women oppressing women
It is important that we reconcile radical feminist theory with the idea that women can and do oppress other women. Radical feminism understands women’s oppression as intrinsically tied to male violence and the female-specific harms of rape and piv. Given this, in what sense can a woman be said to oppress another woman? To oppress, one must have power. But any power a woman has under the patriarchy is borrowed from white males, and they can take it away at any time. To retain power over other women, a woman must remain complicit with white male supremacy, and therefore with her own oppression. It is clear that advantaged women simply do not experience power in the straightforward sense that men do. But that does not mean that advantaged women are incapable of wielding the limited, conditional power we do have access to over other women.
Women who are more disadvantaged under the patriarchy are more vulnerable to its harms (especially male violence/rape), and relatively advantaged women leverage this in order to exercise power over them.
Not too long ago I witnessed something that illustrates this point.
I was waiting for a bus in a seedy area of town where it is not uncommon to see people having altercations on the street. Near the bus stop there was a black woman and a white woman arguing about something. At first the black woman and the white woman seemed to be equally involved in the argument. But after a short while, the fight became worse, and it was the white woman who was escalating it at every turn, getting all up in the black woman’s face, becoming louder, more aggressive. She started pushing the black woman. The black woman held her ground, but she was NOT fighting back. She was trying to diffuse the situation as much as possible, without giving in.
Just say someone called the police and the two women were arrested for brawling in public. As a woman, one of the worst places I can imagine being is in (white male) police custody. But even worse would be being a black woman in police custody. If both women were hauled down to the police station, since police are racist, right off the bat the black woman will be treated worse by individual police. If they both give statements, the police are more likely to favor the white woman’s account. Since it’s a racist city, any witnesses are more likely to inflate the role of the black woman in the altercation, and minimize the role of the white woman.
Statistically, also, the black woman is more likely to have a prior record than the white woman, which means she has a higher risk of receiving a custodial sentence if charged with anything. Statistically, she is more likely than the white woman to have already been imprisoned (and therefore more likely to have already suffered abuse within the penal system, and have related PTSD). She is more likely to have a familial history of incarceration and thus be aware of the ramifications it has on black families. Statistically she is more likely to have children than the white woman, and more of them. And if she does have children, hers are statistically more at risk of being taken into state care than any children the white woman may have. It is just a fact that a black woman has more to fear about being taken into police custody than a white woman.
This alone would be enough to explain why the black woman was so intent on diffusing the situation. The social reality means that the white woman had the upper hand within their altercation, because the black woman has more to fear and more at stake.
One could easily imagine the same dynamic at play in other areas, like employment. There could be a case where a white woman and a black woman have a disagreement at work, but the white woman will have the upper hand in this situation because they both know that if management gets involved, it is more likely to favor the white woman’s side.
The most important thing to note is that managers (or the police in the first example) dont even have to get involved for the white woman to have the upper hand in the situation between them, because just the (always present) implicit threat of it is enough. The white woman can leverage this threat without even directly invoking it, to intimidate, bully and otherwise impose her will on the black woman. That IS power. Limited, conditional power, yes. But that doesnt make it insignificant, or any less oppressive for women who are subjected to it.
Like this:
Filed under: feminism, privilege | 31 Comments
-
COMMENTS
I don’t know. It is not universally true. I worked in a office situation where most of the supervisors were black women, only one white woman, and the workers were mixed but maybe about 60-70% white. I doubt management would have upheld any whiteness in that situation, it was a strict hierarchy, in that the supervisors of the department very much toed the company line against the workers. This was a majority female department too, only a few gay dudes in the mix.
So the white-trumps-all (as far as women is concerned) is not universal, and the above situation does show that any women’s power over any other women is GIVEN, not automatically had or held.
http://www.saidit.org/archives/jun06/Remembrance.html
This might be helpful.
I appreciate this post. I’ve been in a few situations in life where other women have used this conditional power against me. It may not stem from those women being the ultimate beneficiaries or the instigators of the system that gives them power over me in that instance, but they did it. They did it most of the time to climb up the stripper pole of male approval.
While it is true that men grant power, and that women might use horizontal violence against each other, in practical terms, abuse of power is quite common in groups of people who haven’t had much experience in the proper use of power.
