Sean Bell Is Not a Feminist Issue
Feministe and Feministing have both covered Sean Bell — there’s an assumption on both blogs, with nary a disagreement from readers, that this is a feminist issue.
Where? How? Can someone explain in a few sentences of simple words how Sean Bell is a feminist issue?
It can only be a feminist issue (particularly if white women are called on to talk about it on their feminist blogs) if black men want white/Hispanic/Asian women to have equal authority as black men to talk about racial issues that affect black men. I cannot imagine they would grant us standing and they shouldn’t. We don’t, in fact, have any standing to speak about racism that affects black men in America.
There can be no community of people who don’t ALL have a shared reference point, one point on which all members of the community have equal authority to speak. Anything that happens to men cannot be a part of feminism without splintering feminism because there are many women within feminism who have nothing in common at all with black men (or white men). All women, of any color, have a shared reference point. It’s what the community of feminism is — women. We cannot disenfranchise women within a movement that is supposed to be FOR women. Not a single woman deserves to be excluded. If what happens to a black man is a feminist issue, I and millions of other non-black feminists suddenly have no standing within our own movement.
If anything that affects women either 1) equally with men (such as rising gas prices) OR, 2) second-hand through men (such as Middle Eastern men being arrested for minor visa infractions and being imprisoned without charge - they have mothers and other female relatives, I suppose), is a feminist issue… then what, pray tell, is NOT a feminist issue?
Why must we call this “feminism” if it includes everything? Erectile Dysfunction becomes a feminist issue. After all, those wives aren’t getting laid. A multi-millionaire CEO who’s busted for fraud becomes a feminist issue, because his wife, I’m sure, isn’t happy about her husband’s disgrace. You can find a mourning female relative for the worst villain out there. All feminist issues? Even if the guy in question raped a woman? I’ve read of many mothers siding with their rapist sons in such cases. Maybe NOW should be funding the defense of these rapists whose mothers are distraught their sons got caught.
Guess what happened today on both Feministe and Feministing? Both blogs talked about Sean Bell. Neither blog mentioned the horrific Austrian case of the multiple rape and 24 year imprisonment of a woman by her father. That wasn’t a feminist issue? Not sufficiently big?
Let me give you an idea of just how big this case is. If I google “Austrian case” without any other identifying details, I can find this news story — first link on first page of search results.
Maybe it’s not a feminist issue because she’s white?
No, it’s just that the feminist blogosphere is so busy wringing its hands over its whiteness and remissness as “leaders” of feminism, they don’t have time to actually talk about feminist issues.
I don’t blame them. Time and space are limited quantities.
Sean Bell is a distraction. Sean Bell is not a feminist issue.
P.S. If racism matters more to you than feminism, do anti-racist activism instead of feminist activism. But don’t insist that feminism should stop being about women first because you are black first. I’m a woman first. That’s why I’m a feminist.
What’s really sad is, it took a man (”Steve”) to comment on the Feministing Sean Bell post, that this is perhaps not a feminist issue. Sigh.
UPDATE: Should have added this earlier. Octogalore often voices my thoughts with comprehensive precision. Here is a post of hers on the issue. The comments are very interesting as well.
Filed under: Feminism
“Sean Bell is a distraction. Sean Bell is not a feminist issue.”
You know, I’m not going to debate you about whether or not Sean Bell is a feminist issue. But I am going to ask - a distraction from what, exactly? Because I’m a person who lives as a woman and who is a feminist, am I supposed to only care, think, or write about women and feminism?
The Sean Bell case is a huge deal for many people of many races and genders for many valid reasons. Just because it’s not important to you doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be important to other people or to other feminists. It’s ridiculous to think that just because one writes on a blog that’s explicitly feminist in nature or focus means that one cannot write about things that are very important to one personally or politically unless they’re explicitly related to women or feminism.
Also - what, exactly, is your huge deal with Feministe and Feministing including one post each about Sean Bell? Feministing’s post was even limited to one short paragraph. Both posts are surrounded by posts explicitly centered on women and/or feminism. I just don’t see the Big Black Civil Rights Distracting Phantom that you seem to fear is subsuming feminism on those blogs.
Jack, it’s a distraction from feminist issues. Such as the Austrian case of imprisonment and rape that I mentioned.
It can be important to people and people can think, blog and do whatever they want on any number of issues (I’ve said as much in recent posts on this topic) — but there is no need to write posts with titles like “This is a feminist issue” on feminist blogs when talking about something that is most certainly not a feminist issue.
You may want to read some of the other recent posts I’ve written on this issue before you leave more indignant comments. This Is Not About My Brother speaks directly to this issue.
This is not about one post each on these blogs, Jack. It’s a pattern that has become theoretically established within feminism and I don’t like it.
