Showing posts with label A. Dworkin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label A. Dworkin. Show all posts

Monday, January 18, 2016

RadFem. Check. LibTrans. Check. RadTrans? Checking.


The title of this post may be seen as mildly cheeky. But it is also deadly serious.

Life circumstances have kept me offline in the last while. A good friend died of metastatic uterine cancer. She was like a sister to me. And then there were other health issues in her family. The cancer and the treatment was brutal and she was increasingly brave with each passing month. The battle ended two and a half years after diagnosis. I know there are so many people fighting or coping with cancer in some regard. Most along with poverty and additional insults and insecurities of marginalisation and invisibility.

But I'm here today to speak to a few things that have been off my radar, more or less, during that period. For example, I have found that a lot more people across a much wider age bracket use the term 'radfem'.

Due partly to my age, I don't experience 'radfem' and 'radical feminist' as synonyms. I grew up before tweeting and texting when feminist terms being shortened was not usually a sign of respect. Such as when Women's Liberation was turned into Women's Lib.

So in my ancient mind, shortening means going from this: [Content Warning: the second image is stupidly sexist.]

women's liberation movement photo is from here
to this:

blatantly sexist visual is from here

So, no disrespect intended to anyone who identifies as radfem or who uses both terms. Lorde knows I'd have more time on my hands if I'd written radfem every time I wrote out the longer version.

Anyway, I realise that in the last couple of years, the shorter term has taken root more widely. And that's not all. What also seems to have amped up are distressing and awfully bitter battles over terrain and terms, land and language.

Whose land comprises the U.S. of Amerikkka? Will the Federal government or individual States or citizens ever hand back significant tracts and regions of Indigenous land, or does the government remain a land-hoarder and destroyer? Will whites ever concede, en masse, that the Confederate flag is a symbol of white supremacy? That people from Mexico aren't aliens. That Muslims aren't terrorists. Will the xenophobic CRAP that spills out of Dumpty Trumpty ever cease? Will Black Lives Matter?

Does it register that some of us don't have clean water to drink, or reliable access to water?

Will Bernie Sanders become the DNC candidate for president: how would he rule, and make reparations regarding government-stolen land and colonialist-dependent wealth? Will Hilary Clinton be the first white woman to be U.S. president?

Hey: If you want great political leadership in this country, I think Winona LaDuke and Alicia Garza are as good as you get. LaDuke/Garza 2020!!!

Winona, a revolutionary feminist, has pointed out how a curiosity, to me anyway, regarding Anglo uses of the term 'radical', relative to many Indigenist traditional values. That is, from an Indigenist point of view, one may see U.S. government policies as radical, extreme, militant, for decades, for centuries. Genocidal. Seen this way, we can concur that Indigenist feminism is deeply Conservative, but not using the term in at all the same way the U.S. Republicrats do. I read that perspective for the first time many years ago in Talking About a Revolution. We're still waiting for that and are literally dying for it to arrive. Too often, though, it is just liberal talk about terms. Here I go with that.

Digging down and scraping the bottom of the barrel of this blog's archives, from 2008, I found this:

What does 'Radical' mean here? It holds up for me.

What I bring with me as a way to understand any form of oppression are lessons taught to me by radical feminists across race, region, and ethnicity. There are many who deeply inform my thinking and feeling. Among the earliest and most significant are Audre Lorde and Andrea Dworkin. But there more contemporary voices of wisdom and radical knowledge on the scene.

I will bring radical feminist theory and agendas, of color and white, with me as I go, never settling into any perspective or practice with colonial patriarchal Certainty. Andrea Dworkin, for one, never advocated for theory being mistaken for truth. She knew theory could be made into reality--to look, feel, taste, sound, and smell like CRAP. And like everything. And like the core of who I am, which may be why so many people feel like CRAP. And the danger to us, in part, is not knowing whose theories we are living inside, which ones we benefit from and protect, and which we are under and must continue to rise up against.

The more liberal academic side of the sometimes-termed RadFem vs. LibTrans turf war is a contest over theory--issues of gender, essentialism, and privilege. But the social and legal side of it is about spaces of safety and struggle. As noted above, it is clear who is fighting for land and language. In some sense we all are. But not equally.

________________

When I approach any conversation about gender, I first center this question: Whose bodies are marked for terrorism and destruction? What I see is that the bodies, the souls, of those who are identified as female, Indigenous, Black, and Brown, especially, are being terrorised. As they have been for centuries, at least. More recently, it is also Black trans bodies that are marked and murdered.

Corporate media would rather tell us of these horrors as individual tragedies perpetrated by one, two, six, or a hundred 'bad men' or 'rogue cops'. Mainstream media will not report the violence as systematic: patriarchal, colonial. Most white people I know are willing to settle for dimensions of mass media's truth. As are most men. I wonder how many other excuses white folk can conjure to excuse a cop's murder of someone not threatening them. I wonder how many rapes have to occur before it is seen as something men do normally, whether or not most men normally do it. In some sense it should not be surprising that rape happens, even while it should always be understood as part of a complex, involving entitlement and the requirement patriarchies have for some people to be femaled, 24/7/365. It is, tragically, an arrogant and desperate need of too many people for access and accommodation; for violence as violation. For land and language.

I am speaking of a need imposed on others, by human beings who are maled, who are always complex and nuanced in their hirstories and their lives, located in positions of privilege and marginalisation, as most of us are. But the color and sex of normal brutality must be noticed and named. I am mindful, heartful, of the violent disappearance of trans and nontrans Black women, murder after murder. And of the reality of rape culture, and how it is tethered both to patriarchy and to colonialism.

Within white spaces, also always complex and multifaceted, the only L  G  B  T movement I've ever seen as being radical was the L. I have looked to white Lesbian Feminist theorists for keen analysis of heteropatriarchy for over thirty years. Among my fav of those philosophers is Marilyn Frye. But there are many. My most fav, however, is not white. She is, as noted above, Audre Lorde.

The _GBT+ organisations and campaigns which are white-led or coloniser-centered, that claim to be radical, do not appear to me to be revolutionary in theory or practice. This has been brought to my attention in detail quite recently.

In some of the next posts, I will endeavor to carefully and respectfully identify what I find to be politically problematic with a facebook group I have been in as a commenter. It is called "The Conversations Project: Radically Inclusive Radical Feminism". It is welcoming and not supportive of flame wars--that alone is rare online. It has tolerated my very privileged presence for almost two weeks: we'll see who exhausts the other first. Hopefully amicable relationships will be nourished. But unowned intellectual liberalism is toxic to me. And denial of any form of privilege by anyone, as a way of life, is atrocity-supporting. When I see it, I endeavor to call it out, hopefully respectfully and with increasing sensitivity to how my own places of privilege effect the reception of the critique.

The two founders are well known in some progressive circles that contend with gender and privilege. Cristan Williams with Trans/Gender politics. John Stoltenberg with what used to be called Sexual Politics. With the doubly radical title as my guide, I presumed they are doing something radically feminist. In at least two senses, I believe they are using the term, well, liberally.

I have already written to them about my concerns, within the closed facebook group. Projects termed radical that are, in theory and reality, liberal, are nothing new. But the name of the project did direct me to a set of expectations and I was intrigued. I am attempting, in many ways wrongly, to hold them to my expectations. It's an unfair thing to do and I can be a pest about it. They have been kind, and I do well with kindness, so I'm working diligently at keeping my critiques clear of passive-aggression and void of shaming under- and over-tones. That in and of itself is good work for me to be doing in an online or offline community setting.

___________________

I will update you, here, on my own issues by noting that I've been continuing to search for terms to locate my sense of myself relative to gender. Given that I believe (I think in a radical feminist tradition) that the subjectivity of the oppressed matters more than the subjectivity of the oppressor, how women experience me is, first and foremost, what my gender is. That means I don't get to control it: the naming. The best I can do, subjectively, personally, non-essentially, while using the English language is "a maled adult". (And, being a good Amerikkkan, I only speak one language.) I'm a white maled adult, nonbinary, with more economic security than most people, which increasingly doesn't have to be a whole hell of a lot; but I have a kind of stability few people have: I can pay my bills on time and have no debt. And, while gay (in this case: maled, attracted to men--very few, but men), I do not engage in romantic or sexual relationships. That means the ways I can harm people interpersonally are dramatically reduced. And, yes, the ways I can be hurt and misunderstood: but that's what the internet is for. Or not.

If we're talking about dominant gender--CRAP-loaded gender--then using a term like 'anti-gender' works well for me. I have been identifying as 'intergender' but as a fierce white Feminist Lesbian called out, doing so locates me, affirmatively, between the poles of a gender binary that's also a hierarchy. That is, such a term, applied to me, reinforces the hierarchy linguistically (her point). I agree. It also pretends that by being 'in between', I may have less male privilege or sense of entitlement than others who ID as men. So, as either trans and cis, or neither trans and cis, and while I don't have heterosexual privilege, and while I'm not of Northern European gentile stock, I am afforded most male supremacist advantages and benefits. No doubt about it. No denial about it. Please.

I yearn for social spaces which share and practice community-enriching, humane values that I learned from radical feminism. Values like listening, self-awareness, accountability, mutuality, humor, and assertiveness. One especially important ethic is radical honesty: digging for the truth of one's feelings and experience, not settling for the views and interpretations of others just because they appear to be mandatory or popular. And not forgetting: we live inside the theories of others--most of whom are long gone, who may not ever have had any living creature's best interests at heart. I leave you for now, with this:
The purpose of theory is to clarify the world in which we live, how it works, why things happen as they do. The purpose of theory is understanding. Understanding is energizing. It energizes to action. When theory becomes an impediment to action, it is time to discard the theory and return naked, that is, without theory, to the world of reality. People become slaves to theory because people are used to meeting expectations they have not originated—to doing what they are told, to having everything mapped out, to having reality prepackaged. People can have an antiauthoritarian intention and yet function in a way totally consonant with the demands of authority. The deepest struggle is to root out of us and the institutions in which we participate the requirement that we slavishly conform. But an adherence to ideology, to any ideology, can give us the grand illusion of freedom when in fact we are being manipulated and used by those whom the theory serves. The struggle for freedom has to be a struggle toward integrity defined in every possible sphere of reality—sexual integrity, economic integrity, psychological integrity, integrity of expression, integrity of faith and loyalty and heart. Anything that shortcuts us away from viewing integrity as an essential goal or anything that diverts our attention from integrity as a revolutionary value serves only to reinforce the authoritarian values of the world in which we live.  —  Andrea Dworkin, Letters from a War Zone, U.S. edition, pages 127-128

Saturday, April 14, 2012

A Couple of Profeminists Talk About Radicalism, Sex, Race, and Responsibility

image of book cover is from here
As Michael Kimmel and Thomas Mosmiller's book details, men advocating for women's rights and women's liberation from patriarchal oppression isn't new. I don't have much of a sense of the state of profeminism today. Perhaps one day they will write a new book with profeminists from around the world. A common misconception both about radical feminists and radical profeminists is that they're/we're all white. Most radical feminists I know are not white. And I know of a few men who are profeminist, but only one of them is white, and only one of them lives in North America. So I imagine there are many more men out there in the world advocating for women's liberation, hopefully in ways that are meaningfully accountable to the women in their own communities.

What follows is a fictionalised conversation between two adult white males who identify as profeminist and who value radical social transformation.

Jeremy: I have been reading some of your posts and share your wish for society to be radically different than it is. What I am sometimes critical of is how you focus on what some women but not all women experience. From my point of view, all women are oppressed by men, and discussions by men that focus on other oppressions or other dimensions of life in patriarchal societies tend to do what anti-feminists do—take the focus off of how Men.Oppress.All.Women.

Julian: So are you saying that profeminists who write about women's struggles for liberation in—or from—patriarchal societies, have an ethical obligation to write about how men oppress all women?

Jeremy: Yes.

