quadmoniker at PostBourgie, “Hurting for Female Directors” (emphasis mine):

His answer was that he simply hired the best writers, whether that led to any sort of fair representation from women or non-whites. What he didn’t realize, of course, was that his definition of ”best” probably excluded, intentionally or not, all but white males.

He added that he didn’t want to sit around and count quotas because he felt that was condescending. But it’s not just about parity; making sure his organization was more representative was about realizing there are varied points of view that his history as a white male might prevent him from immediately understanding. When you’re talking about writers good enough to get an assignment from Harper’s, there isn’t just one best. After a certain level of quality, distinctions from one writer to another become a matter of taste, and this particular editor was showing his bias toward white males. Pulling in other perspectives would enrich Harper’s voice.

[...] I’m not going to say that [The Hurt Locker's different emphases] was due to Bigelow’s special woman-sense or anything, because we don’t know why she was able to make it so good. That’s kind of the point. The excellence of the movie speaks to Dargis’s point and the problem with Harper’s at once. If we leave out half the population from movie-making, we’re leaving out half the perspectives that might be able to bring something new to the table. The major studios would be better off if they brought it, because I’d love to see more movies like The Hurt Locker.

The last point in particular makes a lot of sense to me: some people would assume that, well, when it comes to imagining new things and taking things from new perspectives, white men can do it too — that white men are capable of providing any perspective or creative direction that humanity could possibly provide — and therefore there is no need to necessarily seek out a diverse creative class, because there is nothing a Muslimah or gay Filipino could bring that a white male couldn’t, and it’s an insult to white men to imply that they do not hold the entire world in their mind’s hands.

But they don’t, because no human being is capable of tapping into the entire universe of perspectives available. We all see the world through unique, specialized lenses that were formed and shaped by our experiences as the person we are. The place we grew up in, the family that raised us, the way the world treated us, the distinct qualities of the culture we are part of, the choices we make as adults as far as the direction of our lives, our careers, our relationships, our hobbies and passions. All of these things change the shape of our particular lens in their own unique way, and we all have a unique combination of these things which forms our own unique perspective of the world.

But those lenses have limits, they necessarily have limits, and we do not always even know what those limits are. Those factors we share with others will create a lens shape quite similar to their own, and when we are surrounded by like people we might often begin to believe that our shared lens is not a matter of our shared experience, but rather a matter of universality.

This is what leads us to believe that there is nothing the white male cannot achieve, cannot bring to the creative table: his experience is shared by so many, and especially shared by so many in power, that he, and we, might begin to believe that it is not a particularly-shaped lens anymore, but rather no lens at all.  And when we believe that he has no lens at all, what benefit could there be to paying attention and inviting participation from people who do have differently-shaped lenses? No creative benefit, certainly, because there is no difference between what those different perspectives see and what the white male could see if he felt like trying. Because he can see all.

And so we wind up where we are: it is an insult to creativity itself to suggest that it is worthwhile to drink in a diversity of perspective, and it becomes not a matter of improving the depth and quality of creative offerings, but rather a matter of personal benefit to the creators.

And we can see where a white male might prickle when confronted with a person who appears to be suggesting that he does not deserve to sit on his side of the conference table, that someone else who can do no more than he could do has some greater worthiness of sitting where he does based on factors outside hir creative potential, and that he should actually willingly give up his seat to make room for hir. It becomes a personal affront, rather than a pressure to improve the greater craft. And, in fact, might become an affront to the quality and depth of his craft, to specifically invite participation from people who bring with them one perspective, but only one — while he brings all.

So he will invite only those different people whom he favors for personal benefit. And he will continue to scoff at the suggestion that diversity is wealth.

How it might be changed? I don’t know. But one place to start is to make everyone aware that they can only see the world through their own personal lens, and that their lens has borders, limits, boundaries. That no one can approach the world without a lens, and that every lens is malleable, not set, not infinite, but formed in the first place by one’s personal experiences.

It’s going to take some time.

From the O-R: Khalil Young, 13, and his sisters Kiara, 9, and Khammeelah, 4, tend to their patch of tomatoes this afternoon at (the garden)… Khalil also is a garden guardian who waters all of the plants on a regular basis.

Look familiar? My thoughts are conflicted in that post, about the real root (so to speak) of our modern issues with connection to our earth, but make no mistake: this garden is an unequivocal positive for the people who use it, and it makes me inordinately happy that it is here.

