Gender Does NOT Trump Race
| April 25th, 2006gender trumps race
Why does this statement bother me so?
Because it is ridiculous to lay claim to the idea that all women are oppressed on equal terms, simply because they are women. Obviously, oppression is more complicated than that and I personally think that gender does not trump anything. Instead, there are interlocking systems of oppression that women face based on gender, race, class, sexuality, religious background, nationality, citizenship status and so forth. It is very naive and very, very 2nd wave-ish to say, “well, gender trumps race.” I can’t even understand how one can come to such a conclusion.
In the case of the current Duke scandal, some folks feel that we must pay attention to the issue of gender before race since, she is a WOMAN and was allegedly attacked by MEN. However, I don’t see how we can only pay attention to her as a woman, or as just a black woman, or even as a economically disenfrachised black woman, for that matter–all of her identities must be taken into account. Her race is already determining who believes her and who doesn’t, how bad of a parent she is (the myth of the bad black mother), and it’s determining how she is misrepresented in the media. Additionally, we must not forget that we exist in a media saturated world that continuously reproduces negative images that deem black womens bodies as disposable sex objects. It is all too impossible to deny that those images do not play a strong part in concluding how she was/is/will be treated by men of all races. Furthermore, if one believes that gender trumps race in this specific situtation, then they deny the harm of the racial slurs that were hurled at the dancers, which I personally see as a form of violence towards these women–no matter what.
I also can’t possibly see how gender would trump race, since gender roles are constructed alongside race and class lines. I grew up learning not only how to be a female, but how to be a black female–and I think for other women of color in this country, it is impossible not to formulate a race conscisouness of being “less than whites,” alongside a gender consciousness of being “less than men.” Therefore, our racial identity and racism play a major role in our negotiations of how we experience gender. On the other hand, white women grow up to learn how to be white and female–which basically boils down to a white race consciousness that is formulated on the basis of having power within a system of white supremacy. So then, of course to some white feminists, gender would trump race, since they are not impacted by racial oppression.
Moreover, the argument that “gender trumps race,” also ignores the fact that women of color see men of color as necessary allies in the struggle against “the patriarchy.” Men of color do have a complicit relationship with fostering the oppression of women based on gender differences, but, we cannot ignore the fact that these same men face similar oppressions due to the color of their skin aside from their gender. In the case of the Duke scandal, if it were men of color who allegedly attacked a woman of color, issues of race would still be in play and I still wouldn’t see how gender would situate itself in a hierarchical position above race, or vice-versa. Rather, we would have to take into account how race functions within the specific racial group to understand fully the scope of the attack, what should and can be done about it, ways to prevent future attacks on women, etc.
Finally, if gender trumped race, there would be no need for black feminism, for third world feminism, for chicana feminism or for women of color feminism. Generalizations about “the patriarchy” and the oppression of women in a heirarchy based on gender, only ignores the multiplicity of the number of oppressions all women face that are not soley based on gender. However, to some white feminists who face gender oppression in exchange for racial privilege, gender does trump race.
This is also posted on my blog.
April 25th, 2006 at 8:22 pm
beautiful, nubian! Just beautiful.
This comment was written by vegankid.Report this comment to the moderators
April 25th, 2006 at 9:15 pm
Great post! It has always bothered me when people claim that one oppression trumps all others.
This comment was written by sparklegirl.Report this comment to the moderators
April 25th, 2006 at 9:32 pm
Great post - incidentally where does the ‘gender trumps race’ quote come from?
This comment was written by Maia.Report this comment to the moderators
April 25th, 2006 at 9:40 pm
I missed this sentance the first time I read it and it bugs me, it may be nitpicky, and it seems anytime anyone uses the term second-wave, or particularly third-wave I have to argue. But to describe ‘gender trumps race’ as very very 2nd wave-ish totally ignores what was happening in the American feminist movements in the 1960s and 1970s, how many different things were happening. It seems ridiciulous, to me, to subsume the many different sorts of political activism and organising as if they shared one ideology.
This comment was written by Maia.Report this comment to the moderators
April 25th, 2006 at 9:43 pm
maia–
i understand that the 2-nd wave has it’s own historical context, which is why i can’t understand how some women in 2006 still follow outdated ideologies–that was my point.
and i realize a number of different movements were taking place, but from my understanding, most of them had a similar goal of addressing gender oppression of women:
sisterhood is global slogans
lesbian seperatist feminism
radical feminism
etc…
This comment was written by Blac(k)ademic.Report this comment to the moderators
April 25th, 2006 at 11:17 pm
An older, black, woman feminist friend who fought for equal rights in the 70s said the ERA did not pass because the (white) feminist movement excluded black women. That was the second wave. If anyone knows this history, I’d like to hear about it.
This comment was written by nonwhiteperson.Report this comment to the moderators
April 25th, 2006 at 11:22 pm
The Third Wave was coined and founded by Rebecca Walker who is half black and Alice Walker’s daughter and it’s ironic and sad that the third wave is not much less racist than the second wave.
This comment was written by nonwhiteperson.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2006 at 1:37 am
I’ve decided to post my reply to the historical stuff on my blog - I don’t want to derail this thread.
To get more back on topic I find the use of a ‘trump’ as the verb in the quote you gave really interesting. Firstly because the cards metaphor really seems to trivialise the issues that we’re talking about. But secondly because it does treat oppression as such seperate categories (race is clubs, gender is hearts, class is spades, everything else is diamonds).
The point that intelligent commenters have been making over and over again is that the Duke rape case shows the way that gender, race and class work together.
This comment was written by Maia.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2006 at 7:39 am
Black men are natural allies to black women, while white women are privileged. Black men got the vote before any kind of women did, though realistically white women were able to use it effectively much much earlier, even though they got it later. When black women are abused by white men, it’s a political act–and I’m not being sarcastic—but when black men abuse black women no one wants to talk about it.
