teej: (hedgehog)
Newsweek takes on feminism on behalf of young white girls everywhere

I haven't read the original Newsweek article and didn't know anything about the ensuing discussion until now, but I found this blog post and discussion between Latoya Peterson and Thea Lim on Racialicious really worth reading. It's a really great dissection of the continuing harm caused by white feminism* exclusion of women of colour and universalising white middle class women's experiences. and how gross and predictable that when the authors were called on it, they pull the 'but we were talking about women not race', 'we all have to stick together' AND the 'here's our WOC friend who agrees with us' crap! 

i think when this happens in big media outlets (as it does over and over and over), there's even less chance of the people being called out being held accountable because they're the ones with big institutional privilege - they don't have to listen because they can assume that the vast majority of their readers will never hear the critique. Plus the mass dissemination has so much more power in terms of influencing people's understanding of what feminism is and should be. That Latoya and Thea had the energy to engage with this so thoroughly (again!) is totally commendable. i hope that the authors of the piece take the time to actually read, reflect and learn from it (but i won't hold my breath!)

And while i'm at it... On  this side of the pond, I've been fuming about the 'Women' documentary on BBC4 earlier this month where the filmmaker interviewed 8 big name white feminists to represent the entirety of 'second wave' feminism, a bunch of mostly white and all middle class heterosexual women, all in long term relationships with the fathers of their children, to represent the entirety of the experience of modern motherhood, and mostly white members of the London Feminist Network to represent contemporary British feminism.... And again the predictable excuses on how this excludes women of colour have been forthcoming from the documentary-maker Vanessa Engle - see her comments in this review on the F-word. Sigh. I just hope not many people watched it...

*Razia Aziz's definition of 'white feminism', which I like a lot.
teej: (Default)
I wanted to write something about the Women's Liberation Movement @ 40 conference I attended in Oxford the weekend before last. These are really just some rough thoughts, but i've been meaning to write this for a week now and i'm forgetting more by the minute! This blogging business is so not my thing.

But anyway, the conference. The "@ 40" is a reference to it being the 40th anniversary of the first WLM conference in Britain, which was held in the same venue (Ruskin College) 27 February - 1 March 1970.

I was very ambivalent about it from the start I have to say (but then again, whenever am I not about these things), because I'm really wary of things that sound like celebrations, in particular when it comes to dominant forms of feminism (well that is basically what i'm writing my Phd about so it's not surprising).

One of the things that seemed problematic from the callout onwards was a confusion around what the conference was supposed to be and who it was supposed to be for. The registration fee of £70 (£40 for unwaged/students) suggested it was an academic conference but the aim ("to bring together feminists and women's activists across borders (spatial, generational, political and demographic and others) to engage in debate and discussion around contemporary issues") suggested it was an activist conference meant to build on the original WLM conferences. Which made the high registration fee very problematic to say the least!

Unfortunately this confusion was not allayed at the conference itself. There were quite a few academic papers which sat uneasily with other discussions - and I also heard women say they felt excluded by the academic content because of the language and tone of the discussion. Of course i'm not suggesting that academia and activism doesn't or shouldn't overlap - of course they do all the time. But if you're trying to bring them together at a conference, you really need to give it a lot of thought.

Thankfully there was some room for critical reflection on the original conference - it wasn't all just a celebration. My favourite part was Gail Lewis' saturday morning keynote lecture 'Feminist Subjects' in which she talked about how the British women's liberation movement represented feminism in the image of whiteness (as a structure of power), and how the "origin story" of modern feminism is repeatedly claimed by white women even when the evidence is clear that women of colour have always been part of shaping feminist politics.

She ended her paper by saying that while some significant progress has been made in relation to race within feminism (I think this was specifically talking about academic feminist thought - I think this varies quite wildly between different spaces!) class has been more difficult to deal with. A very important point. But I thought it was interesting that the discussion which followed from the floor seemed to focus on this last point entirely - racism in the Women's Liberation Movement appeared to not be a topic the mostly white audience was as keen to discuss.

There was a good intervention on class issues and  the lack of childcare in  the form of a leaflet that was being handed out throughout the conference - it's available online here.

This whole idea that the legacy of the women's liberation movement is something which needs to be passed on wholesale to a 'new generation' is so problematic in itself. I was struck by the fact that the significance of hosting the event in the same venue as the original conference took priority over hosting it in a venue which was wheelchair accessible! (and this even though there was a paper on feminism and disability)

My problem with valorising the past is that exclusions, mistakes, ignorances get repeated because there isn't an honest discussion about them. And the second (and third, forth...) time a 'mistake' is made it cannot be attributed to innocent ignorance anymore. It becomes wilful.

