I’m grateful to the Reproductive Health Reality Check blog for reposting this morning my little piece on early motherhood and “false intimations of tragedy.”
And while I was away for the holiday, Jessica Valenti put up a short link at Feministing to my post from several weeks ago, one in which I reported on my students’ enthusiastic responses to her Full Frontal Feminism.
Many of the prominent “women of color” bloggers in the feminist blogosphere clearly don’t read my blog regularly. They do read Feministing, however, and starting on Thanksgiving a number of folks began to weigh in. Old criticisms of Jessica’s book reappeared, as well as strong words about my pedagogy. See here, here, here, here, and here.
I suppose another post is due sometime soon on what it means for a middle-aged, middle-class white man to teach women’s studies to mostly female, mostly non-white, mostly working-class students. I’ve dealt with that topic in previous posts, but I’m happy to bring it up again, and I will do so this week or next.
I did want to respond to one particular challenge that appeared in this comment. Michelle writes:
IMO You need to directly connect your students to the discussions that have gone on about this on the web.
IMO you need to do this by actively, directly and respectfully collaborating with the actual people who have offered these critiques. You know who they are, yes?
So. Ask them: What specifically would they like your students to read and in what format? Ask them and then assign it. What questions would they like your students to discuss based on this situation? Ask them and have those discussions in your classroom (with respect, not to discredit them and you know what I mean). What kind of follow-up, if any, do they want to see? Ask them and do it.
It is indeed too late for me to revisit FFF this semester (I have only four class meetings left, and every second of those is packed). But I’m going to accept Michelle’s challenge for the spring semester, beginning in February, when I will once again be assigning Full Frontal Feminism to my classes. In the spring, I will teach the book again. I will also assign a packet of criticisms of the book — indeed, I will do what I have been taught to do since I was an undergraduate, which is to “teach the controversy.” Assuming that the critics of FFF leave up their posts, I will provide links to those pieces, and actively encourage my students to participate in the broad discussion that this book created. That discussion will take place in the classroom, but also — I hope — online.
A few of my students read my blog, most don’t. Perhaps I erred in not informing my students about the controversy surrounding Full Frontal Feminism. Though I am absolutely convinced that my students’ generally enthusiastic responses to Jessica’s book were both genuine and uncoerced, I think it makes sense to expose them to other voices. I’m going to continue to assign and recommend FFF, but I’m very interested in “teaching the controversy” — which means collaborating with vital and interested figures in the blogosphere (Jessica herself, BlackAmazon, Brownfemipower, and so on).
My main syllabus for the spring is already set, folks, so please don’t ask me to change my assigned readings. But suggestions on how to structure a rich, civil, and productive exchange with my students about race, sex, feminism and the controversy that this one particular book has generated would be very, very welcome. You can email me at dochugoboy(at)hotmail.com, or put comments below here.
Hello,
I’ve been a lurker for a while on this blog and several of the other feminist/womanisit/women of color blogs mentioned in this post. I have decided to de-lurk, because with all due respect Hugo, I think you are missing the point.
“A few of my students read my blog, most don’t. Perhaps I erred in not informing my students about the controversy surrounding Full Frontal Feminism. Though I am absolutely convinced that my students’ generally enthusiastic responses to Jessica’s book were both genuine and uncoerced, I think it makes sense to expose them to other voices. I’m going to continue to assign and recommend FFF, but I’m very interested in “teaching the controversy” — which means collaborating with vital and interested figures in the blogosphere (Jessica herself, BlackAmazon, Brownfemipower, and so on).” (not sure how to do that insert thingy)
Your students should not have to be blog readers, of your blog of any blog, to receive a balanced and measured critique of FFF. And I mean critique in the sense of both positive and negative comments about the book. I think the goal of any educator should be to challenge their students, especially when they so readily accept any text as gospel (not saying this happened with your students). These crtiques should not be seen merely as “critiques from the blogosphere” but reviews and criticisms about this book from academics, scholars, activists, and plain ol’ regular folk who read the book. To suggest that you will “teach the controversy” minimizes these individuals’ opinions and perspectives as separate issues from how great this book is.
In addition, in some ways it doesn’t matter if your students responses were “genuine and uncoerced,” because as my people say “they don’t know no better.” When I was a child, I loved watching the Cosby show because I was delighted to see black people on tv. Now that I am older, I now recognize how that show was problematic in various ways.
To be clear, I am not saying that nonwhite students who are down with feminist theory can not enjoy or fully “feel” FFF, I’m sure there are women and men who do. And I am not saying that a “lay” person can not find FFF problematic. However, I think it is quite understandable if young people overall have a good impression of this book, especially those who have not been exposed to a lot of third wave, post-feminist, whatever you want to call it work. This work can be even more salient when it talks about women of color. I don’t think you have to take away your students’ liking of FFF, but you can at least complicate the picture.
Lastly, the sentence “Perhaps I erred in not informing my students about the controversy surrounding Full Frontal Feminism” is equivocation that borders on insult. I say this because either you believe you erred or you believe you didn’t; “perhaps” you are unsure. However that sentence doesn’t express uncertainity, it conveys the feeling that you “deign” to address your critics’ concerns in a diplomatic, yet dismissive way.
I majored in Women’s Studies and I remember one course, Feminist Theory, where the professor made a point of telling us that this class was structured and moderated by her, but that the knowledge we’d learn in the class was created by us in a collaborative effort. We always sat in a circle and she’d guide the discussion but she never lectured.
At the beginning of the semester she had an open syllabus. That is, there were a few assigned readings and lots of “choose your reading” assignments where we could choose to read one thing from a list. In the open readings, we’d share what we learned from that reading with the rest of the class who hadn’t read it. It was a great way to divide up the work and share knowledge as well as make the course feel tailor-made to the students.
Oh Elaine, how I wish I could get my 50 students in a circle. Remember, folks, the size of the class!
godschoclate, it was my intent to express uncertainty, not to be patronizing.
What godschocolate said.
And let me just add this: I can’t imagine why any one of the woman of color bloggers who’ve taken the time to write such comprehensive critiques of your initial post would accept an “invitation” to “assist” you in “teaching the controversy” for the following reasons:
1. You don’t (or CHOOSE not to) understand their critiques or take them seriously.
2. You insult them by assuming that they “don’t read” your blog “regularly” (a twin assertion of white peoples’ intent maneuver, as in: “you didn’t understand what I really meant.”
3. You follow it up by asserting that you’re going to post on what it means for a “middle-aged, middle-class white man to teach women’s studies to mostly female, mostly non-white, mostly working-class students.” Have you ever considered that you don’t know what it means because your social position that you’ve described makes it impossible for you to truly find out? Why don’t you listen for real to the women of color who’ve had to sit through white male professors teaching women’s studies classes? And listen to the women of color who are not under your grading authority, nor graduate and then must rely on you for letters of recommendation.