Well, Holly (the author of the post on Feministe), myself, and other feminists do believe that police violence against people of color is a feminist issue, in that all of these things affect women, women of color specifically, and in that all of these things are tied up in the systems that also perpetrate and preserve sexism. You don’t agree. You say it’s a distraction. And yet it seems like you’re the one who’s become distracted to the point of writing four long posts and many, many comments that directly respond to the Sean Bell case’s coverage in these two blogs.
I don’t understand the crusade that you’re leading here, and frankly, I find your seeming contempt for Black folks and Black civil rights movements suspect.
Also, I’ve actually already read that post, as well as “Race for an eternal expat,” “Rape is trivial,” and “Feminism.”
So if certain brown/black women have an opinion you happen to agree with, they’re justified in waging LOOOOONG blogwars over and over again, but if I and certain other brown/black women have an opinion, we either shut up (on my own blog!) or get accused of racism.
Jack, fuck off.
“Because I’m a person who lives as a woman and who is a feminist, am I supposed to only care, think, or write about women and feminism?”
Let’s break that down:
1) care: no
2) think: no
3) write: no
4) write, on a feminist blog: yes
It’s like saying — wait, greenhouse gases aren’t a feminist issue? You mean I’m not supposed to care about that issue? Well, of course we should all care. But space we devote to it on a feminist blog won’t be devoted to feminism. Do we think environmentalists are penning posts about feminism on environmental blogs? Probably not. If they are feminists, they certainly care about the issues, and may write about them elsewhere.
Apostate, as you’ve likely figured out, I love the post. I’m not sure why the first comment concluded that because you feel SB isn’t a feminist issue, it’s not “important” to you. Nowhere in the post did you say you only care about feminist issues. I hope that this crystal clear and well written post will be digested correctly by folks.
I hope that this crystal clear and well written post will be digested correctly by folks.
Well, apparently not. I’ve already been told to shut up on my own blog. Because I wrote a few posts on an issue (the majority of the comments to which are not mine), I am leading a crusade against blacks.
Literally thousands of comments and major drama from people on the other side of this issue? Merely raising legitimate concerns.
Not saying they aren’t, but yes, it pisses me off to be told to shut up and called a racist on my own fucking blog just because I feel alienated from third-wave (my) feminism.
And oh, Jack read my post in which I explicitly say that being a feminist does not mean you care only about women’s issues and yet she asks me that very question.
Can’t read but is going to blog on Feministe. Another great reason to avoid that blog.
Uh…… what? I’m talking about my opinion as a brown person who lives as a woman. And I’m arguing some points that you’re making over and over that I find to be really upsetting. I’ll admit that I don’t think I made much of a point in my last comment, which is a problem. So I’ll try to make one now:
You said that you’re addressing a pattern that has been established within feminism; however, you’ve focused almost entirely on two posts about Sean Bell. You’ve also made many comments about Black people, Black civil rights movements, etc that just feel really strange and icky to me. These things combined make me seriously question the point you’re trying to make.
These were two posts about a topic of significant importance to the feminists who wrote them and many feminists who read them. I understand that these posts might not have been important to you, but why not then simply ignore them? Why argue so stridently against them? Do you think that the posts were, in fact, anti-feminist? Or bashing women? If not, then why be so upset that they appeared on feminist blogs?
I’m not suggesting that you or anyone else shut up. But you seem to be telling writers on feminist blogs to shut up unless they’re sticking to your prescribed line of feminism. I think that’s really problematic, especially when you say that feminism should not be about race or should be race-neutral, that talking about race is a distraction. Do you see (or care) that you’re basically repeating lines that were used by white second wave feminists to shut women of color down, to shunt their issues to the side, to silence and oppress them?
Jack, where have you been for the past month? Have you been reading feminist blogs?
For that matter, how long have I been writing about this particular race/feminism issue? (A week or so.)
I linked to another post on Feministing about an immigration issue that I didn’t feel have anything to do with feminism. If you want, I can go dig up posts I remember reading on explicitly / exclusively feminist blogs that have nothing to do with feminism.
And I can point to all the arguments over this very issue that have recently happened.
I’m not focusing only on Sean Bell — it just happens to be the latest such incident and happened to inspire me to write what I have written.
I’m not telling anyone to stop writing on these issues. If you care to look, I didn’t leave a single comment on Feministe’s post on the issue, nor did I comment on the immigration post I linked to from Feministing. I did leave a one-liner “This is not a feminist issue” on the Feministing post on this. The only reason I did even that is because I’m increasingly feeling like my voice, as a WOC, doesn’t matter within the feminist movement which is listening to other WOC’s.
Not telling anyone they shouldn’t write about it. Just telling them that perhaps they ought not to insist it’s a feminist issue. And I’ve got an argument to support my position. The introduction of this subject within feminism, because it’s not about a woman, makes feminism not about me.