This isn't some big attack on the conference organisers. But the fact that this conference repeated the same exclusions as the original WLM conference (and then some - at the first conference at least there was a creche) is just a sad, and made dominant forms of feminism just that little bit more irrelevant to the majority of women than it already is. 


Jan. 3rd, 2010 12:00 am
teej: (Default)
Probably not as amusing or interesting to anyone else but after having just spent the day reading dull and predictable Guardian articles about feminism (for research purposes!) the stupidity eventually got so stupid it turned funny and i just had to share it with someone...

A reader's letter from 2006 sent in response to an article about the state of feminism

Natasha Walter's excellent article raises many pertinent issues, but ignores the destructive part that trendy male post-structuralists have played in analysing the experiences of women. Poststructuralists deny even that "women" are a common category, sharing certain social and economic conditions. We need to remind ourselves - as bell hooks once famously pronounced - the master's tools will never dismantle the master's table.
June Purvis
University of Portsmouth


number 1. "trendy male post-structuralists"? because there are no women into post-structuralism are there, june?? because there are no *gasp in horror* feminists into poststructuralism?? or a whole fucking field of study?? no of course its just those evil males trying to deconstruct the sisterhood into oblivion!


number 2. "the master's tools will never dismantle the master's table"??? oh my.


not only has she got the quote wrong but more disturbing, it was audre lorde who said it not bell hooks. but, you know, they are both black feminists, so i guess that's where the confusion lies! Possibly the worst mis-use, mis-quote and appropriation of Lorde/hooks I have yet to come across (which is quite a phenomenon by the way).

June Purvis, you may note, is affiliated with the university of Portsmouth. She is in fact Professor of Women's and Gender History there. She gets paid to, you know, know stuff about feminism and teach it to students. Which is really not so funny when it comes down to it...
teej: (Default)
Oh ffs, could this article be any more dull and predictable?

Why does every single liberal/left media article about this supposed 'new feminism' have to quote and reference the exact same (white, cis, class privileged...) women/groups each and every time? 

I remember having this same frustrated conversation with a friend about this article about almost to the day a year ago. Oh yeah, and then there was this one, and this one and... well i'm sure I can dig some more out but really I have better things to do with my Saturday night/Sunday morning. Like sleep.

Reclaim the Night, Object, Natasha Walter and Finn Mackay are not the be-all and end-all of contemporary British feminism you know (in fact a lot of us, including myself, object to these groups or people representing us at all). To perpetuate this myth is not only lazy and blinkered journalism, but works to marginalise other feminist perspectives, and in particular, to reinforce white, middle class cis women's dominance within British feminism.

Not in my fucking name.

And goodnight.
teej: (Default)
I don't know how many times I have quoted this but it remains as relevant as ever.

“In attempting to shift the ground of feminist discourse, the adversary has at times appeared to be white feminists but is in fact, I would venture, white feminism – by which I expressly do not mean any feminism espoused by white feminists. I refer, rather, to any feminism which comes from a white perspective, and universalizes it.

I do not propose that white feminism is a clearly defined, coherent and internally consistent body of thought that feeds off conscious racist intentions. It is, rather, a way of seeing which, however inadvertent, leaves identifiable traces. It subsists through a failure to consider both the wider social and political context of power in which feminist utterances and actions take place, and the ability of feminism to influence that context.”

- Razia Aziz, "Feminism and the challenge of racism: Deviance or difference?", in Black British Feminism: A Reader (ed. by Heidi Safia Mirza, 1997)

teej: (Default)
White feminists and queers, listen:

“Infantilization of judgment is a dulling of the ability to read critically, and with maturity of judgment, those texts and situations in which race and ethnicity are salient. It appears to me as a flight into a state in which one cannot be critical or responsible: a flight into those characteristics of childhood that excuse ignorance and confusion, and that appeal to authority. If the description “child” is an appropriate description of white/Anglas in the context of racism and ethnocentrism, then to ascribe responsibility to them for the understanding and undoing of these phenomena is inappropriate. If a child, the white/Angla can be guilty of racism and ethnocentrism innocently, unmarked and untouched in her goodness, confused with good reason, a passive learner because she cannot exercise her judgment with maturity. But, of course, she is not a child. She is an ethnocentric racist.

Infantilization of judgment is a form of ethnocentric racism precisely because it is a self-indulgent denial of one’s understanding of one’s culture and its expressing racism... In infantilization of judgment, the racist attempts to hide that she understands racism as a participant.”
- María Lugones, "Hablanda Cara a Cara/Speaking Face to Face: An Exploration of Ethnocentric Racism" in Pilgrimages / Peregrinajes: Theorizing  Coalition Against Multiple Oppressions (2003)

August 2010

89101112 1314
15161718 192021



RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Oct. 18th, 2017 01:12 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios