| Author |
Message |
    
Ferociouskitty
First Time Poster
Username: Ferociouskitty
Post Number: 1
Registered: 02-2008
Rating: 
Votes: 2 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 06, 2008 - 10:52 am: | 
|
Excellent article at the Huffington Post by Kimberle Crenshaw and Eve Ensler:
Feminist Ultimatums: Not in Our Name
The rubble that was once the World Trade Center was still smoldering when President Bush issued an ultimatum that marked our foolhardy and tragic descent into war: Laying down the law, he declared, “Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.”
Progressives, feminists, civil libertarians, compassionate conservatives and independent thinkers alike denounced the president’s rant as a simplistic but frightening attempt to hijack the outpouring of grief felt world wide to serve his pro-war agenda. Thousands refused to be held hostage to this friend or foe logic in the face of considerable doubt and genuine disagreement about how to respond to the tragedy of 9/11.
It was in those early moments of our national trauma that progressive New Yorkers came together to say no to war and to refuse to lend our name to the intimidation and sabre-rattling that President Bush’s “with us or a’gin us” rhetoric represented. It is thus a sad irony that years later, as our nation faces an opportunity to confront and perhaps end the human misery we have inflicted in Iraq and Afghanistan, a new iteration of the “with us or with them” rhetoric has emerged.
In seeking to corral wayward souls into the Hillary Clinton camp, the new players of this troubling game are no longer the hawkish Republicans but “either/or” feminists determined to see to it that a woman occupies the Oval Office. Drawing their feminist boundaries in the sand, they interrogate, chastise, second-guess and even denounce those who escape their encampment and find themselves on Obama terrain. In their hands feminism, like patriotism, is the all-encompassing prism that eliminates discussion, doubt and difference about whom to vote for and why. Armed with indignant exasperation, this “either/or” camp converts the undeniable misogyny of the media into an imperative to vote for Clinton. The balanced reflections and gentle warnings that were voiced months ago have been jettisoned for a one-sided brief about why voting for Clinton is the only sensible thing for women to do. Perhaps because there is a viable opponent who carries a competing claim to breakthrough status, the “either/or” rhetoric has become particularly fierce. While denying any intention to square off racism against sexism, the “either/or” feminists nonetheless remind us that the Black (man) got the vote before the (white) woman, that gender barriers are more rigid than racial barriers, that sexism is everywhere and racism is not, that a female Obama wouldn’t get nearly as far as a Barack Obama, and that a woman’s vote for Clinton is scrutinized while a male vote for Obama is not. Never mind of course that real suffrage for African Americans wasn’t realized until the 1960s, that there are any number of advantages that white women have in business, politics and culture that people of color do not; that all around the world women’s route to political leadership is through family dynasty which is virtually closed to marginalized groups, and that the double standard of stigmatizing Obama’s Black voters as racially motivated while whitewashing Clinton’s white voters as “just voters” constitutes the exact same double standard that the “either/or feminists” bemoan. The “either/or” crowd surprisingly claims that the two Democratic candidates are more alike than different, yet those who gravitate to Obama find their motives questioned and their loyalties on trial. Even long standing allies of the women’s movement have been unable to escape the label of “traitor” for opting to support Barack Obama instead of Hillary Clinton.
Because we believe that feminism can be expressed by a broader range of choices than this “either/or” proposition entails, we again find ourselves compelled to say “no”–this time to a brand of feminism that betrays its inclusive and global commitments. We believe we stand in unity with many feminists who will say, “Not in Our Name” will this feminism be deployed.
Young feminists have been vocal and strong in critiquing the claim that a vote for Obama represents some form of youthful naiveté, a desire to win the approval of men, or a belief that sexism no longer factors into their lives. While paying respect to those women who carried the banner for so many years, these young women have reminded us that feminism is not static but evolutionary, changing in content, scope and tenor as new generations elevate their concerns and aspirations. And while we agree that this “either/or” brand of feminism fails to capture the imagination and hopes of countless numbers of women who refuse to entrust this capital into the hands of a candidate just because she is a woman, we think it important to add that this is not simply an intergenerational difference at work here. At issue is a profound difference in seeing feminism as intersectional and global rather than essentialist and insular. Women have grappled with these questions in every feminist wave, struggling to see feminism as something other than a “me too” bid for power whether it be in the family, the party, the race or the state.