I think it is more the lack of experience in leadership itself that is often the problem in radical groups, and on the Internet, the issue is really about practical political effectiveness, and the nature of writing itself. It’s easy to be an under 40 radical feminist writer, but does that person have much experience in groups of women IRL?
It is isolationist writing, or is it based on actual work within a larger movement context? Is it just a straight woman’s perspective, where they have no experience in lesbian groups? And if so, is the critique of patriarchy merely the disgust straight women have for men, rather than a desire for the end of heteronormativity to begin with?
If someone has power over you— and that’s how jobs are constructed… you need a paycheck, other people have money and that puts you at a material disadvantage from the get go— there is always room for women abusing power or making other women miserable.
I will say that my most pleasant experiences with women have always been within egalitarian environments where we are all working for one common goal, and where we have a beginning, a middle and an end in sight. The worst groups have been ongoing, and the power dynamics unequal– racially, economically or in some other way.
And then there are culture differences. Straight women who literally cannot tell that butch dykes are actually women, for example, and they mistakenly believe the women to be men. This shows their ignorance of how out lesbians actually look– it is disturbing to see and experience straight women’s complete ignornace of lesbian life.
And it’s a big divide between lesbians and het women that has yet to be sufficiently bridged.
Incidently, the Mary Daly link Feurweurferin provided was excellent. One of the best articles I’ve read on the subject so a BIG thank you for adding it here!
So the white-trumps-all (as far as women is concerned) is not universal, and the above situation does show that any women’s power over any other women is GIVEN, not automatically had or held.
But the organization you worked for exists in the broader context of white male society. It follows white-made employment laws, answers to white regulatory bodies. Also white workers have access to a white media which absolutely loves stories about “reverse racism”. No individual or organization exists outside of white male supremacy.
@NNI appreciate this post. I’ve been in a few situations in life where other women have used this conditional power against me. It may not stem from those women being the ultimate beneficiaries or the instigators of the system that gives them power over me in that instance, but they did it. They did it most of the time to climb up the stripper pole of male approval.
Yes, particularly when advantaged women harm other similarly situated women, it is often FOR male approval (nice metaphor there, btw with the stripper pole, ha).
I think in a general sense feminism needs to be honest about the way women can (and do) harm other women. Twisty for example has a policy of DONT BLAME THE WOMEN over at IBTP. And I get that its in place so people dont end up victim-blaming. I get why this is important. But on the other hand I think we do need to hold women accountable for the harms they inflict on other women. And ok, the patriarchy only gives women limited range of options in any one situation. But within this limited range, women can still pick the option which minimizes the amount of harm other women will experience as a result of our actions. As feminists we have a responsibility here.
What bothers me is when women side with men, rather than confront men. We don’t have a revolution because so many women are afraid ever to speak up against men, and since I do this all the time, I often wonder at how women can be so cowardly ALL OF THE TIME, and I do mean this socially. I find the obtuseness of straight women stultifying at times.
But the organization you worked for exists in the broader context of white male society. It follows white-made employment laws, answers to white regulatory bodies. Also white workers have access to a white media which absolutely loves stories about “reverse racism”. No individual or organization exists outside of white male supremacy.
Yes, but you are ignoring the main point – the power is GIVEN to a group of women who are compliant with patriarchy (or the system/corporation). And no, in that circumstance I doubt that the meeja could have done a ‘reverse racism’ story. The department was the computerised equivalent of a sweat shop, and employment terms were as a temp (so no come back on the appalling conditions, just a lot of easily disposed of workers, primarily female).
In fact, I most emphatically deny that the situation was reverse racism, and that is not what I was saying at all. I am saying that patriarchy (or in this case, corporations) will arbitrarily put one group of women in charge of another, to do their dirty work for them. But that ‘power’ over other women is granted, and can easily be taken away without notice. This was just a good case to show how arbitrary the tokens can be, and that white does not trump all when it comes to women. It doesn’t.
A fictional example. If, the growing mainstream trend was that far-Asian women were prized as wives, and all other women were considered inferior, then there would be no white woman privilege at all. It would not happen, the ONLY reason white women are GIVEN any (conditional) privilege at all is due to their uteruses. But, if I were to write a sci-fi on it, lets say in this fictional example far-Asian women were prized and valued as wives, white women had their ova harvested for the breeding functions and kept alive only for that reason (a bit like the Handmaid’s Tale meets Brave New World really), then white women would have no privileges over any other, they would be kept like cattle.