Furthermore, I don’t know why you think it’s acceptable for you, as a white man who’s being paid to teach this course, to “invite” women of color bloggers who’ve made these critiques to DO YOUR WORK FOR YOU FOR FREE when you’ve just written a post completely and utterly dismissing them.
Please.
Hugo:
1. My comment suggested that you give over some decision-making power to the people you have been treating like objects. That you ask them for direction, with the respect and humility that asking would entail, and that you take that direction if they are willing to provide it.
You not only are not going to to this, but you posted that and then ignored it.
Your approach is NOT what I suggested, Hugo. Make no mistake about it, you are twisting and distorting what I said, coming up with actions that don’t require you to give up your practice of white and male privilege and the violence that entails, and evading the hard work here.
And you’re already framing this as about controversy over FFF. This is not a universal way to see it. In fact it is very biased. But you have nonetheless taken the reins and decided what it is about, and will be presenting it to your students with this lens presented as if it is “what is going on.”
2. Assuming that the critics of FFF leave up their posts, I will provide links to those pieces, and actively encourage my students to participate in the broad discussion that this book created.
First see #1 above. Second: Again you are framing it. Did the book create this? Interesting and not-universal causal statement there, Hugo. That’s not the only way to see it, as you very well know. But that’s what you’re going to bring to/push on your students because you have already decided what this is about.
3. But suggestions on how to structure a rich, civil, and productive exchange with my students about race, sex, feminism and the controversy that this one particular book has generated would be very, very welcome.
Framing, uninterrupted privileged bias all over the place here from you, Hugo
Example: the word “controversy” again
Example: The words “civil” and “productive”
(nice plausible denialbity there, because who could argue with such benign-sounding words — but I see the ugly communication underneath that, all part of your twisted framing of the situation to suit yourself and your biased/twisted story about what is going on)
4. My main syllabus for the spring is already set, folks, so please don’t ask me to change my assigned readings.
Your unwillingness to open up with your syllabus at all, for a class that starts in Feb, is evasion. You can play Big Professor all you want, but I have worked with classes and syllabi and I know from actual lived experience that you could totally use this situation as an opportunity to challenge yourself and that you’re just game-playing here.
5. indeed, I will do what I have been taught to do since I was an undergraduate, which is to “teach the controversy.”
Oh and to top it all off — You are blanketing/justifying your control-hold with your expertise, Hugo. You know what to do! You’re an expert! You’ve already learned “what to do” and you can comfortably rest in control of it.
Well, that might feel nice to you but Hugo, it’s a LIE.
This is what you’re doing now: Spin-doctoring. You’re making the (not very convincing) appearance of something different while retaining all of the bias and control, all of the practices and comforts of white supremacy and patriarchy, that you have had all along.
Anyway, again, to repeat: this post and your suggested actions are not in any way a real response to my original comment, and shame on you for trying to make it look that way.
Also, I think a fully balanced intro to feminism is especially difficult. The class I described above was not an intro class and certainly would not be taught at a community college. The main criticism I have of FFF is that I think it’s mis-titled. It’s not a “full” representation of feminism, or even a full intro. It’s an amuse bouche, a taste of a more complete feminism meal, but only one meal from one chef and not at all representative of feminist food (theory = food in this analogy).
But it’s a VERY easy read and that makes it especially accessible, which is great for students or for people who have no understanding of feminism. Jessica misses a lot of points and draws hasty conclusions, but overall, I think it’s a good book for it’s intended audience: those new to feminism.
Michelle, you give me little hope that we can close the vast gulf here. I’m making a good faith effort to engage the critics of FFF in dialogue, and you use the loaded phrase “white supremacy” in return. If you think I am well-intentioned but deeply misguided (which is a widely held view), then we can do something good.
But when you use the term “white supremacy”, you’ve stooped to some really ugly and undeserved name calling. If you really think I’m a David Duke figure, then I suspect we have no chance of creating anything good out of this FFF kerfuffle. And that would be disappointing, as good could come from a vigorous and frank exchange of views.
And no, I’m not going to “ask for direction”. I’m asking for suggestions, for input — but you’re darned tootin’ right that I’m retaining final decision-making authority over what goes on in my classroom.
De-lurking to say, Hugo, perhaps it’s time for a Privilege 101 response - take a break, take a breath, re-read and ask - am I getting defensive and shutting down discussion?
In your comment at 12:43 you are refusing to engage with Michelle’s point, and instead focusing on the language she used - and giving it the most uncharitable interpretation possible. If she had said “white privilege” rather than “white supremacy” would you have reacted the same way? Did you honestly take from her comment that she thinks your views are similar to David Duke? Why would you assume that? Why would you assume that she thinks that rather than thinking that you’re “well-intentioned but deeply misguided”? Absolutely nothing about her comment makes me think she thinks that you are a “David Duke.” To my reading it is equally possible that she thinks you’re well-intentioned but deeply misguided. And that she is more upset by your mis-guidedness than she is appreciative of your good intentions.
Personally, I think her comment is precisely the kind of “vigorous and frank” exchange of views that could lead to something good. If you can let your defenses go and hear what she’s saying.
What struck me in your post, as Michelle points out, is that you are asking other people to do the work of making your class more comprehensive. In the same post, you ask for help but then tell people they can’t suggest any additional readings! How, exactly, are they supposed to do that? And even if you can’t (or won’t) change the spring syllabus, wouldn’t the information be useful for future iterations of the class?
You already have access to the blog posts. You could contact the authors of such posts and ask to use their work in a packet of criticism. You could ask them if they have any further thoughts they’d like included. And you could be appreciative of whatever assistance they’re willing to provide. “Asking for direction” in no way means you won’t have final say over what gets taught in your class. It means that you are seeking direction to do the work yourself, rather than asking someone to come to your blog and do it for you. Even if you didn’t mean it that way, that’s the way your post came accross. “OK, come tell me what to do - but don’t suggest I change my syllabus” I can certainly see why Michelle reacted so strongly to it.
No one is saying you’re David Duke. Believe that, and see if the comment has anything useful to teach you.
hoo boy. Hugo, “white supremacy” is not meant to imply one is David Duke any more than “patriarchy” is meant to imply that one is the leader of the Promise Keepers. It’s a construct in anti-racist discourse. A really basic one. That right there is…something that’s not that hard to know about, if you’d been paying attention to what bfp and BA and Sylvia and kai and many others who came before them actually say. That’s kind of, you know, the problem.
Emily, yes, it would have made a colossal difference if Michelle had used the phrase “white privilege” instead of “white supremacy.” They are — to me — two totally different things. The latter refers to a specific racialist ideology, the former to the ways in which well-intentioned WASPs might fail to see the implications of their words or actions. I did re-read Michelle’s comment and mentally redacted that one phrase, and find myself much less angry as a consequence.
