2008-03-16

Is The Feminist Movement is Out of Touch With Poor and Minorities?

This article succinctly details how out of touch the feminist movement has gotten. When women chastise Oprah for endorsing Obama, that is an issue. When you have feminist icons like Geraldine Ferraro and Gloria Steinem making these types of comments, we can see how the feminist movement was perceived as an elitist white women movement, exclusionary of blacks and other minorities. The comments about Obama show how out of touch these women are, and how eager they are quick to dismiss the plight and struggle of race in this country.

I'm developing a gray haired man crush on Keith Olbermann, his reaction to the Clinton camp's reaction to the Ferraro debacle is priceless:



Thanks Seattle Slim for the video!!!!

This is a great article from Racism Review:


Geraldine Ferraro’s Racism (unabridged version)
Posted by Adia Harvey on Mar 12th, 2008

Geraldine Ferraro’s recent comments about Barack Obama underscore just how far we haven’t come in America in understanding issues of race and gender. Ferraro said:

“If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman of any color he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”

Ferraro’s inference is quite clear: that sexism is a bigger problem in America than racism, and that as a Black man Obama “has it easier” than Hillary Clinton because racism is not quite as oppressive, fundamental, and entrenched in society as sexism. Ferraro is not alone in making this claim. These sorts of statements have been made recently by other white feminists such as Gloria Steinem, generally arguing that media coverage is biased in favor of Barack Obama and against Hillary Clinton, and that this is evidence of the primacy of sexism over other “isms.”

Feminists who are making these statements are rehashing the same tired, clichéd arguments that alienated working-class and racial minority women from the feminist movement back in the 1970s and 1980s. The debates over whether gender is more of an oppressive factor than race are self-defeating and miss the point. Privileged white women can be, and are, disadvantaged by virtue of being women in a patriarchal society. Simultaneously, they are also advantaged by virtue of being white in a racist society and because they are wealthy in a capitalist society. Attempting to pit gender against race sets up a false dichotomy between the two, and it draws attention away from the interlocking systems of inequality that exist in this country. Simplistically declaring that “sexism is worse than racism” obscures the way the two systems exist together in an interlocking, complementary fashion. And since both sexism and racism utilize the same basic tools—domination of others, oppression, stereotypes to legitimize unequal opportunity—feminists and other activists would all be better served by eradicating all forms of structural inequality rather than futilely attempting to rank them.

You would think Ferraro would know this. She’s no stranger to feminism and ought to be well aware of the numerous critiques that mainstream, liberal feminism undermines its cause when the attempt is made to address sexism without simultaneously denouncing—and working to end–racism, capitalism and heterosexism.

[edited at 1:42pmEST to add:] Making the case that sexism is worse than racism or even that it is the primary source of women’s oppression ignores the experiences of minority and working-class women (who simultaneously contend with racism and capitalist exploitation) and ultimately alienates these women from feminism and feminist causes. Ferraro’s statement that if “he were a woman of any color he wouldn’t be in this position” does not demonstrate an awareness of the particular challenges faced by minority women; in fact, it smacks of tokenistic attempts made by privileged white women to invite minority women to join “their” movement. Were Ferraro truly attentive to the ways racism and sexism doubly disadvantage minority women, she would recognize that suggesting that they can be hierarchically ranked marginalizes minority women’s experiences and continues to distance them from feminism by reinforcing the (erroneous) idea that feminism isn’t for them.

Further, Ferraro’s ludicrous response that “she is being attacked because she’s white,” demonstrates how completely out of touch she is with the racial realities of America as well as her unwillingness to come to grips with white privilege. She is quoted by a local reporter in Torrance, California (and later reported by CNN) saying:

“Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says, ‘Let’s address reality and the problems we’re facing in this world,’ you’re accused of being racist, so you have to shut up. Racism works in two different directions. I really think they’re attacking me because I’m white. How’s that?”

Contrary to Ferraro’s ridiculous claims, racism does not work in two different directions. Whites, as a group, are advantaged by virtue of racial privilege that affords them unjust enrichment in terms of housing, health, education, political power and representation, legal treatment, and many other areas that have been documented by a plethora of sociologists and other researchers. For racism to work both ways, racial minorities, at minimum, would have to be in the position of enjoying the accumulation of centuries of advantage in these areas, and they would enjoy these advantages as a consequence of centuries-old, institutionalized policies that deny the same opportunity to whites. Racism does not work both ways because Geraldine Ferraro gets criticized for minimizing its existence.

