bravo! i am so tired of people believing that all feminists are white, etc etc. we continually hinder the uphill battle towards equality by not recognizing how layers of oppression function. for example, i am a white nonmormon bisexual female living in utah, and although i experience some advantage due to my race, the other factors place me in a very oppressed position. it isn't just a result of my sexuality or religion or gender. it is the force of these and other factors combined that result in a state of oppression. we must remember that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. i believe that we need to remember to take a step back once in a while and take a look at the big picture. the cycles must be stopped. race, sexuality, religion, etc must all be a part of the discussion when it comes to gender issues. people from many backgrounds must be included. unfortunately, this is not the case. often gender issues are viewed as the realm of the white middle class single mom/lesbian, which is ridiculous. it will ultimately lead to failure if so many of our sisters continue to be ignored due to systematic racism within feminism.

Classism, sexism, racism are all intertwined in very complex dynamics. I find that it is dangerous to generalise and easy to over simplify. Les droits du seigneur is what comes to mind when i read about the Duke case. The agressive testosterone driven mind set has made violent behavior o.k. with those we deem to be inferior. Somewhat like in the old plantations. But again it is never just one simple clear cut issue.

A while ago, blac(k)ademic said the feminist movement relies on racism to make its points and I am starting to believe this more and more.

No one ever sees me and thinks "a woman!"

Well then, let me be your first. (The question of why I keep wanting to call you "Samhaina" I'll save for another time.)

I have to disagree with David Thompson. The first thing I thought when I saw your name was, "Hey! A brown girl blogging on a mainstream feminist site!" I don't agree with you a lot of the time, but it still nice to see it.

In this case, it is my personal opinion that class is actually the deciding factor. While wealthier people of colour do face oppression, it is not at the same level. They have a degree or whatever to "prove" their equality. (Note that this does not apply to Hollywood, because they love perpetuating stereotypes.)

I think I would take the criticism more seriously if it wasn't coming from the most whiney petulant blogger I've ever had the misfortune of reading. I think that nubians acceptance and promotion in the feminist blogsphere is pure tokenism, because it sure has nothing to do with her quality of work. She outlines things in the most simplistic, black and white, and imflamatory ways to clearly prove that she is always right and everyone else is always wrong. Real criticism is always just racism in disguise and she never addresses any of it. Just read the comments at Alas and you'll see people asking interesting and engaging questions in addition to some ignorant crap, which she just blows off and takes off on because she doesn't wanna deal with it. If you don't want to deal with criticism of your theories, don't post them on sites where people can comment. And don't claim everything is racism, because a lot of what is being banded about at Alas is interesting theories or questions from people who need things explained from a perspective they have never encountered, not someone to tell them that they are stupid and bad.

I do agree with her, interlocking opression, still living in a racist society, feminism needs to really committ to women of color and women of color issues. But likewise, nubian is setting 3rd wave feminism back by constantly acting like a petulant child, and is probably doing more harm then good by reinforcing the idea that women of color are confusing and scary because anyone who doesn't agree with or isn't familiar with feminist of color issues is going to be called a destructive terrible racist.

I think that the reason there are fewer responses to the posts here regarding race and class is that these are, as some posters have already noted, very complicated and complex issues which are often tied up in issues of gender. It is much more difficult to type up a knee-jerk reaction for these issues than for posts about whether women should enjoy housekeeping or not. While I would like to think that there are lots of other feminists out there who want to engage in a serious discussion about class, race, and gender, some part of me believes that this is just not so easy to do in a comments section on a blog.

But I dunno, somebody prove me wrong.

"Hey! A brown girl blogging on a mainstream feminist site!" I don't agree with you a lot of the time, but it still nice to see it.

know what--i get comments like that a lot. people make reference to my skin color, then say...but i don't usually agree with you. i'm not trying to read into it too much--i'm just pointing that out. :-) take it as you wish

and i think we need to define what we mean by "oppression." just because wealthier people of color have more money in this capitalist society, does not mean they do not suffer from the psychological damage of racism--which is, i think, far more "oppresive" in some cases.

sarahs--

first, if you can point out to me where people are tossing out interesting theories on alas a blog--cuz i dont see it. if you don't like what i write, don't read it. i write in "simplistic terms" so that my work is accessible. i can sit and include academic jargon like the best of them. if you don't like my work, hey don't read it! i could give a f-ck.

second, i am not a whiney child. i am a 25 year old woman.

third, kiss my black ass :-)

i write in "simplistic terms" so that my work is accessible.

With respect, there's a level of "simple" writing, and then there a level of writing that speaks to people. I'm not saying that you, specifically, don't speak to people, but speaking to power isn't enough.

I suggest that it's not just the Republicationization of the nat'l debate that's marginalized feminist ideals. It's the fact that the various groups, from the NAACP to NOW, have lost the lesson of Malcolm X's powerful, and of-quoted/sampled, statement,

"We want to have just an off-the-cuff chat between you and me, us. We want to talk right down to earth in a language that everybody here can easily understand."

One reason (this coming from an academic, white feminist) that posts about complicated, sometimes international issues don't receive as much feedback is that some people may A, not know enough to comment on the topic, or B, may not feel like their opinion is valid. I don't mean that they're throwing a personal pity party. I just know in my experience, I'm sometimes shut down because I'm white. I'm somehow thought to be less of a race expert or I'm less sympathetic - well, I don't actually know what people think. And that doesn't stop me, but I do know it happens. But the battle about race v. class v. gender has been raging for years, as we all know, and I don't think much has been cleared up. I've worked for years as an ally on a variety of causes that are not explicitly my own, meaning I'm not a woman of color, nor am I lesbian, etc - but as part of my work for general human rights, I work on these things whether my help is immediately understood/accepted/appreciated. But I'm taken seriously because I make every attempt to research and understand issues before I spout off.

I think the Duke case is about a variety of problems, but it really is one thing for sure: a hate crime. Racism, sexism, violence...all of those things come together to make this an issue of much more than gender. I think it's been the mainstream media that has chosen to focus on the sex crime aspect. It's easier for them, you know? It's not only easier for them to make sense of and categorize (esp because she was a sex worker); it's easier for the fucks like Tucker Carlson to pull the survivor apart. He can be sexist, but it's not quite as appropriate to be racist anymore. And that's a huge fucking problem, to say the least.

blac(k)ademic doesn't dumb down her work, but I also don't feel that she should or should have to feel that's necessary. I've been angered for years by the assertion that you have to make it totally accessible to every single person. Some of those people won't read the work anyway, and keeping things on an academic level can inspire others to push themselves. And some things just can't be dumbed down. These are complicated issues!

And C is right. I like having these conversations and feel they're some of the most important ones, but having them in this forum can be tricky and convoluted. Of course I can talk about housework or Caitlin Flanagan. But when you start delving into women's issues in third world countries, racism within feminism, etc - it just isn't that simple.

I just wish people would quite treating it like we're competing in our oppression. Or is that happening naturally?

Am I the only one who finds the persistent infatuation with race, class and sex to be not merely boring, but anti-intellectual? Such a narrow Hegelian conception of human dynamics ultimately reduces human interaction into simplistic dialectic. One is forced to ascribe power dynamics to groups and sub-groups, and demonstrate loyalty based on those dynamics. I left such games back in college with my professors. (and they can have them). I’m sure we can do better.

damn, sami. now how the fuck am i supposed to post about boobs and funny/creepy products after a post like this? Thanks a lot.

Seriously, though. I'm def glad you posted this, especially after our conversation the other night.

It is difficult to have such an important conversation in a forum like this one, because as Killer B notes, it does get convoluted and tricky. But the problem is, we'd be remiss in not having the conversation here as well.

I was pretty shocked to see that "gender trumps race" comment. How can you create a hierarchy of opressions? That baffles me.

I just wish people would quite treating it like we're competing in our oppression.

Where are you seeing this? Are you talking about a specific blog post or in general? Just wondering.

PS: SarahS, I just went through the comments at Alas and I'm afraid I don't see what you're seeing.

When I first hit upon this site, quite by accident, my initial reaction was "what the hell!", in my experience feminisim as such, died in the arse yonks ago ... I can't even relate to half the issues that are raised here on the same terms. But I have noted that there is a bias when citing issues of other countries, viewed from the American perspective, which distorts the issue/s concerned. So how can one possibly hope to make a valid contribution to when the tone has been set.

When I have made comments with reference my inability to comprehend what "race" has to do with an issue ... one is zoned-in on ... well I really don't get it, because in my culture the only people who are entitled to claim race (so that they are not wiped of the face of this Earth) or persecution are our indigenous population. No one else can lay claim to this, it would be a direct insult and not tolerated at any level as that dubious distinction remains theirs alone. The rest of us, whilst culturally diverse, came here (for the most part) of our own accord, and if we don't pull together, we all end up in mud.

My point is: I think it arrogant in the extreme to presume that one can even begin to understand what women in third world countries feel as women, when their struggle just to survive is foremost. Their lives as members of our global community, where there is so much excess, shared by so few, is infinitely more important.