Julian: I don't disagree. Should my work or the work of other profeminists stop confronting male power and the many insidious and lethal forms it takes, I'd question the veracity of any male's claim that he is, in fact, profeminist. Males must counter the systematised male-bonding acts of men and boys as they limit the world of women and girls through ridicule and rape. To value bonding with men is to value misogyny to at least some extent; so even while gay, I make it my political and spiritual business to make sure my closest relationships are with women. I do this not with a sense of sacrifice; I have gained much more from my friendships with women than I have in any kind of relationship with men; and if I weren't asexual my choices would probably be different in some regards.

I believe we need to focus our energies on what other males do that is oppressive to girls and women, and to publicly challenge systems of male supremacist reward and punishment that benefit men-not-women. And it is white supremacy, too, that allows men to oppress women and girls, and this point is not one I see emphasised enough in white, anti-status quo, politically active communities. So, to respond more to what you bring as critique, Jeremy, I'll ask if you have noticed how many Western and white men and women who critically discuss the oppression of women, while perhaps intending to speak about how men oppress all women, instead do one or two other things, thinking that they suffice: they speak about dynamics among whites, as if white people represent all people—as if white men represent all men, and as if white women represent all women? We do that, or we may speak without awareness as whites about how men of color oppress women of color and white women—acting on a structurally very white and very male entitlement to speak about populations of people we don't know much about. We speak out about what others do, when it is what we do that we most need to be clear about, and stop. We speak as whites or as men in ways that make ourselves seem like the heroes or the saviors of the world. Have you noticed any of that?

Jeremy: I've seen plenty of examples of what you're talking about.  But do you think white men shouldn't call out how men of color hurt and oppress women of color?

Julian: I think white men should only do so when in relationships of accountability to the women of color they claim to be concerned about. Or when supporting organisations run by women of color doing anti-oppression work. And I think if white males are going to do so, we'd better be very clear about how we oppress men of color, women of color, and white women. 

I think this is shocking: I see very few whites of any sex being truly accountable to women of color, honestly. Very few. What I see happen a lot is white liberals, white progressives, and white radicals deciding what the appropriate courses of action are, self-determining our own values and practices with little to no regard for how such courses of action actually impact women of color. I see whites consistently speak about ourselves as if we are unraced and unclassed, as if our lives are less intersectional than the lives of women and men of color. Given that everyone is raced in a racist system, and that everyone occupies some structural place on social hierarchies of sex and class, how could the lives of some people be less intersectional than others?

Jeremy: Well, I think that someone who doesn't have to deal with white supremacy—who doesn't have to fight against racism from the vantage point of being harmed by it, I mean—might have a sharper, less complicated view of male supremacy for just that reason.

Julian: I think just about everything that informs such an assumption is profoundly fucked up and not only racist but misogynist to the core. Let's start with the assumption that “less complicated” means “sharper”. What if surviving multiple linked systems of abuse and subordination is what women are enduring? How does simplifying that, focusing only on class, only on sex, or only on race, become an example of seeing reality more sharply? I've been hearing this nonsense for decades: male supremacy is a political reality that somehow exists beyond or outside the world of white supremacy or other raced systems. And to adamantly maintain this position somehow allows for greater clarity about what is happening to women worldwide. These are assumptions only the masters in a raced or sexed system can afford, it seems to me. I seriously doubt that perceiving oneself as only oppressed or only oppressive in one regard allows for greater clarity about what is happening to women of color. If we're addressing conditions Indigenous women are facing in Australia or in the Americas, or what Black and Brown women are facing across Africa or the Americas, or what Asian women are facing across Asia and beyond, or what women in Pacific and Caribbean Island nations are facing, it would distort reality grossly to pretend women's condition is only encountering patriarchy, or only racism, or only economic oppression and exploitation.

Jeremy: How do you explain white women being able to so effectively name the intricacies of sexualised male supremacy—women such as Andrea Dworkin, Mary Daly, Catharine MacKinnon, and Sheila Jeffreys? Isn't their ability to do this shaped in part by not also having to resist and survive racism?

Julian: I think what white people do who speak about the condition of “women”, is make a very incomplete and simplistic assumption that either male supremacy doesn't exist at all, or that it is a system of brutality that can and ought to be understood as separate from other systems of oppressive harm and horror. Only for white power-protecting white people can such an assumption pretend to have radical validity; it therefore doesn't surprise me at all that any number of Western white women, such as the ones you name—each one offering brilliant analysis and insights, might describe how male supremacy works as if it was not bound to white supremacy. And of those women, only Andrea Dworkin—not irrelevantly the only Jew among them—refused to ignore the danger to women (and men of color) of white supremacy. She maintained, from her earliest work to her later work, that for feminism to be radical and revolutionary it must overthrow class power and white power as well as male power. That white, Jewish woman's challenge to other whites has gone generally unheeded, including by those who love to quote her. The two US women she chose to acknowledge as exemplary revolutionary feminists in the introduction to Woman Hating were Black women: Sojournet Truth and Harriet Tubman; that's not by accident--she didn't choose white women for a reason. Neither of those revolutionary women focused on "sex", per se, in their liberation work. She understood that women positioned politically, socially, structurally, to know much more about how race and sex and class harm women are far more likely to bring that knowledge into an organised plan of resistance and revolutionary struggle. 

I think the reasons why some white women have focused on sexuality as the central site and source of male supremacy is complicated. One reason is that it was the work that needed to be done at the time; it is what those writers had to say as they brought political insight to practices promoted by men as allegedly apolitical. Another reason, I believe, has to do with how the sexuality of white women is discussed and analysed by whites as an unraced while political experience. I wonder if this has a silencing effect on people whose sexual lives are known to be a product of both white and male supremacy. 

While I've read a great deal by some of the white women you mention, I see how the sexualities--and the larger lives--of women of color are systematically being ignored, marginalised, tokenised, distorted, or exploited by whites and by men in writing and in life. When women of color write about sexuality as intricately and historically tied to supremacist systems based on race and sex, their work is too often ignored by those who don't want to deal with how all of our sexual lives are shaped by both. 

Audre Lorde and Alice Walker spoke against sadomasochism and pornography due to how they are tied to racism and misogyny, yet when progressive to radical whites write against sadomasochism and pornography, only the patriarchal features are discussed. That white, self-termed 'sex radicals' are untroubled by those patriarchal features, while also ignoring the raced aspects, only shows how the term 'radical' can sometimes mean ultra-conservative.

I think there have been many men of color who have had brilliant insights and analysis of white supremacy, but when you consider that their contributions usually leave out observations and critiques of their own male power and how that is exercised against women of color, including the women of color in their intimate lives, you might come to the conclusion that their analysis is in service to their male power over and against women of color. We can also note how so few white men critically understand or are even moderately aware of how white and male supremacy along with economic exploitation, shape the lives of women and girls detrimentally. If damage to human sexuality, to human life, is seen, it is seen as happening most significantly to men and boys. And so white men, as a group, ought not be consulted on the matter of how to organise or foment revolution. Because when white men do so, their willed or unconscious protections of white and male power will be built into the plan. We have to conclude, I think, that white women's writing about an unraced sexuality that is male supremacist to the core, tells us how unwilling whites are to deal with racism in our own lives, and how little we listen to feminists of color when they speak about the politics of sexuality.

Jeremy: So you think Western white women who don't speak much about racism, about white supremacy, while they are interrogating male supremacy, are supporting white power?

Julian: Yes, of course they are. How could they be doing otherwise? Just as men of color who speak against racism as a system as if it isn't attached at the root level to male supremacy are protecting patriarchal power—including their own. 

But let's not forget who benefits most here: it is white men, not white women, not men of color, and certainly not women of color. White adult males are the material and social beneficiaries of white and male supremacy. Everyone else is oppressed by at least one of those systems. Given how ignorance of our own positions of advantage and unjust power over others works, it surprises me not at all that along with white men, white women and men of color also willfully ignore the oppressive power of their own whiteness and maleness, respectively. This is said to be done without will and without intent, quite unconsciously, by whites and by men. But on various levels, whites and men know very well and very consciously how white and male supremacy structurally benefits people atop the hierarchies. That knowledge, accumulated over a lifetime, is often enough repeatedly unremembered. But that is done so the individual white or man can hold to some notion of being “good” and “moral” and “ethical” as conservatives and liberals rather perversely define such terms. Liberal whites and men get to think of themselves as good and moral because they see that sexism and racism exists even while they won't speak about how they participate in maintaining each. 

Jeremy: Is that the only reason you think white people or men won't own what we do that is oppressive?

Julian: No. I believe the refusal to publicly own what we do, the evasion of personal responsibility, is also done so the often repressed shame of being oppressed by race, sex, sexuality, or economic class, for example, isn't triggered by the very different shame of being an oppressor. Also because we are likely to lose status among oppressors if we speak out against our political kin.

The internal battles in many of us to believe ourselves “good”, and to ignore how most of us stand on other people to be where we are, leaves us unprepared to be honest with ourselves or anyone else about who we are, politically speaking. The US, in particular, emphasises an individualised sense of identity while enforcing various social collectives. What if individuals' goodness and integrity was understood first in terms of what we-as-whites do, or what we-as-men do? 

In such conditions of ignorance and denial we can and often do mistake other oppressed people as enemy #1, when “the enemy”, if we're to think in those terms, is found in the shape of the structures and in the mechanisms of the systems which harm us. Structures of enemyhood, as my feminist mentor pointed out to me, are what we have to identify and uproot if liberation is to occur. If we don't, then we are perpetually at war not only with those who aren't in control, but with ourselves as well. 

For example, picking up on some issues which matter a great deal to some race- and class-privileged people online, no matter how oppressive a lesbian feminist or trans person acts, s/he is not structurally positioned to be in charge of the fate of other human beings collectively. Very few people, with enormous power inside complex systems of gross and brutal force, are truly “in charge”. Unless or until they are dethroned--and their systems and institutions are radically transformed--the rest of us fighting among ourselves will not bring about collective liberation. We will not co-create meaningful liberation from systems of harm and horror. As has been stated hundreds of times by many activist women of color, organised coalitions built by those oppressed by race, sex, region, class, age, ability, and sexuality are our only hope. 

Those few people with enormous power and access to seemingly endless resources cannot simply be replaced. Most simply put in a way that might be meaningful to those of us whose lives are shaped by the experiences and traditions of Europe, killing Hitler would not have meant European Jews were suddenly safe or free. The hands of the architects of HaShoah were not only Hitler's. The whole of any system that unjustly puts the few in power and keeps them there must be radically dismantled so that they no longer obtain and maintain oppressive power from being in such a place: the place itself as a structural location must be dissolved. 

Audre Lorde's essay on the Masters Tools has been misunderstood or mischaracterised by many progressives and radicals to be some kind of call to fight without the tools we need to succeed; as a kind of pacifist screed. I see her essay as reminding us that, for example, replacing “bad men” with “good men” doesn't solve the problem of men being in charge. Replacing white men with white women doesn't solve the problem of whites being in charge. Redistributing wealth inside a system of economic exploitation and global destruction won't result in those without money--or the Earth itself, being free from exploitation and destruction. And I see her essay as a reminder that institutional and psychological structures, as well as oppressors' political locations, must be radically transformed. 

We see what happens when the structures of enemyhood are left in tact when white het men aren't around. It is disheartening and discouraging to me to witness how various marginalised groups see one another and treat one another as “THE enemy” rather than as co-crafters of the route to liberation for all oppressed people. I see astounding levels of disrespect and disdain being dispensed among various oppressed people. Meanwhile, elite groups of white men—especially white het men—retain the most concentrated control of the many systems that advantage and empower whites, heterosexuals, and men to maintain advantages and commit atrocities against everyone else.

Jeremy: Do you mean marginalised groups online?

Julian: Yes, I do; but not only online. That said, I can't pretend that I directly what people experience who have less structural power than me or you. I cannot easily understand, viscerally or emotionally, what it means to be deeply threatened and invaded by liberal or conservative political activists that you or I might see as intellectually problematic but not “threatening” to our communal existence. 

