Trackbacks & Pings

1.   Reading for April 30th through May 2nd by ripples of hope on 02 May 2008 at 9:04 am

   [...] Racialicious: A Continuing Conversation on Feminism: What Did We/Do We Hope For? [...]

Comments

1. flabbyabby wrote:

   I don’t think it will ever change because the ones running the so-called ‘feminists’ groups are faaaaar too happy with the way things are for it to change. I gave up caring or trying to be a part of this ‘movement’ long ago they are worthless.

   Posted 02 May 2008 at 9:26 am ¶

2. Feminist Punk! wrote:

   I consider myself to be a “secular humanist feminist,” meaning that civil rights for ALL sorts of groups, not just women, matter to me.

   But I like the term “hip-hop feminist,” which makes me think of Sister Souljah, who has been one of my inspirations. But I’m also inspired by queer and white and Asian women, too. And by males, too.

   Honestly, I see the word “feminist,” to be the same as HUMANIST. So in other words, I;m concerned with issues and civil rights for all human beings.

   Posted 02 May 2008 at 9:42 am ¶

3. Cynthia wrote:

   I agree with FP.

   I actually often find myself ostracized from most feminist groups.

   I’m queer, more femme oriented and I fight for the downtrodden as a whole, I don’t segregate by sex.

   I think a lot of the original institutions are too afraid or comfortable to rock the boat…and even though they express equality and an “openness”, in some cases they are anything but.

   I want a place where I can be me. Just because I don’t fit the strict definition of feminist doesn’t mean I’m not one.

   I dig the hip hop feminist title.

   Posted 02 May 2008 at 10:09 am ¶

4. atlasien wrote:

   For myself, I don’t see the point of not identifying as a feminist. I’m not criticizing other people who do see the point. I just don’t see it for myself.

   I see the goal of feminism as the struggle for social justice for women, and myself as a just-plain-feminist.

   The behavior of other people who also call themselves feminists can be pretty bad, but that reflects on them, not on the goal of social justice for women. I also don’t see their behavior as reflecting on the name of “feminism”. A lot of other people disagree. It’s a word that has lots of layers of extra meaning, many of which I’m not equipped to interpret because I’ve never been part of a specifically feminist organization.

   The biggest recent example of a white feminist screwing up — Gloria Steinem’s Oppression Olympics bid — just didn’t have much of an effect on me. There’s a lot of really good stuff she’s done, but she’s a flawed human being. Being a feminist (or environmentalist, or labor rights activist, and so on) doesn’t mean you get a racism-free card, even though some people obviously think it does. I didn’t feel betrayed by her.

   So it’s a very complicated interplay between the name, the goal and the people.

   Posted 02 May 2008 at 10:15 am ¶

5. atlasien wrote:

   To clarify, when I said “Being a feminist (or environmentalist, or labor rights activist, and so on) doesn’t mean you get a racism-free card, even though some people obviously think it does”…

   By “some people”, I mean the people who make the claims like, “I can’t be prejudiced against X because I’m a member of Y group”. E.g. implying “You can’t accuse me of being a racist because I’m a feminist”.

   Posted 02 May 2008 at 10:55 am ¶

6. gerdygirl wrote:

   I agree with FP in that “civil rights for ALL sorts of groups, not just women, matter to me” One of my first experiences with feminist practice as a theory was with a rape crisis center. This center did an amazing job of realizing that BOTH men and women are victims of sexual assault. They never turned away men, whether they were survivors of assault or partners survivors of assault, from services. It was great to see this agency realize that feminism works for anyone who has been oppressed or victimized. I was lucky to work there and see a great example of what I consider true femisim ideals played out.
   But I am going to disagree with atlasien and say that the bad behavior of other feminists most certainly reflects on feminism as a whole. If someone is acting as a feminist, for a feminist cause when this behavior happens, it reflects on the movement whether or not that is truly fair to the movement and other feminists.

   Posted 02 May 2008 at 11:14 am ¶

7. Kali wrote:

   Feminist ideas had a huge influence on my life and in my own way I used them to exert influence on the world and people around me.

