I learned from Amanda that today is "Blog Against Racism" day.
I’ve touched on race many times in previous posts, but I’ve been stumped trying to think of ways to address the topic this morning. I’d like, I suppose, to marry the issue to my favorite secular topic, feminism.
I’ve been teaching women’s history here at PCC for a decade. During those years, the percentage of the student body identified as "white" has dropped from around 25% in 1995 to just over 15% today. I’ve noticed the change in my classes; I had one section of History 1B (Modern Europe) last year where every single one of my students was either Asian or Latina/o. No whites, no blacks. But I’ve always had a diverse mix in my women’s history courses, though whites have never constituted an outright majority.
I write this because, over the years, I’ve read in countless student journals that feminism is "a white thing." Time and time again, I’ve heard from young women of color that their peers and families associate feminism with "trying to be white". Over and over again, my Latina and African-American students report being told by male peers in particular that their time and energy ought to be flowing towards building ethnic solidarity, not a "sisterhood." In a majority-minority setting like Pasadena City College, this perception of feminism as being a movement for white middle-class women is one of the most destructive myths I have to combat in the classroom.
I’m quite honest about the fact that in the past, there has been a racist tinge to certain strands of the American feminist movement. All one has to do is look at the post-Civil War split among suffrage activists over the issue of granting votes to black men, and it becomes evident that the women’s movement has played the "race card" from time to time.
But the real racism of the contemporary women’s movement lies in the perceived contempt of mainstream feminism for traditional culture. For example, on more than one occasion in my classes, I’ve had to intervene as white female students launch sweeping denunciations of Latin or black men. There’s an oft-spoken assumption by many of my white students that white men are "less macho" and thus "more evolved". Many of my female students of color are thus put in the awkward position of "having to choose" between solidarity on the basis of sex and solidarity on the basis of culture and ethnicity. This forced choice is not something their white sisters often understand.
Here on campus, we have a Black Students Association. We have MEChA. We have countless organizations for various Asian groups. But on a campus that is 56% female, we do not currently have a viable women’s group. I’ve seen many of my best and brightest female students, young women of color, pour their time and their energy into ethnically-based activities while showing little or no interest in doing gender-based work. I ask them, again and again, whether they consider racial discrimination or sexual discrimination to be the greater obstacle in their lives. Most say racial discrimination, even after I point out that as women, they have an infinitely greater chance of being sexually assaulted because they are female than they do of being lynched by the Klan because they aren’t white!
It’s clear that feminists and their pro-feminist allies need to do a better job of reaching both young men and young women of color. We do have to be brutally honest about both the overt and the subtle racism that has tinged the movement in decades past. And above all, we have to be very careful not to put women in the position of being forced to choose between their culture and their sex! Too often, the message that my students hear sounds like this: "You can either live up to the expectations of your culture, or you can be a feminist, but you can’t be both." Faced with that false dichotomy, most young women of color will choose their cultures; after all, doing so means staying in relationship with their families and men of their own ethnic background. Too often, we make feminism sound like a life of lonely isolation from one’s family of origin.
We who do feminist work, particularly in majority-minority settings, need to listen to the unique frustrations of young women of color. Those of us who are white and do this work, as I do, must be especially mindful of our language — it is all too easy for me, I know, to seem casually dismissive of traditional values that are of particular importance in certain cultures! We must constantly tinker with the feminist message, not to "dumb it down" or weaken it, but to make it more appealing to those who don’t feel represented and included in the feminist story. And, while never compromising our bedrock convictions about women’s equality and dignity, we need to become more mindful of the great value many women of color place on their unique cultures. If we’re going to do a better job of reaching an ever-more diverse group of young women, we must stop presenting a message that demands a "false choice" between embracing feminism and embracing one’s heritage.
“I point out that as women, they have an infinitely greater chance of being sexually assaulted because they are female than they do of being lynched by the Klan because they aren’t white!”
That, to me, is a profoundly disturbing tactic to take. For someone who claims to be a part of a struggle for equality, to emphasize or even mention personal, physical risk as a primary motivation seems alienating and extremist. If you take less extreme experiences, in ordinary daily life, which is more likely to limit your opportunities and choices in this country, being a woman or being a minority? Obviously, there are many other factors and I wouldn’t want to equate generalizations about socio-economic background with race, but I think they’re probably right to choose to work for racial empowerment over female empowerment. If feminists were fully committed to the ideals of justice and equality, I think they too would be focusing much more on racial equality and global justice.
Women have made great strides in our country. Around the world, that isn’t necessarily so. You’re right that when feminists ignore or deride elements of other cultures that don’t fit with their image of “empowerment,” they demonstrate ignorance and fall short of their ideals. But that just proves again how difficult it is to promote universal ideals for people from such different backgrounds. It’s more troubling to me that you seem to be saying it’s a case of “your cause” vs. “my cause” (as in you join my movement). That tactic demonstrates the limits of your ideals and proves to them that it really is a “white” cause.
I guess all I wanted to say is that it would seem less a “a “false choice” between embracing feminism and embracing one’s heritage” if the feminists first demonstrated their committment to racial justice and empowerment issues.
Vacula, if I simply made that sweeping statement in a vacuum, you’d be right. But I make the statement about rape and the Klan in response to the firm assertion by some women of color that the only way in which they are oppressed is racially and ethnically.
There are subtle ways to do this, too. I often ask my students to ponder why it was that black men were given the vote sixty years before women were (compare the 13-15th amendments to the 19th!) Most are stunned to realize that a considerable number of white men in this country were far more comfortable extending the franchise to black men than they were to their own wives and sisters.
Still, if you’re talking about organizations and time committments, I think minority students are justified in being alienated when feminists aren’t spending time working towards racial equality but want minorities to be involved in groups working for gender equality. If it’s important for men (as beneficiaries of a patriarchal society or whatever) to pursue feminist ideals, it’s even more important for whites to pursue racial equality.
Thoughtful post, Hugo.
It’s not just white women who criticize traditional cultures for being patriarchal or sexist. It’s just that white women – as whites – tend to get such criticisms wrong much more often than the women inside the culture do.
A very good, if dated, resource on this topic is This Bridge Called My Back: Writings by Radical Women of Color edited by Cherrie Moraga and Gloria Anzaldua. The book certainly turned me around when I read it half a lifetime ago.
{I wrote the following and have gone back through it to try to figure out how to edit so that it doesn’t come across as closing too harshly, but I can’t find a way to write what I’m thinking without it seeming so harsh.}
My problem with this is that there *does* seem to be a tendency to denigrate traditional/cultural values and roles that don’t “fit” into what is perceived as the “feminist agenda.” Often one statement is made saying that the goal of feminism is to bring women the freedom to live their lives however they wish, whether traditional or ultra-modern; then another statement is made that particular parts of traditionalism are “bad” or “wrong.”
Women have enough baggage and guilt-trips to deal with without all that garbage added to it. If a woman is a great medic, or a great doctor, or a great lawyer, or a great homemaker, what’s the difference, so long as she’s doing what *SHE* is meant to do. (Of course, I just don’t understand women bullriders, but that’s their choice of lifestyle.)
Why is it that some people talk down to those of us who choose to be SAHMs? Why do some people talk to us as if we are “less than” because we choose to dedicate larger amounts of time directly to our children than they have chosen to do? Some of us choose to spend more time in the “work force” while others of us choose to spend more time on the “home front.” That shouldn’t negate the amount of work that is done of the “home front,” nor should it negate the amount of love for family felt by those in the “work force.” We all make our choices of what to do based on the best information we have at the time.
None of us are going to have the same priorities as everyone else. For some of us, preserving traditional or cultural heritage and values is going to be far above the issues of the feminist or MRA movements. There is much there that is too valuable to lose; much that we all can learn from traditionalists.
In the long run, I find that comments such as your “I point out that as women, they have an infinitely greater chance of being sexually assaulted because they are female than they do of being lynched by the Klan because they aren’t white!” to be very much a part of the problem about which you’ve commented. It comes across as “MY issues are more important than [snear]your[/snear] issues.” Although you are saying that you must be careful not to force a choice between culture and gender, that is exactly what that comment does.
