Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 06 Aug '17 22:00
    White Feminism may be defined as feminism that denies or ignores intersectionality.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_feminism

    "White feminism is a form of feminism that focuses on the struggles of
    white women while failing to address the distinct forms of oppression
    and faced by women of colour and women lacking other privileges."

    Even some very racist, sexist men here have expressed their relative
    support of White Feminism (to which Suzianne ardently subscribes)
    because it at least seems useful in helping to maintain White Power.

    Some white women feminists have strongly rejected White Feminism.
    Although she shows naivete, Eleanor Robertson joins this criticism.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/23/in-defence-of-intersectionality

    "In defence of intersectionality – one of feminism's most important tools."
    --Eleanor Robertson

    "it's now been over two decades since legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw
    wrote her original paper coining the term "intersectionality", and
    mainstream feminism is still in the throes of a massive storm around it.
    Intersectionality has been variously described as meaningless, too radical,
    and a threat to the sisterhood. This level of backlash from those who
    hold power [privileged white women] within feminism is usually a pretty
    good sign that the target of their ire is something worthwhile."

    "Crenshaw coined the term as an explanation of why black and immigrant
    women's experiences ended up being ignored by both feminism and
    the anti-racist movement. Her original paper contains dozens of stories
    detailing how domestic violence and rape crisis facilities had serious
    trouble helping these women because their cases were "too complicated"."

    "The entire structure tended to produce outcomes that were much
    worse for women of colour – and that's something we can see playing
    out over and over within feminism and women's services.
    Unless feminism goes hard down the road of recognising and including
    women from many differing backgrounds, the path of least resistance is
    for it to work mostly on behalf of women who are already relatively privileged."

    US affirmative action has (arguably) helped middle-class white women more than any other group.

    "If feminism doesn't actively recognise that there are a lot of women
    whose most pressing concerns aren't boardroom representation and
    lingerie football, the movement is going to carry on alienating itself
    from those most in need of assistance."

    White Feminism already has deeply alienated many, if not most, women of colour.

    "Popular [White] feminism's refusal to grasp what is actually a brilliant
    and elegant concept [intersectionality] looks more and more like [Betty]
    Friedan's demonisation of the Lavender Menace [lesbians]: a privileged
    minority [affluent white women] persistently embarrassing itself by refusing to crack
    a book sometime, wandering around with its eyes closed banging off the walls."

    "Interestingly, intersectionality has also been going gangbusters within
    academic feminism for over a decade. Widely acknowledged as one of
    the most important ideas that feminist scholarship has ever come up
    with, the amount of writing and research dedicated to exploring and
    applying it to produce a more inclusive feminist politics is enormous."

    Some ignorant racist trolls (mostly men) here have wrongly attempted
    to deny intersectionality has become a major subject in academic feminism.

    "Why are discussions of race, class, and disability within feminism so often characterised as infighting, or sideshows to the main event?"

    According to White Feminists, the 'main event' is how to help privileged
    white women gain more power over both men and non-white women.

    "Could it be that, for some strange reason, marginalised women's experiences with
    intersectionality and its usefulness are systematically ignored and discredited?"

    It's normal, *not* 'strange' at all, for marginalized women (meaning
    non-white, poorer, or LGBTQ women) to have their experiences,
    concerns, and voices condescendingly dismissed by White Feminists.

    "[White] Feminists need to take a long, hard look at why so much of
    our effort is being expended on making up reasons why we can't possibly be expected to help the least privileged women among us.
    So much for sisterhood."

    White Feminists are not any sisters of mine. I embrace the white women
    who are insightful, honest, and brave enough to reject White Feminism.
  2. Subscriber Suzianne
    Misfit Queen
    07 Aug '17 00:51 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    White Feminism may be defined as feminism that denies or ignores intersectionality.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_feminism

    "White feminism is a form of feminism that focuses on the struggles of
    white women while failing to address the distinct forms of oppression
    and faced by women of colo ...[text shortened]... embrace the white women
    who are insightful, honest, and brave enough to reject White Feminism.
    No matter how 'trendy' it is to 'jump on the white girl', you'd be way better off listening to what I say instead of what you want to hear.