   We don’t have to exit ‘feminism’ now – it is NOT owned by any particular group of people any more than ‘humanism’ or ‘libertarianism’ is.

   The world is changing and white supremacy and privilege are being slowly eroded, from one moment to the next, even as we speak.

   I don’t seek WOC supremacy in the world of Feminism either but rather justice and fairness . The sooner we realize how utterly dependent we are on each other for our very survival – the better.

   Posted 02 May 2008 at 11:30 am ¶

8. Slush wrote:

   I think one question grapple with is about who is our audience. For example, is feminism a teaching movement or a personal growth movement? It seems like this week has been pretty big in the personal growth department. Is the next step to try to make sure that most/all feminists are cognizant of the growth and understanding we have achieved and make it part of their feminism? Or should we focus on broadening awareness at the very introductory level that women get objectified and oppressed in many different ways. I’m not saying we have to make this some kind of definitive choice, because obviously both of those and all of our other discussions and reflections should continue, but it changes the level of dialogue.

   I see it kind of like modern dance. Is it for the audience or for the performers?

   Posted 02 May 2008 at 11:30 am ¶

9. Persia wrote:

   atlasien, I really like the way you put that. I can’t disown my brown eyes– how can I put aside my feminism? If I did, it’d be like putting on blue contacts. It might be pretty (it wouldn’t), but it wouldn’t be me. I like ‘hip-hop feminist’. I need to find a term like that to define me, I think.

   Posted 02 May 2008 at 11:34 am ¶

10. Persia wrote:

    Seeing what others have posted makes me realize– I see ‘feminist’ as my identity, while others feel it’s more of an ideological choice. Which is interesting, and I have to think about that more.

    Posted 02 May 2008 at 11:38 am ¶

11. Meena wrote:

    feminism for me as always been about not just women, but the concept of gender. the feminism i want to see is one that can not only fight against misogyny but one that also addresses the aquittal murderers’ of Sean Bell, because as much as that is about race, its also about a racist understanding of black masculinity.

    i’ve never been able to experience my race separate from my gender… I want my feminism to reflect this. and i don’t feel like there is a safe space right now for me among white feminists. its hard and painful, but i’ve experienced sexism in anti-racist circles and racism in feminist circles, and both racism and sexism in anti-war circles….but i think its worth fighting for…a movement that can help us address and fight for justice for all people

    mainstream feminism is not there, anything “mainstream” for me means it has been co-opted and altered in order to be palatable. in this process it leave most of us out. so i’m ok with not being apart of this mainstream feminism….i’d rather be involved in something more radical that actual reflects a vision of the world i believe in.

    Posted 02 May 2008 at 12:24 pm ¶

12. Anonymiss wrote:

    I’ve always liked the concept of hip hop feminism.

    Meena,
    Great points.

    Posted 02 May 2008 at 1:52 pm ¶

13. Kali wrote:

    Tools?

    Sudy (A Womyn’s Ecdysis) said it best:

    “The racism in the women’s movements, in feminism, in feminists is an issue that needs to be actively addressed at all conferences, organizations, discussions, classrooms, kitchen tables, emails, and phone conversations. This is the only way to address it: consistently. Because until that day is reached where radical equality [not sameness] is reached, if we continue to merely pause, build a substitute damn and rebuild our houses [blogs, sites] as if there will not be another crisis in the future, then there is no point to feminism, only a cyclic waste of words.”

    Posted 02 May 2008 at 3:14 pm ¶

14. Jann wrote:

    Meena, good perspectives. Thank you.

    I also don’t think we can really separate our gender experience/identity form our race experience/identity. They are fundamentally intertwined. I feel like even if we wanted to compartmentalize these aspects of our identity… dominate culture would intertwine them for us and impose them our experience anyway…

    Honestly, I am not fully familiar with the current rift in the feminist movement that’s being discussed. However, I do know that woman of color have been pressured to leave the feminist movement since the woman’s suffrage movement split from African American suffrage movement. We have been asked to choose between loyalty to race activism or gender activism, which is as ridiculous as choosing between loyalty to the left and right foot. Lets not be pressured into this anymore. If “mainstream” (white) feminism does not welcome us whole and non-compartmentalized, then lets re-write what “mainstream” feminism means. Lets make it reflect reality.