Long before protohumans crossed oceans and discovered people of other colors, men discovered they could beat up women and make them afraid and obediant. That includes black men, who had an additional excuse white guys don’t: they have truly suffered. Yet they inflict their suffering on black women. When they do it to white women, it’s something we should all ignore, except if we want to call white women liars. Within oppressed groups, the men inflict their abuse on the women to assert the only thing they’ve got: manhood. Black women may consider black men their allies, but I wonder if that includes the kind of guys who are sexist in the way as white guys. Because that’s what it boils down to.
Talking about rape, race, and black-white feminism never brings up the thing that lurks underneath: men of color can be sexist, too. None of the black feminists want to touch that one. Instead they want to talk about white female privilege and how black men are their allies. Maybe it’s a privilege to look at a sexist guy and see just the sexist and not the skin color and not give a shit, either. But standing by your man or men in this case…..
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2006 at 9:05 am
None of the black feminists want to touch that one. Instead they want to talk about white female privilege and how black men are their allies.
ginmar–
This comment was written by nubian.you don’t understand and you never will–unless you weren’t white. too bad. your privilege makes you so blind and hostile. get off it.
Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2006 at 9:07 am
i am soooo done posting on this blog. i can’t stand the hostility of the very conservative so called feminists on this site. peace ya’ll
This comment was written by nubian.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2006 at 9:10 am
Wait, are you saying that feminists of color do nothing to address sexism and violence against women in their own communities?
This comment was written by evil_fizz.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2006 at 9:17 am
When black women are abused by white men, it’s a political act”“and I’m not being sarcastic…but when black men abuse black women no one wants to talk about it.
men of color can be sexist, too. None of the black feminists want to touch that one.
Are you kidding me? Yes, of course black men abuse black women and can be sexist, but to say that no one is talking about it is demonstrably false. Do you even bother to read black feminists?
I can’t believe some of the hostility that Nubian is facing here.
This comment was written by Kevin Andre Elliott.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2006 at 9:18 am
i think thats what ginmar is saying, and sadly, she is so mistaken.
nubian aka blac(k)ademic
This comment was written by nubian.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2006 at 9:26 am
Actually, other than Ginmar, most of the folks who have been hostile to you aren’t feminists.
Nubian, obviously you’ve gotta do what’s right for you, but I hope you’ll reconsider and keep on guest posting. Although Ginmar has been hostile, other posters here, imo, appreciate what you’re saying - Radfem, Lanoire, RachelS, Curiousgirl, Charles, myself, and others. And you can’t just use the people who post comments to judge your impact - for every person who posts a comment, there are hundreds of lurkers who read the posts but not the comments.
If the current set-up isn’t working for you, maybe we could discuss changing the ground rules. For instance, if you want to set limits on who can post on your threads - the way that a lot of my posts are marked “feminists only” - you can do that.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2006 at 9:41 am
But let me add to that: If you feel you have to go, obviously I’ll respect that. I’m grateful for the guest posting you’ve done here, and I feel awful that it’s apparently been a lousy experience for you.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2006 at 10:06 am
Excellent post. Most of my women friends don’t identify as feminists for reasons included in it.
I don’t know who said that but I know it’s not true. Black women and Latinas in my own city are at the forefront of activism in their communities that address these issues, especially violence against women and girls. But their activism isn’t strictly gender focused as White women’s would be, because they face multiple oppressions and all of them factor into the sexism they face as women. For issues like rape, for example, it’s impossible to separate race and gender. For one thing, the criminal justice system(which would prosecute these rape cases) doesn’t treat all races equally, whether the individuals are men or women. But I guess if they aren’t fighting for ALL women(read White women) then either their activism doesn’t count? That’s offensive if anyone believes that.
They are also fighting against the massive contributions racism and classism(being poor) make in terms of the violence that happens. They are also at the forefront of activism to improve health care and screening of heart disease and cancers for women in their communities, again fighting against the racism in health care as well as the sexism.
The problem often is, is that White women have an assumption that if Black and Latino women are not fighting the fight that the White women want or believe in, then they are not fighting for women’s rights. This assumption is false.
who has said men of color can’t be sexist? That sounds like a strawman to me.
(excerpt from original posting)
This says a lot on this issue, very well imo, in a way that is very easy to understand.
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2006 at 10:16 am
I think that the rise of more multi faceted immanent dicourse in our society is at the heart of the matter imo. A very similar thing is currently going on the literary ‘canons’ of university institutes, whereby a particular group united by a common cause identify yet more ‘gaps’ wherein to assert previously neglected agency.
The question is for me; at what point will the increased individualisation of groups stop? We establish a feminist group on campus say, then one person identifies the need for a black feminist group on campus, then within that someone identifies a need for a black bisexual feminist group. We have a russian doll effect here which looks at least theoretically like it will descend into mere individualism. I imagine that a lot of white feminists, as shown in this brief discussion, take exception to the remark that they are ‘priveleged’ because they identify first and foremost with their status as women. I imagine there will be a black, bisexual, feminist woman who would argue that Blackademic is in some way priveleged for simply not being the same as herself and having more agency as a ’straight woman’.
Yet these labels seem crass and reductive. They seem to strike a chord within us that makes the hair stand up. Perhaps the problem lies in our adoption of group identity IN RELATION TO other groups, as much as we’d like to deny it. Just a thought.
This comment was written by Cryo.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2006 at 10:22 am
By the way Blackademic I didn’t mean to be so prescriptive about your sexuality. I merely tried to highlight my point through example.
This comment was written by Cryo.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2006 at 10:49 am
The view that any type of oppression/discrimination/hatred trumps another forgets that they are all symptoms of the same problem. And that problem is exploiting groupings of people for our self-interests and then using those same groups as scapegoats.
This underlying system harms even those who aren’t oppressed/discriminated against or hated because it creates a toxic environment. Unfortunately, many see this toxicity as being caused by those who don’t quietly let the toxic system hurt them by staying in their proper place.