    And your insinuation that I do not support gender diversity is, yes, offensive, as well as patently untrue.
  3. 07 Aug '17 01:07
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    White Feminism may be defined as feminism that denies or ignores intersectionality.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_feminism

    "White feminism is a form of feminism that focuses on the struggles of
    white women while failing to address the distinct forms of oppression
    and faced by women of colo ...[text shortened]... embrace the white women
    who are insightful, honest, and brave enough to reject White Feminism.
    Is a white feminist a feminist a feminist who happens to be white, or is s/he a feminist who is also a white supremacist?
  4. Subscriber mchill
    cryptogram
    07 Aug '17 04:54 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    White Feminism may be defined as feminism that denies or ignores intersectionality.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_feminism

    "White feminism is a form of feminism that focuses on the struggles of
    white women while failing to address the distinct forms of oppression
    and faced by women of colo ...[text shortened]... embrace the white women
    who are insightful, honest, and brave enough to reject White Feminism.
    Duchess, you have a rare talent for making friends wherever you go. What's next? Should the white mushrooms be sued for discriminatory behavior toward the brown mushrooms? Should we sue GOD because he made the snow white, instead of another color? Maybe we should sue every office worker for calling liquid correction fluid "white out!" I tell ya Duchess, white racism is everywhere!
  5. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    07 Aug '17 09:08 / 2 edits
    This is a relevant review wot I wrote. Its final sentence is 'the point'.

    Research As Resistance: Critical, Indigenous And Anti Oppressive Approaches
    by Leslie Brown (Editor)

    The chapters of this book are by different authors and have different interests. I was drawn to Chapter 2, "Situating Anti Oppressive Theories within Critical and Difference Centred Perspectives" by Mehmoona Moosa-Mitha, because it offered a very concise and (for me) valuable survey of different approaches to social theory, including a good range of criticisms of the mainstream, liberal ideology which dominates so much social thinking currently. She compares this with Marxism, white feminism, and postmodern and social identity theories to support her insistance on "the twin claims of critical and difference-centred perspectives that characterize anti-oppressive theories." For example, while liberal approaches defend the status quo, Marxist theory, which is critical of the status quo, is in danger of merely proposing a different status quo in its place, sharing similar defects. Both share a predilection for universal truths and all embracing priorities that can utterly crush the competing claims of different groups within society in the embrace of a needless and oppressive uniformity.

