ETA: Tammy has since clarified.
Tamora Pierce, an author whose books I mostly adore intensely, recently wrote a post in her livejournal regarding her involvement in the feminist movement, as is frequently her wont, and something I adore even more than her books.
Unfortunately, this time I found some of her post deeply problematic. I have linked it above, and encourage you to read the whole thing, but just in case, I have summarised .
She begins with:
Tammy then writes brilliantly on why she became a feminist: because she has been judged lesser since birth; because she has noticed gender-based prejudice direct, indirect, and diverse for a very long time; and because she recognises such prejudice is unfair, and should be fought.
She concludes with a general call to arms and a statement that one group's agenda ought not to define feminism; that "Feminism is all of us. All of you. All of our work, our writing, our dreams, our kids, our issues. Groups may help us to focus, but they do not define each of us"; and she mentions that many people don't like to call themselves feminists because they're afraid of the public perception of feminists as humourless man-hating lesbian freaks.
The paragraph that troubled me is this one:
Comments following the post mostly concentrate on personal experience of prejudice as a catalyst for feminist awakening, and agreement that indeed, many people don't want to call themselves feminists because they are afraid of the stereotype, and that is a terrible shame.
My comment:
My initial response concentrated on women of color, because it is currently WoC who are being noticed for pointing out the problems with the movement as it stands. However, I want to say that queer women and transwomen have also been neglected or abused or dismissed by the feminist movement, as have disabled women, lower-class women, and women with jobs or religious faiths that feminism finds politically uncomfortable or disturbing.
You know what they have in common? They're all women.
Feminism has to address racism, because every ethnicity on Earth includes women, and where racism exists, women are oppressed.
Feminism has to address transphobia, because transwomen are women and where transphobia exists, women are oppressed.
Feminism has to address heterosexism, because every lesbian is a woman and where homophobia exists, women are oppressed.
Feminism has to address ablism, because there are so many disabled women, and where ablism exists, women are oppressed.
Feminism has to address class prejudice, religious intolerance, and tyranny, because wherever those things exist, you can be sure there are women at the very bottom of the hierarchical pile, getting the crap kicked out of them.
These are not separate issues. Women are suffering. That is what feminism is supposed to be fighting. And right now, the feminism I see is focused very tightly on the suffering of white, middle-class, cisgendered women. That suffering is real, it is genuine, and it absolutely must be addressed - but not to the exclusion of women who do not fit into those categories. There are other groups made up of or including those women and fighting incredibly hard for them, but mainstream feminism is strangely reluctant to listen to their voices, especially when those voices are raised in criticism of the mainstream movement.
My area of focus is media and pop culture feminist criticism. I'm not giving up on feminism, just like I haven't given up on TV, or comics, or academia, or gaming. I hold fiercely to the hope that the feminist movement can be improved, expanded, enlightened.
But I will not condemn anyone who looks around, and sees mainstream feminism has abandoned them, or never wanted them in the first place, or will suffer them in the back of the room as long as they keep their voices down and play nice, and says, "Right, that's it, I'm out of here."
I can understand why those women might not want to call themselves feminists.
*This paragraph wasn't my creation, but lifted (with permission) from a conversation with a friend regarding the original post.
Tamora Pierce, an author whose books I mostly adore intensely, recently wrote a post in her livejournal regarding her involvement in the feminist movement, as is frequently her wont, and something I adore even more than her books.
Unfortunately, this time I found some of her post deeply problematic. I have linked it above, and encourage you to read the whole thing, but just in case, I have summarised .
She begins with:
I have been thinking about feminism lately. Actually, I think about feminism a lot, but some of it is apparent, and some of it is just part of the way I think. Some of it is stirred up by comments like, "I'm not a feminist," or "I don't think of myself as a feminist," uttered by women of all ages. I read a version recently, "I'm not sure if I feel comfortable calling myself a feminist," over on Feministe, from a blogger responding to a chunk of racist folly enacted by Seal Press last week. The blogger of that entry, Holly, felt that her issues with the feminists she has dealt with on race and continuing to call herself a feminist are mutually exclusive. Those people had not responded to issues presented to them by people of color (I've heard this before, particularly in the comics sphere last year and this, resulting in walk-outs by comics critics who were people of color). And so you get women, be they people of color or others, who for one reason want to disassociate themselves from feminism.
