To the extent that women are enslaved, so too men are enslaved. The oppression of one individual or one group is the oppression of all individuals and all groups. Solidarity marks the sexes. In sexism we all die, both victim and victor. In liberation we all live equally as human beings.-Phyllis Trible, "Depatriarchalizing in Biblical Interpretation," p. 35
Feminism is, more often than not, seen as a "women's movement." Comprised of oppressed women, looking for a way out of a patriarchal society, sexist traditions, misogynistic norms, it is often assumed that only women carry the feminist flag.
Although this article has more to do with feminism and the eradication of patriarchy in a specifically religious context, that quote struck me. Hard.
A community, no matter what divisions, or the members of it, is still a community. While feminists may exist within their own sub-community, it's important to acknowledge that we aren't detached from the greater, still patriarchal, community. In fact, if we were, it wouldn't still be an issue; there wouldn't still be a need for feminism. Those who strive for liberation from patriarchy could simply move into a "safe space," of their own volition. There would be no difficulty in doing so, because separate societies would maintain separate worlds (in an ideal setting). However, people sometimes forget that we are still surrounded by others.
What this quote does, is to give context to the idea that if one member of a society is oppressed, victimized, stigmatized, or in any way discriminated against, so is every other member of that society. It puts an emphasis on the importance of groupwork and collaboration; something that the women's movement and its lack of solidarity with those "outsiders" is often found in want of. In an oppressive society, members are relegated to one of two roles: the oppressed, or the oppressor. In a patriarchal society, men are seen as dominant, superior, oppressive; women are seen as submissive, inferior, and oppressed. There isn't a whole lot of grey space for those who fall in between. So what happens to men who refuse to play the role of oppressor? While they can't avoid male privilege, even if they may want to, they make a conscious effort to minimize the damage they do towards their female colleagues. What about women who treat even other women as their inferiors? I.e., cisgender, heteronormative women who treat transgender women or otherwise queer women as something inherently less because they don't represent the picturesque ideal of femininity. Is it possible to be both the oppressor and the oppressed? White women are often seen in this role; oppressed by white men, but oppressive to women of color.
That was tangential. My point is, as long as there are still roles of oppressed and oppressor, victim and victor, Trible is correct. The society, at large, remains within confines and is limited by such roles. Without the eradication of these concepts, no individual, let alone community, will be free from such division and imprisonment. Sometimes we forget that "working together" extends to those beyond simply the "women's movement," but we have to remember to eliminate patriarchy as a social institution, we have to get all of society involved.
Let this serve as a reminder to myself and hopefully to any of you who might have forgotten the real definitions of inclusivity and collaboration.
I guess my first reaction is connected to the role of "othering" in the dynamics of the oppressor and the oppressed. Can the roles of the oppressed and oppressor ever really be eradicated without the simultaneous destruction of othering? Specifically in the example of white women and women of color, I feel that there can be significant strides to be inclusive, to collaborate, to work together with women of color and yet some form of othering will still occur. Even if the community is benevolent and steps are taken by white women to refuse the role of the oppressor. Like you said, privilege is not something that can be avoided. As such, there is no place where anyone can step out of their privilege and be "equal" to those they are oppressing, consciously or otherwise. Even those making conscious efforts to limit the damage they inflict on the oppressed hints at those subtleties of privilege and othering. White men can consciously choose to limit the damage perpetuated against their female colleagues, sure, but they also have the privilege to do so because of their "higher" position/title/influence/status is society. Similarly, white women who allow spaces for women of color, queer women and transwomen also have the privilege as the majority, as the "Face of Feminism" to initiate these changes. They are already at the table, already being heard and have the ability to influence their peers to also refuse the role of the oppressor. I am not sure if inclusivity is always the same as working together. And I am even more reluctant to accept the possibility of productive collaboration. I am unable to shake the sense that the oppressed groups have simply been invited to the party but they didn't *plan* it, so to speak, that their influence/presence/voice is somehow less than because it hasn't been there as long. But I think you are right to remember that these questions and examples really are ultimately linked to societal problems. I don't know if I had any cogent points in this long thing at all. Perhaps I should end this ramble by saying that my problem is simply with society. I think that feminist communities can be as inclusive, collaborative as they possibly can and still be unsuccessful at eliminating the roles of oppressed and oppressor until these roles are eliminated in all society.
ReplyDeleteSo the question then becomes one that everyone's been asking for ages. How do we get rid of the othering that perpetuates it?
DeleteIs there a way to do that, or is it really just a futile imagining of a Utopia we'll never have?
What are steps we can take towards this eradication? For both of us, this is relevant. As members of the "sub-othered," queer women of color, what steps can we take to mark the path?
I think it's important for the "sub-others" to stay in the conversation, even if at times, it can feel unwelcoming or painful. We talk a lot about changing the system from within, and in the end, isn't that what we're trying to do?
I think the responsibility still largely falls on us to show everybody else the flaws in their designs, and I know, at least personally, that responsibility can feel taxing. Even I am privileged by appearance, because if I so choose, I can easily neglect my Judeo-Latina heritage because I still appear "white." However, once my family comes up, it becomes much harder, not only for others to ignore, but also for myself. Particularly on the Latina side of my family, I have strong ties to third-world economics and living conditions, but because of how I look and where I live now, I often feel guilty when I try to identify with that aspect. Sometimes I have to remind myself that I still have a role to play in these discussions, and I try to do so by being very open with every aspect of my identity.
I definitely agree with the idea that inclusivity and honest collaboration aren't always synonymous. In fact, hardly ever. But someone has to bridge the gap, and maybe conversations like these are one way of starting to do just that.