---

Right-leaning media outfits are making a big deal out of this picture. “Who’s helping whom? Obama couldn’t care less”… Obama wasn’t being a “gentleman”…

There are two things going on here:

* Professor Gates, who has a cane so that he can move independently, could probably have made it down the stairs on his own. That’s not to say without pain or difficulty — but he wasn’t helpless. The reaction to this photo presupposes that the crippled man must be completely unable to help his own damn self, and that it is noble when the able-bodied officer presumes to “help” him. Do you see what this does? It removes Prof. Gates as an agent; it makes him, instead, an agency-less object, existing for the purpose of the able-bodied man: this time, as a signifier of character (taking on that noble burden).

* Speaking of noble burdens: the race of the men involved cannot be ignored. Sgt. Crowley is a white man helping a crippled man. In the right wing’s reading of this photo, Sgt. Crowley becomes a symbol of whiteness: an example of the way in which white men are Good, in which Good is defined as the way white men do things. Think boot straps: this fantastical myth is all about the inherent goodness of the white man, who does things the right way, in contrast with the minorities, who are too lazy, selfish, etc. to bother. Sgt. Crowley presuming to help Prof. Gates stands in contrast with President Obama, who is walking ahead, minding his own business. This shouldn’t be an issue, but it is seen directly in front of the white man taking on the noble burden, and thus becomes an indictment on the character of the shiftless, self-absorbed black man.

---

And speaking of that beer summit:

Who was it for?

Of course it was reported as a sort of reconciliation: a way to help Prof. Gates and Sgt. Crowley make up. But that wasn’t what it was.

To sum: Prof. Gates arrived home after a long and tiring flight, and couldn’t get in his house. Someone called the police, thinking that a stranger was breaking into his home. Police arrive when Prof. Gates was already in his home and calling a locksmith. Prof. Gates shows ID to Sgt. Crowley proving this is his home, may have been “belligerent” in doing so. Sgt. Crowley responds by luring him to his front porch, where he is handcuffed and arrested for disorderly conduct. Outrage ensues; charges are dropped. (Police insist the original caller reported that black men were breaking in; recordings prove that she said nothing about race at all.)

Journalist asks Obama about this during a health care press conference. Obama says a few predictable, innocuous things, then says that it is obvious that the police “acted stupidly” in arresting Prof. Gates in his own home for no crime committed, then makes a simple comment about the inarguable history of racial profiling in this country.

Sgt. Crowley objects loudly, saying the President is “way off base.” Sgt. Crowley is obviously very upset, and the police force is standing in solidarity with him. The country is beginning to criticize Obama for admitting the troublesome racial aspects of the story; the conventional wisdom is becoming that Obama bit off more than he could chew in “bringing race into this” — and white America will make sure that he is taken down a notch for it.

So Obama invites the two men to the White House for a beer. The country reacts with mild derision — but the attacks begin to fade. The issue is neutralized.

See what’s going on here? White man does something unfair to black man. Black man protests that this was unfair. White man’s sensibilities are offended at the accusation that he could ever be An Unfair-ist, makes this into an argument about whether or not he is a Good Man (being unfair would necessitate that he is a Bad Man). All his friends know that he is, in fact, a Good Man, and they stand up to say as much. Black man looks around, realizes that the numbers are not on his side. That everyone has ignored the unfair way he was treated, and his family and friends have been treated throughout history. That there is unrest among them, and he may face very real consequences if he presses the issue any further.

So the black man backs down. Makes conciliatory noises. To soothe the white man’s feelings. So that the white man won’t cause him any more trouble.

What was this beer summit about? Did Obama really think he was going to solve the issue of racial profiling and police officers behaving unethically by inviting two men out for a beer? Of course he didn’t. That wasn’t the purpose.

The purpose was to get the offended white man (and his white friends) to shut up and stop causing the black men trouble.

And I don’t blame him.

---

Quick, think of a disease or condition that affects only men and is considered by a large portion of the population to be fake, created by the pharmaceutical industry, or psychosomatic.  *Sound of crickets.*

An excellent look at the gendered construction of medical conditions at the Women’s Sports Blog.

Most of the language about credulous patients being duped by Big Pharma is directed at women and conditions they suffer from disproportionately.  Women are, after all, emotional and have the ability to create amazing physical symptoms solely from their minds.  At the same time, women’s bodies are considered to be in a constant state of abnormality relative to men’s bodies.  The word ‘hysteria’ is etymologically related to the Latin word for uterus, which was long considered to be the site of women’s mental health problems, and hence its removal is called a hysterectomy [...]

‘Just get out and exercise’ or ‘just change your diet’ is fairly lousy advice for anyone who hasn’t been able to get out of bed. But as a society we still maintain the illusion that changes in hormones, brain chemistry, or the like are failures of self-control or willpower.

She also discusses the disproportionate burden laid on mothers of disabled children. Read the whole thing.

---

Around the corner, about a quarter mile down the street, there is a small plot of land across from the rows of public housing, next to the community center. It was just untended grass until several months ago, in the springtime, when small squares were outlined with wooden planks, and the ground inside filled with soil. Then the shed was built, and the fence was put up.

Welcome to the neighborhood garden.

Community gardens are a great way to make use of space — to grow your own vegetables, herbs and so forth — to feed your family, save some money — and to develop a connection with the lad you live on — to have a hand in creation, nature, sustenance.

I was across from the fields, growing up, but in a different way. Most of my elementary classmates were children of undocumented field workers. The food that makes it onto your plate by way of your local supermarket has a good chance of being tended and harvested by these families.

They were not picking grapes and lemons and walnuts for pleasure, for self-realization. They were not feeding their families with this food. Their work was for the rest of the world.

They were connected with the earth, for sure. But it was not quite the same connection as that developed by participants in community gardens.

Many of these gardens serve underprivileged, disadvantaged communities — as this one — who are struggling to keep their families well fed and provided for. But it strikes me every time I sit to think about it: these two different ways of relating to nature are both borne of hardship, of poverty. They are connections forged by the reality of subsistence. They operate in different ways, with different results, but they grow from the same root.

I smile whenever I pass this garden. It is thriving, providing nutrition for poor families and a bright site of beauty in the middle of a run-down area.

But I wonder whether we could ever come up with a more holistic way of dealing with these issues. One which does not leave some families chained to the earth in the reality of capitalistic agriculture, and others disconnected from it in the reality of modernity and urbanism.

The Chicago Reporter did an investigation revealing poorer ratings for majority-black homes in Illinois than majority-white homes:

An investigation by The Chicago Reporter found that Illinois is arguably the worst state in the nation for Black senior citizens seeking quality nursing home care. There is just one home in Illinois rated “excellent” by the federal government when more than 50 percent of the home’s residents are Black. In Illinois, these facilities get the worst federal ratings and on average have more violations than facilities where a majority of residents are white. And in Chicago, on average, these homes have more medical malpractice and personal injury lawsuits. People in white homes got better care than those in Black homes, even if both were poor.

The Reporter also found that the staff at Illinois’ black nursing homes spent less time daily with residents than staff at facilities where a majority of the residents are white. Of that time, Black residents got a smaller percentage of time with more-skilled registered nurses than facilities where the residents were white [...]

The Reporter analyzed the records of 15,724 nursing homes listed in the federal Nursing Home Compare ranking database to determine if disparities existed in the quality of care. The overall rating is based on a combination of health inspection results, staffing levels and how well each home performs on 10 important aspects of care, like how well residents maintain their ability to dress themselves and eat. The database includes homes that get some of their money from Medicaid or Medicare, more than 95 percent of all nursing homes.

The Reporter found that in Chicago, the worst rating—a one on a five-point scale—was given to 57 percent of Black nursing homes, compared with 11 percent of white nursing homes.

Excellent ratings were given to no black homes in Chicago and 29 percent of all homes with majority-white residents. White seniors had qualitatively better nursing home options than Black seniors—in some cases, even when facilities had the same owner [...]

The Reporter analyzed the ratings for Chicago homes where more than 75 percent of residents’ care was paid for by Medicaid. A quarter of white homes received an excellent rating, compared with none of the black homes. More than half of the Black homes received the worst rating, while 8 percent of white homes earned the same score [...]

“That’s blatant racism,” [state Rep. LaShawn Ford] said. “A lot of the times the owners of these nursing homes treat them [just] as a business. It has to be more of a mission than a business.”