    This is an excellent blog by the way. I just discovered it and am really excited about reading it in the future. Thanks.

    Posted 02 May 2008 at 3:16 pm ¶

15. All-American Girl wrote:

    Just hit up those links and, ugh. Those blogs have always seemed to me to be dilute feminism, written by white, whitewashing feminists anyway, so I have a hard time mustering the least bit of offense at their actions, words and opinions. Reading those links, well, it’s almost like peeking in on children playing house. Those bloggers are playing at being feminists.

    I want to see a kind of feminism that acknowledges that feminism is for *everybody.* I want to see a kind of feminism that acknowledges that the majority of the women on this planet are women of color. I want to see a kind of feminism that leads us to a world where men have discussions, online or not, about what kind of feminists they are.

    Posted 02 May 2008 at 3:51 pm ¶

16. octogalore wrote:

    I’m glad you’re sticking around. It would be a big loss to feminism otherwise.

    I like atlasien’s views — when feminists err, it doesn’t invalidate feminism, and it doesn’t make them bad people, only imperfect ones like all of us. We should have high standards for our representatives, but if they sometimes fall short, it doesn’t invalidate the principles.

    Posted 02 May 2008 at 4:26 pm ¶

17. Michelle wrote:

    I’ve always identified myself as a feminist from the time I was 10 up until I declared my women’s studies minor in college… that’s when I realized that in an ideal world, the word “feminist” would apply to me, definitely: I believe in equality for all people and I believe that women should not be discriminated against just because of our gender.

    But only 2 classes that I took (out of about 7 total) really addressed, at any length, the issues of women of color around the world. Being a woman of color myself, I was pretty discouraged to have to be the “Blatino representative” in almost every class.

    So yes, I’m still a feminist in the sense that I define for myself.

    And I’m certainly going to read that book, Latoya!

    Posted 02 May 2008 at 5:03 pm ¶

18. jvansteppes wrote:

    It’s interesting, I always assumed this blog was ‘feminist’ in the sense that gender is weaved into most articles on a level that you’d never see on say, queerty or other disappointing homo blogs and there’s room for dialogue about things that might be missing in someone’s analysis.
    I like to think that Steinem and friends have made themselves so irrelevant that most women, including lots of young white women like myself, don’t take their antiquated attitudes seriously simply because there’s better analysis out there.

    When I look at Feminist organizations with a capital F, and the places where they have real potential, one of the first things that pops up is reproductive freedoms/justice. I am sick of hearing about abortion rights outside the context of a comprehensive vision that includes the right to have children, the right to access healthcare, the need to combat racist assumptions about mother/parents of color etc. The fact that political discussions of abortion follow the same format they did 30 years ago, while totally effacing the impact of those arguments on poor women and women of color, is inconceivable to me. Which isn’t to say that I don’t appreciate the points in that history where real achievements were made, I just think SisterSong members should appoint the people from the National Organization for Women.

    Posted 02 May 2008 at 5:30 pm ¶

19. Slush wrote:

    A lot of this discussion makes me keep thinking about Noam Chomsky.

    Chomsky gives a lot of talks on political analysis and the faults and hypocrisies and denials of the US government. But if you read or listen to his stuff for a while, you get the hang of his analysis, and you can emulate or pick up on it pretty well yourself.

    Meanwhile, Chomsky is still giving his talks and mainly repeating things he has said before. There’s two reasons for this: the first is that the government keeps doing the same shitty things over and over again, and the second is that, even though Chomsky’s probably not learning or discovering that many new concepts through all this, his audience is changing, and it’s new for them. He’s a teacher, and he understands that teaching is about repeating things over and over to each new crop of students.

