Reclaiming Lesbian Pride

Heart · 08-16-2011, 07:39 AM

Good points all around Jess, however one of the things I've learned to do as a white feminist is listen to the voices of women of color about their experiences with racist constructs. Since you linked to the Steinhem article, I am providiing some links to responses written by WOC:

http://www.racialicious.com/2008/01/...gainst-gender/

http://www.imdiversity.com/villages/...inton_0108.asp

And because I can't link to it, I'm posting the full text of a blog post by
"AngryBlackBitch." You can find her blog here: http://angryblackbitch.blogspot.com/

Jan 8th, 2008
I’m worried too, Ms. Steinem…
This isn’t an easy post to write. I am a proud black feminist who holds a deep respect for feminist leaders and has done a lot of inner work to come to terms with feminism’s history with race and class. Yeah, this is not an easy post to write…but a sistah’s got to do what a sistah’s got to do.

Gloria Steinem has an Op-Ed in the New York Times titled Women Are Never Front-Runners. I read the Op-Ed and I feel compelled to address it here. I highly recommend that you read the piece before you go on reading this post.
After reading Steinem’s Op-Ed I felt invisible…as if black and woman can’t exist in the same body. I felt undocumented…as if the history of blacks and the history of women have nothing to do with the history of black women.

When I read “Black men were given the vote a half-century before women of any race were allowed to mark a ballot, and generally have ascended to positions of power, from the military to the boardroom, before any women (with the possible exception of obedient family members in the latter).” I felt both attacked and ignored at the same time.

I think of the women and men in my family who were not extended the protected vote until 1965. I wince at the lack of acknowledgment for the black women of Birmingham, Selma and Montgomery who had to march with their brothers in the 1960s to attain the vote because the suffrage movement abandoned them in a Southern strategy to get the vote in 1920.

And there it is again…that invisibility; like a brutal weight that I am so bloody tired of carrying. When I consider Steinem's “So why is the sex barrier not taken as seriously as the racial one?” I’m left confused. What country does Gloria live in where race barriers are taken seriously? I’d love to know…shit, maybe I’ll move there. But I’m a black woman and this is America where none of my barriers are given more than a token consideration and I’ll present this Op-Ed as exhibit A in that argument.

Steinem goes on to say, “I’m not advocating a competition for who has it toughest. The caste systems of sex and race are interdependent and can only be uprooted together. That’s why Senators Clinton and Obama have to be careful not to let a healthy debate turn into the kind of hostility that the news media love. Both will need a coalition of outsiders to win a general election. The abolition and suffrage movements progressed when united and were damaged by division; we should remember that.”

But this article is soaked in the fluid of competition. It reeks of frustration that I fear is born from a place of entitlement even though it is dressed in the language of the oppressed. And I’ll point out again, the suffrage movement progressed without racial or true class unity and many a sister were damaged by that division.
We should remember that, but first we have to know it.

What worries me is that Gloria bought that bullshit about Obama’s race being a unifying factor. C’mon now, these are early dates yet and campaign operatives have already taken a dip in the race baiting pool. Not for one second do I believe that the unifying power of Senator Obama’s blackness will not eventually collide with the same elegant condescension contained in Steinem's Op-Ed.

What worries me is that this is kind of article that makes some black women wary of feminism…wary of the sisterhood…because eventually, just give it time, it will all come down to black and white or women and men with black women vanished from the equation.

What worries me is the ease with which Ms. Steinem tossed out the insult of implying that Iowans, when faced with a black male candidate, went with that candidate because they are somehow more comfortable with black male leadership than female leadership. It begs the question how John Edwards failed to win by a landslide.

What worries me is that the author is frustrated that Obama hasn’t been accused of playing the race card for his civil rights references and feels that Hillary is getting a raw deal when she gets accused of playing the gender card. Let’s keep it real…Steinem is just frustrated about that race card because a black man is supposed to get called on that shit and she didn’t give permission for any rule change.

What worries me is the patronizing tone with which Steinem dismisses the choices of young women voters. Is it any wonder that young women pause before embracing the feminist movement? Steinem concludes that young women are not radical yet. Will she conclude the same of black women should Clinton lose South Carolina?

I agree with Ms. Steinem that we have to be able to say that we are supporting her, a woman candidate, "because she would be a great president and because she is a woman." But we also have to be able to say I’m not supporting her because I’ve evaluated her and examined her resume without being labeled a victim or self hating or not radical enough or not feminist enough or easily dazzled by great oratory skills or more black than woman or just too darn stupid to do what Ms. Steinem thinks we should do.