    Monolithic, all embracing claims are always a problem. In your quotes, one that stands out is the repeated appeal to "Feminism" as though it were an organic whole with a single, specific identity. For example: "If feminism doesn't actively recognise..." I am not convinced that "Feminism" behaves like that.
  6. 07 Aug '17 09:55 / 1 edit
    I get the feeling that the Guardian and other publications of its ilk are in some way partly responsible through its focus on ethnic minorities, gender issues, gay issues and the all encompassing globalist agenda for creating a kind of cultural vacuum by which a large portion of the British public has been ignored. Try as I may I can find nothing in the entire publication that I can relate to or resonate with. These ideological struggles have literally no meaning. I am not gay, not an ethnic minority, not a women, not a transgender and not likely to be found in a London bar drinking highly hopped pale ale sold by a man in dungarees masquerading as a London porter from 1888.
  7. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    07 Aug '17 10:45 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by @robbie-carrobie
    I get the feeling that the Guardian and other publications of its ilk are in some way partly responsible through its focus on ethnic minorities, gender issues, gay issues and the all encompassing globalist agenda for creating a kind of cultural vacuum by which a large portion of the British public has been ignored. Try as I may I can find nothing in ...[text shortened]... ing highly hopped pale ale sold by a man in dungarees masquerading as a London porter from 1888.
    So does this "all encompassing globalist agenda for creating a kind of cultural vacuum" include the invention of ethnic minorities or of ethnicity itself, the invention of gay people, et al? When you say "these ideological struggles have literally no meaning" are you saying you prefer to return to a culture that indulged in racist and oppressive behaviours, the culture that permitted and to a large extent caused the Bengal Famine of 1943, with millions of deaths that did not matter as they were not white, or to the culture for example that imprisoned and ruined Oscar Wilde, or that chemically castrated the genius Alan Turing, driving him to suicide? Should we return to landlords with signs in their doorway reading "No Blacks,No Irish, No Dogs" and perhaps add "No smoking" for completeness? Are you happy with the Tory governments' wrecking of services for battered women? What has any of this to do with a good old-fashioned no-nonsense white male like yourself? Apart from being the beneficiary of all that - it was not you that suffered, you are okay.
  8. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    07 Aug '17 13:05
    Can feminism really be feminism if it excludes large groups of women?
  9. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    07 Aug '17 13:10
    Originally posted by @shavixmir
    Can feminism really be feminism if it excludes large groups of women?
    Who gets to police the boundaries? Who gets to define it?
  10. 07 Aug '17 14:57 / 4 edits
    Originally posted by @finnegan
    So does this "all encompassing globalist agenda for creating a kind of cultural vacuum" include the invention of ethnic minorities or of ethnicity itself, the invention of gay people, et al? When you say "these ideological struggles have literally no meaning" are you saying you prefer to return to a culture that indulged in racist and oppr ...[text shortened]... elf? Apart from being the beneficiary of all that - it was not you that suffered, you are okay.
    In the most condescending manner imaginable we are subjected to these essentially ideological issues from publications like the Guardian at the expense of all else creating what is essentially a cultural vacuum. How are we supposed to resonate with a transgressed Somalian facing issues in another land? How is this type of event supposed to resonate with anyone that does not face similar issues? Of course it doesn't and it's therefore nothing more than a piece of thinly veiled propaganda for every LGBT snowflake sympathiser to hang their agenda upon and turn into political capital. That's the reality. In fact the tactic is so indelibly branded into the culture of the publication (lets not term it a newspaper) you can practically predict tomorrows front page barring any major events or issues. 'Women breastfeeding asked to cover up boobs in restaurant', is the new 'man bitten by dog' story. There is no place for the working man any more in British culture, the Guardian and its ilk have seen to that. He has been eradicated, supplanted by bearded university graduates in dungarees twittering on about the horror of women being coerced to wear high heels.
  11. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    07 Aug '17 18:26
    Originally posted by @finnegan
    Who gets to police the boundaries? Who gets to define it?
    It's simple enough.
    Mankind. The brotherhood of man, etc.

    Everything is male.
    There's one exception: women. If you're not a woman, you are a man.
    So people who don't think they are either... are male.

    So the boundaries are quite clear: everything female.
  12. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    07 Aug '17 19:07
    Originally posted by @shavixmir
    It's simple enough.
    Mankind. The brotherhood of man, etc.

    Everything is male.
    There's one exception: women. If you're not a woman, you are a man.
    So people who don't think they are either... are male.

    So the boundaries are quite clear: everything female.
    Clearly I was unclear. I intended to refer to the definitions and boundaries of Feminism and who is or is not a Feminist.
  13. 07 Aug '17 20:04 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @js357
    Is a white feminist a feminist a feminist who happens to be white, or is s/he a feminist who is also a white supremacist?
    In at least several earlier posts as well as in my original post (if people had better reading comprehension),
    I have made it clear that *not* all white women who are feminists are White Feminists.
    A White Feminist is someone who subscribes to White Feminism, a racist ideology,
    though it may be disputed whether it's quite a 'white supremacist' ideology.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_feminism

    "White feminism is a form of feminism that focuses on the struggles of white women while failing to
    address the distinct forms of oppression and faced by women of colour and women lacking other privileges."

    (I dislike the recent editing of this Wikipedia article by someone who seems nearly illiterate.)

    Another definition is: "White Feminism is a feminist ideology that ignores or denies intersectionality."
    The drawback with this definition for laymen is that then it's necessary to explain 'intersectionality'.

    I already have cited articles (which the close-minded Suzianne has apparently refused to
    consider and likes to pretend don't exist) by white women who criticize White Feminism.