Many who want to deny racism/sexism/etc are likely scared that the unjust system will turn on them. The last thing they want is to be treated the way they treat those they discriminate against.
This comment was written by Marcella Chester.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2006 at 10:51 am
I haven’t been hostile, I’ve been angry. I guess the irony of you getting angry at folks for bringing up Tawana Brawley—something I agreed with you on—-leading to a discussion about how white women are liars escapes you. You can’t defend one group of women from sexism by using it on another group of women, and that’s exactly what you’re trying to do.
Men of color do have a complicit relationship with fostering the oppression of women based on gender differences, but, we cannot ignore the fact that these same men face similar oppressions due to the color of their skin aside from their gender.
What kind of language is fostering the oppression? And yes, we sure as hell can ignore these guys face oppression if they turn around and oppress other people specifically women. Once they start hurting women, they stop being oppressed themselves. That paragraph right there is exactly what I’m talking about.
Men have never had more than a temporary grasp, historically speaking, of the feeling of always having been possessions, something women have never been free of, in any culture. Regarding women as possessions has been a male right through history. Women have never entirely broken free of it, but the price tags on those valueable hymens differ according to the shelf we’re placed on.
I’m reminded of the Central Park Jogger case, in which justisfied hostility toward the racist white policemen and male columnists translated itself into unjustified hostility toward the uncsconious victim, to the point where Peter Noel, a writer for the City Sun, wrote about the perfection of her body sarcastically, as if the culture that valued such things as her was her fault.
And if I don’t get it it’s becuase I don’t think any man, anywhere, is more important over any woman anywhere. I don’t care what oppressions he’s suffered. Once he hurts a woman he’s not an ally.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2006 at 11:09 am
This might all just be a linguistic issue, so bear with me.
Your above paragraph almost assuradly supports a view towards gender “trumping” race — as, in order for it to work, race would have to be a monolithic and singular experience for all non-white women, regardless of actual race and global location. The single common denominator is feminism, not race — not unless you codify race to an almost meaningless degree.
Similarly, your two preceding paragraphs could read to be an assertion that race “trumps” gender — which I’d be surprised to see you asserting. Say, for instance, in the case of the young woman alleging rape in the Duke lacrosse case — you say this:
You are right, all of her identities should be taken into account — but for all very different reasons. Ultimately, she was raped. Rape is a crime against gender (more precisely, it is a definer of gender), it is not a crime against class or race. Race (and class) however, are what created the situation in the first place: a situation with expectations placed on the woman and her behavior because she is black and because she is poor (relatively). Similarly, although the rape occurred because of her being a woman, it is most likely her race and class that will affect her testimony, perceived veracity, and the course of the trial.
So yes, everything is intertwined.
I really don’t like the idea of any oppression or discrimination trumping another — yet I find rape to be such a singularly repugnant and sticky social structure, that I support focusing on gender first with a willingness to be critical of all other social factors (even oppressions) that come into play. Men in a rape culture benefit from that culture — and for every black man who can wipe his brow and say “at least I’m not a black beotch” or who refers causually to women who perform sexually for him as “ho’s”, the core issue is gender and the situating of women, based on sex, into the category of fuckable/rapable/disposable.
Black women need black men as allies, as lesbians need gay men as allies. To me it would be foolhardy to assume that my common oppression with gay men makes me socially equal to them.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2006 at 11:56 am
Assuming that this is *the* problem(and I strongly disagree it is) I don’t think it will stop if there is this expectation that gender trumps race for all women.
That all women must identify their primary oppression as sexism(as White women define it).
That if they don’t do so , they are viewed as not really being feminists and in fact, instead are diverting the movement and dividing it into “splinter” groups that are seen as hostile to White feminists(who define them of course as being hostile to “women”)
Is creating all these different groups, really a problem? Or is it a problem because White women are excluded from them or do not have a say in running them? I’m asking because it was at the point when “feminists” broke off into “Black feminists” that your outcry about the rampantness of individualism began in your posting. Where is the outcry about the lack of inclusiveness of “feminism” for many women? No where.
Who gives a fuck? On a race level, it’s true and if the shoe fits, stop throwing a tantrum every time you get called on it and learn from what people are telling you instead. I know first hand that it’s not easy to do this, but it does get easier with experience and lessons learned. This can also apply to White women who are oppressed by sexual orientation, classism and ableness and made to choose to *prove* their loyalties.
If feminism doesn’t give women the freedom and the right to define themselves the way they choose then it is no better than the patriarchy that it is fighting against. In fact, it is mirroring the enemy.
You do have privilage if you can put gender first. Why? Because you don’t have to stack your gender oppression with your racial oppression and any other oppressions you face in your life.
The problem is when our discomfort over having to face our racial privilage trumps the racial oppression faced by women of color that directly or indirectly benefits White women. It is NOT the responses women of color have to the behavior of White feminists.
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2006 at 12:02 pm
Shock trumps reason
This comment was written by azbballfan.Violence trumps passiveness
Hate trumps compassion
Pity trumps help
Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2006 at 12:18 pm
Men have never had more than a temporary grasp, historically speaking, of the feeling of always having been possessions, something women have never been free of, in any culture.
Men who have been enslaved from birth probably have a better grasp of that feeling than you give them credit for. By the civil war, to use the American example, there had been at least 6 generations of slavery. If my dad and his dad and his dad and his dad and his dad were all property, I think that “historically speaking” we’ve got an impression that we’ve always been property. Going to other cultures, there are much lengthier (because not interrupted by emancipation) chains of possessedness.
Perhaps I’m misunderstanding what you’re trying to say.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2006 at 12:21 pm
I have to say one thing, though there’s so much I could say. This is in response to Qgrrl. Bear with me if it’s been said 100 times: rape is a crime of race as well as gender. Rape is a frequently-used weapon in genocidal campaigns; it has a long a reprehensible history in the United States as a tool to enforce white racial dominance.
Men can also be raped. Rape is a (covert) tool of the prison system used far too often to keep men (predominately Black, as it happens) in line. Admittedly, this isn’t too pertinent issue in the Duke case, but I think it should be remembered.
This comment was written by newbie.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2006 at 12:27 pm
I didn’t state that it was the ‘problem’, I stated that it was the ‘matter’ meaning the underlying philosophical issue. Every individual could claim to be less priveleged than the one in front of them in a queue at the bus stop if they so desired, but this assertion of other ‘groups’ being more priveleged than others is contentious in a society where we stress respect for individual circumstance. I use white feminism as an example, black feminism could be logically used also by someone who takes exception to the way their characteristics as an individual are not catered for the way they like within that group. There is no explicit agenda from a white feminist pespective here, just a questioning of the way people view themselves as a ‘group’ opposed to another.
I think the PROBLEM lies in the assertion that ‘you cannot understand because you are not X’. This viewpoint has always been vehemently upheld by radical feminism when applied to men - how does one view this assertion with regard to the issue of race, class, sexual orientation, how many packets of biscuits we buy on a thursday? There comes a point where a certain ‘respect’ for a groups’ space to speak descends into people muttering to themselves in their own room because no one can truly relate to them. We can listen to that individual speak and respectfully absorb what they have to say but cannot discuss this with another human being because we do not understand them, and them us.
Yet the radical feminist community to me appear to be united - and imo. I believe this to be due only to the fact that they converge upon an over riding political/moral/cultural viewpoint - that it is most important to be a woman before anything else. Without that agreement I think we are encouraging the bolt to be slammed home.
This comment was written by Cryo.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2006 at 12:37 pm
A problem with this analogy is that Black women partner most often with Black men and have children with them.
Also, I didn’t think there was an assumption made that sharing a common oppression(racism) meant that Black men and Black women were socially equal to each other. I think BA stated that there were gender inequalities between men and women but that they could not be separated and treated apart from racial inequalities shared by Black men and women. I do not see how having gender trump race would be a solution to these gender equalities between Black men and women. I think you would have to address racism as well.
(thank you newbie for your post.)
Rape is a crime against gender, but it can also be used against a race or ethnic group. It is used in other places as a tool of ethnic or racial genocide, for example. It was used by White men against Black women in this country under slavery. It is a weapon of colonization, as well.
What I see here are women of color objecting to the prioritization of gender over race while White women stating that is the just the way it is…because it’s rape. I would be frustrated too! I see White women proclaiming their concern that no one cares about Black women who are raped(including other Black women) but then when they are challenged by Black women on the issue, refuse to listen to their viewpoints from the perspective of…Black women!
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2006 at 12:47 pm
I’m saying, Radfem, that is appropriate given certain circumstances to look at gender before race. I am not saying that by looking at gender first we ignore the implications of racism.
Even when used as a tool of genocide or colonialism, it is women and women’s bodies being raped. To ignore that is to erase certain realities of being female-bodied.
[as to the issue of men get raped too: it is most often when female bodies are not available and the men being raped serve as pseudo-women, therfore it is still about gender (and not sex), as gender is a patriarchal system of power-over].
Where? I see you badly misinterpreting what could be an interesting and challenging discussion just to make white women out to be the devil. IOW, race trumps everything, all the time, from your perspective. And I don’t think that’s good either. I think we can have these conversations without resorting to diametrically opposed positions, no?
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2006 at 12:55 pm
IOW, from my opinion, it is just as sloppy to think or theorize that race is more oppressive than sexism. What makes the discussion interesting, and important, is delineating how and when and to whom race comes first, or gender comes first. Painting one segment of the population as clueless is reductive and a finely tilted slippery slope. You may say that White women are operating out of privilege when we can place gender first — but why is that something to be ashamed of? I am white — that’s what I know. And I do put gender first. But not all the time.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2006 at 1:02 pm
Nubian, saying one or the other trumps doesn’t make sense. You also left out class, and that is something our culture judges us on as well. It is far worse in our culture if one is a woman from a lower socioenomic class than a man. I think you were unfairly labeling Ginmar as hostile. She makes valid points. Just because a man is black doesn’t mean he’s on your side. There is certainly sexism amongst African American men and sexism that is praised look at how some rap videos treat women, I’ve seen some condemnation of this amongst African American feminists. Nubian, I think you are assuming Ginmar and all white feminists are hostile to you. We aren’t.
This comment was written by Ciardha.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2006 at 1:13 pm
Ciardha, I don’t think Nubian was saying that either one “trumps” the other. And although she didn’t address class issues in this particular post, that doesn’t mean she thinks class issues aren’t important. No one talks about every possible way people are privileged in every single post.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2006 at 1:20 pm
As far as I’m aware 90% of all violent crime on this planet is performed by men - not women. No such dichotomy can, for all that I know, be found between any two groups of different colour or ethnicity.
Thus, although I think the choice of words was far too flippant, I agree that gender is a more pervasive part of our identities and behaviour than identifieing/being identified as black, white or any nuance in between.
This does not mean that we can ever disregard issues like class and ethnicity or that gender is always the factor in question. It all intersects and feeds off eachother in an ever changing dynamic that really needs to be studied more.
Still, I find arguments on who is most disadvantaged completely unproductive unless we believe there is a limited resource of involvement going around an needing to to be shared out between causes. I don’t believe that is the case. Surely most of us are here to share experiences and thoughts and support eachother in our daily struggle?
This comment was written by B.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2006 at 1:26 pm
I’m not understanding why anyone thinks there’s necessarily a categorical hierarchy to oppressions. I’d argue that what is generally necessary is to view gender and race (and sometimes other oppressions, such as class, etc., depending on context and which are relevant) laterally, simultaneously, and in relation to each other. Sure, we sometimes need to pick them apart and view them individually in order to understand how nuances of each may be operating, but that does not mean they must be hierarchized. This alleged necessity to view various oppressions hierarchically seems like a reproduction and reinforcement of the very same patriarchal structures that generated them in the first place.