Here's where it's at for me: If we are going to talk about feminism and the erasure of women, (butch women in the case of the recent BV/BN split), and if we are white, we must develop conscious around the erasure of women of color and actively seek to reverse it. Frankly, If women of color are saying that Steinhem's article is problematic, then even if I don't see it myself, it's not my role to "disagree," it's my role to listen. Just as we want BV to listen to the voices of butch women when it comes to misogyny and sexism.

Heart

Jess · 08-16-2011, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heart

Here's where it's at for me: If we are going to talk about feminism and the erasure of women, (butch women in the case of the recent BV/BN split), and if we are white, we must develop conscious around the erasure of women of color and actively seek to reverse it. Frankly, If women of color are saying that Steinhem's article is problematic, then even if I don't see it myself, it's not my role to "disagree," it's my role to listen. Just as we want BV to listen to the voices of butch women when it comes to misogyny and sexism.

Heart

I get this. Thank you. I had not previously read the article, so when you mentioned it, I made a point of looking it up. Likewise, I had not read responses to that article. I can understand that frustration much better having read their actual words. I realize that when I read an article, I read it with different filters ( those being created by my life experience).

I am glad you posted those links and the last response. It gave me a chance to look at it a different way. I do not think it changes at all the overall point Ms. Steinem was making. I do, however, see how women of color can feel invisible in what has been seen historically ( by many) the "white heterosexual financially advantaged" feminist movement. I can certainly understand the anger that accompanies those feelings ( as expressed in the response that was fully posted).

I have had difficulty at times in being able to "hear" all of the nuances of white privilege. I think a great deal of this, for me, was in my questioning of much of the source material for this new "wave" of racism awareness coming from a white heterosexual male. It is much easier for me to hear the reality of life in America for People(s) of Color FROM People of Color. It rings crystal clear to me then. This is not me asking for someone else to do my work for me. This is me saying, I can hear what Shark-Fu ( the author of the last response) said far easier than I can hear Tim Wise saying it or something similar. I have been extremely bothered for a couple of years now that the most often quoted person in this country addressing white privilege is a white man. I ran across an article that at least allowed me to see I am not completely off base in this feeling. While some folks will probably want to rip my head off for what they may see is me besmearing Tim Wise, I would ask that they have a look at it first.:

http://www.peopleofcolororganize.com...lege-tim-wise/

I don't mean to derail or veer too far off topic, but I guess for me a huge part of my life as a lesbian has been wrapped in my feminism. My feminism tells me to listen ( I agree with your statement above, Heart, completely) to the voices of all women. I can not affect change if I don't understand completely what needs changed.

Thank you sincerely for sharing those responses as that act is the difference between saying "Steinem dismissed WOC" and "women of color felt dismissed by her and here is what they said". Too often I find the position of many white anti-racists to be so adamant they forget to "allow" someone else to really hear the feelings, thoughts, ideas of our women of color sisters. Their actual words are very important to me. I need to hear them. I do not need to be told to "go do my own work" when my work IS listening.

This is how feminism and my lesbian feminism works for me. I am equal to engage and that is a very powerful and freeing thing.

Chazz · 08-16-2011, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jess

....Thank you sincerely for sharing those responses as that act is the difference between saying "Steinem dismissed WOC" and "women of color felt dismissed by her and here is what they said". Too often I find the position of many white anti-racists to be so adamant they forget to "allow" someone else to really hear the feelings, thoughts, ideas of our women of color sisters. Their actual words are very important to me. I need to hear them. I do not need to be told to "go do my own work" when my work IS listening.

This is how feminism and my lesbian feminism works for me. I am equal to engage and that is a very powerful and freeing thing.

Well said, Jess....

There are times when, for good reason, women cannot "hear" one another. It may be because a woman cannot witness another woman's unearned privilege and listen to her at the same time. Hurt, anger, a need for healing is occupying the foreground.... This needs to be okay.

These are the times when women need to be afforded the intrinsic right to separate and coalesce around a common experience of pain or their particular experience of oppression. This should be okay, too.

Not everything can be resolved on command, or in one sitting, especially when the source of the pain and oppression is a day to day, lived experience.

That WOC (or lesbian women, for that matter) are asked to sideline their needs/imperatives for the greater good, or the benefit of others, or in the service of a "big tent" metaphor, it NOT okay.

That said, not everything can be resolved in one sitting or conversation, especially when the source of pain and oppression is ongoing.