Let me clarify: the books for the class have all been ordered. The bookstore deadline is closed. That doesn’t mean I can’t still put together a packet of xeroxed stuff, even at my own expense. I’m not looking for a primer on feminism and race, but I am willing to incorporate suggestions for how to talk about FFF and the reaction to it. And for future iterations of the class, suggestions on a reading list are always helpful. My reading is not as up to date as it coule be, as I still tend to think of the work of bell hooks and Gloria Anzaldua first when it comes to woc critiques of feminism.
Emily, yes, it would have made a colossal difference if Michelle had used the phrase “white privilege” instead of “white supremacy.” They are — to me — two totally different things. The latter refers to a specific racialist ideology, the former to the ways in which well-intentioned WASPs might fail to see the implications of their words or actions. I did re-read Michelle’s comment and mentally redacted that one phrase, and find myself much less angry as a consequence.
Hugo, I would just like to say that this comment is precisely what most of the criticism around this post and the last one are talking about. “Intent” is not the point. It never has been, and I think that most white people have to have this hammered into their heads several times before they get it (I did), so let me repeat it: Intent is not the point. In fact, intent generally means jack-shit. It doesn’t matter to the people you’ve offended. It doesn’t matter to the people who are victims of your privilege and prejudice. It doesn’t matter because they’ve heard it all before and all those words do is scream that you’re not listening.
I’ve learned this the hard way, by making comments like this and getting called out on them. It sucked, but I’m a much better person for the fact that those who called me on my shit did so and then stuck around to talk with me about how to do better.
It’s no one’s job to stick around and tell you how to not be an asshole, which is why I’m so grateful to the women who took that time with me. But I’m telling you this because I don’t think that you’re a lost cause, and this point is one of many that is essential to not becoming one. If you’re genuine about looking for direction, there it is (both from me and from the other commenters). I in no way pretend to be the prototype of an anti-racist white feminist, but I do know this much for sure: stop talking about your intent and start owning up to what you’ve said/done.
You shouldn’t assume we haven’t read you, Hugo. Maybe not every post or all that often but we are aware of some of your writing especially concerning race and it has us tearing our hair out. Like how you use Chisholm. There are moments in my life that I know I am being discriminated or attacked based on being female, others because of skin color/ethnicity. I’m sure Chisholm understood that too but she lived a life unlike many others, so the fact that she felt the weight of oppression more strongly based on sexism doesn’t mean that she would ever negate another woman of color’s opinion or experience if she said it was more difficult for her based on race…which is what you are doing by interpreting her words in the specific way that you do. Chisholm is basing this on running for office, most of the rest of us don’t do that, we are basing our experiences on looking for jobs, or apartments, or run ins with the law. A white woman would have an easier time than any of us, so what do you think our experience is?
If Chisholm had said that she thought that racism was worse than sexism, would you have become some great anti-racist educator? I don’t think you would have, you’d still be teaching women’s studies and be looking for some other black/brown woman to confirm your beliefs that sexism trumps racism. She said what you wanted to hear and you didn’t bother to look further or more deeply. No oppression trumps the other, that’s why most of us will refer to discussions like this derisively as the oppression olympics. You should further your own education by picking up a course or book on intersectionality, so you will see how they intertwine, echo, and magnify each other.
Hugo,
The main objective to keep in mind in all of this is to bear in mind that, whether the criticisms of you are valid or not, you will never please the three self-proclaimed spokespersons for the WOC community because they need targets. Since you’re a white male who writes about feminism, you are a target. If you do better on one thing, you’ll just get criticized about another thing. If any of these three women actually wanted you to do better, they would have contacted you one-on-one rather than using you as fodder for the hateblog of the day.
Well, jeez louise, hugo, how exactly did you get a gig teaching feminism without a familiarity of the phrase “white supremacy” outside of klan-like racism. Do you even know who bell hooks is, man? I know I shouldn’t be surprised, I know this is the same dang song, but GET-IT-TOGETHER-ALREADY!
This is why bfp insisted on having the conversation less about the book and more about the state of women’s studies in general. Where are we at when a teacher of feminist studies doesn’t understand the concept of white supremacy? Which means he doesn’t know how to teach it. Which means that women’s studies departments do not demand that instructors have a grasp on the concept and its corresponding chemistry with gender and feminism. Which centers white women and white men. Like you, hugo. Mirrorless, indeed.
Not so much about the book, hugo. More about the fact that you’ve got a shitload of homework to do. Way more than your students, I’m afraid. Worse yet, if this is a reflection of our women’s studies departments, that a teacher can’t deal with the phrase “white supremacy” without freaking out…god. Redact this, hugo.
It’s a privilege to be here. *ROTFLMAO* White people are so funny in all of their irony!
I’m glad you’re having fun, since that’s the only thing the public hateblogging approach accomplishes.
thatgirl wrote: Well, jeez louise, hugo, how exactly did you get a gig teaching feminism without a familiarity of the phrase “white supremacy” outside of klan-like racism. Do you even know who bell hooks is, man? I know I shouldn’t be surprised, I know this is the same dang song, but GET-IT-TOGETHER-ALREADY!
I was SO hoping someone would post about this. And I didn’t know quite how to put it but — um, yeah. It’s like a parody, except it’s not.
(Hugo, a hint: in addition to the broader use of this phrase, thatgirl’s reference to bell hooks in this context is not a random example)
More about the fact that you’ve got a shitload of homework to do. Way more than your students, I’m afraid.
Serious truth!
IAPTBH, I don’t think anyone here is lacking in people without consciousness of racism or sexism to be “targets.”
Hugo, you say you’re not looking for a primer on race and feminism. I could be misinterpreting, but I think this implies that you think you’ve already gotten a primer on race and feminism, completed the course, filled that distribution requirement. Several intelligent, experienced, knowledgeable bloggers and commenters, woc & white women, have suggested a.) you sure haven’t gotten even the basics down. b.) it’s not something you can finish with, because it’s not actually a course or a distribution requirement, but a part of the core of how power and privilege operate and moreover about people’s lives. Given this, please don’t try to limit how much you might need to learn or change, which questions you’re willing to hear answers to. That’s what I see you trying to do here, in that you have heavily framed what you are looking for in terms of responses, that every time you have written on this post you have mentioned something you DON’T want to hear, a type of challenge or critique you are NOT willing to tolerate.
Let me say that I am very familiar with the hooks essay about questioning “white supremacy”. But the way hooks uses the phrase is not how most people understand the phrase (look up “white supremacy” on Wikipedia), and my reaction was rooted at least in part in how the term would appear to those who knew only its popular meaning!
