Sisterhood IS powerful, so stop fucking it up already!

[lavendertook]

Robin Morgan wrote an endorsement of Hillary Clinton and there are many points she makes that I completely agree with. But with more proof that whiteness can make otherwise brilliant women's brains rot, she tells us,

So why should all women not be as justly proud of our womanhood and the centuries, even millennia, of struggle that got us this far, as black Americans, women and men, are justly proud of their struggles?

Will this meme--that in order to understand feminist oppression and struggle, you must compare it to racist oppression and black civil rights work--just end? How many times do women of color have to say that this shit asks a woman to choose her left arm over her right leg--in this case asking a black women to see her arm as having something that her leg doesn't have? Experience matters, and when you are a white woman and make such comparisons, despite your best intentions, despite what other inclusive statements you make, you make the "we" of feminism a "white we" and you identify yourself with a feminism in which women of color are not at the center, but the margins.

By making this comparison in the above statement, Morgan's original "we," her "our" ejects black women as Other by the end of the sentence. We just went through this crap with Gloria Steinem. If Morgan hadn't been paying attention to what womanist and feminist women of color and white antiracist allies have been saying the last damn 30 years, feminist writers in newspapers, radio, and the blogosphere just posited a pretty good summary in response to Steinem's white blindness.

This compartmentalizing feminism is not my feminism. I wish these iconic white feminists--iconic for good work they have done--do some more thinking about their own whiteness and anti-racist ally work so they do not reinscribe their feminism with a white default. One's rhetoric does matter. Yes, one's rhetoric can be sophistry and lies, but it is also what we use to express how we see the world and reveal where we stand in relation to whom, and for whom, we are speaking. Who your "we" includes matters. A feminism that makes the baseline "we" white is not a feminism of liberation.

And I'm not blaming this crap on HIllary Clinton--she's not the one pulling this divisive shit. But Morgan isn't doing her favors here and she should know better by now.

Me, I'm going to comb through Clinton's and Obama's websites some more before deciding my vote next Tuesday. Or just do an AU write-in (I think my state allows write-ins) for Barbara Boxer, John Conyers, or Sheila Tubbs Jones.

Comments

(frozen)

[lavendertook.livejournal.com]

It doesn't to me. I think it's OK to combine the two--a vote out of radical rage against sexism or racism through deployment of identity politics (voting for Clinton because she is a female and subject to misogyny or Obama because he is black and subject to racism) is cool with me for anyone who feels so moved.

(frozen)

[timwb.livejournal.com]

If we are looking to vote for females or blacks and ignore their actual policies, then a vote for Elizabeth Dole or Alan Keyes would qualify as votes for radical rage.

(frozen)

[lavendertook.livejournal.com]

It could in the extreme, and I can still respect that choice, and empathize with it as well.

But there are more options than that and there's no need to mock the choices of identity politics by positing the logical extremes, right?

If someone said, "the stands of the two candidates are so similar, I really want a person of color for president, even if he's male, after a solid wall of white men and so I'm going for Obama," or " . . . I really want a woman, even if she's white, after a solid wall of white men, so I'm going for Clinton," would you find that disagreeable or a bad choice?

(frozen)

[timwb.livejournal.com]

Certainly not. And the person in your post was wrong to do so.

It just seemed that another question popped up in the follow-up posts.

I can empathize with the frustration of someone disenfranchised voting for someone of their group, but I would not respect a choice made only on one reason. This is how incompetent hacks get elected.

If your someone said "the stands of the candidate are so similar..." I would suggest a closer examination of the stands, or voting histories, or of the stands of close advisors.

(frozen)

[lavendertook.livejournal.com]

I can empathize with the frustration of someone disenfranchised voting for someone of their group, but I would not respect a choice made only on one reason. This is how incompetent hacks get elected.

Empathy without respect isn't worth shit. And you're pushing what I said to an extreme yet again, and that's disrespectful--quit it.

If your someone said "the stands of the candidate are so similar..." I would suggest a closer examination of the stands, or voting histories, or of the stands of close advisors.

As someone who has been really closely studying their platforms, voting records, policies and associates,* I * say it, duuuuude.

(frozen)

[timwb.livejournal.com]

(If someone said, "the stands of the two candidates are so similar, I really want a person of color for president, even if he's male, after a solid wall of white men and so I'm going for Obama," or " . . . I really want a woman, even if she's white, after a solid wall of white men, so I'm going for Clinton," would you find that disagreeable or a bad choice?)

I originally interpreted that as to mean "if any two candidates in any political contest are identical." Excuse my misreading. It was not my intention to disrespect. I'll forgive your jumping to a conclusion about my intentions, if you forgive my disrespect.

Allow me to rephrase the sentence: "if these two presidential candidates are deemed identical, is it ethical to choose between them based on race or sex?"

Based purely on race or sex, sure, why not, if you are looking to further the social influence of those groups?

Empathy with respect *is* worth shit. I may not respect someone, but I agree they should not endure being voiceless in their society. To me, that is "empathy."



And as someone who has been doing the same studies, I reply *look closer.* Obviously you feel they are interchangable. I do not. Both have different strengths and weaknesses.

When you say "dude" like that, it makes me think you are angry.

(frozen)

[timwb.livejournal.com]

That is to say "Empathy without respect *is* worth shit."

(frozen)

[lavendertook.livejournal.com]

Nah, I stand by what I said.

"Obviously," nothing. Read the words I'm actually using. I said they were "similar", not "interchangeable." If you want to ask about my criteria, that's a different issue. If you want to go campaign here for a candidate, feel free to make your case as long as you can refrain from telling me or anyone else here how they should be voting.

And don't ever tell me I'm not looking closely enough when I tell you I've been studying something--that's not only arrogant, but ignorant on your part after knowing me for 29 years--you should know I'm not given to hyperbole on my accomplishments, and when I say "study", I mean study. Leave the arrogance at home when you come to my LJ, or don't post to my LJ.

I wasn't angry when I said "dude" because I had already told you to quit the b.s. above. Last time I wrote "dude" to you you asked me to keep calling you that--it was a playful gesture I figured you would recognize since that was from an exchange last week. I used it in an effort to lighten the exchange and say "hey my friend." I don't do the patronizing endearments thing--I use other forms of sarcasm, not that crap.

(frozen)

[timwb.livejournal.com]

I don't even know how we got into this. My original response was to agree that Clinton is being treated like crap, and that one that should want fairness without demanding support for a specific candidate.

I've been approaching this discussion purely in generalities. That this discussion is about Hillary-and-Obama is incidental to me, because this situation is going to happen more.

And yeah, I was out-of-line when I said "study more," even though that's what you said you were going to do anyway ("Me, I'm going to comb through Clinton's and Obama's websites some more before deciding my vote next Tuesday.")

I got out of line when it seemed you assumed I hadn't studied their positions as well as you have.

It's just as well anyway because like you, I am undecided. I am undecided for the same reasons everybody else is, it seems. If these two could now announce their staff postings for when they get into office, that would make it easier.

Wanna compare notes?

you du-u-u-u-ude in a playful way...

(frozen)

[lavendertook.livejournal.com]

OK, you don't admit you're being a jackass and then blame me for it. That's being an even bigger jackass. So no, I don't wanna compare notes.

I'm gonna freeze this thread because I don't want to see what you'll come up with next, and if you take a look back at this thread in a week or so, you'll be glad I put a stop to it, too. Geezus Christ. Oy.