I just read an article on Jezebel by Ninjacate, called This Is What I Mean When I Say White Feminism. The article was great. It was provocative. It introduced me to a term I had never heard before, and a debate that seems strikingly relevant to me and the fights I want to fight--which left me unsettled at the fact that I wasn't familiar with the term "white feminism."
In case it provides any insight into my thoughts, before I discuss let me be up front that I am a white, hetero, cis, well-educated woman from a middle-class background, struggling financially because of the goals I have had the privilege of prioritizing. I grew up in New York's Lower East Side of the late 80's and early 90's, and although I was the only fair-haired blue-eyed girl in the third grade class of an extraordinarily diverse alternative school, I was never black, Puerto Rican, Dominican, or first-generation anything. I went to middle and high school in the 'burbs. I lived in Bed-Stuy in my twenties, but I have no idea what it is like to come from Bed-Stuy.
Back to the article. The author, Ninjacate, writes about white feminism in its own right, defending the term against white women who take the term (which is often used as a pejorative) personally. The author's description of "white feminism" as an ideology is pretty well summarized by the following quote from the article:
"White feminism" does not mean every white woman, everywhere, who happens to identify as feminist. It also doesn't mean that every "white feminist" identifies as white. I see "white feminism" as a specific set of single-issue, non-intersectional, superficial feminist practices. It is the feminism we understand as mainstream; the feminism obsessed with body hair, and high heels and makeup, and changing your married name. It is the feminism you probably first learned. "White feminism" is the feminism that doesn't understand western privilege, or cultural context. It is the feminism that doesn't consider race as a factor in the struggle for equality... It is a method of practicing feminism, not an indictment of every individual white feminist, everywhere, always."
As I mentioned, the author also takes deliberate aim at white women who find the term "white feminism" insulting; who react to it on a personal level, asserting that they resent, or are hurt by, or disapprove of the generalized use of the word "white" to describe this deplorable form of feminism to which they, as white women, do not subscribe. To this, the author responds:
"Being a good ally means recognizing that sometimes your input is not needed or wanted, and that it's incredibly inappropriate to demand that a marginalized group, (in this case, WoC [Women of Color] within the feminist movement) restructure a conversation that is happening to serve their needs, in a way that is more "comfortable" for the very people they are mobilizing against. "
Although I was impressed by her explanation of white feminism, I was less impressed by this argument against white women taking the term personally. (I acknowledge that Ninjacate probably doesn't care whether or not I was impressed). I find it hard to accept an argument that tells offended white women to not take the argument personally ("If it doesn't apply to you, then it's not about you. If it's not about you, then don't take it personally." ) while at the same time telling them that their discomfort classifies them as "the very people they are mobilizing against." That seems personal?
Nonetheless, after reading the article I felt a profound respect for her argument on the failings of white feminism itself, and a deep appreciation for what introduced me to. So I continued on to read the discussions in the comments section. Now, THAT was provocative. Numerous white women express their persistent discomfort or distaste or disappointment with the term "white feminism." Ninjacate and her allies (black, often, but sometimes white, judging by their names and statements) become more and more exasperated; at one point, Ninjacate resorts to a *facepalm*. I read their comments; I sympathized often with Ninjacate-and-allies, and sometimes also with complaining-white-feminists-but-not-white-feminists.
And then out of nowhere I had a grammar moment, and I emphasized "WHITE feminism," as in "white-feminism," in my head, and suddenly I heard the "white" as the object of "feminism," instead of as its subject, and my whole perception changed. Is it possible that I could have been totally misunderstanding the term?
If "white feminism" is meant to be about feminism that operates within the constructs of white privelege, and the people who perpetuate that system--and not about white people who are feminists--then in this context, "white" is the object of "feminism," and not an adjective. A "blue dog lover" could be a blue person who loves dogs, or a person who loves blue dogs. It's a question of object and subject; and here, the "white" in "white feminism" inherently describes the beneficiary, not the ideologue. Since much of the discussion around the term, and the misplaced emotions aroused by it, center on how the term doesn't mean to implicate every white person who is a feminist, the emphasis of the conversation remains on "white" as subject instead of object.
Similarly, I don't take the term "white supremacist" to personally apply to me--but that's not because I feel that I'm an exception, and that the term is meant for white people but not necessarily for me; rather, it's because I understand that "white" in that case applies to the object: it's about the supremacy of white people, not about white people who have feelings about the supremacy of something-or-other. Or, "American conservatism"--I'm American, but would never bother to worry that someone would lump me in with this generalization, since I know it applies to a particular type of Americans and a particular type of conservatives.
Can a little rhetorical specification help clarify the term to offended white women who are feminists? Some might argue that their feelings are irrelevant, but if the goal is ultimately equality and reconciliation, I think it does. Especially if these "hurt feelings" are over a lack of rhetorical clarity; a simple misunderstanding.
But. Alas. My confusion persists, after reading Black Girl Dangerous's post called "On Defending Beyoncé: Black Feminists, White Feminists, and the Line in the Sand." Black feminists vs. white feminists, on opposite sides of a line in the sand. She writes, "Black feminists, black women, have had to deal with constant disrespect from white feminists, not just over Beyoncé but over so, so many black women and girls..." "Black," it seems, is not an object of "feminism," but an adjective. My grammatical argument feels doesn't seem to hold water when faced with Black Girl Dangerous (who, I might add, is a deeply affecting writer).
I wonder how Black Girl Dangerous would respond to Ninjacate's article, and the comments thererafter? How would she address the issues of alliance and mobilization?
To end my meandering reflection, I'll share a comment posted by a particularly eloquent commentator who goes by jennyapples:
I've been mulling this post over since you posted it. The way that my mind settled on it was that it was like saying "western civilisation" or "Turkish cuisine." Neither is a universal term. Both describe general concepts, styles, etc. Similarly, White Feminism is not exhaustive of every feminist who is white. I can't possibly get personally offended by White Feminism as a term - if I don't want to be included in that concept I need to examine what I think, say, and do."
Of course, neither "wester civilisation" nor "Turkish cuisine" is used as a pejorative.
I don't love a post without a conclusion, but I simply haven't got one.
