To be fair, I think you're intentionally misinterpreting some of her comments.

1. "The women's movement must protect women of color from this particularly female oppression, if the reports I received are true."

I don't think she is implying that IF this is indeed bad it needs action, I think she is saying that she personally based on her experiences cannot verify that this is true, so she has to take the word of others. She's saying that it is horrible, it's just not something that she herself can confirm.

and 2.
"starting with insisting that men shape their lives with the expectation that they will bear half the burden of child rearing and home making forever"

I don't think you're really being fair here. If men indeed expected to spend their lives raising kids and tending to homes, chances are less of them would incarcerated and commiting crimes in the first places because they would feel a greater obligation to stay out of trouble to take care of their kids. She's that men have to shape their lives, i.e. from the start, with that expectation. You know that she wouldn't debate the fact that a person who is locked up clearly can't tend to their children.

Sure she says a lot of things you, and most of the 3rd wave disagree with, as does Geraldine Ferraro, but I think that this is a discussion that needs to happen for the movement to go forward. You can't just maintain the attitude that you want them to "shut up" (and I quote from an earlier post about Ferraro). The third generation does not have some sort of right to silence these women just becuase they have a different point of view. Either the arguments of the third wave are strong enough to stand on their own, and there is really nothing to fear from this debate. OR, there is really something what they are saying and this debate needs to happen.

jen, you said everything i was thinking as i read the transcript. hirshman is despicable.

I don't understand this.

It seems like there is a fucking fight for the spotlight that does not fit everyone in it. It's either racism OR sexism. It's either old white women OR black women OR young women.

I don't understand it at all. Why can't we find intersections? Why can't people get it that we should work together?

It is absolutely disgraceful that some affluent white feminists exclude women of color, or younger women, or homosexual women. But it is just as gross to see the other side jump on the throats of the first group for not including them when they are talking about their own issues. A white old woman is entitled to ask for her rights and if those are not exactly the same as my priorities, but don't hurt me either, then I don't understand why I should consider her my enemy! If she is not perfect, if she says something that offends me, why should I shun her?

I (as an Iranian woman whose country might be attacked by american women in the army) take responsibility for making my voice heard and I demand support and solidarity from american feminists (white and black, old and young). I understand that even if an american woman wants to attack Iran, I might still be able to find common ground with her on other issues that are to my interest, even if it is her inclusion in the armed forces. (though I might fight her ideology in other areas)

As a young middle eastern feminist I have been both pushed aside and embraced by young american feminists more than older feminists, so if you think younger feminists are always awesome and pure, please get over it. Let's just get over this whole quest for perfection and ritual shaming of other feminists (or people for that matter).

If feminism ends up being consisting of STUPID people who can only take part in screaming at each other I will have to resign as a feminist and even as a woman and call myself something else.

The people who will lose in the middle of this are women of this country and women of the world, and we will not have a feminist "movement" unless we can get over our differences and work together. You can only do this by thinking in terms of practical goals and intersections of demands.

somehow it doesn't feel like we are going in that direction,...

Has Hisrchman explained why she didn't interview any women of color for her piece?

I'm gonna take a shot in the dark here and say that Hirshman isn't calling out White women for supporting White justices because a Black justice is a whole lot more salient to a Black person than a White justice is to a white person just based purely on their relative rarity.

And this question of whether minority women are more oppressed than minority men - while it sounds a little simple-minded, it's more complicated that just brushing it off. How do you weigh the gulf between performance in school between minority boys and girls and how that shapes outcomes with the benefits that minority men gain from being men? It's probably not equal, but the way you respond really makes me not want to keep listening to you.

And Lucretia is completely right - you're (purposefully, it looks like) taking the reverse logical steps that you should through this argument about male responsibility to make Hirshman look silly.

I barely know anything about this inter-generational rivarly shit going on, but it seems like this angry back-and-forth is doing a great job and helping feminism not progress at all. Oh shit, I forgot, I'm a troll.

*back to trolling.*

The third generation does not have some sort of right to silence these women just becuase they have a different point of view.

About the entire generation, no.

About Ms. Ferraro's inexcusable racist tripe, I think we not only have the right to tell her to shut her racist pie hole, but we have a responsibility to do so. Not as feminists, but simply as human beings.

@Lucretia: You can silence a 2nd wave feminist? Male chauvinists everywhere would love to know how.