    I’m not a teacher. I find it really frustrating to repeat myself over and over, even to new ears, because I want progress and change! Why can’t people open their eyes and pay attention so things can move forward?! I don’t want to put words in anyone’s mouth but I think this sentiment has been reflected by lots of feminist women of color lately, who are frustrated that they keep pointing out that feminism is different for them, and that many of mainstream feminism’s (by which I mean anything that gets publicity in mainstream culture – which like Meena said is not much of feminism to begin with) historical tenets have failed to include race and class consciousness… and it’s incredibly frustrating when you keep saying this and everyone nods and says oh yes but it keeps happening over again!

    So there can be a victory for race-consciousness in feminism this week, but in a few years, unless we keep repeating this same discussion, it will be in danger of petering out, because each new crop of white feminists will need it explained to them again, because it doesn’t seem like they’ll get it on their own. Argh.

    So I guess my mission for feminism is to make that multiplicity and sensitivity to dominance and privilege and racism central and automatic, not an afterthought. To make feminist and anti-racist and intersectional analysis, even in some pathetically diluted form because that’s the only way anything ever gets to mainstream, peter into the classrooms of high school students in Wyoming.

    How do we get there? I have no idea. It seems almost unimaginable. And a lot of it will depend on some good teachers, who are willing to repeat themselves. Many, many times.

    Posted 02 May 2008 at 6:48 pm ¶

20. Sarah J wrote:

    As you say hip-hop feminist, I come from a punk rock feminist space. But at the same time I like to think that my feminism involves a certain amount of open-mindedness, fluidity, and concern for human rights outside of, yes, the perennial pro-choice mold.

    As a white woman, I think it’s not only part of my feminism to be aware of racism and homophobia and transphobia and any other form of bigotry, it’s my friggin’ job to reach out and learn more about things that I don’t experience daily, and I want more white women to do the same.

    Posted 02 May 2008 at 8:42 pm ¶

21. Adrianna wrote:

    Feminist Punk! I love your the” secular Humanist” part . I have to say that it’s hard for me to identify as a feminist. I want to work hard to be a humanist instead. It’s much more encompassing and multifaceted definition of who I wan to be.

    Posted 03 May 2008 at 12:39 am ¶

22. Grandpa Dinosaur wrote:

    I never really cared about the label, I cared about sexism and racism. Sexism effects me a lot coming from a traditional background. I don’t really care about feminism as a title/label, I cared about the people I was fighting against sexism with and thus reasons why I was fighting for less sexism.

    More and more, the reasons for staying with Feminism began to lessen as I understood that I had more enemies from within camp than I had thought.

    I end up confused and looking for a response different than my co-writer Davita Cuttita and my own satisfaction in the result.

    I work on the “streets” and deal with sexism/racism and deal with them head on, day to day. I still talk to people around me in hopes that they understand my feelings of wanting to be a human being.

    —It’ll be much easier than working on the internet, where “Feminists” are masked by anonymity and say what they truly think: that sexism for white women is intolerable and that sexism against Women of Colour is.

    Regardless I’ll keep fighting to stop/lessen sexism, perpetuate the positive and educate those who are willing to listen about the effects of racism and sexism!

    Posted 03 May 2008 at 12:49 am ¶

23. Korolev wrote:

    Feminism is the belief that men and women both compose equal parts of humanity, and as such, men and women deserve equal rights. It’s the idea that a man and a woman are both, FIRST AND FOREMOST, human and thus, deserve to be treated equally in terms of employment, legal rights, protection and freedoms. In a nutshell, that’s it. That men or women should have no special rights above each other.

    Which is why I consider myself to be a feminist, even though, I would prefer the term “Humanist” because I am concerned with the welfare and equitable treatment of all men and women across all races and continents.

    Posted 03 May 2008 at 3:52 am ¶

24. Korolev wrote:

    And one more point – feminism and racism are not mutually inclusive or exclusive – you can be one or the other, both or neither. You can be a racist feminist or you can be an non-racist misogynist. Or you can be a racist misogynist.