Feministing would do better to actually have a project, helping one group of women somehere in this world, no matter how small, to help themselves, that is empowerment. Just think what a difference could have been made to a few somewhere, over the past 2 years. How much does a cow cost or a sewing machine, a well, a motor bike for the women who provide basic health instruction for mothers (rehydration etc) within their community. The list goes on and on.

Anyway that's why I would not make comment on third world problems because I have clean running water at the turn of a tap, to make any comment without action is unconscionable.

I've just run into the debate over oppression for years. Black men v. white women - who's more oppressed? Homosexual men v. women in general, etc. I wasn't referring to anyone here or a post anywhere, just the general sense of the whole debate. Maybe it isn't a problem for everyone in the ways it used to be, but I feel like I've run into more than I should.

On a certain level, Fitz is right: these kinds of debates really go nowhere. My interest is getting us all on the same page, working together. But I would pose the question: until you get through this kind of muck and deal with the fact that the mainstream press (not to mention many people in general) will seemingly forever separate these issues, how do you get people engaged academically (besides the academics)?

Nottrue

I am reminded by your post of the problems present at the Fourth World Conference on Women, in Beijing China. The bulk of participants were concerned with the issues you posed in your post, clean drinking water, access to education, basic legal standing, protein for children…etc. All the while a small cotillion of western academic feminists were holding conferences on lesbianism, sex toys, gender a partied, and the like. The general thrust from the west is most often one of access to abortion being a universal human right. The irony is further compounded by the conference taking place in Beijing, who’s one child policy effectively reduces a women’s “choice� to reproduce, and were thousands of infant females are killed every year.

Fitz, as someone who has worked in the UN system and with international women's organizations, you're right to say that there is definitely a problem in the way that Western feminists interacted and were sometimes downright condescending to others at certain global meetings. BUT, the argument that women outside of those in the North aren't concerned with reproductive rights just isn't true. If you want some info, check out Beijing Betrayed. (Full disclosure: I edited it.) It monitors how far women have come since Beijing--all the research and writing was done by women's organizations in their respective areas. I think you'll see that repro rights (not justabortion) are very important (in addition to MANY other issues) to women across the globe.

The argument that U.S. feminists are "forcing" repro rights on women in other countries is an anti-choice and anti-feminist tactic that has been going on for a long time in the international arena.

"Western feminists" have a tough road to walk in terms of international politics. The last thing that should happen is for western feminists to go into a country to 'fix' the problems of 'third world' women. Please don't read this as me trying to say we shouldn't help, or they should do it for themselves, or what have you. Help, aid, support etc. are badly needed and many women in developing countries live in situations everyday that are horrific. I am only trying to suggest that it is more complicated than saying we have it so good in the west with our sex toy parties so we should deal with countries that have real problems.

There are many women who work on behalf of women internationally and domestically that are doing what they can to work towards something better. I think it does no good to cast judgment at people who are engaged and active, in whatever form that takes.

ts, That's sort of my point, "Western feminists", who exactly falls under that label. It would seem, from over here, you lot have more problems than one could "poke a stick at", your "rights" are being eroded daily, and shouldn't assume at face value, that apparently similar issues are in fact, essentially the same.

nubian-

I don't read your work as a general rule. I've tried and while I agree with almost all of your ideas, the execution is severely lacking. I'm sorry if you're not enjoying the criticism, but you come across as rude, whiney, unrelenting, and impatient, which combined with being a poor writer leads you to be a poor blogger. That is my opinion and I have every right to it. Notice that I don't go over on your site to tell you about it, but if the subject of your work comes up on a third party blog, I'm not going to censor my opinion of it.

I have no interest or desire to kiss your black ass; I do however wish that you would be less defensive and more likely to engage in debate with individuals on intellectual terms (I'm thinking of both Alas and your own blog). In addition, I think you could benefit from some writing classes that would make your work more readable and teach you how to incorporate evidence (including evidence of your own experiance) into your writing. An arguement that relies on the logic of "because I said so and if you disagree with me then you're evil and stupid" is not well done. In particular, when one is interacting with people in a new space who disagree with you or who are unfamiliar with the concepts. I also think that you need to find a way to calm down and engage in debate without calling someone stupid for not sharing your views while simultainiously not explaining said views well.

Furthermore, this is not the time or place to turn it into a personal debate and I think its highly inappropriate to continue it here. This is my opinion and feel free to respond, but I won't be posting any more about it in this thread for fear of taking the whole thing over.

In the original post, the emphasis is on women of colour. Class is given cursory (token) mention and sexuality an even more cursory mention. Does that mean that if I am a lesbian I should not take the feminist poster seriously because she does not discuss an issue central to my feminism? This tug-of-war within feminism is frustrating, and I do not think that enough credit is given to feminists trying to balance the complicatedness of imbricated positions (i.e. gender, race, class, sexuality, religion, etc).

While much of the criticism of "white" feminists has some validity, the fact is that in Western society there are more whites generally and more white feminists generally, and we all as people tend to focus on issues for various personal reasons and experiences and positions within society. As obvious as that statement is, it gets to the heart of where different feminists and groups of feminists put their emphasis of energy and attention. I expect, for example, to see more posts specifically related to lgbt issues when I go to Pam's House Blend than I expect to see on Feministing; likewise, I expect to see more information related to hetero sexuality (abortion, emergency contraception, etc) at Feministing than I do at Pam's House Blend, and I don't think there is anything wrong with that, especially since both of these sample websites also include blogs outside their main area of attention.

I'm just saying that there is an attempt out there to be inclusive while also being focussed. And to go back to my first point, how can Samhita be expected to write a short blog about a specific topic while also always including all the various aspects/positions of feminism (or adding caveats about why she is not including others). The focus of her post is race and gender, and there is nothing wrong with that. While I hope that we listen to and support one another, ultimately, there is nothing wrong with a white hetero feminist blogger focusing on, say, the increased traction of the anti-abortion movement, or a lesbian feminist on homophobic politicians and policies, or a feminist of colour on race, or a feminist from a diasporic community on...etc, etc.

actually working on posting a comment over there right now, but let me say...
a. nuff respect to sami for bringing the conversation over here... and posing the question of why issues of race don't get conversation started at feministing as much as conversations of, say, dating practices
b. nubian, you rock. i think your blog is a really potent spot and what you've got to say elsewhere is powerful as well.

Anyway that's why I would not make comment on third world problems because I have clean running water at the turn of a tap, to make any comment without action is unconscionable.

powerful, nottrue... really powerful. i take some real issue with it, however. on one hand, sami's the only editor of feministing i really know (jess, you're wonderful, too, but we've only hung out a couple of times) and i really know that she busts her ass doing social justice work. particularly in education...

theory and practice must inform one another. without one, the other is rendered effectively useless. just because there is a huge amount of work to be done does not preclude the need for progressive academic production of knowledge as well. further, without action, talk is just talk and becomes something akin to entertainment – useless and a distraction from very real circumstances.

and without real informed discourse, taking "charity" action is just called imperialism.

umm... yeah, and i started writing this a little while ago, so ts and jessica and pam really just put things much better than i could have.

sarah,
just read your post and i can kind of see where you're coming from. kind of.
seen, it seems like you and nubian have no prior relationship. when i talk about someone i don't know, i usually try to be cordial. you used very offensive language ("the most whiney petulant blogger I've ever had the misfortune of reading") and it really poorly portrays you. it sounds like you just think nubian is a bad writer. why must you be so scathing, then? and to start off with such scornful words and then deride her for being "defensive" is so contradictory it's almost funny.

pam,
that's awesome. not much to add to it... was going to ask what the link to your blog is, but then i realized i shouldn't be so lazy - it's up on the right...

peace and blessings

"and without real informed discourse, taking "charity" action is just called imperialism."

Well, you obviously just took my concluding comment directed at "Jessica and I were talking the other night about all the posts we have done on women of color and third world women " and their "disillusion" over lack of comment, offering an explanation for my own lack of comment ... and ran with it.

Yeah, I am super busy at work but I just have to add in here, SarahS your tone is really nasty. I clearly do think nubian is an awesome writer or I wouldn't have linked her blog here. It is not good to you because you probably are so blinded by your inability to understand the content.

Either way, if you can't see why just calling a black feminist queer blogger "whiny and petulant" and a *token* as tragically inappropriate and racist then I don't think you are ready to enter this discussion.

I am writing this really quick as my students are out to recess, but I will add more later.

nottrue,

just goes to show that electronic media is not always the best way to communicate. sorry for the misunderstanding. i still stand by my point, just not in reference to what you meant. oops.

sarahs--
you should "calm down"
you started off your posting insulting me, reducing my work to the rant of a small child, AND you called me a token? i actually started to cry cuz i felt so offended.

and i'm suppossed to try and enagage in a "debate" with you. please....

i don't get it. it's funny how some people attack you and when you bite back, they call you out as being too defensive.

hmm...as a black lesbian, wait as a black woman who isn't afraid to speak my mind, i am always called "aggressive" "angry" "defensive" and i will continued to be called those things--such as are the sterotypes that are associated with black women. but that won't stop me from speaking my truths.

i went to see bell hooks speak one time and this dood in the audience got up and called her angry, ignorant and a bad writer! (a woman who has written well over 20 books). she didn't let it upset her too much, since she gets that kinda ish all of the time. so i have learned from her and other fierce women of color--i don't need to be validated by you, sarah or any other white feminists who call me a bad writer, who call me whiney, or who call me angry. my life is too short and TOO precious to deal with people like you.