It should be surprising, but it’s not. In just about any way you can identify, it appears that black people are receiving worse care than white people. We can talk about the causes — the value society has placed on particular qualities in a person, the significantly worse performance of for-profit homes — in this case, it even appears that the systemic effect of poverty (which black people suffer under disproportionately) made no difference; poor black people still received worse care than poor white people.

We can talk about support for independent living for people with disabilities, but that is a point where poverty — especially poverty extending deep into a person’s family, rather than individual poverty — would come into play and negatively affect people of color disproportionately.

Research has also shown that black patients receive worse medical care than white patients (this article focuses on diabetes care in particular; I am fairly sure I have seen research that demonstrated similar disparities in hospital care).

This is white privilege: even when you are aging and/or disabled, with all the trouble society gives you, your racial background is still giving you a hand up over those who do not share your privilege.

Thanks to Anna for the link.

(Cross-posted at Feministe.)

abbyjean has some questions:

this post may be a little inside baseball for those who aren’t active in the feminist blogosphere, but i think its an issue that translates. what to do when a big and influential blog or writer consistently posts things that are offensive, or marginalizing, or just plain stupid? is it better to stay part of the discussion to offer corrections and insights and laternatives, or is it better to save up your limited sanity points and bail on the forum all together?

i’m thinking primarily of the feministing blog here. it’s a huge feminist blog, probably the biggest general feminist blog, and it gets a whole lot of traffic. however, it puts forth a primarily white primarily non-disabled primarily cis-gendered primarily middle/upper class view of feminism, either by eliding those issues to the point of invisibility or by explicitly dismissing them. there was (and still is, afaik) a call for trans people to boycott feministing because of the way they handle trans issues, especially the comments in this particularly nasty thread. just this morning, there was a post about sotomayor that denied the intersectionality of her race and gender in the critiques of her nomination. and a recent comments thread in which people admonished as ableist for using the term “lame” whined about being oprressed by the P.C. police.

as a result, i’ve dropped feministing from my blog reader. i was annoyed more often than i was informed. it made me feel disappointment, rather than kinship, with the feminist community on that site.

but. then i see people like renee trying to make a point about the racial politics on the blog and getting totally shut down and dismissed and attacked by fellow commenters for making a good point that needed to be made. and i think about how much bullshit she is opening herself up to just for asking why the one feministing blogger of color is always the one to post about historic events of importance to people of color. and i feel like i should be there, supporting her, supporting those critiques. especially because feministing is such a big and prominent site and it can often serve as one of the introductions to the feminist blogosphere. i started there before i discovered womanist musings and the curvature and questioning transphobia and the like.

so – am i a better ally by refusing to engage with problematic forums, or by participating in those forums to offer relevant critiques? i still don’t know.

And this post is going to ramble in a slightly different direction than Abby is going here, so bear with me.

I think there are a couple of different things going on here and it’s worth trying to tease them out:

1. engagement with a space that is hostile, indifferent, or even just a mixed bag when it comes to an identity group you are a part of

2. engagement with a space that is hostile/indifferent/mixedbag when it comes to an identity group you are not a part of

1.

It comes down to a bottom line of five words: are you up for it?

It is a decision based 100% on what you personally feel you can do. You are doing what work you can, in any number of areas in life; you are not obligated to be there for every stupid word uttered by every clue-challenged person out there. You can engage if and when you feel up to it. It’s your decision whether 1) this is a time pushback should happen and 2) you feel like you can handle being the one to do it.

There is never a time where it is acceptable, in a situation where a privileged person does something stupid &/or harmful, to hold the person harmed to account for it. The onus us on the privileged person to not do that stupid/harmful shit. Not on you to somehow miraculously be up for every fight.

Sometimes, the fight will make some measure of difference, and sometimes it won’t. Sometimes, you can take that fight, and sometimes, you can’t. Or don’t feel like it. You can fight the good fight, even if it isn’t going to go down in the history books. Or you can skip it, and save your energy for other things — from another fight, in another place, on down the line — or for a hot bath later that night. You have a responsibility to you and yours; when it comes to collective responsibilities, where there is a conflict between one’s immediate, personal life and one’s group identity, the rule is: blame for any damage incurred falls solely to whoever the person/group is that you would be fighting. The ones who did that stupid shit in the first place.

2.

