Talk:White feminism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Criticism section

The article could use a section containing criticism of the concept. There are both white and non-white women (and men) who have criticized the concept, so including their perspectives would provide balance to the article. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 11:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Style

Is this article a self referential joke?:

Forming an unwelcomed form of separatism because of the white counterparts' inability to understand the different struggles that women of color have to face intersectionally. Whether it be race, sex or gender.

I have tagged it for a rewrite. Zezen (talk) 03:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Possible Sources

Here are some additional sources that may be beneficial to use in this article. Definitely give suggestions and feedback.

Carby, Hazel V. “White Woman Listen!” Black British Culture And Society, pp. 82–88., doi:10.4324/9780203360644_chapter_7.

Kitzinger, Celia, and Sue Wilkinson. “Theorizing Representing the Other.” Celia Kitzinger & Sue Wilkinson, Theorizing Representing the Other - PhilPapers, 1 Jan. 1996, philpapers.org/rec/KITTRT.

Dorey-Stein, Caroline, et al. “A Brief History: The Three Waves of Feminism.” Progressive Women's Leadership, 24 Sept. 2015, www.progressivewomensleadership.com/a-brief-history-the-three-waves-of-feminism/.

Theriault, Anne. “The White Feminist Savior Complex.” The Huffington Post, TheHuffingtonPost.com, 23 Jan. 2014, www.huffingtonpost.com/anne-theriault-/the-white-feminist-savior_b_4629470.html.

--Gstew42 (talk) 01:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)--Gstew42 (talk) 01:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Kloe Shellmire Peer Review

Background Section:

Over the past 400+ years in predominantly white societies, issues of/with (DELETE OF) black women have continuously not been talked about, so (DELETE SO) the true historical struggles of black women are not widely known. Black women have always been viewed as a different "kind/type" (ADD OR INSTEAD OF THE /) of woman than white women. White women in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries (USE 19TH AND 20TH) were not expected to work and were just expected to stay at home and (DELETE AND ADD COMMA) take care of the kids and the house because they were always seen as too delicate to go out and work a job. But, black women were expected to work all day, come home and cook, then take care of the kids and the house. Society never let black women be as "feminine" or delicate as white women, so they always had to carry a heavier social workload. This is how black women have been perceived since the 1700s during slavery, so by the time the first wave of feminism came around, black women and their issues were not included in the feminist movement. Elizabeth Lady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony prioritized their suffrage over black men, so black women were not even a consideration to receive suffrage. Now, in these third and fourth waves of feminism, it is nice to say that black women are treated the same as white women, but this is not always the case. Within the feminist movements, white women are overall still at the forefront and still discuss issues that directly affect them. So, the issues that are specific to minority women are still being pushed to the side as they were in the first wave of feminism.

This is a good entry . A few things to change and look out for like commas and different use for the word "and" . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kloesimone01 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

February 2017

this page does not need to be deleted because it is important for people to know and understand the difference between the white feminism movement and the black feminism movement and the feminism movement as a whole. Zholly (talk) 17:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC)Zholly

It was nominated in 2012 and the result was redirect. Since that time, the article has apparently been recreated. Kleuske (talk) 17:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

This page should be deleted/redirected again, as the concept is covered in Black Feminism and could also be added to first-wave and second-wave feminism pages. Mspushypots (talk) 02:16, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

References

I am not able to view the source for reference number 8, "Troubling Herstory: Unsettling White Multiculturalism in Canadian Feminism" Any suggestions?Shbu0044 (talk) 06:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Additions Made

Hi! I have been following this article for the past few months. I love that you have started this page and are really educating people on this issue. I have added a background section to this article. I think this will help readers of this article to more fully understand have far back white feminism goes and how big of an issue this actually is. I also changed the titles of some of the sections. They are more specific.

Gstew42 (talk) 02:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Contradictory statements?

On the one hand, we have:

Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony prioritized their suffrage over black men, so black women were not even a consideration to receive suffrage.

and

Susan B. Anthony (a staunch abolitionist) and Elizabeth Cady Stanton fought for white women to get the right to vote in the United States of America, prioritising this above black men getting the right to vote.