Race, class, gender, sexuality are so complex and interwoven that it is difficult to tease them out and perhaps not useful. The interlocking and intersections are what form our identities and inform our perceptions. I often struggle with trying to balance recognizing difference and diversity yet still being able to say something about women as a social group (without essentializing). I agree completely with Pam, but I also think that we must guard against becoming complacent and thinking someone else will deal with certain issues. This isn't to suggest that any of the posts implied this, just a way of challenging my own notions of how I 'live feminism'. And frankly admitting and acknowledging privilege is often uncomfortable and really challenging to do.

I am also really pleased to be involved in this discussion in this forum. After allowing myself to be drawn in to a pointless and frustrating debate about egalitarianism v feminism it is really great to be able to read and write posts that are respectful, but still challenging. And to not to have to defend feminism, but to be able to engage with people about the challenges of being a feminist and also about the problems within the feminist movement is a nice change from many of the interaction I have.

AND--i have never called anyone stupid.

*Waiting patently for egalatarian soceity*

where all this bull shit victim ranking ends and focus on betterment of PEOPLE begins.

This reminds me of reading Amazon reviews where white men call books that challenge their way of thinking or their privilege "bad".

I think most educated people would look at Samhita's picture and think "bright Indian" (or Indian-American) girl. And would probably prejudge her personality as being open and likable.

Is that a racist reaction? Perhaps by some people's definition.

I think that the whole concept of multiculturalism is hopelessly flawed. In the end that type of thinking just reinforces our differences.

From the many comments I've seen on this site, white men are often prejudged as "privileged assholes". Which I think could qualify as a racist attitude.

Distribution of wealth is ultimately the only real issue of consequence. So long as the "working poor" exist, we won't live in a just society. No matter what color their skin or what gender they are.

Okay, I'm jumping in a little late to this one, but first of all props to Samhita for posting on this topic -- you are too too brilliant (and btw did you ever decide about the phd??)

However, as someone who sometimes posts on the site (mostly on international issues) and who is currently working in the global South in the (gasp) development arena (for the UN), I thought I'd throw in my 2 cents.

As a white Northern woman working in the global South, I do, in fact think about these issues. A LOT. And, as several people have mentioned here (nubian, puck, jess), these issues are COMPLEX. However, to say that we cannot comment on these issues because we are not x,y,z, seems frankly, to me so "second wave" (pardon the feminist-speak). I KNOW that when I am writing I am writing from a certain perspective, and let's face it, we ALL are. But honestly when you decide that you can't speak because you don't know the other person's perspective, well, frankly that's a cop-out. And this is not an invitation for ignorant, uninformed comments on situations that you have no idea about—it’s a call to get yourself educated. This does not make you imperialist, but I do feel (and I might get in trouble here) that people of (relative) privilege have a responsibility to others. That is, being from the U.S., we have a responsibility to try to fix the way our country basically fucks every other country in the world. To not be informed about what your own government is doing, and not to try to work with other people in other parts of the world who are dealing everyday with the messes the US makes. Recognizing that you come from a position of privilege… and doing something the hell about it is the first step in opening dialogue. Therefore, I will be the first to acknowledge that in many ways (my race, my class, my country of origin) I come from a position of privilege—but it is how you use this privilege that counts.

And just as an aside to the sterotypical comment about what "third world" women are concerned about, just the other day in Santo Domingo hundreds of women marched on Congress to be sure that issues surrounding violence against women and abortion are taken into consideration during the current revision of the Penal Code. Just sayin'.

Check it:
http://www.elnacional.com.do/app/article.aspx?id=52978

i am an educated girl and when i look at her picture, i don't think "bright indian"

Yeah, Samhita--you are my bright shining indian star! dear lord. what do you think when you look at my pic, tragula? bright italian girl? pizza dough tosser?

From the many comments I've seen on this site, white men are often prejudged as "privileged assholes".

privilege and assholeness don't necessarily go hand in hand, though they certainly can. just because people point out male (or white, or heterosexual or class) privilege, it doesn't mean we're calling someone an asshole. why can’t you see the difference?

thanks for the link gwen...if only i spoke spanish. sigh.

I am so thankful that this fascinating topic has been brought up, and when I read the posts of C and Killer B, they said spot on what I was thinking.

In response to "why don't articles of international women/women of color" harvest as many responses as those that deal with dating and house cleaning, I have to say that I tend not to repond because, as a white woman, I cannot possibly fathom the experience of a black woman, or a native american woman, etc., and to me, to make a comment to someone whose experience is foreign to me is insulting. How can I, a white women, comment on the struggles of a black woman when I cannot know those struggles?

I know that my life has been one of white privilege, which is why I often point-blank ask people whose background is different than mine what their experience has been. Sometimes I get some illuminating information, sometimes I am just shut out as a "white woman who will never understand." Most are genuinely surprised that I am genuinely interested, which I think, is the saddest thing of all.

After traveling throughout Europe for several months, I came to realize how racist the US is. It makes me sad to the point of sickness--for us all--for all that we are missing out on as human beings. Every ethnicity/orientation/gender/affiliation has its own wisdom to impart, and when voices are lost, we all lose.

What (did and didn't) surprise me throughout my travels, though, was that while I enjoyed a refreshing break from the "wall" that stands between the races in the states, nowhere did I experience a break from sexism. Nowhere.

This is such an interesting and important coversation. What I want to know now is: How do we go about breaking down these barriers? What can I do, as a white woman, to be more open to the experiences of others and to better understand them?

Well, since you ask... when I look at your pic your ethnic background doesn't jump out at me. I just think you look hot. And er... not the real 100 kind. Although I suppose you might be that too. (Just joking around. ;)

And, yeah, I see the difference. The problem is that as soon as a guy denies being privileged they become instant assholes (albeit privileged ones).

I just read the post from Gwen ( who posted while I was composing my own response), and would like to comment on something she said, simply because it is completely polar to what I said: when you decide that you can't speak because you don't know the other person's perspective, well, frankly that's a cop-out.

That's food for thought, and a tricky idea to get around. Often, when I ask for the perspective of another I am told "No, you're white, you just don't get it." Maybe I don't. Maybe I can't. But I'm curious just the same.

That is, being from the U.S., we have a responsibility to try to fix the way our country basically fucks every other country in the world. To not be informed about what your own government is doing, and not to try to work with other people in other parts of the world who are dealing everyday with the messes the US makes.

That's an excellent point, but I guess I'm coming at it from a different perspective--that of the person-to-person dialogue, because isn't that where the problems start?

Sylke, point definitely well taken. honestly, I think that your tactic of asking questions is a good one. Sure, some people will shut you out, but too often I think that white women and/or people of privilege tend not to ask, thinking that it's ok b/c "I'm not racist, classist, etc, so I don't need to know anything else." However, you are right in asking when you don’t know, and, frankly, this is the way that coalitions are built. For example, I was at an international feminist conference a year ago talking with a woman from Tonga, and she was telling me how I didn't understand her movement/perspective b/c things were so different for women there- for example, their government hadn't even ratified CEDAW. When I told her that the U.S. hadn’t ratified CEDAW either, she couldn’t believe it… Now this doesn’t mean that I completely understand where she’s coming from, but we did find some common ground… and here again you can see that dreaded “hierarchy of oppression� runs both ways. (Oh, and nottrue, I though of another example of this in the way that the Bush Administration tells us we have to go and help the “poor women� in the Middle East because they are so oppressed and that we should be thankful for our rights, while all the time the Administration is chipping away at them…)

Oh, and yeah, Jess, couldn’t find the article in English. In short, they’re re-writing the Penal Code here and women are making several demands regarding domestic violence and rape, also asking for the right to an abortion in the case of rape, or when the life of the mother is in danger (abortion is completely illegal here). If you want some general info on VAW in the DR, here’s an article in English from IPPF: http://www.ippfwhr.org/publications/serial_article_e.asp?SerialIssuesID=5&ArticleID=27
And another from Oxfam: http://www.oxfam.org.uk/what_we_do/issues/gender/links/1105domrep.htm

A few things:
1) Pam, I think, has a point about how folks are generally interested in topics that concern them.

2) However, I think nubian and other bloggers have a point that women of color have had to create their own spaces for years because white feminist women have often refused to engage with issues that are of concern to women of color. This site is called feminising.com, not upper-class white feminist.com. I applaud efforts of the bloggers on this site to expand the kinds of discussions they're having.

3) Regarding some of the comments above where folks are saying things like, "i have no idea what it's like to be a black woman so i can't talk about it":
that mindset is patronizing (oh those poor souls, i have no idea what it's like to live so hard), and completely stops conversation. It doesn't help anyone GROW. For me, part of being a person is learning, growing, acquiring knowledge and insight. so it's true, i don't know shit about being anyone who i'm not, but i EDUCATE myself about how other people feel and what issues affect them. i don't tap out by saying, "whoops, don't know anything about that la la la."