You can question my point as much as you want and call me a racist if you wish. Go ahead and ignore my blog and what I have to say if it seems “icky” to you. Nobody’s forcing you to read and engage with a racist.
Leave. There’s the door.
“But space we devote to it on a feminist blog won’t be devoted to feminism.”
What about feminists who take a deliberately holistic view of oppression and social justice? As a feminist, I believe strongly in the interconnectedness of oppressions. As a woman of color, I feel that connection on a deeper, non-theoretical level. I think it’s actually a problem to splice out oppressions as if that even makes sense; it ignores the fact that oppressions not only intersect but overlap, complicate and change each other. My experience and my oppression as a woman of color is not simply the sum of its parts; it’s not just (woman) + (person of color); it’s a unique experience borne of being both at once. To try to separate them out would be to lose what it means to experience both of them together. So if I’m not going to splice apart my experiences or my politics, why should one splice apart their writing about them? Why does writing about race in a blog about feminism distract or diminish rather than enrich and deepen?
Let’s just say lots of feminists care about the Sean Bell case or Jena 6 and want to talk about it. So they post about whatever they want. Police brutality against women is a feminist issue. This case not so much.
Apostate only speaks for herself. A couple people ( or more) agree with her. It’s not a “crusade.” Some of us felt silenced by this lack of nuance in feminist and women of color blogging. It’s like women of color only think this way, they only care about racism, colonialism, immigration and police brutality. No, I mainly care about sexism because of my life experience and there are more women of color like me.
“What about feminists who take a deliberately holistic view of oppression and social justice?”
I suggested a solution for that in one of those posts you claim to have read. Don’t specialize. Don’t make feminism your focus. Don’t insist that something is a feminist issue if it isn’t about women. Pandagon, for instance, is not a purely feminist blog, although written by a feminist.
Anyway, you’re not welcome here. I have no wish to talk to a person who accuses me of racism. Please leave.
“What about feminists who take a deliberately holistic view of oppression and social justice? …. I think it’s actually a problem to splice out oppressions as if that even makes sense; it ignores the fact that oppressions not only intersect but overlap, complicate and change each other.”
Jack, while you’re arguing for a more holistic perspective, you’re not granting that this is in fact what is being suggested. Those of us who have been contributing to this topic are arguing, I believe, that feminism should in fact include as part of its very foundation, not as an intersectional footnote, issues pertaining to all women. This would therefore include issues to do with WOC, WWD, women of varying income levels and orientations, etc. So in this way, those issues would come into play. They would come into play as women of all colors and other varieties bring forward issues of relevance to them as women with those different dimensions.
What does not overlap with feminism here, to use your word, is issue of MEN. Whether that’s men of color, male immigrants, whatever. And this has nothing to do with whether any of us care about men. Some of us, I know, actually sleep with the the breed (I just do the nasty with him and then sleep in my own bed because of the snoring, myself).
So yeah — the overlapping and holistic view isn’t some special variation that we just don’t get and are trying to separate out because it’s icky. I see it as essential. But when we get away from women, it’s another issue. Still important. But more appropriate, as Apostate suggests, on a different kind of blog.
What Octo said. She usually seems to say what I mean much more clearly than I can.
It’s just that the feminist blogosphere is so busy wringing its hands over its whiteness and remissness as “leaders” of feminism, they don’t have time to actually talk about feminist issues.
This is feminism’s worst nightmare:
IT’S ABOUT TEH MENZ!
You know, at this point I would like to apologize for titling that post “This is also a feminist issue,” instead of what would have been more accurate to my intentions, “This is an issue that feminists also ought to pay attention to.” I abbreviated, which sometimes is the road to perdition. Because I really do believe that feminists, as feminists and not just as people who are also anti-racist, ought to pay attention to police brutality. Both Jack and I have been attacked by the police, for instance, as have many other women in NYC; and beyond that, it is just one symptom of state control through violence. Directly or indirectly, that hurts an awful lot of women’s lives, and I just don’t think it’s enough to only ever say anything about it when a cop pepper sprays or hits a woman or mocks, threatens and harasses a detainee for having an inadequate gender, to mention another example. These are symptoms of a larger problem; if we only popped our heads up when the symptoms occur… well, that is not what I consider good medical treatment for the body, or good political treatment for the bigger issues. But then, it seems like maybe there’s agreement about holistic views.
Apostate, you seem to be upset that a blog with “feminist” comprising 89% of its title also serves dishes that aren’t entirely feminist. But it’s like you went into a Waffle House and there’s stuff other than waffles on the menu. You don’t have to order the fruit cup or the pancakes, you can order the waffles; you can read just the posts that are purely, unadulteratedly about feminism. And again, I’m sorry if my poor choice of headline ended up seeming like a piece of honeydew melon carved to look like a waffle, doused in syrup and called “Juicy Waffle.” Maybe not such a good idea (and maybe this metaphor is getting abused so far that it’s going to break).
