Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Reproductive Justice and Gender

Think '70s Feminists Are Out of Touch? Not So Fast.

By Heidi Schnakenberg, AlterNet. Posted July 11, 2008.


A lesson from second-wave feminism: Women will continue to be oppressed unless they stop prioritizing other causes over their own.
Advertisement

As William Kristol famously said during the primary season, "White women are a problem, that's -- you know, we all live with that."

Indeed, it seems that a lot of people have problems with white women, from our presumptive presidential nominees to feminists who are engaging in increasingly uncomfortable infighting over the implications of sexism vs. racism that emerged this year. There is a great post-primary feminist divide at the moment, and it has raised crucial questions about feminism and its origins, and why feminists and women in general remain so divided. Some of our traditional feminists like Gloria Steinem and Linda Hirshman have come under fire for sounding absolutist as they decry the rampant sexism of the campaign and express frustration over intersectionalism -- a brand of feminism that often buries gender issues in its efforts to highlight other forms of oppression.

In defense of Steinem, Hirshman and our so-called "bourgeois" members of the old feminist guard, I think their sense of urgency has less to do with this campaign and more to do with deep disappointment that the ol' "divide and conquer" thinking among women is so firmly in place. Sexism is still far behind the curve in beating the oppression game, and the feminist establishment is very worried. It is sending out calls for women to focus and adopt what I like to call "unity feminism."

These older white feminists are quickly written off as out of touch and even racist by intersectionalist feminists who say that women have a wide variety of problems to worry about, such as class, race and economics, and feminism must adopt many facets and causes to improve women's lives. Women of color have responded more specifically by saying that, frankly, they feel white women don't experience a fraction of the pain and suffering that women of color go through and it's difficult for them to relate. The overall sentiment is, "Hey, you privileged feminists, you don't get it. Move out of the way with your old-fashioned white feminism." As a reformed intersectionalist feminist, I say, not so fast.

Picture this: A young, privileged white woman grows up in an all-white, homogenous, Midwest community in the 1950s and '60s. She is beautiful and well-educated. She is middle-class, has no immediate economic worries and seems to have a bright future ahead of her.

Forty years later, she approaches retirement with permanent, debilitating brain damage from domestic violence that has robbed her of her memory and ability to care for herself for more than 20 years. Her Social Security benefits are routinely taken away on technicalities, and she doesn't qualify for Medicare. She receives a meager double-digit monthly income that isn't enough to fill a tank of gas, and she must rely on her kids for additional support. This woman happens to be my mother.

You can imagine how jarring it is for me to hear people say white women are too privileged and classist to understand the plight of less fortunate women. There is an assumption that white women are out of touch with the needs, suffering and pain of non-white women and therefore that "white women's" feminism is irrelevant. This is one of the biggest myths in feminism, and it must be dismantled or none of us will ever gain the rights, equality and safety we all deserve, and we definitely shouldn't discount Steinem and Hirshman so quickly. In fact, they have issued important warnings that we should heed.

Like many women, I too, have an eclectic and complex history of experiences. I'm ethnically Caucasian, and my family is from a small rural town in Western Europe, but I strongly identify with my Latino family by marriage, and my child is considered a person of color. I've lived in extremely varied environments -- a small town in West Africa, a rural farm in the Midwest, the projects in Manhattan, next to crack houses in Brooklyn, in a posh, gay neighborhood in Southern California, and even a temporary stint on the obscure island of Malta. I tell you this: Women have as much, if not more, in common with each other than they do with the men in their respective communities, countries and demographics. I've also come under fire from intersectionalist feminists for making statements like this. They say this type of thinking diminishes other problems that women of varied backgrounds face. I say no, all those other problems diminish the unique plight of women, who all exist under male power and oppression.

I once knew a Ghanaian woman named Ivy who lived in a small beach village on the shores of the Gulf of Guinea. She was very poor and lived hand to mouth in a way that I can never understand. She struggled with back pain from constant hard labor. And every night she cried. Not because of the work or the poverty, but because of her husband's beatings and relentless infidelities, and the frightening exposure to sexual diseases as a result.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: oppression, rights, gender, feminism

Heidi Schnakenberg is a writer and activist whose work has appeared in the Des Moines Register, Women's eNews, and several national and international publications. As a screenwriter, she has worked with Francis Ford Coppola and American Zoetrope. Her latest project is an original screenplay based on Spanish Harlem in the 80s and 90s, called El Barrio Del Sol.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Reproductive Justice and Gender! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
» Is there a law to shut you up? Posted by: countingdaisies
So are we ready yet to stare down the lavender herring?
Posted by: hagwind on Jul 11, 2008 4:37 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Good piece, and good points, but it doesn't go far enough. When I think of "1970s feminism," Gloria Steinem isn't the first name that comes to mind. What first comes to mind isn't a name at all: it's the women's centers, grassroots shelters, feminist bookstores, publishers, production companies . . . "Sisters doing it for ourselves," in other words -- and benefiting plenty of brothers at the same time.

When I do start coming up with names, among the first are Adrienne Rich, Audre Lorde, Gloria AnzaldĂșa, Barbara Smith, Mary Daly, Judy Grahn, Rita Mae Brown, bell hooks . . . If I kept going all day, I bet about 75 percent of the names would belong to women of color and lesbians and women who are/were both. Theirs/ours is a deeper, richer feminism than generally got heard in the mainstream media -- which we sometimes, not inaccurately, called the malestream media. Betty Friedan didn't care much for us either. ;-)

Something else that comes to mind is consciousness raising. CR is still one of the best tools I've ever heard of for building an inclusive movement: when theory is built and issues developed from the ground up in hundreds and thousands of kitchens and living rooms, then many voices are included and many more of us have our experiences and interests and struggles represented.

Feminism isn't a laundry list of "women's issues." Feminism is a way of looking at all issues (including the ones we haven't identified yet) with women's experience in the foreground. As we used to say in the 1970s -- and plenty of us are still saying today -- "Every issue is a women's issue."

Women tend to realize this. That's why you'll find women playing vital, though often invisible, roles in just about every movement you can think of. The guys love having us around, and with good reason: we work like mules and we don't expect to get paid. But as soon as we start expressing views and priorities that the guys don't share -- Robin Morgan got it right in the late 1960s in her essay "Goodbye to All That," "all that" being the sexism of the New Left.

None of this is new. An earlier version of "Goodbye to All That" might have been written by women in the U.S. abolition movement, but no, the men told them that "this is the Negro's hour" and, understanding the connectedness of issues, they subordinated their interests to the struggle at hand. When payback time came, well, the 15th Amendment didn't say anything about sex and it wasn't till the 19th was enacted fifty years later, after a long hard struggle, that women of any color got the vote.

What's the problem here? Why does feminism keep getting watered down, even as the need for it grows ever greater and more urgent? Here's a hint: Did the abolition movement feel compelled to take direction from plantation owners and others with a stake in the slave system? Did the civil rights movement include southern sheriffs and senators and the owners of segregated lunch counters in its planning meetings?

Nope. But an awful lot of women are awfully sensitive to male disapproval, often with good economic reason: we know what side our bread is buttered on, and no way are we going to give up butter. (I can't read Betty Friedan's post-Feminine Mystique books without gagging.) All anyone has to do is suggest that we're lesbians and it's "Not me! I love men." You don't have to be a lesbian to be a feminist, but you do have to be willing to say "So effing what if I am?"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Hagwind's comment Posted by: tngreen
There Is A Big Difference Between Understanding The Plight Of Women Of Color
Posted by: desidid on Jul 11, 2008 5:02 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and incorporating those concerns in the larger message. In that regard, White feminist have proven to be elitist, off the mark, and out of touch. And if they think for one moment that women of color are going to feel sorry for them in light of the racism that they expressed openly during this campaign, they need to think again. In their continued effort to make the Obama campaign stoop and bow to them they have proven their racism runs deep. Ms. Rothschild claimed the other day that Obama is an elitist, and she wasn't ready to support him. Well being a member of the Rothschild family, one of the richest in the world doesn't give her any street cred and she needs to hold that mirror up to herself. In the end any feminist who votes for McCain because of some ill conceived revenge has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that race trumps sex.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Kym525 Posted by: dudelette
» RE: Kym525 Posted by: Kym525
» RE: Some Personal History Posted by: desidid
» I have done my research Posted by: dudelette
» RE: Came right out and said it Posted by: westomoon
Unintentionally hilarious headlines
Posted by: Q30 on Jul 11, 2008 6:13 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Think '70s Feminists Are Out of Touch? Not so fast... Women will continue to be oppressed unless..."

I started laughing at this point.

"Think I've got bad eating habits? Not so fast... I'll continue to eat lard unless..."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The West could learn a lesson from the East on the Vedic Era
Posted by: maxpayne on Jul 11, 2008 6:27 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Do a google search on women and "Vedic Era" and you'd be surprised as to how far the West has to go to come anywhere close. Hang in there. China, Japan, India, etc ... are about to show you how ...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

fight for one, fight for all.
Posted by: sleepingdog on Jul 11, 2008 6:52 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i disagree with your premise: "...will continue to be oppressed unless they stop prioritizing other causes over their own."

i think it is instead: if there are more people willing to take other's causes, then both problems would be solved, and more as more come along. unity, universal suffrage. human rights for all humans.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You totally missed the point Posted by: dudelette
» RE: You totally missed the point Posted by: sleepingdog
70s era feminists can't talk to 21st century women
Posted by: Bobsays on Jul 11, 2008 7:01 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That has to be one of the sadest facts of this debate. There really is a MASSIVE communication breakdown. So whatever legitimate issues a 70s feminist wants to raise, it just sounds angry and nuts to a modern woman.

And 70s era femminsts, on principle, refuse to debate the elephant in the room: the encrouching conservatism of Islam and how that is re-shaping how women live their lives in urban environments. They don't touch it because it would be 'politically incorrect' to do so. And so, the great debate freeze continues.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Domestic abuse isn't a woman's issue
Posted by: PaulK on Jul 11, 2008 7:01 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've been screamed at by my wife and belittled minute after minute after minute for days at a time. She has to control the money. She has to keep things secret. This has gone on for many years. She makes half an effort now to control her temper, but it may take many more years before her compliments approach her vinegar.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Women complain too much
Posted by: nfamous on Jul 11, 2008 7:07 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
American women don't know how good they have it yet all they do is complain about everything. Most problems of American women are due to their own personal failings. No one told all these women to lie down with losers and have babies they would have to raise on their own. Look in other countries at how women are treated. Women are treated so bad in countries in the Middle East that they don't even know they are being treated badly. They are used to it. American women are spoiled brats. At some point men just want silence. It's just like how whites feel about blacks complaining about racism all the time. Whites just don't want to hear it anymore and men don't want to hear about women's problems anymore either.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Very good point Posted by: Bobsays
» RE: Very good point Posted by: Lauren
» How about you shut up, too? Posted by: dudelette
» RE: Women complain too much Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Women complain too much Posted by: desidid
» RE: Women complain too much Posted by: tngreen
Empowerment vs. celebrating victimization
Posted by: NYHippie on Jul 11, 2008 7:41 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With all due respect, for the sake of your disabled mother, maybe you should rub shoulders less with "some of the most famous people in the entertainment industry" and hang out with a social worker or two. If her situation is as you present it, even a minimally competent social worker could be able to clear the bureaucratic hurdles and stabilize her income.

Of course that would mean leaving her victimization behind and actually empowering a woman. And that is what my fellow 70's feminists just don't get.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

HURRAY for this article -- I TOTALLY agree
Posted by: janvdb on Jul 11, 2008 7:50 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Everytime someone tries to actually be a feminist, which means that she is concerned about WOMEN'S issues, some woman stands up and tells her she's "out of touch" unless she talks about OTHER PEOPLES' issues.

THIS IS BULLCRAP.

You want to talk about racism, fine. Go to a venue, a book, an article, whatever which is about racism.

But LET US WOMEN TALK ABOUT OUR ISSUES. That is feminism.

These crazy "women of color" are actually stopping feminism because everytime a feminist tries to actually be a feminist, she is told she has to stop doing that and start worrying about some other oppressed group.

I'm so SICK of this.

