Wednesday 17 December 2014

For Feminists Who Resort To Racism When Slut Shaming Is Not Enough


White Feminists, we need to have a chat about this unruly beast we call feminism, and the intersection of race and sexuality. I like to assume that you mean well, but you've been fucking up quite a bit in the last few months, and I think it's my duty as your presumptive sister-in-arms to do some minor course correcting for all our sakes.

Beyoncé has been Beyoncé-ing for over a year now and you're still questioning her feminist credentials because her praxis doesn't match yours. Nicki Minaj has been vocal about her feminism for years but you revoked her credentials because she made a video about her exquisitely crafted rear end and rapped about the men who want to fuck her. To me, all that debate sounded a lot like judgement of other women for the way they chose to express their sexuality. This really confuses me because I thought that sexual agency was a cornerstone of contemporary feminist thought. After all, a woman's body is her own, and what she chooses to do with it or how she chooses to exercise and experience her sexuality is up to her alone.

Except, apparently, if you're black.

I've spent the last few months reading piece after piece and comment after comment decrying Beyoncé and Nicki for catering to the male gaze with no acknowledgement that agency plays a significant role in how perforative sexuality becomes. I've read thinkpiece after thinkpiece about why these two women are detrimental to the feminist movement because they take pleasure in exploring and embracing their sexuality publicly. The main issue that keeps cropping is the male gaze. Supposedly, because Beyoncé and Nicki perform in ways that are traditionally sexy, they must be performing for the male gaze, and doing so is decidedly unfeminist.

Well here's where your lesson starts white ladies, because I'm about to drop a truth bomb: the fact that something appeals to the male gaze, does not mean that it exists for the male gaze. It's really as simple as that.

I know. Totally revolutionary right?

As I've said before, framing every instance of females sexuality from the perspective of the male gaze is not only extremely heteronormative, but it strips women of their sexual agency and ignores intersectional approaches to feminism. It completely negates the possibility that a woman can be sexual for her own enjoyment or pleasure. And while feminism is explicitly about dismantling the patriarchy and allowing women to be free of sexist expectations, making choices based on what does or doesn't appeal to patriarchal presumptions makes one literally beholden to that very system. If all your choices are direct responses to the patriarchy, you are still reactive to its whims, rather than proactive to your own desires.

Until we are truly post-racial, (so never...) the racial divide will always matter in feminism. This means that our feminisms will differ depending on our intersections, and that's okay. It is perfectly acceptable to acknowledge that different women have different needs. But the constant gatekeeping of mainstream feminism reveals the deeply entrenched racism within the movement. The face of my feminism isn't going to be the face of yours because we don't have the same concerns and therefore we're looking for different things in the women we look up to. Sexual liberation isn't going to look the same for you as it does for me because we're moving forward from different historical contexts. Embracing and acknowledging this fact rather than rejecting it is key to moving forward in solidarity.

And this is where my issue lies. Being able to safely express sexuality is important for black girls because it's something that was previously out of our control. Sexual agency was legally denied. That context does not exist for white women, and that can make it harder for you to understand how sexuality can be empowering. But just because something doesn't apply to you personally doesn't mean that it is worthless or deserving of derision or ridicule. Because of differences in race, class and sexuality, not everyone's feminist praxis looks the same.

White feminists ask "How do we know she's being sexual because she wants to?" I ask "Why would you assume that isn't the case?" Nicki Minaj's participation in the music industry doesn't lobotomize her or render her incapable of making her own decisions. She has shown time and time again that she is fully capable of directing and controlling her image, so why would you negate her agency now by insisting that she no longer has that power simply because her expressions of sexuality have become more explicit?



Nicki Minaj should be able to express herself sexually without it having to be a comment on her race. Racialized sexual stereotypes exist, but Nicki Minaj can and does defy them by subverting them; something she does fairly regularly. The sexual stereotypes of black women should be considered when we talk about performative sexuality, but you deny black women their sexual agency when you immediately apply one or the other to any expression of sexuality. There are stereotypes that cover the entire range of black female sexual expression. That's not an accident or a coincidence. Even if you sew your legs shut, there's a stereotype that can be applied to you. Our agency and self determination is purposely stripped. You cannot retro-actively constrict our sexuality by forcing stereotypical labels upon them, because that is part of what oppresses us.

And the disparity between which public figures get hounded for their praxis doesn't go unnoticed. Somehow questioning a woman's feminism is totally verboten if it's Lena Dunham being pressured into paying performers on her book tour of Sheryl Sandberg not paying interns, but nitpicking is actively encouraged if it's Nicki Minaj or Beyoncé, despite the latter employing an all female band, and the former routinely subverting the misogynistic tropes of rap and hip-hop.

