By Jove! contributor Wendy Haines takes on the issues of intersectionality in feminism, starting with what it means…
If you are viewing this article on a mobile, some web-links may not appear.
Feminism is complicated.
A few months ago, the term ‘intersectionality’ started being thrown around in various feminist forums I visit, often accompanied by ‘If you’re not intersectional then you’re just full of shit’. As some who claims to be knowledgeable about feminism, my ignorance of this new brand was worrying. I didn’t think I was full of shit, but unless I could join this intersectional club I would live in constant fear of illegitimacy, so off I went on a journey of liberal discovery (I promise that’s the last time I’ll use the word ‘journey’).
The insistence by some feminists of the redundancy of non-intersectional feminism can be intimidating at first encounter, so I hope here to assist any uninitiated persons who wish to confirm their emptiness of shit. Spliced throughout are links to some articles that I found helpful. I was wary at first, but the concept of intersectionality is very simple and rational. What is causing difficulty is misinterpretation and misuse.
I started off in a bad place: Louise Mensch. My first introduction to intersectionality came from her article for The Guardian, ‘How about some reality based feminism?’, and it left me with some serious misconceptions.
The experience was stressful, to say the least, as I found myself partially agreeing with a conservative feminist. It didn’t last long, but for a liberal socialist, it was a borderline identity crisis. The cause of this abnormality was that Mensch incorrectly defines several terms in her article. She defines ‘check your privilege’ as an absolutist statement claiming only someone with relevant experience can comment on an issue (i.e. only a rape victim can pass opinion on laws about sexual assault), and her following examples of supposedly intersectional feminism match this definition. If this was true, then I would agree that intersectionality is nonsensical. Just because I am a woman, that does not mean I am always right about feminist issues*.
It is true that this approach to discussing oppression is doomed to fail, mostly because it makes any problem almost impossible to discuss. However, Mensch’s article completely misrepresents intersectionality, and only portrays the silliness that results from misinterpretation of it. A more accurate impression of the concept comes from statements like this:
“We are actively committed to struggling against racial, sexual, heterosexual, and class oppression and see as our particular task the development of integrated analysis and practice based upon the fact that the major systems of oppression are interlocking. The synthesis of these oppressions creates the conditions of our lives.” – ‘A Black Feminist Statement’ by the Combahee River Collective (April 1977)
Intersectionality, as defined by most, is the idea that all kinds of oppression are interconnected and related. Thus, combating sexism without acknowledging its relationship with racism, homophobia, transphobia, classism etc. is counter-productive. Upon realizing this, I was quickly relieved from my Mensch-based identity crisis. I understood why people were saying she ‘missed the point’, and why a conservative feminist would take that view on intersectionality. Any concept that connects women’s rights to classism is not going to go down well with a Tory feminist. It does not suit a capitalist to acknowledge they are ‘privileged’, as their economic ideology depends on a sense of unearned entitlement.
‘Check your privilege’ is an often misused suggestion that someone should identify the ways in which they have an advantage in society. If someone states that although they think tackling racism is important, transsexuals just need to sort out their own issues, someone may remind them to think about how their identity blinds them to the severe, violent oppression transsexuals face. ‘You are a cis man/woman; no one has ever called you a tranny. Perhaps try being empathetic.’
This blog post from Reni Eddo-Lodge perfectly explains how some white feminists can be blind to issues about ethnicity.
When I talk to men about feminism, one of the most common responses I get is an assumption that I am accusing them personally of being sexist. This is rarely the case, in fact most feminists just ask men to acknowledge that they are part of a patriarchal system of oppression that also engulfs them. In the same way, it is not unreasonable to ask a white woman to understand that she is part of a system of racial oppression, even if she is not racist herself. One of my greatest peeves, niggles, irritations, is that as a woman my opportunities to act are significantly less. It is simply a fact that less theatre and film roles are written for women, and the ones that are tend to be less dynamic. Alongside this, I accept that as a white woman, I have more acting opportunities than a woman of colour. This is me checking my privilege. I may be oppressed as a woman, but I also reap the benefits of being white and heterosexual.