I don't see a question of whether the 2nd wave is going to be silenced (they aren't), only if they are going to be listened to as a voice of authoritative ideology, or simply reduced to preaching to the choir, grousing about how the young folk don't respect their elders, and waiting to die.

actually, tofu.mon.amour, a back and forth like this is PRECISELY what we need for feminism to move forward. these kinds of discussions are productive in that they force us to challenge our viewpoints because we all (should) know that, in the end, we're on the same "side"

you made some great points, Jen - thanks :)

"An example suggested to me is that women of color are subjected to pressure NOT to reproduce -- one such report spoke of long term norplant type stuff as a condition of parole. This is different from the pressure TO reproduce that is the subject of much choice energy."

BTW, even this isn't as simple. Aren't some women of color both pressured by some jerks to not reproduce and pressured by some other jerks to reproduce at the same time? For example, I got the impression that not every married woman or girl who's pressured to "try again for a boy" is white...

Really, I see a lot of bridges being built here what with the "shut your fucking pie whole you racist bitch" line of thought.

To be fair, I'm not sure anyone's calling Geraldine Ferraro a bitch-- just racist.

And, well: "what is fueling the concern of Reagan Democrats for whom sexism isn't an issue, but reverse racism is" kinda speaks for itself. As does a lot of what Ferraro has written lately.

I'm not sure how we're supposed to build bridges with someone who so clearly could care less about such a large cross-section of women.

tma,

Calm down and chill with the vitriol, or I'll ban you.

Jen =

Hirshman, not so much.

I know! I keep waiting for the epic banhammer but it never comes down. Although in this case I don't see what you're complaining about, since I'm not the one who started the whole shit-talking racist pie whole bit. Oh well. All for the lulz.

"Calm down and chill with the vitriol, or I'll ban you."

Yabbut, jen and others are being very provocative, as is always the case when these issues are discussed.

As a middle-aged, second-wave feminist, I've becoming increasingly alarmed and dismayed by this internecine battle, especially as it's become more and more vitriolic.

May I ask a question in the deepest sincerity and which arises from my long-term commitment to the feminist cause? It's this: does anyone else suspect that the right and anti-feminists have been somehow fanning these flames? I see all over the place the same very, very similar and very, very vitriolic and hateful arguments against the supposed elitist white female old-guard feminists accusing them of racism. And not just from obvious feminists, but also from people who strike me as antifeminist—especially men across the political spectrum who make other anti-feminist arguments.

I get the strong feeling that there are very legitimate complaints here that are being exploited to greatly heighten internecine division in feminism. If this is true, it's deeply important that all of us try very, very hard to suppress out outrage instincts and engage those with differing opinions on this issue with as much empathy as we can and avoid thinking the worse about them because many things about their arguments strike us as wrong.

What do others think? This has just been cropping up so much lately, especially here, and especially because of the Obama vs Clinton battle.

Vanessa to be fair I think tma's point is simply that calling other feminists 'bitches' may not be all that beneficial to the cause of feminism. I personally agree. Constructive criticism of another person's point of view is one thing, but insisting that they not voice their opinion is something different. I personally don't know anything about the woman in question, but even if she is racist, that doesn't give us an excuse to slam her or say "get her off the air" when it seems that, to a degree at least, her general cause is for the betterment of women. Most of what you posted of the interview seems to me to be someone who doesn't know a lot about what happens to black women, but that doesn't mean she's against the improvement of their lives and their empowerment.

Like I said, I don't know this woman.. but it seems to me that generally speaking she still believes in the empowerment of all women, and insofar as that goes we should be glad that at least some more female voices are being heard, even if we don't agree with them.

The problem with Hirshman's argument--and this is why she can give such short shrift to the intersectional view--is that she supposes a world controlled by "The Man". In this case the Democratic Party is controlled by "The Man" and as a result its actually possible for feminist groups to barter with The Man. Well, I'm a black liberal & I constantly feel like the Party is 'selling out' blacks, and liberals. And while I'm neither gay nor belong to a union, I bet the both of those groups feel as if the Democratic Party sells them out too. In fact, that is the essence of compromise, no constituency gets everything it wants, but everyone gets something it wants.

There is no "Man" of the Democratic Party. The fact is that each of these groups is constantly bargaining with one another & just because it doesn't happen formally at a big oak table doesn't mean its not happening. Hirshman supposes that a black, lesbian, liberal, union member somehow can't support the feminist movement merely because she's a black, liberal, union member...I find that crass, but maybe I could accept that if she'd be willing to agree with the opposite: that a rich, white, heterosexual woman couldn't support feminism because she's rich, white & heterosexual.