Geraldine Ferraro and many other women who make claims similar to hers have been involved with the feminist movement for longer than I’ve been alive. But it’s really sobering to realize that despite their lengthy commitment to the movement, they still haven’t learned that it can’t succeed when they deny their own racial privilege and narcissistically attempt to tailor feminist messages, rhetoric, and ideals only to their own experiences.

20 comments:

Grata said...

Great post Sid,

I was never sold onto the Clintons and always wondered how the BC could not see through them.

This election has solved that problem.

Lanna said...

OMG, I love Keith Olbermann with all of my tender heart! He's the reason I watch MSNBC.

Siditty said...

Grata:

We had suffered many years of the Reagan era, and just got out of the gulf war around the time of the Clintons, there were a breathe of fresh air in comparison to the Reagan and Bush years. I can't want for the Bushes to leave again. Domestically this era of Bush has been completely appalling. Education, health care, and government aid to universities and other programs has decreased and we have suffered for it.

If Clinton was the Democratic candidate, I would still choose her of McCain. It is a lesser of two evils type thing.

The Clinton campaign has become desperate and the race card is all they have left. Her husband disappointed me, when he compared Obama's campaign to Jesse Jackson's campaign, which was a campaign that thankfully wasn't taken seriously at all. Then we have the Gloria Steinhem's and Geraldine Ferraros of the world so obsessed with women's rights, they are quick to dismiss the rights of others, namely minority, and poor. I am disappointed because at one time I was an admirer of both.

----

Lanna:

Keith is awesome isn't he :)

Casper said...

I despise all the candidates. McCain is big business and Hilary and Barack are both socialists.

I completely separate the Reagan administration from the Bush administration. At least Reagan gave a damn about America. Bush Sr. was trying to disolve America. He wrote NAFTA, Clinton signed it, and G.W.Bush expanded it. I know in Texas your dealing with the Trans Texas Corridor. All part of the New World Order. The American Union is right around the corner. McCain has his pockets lined with this money and so does Hilary, and Barack.

What gets me is that Bush Sr. used the NWO in his campain speeches.

What I did like about Reagan is that he scared the Hell out of EVERYONE including us. No one knew what that guy was gonna do next. G.W.Bush had nothing on him as far as being a cowboy.

Grata said...

"Then we have the Gloria Steinhem's and Geraldine Ferraros of the world so obsessed with women's rights, they are quick to dismiss the rights of others, namely minority, and poor. I am disappointed because at one time I was an admirer of both".

Call me cynical but if you are black you are pretty much on your own. Let anyone who reaches out to you be a surprise, don't expect it.

Steinham never appealed to me at all. But ofcourse having a different background, her message was not that relevant to me either.

I understand the need for a change after Reagan but black people's love for Clinton was just over the top to the point of him being given honorary blackness!

isityouorme? said...

It is interesting that you mentioned the whole feminist angle because I am in two women's studies courses in school right now. In one of the books I had to read called Colonize This, has essays about various women of color and their experiences with feminists and feminist theory and how difficult it was for them to be heard by the white feminists. Some women of color have even begun to call themselves 'womanists' because they felt it was more inclusive to the struggles of people of color around the world.

The Keith Olbermann video was really interesting. I don't have cable, so I usually end up watching PBS and local news the most.

classical one said...

Perhaps black women should start their own feminist movement.

Siditty said...

C1:

We have Alice Walker and Bell Hooks and the womanist movement. Here is a blog that discusses womanism vs. feminism, but it is a bit biased :)

Black feminism is organized, where as mainstream feminism has organizational support with NOW. It is more of an idea than a movement per se.

Grata said...

Black feminist movement? If we are to go by the IR movement God knows what will happen with that one unless we have women of sound minds leading it, its bound to fail.

Lanna said...

I'm gonna do a presentation on womanism in about 2 weeks. I should start preparing for that...

Casper said...

I am just curious, but what do you do with a degree in womans studies?

purple_moonflower123 said...