When I ask men to acknowledge their part in a system of oppression that engulfs them, I mean to say that they are affected by it negatively themselves. Patriarchy is the oppression of women by men, which makes life difficult for women, while also backfiring horribly on men. Jill Dolan described this approach, approximately, as ‘materialist’ feminism, that is essentially inclusive of men. Inclusive sounds like intersectional. Patriarchy works through gender roles: men are tough, active, aggressive and rational; women are weak, passive, emotional negotiators. Men are expected to fulfil their role as much as women, which results in them being stereotyped as violent, sexual predators. Sometimes, they are conditioned into fulfilling that stereotype. Women are in the kitchen, men are in the garage – and there’s no swapsies. The claim behind intersectionality of the connectivity of oppression is not hard to justify. Different aspects of identity all interact with each other in a demonstrable way.
The prejudice faced by gay people alters considerably according to sex, ethnicity and other factors. Gay men face violence and threats of illegitimacy because they place themselves in the role of women – being attracted to other men. They are traitors, pansies, because they have betrayed the ‘macho-male’ model prescribed to them by patriarchy. Gay women however, are simply deluded. They are under the impression that they can live out their lives without sexual fulfilment from men, and so the cure for them is clearly sex with a man. It is their role to please men, so even as homosexuals they must perform in pornography as objects of the male gaze. In a lot of gay pornography, the male being penetrated curiously takes on the ‘female’ role from heterosexual porn: he is degraded, hurt and dominated.
Stereotypes about gay men and women also vary according to ethnicity, as black lesbians are considered particularly aggressive, and the men are… well, Lafayette from True Blood. (Don’t get me wrong, I adore him). Misogyny also varies according to ethnicity. In India, western women are labelled as promiscuous. When they visit the country, they face ridiculous levels of harassment. In Saudi Arabia, as everyone knows, women are culturally oppressed and considered inferior. The oppression of different genders and sexualities then works its way into transphobia. If a man becomes a woman, he is weakening himself. If a woman becomes a man, she is butch and repulsive.
What most people don’t realize, is that the mentally disabled are particularly vulnerable to abuse. Difficulties with communication make them easy targets for abusers, as they will not fully understand what is happening to them or relay the events to any family or carers.
Because of this, including the disabled in our discussions about feminism and oppression as a whole is vital. They often cannot speak for themselves, so communities of liberals must put effort into helping the disabled understand their rights.
In terms of the physical disabled, any person who claims to hate prejudice is saying they hate the idea that someone should be faulted for something they have no control over. To exclude any group from this belief is contradictory. People with a disability, people of any sex, ethnicity, sexuality, class etc. all face hatred for an identity they cannot change. To prioritize any group is simply hypocritical.
Finally, I turn to religion. This is where my understanding becomes more complex. My definition of prejudice, as stated above, is a hatred for someone based on something they cannot control. A persons religious beliefs are technically under their control, even if they are born into a particular environment, so it is difficult to place religion in the realm of prejudice. Nevertheless, this does in no way justify the hatred of someone according to a belief they have the right to hold. Everyone has the right to a belief; everyone has the right to in turn criticize that belief if it affects others, for example, when someone preaches homophobia on the basis of religion.
Regardless of any opinions I may hold about religion and feminism as an atheist, I would never dream of attempting to exclude any religious person from feminism. In discussions about Islam, people will make broad statements about how the religion oppresses women. I would never deny the dodgy nature of some passages in the Quran or the oppression faced by women in some Muslim countries. However, if a woman is making the choice herself to be a Muslim, then it is an insult to her to label her as oppressed. If she is being forced by family to adopt the rules of Islam, then she is oppressed by her family, and the religion by extension. If there is choice involved, then how is she oppressed? If she or he then wants to call herself a feminist, then how is it helpful to claim she cannot? I am an Atheist, and I believe we should embrace religious feminists for the sake of combating those who use religion as an (albeit ideal) tool for oppression.
Working its way in everywhere is our old enemy: the class system. If you examine statistics about the richest and poorest in the western world, one thing is obvious: most oppressed minorities, and women (who are not a minority), are going to find themselves in the poorer bracket. The rich are mostly white cis-men**, because they do not suffer from the consequences of culturally engrained bias.
The above is the kind of ‘intersectionality’ that I think makes sense. That being said, there are inevitably some factions of feminists that use this new ideology in unhelpful ways. Returning to Louise Mensch, some people do subscribe to her foolish definition of ‘checking your privilege’. They think their position as a woman automatically defeats any man’s opinion about feminism, which serves only to exclude, not include, people in the fight against oppression. Exclusion only brings hostility from those who are excluded. Sometimes it’s necessary, like when Mitt Romney tries to alter a woman’s right to her own body, but it should be avoided if possible.