There's also a strain of elitism at play. Emma Watson, she of the "be nice to men" UN speech, is more academic. She has a degree, and her feminism is intellectual. She is the "right" kind of feminist. Beyoncé on the other hand didn't finish high school. Her feminism is lived and she performs in flashy leotards. There's a perpetuation of the perception that Beyoncé doesn't really know anything about feminism because she hasn't studied it. But the thing is, the reason that resonates with so many black women is because she came into her praxis the same way most of us did: through life experiences, trial and error and yes, the internet. But to the mainstream feminist movement, this truth delegitimizes her feminist work, when the simple fact is that Beyoncé's feminism is not FOR white girls. It's not going to work for you because it's not supposed to. That you might benefit from it is incidental and completely tangential to the point.

And that doesn't mean that black feminist public figures are immune to criticism. That's far from true. As Britney Cooper puts it:
"White women’s feminisms still center around equality, a point on which Traister and Shulevitz converge. Black women’s feminisms demand justice. There is a difference.  One kind of feminism focuses on the policies that will help women integrate fully into the existing American system. The other recognizes the fundamental flaws in the system and seeks its complete and total transformation."
"I recognize, too, that Beyoncé’s brand of feminism is also about equality, rather than justice. That is why even though I am a huge fan, she is not my feminist icon or role model. In fact, she could stand to sit in on a few of my women’s studies intro courses. But Beyoncé’s feminism, like all of ours, is evolving, offering her a language to understand what it means to be a black woman in this moment in history with the level of power, capital and sex appeal that she possesses. That she both embraces and grapples with the language of feminism so forthrightly is something worth applauding.  And what I learn from her and appreciate her for is that she provides a grammar for unapologetic black female pleasure in a world that only loves black women’s affect, verve and corporeality, when white women like Iggy Azalea, Katy Perry, Taylor Swift and Miley Cyrus adopt and perform it."
All it means is that we have to allow figures like Beyoncé and Nicki Minaj to stumble and course-correct in the same way we do for white public figures. When you're white, the feminist label is almost literally shoved down your throat, and you're criticized for not identifying with the movement. When you're black, your right to do the same is questioned at every turn and actively denied at an institutional level. This division is so clearly racist in nature, and yet mainstream feminism has the audacity to turn around and chastise women of colour who do not wish to identify with your movement.

WE ARE EMPOWERED BY DIFFERENT THINGS BECAUSE OUR LIVES AND EXPERIENCES ARE DIFFERENT.  

This is not a bad thing. If the mainstream white feminist movement wants to anoint Lena Dunham as the second coming of Gloria Steinem that's okay. But leave us and our feminist idols alone. You don't have to identify with Nicki or Rihanna or Beyoncé or Janelle. But what you aren't going to do is commit yourself  to tearing down their praxis just because it doesn't benefit or apply to you and your white girl shit.

You've got to do better. Here's hoping you will.


31 comments:

  1. Wow! Heard, understood, appreciated, applauded.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Great article, I just had this argument with a capital F feminist the other day. She seemed to think that the only reason women are sexual in public was pressure from some kind of music industry patriarchy, stripping women of sexual agency. I haven't thought about it from the point of view of race however and I'm so glad I ran across this article.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks so much for this article- I'm one of those white feminists that really needed to hear this, and it's a game-changer. Thank you thank you thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm about to drop a truth bomb: the fact that something appeals to the male gaze, does not mean that it exists for the male gaze.

    That's an opinion. Plenty of people disagree with you, and they're not fools or liars. You can disagree with them, but there is an argument to be had here. See: "empowerful".

    ReplyDelete
  5. amen!!! also see Latinas & Native women

    ReplyDelete
  6. Greetings. Here is a question I have about feminism that confuses me. I am a young Black woman who has studied feminism and some things that I don't understand about feminism is 1. If feminism is supposed to be defeating white supremacy, how does that correlate with the praising of artists like Beyonce, Rihanna, Nicki, Iggy Miley, etc. Because they are products of the white supremist, capitalist, racist, corporations and it is no secret that they change their artists to be more sexual for record selling. 2. I'm a bit confused about Nicki's stance as a feminist due to many of her lyrics that can be equally degrading to other women as the lyrics of some male rappers. I never heard or saw her say she is a feminist, can you share a link to this please? Is your piece stating that she is a feminist by default? Bell hooks has also criticized Beyonce, so is it only white feminists who are critical? 3. What is your opinion of the correlation between Black women being oversexualized in the music industry along with the history of slavery and post slavery America? I think this connects a lot to my first question as well. I understand that some feminists praise women being sexual, but where is the line drawn between that and objectification and how do we know whether or not record companies are pushing artists, regardless of race, to be hypersexual? Thank you for clarifying this.