4) I'm new to the "having a discussion via comments" thing and i'm still not sure how to maneuver, but I will say that I've typically viewed feministing as a place to get news rather than a place to discuss it. Then again, I generally don't dive into discussions, so that could just me my MO at work.

Sylke and Gwen, I dont't think that there's anything wrong with asking someone their opinion. But I do think it gets tricky. For example...when Samhita and I were at the WAM conference and went to a panel on hip hop and feminism, the conversation quickly shifted and it became, "tell me what it's like to be black." It was really odd. Same kind of thing when I speak with men, and of course I'm happy to speak about feminism, but there is this feeling of--it's not my job to teach you what it's like to be a woman.

I forget where this came from, but back in my undergrad days we read a piece by a woman who said essentially, it's not the job of the oppressed to teach the oppressor--go out and learn that shit yourself. I'm rambling a bit, but do you see what I'm saying?

jess, totally. i know that quote.

I know exactly what you mean about the "tell me about xyz" conversations, but *dialogue* is really key hear and sharing experiences - and it is not the same as a one-sided exchange, it is about both sides listening to one another. That said, i also agree that it's the responsibility of the person in a position of privilege to education themselves. but sometimes you can't be educated unless you ask. I guess.

Jeezus this speaking 2 languages thing is killing my train of thought so signing off for now... and MANY props to all the bilingual folks out there. Don't know how you do it.

gwen, word.

good luck with the bilingual-ness. you can school me (in a dialogue sense, not a one sided sense of course) in spanish when you get back.

With respect, there's a level of "simple" writing, and then there a level of writing that speaks to people.

Trick to getting that one done is to know your audience and craft your arguments in terms they are familiar and comfortable with. That second one tends to get overlooked.

It's the fact that the various groups, from the NAACP to NOW, have lost the lesson of Malcolm X's powerful, and of-quoted/sampled, statement,

"We want to have just an off-the-cuff chat between you and me, us. We want to talk right down to earth in a language that everybody here can easily understand."

Hmmm. I thought that was from "The Day the Earth Stood Still".

what do you think when you look at my pic, tragula? bright italian girl? pizza dough tosser?

You're Italian? (And by "Italian" I mean you were born in Italy to parents born in Italy.)

I really don't pay attention to that sort of thing, which from what I've seen and read seems to be fairly unusual. I give as much importance to ethnicity" as I do to shoe size.

This does not make you imperialist, but I do feel (and I might get in trouble here) that people of (relative) privilege have a responsibility to others.

when you decide that you can't speak because you don't know the other person's perspective, well, frankly that's a cop-out.

That's food for thought, and a tricky idea to get around. Often, when I ask for the perspective of another I am told "No, you're white, you just don't get it." Maybe I don't. Maybe I can't. But I'm curious just the same.

love it. this is what dialogue is supposed to be about. you're both mad inspiring.

i mean, really, just like gwen took a risk to say the responsibility joint, so you've got to take risks with an open mind. as a white man, i've definitely said my share of wrong things... like, rilly wrong... and it doesn't feel good, but sometimes it's the only way to get real about things. you just got to approach dialogue with an open mind, like you said... it's about person-to-person.

and, tragula,

And, yeah, I see the difference. The problem is that as soon as a guy denies being privileged they become instant assholes (albeit privileged ones).

at the same time, something this discussion has really opened up is how many white women are willing to recognize the male privilege without recognizing their own implications in reproducing white privilege (among other things).

peace and blessings

This convo is so intense. I just want to add in as Sylke is pointing out not being able to understand the *other* women's oppression, and add that for me a lot of times it is a matter of recognizing how your priviledge is potentially linked to other women's oppression. Or how one group is taught to not notice the mistreatment of others, etc.

All of our oppression are interrelated, heck half the time we are complicit in our own oppression, but it is a matter of searching for those truths, finding those connections.

When white women ask me what my experience is I usually ask them how their experience is in relation to mine, what their perception of it is and why they think knowing mine is more important as opposed to analyzing their own relationship to it.

Okay that went on but you get what I am saying. It is not so much about understanding *other* women as it is recognizing the different spaces we stand in and how some issues are given higher value then others. And how we can step back and let other women speak for themselves, move for themselves.

And Gwen, I wanted to add I totally agree that people with priviledge do have a responsiblity to use that priviledge to deconstruct and make change....

Finally to all the "oppression olympics" comments, that is exactly what this discussion is aiming to get away from. Experience is not better or worst, it is differently located...

I'm sitting here shaking my head in wonder that anybody would call nubian's writing petulant, simplistic or childish, as if it's a crime to be both intelligent, thought-provoking, and readable. If nubian's writing is "bad" I'd hate for sarahs to look at my blog, where I regularly cuss, bitch and complain in the most irritating manner.

But the most offensive thing, to me, is to dismiss nubian as a token. There are so many levels in which nubian's value as a person and a writer were negated with just that one word that I really can't go on.

I may not be a great writer but I'm an obsessive reader, and nubian is one of the writers I obsessively read. Token indeed. Hmmph.

Ack. Bad spelling tasks me.

Privilege.
privi (private, not public)
lege (rules, the law)

Sarah has already been well-answered, but I wanted to say something anyway...

I think I would take the criticism more seriously if it wasn't coming from the most whiney petulant blogger I've ever had the misfortune of reading. I think that nubians acceptance and promotion in the feminist blogsphere is pure tokenism, because it sure has nothing to do with her quality of work.

Oh, please. First of all, your rhetoric is so insulting and over-the-top that you lose any credibility.

Second of all, as the editor of "Alas," I'm insulted by the implication that I invite anyone to guest-post because of tokenism. I invited Nubian to guest-post because I read and like her blog, and because I'm interested in what she has to say.

It's true that I want feminists of color among the guest-posters on "Alas" - but I've never had lower my standards a whit in order to do that.

If I had a white guest poster you didn't think much of, would you assume that she was only guest-posting because of her race? I can accept that you and I have a difference in opinion about how good a writer Nubian is; but to leap from that difference of opinion to an assumption that she's a token is racism.

I wanted to add that I think Gwen really has a good point...it really does require a dialogue. Because on one hand, you don't want to "other"-ize the person that isn't like you ("gee your black, isn't that interesting?") but you don't want to ignore the realities and struggles.
I think especially since now women must also struggle with their division between women's rights and ethnic or national rights, as well as race. It is really tough. But there are certainly some issues that cross borders and others that are unique, and I think it is so worthwhile and important to understand that the struggle for a better world requires everyone to care about both.

I've had some wonderful long talks with a local activist mentor on the subject of race, and the statement that she hates the most--that she believes is most disingenuous--is "When I look at you, I don't see a black/white person."

That's, frankly, an insult. That's like saying "When I look at you, Tom, I don't see a man." What do you see, then? Someone who is raceless and genderless? I mean, I pride myself on being antiracist and culturally androgynous to a point and I agree that race and gender are mostly cultural constructs, but that doesn't change the fact that I'm a white man, and if you look at me and don't see a white man, you aren't really looking at me.

When I look at that photo of Kortney Ryan Ziegler, I see a confident and very intense young black woman. I see she's black. I see she's a woman. When I look at that photo of Samhita, I see a very confident and very friendly-looking young Indian-American woman. I see she's Indian-American. I see she's a woman. I see she's friendly-looking, though that has less to do with her race than with her warm and gracious smile, and in fact if you were to tap into my brain and look at my personal history with Indian-Americana versus African-American women I think you'd see that friendliness is a quality that I stereotypically associate more with the latter group than the former. Cultural stereotypes are important, but it's how we filter them that matters.

I know I respect Ms. Ziegler. I don't know that I'd have as much fun hanging out with her as I do with my feminist allies here in Jackson--a city that is 72% African-American, where most local feminist activists are in fact women of color--but I do have immense respect for Ms. Ziegler. I read her blog regularly. I ranked her #3 on my top feminist blogs list.

Do I read and participate in her blog as much as I do Feministing? No, not really. I've tried, but as striking as her own comments are, what I have to say in the comments field never sounds all that intelligent or original. I have the sense that I am speaking completely without authority or expertise, so I don't speak at all. I don't know if it's the blog style or the subject matter, but I doubt it's because the blog focuses on race because I discuss race all the time on the local alternative weekly blog (and no, it is not a lily-white or even noticeably predominantly white site). Hell, I've criticized black politicians for not adequately standing up for black constituents. Race indicts me, but being indicted doesn't scare me anymore. I have accepted the fact that I have these diseases called institutional sexism and institutional racism and that all men and all whites, respectively, share that diagnosis. With that knowledge I can go forward without self-censorship or apology, because I have nothing to hide. Most whites who are uncomfortable discussing race are uncomfortable because they're pretending to be something that they're not: People who have somehow managed to completely escape and transcend institutional racism, despite benefitting from it in countless ways.

But I ramble. SarahS, I find your post obnoxious and disrespectful, your character judgments of Ms. Ziegler ill-founded, your assessment of your own belief system and your own subconscious biases inadequately self-critical. I think you need to take a good long look at that deep dark truthful mirror.

But that's just me, speaking with the self-ordained authority that white male privilege grants me. It makes no more sense to apologize for that than it does for a duck to apologize for having a beak, but at least I'm conscious of my privilege. Maybe you need to become more conscious of yours.