Tammy then writes brilliantly on why she became a feminist: because she has been judged lesser since birth; because she has noticed gender-based prejudice direct, indirect, and diverse for a very long time; and because she recognises such prejudice is unfair, and should be fought.
She concludes with a general call to arms and a statement that one group's agenda ought not to define feminism; that "Feminism is all of us. All of you. All of our work, our writing, our dreams, our kids, our issues. Groups may help us to focus, but they do not define each of us"; and she mentions that many people don't like to call themselves feminists because they're afraid of the public perception of feminists as humourless man-hating lesbian freaks.
The paragraph that troubled me is this one:
So you see, I do not understand how anyone can say "I don't want to be a feminist" or "I don't want to call myself a feminist." If you are a woman of color, or a woman transgendered, a gay woman, a straight woman, a celibate woman, you are a woman. How can you not be in favor of some manner of improvement in the lives of other women? How can those of them with brains not be in favor of improvements in your lives?
Comments following the post mostly concentrate on personal experience of prejudice as a catalyst for feminist awakening, and agreement that indeed, many people don't want to call themselves feminists because they are afraid of the stereotype, and that is a terrible shame.
My comment:
I see a lot of comments here saying "I know! People don't like to claim the name "feminist" because they think people will hate them!" That is not the issue for these WoC.
This is the issue:
So you see, I do not understand how anyone can say "I don't want to be a feminist" or "I don't want to call myself a feminist." If you are a woman of color, or a woman transgendered, a gay woman, a straight woman, a celibate woman, you are a woman. How can you not be in favor of some manner of improvement in the lives of other women?
You might not want to join a movement that is largely in favour of the improvement in the lives of *other* women: white women. And not you.
You might not want to join a movement that excludes you, or dismisses you and your entirely valid concerns, or assures you that we'll get to them later, or never sees them in the first place, or outright betrays you by making promises that are not kept and praises women that steal the words out of your mouth and claims them for their own. And when those issues are pointed out, and the fact that they have been ignored is pointed out, you are usually greeted with "Stop attacking me! I'm not racist!"
You might not want to stay in a movement where everyone assumed you would fetch the coffee during breaks, where somehow, no one listened to in meetings unless someone else repeated what you just said, and then that person got the credit. You might not want to stay in a movement where you were asked to consciousness raise for their friends, or sisters, or mothers, or cousins, but when your cousin got in trouble it was a "Black Issue".*
It's not a Black Issue. It's a serious feminist problem.
My initial response concentrated on women of color, because it is currently WoC who are being noticed for pointing out the problems with the movement as it stands. However, I want to say that queer women and transwomen have also been neglected or abused or dismissed by the feminist movement, as have disabled women, lower-class women, and women with jobs or religious faiths that feminism finds politically uncomfortable or disturbing.
You know what they have in common? They're all women.
Feminism has to address racism, because every ethnicity on Earth includes women, and where racism exists, women are oppressed.
Feminism has to address transphobia, because transwomen are women and where transphobia exists, women are oppressed.
Feminism has to address heterosexism, because every lesbian is a woman and where homophobia exists, women are oppressed.
Feminism has to address ablism, because there are so many disabled women, and where ablism exists, women are oppressed.
Feminism has to address class prejudice, religious intolerance, and tyranny, because wherever those things exist, you can be sure there are women at the very bottom of the hierarchical pile, getting the crap kicked out of them.
These are not separate issues. Women are suffering. That is what feminism is supposed to be fighting. And right now, the feminism I see is focused very tightly on the suffering of white, middle-class, cisgendered women. That suffering is real, it is genuine, and it absolutely must be addressed - but not to the exclusion of women who do not fit into those categories. There are other groups made up of or including those women and fighting incredibly hard for them, but mainstream feminism is strangely reluctant to listen to their voices, especially when those voices are raised in criticism of the mainstream movement.