For many of us, feminism is not separate from the struggle against violence, war, racism and economic injustice. Gender hierarchy and race hierarchy are not separate and parallel dynamics. The empowerment of women is contingent upon all these things. Despite the fact that we know that identity does not equal politics–especially an antiwar, social equity and global justice politics–we are led to believe that having a woman in power is the penultimate accomplishment. And even when the “either/or” feminists back off this claim in general, we are told, it is true in the case of the particular, Hillary Clinton. Experience and judgment go hand in hand, we are told, but one has to wonder how is it that so many ordinary citizens who were outside the beltway instinctively sensed what would come with the war, but the female candidate running for President did not?
For us, the choice at hand is actually quite simple. It is not about the woman candidate vs. the Black male candidate. It is about the candidate who works to dismantle the bomb, rather than drop it; the candidate who works to abolish the old paradigm of power, rather than covet and rise to its highest point; the candidate who seeks solutions and dialogue rather than retaliation and punishment. (emphasis mine--fk)
As feminists our freedoms have been hard won and we’d like to think that we have learned from our mistakes along the way. The feminism we fought so hard for and benefited from was not to make us blind to the complexity, but to help us see beyond simple formulas and body politics.
|
Tonya
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Tonya
Post Number: 6574
Registered: 07-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 06, 2008 - 11:18 am: |
|
Good to see folks are discussing feminism again. The discussion has really been picking up lately and gaining a lot of attention. ...an upshot of Hillary's run for presidency no doubt.
|
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 9870
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: 
Votes: 2 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 06, 2008 - 07:51 pm: |
|
Ferociouskitty,
Hi and Welcome!
It's interesting how those who profess to espouse liberation and freewill for themselves so often seek impede that of others.
If, as even most credible female advocacy declare, Obama's positions on women issues are nearly identical to those of Clinton's, how is a woman chosing Obama some sort treasonous betrayal of EXCEPT, perhaps, he doesn't have a vagina? |
Ferociouskitty
Newbie Poster
Username: Ferociouskitty
Post Number: 3
Registered: 02-2008
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 06, 2008 - 08:50 pm: |
|
Thanks for the welcome, ABM. :-) But in the interest of full disclosure, I used to post here years ago as "MahoganyAnais."
You wrote: "It's interesting how those who profess to espouse liberation and freewill for themselves so often seek impede that of others."
White feminists are no strangers to this hypocrisy. In the late '60s and into the '70s, they enjoyed (and some continue to enjoy) their liberation into the workforce on the backs of the black and brown women they employ (not always at fair wage, not always with benefits) to care for their children and their homes in their absence.
But they are blind to this hypocrisy because they start from the faulty premise that they are "pro-woman", when truly they are pro-white-middle-class-educated-woman. |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 11387
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 06, 2008 - 09:40 pm: |
|
Hi ferociouskitty/mahogany. 
IMO, feminists cannot exist unless they champion the cause of women. They have no choice but to trot out the arguments they do because portraying themselves as former second-class citizens oppressed by men is the underpining of the feminist credo. Hillary Clinton is their standard bearer and she is tailor-made for this role because she is a strong female who can hold her own against men.
Black women have never crowded the ranks of feminism because they always yearned for their men to be strong and in Obama's case, they see in him what they want in their men. So black women who support Obama cannot call themselves feminists. This includes the fork-tongued Oprah who copped out by playing into the stereotype of women frivolusly changing their minds and standing by their men. When there are 2 equally qualified candidates, then if a white or black woman is a true feminist, gender arbitrarily supercedes color.
But why should black women sweat this and quibble about what poor old septicenarian Gloria Steinem is stammering about? There are worst things than not being a feminist, than not being allied with white women wanting to be liberated from male rule. And instead of deriding "Billary", they should be focusing on "Barachelle".  |
Enchanted
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Enchanted
Post Number: 1174
Registered: 11-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 06, 2008 - 09:49 pm: |
|
mahoganyanais!
