Follow Up to Anna's Post

Critiques have been made in regards to each wave of feminism, but one of the most common seems to be that the movement, despite its emphasis on equality, was still only applicable to a certain subpopulation of women, generally white elites. Feminism is supposedly about fighting for the recognition of the full humanity of men and women (as well as the rights that correspond to that humanity). Certainly, there are variations in the definition, but I have yet to read one that specifies such stipulations of class or race. In fact, since the first wave was sparked from the abolitionist movement, it seems that feminism should be embracing towards women of different races and classes. However, as history has shown, the movements have often focused on the issues facing only its most well-off members. So, to be female and African-American is to have your rights or needs ignored by two groups, to have two strikes against you. Again, this raises the issue of sisterhood. When will women put aside individual differences, which will always exist in some form, and join together to fight for the common good? Without cooperation and a united front, will feminism succeed? The experience of women writing The Rag suggests it won’t, and frankly, so does the continuation of today’s social hierarchy.

So, the sad truth is that many women, lesbian and black women in particular, are still being silenced. Audre Lorde asks, “what does it mean when the tools of a racist patriarchy are used to examine the fruits of that same patriarchy?” and offers in response to her own question: “it means that only the most narrow perimeters of change are possible and allowable.” If the feminist movement is plagued by the same issues tas the greater society has, then it will not make any significant strides. Perhaps the movement should not be “the feminist movement,” because, as Anna points out, it is equality for all that is the goal. It is not sufficient to make men and women equal if black and white are still unequal: a hierarchy would still exist and that is truly what we are working to dismantle.

Anna also raises the issue of what is defined to be “the norm,” which is male, white, and heterosexual in our society. However, we need to rid ourselves of this idea that there is such thing as normal or that only one thing can be normal. Lorde argues that difference is not just something to be tolerated; it is something to be celebrated for it is “that raw and powerful connection from which our personal power is forged.” She continues, “as women, we have been taught either to ignore our differences, or to view them as causes for separation and suspicion rather than as forces for change. Without community there is no liberation… but community must not mean a shedding of our differences, nor the pathetic pretense that these differences do exist.”

Recognizing our differences will then require recognizing the advantages and disadvantages that come with being white or black, male or female, heterosexual or homosexual. Peggy McIntosh uses the famous “invisible knapsack” analogy to illustrate the many privileges that are given to whites and to men simply because of their race or gender. White people have not been taught to see or acknowledge these privileges, but they are there and they are numerous. Instead, McIntosh writes that whites have been “taught to think of their lives as morally neutral, normative, and average, and also ideal, so that when we work to benefit others, this is seen as work that will allow “them” to be more like “us.” This again speaks to the idea of something being normal (and thus valued) and something being different (and thus devalued). Until we can begin to recognize that people are different and that difference is okay, invisible privileges will continue to be doled out and voices will continue to be silenced.

It is one thing to know what needs to happen, but it is entirely another to know how to actually make it happen. Is education the answer? Legal change? Does affirmative action do anything to equalize the advantages and disadvantages or to put minority groups in positions that will allow them to create change more effectively? Do individual actions help to dismantle the system of patriarchy that restricts the bounds of change?