneously with sexism, sometimes on its own, and sometimes they experience only sexism.[/b]
I am not sure how you can say it is not another dynamic, nor that it does not further marginalize women. You in fact go on to speak of racism as being more than sexism, so I am really confused now.
Here BC, FN women are marginalized because of their race, and because of their gender.
Perhaps we are speaking in differing semantics?
quote:
[b] The ranking of needing to confront sexism first, I'll say it again, is something only white women do.[/b]
I am not sure of this, but I will take your word for it.
quote:
[b] In real terms today, for a number of reasons, this is not an option for some WOC, particularly immigrant women whose immigration and economic status remains at risk if they leave their partners permanently. There's the added pieces of loss (or fear of loss) of community, culture, connection to people who speak their language of origin, and other factors that are not in play with white and Canadian-born women in the same way.[/b]
I believe all those things are at play with white women too, and it is not just WOC who have those fears and indeed experiences.
quote:
[b]If we had more women of colour on babble it would sound less like I'm just making all this up.[/b]
I do not believe you making anything up, nor do you sound like it, I, however, believe there is more commonality than division.
I see no divisions along racial lines in this respect, all racial types of women are choosing to stay because of the things you listed above, and many, along with their children, encompassing ALL racial lines are dying, or being critically injured, because of their fears of leaving, or whatever the reasons maybe for staying.
Of note, I also added on to my post that you responded to, apparently while you were responding to me.
Tue, 2008-07-15 09:31
#8
Maysie
remind, we are agreeing far more than disagreeing, but I will say that white women who are born in Canada do not experience the loss of cultural community/language the way WOC who are not Canadian citizens experience. Speaking a new language, while suffering the trauma of abuse, learning and deciding choices for one's life, while gaining back personal empowerment, is not the same as living in a country where you speak your language of origin. Naming differences isn't the problem. Acting like we're all the same, ignoring differences, that's some of what's got us here in the first place (talking about the feminist movement now).
And I should have emphasized: racism is not an [i]added[/i] dynamic, nor does it [i]further[/i] marginalize women. Yes, it's semantics, and I'll stop with the language dissection now, but the framing is important to me, when whiteness is assumed, as it so often is.
I guess we did cross post, I just read the personal stories you added. All I can say is those experiences are horrible and from closed-minded racist people, but those experiences, for you, were not racist. Racism by proxy maybe? Okay, that I made up.
Thanks for this dialogue, remind. I hope others are reading this as well, and will join in.
[ 15 July 2008: Message edited by: bigcitygal ]
Tue, 2008-07-15 10:57
#9
It seems to me that unity is a project and one that is automatically derailed if it is affirmed as a given at the outset.
Still, I have always felt that post-mo/third wave feminists were being suckered by antifeminists who claimed that second-wave feminists had ignored Black women's voices and issues. I have been around and anyone who has attended conferences or read [i]off our backs, broadside, kinesis[/i] or [i]herizons [/i] over those years knows how much and how often voice was shared, racism was included (if unsufficiently) and unity was sought. Black female writers have always been at the forefront of women's studies curricula - although more as fiction authors than as experience sources and theory proponents. Feminist community organizers have been WOCs or working with WOCs throughout North America for decades.
Yet unity obviously still has to be negotiated and this across many hurdles, not the least of it being a racist/sexist/classist system's tendancy to play people and issues against each other and give disproportionate voice to White pundits and horizontal critiques.
I hear BCG about the tone of Schnakenberg's essay - I hesitated to post it. BCG writes: "I disagree with her notion that women must be united, on her terms. She is presuming that WOC will join white women in the confronting of sexism." The alternative solution seems to be that women be united on [b]their [/b]terms, all of them, negotiated, and that both movements join each other? I see this negotiation process as ongoing, with sad setbacks, obvious cooptation attempts, but, still, movement forward.
Isn't it racism that remind experiences when her credit is scrutinized because of her racialized partner? It is significant that this common experience helps her "get" racism. To offer an imperfect analogy, some men start getting sexism when they are reminded how men have intimidated them for not being virile enough, or when they are asked about their empathy with their mother's, sisters, female partners or mother's experience. (The next step is to avoid having them "take it all back home", by feeling that it is now their issue and they can't use any further challenge. Many men do that, unfortunately..)
