I have been briefly following the controversy that erupted following Michelle Goldberg’s cover story for The Nation entitled “Feminism’s Toxic Twitter Wars.” The premise for the story was that a group of feminists formed a group to work toward getting funding for online feminism (something Kathleen and I definitely support!). However, after they issued their report on the meeting and rationale for the group, they were shocked by the fury they received from other feminists. Thus, the article questioned whether social media is helpful or harmful to the feminist cause. Then, of course, Goldberg’s article came under fire for the particular slant under which it was written and the fun really started.
From what I read, many feminists, especially women of color, felt ignored and marginalized by the overall movement (specifically by white women feminists online) and their anger erupted. So now the feminist blogosphere is seething with discussions about intersectionality, the role of allies for women of color, privilege, and a host of other topics all centered around the exclusionary aspects of feminism. They have some good points (the feminist movement did, after all, start off limited to mostly white heterosexual women) but, after reading several articles and forums, I’ve decided that I just don’t care.
I found myself getting irritated because they’re missing the larger issue: we need to focus our energies toward on-the-ground feminism. Many women do not identify as feminists or work toward feminist causes in part because of such acrimonious debates within the movement itself.
I am not dismissing people’s desire to be and feel included. It is important for feminism as a movement to continually evaluate and change in order to be welcoming to everyone. However, having Twitter and social media wars is not the way to do that. Nothing gets resolved and, more importantly, nothing gets done. In the world beyond the blogosphere, feminism is needed more than ever, so we must stand together for what unites us.
Anger is not the answer and neither is holding unrealistic expectations. While we have made great strides in building a more inclusive feminism, we must realize that it is not necessary or even possible for one movement to be everything to everybody at all times. When things have gotten so bad that people are objecting to the use of the word vagina because it is considered exclusionary and offensive to trans men, then we are in sad shape. In the many states in which reproductive health is in serious jeopardy, it seems more important that we concentrate less on offense and more on figuring out how to help people with vaginas keep them healthy.
In Goldberg’s article, the trashing of feminists by feminists was mentioned as something that has plagued the movement since its inception. As Courtney Martin put it, “How do we disentangle what part is about social media and what part is about the way women interact with one another? If there’s something inherent about the way women work within movements that makes us assholes to each other, that is incredibly sad.” I do not believe that this tendency to tear each apart is something inherent to women. Instead, I think it is a particular emotional dynamic related to powerlessness. In other words, it is a systemic problem.
So, how do we solve it? The first step rests in group identity. At its most fundamental, the feminist movement has equality for women as its overarching goal. Thus, we must accept that this is what we’re working toward but that there are many ways in which to get there. For example, take Feminist Fever. Kathleen wants to focus on the dating and relationship industry while the equality of mothers is of the greatest interest to me. However, both of us realize that these issues are two halves of a whole and we decided to build bridges with one another to get where we want to go.
The second step is in turning negative energy into positive. Instead of getting into a typical defensive argument in which there is no winner, why not focus on solutions? For example, instead of chastising people for not including women of color or another group, why not ask for ways in which they can be included or build bridges so that the group that is exclusionary (which it does not sound like the online funding group was) understands what needs to happen differently? I grant you that it may be irritating to have to constantly educate people but what is the alternative? And if both groups are willing to listen, forward momentum will be achieved.
The final step is in realizing who the true enemy is. In the article, many of the online activists angry at the funding group were upset because white online feminists were getting book deals and they weren’t. This is completely unfair but it seems like it has more to do with the racism in the publishing industry than in the exclusionary practices of the women getting the deals. Why not band together to fight the industry instead of each other? Similarly, instead of getting upset that people are using the word vaginas in their reproductive activism, why not set our sights on changing or taking away the influence of the people who are truly threatening women’s health?
In other words, I have seen the enemy and it is not other feminists. The trashing of each other is doing nothing but tearing the movement apart and continuing the stigma of the term feminist. Is that what we really want? Or do we want a feminist movement so strong, so united, that we will be feared and the things that we want will someday be within our grasp? I know my answer.
Riley Holden