As a friend or ally, a person with privilege but who cares for justice for an unprivileged group, there really is no easy answer. Sometimes, there isn’t anything you can “just do” to make the problem better.

(Remember, you are a person with an obligation to do right by others — not a superhuman taking on the noble burden of saving the poor helpless Other. The difference between the two is that the latter makes the privileged person who the story’s about — the former removes the privileged person from the center of the conversation.)

Certainly, the privileged person’s choice to abandon a venue with a history of problems is a choice based in immediacy: it makes things easier for you; it relieves you of having to face those uncomfortable moments.

It does not follow, however, that the privileged person is obligated to stay at that venue and keep fighting. It’s not that simple, not that easy.

And this is where we must understand the importance of roles in the struggle for justice. Because there are many different roles to play, many different approaches to take, many different areas to address.

We — as a world of all people –need to keep each other alive,
need to free us from violence and hatred,
put food on our tables,
ensure our health,
keep our families together.
We need to strengthen our communities,
treat each other with respect and empathy,
accept difference, accept similarity,
but place no moral weight on one over the other.
We need to fight against hostile attitudes,
push back against stereotypes,
break out of confining narratives.
We need to examine and deconstruct
privilege
power
oppression
We need to know what they are and how they work
and we need everyone else to know it too.
Because, as much damage as you can still do as a person who understands these things, there’s no way there will be widespread change until many more people understand them too.

Here’s the thing — the immediate and the collective both need help.

So, it is useful to get in there, when someone says something stupid, and explain why that thing they said was so doggone stupid.

Even if it isn’t at some international press conference. Even if it isn’t many people. Even if your feeling is that those people aren’t going to go on to be murderers or congresspeople or someone who does something Big.
Even if it’s just you and that guy down the street. Or you and that ass on a message board.

Because if we eschew all action that isn’t Big Enough, will we ever do anything? If we give up because we can’t Make It All Go Away, In Just One Easy Step, are we doing anyone any good?

HOWEVER. And this is one great fucking big However.

If a person without your privilege takes you to task — personally or indirectly — because you’re sitting over there squabbling with Joe Know-Nothing down the street when sie is still hurting — you take that.

Sie might need food on the table, or affordable health care, or safety from violence. Or sie might want more attention on this court case, or help getting this piece of legislation passed. Or sie might want financial help to get this community project started. Or sie might want more direct engagement with hir, rather than talking amongst your privileged selves as those sie (and those like her) just don’t exist. Or sie might want more people to fight the good fight in another venue, for any number of reasons –

Sie has the right to be angry with you for not spending energy in the places sie feels are best. Because sie has the ultimate right to determine what makes an actual gdamn difference to hir.

That might put you in a bit of a bind. Because there isn’t any one easy thing you can Just Do and know that you’re doing the right thing and no one can be anything less than satisfied with you for it. There just isn’t.

So do you stick with it? Or say fuck it and quit (that particular venue)?

Well. In that case, you make a decision based on what you feel you can personally do best. You make a decision. And it is what it is. And you move on.

I don’t think this is quite what Abby was looking for — it’s not a practical answer, information that makes it easy to make that actual particular decision.

I think, mostly, it’s just that I never see this point being made: that we should all know that it doesn’t matter what we do, things will still be fucked up and we will still have responsibility.

But that’s not a call to apathy or despair. And it’s not an exoneration.

It’s just trying to remind us that we aren’t the center of this conversation. Do what you gotta do. It might be a hard choice (for me, feministing is an easy choice, but feministe is a hard one; that might be different for different people). And you live with the implications. Just know that it’s not going to tie up neatly in the end. That’s how things go.

Oooooh boy, Dove, you have no idea what you’re getting into here, do you?

The subcontext here is incredible. Jess uses a wheelchair. She’s happy and perky and having fun. Katie is visibly healthy. She has low self-esteem and her self-hatred keeps her from even being able to greet Jess when she comes to the door. Instead, she slouches to the ground in despair.

There is a reason they put Jess in a wheelchair. In doing this, Dove sets up a contrast: the physically disabled girl who feels good enough about herself to go about her life; the able-bodied girl who hates herself so much she can’t even go out with the people least likely to judge her at all.

The only way this contrast is meaningful is if it rests on the assumption that the physically disabled girl has reason to think less of herself.