Cheers,

TH

"Regarding some of the comments above where folks are saying things like, "i have no idea what it's like to be a black woman so i can't talk about it":
that mindset is patronizing (oh those poor souls, i have no idea what it's like to live so hard)"

No more patronizing than assuming that being a black woman means being a "poor soul" with a hard life? Give me a break--as a white woman, how the hell can I know what the life of a black woman is like unless I hear her tell it? When I ask for the life experiences of people who have different ethnicities/religions/orientations/histories than mine, I'm simply asking a peer to share their knowledge with me.

"Same kind of thing when I speak with men, and of course I'm happy to speak about feminism, but there is this feeling of--it's not my job to teach you what it's like to be a woman."

I have to disagree. Instead of stating what I don't know/would like to know, I'll relate a personal experience: A group of my women friends and I were sharing a common area on campus when John, a colleague, approached us and plopped down the question "What is it like to have a period?" At first we all looked at him like he was crazy, but when we realized his curiosity was genuine, we told him. And told him. And told him. He listened to every word, and although the man will never himself experience menses, I think he truly "got it." I respected him for being brave enough to ask the question as well as intently listening and absorbing all that we had to say with authentic interest and respect.

Was it my job to educate him on what it's like to be a woman experiencing a period? You bet it was, because he genuinely wanted to know and I had first-hand knowledge. Who would have benefited if we had all clammed up, or told him "You'll never understand, so don't bother asking."

Jessica - we read a piece by a woman who said essentially, it's not the job of the oppressed to teach the oppressor--go out and learn that shit yourself.

here you go -

Audre Lourde in, "Age, Race, Class, and Sex: Women Redefining Difference"

Whenever the need for some pretense of communication arises, those who profit from our oppression call upon us to share our knowledge with them. In other words, it is the responsibility of the oppresssed to teach the oppressors their mistakes. I am responsible for educating teachers who dismiss my children's culture in school. Black and Third-World people are expected to educate white people as to our humanity. Women are expected to educate men. Lesbians and gay men are expected to educate the heterosexual world. The oppressors maintain their position and evade responsibility for their own actions.

thanks, justine. shame on me for not remembering.

I know I respect Ms. Ziegler. I don't know that I'd have as much fun hanging out with her as I do with my feminist allies here in Jackson--a city that is 72% African-American, where most local feminist activists are in fact women of color--but I do have immense respect for Ms. Ziegler.

ya know, i'm really likeable in person. my blog is not representative of me as a whole, neither is the image i chose to display. :-)

perhaps "whiny" and "petulant" are really "fatigued at continually being expected to be nice rather than be angry so that white feminists like sarahs can feel all comfortable and stuff."

seriously chica: your critique sounds a lot more whiny and petulant (and angry in a desperate sort of way) than anything nubian has *ever* written.

that said, i'll basically agree with what nubian says. i think white feminists either (a) don't know where to begin the dialogue or (b) disagree. either way it's usually because racism has not been their experience. so rather than discuss the issue and risk looking like an idiot or a white-sheet wearer, people stay silent.

it's much easier to revel in or retreat into your privilege than it is to be challenged on it.

we read a piece by a woman who said essentially, it's not the job of the oppressed to teach the oppressor--go out and learn that shit yourself.

Um, who are the "oppressors" supposed to learn that stuff from?

nubian writes:
ya know, i'm really likeable in person. my blog is not representative of me as a whole, neither is the image i chose to display. :-)

I believe that. :o) Part of it is that I'm smile-oriented--partly a southern thing, partly a personal quirk. If you look back at photos of me, I'm almost always smiling.

(Including one slightly disturbing photo of a local NOW meeting where everyone else is looking somberly at the camera but I'm sitting there in the center of the photo with a big goofy grin on my face. I winced when I saw that. Reminded me of the cover of Leonard Cohen's Death of a Ladies' Man.)

When other folks aren't smiling, I always wonder if it's something I did!

Cheers,

TH

Um, who are the "oppressors" supposed to learn that stuff from?

Do you honestly not see the difference between, "You may never ask these questions," and, "Go to the library yourself?" The problem isn't that "oppressors" want to learn; the problem is that these questions have been asked and answered by oppressed people countless times. Given the marginalization of "minority" theorists, everyone has to search for formal critiques of privilege--even oppressed people! The difference between you and them is that they have a greater incentive to do that work. There are a multitude of brilliant thinkers out there, and their analysis isn't all that hard to find. Instead of shoring up the false dichotomy between hand-holding and ignorance, or the mythical dearth of feminist writing by women of color, why not start at wikipedia and go from there?

I've learned a lot from oppressed folks. But I think there's a distinction here that needs to be made:

(1) You have a responsibility to learn, but

(2) They do NOT have a responsibility to teach you.

This is the sort of thing you usually have to learn from people you care about, who also care about you. You can't just beat people over the head with it.

When privileged people are looking to be "educated" on this sort of thing, what they're usually looking for is proof. And they're going about it in a lazy kind of way. I found this article very educational. I find much of what I read on Kortney's blog to be very educational. Those are good places to start.

Cheers,

TH

While it is important to note that race tends to be overlooked as a factor in discussion of feminism, I think one thing everyone seems to overlook is how race negatively impacts white women as well. Race and gender are not always factors that compound upon each other in a simple fashion; in other words, it's not simple enough to say that to be black in addition to being a woman always makes things worse than being white and female. Rather, race impacts gender differently in different circumstances. I would argue that in contemporary culture white women often are used as a convenient target for those (white) men in power as an outlet for reactionary sexism. White females are, at times, more threatening to the power of white males in power than women of color because they represent to them a challenge to their own sense of masculinity. When black women succeed in various endeavors, it is more often viewed as a development within the context of black culture rather than a development in the wider culture in general. It is viewed as something that reflects upon the status of black men in particular rather than men in general, and as something that is a trend in black culture, not culture at large. When white women succeed in an area, that is viewed as a general gender development in society and, as such, a reflection on men in general, and white men in particular. My example of this would be education. For years there has been a problem with black and Latino males falling behind in school compared to black and Latino females. However, this flew under the radar and very few people discussed this issue nationally. Now that white males have fallen behind white females it has become an issue. Currently, the majority of college degrees go to white women. Suddenly, this is a problem-- and make no mistake, this is about race. As Thomas Mortenson was quoted as saying in Salon.com, "Yet, as more and more women substitute careers for having babies, I've come to see that we're looking at a population crisis. The most educated women have the fewest children -- this is not rocket science, it's just the way things work. We need women to have 2.1 children [in order to maintain the U.S. population], but the recent Census Bureau reports show that American women with bachelor's degrees average only 1.7. You can do the math -- if we continue this way the white population is headed for extinction." Besides the fact that this statement reeks of racist thinking, it points out that the men who are now concerned about this issue are mainly concerned with how it pertains to white men (and, hence, white women). What I mean by all this is that we need to view gender more in the context of race as many women of color have said, but we also need to be aware of how race affects white women in terms of gender beyond whatever privileges we receive for being white. White feminists also overlook this fact as well.

I feel like I just walked into a room where one of the great conversations of the world is happening - every piece is as interesting as the next.

I want to go back to an earlier point.

"From the many comments I've seen on this site, white men are often prejudged as "privileged assholes". Which I think could qualify as a racist attitude."

Dismissing for a second my knee-jerk responses that I am so tired of having (that this person must have a guilty conscience or something to take so much personal offense at posts and comments related to whiteness, maleness and priviledgeness, rather than just acknowledging and admitting to his privilege, considering the issues as they are, and seeing that we are not judging him personally because he is a white male). um, dismissing that,

In the definition of race I have learned, it is not possible for a white person (particularly in the American/western context) to be a victim of racism, because racism is a system of beliefs about the superiority of one group over another, but what differentiates it from prejudice is the power. Racism against people of color has been written into our fricking laws, has been carried out on so many systemic levels in this country so that it has tangible affects on peoples lives - where they can live, where they work, how much they make, education, and on and on and on. In this sense, for a person of color to hate white people is not racism. Prejudice, absolutely, but not racism.

Just throwing that out there, and I know I'm not being as eloquent as a lot of you - what do others think?

It's refreshing that various people are engaging in a dialogue (such as it is.)

I understand that the idea of "privilege" is a given on this site. It is a common assumption that people here share, and there is a whole intellectual framework built around it.

But there are a growing number of people like me, who don't see gender or race as social constructs. For whom power isn't always the issue. And who would rather relate to others as individuals, and not as group representatives.

We see things very differently.

know what--i get comments like that a lot. people make reference to my skin color, then say...but i don't usually agree with you. i'm not trying to read into it too much--i'm just pointing that out. :-) take it as you wish

Actually, I noticed because my family is Pakistani, and sometimes I feel alone in my feminist brownness. I guess our lives have been different enough for our opinions to form differently; our race did not give us a certain viewpoint. I do agree with you sometimes, and in this case, but not always.

My friend was in a Sociology course on gender roles, and her professor asked her if she thought of herself as a black woman, or a woman who is black. My friend replied that her first identity is black. I would define myself as female before Pakistani. However, the time I've spent in Pakistan and the Middle East is where my views on the lives of third world women come from.