Not long ago, I wrote an article for the By Jove blog about Lefty in-fighting. I referenced the case of Helen Lewis, also mentioned in the Zoe Williams article, who was driven off Twitter by tirade of abuse. The abuse came after she published a harmless article about how feminist linguistics can be a bit confusing. This is where the ‘hardcore intersectionals’ start to get a little over-dramatic.
What Lewis is pointing out is how carefully you must tread these days to avoid the wrath of some feminists. She suggests that it’s hard to keep track of what words are offensive to minorities when it changes so often, and so was called racist and transphobic by enraged tweeters. There was no intentional, or even implied, attack on an oppressed minority in that blog post, and yet she still received hate messages. Political correctness is important, but should be judged through intention, not linguistics without semantics. A word does not have much of a meaning without a speaker.
So with a careful step, I move on to the cases of Caitlin Moran and Suzanne Moore. This is where I become afraid of receiving hate messages. For anyone who is not aware: Caitlin Moran got in trouble with feminists for stating that she did not give a shit about black female representation in film after interviewing a screenwriter. Suzanne Moore stated in an article that women are expected to look like ‘Brazilian transsexuals’, which angered Brazilian transsexuals, then leading to an aggressive spat between her, some of her friends, and the LGBT community.
Let me be clear. The statements made by Moran about ‘not giving a shit’ about black representation in film, and Moore’s comments (post-shitstorm) about transsexuals were offensive, rude and badly judged. Caitlin should ‘give a shit’ about representation, and Moore shouldn’t refer to trans-women as men who have ‘cut their dicks off’ to falsely claim womanhood. Suzanne’s only defence is that those comments were made in anger after she received inexcusable hatred and harassment from some of the transgender community.
Caitlin Moran doesn’t always think before she speaks – that’s obvious. She is constantly making stupid comments, receiving criticism, then explaining her actual intention/beliefs afterwards. She may be a bit foolish, but she remains a mostly positive figure for feminism in the pubic eye. Suzanne Moore, although clearly transphobic, has always been a powerful voice for women’s rights. Although her actions were indefensible, what I object to is firstly: the immature and vitriolic hatred aimed at both women by supposed ‘feminists’, and secondly: their immediate post-scandal dismissal from any association with feminism.
Here’s the shocker: not all feminists are going to be able to sit in a room together and agree on absolutely everything. That kind of harmony is never going to happen, especially if we direct so much hatred towards anyone who steps on a line. We need to calmly debate with each other about that line, not reject people absolutely from the movement if they’re imperfect, or think slightly differently.
Intersectionality means inclusivity, and should not be obsessive. Obsessive and strict is not accessible. If feminism is not accessible, then who’s going to get on board? Several months ago, I was linked to a post on Facebook about men and feminism.
The post goes through a list of ‘men’s rights issues’ that people generally don’t see as feminist issues, despite the being so. The response to this post was mixed, but I witnessed several people commenting that it was good, but ‘cis-normative, heteronormative etc.’. The article dealt solely with the issues of straight, cis-men, thus ignoring the relevance of others.
The first part of that sentence may be true, however, I felt on this occasion that the post deliberately aimed to contradict claims from men’s rights groups (the anti-feminist kind who genuinely think men are oppressed by women. Funny stuff.) Surely there is no problem with having a specific target audience? Yes, the post does not mention gay or transsexual men, because they are not necessarily part of that target audience.
Feminist theory and articles about combating oppression are, in subject, dominated by white, straight people. The answer to this is to give all oppressed groups equal priority and attention, not to insist on the presence of them all in every piece of writing, film, theatre etc, that exists. Equal attention in the same or different places.
It took a while, but in the end I happily labelled myself as an intersectional, materialist feminist. I hope this piece may have assisted some people in figuring out where they stand. While writing this article, I added the words intersectionality and transphobia to Microsoft Word’s dictionary. Progress indeed! I leave you now with some excellent poetry (wait for the second one).
Footnotes:
*Let’s expand, and be intersectional. Just because I am a white, heterosexual, cis-gendered whole lot of other things woman, does not mean I am always right about white, heterosexual, cis-gendered whole lot of other things feminist issues. Apologies, but intersectionality can be exhausting sometimes, let’s not deny it. Important, but exhausting.
**Cis-gendered is a term used for someone who has remained their birth gender/sex. In other words, their sex and their gender match. That’s if you subscribe to the popular feminist theory that sex and gender are separate things. Although, some gay people will say that they have a mismatching sex and gender. Unsurprisingly, it’s all very complicated.
