I feel as though most feminists automatically shut down any critique of the feminist movement because they are so used to moving in circles where feminism is taboo, where they have to explain and defend feminism’s legitimacy over and over again, thus any criticism automatically feels dismissive and threatening. While many men and some women may be weary of the “point” of feminist activism, when I criticize feminism, I’m not discounting feminism’s core philosophy or discrediting the good that feminism has done in achieving some progress regarding gender equality, nor am I claiming that there’s no need for feminism anymore. My qualms with feminism lie much deeper than that, at the root of the movement, from how we are conversing about certain issues to who is primarily doing the talking. Mainstream feminism is worth criticism when you have popular feminists like Lena Dunham totally failing at racial inclusivity, the majority of feminists toting transphobic messages by making womanhood all about uteri and vaginas, or thinking that talking about women as a whole is the best and only way to tackle “women’s issues”. So let me give a long overdue Inclusivity 101 to all those feminists who Just Don’t Get It or think that asking them to be inclusive of other identities is inherently sexist, or something.
Ø Who am I supposed to be including?
So you know that you want to help women, yeah? But what about those women who have to deal with more than just the struggle of being a woman? Some feminists choose to ignore these intersections as though mentioning them detracts from feminism as a whole, but by doing so they theoretically erase the identities of so many women who are already near-invisible in society. There are about five major intersections that contribute to the oppression of some women: race, class, sexual orientation, gender expression, and physical/mental ability. So women of color have to deal with sexism and racism. Transgender women have to deal with sexism and transphobia. Gay women have to deal with sexism and homophobia, and so on. Not only do the separate factions of identity add to what these women face, but the intersections of those oppressions manifest in completely unique ways. For example, women of color do not solely face racism and sexism separately – they must deal with a hybrid of the two, called racialized misogyny, which suppresses their ability to live fully without being boxed into stereotypes based on their race and their gender. (Black women are expected to expound endless strength, Asian women are believed to be naturally submissive, and Hispanic women are hypersexualized, for one set of examples.) This applies to any and all intersections, and hey, it may sound ridiculous when you spell it out in plain, but there potentially are gay, disabled, working-class women of color out there who probably do not feel all too welcome, included, or represented in the feminist movement, and it’s not their responsibility to squeeze their way into a hostile and exclusive space, it’s your responsibility as a feminist to make room for them with the space you already have.
Ø All right, I get what you’re saying, but how am I supposed to include these women?
Feminist writings typically don’t divulge into other factions of womanhood. They assume a general, default definition of “woman” that should more accurately be described as “white, straight, middle-to-upper-class, cisgender, able-bodied woman,” but since that is rather a mouthful, no one usually takes the time to make such a distinction. However, if you’re not going to make the distinction every time you discuss womanhood, you should divulge how that definition differs when other intersections come into play. Say you’re talking gender inequality in income in the US, so you illustrate pay inequality by stating that women make seventy-seven cents to every dollar a man earns. This isn’t an untrue claim, but it is misleading, as the pay rate across racial lines is even more disparate – this statistic only works for white men and women. Black women only make 70 cents to every white man’s dollar, and Latina women make even less at 61 cents. To ignore these further inequalities when discussing income inequality means further alienating the struggle of women who are already largely ignored by society.
In general, it’s a good idea to at least make regular note of how women who are not heterosexual, not white, not cisgender, not middle to upper class, and not able-bodied face more difficulty than women who are – it should be universal language within the feminist movement. It’s also important to keep in mind that men who do not fit the aforementioned categorical norm are sometimes less privileged than women who do; i.e., not all men are directly responsible for upholding oppressive systems, even if they do still benefit from patriarchal male privileges, because there are other social privileges that they lack (enter race, class, disability, etc.) But if you’re feeling particularly driven, you can actually investigate how patriarchy most adversely affects its lowest common denominators, men and women alike.
Ø Okay, but why is being inclusive so important? Can’t we get more done by talking about the issues all women can relate to? – Doesn’t subverting issues take more away from the conversation than it adds?
Inclusivity in a movement that intends to support the betterment of all women is so necessary when the least privileged women are some of the most vulnerable in our society. Not only does it lift up women who need more help, it is beneficial for other women to learn more about each other’s struggles and hardships as well as how we all, as individuals, fit into this society that is so heavily built on the suffering of others. And naturally, it draws more women to the movement itself. There are women who are not sold on feminism because of how little it offers outside of its criticism of patriarchy, and how little it offers them as women who have more than just sexism to concern themselves with.
If you think that talking about these subsets of issues that women minorities face is detracting from the whole of feminism, you would be wrong. I always say that working from the bottom up ensures that you take care of the needs of everyone, not only the most vocal or most privileged women. While sexual assault, for instance, is an issue all women can empathize with, it is true that minority groups such as disabled women and women of color all face higher rates of sexual assault. The problem of sexual assault is still addressed, and women whom are most vulnerable to it are acknowledged. After all, these less-privileged groups of women are still women. Working class and poor women are still women. Women of color are still women. Trans women, disabled women, and queer women are still women. There is nothing relevant to being a woman that these women experience and their more privileged counterparts do not; ergo there is nothing about their existence irrelevant to feminism. Referring to the intersections of oppression that these women face as “distractions” is ingenuous at best and downright insulting at worst. It is not a distraction to extend care and support to those whom patriarchy most adversely affects, although it may seem like it to those who are not used to repositioning their feminist lens around someone other than themselves.
So, your feminism – is it inclusive or not? What do you think you can do to highlight issues other women face to make sure your feminism is intersectional? I’m personally trying to educate myself about transphobia and combat the rampant cissexism in mainstream feminist discourse. It seems many people are still struggling with the concept that gender and sex are not interchangeable, so we still have quite a way to go. As always, let me know your thoughts in the comments!
