Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Reproductive Justice and Gender

Think '70s Feminists Are Out of Touch? Not So Fast.

By Heidi Schnakenberg, AlterNet. Posted July 11, 2008.


A lesson from second-wave feminism: Women will continue to be oppressed unless they stop prioritizing other causes over their own.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

As William Kristol famously said during the primary season, "White women are a problem, that's -- you know, we all live with that."

Indeed, it seems that a lot of people have problems with white women, from our presumptive presidential nominees to feminists who are engaging in increasingly uncomfortable infighting over the implications of sexism vs. racism that emerged this year. There is a great post-primary feminist divide at the moment, and it has raised crucial questions about feminism and its origins, and why feminists and women in general remain so divided. Some of our traditional feminists like Gloria Steinem and Linda Hirshman have come under fire for sounding absolutist as they decry the rampant sexism of the campaign and express frustration over intersectionalism -- a brand of feminism that often buries gender issues in its efforts to highlight other forms of oppression.

In defense of Steinem, Hirshman and our so-called "bourgeois" members of the old feminist guard, I think their sense of urgency has less to do with this campaign and more to do with deep disappointment that the ol' "divide and conquer" thinking among women is so firmly in place. Sexism is still far behind the curve in beating the oppression game, and the feminist establishment is very worried. It is sending out calls for women to focus and adopt what I like to call "unity feminism."

These older white feminists are quickly written off as out of touch and even racist by intersectionalist feminists who say that women have a wide variety of problems to worry about, such as class, race and economics, and feminism must adopt many facets and causes to improve women's lives. Women of color have responded more specifically by saying that, frankly, they feel white women don't experience a fraction of the pain and suffering that women of color go through and it's difficult for them to relate. The overall sentiment is, "Hey, you privileged feminists, you don't get it. Move out of the way with your old-fashioned white feminism." As a reformed intersectionalist feminist, I say, not so fast.

Picture this: A young, privileged white woman grows up in an all-white, homogenous, Midwest community in the 1950s and '60s. She is beautiful and well-educated. She is middle-class, has no immediate economic worries and seems to have a bright future ahead of her.

Forty years later, she approaches retirement with permanent, debilitating brain damage from domestic violence that has robbed her of her memory and ability to care for herself for more than 20 years. Her Social Security benefits are routinely taken away on technicalities, and she doesn't qualify for Medicare. She receives a meager double-digit monthly income that isn't enough to fill a tank of gas, and she must rely on her kids for additional support. This woman happens to be my mother.

You can imagine how jarring it is for me to hear people say white women are too privileged and classist to understand the plight of less fortunate women. There is an assumption that white women are out of touch with the needs, suffering and pain of non-white women and therefore that "white women's" feminism is irrelevant. This is one of the biggest myths in feminism, and it must be dismantled or none of us will ever gain the rights, equality and safety we all deserve, and we definitely shouldn't discount Steinem and Hirshman so quickly. In fact, they have issued important warnings that we should heed.

Like many women, I too, have an eclectic and complex history of experiences. I'm ethnically Caucasian, and my family is from a small rural town in Western Europe, but I strongly identify with my Latino family by marriage, and my child is considered a person of color. I've lived in extremely varied environments -- a small town in West Africa, a rural farm in the Midwest, the projects in Manhattan, next to crack houses in Brooklyn, in a posh, gay neighborhood in Southern California, and even a temporary stint on the obscure island of Malta. I tell you this: Women have as much, if not more, in common with each other than they do with the men in their respective communities, countries and demographics. I've also come under fire from intersectionalist feminists for making statements like this. They say this type of thinking diminishes other problems that women of varied backgrounds face. I say no, all those other problems diminish the unique plight of women, who all exist under male power and oppression.

I once knew a Ghanaian woman named Ivy who lived in a small beach village on the shores of the Gulf of Guinea. She was very poor and lived hand to mouth in a way that I can never understand. She struggled with back pain from constant hard labor. And every night she cried. Not because of the work or the poverty, but because of her husband's beatings and relentless infidelities, and the frightening exposure to sexual diseases as a result.

My sister-in-law, Gloria, is a Puerto Rican woman who grew up in Spanish Harlem in the '80s at the height of the crack wars in New York. She has witnessed violence and crime in both New York and Puerto Rico that is beyond my imagination. She says white people should have done a better job of integrating her community and providing minorities with job opportunities and education at the time. These days her community is safer, she's a homeowner, and she feels that she now has more opportunities to enjoy the privileges that white people enjoy. While racism is always a peripheral concern, her most depressing problems continue to be with men. She's constantly afraid her philandering husband will leave her for another woman, and she struggles with the misogyny and disrespect she sees in her teenage boys.

As a screenwriter, I've rubbed shoulders with some of the most famous people in the entertainment industry and hung out in glamorous parties with glamorous white people. And wouldn't you know it -- even rich, famous white women in Hollywood are consistently degraded, humiliated and abused by the men in their lives.

Another myth about white women is that they only have to deal with misogyny from white men and therefore don't have as many problems with sexism as women of color. This belief is a farce in post-modern times. Ask any white woman who has endured daily street harassment or the multitudes of white women who work in the sex industry; they can assure you that men of all classes, races and nationalities are united in the pleasure they take in seeing all types of women being sexually humiliated. If that fact alone doesn't unite white women and women of color, I don't know what will.

Still not convinced of women's common condition? Then let's cut to the heart of oppression -- crime.