    ReplyDelete
  7. And just to be clearer on what I was stating in my last comment, I am confused because women like Rihanna and Nicki have not stated that they are feminists correct me if I am wrong. And some things like how Nicki Minaj did not acknowledge her issue with a Black woman like Lil Kim, in terms of her disrespecting her, in her music video where she stated "f*ck skinny bitches", and not embracing female empowerment by not doing any songs with other female artists. And with Rihanna, I have always noticed that she beefs with other Black women. I am confused on their displays of so called feminism. I am not trying to nitpick, I know we are all human, but it does confuse me when some of these women are portrayed as feminists but they never stated that they were along with their actions. Again, thank you for clarifying this.

    ReplyDelete
  8. One more comment and I am done lol. And another confusion I have about the idea about female empowerment in the media is that the women who are portrayed and that represent feminism in the eyes of some feminists, also represent the Eurocentric idea of beauty. I could understand if there was a diverse display of women in music videos, ads, etc, but the women who are behind Beyonce, Rihanna Nicki, Iggy Miley, etc represent the same ideologies of Eurocentric beauty that the stars do. Thank you again for your time!

    ReplyDelete
  9. While I do love the article, ugh, it's so America-centric.

    ReplyDelete
  10. It's not just about black women. What about Miley Cyrus? Feminists have a big problem with sexuality full stop.

    ReplyDelete
  11. i also heard, understood, appreciated and applauded. thank you for sharing this and for showing us that racism transpasses all issues. but the other day i saw a video of a panel with Bell Hook's and i would like to ask your opinion on this and on her critique based on the question "whose booty is this?": http://nymag.com/thecut/2014/10/bell-hooks-was-bored-by-anaconda.html

    ReplyDelete
  12. "I'm about to drop a truth bomb: the fact that something appeals to the male gaze, does not mean that it exists for the male gaze. It's really as simple as that."
    I would agree with that, women are often sexual for their own sake, but that usually appeals to the male gaze, and that fact can not be changed. This should not stop women; no matter what color; from being sexual if that is what they truly desire. And they should not be judged because they appeal to the male gaze, that is discrimination at it's "best".

    ReplyDelete
  13. Right; I get that the woman's conscious motives may be very nice. The counterargument (again, see "empowerful") is that you may sincerely enjoy wearing stilettos, having your body hair torn out with hot wax and "deep-throating a funk-filled bratwurst" (also, see the ensuing argy-bargy), but at the very least you can't necessarily say that they're feminist stilettos, feminist glabrousness and feminist blowjobs. (Or, as the OP was saying, a feminist ass-shaking display of sexual enticement.) The counterargument points out that, if you take your type of assertion seriously, all of the slaves terrified into telling their masters that yes sir they're happy, just like women living under the Taliban would assure their husbands that yes sir things are just fine for them.

    (I want to emphasize that this is not necessarily my opinion, but people should at least know what they're talking about. It would be one thing for the OP to say that she believes that women's choices are meaningful even in the face of cultural pressure, but just glossing right over the issue is either overly bold or terribly ignorant.)

    ReplyDelete
  14. I'd love to know where I said deep throating was feminist. Either your reading comprehension needs work or you're being deliberately obtuse. Unsurprisingly, your comments make no reference to the racial disparities inherent in those kinds of conclusions. Which is literally what this essay is about.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I'm sorry, you think calling Miley out for racial appropriation is attacking her? I was referencing her display of sexuality. I'm not sure what tangent you're on...

    ReplyDelete
  16. She doesn't gloss over this issue, she decided to light the other angle. And the other angle is that we are free to wear stiletto heels if we want to and yes that can be feminist stiletto heels. You are falling in the same trap the women from Opzij were falling for and exactly what the writer in this article tries to redirect: if you throw away everything that is connected with patriarchy, you are still holding to that patriarchy, if only to accuse other women who are still wearing stiletto heels of not being real feminists.

    We can decide that we want to wear stiletto heels all by ourselves. We can decide we stop doing that to please men, we can decide to do it because WE want to do it.

    If you want to throw away everything connected with patriarchy then I wish you good luck on your island on your own or with a bunch of 'real' feminists, because there is nothing not-tainted by patriarchy. The best way to deal with it is not to throw it overboard and judge other women but to reclaim it.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I love the point you make when you say that by being reactive to patriarchy we are still under its power. Being a feminist is truly about finding your own authentic desire and living from that space, which means no two women's expression will look alike. Creating space for all expressions is the only way feminists can support each other to dismantle the current system.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anyone ever heard of CAPITALISM? Capitalism as an agent of manipulation must always be discussed on the forefront of racial and sexual oppression. Beyoncé and Minaj use SEX because it SELLS indescriminate of weather a man or woman is buying it. Our ANIMALISTIC desires are driving forces not only in the market, but in our behavior. We must look at racism and sexism through the lens of economic manipulation. These women, as amazing as they are, are millionaires for a reason.