Afterall, if her rationale is ultimately about the perniciousness of divided loyalties, then that's the logical conclusion of her argument.

“Right. But how does this ideal work with some men you specifically mentioned earlier? Men of color who are more likely to be incarcerated and given the death penalty? How can those men “bear half the burden of child rearing and home making forever”? What about their partners? You can’t share half the work with someone who is in prison or dead. But I guess that’s just a side note to be bargained in a coalition meeting.”

Wow, here is that racism again coming from the other side. You know very well men *SHOULD* bare half the responsibility. YOU should know better than to argue against that. The idea that because more minority men are imprisoned, so they can’t is just wrong. It would be like suggesting that more than half the minority population is subjected to prison life based on racial inequity. The reality is it is more likely say 1 to 10 percent of a particular groups population may be incarcerated for any reason. So in your argument the other like 80 to 90 percent would not have to be accountable because there are racial inequities in the prison system that did not affect them but could? You know not all us minority *ethnic* types are predisposed to crime and misbehavior. The argument you are making here makes sense if more than half of all minority men are imprisoned and that that same statistic would also correlate to the percentage of minority women who would even choose to have children with these men. This is the kind of thing that apes me really. You make an assumption that I need you to fight for us poor minorities while you use language that would suggest that we somehow live substandard lives. I know you do not mean to and that you have the best of intentions but ugh.

Really, once again we should really see how much we are all alike. Women have every right to voice their concerns, especially right now. We are currently on the backslide of the movement. Like I said in another post, we lost some ground with wage disparity and abortion so it makes sense that folks are calling each other out, but damn.

"BTW, even this isn't as simple. Aren't some women of color both pressured by some jerks to not reproduce and pressured by some other jerks to reproduce at the same time? For example, I got the impression that not every married woman or girl who's pressured to "try again for a boy" is white..."

Exactly! as you would say, Mina. And since you brought up the pregnant 12 year old Aboriginal girl last thread, I'll remind you of the Stolen Generation(s) in Australia, in which it was official policy of the Australian government from the mid 19th century, up to and DURING my lifetime, to legally deprive indigenous families of rights to their children, and to remove children from those homes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_generation

Some argue it was for "child protection." Others argue (I side with them) that it was a cultural genocide, aimed at diminishing the culture and numbers of the indigenous people.

I do not believe that having a child, a product of rape, is in a 12 year old's best interests, but you'll excuse me if I am wary of any push aimed primarily at people of color to control "their" reproduction, particularly coming from outside that community. It smacks of "fewer from the 'unfit'" and "race hygiene" mentality. As one blogger writes (note the incidental lovely Sanger quote about Aboriginals):

http://mindthegapuk.wordpress.com/2008/03/04/birth-control-and-eugenics/

" . . . You might wish to reconsider, for instance whenever you hear people talk about ‘overpopulation’. Why is it always ‘overpopulation’ in ‘those’ countries? How much of that kind of thinking comes from genuine concern for human beings, and how much is pure racial phobia, fear of being overrun by aliens? Why not just make sure everyone gets adequate shelter, food, education, and birth control or abortion as and when the [sic] need it or want it? Why does everything have to center around telling people either that they mustn’t use birth control, or else that they absolutely must? And that old question: why does it always involve telling people to abandon their histories and cultures because ours is supposedly best? Fundamentally, why does it involve telling them to stop reproducing at all costs? Why is it that women either have to be made to keep kids they don’t want, or be told not to have as many as they want? Is this really out of genuine concern for the people involved? Is it really because it’s unhealthy for women to have too many kids? Really? Are you sure? Positive? Because it looks like certain women get praised for the same thing. But I guess if you’re Fay Weldon or Baroness Sweats Molten Gold From Every Orifice And Cried Diamonds When Toddler Isidore Said His First Word Which Was Filthy Shortly Followed By Commoner, it’s no problem at all. In fact, you’re fantastic. Here’s a fucking medal! Only gold, sorry, couldn’t procure any blood of the poor at such short notice."

[Again, Exactly! as you might say. It's a pretty progressive person who realizes that overpopulation in INDUSTRIALIZED countries (particularly the US) is what is harming the environment and depleting energy resources.]