08-16-2011, 07:39 AM	#1
Heart Member How Do You Identify?: Femme Relationship Status: rainbows! Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: NY Posts: 466 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 303 Thanked 2,522 Times in 409 Posts Rep Power: 12032610	Good points all around Jess, however one of the things I've learned to do as a white feminist is listen to the voices of women of color about their experiences with racist constructs. Since you linked to the Steinhem article, I am providiing some links to responses written by WOC: http://www.racialicious.com/2008/01/...gainst-gender/ http://www.imdiversity.com/villages/...inton_0108.asp And because I can't link to it, I'm posting the full text of a blog post by "AngryBlackBitch." You can find her blog here: http://angryblackbitch.blogspot.com/ Jan 8th, 2008 I’m worried too, Ms. Steinem… This isn’t an easy post to write. I am a proud black feminist who holds a deep respect for feminist leaders and has done a lot of inner work to come to terms with feminism’s history with race and class. Yeah, this is not an easy post to write…but a sistah’s got to do what a sistah’s got to do. Gloria Steinem has an Op-Ed in the New York Times titled Women Are Never Front-Runners. I read the Op-Ed and I feel compelled to address it here. I highly recommend that you read the piece before you go on reading this post. After reading Steinem’s Op-Ed I felt invisible…as if black and woman can’t exist in the same body. I felt undocumented…as if the history of blacks and the history of women have nothing to do with the history of black women. When I read “Black men were given the vote a half-century before women of any race were allowed to mark a ballot, and generally have ascended to positions of power, from the military to the boardroom, before any women (with the possible exception of obedient family members in the latter).” I felt both attacked and ignored at the same time. I think of the women and men in my family who were not extended the protected vote until 1965. I wince at the lack of acknowledgment for the black women of Birmingham, Selma and Montgomery who had to march with their brothers in the 1960s to attain the vote because the suffrage movement abandoned them in a Southern strategy to get the vote in 1920. And there it is again…that invisibility; like a brutal weight that I am so bloody tired of carrying. When I consider Steinem's “So why is the sex barrier not taken as seriously as the racial one?” I’m left confused. What country does Gloria live in where race barriers are taken seriously? I’d love to know…shit, maybe I’ll move there. But I’m a black woman and this is America where none of my barriers are given more than a token consideration and I’ll present this Op-Ed as exhibit A in that argument. Steinem goes on to say, “I’m not advocating a competition for who has it toughest. The caste systems of sex and race are interdependent and can only be uprooted together. That’s why Senators Clinton and Obama have to be careful not to let a healthy debate turn into the kind of hostility that the news media love. Both will need a coalition of outsiders to win a general election. The abolition and suffrage movements progressed when united and were damaged by division; we should remember that.” But this article is soaked in the fluid of competition. It reeks of frustration that I fear is born from a place of entitlement even though it is dressed in the language of the oppressed. And I’ll point out again, the suffrage movement progressed without racial or true class unity and many a sister were damaged by that division. We should remember that, but first we have to know it. What worries me is that Gloria bought that bullshit about Obama’s race being a unifying factor. C’mon now, these are early dates yet and campaign operatives have already taken a dip in the race baiting pool. Not for one second do I believe that the unifying power of Senator Obama’s blackness will not eventually collide with the same elegant condescension contained in Steinem's Op-Ed. What worries me is that this is kind of article that makes some black women wary of feminism…wary of the sisterhood…because eventually, just give it time, it will all come down to black and white or women and men with black women vanished from the equation. What worries me is the ease with which Ms. Steinem tossed out the insult of implying that Iowans, when faced with a black male candidate, went with that candidate because they are somehow more comfortable with black male leadership than female leadership. It begs the question how John Edwards failed to win by a landslide. What worries me is that the author is frustrated that Obama hasn’t been accused of playing the race card for his civil rights references and feels that Hillary is getting a raw deal when she gets accused of playing the gender card. Let’s keep it real…Steinem is just frustrated about that race card because a black man is supposed to get called on that shit and she didn’t give permission for any rule change. What worries me is the patronizing tone with which Steinem dismisses the choices of young women voters. Is it any wonder that young women pause before embracing the feminist movement? Steinem concludes that young women are not radical yet. Will she conclude the same of black women should Clinton lose South Carolina? I agree with Ms. Steinem that we have to be able to say that we are supporting her, a woman candidate, "because she would be a great president and because she is a woman." But we also have to be able to say I’m not supporting her because I’ve evaluated her and examined her resume without being labeled a victim or self hating or not radical enough or not feminist enough or easily dazzled by great oratory skills or more black than woman or just too darn stupid to do what Ms. Steinem thinks we should do. Here's where it's at for me: If we are going to talk about feminism and the erasure of women, (butch women in the case of the recent BV/BN split), and if we are white, we must develop conscious around the erasure of women of color and actively seek to reverse it. Frankly, If women of color are saying that Steinhem's article is problematic, then even if I don't see it myself, it's not my role to "disagree," it's my role to listen. Just as we want BV to listen to the voices of butch women when it comes to misogyny and sexism. Heart Last edited by Heart; 08-16-2011 at 07:41 AM.