paper. scissors. rock.
By shag carpet bomb • Feb 16th, 2009 • Category: Feminist Fight Club, Intersectionality, Radical FeminismFor bitch to be sexist, it would have to be uttered in a conversation in which there is a power differential. Sexism equals privilege plus power, but you would know that if you were really about challenging the patriarchy.
http://www.womanist-musings.com/2009/02/radical-feminism.html
Well, if you accept that theory, yes. But if you do not, then no, actually. Which is to say, there are different theoretical approaches to understanding individual-level and structural-level sexism and it doesn’t necessarily mean that the only approach to conceptualizing how structural-level sexism works is to accept the statement above.
This is another example, to me, of what I think is the disconnect between anti-essentialist feminism in theory and its actual practice — between a feminism that wants to be critical of essentializing conceptions of gender identity by embracing “intersectionality” but then falls into the trap of the endless essentializing of identity anyway.
First, there is the curious desire of the writer to delimit the activity to a conversation, with certain conditions. IF this is the case, then therefore it is sexist — the exercise of power and privilege.
But what is privilege, if not the exercise of power to begin with anyway.
Perhaps the writer actually meant what is a more common expression, sexism is the exercise of gender prejudice plus power or racism is the exercise of racial prejudice plus power. some people use the word stereotype instead.
I am not sure.
In any case, the desire to want to delimit the exercise of power as something that can only happen in specific situations — a particular conversation &between& two parties apparently — seems interesting and worth considering.
What if the conversation were between a white working class straight male and a white working class straight male? What if the black upper class het male uttered the word “bitch” for some reason?
Is the fact that women aren’t directly in the conversation a reason to have… hmmm? … no opinion on the issue since there is no power differential between the two interlocutors?
What if white upper class het woman uttered the words at a white working class transgendered man?
What if the conversation were between a Latino upper class gay man and white working class het man?
In the last example, does ethnicity trump class? Does it matter?
Paper. Scissors. Rock.
In this case, the writer argues that she cannot be sexist because she does not exercise power in the conversation. That is, her identity is not indicative of any sort of power. As a black het woman she cannot have power — at least in comparison to a white het woman.
Now, if it turned out that the women in question were lesbian, would that change the dynamic? Would, in fact, the word “bitch” be used in a sexist way?
Paper. Scissors. Rock.
What if we brought in their class locations? If the black woman is a member of the professional-managerial class, what then?
What about able-bodiedness? What about depression, ADD/ADHD? What about cisgendered status? What about sexuality — as in BDSM? Religion? Ethnicity? Would an Indian male computer programmer from a wealthy Indian family be exercising power if the conversation were with a white female vice president of human resources in the company for which he works?
Paper. Scissors. Rock.
You see:
paper in relation to rock, always has power over rock.
paper in relation to scissors, always has no power over scissors.
By reverting to social location — by reverting to a subject-position — in order to adjudicate what is sexist, we still invest identities with an essential and enduring thingness.
And we’re still investing *power* in individuals, rather than structures.
Which is fine, if you’re not critical of essetializing political theory and practices. But if you are… not so good.
shag carpet bomb is
Email this author | All posts by shag carpet bomb
Hey Shag, how I love your stuff ! It had been a while, so it’s good to remember this…
I recently emailed you (old address probably), cos I was linking to “another old blog of yours” from a French marxist forum, and wanted to know stuff. Anyway, if you can email me, that would be great.
Shag, you are a genius. Fabulous analysis of essentializing power! The irony is that the so-called “bitch” IS a black, non-het (but not lesbian), spinster female. So if anyone had privilege in the exchange it was the heterosexual speaker!!
As a black het woman she cannot have power — at least in comparison to a white het woman.
Now, if it turned out that the women in question were lesbian, would that change the dynamic? Would, in fact, the word “bitch” be used in a sexist way?
For the record, said black het woman called an entire class of women (of all races, economic class, and sexual-preferences) bitches. She specifically said radical feminists are hateful bitches. Radical feminists come in all races and economic classes. In this incident, in particular the woman she was addressing as a bitch and then later allowed an Oreo comment to come through is a black female separatist.