This comment was written by IndyLib.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2006 at 1:34 pm
Call me naive, but I honestly don’t understand any rush to claim that one characteristic must always trump the other, all the time, everywhere. Saying “race trumps gender” or “gender trumps race” strikes me as mixing together yellow and blue paint and claiming that the results always produce some variant of one or the other, but never the color green.
Who or what is served by demanding that we each choose a primary oppression that fits every circumstance ?
This comment was written by alsis39.75.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2006 at 1:42 pm
yeah, but who’s saying that Alsis? Who’s making this claim? Even Amp calls for a generous reading — well at least for the WOC, ginmar, apprently b/c she is white, should know better.
Look, saying that feminists are (as a group) claiming that gender trumps race is like saying MacKinnon or Dworkin said that all heterosexual sex is rape. … or that all men are rapists.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2006 at 1:43 pm
Well, it’s hard to have that challenging and interesting conversation if I’m being told I’m making white women “out to be the devil.” Just using that terminology simply because I disagree that ALL women should have to define gender first is an automatic dialogue interrupter as well. It means that it’s okay to talk about White women as being oppressed by gender, but not as potential oppressors by race. That’s the only way that women can participate.
If you believe I’m making the White women to be the “devil” all the time, then you are badly misinterpreting me. But if you wanted to shut the door to any reference regarding White feminists and race privilage, I guess you did.
What makes the discussion interesting, and important, is delineating how and when and to whom race comes first, or gender comes first.
I agree that it is very interesting until the loyalty tests are given to women who don’t put gender first. Then it ceases to be so. When it comes to “painting” women, how is stating that on this or that issue, this is a crime of gender, or this is an issue of gender(but we’ll allow for some analysis and thus acknowlegement of race and class) any different than trying to cram woman into a category largely defined by White feminists and our own interests?
You have the right to do so if you choose. Why not allow other women the same right to choose what they put first and listen to them, rather than tell them how wrong they are to do so? Like they don’t understand what it’s like to live their own lives and their own experiences, which admittedly are different from your own. Like their perception of rape as a crime of gender AND race is not valid simply because it disagrees with your own? Why should women who can not and do not wish to separate the two be told they *have to* to participate equally in discussions on this issue?
I’m not saying that race trumps gender all the time. I’m simply expressing irritation that the decision on whether it does or does not, should or should not for ALL women, rests on the assumptions of White women, with White women scolding their Black sisters if they disagree with their views. That’s one time when feminism ceases speaking to me.
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2006 at 1:50 pm
Qgrrl, I never meant to imply that every White feminist said what ginmar said. But her quote is heading the topic, after all. Cut me some slack here. You’ve been on some of the same feminist spaces I have where any number of White feminists basically felt they had a duty to demand that WOC “choose” gender as a defining factor over race, all the time, everywhere. You remember when Gentile White feminists played the same games with Jewish women like me. So, no, I don’t think that demand from certain White feminists is an urban legend on par with the misattribution of “all sex is rape” to some radical feminist writers, not by a long shot.
It doesn’t matter to me if another White woman “knows better” or not. Ginmar has been all kinds of places and seen all kinds of things which I haven’t. The same applies to Blac(k) and to you and to probably most feminists I meet. The key isn’t to “know better” but to concede to your sister that you don’t know everything, because none of us do. I want so badly for us to really hear each other, more than we usually end up doing.
This comment was written by alsis39.75.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2006 at 2:00 pm
And where in the hell am I telling them how wrong they are? Unless you’re switching between the singular you and the plural (which I tend to do), I’m not sure how to take this. And I don’t get this “you have the right to do so if you choose.” You’re the one saying that white women do this, white women do that, as if that color of whiteness automatically, across the board, accrues the same level of racism to all of us white women. So whoa. Now you’re going to say that I have a choice? That it isn’t my skin color afterall?
I have my viewpoint, much of which is founded on my lived history as a white woman. It informs me, sometimes in some really excellent ways. I also firmly believe that there is no hierarchy of oppressions… which strangely enough includes racism. What I object to is the gross misinterpretation of what ginmar and others are saying about women, rape, lies *and* race. In my initial post here, I tried to point out how easy it is, when not even trying, to premise one oppression above another, and then I went on to say that sometimes this is a necessarcy and timely tool. That does not mean any one oppression continuously and historically will always “trump” another. For others to keep insisting that this is what “white” “feminists” are doing is intellecutally weak.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2006 at 2:03 pm
Alsis, I hear you. But what about what is going on right here? right now?
Which “white feminists” are making these claims?
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2006 at 2:10 pm
I’m not fucking with you, Qgrrl– though it might seem that way. It’s just that I don’t follow how ginmar is being misinterpreted. She did write, “gender trumps race,” and cited cases in which the hierarchies built into the former overrode the hierarchies built into the latter. I’m not denying that in those cases, she could have been right, but she made it sound as if these cases were the blueprint for every case of rape and other violence against women that has ever come down the plank. If she wants to clarify that she meant to say something more nunaced, why doesn’t she ?
She also wrote: “…but when black men abuse black women no one wants to talk about it…” But how does she know this ? Does it follow that because the faces at Take Back the Night rallies, or what have you, are all or mostly White that WOC aren’t talking about it at all, anywhere ?
This comment was written by alsis39.75.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2006 at 2:31 pm
It might seem intellectually weak to you, but it seems like a pattern and practice that has occurred a lot in feminist discourse as alsis has said in her post. I find that in itself, weak.
Well, many women may beg and have begged to differ that. Historical examples were given, to explain this.