Dove, here, is deliberately driving home the message: It’s such a shame that the “normal” girl thinks less of herself than does the girl in a wheelchair!

The shame conveyed here is that each girl does not recognize her true place in the social order. The normal-bodied girl is pretty, but can’t see her prettiness in the mirror. The girl in the wheelchair does feel good about herself. This is out of order, backwards. The girl in the wheelchair should be the one who sees herself one step lower; the normal-bodied girl should recognize her innate goodness in being able-bodied and conventionally attractive.

The dissonance Dove deliberately draws here relies on the recognition that Jess is diminished by her disability, but Katie is so dragged down by her poor self-esteem that she ends up in an even lower place than Jess. This is not right! This is not how things should be!

How should they be, then?

Of course, the commercial is also contemptible for the simple reason that it uses the girl in the wheelchair as an object to develop the human character of the able-bodied girl. In this setup, Jess is not a character; she is a tool. We don’t see Jess’ character explored, developed, reflected upon. She is introduced for only one reason: to act as a foil to Katie. To demonstrate just how low Katie has sunk.

Because you know it’s a fucking shame when she falls even lower than the cripple.

DIsability, here, is set up as an awful tragedy, the lowest a person can sink in life. This is what the title communicates. Disability is a reason to be sad, upset, mournful, pitied. This is what Dove purports to save young women from — a life of suffering. This is the reason Katie is to be pitied: she has fallen into the state Jess should be in.

Finally, the issue of appropriation. I’ll make it simple. Never, ever, ever, ever appropriate another group’s cause. White folk, you are simply not allowed to flip a situation to make it on a black person to try to communicate how outrageous it should be. Abled folk, you are simply not allowed to purport yourself disabled to communicate how tragic something against you is. Period. (The comparisons are slightly different in effect and implication, but my point applies to both.)

This assumes that to be disabled (black, gay, female, etc.) should always be understood to be a bad thing. It assumes that discrimination against disabled/etc. folk, or other forms of oppresion against them, are always taken seriously. And the subtext in these comparisons just screams out: How dare *I* be treated like those people!

Like it or not, whether you were thinking it or not, when you use these tropes, you imply that wrongs against you are worse than wrongs against the other group, that people should be outraged that you have been lowered to their level. What you are protesting, like it or not, is that your privilege over them has been violated.

Seriously, there is never a good reason to use the comparison trope. So just don’t do it. Ever. Period. End of story.

Via Wheelchair Dancer

Renee wrote an excellent post responding to an emailer who wanted to know whether a white woman can call herself “womanist. I’ll pull a Renee here — here’s a quote to get you started; you’ll have to head over to her blog to read the rest:

I understand why womanism seems attractive from the outside.  It truly advocates for the equality of all beings however, it is a movement spawned by the rejection of WOC; more specifically black women by mainstream feminism.

When we look at social justice movements across the western world they all have one thing in common, they are lead by whiteness.   Despite a claim that said movements are about equality, the racial dynamics are positioned in such a way as to reaffirm our dissonance in worth and value.   This purposeful erasure,  or more specifically absence of power is a result of the social belief that whiteness is not only naturally fit to lead but ordained to do so.

How many times have blacks and whites worked together in various organizations only to find that our voices are silenced?  We continually make  suggestions for activism only to have it denied and then later accepted when it is rephrased by a white member of the organization.  The racism in this activity is never acknowledged and the white person is given the credit for the idea.   When we make a comment as to how race interacts with an issue, we are again silenced and told that we “are imagining racism”, as though whiteness is any position to decide what is and isn’t racist.

In a recent post Monica of TransGriot suggested that feminism needs to work on its own issues first and I must say that I highly concur with this point.  There are so many divisions in feminism that we cannot even begin from the basic idea that all women are equal and face multiple forms of oppression.   What we find is that different offshoots tend to privilege their experience over that of another and then declare themselves fit to judge how other women live their lives. We have radfems slut shaming sex workers,  third wave feminists stumbling on their privilege while ignoring critical anti-racist work, eco-feminists who promote  environmentalism based in an essentialist understanding of gender, Marxist feminists  that are blind to anything that is not related to finance and liberal feminists who only want to be the “equal to a man”, never thinking about what constitutes “woman”. While there can never be a monolithic woman, the lie that sisterhood will save us all continues to be repeated.  Privilege has always been and always will be the Achilles heel of women’s organizing….