Since the Civil Rights movement, hate crimes, which the FBI defines as crimes against individuals based on nationality, race, disability or sexual orientation, have fallen to extremely low levels: There were only three confirmed hate-related homicides nationwide in 2004, for example. However, gender-based crime -- not included in the U.S. description of hate crimes -- continues to plague women in the United States and all over the world at alarming levels. According to the World Health Organization, all violence against women is committed almost exclusively by men. Sex trafficking and forced prostitution are on the rise, and female infanticide is still widely practiced. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, more than a quarter of U.S. women are still being raped. With the exception of Native American women, the percentage of rapes per capita of white women and women of color are almost identical -- 18 percent of all white women and 19 percent of all women of color. Of the thousands of women killed each year in the United States, roughly 50 percent are killed because of their gender. The United Nations reports that almost 50 percent of the world's population of women will suffer from gender-based violence in her lifetime.

Still, I often hear women of color say that because they've suffered from a considerable amount of racism from white women, it's hard to rally with them under the multilayered mechanics of oppression. That is fair enough, and unity feminism is speaking to racist white women as well. I say to them, "Stop identifying with your oppressor's racist values. You have more in common with your sisters of color than the man who beats you, physically or figuratively, each night."

In post-modern times, the single most destructive force in many women's lives is male hatred and oppression of women. I think it is this bigger picture that probably frustrates feminist leaders like Steinem and Hirshman. One major reason why women continue to be oppressed is because they continue to place other causes before their own. Intersectionalist feminism is a nice idea, if all the other intersecting ideas didn't constantly take priority over women's rights. Besides, traditional feminism believes that in order to solve the rest of the world's problems, women should be empowered first, not the other way around. The United Nations says that the fastest and best means of advancing human development is done by investing in women and girls, first and foremost. This is the backbone of feminism also, and our "out of touch" white feminist leaders simply ask that we not lose sight of our mission.

Some names of individuals have been changed to protect their privacy.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: gender, rights, feminism, oppression

Heidi Schnakenberg is a writer and activist whose work has appeared in the Des Moines Register, Women's eNews, and several national and international publications. As a screenwriter, she has worked with Francis Ford Coppola and American Zoetrope. Her latest project is an original screenplay based on Spanish Harlem in the 80s and 90s, called El Barrio Del Sol.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Reproductive Justice and Gender! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
» Is there a law to shut you up? Posted by: countingdaisies
So are we ready yet to stare down the lavender herring?
Posted by: hagwind on Jul 11, 2008 4:37 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Good piece, and good points, but it doesn't go far enough. When I think of "1970s feminism," Gloria Steinem isn't the first name that comes to mind. What first comes to mind isn't a name at all: it's the women's centers, grassroots shelters, feminist bookstores, publishers, production companies . . . "Sisters doing it for ourselves," in other words -- and benefiting plenty of brothers at the same time.

When I do start coming up with names, among the first are Adrienne Rich, Audre Lorde, Gloria AnzaldĂșa, Barbara Smith, Mary Daly, Judy Grahn, Rita Mae Brown, bell hooks . . . If I kept going all day, I bet about 75 percent of the names would belong to women of color and lesbians and women who are/were both. Theirs/ours is a deeper, richer feminism than generally got heard in the mainstream media -- which we sometimes, not inaccurately, called the malestream media. Betty Friedan didn't care much for us either. ;-)

Something else that comes to mind is consciousness raising. CR is still one of the best tools I've ever heard of for building an inclusive movement: when theory is built and issues developed from the ground up in hundreds and thousands of kitchens and living rooms, then many voices are included and many more of us have our experiences and interests and struggles represented.

Feminism isn't a laundry list of "women's issues." Feminism is a way of looking at all issues (including the ones we haven't identified yet) with women's experience in the foreground. As we used to say in the 1970s -- and plenty of us are still saying today -- "Every issue is a women's issue."

Women tend to realize this. That's why you'll find women playing vital, though often invisible, roles in just about every movement you can think of. The guys love having us around, and with good reason: we work like mules and we don't expect to get paid. But as soon as we start expressing views and priorities that the guys don't share -- Robin Morgan got it right in the late 1960s in her essay "Goodbye to All That," "all that" being the sexism of the New Left.

None of this is new. An earlier version of "Goodbye to All That" might have been written by women in the U.S. abolition movement, but no, the men told them that "this is the Negro's hour" and, understanding the connectedness of issues, they subordinated their interests to the struggle at hand. When payback time came, well, the 15th Amendment didn't say anything about sex and it wasn't till the 19th was enacted fifty years later, after a long hard struggle, that women of any color got the vote.

What's the problem here? Why does feminism keep getting watered down, even as the need for it grows ever greater and more urgent? Here's a hint: Did the abolition movement feel compelled to take direction from plantation owners and others with a stake in the slave system? Did the civil rights movement include southern sheriffs and senators and the owners of segregated lunch counters in its planning meetings?

Nope. But an awful lot of women are awfully sensitive to male disapproval, often with good economic reason: we know what side our bread is buttered on, and no way are we going to give up butter. (I can't read Betty Friedan's post-Feminine Mystique books without gagging.) All anyone has to do is suggest that we're lesbians and it's "Not me! I love men." You don't have to be a lesbian to be a feminist, but you do have to be willing to say "So effing what if I am?"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Hagwind's comment Posted by: tngreen
There Is A Big Difference Between Understanding The Plight Of Women Of Color
Posted by: desidid on Jul 11, 2008 5:02 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and incorporating those concerns in the larger message. In that regard, White feminist have proven to be elitist, off the mark, and out of touch. And if they think for one moment that women of color are going to feel sorry for them in light of the racism that they expressed openly during this campaign, they need to think again. In their continued effort to make the Obama campaign stoop and bow to them they have proven their racism runs deep. Ms. Rothschild claimed the other day that Obama is an elitist, and she wasn't ready to support him. Well being a member of the Rothschild family, one of the richest in the world doesn't give her any street cred and she needs to hold that mirror up to herself. In the end any feminist who votes for McCain because of some ill conceived revenge has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that race trumps sex.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Kym525 Posted by: dudelette
» RE: Kym525 Posted by: Kym525
» RE: Some Personal History Posted by: desidid
» I have done my research Posted by: dudelette
» RE: Came right out and said it Posted by: westomoon
Unintentionally hilarious headlines
Posted by: Q30 on Jul 11, 2008 6:13 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Think '70s Feminists Are Out of Touch? Not so fast... Women will continue to be oppressed unless..."

I started laughing at this point.

"Think I've got bad eating habits? Not so fast... I'll continue to eat lard unless..."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The West could learn a lesson from the East on the Vedic Era
Posted by: maxpayne on Jul 11, 2008 6:27 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Do a google search on women and "Vedic Era" and you'd be surprised as to how far the West has to go to come anywhere close. Hang in there. China, Japan, India, etc ... are about to show you how ...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

fight for one, fight for all.
Posted by: sleepingdog on Jul 11, 2008 6:52 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i disagree with your premise: "...will continue to be oppressed unless they stop prioritizing other causes over their own."

i think it is instead: if there are more people willing to take other's causes, then both problems would be solved, and more as more come along. unity, universal suffrage. human rights for all humans.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You totally missed the point Posted by: dudelette
» RE: You totally missed the point Posted by: sleepingdog
70s era feminists can't talk to 21st century women
Posted by: Bobsays on Jul 11, 2008 7:01 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That has to be one of the sadest facts of this debate. There really is a MASSIVE communication breakdown. So whatever legitimate issues a 70s feminist wants to raise, it just sounds angry and nuts to a modern woman.

And 70s era femminsts, on principle, refuse to debate the elephant in the room: the encrouching conservatism of Islam and how that is re-shaping how women live their lives in urban environments. They don't touch it because it would be 'politically incorrect' to do so. And so, the great debate freeze continues.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Domestic abuse isn't a woman's issue
Posted by: PaulK on Jul 11, 2008 7:01 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've been screamed at by my wife and belittled minute after minute after minute for days at a time. She has to control the money. She has to keep things secret. This has gone on for many years. She makes half an effort now to control her temper, but it may take many more years before her compliments approach her vinegar.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Women complain too much
Posted by: nfamous on Jul 11, 2008 7:07 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
American women don't know how good they have it yet all they do is complain about everything. Most problems of American women are due to their own personal failings. No one told all these women to lie down with losers and have babies they would have to raise on their own. Look in other countries at how women are treated. Women are treated so bad in countries in the Middle East that they don't even know they are being treated badly. They are used to it. American women are spoiled brats. At some point men just want silence. It's just like how whites feel about blacks complaining about racism all the time. Whites just don't want to hear it anymore and men don't want to hear about women's problems anymore either.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Very good point Posted by: Bobsays
» RE: Very good point Posted by: Lauren
» How about you shut up, too? Posted by: dudelette
» RE: Women complain too much Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Women complain too much Posted by: desidid
» RE: Women complain too much Posted by: tngreen
Empowerment vs. celebrating victimization
Posted by: NYHippie on Jul 11, 2008 7:41 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With all due respect, for the sake of your disabled mother, maybe you should rub shoulders less with "some of the most famous people in the entertainment industry" and hang out with a social worker or two. If her situation is as you present it, even a minimally competent social worker could be able to clear the bureaucratic hurdles and stabilize her income.

Of course that would mean leaving her victimization behind and actually empowering a woman. And that is what my fellow 70's feminists just don't get.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

HURRAY for this article -- I TOTALLY agree
Posted by: janvdb on Jul 11, 2008 7:50 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Everytime someone tries to actually be a feminist, which means that she is concerned about WOMEN'S issues, some woman stands up and tells her she's "out of touch" unless she talks about OTHER PEOPLES' issues.

THIS IS BULLCRAP.

You want to talk about racism, fine. Go to a venue, a book, an article, whatever which is about racism.

But LET US WOMEN TALK ABOUT OUR ISSUES. That is feminism.

These crazy "women of color" are actually stopping feminism because everytime a feminist tries to actually be a feminist, she is told she has to stop doing that and start worrying about some other oppressed group.

I'm so SICK of this.

We aren't sitting at black people's rallies, standing up and telling anyone who discusses racism there that they are "out of touch" unless they talk about women's issues. That's their rally. Let them do their thing.

All feminists feel this way. Let the anti-racism groups do their thing.

But they won't let us do OUR thing. We have to stop talking about women, we have to talk about racism.

It's ridiculous and no one can tell me that black women have a damned thing to teach anyone about beating sexism; the facts don't indicate they have it figured out.

It's just a tactic being used to stop feminism making any progress.

STOP THIS DISTRACTION!! Women have serious problems. I think they are MORE serious than problems of race. And we need to work on them, NOT WORK ON PROBLEMS OF RACE.

Let the anti-racists do their thing. AND LET US WOMEN DO OUR THING.

If you only want to work on race, well, don't come to feminist events, boards, etc and try to stop the feminists doing their thing. If you want to work on both, work on racism when you are doing that and then, when you are working on women's issues, work on WOMEN'S ISSUES. Not race.

Jan VanDenBerg

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Oh, this is insane Posted by: westomoon
» RE: Oh, this is insane Posted by: desidid
Women are Women regardless of color
Posted by: WyrdSister on Jul 11, 2008 8:50 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I seriously cannot believe ANY of these statements! You are ALL off the freakin' mark.