So is the worst or the singularly repugnant and sticky social structure in oppression to be relegated to being defended by gender first? And any lessor ones, well maybe gender can be equal with race or below it? Are we substituting one heiarchy for another? My concern is that for each woman, rape might be a different experience that affects them as a gender but also as a race or ethnicity and pushing one definition of what kind of crime rape is. And having this defined for ALL women by women who have put gender first.
I guess women should be grateful that you are at least “willing” to consider all the other oppressions.
That is after creating a heiarchy for rape, which places gender first.
That’s a straw man from the other thread. I believe there was an assertion that some White women may have lied about rape by Black men. How that got interpreted defensively to mean ALL White women, I don’t understand. It seems that this statement of Some women lie= All women lie is more often a tactic used by MRAs. I guess the accusation that would normally be made against MRAs here can be tossed against women of color as well, who challenge the contention that White women never lied about rape, in cases where Black men were lynched.
Interesting, since the major thrust of the initial Brawley post was that a Black woman who was raped in Durham is being associated *at all* with one case where a Black teenage girl was believed to have lied(I don’t know the specifics of how this case turned out). Somehow it became all about White women being accused of lying ALL the time about rape.
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2006 at 2:38 pm
What the fuck? Where the hell does this come from radfem?
I don’t think that defining rape as a crime against gender makes anything into a fucking hierarchy. Rape happens precisely b/c women are female bodied when rape is used as a class or racial tool (to include genocide). Its a simple matter of biology, not fucking hierarchies.
At this point you’re seeing what you want to see radfem.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2006 at 2:40 pm
I should have added a p.s.
P.S. Radfem, I respect you and your words a lot. I do not completely get how you are coming to the conclusions you are coming to from the entirity of my words here. Either I’m not doing a very good job of explaining myself, or you already have your mind made up.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2006 at 2:55 pm
Alsis, Ginmar is talking about our culture in general, and that includes liberal blogs. When it is talked about the black man is a celebrity ( Kobe Bryant, etc…) and the black woman gets the same treatment by the media (including liberal media) that white women raped by white men do. (William Kennedy Smith, etc…) We women (no matter our skin color, ethnicity, sexual preference or class) know the whole sick song and dance the media says and even some men who call themselves liberal are so quick to parrot - “She’s a slut, a liar, it’s her fault she shouldn’t have done/worn that”
This comment was written by Ciardha.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2006 at 3:04 pm
I was just walking across campus (Duke Univ to boot) to the Chick Filet — it’s a late work night, needed dinner. So it’s the last day of classes for the undergrads, there are caterers setting up tents etc for the last day festivities, but it’s started drizzling and most of us are unprepared for the light rain. The woman walking next to me is a young black woman with long curly hair that’s starting to react to the rain. We both simultanesously walk past three black men who have been working setting up the tents and the one guy pokes the other in the ribs, points to the young black woman and says, clearly “looks like a jellyfish with herpes.”
I kept walking. I figured it was a black thing.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2006 at 3:32 pm
Robert, please. Are you going to pretend you’re totally ignorant of history? Christ, reading the old narratives about ‘the violation of the black man’s bed‘ made it very clear that a white man raping a black slave was regarded as a violation of the black guy’s ownership of her. Even in slavery, she was pulled two ways.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2006 at 3:41 pm
Ginmar, your response is a non sequitur. I would not presume to argue that black women’s oppression was not harsher than black men’s. That isn’t what you asserted; you said “Men have never had more than a temporary grasp, historically speaking, of the feeling of always having been possessions…”
I believe that men who are owned have a grasp of being a possession. That other people, who are also owned, had things even worse doesn’t seem to undermine that point.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2006 at 3:46 pm
I don’t think I should enter the wider debate, because I think that the specifics of this debate are about race and gender in the united states, and I don’t think that’s my discussion to have (I didn’t know who Tawana Brawley was, still don’t).
But I did want to say that I think that I think this statement is unbelievably racist, no matter what else is going on.
This comment was written by Maia.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2006 at 4:05 pm
from this:
I think the use of “willingness” here shows that 1) a heiarchy exists and 2) that if women of color want to talk about how racism affects their experiences and views of rape, they have to park the “racism” talk at the curb if race and racism are not kept at their proper place, below gender.
Maybe not to you, but what about women who don’t want to call it a crime of gender first? What about women who can not separate gender from race when it comes to rape? To them, your response is well, it’s a crime of gender but I’m not creating a heiarchy. In your eyes, probably not b/c in terms of race and gender there may not be one.
In theirs, well that goes back to the original posting on this blog, and posts left at BA’s blog as well. That was my original point I’ve been trying to make from the beginning, about the time I was told I was demonizing White women, by associating them with being “devils”.
Q grrl, I respect you and your words a lot. I do disagree with what you have said here. If I’m seeing what I want to see, I’m not the only one.
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2006 at 4:09 pm
How unbelievably ignorant this is! Do you presume that because you aren’t privy to these conversations they don’t take place? Are all the conversations and experiences of women of color defined by which ones you are privy to?
Oh, and btw, if Black feminists do not “want to touch that one” in the presense of White feminists, it doesn’t take much to figure out why.
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2006 at 4:14 pm
Well, we all experience oppression differently. You see, on a day to day basis, I get more racism than I do sexism, but sometimes I get a noxious blend of the two. But, I’m able to understand that just because I don’t get oppressed about my class, it doesn’t mean that classism doesn’t exist or other people may not get blends of classism in with other oppressions. I’m feeling rude, so like, if your touchstone for black culture is rap videos, please be quiet and go and interact with some black people? Please.
Also, like people can be your ally in one place and your adversary in another. I’m allied with white feminists about you know, being against rape, but I’m against them when they are like OMG! white priv like doesnt exist, you know?