Gay male society isn't going to disappear because conservative trans and queer theories take hold; only heterosexist male rulers have the power to systematically destroy gay men. Gay men have too much power as men to maintain the systems and cultures that are important to them. The same cannot be said for lesbian cultures; I think conservative and liberal forces in contemporary white queer communities and white het ones are profoundly and aggressively destructive to lesbian existence across race. But when you see the battles taking place online that only or primarily occur among whites, then you'd better be clear that one form of power that will not be questioned—let alone transformed—is white supremacist power over and against all trans and non-trans women of color, including lesbians.

I take what Flo Kennedy said about horizontal hostility very seriously, as I have seen how within white-dominated and white-majority lesbian, bisexual, and gay communities from decades ago, the in-fighting so often functioned to take the focus off of the myriad ways white het men were in charge of how the rest of us understood ourselves and experienced things such as safety and community, or the lack thereof.

My struggles with coming out as gay were not the ones typically portrayed in mass media. For example, my struggle was not coming out of denial that I was attracted to men. I knew since before adolescence that men were attractive to me in ways that they weren't supposed to be according to the heterosexual world I lived in. Well, SOME men. In my late teens and early twenties, my struggles were with assessing how gay male sexuality was mirroring the practices of het men, and carried het male supremacist misogyny into the lesbian and gay communities I was considering being part of at the time. My struggle was paying attention to what it was about men that I was attracted to that drew me to them. I was also wanting to disengage from a culture of white gay men who were raised, as I was, to believe white het men are the most valuable human beings on Earth. Embedded in this belief was a king of spiritually deadly seeking of their approval for our own well-being and self-esteem. I needed to understand how white masculinity, while positioned as superior to white femininity, didn't make white femininity liberatory just because it wasn't valued in white patriarchies.

I saw the danger of white gay men acting out white masculinity and white femininity without interrogating how each is constructed and maintained with force by white het male supremacist structures that live in and all around queer and het people. Those structures and practices, to the extent they are products of white and male power, have only ever served white het men primarily. But the white power in them also serves to protect the supremacy of whites across sex and sexuality, and the male power in them also serves to protect the supremacy of men across sexuality and race.

I also came to see that white gay men's agenda for liberation was usually designed to protect and defend white and male power as due to that, was spiritually and politically bankrupt. It also ignored, rather completely, how queer people of color were surviving not only homophobia and heterosexism, but also imperialism, colonialism, misogyny, and racism. To hear white class-privileged gay men speak about "our fight for liberation", you'd think battling homophobia was the only task at hand.

Jeremy: I grew up seeing white heterosexual men put down gay men and women—lesbian or heterosexual, but in putting them down they were mostly just promoting ways of being that were inhumane, including to ourselves. Being deprived of an emotional life isn't great.

Julian: And assuming that it is only white het men who are deprived of an emotional life, or who live with what's called a spiritual-emotional “straight-jacket”, means one has to ignore all the ways that the rest of us also have to deny or dissociate from so many aspects of ourselves and our feelings. I grew up hearing endlessly about how white het men, in particular, suffer in North American patriarchy. And how white women got to be so free with their emotions. But none of the white women in my family got to be all that free emotionally. Rape, incest, and battery, and a kind of ever-present condescension and contempt for girls and women, were each perpetrated by white het men who were intimately involved with female family members. Each form of spiritual destruction and visceral terrorism ensured that many women in my family of origin were lost to themselves or didn't feel very safe to express very much, or were quick to be apologetic and acquiescent to men, or were otherwise deferential to men in a deeply compulsory way—meaning that it wasn't so much a psychological habit as much as it was survival-based behavior rooted in knowledge that plenty of men will attack you verbally and physically if you don't obey them.

In so many ways that white het men won't acknowledge, you all are freer than the rest of us to feel, to emote, to express yourselves in sloppy and loud ways, and in silent and sulking ways, that command the attention of the rest of us and assume you will have people around you to care about your feelings and attend to them with concern, regard, and affection. I learned at an early age to attend to your feelings, Jeremy, to white het men's feelings, and put them before my own.

Jeremy: I learned to do that with my father, who was a raging alcoholic. His ego seemed to require constant attention and soothing.

Julian: And I suspect the alcoholism isn't necessarily the most potent element in that emotional equation. I think the maleness and whiteness is. Because I see how males and whites each command similar kinds of attention, or demand it, or just expect it the way we expect air to contain oxygen. And god forbid anyone female and anyone of color NOT show “proper” deference, or “appropriate” compassion to someone white or male, especially when they are struggling in some way but even when they are just walking down the street.

Because structural advantage, by race, class, or sex, often brings with it a kind of perennial permission to allow oneself to be centrally attended to, to be cared about and cared for, what we see is that whites will position ourselves as in need of something when around people of color. And the same for men when around women. As soon as something is asked of a white man by someone of color and female, the white man will predictably change the course of the conversation so that the oppressor's needs are presented as more important. Attending to the white people's or men's confusion about what she has said that is challenging to their sense of self, is supposed to trump her objection to what he is doing—including an objection to him manipulating everyone around him to pay attention to him at her expense.

Jeremy: So what's wrong with identifying how men manipulate women in those ways?

Julian: Nothing. Any profeminist ought to do that. But if you put women of color at the center of your concerns about “women”, then what you will see is that it's not only white men, or only men, who are being oppressive, and who are preventing women of color from experiencing socialised dignity and institutionalised respect. It is also white women. And so if women of color's struggles for liberation matter as much as anyone else's, then, I'd argue, only paying attention to male supremacist harm likely leaves women of color unsupported in their struggle to be free of white contempt and white ignorance. 

If we are going to herald the writings of white feminists—which white profeminists generally do, then let's not forget that Andrea Dworkin said, if it hurts women, feminists are against it. If feminism, as a lived political practice, is supposed to challenge all forms of oppressive hurtfulness towards women, then what whites do to women of color has to matter as much as what men do to women of color, and register in our minds and hearts as just as wrong and just as intolerable. 

Being profeminist means speaking out about all of it—not just against the behaviors that implicate men of color, for example. We can't let whites off the hook. So when I see whites speaking out about what “those” men of color do to “their women”, what I am left wondering is when do we speak about what we do, as whites, to those same women? And when do we speak out about it as profeminists?

Jeremy: Well, you do that, right?

Julian: Yes, but you may notice that when anyone does it, there are usually whites and men who will point out how inappropriate it is, how misandrous it is, how misogynistic it is, for me or anyone else to do so. It's no accident that, almost without exception, it is ONLY whites and men who object, which lets me know that any challenge to their unjust and unearned power as whites and men is what is being objected to.

So when you state, as you did earlier, that profeminists ought to only speak out about how Men.Oppress.All.Women, I have to wonder if you give a shit about how women of color are oppressed and demeaned on many fronts as women, including racially by white men and white women.

Jeremy: I see what you mean now. But don't you think that white males critiquing white women's racism is a way for those males to be misogynistic?

Julian: If white men critique white women disproportionately—say, more than they critique white men, then I'd question what's going on, yes. And if white males do so in sexist and demeaning ways to white women, then yes. But, again, if women of color matter, if women of color are “women” just as much as white women are, then hadn't your question also better be: “Don't you think that white males not critiquing white women's racism is a way for those males to be misogynistic—to women of color?”

Jeremy: Hmm. I guess I hadn't thought about that.

Julian: Do you think it warrants asking, how someone so dedicated to radicalism and profeminism could neglect to ask such a basic question about women's liberation? And how could it be that you didn't you encounter these points again and again in the radical writings by whites and men you've read over the years?

Jeremy: Where did you encounter them?

Julian: In the writings of radical and feminist women of color. And in conversation with radical feminist women of color who have systematically refused to allow my white and male supremacy to go unchallenged. 

Jeremy: So you were open to changing yourself. 

Julian: Yes. But someone I structurally oppress maintaining a willingness and ability, against great frustration and exhaustion, to call me out is only part of the story; I had to have something meaningful to offer in relationship. Progressive to radical males and whites too often assume that our consciousness would benefit greatly from relationships with people we oppress, but we don't consider what we have to offer people we oppress. 

Jeremy: I don't think I've ever had a close friendship with anyone of color.

Julian: Do you know what, Jeremy? I honestly don't know many whites who do. This is one of many ways that race and sex are different: I know very few males who don't have close relationships with women. But whites really do resist friendships with people of color who demonstrate a willingness to call whites out on their white supremacist nonsense.

It isn't enough you or I are willing to listen carefully, change our behavior, not consider ourselves finished with the work of being less interpersonally oppressive, and understand that our structural whiteness and maleness don't ever disappear. In my life, that stuff has been more of a prerequisite for just the possibility of on-going friendship. Deep friendship requires real giving and sharing. Before you consider asking a woman of color for guidance or support in becoming less oppressive, please first be clear about what you have, emotionally, spiritually, to offer her. Don't be heterosexist in your assumptions and actions: don't approach women for what you can get from them, for what they can teach you or for how they can take care of you; that, for me, would be standard het male practice. And don't ever pretend you're not racist and not sexist; I mean don't pretend you're not a white or male supremacist. Because we're structurally positioned to be each, every minute of every day.

Jeremy: You don't see any difference between acting in racist ways and being a white supremacist? 

Julian: In reality, in our region of the world, there is no meaningful difference; catering to the very political ego needs of whites might compel some of us to make such distinctions. But in North America, if the reality that is most real to you is that of women of color, then we must accept that there is no distinction worth making between sexism and male supremacy, or between racism and white supremacy. What I don't see discussed nearly enough in communities that call themselves "radical" is how sexism/male supremacy and racism/white supremacy cause PTSD in those targeted for harassment, debasement, subordination, and death. The truth of male supremacist behavior is true also of white supremacist behavior: terrorism underlies every expression of it. Given that women of color are viciously and normally targeted by each, we have to ask: how is racism not one more form of misogyny when it affects women of color? Do women of color stop being women when insulted and assaulted by white's racism? 

Some feminists argue that all systems of institutionalised power are gendered and that subordination by sex, sexuality, class, or race isn't just designed to degrade your humanity and limit or snuff out your life, it is designed to feminise you as well. Any political vulnerability is seen as feminising. Any position of power, whether sexed power or raced power, or power achieved through acquisition or theft of wealth, is masculinising. Seen this way, racism masculinises white people and white supremacy becomes a form of male supremacy. I'd say the same is true about how many forms of oppression take on raced qualities: being rich and being male can be an experience of becoming whiter, politically speaking--not that Oprah Winfrey ever gets to be white or male even one day in her life, despite her wealth. 

If we accept all of that as part of how these oppressive systems work and impact each other, then the only conclusion to come to is this: protecting white supremacy by denying its existence among white women or among white men, or by relegating activism against it to the margins of one's work, is a male supremacist practice. And so some of the very people, white ones, who argue we must only focus on male supremacy--or let's say, on capitalism, as far too many white male "Occupy" activists do, are being male supremacist in doing so.

Jeremy: But this kind of takes us back to where we started: isn't focusing on how to eradicate sexism, or male supremacy, the primary work of feminists, and profeminists, given that no other group wants to put what men do that harms women at the center of their work?

Julian: I guess I've come to see radical profeminist work differently. There is a kind of stigma and denigration of social status among men if your work only or centrally concerns itself with what happens to women. I've been called everything from mangina to a wimp to a woman simply because what happens to women is the center of my political work. I think we need to consider it "radical" to put what happens to women at the center of your political concerns and work. But I can't call activist work that ignores either male supremacy or white supremacy, including among the activists, "radical". There's nothing at all radical to me about protecting and defending one's power to abuse others based on structural location. And intentionally or not, that's what males and whites are doing when we deny the power that inheres in our positions atop social hierarchies.

Jeremy: What do you call white radical feminism if it doesn't analyse and seek to eradicate the power of whiteness? 

Julian: I guess I'd call it a branch of white conservatism that also offers a sometimes useful critique of some forms of male supremacy. Just as I'd call the so-called "radical" political work of men across race, "conservative" and "male supremacist" if that work didn't name, address, and oppose male supremacy. This doesn't make the work only conservative. But it makes it conservative with regard to sex. It kind of boils down to this, for me: if someone's activism ignores race, it is functionally white supremacist. If someone's work ignores sexual oppression, it is functionally male supremacist. This isn't really that difficult conceptually, and if you live it, it's rather obvious. 

