“The politics of woundedness”
Her book is like that, too. A review from LSE:
In Me, Not You, Alison Phipps builds on Black feminist scholarship to investigate how mainstream feminist movements against sexual violence express a ‘political whiteness’ that can reinforce marginalisation and oppression and limits the capacity to collectively achieve structural change and dismantle violent systems. This short and accessible book challenges us to think deeply about how the politics of woundedness, outrage and carcerality are embedded within the feminist movement and our own organising, writes Lili Schwoerer, and serves as another encouragement to explore and engage with alternative imaginaries.
So what should we have then, feminist movements for sexual violence?
Also, if we’re talking about marginalization and oppression, and claiming that feminist movements against sexual violence can reinforce them, I can bring up an interesting fact, which is that sexual violence can reinforce marginalization and oppression too. A lot. Really: a lot. Sexual violence in the workplace is a good way to force women to leave it. Being forced out of a job by sexual violence is very marginalizing and oppressive. What about that? Has Alison Phipps given that any thought? Is it not hip enough for her? Is it not the cool kids enough? Raped women aren’t very good at rapping, is that it?
This short, accessibly written book pivots around the #MeToo movement, which, according to Phipps, provided a powerful opportunity to highlight the widespread nature of sexual violence, while also replicating and exposing some of the longstanding violences of mainstream feminism. The feminism that Phipps critiques here is Anglo-American, public feminism: the kind of feminism which is most hegemonic, and most visible, in corporations, NGOS and institutions, including universities. The book’s six short chapters draw together historical and conceptual analysis with empirical observations on the ways in which the tendencies to co-opt the work of women of colour and to centre white woundedness shape these kinds of feminist organising, and the political landscape more generally.
She really means this shit, doesn’t she. She means it so much it seems to be her only idea.
But let’s IGNORE the “widespread sexual violence” that #MeToo revealed, and focus instead on my shitty take on what all these complaints were really about, which wasn’t the widespread sexual violence at all, but on white women playing the victim card to gain “political advantage,” which is so much more violenter.
I’ll be marching in Adelaide, this Saturday, in support of legislation removing abortion from the Criminal Code. I am not a woman. I will never need an abortion, and I have only ever met one woman who was comfortable discussing her abortion with me. I am sure that many other women I have known have needed, or have had, abortions. It is not my place to question them.
But it IS my place to stand with women of all races, all nationalities, all colours, and even those who hate my footy team, to protect and enhance women’s rights.
But I guess I should shut up, because, well, you don’t get much whiter than me. I should just sit at home sipping chai latte while I wait for the women’s rights march that has no white women in it.
So a white woman using #metoo to talk about her treatment at the hands of whoever is engaging in ‘white feminism’ by virtue of being white, and white feminism is defined as feminism that only helps white women. How is a white woman expected to get out of this trap, other than by not publicly engaging with the movement? Fucking lunacy! This idiot is providing excellent cover for the MRA douchebro movement that fought the metoo movement originally.
#3
Is that happening finally?! I’ve not seen it, but then again my attention has been more or less monopolised by the dumpster fire known as US politics.
I live in Adelaide too…
Also Adelaide. What a coincidence, Holms and Roj!
Holms, I very much agree with your assessment, which frankly mirrors my assessment of what passes for “feminism” at all (except radical feminism) these days, especially what’s witnessed publicly: that all public feminism must centre male needs and preferences, or else be declared “not feminism”. Any woman trying to explain that she needs, at times, to centre female perspectives, preferences and needs is declared “hateful and bigoted and exclusionary”. No words are left for her to wrangle the movement to care about her, and any attempts to start a new one similarly shut down.
I’d argue the whole value in it is the double bind it puts women in, and the powers that be are quite chuffed with that, or haven’t realised it’s happened.
That would be more edgy, and therefore, I think, according to Phipps’s upside-down worldview, more able to smash the patriarchy. Or something.
https://uploads.ovarit.com/fb31222c-6b45-5b48-8d44-f755365962fc.jpg
(Image is of a woman with her thumb up, with text saying: “Hey, don’t worry, boys. I’m not like those other feminists. I’m a Libfem! That means I never put women’s rights ahead of men’s feelings.”)
GW #6:
That would fit in with being “pro-sex” and not “kink-shaming”, right? It seems like there are a lot of those who scream against kink shaming that are headed that direction.
What this really reminds me of is “Dear Muslima”. It’s tempting to ask how women of color – Muslim or not – are supposed to benefit from forcing white women to put up with sexual harassment and assault or face nonstop abuse, but as in the case of DM, it’s never really about making women of color better off, is it. It’s only ever about making white women worse off.
Uh huh. The indomitable JCJ writing on Phipp’s Only Idea:
God I love her.
Same here.
@ GW #6:
“So what should we have then, feminist movements for sexual violence?”
‘That would be more edgy, and therefore, I think, according to Phipps’s upside-down worldview, more able to smash the patriarchy. Or something.’
Well, obviously, if we could just get the women to *like* it and *ask* for it, which the culture is working on with great investment, then it wouldn’t BE violence anymore at all, and thusly the problem of violence would be solved. Also giving men everything they want makes them bored, and then they’ll move on to something else, possibly?