Lastly, I would argue that white women do experience some discrimination based on race. Apparently, some men, specifically in science/technology-related fields, think that white women are just... stupid. I believe the exact words I heard recently were, "Upper middle-class white girls have everything handed to them, and they're idiots! They have no perception of the sacrifices other people have made for them. They don't even care about feminism because they're too short-sighted and self-absorbed to see that people are still trying to take away their rights."

Offensive? Hell yes. But I think it adds another dimension to the conversation.

You know, as a woman (and a queer-identified one), I'm very familiar with the sort of frustration that comes from trying to interact with (many, not all) straight and/or male folk when it comes to political issues around feminism and/or queer issues.
I am assuming that every woman who ID's as a feminist at least can identify with the frustration of trying to get menfolk to "get it."

So, why the fuck is it so difficult to understand that a black woman might feel similarly when white people seem bound and determined not to get it? Would YOU like to be called a "token?" Enjoy being accused of getting "hysterical" or imagining things when you express anger or exasperation at what sure seems important and obvious to *you*? No? Then howzabout don't fucking do it to other people, 'kay?

It's frustrating enough to deal with this shit in general; when it comes from people who style themselves as politically Fighting The Good Fight...just, gag. Seriously.

Sorry, but what it comes down to is whether or not women support other women or men. Support men first? Call them innocent victims of lying bitches? Yeah, sorry, I'm a teensy bit skeptical that you're feminist. Call women liars who victimized men? Yeah, I'm convinced. Sorry, but if you bash other women to protect men, then I'm a wee bit umimpressed. Why does the label feminist matter so much then?

ginmar,

no. what it comes down to is whether or not people actually love themselves and whether or not they're willing to subsume themselves in cultures that oppress them.
most women of color in my life are not willing to play second fiddle to men of color or white women, neither of whom always their best interests in mind.

who has called men "innocent victims of lying bitches" and why must you put such horrific phrases in other people's mouths? why can't you actually respond to anything anyone else has said?

i mean, really, ginmar, who ever "bash[ed] other women"? it seems like you're leading the charge on that one.

peace and blessings

ps. if you feel like you're about to have a breakdown, that's okay... realizing your own privilege and implication in reproducing oppression is heavy. it's also vital to the struggle for personal and community liberation.

Do you honestly not see the difference between, "You may never ask these questions," and, "Go to the library yourself?"

Who writes those library books and Wikipedia articles? Who should questions about the content of those library books and Wikipedia articles be directed to?

Somebody said this already but SarahS, your initial comment was rude, insulting and I wonder why you are so surprised by the reaction. You said your job is

not someone to tell them that they are stupid and bad.

What it comes down to, ginmar, is that you are an asshat. Neither nubian nor any "feminist" around here is referring to women as "lying bitches" or anything like it, except perhaps within your feverish little brain.

Tragula,

Whether you think race and gender are social constructs or not does not effect whether men and women are treated in meaningfully different ways in this country.

I think you are absolutely right that we should try and treat everyone as an individual, not as an example of a stereotype.

But I don't get treated that way. Debate judges responded differently to me for being no more aggressive than my male debate partners. I have noticed that I had a lot more credibility as a peer college debate coach in CA then as a visiting debate judge at my semi-alma-mater in CO despite having even better credentials (law student) when I showed up to judge there.

The people who think I am non-white (fewer now that I am older) also treat me differently than the people who recognize me as white.

Since I am in the midwest now, with a CA accent, people assume that I am of much higher social class than I am. They either see a privilege that is not there, or they think that I am looking down on them because of the way they talk.

So I think you are right that people should look past stereotypes. But you can't look past them if you do not acknowledge that you have them. Even for those perfect people out there who don't stereotype, you have to acknowledge the effects of other people's behaviors on your friends or coworkers or new acquaintances.

A legal secretary who I worked with had been interviewing in the south, and she and I were talking about how it hadn't gone well. She seemed to be uncomfortable somehow with articulating her experience. I asked her, "Do you think it might have anything to do with race?" She just looked so relieved. She told me that she thought the interviewers were uncomfortable with her because she was biracial and there weren't many half-white/half-black people even in the towns and cities surrounding the places she was interviewing. I was glad I had asked the question so broadly, because I hadn't even thought of the biracial dynamic, and maybe a narrower question would have elicited a different answer.

But what really struck me was the relief. She was now free to talk about race and how she was treated as a result of her background without thinking that an acquaintance and colleague would think "Oh, she's one of those black people who blame everything on race." Because that is the one racist opinion that it is still considered totally okay to mouth, even in liberal circles. Not that I'm saying that being non-white = sainthood, but it cannot be true as often as it is mouthed.

And "supporting other women" is *exactly* what I'm doing here, toots.
hint, hint: nubian is ALSO a woman.

Sylke, you completely missed my point. Which is understandable - it's the internet, context is difficult to get without vocal inflection. My point was that embedded in the patronizing mindset of "i don't know what it's like to be..." is often an assumption that, for example, black women are poor souls.

So when you responded with, "No more patronizing than assuming that being a black woman means being a "poor soul" with a hard life?" you reiterated what I was saying.

In other words, I wasn't seriously saying that black women were poor souls with hard lives.

white feminists need to shut the fuck up and let us say what we have to say. they need to stop silencing and suppressing the voices of women of color, and invalidating our claims by any means possible. they need to allow us to speak for ourselves and to stop claiming frantically that they have the absolute knowledge and authority to decide what all women’s oppressions are. they need to really start HEARING what we are saying, instead of denying us any validity just because our statements go against their theories about what struggles are worth fighting. they need to realize that what might be the reality for them, does NOT by default mean that women of color also have to deal with that SAME reality only. they need to stop claiming that gender struggles ‘trump’ [what a simplistic, one-dimensional term] any other struggles for ALL WOMEN, and basing it solely on their own, limited experience of oppression. they need to not violate our space and allow us to define our existence and struggles without calling us stupid, without resorting to desperate and ludicrous ad hominem attacks on our personalities, our writing and expression style, our choice of vocabulary or our un-academic, un-pretentious, un-high-culture, “simplistic� language.

listen up, white “sisters�:

get over yourselves. essentially, it is not HOW we say it, but WHAT we say that’s important. and sometimes you’re NOT the ones who know the absolute, irrefutable truth. the least you could do (if you really don’t want to be perceived by us as just another ‘oppressor’) is to say, “ok, i might not understand exactly what you’re talking about because i haven’t lived as a woman of color, and the only oppression i’ve ever encountered is patriarchy. however, i understand that your life experiences as a person of color leads you to form your own identities and your own resistances, and i respect that. and i’m not going to jam my shit down your throats trying to silence and erase you. and i’m not going to claim until i turn blue that you’re not enlightened enough and not conscious enough to define your own reality.�

fight against patriarchy does NOT equal all other fights for everybody. for YOU it does, because that’s the only conceivable cause for you all to unite (being on top of the socially-constructed racial hierarchy and not having to be seen as more ‘exotic’, more submissive, more agreeable, more sexualized, more oppressible, more coercible, more victimizable, more tempting to rape and humiliate… on a daily basis). but that’s NOT the case for the people who have had to fight against something much greater and much more mind-numbing our whole lives. gender oppression alone does NOT explain the plight of women of color, as opposed to that of yours. if you ask us, the first oppressor any conscious woman of color would identify off the bat, would be White Supremacy. and want it or not, you do NOT have to fight against it because you ARE PART OF IT. and by denying us our voices and by attacking our words, you are only reinforcing and proving to us that the fight against White Domination (be it in the form of male or female) is ultimately our single, most important purpose. because unlike you, we are always viewed as strippers OF COLOR, mothers OF COLOR, lesbians OF COLOR, activists OF COLOR, professionals OF COLOR, with all the accompanying circumstances and social stigma attached to that. and this ‘of color’ suffix changes a whole lot of shit for us on many different levels.

i never identity myself as just a *woman* – my fundamental identity in this world is *woman of color*, which already, in and of itself, signifies that i have at least two oppressors – white supremacy and patriarchy. Moreover, for me the patriarchy is always secondary to white supremacy. and in most of my personal fights men ARE my comrades – my blood brothers, my fathers, my uncles, my cousins, and all brothers OF COLOR. we together bear the burden of being racially profiled, generalized, stereotyped and humiliated. we together understand what it feels like NOT TO BE WHITE, we together fight it, hate it and support each other in spirit against it. there’s no ‘male racism’ and ‘female racism’ to me, there’s just one, atrocious, omnipresent, demoralizing racism that we (women and men of color) understand and fight in concert. and in a lot of ways, it is YOU, white feminists, who i have to fight against in order to reassert my position in the society – much like in this very debate, which i find absolutely ridiculous.

it is YOUR restless anxiety to always be right that’s dividing us. your truth is NOT women of color’ truth. period. just because you’re not aware of something doesn’t mean it’s not there. because you haven’t lived in a certain way doesn’t mean that nobody does. because you haven’t experienced something doesn’t mean it’s not real. because you find something incomprehensible and unrealistic, doesn’t mean it’s bullshit.