And then there are the men who chime in with the most misogynistic statements I have ever heard. Thanks guys! Your so F*ckin' helpful. I guess articles about Feminism just sucks them out of the woodwork.

If you are a woman of color and are having issues because of your color, then join an anti-racism group; WHY would you feel the need tp put down, demean, or otherwise compromise what Feminists do. I really do not understand why women of any color would attack other women. NONE of us believe that feminism = only for white women. That's f*ckin' crock!

I am a feminist, and I stand up for WOMEN regardless of her color. I just cannot believe that there is THIS much separation. No wonder we cannot get 'women's issues' advanced if there is this much in-fighting.

Look, there are many issues that need to be addressed under the umbrella of "Women's Issues", but if we keep separating ourselves based on race then no one wins except the misogynists. If you think you have issues that are uniquely "women of color' issues, please inform me as to what they are and why do you feel the need to separate them out from all women's issues.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

opal
Posted by: Opal on Jul 11, 2008 8:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Heidi S. speaks some important truths. I identified as a feminist at 19 and I'm now 62. Over the years I have watched in horror as the leftists of my community beat feminism back into a corner while elevating racism to issue number one. Everyone had to get on board or be ostracized as a racist. It was ugly and it sounds from this article like it's still ugly. Most of my political work is about promoting peace these days so I'm out of it in terms of feminism. I don't know who these current "leaders" are that the author refers to.
Sisters, wake up! And I mean women of every race and class. Our gender solidarity could really help our children and grandchildren in the coming turbulent days.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: opal Posted by: WyrdSister
» With all due respect Posted by: Kym525
» RE: With all due respect Posted by: WyrdSister
» RE: With all due respect Posted by: Kym525
» RE: With all due respect Posted by: desidid
» RE: With all due respect Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: With all due respect Posted by: Opal
» RE: With all due respect Posted by: Kym525
» RE: With all due respect Posted by: Lauren
» RE: With all due respect Posted by: emmas
» RE: Someone Who Get It Posted by: desidid
» RE: Someone Who Get It Posted by: desidid
What ARE the priorities of feminism?
Posted by: fanny666 on Jul 11, 2008 9:18 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In a way, it's sort of unfair to single out feminism for my criticism, as obsession with self and with pop culture and pleasure and aesthetics are certainly not just endemic to the feminist movement. But that's what the article is about, so I guess I'll point out something I've noticed.

A recent AlterNet article about shaving pubic hair got 99 comments. A recent article about rape as a war crime got 5.

Here are some google results to point out what the movement has been focusing on:

Feminism "Sex and the City" gets 448,000 websites.

Feminism Rape Sudan gets 290,000

Feminism Rape Burma OR Myanmar gets 117,000

One of the reasons that white feminists are considered irrelevant by many- and why many dark-skinned women don't want to be associated with the term "feminist" and prefer the term "womanist" is for those same reasons: white feminists' obsession with self and with pop culture and pleasure and aesthetics while all over the world females face much, MUCH more severe oppression.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» lindawageck1 Posted by: fanny666
» I should have mentioned... Posted by: fanny666
» Happy Saturday Posted by: mcubed
» RE: What ARE the priorities of google? Posted by: Angela History
Feminists of color, sit at the back of the bus
Posted by: Kym525 on Jul 11, 2008 10:11 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's really the gist of this article.

You uppity black, latina and asian women, it's all YOUR fault that Hilary wasn't the Democratic nominee because you didn't tow the privileged white mainstream feminist party line and vote for THE woman. You DARED to assert that RACISM was just as important as SEXISM.

There were many feminists of color who did vote for Hilary in the primaries (I wasn't one of them), but having spoken with many, they were ambivalent because they felt--and Gloria Steinem's hatchet op-ed piece didn't help matters--that they were being told that their lives dealing with both racism AND sexism didn't matter.

Sorry ladies, but as a lifelong feminist of color, separating race and gender is a false choice that I will not make, and I will not be made to feel guilty because I am demanding my place at the feminist table. Both are hurdles that many of us face and succeed against everyday. They are also hurdles that are slowly destroying urban communities and creating a class of young women with no way out and no hope. It is the height of arrogance (and proves the point of privilege) that white feminists want to be the final arbiters of what is a feminist issue and what is not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Author is Right, and She's Backed by Lots of Studies
Posted by: dudelette on Jul 11, 2008 10:23 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
She mentioned the United Nations study. Did you know the Catholic Church several years ago did a study on how to improve the lot of women in the Church? Probably not. It was not tied to race or country. The main finding of the study was that women needed to have access to birth control. By controlling their reproduction, they would be able to have better lives, be better educated, provide better lives for the children, and so on.

Of course, the Catholic Church would never give up its control over the sex lives and reproduction of its members, because that would reduce the number of children born into the church, and it would increase the likelihood that people would leave the church as they became better educated and had a better quality of life as that would make them less dependent on the church, so it was immediately rejected by the Pope.

The point is always that if a woman has rights, no matter her race, religion or where she lives, life in general improves for everyone.

In the 19th century women's movement, the women joined with the abolitionist movement and other movements, including labor movements. What happened? The 14th amendment, labor unions, the final freeing of the slaves. What happened to the women's rights? Not a d**n thing. Black men might no longer be slaves, but their wives were still considered chattel to their husbands.

Every day I see prejudice against women on the job, simply and only because they are women. White, black, Asian, it doesn't matter. They're denied promotions and raises. They're left out of meetings "accidentally." They're given the worst assignments, and if they have any problems, it's "because she's a woman," not because the assignment deadline was impossible to meet, or the information required was not given, or the subordinates who were delegated tasks simply don't take orders from a woman seriously.

What's the old saying? "Whatever women do they must do twice as well as men to be thought half as good . . . ."