Go read the rest

Seriously, go read Renee first.
What follows are my own personal reflections as a white woman watching womanism with interest.

I know what I am. I’m a privileged white girl. I may’ve grown up poor but I sit in a seat of comfort now. I live with a disability, but one which grants me a fair amount of privilege even within the ranks of pwd. And… that’s really about it. I am privileged in every other way. White, young, cis, straight, heteronormative, middle class, thin and healthy-looking, native English speaker, mobile, disabled but “pass”able.

So, there’s a lot of bullshit to bulldoze thru’ before I can start to see things clearly.

It took a serious smack in the face for me to get off my ass and start seeking out the opinion of WOC during the conflicts that broke out in the feminist blogosphere (iirc) early last year. Race has been part of my background, growing up — something I was definitely aware of, something I cared about on a core level, but something that stayed safely in the background at all times. That’s privilege. I never had to think about race in my day-to-day life.

But something in that conflict just got under my skin.

And I wanted to start thinking about it. I wanted to learn, I wanted to listen. I wanted to be an advocate, a friend. I wanted to be witness to what I saw going on in their circles, something that just looked right.

Honestly, that’s the same way I was drawn into the feminist blogosphere a couple years previous.

Feminism… it is what it is. Feminism is what gave me a framework for understanding social justice. I’ve learned so much from feminism. And I’ve met so many awesome women through this community. But there is no doubt in my mind that feminism, for its strengths, is a movement centered, to a fault, around women like me. The feminist movement is built to serve the interests of white, higher-class, straight, cis, fully-abled, “enlightened” liberal, “health-conscious” women. And it is a movement which is undeniably hostile to those who challenge that paradigm — purposefully alienating.

Which is why womanism came about. So women of color had a space to work for the benefit of women where they were the center — where they weren’t treated with disdain, like dogs at the table begging for scraps.

It’s incredible to watch what results. These are amazing women doing amazing work. And there is something about the movement that really cuts to the core of social justice. There is something about womanism that centers people as people in a way that feminism, in my eye, just doesn’t, when looked at as a whole.

I’ve seen that same something in the disability community, and in the trans/queer communities. There is just something about these people, beat upon by the world, who reach inside and dig down to the core of humanity. And it shines through. The movement does not aim to simply grab power for a class of people. The movement aims to find those most hurt by a hostile society, and to treat them with dignity and respect. No matter who they are.

There is a heart in these communities that I only see in part of feminism. People who are taking the beginning principles of feminism and attempting to strip them of the privilege-upholding layers of shit that have been laid upon them through history. But it’s not enough to make feminism better. To make feminism not a privilege-upholding, power-seeking movement.

But there is something in womanism that works differently. That moves, not for power, but for justice. And that something — it just feels right.

These movements are not perfect. There are dynamics in every movement that merit a critical eye. Humanity is messy.

I admire the hell out of these movements. But I can only lay claim to one. The others, no matter how I identify with the heart of them, I do not get to claim. I do not get to be part of. They are not mine.

They just are. They exist. For their own purposes.

When I see a woman I admire the hell out of speaking about how deeply she was hurt, by my movement, a movement to which I contribute — she speaks about how she tried to work with them — us — and was betrayed — and now she wants nothing to do with us, that they — we — I, make her skin crawl…

I am anxious. I feel awful. But I know what she is saying is truth.

I call myself feminist. It’s the best shorthand I’ve found to convey what it is I care about. But I know what else it conveys.

And I have to own that if that’s the movement I’m going to claim. I have to own all that bullshit. I don’t get to say “Well, I’m feminist, but I’m not one of those feminists.” It doesn’t work that way. I have the same damn privilege. I’ve been part of the same damn problems!

It’s tempting, confronting this, to toss away the label “feminist.” And to look longingly at the label “womanist.”

But that’s not my movement. I don’t get to lay claim to it. I don’t get to use it to cover up for all the bullshit that happens in my name — the bullshit I, inevitably, am part of making. That is not fair. That is not just.

That is, yet again, white women moving up a step on the backs of women of color. It is, yet again, white folk appropriating that which POC have built, by their own damn selves, for their own damn purpose, and using it in a way which not only makes them and their work invisible, but sets foot in their space, centers their community around us, again.

Takes over.

No. We don’t get to do that.

I want to be your friend, not your leader.

And the only way to do that is to stand back and let you do what you were already fucking doing.

Look, the fuss around whether race is a feminist issue (not just race, but race is a particular sore spot) boils down to this.

When people ask

“Why is X a feminist issue?”

what they’re really asking is

“Why should I care?”

I’m sorry. There’s no way to get around it.

The following is for my fellow white chicks. Bear with me, everyone.

If you are committed to feminist activism, what you are committed to is a framework of social justice built around gender. Right? You with me? What you care about is, specifically, women. But more broadly — stay with me here — what you care about is justice.

Right?

Gender is the organizing concept for you, most likely, because you are a woman. Ya? The way society organizes itself around gender makes you particularly aware of its effects, and that sparked your interest in this activism.

But that is just fucking ridiculous. Yeah, you’re a woman. But you’re also white. Why doesn’t that make you particularly aware of the way society structures itself around race? I’ll bet you don’t think men are ungendered — come on. So why aren’t you also dripping with race? Why isn’t race your organizing concept?

I’ll let you think for a while on that.*

Really: Why isn’t it worth your time to consider race in the same frame of mind you consider gender? Do you think that because you are white, it doesn’t affect you? I beg to differ! And I’ll bet you think men are negatively affected by society’s gendered structure too.

Do you think that there is nothing to learn, no benefit gain, for you or anyone else, from entering a framework other people have built, which doesn’t center around your world? Do you think it will have no relevance to your own life? Do you think it will have no relevance to your own activism?

Why is it that you have to be cajoled into showing some fucking respect for anything that doesn’t revolve around you and your experience?

You care about justice — right? Isn’t that, ultimately, what it comes down to? If you agree, then why are you putting up such a fight? What are you fighting for?

This is what I think.

Feminism is a framework dedicated to social justice, built around examining… let’s leave that blank for a moment.

Feminism is a framework dedicated to social justice.

Feminism cares about every person, no matter their (blank).

Feminism says, you deserve good, because you are a human being.

Feminism says, (blank) should not affect whether or not you receive that good, and we will fight to ensure that.

Feminism wants every person to be treated with respect, to be allowed dignity, autonomy, and self-actuation, on the basis of their shared humanity — and nothing else.

Now, to fill in that blank: feminism is a framework dedicated to social justice, built around examining gender.

But gender is not the only social construction thrust upon your unsuspecting self.

If it is the only one you see — or the one you see most clearly –there may just be a reason for this.

Has to do with social construction n stuff.

That’s all for now, folks.

—————————————————————————————

* BONUS. It killed the flow, but it’s important.

Consider also these: are you straight? younger in age? able-bodied? middle class or higher? If so: why haven’t you devoted your energies to activism built around age? sexuality? ability? Anything? — Beuller?

Is it because you don’t think those things really apply to you? But come on — you don’t think men are ungendered. So why aren’t you also dripping with these things? Why aren’t they your organizing concept?…

“I think we need to get away from the idea that an ally is an identity and think of it as work that you are doing.”

I’ve said it before: There is no such thing as “a racist.” There are people who hold racist attitudes and do racist things.

And I think it’s useful here to frame ally work the same way. You are not an ally. You are a person who is doing ally work.

This — sorry for the sexist language (see there?) — completely castrates the immediate defense mechanism that is triggered in whomever may feel accused by a statement of racist (sexist, ageist, etc.) action: “But I’m not a racist.” What people are really getting at when they say this is: you are making a statement about my character.

Of course, the conversation about whether or not so-and-so is a Good Person or not is a lot easier for that person to argue than is the conversation about whether something they did is harmful to someone else. Easier on their ego, at least.

And that’s why it happens. It happens every damn time. And it’s an understandable reaction, to some extent. But when the conversation about the racist action stops there, that’s when it stops being a normal, human reactions and starts being obstructive, unproductive, harmful.

Which is why we really, really need to work on reframing the conversation. And by “we”? I mean white people. White people, and men, and straight folk, and the fully-abled, and Westerners, and other holders of various sorts of privilege. Not the people who are lacking in that privilege.

And in this hubbub about who is or isn’t an ally: we need to understand the conversation the same way. It’s not about who you are. It’s about what you do.

(Quote from Lynn’s comment at Feministe.)