Push(back) at the Intersections: How About Some -isms with Your Feminism?

I see one thing in common across those early feminists in particular: middle- or upper-class. Hence using discourses of exclusion around race, ability, sexuality and class to win their battles around suffrage and reproductive rights. You're absolutely right. I'm wondering about the legacy of socialist feminism -- thinking Emma Goldman and Rosa Luxemburg -- who saw struggles around gender intersecting with class and ethnicity and truly liberated sexuality. Are there other examples from the long history of feminism?

First of, I acknowledge being at the same time privileged and oppressed, as a mid-30's, cis-womyn, educated but not in gender studies, white, lesbian, butchy, on the bigger side, unemployed and raised on welfare by my loving dad.

Second, I want to say that I share the anger of this contributor, for all the reasons mentioned in this article.

Third, I am francophone, so I'll do my best to express my thoughts in English.

So here I go.
I find this article extremely destructive. It's important to criticize and get pissed off at the feminist movement, historically and in the present days. Yes. But this piece does more than that. It attacks the whole movement without any kind of nuances. It makes me wonder if the author just took some gender studies classes and never actually organized in a political feministish collective. The article negates completely the work that womyn of color, transfolks, queers, differently abled womyn and all the people on the margins of these intersections have done, sometimes with great success, to rethink, rebuild, rewrite feminist and to take part in the feminist movement with critical analysis of all of it's internal fuck ups. Not to mention the work of allies. We're not all united and we shouldn't be. I don't want to ally myself with rapists, racists, transphobic, ableist, capitalist and sexist people, womyn or not. I don't give a fuck about equal representation in politics. Sarah Palin and Condoleeza Rice are not my sisters. And so on...

But I am very much preoccupied by this new wave of attacks on the feminist movement, by people who don't seem eager to create a really anti-oppressive, intersectional feminist movement. We won't win if we don't fight, weither it is within our movement or when we fight the big bad systems of oppression.

I'm in for it.

Let's fight for equality between womyn and men and folks, between womyn themselves and between the peoples. Let's discuss, debate, argue and create together, and sometimes appart. But let's fight!

Love&Rage

I am a 59 year old Second Wave feminist. In the past I have met and spoken with Gloria Steinem and Robin Morgan. They are and have been my contemporaries in Second Wave feminism since at least 1969. It is true that in those early days of Second Wave feminism, we struggled to define what feminism meant to us. However, over time, as more women from diverse cultures and backgrounds joined us, we began to realize that the inherent forces driving sexism, were the same that drive racism, abelism, homophobia, transphobia, and etc. But, neither Steinem or Morgan were or are inherently racist, abelist or any of the other labels you are attempting to pin on them or the other women on your list.

Regarding the women of the First Wave feminism, they were as informed by the contemporary culture and understandings of their day, just as we are informed by our culture and understandings today. I find it quite negatively misinformative that you have not taken that fact into account.

For example, when I say that Margaret Sanger was a trailblazer, I'm not saying that I agree with the racist, abelist philosophy of eugenics that she embraced. But I am saying that her view that women should not be slaves to the monthly biology of reproduction was groundbreaking. So much so that the dominant culture rose up against her via the powerful censorship role of the U.S. Postal Service at that time.

Much has changed since the First Wave of feminism and most of those changes have come about as the result of the hard work of dedicated Second Wave feminists. It may be hard for a Third Wave feminist to understand what life in the U.S. was like for women in the early to mid part of the 20th century. What was bad for white women was worse for women of color and horrible for those who were differently abeled. This was a time in which information on birth control was hard to obtain, abortion was a back alley reality, equal pay for equal work was never enforced, sexual harassment (which is not mentioned) rape and assault were life's little dirty secrets (including domestic violence/rape), and title IX was not yet reality.

All of the women you have listed have been trailblazers. Were it not for their actions, hard work, and willingness to work in coalition with others, many of the "rights" now guaranteed via legislation would not be in existence.

I strongly agree with our need to continue the work of ensuring equal rights and justice for all, for this work is critical. But, I am not going to dis those whose work laid down the foundation for what we do now.

Competing oppressions are oftentimes the most lethal powder kegs. In fact, I would say that they exist at the least accessible level--in the discursive sense, anyhow--because discussing conflicts of derivative power requires, more than one perspective. ie, this could be an anthropological question [how people communicate power], or a political one [how power moves people], etc. Consider the nature of the concept "discourse" as opposed to "conversation". What is the <i>real</i> difference? Is it a discrete difference?

Which perspective/method deals best?
Is it the one where we scrutinize hegemonies as they are swallowed (generally whole) by their iconoclasts, in succession, until it rolls back onto itself in droll coronation? The perennial bouquet of scholarship, bequeathed to scholars by scholars? <i>Endless revision, endless revision.

I put it rather figuratively--discrepancies, discrepancies--but I will emphasize my belief that discrepancies do make all the difference in discussing identity-based issues. (Nor do I believe to be such a rigid and structural phenomena.) Perhaps you'll be able to recognize me by the tone of my voice, or reasoning, and forgive the lack of scholarly etiquette...just to clarify, this isn't my field. (Hopefully I'll know soon enough which one is.)</i>

Or can it be people talking to people?

Which is why I'm going to post this comment. Because I don't know squat about feminisms, but I know I execute my life accordingly. Because I believe using the term "normative" is counter-productive and a bit contradictory. Because a lot of those -isms inside feminisms apply to me. And hopefully this'll go against the grain. Non-writer, undeclared feminist, lower middle class, woman of color, pretty queer, but they don't expect that out of Asian girls now, do they? I don't even dress like it. Wait, who is they?

This piece reads like a call to arms of sorts, a "let's get this trial going," kind of reflection. Again, this is why I write. Personally, I think that the notion of a trial would generally work with what you were going for. I'm glad, as an individual that encounters another in writing, that you find the problem of "-isms" in any "-ism" alarming at all. It isn't welcome in daily conversation, and most certainly if you aren't credible or educated. BUT THAT IS PRECISELY THE PROBLEM. I mean, People, just talk about this shit with your friends and grandparents, and be aggressive and uncouth...lest it becomes too counter-productive. I mean, how does consumer culture work? People buy shit, like shit, talk about it; rinse, repeat. Just like currency. I also know you know perfectly what I mean, and that I don't need to reference any names for you get to good picture. We live in this world together.

What happens on CNN and hallmark versions of histories happens amongst academics, cultural events/"movements", among posses of one ilk or another. This isn't to discount whatever victories that occur within smaller communities isn't proof of progress. I believe an earlier comment was trying to encourage that possibility- it's a terrifying realization when we realize what top-down really means. Are we going to go on solely talking about our aggressors' techniques of mobilization and indoctrination while victims remain faceless victims, mute and bound by a lack for better words? Stressing the trauma of hegemonic atrocities means nothing and remains nothing when Resistance is not duly noted. That resistance comes in several languages, marked by not necessarily by words, but words as symbols of experience.

Talking about art or ideas will never be possible without bringing in material and technology. In short, we will never stop talking to each other about shit we "had", in some way or another. This is how most of us assemble ourselves as wholes, by remembering what we do and how we react to it. How this piece of culture or knowledge came about one's way is wholly under the table-- and the other side of the story which you will probably attempt to engage in. It should likely follow that I am not merely an individual writing to an individual, but an "anonymous" mind whose credibility is being weighed. Isn't it obvious that this isn't my field?

The difficulty of contextualizing pop culture within alternative modes of historiography lies in the fact that you are at once discussing the material counterpart/evidence of people who <i>belonged to</i> a particular class, race, gender, sexuality, ableness, creed, etc., (categories created precisely by material itself), whose material origin may or may not have been outside of their conscious (but materially informed/constructed) control. The danger falls where you decide to find the "us" and the "them": is it the ignorant vs the informed, or the oppressed vs the privileged? Wherein ignorance is taken for granted, as solely being a measure of possession or lack of possession. I have no doubt in your investigative capabilities, this is simple advice.

As competing oppressions create multiple lines of exclusion/elitism/reverse __-isms <i>within</i> Othered "communities", I will constantly be without. I will never be the composite of every oppressed group. And certainly most of those I don't share oppressions with won't give a flying fuck whether we "share" an "oppressor" or "non-privileged" experience. To tiptoe within these tense and collisional discourses will mean getting corrected, criticized, ignored. No experience and intellectual meditation can change the fact that you will remain as much as your experience has allowed you to gaze into those of others. To harmonize difference is key-- not to create hierarchy out of it, not to suffer over it. This is why I write to you.