But here’s the thing — as one of the people serving food at this restaurant, I don’t believe in just serving people waffles and nothing but waffles. I don’t believe they should have to go down the street to Kitchen Sink Diner in order to sample from all sorts of things. I believe very strongly that it’s good to have many different dishes in your diet, and to show how these flavors go together — influence each other — affect and complement one another. Why it’s important that we understand these issues through the lens of other issues, and do intersectional analysis. It’s something that I still don’t think we do enough of, in a lot of different kinds of politics, not just feminism. But in any “feminist blog” that I write for, there will always be a variety of dishes on the menu — in fact, I consider that my job on a feminist blog, being that people tend to see me as a walking, talking, breathing intersection of gender and race and queerness and a few other things — and it’s not too far from the truth.
You’re not giving yourself enough credit. What you are saying should be clear. I think sometimes people tend to see a difference of opinion as proof positive that the person with a different view must be less [fill in relevant liberal adjective in question] here, and then read everything with that assumption.
I am going to write more about this over the weekend or sooner if I get to it, but I think actually that this assumption is very harmful, as often the delineation you are suggesting is actually more effective in terms of results/activism in both feminist and racial justice categories.
Call me crazy, but feminism isn’t just about women. It’s about everybody having the same rights to live their lives. The Bell case is a clear example of an institution (the police) having a skewed understanding of humanity, and their actions brutally exemplifying those misunderstandings. Was Sean Bell shot down because he did anything wrong? No, he was shot down because he was _______ and_________ and ___________. Discriminated against, like women, like brown people, like gays, like differently-abled people.
feminism encompasses more than gender specific issues.
expand.
The Austrian rape case is not only not being covered on feminist blogs, it’s considered lurid tabloid trash not fit for serious discussion among many “progressives.” I love reading Metafilter and seeing what issues are deemed worthy of discussion by the hipster liberals there. FLDS case — deleted from the front page for being “outragefilter.” Austrian case — stayed on the front page, but with lots of complaining about how it’s not the “best of the web” and is a distraction from issues concerning “brown people or poor people”. On the other hand, no one questioned the discussion-worthiness of news stories about Genarlow Wilson and Matthew Koso, two men whose prosecutions supposedly dramatize the unfairness of statutory rape laws.
Count me as another who considers it one teeny-tiny personal bright spot in the recent feminist blogwars that it landed me here. Yesterday evening disappeared for me in reading the past couple weeks of posts. I was thrilled to find a perspective (on all sorts of topics) that is somewhat different from what I’ve been reading, and Apostate, I find you have managed to articulate some things I had a vague sense of but hadn’t really put into words. Awesome!
I totally agree with you in this case. I am someone who argues for precise carefully-chosen language in all arenas. For example, I’ve taught courses on psychological measurement and when it comes to measurement of intelligence we always have to address folks like Howard Gardner and his “multiple intelligences” — basically, he calls just about every single socially-valued skill or ability an “intelligence.” It drives me up a wall; we have perfectly good terms for these abilities already, social skills should not be renamed as “interpersonal intelligence,” nor is athletic ability “bodily/kinesthetic intelligence,” nor is musical talent “musical intelligence”. Things like social skills and athletic ability and musical talent are fabulous abilities, but when we call everything “intelligence” it just robs the word of any real meaning. This is the kind of thing I believe you’re arguing is happening to “feminism”, it’s becoming entirely synonymous with “progressivism,” which robs feminism of any distinctive character.
Just because things are inextricably intertwined does not mean they are the SAME thing. Take our senses of smell and taste, for example: they are so interconnected that if you blindfold someone and place an apple under her nose while feeding her a piece of pear, she will taste apple!! You know things don’t taste right if you’re stuffed up with a cold, and old people who complain of lack of taste sensation are often primarily suffering from a decline in their sense of smell (which drops off in a much more major way when we age). But would anyone argue that smell and taste are the SAME and we should just use those terms interchangeably? No, of course not. Feminism/anti-racism is like smell/taste - totally intertwined, each strongly affecting the other, each valuable, but that does not make them the SAME THING.
I agree that if someone wants to write a progressive blog, they should just call it a progressive blog. Maybe a “progressive blog heavy on feminism.” Because if you don’t say you’re writing a purely feminist blog, then you don’t have to twist yourself into pretzels to make every single problem in the world a “feminist issue.”
How about you look at the photograph of Sean Bell’s fiancee and baby? How is it that their experiences are unimportant? Their lives were irrevocably affected by what happened, and now his fiancee becomes a single woman raising her child because her partner of choice was taken from her in a shower of gunfire. How, exactly, is that not a feminist issue? How is it that the perception of this woman by her community, her country, and bloviating politicians is not a feminist issue?