Jeremy: You make it sound as if you live it--as if you are being negatively or oppressively affected by white and male supremacy. 

Julian: The experiences of those I love become part of my experience of the world. I think that's true for most people, except maybe for the most self-absorbed and sociopathic. Beyond that, being a gay male means that I encounter misogyny, woman-hating, regularly, daily. It is aimed at me systematically because het supremacists enforce an idea that being gay is a degraded state of being, one that puts males in the same structural bracket, politically, as females. As a Jew who grew up studying both the history of Jews and HaShoah, I learned that dark features are devalued and are seen as suspect by people who are white and Gentile. I learned that my Jewishness was raced "dark and dangerous" in Nazi Germany. Here in North America, Jewishness is primarily an ethnicity or a religious affiliation. 

I understand that symbologies and cultural associations that see darkness and blackness as essentially negative and dangerous are both white supremacist and anti-Semitic. White Jews--as opposed to Jews of color, I mean--have to work out our mixed allegiances with people of color and white Gentiles, hopefully building genuine, trustworthy alliance with people of color. Gay white men have to consciously work to not fall into the trap of trying to get what het white men have or try to possess. 

I'd say I'm undeniably and heavily advantaged--structurally empowered and statused--due to being male and white, and I am also targeted in some ways, in oppressive ways, for being gay and Jewish. The time and place where I live doesn't put me in a lot of danger for being either gay or Jewish, thank goodness. But living in a heterosexist society, and in an anti-Semitic one, even if they aren't the most virulent in either regard, does have a destructive effect on queer people and on Jews. Male supremacy is a very crucial dimension of heterosexism just as white supremacy is absolutely central to anti-Semitism. And it is an on-going struggle to call out the sexism and racism I see in those oppressed-while-advantaged communities.

Jeremy: This is a lot to think about. 

Julian: You got that right. Not dealing with these issues and related ones is sometimes desirable to just about everyone I know. But it is only possible to not deal with them if one is only advantaged in these various systems of harm and horror. One of the ways we can know someone is advantaged by race, or by sex, or by sexuality, is that they never seem to need to discuss it, they don't make it a priority to be aware of the horror, and they don't put effort into stopping the harm.

Saturday, January 7, 2012

Do the Ends Justify [the Meanness of] the Means? What are the Values and Practices of the Internet Blog-and-Comment Culture?


DO THE
image is from here

?


A friend recently reminded me that a blogger colleague of hers insists on a strict set of values and practices at her blog: no insults, no ad hominen attacks, no disrespect, no tearing down of other human beings to build oneself up. The blog is defined as feminist and that understanding of 'feminist' is one I grew up with. Audre Lorde took issue with stuff Mary Daly wrote; Andrea Dworkin and Audre Lorde had very different perspectives on the erotic; Dworkin and MacKinnon weren't on the same page with what happened to their anti-pornography ordinance in Canada, but that didn't mean they couldn't be respectful of one another. Audre Lorde wrote explicitly about the need for oppressed people to find respectful and compassionate ways to engage across differences such as race and sexuality. Alice Walker has demonstrated an increasingly rare form of compassion for people who structurally oppress women. See this piece for more, from her blog:

http://alicewalkersgarden.com/2009/12/a-letter-to-tiger-woods-from-alice-walker/

I don't see much care, respect, or mutual regard on the internet any more among people who are not the most socially dominant. Or, even, among those who are--to each other. Insults fly easily. Disrespect and snark is the increasingly defaulted mode of communicating disagreement.

The whole of contemporary Western society, of many societies, is set up to infuse spoken and unspoken acts with misogynist hatred and degradation. When women notice and speak out about it, the act of objecting or resisting or organising against such misogyny is itself termed another form of hatred: misandry. I don't believe objecting to one's people being denigrated as a class by another more powerful class of persons constitutes a form of hatred. Self-love on the class level is not hatred. Resistance to being used and abused on grand and grotesque scales isn't hatred either. So we have to be careful about how language is used to mean anything at all.

In my own experience, any challenge to white power and entitlement by anyone who isn't white is considered an insulting thing to do--to whites. As noted above, the same holds true for women's serious challenges to men's unearned and lethal power over and against women and girls. It makes sense, in a perverse sort of way, for the uplift and mutual support among members of an oppressed group to be portrayed as action that is hostile to their oppressors. Such a portrait of marginalised and subordinated people by those who exploit and assault them is part of how social dominants maintain control and power over them/us. The very use of the term "uppity" for politically active anti-racist African American men and women and for anti-sexist women across race is proof enough that trying to get where white men are structurally located is not acceptable to most white men. The amount of anti-feminism among men across race demonstrates men's contempt not only for women but for women's efforts to be free of men's dominance. Andrea Dworkin, among other feminists, noted that whether women resist men's dominance or not they will still be degraded by men. This truism applies to many oppressed people and is reason enough to resist and organise revolutionary strategies of social change.

I have tried to create a blog space that is free of snark but I have failed at times. I think I used to be a snarkier person than I am now, only in part because I see it taking over what were once reasonably compassionate zones of discourse. Snark is "in". I've never been one to do what is fashionable, especially if it is part of how the status quo stays empowered. But another reason for doing away with snark is that I've come to see the raced and gendered dynamics of snark and self-satisfied insult-hurling. It wears thin, in my experience, as a way of communicating important ideas and political challenges. If I had it to over again, I might withdraw all the insults I've hurled at MRAs here. Not because I think MRAs are respectful of women or care about being respectful even among themselves. I see most MRAgendas as profoundly dangerous to women and I've seen how bullied MRAs are among each other. I guess I now see how being snarky towards MRAs is practicing their own well-honed values.

I just want to opt out of the pattern of anti-feminist disrespect and degradation. It isn't what brilliant radical feminist authors and activists like Audre Lorde and Alice Walker taught in their own work.

I believe in having role models as long as we don't turn them into idolised G-ds. I've been accused of doing just that with the use of a term I occasionally have used here, "Lorde knows..." My point in bringing Audre's last name into the term wasn't to pretend she wasn't human. It was to note that her humanity was as divine as anyone else's, and so why not say "Lorde knows" instead of "Lord knows"?

I understand Audre Lorde and Alice Walker to be deeply human beings. I studied their work to understand what "feminist ethics" means, in practice, in daily life. It means, in part, not participating in bully-culture.

A lot of what I've seen men and whites do is bully other people to bolster their/our own already structurally well-supported sense of self. Of course any individual's sense of self may be worn down by verbal or physical assaults against them. Or by various injustices flowing from institutionalised heterosexism, racism, and misogyny. People with white power don't necessarily have the powers afforded people who are heterosexual and male. Men are degraded socially by class, race, and sexuality if not by gender.

Among males and among whites, I've seen many hierarchies develop and how the values of social dominance infuse interactions designed to have a few control the many.

I was bullied for seven years in grade school. I felt the emotional burn of humiliation and the visceral fear of being beaten. I generally avoided being hit but not always. I'm not into physical fights. I was called a coward for not fighting boys. "Cowardice" in male supremacist and masculinist world is often understood to be akin to "pacifism". As I recall from my early life and accounts since of the era, white male hippies were called misogynist names by old-fashioned patriarchal white men who believed real men shoot and kill one another--well, not one another necessarily, but shoot and kill men and women of color in many parts of the Americas and across Asia. I was too young to be part of hippy culture but I did grow up with an erotic aesthetic build on the idea that males could be gentle and caring people. One of the boys who bullied me when I was young was degraded at home by his father. I didn't know this at the time. I kind of wish I had, as it might have helped me despise him less. That I despised him wasn't evidence of me being a man-hater. It was evidence of me trying to find some way to feel better about myself by distancing myself from him and his hurtful behavior.

On MRA sites over the years, I've seen little to no evidence that any of those men value care and gentleness. I see how the culture of bullying, meanness, and self-aggrandisement pervades particular disagreements and overall discourse. I see how terrorism and threats of gross brutality are collectively passed off as appropriate treatment of those they disagree with.

The last time I engaged with an MRA on this blog, I did so with the understanding--his and my own--that we would attend to each other's perspectives with regard and respect, no flame throwing, no verbal assaults. I regret he ducked out of the conversation. It was indeed refreshing to have one like that with someone I strongly disagree with on several points. See the links just below for more of that. They are from the blog in late May and early June of 2011.

http://radicalprofeminist.blogspot.com/2011/05/can-enemies-become-allies-conversation.html

http://radicalprofeminist.blogspot.com/2011/06/enemies-or-allies-part-2-of.html

http://radicalprofeminist.blogspot.com/2011/06/can-enemies-become-allies-conversation.html

http://radicalprofeminist.blogspot.com/2011/06/are-womens-rights-also-human-rights-for.html

Some women have written to me privately about how much bullying there is among white self-defined feminist bloggers and commenters online. Facebook, in particular, can be a vicious place to hang out in: I go there rarely. I know women who have been driven out of there by other women who apparently valued being very mean and hurtful. (And by men too. Lots and lots of men.) The women who have written to me don't or won't speak out against the very patriarchal practices (their determination, which I agree with) of woman-demeaning and woman-hurting done by white women; they don't want to be more targeted for harm and degradation than they already are by people they want to believe are on the same side of their political struggles.

I've witnessed some white women engaging in the very threatening tactics of the men's rights activists they claim to oppose and be so different from. According to some radical feminist women of color I know, they are behaving in similarly cyber-terroristic ways in the name of doing feminist work. I can't say for sure but I don't believe Audre Lorde, Andrea Dworkin, or Alice Walker would call such behavior "feminist". Alice is still alive and perhaps somewhere in her work she addresses this directly. If you know of such passages, please let me know of them. Some of Andrea's and Audre's work is still being published and somewhat available to be read. I'll refer you to their writing to verify my hunch and not to rely my own suppositions about it.

Meanness, callousness, and cruelty weren't feminist values according to every feminist activist and writer I grew up reading and adoring--unless I greatly misread their work, of coure. Given what I've witnessed early in my life and more recently, I currently understand being mean and cruel as definitionally white and male supremacist ways of being human. And while anyone can participate in such behavior, the practice of it seems to only reinforce and maintain white and male supremacist power not ameliorate, mitigate, or eradicate it.

I don't mean to put value on a liberal kind of humanistic kindness or on "civility", which as I understand it, is a dishonest and despicable form of covering up the bloodiness of a society's genocidal and gynocidal practices by appearing to be 'good-natured' and 'reasonable' in the classist, racist, misogynist sense. I admire oppressed people who don't prioritise caring about oppressors over caring about the oppressed. And all of the most radical activists I've known personally didn't make it their practice to consider any class of people inhuman, no matter how entitled or oppressive.

I've encountered some white women, mostly women who don't identify as radical feminist, who consider men to be less-than-human. When I've asked them if they'd advocate a political perspective that supports women of color viewing whites--men and women, as less-than-human, they don't answer the question. I believe this means they don't see how lethal and horrific the power of their institutionalised whiteness is. I've encountered men of color who believe they are more oppressed than women of color. When I note that men of color systematically assault women of color in their homes and beyond, they don't respond.

More startling still, I've encountered many white men--heterosexual and economically-empowered at that--who believe they are the most oppressed and put-down group on Earth. To this there isn't much to say, really. Such avoidance of knowing how other people live demonstrates a kind of self-centeredness and willful refusal to empathise with people-not-oneself. Meaningful intervention into such normalised sociopathy, unfortunately, is difficult for me to imagine. I've certainly not had much luck shifting that kind of political self-unawareness and spiritual myopia through conversation. I attempted to address these issues with James Huff in the posts linked to above but he disappeared before we got that far.

I wish us all luck and strength as we find ways to radically transform a very mean society into one that cares about humanity and all life on Earth, off-line if not also on.



Tuesday, October 18, 2011

On the "Occupy" Protests: the historical and structural meaning of Political Occupation

image is from here


In case I didn't mention it last time, I don't like the choice to call these protests, located in central parts of many cities, or in the business districts specifically, "Occupy ... " Occupation is an act of white aggression, of patriarchal violation, of domineering intrusion, and of militaristic imperialistic conquering. I don't think it describes what is happening or is an appropriate political term to communicate the politics of the protests, which is by the relatively disenfranchised, the newly disenfranchised (middle class folks, relative to the working poor who have never been enfranchised).

