Jane's Job

This is a comment on this particular post at Feministe, which I think draws together various issues directly impacting third-wave feminism and possibly the 2008 election.

Some background. Jessica Hoffman, founder of make/shift magazine (makeshiftmag.com), wrote an AlterNet article stating: "I'm dubious about a movement -- 'ours' or otherwise -- that has not only failed to honestly and consistently address its whiteness but has also, in so doing, become something far less than a movement for social change."

By "whiteness," Hoffman apparently means that feminism should do a better job at prioritizing other lefty movements like immigration and prison reform. It should apparently be a given that these movements affect women, so there's no need to identify the specifically gendered elements of the movements -- feminism should simply incorporate these other movements. Or, at least that's my read.

Let me know what you think.

Here's my comment, after the always eloquent and thought-provoking Brownfemipower asked: “Is this what Jessica was doing? Saying that we should incorporate every lefty movement in the world into feminism?”

Well, in fact, Jessica has said: “My feminism is not something separate from “other” progressive or radical or left politics.”

And the article suggests this in multiple places:

1) “To be a self-identified feminist activist apparently unaware of (or, worse, deliberately skirting) … voices calling for abolition of the prison industrial complex as a key element of social change seems to me to be part of a movement that is not only disconnected from but also damaging to some of the most vibrant and potentially liberating social-justice organizing happening today.”

This does not explain how prison abolition intersects with gendered issues.

2) Jessica is curious about “why the multiracial coalition of feminist and racial-justice groups that started out working together to save affirmative action "for women and people of color" in the spring had split into two, the (mostly white) feminists in one camp and the racial-justice groups in the other.”

She says: “One of my co-interns had overheard a prominent leftist civil-rights attorney, a woman of color who was working with a former coalition organization, say, ‘The road to hell is paved with feminists." I thought our work at the Feminist Majority was good and just and concerned with racial as well as gender equality; I didn't understand.’”

I’m not sure why the two groups couldn’t work together, in fact. Seems like it would make sense to combine forces. But why can’t feminism prioritize women of all colors and anti-racism prioritize anti-racism for all genders? Why should the feminists go to hell because the two groups split off, while the racial justice groups are apparently blameless?

If the feminists chose not to work together: OK, that is problematic, but we don't know that, at least from this article.

Doesn’t Jessica get concerned with why the groups split up, and why does she buy into others’ assumption that those nasty feminists were clearly the culprits?

3) “[the] U.S. criminal-legal system, which uses the rhetoric of "safety" to destroy communities of color, squash dissent, and create profit for private corporations.” Again, this does suggest incorporating lefty movements regarding capitalism, poverty and race, all worthy causes of course, into feminism.

All very well if those causes looked at gender issues in this way. Do they?

4) Finally, she says: “When I was in fourth grade, in the fall of 1986, my (mostly white, mostly wealthy) class spent a few weeks debating California ballot initiatives.”

First of all, she’s speaking for herself here. Not all white feminists went to mostly white, mostly wealthy grade schools. I didn’t. This is one example of what KW is referring to, in which Hoffman projects her privilege in sometimes mistargeted ways.

She then goes on to say: “I was assigned to argue the pro side on an initiative to make English the official state language. I took the sample ballot and voter guides home and studied them dutifully, then presented an argument that included the statement ‘If I moved to China, I wouldn't expect them to speak to me in English.’”

Well, substantively, China doesn’t even come close in inclusivity to our flawed immigration policy here in the US. North Koreans can testify to that. So it’s an odd hypothetical and typical of her general shoot first, details later, style.

But back on point. While sensitivity to different languages and cultures is an interesting issue, there’s nothing in her example that explains why it’s a feminist issue. There are probably issues concerned with cultural/language adaptation that do impact women specifically. But Hoffman doesn’t cite them. The assumption that because those issues are there, somewhere, tossing the issues hook line and sinker into feminism is AOK, is a lazy one.

My point is not that feminists should not care about other lefty issues. We all should, in our efforts that don't go under the feminist rubric. Most of us have causes and interests in addition to feminism. My point is that it does feminism a disservice to make it the mistress of all other worthwhile issues.

For example, it is worthwhile to have a paycheck. It is worthwhile to take care of children. It is worthwhile to clean ones living quarters and pay ones bills. It is worthwhile to arrange social meetings with friends. It is worthwhile to take care of elderly relatives.

Let’s say we have a couple, let’s make at least one of them a woman, named Jane.

If Jane has to handle all those issues in addition to her own job and doing PR for her partner Pat’s job, while Pat focuses primarily on Pat’s job, that’s not necessarily ideal for Jane. It’s great for Pat, of course, and Pat’s probably a wonderful person. But if Pat isn’t going to pay the same kind of attention to the other issues or Jane’s job, then Jane’s job is going to suffer.

It will be put last.

Of course, Jane is used to that. But it still doesn't make it OK, IMO.