and for those who are much too quick to label us ‘whiney’ and to dismiss our own stories of OUR OWN TRUTH as absurd, i have only this to say: if anyone is ‘whiney’, it must be you because all you can see and focus on is your poor, oppressed, repressed, misunderstood, manipulated, denied, defied, misinterpreted little selves. no-one’s had it as hard as you have; therefore, your oppression is the only AUTHENTIC one, right?

white feminists need to SHUT THE FUCK UP and let us say what we have to say. they need to stop silencing and suppressing the voices of women of color, and invalidating our claims by any means possible. they need to allow us to speak for ourselves and to stop claiming frantically that they have the absolute knowledge and authority to decide what all women’s oppressions are. they need to really start HEARING what we are saying, instead of denying us any validity just because our statements go against their theories about what struggles are worth fighting. they need to realize that what might be the reality for them, does NOT by default mean that women of color also have to deal with that SAME reality only. they need to stop claiming that gender struggles ‘trump’ [what a simplistic, one-dimensional term] any other struggles for ALL WOMEN, and basing it solely on their own, limited experience of oppression. they need to not violate our space and allow us to define our existence and struggles without calling us stupid, without resorting to desperate and ludicrous ad hominem attacks on our personalities, our writing and expression style, our choice of vocabulary or our un-academic, un-pretentious, un-high-culture, “simplistic� language.

listen up, white “sisters�:

get over yourselves. essentially, it is not HOW we say it, but WHAT we say that’s important. and sometimes you’re NOT the ones who know the absolute, irrefutable truth. the least you could do (if you really don’t want to be perceived by us as just another ‘oppressor’) is to say, “ok, i might not understand exactly what you’re talking about because i haven’t lived as a woman of color, and the only oppression i’ve ever encountered is patriarchy. however, i understand that your life experiences as a person of color leads you to form your own identities and your own resistances, and i respect that. and i’m not going to jam my shit down your throats trying to silence and erase you. and i’m not going to claim until i turn blue that you’re not enlightened enough and not conscious enough to define your own reality.�

fight against patriarchy does NOT equal all other fights for everybody. for YOU it does, because that’s the only conceivable cause for you all to unite (being on top of the socially-constructed racial hierarchy and not having to be seen as more ‘exotic’, more submissive, more agreeable, more sexualized, more oppressible, more coercible, more victimizable, more tempting to rape and humiliate… on a daily basis). but that’s NOT the case for the people who have had to fight against something much greater and much more mind-numbing our whole lives. gender oppression alone does NOT explain the plight of women of color, as opposed to that of yours. if you ask us, the first oppressor any conscious woman of color would identify off the bat, would be White Supremacy. and want it or not, you do NOT have to fight against it because you ARE PART OF IT. and by denying us our voices and by attacking our words, you are only reinforcing and proving to us that the fight against White Domination (be it in the form of male or female) is ultimately our single, most important purpose. because unlike you, we are always viewed as strippers OF COLOR, mothers OF COLOR, lesbians OF COLOR, activists OF COLOR, professionals OF COLOR, with all the accompanying circumstances and social stigma attached to that. and this ‘of color’ suffix changes a whole lot of shit for us on many different levels.

i never identity myself as just a *woman* – my fundamental identity in this world is *woman of color*, which already, in and of itself, signifies that i have at least two oppressors – white supremacy and patriarchy. Moreover, for me the patriarchy is always secondary to white supremacy. and in most of my personal fights men ARE my comrades – my blood brothers, my fathers, my uncles, my cousins, and all brothers OF COLOR. we together bear the burden of being racially profiled, generalized, stereotyped and humiliated. we together understand what it feels like NOT TO BE WHITE, we together fight it, hate it and support each other in spirit against it. there’s no ‘male racism’ and ‘female racism’ to me, there’s just one, atrocious, omnipresent, demoralizing racism that we (women and men of color) understand and fight in concert. and in a lot of ways, it is YOU, white feminists, who i have to fight against in order to reassert my position in the society – much like in this very debate, which i find absolutely ridiculous.

it is YOUR restless anxiety to always be right that’s dividing us. your truth is NOT women of color’ truth. period. just because you’re not aware of something doesn’t mean it’s not there. because you haven’t lived in a certain way doesn’t mean that nobody does. because you haven’t experienced something doesn’t mean it’s not real. because you find something incomprehensible and unrealistic, doesn’t mean it’s bullshit.

and for those who are much too quick to label us ‘whiney’ and to dismiss our own stories of OUR OWN TRUTH as absurd, i have only this to say: if anyone is ‘whiney’, it must be you because all you can see and focus on is your poor, oppressed, repressed, misunderstood, manipulated, denied, defied, misinterpreted little selves. no-one’s had it as hard as you have; therefore, your oppression is the only AUTHENTIC one, right?

White men and women are BY FAR the whiniest posters in the blogophere.

nonwhiteperson, skyscraper, midwest, belledame, sylke, pamela, nubian, em...

as a whiny white man, i gotta just say that i find it invaluable that y'all are here... this space needs your voices and, even if you're reposting stuff you've posted elsewhere (*cough* skyscraper *cough*), everything y'all got to say is crucial. as someone with no real authority to represent feministing, i want to implore y'all to stick around if you don't mind...

a lot of folks here could benefit from y'all's perspectives on things...

peace and blessings

There is definitely something about the blogosphere that breeds loud complaining.

Ismone: You make some good points. I live in NYC, and I think my views can become a bit insular sometimes. People in some other parts of the country are a lot less accepting of differences.

But the issue of identifying with people who are like you is a tricky problem. No one talks about how different races tend to naturally group together. Indian restaurants hire indian waiters. Mexican businesses hire mexicans. And no one considers it racism. But it sure isn't equal opportunity either. I'm not sure how you could really legislate against this natural human tendency to identify more with people of your own ethnic/cultural background.

I acknowledge that I have stereotypes. I even think that most people's stereotypes can often be true. Acknowledging that there is such a thing as a typical member of a group seems to be a where a lot of liberal intellectuals trip themselves up in the name of political correctness. There are typical men, women, feminist bloggers, anti-feminist bloggers, businessmen, artists, french people, americans, etc. The key is to always allow for atypical people and exceptions to the rule--giving people the benefit of the doubt.

Here is some mind blowing info on stereotypes from my favorite anti-feminist handbook:

Stereotypes

Tragula,

Not that mind-blowing. Sure, categorizing can be useful, and we do come from cultural and religious contexts which create common experiences that shape who we are, but we react differently to those contexts. When this categorizing means that we are denied the ability to compete on the merits is where there is a problem.

Actually, on the point he makes about students, they found that when teachers were told that they were teaching a class full of gifted students, they treated the students like they were gifted.

And after a year in that environment, the kids got really high test scores.

So the kids get the test scores, at least in part, based on the expectations and the quality of interaction that the teacher bestows on them due to assumptions about their intelligence.

Want to know a school system that shows NO differences at all between students, based on race/ethnicity, class or gender? The DOD schools run on military bases for servicepeople's children.

I just don't buy antifeminism. I do buy disagreeing with feminist arguments, I do all the time. But women are materially worse off, even in this country. So are minorities. Look at earning power for equally credentialed people, look at poverty, look at discriminatory treatment in the courts of law and in healthcare, look at the abysmally low rates of clearance for sexual assault cases--and for cases with minority victims.

Not a pretty picture. Now we can chalk it up to human nature, or we can make it better, by doing what you just did and acknowledging our stereotypes and overcoming them. By questioning why certain people get treated certain ways. And yes, through law, and through making sure that laws are not enforced "with an evil eye and an uneven hand" as Justice Harlan cautioned in Yick Wo v. Hopkins at the turn of the last century.

I think I know the teaching example you are referring to. It was a Freakonomics example I think.

Still, it doesn't say anything about discrimination. The teacher changed the way she related to ALL the kids. It's definitely true that having high expectations will usually get better results.

Listen, the whole anti-feminist thing is a bit of a joke. No one really defines anything properly around here. It's more of an anti-militant feminist position. Which is probably in line with most people's views. But for some reason moderate feminists don't always speak up to the more radical ones. I think it's a sisterhood thing.

Pointing out that women are materially worse off doesn't jive completely with me. See I think families are really the basic unit of society. And in families men and women have pooled resources. They are in the same boat.

Sure a lot of people get divorced, and the wives don't always make out as well as the husbands. And single moms have a huge challenge. Some of the issues may be perfectly real. But they get lost in the hyperbole of all women being systematically oppressed by all men.

Tragula,

I think that you are right that in certain settings (and I don't like to use the word oppression, so I won't) the imbalance is pretty well on the margins.

Men and women (in healthy marriages) usually do pool their resources. I have known the separate banking account couples, though.

However, even in good marriages, usually women do more housework, to the point where it is like one and a half jobs. I don't think this is because men are vile oppressors, I do think it is because men are not made to sympathize with women the way that women are constantly made to sympathize with men.

Also, I think you are understating the effects of divorce. The financial threat of a marriage ending in divorce can alter the balance of power in a relationship.

Finally, if I get undercompensated as a woman, and my (hypothetical) husband gets properly (or over?) compensated as a man, and we pool our resouces, that does not change the fact that I still earned more money than I received. Boo-hoo for me, because I'm a week away from a grad. degree, but for those single (divorced or otherwise) mothers, the pay gap can make a big difference.