Here's an applicable study: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/90120.php

Shirley Chisholm said she suffered more prejudice as a woman than from being black.

While I believe in true, equal civil rights for everyone, I'm still going to put the rights of women first in my life, because until women truly have equal rights, no one will have equal rights.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Speaking truth to power
Posted by: Blue Heron on Jul 11, 2008 10:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As Noam Chomsky famously stated, "You can't speak truth to power, because power already knows the truth." I think he's absolutely right. And I though I do feel that womens' rights are still on the back burner, I think the bigger issue is the tendency that the majority of people have to suck up to power. Even the poor and unfortunate do this unconsciously. It's time for a little more outrage folks. Kill your masters - it's the only way.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Speaking truth to power Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: Speaking truth to power Posted by: Blue Heron
exceptions
Posted by: azul on Jul 11, 2008 11:38 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The article mentioned "With the exception of Native American women"...in regards to rape statistics. It might be worth mentioning that Native American women experience rape at 4 times the national average, and disproportionately from non-Native men.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: exceptions Posted by: Lauren
» RE: exceptions Posted by: desidid
Here is the question that the die hard Hillary supporters get wrong
Posted by: EncinoM on Jul 11, 2008 12:17 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is feminism, voting for the first woman president, because she is a woman

-or-

Voting for a presidential canidate, regardless of the gender.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No, women are not the same
Posted by: Spiritgirl on Jul 11, 2008 12:32 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While you may theorize that all women are suffering from discrimination in one form or another - they are not the same. I see white women on the one hand saying they are feminist - yet on the other view other womens issues thru a very narrow lens.

Women of color have been discriminated against since the day they were brought in chains to this new world. As a white woman - though you may believe those catcalls that you pass by put you into the same category of understanding women of color - still you can not.

See women of color everyday are reminded that their beauty isn't "the standard" beauty. Or because culturally we are diverse - we can not "blend into" the white culture. As white women believe that just to be allowed to take off the veil is liberating - there is a whole part of culture that is being missed.

Everywhere the white man went he brought not just his poisonous hatred of other with him,and it became ingrained into the men of the cultures that were conquered. Or worse yet treated the women of those cultures as receptacles for his own sadistic pursuits. As a result many cultures adopted not just ways of "protection" for their woman (e.g.- genital mutilation, the veil, etc.)to both "save" them and keep the men from feeling emasculated by their "conquerers".

White women have no understanding of these issues. During slavery they were held up as the ideal woman, and today they are paraded on magazines, and held up the standard by which we judge women from other cultures as the ideal.

This presidential cycle where white women were up in arms when Sen. Obama came out the nominee showed much to everyone that cared to stop, look, and listen as not only Sen. Clinton showed herself to be a poor sport, but a poor sport that would do or say anything and appeal to the baser instincts of W.V. voters when she gave her speech there. As for the women interviewed that stated heatedly and flatly that they would vote Republican rather than vote for Obama - I think that's akin to cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: No, women are not the same Posted by: Hopscotch123
» Here we go again Posted by: Kym525
» RE: Here we go again Posted by: WyrdSister
» RE: No, women are not the same Posted by: WyrdSister
The personal is not always political
Posted by: Cathyc on Jul 11, 2008 1:29 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"She's constantly afraid her philandering husband will leave her for another woman, and she struggles with the misogyny and disrespect she sees in her teenage boys."

This woman is not suffering from a lack of "feminism". Rather, she's still afflicted with the self-hatred she obviously internalised (learnt) as a child, which is why (a) she is married to an abusive man and (b) is passing on those same 'values' to her own sons.

" -- even rich, famous white women in Hollywood are consistently degraded, humiliated and abused by the men in their lives."

Domestic abuse is not confined to any one 'class' and has nothing to do with so-called femiminism. But it has a LOT to do with self respect - whether male or female.

"Ask any white woman who has endured daily street harassment or the multitudes of white women who work in the sex industry; they can assure you that men of all classes, races and nationalities are united in the pleasure they take in seeing all types of women being sexually humiliated. If that fact alone doesn't unite white women and women of color, I don't know what will."

I'm a white ("middle-class") woman and I don't identify with women (of any color) who experience abuse and violence on a daily basis - although I am very much aware of the fact that such women (and men) exist. I suppose that's because I have a different set of values and beliefs than those who believe that such everyday abuse and violence is normal. Such abnormal behaviour only goes on in a war situation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Please Tell Us Where You Live Posted by: bcgirl125
Feminism itself is 'divide and conquer'
Posted by: pomes on Jul 11, 2008 2:50 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You gotta love a bunch of people who support "dividing and conquering" the lower classes yet decry when their "troops" are "divided."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Indeed Posted by: kepstein7777
Second-Wave Feminism is Dead (especially the National Organization for Women)
Posted by: susnow on Jul 11, 2008 3:37 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They used to be relevant, but then things changed:

1) They have ignored working-class women. Hard-won labor rights have been chipped away during the past thirty years and they haven't even batted an eyelash.

2) They have massively betrayed Arab and Muslim women by not protesting the Iraq War and by not supporting Palestinian women (I'm refering to NOW in particular).

2) They have ignored anti-globalization issues (see number 1).

3) And most egregiously, they have changed from an *empowerment* perspective into a *rescue* perspective. Example: second-wave feminism used to take the position that prostitution should be decriminalized, and they took this position for the same reason they took for abortion. Her body, her choice. If she wants to charge for sex, she should be able to do so. Now its, "We have to rescue them! We have to rescue those poor women! Whether they want to be rescued or not!"

