Thinking about the "centre" of feminism

[sqbr]

I had a bit of an epiphany last night. I've seen a lot of complaints from WOC, disabled people etc about being treated as "add ons" to feminism, which has as a default the needs and experiences of white middle class western women. I'm sympathetic to these claims but always felt I was missing something.

After reading about WOC-centred activism against sexual violence I was checking my twitter and someone¹ pointed out that #fem2 (A feminist discussion..thing? I don't really get twitter groups and tags) claims to be "feminist" but assumes pretty strongly that everyone is American and seems to see the entirety of feminism from non-American countries as "International" issues, an extra like race, disability etc². And even then "International perspectives" means "What do Canadians think of the American health system?".

And I thought "Oh. This is how WOC feel all the time. Or for that matter feminists from countries with cultures less like America's." (Australian feminism is pretty similar to American feminism, so I don't usually feel excluded this way)

Because in the same way as it's absurd to only read Germaine Greer or Hoyden About Town if you've decided to make the effort to consider "Australian women's problems" for a little bit, or to lump us with the Zambian National Women's Lobby³ because we're all "International", it's absurd to think of white feminists as just "feminist" but any POC feminists as, primarily, POC, who are only mentioned as part of a special tokenistic effort to "include" POC voices. And so on for other marginalised voices.

Why should white western american etc be the default? What if the women of the Asian Women Carnival made a generic "feminist" carnival where everyone "happened" to be Asian? (With maybe a Latina to cover the "Non-Asian" POV, and a Chinese woman handwringing about plastic surgery in America and should We do something to help Those Poor Women?) Would that be any less feminist than one where (almost) everyone "happens" to be white? What if most posters were from muslim backgrounds? Or were disabled? Or from non-western countries? Why do those groups have to be marked but ours/theirs⁴ don't?

Which is not to say there's anything wrong with white American etc women speaking up and organising against the sexism we/they experience, but if we're going to claim to speak for all women we ned to speak for ALL women, and if we're not we need to be honest about what we're doing. Even saying "We have not managed to find much information about *blah* and apologise for the lack" is a start. (This is something the history courses I've been listening to as podcasts do a bit, which I think is lazy: you're academics, researching is your job)

Anyway, this is just the thoughts I've had over the past day or so. I'm not sure where I'm going to go from here.

1)In a locked tweet referring to an unlocked tweet they'd written under another name, I hope it's ok to mention.
2)This is based on skimming through a few pages of posts, and like I said I don't get this form of communication. Anyway, the point of this post isn't #fem2's faults so much as my reaction to my perception of them.
3)Yes, I did have to google to find an "International" feminist who wasn't western. Blah.
4)Oh wait, I forgot, I'm disabled. Huh. Hmm.

Comments

[lauredhel]

If footnote one was me, fly free with anything to do with that whole trainwreck of a #fem2 conversation. Complete failure to get it.

Good post.

[sqbr]

Awesome, I assumed you wouldn't mind since I know you only lock most posts because twitter is all or noting, but thought it best to be cautious (you can't rekeep a secret after it's been revealed!)

[aquaeri]

Yes, I think this is approximately the problem. And not just that, but how much does "Australian feminism" incorporate the indigeneous point of view? (or realise that there is no single point of view "from there").

What if I said that the biggest single issue facing Australian feminists is the way women elders and the female side of customary law are ignored or ridiculed by white people?

[sqbr]

Good point, while I don't think "Australian" and "POC" are mutually exclusive sets the post does kind of come across that way.

What if I said that the biggest single issue facing Australian feminists is the way women elders and the female side of customary law are ignored or ridiculed by white people?

*laughs darkly* I am sure all the white Australian feminists would TOTALLY AGREE, or if they had objections it would be to bring up the poor treatment of immigrant women etc.

But yes. There is this huge disconnect between "What are the main focii of the feminist movement?" and "What are the main problems facing women?". (Unless you assume "women" just means the white middle class etc ones)

[aquaeri]

(Unless you assume "women" just means the white middle class etc ones)

This is the problem in a nutshell, right? The default is white educated middleclass heterosexual cisgender ablebodied "neurotypical" male. Therefore, "women" is all of the above except the last. Because if you meant anything else, you'd have mentioned it.

[sqbr]

Yes. And it works that way with all the others: for example it's only very recently that I encountered the particular and very thorny issues facing disabled trans people.

[aquaeri]

More vigourous agreement. Lesbian WoC have some invisibility problems, but disability in general makes everything harder, even without the social problems on top.

[ex_peasant441]

I think there are so many people pointing out so many ways in which feminism is 'getting it wrong' that the main thing we can conclude is that there is no such thing as a common female experience. My temptation is therefore to extrapolate from that and say that 'feminism' as an entire concept is meaningless and one should simply accept that the word refers to the interests of only a small group of white Western middle-class, cisgendered etc. women, and their attempts to claim inclusivity are a mistake rather than something that should be continued with.

But this is probably a product of my own frustrations and resultant prejudices rather than a fair analysis.

[sqbr]

I agree there's no single common female experience, but I think the solution is not to give up on feminism (or at least anti-sexism) altogether, just to realise it needs to be more flexible and multifaceted and part of a broader framework of social justice.

*tries to explain what I mean, flails, gives up*

[ex_peasant441]

No, I don't think one should give up on anti-gender-prejudice, just that the belief that there is any such thing as a common female experience is counter-productive. I'm sure it is one of the reasons feminists fight so much amongst themselves - because if you believe you are all trying to achieve the same thing then those people over there who are doing something different must be Doing It Wrong! Whereas if you abandon the notion of common interests then they are just doing their thing while we do our thing, and good luck to them. Plus if they find some solutions to their own problems maybe we can borrow some ideas.

But then I'm right wing - I was inculcated from birth to believe that power, happiness, freedom and well being comes from diversity. I can see how those who believe that power, happiness, freedom and well being comes from unity would hate the idea of fracturing 'the movement'.

Which come to think of it may mean I have just answered my own question about why people are drawn to the idea of state control - maybe they see it as a form of unity and therefore strength.

[sqbr]

Well, I think narrow minded one-size-fits-all sacrifice-yourself-to-the-group tendencies can be found in ALL political/economic/philosophical groups (see: communists, fascists, right wing fundamentalists etc) Though with feminism in this case, I think that while rigid dogma plays a part, the main problem is just racism, transphobia etc with a thin veneer of "unity" as an excuse :/