ACRJ created the reproductive justice framework precisely to showcase the ways in which social oppressions inform each other and operate to prevent women from creating the families they want with whom they want (language that I’m borrowing from Miriam at Feministing/Radical Doula). A society in which being a young man of color is a capital crime affects women’s ability to create their families — and that makes it a feminist issue.
It feels like expressing these kinds of sentiments often results in a witch hunt (at least I feel this way to a degree on other feminist blogs). We’re not all going to have exactly the same opinion on each subject, which is fine. I loathe the fact that ideas are shot down by seemingly book-learned theories instead of considering that independent thinking and life experience is just as valuable. All these mentions of “safe spaces” are kind of silly, but I admit it would be awesome if we could just say what’s on our minds without fear someone will scream about the “correct” answer.
Just because one wants to focus on the aspect of feminism that tries to ensure that everyone with vaginal body parts (or those who identify as a person with these parts) gets a fair shake doesn’t mean you’re unaware or indifferent to other areas of oppression. For instance, I’m fully a victim of class oppression, but I don’t even consider this a part of feminism. Also, there are some aspects of current feminism that don’t resonate with me, but in that case I just ignore them.
Do I expect minority males to make my struggles a part of theirs, just because of the similarities? Of course not. Don’t we all have the right to focus on our proprietary issues?
This is not an attempt to make light of what POC deal with in any way…I’ll never know this first person experience, and just try to listen and support in any way possible. I just don’t think this is directly related to certain issues that relate to women only. Consequently, I’ll take the support and ear of any man who wants to offer it, but a man will never be able to walk in my shoes (nothing personal!).
We all have some kind of oppression profile, and maybe like fingerprints you will find no two exactly alike. While all movements have their similarities, is it fair to require all movements to include other movements? Or…are we only requiring this of feminism?
Feminism is about women. That is its focus. If you are just going to include concerns about everyone, then that’s humanism, not feminism.
I was making a similar point about feminism and men on Alas, but that was before I got banned (well, mostly banned) yesterday.
It isn’t rocket science. Feminism is about promoting women. Sean Bell isn’t a woman. He didn’t do anything to a woman. So what does his case have to do with feminism? Nothing.
And as Octo said, you can still care about it, write about it, discuss it. But it isn’t a feminist issue. If anything, it is more of a maleinist issue - men are the ones who get filled full of bullets by the police, not women.
Another example: do I expect Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson to be marching with me for equal pay or reproductive rights? I would gladly accept the support, and think it’s awesome if they have the spare time to do so, but I also recognize they have race issues to address which would clearly take priority within their communities. I guess that’s how I feel about feminism in relation to other movements.
Resources are finite, and I would never fault anyone for “choosing” one or the other at different times. I also recognize there are many who identify with more than one equally taxing movement, so I see where some of the frustration might come from on the part of WOC. I honestly don’t know how to respond, except that even white women may also have other oppressive factors in their background also worthy of attention. This in itself is a compelling argument to at least give feminists the OPTION of focusing on root women’s issues.
Do we meet each other halfway? Again, is feminism responsible for acting as an umbrella to other oppressions (and does this go only one way)? It’s frustrating to fight for a cause, only to be admonished for “not doing enough” (especially when others are doing nothing).
“Guess what happened today on both Feministe and Feministing? Both blogs talked about Sean Bell. Neither blog mentioned the horrific Austrian case of the multiple rape and 24 year imprisonment of a woman by her father. That wasn’t a feminist issue? Not sufficiently big?”
I feel like the recent turmoil is leading feminist blogs towards non-feminist issues in an attempt to say “see? no racism here!” Which to my mind is unfortunate.
There is a long history in progressive politics of women’s issues being put on the back burner. Conflating feminism with other social justice issues is, IMO, another form of that.
Let’s put it this way. When mainstream politicians refute misogyny as vociferously as they refute racism then Sean Bell can be a feminist issue.
apostate, I’ve answered your question. Here’s why the Sean Bell case is a feminist issue:
http://www.elainevigneault.com/every-issue-is-a-feminist-issue.html
“P.S. If racism matters more to you than feminism, do anti-racist activism instead of feminist activism. But don’t insist that feminism should stop being about women first because you are black first. I’m a woman first. That’s why I’m a feminist.”
I just wanted to comment that if you’re a ww, you are treated differently because of your tits, not because you are white. If you are a woc, you are treated differently because of your tits, and because you are black. Thus it might prove very hard for woc to divorce themselves from their skin color just because a bunch of ww want them to. Their breasts and skin color will be the issue of feminism to them.
Just sharing a thought or two.