No, what feminism is supposed to be about is empowerment. Not just for a few upper-class yuppie women, but for ALL women. Working-class women, Third-World women, and even those make their living in such a way that offends yuppie women's sensibilities. Empowerment.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Where do I fit?
Posted by: mumblefaery on Jul 11, 2008 3:39 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I feel that this article left room for some misunderstanding.

For the record, I'm white - I was also raised in poverty and have spent much of my adult life crawling out of that lifestyle, so please don't group me into your "white women of privilege" pigeonhole. I've lived in varying circumstances from the rural south to the street to the inner city in my short time on this earth. That doesn't put me in any better or less of a position to have an opinion, but I find the idea that I've somehow lived a privileged life to be laughable. I guarantee you I've worked very hard to be where I'm at today, and I still struggle.

I think the main point I'd like to address from this article is that it's not discounting racism. I think you would be hard-pressed to find anyone on here that thinks that racism isn't a HUGE issue all over the world and certainly is much worse in other countries. Does that discount the feminist movement? Does it take away from the fact that women are raped, abused, mistreated in the workforce through male aggression and intimidation? I don't think so. I also whole-heatedly agree that women who are mistreated by our government of any race is definitely a woman's issue.

What I don't understand is how women who believe that feminism should stay true to it's original cause should be treated like racists. It's not that racism should take a back seat to feminism - it's that in the arena where feminism is involved, all women need to unite to see this through and unite for woman's rights. In the arena where racism is involved, everyone needs to be involved regardless of race, creed, or gender. I don't think there is any point in this article where women of color are told that they should stop fighting racism, nor should they pretend that they are either black or a woman.

Personally, I take it upon myself to try to address several causes - feminism, animal rights, race equality - but I differentiate between the causes. I stand up proudly with all of my sisters when I say "We've had enough!" Just like I stand with every human being that says "We've had enough!" But we all have to pick our battles, and I don't look down on people that choose differently than I do.

Another thing I don't understand and have found myself arguing with several feminists about is why the Hilary vs Barack debate became a feminism vs racism debate. I'm a feminist, but I voted for Obama because I feel that he is the best person for the job - The best PERSON. Isn't that what feminism is, equality of gender? I do like Hilary, and I think she has a better suited purpose ahead of her, but my hope for this country lies with Barack.

If a woman votes for McCain because she wants to "get back at" Obama, than she sounds ignorant is isn't really the definition of what I would consider a feminist.

Sorry I skipped around on this a bit, but my point is, women need to stand together for women's rights, and everyone needs to stand together for human rights. In the arena of feminism, I stick to the root and I go from there. I've never found my skin color to do me any favors - it certainly never prevented me from being raped against my will, beaten against my will, raised by a single mother who could barely keep our heads above water, living on the street, nor robbed at gun point.

OH, and to the woman on this forum who thinks that women with low self-esteem choose to be in abusive situations, I would love to live in your world where everything is so black and white. I certainly didn't know I was going to be in a abusive situation when I met the guy. I definitely left him when I could, but it certainly wasn't my low self-esteem that kept me in that situation - it was fear. And regardless of what you think you know about women in those situations, it involves the mistreatment of women and is most definitely a woman's issue.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: your right, Posted by: WyrdSister
» RE: your right, Posted by: daniel347x
» RE: your right, Posted by: Holla
» RE: your right, Posted by: WyrdSister
» RE: your right, Posted by: daniel347x
» RE: your right, Posted by: WyrdSister
» RE: your right, Posted by: daniel347x
» RE: your right, Posted by: daniel347x
» RE: your right, Posted by: WyrdSister
» RE: your right, Posted by: daniel347x
» RE: your right, Posted by: WyrdSister
» RE: your right, Posted by: daniel347x
» RE: your right, Posted by: WyrdSister
» RE: your right, Posted by: daniel347x
» RE: your right, Posted by: mumblefaery
» RE: your right, Posted by: daniel347x
» RE: your right, Posted by: daniel347x
» RE: your right, Posted by: john4244
» RE: your right, Posted by: mumblefaery
» RE: your right, Posted by: daniel347x
» RE: your right, Posted by: daniel347x
» RE: Privilege is NOT about money Posted by: mumblefaery
» RE: Privilege is NOT about money Posted by: WyrdSister
oh for gods sake, black slavery is over
Posted by: ayala on Jul 11, 2008 4:30 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
meanwhile tens of millions of aisan women and latinas are sold into sex slavery as we speak. they have now taken over the black slave trade as the worst slave trade ever. if white women want to help us battle this by all means they are welcome.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

WHO decides what a feminist cause should be?
Posted by: Kym525 on Jul 11, 2008 5:11 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here's the problem--who gets to decide just what is a feminist issue? Why can't race and economic issues also be viewed as feminist causes without someone complaining that doing so "waters down feminism"?

The lingering social inequalities that plague us in the 21st century are invariably interlinked to a patriarchal power structure that enjoys seeing progressive movements fail. Racism did not grow out of a vacuum nor did sexism. Both has been justified by religion and culture. So why is it so difficult to embrace both without diminishing either?

I am grateful not only to my strong mother and grandmother and other pre-feminist women who were before there was a name or a movement, but I am grateful to the feminist movement as a whole. Which is why it hurts my heart to see white feminists completely blow off women of color. This is the kind of tactic used by the patriarchy to silence women, regardless of color or class--it's rather ironic that white women are using the exact same tactic.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: but that's just it... Posted by: WyrdSister
» Superb comment, Kym Posted by: westomoon
this is a despicable article
Posted by: daniel347x on Jul 11, 2008 9:59 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article makes me want to vomit.