Given reproductive technology, even today, this stuff is not that far fetched. If as a white woman you think your ‘white privilege’ is 100% secure and you will always have it, think again. ‘White privilege’ for women does NOT exist in the same way that it does for men. It can always be taken away. And a lot of sci-fi has a habit of happening…
you are talking around the main point in my post. This bit:
The most important thing to note is that managers (or the police in the first example) dont even have to get involved for the white woman to have the upper hand in the situation between them, because just the (always present) implicit threat of it is enough.
my post has nothing to do with management/authority itself and who may comprise it and under what circumstances. And its not about the outcome of a higher authority getting called in to arbitrate between a privileged person and an opressed person.
The only thing my post talks about is the power differential that exists between two people BEFORE a higher authority even gets involved (if it even does get involved. It doesnt have to in order for the power differential to exist).
You said in your first comment I doubt management would have upheld any whiteness in that situation
Being white, it’s very easy for you to say that.
I got harassed by a man at work (and I have written about it on this blog). I was terrified of going to management because I knew that if he gave his side of the story and it turned into a “he said, she said” thing, management was more likely to favor his male account than mine.
Even though my direct boss was a woman, and her boss was a woman, and her boss was a woman, and she was the person in charge of our branch and would have been the final arbiter in the case. All women, so why was I afraid? (and you know, the nigel kept asking me this very question)
I was afraid because these women have grown up in the same culture that I have, which teaches us that male accounts are worth more than female accounts, and that if a man does something to a woman, she must have done something to deserve it. There is no getting around that. Thanks to patriarchy, the oppressed have a credibility problem, even among their own people. Its just a fact that women cant expect other women to back them up. Nor can other oppressed peoples.
Regardless of the particulars of a situation, all situations occur within the broader context of white male supremacy. Oppressed people always have more to fear and more at stake than the privileged, and this can be (and is) leveraged by the privileged all the time.
Even though white women don’t win always (!!!), the win in most situations. White women are much more likely to get male assistance. And they know it. And women of colour know the opposite. This must be admitted for the sake of justice and for cooperation. Even though it’s painful. There is no racial equality among women, too.
Exactly, Feuerwerferin. You got it in one.
Thank you for this post- I think that the things you said cannot be said enough.
Within women as a class there are other oppressions happening that should not be ignored for the good of ALL women. It’s so easy to overlook your own privileges because being treated preferably is so ubiquitous that one ceases to recognize the significance of it. However, it is neccessary to realize one’s privileges to show to other women that one can be trusted- otherwise, the consequences can be devastating.
For example, I have been fighting depression caused by what I believe is social phobia for 8 years now. It’s quite impossible for me to act normally in social situations which is a great burden. Still, a greater burden is the barrier it creates between you and other people. It’s hard to talk to them because it might cost you even more social status seeing as most are not used to interacting with social phobic individuals and hold prejudice against us as is to be expected. Because of this I am structurally disadvantaged and my thoughts and emotions are marginalized.
So we must learn about structurally caused oppressions which act together with sexism to worsen peoples’ lives (for instance, I think that social phobia is even more difficult for women because they are expected to be social). By recognizing women’s different status amongst each other it’s possible to diffuse a lot of unneccessary in-fighting and tensions. I know that everyone makes mistakes and it can be difficult to understand an oppression one has never experienced but there must be goodwill and the desire to learn. Otherwise, we make what I calll the “Marxist mistake”- thinking that all women will automatically be liberated when feminism has won.
Radical feminists of the past also did not seem uninterested in the significance of race and class issues for women- in the “Radical Feminism” reader by Barbara A. Crow there are some essays on these topics (not all by rad fems, some have been included to portray oppositional views).
I see this happen in workplaces where the women may be of the same race but one women has more sway with the boss man or is just higher up in the workplace food chain. My current coworker (who is thankfully on a VERY long vacation) pulled that kind of shit on me when she came back from being out of the country. She’d worked with the attorney for 15 years before she’d left, and I’d never even met her before in the 1.5 years I’d been working. And even though she was in no way my superior after she came back, she knew she was bff’s with the boss (and I honestly think they have been having some kind of affair) and that she also had years of experience at the office over me. So she decided that it was totally okay to come into my office and literally yell at me and threaten my job when the boss was out of the office, all because she claimed I gave her some sort of attitude? This went on for weeks until I finally got up the courage to bring it to my boss’ attention, and it only took me so long to say anything because I knew she and the boss were friends and I was almost certain he would believe whatever she said over what I said. Thankfully, it turned out okay and (I assume) the boss told her to back off, but I will never trust that woman even again.
Power given to women because of associations with men (even only perceived or assumed power) makes it so easy for women to oppress each other, racial or otherwise. It’s just sad that some women are more than happy to use that borrowed power to keep all of us down…
@pmsrhino
Good point there, that women dont even have to be disadvantaged via race or class, ability etc, for other women to be able to throw them under the bus. Any woman who fits the preferred criteria under the dominant white male paradigm can leverage this over other women. I have always been wary of attempts to turn absolutely everything into a “privilege”, ie “thin privilege”, “pretty privilege”, “youth privilege” etc. But actually in this context it makes sense.
@kurukuru
I too think women need to be honest about the ways we can and do harm other women under patriarchy. I dont think focusing on this is a distraction from feminism in any way, cause if we ever want to tackle the big picture (ie. men) there needs to be an alliance between women.
Nice point there with the “marxist mistake” too. Another radfem pointed out to me once that even if all the men disappeared off the face of the planet, there would still be inequality, because women have absorbed so many dom/sub hierarchies under the patriarchy, and these biases wouldnt magically disappear with all the men. in other words, this is something we need to be pro-active about.
“I too think women need to be honest about the ways we can and do harm other women under patriarchy. I don’t think focusing on this is a distraction from feminism in any way, cause if we ever want to tackle the big picture (ie. men) there needs to be an alliance between women.”
“I have always been wary of attempts to turn absolutely everything into a “privilege”, ie “thin privilege”, “pretty privilege”, “youth privilege” etc.”
I think that first quote is why I really dislike talking about thin privilege and pretty privilege and age privilege and cup-size privilege and hair color privilege or whatever. These privileges only really exist within the group women, while privileges like race, ability and health, and class exist between all people, male or female. Thin privilege, etc. do not exist outside of the group because all women, no matter how thin or how pretty or how young, are oppressed and devalued under the patriarchy. These “privileges” are simply another way for women to oppress other women (on top of racism and classism and ableism), while, the whole time, men oppress us all. I really feel that once we get rid of the notion of these in-group privileges that we can really focus on the larger -isms at hand. The ones that we really should be fighting full force. Instead of holding protests about how larger women aren’t included in fashion shows, how about we question fashion shows and the workings of the fashion industry all together? Not like thin models really have it any better in the industry than the larger women who are denied access to it, right? Why are we trying to make it so MORE women can be used and abused by an industry which is generally very woman hating? I just don’t get it.
So on the one hand, I do think it’s important to realize that yes, women oppress other women via beauty standards, etc. and it’s important to inform women that it’s not okay to oppress other women. But on the other hand, I feel these issues distract rather than help, keeping us arguing with each other on what exactly how much you have to weigh to have “thin privilege” or how old you have to be before you lose your “age privilege”. That’s just kind of my take on things like “thin privilege” and “youth privilege” and whatnot. Maybe it’s because I’ve spent my whole life feeling I’m fat and ugly and yet so many women will tell me no, I have thin privilege because at least I can find a pair of jeans at a store. Or I can talk about my large cup size and how hard it can be to find a bra or a shirt that doesn’t look like I’m purposefully baring my breasts for the whole world to admire and yet so many women will tell me no, I’m privileged because at least people don’t think I’m a boy or because society LOVES big boobs. It just feels like the cis-privilege argument sometimes. How is it a privilege to be “pretty” and “perfect” and still be treated like shit because our culture treats women like shit no matter what we look like or how we act? It’s just not a privilege to be a woman, period.
So yeah, important to show women that oppressing each other is bad and inform them of the ways in which we do oppress each other, but not so important to me to continue raising up these “privileges” as something that isn’t woman centered and can’t easily be stopped if all women just started trusting each other and working together to fight the real oppressors in the world. I mean, based on these “privileges” I should have had all the power over my coworker. She’s older, she’s heavier, she isn’t as “conventionally pretty”, and yet she held (and really, still does hold) all the power in our interactions. So how did I have thin privilege or age privilege or pretty privilege there? :\ And I hate feeling like I’ve rambled too much and my point didn’t get through, lol, do I need to clarify that at all?
