A Call to Inaction

Here is a document (click on “letter,” right hand side, middle of page) by Ann Russo and Melissa Spatz. Ann is a women’s studies professor and Melissa is Director of the Women & Girls Collective Action Network.

Take a quick look.

First-off: I believe feminism should be about all women, and should encompass concerns uniquely faced by WOC (without lumping all into one group where it doesn’t make sense), women of all income levels, ability levels, geographies and other varieties.

As I’ve said often, I believe intersectionalism does not equate to substitution.

So I agree with the declaration’s support of a feminism that understands that women aren’t a homogenous group and that not only understands how it intersects with racism but encompasses this rather than footnoting it.

I DO NOT agree with divisive “refusals” that suggest that a few statements made during the campaign by women who were hurt – just as statements have been made by POC who have been hurt – define feminism and make sense as impetuses for “refusing a feminism.” Are we “refusing an anti-racism” because some of it doesn’t take WOC into account?

And cut the drama, please. Which person with any serious platform is saying “the existence of sexism means that racism no longer exists?” I haven’t heard that.

It’s disgusting when comments such as the “lynching party” one are made about Michelle Obama, and numerous both WOC AND white feminists have called that out and devoted posts and blogs to it. There cannot be too much outcry on something like this, but why claim “there has been no similar feminist outcry by white women.” That’s simply false.

And then bemoaning “the ways that women's movements and organizations are embedded in white supremacist structures, ideas, and practices.” Um, is this different from other movements? Our culture has a long way to go on race. Women’s movements comprise a cross-section of our white-centric culture, sure, and that’s a problem. But let’s not forget that this cross section is on average more liberal and aware than the pool it’s drawn from. We cannot rest on our laurels, of course. But suggesting that women’s movements are uniquely white supremacist is idiotic.

And then the mention of the odd term “adultism.” I’m a little taken aback here. (See earlier ageism posts). Whenever one has generations, or any distinct groups, these groups feel their own voices are the more critical ones. Have we not heard youth groups scold and disdain older people similarly? Within feminism, there’s similar complaint from third-wavers that mom and grandma got it wrong. Of course, as the declaration states, “[w]e need to create intergenerational dialogues around our different political ideas and commitments.” But why pretend that the marginalization only goes in one direction? Bias perhaps?

“We refuse a feminism that confuses a campaign with a movement.” Now, THIS, I can get behind.

Somehow, someone will take from this post that I am against intersectionality and want to make feminism an upper-middle-class white woman’s movement. Being white, kind of interested in money (doesn’t matter why – just the topic itself is so male identified!), and a former sex-worker – not the sympathetic kind, either, but the Vegas kind. It’s such an unpleasant picture!

They'd be wrong.

The upshot is this:

Intersectionality does not equal substitution.

One may ask: but, how can you really do justice to intersectionality without discussing the underlying oppressions as well?

Of course, you cannot. But that doesn’t mean they are feminism. Just like gender issues with no discussion of race are not anti-racism.

Feminists who take intersectionality SERIOUSLY, who really want to DO it rather than talk about how nice it is, get that there’s an underlying context. A discussion of Islam and feminism requires feminists to have some basic context of the teachings of Muhammed. A discussion of gendered immigration abuses requires feminists engaging in such a discussion to grasp the rudiments of the politics of immigration and abuses of immigrants. Understanding issues specific to WOC requires reading books like this and spending some time on sites like this to be able to better understand these books dealing with intersectionality and encompass the ideas in them as part of your feminism.

So an understanding of race, religion, disability, etc. is a necessary foundation for anyone coming to feminism from an intersectional standpoint. But those other “isms” are a FOUNDATION, as feminism should be a foundation for other liberal movements. They’re not feminism; they’re not intersectionalism in themselves without the actual intersection.

OF COURSE not all women view gender as the primary oppression. But when we’re talking “feminism,” it’s the oppression that’s the common chord. None of us are focusing on feminist activities 24-7. We’re involved in anti-racism, environmentalism, whatever. When we’re in those groups, that should be our focus. I don’t go to meetings at inner-city schools about helping improve access to college and try to center gender. The common theme in those meetings is class, and to a degree race too. It’s not much to ask, IMO, that there be ONE place that centers gender. And that this not be assumed to only include certain women’s gender. Done right, feminism is about all women. But gender is the core.

Now on to the “commitments.”

I certainly agree that we should be self-reflective, holding politicians accountable for politics rather than identities (um, yeah), challenging misogyny and racism, speaking up about white supremacy in the feminist movement and election, and creating intergenerational dialogues.

But where in these commitments do we talk about holding OTHER movements accountable? Why don’t we “refuse” an anti-racism that leave out concerns of women?

And why should the FEMINIST movement not express similar outrage about, oh I don’t know, misogyny?

Why not “refuse” an anti-racism which mischaracterizes and silences both WOC and white women?

Why not “refuse” an anti-racism that states that certain bodies of women, focusing on WOC, are not acceptable? (h/t Renee)

Why not “refuse” an anti-racism that disparages older women?

In other words – my problem with these “refusals” and “commitments” is that they’re all about shame. In all the breast-beating, we’re doing the usual: holding ourselves super-accountable for every mistake other women make, doing very little to get beyond bemoaning to an actual action plan, and refusing (not a bad word in itself) to hold anyone accountable for putting our movement on the penalty bench, because we’re so busy falling on our swords.

Ultimately? This doesn’t help anyone. Women who’ve made some advancements are sidelined by guilt; women who desperately need their issues addressed stay on the sidelines because the players are so self-congratulatory for their dramatic expressions of shame that they’re not doing any real strategizing about how to actually implement intersectionality within the movement.

Yup, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. The same old shame, in a different wrapping. Moving on now.