Hugo, Vacula hits on a very important point: You’re using extreme examples to try and make your point. The fact is, the Klan is for the most part inactive now, and so your example of lynching is a scenario that is statistically and probably literally non-exstant and thus amounts to blantan and laughable hyperbole; same thing with your example of “oppression of women,” at least in modern U.S. culture. I and others have repeatedly challenged you to provide example of this “oppression” and you’ve consistently been unable to do so other than the weak example related to body image. On the other hand, racial discrimination, while not as bad as it was in the past, is still very much a problem in our society, and IMO is even moreso because this type of discrimination includes whites; re. racial discrimination, it has been getting worse, not better.
If you really want to evaluate these types of problems in an accurate and legitimate manner, you have to control for things like race, gender, SES, etc. When you control for race, you see that for all racial groups men are doing less well on average than women are; this is especially true for African American brothers. Thus, feminism is irrelevant for most all women except privileged white women who have nothing left to complain about. In other words, for minorities the realits of life trumps ideology because IMO members of minorities have to be more realistic about life and have more important and pressing issues other than ‘being too fat’ to worry about.
Sorry for the ‘rough draft’ offered above, but I’m in the middle of an important project and don’t have the time to refine it. I’ll try and do so later when/if I get the time.
Cait and Vacula, I hear you. As usual, I blog in haste and reflect in leisure. (Unlike most other bloggers, I leave up what I put up rather than hide my indiscretions!) The Klan reference is an extreme one, and it has the unfortunate effect of obscuring the very serious ways in which women of color suffer “dual oppressions” or double burdens. And yet, as the late Shirley Chisholm (first black woman to run for president) always maintained, the burden of sex weighs heavier than the burden of color.
I suspect that this post may not have been in keeping, entirely, with “blog against racism” day!
Oh, and Chris, the Anzaldua/Moraga book is marvelous; I took a Chicana Writers class from Cherrie Moraga when she was adjuncting at Berkeley many years ago.
But the prioritizing of issues doesn’t mean that the stuff that gets ranked lower down don’t exist or is irrelevant.
It also doesn’t mean that issues of race and gender aren’t related. Body image and weight, for example, are heavily tied in with racial and/or cultural expectations. (See, for example, Venezuelan and Columbian news articles which talk about how “their women” are far more beautiful than women of other nationalities. Or the NY Times article the other day which said that Eastern European women don’t really object to being objectified. That’s a pretty damning statement.)
It also assumes that body image is the only thing that women face that men don’t. There have been a lot of changes regarding gender roles in the past 80 years (the right to vote, access to professions, etc.) but that doesn’t mean that one morning we woke up and everything was perfect for women. Without starting a contest over who has it worse, I would argue that a lot of sexism is just now more subtle. (This is also true of racism: we don’t have whites only water fountains any more, but getting rid of the most obvious inequalities doesn’t mean by any stretch that all the rest just vanished.)
Feminism, IMHO, has a lot to offer women of all races. Whether it appears to you that the hurdles presented to you are more a product of gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. has a lot to do with the examples of discrimination you see, hence your level of activism.
Not to pile on, but another problem with the KKK analogy is that it’s not analogous to violence against women, because the latter don’t have a political organization or secret society. Wife-beaters and rapists are just men who hit and rape–that such practices have a similar effect as the KKK (re-enforcing patriarchy/white supremacy) doesn’t mean they’re fundamentally different.
A better analogy would be the uneven policing and prosecuting of crimes, drug laws and their enforcement, etc. This is a very real (and violent–imprisonment is a violent act), everyday form of racism that imposes a culture of fear and reenforces racial dominance. And unlike the KKK, it’s stronger than ever.
(for the record, I take no side in the question of which is worse for women of color, sexism or racism, I think it’s an enormously complicated question–I’m sure your right that many women of color you interact with have serious misconceptions about feminism, but I think they also might have some insights into racial discrimination that you don’t–and in some cases probably can’t–see)
If the KKK bit is the only thing folks are going to comment on, maybe I should remove it. The point of the post was about how rarely white feminists really see the difficult double bind faced by women of color.
Okay, going to jump on that issue then, Hugo.
I think that feminism has historically been the province of white women. It has some pretty racist overtones at times. I think the problem has become self-reinforcing. Women of color think that feminism has been dismissive of their concerns or outright racist (not necessarily a misperception). They assume that the movement doesn’t have anything to offer them. Their lack of participation allows white feminists to avoid seeing the issues that don’t affect them directly. It’s quite the cycle.
Hugo, I think your focus is still too narrow, regardless of the KKK comment. It’s not just women of color who are on the outside of feminism. Women of color face *more* of this problem, IMO, but women on the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum also feel this dilemma, as do *any* women who opt to stick more closely to their traditional/ethnic/cultural roots.
A large part of feminism (and pro-feminism) seems to come from the ranks of upper-middle-class to upper-class, as opposed to lower-middle-class and lower-class. As Mr. Bad said (ACK! You have me agreeing with him again!), “the realities of life trump ideology.”
Agreed, evil — which is why white feminists have to do a better job of evangelizing, but doing so in culturally sensitive ways. Really, it’s a lot like modern missionary work. Just as modern missionaries strive to put the Gospel in language that is relevant to the specific cultures they encounter, those of us in the largely white world of academic feminism and pro-feminism have to find ways to “reach the unreached” by adopting more inclusive and sensitive language. We also have to listen to the unique concerns of women of color,and begin to do a better job of valueing their contributions to the broader movement. That’s the feminist “Great Commission.”
Caitriona, we cross-posted — I take your point, and offer my previous comment to your concern.
My goal in blogging is always to create unity; when I can get you and Mr. Bad on the same side of the fence, how can I not consider it a job well done?
Catriona, I agree with you that there are a lot of women “outside” feminism and this needs to be addressed. However, in the context of “blog about racism” day, I think the focus is a bit more understandable and forgiveable. =)
I do wonder, though, about the interplay of race and socio-economic status in this case. Given the correlation of the two, perhaps part of what makes feminism seem white is not just race but the class divide as well. Just thinking out loud here, but I can’t imagine that they’re completely unrelated…
I think you’re onto something there, evil_fizz.
“Thus, feminism is irrelevant for most all women except privileged white women who have nothing left to complain about. In other words, for minorities the realits of life trumps ideology because IMO members of minorities have to be more realistic about life and have more important and pressing issues other than ‘being too fat’ to worry about. ”
Um, yeah. Because poor women or women of color (or shocker! women in other countries) aren’t concerned about rape, birth control, access to abortion, child care, competitive wages, access to education, the right to vote, etc., etc. What planet do you live on again?
evil_fizz said: “I do wonder, though, about the interplay of race and socio-economic status in this case. Given the correlation of the two, perhaps part of what makes feminism seem white is not just race but the class divide as well. Just thinking out loud here, but I can’t imagine that they’re completely unrelated…”
You’re definitely on to something here e_f, but I think it’s even a bit more complicated because I believe that it’s quite possible that racism is also related to SES. For example, I suspect that the poor black woman on the south side of Chicago experiences a heck of a lot more racism than her uptown African American neighbor, e.g., Oprah Winfrey. Same race and gender, same town, different SES.
As for the comparison between Klansmen (and Klanswomen) vs. wife-beaters and rapists, I think it’s more applicable than you think. All three varieties of misanthropes are very, very rare in our society, despite feminist dogma and rhetoric. So when talking about them we have to remember that they’re extreme exceptions to the rule vis-a-vis ordinary people.
Um, yeah. Because poor women or women of color (or shocker! women in other countries) aren’t concerned about rape, birth control, access to abortion, child care, competitive wages, access to education, the right to vote, etc., etc. What planet do you live on again?
Rape is illegal and has been for quite some time. Birth control and access to abortion are legal. Child care, competitive wages, access to education, the right to vote… which of these do American women not have? Face it, aside from the glass ceiling and the ongoing restrictions on abortion and morning after pills, most of the big battles are already won. So when upper middle class women major in women’s studies and write papers on “the male gaze” and “objectification and commodification of femal sexuality in Maxim magazine”, non-upper-middle-class women are going to look at them like they have three heads.
Q Grrl, I’m referring to U.S. society, the society where the vast majority of Hugo’s students come from. The thread is addressing that society primarily. Now, if you want to compare the relative plight Arab vs. African ethnicities in, say, Sudan, fine, but let’s keep it to comparing apples to apples, Ok?