    Once again – humanism is the label for someone who is concerned with humanity as a whole, not just a particular group or subset. I know Feminist Punk already said this, but we need to take a “species” wide perspective that fights against all discrimination, whether that be against women, men, different races or religious groups or sexual orientation. In my opinion, all discrimination is bad and deserves to be eliminated, regardless of which group it is targeted at.

    There is a certain tendency for people to focus on discrimination which affects them closely or personally And that is understandable. In the case of women of colour – both racism and sexism affect them. So they should take a keen interest in combating both of them. There is no real need to join them or separate them. Both are forms of discrimination and need to be fought against. And we can fight against sexism and racism at the same time, even if they are different forms of discrimination.

    Posted 03 May 2008 at 4:05 am ¶

25. Renee wrote:

    I think that it is important to force feminism to confront issues that it is not comfortable with. If we allow a certain section to “own” feminist discourse the movement will become stagnant and never progress. Feminism should be fluid and as such open to change in many different directions. I identify as a womanist because I believe that it allows me to express my core feminist values as well as advocate for the advancement of WOC.

    Posted 03 May 2008 at 10:52 am ¶

26. Heather wrote:

    As I read your posts recently, I keep wondering what your take would be on Robert Fuller’s Somebodies and Nobodies where he points readers more generally to the abuse of power through the abuse of rank, whether that be white privilege, male privilege, economics, etc. He has some really thought provoking ideas.

    Posted 03 May 2008 at 7:28 pm ¶

27. donna darko wrote:

    Rankism, dignitarian movement is like humanism. Should we replace anti-racism with humanism too?

    Latoya, I’m so glad you became editor and didn’t have time to congratulate you. I’m not attacking you at all btw. Just being myself!

    Posted 04 May 2008 at 3:44 am ¶

28. Persia wrote:

    But only 2 classes that I took (out of about 7 total) really addressed, at any length, the issues of women of color around the world. Being a woman of color myself, I was pretty discouraged to have to be the “Blatino representative” in almost every class.

    And this post made me realize how lucky I was to have the professors I had, in particular an Indian woman who (for all her flaws) was acutely aware of intersectionality and made sure we were aware of it too.

    Posted 04 May 2008 at 8:42 am ¶

29. tzemingdynasty wrote:

    Maybe I’m on my own on this, but I’ve never considered my feminism as an ‘identity’. I don’t ‘identify as a feminist’, I *am* a feminist because I have a specific set of political-philosophical *beliefs*: namely that the emancipation and full dignity of humanity cannot be achieved without gendered critique and social change. I’m not a hip-hop feminist or a punk-rock feminist, even though I am an ageing riot grrl who can’t help but love the RZA. Speaking from the textbook, I’d have to say I’m a postcolonial neomarxian 3rd-wave 3rd-world feminist. It doesn’t sound as cool as ‘punk-rock feminist’, but it’s actually a specific description of what kind of shit I think needs to get done – not who I like to associate myself with as an common identity group.

    So when I hear of WoC bloggers in the U.S. officially ‘quitting’ feminism, my first reaction is – huh? Like… you changed your mind about women needing to be free for humanity to be free? It seems very, very similar to those women and girls who say ‘I’m not a feminist but … [insert some example about how they believe in the emancipation of humanity through gendered critique and social change here].’ When what they really mean is ‘I don’t like to associate myself with those women I don’t like, but… ‘

    Obviously, for any movement, ‘identity’ is important. But maybe there is an inherent weakness in feminist identity politics in this day and age, when it can so easily turn into a clash of pissed-off and renounceable sub-communities, rather than a serious political argument about principles, inequality, and freedom.

    I’m a foreigner though, so sorry if this sounds like crazy talk.

    Posted 04 May 2008 at 3:04 pm ¶

30. Minotaar wrote:

    The problem for feminism is that we must root out all notions of feminism as a “female superiority” movement, and truly fight for equality. While no self respective feminist would ever conceptualize their own thought as “female superiority”, feminists are widely motivated only on the issues that put women at a disadvantage, while ignoring the issues that put men at a disadvantage. Our actions speak louder than words, and we cannot argue that this is truly a fight for equality.

    An excellent example is in dating and courtship: Women are in a considerable position of power, because they “dispose”, while men “propose”. You never hear about women fighting for equality in this manner. The position of power that women have in dating is as significant as the position of men in enployment, but I believe that the institutional nondiscrimination laws so effectively and diligently lobbied by the feminist movement provide cracks and inroads into professional equality. I do not believe that any comparable mechanism yields similar cracks and inroads into the gender equality in dating.

    In fact, the mere suggestion of “gender equality in dating” stinks of a desperate lonely male who is unable (and thus undoubtedly incapable and definitely undeserving) of finding a mate. Complaining about gender inequality in dating creates such a bad taste in our mouths because, in the quest for equality, we have not come as far in this area. When it comes to dating, we forget that masculinity is as much a cage as femininity, and that complaining about rejection is definitely unmasculine.

    This reaction is entirely identical to the reaction that people USED to have about women who wanted to be professionals, rather than housewives. How unfeminine! But the situation with dating is the reverse of the situation with employment, because women hold all the cards. AND, much like how men felt pressure on both sides, having to compete against women for jobs and provide for their families, women respond to a plea for “equality in dating” with equal distain: Women dont feel as if they “hold all the cards”, because they compete against other women for good men to date, just as men holding jobs competed against other men (at the time) for professional stability.

    You could argue that the “men propose, women dispose” dating protocol was the first victory of feminism, probably hundreds of years ago. It is a scar on the wounds of equality because it simultaneously conceeded professional power for romantic and familial power. It is also a symbol of the fact that the balance of gender equality is not tilted against women on all counts, though perhaps it is in a majority. Feminism has appointed itself to the enormous task of equalizing all of those scales.

    Many men already support the causes of feminism, but their support, in my opinion, is insufficiently pervasive among all men. I believe that trying to equalize the issues tilted in favor of women will dramatically increase support among men and nucleate wider and deeper support for general cause of gender equality.

    Posted 04 May 2008 at 3:56 pm ¶

31. donna darko wrote:

    There’s a trend in N America, Europe and Asia in which single, educated women are marrying or having children later or not at all because they are educated and have disposable income. The only drawback if there is one is lower fertility rates which isn’t really a problem. In a way, it’s related to class. Women can remain single whereas in the past, they had to get married. Men in these regions have to give women more of what they want which I suspect is companionship and equality.

    Posted 04 May 2008 at 7:15 pm ¶

32. marge twain wrote:

    Latoya wrote another awesome heartfelt post here about some very real and relatable issues, about what feminism should address and her own personal struggles with it. Then a few commenters proceed to dis all feminists based on the same stereotypes that Rush Limbaugh and the mainstream media used to engineer the continuing backlash. Others distance themselves from the label, both actions cede ownership to the white women who get the most attention and make invisible WoC feminists and true allies.
    It’s a little like disavowing the anti-racist movement because of Al Sharpton’s hideous defense of the accused Dunbar Village rapists or because they endure daily street harassment from black and brown men. After all the “mainstream” of so many lefty causes aren’t really representative.

    Donna Darko raises a good question here:
    “Should we replace anti-racism with humanism too?”

    and this is from her blog:
    “Twisty recently said feminists should be fluent in race. I added white male progressives should be fluent in feminism and race and men of color should be fluent in feminism. This can happen at the same time women of color express nuances at the intersections of race and feminism.”

    This is what baffles me. Humanism is an existing movement, one that doesn’t really address the specific oppression of women that happens worldwide. Feminism is a global movement that does the badly needed activist work that benefits us and I am not picky about who is doing that work. The U.S. is 75% white according to the last census so I think it’s fair for the American feminist movement to be majority white. Thus, white privilege is there and it should be called out. Just about all the white people I know, including the one I’m married to, need to work on examining their white privilege just like all the male people I know are barely cognizant of their male privilege. Ask Lilly Ledbetter if feminism matters.

