thinking, via we have brains
The collaborative topic for the week at WHB is:
What do you think keeps activist movements apart, both historically and today? Do you feel that movements need to work together, or are we all working on different things in different ways? And finally, how do you personally respond when other work you do seems to conflict with your feminist work?
A disclaimer, first off: I'm not any sort of scholar on the history of women's liberation, suffrage, black civil rights, or any such movement. Most of my information comes from memory, small snippets of history found in books, etc. So, if you feel my information is incorrect or if you would like to add something to my argument, please feel free.
This question came about from a discussion Kerri and Lenee initiated about the reasons the women's movement has not always appealed to women of color. In my understanding this came about first from the general climate of racism and inferiority present in past times, and second from pressures on individual groups not to band because they would lose support for the cause from other groups. The best and most relevant example is of course the ways in which women's suffrage used racist language to gain support from southern Democrats to win the vote before black men (where black women fit into this picture, is, as usual, nowhere). While the women's movement grew out of the great strides women made in abolitionist discourse and protests, once slavery was done away with the backlash began. Talk of giving the vote to black men enraged women campaigning for suffrage who felt their efforts and hard-won independence had been overlooked. Unfortunately, instead of using other reasoning to further their cause, many women turned to racist arguments. From what I recall of Angela Davis' Women, Race, and Class, the argument was that white women as a whole are far more educated than the average black man, and therefore more qualified to get the vote and use it to white supremacist advantage.
I think you can use this example to explain how movements that might be stronger as a unit do not band together. The first wave of feminism was afraid to continue supporting civil rights for the freed slaves because it meant the men in power would take away their small gains. It's a case of backlash politics: the men who reigned supreme in Washington didn't want to see too many changes all at once, and two angry, oppressed groups together would represent more than enough social power to change the status quo. Thus, they worked hard to separate the two units and diminish their strength. This same "divide-and-conquer" tactic can be applied to the backlash against feminism in the 80's: a collective outpouring of false statistics, undermining media imagery, and political movements served to keep women apart and on edge, thus taking away the power the women's movement of the 70s had in collective energy.
In short, and more to the point, movements of social change are kept apart by other forces (read: "wealthy white men in powerful positions") afraid of the amount of change that might actually occur. Civil rights and the early women's movement were kept apart by suitors who had a political interest in seeing the other group fail; in pitting one group against the other they insured both would falter.
When coming into my own as a feminist, it was repeated to me over and over again that you cannot fight against one form of social oppression effectively without supporting all of them. In fact, I couldn't help but gain further understanding of racism, heterosexism, and sizism through feminism because I was beginning to grasp the language of oppression. They are all the same; you can replace nouns in one text on feminism with those from one on racism and the feel is identical. I rant equally on issues that effect all areas of civil rights, from feminism to gay rights to racism. I can't help it, one topic begets another. Therefore, I idealistically state that movements for social change must help one another out in order to make significant progress.
Realistically, is this possible? One of the things about feminism that works for me is that it applies to women of all ethnic and racial backgrounds. Gender inequality harms black women, lesbians, chicanas, transsexuals, poor women, rich women, pregnant women, plus-sized women, etc etc etc. Reading some of bell hook's work, I am aware of her frustration with black civil rights leaders who on some level feel racial equality is a man's world, or that it should come before women's equality. And I feel that this is a great detriment to the movement because it discounts the feelings and rights of half of the black population. So the question I have is: which should come first? Embracing a philosophy of equal rights from within, changing the black community to value women, or fighting against racism first and changing women's traditions after this has been accomplished?
Natalie wisely said the other day that the reason we must keep fighting for our rights is that to stop would mean everything would be lost. Now we are fighting just to stay in one place, just to keep the rights that we have. Thus I think that a movement, such as black civil rights, should embrace all issues of equality at the same time that it challenges social structures. On some level, change will be made. I'm using black civil rights as an example, but it could be applied to any group.
And finally, how do I react when I find myself doing work that conflicts with my feminist ideals? Well, I can't say I've done much of that (conflicting, that is), but in social situations I'm becoming better and better at analyzing the roles I play (in a conversation, for example, or as a musician) and making sure that my participation lines up with my feminist expectations. It's difficult to desocialize, but it can be done. I've learned to turn off the TV when it insults me, read literature that inspires me, and converse with people that stimulate me. It's a fair trade, I'd say. And I'm coming closer and close to aligning my political viewpoints on all issues that effect our country today because of it.