Not that they asked me, and not that they should ask me. But, well, this is my blog for putting forth such thoughts.

After some good discussion with a friend, I come to see, as she does, that it makes sense that the white middle class is taking un-owned leadership of this wave of social-political protests and demonstrations against various forms of tyranny. I saw unowned because the white middle class males--mostly males--who are in leadership speak of wanting an egalitarian non-hierarchical structure, without admitting that they are the most enfranchised and therefore institutionally empowered people speaking out.  Pretending we can all speak and be heard is a liberal conceit that no one who has been systematically silenced will likely fall for. I see how white men are and will continue to make their voices the most media-recognised, with great help from white male supremacist media controllers who usually and ubiquitously (if not always) consider white males "experts" on anything.

I watch how Black and Brown people, many of them women, are speaking out about economic and other injustices and how the understandings they bring to the public forum, noting how race, gender, sexuality, class, national, and immigration status effect who is heard and who policy is drafted for (at least allegedly)--by a population of elites overwhelmingly white and male.

I watch how Indigenous activists put Indigenist concerns and platforms forth, only to be de-centered by the white males with class privilege.

Let us not forget that Wall Street is on occupied land--not belonging to anyone currently protesting there. Let's consider for the moment the ways in which this history is biased and organised around the interests of white occupying men:
[In the late 17th century,] Dutch settlers had built a wall to protect themselves from Indians, priates [sic], and other dangers. The path had become a bustling commercial thoroughfare because it joined the banks of the East River with those of the Hudson River on the west. The path was named Wall Street. Early merchants built their warehouses and shops on this path, along with a city hall and a church. New York was the U.S. national capitol from 1785 until 1790 and Federal Hall was built on Wall Street. George Washington was inaugurated on the steps of this building. [source: *here*]
We can note who is determined to have needed protection from whom: white colonists from Indians. The truth of the matter is that it was Indians waging efforts at self-defence against the murderous interests of white settlers to take land and everything else by any means necessary. Those who took possession of the land that is Wall Street and NYC's central financial district, as well as the shapers of the values that make people rich, are not in any way Indigenist or democratic. Corporate capitalism is inherently and unavoidably exploitive, oppressive and murderous. The goal of the biggest and wealthiest is to sufficiently hide the blood and the bodies from the masses not being murdered. This is quite effectively done through controlling media and how stories of atrocity are[n't] told.

I recommend replacing the term "Occupy" with (Radically) "Transform". The latter term may not be masculinist enough, however, for white men who want to participate in political practice that maintains the patriarchal status quo. For more on the meaning of "occupation" please see these chapters in Intercourse, by Andrea Dworkin:

Chapter 5: Possession
Chapter 7: Occupation/Collaboration

Occupation, socially-sexually-economically-politically speaking, is an act committed by the powerful against the powerless, structurally, in real life.  To believe otherwise is to indulge in egalitarian fantasies we cannot afford to pretend currently exist. The term is routinely used, however, by callous and self-serving elites to describe "others" being in places forcibly, possessively owned by elites. So, immigrants, poor people, gay men, and women are said to occupy places they don't belong: in nation-states where their forebears once lived; in neighborhoods that were once white (that were once "occupied" by Indigenous people); in military camps presumed to be effectively murderous of Brown people; and rapist towards women, if only heterosexual; in boardrooms and offices, shops and streets where men are presumed to rule.


Wednesday, August 24, 2011

They're at it again over to Yahoo Answers: balking about White Radical Feminism (as if Patriarchs and Masculinists were timid little innocents doing nothing at all except being abused)

image is from here
There's some strange discussion at that place. It doesn't get too much stranger than what men say about feminists, radical feminism, and women generally. But despite what some dood says, the real question is:

Why do men hate women so much, despise femininity, and put down anyone who, in their view, displays anything "feminine" at all? And why do men so systematically express contempt for anyone who is a woman, feminine or not?

But, if we're going to pretend the social world isn't misogynistic, and instead is only about threatening men, we end up with stupidity like this from "Athlete". Please click on the question below to link back to the source site.

Athlete Athlete

Resolved Question

Why do feminists dislike masculinity, and men in general ?

It seems that feminists have a strong disliking for all men (except for the few cowardly ones that succumb to feminism and become "male feminists") - there have been multiple quotes by the famous feminists that have shaped feminism, such as from Andrea Dworkin (and many other feminists) who has stated that even consensual sex is an act of violence and is simply rape. She has also stated things such as marriage being derived from rape

" Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice. Rape, originally defined as abduction, became marriage by capture. Marriage meant the taking was to extend in time, to be not only use of but possession of, or ownership. " - Andrea Dworkin

"Intercourse as an act often expresses the power men have over women." - Andrea Dworkin

"All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman." - Catherine MacKinnon

"All men are rapists and that's all they are" - Marilyn French


Now, my question is, WHY do these feminists dislike men so much ? To condemn such an intimate act of love between a man and a woman (sexual intercourse) as "rape" is unfathomable to me. Have they been hurt, at one point in their lives, by a man so much that they developed a hatred for them all ? If this is true, then perhaps misogynists have had the same thing happen to them, only in their case, they have been hurt by a woman.

Additional Details

@Sam - The fact that you agree that marriage is the same as kidnapping and raping someone shows that a feminist's mind is blurred and clouded by hate.
4 days ago
@Sammy - Since I'm 16, and not technically a man, you love me don't you ? <3
4 days ago
@Sam - Marriage was never about "abduction" - if you do research you will find that it's purpose has always been pure (to create a bond between two loving men and women), however, the misuse of marriage sometimes led to people marrying to gain land. Marrying to obtain land is NOT EQUAL to abduction. Feminists such as you and Andrea Dworkin simply feel the need to be victimized (when in fact there is nothing making you a victim) and so you create these ideas of something as pure as marriage being "derived from abduction." Open your eyes.
4 days ago
@Sam - Ah but that's the thing right there, it's not a fact you're stating, it's not even an opinion. It's a delusional lie created to fullfill your need to be victimized, and whatever action you try to take against the situation you make up in your "fact" is your attempt at satisfying your inferiority complex.
4 days ago
@Sam - Indeed they are creating the lies for you, but not just for you, they are creating them to instill the idea in ALL people's minds that Women = Helpless Victims, and Men = Brutal Savage Predators.

Sunday, July 31, 2011

In The Name of Feminism, Antifeminism?

http://www.singleblackmale.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/misogyny_hard_to_spell.jpg
image is from here

I just found a post online about a radical lesbian feminist. (I'm not linking to it.) The allegedly radical and lesbian and white feminist author of the post calls for the public humiliation of a radical lesbian feminist activist; she endorses all sorts of unnamed forms of retaliation against that activist because the two women disagree on the politics of food.

Wow.

Is this what radicalism and feminism currently means on the internet--on blogs especially? That we can all call for the public harassment and humiliation and physical violation of women?

I sure hope not.

Critique of someone's values and behavior is one thing. Calling for violence to be done to them is something else entirely, and the last time I checked it was called the "patriarchal abuse of women".

We all experience disappointment and betrayal. Sometimes we feel it when it hasn't happened; sometimes it has happened and we don't feel anything at the time. How our feelings get acted out publicly is and ought to be a concern for all radicals.

In the last five years especially, I've seen all manner of hurtfulness, insult, and verbal violence against women being passed off as "feminist" and "radical". From women being called "the b word", to some radical feminist women being structurally silenced, to invasions against Lesbians, to calls for some women to be publicly assaulted, I won't support any of that happening or be silent in the face of it.



Friday, July 22, 2011

"All the Whites are Racist. All the Men are Sexist." Part 3: Patricia Hill Collins On Afrocentric Feminist Thought and Eurocentric Masculinist Thought

http://pixhost.info/avaxhome/ec/cd/0016cdec_medium.jpeg
image of book cover is from here

It has often been argued that writings by white feminist philosophers such as Andrea Dworkin lack subtlety. "Subtlety" is often male supremacist code for "the appropriate level of intellectual deference and demure posturing in the form of "well, I may not be right about this but I thought I'd speak up anyway--please forgive me if your sensibilities are offended".  The cloaked male supremacy that often is inferred or invested in demands for white women to speak more personally, less generally, is a critique that is practiced with nauseating regularity by men across race and region; it is a way for men to try and maintain control and dominance. Not surprisingly it is a tactic that is employed against radical feminists across race and ethnicity.

When white radical feminists are challenged by Black radical feminists and their allies and supporters to be more sensitive to some issues written about as "universal truths", this challenge is pro-feminist and entirely radical. The challenge is an act of valuing women's experience, conditions, and analysis of society that remains outside white women's experience and conditions, and therefore remains outside their analysis of society as well.

Catharine A. MacKinnon wrote a very telling piece called "From Practice to Theory, or What is a White Woman, Anyway?" It has been thoroughly and respectfully critiqued by another white radical feminist woman but because the critique is in a US Law Journal, not an internationally distributed and sold book, and also because, sadly, it is not available to most readers online, it is not regarded as important in part because because it is not read.

But if you wish to see a white feminist detail how other white feminists deny white (racist-misogynist) power among white women, please try and find the following article in the Yale Journal of Law & Feminism, Spring, 1993: WHITENESS AND WOMEN, IN PRACTICE AND THEORY: A RESPONSE TO CATHARINE MACKINNON, by Martha R. Mahoney.

I'll summarise my own views, while encouraging you to read both pieces of writing and come to your own conclusions. In her writing, MacKinnon offers up a view of white women as "women:privileged" but somehow not raced politically in ways that are directly and systematically oppressive and harmful to women of color. Her thematic point is that white women are not just white people/oppressors, as some women contend (or experience them to be). In this writing she effectively removes from reality white women as a raced class of human beings with raced power to oppress racially subordinated people across gender, region, and class.

The radical challenge to MacKinnon, by Mahoney and other theorists and activists, is that white women are also white, and practice white supremacy, albeit from a decidedly different vantage-point than do white men. White women like MacKinnon are promoted among white radical feminists as one of the authors of "must read" radical feminist texts. See, for example, the recommended reading resources list at Rad Fem Hub, just below (or click on the word "resources").

resources

PRINT
Books – Theory
Mary Daly
Beyond God the Father
Gyn/Ecology
Quintessence
Gail Dines
Pornland: How Porn Has Hijacked Our Sexuality
Pornography: The Production and Consumption of Inequality
Andrea Dworkin
Intercourse
Pornography: Men Possessing Women
Right Wing Women
Woman Hating
Cordelia Fine
Delusions of Gender: How Our Minds, Society, and Neurosexism Create Difference
Marilyn French
Beyond Power: On Women, Men and Morals
The War Against Women
Germaine Greer
The Whole Woman
Sheila Jeffreys
The Idea of Prostitution
The Industrial Vagina: The Political Economy of the Global Sex Trade
The Spinster and Her Enemies
Unpacking Queer Politics: A Lesbian Feminist Perspective
Celia Kitzinger and Rachel Perkins
Changing Our Minds: Lesbian Feminism and Psychology
Catharine MacKinnon
Are Women Human? And Other International Dialogues
Feminism Unmodified: Discourses on Life and Law
Toward a Feminist Theory of the State
Women’s Lives, Men’s Laws

Kate Millet [sic]
Sexual Politics
Janice G. Raymond
The Transsexual Empire: The Making of the She-Male
Women As Wombs: Reproductive Technologies and the Battle over Women’s Freedom

Dale Spender
Man Made Language
Marilyn Waring
Counting for Nothing: What Men Value and What Women are Worth
Books — History
Emmeline Pankhurst: A Biography
by June Purvis
From Eve to Dawn, A History of Women in the World, Volume I: Origins: From Prehistory to the First Millennium
by Marilyn French
From Eve to Dawn, A History of Women in the World, Volume II: The Masculine Mystique: From Feudalism to the French Revolution by Marilyn French
From Eve to Dawn, A History of Women in the World, Volume III: Infernos and Paradises, The Triumph of Capitalism in the 19th Century by Marilyn French
From Eve to Dawn, A History of Women in the World, Volume IV: Revolutions and Struggles for Justice in the 20th Century by Marilyn French
Iron-Jawed Angels: The Suffrage Militance of the National Woman’s Party 1912-1920
by Linda G. Ford
Unshackled: Story of How We Won the Vote  by Christabel Pankhurst
Woman’s Evolution from Matriarchal Clan to Patriarchal Family
by Evelyn Reed

Ought not their blog be called "White Rad Fem Hub" and if not, why not? Is it considered insulting or offensive for me to state that their blog is a white rad fem hub? If so, what's insulting or offensive about it? Let us also ask, if Kate Millett's important Western- and Anglo-centric canonical radical feminist text, Sexual Politics, is fundamentally and only about the lives, literature, and conditions of whites, why isn't it called White Sexual Politics? I understand why it wasn't named that at the time and that reason is largely due to white privilege and entitlement to view white experience as universal, human, and unraced. It most assuredly is human--which is in part MacKinnon's point. But we must note that it is racist to view the book as unraced, as not positioned in real white supremacist space, and as a consequence, we are left with realities like the "NBA" and the "WNBA, the "World Cup" and the Women's World Cup", the "PGA" and the "WPGA", and "Sexual Politics" and "Black Sexual Politics".

http://pixhost.info/avaxhome/8d/eb/000aeb8d_medium.jpeg
image of book cover is from here

Covertly, overtly, and racistly, relatively young white radical feminists, along with their older white sisters, have been rejecting--or simply ignoring--radical feminist intersectional analyses, such as the brilliant one presented below, for allegedly (and erroneously) being too much in support of patriarchy.