My point is that from experience talking with black women (shocker – I do talk with black women, many of whom are my friends), they see most feminists as spoiled middle- and upper middle-class white women with cushy lives and thus nothing to complain about and too much time on their hands to spend complaining about trivialites. Most of those women (and their brothers) have a lot more to worry about than, e.g., being allowed to be members of Augusta National Country Club, so feminsits like Martha Burke and her pals seem like spoiled whiners (which IMO they are).
BADTEETH, the “glass ceiling” has been shown time and again to be a myth.
Just wanted to clear that up.
Mr. Bad, you explicitly said that feminism is an elitist upper class ideal. I’m saying that women of all races and classes have benefited from feminist politics, which you too admit. So I’m confused as to where your blind spot is?
Correct, there is no glass ceiling, just a dense layer of men.
Rape is illegal and has been for quite some time.
Marital rape did not become illegal in all 50 states until 1993. (In 1978, it was illegal in only 4.)
Birth control and access to abortion are legal.
Sort of. Access to Plan B is still wrapped up in the throes of FDA stupidity and access to abortion is dwindling by the day.
Child care, competitive wages, access to education, the right to vote… which of these do American women not have?
The wage gap is still open to debate, affordable child care continues to be an issue for many women…
I’m not saying that things aren’t better, just that these things don’t represent some kind of complete eppiphany and paradigm shift all in one. (How’s that for an abuse of buzz words?)
–
Now that I’ve posed a question about SES and race, I have one more. I think that women of color suffer stereotypes that are their own, such as the exaggerated sexuality of black women, the submissiveness of Asian women, the bitchiness of Latina women. I think these are issues that “mainstream feminism” has not come to terms with because they’re not a problem for white women. Also, maybe they’re seen more as “racial” then as “sexist”? I am curious…
Your last point is very well taken, evil. Still another point — black women are acutely sensitive to issues of white women/black men, issues that often leave white and black women talking past each other about race and sexuality.
Really, it’s a lot like modern missionary work. Just as modern missionaries strive to put the Gospel in language that is relevant to the specific cultures they encounter, those of us in the largely white world of academic feminism and pro-feminism have to find ways to “reach the unreached” by adopting more inclusive and sensitive language. We also have to listen to the unique concerns of women of color,and begin to do a better job of valueing their contributions to the broader movement.
Sigh. You do realize that patronizing language like this is exactly what turns off those of us who don’t fit the “white, middle class, degreed” demographic, don’t you? What makes you assume we are “unreached”?
Hugo, I was raised to believe that I am equal to men. That I don’t have to take the back seat. That I can reach for the stars and succeed. And that I will face discrimination, and that I will need to fight it, and that eventually, I (or my daughter, or her daughter) will overcome. I was taught this not just by the women in my family, but by the men too. They were labor union activists, and as such, old-school feminists…before the term was in vogue. Yet, when I went to community college, and picked up books on feminism in the library, I read that my experience was impossible—or at least, highly unlikely. That people of my background didn’t believe this way, and that daughters were taught to be inferior. That we didn’t believe in educating women. Very important, very educated people, with the white-middle-class background to prove it, said so. People who never had contact with guys like my great-uncle Charlie, with his fourth-grade education, who always said, “Never quit school! Get an education! (and leveling his eyes with mine, chin forward, eyes narrowed, hands—-well, hands gesturing in the stereotypical Sicilian “listen-to-me” position, as if he were holding the words in his hands—saying (I can still hear him now)”That’s something they can never take away from you.”
I’ve felt very alienated from “mainstream” feminism. I learned my feminism from union-activist women, in particular my mother (a steward, and also serving on the Executive Board of her local) and my grandmother (also a steward, though she never sought office). I feel like my concerns are dismissed or put on the back burner by the more mainstream movement. At the same time, I don’t fit in with the separatist movement, either. I marched in Chicago for the ERA back in 1980—now, there’s groups of mainstream feminists who are working towards resurrecting the ERA in Illinois, yet most of those groups wouldn’t even allow me as a member! American Association of University Women? Nope, I don’t have a Bachelors. Business and Professional Women? Nope, I’m not a businesswoman, and they don’t consider blue-collar “professional”. Mainstream groups have deliberately shunted many of us out of the movement, so it shouldn’t really come as any surprise when those of us who’ve been shown the door take our activism to other organizations that embrace our participation, rather than alternately viewing us as burdens yet wanting us for photo-ops at large demonstrations. Bah.
Maaaaannn, I could go on, and on, and on about this. Look, I fight the good fight. I like the good fight! Without struggle, it would be somebody else’s life, knowwhatImean? But still, I’ve only got so many hours in the day, and so much energy to spend. I want to spend it where it can make the most difference. Hugo, you think it’s necessary for patrician white-middle-class feminists to educate us “great unwashed”. It’s very telling that you used the “missionary” (colonial) analogy. Perhaps you didn’t mean it that way, but that’s damn well what I heard.
No…I feel about this the same way I feel about your old post on the “college experience”. I’m tired of being told that I have to assimilate into someone else’s way of life in order to be a “real” feminist.
La Lubu, did you read this part? We also have to listen to the unique concerns of women of color,and begin to do a better job of valueing their contributions to the broader movement.” Let me emphasize LISTENING. Good feminist (and missionary) work is about listening to the voices of those who’ve been excluded, not merely preaching at them.
Who do you think I’m teaching at PCC? My college is 85% non-white; my classes are filled with English-Language Learners. Most are first-generation college students. I’m not teaching at Sweet Briar, circa 1955!
Hugo, while your intentions are wonderful, I think that a lot of your background filters into what you’re trying to do, causing communication barriers. That’s what I see from La Lubu’s post and your response to it.
It’s hard for me to put into words, especially tonight. But differing perceptions have a lot to do with it, as well as different life experiences. It’s kinda like the cultural barriers that Chewy and I had (and still have sometimes) where one of us would say something that was totally innocent (as far as the speaker was concerned), and it came across extremely insulting to the other.
Then the question I have is, Cait and La Lubu, how much of the problem is what I’m saying, and how much of the problem is who is saying it? Are you mixing the message and the messenger? Or would the message be equally problematic if I came from a different background?
I’m asking seriously, mind you; I really do want to know!
Hugo, you acknowledge the importance of listening to minority women, but with your single “listen to” you have one “point out”, one “put in [a position]“, one “presenting a message” and two “reach”es, all things done by presumptively white middle-class feminists to presumptively non-feminist minority women. I don’t think the problem is with what you have to say, necessarily, but the way you say it could use some polishing.
White middle-class feminists need to stop being such insensitive jerks about race/class issues because it’s wrong to be an insensitive jerk, not because it’s a wily political maneuver that will grow the movement. You’re framing these necessary changes as a sort of fancy new ad campaign for feminism, and it’s off-putting.
Evil Fizz,
Didn’t know that about the marital rape laws, my bad. I was shocked to be honest. But even so, 1990′s, its still a check mark in the win column.
As for Plan “B” that’s what I meant when I referred to morning after pills. But let’s face it, when it comes to birth control, there are other options available. Yes, it should be available now but one presidential or possibly congressional election away and its most likely in in a snap. If not sooner.
And the wage gap, I sort of mentioned when I referred to the glass ceiling. (I know they’re not exactly synonomous, but most theorists believe that the glass ceiling is one of the biggest factors for the wage gap.)
As for childcare, yes it could be better and cheaper, but it is there. In other words you’re not fighting over the concept of its existence, you’re fighting for improvements in an already existing concept.
In other words, what issues feminists have today don’t have quite the same visceral impact that the issues earlier generations faced. For example a letter writing campaign to your congressional representative for better and cheaper child care is not quite as full of sturm und drang as taking a billy club to the ribs for a protest about the lack of voting rights. The “iron-jawed angels” era is over. You’re past the Joe Hill and Mattewan massacre era and into the “a 42 dollar per week health care plan deduction is too much, bring it down to 39 or we strike” phase.
Today feminists are more about reform than revolution, (for the most part) where hardball politics can be and do need to be played, but its still politics within the system, not trying to destroy and replace the old system. (But if abortion restrictions continue to get tighter, I am hedging my bets on that one.)
Except when it comes to cultural issues. And that is where feminism’s toughest selling points are.
Even if you are correctly pointing out the negatives of much-loved traditions, you’re still attacking much-loved traditions. Even if you are correctly pointing out the negatives of the way a child is socialized, you’re still saying, your mom and dad, grandmother and grandfather, neighbors, friends and teachers were wrong. Unless they were raised by complete psychos with no redeeming qualities, they’re probably going to be pissed off at you.
Point out the negative effects of machismo and you’re attacking the man they love. Unless their husband or boyfriend is an abusive, philandering neandrathal, they probably know how to handle his flaws and enjoy his positive attributes better than you do.
Tell somebody the religion they were brought up in is a brainwashing oppressor and you are an atheist at best and quite possibly a demonically possessed satanist.
So most of the political selling points can probably be dismissed, with “Yeah, yeah, yeah, I vote democrat anyway.” And most of the cultural ones are a very tough sell to all but the most oppressed.
As for your point about racial/gender stereotypes that women face, most women probably realize that their husbands, boyfriends, fathers, brothers and sons have their own racial/gender stereotypes that they have to deal with as well.
Anyway, my two cents.
Damn this was a long post.
yumi said: “White middle-class feminists need to stop being such insensitive jerks about race/class issues because it’s wrong to be an insensitive jerk, not because it’s a wily political maneuver that will grow the movement. You’re framing these necessary changes as a sort of fancy new ad campaign for feminism, and it’s off-putting.”
I think that you, Cait and others have hit the nail on the head: What Hugo and other archtypical mainstream leaders in the feminist movement are engaged in is precisely an ad campaign. As the goals of feminism have been achieved here and elsewhere (and here in the U.S. and other First World nations, the legitimat goals have been met) ordinary rational people have correctly seen that feminism is no longer relevant to their lives, and indeed in some cases – e.g., African American culture – feminism does more harm than good. Therefore, what we have is a natural tendency to reject feminism and the leaders that proselytize the ideology. Most people have no use for feminism any more, reject its no-silly and irrelevant messages, and so the movement is dying. As it should.
Feminists are engaged in a desperate campaign for relevance in modern society and to achieve this they need more feminists. We heard this in Hugo’s missives earlier this year, where he discussed one of the main goals of women’s studies to (paraphrasing) ‘recruit more feminists.’ Really, how much more plain can one get? At least in that case, feminists are being honest.
Then the question I have is, Cait and La Lubu, how much of the problem is what I’m saying, and how much of the problem is who is saying it? Are you mixing the message and the messenger? Or would the message be equally problematic if I came from a different background?
Hugo, I spent some time last night and this morning thinking about your question. I’ve not even refreshed my screen to see if anyone else has responded because I don’t want to lose the track of thought.
You approach the problems you see through the lens of your background and experiences. You’ve posted before that you grew up fairly well-to-do, in an academic setting, and without a lot of survival worries. You had the ability to live your early adult years in a fairly carefree manner. Through all that, you saw certain inequalities and you are concerned enough for people that you want to right what you see as wrongs.
But the things you see as “wrongs” are not necessarily the things that hit the radar of people, of any ethnicity, who do not have those same privileges. People with family members who have to work 60-80 hours a week to make ends meet will be more concerned with issues related to *everyone* (not just women) earning a living wage, to adequate childcare, to adequate education, etc. At that socio-economic level, men and women are on par. Noone’s worried about whether or not a “glass ceiling” exists because everyone is focused on survival. They’re nowhere near the level of that “glass ceiling.”
How can you address issues of disparities between the sexes to people for whom there is little or no disparity? Those disparities come in the upper levels, in the white collar fields. The young ladies you’re speaking with many times may be working to rise out of the blue collar areas and into the white collar areas. As yet, they may not have the experience to know of the issues *you* see, or those issues may seem insignificant in relation to the realities with which they currently live.
Perhaps if someday you and your wife decided to take a sebattical and go spend 6-12 months living in a small town out in the middle of nowhere, living only off what you earn at whatever job is available there (or living in an inner-city area far enough away from family to remove the temptation to stay with family instead), the experience might be able to show you what I’m not sure words can convey. When you live close to the edge, so many things totally change perspective.
I don’t think I’ve really conveyed this well. I’ll have to keep thinking on it.
Just a quick note: Reading this blog and discussing the issues presented has now become a school assignment at St Brigid’s Gate.
Caitriona, if feminism were only about economic issues, I’d agree that less affluent American men and women share similar struggles. But as we all know, there are far more struggling single-parent families headed by women than by men. Poor women are still victims of harassment and rape and eating disorders — poverty does not grant immunity from gender-based violence. And poor women have a harder time getting adequate reproductive care. The feminist agenda is concerned with all of these things.
Hugo, I understand that the feminist agenda is concerned with these things. But it is not presented to people in ways that appear realistic and applicable to the lower-income situations. Violence is a problem, period, no matter if one is male or female, no matter the ethnicity. For those who see an increase in violence tied to their socio-economic status, the seperation of violence into a male/female issue can often be a moot point.
When you’re in a lower socio-economic status, how do you seperate out the harassment you receive because you’re a woman from the harassment you receive because you’re poor? How do you seperate rape from the other forms of violence occurring?
Yes, poor women have a harder time getting adequate reproductive care. They also have a harder time getting adequate health, dental, emotional, and psychological care. So do poor men. IME, poor men will send the women in their families in for care before they will go themselves. (I guess that could be a bit of a feminist issue.)
And Hugo, boys have eating disorders, too. That’s an emotional health issue, not a feminist issue.
As a former single, custodial mother married to a former single, custodial dad, I understand very well that the majority of struggling single-parent households are headed by women and not by men. It’s a huge problem. But it’s a slightly different problem than the one you presented about getting more young women involved in feminism. Perhaps the approach of the feminist movement needs to change, to refocus.
How could you help families stay healthy and stay together so that there is a reduction in single-parent households? How could you work to bring about more job training so that single heads of households can provide better and more easily for their families?
It’s not male vs female. It’s quality of life. How can it be refocused to address those issues?
Hugo, what are the current goals of the feminist movment?
I love watching guys defining feminism for feminists while not listening worth a damn to what feminists really say and think. Nice. Double standard anyone?
FTR: I am an lower-income, blue collar woman. And I’m a feminist. Go figure.
Q Grrl, I’m not defining the goals — I’m simply making the case that feminism is relevant for all of us (men, women, black, white, rich, poor, etc.) I’m sorry if I came across as condescending and presumptuous. The speed with which I post, and my evangelical zeal for change, combine for sloppy writing!
Hugo said: “But as we all know, there are far more struggling single-parent families headed by women than by men.”
This is not due to sexism, it is due to women’s choices; men have almost no choice in reproduction and women get custody almost all the time that they ask for it.
“Poor women are still victims of harassment and rape and eating disorders — poverty does not grant immunity from gender-based violence.”
Men, especially poor men, are by the far the predominant victims of violence and serious “harassment”. Women’s experience of these things is trivial when compared to men’s.
“And poor women have a harder time getting adequate reproductive care. The feminist agenda is concerned with all of these things.”
Gender-specfic healthcare spending favors women by a wide margin.
Like I said, feminism has attained most of its legitimate goals, thus, realistic people see feminism as a luxuray relative to serious issues affecting them and their loved ones (including men). That’s why feminism is seen as mostly the pervue of privileged white women.
“Women’s experience of these things is trivial when compared to men’s”
Honestly, Mr. Bad, this kind of argument is just as unhelpful as the “fear of violence” extremism I pointed to in Hugo’s post. Why must it always be a boys vs. girls thing with you? Couldn’t you emphasize the importance of preventing harm to one group without (literally)trivializing the painful experiences of other people?
“Women’s experience of these things is trivial when compared to men’s”
Honestly, Mr. Bad, this kind of argument is just as unhelpful as the “fear of violence” extremism I pointed to in Hugo’s post. Why must it always be a boys vs. girls thing with you? Couldn’t you emphasize the importance of preventing harm to one group without (literally) trivializing the painful experiences of the “other” group?
Sorry! That spam checker thing is confusing sometimes…
No need to apologize Hugo — my rant was directed at the MRA’s who wish to redefine feminism in the shape of a scapegoat.
Hugo, this white guy had a visceral response to your “missionary” comment very similar to La Lubu’s.
In your defense, however, you seem merely to mirror language that many white progressives routinely use when exploring why their communication with communities of color leaves something to be desired.