I am teachable, which is why I opened this thread in the first place. I’m not going to list all the books on/by WOC I’ve read, because — clearly — there’s nothing more ineffectual than throwing credentials around. I’ve done it before, too often (talking about how Cherrie Moraga was my professor at Cal; how Norma Alarcon changed my life; or, even worse, going on and on about my Afro-Colombian wife and my black and Latin relatives. That kind of name-dropping is embarrassing and, understandably, infuriating.) Again, I’m teachable — which is why I’m reading all these comments and, despite my discomfort with “white supremacy” as a term, doing my best not to be reactive but to simply read.
Again, I’m open to any suggestions folks choose to make. Whatever happens, I’m going to be blogging next semester about my students’ reaction to both FFF and the blogosphere controversy that it sparked. How that discussion gets framed is still very much up in the air.
I learned long ago that one learns more from criticism than from praise. Of course, there’s a wee bit of white male privilege in that too…
In any event: thanks, all! This is good and useful stuff for me to ponder.
I am going to be very very restrained right now. Seriously.
As the person who made the initial comment you reference, I feel it is my responsibility to say this now:
I myself personally DO NOT recommend that anyone assist you with your project. I feel you are and will be using people, and that you are continuing to play some very very ugly games.
What I see is that you are not using communication to actually communicate with other actual beings. You use it spin-doctor, to blur things up, to obfuscate, to deceive — but ultimately, you use communication as a mode of domination with you as the ultimate human and others as objects for your use.
In my perspective, you are not coming from a place of good faith. At all.
I have the same problems now with what you’re doing and where you’re coming from as I had when I posted my first comment to this thread. Teachable is as teachable DOES and your word-claims in that last comment clearly contradict what you do.
Michelle, it’s truly remarkable how you and some of my most virulently right-wing men’s rights critics have come to exactly the same conclusions about my bona fides and my character!
Thank you, in any event, for provoking me to think once more about some vital issues. It’s been a bit painful, but it’s been very stimulating. Be well.
Ms. Wingtips writes: “IAPTBH, I don’t think anyone here is lacking in people without consciousness of racism or sexism to be “targets.””
No, you’re not lacking in targets…just targets who will sit there and take it and not fight back.
Because those are the kinds of targets that cowards like.
Huh. Is there a name for the rhetorical device where you claim you aren’t going to say something and in the process of making that claim go ahead and say it?
Sally, I call it the “Chappaquiddick strategy”. Back when Ted Kennedy was running for President in 1980, Jimmy Carter’s aides kept saying “We aren’t going to talk about Chappaquiddick” or “We don’t think it’s relevant to bring up Chappaquiddick”, and of course, they injected “Chappaquiddick” into every sentence. It worked, too, to remind everyone of Ted’s little car accident. (I’m sad that most of my readers are way too young to know what I’m referring to here.)
But yes, I was being moderately playful, and yes, I know it’s not me at my best. It’s been a long day.
There was a scenario that repeated itself during the original FFF discussions that I found fascinating. It got so I’d watch for it, as I wanted to see what happened next. A tiny bit of old history ahead.
First, I think most everyone involved was a feminist of one sort or another… by inclination, by training, in training, supportive male, identified, non identified, womanist, and etc. The vast majority were white.
The original posts written by the more well known white feminists were basically of the “The Enemies of Jessica Are Attacking! DEFEND! DEFEND! And ATTACK too!” variety… with links to a couple of other white sites, feminist as well if I remember correctly, but no links or direct mention of the critiques by the young women of color (or petit p). Of course everyone rushed to defend their blogger and/or fellow feminist from the pernicious horde that was threatening to… I still don’t know what. Not like a book?
But, anyway, by the time the critiques of these three young women were brought into the conversation (and I mean target market young, by the way… I think the oldest was 22), most everyone was in full “ATTACK! DEFEND!” mode. Some listened to what these young women, and the other woc who joined in, had to say right away, engaged in conversation and incorporated their critiques into their views of the book. Others… well, let’s just say it took some a tad longer to reach that point… but that is actually what was so fascinating to watch. For those still in full “defend our little blogger/attack the powerful enemies!” mode, you could practically see it when it clicked in heads, one by one, just who it was they were positioning as the “powerful enemies” here - and for some it was as if they’d hit a brick wall.
Dazed, disoriented, wondering what in the heck they were doing and what had happened but, finally, starting to actually listen to what the woc were saying. And then, some even began to hear. Some wrote about what they heard, others took time off to deal with what had just happened, others leapt back into the fray, but with a completely different outlook, even if they didn’t completely agree with critiques. Of course, this wasn’t everyone… there are still some people who think the entire mess was started by woc (it wasn’t) because they were jealous of Jessica’s book deal and wanted hits on their sites, or something, but one can’t have everything.
When I saw this post here earlier today, I thought… hmm, well that’s a good idea. Maybe. Now, I think probably not, at least not in this form.
From my last visit here I knew that you don’t hear women of color. I was very troubled by this, considering the makeup of your classes. And, at first, hopeful with this post… but I don’t think you can hear woc even now … Donna thinks maybe you’ve been able to hear white women, possibly even the alternate universe Jessica, but I am not so sure.
I still think it’s a good idea for you to include, not the “controversy”, but the views and critiques that BA, Sylvia, bfp and whoever else have written but (and it looks like you’re going to have to do this anyway) I think it would probably be more beneficial for you - and your students - if, instead of having them handed to you in finished form, you had to seek these out yourself, actually read what they are saying, compare these to what the book says or to what other people are saying and (hopefully), in the process, actually begin to hear the women of color.
Who knows… your very own brick wall might be out there waiting for you.
“But suggestions on how to structure a rich, civil, and productive exchange with my students about race, sex, feminism and the controversy that this one particular book has generated would be very, very welcome.”
This sounds as if you are listening and willing to make an effort. Which is a good thing.
However, this is not a good thing because you are missing the main point. Starting with writing by white women (any white woman) leads to a distorted understanding of feminism. It’s a illogical skewing of feminist history over decades of real-world activism.
But that is a choice you’ve already made and will not consider changing. So what can be accomplished in this limited venue? How do feminists of color get a fair hearing in this unfair set up?
Here’s some ideas off the top of my head:
1. Have your students read the writing of a feminist women of color. Ask them to list the concerns that WOC address that are ignored by white feminists.
2. Have your students research a current activist women of color organization. Have them discuss why the books by white feminist women do not address these issues.
3. Have your students read newspapers, magazines, watch TV and count the number of times that the point of view of women of color is presented as compared to that of white women. Have them discuss what gets lost when the debate is framed so narrowly.
4. Ask your students to contact and interview local women of color. Discover whether the issues they raise are the same issues raised in the textbooks that are assigned in women’s studies courses. Ask them to suggest why this descrepancy exists.
5. Probably the most important thing is to provide your students with names and resources for learning about WOC feminists who are active and working today. There’s a lot more out there than This Bridge Called My Back and bell hooks. Give your students the resources to learn more.
Finally, I would say you’d do a great disservice by focusing on the discussions that Jessica’s book inspired rather than focus on the long history of the silencing of women of color in the feminist movement. Jessica isn’t the first to do this and she won’t be the last.
BUT, if you do choose to focus just on Jessica’s book and the discussions that ensued, I’d suggest assigning jona olssen’s Detour-Spotting for White Anti-Racists to your students. I saw every single detour play out in the discussion of FFF. It would provide a great context to your discussion.
Hugo I think that your attempts at understanding women are probably genuine and there may be much about women that you understand very well. However, I think that it is safe to say that you will never understand what women have, and do, go through because you are not one, seems logical to me. Black women have experienced things that no one can fully understand except black women. It is presumptuous and insulting to assume that the intimacies of life as a black woman could be understood by any individuals outside of that group.
I empathize with the historical and present struggles of many different people of both genders and of various ethnicities. I am very careful about commenting on issues regarding culture, ethnicity, and gender because I am aware of the fact that they are very sensitive and personal areas to some, they are to me, I am a woman. No matter how strongly we feel about something sometimes the best thing is to just keep it to ourselves because the risk of deeply offending someone, even if we don’t mean it, is just not worth it.
Hugo, with all due respect -
Calling the outrage and anger that various people expressed at FFF’s initial publication and review a “kerfuffle” is pretty darned dismissive of the criticisms of the book, of Jessica Valenti’s way of handling things, and of the way the White Feminist Blogosphere handled the whole thing.
It’s rude. Don’t be asking people for help and then slapping them with dismissive language about their concerns. It’s counter-productive.
I’m astonished that Hugo hasn’t become irredeemably gunshy in the face of such condemnation.
“No matter how strongly we feel about something sometimes the best thing is to just keep it to ourselves because the risk of deeply offending someone, even if we don’t mean it, is just not worth it. ”
I have to disagree with you here, Elizabeth. The problem isn’t that people make mistakes and fuck up once in awhile, we all do, it’s what you do afterwards that determines whether there is a firestorm or “controversy” or not.
Think of it this way, you’re not paying attention to where you are going, and you step on my foot. You say to me, “I’m sorry! I didn’t mean to hurt you.” but I’m still hopping around going, “Ow! Ow! Ow!” and you scream in my face, “I SAID I DIDN’T MEAN IT!” not only that, but somewhere down the road you are again not watching where you are going and you step on my foot again… see what I mean? Intentions only go so far for one thing, and if you don’t learn from your mistake, or try to turn it around and blame the victim for being “too sensitive” or “making a big deal out of nothing” then your intentions weren’t really all that good to begin with. It’s all about you and making yourself feel better instead about learning from your mistakes or righting a wrong. If you follow these debates and arguments between oppressed groups and privileged people you will see this pattern.
An excellent resource about these patterns is The Unapologetic Mexican’s glossary under Wite Magik Attax. This is of course in the context of what white people do to minimize their racism, dismiss the concerns of people of color, ensure the status quo of white supremacy; but for the most part you could change a word here and there and it would fit almost any dealings between an oppressed group and a privileged group. For example the fallacious flip instead of reading it, as “You’re racist against whites!” a feminist would hear from a sexist man, “You’re a man hater!” or “You’re discriminating against men!”
The glossary entry is here:
http://www.theunapologeticmexican.org/glosario.html#magikattax
Each attax is a clickable link to further description.
By the way, It’s a Privilege to Be Here is using the Insatiable Martyr attax. We’re always looking for a fight and see racism everywhere! (Pssst, it is everywhere. We don’t have to look very hard.)
“It is presumptuous and insulting to assume that the intimacies of life as a black woman could be understood by any individuals outside of that group.”
This seems like a prescription for not teaching women’s studies (or any other “studies”) at all!
Hugo’s gotten himself in a position where he cannot do anything right. Granted, I haven’t followed all the history here, but most of this exchange seems to have little to do with the history, and muchto do with Hugo’s status as a white male of upper-class extraction teaching women’s studies at all. THe only conclusion I can draw from that is hat white women students shouldn’t learn about WOC’s lives, black males shouldn’t learn about white women’s lives, Native American straight students shouldn’t learn about homosexual lives, white lesbians shouldn’t learn about gey men’s lives, and so on — because nobody “outside of that group” can really understand anything meaningful about lives different from theirs.
And that, to me, goes directly against the point of women’s studies, which is that other people’s lives and experiences can be learned and learned from, even if not experienced directly. What’s the point of reading bell hooks or Audre Lorde (today’s assigned readings) if neither I (like Hugo, a white male women’s studies prof, though of somewhat less wealthy background — but still, middle class) nor my students (like Hugo’s, of a variety of backgrounds ranging from poor and black to middle class and Hispanic to privileged and white — to, honestly, explicitly white supremacist in the common understanding of the term) can ever truly understand what they’re saying?
One other thing: there seems to be a lot of pressure here for Hugo’s class to be “complete”. It’s impossible — we have 16 weeks with a bunch of students of unpredictable backgrounds and varying degrees of resistance, and in those few short weeks the best we can hope for is to *introduce* some big ideas. Hugo’s phrasing of ‘teaching the controversy” doesn’t sit well with me, because it’s very noncommittal — but it’s a way to approach material that’s accessible enough for an audience for whom the simple idea that women are *human* may well be radical and new. I see no reason why this kid of material cannot be taught alongside conflicting views (though — and I think Hugo gets this — the controversy isn’t about the book but about the invisibility of WOC concerns and lives in much white feminist thought). But back to my point: we have 16 weeks to introduce these topics, but we have our students’ whole lives for it to sink in. If Hugo’ students read FFF today and 6 years later realize that it doesn’t jibe with their lives at all, Hugo’s class has done its job!
I haven’t sat in Hugo’s class, so maybe I’m way off base — maybe he’s a goose-stepping control freak who will brook no opposition to his One True Way of feminism. But I doubt it — I think Hugo’s a professor struggling to come up with ways to make a class of largely disinterested students who just want to clear off another requirement engage with their lives and their society, which is a pretty tall order.
“THe only conclusion I can draw from that is hat white women students shouldn’t learn about WOC’s lives, black males shouldn’t learn about white women’s lives, Native American straight students shouldn’t learn about homosexual lives, white lesbians shouldn’t learn about gey men’s lives, and so on — because nobody “outside of that group” can really understand anything meaningful about lives different from theirs.”
NO. This is the opposite of what people are trying to say. Look, Hugo and everyone in positions of privilege should listen more and more deeply, talk less and less defensively, accept and read more of what women of color have already written instead of trying to interact with woc in a format like this where he defines the terms and which questions get asked. I don’t think this is in Nezua’s Wite Magik Attax, but this is a pretty common tactic of white people asked to do anti-racist learning-work. Like, “so you’re saying that only people of color really know about racism, but I shouldn’t expect every poc on the planet to be my teacher, so if poc aren’t going to do the work of teaching me about racism, who’s gonna do it? this is impossible.” YOU, fool. Brown people do publish sometimes, you know.
Another problem here is thinking other people’s lives are only worth knowing about if YOU can be the expert, if you can learn everything there is to know and OWN that knowledge. People’s lives are still worth learning about even if it’s never gonna give you a blue ribbon and a seal of approval.
As a youngish white female (can I still claim youngish at 35?), I see something else happening here. What Hugo’s students seem to be finding in FFF is something that speaks to them personally. That there is something in how Jessica expressed herself that speaks to young women, even young WOC. I have barely a surface level of knowledge about the various waves of feminism, but what strikes me is the anger and disdain that each wave/age grouping seems to have for the others. We talk about racism, and sexism, but I haven’t seen a lot of discussion about ageism on this issue.
Is it possible, that young women of color have more in common with young white women than they do with older women of color?
I am a librarian, and I work in an academic library that has about a 47 year spread between the oldest and the youngest workers. The greatest rifts and communication failures I have seen are between people of different generations. I supervise people of an older generation, and find that we have different values, different ways of seeing the world and differnt ways of expressing ourselves. We can get into a fight when we are trying to agree with each other, and we don’t have the potential split of race (and often not the split of gender involved either). It’s maddening, and it may make me more inclines to see this dynamic where it doesn’t exist.
Hi Hugo,
First time commenter here, though I take it from the links in this post that you’ve read at least one of my polemical tirades, hehehe…
I’m not a women’s studies teacher or even particularly expert on feminist history or theory, but I have two modest suggestions in response to your request:
First, I think it’s important in your teachings to situate the origins of the (white affluent US American) feminist movement alongside the work of the abolitionist African American women and anti-colonial Native American women whose struggles and ideas inspired and informed feminism. (BFP, BA, and Sylvia have covered much of this ground in their posts, and often do in their regular writings, as do many of the other exceptional WOC writers cranking out readily accessible material these days.) This is important simply because there’s such a long and tortured (literally) history of white folks taking credit for, benefitting from, and capitalizing on the innovations and creations of people of color; students must see that white feminism demonstrates this dynamic of exploitation and oppression with the same viciousness as the rest of white society.
Second, I think it’s crucial to situate present-day feminism within the struggles of women of color of all cultures, classes, nationalities, backgrounds. I think students must grapple with the question of why so many women of color, who constitute the majority of the world’s women, reject white feminism (i.e. not because of backward traditional cultures but because of backward cultural imperialism); they must grapple with the meaning of women’s rights in a time of war, famine, disease, displacement, racism, nationalism, imperialism, corporatism, neo-colonialism; and they must see that what many white women want is not liberation for all women but rather for white women to have the same power and privilege as white men while the rest of the world retains roughly the same shape.
Have you read Howard Zinn’s People’s History of the US? I’m guessing that you have. Zinn didn’t just take a prior history text and append a few chapters on people of color, women, and the working class; he fundamentally shifted, re-prioritized, and re-organized the entire narrative to more accurately reflect what happened. I think that’s what you should be shooting for here. You’re a scholar, you can do it if you push yourself, cast off cognitive biases and socialization through research and vigilant self-interrogation, stretch your mind.
I’m glad you’ve decided to see this whole episode as an eye-opening challenge, rather than retreat into the comfortable fatuousness of some of your, shall we say, more regressively reactionary commenters. It’s A Privilege, for example, should probably first learn to count past 3, then learn to read English phrases such as “I am not a spokeswoman”, before expecting anyone to waste time trying to make sense of the drool sliding from his quivering bottom lip onto his bib as he hides under mommy’s apron.
Peace.
Kate and Kai, these are good insights, and I will take them seriously. My syllabus is always open for re-vamping, and I’ll be posting about the steps I take to make it more inclusive from the ground up.
I wrote a lot about the issue when it came up the first time. Most of my posts deal with situating the conflicts in their historical and social contexts - the overarching history of racial tension, particularly within feminism, as well as the social history of the feminist and anti-racist blogosphere. You’ll never get a complete picture if you don’t know what people are reacting to and why their responses are so strong. To continue Donna’s metaphor - people are screaming at the top of their lungs because this is the thousandth time their feet have been stepped on, and some of the people doing the stepping should really know better by now.
I have links to nearly every major post that went up during that time period contained in these posts, as well as summaries of the arguments from the different camps. I hope some of them are useful, particularly to those in this thread who insist they know what happened even though they didn’t read any of it when it was going down and don’t seem to know how to use Google.
This post - http://magniloquence.wordpress.com/2007/05/17/i-really-shouldnt-get-into-this/ - goes over the dynamics of the conversation- who said what, to whom, in what order, and what the issues they were talking about were.
This one - http://magniloquence.wordpress.com/2007/05/21/dynamics-of-oppression/ - deals with the ways the dynamic that played out reinscribes the
oppression that WOC face, and how the little tiny micro stuff feeds into the macro arguments that we keep coming back to.
This one - http://magniloquence.wordpress.com/2007/05/21/here-we-go-again/ - brings up a specific issue that cropped up in the discussion (insider/outsider language tensions, or more generally, how to deal with the theory vs. experience thing).
This one - http://magniloquence.wordpress.com/2007/05/21/who-gets-to-have-an-opinion/ - addresses the “who gets to have an opinion” thing that came up a
lot. How does “it’s not FOR you” interact with who we are?
And this one - http://magniloquence.wordpress.com/2007/05/23/quick-thoughts-on-presentation/ - deals with the way the book was presented and targeted, and the way people reacted to it as a result.
The major theme that repeats in all of this is that this was a complex, multi-layered conflict. It’s not just about the cover, it’s not just about WoC and white feminists not understanding each other, it’s not just about people being petty, or a paucity of book deals, or even about the book itself. It’s about all of these things, and more. It’s about the way people interact on a daily basis - who was your friend when so-and-so was being a jerk? which bloggers do you trust to tell you the truth, and which ones will backstab you? who is just doing this to get attention. And yes, it’s about tone, and White Magik Attax, and long histories of privilege and oppression and ire, all happening at once.
This isn’t to suggest that the conflict was incidental, or that there was nothing unique about it - Jessica’s book and conduct absolutely started it and situated it, and the behavior of everyone reacting to her (and reacting to the reactors) is specific and unique to this conflict. Rather, the point is that you can’t just look at it by itself, or it won’t make any sense. If you don’t know how it ties into all of these things - the community issues, the larger dynamics of oppression, the work that was in progress when it happened - then … all you’ve got it a bunch of people talking past each other.