    I welcome the feminist white women who are brave, honest, and insightful enough to criticize White Feminism.
  14. 07 Aug '17 20:15 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @suzianne
    No matter how 'trendy' it is to 'jump on the white girl', you'd be way better off listening to what I say instead of what you want to hear.
    And your insinuation that I do not support gender diversity is, yes, offensive, as well as patently untrue.
    The evidently close-minded White Feminist Suzianne has a long record of ignoring or dismissing
    many strong criticisms by diverse women (including white women) of White Feminism.
    Suzianne also likes to misrepresent my criticisms (which she may fail to comprehend) of her as a White Feminist.

    I note that Suzianne has received the support (against me) of some of the most racist, sexist white men here.
    Although these men may loathe feminism in general, they seem to regard White Feminism
    as at least useful to them because it helps uphold White Power.

    In white supremacist Rhodesia, the regime's propaganda liked to celebrate the fact that
    there were some blacks fighting for it against the black nationalists hoping to liberate their country.
    Rhodesia was able to recruit a few black soldiers, including into elite units such as the Selous Scouts.
    But showing these black faces could not disguise the white supremacist nature of the regime.

    I expect that Suzianne would welcome seeing women of color marching behind white women who lead them.
    I expect that Suzianne would welcome having a token woman of color accepted as a nominal leader.
    But that does not mean that the *distinctive* experiences, concerns, and issues of women
    of color are taken nearly as seriously by White Feminism as those of privileged white women.
  15. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    07 Aug '17 20:17 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @robbie-carrobie
    In the most condescending manner imaginable we are subjected to these essentially ideological issues from publications like the Guardian at the expense of all else creating what is essentially a cultural vacuum. How are we supposed to resonate with a transgressed Somalian facing issues in another land? How is this type of event supposed to resonate ...[text shortened]... graduates in dungarees twittering on about the horror of women being coerced to wear high heels.
    Yes that is the standard socialist complaint against "culture wars" and it is a valid one. The debates may be heated and wide ranging but they change nothing that matters in the areas of power and economic opportunity. This is not to say that specific issues are trivial or even to take a view for or against. It is instead to say that when the MSM and mainstream politicians get their teeth into such issues, you can pretty sure they are distracting from something important which will not be discussed.

    I was just reading about Marcuse and his book, One Dimensional Man, and enjoyed the following which I think relates, though you may not. He was interested in the extent to which American, consumer society in the post war decades was subject to totatilitarian forms of control, and the techniques by which such control could operate under the guise of freedom. The key is that we want what we are told to want. Social control is now based on satisfying rather than frustrating needs, the trick being that it satisfies needs that it itself creates.

    There is no need to suppress seditious or revolutionaryy literature or artistic works. Instead even they can be transformed into something safe and banal.

    "...In recent times, we might think for instance of the way protest music, including punk, rap, etc., is included in suitably redacted form in the hit-parade and on mainstream radio broadcasts, reduced to its sales ranking as a commodity. Or one might think of the loss suffered by ‘classic’ critical texts, such as those of Marx, Deleuze or Sartre (or indeed Marcuse), as a result of being treated as something to be taught in classes and assessed in exams: instead of having relevance to one’s life, or even being assessed as irrelevant for good reasons, they are shunted into a field which is structurally constructed so as to appear irrelevant to one’s life.

    And at the same time, people who are not students or academics do not read such things – either because reading them is study and therefore work, to be avoided if unremunerated – or because they are defined as ‘theory’, as ‘difficult’, and therefore only for students and graduates. Those who happen to have read such things may then be dismissed as reproducing something which is irrelevant to most people’s lives, simply because they have been consigned to a field of study which is defined in advance as irrelevant. Through this process, the texts in general reach neither the students who read them nor the people who don’t, and their critical force is lost – despite the texts remaining legal, widely available, and in many cases free online...."


    https://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/in-theory-6-marcuse/

    What Marcuse seems to bemoan is the way people have lost or been deprived of their critical thinking skills (which rather implies a prelapsarian golden age when we had not yet lost them! I am not a Marcuse convert - he is just interesting) and allow their minds to be manipulated. And what you seem to be observing is an example of such manipulation at work.