There are lots of black feminists (me included), from bell hooks, Alice Walker, Angela Davis, Patricia Bell Scott, and many more. They don't get the attention (hmmmmm....I wonder why), like white feminist do. Great reading about feminist of color: "This Bridge Called My Back: Writings by Radical Women of Color" Ed. Cherrie Moraga or my favorite "All the Women Are White, All the Blacks Are Men, But Some of Us Are Brave" by Gloria T. Hull et. al. These are old school from back in the day when I was in college, but I think their messages still hold true today.

Lots of women of color feel like their voices go unheard in the [white] feminist movement, because they want to focus just on sexism and not the other -isms out there that oppress people as a whole.

Anyway, the whole presidential race is getting crazy. From Geraldine's asinine comments to the crazy Obama preacher. I can just see McCain sitting in a corner rubbing his hands together laughing. Hopefully his racist comments from several years ago will resurface...nay, I doubt it.

I just watched this news show about...If Obama's preacher's white hateraid, rubbed off on Obama?? WTF!! How soon we forget that Obama was raised by a white momma. Cracks me up! What is the world coming too.

minoritygirl said...

This is something I found on a website called advocates for youth:

In the United States, discrimination, as a societal phenomenon, shows up in black Americans’ having less access to quality education and health care, fewer opportunities for gainful employment and promotion, disproportionate rates of illness and incarceration, and feelings of sadness and anger. Poverty and disease are the face that discrimination shows to the world.

The effects of discrimination have been widely studied, especially in the South, where 40 percent of people living with AIDS and 46 percent of new AIDS cases occur among black people.[18] Many black women face daily racism, poverty, gender discrimination, and lack of opportunity for meaningful unemployment.[19] In addition, the South has higher STI rates than any other U. S. region. For example in 2004, the South continued to have the highest chlamydia rates among women; it had the most counties with more than 100 cases of gonorrhea per 100,000 people; and it had the highest case rates of syphilis.[4]

In one study, both HIV-positive and HIV-negative black women living in North Carolina reported HIV risk behaviors. Commonly reported reasons for sexual risk behaviors, regardless of HIV status, were 1) financial dependence on a male partner; 2) feeling invincible to the disease; 3) low self-esteem coupled with a need for love; and 4) alcohol and drug use.[20] Through interviews with African Americans living in rural North Carolina, one study found that the difficult economic situation and persistent racial oppression, lack of recreational outlets, boredom, and substance use were co-factors in this state’s STI epidemic. Respondents said that few jobs were available locally, and many traveled long distances to work. Those without a car had limited employment options since public transportation was almost non-existent. Most locally available jobs were poorly paid and offered little opportunity for advancement and no benefits. Respondents cited discriminatory actions against blacks in hiring and promotions and worried about their ability to get a mortgage or pay rent. Participants felt that whites received preference in hiring and education. In the end, respondents simply saw sexual risk as a lesser problem in relation to the many others with which they had to grapple.[21]


Is the feminist movement out of touch with the poor and minorities???

well instead of making comments about whether obama is the product of affirmative action or not, ferraro should have been concentrating on the disparity among african american women in regards to housing and healthcare.

La - msviswan said...

Wow, I'm doing my blog rounds. I was just doing a fast look around. I have to come back and read more of this post, it's interesting. I just want to tell you I love your new look :p

Lanna said...

Casper, are you asking me?

Well, like most liberal arts degrees, you do pretty much whatever someone hires you to do. Whether that's a career in marketing, journalism, social work, whatever. I think it depends on the person and their individual goals when it comes to what they will do with their degree. I know some people doing women's studies and then going on to med. school. Someone may want to be better prepared to provide medical attention to women in developing countries. Likewise, they could go to law school with their women's studies degrees and have a career that focuses on justice for women who are in certain circumstances.

As for me, I'm not getting a degree in women's studies. Hopefully (if I make it out of this place alive), I'll have one in Cognitive Science.

Siditty said...

Casper,

My degree is in Public Administration and I ended up in Insurance. The degree many times just gets your foot in the door, many places just want to know you graduated. I have never used my degree for what it was intended for.

Los Angelista said...

Ooh! Love the new look. It's fab.

I have been a fan of Olbermann for a long, long time. I just finished watching his show and he keeps it real.

Anyway, I do think the women's movement is out of touch. When it's brought up it's clear from the context that it's not a movement for all women but instead is a movement for white women from a certain background. It shouldn't be that way.

Anonymous said...