An example: “reaching out” or “outreach” or the various cognates of those phrases – while they may seem at first glance a value neutral term to describe attempts to communicate – are buzzwords for a lot of people, myself included. I hear environmentalists talking about “reaching out to the black community,” and what I take from that is the activist thinks he is “in,” and the black community is out. It is a literally self-centered phrase, and often denotes a hefty degree of unconscious condecension toward the “target audience.”
Also, when talking about racial or cultural issues, you should be aware that the word “missionary” often has distinctly unpleasant connotations – putting it mildly – to some of the people you want to talk with. I recognize that you see the word in a positive light, and intend it positively, but for MUCH of the world missionaries are people who come to a place they consider backwards in order to graciously bestow their own truth on a benighted populace.
In other words, we’re talking a gaffe akin to Bush describing intervention in the Middle East as a “Crusade.”
What often angers me about people making the argument you do – and I am not necessarily imputing this motivation to you, though I suppose it’s a possibility – is the unspoken assumptions that get you from assertion A:
A) That other culture is sexist, misogynistic, etc.
to assertion Z:
Z) The best way we can change A is by transplanting Western feminism into the culture
The unspoken assumptions here are that the level of indigenous femisism in the culture at issue, if any, is insufficient to battle the overall patriarchy there. Why import western feminism unless the local kind is substandard? And this, of course, is a subtle form of blaming the local women for their own oppression: they could make things better if only they knew how. They must not be doing it right.
Cultural exchange is a precious thing, and I’d be the last person to naysay good-faith eforts to TALK. What’s more, struggling womens’ movements in what we used to call Third World countries can often use material aid from western feminists – money, doctors, things like vocational training, microlending, yada yada.
I hope what I’m saying here is helpful or at least interesting, Hugo. I just spoke up because I share your race and gender, and thus hopefully the “who’s saying it” will clearly be less of an issue.
The problem with the KKK and/or rape analogies is much of a piece with the fairly simple use of the word “culture.” Aside from the implicit threat and insensitivity to the subject position of the teacher (which would make me uncomfortable, were I a student) It’s devoid of nuance, and invokes examples of racist/sexist behavior that are SO outrageous to contemporary students that they introduce all sorts of new problems. No one is pro rape, and no one is pro KKK. The problem is that students therefore think that all rapists/racists are monsters, and fail to recognize the subtleties of sexism and racism. Simultaneously, there seems to be a presumption that “certain cultures” are monolithic, which assuredly there aren’t–it’s problematic to even allude to “certain cultures,” as–like invoking rapists and Klansmen–it’s so non-specific that it simply invites the auditor to fill in her own analysis. Therefore it sounds right, but not because of anything it’s saying; on the contrary, b/c it’s saying very little and therefore the listener is free to use it as a template for more specific analysis (or not).
Vacula, I’m sorry that putting feminism in context upsets you, but it’s germane and indeed central to this topic.
The point I’m trying to make is that in the grand scheme of life for people other than feminsts (i.e., middle- and upper middle-class white girls) the issues left for feminism to address are trivial when compared to the experience of others, especially African American sisters. And believe it or not, they put their brother’s concerns and problems above those of everyday feminists. You should seriously consider that perhaps black sisters actually care about brothers, and indeed, care about them more than privileged academic white girls. This might help you to understand what Hugo’s trying to get at here.
I’m sorry if pointing these things out upsets you, but IMO that explains a lot re. the way it is vis-a-vis minority women and feminism, and why they make the choices they do.
I’m really regretting that the KKK analogy has gotten so much attention. Perhaps I will delete it from the post so that we can focus on other things.
Chris, I hear you — to my frustration, your point was the very point I was trying to make in the original post, it’s what I meant when I wrote:
“Too often, the message that my students hear sounds like this: ‘You can either live up to the expectations of your culture, or you can be a feminist, but you can’t be both.’ Faced with that false dichotomy, most young women of color will choose their cultures; after all, doing so means staying in relationship with their families and men of their own ethnic background. Too often, we make feminism sound like a life of lonely isolation from one’s family of origin.”
The point I’m trying to make is that in the grand scheme of life for people other than feminsts (i.e., middle- and upper middle-class white girls) the issues left for feminism to address are trivial when compared to the experience of others, especially African American sisters. And believe it or not, they put their brother’s concerns and problems above those of everyday feminists. You should seriously consider that perhaps black sisters actually care about brothers, and indeed, care about them more than privileged academic white girls. This might help you to understand what Hugo’s trying to get at here.
Okay, I’ll bite. I have no idea whatsoever what you’re trying to say here. Is it that black women relate to black men better than white women do? Is it that racism is more important to blacks as a class than sexism is? Black women have more problems to deal with than white women? What?
I think that implicit in your post is that racial solidarity should trump gender solidarity to the exclusion of gender. Given your contempt for feminism as a whole, I don’t find this particularly surprising. What surprises me is that race could be so much more important after one controls for SES and such. (Thinking back on the woman living on the south side of Chicago versus Oprah example.) Does race really trump gender all the time?
Feminists are middle- to upper-middle class white girls? Isn’t that statement loaded with loads of assumptions about race and gender? I know a lot of women who are not white who are feminists. A lot of women who aren’t middle or upper-middle class who are feminists. And a lot of feminists who aren’t girls.
evil_fizz: In answer to your last question, in a word: Yes.
Female gender no longer infers negative consequences on persons in modern Western society; in fact, it is male gender that infers negative consequences.
Hugo summed it up: “Faced with that false dichotomy, most young women of color will choose their cultures; after all, doing so means staying in relationship with their families and men of their own ethnic background.”
There’s nothing “false” about the dichotomy, and I find it astonishing that Hugo seems to think that it’s unusual that women would choose their brothers over what some have called “The Sisterhood,” i.e., feminism. Perhaps the inabiliy to understand this ability to prioritize is based in the inherent arrogance, sexism, and racism of feminism? Who knows.
Feminism apparently demands that women choose the concerns of The Sisterhood(TM) over that of their brothers. And so, when African American sisters are confronted with choosing between the concerns of (people who appear to them to be) spoiled, middle- and upper middle-class white women (e.g., being ‘too fat’ or not being able to be members of Augusta National) vs. the very real concerns of their brothers (e.g., assault, murder, drug and alcohol abuse, discrimination for being both male and black, etc.) they make (IMO) the correct choice and reject feminism and go with racial solidarity. It all comes to degree and priorities.
I really can’t fathom what there is about this picture that you, Hugo, et al. find so difficult to understand?
Well, among other things it’s the presumption that feminism actually demands “that women choose the concerns of The Sisterhood over that of their brothers.” I don’t see why you can’t be concerned with racial injustice as well as gender injustice. (And I would imagine that it’s your own everyday experiences that make you think one is more important than the other.) I’m also hesitant to lump black women into this monolithic unit that renders them unable to relate to white women (upper class or otherwise.) [I would suspect that many times SES is a stronger factor than race or gender in how people relate to each other.]
Maybe it’s the idealist in me, but I don’t think that race, gender, etc. should be carving us into these groups where it’s assumed that we can’t relate to each other at all.
Female gender no longer infers negative consequences on persons in modern Western society; in fact, it is male gender that infers negative consequences.
ROFL!
Then the question I have is, Cait and La Lubu, how much of the problem is what I’m saying, and how much of the problem is who is saying it? Are you mixing the message and the messenger? Or would the message be equally problematic if I came from a different background?
I’m asking seriously, mind you; I really do want to know!
Hugo, the problem isn’t message vs. messenger—see, the thing is, if you shared my background, it would never have occurred to you to phrase that like you did. It simply would not have crossed your mind that there wasn’t already the makings of an organic feminist movement, or strong feminist beliefs, amongst people of my background. I think you see that feminism is something that is always coming from “outside”, and yeah…that comes with a lot of baggage, whether it makes you personally uncomfortable or not. Hugo, you’re a nice guy, but you haven’t had a lifetime of hearing that your way is the “wrong” way, that your way makes you less intelligent, less contemporary, and maybe just a little bit less of a human being than otherwise. I have.
Remember, you’re talking to someone who has identified as feminist, using that term, since grade school. And we’re contemporaries, so you know what that means—the type of flak that folks who used to say, “I’m a feminist” back in the seventies received. Then again, maybe not—there’s a gulf not just between our socioeconomic backgrounds, but between our geopolitical ones too. If there’s one thing I want you to keep in mind, it’s this: I’m the kind of person who sends a clear message to people of your background—just by my physical presence—that I’m not the type who uses terms like “socioeconomic” or “geopolitical”. But I do. And then you wonder why there’s a communication gap.