    ReplyDelete
  19. one reason why this author's perspective of feminism represents the neo-feminist/pan sexuality culture of today: endorsement of self-image based on sexual qualities.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I agree and disagree. I agree that " there is nothing not-tainted by patriarchy" and that judging other women is not helpful. However, "reclaiming" from the patriarchy is tricky. How can one be female and "reclaim" her sexuality when she cannot understand it? This is because it has been warped by the fun house mirror of patriarchy with all of its grotesque pornographic imagery. As young girls, we are inordinately influenced by what the media tells us we should find sexy -- and what it tells us is that we should find performing conventional hetero femininity to be the be all and end all of our sexuality. And if necessary, we should fake it...get fake tans, fake blonde hair, fake tits; we should fake our orgasms, fake liking whatever our guy likes. Cosmo has survived on this model for decades. What is worth reclaiming about this?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Love all the comments and discussion arising from this issue. I have a question about part of the message in this piece. If I'm understanding this right, it implies that doing something because you WANT or ENJOY the male gaze is un-feminist and inculcated by patriarchy and that the reason the above mentioned artists are indeed feminist is because their sexual displays do not exist for the male gaze. So my questions is If I wanted to do something, say wear stilettos or provocative lingerie, because I like the male gaze and attention I receive am I un-feminist? I like to look sexy for myself, but I am also aware that at least part of that enjoyment is derived from the male attention and admiration. To me it's like cooking for a group of people. I obviously cook food I like because I'm excited to eat it, but I also enjoy seeing the enjoyment and hearing the flattery from my guests. Is it un-feminist to enjoy the flattery and admiration of the male sex?

    ReplyDelete
  22. I would also like to say that using the umbrella term "White Feminists" is a generalization that implies that, because we are white, all of our feminist praxis look the same despite our different classes, experiences, and sexualities. As the author has pointed out this generalization has been wrongly placed on black women so lets not make the same mistake of doing it to other groups.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I generally agree with the points the author makes, however the tone of the article is offensive. References to "black women" vs "white girls" in an article about the nuances of feminism is more than vaguely hypocritical. If one is to address a broader audience of feminists, calling some portion of them girls is inflammatory, and if the point of the article is to persuade, then increasing racial tension by such a name-calling mechanism to do it is rather sophomoric. If respect is demanded, respect should be accorded. Fanning the flames of racism is a strange way to bring about feminist solidarity. Nicki Minaj rocks tho.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I didn't say it would be easy. It would be easier to do away with it altogether. But then we're still letting them dictate what to do and how to behave. Because we can only do those things that they don't like. And we're not not doing those things because we chose them, but because they got to pick first. And we're just not choosing what they choose. That's not a positive choice, that's not even a negative choice, that's telling ourselves that we can be happy with the left overs too.


    Feminism is not about making do with left overs. Feminism is about making choices and accepting that for the first generation and probably the second generation too, those choices won't feel natural and easy. If we say we reclaim stiletto heels and say that we no longer wear them for the male gaze, maybe we ourselves have trouble believing that. But how about the generation after us? They will be able to wear stiletto heels for themselves because they heard from us that that is how it works.


    And yes there are women who don't mind catering to the male glaze. But again: that does not mean that we have to accept that we can't do certain things or wear certain things because of that. If we reclaim our bodies for ourselves, the next generation will be able to grow up actually believing that, even if our generation is not too sure of it yet.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I like the analogy you use; it makes a lot of sense. If someone claims it's "un-feminist", that is his or her opinion. And opinions, as they say, are like assholes--everybody has one. Seriously, I don't recall the Almighty writing some feminist code on two stone tablets and handing them to anyone. So if you are enjoying the male gaze, ENJOY THE HELL OUT OF IT! Anyone who gives you grief needs to deal with his or her own stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Luckily, I have a ten foot pole that is perfectly suited for not touching this particular subject with.

    ReplyDelete
  27. You didn't like "***Flawless"? (Beyonce.) I've just been ignoring her lately. Then, I heard this song and decided that wasn't so fair.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I've already written about why that argument doesn't apply.

    http://www.battymamzelle.blogspot.com/2014/01/This-Is-What-I-Mean-When-I-Say-White-Feminism.html#.VMRN3XDF8hk

    ReplyDelete
  29. I'm 99% with you, except the few ridiculously hypocritical parts where you generalize about all white women/girls... but other than that - fucking A! The feminazis need to simmer down. PS women from many different places in many different times throughout history have had their sexual agency legally denied - including, but not limited to, black women.

    ReplyDelete
  30. If what you came away from this with is "I'm 99% with you, except the few ridiculously hypocritical parts where you generalize about all white women/girls... but other than that - fucking A!" then I don't know what to tell you, because you've literally missed the central thesis.

    ReplyDelete

Add your brilliance!

Disqus for BattyMamzelle