This comment was written by Shannon.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2006 at 4:31 pm
i never said anything trumped anything. maybe you misread my posting?
second, i did mention class when i said we must take into account that the alledged rape victim was economically disenfranchised. but my point was looking at the comment left by ginmar claiming “gender trumps race”–so i focused mainly on those two issues.
this is so ridiculous. you just negated the whole history of black feminism–i am so offended. to me, that statement reeks of white privilege and only unearths the nasty ideas that some white feminists believe, that if they aren’t included in the discussions, then they must not exist!–just because we aren’t talking about those issues around you, does not mean they aren’t taking place. i urge to read some black feminists texts and step outside your comfort zone. or watch NO! the rape documentary. the whole film is about rape of black women by black men. or read some mark anthony neal.
what the hell does this have to do with anything?
This comment was written by nubian.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2006 at 4:44 pm
And I meant willingness within the realms of openmindedness — of a shared discourse about all aspects, to include criticism of those aspects, from all points of view. It seems to me that most often discussion of race do not flow back and forth, they become one directional. And that might be because it isn’t historically possible yet to have an honest, open, and non-judgemental discussion between blacks and whites (i.e, whites still have miles to go in their listening/learning roles). It is my belief that part of the learning curve for both parties is a vigourous examination of our social situations, and that if one party is going to criticize the other party for making blanket statements (gender trumps race), then the same criticism can and should be levied against claims that the other party/affiliation (white feminists) are monolithically of a certain mind or opinion. That is what I mean by intellectually weak. It doesn’t say much. It tends to make people defensive. And it tends to make people not learn very much.
I don’t think it is safe ground to be on when white women cannot publically criticize black men for the role they play in perpetuating, not just black women’s oppression through sexism, but white women’s too. Being able to say that black men are rapists or that black men benefit just like white men do from our rape culture needs to be said. We cannot pretend otherwise. But simultaneously (i.e., my notion of willingness) is for that particular “benefit” or participation in the rape culture to be placed within the cultural/historical/social context of white on black racism, including the very unique history that black men faced in being lynched for rapes that never happened (to white women).
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2006 at 4:47 pm
It was to point out the disutility of creating hierarchies of oppression.
In reality, I kept walking b/c it was raining. The insane amount of misogyny imbedded in this man’s comments stayed with me a bit longer thoguh.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2006 at 4:51 pm
IOW, in the split second of the mind’s reaction to a situation, one reacts to the ugliness first. I reacted to the sexism/misogyny. Maybe the young woman reacted through an entire sequence of experiences that I don’t know about.
It would, however, be insanely rediculous for me to have actually thought, or acted out, the concept of “oh, that’s a black thing”, premising race over sexism. (there was a considerable class issue occuring between the student and the workers, so I assume the possibility that the comment could have been racially or class motivated).
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2006 at 4:59 pm
Did I miss something? Who said that black men don’t rape or that they don’t benefit from rape culture? At the same time, just because white women are being raped and denied body rights doesn’t mean that they can’t take part in racism.
This comment was written by Shannon.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2006 at 5:16 pm
Ciardha:
Well, first of all, I’m not by any means the most savvy Caucazoid out there. However, I don’t see the point in equating liberal blogs with either the world at large or even with Black blogs. I know Black folks active in anti-racist and other social justice issues who nonetheless can’t abide what they consider liberal hypocrisy and thus avoid the term like the plague. So I would avoid assuming that the average liberal blog speaks for the average Black person I might run across on the street– even if their opinions have a superficial resemblance to each other.
I would also avoid muddying the issue by using celebrity cases interchangeably with most criminal cases. For that matter, the Duke case itself is not a celebrity case in the usual sense because while the White athletes may have some celebrity status on campus, they aren’t exactly celebrities elsewhere in the way that Bryant, Tyson or Simpson was. It’s true that in a case like Bryant’s, you will see White men and White media essentially giving a celebrity de facto Whiteness– a promotion, if you will. They are also in the process demoting the White acuser to the status of a [insert your favorite derrogatory racial term here]. Again, however, I think it’s a mistake to treat a wealthy, esteemed celebrity as if he went into a criminal case with the same status that an acused Black man would if he taught grade school or collected trash for a living.
I’m not arguing with that. One point I would make, however, and I saw this mentioned elsewhere, is that (for example) Bryant’s acuser tried to get justice. As totally fucked up as her treatment was, it’s possible that if she had been a WOC, she would either have not bothered to make the attempt, — or would not have gotten any signifigant media coverage at all. Possibly because without the added salaciousness the media gets from the interracial angle, her fate would not have qualified as news. Or possibly because her own community would have heaped the condemnation of her being a traitor to another POC on top of all the abuse she already had to withstand.
This comment was written by alsis39.75.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2006 at 5:39 pm
Forgive me, I haven’t read all of the comments so I don’t know if this has already been said.
Part of the problem, to me, in arguing that “gender DOES NOT trump race” is that all too easy, instead of turning into an argument that race/gender/class are intersectional and that not one of them by default trumps another, it turns into “but race DOES trump gender.”
It scares me when someone who uses that argument that “gender trumps race” is called a “racist,” but someone who says that “race trumps gender” isn’t in turn called a “sexist.” And it definitely upsets me that class gets sort of thrown in there like a kicked around little sister, because of general ideas that “lower class” really means “women of color” because of the so-called face of poverty. It upsets me that being called “classist” isn’t nearly the level of insult that being called racist and — perhaps to a SLIGHTLY lesser degree — sexist is.
This comment was written by Edith.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2006 at 6:21 pm
Hi Nubian,
I’m sorry the commenters have been so hard onyou. I think your posts are great, and I’ve liked reading them a lot. I avoid comments threads a lot these days, mostly because I don’t feel like my comments do any good. And that may also be true here, but I couldn’t not tell you how terrific your posts are, and how much I like reading them. I wish I had offered more support.
best,
This comment was written by Ann Bartow.Ann
Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2006 at 6:31 pm
Nubian:
I wanted to say that I’ve greatly appreciated reading your posts here. I will make an effort to keep up with your blog when you stop posting here, whether that’s now or later.
