That only includes ‘some’ women
Oh yes, that weirdo type of feminism that is only for women, not women plus men who say they are women. So unreasonable.
Another brand of feminism that only includes ‘some’ women. Even your hashtag tells its own story. Btw I’m pleased to say my views on trans women are the views of our collective party and shadow cabinet including my boss Jeremy. #LoveAllMySisters https://t.co/IWsJFnzlQr
— Angela Rayner (@AngelaRayner) June 18, 2019
Imagine talking smack about a brand of anti-racism that only includes people of color instead of being for people of color and white people who say they are people of color.
But that wouldn’t happen, because it’s only women who are seen as accommodating enough and supine enough and fucking stupid enough to accept this crap.
I’ve seen trans ideologues get very, very angry at the mention of Rachel Dolezal, but I have yet to read anyone come up with an an actual argument for why Rachel Dolezal’s transracialism is unacceptable, but the claim “Trans women are WOMEN!” is just a matter of how-dare-you-question-or-challenge-it fact. If trans women are women (full stop, no questioning allowed), then why isn’t Rachel Dolezal African American (full stop)? To my knowledge, NO ONE has answered this very straightforward and obviously relevant question with anything resembling a coherent (let alone plausible) argument. They’ve *responded* to the question with smear campaigns and castigation, ostracizing anyone who dares ask it, but they have not actually *answered* the question.
I’m not gonna hold my breath.
The most interesting, to me, answer to that question is ‘because Black people have a distinct history and culture, and women don’t.’ I’ll just leave that here for us to ponder the implications of it (mainly because I need to get up and do some work now).
guest, the problem with that argument is that it is wrong. Black people are not one thing, not a monolith. They come from many different countries and cultures, and while they may have constructed a culture unique to the African-American, that in itself is from many different cultural backgrounds.
Women, I will agree, do not have a common culture in any form, and we come from every single country in the world. We have not constructed a single culture that could be called women.
The reality, though, is that “female” is a distinct biological category and “black” is not. And, like gender, color exists on a spectrum, and some people who are considered black do look white. Which is why Rachel Dolezal was able to convince people for a time that she was black.
But the answer I have typically seen is that white people taking on the identity of black people is an oppressor coopting the culture of the oppressed, while men taking on the identity of women is not that. The only possible answer to that is WTF?
I disagree, for two reasons. First–could we say, for example, that there is something Trayvon Martin and Beyoncé have in common? I think most people (at least in our cultures) would say ‘yes’. It could be said that the thing they have in common is the history of how people identified as the ‘race’ they both are in the country they both come from have been treated by the dominant culture.
Second–I think women as such do have a common culture, and a common history, in the same way. We don’t typically look at the history of women in any unified way–we generally look at ‘women’s history’ in the sense of ‘how do female people fit into the story of men’s history’–I won’t pretend to be an expert on the subject myself, but my experience readng writers who look at history from a woman’s perspective has been both disorienting and exhilarating. In this book, published in 1982, Dale Spender says something like ‘we’re discovering so much now about all of these influential intellectual women, but in a generation we’ll have forgotten them again’–and she was exactly right. For some reason women’s history is cyclical, while men’s history builds on itself.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/144744.Women_of_Ideas
Even Dale Spender is no longer in the feminist biz, I guess she realised it doesn’t pay off.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dale_Spender
‘Today Spender is particularly concerned with intellectual property and the effects of new technologies: in her terms, the prospects for “new wealth” and “new learning”. For nine years she was a director of Copyright Agency Limited (CAL) in Australia and for two years (2002–2004) she was the chair.’
Update! Last time I looked up Dale Spender online, probably after I read a few of her books, she seemed to have distanced herself from feminism altogether, focusing on intellectual property etc. But I’ve just now looked her up, and she’s a feminist again right there in her bio (though this looks to be a couple of years old with no update):
http://dalespender.com.au/noshrinkingviolet/
So that’s women’s history; re women’s culture, my own experience is that a group of women talking about things that affect women, no matter from what cultures they come from and what life experiences they’ve had, will always have something (if not everything) in common, and will be able to speak to each other in ways they all understand and that men generally would not.
Not directly related, but possibly relevant to the idea of universal female experience–I don’t know if you’ve had the chance to see the miniseries Gentleman Jack, about Anne Lister of Shibden Hall in Halifax. A thing I noted about the way it was filmed is that all of the men in the story are immediately implicitly categorised as ‘safe’ or ‘unsafe’ when introduced on screen–does he respect Anne’s personal space? Does he listen to her and respond appropriately to what she says? Does he overly acknowledge or verbally comment on her appearance? Does he immediately label or dismiss her? Does he attempt to coerce or manipulate her? It wasn’t necessarily ‘good guys and bad guys’, it was something else; I was intrigued by how the director and cinematographer attempted to capture the kind of sizing-up I think most of us do when we encounter a male stranger. (Not to say men don’t size each other up, I’m sure they do–but I think it’s different. I can’t speak for men’s experiences, but it seems like more about ‘who’s stronger/more important/higher status, and how likely is sorting this out to both of our satisfaction to be a problem’.)
guest, I think in that sense we could be said to have a common attribute, but I’m not sure that’s really a common culture. I do agree that we have that in common, and it can be a point that brings many disparate women together, as it did in the consciousness raising circles that used to be a big thing. I think women have many cultures, much of which we share with men, but we are perceived as having a common culture through the stereotypes of women as nurturing, chick flicks, shopping, etc.
I don’t see that as a culture, perhaps, because I share little of it. I am not nurturing, I despise shopping, I would rather children stay as far away from me as possible, and I don’t do the stereotypical female things. I don’t even like a lot of the feminist things that were common when I was younger, where women sat around looking at their vulva (calling it their vagina) with mirrors or sitting around in consciousness raising groups. That isn’t me. My culture has more in tune with a certain group of people that are a diverse mix of races, sexes, and so forth that all exist on an intellectual plane similar to where I operate, and share common interests. Women are so all over the place on what they are and what they like that it is hard to see anything I could call a common culture.
The recognition of an attribute by ourselves or others is not the same as a culture.
I haven’t seen Gentleman Jack yet, but we do have it on our DVR for when we find time.
The other answer I have seen is that Rachel Dolezal is just one person claiming anything like transracialism, whereas there are comparatively a lot of people who call themselves transgender. In other words, one person claiming to be transracial can be written off, but the fact that multiple people claim they are transgender means there must be something more to it and should be treated more seriously.
Indeed, but why is it so much rarer? At least partly because it’s not embraced and cheered on and defended by roving herds of Woke Foke.
Why isn’t it? Well, that’s the question. Why is the one angrily defended and enforced while the other is the object of rage and contempt?
Because one is appropriation of the culture of a long-oppressed class of people, and the other is Oh! Look, a squirrel.
Where? I want to see the squirrel!
Dear God, roving herds of woke foke? Where’s my shotgun?
I borrowed to shoot some squirrels. I’ll drop it off later.