We aren't sitting at black people's rallies, standing up and telling anyone who discusses racism there that they are "out of touch" unless they talk about women's issues. That's their rally. Let them do their thing.

All feminists feel this way. Let the anti-racism groups do their thing.

But they won't let us do OUR thing. We have to stop talking about women, we have to talk about racism.

It's ridiculous and no one can tell me that black women have a damned thing to teach anyone about beating sexism; the facts don't indicate they have it figured out.

It's just a tactic being used to stop feminism making any progress.

STOP THIS DISTRACTION!! Women have serious problems. I think they are MORE serious than problems of race. And we need to work on them, NOT WORK ON PROBLEMS OF RACE.

Let the anti-racists do their thing. AND LET US WOMEN DO OUR THING.

If you only want to work on race, well, don't come to feminist events, boards, etc and try to stop the feminists doing their thing. If you want to work on both, work on racism when you are doing that and then, when you are working on women's issues, work on WOMEN'S ISSUES. Not race.

Jan VanDenBerg

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Oh, this is insane Posted by: westomoon
» RE: Oh, this is insane Posted by: desidid
Women are Women regardless of color
Posted by: WyrdSister on Jul 11, 2008 8:50 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I seriously cannot believe ANY of these statements! You are ALL off the freakin' mark.

And then there are the men who chime in with the most misogynistic statements I have ever heard. Thanks guys! Your so F*ckin' helpful. I guess articles about Feminism just sucks them out of the woodwork.

If you are a woman of color and are having issues because of your color, then join an anti-racism group; WHY would you feel the need tp put down, demean, or otherwise compromise what Feminists do. I really do not understand why women of any color would attack other women. NONE of us believe that feminism = only for white women. That's f*ckin' crock!

I am a feminist, and I stand up for WOMEN regardless of her color. I just cannot believe that there is THIS much separation. No wonder we cannot get 'women's issues' advanced if there is this much in-fighting.

Look, there are many issues that need to be addressed under the umbrella of "Women's Issues", but if we keep separating ourselves based on race then no one wins except the misogynists. If you think you have issues that are uniquely "women of color' issues, please inform me as to what they are and why do you feel the need to separate them out from all women's issues.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

opal
Posted by: Opal on Jul 11, 2008 8:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Heidi S. speaks some important truths. I identified as a feminist at 19 and I'm now 62. Over the years I have watched in horror as the leftists of my community beat feminism back into a corner while elevating racism to issue number one. Everyone had to get on board or be ostracized as a racist. It was ugly and it sounds from this article like it's still ugly. Most of my political work is about promoting peace these days so I'm out of it in terms of feminism. I don't know who these current "leaders" are that the author refers to.
Sisters, wake up! And I mean women of every race and class. Our gender solidarity could really help our children and grandchildren in the coming turbulent days.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: opal Posted by: WyrdSister
» With all due respect Posted by: Kym525
» RE: With all due respect Posted by: WyrdSister
» RE: With all due respect Posted by: Kym525
» RE: With all due respect Posted by: desidid
» RE: With all due respect Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: With all due respect Posted by: Opal
» RE: With all due respect Posted by: Kym525
» RE: With all due respect Posted by: Lauren
» RE: With all due respect Posted by: emmas
» RE: Someone Who Get It Posted by: desidid
» RE: Someone Who Get It Posted by: desidid
What ARE the priorities of feminism?
Posted by: fanny666 on Jul 11, 2008 9:18 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In a way, it's sort of unfair to single out feminism for my criticism, as obsession with self and with pop culture and pleasure and aesthetics are certainly not just endemic to the feminist movement. But that's what the article is about, so I guess I'll point out something I've noticed.

A recent AlterNet article about shaving pubic hair got 99 comments. A recent article about rape as a war crime got 5.

Here are some google results to point out what the movement has been focusing on:

Feminism "Sex and the City" gets 448,000 websites.

Feminism Rape Sudan gets 290,000

Feminism Rape Burma OR Myanmar gets 117,000

One of the reasons that white feminists are considered irrelevant by many- and why many dark-skinned women don't want to be associated with the term "feminist" and prefer the term "womanist" is for those same reasons: white feminists' obsession with self and with pop culture and pleasure and aesthetics while all over the world females face much, MUCH more severe oppression.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» lindawageck1 Posted by: fanny666
» I should have mentioned... Posted by: fanny666
» Happy Saturday Posted by: mcubed
» RE: What ARE the priorities of google? Posted by: Angela History
Feminists of color, sit at the back of the bus
Posted by: Kym525 on Jul 11, 2008 10:11 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's really the gist of this article.

You uppity black, latina and asian women, it's all YOUR fault that Hilary wasn't the Democratic nominee because you didn't tow the privileged white mainstream feminist party line and vote for THE woman. You DARED to assert that RACISM was just as important as SEXISM.

There were many feminists of color who did vote for Hilary in the primaries (I wasn't one of them), but having spoken with many, they were ambivalent because they felt--and Gloria Steinem's hatchet op-ed piece didn't help matters--that they were being told that their lives dealing with both racism AND sexism didn't matter.

Sorry ladies, but as a lifelong feminist of color, separating race and gender is a false choice that I will not make, and I will not be made to feel guilty because I am demanding my place at the feminist table. Both are hurdles that many of us face and succeed against everyday. They are also hurdles that are slowly destroying urban communities and creating a class of young women with no way out and no hope. It is the height of arrogance (and proves the point of privilege) that white feminists want to be the final arbiters of what is a feminist issue and what is not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Author is Right, and She's Backed by Lots of Studies
Posted by: dudelette on Jul 11, 2008 10:23 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
She mentioned the United Nations study. Did you know the Catholic Church several years ago did a study on how to improve the lot of women in the Church? Probably not. It was not tied to race or country. The main finding of the study was that women needed to have access to birth control. By controlling their reproduction, they would be able to have better lives, be better educated, provide better lives for the children, and so on.

Of course, the Catholic Church would never give up its control over the sex lives and reproduction of its members, because that would reduce the number of children born into the church, and it would increase the likelihood that people would leave the church as they became better educated and had a better quality of life as that would make them less dependent on the church, so it was immediately rejected by the Pope.

The point is always that if a woman has rights, no matter her race, religion or where she lives, life in general improves for everyone.

In the 19th century women's movement, the women joined with the abolitionist movement and other movements, including labor movements. What happened? The 14th amendment, labor unions, the final freeing of the slaves. What happened to the women's rights? Not a d**n thing. Black men might no longer be slaves, but their wives were still considered chattel to their husbands.

Every day I see prejudice against women on the job, simply and only because they are women. White, black, Asian, it doesn't matter. They're denied promotions and raises. They're left out of meetings "accidentally." They're given the worst assignments, and if they have any problems, it's "because she's a woman," not because the assignment deadline was impossible to meet, or the information required was not given, or the subordinates who were delegated tasks simply don't take orders from a woman seriously.

What's the old saying? "Whatever women do they must do twice as well as men to be thought half as good . . . ."

Here's an applicable study: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/90120.php

Shirley Chisholm said she suffered more prejudice as a woman than from being black.

While I believe in true, equal civil rights for everyone, I'm still going to put the rights of women first in my life, because until women truly have equal rights, no one will have equal rights.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Speaking truth to power
Posted by: Blue Heron on Jul 11, 2008 10:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As Noam Chomsky famously stated, "You can't speak truth to power, because power already knows the truth." I think he's absolutely right. And I though I do feel that womens' rights are still on the back burner, I think the bigger issue is the tendency that the majority of people have to suck up to power. Even the poor and unfortunate do this unconsciously. It's time for a little more outrage folks. Kill your masters - it's the only way.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Speaking truth to power Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: Speaking truth to power Posted by: Blue Heron
exceptions
Posted by: azul on Jul 11, 2008 11:38 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The article mentioned "With the exception of Native American women"...in regards to rape statistics. It might be worth mentioning that Native American women experience rape at 4 times the national average, and disproportionately from non-Native men.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: exceptions Posted by: Lauren
» RE: exceptions Posted by: desidid
Here is the question that the die hard Hillary supporters get wrong
Posted by: EncinoM on Jul 11, 2008 12:17 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is feminism, voting for the first woman president, because she is a woman

-or-

Voting for a presidential canidate, regardless of the gender.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 -