For having researched and done awareness-raising about domestic violence and sexism among New Canadians, I agree with BCG than women of colour and other immigrants have it much harder when they try to escape these situations or find support. The patriarchal pattern of families/comunities siding with the male (abuser), true of White environments, seems exponentially stronger in tighter-knit, racialized communities, already targetted by govt/justice/police arbitrary interventions. Also, men from these communities experience an accelerated entry into hyperliberalism and commercialized sexploitation of women when they arrive in Canada, which often precipitates sexist violence. So sexism and racism cannot be treated as merely orthogonal factors, independent of each other. Racism makes sexism worse (and vice-versa), so sexism cannot be conceived separately from racism. Hence, the necessity of unity, if only for analysis to go further.
Sorry for rambling.
[ 15 July 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
Tue, 2008-07-15 11:05
#10
Women's shelters located on FN reserves and Inuit villages actually receive LESS funding per person and per family (mum and kids) than equivalent off-reserve shelters.
bcg, I don't think "loss of language and culture" necessarily relates to race. There are a lot of immigrants from the West Indies who speak better French or English than we do (this is a perverse effect of colonisation). And many "white" people who speak neither.
Tue, 2008-07-15 11:31
#11
Maysie
martin, thank you for your post, as it was a good reminder to me that of course there have been many successful examples of women working together, in feminist community, across differences, including race, sexual orientation, class, ability. Duh, I've been in some communities like those for years, but I got all caught up in the article, and the insistence that WOC colour "join" the fight that has sexism at the center. Okay, I'm focused now.
I suppose we can arrive at our own conclusions re. why some feminists are still looking for "unity" when there are so many examples of it happening.
Tue, 2008-07-15 12:14
#12
remind
quote:
Originally posted by bigcitygal:
[b]remind, we are agreeing far more than disagreeing,[/b]
Well, that is good to hear. [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
quote:
[b] but I will say that white women who are born in Canada do not experience the loss of cultural community/language the way WOC who are not Canadian citizens experience. [/b]
I will agree with this in the broader context that you outlined regarding language, however, it has been my experience that white women too, can, and do, lose their; community, friends, and perhaps even their regional culture, and the fear of this loss causes them to stay and in this respect they are not any different than WOC.
quote:
[b]And I should have emphasized: racism is not an [i]added[/i] dynamic, nor does it [i]further[/i] marginalize women. Yes, it's semantics, and I'll stop with the language dissection now, but the framing is important to me, when whiteness is assumed, as it so often is.[/b]
I am still not getting what you are meaning here by your framing comment. It hads been my experience that FN women, here in BC, are further marginalized because of their race, and their gender, lagatta was quite correct in her example, and I could give more.
quote:
[b] All I can say is those experiences are horrible and from closed-minded racist people, but those experiences, for you, were not racist. Racism by proxy maybe? [/b]
Uh, it sure feels the same, and perhaps worse, as when I am the racial target of FN peoples, who do not like white people and mixed marriages, at least I can understand their antipathy towards white people.
It still, after 28 years of being in said relationship, constantly surprises me, that even today, that so many peoples on both sides of a racial divide do not believe in mixed partnerships, and react negatively towards those who are...in fact I would say not much has changed in this respect in 28 years.
A GF of mine, who is Seneca from the Six Nations of the Grand River, reports the opposite to me, in respect to the use of credit cards. She gets the excessive scruntiny when she is alone, and no scruntiny when she is with her white husband. And the same for retail clerks, servers, etc, she gets treated without racist overtones when with her husband, and with racism when she is alone.
It is interesting to me, on how gender factors into racism displays or non-displays.
Thu, 2008-07-17 09:05
#13
Unity is important, but we havr to take into account other sources of oppression as well (intersectionality)- like race as BCG says. I don't see how WOC can seperate being women and being non-white when the later is a compounding opprression. To take a historical example, why do you think African were often raped , viewed as subhuman, etc. ? It wasn't only because they were women but [i]black[/i] women. The violence done against black women was not tolerated against any white women. This continues to today, if in different ways.
Fri, 2008-07-18 08:34
#14
With all our differences though how can we be united ?
Fri, 2008-07-18 08:43
#15
quote:
Originally posted by Pride for Red Dolores:
[b]With all our differences though how can we be united ?[/b]
By learning mutual respect. and by learning that diversity leads to strength.
It is a commonly held western misconception that difference is the problem.
Its like a sports team, you find out what the individual strengths and weakness of each of your teammates are, and you work together to make the team better by harnessing your strengths and learning from each other to gain strength in the weak areas.
You learn from each other & you grow together.