Feminism in America was from its inception permeated with classism and racism. Sojourner Truth’s entreaty “Ain’t I a Woman” was a plaintive cry out to a movement that had by and large overlooked women of colour, immigrant women and women trapped in sweatshops. The working poor and the unemployed poor, unwed mothers, widows not only had no place at the table in 19th century American feminism but were covertly and frequently overtly excluded from not only the benefits of the “sisterhood” but also from the “sisterhood” itself.
The”sisterhood” of the 19th century, those women of privilege brought into being a style of feminism that narcissistically mirrored the privileged places in American society that they occupied. Often the wives of prominent man, their feminism was aimed at attaining the privileges held by their white Anglo-Saxon Protestant husbands. But, in addition to already possessing many of the social privileges of their husbands, they tragically reflected the prejudices of the narrow segment of community that brought them forth.
Successive waves of American feminism were built upon the bedrock`of this classist and racist movement. Overt hostility gave way to arrogant neglect. From its inception, the stratified hierarchy of American feminism, motivated by an arrogant sense of noblesse oblige functioned in loco parentis, that is seemingly with the powers of a parent over the agenda of women, whose issues and lives they were wholly out of touch with and made no effort to understand except in terms of their own culture and experience. The faces remained largely Caucasian; the issues remained largely upper middle class. At a time that women of color, immigrant women and single mothers were struggling for survival, mainstream feminism continued to be preoccupied with breaking the glass ceilings, pay equality for executives and reproductive rights. With HIV sweeping through women of color, American feminism politely ignored growing epidemic.
There have been repeated demands and pleas for change; the shortcomings of the feminist movement had been pointed out not only by the Right, which delights in doing so but also by the left, whose diverse spectrum is barely represented at all in the leadership of the feminist movement.
The structure of the movement is hierarchical and therefore vertical. Its goals have been defined from the time of its inception through the modern era by a leadership that in a very real sense rules sometimes more, and sometimes less benevolently over the image, demands, and agenda that it presents to the world on behalf of a majority of women far different than itself
Spanish feminism, as opposed to this, developed as a popular and populist movement of women living with nearly feudal oppression, dispossession and disadvantage. Closely tied with it were the first women attending universities in the country in many instances. It was philosophically allied with humanism, socialism and even anarchism.
As a horizontal rather than a vertical structure, as a populist rather than an elitist movement and based on a fundamental premise of mutual support and improving the welfare of all women as opposed to attaining privileges associated with empowered white males for a select few, Spanish feminism or horizontal feminism is more egalitarian and inclusive with a heavy emphasis upon nurturing support in assisting and uplifting an entire sisterhood with close attention to the individual needs of daily life as opposed to abstract ideals and privilege.
The issues of race inequality have to be addressed for horizontal feminism to truly function; women have the obligation be cognizant of and lend themselves to the improvement of the condition of their sisters as part of the improvement of the condition of women as a whole. Healthcare, child care, safety from assault, employment equality all become issues for the entire movement. The agenda is generated from the far reaches of the community through the center to the opposite side, permeating the whole with a co-responsibility for human welfare
There is one defining feature of the group, the divine feminine, esprit feminine or woman’s spirit. To truly function, to truly reflect the nature of women as a whole, the group must be inclusive, must be diverse and must reflect both empathy and advocacy for the entire membership.
It is time to finally part with the fatally flawed structure that has been the model of American feminism and embrace a different, inclusive, co-responsible model, horizontal feminism too and the racial and class distinctions that poison the well of women’s rights
August 27, 2009 at 7:49 pm
How can you argue from ANY position with respect to “vertical feminism” without implicitly using BOTH and analysis of “privilege” and an analysis of “power relationships”?
How can you even assert that “horizontal feminism” is better than “vertical feminism” without use such an analysis?
How can you make any of the claims that you do make–well, of course, you can–with any intellectual rigour?
But I suppose you will dismiss this.
August 28, 2009 at 7:03 am
Not at all, Jessica, I will address it. I can argue from the position because the bsis of horizontal feminism implies a co-responsibility to nurture, support and recognise a commonality. Basis issues of priviledge, employment, safety and housing, become the responsibility of the entire community to attain for all of the members.
Admittedly derived from anarcho-feminism, inherent in the concept is the realisation that the disaccomodation of any part of the community of women is a weakening of the entire community and to strengthen the community then all of the women must take steps to improve the condition.
I thinkt hat part of our difficulty in understanding each other is that we come from two completely differing backgrounds and sets of experiences as far as our education in and exposure to feminism. We do not share a common language in this regard, and this is in no way a slam to you, it more of a shortcoming of my own, reared in Continental European feminism(separate from UK)and having never completely understood American feminism, because of the disdain that I have for its inherent elitism and racial dismissiveness
August 28, 2009 at 8:11 am
I believe the starting point of feminism in North America–one which few “women” actually had a part in–were the ‘bitching’ or consciousness-raising sessions.
Out of these came the awareness of power-relationships on the one hand and privilege–male privilege–on the other.
Cultural differences are the inevitable result of, well, different cultures.
One of the goals of social work is to work at cultural competency–not always succeeded or even understood. Feminism is very much a part of the practice and theory of social work.
But my point, which I don’t believe you have addressed, is that out of one’s taking ownership of being a woman and coming to one’s self-esteem–a difficult process given the oppressed state of being a woman, and yes, being a woman of transsexual history–comes is empowerment.
This empowerment is entangled with understanding privilege and power relations.
This is the gift of feminism to all those who struggle against oppression. What has been absorbed into what is called anti-oppression practice and theory.
Feminists work in all parts of the “woman’s movement,” including those we both have challenged. These women do the Goddess’s work in their lives and in living their lives.
What they–we–do with our lives after taking possession of our empowerment is not for another to say.
This just gets us back to where we started.
August 27, 2009 at 8:43 pm
Maura, Honey, you’re right on the money with this one. Speaking as an old Women’s Studies major (and degree holder), it’s a serious problem in feminism, your “sisters” looking down their snouts at you. I daresay it’s one of the main reasons why I have not been active in women’s issues in any meaningful way since then.
May 12, 2010 at 4:47 pm
Hi Maura,
Interesting article, I don’t agree with all of your assertions, naturally, but I believe that can only be a positive thing. It’s a mark of the stronghold and importance now given to understanding the history of feminism as affects all sub-cultures of women worldwide, that it is given so much importance in the study of Gender today, which so very often becomes merged with what was once known as ‘women’s studies’ (what could be more un-feminist than a gendered subject?)
Issues of inequality in feminism are, In my opinion, addressed in a more balanced manner alongside gender studies as a whole, which of course is interlinked with politics, race and class. I find it impossible to address feminism today without giving a lot of attention to the way not only women are treated by men, but also by other women, and more often than not, how men are now treated by women.
‘Jessica’s’ comments with you above are also very interesting, with her enforcement of our recognition of ‘taking ownership of being a woman;’ I found this a very poignant aspect, perhaps missing from your article above. It would be interesting to hear more from you on that. After all, we do unfortunately live in a world where some women are still made to feel like second-class citizens, not only by a patriarical society, but also by their fellow women, whose hierarcy in their own ‘sub-class’ has a huge influence on self belief and the willingness to stand out, in the feminist sense, as a woman, to say ‘I am here, I am a woman, and I deserve to be your equal’ – culturally, this is unfortunately far from a reality for many women today.
I look forward to reading more from you.
September 20, 2010 at 8:09 pm
[…] either the help of his wife, or the heretofore often forgotten Carla.Question: how often do the white, second-wave feminists of the 1960s forget the role of class and race privilege in their struggle? That the suburban […]