My area of focus is media and pop culture feminist criticism. I'm not giving up on feminism, just like I haven't given up on TV, or comics, or academia, or gaming. I hold fiercely to the hope that the feminist movement can be improved, expanded, enlightened.
But I will not condemn anyone who looks around, and sees mainstream feminism has abandoned them, or never wanted them in the first place, or will suffer them in the back of the room as long as they keep their voices down and play nice, and says, "Right, that's it, I'm out of here."
I can understand why those women might not want to call themselves feminists.
*This paragraph wasn't my creation, but lifted (with permission) from a conversation with a friend regarding the original post.
- Music:The Round Table in French - Professor Bonnie Wheeler


Comments
Yes.
Just - this. Yes.
Thank you.
So, where would you like your shrine?
*packs away incense & cookies for a later date, but not in the same box because incense cookies would be gross*
Like Pat Parker's "If I could take all my parts with me when I go somewhere, and not have to say to one of them, "No, you stay home tonight, you won't be welcome," because I'm going to an all-white party where I can be gay, but not Black. Or I'm going to a Black poetry reading, and half the poets are antihomosexual, or thousands of situations where something of what I am cannot come with me. The day all the different parts of me can come along, we would have what I would call a revolution."
I just, she is the first author (female, lesbian, anyone) that talked about ableism. (The online spellcheck doesn't even recognize ableism as a word...) Here is a quote of hers that I love:
""I think of the words crip, queer, freak, redneck," Clare remarks. "None of these are easy words. They mark the jagged edge between self-hatred and pride, the chasm between how the dominant culture views marginalized peoples and how we view ourselves, the razor between finding home, finding our bodies, and living in exile, living on the metaphoric mountain.""
I had a glbtq studies class that had some excellent reading material. It was just some of the best writing I've come across, but it also hit a great deal of diverse subjects as well. It wasn't just this: well, I'm gay! story line. Time and again it was: I'm a human being. Let me tell you how to count the ways.
/babble.
But just because I'm a feminist doesn't mean I'm not willing to take to task other people who claim to be feminists. Especially when their behaviour isn't feminist, it's "white, middle-class, able cisgendered woman"-ist.
It just seems overwhelming. So massively huge and all pervasive.
I guess I can only fix what's right here in front of me. And where I see racism/transphobia/heterosexism/ablism/r
Even still, it feels like an Sisyphean task.
Buuuut, they didn't. So we do.
Here's the thing I find myself wondering: what if we just put cisgendered white women in the same heap as "men who get picked on for being effeminate"; their oppression is a by-product of worse systems of oppression which need to be addressed more urgently, and when we improve the lot of transwomen, cisgendered white women will discover their oppression is lessened.
I have no idea if it would work, but seriously, it's not like it's been tried or anything.
Because everybody has dealt with male/female relations. There is no household without women's influence, no child who has grown up ignorant of the existence and attitudes of women. No person who isn't aware that "women" are not a unified collection of people with the same goals and ideas. No place where it can be said, "well, maybe the women you know are [enlightened/smart/competent], but the ones around here are a different kind of woman. Genetics, you know."
Hatred starts at home: women were subjugated in tiny tribal villages that never had contact with people of different cultures, that had no substantial disabilities (because anyone with a substantial disability didn't survive to puberty), that had no trans people, nobody of different religions, and so on.
I'm not saying, "lo, the oppression of women goes back forever and that makes it more important." I'm saying that I think--could be wrong; this is a new idea for me--that the oppression & discrimination based on any -ism, might be modeled on how women were first subjugated. That other races were "like women, not competent to make their own decisions--look at those savages." That disabilities made a person "like a woman, weak and useless." That trans discrimination ties so heavily into sexism it's barely worth a mention... if being female weren't heavily stigmatized, why would anyone care what gender a person was? And so on.