It is sometimes contended that feminists of color take the much-needed focus off of how men oppress women: this is white radical feminism's primary and often only concern because it allows white women to not deal with how their whiteness also is misogyny--racist-misogyny. How it is that African American feminists' declarations of truth, and women of color's many declarations of truth across ethnicity and region, are viewed essentially as an obstacle to achieving women's liberation only means to me that far too many white women don't care about liberation for any woman who isn't white, unless it occurs as a parenthetical consequence of liberating white women. This is to say, the only white-approved means for women of color to work towards being liberated from men is on white women's terms, in ways that most directly benefit white women--in theory if not yet in practice (due to the sheer stubborn force of male supremacy), using the methods and approaches owned and operated by white women. Women of color daring to venture forth beyond the scope and sociological confines of white women's experiences are assumed to be working hand in hand with men.

What is less often recognised by white women is how white women work with white men to maintain their own white power and privileges--including the privilege of thinking of oneself as gendered by not raced.

This might sound like a strong critique coming from a male--a white one at that. It is. I've called out the white male supremacy of white men, the male supremacy of men of color, and more recently in a series of posts, the white supremacy of white women as a form of virulently dangerous white power-protectionism. I do this because any preservation of whiteness is more than a parenthetical obstacle to liberation for women of color, particularly but not only for women who live among whites. White and male supremacy are fused political ideologies, whereby whiteness is male supremacist and manhood is white supremacist. This is flatly and fiercely denied by virtually every white women writer I have ever read, including Catharine MacKinnon, except for one: Andrea Dworkin.

I encourage any woman readers of this post to ask any white feminist if she believes her whiteness functions as a serious obstacle to women's liberation from globalised Eurocentric male supremacy. The "patriarchy" referred to as only one historical thing by far too many white women, allegedly does not have raced power system embedded in it (in them) at all. But where in the world is patriarchy not raced? Given that it is always raced, how does ignoring the political effects of that oppressively and gynocidally raced power on women of color amount to a practice of radical feminism, and why is it so protected as a common practice?

What I learned from my feminist mentor, from Andrea Dworkin, and from Audre Lorde was that oppression must be named and called out--by all who see it. And when men do it, they'd better be respectful of women across race and not racist or misogynistic in the ways they do it. White women do call it out when men of color are misogynistic. Sometimes they do so in ways that are not racist. But regardless, I've rarely heard white women critique each other for challenging the misogyny of men of color--there seems to be an ethic created by the importance and urgency of women calling out men's misogyny wherever it exists. Indeed, white women have made it a practice to call out any misogyny anywhere in the world, whether in respectful alliance with women from other regions or not.

What's misogynistic about a white male calling out white women's racism, when that racism is racist-misogyny? How is such a practice 'anti-feminist' or 'anti-woman'--if women of color are, in fact, women? My actions are politically anti-white, I suppose, so it makes sense that if white women only view themselves as women, my critique of their white supremacist ways will be seen as anti-woman, even when they are not. I'm not at all saying I'm incapable of being misogynistic or just plain ol' sexist, or white supremacist or racist, for that matter. I can be at any moment of the day. I was just yesterday, actually.

I hope I've been careful to describe my objections and critiques in ways that welcome discussion and don't intentionally shame or insult the white women. They may well feel insulted or ashamed or any number of other things too. Those of us who are white people usually do feel all that--and seriously threatened--when it is called out. Men generally do feel significantly threatened when anyone calls out their male supremacist practices.

So I return to a declaration of the need to make room in the partial, privileged house of white radical feminism for the perspectives, truths, and realities of women of color across class, region, and sexuality. But far more important than that is the need--not "my" need--for whites across gender to do what men across race systematically refuse to do: to center the views and values of radical feminist women of color; to understand our own whiteness is real as raced privilege, entitlement, and power; and it is collectively and institutionally protected with whites in control. I believe that we collectively must understand that if we don't move outside our whiteness in our allegedly pro-feminist practices, we continue the age-old practice of silencing and subordinating women of color.

For me, what follows is another critical and key voice in radical feminism--a voice that ought to be central and regarded as just as important as that of Mary Daly, Catharine MacKinnon, or Andrea Dworkin. Collins' works of theory astutely tackle some very significant problems plaguing much of white radical feminist thinking. What I didn't know until reading this, and the work of Marimba Ani, was exactly how Eurocentric and masculinist a lot of white radical feminist thinking and theorising was, even while I have witnessed it's controlling and condescending effects on women who are located differently than are the white authors.

I've recently been in conversation with a white radical lesbian, not doing a very good job of articulating my own viewpoints relative to her own. Needless to say, hers are infinitely more sensitive than are mine to the harms being done to Lesbian communities she's been part of. But my experience of late has not been grounded in Gay or Lesbian spaces; my political community is women of color internationally. And those women are describing a constellation of oppressive realities that no one who is white in the US is experiencing due the protections and privileges that come with being white (and US) across gender.

What has frustrated me greatly, due to my alliance with radical feminist women of color, is how whites across gender, almost without exception, refuse to deal with the meaning and reality of their whiteness--and how it shapes their own theories, views, values, and political (including interpersonal) practices. I hope the work that follows continues to serve to break open the codes and help end the practices of white and male supremacist protectionism among whites and men.

What follows was found *here*, but that version contains a bunch of typos which I've attempted to correct in the copy that appears below. (Now if only I could correct the typos in my own posts!!) It may also be viewed as a PDF doc, *here*. That too is an earlier version that has been revised and updated in the 2008 edition of the book, published by Routledge.

In the newer edition of the text (2000, 2008), see especially the chapter 1: "The Politics of Black Feminist Thought" (pp. 1-20) and most especially chapter 11: "Black Feminist Epistemology" (pp. 251-272).

*          *          *

From Patricia Hill Collins, Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge,Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. Boston: Unwin Hyman, 1990, pp. 221-238. [JR's note: This is not from the latest edition of Black Feminist Thought. Page numbers mentioned here do not correlate to the pagination in the latest editions of the text. See just above for more.]

Patricia Hill Collins


Black Feminist Thought in the Matrix of Domination


Black feminist thought demonstrates Black women's emerging power as agents of knowledge. By portraying African-American women as self-defined, self-reliant individuals confronting race, gender, and class oppression, Afrocentric feminist thought speaks to the importance that oppression, Afrocentric feminist thought speaks to the importance that knowledge plays in empowering oppressed people. One distinguishing feature of Black feminist thought is its insistence that both the changed consciousness of individuals and the social transformation of political and economic institutions constitute essential ingredients for social change. New knowledge is important for both dimensions to change.

Knowledge is a vitally important part of the social relations of domination and resistance. By objectifying African-American women and recasting our experiences to serve the interests of elite white men,much of the Eurocentric masculinist worldview fosters Black women'ssubordination. But placing Black women's experiences at the center of analysis offers fresh insights on the prevailing concepts, paradigms,and epistemologies of this worldview and on its feminist and Afrocentric critiques. Viewing the world through a both/and conceptual lens of the simultaneity of race, class, and gender oppression and of the need for a humanist vision of community creates new possibilities for an empowering Afrocentric feminist knowledge. Many Black feminist intellectuals have long thought about the world in this way because this is the way we experience the world.

Afrocentric feminist thought offers two significant contributions toward furthering our understanding of the important connections among knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. First, Black feminist thought fosters a fundamental paradigmatic shift in how we think about oppression. By embracing a paradigm of race, class, and gender as interlocking systems of oppression,Black feminist thought reconceptualizes the social relations of domination and resistance. Second, Black feminist thought addresses ongoing epistemological debates in feminist theory and in the sociology of knowledge concerning ways of assessing "truth." Offering subordinate groups new knowledge about their own experiences can be empowering. But revealing new ways of knowing that allow subordinate groups to define their own reality has far greater implications.


Reconceptualizing Race, Class, and Gender

as Interlocking Systems of Oppression


"What I really feel is radical is trying to make coalitions with people who are different from you," maintains Barbara Smith. "I feel it is radical to be dealing with race and sex and class and sexual identity all at one time. I think that is really radical because it has never been done before." Black feminist thought fosters a fundamental paradigmatic shift that rejects additive approaches to oppression. Instead of starting with gender and then adding in other variables such as age, sexual orientation, race, social class, and religion, Black feminist thought sees these distinctive systems of oppression as being part of one overarching structure of domination. Viewing relations of domination for Black women for any given sociohistorical context as being structured via a system of interlocking race, class, and gender oppression expands the focus of analysis from merely describing the similarities and differences distinguishing these systems of oppression and focuses greater attention on how they interconnect. Assuming that each system needs the others in order to function creates a distinct theoretical stance that stimulates the rethinking of basic social science concepts.

Afrocentric feminist notions of family reflect this reconceptualization process. Black women's experiences as blood mothers, other mothers, and community other mothers reveal that the mythical norm of a heterosexual, married couple, nuclear family with a nonworking spouse and a husband earning a "family wage" is far from being natural, universal and preferred but instead is deeply embedded in specific race and class formations. Placing African-American women in the center of analysis not only reveals much-needed information about Black women's experiences but also questions Eurocentric masculinist perspectives on family.

Black women's experiences and the Afrocentric feminist thought rearticulating them also challenge prevailing definitions of community. Black women's actions in the struggle or group survival suggest a vision of community that stands in opposition to that extant in the dominant culture. The definition of community implicit in the market model sees community as arbitrary and fragile, structured fundamentally by competition and domination. In contrast, Afrocentric models of community stress connections, caring, and personal accountability. As cultural workers African-American women have rejected the generalized ideology of domination advanced by thedominant group in order to conserve Afrocentric conceptualizations of community. Denied access to the podium, Black women have been unable to spend time theorizing about alternative conceptualizations of community. Instead, through daily actions African-American women have created alternative communities that empower.

This vision of community sustained by African-American women in conjunction with African-American men addresses the larger issue of reconceptualizing power. The type of Black women's power discussed here does resemble feminist theories of power which emphasize energy and community. However, in contrast to this body of literature whose celebration of women's power is often accompanied by a lack of attention to the importance of power as domination, Black women's experiences as mothers, community other mothers, educators, churchl eaders, labor union center-women, and community leaders seem to suggest that power as energy can be fostered by creative acts of resistance.