Hey, great piece! Just a note: you spelled Julie Bindel wrong, and the link to the Guardian article is broken.

I wholeheartedly agree with the author's thesis that feminists need to consider multiple axes of oppression or, as Barbara Smith wrote, we are merely engaging in self-aggrandizement.

The author writes:
"Many feminists are unaware of the deeply embedded racism, ableism, classism, ageism, and transphobia in the feminist movement. As a result, they don't comprehend why some people feel alienated by and uncomfortable with feminism."

Yes, feminists need to be aware of this history and the effect it has on some women who would be feminists. And we need to challenge those who perpetuate this marginalization.

My concern with the original blog post is that it can be used by some to completely discredit feminist work as being oppressive in some respect. For example, at least one person who commented above has done just that, and this post merely solidified that decision.

For me it raises questions about any influential thinker/activist who has done transformative work and also done harm. How can we separate this work, and ought we do so? I think a critical engagement with a thinker ought to weigh all contributions. We need to not excuse racism, for example, nor discredit everything she has said or done, but rather question how her racism functions within her work. We need to question who she has centered in her thinking that allowed her to marginalize some women. With whom do we think, speak, write, act?

One example of this kind of critical engagement is Maria Lugones' analysis of Mary Daly's Wickedary. While ML explains the powerful use of language MD employs in the wickedary, she also locates that use in a history of colonialism. Further, she laments the lack of a lesbian presence in a dictionary of Chicano slang. Thus, she challenges racism in feminist resistance, and homophobia in Chicano resistance, and develops a path that would incorporate multiple dimensions of resistance.

I agree with those who call for a more nuanced criticism of the entrenched -isms that form sometimes deep and longstanding histories in feminist movement and theory, as well as a connection to the longstanding feminist resistance to these other forms of oppression within this multi-faceted movement.

in love and struggle

Crista Lebens

I know she's not on the list in the original post but she most definitely qualifies. Darling of the British suffrage movement and internationally famous for bringing votes to women.
There is evidence to suggest, however, that the suffragettes did more harm than good and destroyed the good name of the suffragists who had been working for decades to bring about female enfranchisement.
As a liberal left-leaning person I find her a difficult figure for a number of reasons:
-She was nationalist to the point of fascism and even worse...
-A strong advocate of Imperialism and the British Empire
-Was a strong supporter of the Order of the White Feather which in WWI tormented men who had not enlisted due to reasons of conscience and drove many men to go against their principles, 'join up' and, possibly, ultimately die
-Was vitriolic in her persecution of the German people during WWI- many similar movements called for peace or expressed sympathy for the women or children in enemy nations. She called for the decimation of the entire race.
-My last point is one that many would argue would never be made against a man- though it is something I would find appalling in either sex; she was a horrific parent. 'Bad Mother' is something that is often said against women who focused more on changing the world than they did their children whereas men in a similar situation are never persecuted. Pankhurst had three daughters: Christabel, Adela and Sylvia. All three joined the suffragette movement and were passionate advocates for votes for women- all served jail time for their actions on behalf of the group. At one point Adela started to question the increasing violence of the movement as did her sister Sylvia; Emmeline's response is infamous: "I would not care if you were multiplied by a hundred, but one of Adela is too many."
Cliff Notes version;
-Adela left the suffragettes and, in order to stop her speaking out against them, Emmeline bought her a one-way ticket to Australia
-Sylvia was upset at the group moving away from their left wing origins and also left
Emmeline was 'ashamed' of them for their pacifism.
She never spoke to either of them, refused to reply to Adelas letters and cut Sylvia dead.
She never forgave Sylvia for living with a man out of wedlock and having a child, especially as the papers called her 'Miss Pankhurst' a title usually used for Emmeline's favourite child Christabel.
Give me Millicent Fawcett any day.

I was very pleased to find this site.I wanted to thank you for this great read!! I definitely enjoying every little bit of it and I have you bookmarked to check out new stuff you post.
<a href="http://www.translationtrudy.com/en/translate/Chinese">Chinese Translation</a>.