    Posted 04 May 2008 at 9:54 pm ¶

33. Katie Loncke wrote:

    First of all, though I appreciate the sentiment, I’m really SICK of hearing feminism defined as a movement for “the equality of men and women.” Describing it this way marginalizes trans folks and people who don’t identify as men or women. Plus, for me, equality is not the point: justice is. People can be equal within an unjust system.

    In fact, one of the biggest problems I see with liberal white feminism (as opposed to, say, radical feminism, anarcho-feminism, or some forms of hip-hop feminism) is that it wants to make white middle-class women equal to white middle-class men. Liberal feminism not only fails to critique capitalism (whose ethic of competition and entitlement is deeply linked to Western masculinity), but relies on capitalist marketing to thrive.

    I’d be interested to hear more about what people consider “humanist.” I have negative associations with the term as simply a cover for more liberalism that supports the supremacy of the individual, the state as the major agent of ‘progress,’ and the market as the perfectable realm where ‘humans’ can interact on fair, if unequal, terms. There’s still a universalizing element to “humanism” that just don’t sit right with me. Someone have thoughts?

    Thanks for this post, Latoya: delurking to say I love your stuff, and appreciate your economic analysis, too.

    Posted 04 May 2008 at 10:00 pm ¶

34. marge twain wrote:

    Thanks Minotaar, I forgot when I was being date raped that I held all the cards.

    P.S. That sexism adversely affects men as well as women is something that has been extensively written about by feminists(see Stiffed by Susan Faludi), pseudofeminists(see just about anything by Christina Hoff Sommers),and masculists. It’s not news.

    Posted 04 May 2008 at 10:08 pm ¶

35. macintyre wrote:

    “In fact, one of the biggest problems I see with liberal white feminism (as opposed to, say, radical feminism, anarcho-feminism, or some forms of hip-hop feminism) is that it wants to make white middle-class women equal to white middle-class men. Liberal feminism not only fails to critique capitalism (whose ethic of competition and entitlement is deeply linked to Western masculinity), but relies on capitalist marketing to thrive.”

    Hmm, well, what about capitalist WOC? They must exist. I really don’t think that WOC must be anti-capitalist radicals in order to be feminists. That’s just as essentializing as anything else.

    Posted 05 May 2008 at 9:27 am ¶

36. Minotaar wrote:

    Marge, Im sorry to hear you were a victim of sexual violence. That sexism adversely affects both sexes is not something I claim to have discovered. As Slush mentioned, sometimes its important to repeat important ideas, and the fact that I am repeating them doesnt make them wrong, or less relevant.

    Obviously I’m not as articulate as Dr. Chomsky, and for that I apologize, but there was no reason to twist my words so rudely.

    Posted 05 May 2008 at 1:43 pm ¶

37. donna darko wrote:

    Thanks for reading my blog, marge!

    67% of the US is white.

    Posted 05 May 2008 at 1:58 pm ¶

38. marge twain wrote:

    @Minotaar: I mention others who identify the specific oppression of men because you seem unaware that many feminists and masculists are working against it. I appreciate your sympathy and your ability to apologise. I’m sorry for being rude.
    I’m still confused when you say that “women hold all the cards” when it comes to dating and I didn’t hear you clarify what I said that was a misunderstanding.
    What is the power women have that exists in equal balance to the power men have in the professional sphere? Being made the so-called gatekeeper doesn’t come without being shamed for being sexual or being made responsible for men’s lust and men’s actions. Not paying for dinner doesn’t mean it’s free. Rape and the threat of rape is a means of claiming male ownership of women’s bodies and of public spaces. That’s the trump card. What happened to me is happening to more women right now because rape is pandemic.
    While feminists do discuss issues of chivalry and other forms of benevolent sexism and most come out against, it’s not we who designed these systems or benefit from them. The problem with feminists isn’t that we focus mainly on women and not men. It is a function of the sexist paradigm that women are expected to put others before ourselves. And we do, all the time. Women, feminist-identified and otherwise, fight in every social justice movement there is and yet only feminism is expected to prioritize the needs of others.