The spheres of influence created and sustained by African-American women are not meant solely to provide a respite from oppressive situations or a retreat from their effects. Rather, these Black female spheres of influence constitute potential sanctuaries where individual Black women and men are nurtured in order to confront oppressive social institutions. Power from this perspective is a creative power used for the good of the community, whether that community is conceptualized as one's family, church community, or the next generation of the community's children. By making the community stronger, African-American women become empowered, and that same community can serve as a source of support when Black women encounter race, gender, and class oppression. . . .

Approaches that assume that race, gender, and class are interconnected have immediate practical applications. For example,African-American women continue to be inadequately protected by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The primary purpose of the statute is to eradicate all aspects of discrimination. But judicial treatment of Black women's employment discrimination claims has encouraged Black women to identify race or sex as the so-called primary discrimination. "To resolve the inequities that confront Black women," counsels Scarborough, the courts must first correctly conceptualize them as 'Black women,' a distinct class protected by Title VII." Such a shift, from protected categories to protected classes of people whose Title VII claims might be based on more than two discriminations, would work to alter the entire basis of current antidiscrimination efforts.

Reconceptualizing phenomena such as the rapid growth of female-headed households in African-American communities would also benefit from a race-, class-, and gender-inclusive analysis. Case studies of Black women heading households must be attentive to racially segmented local labor markets and community patterns, to changes in local political economies specific to a given city or region, and to established racial and gender ideology for a given location. This approach would go far to deconstruct Eurocentric, masculinist analyses that implicitly rely on controlling images of the matriarch or the welfare mother as guiding conceptual premises. .. . Black feminist thought that rearticulates experiences such as these fosters an enhanced theoretical understanding of how race,gender, and class oppression are part of a single, historically created system.


The Matrix of Domination


Additive models of oppression are firmly rooted in the either/or dichotomous thinking of Eurocentric, masculinist thought. One must be either Black or white in such thought systems--persons of ambiguous racial and ethnic identity constantly battle with questions such as "what are you, anyway?" This emphasis on quantification and categorization occurs in conjunction with the belief that either/or categories must be ranked. The search for certainty of this sort requires that one side of a dichotomy be privileged while its other is denigrated. Privilege becomes defined in relation to its other.
Replacing additive models of oppression with interlocking ones creates possibilities for new paradigms.

The significance of seeing race, class, and gender as interlocking systems of oppression is that such an approach fosters a paradigmatic shift of thinking inclusively about other oppressions, such as age, sexual orientation, religion, and ethnicity. Race, class, and gender represent the three systems of oppression that most heavily affect African-American women. But these systems and the economic, political, and ideological conditions that support them may not be the most fundamental oppressions, and they certainly affect many more groups than Black women. Other people of color, Jews, the poor white women, and gays and lesbians have all had similar ideological justifications offered for their subordination. All categories of humans labeled Others have been equated to one another, to animals, and to nature.

Placing African-American women and other excluded groups in the center of analysis opens up possibilities for a both/and conceptual stance, one in which all groups possess varying amounts of penalty and privilege in one historically created system. In this system, for example, white women are penalized by their gender but privileged by their race. Depending on the context, an individual may be an oppressor, a member of an oppressed group, or simultaneously oppressor and oppressed.

Adhering to a both/and conceptual stance does not mean that race, class, and gender oppression are interchangeable. For example, whereas race, class, and gender oppression operate on the social-structural level of institutions, gender oppression seems better able to annex the basic power of the erotic and intrude in personal relationships via family dynamics and within individual consciousness. This may be because racial oppression has fostered historically concrete communities among African-Americans and other racial/ethnic groups. These communities have stimulated cultures of resistance. While these communities segregate Blacks from whites,they simultaneously provide counter-institutional buffers that subordinate groups such as African-Americans use to resist the ideas and institutions of dominant groups. Social class may be similarly structured. Traditionally conceptualized as a relationship of individual employees to their employers, social class might be better viewed as a relationship of communities to capitalist political economies. Moreover, significant overlap exists between racial and social class oppression when viewing them through the collective lens of family and community. Existing community structures provide a primary line of resistance against racial and class oppression. But because gender cross-cuts these structures, it finds fewer comparable institutional bases to foster resistance.

Embracing a both/and conceptual stance moves us from additive, separate systems approaches to oppression and toward what I now see as the more fundamental issue of the social relations of domination. Race, class, and gender constitute axes of oppression that characterize Black women's experiences within a more generalized matrix of domination. Other groups may encounter different dimensions of the matrix, such as sexual orientation, religion, and age, but the overarching relationship is one of domination and the types of activism it generates.

bell hooks labels this matrix a "politic of domination" and describes how it operates along interlocking axes of race, class, and gender oppression. This politic of domination
refers to the ideological ground that they share, which is a belief in domination, and a belief in the notions of superior and inferior, which are components of all of those systems. For me it's like a house, they share the foundation, but the foundation is the ideological beliefs around which notions of domination are constructed.
Johnella Butler claims that new methodologies growing from this new paradigm would be "non-hierarchical" and would "refuse primacy to either race, class, gender, or ethnicity, demanding instead are cognition of their matrix-like interaction." Race, class, and gender may not be the most fundamental or important systems of oppression, but they have most profoundly affected African-American women. One significant dimension of Black feminist thought is its potential to reveal insights about the social relations of domination organized along other axes such as religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and age. Investigating Black women's particular experiences thus promises to reveal much about the more universal process of domination.


Multiple Levels of Domination


In addition to being structured along axes such as race, gender, and social class, the matrix of domination is structured on several levels. People experience and resist oppression on three levels: the level of personal biography; the group or community level of the cultural context created by race, class, and gender; and the systemic level of social institutions. Black feminist thought emphasizes all three levels as sites of domination and as potential sites of resistance.

Each individual has a unique personal biography made up of concrete experiences, values, motivations, and emotions. No two individuals occupy the same social space; thus no two biographies are identical. Human ties can be freeing and empowering, as is the case with Black women's heterosexual love relationships or in the power of motherhood in African-American families and communities. Human ties can also be confining and oppressive. Situations of domestic violence and abuse or cases in which controlling images foster Black women's internalized oppression represent domination on the personal level. The same situation can look quite different depending on the consciousness one brings to interpret it.

This level of individual consciousness is a fundamental area where new knowledge can generate change. Traditional accounts assume that power as domination operates from the top down by forcing and controlling unwilling victims to bend to the will of more powerful superiors. But these accounts fail to account for questions concerning why, for example, women stay with abusive men even with ample opportunity to leave or why slaves did not kill their owners more often. The willingness of the victim to collude in her or his own victimization becomes lost. They also fail to account for sustained resistance by victims, even when chances for victory appear remote. By emphasizing the power of self-definition and the necessity of a free mind, Black feminist thought speaks to the importance African-American women thinkers place on consciousness as a sphere of freedom. Black women intellectuals realize that domination operates not only by structuring power from the top down but by simultaneously annexing the power as energy of those on the bottom for its own ends. In their efforts to rearticulate the standpoint of African-American women as a group, Black feminist thinkers offer individual African-American women the conceptual tools to resist oppression.

The cultural context formed by those experiences and ideas that are shared with other members of a group or community which give meaning to individual biographies constitutes a second level at which domination is experienced and resisted. Each individual biography is rooted in several overlapping cultural contexts--for example, groups defined by race, social class, age, gender, religion, and sexual orientation. The cultural component contributes, among other things,the concepts used in thinking and acting, group validation of an individual's interpretation of concepts, the "thought models" used in the acquisition of knowledge, and standards used to evaluate individual thought and behavior. The most cohesive cultural contexts are those with identifiable histories, geographic locations, and social institutions. For Black women African-American communities have provided the location for an Afrocentric group perspective to endure.

Subjugated knowledges, such as a Black women's culture of resistance, develop in cultural contexts controlled by oppressed groups. Dominant groups aim to replace subjugated knowledge with their own specialized thought because they realize that gaining control over this dimension of subordinate groups' lives simplifies control. While efforts to influence this dimension of an oppressed group's experiences can be partially successful, this level is more difficult to control than dominant groups would have us believe. For example, adhering to externally derived standards of beauty leads many African-American women to dislike their skin color or hair texture. Similarly, internalizing Eurocentric gender ideology leads some Black men to abuse Black women. These are cases of the successful infusion of the dominant group's specialized thought into the everyday cultural context of African-Americans. But the long-standing existence of a Black women's culture of resistance as expressed through Black women's relationships with one another, the Black women's blues tradition, and the voices of contemporary African-American women writers all attest to the difficulty of eliminating the cultural context as a fundamental site of resistance.

Domination is also experienced and resisted on the third level of social institutions controlled by the dominant group: namely, schools, churches, the media, and other formal organizations. These institutions expose individuals to the specialized thought representing the dominant group's standpoint and interests. While such institutions offer the promise of both literacy and other skills that can be used for individual empowerment and social transformation, they simultaneously require docility and passivity. Such institutions would have us believe that the theorizing of elites constitutes the whole of theory. The existence of African-American women thinkers such as Maria Stewart, Sojourner Truth, Zora Neale Hurston, and Fannie Lou Hamer who, though excluded from and/or marginalized within such institutions, continued to produce theory effectively opposes this hegemonic view. Moreover, the more recent resurgence of Black feminist thought within these institutions, the case of the outpouring of contemporary Black feminist thought in history and literature, directly challenges the Eurocentric masculinist thought pervading these institutions.


Resisting the Matrix of Domination


Domination operates by seducing, pressuring, or forcing African-American women and members of subordinated groups to replace individual and cultural ways of knowing with the dominant group's specialized thought. As a result, suggests Audre Lorde, "the true focus of revolutionary change is never merely the oppressive situations which we seek to escape, but that piece of the oppressor which is planted deep within each of us." Or as Toni Cade Bambara succinctly states, "revolution begins with the self, in the self."

Lorde and Bambara's suppositions raise an important issue for Black feminist intellectuals and for all scholars and activists working for social change. Although most individuals have little difficulty identifying their own victimization within some major system of oppression--whether it be by race, social class, religion,physical ability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, age or gender—they typically fail to see how their thoughts and actions uphold someone else's subordination. Thus white feminists routinely point with confidence to their oppression as women but resist seeing how much their white skin privileges them. African-Americans who possess eloquent analyses of racism often persist in viewing poor white women as symbols of white power. The radical left fares little better. "If only people of color and women could see their true class interests," they argue, "class solidarity would eliminate racism and sexism." In essence, each group identifies the oppression with which it feels most comfortable as being fundamental and classifies all others as being of lesser importance. Oppression is filled with such contradictions because these approaches fail to recognize that a matrix of domination contains few pure victims or oppressors. Each individual derives varying amounts of penalty and privilege from the multiple systems of oppression which frame everyone's lives.

A broader focus stresses the interlocking nature of oppressions that are structured on multiple levels, from the individual to the social structural, and which are part of a larger matrix of domination. Adhering to this inclusive model provides the conceptual space needed for each individual to see that she or he is both a member of multiple dominant groups and a member of multiple subordinate groups. Shifting the analysis to investigating how the matrix of domination is structured along certain axes--race, gender,and class being the axes of investigation for African-American women--reveals that different systems of oppression may rely in varying degrees on systemic versus interpersonal mechanisms of domination.

Empowerment involves rejecting the dimensions of knowledge,whether personal, cultural, or institutional, that perpetuate objectification and dehumanization. African-American women and other individuals in subordinate groups become empowered when we understand and use those dimensions of our individual, group, and disciplinary ways of knowing that foster our humanity as fully human subjects. This is the case when Black women value our self-definitions,participate in a Black women's activist tradition, invoke an Afrocentric feminist epistemology as central to our worldview, and view the skills gained in schools as part of a focused education for Black community development. C. Wright Mills identifies this holistic epistemology as the "sociological imagination" and identifies its task and its promise as a way of knowing that enables individuals to grasp the relations between history and biography within society. Using one's standpoint to engage the sociological imagination can empower the individual. "My fullest concentration of energy is available to me," Audre Lorde maintains, "only when I integrate all the parts of who I am, openly, allowing power from particular sources of my living to flow back and forth freely through all my different selves, without the restriction of externally imposed definition."