Also having concepts like “thin privilege” and “pretty privilege” and “age privilege” etc. make it almost impossible to talk about how being a thin or young or pretty woman ISN’T a privilege in the patriarchy. I think I hinted at it but wanted to clarify that point because I think that is really what my biggest gripe is concerning those types of “privilege.” Critique and discussion gets shut down. For example, I can’t remember what blog but a discussion was started on the topic of thin privilege and someone made the comment on how thinness wasn’t a privilege because the only way they could achieve this “privilege” was to be anorexic and basically destroy their body. But instead of maybe discussing how thinness may not actually be the privilege it was held up to be, the focus was on making this thin, anorexic woman UNDERSTAND just how much privilege she had over “fat” women even if she was suffering from an eating disorder. The concept of thin privilege shut down any discussion on how being thin woman perhaps WASN’T a privilege in the patriarchy after all. Also saw this happen on a few blogs maybe 6 months ago or so when the topic of breast size became an issue. Big boobs were deemed a privilege therefore trying to talk about how they WEREN’T a privilege was basically silenced or chastised. So yeah, from what I’ve seen I think privilege, when it’s confined specifically to the group “female,” just isn’t a privilege and I think discussion on these “privileges” do more harm than good.
The more I think about the subject of women oppressing women, the more I tend to think realistically. What IRL works best for a group of women to collaborate well?
There will be certain places where women are more likely to oppress each other than other places. I’ve noticed with the right voluntary associations, good things are easy, in jobs it’s more problematic because the women don’t choose the assoication.
I tend to not worry all that much about whether women are fat or beautiful (conventionally) etc., but I do pay attention to race. Groups of all white women who are straight are not fun for me to be in, it means they are likely to be more homophobic as well. If we have lots of black women, and the economic class is homogenour, and a mix of white women, again all of the same economic class, then things will usually go quite well. As a visibily out lesbian who does not assimilate in dress or manner, this mix works well for me. There will be more sensitivity, more connection.
It’s about getting things done. I don’t have time to waste anymore on groups that are going to go into fight mode, or privilege fights…. too much of it on the Internet made me just bored with those outcomes IRL. There very contentiousness within internet radfem sites made me just long for a strong sisterhood connection IRL—
You will not be able to realistically be able to deal productively with too many issues all at once within one group. So if you mix a couple of social classes, but have it be all lesbian it can work. If you mix races and sexual orientation you’ll have a go. If you have three things going, say race, social class and sexual orientation more fights will occur, and it will be less focused and productive.
As I get older I simply expect women to take responsibility, and stop blaming everyone else for whatever group failure is out there. We know what a waste of time it all is, and if we can break it down into more managable differences or levels of privilege or whatever you want to call it, you’ll feel energized rather than drained.
And it is true, if all men disappeared off the face of the earth, there would be differences that the remaining women would fight over, because women have been trained into dominant / submissive from when men were on earth.
But again, if a group has three or more difference / privilege categories, it doesn’t work that well.
@pmsrhino
heres the thing about “thin privilege”. Privilege in a political sense is understood as the arbitrary benefits conferred by society onto others because of some trait they posses, or class membership they hold. In that sense it is very easy to understand “thin” as a privilege, because thin women DO have arbitrary benefits conferred on them by society, and it doesnt actually matter whether the societal mandate to be thin has negative affects on thin women as well as fat women. Because if we’re talking privilege, all that matters are the externally granted benefits. That’s all the term describes.
Now i actually have a big problem with the term “privilege”. I’ve started phasing it out of my feminist vocabulary (you’ll notice i didnt use it at all in my post). This is for several reasons.
Firstly, male privilege is not equivalent to any other privilege, it has specific, unique implications (and this really deserves a post of its own, which I will write at some point). Secondly, everything these days is a privilege (!1!!!). “cis privilege” “vanilla privilege”. Honestly the phrase has become so overused, and most people using it dont even understand or they’ve forgotten what privilege in a political sense IS. its gotten to the point where the word “privilege” actually muddies the waters, and hinders discussion.
The third reason is most relevant to your comment. The word “privilege” as i pointed out, refers to the external benefits ONLY. And makes no reference to any negative effects a trait being preferred by society might have on women as a whole.