Thank you for this post. I have been reading Feministe and Feministing for a long time and am so sick and tired of the hand wringing and guilt thats going on over there. They’re not even discussing vital feminist issues anymore, because they’re so scared someone will cry privilege. Theres a lot of stuff thats going on in the feminist world and Sean Bell is not it. Plus, I’m sick and tired that every time a commenter has a different opinion she’s maligned, insulted, mocked, and called racist/privileged/blind/etc. It seems that the women over there are more interested in knocking each other down than actually working together. I think I’ll just start with your blog from now on, so I can actually get some feminist news. Thanks
[...] Apostate ran a post today titled, simply enough, Sean Bell is Not A Feminist Issue. While I can’t find much to fault in the title, the substance of her essay is something else [...]
Actually, I (white woman) did post on Feministe that Sean Bell was not a feminist issue. And thanks, I’m glad to have found you. VERY.
Feminism is about womon hating. Not, as you say, supporting all wimmin no matter what. And not about having to take on all issues to prove our worthiness. Sean Bell is not a case of womon hating.There’s a long history of other movements, especially the (white) left, trying to coopt feminism, just can’t understand why we don’t want to be their caretakers anymore.
What Octo said.
@Elaine: here’s why I don’t think your points disprove Apostate’s analysis:
“1. When Sean Bell was murdered (yes, it was murder in my opinion) his murders left behind his fiancee and their children. The murder directly affected her life as well as the lives of countless other women. One of the reasons some women are single mothers is that their partners are murdered or imprisoned. This is a feminist issue. ”
This reduces women to wives and children of men to whom things happen. That ain’t feminism.
“2. This line from the NY Times, emphasis added: “the shooting was the act of a frightened group of disorganized police officers who began their shift that night hoping to arrest a prostitute or two and, in suspecting Mr. Bell and his friends of possessing a gun, quickly got in over their heads.”
The most tenuous of connections. If they began the night by hoping to arrest a drug lord, is it a drug issue? By hoping to give out some speeding tickets, is it a traffic issue? Gimme a break.
“3. The shooting happened the night before Sean was to be married. The relationship context of the story is important. There are feminist implications for this contextual analysis as well as implications for how the Sean Bell story was told in the media, ie, tragedy is always more tragic when you put a sobbing woman’s face on it. (Example, when discussing war in a negative way, the story is always “women and children were raped, killed…” but when discussing war in a positive way, the story is always, “Mr. hero rescued women and children…”.) ”
Sure. The media porned the story up with a pic of Sean’s cute wife. That always helps get eyeballs, but it doesn’t center those eyeballs on a feminist issue, just on the usual T&A stuff. By that def’n, James Bond’s a feminist movie as they put sobbing women in there too. The REASON they do it is a feminist issue. That’s it.
Holly — I like the waffle analogy. I have a couple quibbles though.
Waffles aren’t really an underprivileged class. They’re not fighting for airspace with, say, pancakes. Someone who has a passion for waffles is probably also going to want pancakes to be available at the same location. Also, pancakes and waffles don’t intersect. So you need to serve them both at the same place.
Feminism, on the other hand, is predominantly why people come to a feminist blog. For a look at liberal issus generally, you’d go to that kind of blog. For focus on racial justice, you’d go to that kind of blog. And feminism intersects with these issues such that there are, or should be, a range of articles discussing issues of relevance to that intersection.
Finally, you state that in your Waffle House you want to serve Melon. That’s a good choice. However, do you know whether the Melon Houses serve Waffles? Because I don’t think they do, much. And if they do, betcha if I checked out the menu I’d see that every entree includes at least some Melon. So, why is it problematic to ask that of Waffle House as well? After all, if we could go to Melon House, or Steak House, and see a lot of Waffle options, maybe we wouldn’t feel all that strongly about your serving entrees that are all about Melon or Steak without any Waffles on the plate.
Possibly I’m wrong. If you could direct me to a Melon House with a fair sampling of Waffle choices, I’d love to know about it. I’ll be here this time tomorrow.
I’ve had time to peruse the rest of your site, and I think you’re a very valuable voice in this community. You have a unique perspective, and seem to be wise beyond your years.
On the issue of what constitutes feminism, clearly we all have different definitetions to a degree (but hopefully we intersect at some crucial points!). In terms of race, I think women of all races will have their own separate issues (especially within the context of men from all races) in addition to the ones we all share in common as females, and I enjoy hearing about others’ experiences and perspectives.
I recall seeing an obituary a while back of a very unlikely activist who fought for, among other things, women in the priesthood, reproductive rights and rights for gays within the Catholic Church. His biography was very compelling, and unfortunately I’d never heard of him until his obituary (as a former Catholic, I thought that perhaps others would have been pleased to know that not all priests blindly follow church doctrine in respect to women).