    Posted 05 May 2008 at 6:44 pm ¶

39. Minotaar wrote:

    Marge,

    I think you are correct that the phrase “hold all the cards” was a point of misunderstanding for us.

    I’m clearly no Chomsky. I also do not claim to be an expert on the forefront of feminist thought, as your allusions suggest you are, but that does not mean that I am disinterested nor that I do not want to learn about it. I am here at racialicious to learn, and if you would be so kind, I would gratefully appreciate concrete references, especially of the web-accessible type. Blogs are too cutting edge, and hard to learn from – not to be picky – but a wiki would be ideal.

    With regard to the holding of cards, I was referring to the tendency of protocol to abuse us all, and the negative impact of sexism on men. My point was the fact that there is significantly less perceivable concerted action (as visible from my certainly limited experience) on the mutually negative impact of sexism, relative to other far more organized fronts, such as in educational equality, where women have now become a majority in colleges and typically outscore men in standardized exams.

    I think its great that there is literature and thought on the topic of sexism abusing men as well as women, and my desire to be educated will lead me to learn about these topic areas. But the literature and thought that you refer to do not amount to, nor substitute for, action. For this reason, as a reply to “what do we hope for”, I think my post was constructive and legitimate, even if it could have been better written.

    In my opinion, your comment that “The problem with feminists is that we focus mainly on women and not men” presupposes too much. Feminism was never a movement of only women, and it is fallacious, even dangerous, to assume that the colloquial pressure for women to sacrifice is automatically projected onto the feminist movement as a whole. In addition, the old world perspective that women should sacrifice for men is not reason or motivation to ignore inequalities that hurt men as a result of sexism. As my favorite Democratic candidate said, we have to unite on this matter to solve this problem together. Assuming that all people motivated by the feminist cause (or even a supermajority of those motivated) are women, in this 21st century, is damaging to the cause. They might not all be as well educated as you are, and they might be even more ignorant than I am (which is pretty bad), but they do exist, and they do support the cause as best they can.

    It is also untrue to claim that only feminism is expected to prioritize the needs of others. Other movements for equality have also been pressured to live up to their goal of equality. The racial discourse in this country, for example, is too frequently oversimplified as being a “conflict” of “Black and White”. That oversimplification has been a repeated topic for carmen and latoya. African american activists, having, currently, the loudest voice on race-related social issues, have been repeatedly criticized for being silent on the topic of racism committed (by anyone) against nonwhites. Where was the NAACP when the Tsunami song ran, or in the ongoing immigration fight? That criticism is pressure, as you describe it, to “prioritize the needs of others”, in a similar sense that I brought it up with regard to feminism.

    This gets at a deeper point. We need to unite on these issues, and stop the divisive “we need to prioritize for ourselves” attitude that is so typical of our social movements. Our arguments are stronger and our reach is longer when we stand up for others on the same issues that we hold dear.

    Posted 05 May 2008 at 7:47 pm ¶

40. marge twain wrote:

    @Minotaar: Hey Chomsky is pretty dry. You don’t have to aspire to that:) And I’ve never taken a women’s studies class. I have a GED.
    Men who comment on feminist blogs often question whether women are an oppressed class at all or why men aren’t getting equal time. If you stop assuming barriers to women’s achievement are in the past, I think you’ll find that many feminists do appreciate male allies. I don’t think equality can ever be achieved without men and masculism issues.
    Here are some links that I think you’ll find helpful:

    http://blog.shrub.com/archives/tekanji/2005-11-22_72

    http://blog.shrub.com/archives/tekanji/2006-05-09_235

    http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/

    Posted 07 May 2008 at 3:27 am ¶

41. Minotaar wrote:

    Thank you for the links. They were quite helpful.

    For the record, your statement that I believed that “the” barriers to women’s achievement are in the past is factually wrong. I do not believe this, nor did any of my text imply this, and I find it offensive that you would project such a chauvinist perspective onto me simply because I seek information.

    Posted 18 May 2008 at 3:17 am ¶