I do think they're all tied together, and fixing or making progress toward one makes progress toward all. And definitely, feminist organizations need to stop claiming they'll work on "women's issues first, and then all these other issues."
Because they're all extensions of the same core concept--that the Man In Charge is what's important, and anything else is irrelevant--and it's that core we need to change, not the symptoms that can look so different.
I hold fiercely to the hope that the feminist movement can be improved, expanded, enlightened.
Cheers to that.
I never hear any of the three say they don't want to be called feminists. They do want to qualify the feminism with a racial adjective.
Ty :]
You got it in one. :D
But to see the women who are not white feminists, the women listed here:
Feminism has to address racism, because every ethnicity on Earth includes women, and where racism exists, women are oppressed.
Feminism has to address transphobia, because transwomen are women and where transphobia exists, women are oppressed.
Feminism has to address heterosexism, because every lesbian is a woman and where homophobia exists, women are oppressed.
Feminism has to address ablism, because there are so many disabled women, and where ablism exists, women are oppressed.
Feminism has to address class prejudice, religious intolerance, and tyranny, because wherever those things exist, you can be sure there are women at the very bottom of the hierarchical pile, getting the crap kicked out of them.
be treated like nothing, like dirt, this just makes me crazy. This was never my vision of feminism, their exclusion. I came from dirt poor and have clawed my way up; I still feel myself teetering on the edge of poverty again. To know any women other than white, privileged ones are not getting equal treatment means organized feminism is failing, and no wonder younger women don't want that identifier.
And yet, anything I say now on the subject is tainted with white "Oh, now I get it."
Right now, maybe yes. But it won't be forever, honest.
You've helped so many young women realise what they could be; that the limits on them were arbitrary, and not natural laws; me among them. You also wrote that post. Those two things don't cancel each other out. But you do know now, you do see now, and that *will* make a difference in the future.
But then I saw that (according to the timestamps) twelve minutes earlier, you'd written this in the blog of a WoC who objected:
And my heart sunk. Because that comment doesn't read as good ally behaviour. You seem to say, in essence, that there's no point in apologising because no one will take your apology anyway; because they won't forgive you or believe you when you say you've learned.
I don't think apologies are about making the injured party feel better, or should be given conditional on whether the injurer thinks they'll be forgiven or not. I think an apology is a statement that acknowledges wrongdoing and a promise to do better, all at the same time.
Whether the injured persons take it or not is up to them. The apology isn't about people liking the offender; it's about them acknowledging their missteps and misdeeds. Generally, it's the sort of thing that tends to encourage people to like and respect them - as I respected your comment here, before I saw the one quoted above.
But when we've misstepped, we shouldn't apologise to be forgiven, or withhold apology because we think we *won't* be forgiven. We should apologise because it's the right thing to do.
Willow & co. made it pretty clear they considered me incapable of being an ally. They preferred to trash my work behind my back, Kady.
I think an apology is a statement that acknowledges wrongdoing and a promise to do better, all at the same time.
Generally, it's the sort of thing that tends to encourage people to like and respect them - as I respected your comment here, before I saw the one quoted above.
I have a temper, and I felt I had been multiply trashed by people on that thread, including people who had not chosen to do it on my lj when they posted there. I'm not perfect, and I have pride. I hate to have lost your respect in any way.
We should apologise because it's the right thing to do.
God, I hate it when you're right.
I am actually Karen! But I'm flattered that I could be mistaken for Kadymae.
Er, anyway, I realise you're relatively new to the social dynamics of the blogsphere, but leaving aside the issue of "trashing" versus "criticism", an open letter that linked to your own post is not "behind your back" in this arena. A friendslocked post could certainly be considered so, but a publicly-available piece on the internet is no more behind your back than a traditional newspaper review of your work would be.
However, I'm thrilled that you returned to that thread and made a non-conditional apology - I think it was absolutely the right thing to do.
What really grits is that as a lifelong writer I still want to go back and explain--I have this notion that if I keep trying I'll be able to say what I really mean. But since I keep screwing up, I'm just going to tuck my fingers behind my back, away from the keyboard.