I am thin. This does benefit me in society. I get treated objectively better than fat women, because of my thinness. On the other hand I, like every other woman am also negatively impacted in a general sense by the societal mandate for thinness. The difference is this though:
Thin women: negatively impacted by society’s thin mandate, but also rewarded for being thin
Fat women: negatively impacted by society’s thin mandate, and treated poorly for being fat.
there is currently no way to describe this phenomenon. “Privilege” doesnt cut it, because privilege is also used to describe the straightforward benefits that men or white people have, which are not paradoxical in the way that the thin mandate is for women.
Now we actually need a term to describe the way some women are advantaged in society over other women (and the tangible benefits they receive), which ALSO recognizes that the source of these advantages may have a negative impact on women as a whole. It is very much a deficiency in political language.
I’m up for creating some new words.
Welp, we definitely need them!
Its something I wrote about a bit elsewhere. Feminist theory is built on previous theories of oppression – marxism etc. But these theories are all male-centric and they dont actually reflect female experiences of oppression all that well. Intersectionality is actually a symptom of this broader problem, its a band-aid attempt to cope with the fact that our current understanding of oppression doesnt describe female reality.
I think that the theoretical work of the fourth wave will be based on getting rid of all the male-derived theory and starting from scratch.
“Feminist theory is built on previous theories of oppression – marxism etc.”
Mary Wollstonecraft would be most surprised to learn that feminist theory was built on Marx. She died in 1797.
Feminism is very very old, it is just that so much of our herstory has been erased, that we don’t realise it. Anyway I just felt I had to put in a good word for Mary. She was the mother of Mary Shelly who wrote Frankenstein. She wrote a book called: A Vindication of The Rights of Women.
It’s true that women have long wrote about these things. Recently i discovered that there were a bunch of renaissance women who wrote a lot about women’s position in society and argued against male supremacy. Course you would never know about these women unless you went looking.
But what i’m talking about in this thread is that oppression itself is currently understood through a male lens. Specifically, class politics. Yet women dont actually make up a class, instead we are half of every class. Intersectionality is a way to cope with the inadequacy of class politics for describing female oppression (it is no accident that it came out of feminism, and not another social justice movement). Yet it is an unwieldy band-aid solution, and it doesnt actually make it easier to talk about female oppression.
I believe women can come up with something much better. But it means chucking out the male-centric idea of class politics altogether, and starting from scratch.
Hi Miska,
I am late to the party but I just wanted to say thank you so much for this post.
Of course women have the power to oppress, and whether it is borrowed or not makes little difference to those on the brunt end of it. Again and again in the so-called radical community I see white women oppressing non-white women, het women oppressing lesbians, fems oppressing butches, middle-class women oppressing working-class women, and so on ad nauseum. The oppressions replicate male values with such boring predictability, and yet it is almost invariably denied. You yourself will see fallout for posting this, I’m afraid.
It is sad that it’s at the point that I can’t be bothered even trying to talk to them most of the time, not that they publish my comments anyway.
Anyway, I just wanted to voice my appreciation for this.
What you are saying is interesting, Miska. But feminism is about men’s oppression of women, not other oppressions.
I don’t and never have disagreed about the theory of intersectionality, but as you say it is unwieldy and refocuses us back onto ourselves. Feminism can only cure other injustices when it has the power to do so, we can only gain that power by taking it back from men. We need alliance on a basic level to do that. Sadly focusing on the other intersections in feminist spaces always seems to cause discord. It is much easier to focus on women who hurt us, than it is to take on men. Internet feminism sometimes gets lost in this. But the opportunity we have to communicate now is unprecedented, I hope you are right and we can come up with better ways to fight this system.
Thank you for this post, Miska.
I’m a bit confused by the language here, which is very different from the radical Lesbian Feminism that I’ve known for over 40 years. In the communities I’ve been in, we take for granted that males control patriarchy and oppress us, and we don’t have much voluntary contact with them. So our writing and discussions about oppression and privilege have been directly about how we as Lesbians and women treat each other. That is what matters. My Lesbian Separatism means fighting all oppressions between us. And I can’t think of other words that describe it so well as “privilege” and “oppression “(plus it’s not good to develop exclusionary in-group language.) A Lesbian may have privilege in terms of class, and therefore the power to be oppressive to a Lesbian with less class privilege, but that doesn’t mean she has to act on that privilege. Unless she really thinks about it though, and that often means having some political analysis, she is likely to just feel superior and treat the less privileged Lesbian as inferior. She might participate in indirectly making a segregated community if she doesn’t want to be aware of classism. I think the problem with inequality is that the woman with more privilege just thinks she better and acts accordingly, without it every occurring to her how wrong she is. And even when the woman who is being oppressed by this treatment knows what’s happening, she is still being harmed by it.
