Well, I am a Feminist

As the old saying goes, for every one step forward, we take two steps back. The recent, “I am not a Feminist” post on Womanist Musing adds an additional step back and causes us to stumble, stop, regain our footing, and then begin again. For those who have not read the blog, you should. It presents an interesting take and Renee brings up a few points to think over. I, however, think that her argument is wrong.

First, Renee's argument is sloppy. Does she really equate womanist with race, specifically black? If so, what is the difference between her argument for womanism and her vitriolic criticism of feminism? Excluded voices are excluded voices no matter whose voices they are. I am not coming to feminism’s rescue for there are surely faults within it as well. Still, how can we have a real discussion around race, gender, and society when half of either population is out of the picture? To declare open war on the “other side” solves nothing and—in my honest opinion, both academic and “social”—does more harm than good.

I am not a historian; but what feminism is she talking about? If we continue to think of feminism today as first wave feminism of two days ago or second wave feminism of yesterday, we can never move forward. For thinking along these lines does us all a disservice. Kimberle Crenshaw speaks to issues of women of color. So does bell hooks. Patricia Williams is in the same boat. Kristin Bumiller challenges the status quo. Tricia Rose. Melissa Harris-Lacewell. Being a feminist does not mean buying into the patriarchal system that is both "raced" and "classed." If anything, it challenges the system and all those—men and women alike—who adopt such worldviews. I refer to Melissa Harris-Lacewell’s debate with Gloria Steinem as a recent example: Harris-Lacewell incorporates history of women of color to the conversation. Renee presents an ahistorical analysis of feminism, effectively ignoring the work of white women and women of color who speak to issues—legal, economic, political, and social—that women of color face.

In 1992, feminist scholars Margaret Andersen and Patricia Hill Collins (though it does not matter, is black) argue that “while race, class, and gender can be seen as different axes of social structure, individual persons experience them simultaneously.” This is the direction that feminism was going in over fifteen years ago. Patricia Hill Collins, current President of the American Sociological Association and prominent feminist scholar, is the first to speak to the importance of intersectionality, the ways in which culturally and socially constructed categories like race and gender interact to produce difference and inequality. If this is what was meant in the post then I agree. But her words are more divisive and exclusive. And from reading the comments to the post, we surely have a concrete example of when rhetoric does more of the work than the argument.

Again, I am not feminism’s dark knight. I simply think that we should be fair in our critiques and criticisms. And by fair, I mean grounded in evidence. One of the purposes of Social Science Lite is to spark open and honest conversations about social issues and problems. This post is following in that vein. The experience of women of color is imperative to any discussion of gender and society and women of color need to be part of those larger conversations. “I am not a Feminist” reads as if neither the conversation nor the incorporation have ever happened or are happening now. This, however, is simply not the case. Are we done yet? Surely not. There are more barriers to overcome and tough issues to work through but advocating from a divisive platform is not the answer.