Im sure you read what Kola wrote re/Obama:
http://mirrormax.i8.com/
btw, shes back with Nicholas 
|
Ferociouskitty
Newbie Poster
Username: Ferociouskitty
Post Number: 4
Registered: 02-2008
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 07, 2008 - 12:33 am: |
|
No, Enchanted, that's news to me. :-)
Hey, Cynique: Barachelle! Love it. You know, when Barack first threw his hat in the ring, I resolved to keep my eye on Michelle. If she started shape-shifting, then I knew something in the milk wouldn't be clean. But she's been consistent, even when the likes Maureen Dowd tried to chastise her being her true self, not some cookie-cutter of what a supportive wife should be (after she commented that at the end of the day Barack was just a man, in response to somebody trying to deify him).
I think the authors of this essay (and others) are reacting to something beyond than this election. I believe they are addressing the fact that first two waves of feminism failed to acknowledge racism within the movement, and at best were guilty of a benign neglect toward issues of concern to non-white and poor women; the fact that feminist movement in this country has always been about white, middle-class women and their myopia, period. The old guard feminists' reactions during this election exemplify this, and to my knowledge we've never had a more blatant, widely publicized expression of it.
I believe the reason black women never crowded the ranks of feminism is not because they've yearned for strong black men (though we have), but because we are well aware that white women are not our natural-born allies despite our shared biology.
As one author (Lonnae O'Neal Parker) observed--and I paraphrase--while Betty Friedan and other vaguely discontented white women were looking at their boring lives in the '60s and asking "Is this all?", generations of black women were lamenting, "Chile, I can't take no more." Our priorities and concerns, our utopias, were vastly different. As black women's lot has improved, but racial injustice and inequality persist, that chasm is still wide.
Now of course POOR women of all stripes feel a collective foot on their necks and catch hell from all sides, and in that case, women are bonded by economic plight, not biology. |
Ferociouskitty
Newbie Poster
Username: Ferociouskitty
Post Number: 5
Registered: 02-2008
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 07, 2008 - 12:44 am: |
|
Editing myself...
The whole reason any of the above matters isn't about black women wringing their hands over not wanting to form alliances with feminists. I believe it's decades-old annoyance at a movement that claims to represent women when truly it only represents certain women.
But to your point, Cynique, there are always bigger fish to fry. :-) |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 9872
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 07, 2008 - 01:03 am: |
|
Ferociouskitty,
I remember YOU! How the hell are you, gal?? Well, I pray.
You know, whenever these discussion about feminism and misogyny manifest, I can't help but think of the following:
@ The average Black male college graduate earns only $3,000 more per annum than the average Black female college graduate.
@ But the average White male college graduate earns $27,000 more per annum than the average White female college graduate.
@ The average White male college graduate earns $21,000 more per annum than the average Black male college graduate.
@ But, amazingly, the average Black female college graduate earns $3,000 MORE per annum than the average WHITE female college graduate.
Perhaps America is still very much a patriarchy. But it sure as hell is not a BLACK one. |
Ferociouskitty
Newbie Poster
Username: Ferociouskitty
Post Number: 6
Registered: 02-2008
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 07, 2008 - 01:41 am: |
|
I am doing well, ABM. Hope you are too. :-)
**@ But, amazingly, the average Black female college graduate earns $3,000 MORE per annum than the average WHITE female college graduate.**
I've read similar stats, and wondered if it's because Black female college graduates are more likely to be single heads of households, and their white counterparts more likely to be the stay-at-home contingent of a two-parent household.
Paging Dr. Perry... :-)
That said, I've also read stats which appear to contradict the above, though it's not an apples to apples comparison, and the data below is admittedly old (but I suspect Malveaux used the most recent data available):
"The Washington, D.C.-based Economic Policy Institute issued an early copy of its State of Working America this past Labor Day. According to EPI, the 1997 hourly wage for White women was $10.02, compared to $8.49 for African American women. The wage gap has worsened over time: in 1989 the White female wage was $9.84, while the Black wage was $8.76. Regardless of educational level, White wages grew from 1989 to 1997, while wages for African Americans fell.
College-educated African American women saw their wages drop 3.2 percent in the last five years, while White women who were college graduates saw their wages grow by 4.4 percent."