This same pattern is what happens with all issues of inequality and hurts us individually and as a community. I talk in more detail about classism in an article at my blog –
http://bevjoradicallesbian.wordpress.com/
Ending inequality between us can be done by just being aware and honest with yourself. Just because we are taught lies by patriarchy, doesn’t mean we have to believe them and participate in oppressing anyone we have privilege over. Having Radical Lesbian Feminist analysis helps, but I do have privileged Lesbian friends with no politics, yet who seem to just have the sense to know that they’re privilege doesn’t make them better.
I think we have to have a better definition of oppression Female / Male style vs. women’s differences in class, race or geography. We can’t use the “language” of oppression which is about male power out of control, and say a middle class woman who snobbishly thinks she’s better than the housekeeper is the same as a male in power over a woman. The middle class woman will not rape the housekeeper, Thomas Jefferson raped his slaves. Big difference there.
So we need to focus on how all women can come together, and what things work. Right now, I’m interested in what really works with women IRL, and there are many things that work well. We just have to do them. We have done them in the past, but a younger generation isn’t aware of them. Since anything women do is always erased by men, and that men work tirelessly to erase everything lesbians have achieved in the last 40 years, we need to know that erasure itself IS the main tactic of patriarchy. That’s how the whole thing stays in place.
As long as women are deluded that they do have “priviledge” and if you are a doctor’s wife in Beverly Hills, you will believe you have the power over say the maid. But it is all dependent on the illusion of contact with a wealthy male. And also the hiddle PIV for trade that is part of this contract.
On a side note, het women are often shocked to see marriage described as purely a legal contract. Apprarently, before g/l marriage took off as a national issue, they still didn’t really see it as a legal male defined contract for the protection of male privilege. This is news to straight women in denial everywhere.
How would we get around race or class issues? Well it is very hard work among women, and we can commit to this work. We can take the time and really do it. And we can know that it isn’t easy for every woman to do everything. It might look easy for one woman to get a college degree, but it doesn’t take into account other favorable conditions that make this possible… access to money, or a safe place to study, not being raped or sexually harassed as a 7 year old girl.. that sort of thing.
The privilege is often unknown and unearned… we don’t know we have it, but the outside world know this and treats us accordingly. Butch dykes are treated badly everywhere…. fact. But then again femme women are not as adept at male confrontation…. I can argue down a man, cause him to back down or reveal his bigotry. A femme just might not have the raw anger easily available to take down the man when push came to shove. So in many ways, a femme is at a distinct advantage in some places.
Well it’s a lot, but how women treat each other can be examined and paid attention to. We should know that men are not on our side…and that every lesbian on earth has more in common with every straight women on earth, than lesbians do with any man. We need to know this, honor it, find out about it, and change ourselves and how we treat each other. Hard I know, but I have seen amazing sisterhood over the years, and I know it’s possible!
Hey, Miska and all, this is a great discussion! I’ve seen it work with women and seen it not work. I’ve seen it work fabulously at a couple of jobs I had that were owned/managed by feminist (second wave) women. I learned so much at those jobs! Mostly it was about everyone having a say in how things were done. Everyone had input and was listened to. The focus was on the task, not on philosophy, though there was a philosophy. We occasionally discussed race, class, and age since these were the ways in which we were diverse. I think it was the remarkable leadership of those women that made this work.
Perhaps it’s naive, but one idea that I’m exploring is that loving women as one’s foundation is a key. When I this I mean loving women, including ourselves, with a passion. Not to say that there’s not a whole lot more to consider (like what does love mean, anyway), especially when it comes to race, class, physical ability, etc.
P.S., I know I’m way late to the party. I’ll leave the bottle of wine I brought so you can drink it some other time
http://www.feminist-reprise.org/docs/from%20practice%20to%20theory.htm
This might be helpful, too.