Ok, this oughta stimulate some conversation. Here’s some ways in which I feel alienated by mainstream, white-bread, white-collar feminism:
1. There isn’t much activism in the mainstream feminist movement around the typical meat-and-potato (perhaps I should say “sugu and pasta”) issues that affect my life. I see a helluva lot of organization (and fundraising) around keeping abortion legal (something I agree with), but just lip service to say….adequate, affordable child care that is compatible with working hours. Where are the marches for child care? I’m tired of hearing about how inaccessible abortion is—which it is, and I agree that lack of abortion services is a problem. But for most women in the U.S., abortion is more accessible than affordable, safe child care. Do you know what that says to me? Viscerally? It’s as if to say, “well honey, if you’d only had that abortion, you wouldn’t need to worry about child care.”
2. While we’re on the subject of reproductive health care, let’s talk about the fact that “reproductive health care” for white, middle-class women is a euphemism for abortion—but it is not for working-class, poor, and/or -of color women. Reproductive health care to us means not having our choice to have children, or the size of our family, denigrated or pathologized. It means being having our choice of safe, effective, affordable birth control that is right for our bodies and life. It means not being sterilized against our will, or without our knowledge. It means having access to comprehensive sex education for ourselves, our daughters, our sons. It means having access to affordable ob/gyn care, or being able to consult a physician about women’s health concerns. It means being able to breastfeed your child in public, or express breastmilk at work without being fired. Remember the recent reproductive health care march on Washington? Well, the white-middle class organizers of that march were taken to task for tokenizing women of color, and for neglecting to invite many local women of color groups who are already focused on this issue. It seems they wanted a few black and brown faces for photo ops (again), but not much else. After some behind-the-scenes organizing, the focus of the march was changed from “abortion” to “reproductive health care”. Big change. Yet, this was played down in mainstream feminist sources. Colorlines magazine had a good spread on it.
3. I think it’s a really good thing that more women are attending college now. That’s a real sea change from when I was growing up. Yet….I don’t get any support from mainstream feminists on getting more young women into the trades. The attitude is, “who wants to do that?! Ewww!” or that trades work is only for the dummies who couldn’t get good enough grades to do anything else. “But, why should they work in the trades, instead of being engineers?” Hey, who said it was either/or? But, since they put it that way, I tell ‘em why: much higher starting pay, better advancement opportunities, and flat-out better job opportunities, period. No student loans to pay back, either (my union awards full-boat scholarships to journeymen who want to continue their education in college). When the mass exodus of baby boomers into retirement hits full swing, there’s going to be a helluva lot more call for skilled tradespeople than for engineers. Just as the mainstream movement thinks the right to abortion solves most problems facing women, they think the right to a college education solves most problems too….as if women who’ve been to college don’t experience a glass ceiling, too. I’ll say it till I run out of breath–yes, there is sexism in the trades. But less of it than any other realm where men outnumber women and more tools at one’s disposal to fight it with. This is my life. I’m tired of being told it’s a figment of my imagination.
That’ll do for now. I’ve got more, but I need to get to bed…it’ll be a busy day tomorrow. I’ve always gotten a lot more out of reading feminist work by women of color (like This Bridge Called my Back) and working-class feminists like Roxanne Dunbar Ortiz because it speaks to my experience. And that is such a breath of fresh air—to have one’s experience acknowledged and supported, rather than pathologized. One of the focal points of my feminist life that has been pathologized by white, middle-class mainstream feminists, is cooking…. yep, cooking. Without getting into a post-lengthening dissertation on the Importance of Food and Cooking in the Culture of Italian American Women (after all, you can read Milk of Almonds for a literary presentation of that from a very fine collection of authors near and dear to my heart)….I found that to be incredibly alienating. Food is healing, communion, strengthening….for everyone, really (just look at the research on smells and memory!), though apparently some come from a culture that doesn’t honor this traditional view.
Oh, and Hugo? Ya wanna know why I ride your ass so much? It’s because I really think you’ve got your heart in the right place, and I really believe that you listen. I hope you take my words and act as an ambassador to people who won’t listen to me or other women. There is a pre-existing dynamic of dismissal that is part and parcel of patriarchy—dismissal of those lower in rank. Some of my sisters haven’t recognized that yet, and I’m using that word “sister” with gritted teeth. Hey, maybe tomorrow I should bring up the “lavender menace” and how that alienated women like my Aunt S. from feminism, hm?
Thank you, Chris Clarke. I enjoyed your post!
Thanks for such a lengthy and interesting comment, La Lubu. I agree that many middle-class secular feminists are frustrated by the lack of interest other women have in defending abortion rights as the “sine qua non” of the movement. I’ve noticed for years that the frustration is mutual, as many traditionally-minded and working class women who might otherwise be highly receptive to the feminist agenda are alienated by the notion that mainstream feminists are “one note Charlies” on the subject. But there is a movement that goes beyond reproductive rights…
Ok, Hugo. I’m back. Thanks for listening and not just seeing this as a personal attack.
Look, if you visit the NOW website, and click on “10 for change”, you’ll see a very progressive agenda. But you won’t see much action towards that progressive agenda, except on abortion. Now, I know the belief behind that is supposed to be “if we don’t have bodily integrity, we don’t have anything.” But you know what? There’s a helluva lot of us that don’t have “bodily integrity” right now. The woman who’s slowly, painfully letting her teeth rot to the point where eventually she has to have them pulled because of the pain—all for the lack of health insurance to see a dentist, or the kind of wage to pay both a dental visit and rent doesn’t have a whole lot of “bodily integrity.”
Cart. Horse. What do you put in front to move? Think of the vast numbers of women who could be galvanized towards feminist movement if their immediate needs were placed front-and-center. I’m tired of seeing the word “choice” used to mean “ability to choose to have an abortion”. I believe that should be a choice. But my choice to have a child is not valued equally by mainstream feminists, particularly since I’m a single mother (yes, that was enlightening—that mainstream feminists often have the same sort of reaction to my single motherhood that fundamentalists do).
My choice to enter the trades isn’t highly valued by mainstream feminists, either. There’s a lot of lip service given to women’s choices in careers, but women who choose something outside the white-collar or academic road receive short shrift—and it’s maddening. I expect better from avowed feminists. I can think of self-identifying feminists in this town, card-carrying members of “proper” women’s organizations, who wouldn’t dream of encouraging a young woman to say, study cosmetology. Yet, these same women will spend a couple of hundred a month (or more) getting their hair cut-and-colored, getting their nails done, and buying chichi grooming products.
There’s a recognition from mainstream feminists that there is a glass ceiling, at least. But there’s an overemphasis on lawsuits as the way to remedy this. Granted, lawsuits can be a useful tactic. However, most women are not in the position to hire a lawyer, nor do most women want to commit career suicide by filing a lawsuit—most of us don’t have that kind of personal safety net. I don’t see much action from the mainstream movement on taking our public servants to task for better enforcement of equal opportunity laws. I don’t see much action from the mainstream movement on changing the culture of workplaces, either. There seems to be this almost magical belief that things will get better over time. Well, they did get better over time while I was growing up, but only because a lot of people did a lot of organizing and hard work towards making that change occur. When the pressure died down, momentum did not carry further changes through. That energy was dissipated, and now we are stagnating. I don’t see my daughter getting to observe the same changes I did. If anything, my daughter will see ground lost.
See, in my cynical moments, I feel like mainstream feminists who were in pole position to reap the benefits of the early changes (due to race and class position) were satisfied with that, and were content to give lip service to more revolutionary changes that would bring more benefit to more people. Because see, then they’d have to cough up some privilege too. Those “calling out” charges aren’t just coming out of right field, y’know.
That’s part of where the “lavender menace” b.s. came from too. Lesbians were abandoned by the mainstream as too “radical”, too “problematic”, not “fitting in”, and above all, “setting the wrong image”. Mainstream feminists who merely wanted access to the same realms of power and privilege that white, middle-class straight men had were keen on presenting an image that said, “let us in! see! we’re not a threat to you!”