Despite Education, Black Workers Still Face Challenges
|
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 11389
Registered: 01-2004
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 07, 2008 - 02:42 am: |
|
In the early days of feminism, ferociouskitty, black women never really empathized with certain sentiments of white women libbers because Black women have always been liberated and were weighed down with the burden of being strong and equal. So unlike white women, they didn't have a problem with being homemakers whose husbands were the breadwinners.
But I do think it's just natural that all women feel some degree of sisterhood when men become a part of the equation. |
Yvettep
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Yvettep
Post Number: 2614
Registered: 01-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 07, 2008 - 09:35 am: |
|
Paging Dr. Perry... :-)
LOL--Well, any "expertise" I have is not in this area. But I would guess you are correct, Ferociouskitty. This stat, I would guess, is only counting college grads--not all women, Black and White. If you counted all women, you might get different results.
Of those Black women who graduate from college, likely more of them have remained single and/or childfree than their White female counterparts. I would guess that a significantly higher portion of White than Black female college grads are able/choose to "opt out" of careers and are in a position to do so because of high wage earning partners.
BTW, nice to "hear" your "voice" round these parts again ;) |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 9875
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 07, 2008 - 05:22 pm: |
|
Ferociouskitty,
Interesting contrasting of your average Black and White college graduate. A more valid comparison should probably include Black and White women who have roughly the same numbers of years of fulltime post-college employment.
Btw: What does it mean to you that Black male and female college grads basically have the same average earnings? |
Chrishayden
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Chrishayden
Post Number: 6234
Registered: 03-2004
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, February 08, 2008 - 10:59 am: |
|
Funky hoes like Jane Fonda and Gloria Steinem told other women they needed a man like a fish needed a bicylce and then ran out and married rich men to take care of them.
I am in favor of many femnist ideals--equal pay, opportunity, what not--but the movement has been hijacked by a bunch of miserable creeps who should be turned into the City Pound and put out of their sufferings. |
Ferociouskitty
Newbie Poster
Username: Ferociouskitty
Post Number: 8
Registered: 02-2008
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, February 09, 2008 - 10:22 pm: |
|
ABM asked:
**Btw: What does it mean to you that Black male and female college grads basically have the same average earnings?**
Um, that the workplace--which doesn't include white college educated women who "opt out" of careers, as Dr. P said--is inherently more racist than sexist? Was that a trick question? :-)
|
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 9881
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, February 10, 2008 - 09:17 am: |
|
Ferociouskitty,
I think you're probably right. Or at the very least I'd say that in many areas of employment being a Black female is NOT the double-negative it is often billed to be.
And, no. It was not intended to be trick question.
Hahahaha!!! |
Renata
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Renata
Post Number: 2543
Registered: 08-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, February 10, 2008 - 11:55 am: |
|
Quite astute, Chris!!!
Something tells me that they perhaps hope that we'll fall for it, so they can keep all of the men to themselves.
Think about it, white feminists want the rest of us to not feel the need for a man, or the need to get married, or the need to have a man to be a father to his kids....then why the hell do they typically marry right out of college? |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 11420
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, February 10, 2008 - 01:23 pm: |
|
And why the hell do some of them not support a woman for president? Unless they are lesbians, feminist are just a bunch of frustrated malcontents who want women to be fire fighters and to also be allowed to nurse their babies on in the firehouse during breaks. |
Ferociouskitty
Newbie Poster
Username: Ferociouskitty
Post Number: 9
Registered: 02-2008
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, February 10, 2008 - 01:26 pm: |
|
**I think you're probably right. Or at the very least I'd say that in many areas of employment being a Black female is NOT the double-negative it is often billed to be.**
ABM,
I think "many areas of employment" is key to discussions like these. There are certainly fields, typically higher paying, where black folks, male and female, continue to be underrepresented.
I remember when I was entering the "real" workforce in the early '90s, and reading about discussions of black folks being relegated to the "HR graveyard" of many corporations. Less room for advancement, less prestige, lower pay--but XYZ Corp still gets bragging rights for having so many black VPs, for example. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 9892
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, February 10, 2008 - 10:33 pm: |
|
Ferociouskitty,
Yeah. The White male VP of Operations is usually more important to and more highly paid by ABC, Inc. than the Black female VP of Community Outreach. |
|
Email This Page