I sent this to one feminist blog, thinking they might like to post it. They didn’t, but I figured they didn’t consider it relevant to the blog (which was totally fine). Some time later, there was a post with the “racism” tag complaining about idiotic young white males wearing handkerchiefs, and how “mocking” gang attire was considered oppression, etc. (I don’t remember the entire post, but this was the point). I just thought it was mighty strange this was considered feminist fodder.
That’s when I questioned whether the particular blog was really addressing concerns relevant to…women. Usually they’re ok in this respect, but sometimes you just have to move on to the next post.
Every Issue Is a Feminist Issue
Elaine, would you expand it to say:
Every Issue Is an Anti-racist Issue?
If not, why?
If you are a woc, you are treated differently because of your tits, and because you are black.
Shayne, I get the impression most intelligent white female feminists recognize this and are definitely not indifferent to your situation. Honestly, I don’t know how the bulk of my activism energy would be distributed if I was a different race in addition to being a woman. As stated above, I was always very poor. I’m not repulsive by any means, but have also been passed over in employment situations because I’m not as “typically pretty” or “bubbly.” I try to draw on my own experience to at least get a feel of how others are getting screwed. I’ll never experience what you do, but I try to put myself in others’ shoes to some degree.
Your post would be great to cut through the bullshit of all the defensive hand wringing on one side, and the constant admonishing of race privilege (which the recipient has no control over) on the other.
Thus it might prove very hard for woc to divorce themselves from their skin color just because a bunch of ww want them to.
Gotcha. I’m not asking WOC to divorce themselves from their skin color, but rather just asking not to be negatively criticized for fighting for a movement focusing on what I do know firsthand - my struggles as a woman.
Soundsgood, I too have tried on occasion to bring a truly and obviously feminist issue to the attention of some of the big feminist bloggers (via email) and received no response and never saw the issue addressed. Of course, it is definitely their prerogative to address whatever they choose. But I have also often been surprised by what they DO address instead. Obviously a blogger can’t write about everything and has to choose what to focus on, and since everyone’s time is finite, it is something of a zero-sum situation where the focus on things more peripherally connected to feminism crowds out issues that should be more central.
I just don’t understand the point of people arguing that “every issue is a feminist issue” — then why even have the word “feminist” at all? We could also argue that “every issue is a racial issue” — I’m sure nearly everything on the planet affects some person of color, or for that matter, white is a race too, so surely all things are “racial” — so do anti-racism blogs address every problem in the world? Similarly, we could make connections to the environment for absolutely everything that happens under the sun. But then why even have terms like “feminism” “environmentalism” or “anti-racism”? They’re just meaningless then, it is all the same thing, they apparently all just mean “let’s address bad things that happen”.
Except they don’t, only “feminism” seems to be given that treatment, once again showing how women’s issues really aren’t important in and of themselves, and don’t deserve a targeted prioritized focus in the same way that racism and environmental destruction do. No, we’re the mothers of the world, and so have to take on everybody’s problems all at once, and if some of our woman-specific needs move to the back burner, well that’s just the way it always is for women, isn’t it?
octogalore wrote: “This reduces women to wives and children of men to whom things happen. That ain’t feminism.”
No, actually, it doesn’t “reduce” anyone to anything. It acknowledges that single mothers suffer from a system of racism because the consequences of that racism affect them both directly and indirectly.
If you really think we shouldn’t discuss issues relating to marriage and motherhood, then I think you and I have very different ideas of feminism.
2. About the fact that the detectives began their shift that night hoping to arrest a prostitute or two: go a little deeper in your analysis than “If they began the night by hoping to arrest a drug lord, is it a drug issue?” Example questions: Why is arresting prostitutes the light police work and shooting down unarmed black men the heavy stuff? What does it say about gender that prostitution is the entry-level detective work? Why were they supposedly ready to take on sex workers and not black men? Is there any connection between violence and sex here?
3. I don’t think you fully understood my point. I’m not saying the media was right to center it on Bell’s fiancee. I’m saying that the fact that they did is a feminist issue worth discussing. The issue: women are painted as victims in the media over and over again. Women are used - their bodies and their pain - to sell things. these are feminist issues worth examining. I’m not saying any of the major feminist blogs did that, I’m saying they could have and that by blogging about it at all opened the door for those analysis in the comments.
donnadarko asked “Elaine, would you expand it to say: Every Issue Is an Anti-racist Issue?”
Yes. Oppression is oppression.
I think social justice movements will likely make more progress by working together rather than separately.
That said, we all have our favorite issues, our primary causes. So whatever someone blogs about is their business. If you don’t want to blog about something, then don’t. But we should all be open to listening to criticism. And it’s NOT alright to have sexism within anti-racism or racism within feminism. Those things are NOT OK.