The mainstream feminist movement has always tilted towards the agenda of white, middle to upper class women and their needs and issues. Black women as a group have different issues. And younger generations of women in general don't get the mainstream feminist movement either.

For example, the mainstream feminist movement is obsessed with how many women are at the tippy top of the private and public sector, as if having a women lead a company or a country has a positive effect on women as a whole. Some of the most conservative, backward, not supportive of other women leaders have been women (Carly Fiorini, Margaret Thatcher).

And many younger women are more interested in life balance then being the CEO of a Fortune 500 company. Of course women should have the same opportunities as men, but what most women are looking for are choices and options that work for them and their lives. Not this notion that women's liberation equals clawing your way to the top.

The women's movement needs to phase out the Gloria"s and Geraldine's who are pushing a 40 year old agenda that is not speaking to women today.

Casper said...

Actually I was just putting the question out there.

lanna sd: "Well, like most liberal arts degrees, you do pretty much whatever someone hires you to do. Whether that's a career in marketing, journalism, social work, whatever."

Wouldn't a person with a degree in marketing, journalism, socialwork, whatever get hired first?

lanna sd: "I think it depends on the person and their individual goals when it comes to what they will do with their degree."

But thats my question. What will anyone do with that specific degree?

lanna sd: "I know some people doing women's studies and then going on to med. school. Someone may want to be better prepared to provide medical attention to women in developing countries. Likewise, they could go to law school with their women's studies degrees and have a career that focuses on justice for women who are in certain circumstances."

After doctors and lawyers go through all the gruelling schoolwork and practical application, a degree in women's studies is going to help them be better prepaired? and doesn't "justice for women who are in certain circumstances" negate equal protection under the law?

The original intent of the question was, what do you specifically with a degree in womans studies alone?

Siditty sd: "My degree is in Public Administration and I ended up in Insurance. The degree many times just gets your foot in the door, many places just want to know you graduated. I have never used my degree for what it was intended for."

If the corporate world is typically ran by white males wouldn't a degree in womans studies hurt your chances getting hired?

Well in a way Siditty, insurance is public, right? Your kinda doing public admin. In a deluded sort of way.

Lanna said...

Casper,

"Wouldn't a person with a degree in marketing, journalism, socialwork, whatever get hired first?"

As far as specific degrees getting hired for specific positions, that's rarely ever the case. Unless it is for a highly specialized position (Engineering or Computer Science), just about any degree will do. I have a friend who just graduated with a degree in Biology, but has yet to take a position dealing with such. He's worked for a politician and is now working as a business analyst for a big multinational company. Companies look for cheap labor from competent people, the fact that you have anything usually qualifies you for that.


"But thats my question. What will anyone do with that specific degree?"

My original answer was that this is based on individual goals. I still stand by that answer. I gave you examples of some individual goals that I know of, but that didn't suit you. So, I don't know what else you're looking for. If I were to receive a degree in Women's Studies and my individual goal was to do social work or become a journalist, then I'd likely do that.


"After doctors and lawyers go through all the gruelling schoolwork and practical application, a degree in women's studies is going to help them be better prepaired?

Could it be the case that what these people have studied for four years has an impact on their career goals? That's all I'm implying. Knowing the history of the people that are at the focus of your career could possibly be beneficial. I think you're thinking too practically about this. If there's one thing that college (at least in America) isn't, it's practical.

"And doesn't "justice for women who are in certain circumstances" negate equal protection under the law?"

Well if that's the case, there was never any use for civil rights attorneys. Maybe I should have worded it "justice for people who find themselves in certain situations" and these situations are usually at the expense of women.
------------------------------------------

Look, it seems to me like your fishing for a specific answer. I can tell that you're probably not gonna stop until you hear what you want, no matter what plausible answers people may give you. So hows about you throw us a bone and tell us whatever it is you want us to admit. I know you have some issues with the feminist movement. Could it be that you think a degree in Women's Studies seems impractical because of that? I honestly don't know. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're asking. Maybe a better question is why would anyone want to study women's studies? At any rate, I hope you find whatever answer you're looking for. I googled it and found this website: http://www.msu.edu/~wmstdy/wsmjr1.htm. It was the first one that came up, but I'm sure it offers the same careers that would come up if I'd searched careers with a history major. Most of the stuff is bull. Point is, you do what you want.