Kate, I think you are missing many points to this issue, but here is one major one:
That there is something in how Jessica expressed herself that speaks to young women, even young WOC. I have barely a surface level of knowledge about the various waves of feminism, but what strikes me is the anger and disdain that each wave/age grouping seems to have for the others. We talk about racism, and sexism, but I haven’t seen a lot of discussion about ageism on this issue.
Is it possible, that young women of color have more in common with young white women than they do with older women of color?
I am not sure how this fact keeps getting lost in the discussions, but the woc (and petitp) who actually read the book and wrote their critiques ARE young women. Not the “28-35 year old” young women, but YOUNG, young women. 20-22 years old. That’s practically a baby, in my world (but don’t tell anyone I said that) - very smart babies, smarter than me, but still.. very YOUNG .
YOUNG women. There are various things going on in all these discussions (and I don’t think anyone has yet argued that no one, including young women of color, should like the book itself… just that it was missing a lot), but maybe if we can just get this one point across to many, it will help.
The original critiques were done by YOUNG women, who were (supposedly) in the target market for the book, and they had the temerity to express their opinions, as YOUNG women and for this they have been vilified ever since (by some).
Not that I want to repeat myself or anything, but just in case anyone missed it again… the people at the heart of this “controversy” are YOUNG women of color and YOUNG petitp.
In some ways, sure. As one of those young women (22), I find that there are some things about the way my life is structured that don’t quite resonate with some of my older friends and allies. But on this issue, as a woman of color? Nope. Even though I’m in the (originally stated) target demographic, this book doesn’t speak to me.
(And yes, I’ve read the chapter in question. I haven’t read the entire book, but I’ve held it in my hands, flipped through it, read the whole chapter where WoC are discussed, and so on and so forth. Even so.)
And before anyone whips out the “it’s not for you” defense, see my earlier post: Who Gets to Have An Opinion?, specifically for the long blockquoted section.
For those who would instead talk about how 22 is too old, I’m too feminist, or anything like that, I’ll refer you to the same post, and send you down further to the bit about shifting goalposts within the conversation.
Gah. That’ll teach me not to check my tags. Only the first part is supposed to be quoted. The rest is my response.
Magniloquence — your comments and your links will be immensely helpful, and I will use them. Thank you so much!
I’m not going to list all the books on/by WOC I’ve read, because — clearly — there’s nothing more ineffectual than throwing credentials around. I’ve done it before, too often (talking about how Cherrie Moraga was my professor at Cal; how Norma Alarcon changed my life; or, even worse, going on and on about my Afro-Colombian wife and my black and Latin relatives. That kind of name-dropping is embarrassing and, understandably, infuriating.)
I forget, which is this, apophasis or paralepsis?
KH, in addition to being the “Chappaquiddick strategy”, it’s probably closer to paralepsis. Parenthetical paralepsis!
Just to clarify something Magniloquence said, FFF doesn’t have a chapter that deals with WOC. It does have a chapter that deals with intersectionality, but it was the intent to avoid creating the impression that WOC were to be given just one section.
True, but the chapter is entitled: “A quick academic aside” and is 10 pages long. In a 250 page book, that’s a little thin.
the chapter is entitled: “A quick academic aside” and is 10 pages long. In a 250 page book, that’s a little thin.
Perhaps, but every primer is invariably accused of short-changing something vitally important. Given how much ground Jessica was covering, every topic she talked about got, in some sense, only a little of what it deserves. The idea is to spark greater interest, after all — and send the reader in search of more.
I have to ask: What do critics think Jessica Valenti should do NOW to address the imperfections in her book? Is it so flawed as to necessitate a recall? Should she pretend the book no longer exists, despite the fact that it includes a great deal of material that all women (and last I checked, women of color are still women) might find useful?
Also: What if she didn’t really understand these issues at the time she wrote the book? Should she have covered them extremely briefly or extremely badly?
And aren’t there constituencies that you, in the Carnival community, overlook? What do you say to bloggers among you who overlook these constituencies? Do you attack them publicly and try to destroy their lives and reputations? Or is that sort of unfocused, counterproductive hate reserved for privileged white girls?
I just don’t understand. You are using the power of blogs to make people’s lives worse, leaving all sorts of nastygrams all over Google for the world to find, and for what? What are you trying to accomplish? Are you hoping that one day, one of your targets will commit suicide? Would that make you happy?
I finally read FFF, after reading a lot of the criticism and back-and-forth, and I did notice Jessica’s attempt to integrate WOC issues into the book outside of the intersectionality chapter (the only specific that comes to mind is that, in talking about choice and abortion, she discussed that some WOC communities have faced pressure or coercion to NOT have children, via long term birth control or tube tying, as opposed to pressure TO have children by making abortion difficult to obtain). Whether this attempt was successful, adequate, etc. is of course up for debate.
I did, however, think the specific passage in which she discussed race in the intersectionality chapter was clearly by a white women for white women. It didn’t talk about how WOC experience intersectionality; it was all about how white women/white feminism need to be cognizant of the fact that WOC experience intersectionality and strive to be inclusive. I don’t have the book in front of me, and read it a couple of weeks ago, so I can’t be specific as to why it came off this way to me.
Emily, that is the same impression that BlackAmazon got from that chapter. The way she explained it was that the book has a conversational tone throughout with the exception of that one chapter, then the tone is more like, gather around white girls while we talk about women of color. She is talking to or with her audience about the issues until she gets to WOC then she is talking about them, they aren’t part of the audience.
Gentle idiot, what is wrong with being honest? How about she doesn’t cover WOC at all and says that the book is not for them? Instead she does this little “wink nod” thing that is so common in the US pretending she is interested and cares but doesn’t really. She wants to write for white sorority girls, go right ahead, but don’t pretend that it’s for everyone and let your posse run roughshod over WOC when they see the game you’re playing.
I do exclude people from my website. I write for people of color and anti-racists maybe some who want to learn more about anti-racism. People full of their privilege who want to be apologists for other people full of their privilege they can stay here or at Feministing as far as I am concerned.
As a White Man partnered with a Black, Bisexual, Large Bodied Woman who is 11+ years younger than me I try on plenty of occasions to listen. On occasion I apologize for things I’ve said. At other times I try to translate misunderstandings we may have had. Most commonly though the important thing is to listen and try to take in as much as I can.
Reading - I’ve read far, far more than B has of Black history, Black literature, etc. I helped co-found a Men’s Anti-Rape group 24 years ago and Feminism has been important to me for over 25 years.
I haven’t and can’t though take in the waves of Racism, Sexism and other Isms - except as they face me directly in my life. At times I may use “the right words”, but underneath my understandings are layers and layers of feelings based upon repeated life experiences that I’ve not faced.