Black Women as Agents of Knowledge


Living life as an African-American woman is a necessary prerequisite for producing Black feminist thought because within Black women's communities thought is validated and produced with reference to a particular set of historical, material, and epistemological conditions. African-American women who adhere to the idea that claims about Black women must be substantiated by Black women's sense of our own experiences and who anchor our knowledge claims in an Afrocentric feminist epistemology have produced a rich tradition of Black feminist thought.

Traditionally such women were blues singers, poets,autobiographers, storytellers, and orators validated by everyday Black women as experts on a Black women's standpoint. Only a few unusual African-American feminist scholars have been able to defy Eurocentric masculinist epistemologies and explicitly embrace an Afrocentric feminist epistemology. Consider Alice Walker's description of Zora Neal Hurston:
In my mind, Zora Neale Hurston, Billie Holiday, and Bessie Smith form a sort of unholy trinity. Zora belongs in the tradition of black women singers, rather than among "the literati." ... Like Billie and Jessie she followed her own road, believed in her own gods pursued her own dreams, and refused to separate herself from"common" people.
Zora Neal Hurston is an exception for prior to 1950, few African-American women earned advanced degrees and most of those who did complied with Eurocentric masculinist epistemologies. Although these women worked on behalf of Black women, they did so within the confines of pervasive race and gender oppression. Black women scholars were in a position to see the exclusion of African-American women from scholarly discourse, and the thematic content of their work often reflected their interest in examining a Black women's standpoint. However, their tenuous status in academic institutions led them to adhere to Eurocentric masculinist epistemologies so that their work would be accepted as scholarly. As a result, while they produced Black feminist thought, those African-American women most likely to gain academic credentials were often least likely to produce Black feminist thought that used an Afrocentric feminist epistemology.

An ongoing tension exists for Black women as agents of knowledge,a tension rooted in the sometimes conflicting demands of Afrocentricity and feminism. Those Black women who are feminists are critical of how Black culture and many of its traditions oppress women. For example, the strong pronatal beliefs in African-American communities that foster early motherhood among adolescent girls, the lack of self-actualization that can accompany the double-day of paid employment and work in the home, and the emotional and physical abuse that many Black women experience from their fathers, lovers, and husbands all reflect practices opposed by African-American women who are feminists. But these same women may have a parallel desire as members of an oppressed racial group to affirm the value of that same culture and traditions. Thus strong Black mothers appear in Black women's literature, Black women's economic contributions to families is lauded, and a curious silence exists concerning domestic abuse.

As more African-American women earn advanced degrees, the range of Black feminist scholarship is expanding. Increasing numbers of African-American women scholars are explicitly choosing to ground their work in Black women's experiences, and, by doing so, they implicitly adhere to an Afrocentric feminist epistemology. Rather than being restrained by their both/and status of marginality, these women make creative use of their outsider-within status and produce innovative Afrocentric feminist thought. The difficulties these women face lie less in demonstrating that they have mastered white male epistemologies than in resisting the hegemonic nature of these patterns of thought in order to see, value, and use existing alternative Afrocentric feminist ways of knowing.

In establishing the legitimacy of their knowledge claims, Black women scholars who want to develop Afrocentric feminist thought may encounter the often conflicting standards of three key groups. First, Black feminist thought must be validated by ordinary African-American women who, in the words of Hannah Nelson, grow to womanhood "in a world where the saner you are, the madder you are made to appear." To be credible in the eyes of this group, scholars must be personal advocates for their material, be accountable for the consequences of their work, have lived or experienced their material in some fashion,and be willing to engage in dialogues about their findings with ordinary, everyday people. Second, Black feminist thought also must be accepted by the community of Black women scholars. These scholars place varying amounts of importance on rearticulating a Black women's standpoint using an Afrocentric feminist epistemology. Third,Afrocentric feminist thought within academia must be prepared to confront Eurocentric masculinist political and epistemological requirements.

The dilemma facing Black women scholars engaged in creating Black feminist thought is that a knowledge claim that meets the criteria ofadequacy for one group and thus is judged to be an acceptable knowledge claim may not be translatable into the terms of a different group. Using the example of Black English, June Jordan illustrate sthe difficulty of moving among epistemologies:
You cannot "translate" instances of Standard English preoccupied with abstraction or with nothing/nobody evidently alive into Black English. That would warp the language into uses antithetical to the guiding perspective of its community of users. Rather you must first change those Standard English sentences,themselves, into ideas consistent with the person-centered assumptions of Black English.
Although both worldviews share a common vocabulary, the ideas themselves defy direct translation.
For Black women who are agents of knowledge, the marginality that accompanies outsider-within status can be the source of both frustration and creativity. In an attempt to minimize the differences between the cultural context of African-American communities and the expectations of social institutions, some women dichotomize their behavior and become two different people. Over time, the strain of doing this can be enormous. Others reject their cultural context and work against their own best interests by enforcing the dominant group's specialized thought. Still others manage to inhabit both contexts but do so critically, using their outsider-within perspectives as a source of insights and ideas. But while outsiders within can make substantial personal cost. "Eventually it comes to you," observes Lorraine Hansberry, "the thing that makes you exceptional, if you are at all, is inevitably that which must also make you lonely."

Once Black feminist scholars face the notion that, on certain dimensions of a Black women's standpoint, it may be fruitless to try and translate ideas from an Afrocentric feminist epistemology into a Eurocentric masculinist framework, then other choices emerge. Rather than trying to uncover universal knowledge claims that can withstand the translation from one epistemology to another (initially, at least), Black women intellectuals might find efforts to rearticulate a Black women's standpoint especially fruitful. Rearticulating a Black women's standpoint refashions the concrete and reveals the more universal human dimensions of Black women's everyday lives. "I date all my work," notes Nikki Giovanni, "because I think poetry, or any writing, is but a reflection of the moment. The universal comes from the particular." bell hooks maintains, "my goal as a feminist thinker and theorist is to take that abstraction and articulate it in a language that renders it accessible--not less complex or rigorous--but simply more accessible." The complexity exists;interpreting it remains the unfulfilled challenge for Black women intellectuals.


Situated Knowledge, Subjugated Knowledge,

and Partial Perspectives


"My life seems to be an increasing revelation of the intimate trace of universal struggle," claims June Jordan:
You begin with your family and the kids on the block,and next you open your eyes to what you call your people and that leads you into land reform into Black English into Angola leads you back to your own bed where you lie by yourself; wondering it you deserve to be peaceful, or trusted or desired or left to the freedom of your own unfaltering heart. And the scale shrinks to the use of a skull: your own interior cage.
Lorraine Hansberry expresses a similar idea: "I believe that one of the most sound ideas in dramatic writing is that in order to create the universal, you must pay very great attention to the specific. Universality, I think, emerges from the truthful identity of what is." Jordan and Hansberry's insights that universal struggle and truth may wear a particularistic, intimate face suggest a new epistemological stance concerning how we negotiate competing knowledge claims and identify "truth."

The context in which African-American women's ideas are nurtured or suppressed matters. Understanding the content and epistemology of Black women's ideas as specialized knowledge requires attending tothe context from which those ideas emerge. While produced by individuals, Black feminist thought as situated knowledge is embedded in the communities in which African-American women find ourselves.

A Black women's standpoint and those of other oppressed groups is not only embedded in a context but exists in a situation characterized by domination. Because Black women's ideas have been suppressed, this suppression has stimulated African-American women to create knowledge that empowers people to resist domination. Thus Afrocentric feminist thought represents a subjugated knowledge. A Black women's standpoint may provide a preferred stance from which to view the matrix of domination because, in principle, Black feminist thought as specialized thought is less likely than the specialized knowledge produced by dominant groups to deny the connection between ideas and the vested interests of their creators. However, Black feminist thought as subjugated knowledge is not exempt from critical analysis, because subjugation is not grounds for an epistemology.

Despite African-American women's potential power to reveal new insights about the matrix of domination, a Black women's standpoint is only one angle of vision. Thus Black feminist thought represents a partial perspective. The overarching matrix of domination houses multiple groups, each with varying experiences with penalty and privilege that produce corresponding partial perspectives, situated knowledges, and, for clearly identifiable subordinate groups,subjugated knowledges. No one group has a clear angle of vision. No one group possesses the theory or methodology that allows it to discover the absolute "truth" or, worse yet, proclaim its theories and methodologies as the universal norm evaluating other groups' experiences. Given that groups are unequal in power in making themselves heard, dominant groups have a vested interest in suppressing the knowledge produced by subordinate groups. Given the existence of multiple and competing knowledge claims to "truth"produced by groups with partial perspectives, what epistemological approach offers the most promise?


Dialogue and Empathy


Western social and political thought contains two alternative approaches to ascertaining "truth." The first, reflected in positivist science, has long claimed that absolute truths exist and that the task of scholarship is to develop objective, unbiased tools of science to measure these truths. . . . Relativism, the second approach, has been forwarded as the antithesis of and inevitable outcome of rejecting a positivist science. From a relativist perspective all groups produce specialized thought and each group's thought is equally valid. No group can claim to have a better interpretation of the "truth" than another. In a sense, relativism represents the opposite of scientific ideologies of objectivity. As epistemological stances, both positivist science and relativism minimize the importance of specific location in influencing a group's knowledge claims, the power inequities among groups that produce subjugated knowledges, and the strengths and limitations of partial perspective.

The existence of Black feminist thought suggests another alternative to the ostensibly objective norms of science and to relativism's claims that groups with competing knowledge claims are equal . . . This approach to Afrocentric feminist thought allows African-American women to bring a Black women's standpoint to larger epistemological dialogues concerning the nature of the matrix of domination Eventually such dialogues may get us to a point at which,claims Elsa Barkley Brown, "all people can learn to center in another experience, validate it, and judge it by its own standards without need of comparison or need to adopt that framework as their own." In such dialogues, "one has no need to 'decenter' anyone in order to center someone else; one has only to constantly, appropriately,'pivot the center.' "

Those ideas that are validated as true by African-American women,African-American men, Latina lesbians, Asian-American women, Prehistorical men, and other groups with distinctive standpoints, with each group using the epistemological approaches growing from its unique standpoint, thus become the most "objective" truths. Each group speaks from its own standpoint and shares its own partial, situated knowledge But because each group perceives its own truth as partial,its knowledge is unfinished. Each group becomes better able to consider other groups' standpoints without relinquishing the uniqueness of its own standpoint or suppressing other groups' partial perspectives "What is always needed in the appreciation of art, or life," maintains Alice Walker, "is the larger perspective. Connections made, or at least attempted, where none existed before,the straining to encompass in one's glance at the varied world the common thread, the unifying theme through immense diversity."Partiality and not universality is the condition of being heard;individuals and groups forwarding knowledge claims without owning their position are deemed less credible than those who do.

Dialogue is critical to the success of this epistemological approach, the type of dialogue long extant in the Afrocentric call-and-response tradition whereby power dynamics are fluid,everyone has a voice, but everyone must listen and respond to other voices in order to be allowed to remain in the community. Sharing a common cause fosters dialogue and encourages groups to transcend their differences. . . .
African-American women have been victimized by race, gender, and class oppression. But portraying Black women solely as passive,unfortunate recipients of racial and sexual abuse stifles notions that Black women can actively work to change our circumstances and bring about changes in our lives. Similarly, presenting African-American women solely as heroic figures who easily engage in resisting oppression on all fronts minimizes the very real costs of oppression and can foster the perception that Black women need no help because we can "take it."

Black feminist thought's emphasis on the ongoing interplay between Black women's oppression and Black women's activism presents the matrix of domination as responsive to human agency. Such thought views the world as a dynamic place where the goal is not merely to survive or to fit in or to cope; rather, it becomes a place where we feel ownership and accountability. The existence of Afrocentric feminist thought suggests that there is always choice, and power to act, no matter how bleak the situation may appear to be. Viewing the world as one in the making raises the issue of individual responsibility for bringing about change. It also shows that while individual empowerment is key, only collective action can effectively generate lasting social transformation of political and economic institutions.