Frankly, I’m sick of racism in feminism and sexism in anti-racism so I talk about politics and intersectionality. Stop the handwringing and put women of color in decision-making positions i.e. YOUR POSITIONS. Samhita, Holly, whoever. The guilt is masturbation until you DO SOMETHING. The same with this Obama white guilt CRAP THAT WILL DOOM US ALL IN NOVEMBER. You know who will suffer the most? WOMEN OF COLOR.
[...] Sean Bell Is Not a Feminist Issue « The Apostate (tags: feminism race blogging topost) [...]
“No, actually, it doesn’t “reduce” anyone to anything. It acknowledges that single mothers suffer from a system of racism because the consequences of that racism affect them both directly and indirectly.”
Hmm, don’t recall hearing any nonsuperficial analysis of the plight of single mothers in any of the Sean Bell articles on feminist sites. So your statement “If you really think we shouldn’t discuss issues relating to marriage and motherhood, then I think you and I have very different ideas of feminism” means exactly nothing. I discuss marriage and motherhood quite a bit at my place. Next!
“Example questions: Why is arresting prostitutes the light police work and shooting down unarmed black men the heavy stuff? What does it say about gender that prostitution is the entry-level detective work? Why were they supposedly ready to take on sex workers and not black men? Is there any connection between violence and sex here?”
Good questions, again none of these were addressed in the articles on the feminist blogs.
“I’m not saying the media was right to center it on Bell’s fiancee. I’m saying that the fact that they did is a feminist issue worth discussing. ”
As I said above: THEY WHY WASN”T THAT ISSUE DISCUSSED ON THE FEMINIST BLOGS?
Well, I showed up all hopeful and everything, but I guess there aren’t any Melon places with a good sampling of Waffles on the menu. Darn.
All issues are anti-racist issues?
Gas prices, animal rights, the environment, erectile dysfunction, feminism are anti-racist issues?
Most people have trouble saying feminism is an anti-racist issue.
[...] they devote paragraph after paragraph to issues that aren’t even directly feminist ones. (See Apostate for more.) Nothing on BlogHer except a few sentences in a larger post covering several AP news [...]
octogalore, my blog post about this mentioned that Feministe and Feministing could have done better in their analysis. So stop ranting to me about that and start ranting to the people who can actually make a difference. Send an email to Jill and Jessica. Offer to write your own analysis. Boycott them till they do what you want - whatever. But don’t spit out your anger at whoever is nearby and willing to listen. I really don’t deserve your crap.
Don’t put it on me - I’m not even allowed to leave comments at either of those websites. They’ve banned me because they don’t think animal rights is worth discussing on feminist blogs.
I mean, seriously, here you are finally agreeing with me that there are feminist issues worth discussing in the Sean Bell case and you’re still yelling AT ME. Your anger is misdirected.
No one’s ranting at you. We’re annoyed at this phenomenon. Feminism is overburdened. Men of color should pick up the slack.
I don’t see why animal rights WOULD be worth discussing on a feminist blog.
Elaine, for one thing, capitals are used in a number of ways. Don’t accuse me of raising my online voice or “ranting,” which has various antifeminist overtones to me. I used capitals for emphasis because I was repeating the same thought for what seemed to me to be way too many times.
The reason I have no desire to send an email to Jill or Jessica asking them for a different look at the Sean Bell issue is that I don’t think it’s the best way to discuss issues of single moms, arrests of prostitutes, etc. Those issues are better addressed with the women involved at center stage, so their stories can be looked at. Sean Bell’s story is about Sean Bell, and the policemen involved. The women are peripheral characters there. Forcing them into the limelight to make it a feminist issue is inappropriate, since there are many single moms whose husbands have been killed or who are absent, and many prostitutes who have been abused by policemen, whose stories should be told directly.
So while I agree with you that there are feminist issues in the background, I don’t see this tragedy as the best way to discuss them. Sean Bell’s death is best analyzed, I think, as a racial issue, a police violence issue, an issue of assumptions leading to a fatal error.
My disappointment with Feministe and Feministing is exactly what I’ve said it is numerous times. I’m not angry at anyone, but I am frustrated that this point continues to be misunderstood. Luckily, not by everybody.
I used capitals for emphasis because I was repeating the same thought for what seemed to me to be way too many times. I am frustrated that this point continues to be misunderstood. Luckily, not by everybody.
TELLLLLLLLLL me about it.
Apostate used the word “nuance.” Twisty, “fluency” in race. These can happen at the same time.
The Iraq War is a feminist issue. I’m the one who always talks about how traditional masculinity, machismo and gender roles are killing us all. Enloe wrote a great deal about war and traditional gender roles.
If women spend most of their time and energy hating other women, they’re no longer feminists, they’re something else. Anti-racists but not feminists.
[...] Apostate wrote a post on Sean Bell counter to the one linked in Cara’s quote. I don’t agree with the whole [...]