Hugo - your tone seems to have moved towards listening here as the criticisms have mounted. These issues will push and haunt you. This is a good sign towards your potential growth, though it may be hard.
Thanks!
Geo, very insightful comment. Thank you for you long standing contributions to the womens community. You sound like a very nice person.
Gentle Mercy asks: “I have to ask: What do critics think Jessica Valenti should do NOW to address the imperfections in her book?”
Jessica has the same choices that Hugo has and that I have at that any white person has when our lesser qualities are pointed out. We can learn from the experience. We can educate ourselves about how to do things differently. We can choose to behave differently the next time we are faced with a decision about how much attention to give to our own experiences as compared to how much we want to learn from the experiences of others.
Remember, we were taught to ignore women of color. We’ve got degrees in this subject without even attending school. We know how to belittle people who disagree.
For instance, you choose to accuse the people who disagree with Valenti as leaving “nastygrams” while ignoring all the horrible things said about BA, BFP and Sylvia on Jessica’s own web site. If legitimate criticsm gets labelled “nastygrams” I guess we’d have to label the dishonest insults that still exist on Jessica’s site “nucleargrams”. hurled by her posse.
Hugo, perhaps you missed it but I suggested several tactics you may want to use this spring up there a ways.
I did see your suggestions, Ravenm, and was particularly taken with the notion of having students interact with groups focusing specifically on WOC issues. Thank you.
Given how much ground Jessica was covering, every topic she talked about got, in some sense, only a little of what it deserves
You haven’t understood your critics.
The problem is not how many pages the WOC section got, though the idea that the book is made up of about 200 pages of what by deductive reasonsing must be “white american feminism” (what ever the hell that is in actual fact, though I’ll just ignore it right now and assume that anything that hopelessly parochial is not a “good” kind of feminism in and of itself) and 10 pages of “WOC feminism” is somewhat alarming even if that was the actual criticism being laid at the damn godamn fucking book, which it most certainly is not. The problem is that the fucking book wasn’t inter-fucking-woven with the fucking POC “section”, a thing it needs to have done for the simple fucking reason that it’s 2007 going on 2008: We should be beyond little seperate but equal ghetto chapters in “feminist” primers, we should in fact be beyond the very notion that WOC’s struggles are some how NOT equally and far from seperately as much the struggle that white women go through, even it sometimes zigs for WOC where it zags for white women, the essential effect, and essential answers will mesh and interweave as the fuckign text of FFF should have done.
Of couse that’s been said already by the POC who’ve been routinely and consistently ignored during this whole debacle, and it’s largely been replied to with the same missing hte point reply again and agina: it’s targetted towards “girls” who are mostly going to be white.
Except it’s not the WOC who need to be told that Feminism is letting WOC down, because Duh-oh! Cuz strangely enough they kinda already know! what with the “living it” and the “needing white women to pick up the fucking slack already on their end thankyouverymuch”. It is the very white girls with their white barbies in their white schools who’ll be going onto white-with-tokens colleges and work places eventually just like Jessica did, who need to hear THAT sort of feminism, who need to be taught THOSE truths.
Jessica, and her ten page chapter, don’t let WOC down, hell no, she’s let the women the book’s supposedly aimed at down.
It’s empowering to be there for those of our sisters when they need our support, and it’s empowering to not be like a cat on the stairs tangling up their feet when they need to be moving. And this book, with it’s silly token chapter is gonna break a lot of WOC’s necks because a lot of white girls grew up without learning that the WOC can’t stroke them right at this second, and to be please be getting with the out of underfoot now like! because they need to be getting down those stairs in a condition that is still kinda breathing and moving and stuff.
but you want practical advice to improve your shit, okay. You need to learn, and that’s not something we can just tell you, or teach you in 5 easy steps, it’s something you’ve got to work at, and if I was you I would take the coming semester as an opportunity to learn stuff yourself. Focus on moving away form the WOC/white women dualism you’ve got going on, and which Jessica’s book is packed with, maybe interlacing each lesson with WOC writings and perspectives in a way that isn’t too forced. work at finding the ways, and there are a fuck ton let me tell you, in which POC’s experiences cross over with women’s experiences under patriarchy. You won’t do it perfectly all the time, but you can’t just throw your hands up in the air and expect WOC to use their magical negress powers to distil a lifetime’s worth of nerve deep life experience dealing with the problems white people and women produce and pour it like orange juice straight into your brain. If you can get a non-white person, ideally someone you’re already friends with, who you can ask questions to, that’d help, but you can’t treat them like a lab rat or tes subject. You want ot listen more than you talk, you want to hear what they’re saying more than you judge or assess. You want ot try to feel what they feel without the lenses you view the world through as a white person, and with the lenses they view the world through. You got to be able to see the way they’re treated by your fellow white people, the odd looks, the way white people pause and change hteir body language slightly when they’re noticed by the white people. the way and whens of them not being noticed at all, that invisibleness that their skin tone gets them.
Like I siad, it’s not something you can learn in a day, or even a year, and it’s not easy because you have to find the wiring that makes you act in certain ways and view things in a certain way, and then find out where it leads and what it’s actually doing, exactly, and where it came from, before you even think about getting rid of it.
Hey, Hugo — before you send your students to interview groups of women of color (presumably activist groups), read what Emi Koyama has to say about academia’s use of activism: http://eminism.org/archive/2007/08/04-26.html. Follow-up at: http://eminism.org/archive/2007/09/13-30.html.
Hugo,
White privileged d-list feminist fan of both BrownFemiPower and Feministing-linked bloggers (like you) here with a small comment.
Please, in addition to getting suggestions through this thread’s comments, do some perusing of BFP every once in a while.
I know, I know, it’s one more thing on the blog reading list, but keep this in mind:
She has her plate full writing up articles about Tobasco’s floods and the media attention it gets, alerting people to immigrant women being separated from the babies they’re nursing, etc. Every slight once in a while, something like your post makes her get her thoughts from her head to the page, but she’s got so much else to write about that, well, if you don’t hear from her or others like her here, please go read her and their blogs every once in a while to see what authors they are referring to.
For example, in her post about you, BFP wrote about Andrea Smith and how amazing of a professor she was. I’d recommend taking that as a suggestion from her, whether it gets posted as a comment here or not.
And so on.
(What do you think?)
Katie, I have started reading BFP again, and have blogrolled her.
I’ve been resistant to posting here although I’ve been closely reading the unfolding of this train wreck.
All I can say is that this has been a painful reminder of why I stopped engaging in blogs that I did find via BFP, Sylvia, Mag, BA, or other WOC-ally, WOC-centered identified blogs.
As I anticipated, I’ve watched brilliant writers, poets, and artists spend hours defending, explaining, and redefining what has always been ours: our right to have a spoken opinion.
::head shaking:: I should have known better.