Gotta get going again. These are all things that have been said before, by thousands of other feminists, for years. Decades, even. And still, your “top-down” feminists aren’t listening. Your “top-down” feminists are not willing to cede the power and position they’ve gained. They haven’t yet recognized that the revolution will not be subsidized. There’s only one way to build a movement, and that’s from the ground on up. And that means ceding privilege and getting one’s hands dirty. Taking risks is part of being a leader. I don’t see anyone in the mainstream feminist movement doing that right now—taking risks and putting their ass out on the line. And if you’re not willing to lead, you shouldn’t be too surprised when folks aren’t lining up behind you.
La Labu: Completely serious question for you: do you see men being encouraged to enter trades generally? In my admittedly narrow experience, it seems like there’s a lack of encouragement all around, some of it due to worries about oursourcing, the use of more automated technology, etc. Is the experience different for men versus women? Not to put too fine a point on it, but is this an issue particular to feminism or is it part of something bigger?
I went to a high school that offered a fair number of vo-tech programs (cosmetology, auto mechanics, ag science, and few others I know I am forgetting) and you were really only encouraged to participate in those programs if you weren’t “smart enough” for college. I think the prejudice taht leads to that kind of thinking is persistent and sometimes even fashionable. (The “don’t sell yourself short” mentality.)
Am I out in left field?
Naah, evil_fizz, you’re not out in left field about the trades being designated for “the non-college-bound” (translation: the kids we’ve pre-determined to be not intellectual material)…but young men are still encouraged to enter trades around here. Even when the work situation is abysmal, you’ll still earn more money (and have benefits) by working six months at the trades than you would all year at a service-economy job (with no benefits).
I don’t see many folks of either gender encouraged to enter manufacturing because of the outsourcing, but that generally isn’t a factor in construction, or trades like auto or diesel mechanics—there’s still plenty of vehicles on the road! And what about the police and fire departments? That’s another area young women are discouraged from considering. Municipalities still need people to work in the streets department, sewer department, etc. Power plants are seriously lacking in journeymen linemen already. These are all jobs that pay well, have excellent benefits, and have a good prognosis for the future. What they don’t have is that glamour that comes when the collar isn’t blue. Like I said, I expect better from feminists.
Glamor isn’t notably a feature of pink-collar jobs, either. I dunno about nowadays, but when I was a teenager, I was certainly given the impression that not only were blue-collar jobs inappopropriate for the smart, but that any woman foolish enough to do industrial work would be harassed within an inch of her life.
La Lubu, thank you for your wonderful posts. It’s late, so I’m not going to go into it much, but especially thank you for your post about cooking being healing. It reminded me about other healing arts which women were pushed out of by men for so many generations. Now, it is the healing art of cooking and building community that we are being pushed out of, but this time, not by men.
Have you any idea how many people of *both* genders there are these days who don’t know anything about food and about cooking?!? It amazes and greatly concerns me. In the past, so much faith, nurturing, healing, communicating, and family/community building was based on the sacredness! of food. We’ve, sadly, lost much of that.
Have you heard of Sacred Food Project? They’re working on bringing back the realization of that sacredness.
that any woman foolish enough to do industrial work would be harassed within an inch of her life.
And this differs from harassment we receive in any other arena…..how? Because critical mass is crucial to any reduction in harassment. If the mainstream is willing to cede the trades, to accept a certain amount of the patriarchal definition of what is “men’s” and what is “women’s” work…well, that’s not feminism to me. I know it’s a (mainstream) feminist trope that at one time women were solely in the home, that women didn’t go into the factories until WWII, and then went straight back home…but again, that wasn’t the reality for most poor women, or women of color. Even rural women did “piecework” for factories (and still do)…a form of working “at home” that doesn’t get “counted”. ‘Course, I’m not telling you anything, myth.
Caitriona…the Sacred Food Project? Cool! Tell me more! Sounds right up my alley. I’ve never understood how people can only see the oppressiveness of being in the kitchen, but not the power. Guess they’ve never really had a good-tasting meal.
But speaking of the sacred, that’s another arena given short shrift by mainstream feminism. So, maybe it doesn make a strange kind of sense to not see the sacred in the kitchen, when you aren’t seeing it anywhere else, either. And it doens’t really seem to matter which belief system a woman has, or if she calls herself more of a “seeker”….there’s either a discomfort level or out-and-out hostility toward women who express a seriousness about the sacred. There seems to be a certain assumption of atheism or agnosticism amongst the mainstream….not just directed toward the patriarchal aspects of religions either, ‘cuz I’ve known Wiccans and Dianic practitioners who felt/feel the same way.
And I’m so tired of the well-meaning lectures I’ve received about “how can I be Catholic and feminist at the same time?” I’ll say this till I’m out of breath too—there’s Catholicism as preached by the Pope, and there’s Catholicism as preached by little old Sicilian women in black long before there ever was a Pope. I find a lot of feminism in those old traditions; the same feminism I find in a rich sugu, redolent of garlic, rosemary, oregano, basil….mmmm.
And the moral here is don’t be angry at just white people, and don’t be angry at just men: be angry at white men!
Sorry, I had to say that. On a more serious note, I think many of you will find the following article enlightening. It’s written by an Asian female activist and addresses the problematic nature of Asian females taking up the white feminist movement without that it must be approached from a completely different angle for people of color, especially given the unique gender dynamic of Asian-Americans.
http://www.aamovement.net/viewpoints/sistersear1.html
Sisters know what I’m talking about. The demeaning terms and images that are associated with Asian women: “Suzie Wong. Geisha girl. Me so horny. Damsel in distress. China Doll. Bound feet. Fucky-sucky.” We live in a society where Asian women are forced to battle the the burdens of both sexism and racism, where social hierarchy positions white above Asian, man above woman. For that, there is nothing that makes me prouder than a strong sister. There is a growing collective consciousness among Asian women. Over the past few years, an increasing number of Asian women have taken the initiative to speak out against oppression. Asian women were at the forefront of protests to The Bloodhound Gang’s racist lyrics in the song “Yellow Fever”, as they were at the forefront of protests against Abercrombie & Fitch’s racist caricature T-shirts. Numerous Asian female empowerment sites have sprung up all over the internet, including one of my favorites, bigbadchinesemama.com, an in-your-face webpage that parodies Asian female porn sites designed for white male jerk-off fantasies.
However inspiring it is to know that more of my Asian sisters are decrying and defying the submissive, passive and sexually accommodating stereotype, there is a growing uneasiness among many Asian Americans, particularly among Asian men, that politically active Asian women are harboring unprogressive attitudes. Through my own observations and experiences with other activist Asian women, and through various correspondences with Asian men, I have found that a disproportionate number of activist Asian women are exceedingly hostile towards Asian men. Some would even go so far as to side with a white male before giving an Asian man a fair chance, while others have the tendency to overlook or excuse white males for chauvinistic behavior while holding Asian men to a higher standard. Although some are more extreme than others, the hostility seems to manifest itself in these general forms: these women’s propensity to date white or black men, a general aversion towards Asian culture on the back of the notion that Asian culture is endemically patriarchal, and a strong allegiance to white feminist theory.
I recently heard an Asian male say that activist Asian women who date or marry white men are not helping the cause. Many Asian females involved in interracial relationships will argue that who they date is a personal matter, and that it does not take away from their contribution to the community. I disagree. As I see it, the issue is merely a matter of practicing what you preach. Like most Asian women, my preference to date Asian men comes as second nature- because I click best with Asian men, because I find them attractive, and because I find the most in common with them. However, my reasons are also political. Since I am fighting the system that supports white male hegemony, it would be hypocritical for me to then turn around and date a white man. Since I am fighting a system that characterizes Asian men as being undesirable and weak, it would undermine my own credibility if I were to choose a white male over an Asian male.
Whenever Asian men criticize Asian women for dating white males, the knee-jerk reaction that I hear used by Asian women is that “Asian men do not own Asian women”. The implication that Asian men are upset to see Asian women with white men because they feel that Asian women are their property is not only offensive, but short-sighted. Offensive, because if it were as simplistic and as primitive a matter men feeling that they “own” women, then how does that explain my own (and other Asian women’s) resentment towards Asian women who are with white (or non-Asian) men? Short-sighted, because in America, where whites have power and privilege over Asians, it is impossible for an Asian man to “own” a woman in the way that a white man can “own” a woman. Let us not forget that not only do white males have a history of being possessive of white women, as manifested through passage of anti-miscegenation laws, but that there is a history of white men owning black women as their maids, field workers and sex slaves, and that there is a history of Asian women being raped as a part of Standard Operating Procedure or being used to serve the sexual needs of soldiers during every war that America has waged in the Pacific. By and large, when Asian Americans criticize AF-WM pairings, it is not a matter of being possessive and controlling. It is because the AF-WM phenomenon supports an oppressive system that places white men above Asian men. If we lived in a perfect world where no one group had power over another, no one would have the right to criticize another’s dating choice.
The unfortunate yet undeniable fact is that we live in a patriarchal world. We live in a world where men make the call to launch explosives on neighboring lands when conflicts are not resolved by negotiation. We live in a world where men run politics, control the flow of money and resources, and where men are justified to use women for sexual gratification through coercion, force or through money. It is critical to recognize that patriarchy sees no color. We must stop looking at Asian culture through the white prism that brands patriarchy and chauvinism as traits endemic to Asian culture. While Asian men still bear the flak for foot binding, a cruel practice that has now been outlawed, white males never had to bear the flak for inhumane forms of female body sculpting and punishment, such as corsettes, chastity belts and vanity masks. Furthermore, modern day processes and instruments, such as stiletto heels, silicon and gel breast implants, and liposuction jeopardize thousands of women’s health and lives across the world to this day, yet white men are never held in any way culpable. Asian male authors are criticized as being patriarchal when writing works whose theme centers on the relationship between a father and a son. Yet, the vast majority of white male authors’ works revolve on male-centered themes, and this goes by without a peep. It was not long ago that women in America were not allowed to vote, nor was it long ago that it was frowned upon for women in America to work outside the home. America has never seen a female President or Vice President. Domestic violence and marital infidelity in America run the highest out of any other industrialized nation. On the other hand, women in China have always been able to own property and businesses, women in China keep their last names even after marriage, many Southeast Asian nations have seen women Presidents, both China and Japan have had women emperors, and women in modern day Japan have complete control over financial matters in their households.
In empowering themselves as women, I have noticed that many Asian women have taken cues from white feminists. However, there is a fundamental flaw for Asian women to follow the exact doctrines of white feminists. One must realize that white women have the luxury to fight sexism because they do not have to deal with racial oppression- white women can afford to antagonize white men, because at the end of the day, it is still white men who are in control. On the other hand, for Asian women, sexism and racism are invariably tied together. “Me so horny” is not used to degrade white women, nor is it used to degrade Asian men. It is impossible for Asian women to separate oppression into the Asian-side and the female-side, and must therefore always keep a racial consciousness when engaging in a battle of the sexes.
I have heard several progressivist Asian women say they have a problem being described by Asian men as “our women”, because it connotates ownership. This mentality has roots in white feminist theory. I have probed many Asian men on their usage of the term “our”, and their explanation is that “our” is used as a term to express kinship, and not ownership. “Our” is used to refer to “our” sisters, “our” mothers, “our” daughters. This is similar to the way that people of color will refer to one another as “brother” and “sister” to express kinship, rather than to explain the literal sibling relationship that is applied by whites when using the terms sister and brother.
White feminists often talk of empowering themselves by absolving male privilege. This is another dogma that feminist Asians seem to have picked up out of context. Empowerment comes in many different forms. And with the empowerment of one group comes the inevitable, yet perhaps necessary, disempowerment of another. America will never be a truly equal society for people of color unless white people concede to give up their white privileges, just as women will never be social equals to men unless men acquiesce their male privileges. However, whereas white males have only privileges to give up, Asian men have privileges to gain- and that is why it is so important for Asian feminists/activists to follow a different course from white women.
Just as racism and sexism are invariably tied together for Asian women, race plays a very large role in the sexual hierarchy of Asian men vis-Ã -vis the larger society. Asian men are not nearly afforded the same male privileges as white men, simply because of the effects of media emasculation of the Asian male. In fact, in many ways, Asian men are on the same or even lower footing as white women. Asian men less for every dollar that a white man earns, in the same way that white women earn less for every dollar a white man earns. The single largest beneficiaries under Affirmative Action policies in employment are white women. After all, it is white men who do the hiring, and are more likely to undertake a woman who appears less “threatening” than an Asian man.
Another important factor for activist Asian women to consider when battling patriarchy is that whereas white women have the privilege of fighting for a solo cause, racism keeps Asian men and Asian women together. The emasculated demonized Asian man is but the flip side to the same racist coin that portrays Asian women as helpless exotic sexually adroit lotus blossoms. Suzie Wong is Charlie Chan’s counterpart, as The Dragon Lady is Fu Man Chu’s counterpart. Starting with the Spanish-American War in the Philippines, the Pacific stage of WW2, to the Korean and Vietnam Wars, the images that were imported to America were those of the brutal, cold-hearted ruthless Asian men. Hand-in-hand came the images of Asian prostitutes, the helpless destitute women, mail order brides. It is impossible for Asian women to break away from binding stereotypes, without Asian men also breaking away from dehumanizing stereotypes, and it is thereby most imperative for Asian women and men to work together to battle oppression.
All of this is by no means a call to excuse chauvinism and misogyny within the Asian community. Nor is it an indictment on all Asian women. It is not even a call for Asian women to suppress their angst for the benefit of unity, for the façade of solidarity can and will easily crumble. It would be foolish to deny that sexism exists in the Asian American community, or to deny that there are Asian men who degrade, abuse and exploit Asian women. To my sisters who have been victims of misogyny and/or abuse by the hands and minds of Asian men, I hear you. There are indeed issues that we need to confront our brothers with. I only wish for my fellow Asian sisters to rid their biased notions against Asian men, to realize that they are not our enemy. I only wish for my fellow Asian sisters to realize that we are in this fight together, and I ask that more sisters extend both a literal and a metaphorical hand to our Asian brothers.
La Lubu, the Sacred Food Project is an interfaith project begun by the Alliance for Jewish Renewal. Their website states, “as people of faith we have a moral obligation to be good stewards of the earth. We must make sure that the way we grow and distribute food honors the land, the water, the air, our bodies and our souls.”
Being good stewards and providing food for people that has been raised in a manner mindful that the plants and animals are God’s gift for us to care for and to relay on to others has always been important to me. As Chewy and I learn more about kosher and halal practices, we are happy to implement them into our farming practices because, to us, increasing the sacredness of how we care for our farm and our animals just makes sense.
We’re trying to teach others the sacredness of food as we go. I’m considering possibly teaching some cooking classes in the kitchen of a local church so that I can further that goal. I believe that the more others see this sacredness, not only in food but in how they live their lives in entirity, the more balance will be brought back into our society and, eventually, the world.
And the moral here is don’t be angry at just white people, and don’t be angry at just men: be angry at white men!
So what’s new about this? Don’t you know that all problems of poverty, racism, sexism and quality of life can be directly traced to “the white man”?
I used to think that money was the root of all evil. Then I found out it was me! At least, being evil keeps me off the street.
Uzzah, my hot chocolate nearly went all over my keyboard!
OK, now back to looking up newspaper email addresses for a PSA…
It’s the height of egomania that white people even care to comment on how feminism is viewed in the African-American or Latin-American community. It’s our business to put it succinctly and your opinion or reaction is of no consequence. That white people continue to be paternalistic in nature is baffling in one way and telling in another.
African and Indigenous Native American cultures have many methods and processes for maintaining gender equity and if said people would look towards their own cultures – the ones that were systematically attacked and demonized by people of European descent – they will discover ways to improve and heal relationships between women and men. We do not, nor should we look to the unhealthiest people on Earth – white people – for solutions to gender relationships. It would be like the blind leading the blind.
I don’t care to go into great deal, which I suppose is just a tad unfair but Feminism is not only incomplete process of self empowerment, it is also inconsistent with the values inherent in the cultures of colored people – whether they be Native American, Afican, Asian or some hyphenated -American mix. It simply doesnt work in our community because it doesnt honor our Ancestral legacies. I suppose if my forefathers were colonizers, racists and sexists I would balk at honoring tradition as well, but being African-American I am blessed to not have that yoke to carry.
Feminism is in short not just a white thing, its a white girl thing. And yes, I meant to use “girl” instead of “woman”.
Well, Ifasehun Ojedele, you’ve managed quite a feat — you’ve insulted white women in the feminist movement, and completely dismissed all women of color who work so hard for the feminist cause. And you did it all in your short penultimate sentence. If brevity and bigotry are your twin goals, you’ve succeeded in both.