-Pitting oppression against oppression
-on the verge of claiming that white woman can't be racist or classist
-speaking out against the interconnection of oppressions and singling out one oppression (oppression of women) as more fundamental thsn other serious forms of oppression
-while lauding the second wave feminists as the most insightful, ignoring the second wave teachings on the interconnectedness of oppression, the anti-capitalist, 'sisters remaking the system' essential teaching of the most real second wave feminists
------------------------------------
I could go on, but I'll leave it at that for now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» good stuff Posted by: sleepingdog
» RE: you don't get it Posted by: ayala
» RE: you don't get it Posted by: mumblefaery
» RE: you don't get it Posted by: Holla
This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
REALITY CHECK: FEMINISM IS STRIVING TO BE ALL-INCLUSIVE
Posted by: realmuzik on Jul 13, 2008 1:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's what today's REAL activists want for you to REALLY KNOW.

There is at least one resource with a mission to: Check it out.

Enough with the bickering and drama-trolling. If you don't like what you see, step away from your computer screen and get active. I do, and I live in a rural neighborhood full of Ron Paul worshippers , "Born Again" pro-birthers, Bible home-schoolers, and homophobes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Brava!
Posted by: tngreen on Jul 13, 2008 12:04 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Excellent article! I agree with every point that Ms. Schnakenberg makes. The oppression that women live with is so ingrained that our society--both men and women--often have difficulty seeing it. But of course that is the underlying theme of the study of anthropology, that you cannot study your own culture. And since oppression of women is pan-cultural, we set ourselves an enormous task when we set out to identify and address gender issues.

In addition to fighting culture-centricity, we must overcome biology. The feminine impulse to cooperate rather than compete must surely be selected "for," evolutionarily speaking. While cooperation is a good thing in most situations, the desire to get along can result in our neglecting our own interests to the benefit of others. Demanding to be treated well does not come naturally to many women and in fact we sometimes do not even recognize ill treatment.

Thus I believe that the key to change must begin with women. We must cultivate within ourselves an awareness of discrimination and oppression as well as strategies for confronting it. Only then can we negotiate an equal share in power with men.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

She doesn't speak for this "70's feminist"
Posted by: westomoon on Jul 13, 2008 3:38 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wouldn't normally bother to comment when I'm this late to the party, but I just wanted to note that, at least in my experience, it was not the normal, everyday-woman 70's feminists who made up Mrs. Clinton's "base". I was, and the women I hang out with were, deeply offended by a candidate with very slight credentials riding on the coattails of her famous husband and demanding my vote because of her gender.

I think the "feminists" who claimed that Clinton's gender alone made it sexism not to vote for her (a stance we would have instantly identified as sexist back in the 70's) were an odd mix of women who have made a profit out of being feminist, and women who were the right age for it but missed the "second wave" back in the day. What I saw from them was so different from what I know as feminism, I have to characterize it as neo-feminism. It is as warped a reflection of feminism as the Radical Right is of conservatism. This neofeminism is certainly no third wave, but instead a strange, hysterical, whiny, and above all divisive thing that chooses gender victimization alone as its focus.

Some of the comments above brought back such wonderful memories -- in the 70's, second-wavers were serious enough about women's oppression that they took on the additional issues that oppressed women of color and of non-mainstream sexual orientation or abilities. If it was my sister's cross to bear, it was mine too. Feminist events were among the first to routinely include sign interpreters, wheelchair accessibility, union-label requirements, and boycotting of localities where mistreatment of people of color was extreme and public. I refuse to let these neofeminists' tantrums usurp the proud herstory of 70's feminism.

And that brings me to my final point, one which has been made several times above deep in the threads, but one which deserves to be trumpeted over and over. The "post-primary division" this author bemoans is the direct result of the extraordinary racism expressed and encouraged by the Clinton campaign. To an old "70's feminist" like me, that was, and remains, shocking and unforgivable.

I know Mrs. Clinton's neofeminist followers believe that the Obama camp was responsible for their unbelievable remarks being identified as racism. (I don't think I will ever forget Gerri Ferraro telling the press that not only was she not going to apologize for her statement that Obama was a candidate only because of his race, but saying that she felt he owed her an apology.) So long as these soi-disant "feminists" continue to believe they can't be wrong because they're women, you can count on this old white feminist being on the far side of the "racial divide" this author so distortedly perceives.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Gloria Steinem was a CIA Operative
Posted by: Adler Berriman Seal on Jul 13, 2008 7:51 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.google.com/search?q=steinem+CIA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Again, who DECIDES???
Posted by: Kym525 on Jul 14, 2008 9:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have been greatly heartened to read posts from white women who do "get it". They understand that racism and sexism for many women, not just in this country, but around the world are interlinked and to fight against one is to fight against both. Like me, they understand that the feminist movement has room for ALL women's voices and issues without diluting the power of the feminist movement as a whole. These women are my champions and I give them praise for possessing open minds and hearts.

However, it is the privileged white feminists (and you know who you are), who keep trying to decide for women of color what fights we as feminists should be engaged in. They blame the fight against racism for not getting the ERA passed--when the truth is it was privileged white women like Phyllis Schafly, who frightened midwest and southern white women with the notion that the ERA would mean they would have to share public restrooms with men. These women say to us "we understand racism--somewhat--but being a woman must come first". This is a false choice and it is one that obviously stems from a group of women too close to the very patriarchy they oppose.

I'm sorry that as a woman of color that I don't rank Sex in the City as some "feminist groundbreaking" film right up there with young black girls losing ground in education and being bombarded with negative images.

I will say it again: We women of color DO NOT have the luxury of separation. Every single day of our lives we are mis-treated due to both gender AND race. Just this weekend I was followed around a store by a rent-a-cop who saw my COLOR ONLY. This wasn't gender-based. He saw BLACK and he thought CRIMINAL. I went to his supervisor and let them both know I refuse to patronize an establishment where such profiling occurs.

Women of color suffer disproportionately from health problems, violence and access to child care and educational opportunities. This is not just due to gender but also historic RACIAL DISCRIMINATION.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

More of feminism's self-immolating fire.
Posted by: Walks-in-Storms on Jul 14, 2008 3:15 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Ask any white woman who has endured daily street harassment or the multitudes of white women who work in the sex industry; they can assure you that men of all classes, races and nationalities are united in the pleasure they take in seeing all types of women being sexually humiliated. If that fact alone doesn't unite white women and women of color, I don't know what will."

That quote from this essay goes right along with sagacious pronouncements like "All men are rapists and that's all they are," (Marilyn French).

"We are, as a sex, infinitely superior to men..." (Elizabeth Cady Stanton, "One Woman, One Vote", Wheeler, p.58.)

Gee, LIzzie, that must be why you're complaining about being raped, beaten, and paid less than men.

"All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman." .... "You grow up with your father holding you down and covering your mouth so another man can make a horrible searing pain between your legs." (Catherine MacKinnon - Prominent feminist scholar at the University of Michigan and Yale)

Golly, Catherine, do you mean to tell me this happens to EVERY woman?

"I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He's just incapable of it." (Former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan)

Then why is it that every year, literally thousands of men risk their lives in order to go to the rescue of other people - many of these rescues not on television the next day"

"I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig"....."Under patriarchy, every woman's son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman." ...."for a woman, the home is the most dangerous place in the world!" .... "The traditional flowers of courtship are the traditional flowers of the grave, delivered to the victim before the kill. The cadaver is dressed up and made up and laid down and ritually violated and consecrated to an eternity of being used." .... "Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies." (Andrea Dworkin).

Has Andrea been tranquilized and locked up yet? I hope so, poor thing.

"Probably the only place where a man can feel really secure is in a maximum security prison, except for the imminent threat of release." (Germaine Greer)

All the heroes of history, combat, exploration (including space), and the like werent' "secure?" Surely, you jest (or have a problem with your memory and knowledge of history.

"Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience." (Catherine Comin, Vassar College. Assistant Dean of Students).

Sure, we learn what a nation ruled by women would be like.

There's another quote, by a man (Ralph Waldo Emerson): "What you are thunders so loudly, I can't hear what you say to the contrary." More, females will remain where they are in the struggle for rights and equality under the law so long as they continue to shoot themselves in the foot with utter tripe like this. You can scream at the top of your lungs, all of you, that a pig can fly; but it won't make anyone believe a pig can fly; and it won't make a pig that can fly.

When women can stop talking nonsense and trying to force it upon society by political means, they will find that all the men they have vilified so irrationally and unfairly are the one ally they have always needed. It's like trying to survive in the jungle, girls: you need a man (the reason Mother Nature made things the way she did).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

unrefined thinking
Posted by: DRNO on Jul 14, 2008 10:00 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's stop acting as if history started 50 years ago. When the suffragettes of the early 20th century (predominantly, but not exclusively upper/middle class white women) were struggling for the right to vote, they sought the participation of black women in this struggle, and those women were willing. Those women were less privilaged by the virtue of their blackness and the era in which they lived, but they marched and they distributed leaflets, etc. Eventually the tide turned and the men finally caved and gave us the right to vote (which we were entitled to all along), but the condition was that black women would not have that right. Did the suffraggettes stand firm and say no to this exclusionary tactic? They did not. Black women were effectively sold out after participating in this movement at great risk (some would argue greater risk than their more affluent counterparts) to themselves.
THAT is one of the reasons why women of color do not tend to respond to 70's feminism. It is also part of the reason they insist on dealing with issues of race and class. They have studied feminist history and know that they are often forgotten. The reality for women of color is that their lives intersect on lines of race and class as well. Feminism is not their only struggle. It will never be as long as racism and class issues persist.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: unrefined thinking Posted by: Holla
Rolling my eyes.
Posted by: rickiey on Jul 14, 2008 10:35 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Women whining about how they are stuggling for equality.

Hey stupid, you already have it and more.

In the most important aspects of life, women have more rights than men, and yet you are whining.

If it weren't so sad for all of the male victims out there, it would be funny.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: olling my eyes. Posted by: desidid
Fanny666 and Dudelette
Posted by: desidid on Jul 16, 2008 5:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Fanny you owe me an apology,and Dudelette you owe me an answer. If you are women dedicated to the expansion of women's rights, each of you would behave differently. So far each of you have shown the sisters of color how your entitlement allows you to ignore us when it isn't comfortable for you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

hey...where are you guys!?
Posted by: WyrdSister on Jul 17, 2008 8:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I may have the answer on Who Gets To Decide what the issues are...how about the Conservative Right-WingNuts who go after women with misogynistic legislation...

attack on contraception

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

hey...where are you guys!?
Posted by: WyrdSister on Jul 17, 2008 8:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I may have the answer on Who Gets To Decide what the issues are...how about the Conservative Right-WingNuts who go after women with misogynistic legislation...

attack on contraception

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: hey...where are you guys!? Posted by: WyrdSister
I'm not sure I follow
Posted by: no1kstate on Jul 17, 2008 9:48 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Intersectionalist feminism is a nice idea, if all the other intersecting ideas didn't constantly take priority over women's rights."

I know that for some women of color, racism as an issue takes precedence over sexism. But that's not for all women of color. Most "intersectionalists" I've come across try their hardest to advocate for the end of all forms of oppression.

It's only from white feminists that I've heard a call to focus solely on the issues of white, middle class women. So, I understand your point. But intersectionalists aren't the problem.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement