Yet Another Feminism Thread

[Robin Of House Hill]

I see the previous thread reached the magic number, so I have not alternative.

I'm curious as to anyone's opinion on this article.

ETA: I should explain that while I have observed the, "feminist wars", on Twitter, my focus has been fairly narrow, so I'm seeking some thought on a broader picture.

[Winter's Knight]

I think the current calling out of the transphobia, racism and ablism prelevent in feminism is a good thing, not least of all because a movement that doesn't have dissent and arguments is more a cult than anything.

[Summah]

It is a good thing, but people don't always listen. And while racism is not politically correct, ableism seems to be socially acceptable, which makes it even harder to call people out on it. It reminds of a huge blowup in the feminist blogosphere sometime in the mid to late oughts.

[Weeping Sore]

The question of leadership is an interesting one. In a movement whose purpose is equality, is there an inherent bias against a strong leader pushing her/himself forward?

What should a modern feminist leader look like? Must they "embody intersectionality"?

I can see Twitter having a leveling effect on discourse, as it's hard to show nuance 140 characters at a time.

[Summah]

Part of the problem is that white women often think they can speak for us and don't understand the nuances of intersectionality or even how privileged they are for being white, they just see the disadvantage of being female.

[Prince Alexander]

What should a modern feminist leader look like?

I'd say they should be out there in the world making a difference in creating equality, and doing so without personal gain. Certainly they shouldn't be on twitter linking idiotic infographics or criticizing troll articles.

[brook]

Why can't someone do both?

Without personal gain? Sounds nice in theory but is really just a way to exclude large groups of people for no real reason. A consistently feminist journalist who breaks important stories cannot be a feminist leader? What if she writes books? Is an academic?

It is very easy to connect any woman's feminism or activism to being a matter of 'personal gain' when you are talking about something that affects every aspect of our life.

Robin I have some thoughts on your original question but have to get the boys packed off to school, will answer properly when I get back.

[Weeping Sore]

Part of the problem is that white women often think they can speak for us and don't understand the nuances of intersectionality or even how privileged they are for being white, they just see the disadvantage of being female.

Surely a person could learn to look beyond their own personal experiences and become an authentic advocate.

Structurally, the internet allows everyone to have a voice, but without a mechanism forcing participants to come together and compromise (on something like a party platform for example) you risk a lot of negative, off-message stuff to be cherry-picked by opponents to represent feminism.

[MisterOJ]

Thought the thread topic was "Yet another freemason thread."

Got excited to discuss freemasonry.

Then realized it wasn't about that at all.

:(

[Robin Of House Hill]

Why can't someone do both?

Without personal gain? Sounds nice in theory but is really just a way to exclude large groups of people for no real reason. A consistently feminist journalist who breaks important stories cannot be a feminist leader? What if she writes books? Is an academic?

It is very easy to connect any woman's feminism or activism to being a matter of 'personal gain' when you are talking about something that affects every aspect of our life.

Robin I have some thoughts on your original question but have to get the boys packed off to school, will answer properly when I get back.

Thanks. I'll be interested.

It shouldn't surprise anyone that I've been observing the way trans-exclusionary radical feminists (TERFs) interact with others, but came across white/WOC exchanges, lesbian/straight exchanges, etc. While I've seen factionalization (I don't think that's really a word) in other groups, I don't think I've seen such vehemence anywhere else.

[Summah]

Surely a person could learn to look beyond their own personal experiences and become an authentic advocate.

Structurally, the internet allows everyone to have a voice, but without a mechanism forcing participants to come together and compromise (on something like a party platform for example) you risk a lot of negative, off-message stuff to be cherry-picked by opponents to represent feminism.

Some people can. But in my experience, many white feminists are not interested in issues that affect WOC, for example in terms of reproductive rights there is a fixation on legality and availability of birth control and abortion and those things are important, however a lot of WOC (and disabled women) have been forcibly sterilized, had their children taken away etc, so reproductive rights are also about the right to have a child. But it's also about assuming you can speak for someone else, I'll give an example, let's say there's a group of people and one person says to me "oh you must be a good dancer cuz you're black" and a white person jumps in to say that stereotypes are not cool even if they're not negative, without waiting to let me speak and say what I think about that question even though it was addressed to me. This sort of thing happens not infrequently. It also happens with sexist stuff too, probably to most women.

[brook]

I think that the fact that the the currenty generation of feminism is trying (as a movement if not always individuals) to make way for the most marginalised groups can only be a positive. I'm not interested in being a part of a movement that is really only interested in representing those with the loudest voice.

I do think there is a lot of toxicity in online feminism at the moment and I'm at a loss to really know what to do about it. I'm not even talking about the openly nasty bullying tactics of the TERFS etc but times when I see genuinely good people who don't seem able to come together and actually talk, rather than sling insults. Twitter almost certainly plays a role in this as it's very hard to construct a meaningful dialogue when you're limited in characters but the problem persists everywhere online.

I would like to see more forgiveness, and acceptance that one bad statement, or clumsy wording, or moment of being self-centred and forgetting that others do not have the same experience should not mean that a person must be marked and hounded out of the community or the value they provide dismissed. However I also think the more privileged feminists have to be prepared to actually LISTEN when other women speak up about the ways in which we exclude or hurt them and be prepared to change. I understand the urge to be defensive and double down with 'I didn't mean....' but most of the time the best response to someone telling you that you hurt them is an apology followed by an attempt to do better.

As far as leadership goes, I don't think a feminist leader has to embody intersectionality (although some of them certainly should) but it really depends on the topic doesn't it? There should be acknowledgement when it is appropriate to take the lead and when supporting someone else and allowing their voice to be heard is more appropriate. There are certain issues connected to feminism that I consider myself capable of taking an active role in any discussion, others I can support best by helping others be heard.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Some people can. But in my experience, many white feminists are not interested in issues that affect WOC, for example in terms of reproductive rights there is a fixation on legality and availability of birth control and abortion and those things are important, however a lot of WOC (and disabled women) have been forcibly sterilized, had their children taken away etc, so reproductive rights are also about the right to have a child. But it's also about assuming you can speak for someone else, I'll give an example, let's say there's a group of people and one person says to me "oh you must be a good dancer cuz you're black" and a white person jumps in to say that stereotypes are not cool even if they're not negative, without waiting to let me speak and say what I think about that question even though it was addressed to me. This sort of thing happens not infrequently. It also happens with sexist stuff too, probably to most women.

A classic "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. If you don't speak up, you're just another whitey charged with complicity in racism through your silence. If you do speak up, you're "speaking for someone else."

For what it's worth - I actually don't see this as a double bind. Calling out racial prejudice isn't "speaking for someone else" even if you're not the target of the racial prejudice. It's just speaking for yourself even though someone else is the target, and standing up for someone else used to be (and I suspect, in most circles, still is) a virtue. And do you know why it's NOT speaking for you? Because you are still at perfect liberty to respond in any which way you'd like.

[emberling]

I'm torn a few ways on the subject that article discusses.

Toxic online discourse is a problem. It hurts people. It drives away allies and turns possible teachable moments into confrontational fuck-yous.

But this is the Internet. You can't get rid of trolls and you shouldn't want to get rid of legitimately angry people with a grievance and no patience to be polite.

People need to be heard. But how many people aren't heard because they're drowned out, because they're afraid to speak? The sheer numbers of the majority does this to minorities. But this violent backlash against any perceived misstep does the same thing. It makes people afraid to speak. It silences people. Not just the people who are already "wrong", but people who are afraid that the next thing the internet decides is "wrong" will be them.

When I thought I was a guy I refused to call myself a feminist because I was terrified of doing it wrong. I saw people like Joss Whedon (whose work I mostly adore, FWIW) loudly proclaim themselves feminists and yet maintain and perpetuate a whole lot of sexism. And I know I have a lot of weird internalized gender biases. What if I accidentally let one show? The wolves would tear me to shreds.

The perfect is the enemy of the good. Everyone can do better: do better at contesting points rather than contesting people; do better at examining individuals' perspectives rather than conflating everyone into "sides", do better at actually reading and interpreting what is being said instead of replying to an initial knee jerk reaction -- but not ignoring that knee jerk reaction! Keep your anger, keep telling the world what makes you angry. We need that. But sometimes it's a straw man that you're angry at. That doesn't invalidate your anger - it just means that it's needless to direct it at the person who inadvertently triggered it.

And if we don't do better, that's fine too. It's not our solemn duty to make the world a better place. It's not our charge to police the Internet or to be a paragon exemplar. We're just people, going around doing people things like offending and getting offended and being unreasonable and holding our lovers as they cry themselves to sleep and holding ourselves as we cry about how nobody loves us, while out there in the world, somewhere, is another person who hurts the same because we have hurt them as they have hurt us. And maybe they have so much more than we could ever dream of having, and maybe they have less than we can even conceive. But they are as wounded as we, we are as fallible as they, and in that, if nothing else, we find a common humanity.

[Robin Of House Hill]

Brook,

I saw this comment on Twitter, a few minutes ago.

I seriously don't get why it's so hard for these White Feminists to understand intersectionality. Not like I was born knowing cuz I'm brown

Does this represent anything other than people viewing whatever arena they're in as a pie chart, where if someone else gets more, they have less? It would seem more practical to work together and just make the whole pie bigger.

[brook]

I really don't know, I HAVE seen white feminists complaining that intersectionality is 'too hard' or 'drives people away' and I don't have much time for that attitude.

I have a huge number of privileges, it's not actually a hardship for me to recognise that, to try and understand that just because I mean well when I'm doing something doesn't mean that I should be doing it, or to try to listen when other women tell me how things affect them. As feminists isn't that exactly what we are asking of men? To listen, to change, to recognise that intentions aren't everything and that one can do something sexist without being sexist?

I agree that there is strength in numbers and we have to be working together to create change, we just need to be mindful that the change we try and make isn't one that only benefits the majority though.

[karaddin]

It shouldn't surprise anyone that I've been observing the way trans-exclusionary radical feminists (TERFs) interact with others, but came across white/WOC exchanges, lesbian/straight exchanges, etc. While I've seen factionalization (I don't think that's really a word) in other groups, I don't think I've seen such vehemence anywhere else.

I really don't know, I HAVE seen white feminists complaining that intersectionality is 'too hard' or 'drives people away' and I don't have much time for that attitude.

I have a huge number of privileges, it's not actually a hardship for me to recognise that, to try and understand that just because I mean well when I'm doing something doesn't mean that I should be doing it, or to try to listen when other women tell me how things affect them. As feminists isn't that exactly what we are asking of men? To listen, to change, to recognise that intentions aren't everything and that one can do something sexist without being sexist?

I agree that there is strength in numbers and we have to be working together to create change, we just need to be mindful that the change we try and make isn't one that only benefits the majority though.

If you look at each of those splits that Robin mentions they are all privileged/unprivileged pairings which I think is at the core of the issue. We have seen it repeatedly on this board alone that people generally speaking do not like admitting the privileges that they do have, especially if they have one particular area that they are not privileged in, whether it be a lower class male or a woman. This inability to recognise the privileges that they have seems to result in a single minded focus on the one privilege they lack when it comes to many of the upper middle class and above white feminists, everything is lesser than the issue of sex based privilege and many are blind to the fact that said lower class male is in fact less privileged than they may be as an upper class white female, and the minorities don't even seem to get a look in.

Some of those white feminists that Brook mentioned complaining intersectionality being too hard were comments on a post from an Australian feminist group apologising for its blatantly cissexist post, and they exemplified the non malicious form of this attitude. All they are in feminism for is the narrow focus of improving their own lot and anything more than that is too hard. The malicious form of it is more of the TERF/SWERF mould (and those 2 seem to have just about 100% overlap). For whatever fucked up reason they see inclusion of others as a threat to themselves and will oppress other women just as badly as MRAs and are pretty disgusting people.

I'm kind of rambling off topic at this point, I guess what I wanted to say is that white feminists should be able to get intersectionality, however it seems the more non sex privilege they have, the less likely they are to get it.

[Summah]

What is SWERF?

[brook]

I'm only guessing here but I'd go with Sex Worker Exclusionary Radical Feminist

[Robin Of House Hill]

I'm guessing, Straight White Exclusionary Radical Feminist.

ETA: brook is probably right.