(Sorry I’d do block quotes if I knew how.)
How to do it: type blockquote between two angle brackets < > then do the same at the end with / in front of blockquote.
@Arcadia #12
<blockquote>quoted stuff</blockquote>
Really? How, exactly do mainstream feminism’s actions against sexual violence “reinforce marginalization and oppression” ? And, “reinforce marginalization and oppression” of whom? How do actions *against* sexual violence “limit the capacity … to achieve structural change and dismantle violent systems”? Sounds like a neat trick if you can do it. Seems to me that taking actions against sexual violence is designed to “achieve structural change” and “dismantle violent systems,” the exact opposite of what you say.
<
WTF are you even talking about? What do you mean, “politics of woundedness”? I’ve understood that “politics” refers to power. I’ve also seen many ways that men exercise power over women, including raping women, mutilating women, hurting women, imprisoning women, torturing women, and killing women, based on very little more than men’s desires, whims, superior physical strength, and economic imprisonment. Are you saying that women aren’t wounded in these ways? Are you saying that such acts are not violent acts against women? Are you saying that such acts by men are not actually oppressive, but instead are manifestations of real power in women? How the hell does that work?
What do you mean, “carcerality” is embedded in the feminist movement? WTF are you even talking about?
What? “Alternative imaginaries”? What might those be? Wouldn’t it be better to explore and engage with reality? The reality of women’s worldwide oppression?
“Longstanding violences of mainstream feminism”? Such as? I really have no idea what you are attempting to say.
“The ways in which the tendencies to co-opt the work of women of color …” Tendencies? “Tendencies” are the actors here? Not people? What people are co-opting the work of women of color? Who is doing this co-opting? How are they doing it? You seem to presume that building on someone else’s ideas is a bad thing. What’s bad about it? Not giving credit? Subverting an idea to other ends? Disagreeing with it? What was the original work — the work of the women of color that’s now being co’opted — about? What were the theses of these women-of-color authors?
“Center white woundedness”: what does this mean? White women can’t be wounded? The wounds of women who are white are qualitatively different from and illegitimate in view of wounds suffered by women who aren’t white? How do you know?
Carcerality being embedded in the feminist movement is an attempt by the author and others of her ilk to shame women who want their violent rapist locked up for being a danger to her and society, which is, according to them, her wielding her white feminist power to deploy the forces of the prison industrial complex to oppress PoC and queers. Apparently.
Because if we are to understand that prison and the justice system has shortcomings, then we are no longer permitted to utilise it, even for good. Apparently.
I note that I’ve never yet read any explanation from these anti-carcerals how they suggest we deal with violent rapists.
Totally and 100% OT, but I hope Ophelia will indulge me. I am hoping Holms and Arcadia (and any other Adelaide lurkers) see this and can join me. I’ll be the dude with the Olympus camera. :-)
https://saabortionactioncoalition.com/
Wish I could, Roj, except that my partner will be at work, and my youngest is on the spectrum and doesn’t do crowds, unless you count running off, and my partner, despite many protestations that he totally supports women, draws the line at me attending women’s events without the kids when he has work, or taking the kids to any activism, as that’s the sole preserve of extremists, apparently. Especially the ones who coordinate on social media or internet.
So I’ve signed petitions and sent letters, and I hope that will be enough.
Wave a banner for me. Maybe you can find out if our legislation mentions women, girls, or female people? The recent NSW decriminalisation legislation only did when outlawing sex selective abortions, and wouldn’t define that “people who have abortions” were female, or women. I’ve asked from a few sources and had no answers.
Arcadia, sounds like my oldest grandson. :-) He is 99% angel, but when that switch flips …
I don’t have a copy of the legislation, but the Law Society Of SA has an excellent summary. Throughout they use “Woman / Women”. And considering this reform is being pushed by a conservative Attorney General, I doubt that TRA’s are going to be happy … but do I care?
Sounds like your partner and I need to have a man to man about women’s stuff. :-)
https://www.lawsocietysa.asn.au/Public/Publications/Resources/The_facts_about_SAs_Abortion_Bill.aspx
(Thanks Ophelia).
Absolutely. When a white woman is ‘wounded’, it matters not, because she is in a power position over every other group in society. Most of it is just “white woman tears” – in other words, not real tears, and not real wounds, only the sort of wounds you might get if you imagine yourself wounded. How do you know? THEY’RE WHITE! What more do you need? Or are you on the side of the Karens?
/s
Don’t be so sure about the AG, Roj, she’s also one of the cosponsors of the full decriminalisation of “sex work” bill, and claims that the Nordic Model is premised on the idea of prostitutes as “fallen women”, not, you know, really oppressed and traumatised women who are doing this “work” out of desperation and lack of options.
Oh yes, I know. It is on this one issue I support her.
A bit like John Howard – most of what he did was destruction, but I salute his stance on reducing firearms in the community. Just a shame he didn’t apply the same compassion to Iraqis.
Same re Howard. The one good thing he did, and due to the nature of politics then and now, was probably the only one who could have done it. Got to give him his due there. He saw the problem and was prepared to put in the work to get it done despite it being unpopular within the Coalition. Not sure that I could say that about more recent Liberal leaders.