"Why not just make sure everyone gets adequate shelter, food, education, and birth control or abortion as and when the [sic] need it or want it?"

True, this would be best!

"Is it really because it’s unhealthy for women to have too many kids? Really? Are you sure? Positive? Because it looks like certain women get praised for the same thing."

Everyone who has a lot of children gets praised for it. They just get praised for it by different people. Whether you're white and have a high income, black and have a low income, or whoever else, someone out there wants you to have as many children as possible, doesn't want you to have access to birth control or abortion as and when you need it or want it...

"It's a pretty progressive person who realizes that overpopulation in INDUSTRIALIZED countries (particularly the US) is what is harming the environment and depleting energy resources."

Liekwise, overpopulation in individual households is what is harming some children more acutely. For example, suppose a couple in Russia have 9 children but not enough time and energy for all of them (and don't have enough friends, relatives, etc. living nearby to chip in). Other parents in Russia having fewer children on average doesn't necessarily improve the parental-time-and-energy-per-child ratio for these children.

"Vanessa to be fair I think tma's point is simply that calling other feminists 'bitches' may not be all that beneficial to the cause of feminism. I personally agree."

And, to be fair, no one USED the word bitch until tofu. Who, I might add, I indicated I did NOT think was a troll "sadly" in another thread and he zoomed in on the word "troll" and is now beating it to death. Oh, and possibly crossing into troll territory by making comments with the sole intention to provoke, and upping the ante with increasingly hateful language when previous comments of his are not replied to.

"The reality is it is more likely say 1 to 10 percent of a particular groups population may be incarcerated for any reason. So in your argument the other like 80 to 90 percent would not have to be accountable because there are racial inequities in the prison system that did not affect them but could?"

I thought Jen's argument (Jen, please let me know if I got it or not!) is that the other 80% to 90% to 99% should be accountable...and aren't enough men in the particular group for all of the heterosexual and monogamous women in the particular group who want to raise children.

This seems even more applicable when racist-sexist stereotyping reduces the chances of women in the group having partners outside the group.

So, I thought Jen's statement "What about their partners? You can’t share half the work with someone who is in prison or dead" wasn't about parents whose only potential partners are now imprisoned or dead. I thought it was about parents whose only potential partners are now imprisoned, dead, or (so obviously it shouldn't have needed to be spelled out) "taken," or didn't give them a chance in the first place. Jen, did I guess correctly and do the math right?

I think tma's point is simply that calling other feminists 'bitches' may not be all that beneficial to the cause of feminism.

Well then, good thing nobody on this comment thread or in Jen's post called another feminist a bitch.

hether you're white and have a high income, black and have a low income, or whoever else, someone out there wants you to have as many children as possible

Yes, but if you're poor and black there are also a lot of people out there who don't want you having children at all. We shouldn't be ignoring that reality.... our fight for reproductive rights should include the right of poor black women to reproduce as well as the right of well off white women not to reproduce.

"We shouldn't be ignoring that reality.... our fight for reproductive rights should include the right of poor black women to reproduce as well as the right of well off white women not to reproduce."

More accurately, it should include the rights of poor black women and well-off white women and everyone else to reproduce and to not reproduce. "It's patriotic when white women have more children and an invasion when Mexican women have more children" is a disgusting racist double-standard. So is "when white and East Asian girls postpone motherhood they're liberated and when black and Latina girls postpone motherhood they're brainwashed sellouts."

Also, liberation from these anti-choice pressures shouldn't be lumped in with them! Letting a teen girl postpone pregnancy isn't always the same as pressuring her to never give birth when she's a woman. Approving of a SAHM's choice isn't always the same as pushing all her daughters to become SAHMs.

It's also important to remember the many different ways the same person can be hit by anti-choicers. A 34-year-old who just got out of jail may face both a Norplant requirement (in the name of taxpayer savings) from her parole board and an "if you like condoms you're emasculating our men!!!" accusation from a blogger she'll never meet IRL. A 14-year-old who just got yanked from school may both be pressured to try again for another boy (in the name of centuries if not millenia of tradition) by her husband + in-laws + every other adult she's still allowed to talk to, and overhear "they're taking over by having more children than us!!!" from some local politician two district councils away.

Thank you Mina. This is the attitude that I can appreciate. Finding similarities and realizing we need to be on the same team.

Unitari commented: "Thank you Mina. This is the attitude that I can appreciate. Finding similarities and realizing we need to be on the same team."

You're welcome! :)