Shannon:
I very much agree with you.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2006 at 6:41 pm
You say you haven’t read the comments. Do you have any evidence that people are doing this? Because otherwise I don’t think your point has any relevance.
This comment was written by Maia.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2006 at 6:50 pm
Maia says on her blog: The other thing I wanted to argument with, but didn’t because I didn’t want to derail Nubian’s thread is this:
The Third Wave was coined and founded by Rebecca Walker who is half black and Alice Walker’s daughter and it’s ironic and sad that the third wave is not much less racist than the second wave.
I’m always a little surprised whenever I see anyone using the term second-wave feminism. I thought the two wave model of feminism had been so thoroughly discredited that no-one would dishonour the feminists who worked between women winning the vote and the 1960s by continuing to ignore their existance.
It doesn’t matter if we’re talking first wave, second wave, third wave or no wave, American feminism has always been racist.
Race, gender, class don’t trump one another but I think the original post was a response to how the Duke case is starting to ignore the racial taunts and racial aspects to focus on sexism only. There has been writing in the blogosphere lately that say gender trumps race. I also noticed today that people are suggesting Mary Doe’s identity be shown when the identities of the white women in the Haidl and Missbrenner cases were never revealed while the defendants identities were revealed as in the Duke case.
This comment was written by nonwhiteperson.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2006 at 6:52 pm
Look, saying that feminists are (as a group) claiming that gender trumps race is like saying MacKinnon or Dworkin said that all heterosexual sex is rape. … or that all men are rapists.
Huh? But ginmar actually said, in the other thread, that “gender trumps race.”
Q Grrl, I agree with a lot of what you’ve been saying, which is making me wonder why you’ve taken an adversarial tone with respect to the original post. You seem to be arguing against the idea that race trumps gender, and I’m with you (I hate the idea of “trumping” when it comes to oppression anyway), but…who on earth has said that race trumps gender? No one. No one’s made such a blanket statement here. The original post was arguing against ginmar’s claim that gender trumps race. That’s it.
And yes, we sure as hell can ignore these guys face oppression if they turn around and oppress other people specifically women. Once they start hurting women, they stop being oppressed themselves.
Are you seriously arguing that if you oppress someone you automatically cease being oppressed yourself? I suppose white females on plantations were not oppressed, then, since they oppressed the black slaves in their power. Does this also mean that white women today aren’t oppressed, seeing that many of them use their white privilege to further the oppression of people of color?
And yes, I do think making the blanket statement of “gender trumps race” is a sign of white privilege. Ginmar, you and me and other feminists rightly criticize men for getting defensive when they’re told they have male privilege. It seems, right now, like you’re getting defensive in reaction to being told you’ve got white privilege. I encourage you to take your own advice and think about why so many women of color in this thread are criticizing you for this, rather than implying that they’re just “standing by their men.”
Nubian, like Amp, I wish you’d keep posting here. Yeah, you’re getting some undeserved hostility, but IMO that’s all the more reason why voices like yours are needed. Of course I respect your decision not to if you think that’s best.
This comment was written by Lanoire.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2006 at 8:20 pm
Ultimately, she was raped. Rape is a crime against gender (more precisely, it is a definer of gender)
Except that people of both genders can be raped.
And speaking as a black female, I don’t have the luxury of putting my gender first. White is the default race, if you hear a story where the race of the participants is not mentioned, if you live in the United States or most of Europe, you assume white. If you are a white woman you cease to be “white” and become simply a woman, a woman of color cannot do this, she has to carry her race to identify herself.
This comment was written by Jane.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2006 at 8:41 pm
Nubian, I want to second what Lanoire and Amp are saying. Please do not let anyone to silence you. You’re voice is too powerful and too needed right now.
Afterall, you said it best:
I’m going to be the one to out and out say what I think has been lurking in at least some of the posters here’s mind. Ginmar could not give two shits about the experiences of people of color. Not only do I believe that she has not taken the time to read any black feminst work, but she seems to be oblivious to all of black history in America.
I’m sick and tired of seeing white people telling people of color that they don’t understand their experiences of oppression (”no, it’s not really about race, it’s about class/gender”). Talk about abusing your privilege!
This comment was written by Kevin Andre Elliott.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2006 at 10:41 pm
You know, I really don’t even know where to start. I was telling my friend the other day - a black male - about how for once, I would like to be considered a lady by the people living in this country. You know? White people can say whateverdafuck they want to say, but when they are speaking of chivalry, manners, holding open doors, and so on, they are NOT thinking about my black ass, or anyone who looks like my black ass. When Elle, Marie Claire, Vogue, etc. are talking about women who are beautiful and fearless and so on, they are not talking about my black ass or anyone who looks like my black ass. When they see me, they’re wondering where my kids are and how I managed to buy such nice clothes on my $20 a month welfare check. (Sorry so ranty, but I had an encounter a couple of days ago with the EE-PIT-OH-MEE of the White Privleged Male.)
I go to FAMU - four miles from FSU - and I tell you, the tension between the schools right now is so bad that you would’ve thought that woman went to FAM. These white boys are strutting around like they own the world, saying things to us black women that they would normally NEVER say. It’s maddening. I’m practically walking halfway to Atlanta just to avoid being in their way. Usually I’m all for a fight, but right now they’re just draining us all.
This comment was written by Jennifer.Report this comment to the moderators
April 27th, 2006 at 12:21 am
The gulf between those two schools is unbelievable and FSU is another big time fraternity/sports/party school. The black male students and the school always get tagged by law enforcement and FSU male students never et in trouble.
This comment was written by nonwhiteperson.Report this comment to the moderators
April 27th, 2006 at 5:45 am
Nubian, great post. Don’t ever stop. Don’t ever give up.
I have nothing to add that hasn’t been said already except that this
says it all to me. Thank you.
This comment was written by deviousdiva.Report this comment to the moderators