Iz

PS--This wasn't the Freakonomics example, I was told about this study about thirteen years ago.

Well, one reason for the housework imbalance could be that women generally care more about keeping tidy homes than men.

Another could be that men typically work more overtime.

I do agree that many men are still not properly appreciative of the work women do in the home. If you wanted to argue that men are born less sympathetic and sensitive than women (on average) I would agree with you. Short of genetic engineering I don't think you could fix that.

In our own home I do the lion's share of the cleaning and childcare, as I am a stay at home dad.

Perhaps I am understating the effects of divorce. Men may end up richer, but if the wife gets the kids they still get screwed.

I'm not a fan of the wage-gap complaint either. I think it's easily explained by the fact that women often follow less lucrative career paths, by choice.

A lot of women prefer to have a meaningful high quality life, over status and money. A pretty smart choice if you ask me. But don't complain about the downside.

Wow, Puck, you patronizing little shit. You go on right ahead nad believe that calling one group of women liars on behalf of not one, but two groups of men, one of them white--is some great act of sisterhood. Especially when it started out as defending still another group of women from defamation as liars. Yeah, that cleared things up tremendously.

Tragula,

A lot of "being sensitive to others" is subordinate, not feminine, behavior. It is the way minorities are with non-minorities, and the way lower-ranking employees are with bosses. See Elizabeth Loftus' textbooks/articles for more on this. There is pretty good evidence that insensitivity is a hallmark of privilege, not personality.

I think women care more because pressure is put on us to care more. Because we tend to do more "housework" as chores when we are children. Because we are judged more for being untidy. (You should see my room.) The guys in my squadron had no problem with getting their rooms in inspection order.

Some of the wage gap can be explained by women and men being in different careers. Two things on that. First, this does not explain the entire gap. If you take men and women with identical credentials, even in academia (see Amp's recent post on Alas) men earn more. Second, in female dominated careers, women are arguably paid less than they are worth. The nursing shortage is changing this, but it is true that career fields dominated by women, pay is not commensurate with credentials. This phenomena is called the "pink-collar ghetto." When women take over a career field, pay drops and remains lower than pay in male-dominated career fields in particular. Consider nursing, teaching, and secretarial work as examples.

And add to that the childcare industry - the pay is often less than minimum wage - as though the work of taking care of children does not count as legitimate work.

I'm sure that people can be taught to be more or less sensitive. And I'm sure that there are plenty of young men spoiled by their mothers who grow up expecting to be catered to.

But I do think that a large part of sensitivity and cooperative behavior is innate. One of the best experimental studies was of 25 boys born without a penis, due to birth defect or circumcision accident. These boys were surgically altered to become "girls", and raised as girls. And guess what, they all behaved exactly like boys with rough and tumble play and preferences for trucks. Many spontaneously declared themselves to be boys at young ages.

The pink collar effect is interesting. I don't dismiss your hypothesis of unconscious discrimination. But there could be other explanations. If we agree that men are more aggressive, they would probably expect and demand higher salaries. Whereas women might be more likely to accept a first offer. It's also possible that when women take over a field, they work less overtime, and therefore need more staff, pushing salaries down. Things are always more complicated than they appear.

If people bothered to search for pay discrimination against men, I'm sure they would find plenty of examples of that too. Especially in today's socially oriented corporate culture, where women are often perceived as preferred employees.

The last ten posts or so have been about making about yourselves (white women) again. I thought this thread is about intersectionality.

Tragula said in response to my point that whites are the whiniest on the blogosphere:

"There is definitely something about the blogosphere that breeds loud complaining."

I see alot of whites whining but people of color are often stating things for the first time (things I haven't even heard) which is more complaining than whining. We have not yet begun to whine! LOL.

Sorry, my bad.

Bringing it back to intersectionality, I remember an interesting exchange between a professor and a student on intersectionality as it applies to black men and women.

The professor was claiming that black women, as a result of intersectionality, had it harder than black men or white women, and that (particularly in sex/race harassment cases) that it was innappropriate to separate the racial remarks from the sexual remarks (from the racial/sexual remarks) when trying to determine if discrimination occured.

A woman in the class, though not disagreeing with intersectionality, differed and said that she belives that in many settings black men are disadvantaged compared to black women, due to contact with the police, and perceptions of violence.

After having more than a year to think about what my classmate and what my professor said, and also after further discussions with this classmate, this is the conclusion I have reached.

While negative perceptions of black men make it harder for them to make it to college and on to graduate school, that does not mean that black men, when actually in the workplace, aren't privileged over black women with the same credentials. (Salary data, in the same career fields, shows that black men actually do better than white women. Amp has some posts on this over at Alas.)

I want to throw in the caveat that this is based on a conversation with one person, and I'm including my own interpretation as well.

>just because you’re not aware of something doesn’t mean it’s not there. because you haven’t lived in a certain way doesn’t mean that nobody does. because you haven’t experienced something doesn’t mean it’s not real. because you find something incomprehensible and unrealistic, doesn’t mean it’s bullshit.

and for those who are much too quick to label us ‘whiney’ and to dismiss our own stories of OUR OWN TRUTH as absurd, i have only this to say: if anyone is ‘whiney’, it must be you because all you can see and focus on is your poor, oppressed, repressed, misunderstood, manipulated, denied, defied, misinterpreted little selves. no-one’s had it as hard as you have; therefore, your oppression is the only AUTHENTIC one, right?

amen.

ironically (or not) one could take that part of that rant and apply it wholesale to the MRA folk whinging all over the Big Feminist Blogs; or whiny privileged right-whingers like Bill O'Reilly; or...oh, so many places that could go, really.

but of course if one *is* still so very invested in "but but but MY oppression/experience is THE TRUTH, THE ONLY TRUTH, and NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, and if you have anything that counters that in any way whatsover it is clearly because YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH (or, in a word ginmar seems to use a lot, are "lying")

or, as a directing teacher I once had described certain actors' approach to playing with others:

"bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, Me; bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, Me..."

***

Meanwhile, I tend to agree with this:

>A lot of "being sensitive to others" is subordinate, not feminine, behavior. It is the way minorities are with non-minorities, and the way lower-ranking employees are with bosses. See Elizabeth Loftus' textbooks/articles for more on this. There is pretty good evidence that insensitivity is a hallmark of privilege, not personality.

The thing is, yes, I get that the whole nature/nurture thing is still big wrt gender roles. I'm skeptical, (this where the intersectionality comes back) in part because once upon a time, "nature" was used a lot more frequently to describe racial roles. I mean, you would've had a hard time arguing for slavery if you didn't throw in at least some "oh, it's okay because they're Not Like Us; it's *natural* for Them to be subordinate/whatever;" most people aren't very comfortable with "I'm exploiting you/these other people because I can, and that's all." Also, harder to get away with.

Why don't you just kill off white females? I'm serious: more dead white women would mean fewer "sisters" eager to stamp out your narrative and replace it with their own tales of white female-centric "victimization". Really, for your own sake, I urge you to start kicking in the head the white females who pretend to be your friends but who work industriously against your interests.

Hell, I never realised just how totally obsessed Americans are with colour/race whatever ... what the fuck is wrong with you people!

and yet another blog conversation that privileges the experiences of woc, overpowered by white feminist narratives....

sometimes i think, why do we even bother?

For the life of me, why aren't black women slitting the scrawny throats of white females?
Sistahs, if you are serious about having a voice of your own, stop letting the white female pig step on your throat.

C'mon: get out and be heard!

This is absolutely repulsive and ignorant. Putting white women into the category of being rascist and oppressing other races is doing exactly what you are accusing them of doing to you. In no way, shape, or form is comments like these going to help put a stop to prejudice in our society, it is only increasing the hate and animosity among people. I am a black woman and it makes me infuriated when I see people like you making mindless and witless comments such as these. You are not helping anybody with this, you are only aggressing the progress made in equality. I am disgusted.

This is absolutely repulsive and ignorant. Putting white women into the category of being rascist and oppressing other races is doing exactly what you are accusing them of doing to you. In no way, shape, or form is comments like these going to help put a stop to prejudice in our society, it is only increasing the hate and animosity among people. I am a black woman and it makes me infuriated when I see people like you making mindless and witless comments such as these. You are not helping anybody with this, you are only aggressing the progress made in equality. I am disgusted.

This is absolutely repulsive and ignorant. Putting white women into the category of being rascist and oppressing other races is doing exactly what you are accusing them of doing to you. In no way, shape, or form is comments like these going to help put a stop to prejudice in our society, it is only increasing the hate and animosity among people. I am a black woman and it makes me infuriated when I see people like you making mindless and witless comments such as these. You are not helping anybody with this, you are only aggressing the progress made in equality. I am disgusted.

This is absolutely repulsive and ignorant. Putting white women into the category of being rascist and oppressing other races is doing exactly what you are accusing them of doing to you. In no way, shape, or form is comments like these going to help put a stop to prejudice in our society, it is only increasing the hate and animosity among people. I am a black woman and it makes me infuriated when I see people like you making mindless and witless comments such as these. You are not helping anybody with this, you are only regressing the progress made in equality. I am disgusted.