On the other hand, this sentence comes next:

Anthony and Stanton were wary of creating an "aristocracy of sex"; rather, they proposed universal suffrage, such that the black community and women (including black women) get enfranchised at the same time.

The third sentence appears to contradict the first two, and vice versa. To improve this article, it would be helpful to resolve the apparent contradiction and sort out how ECS and SBA actually dealt with this question, or if their views evolved over time. If the contradiction cannot be resolved, then note the differing views and provide citation support for each in turn. So far only the second of the three sentences has a citation. This issue is, I think, the very core of the history of first-wave feminism, and needs clarification. Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 15:23, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

124.149.88.212

Extended content

@124.149.88.212: You've edited the lede 5 times, but you haven't brought your concerns to the talk page to discuss them in more detail, or to gain consensus. "Removed the implied racism from the description and citation" Could you elaborate on what is racist here, please? "when the same negativity isn't used for black feminism" This is a false equivalency. White feminism is criticized because it focuses on white women to the exclusion of women of color. Black feminism is not. "Let's not make this white vs black" That's the central criticism of white feminism - that it focuses on white women to the exclusion of women of color. If this didn't exist, people would just call it "feminism". "Keep it neutral." Could you explain how this isn't a neutral description? "Please stop pushing your racist POV." Could you explain what you believe my POV to be, and why you believe it to be racist? "Biased "research" ≠ reputable information." Can you show some reliable sources showing that the research in question is biased? "Keep descriptions about what something IS, not what it ISN'T." Now you're just making up rules. Sometimes in order to explain what something is, you need to explain how it differs from other things (i.e. describe what it ISN'T). --ChiveFungi (talk) 22:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC) Edits are continuing by an ip from the same ip range. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC) IP address has been blocked, and page has been protected. (Thanks JamesBWatson). I'll collapse this section as this takes up quite a bit of space and the individual clearly has no interest in discussion. --ChiveFungi (talk) 15:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

White Feminism of White Feminist?

Are we attacking a certain group of feminism, or are we attacking any feminist who happens to be white, whether they are inclusionary of minority women or not? Not to mention that not every country is white-dominated, whose feminist are just as vocal. It is the same as excluding men, even as allies because the word privilege is often the same as "oppressor" or even straight-up "enemy."--2001:8003:8560:3D00:7076:3FFF:E583:43DA (talk) 09:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

White Feminism

This edit caught my eye. It removed the bulk of an assertion and the supporting citation, with an edit summary saying, "Removed bias against white women and fixed race blaming opening statement". This removal seems me to be POV pushing (i.e. not WP:NPOV) but, though I am raising its visibility here, I have not reverted it because I know little about this topic. Looking at the supporting citation of this journal article (which the edit removed, leaving behind an unsupported assertion), I see that it introduces itself by saying that it is an essay about the way in which racism shapes white women's lives. That may be a biased viewpoint, and the article may or may not support the assertion to which it was attached, but see WP:DUE re fairly representing all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

It definitely was POV pushing. I think this new edit was probably meant to be neutral, but causes the same difficulty and in fact makes the same change. As it currently reads, it must be confusing to people who haven't heard the term -- it sounds like "white feminism" might be a conscious attempt to consider white women's issues as white people. In fact, "white feminism" really is a pejorative term used only to designate the failure to consider non-white (and non-professional class) perspectives; there are no feminists who claim we need to "center white women's voices," for example. I think we need a definition that makes this clear, with a better citation if need be. 128.194.59.138 17:11, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Biased page; and why it's biased.

This page is biased in the form that being a white feminist is made to cause disadvantage; it's not. Also, this is biased, and your so-called "source" is just an opinion page; there arent ANY statistics and it's out of date. So in order to provide a non biased article the "source" must be removed and the "Failing to represent" needs to be removed also. There are many black, hispanic, native american, and other ethnic feminist groups and sects but none are used as a pejorative or have undertones like this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CorectingYourInfo (talk • contribs) 16:14, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

A look into why this article is biased

Having grown up using tumblr, I understand the context of this word. The phrase itself is a criticism towards the louder side of the feminist narrative accusing it of not including the racial-sex/gender based issues women of other races face and thus white women are racist for not including them in fully equal manner.

The rising of intersectional feminism and thus fourth wave feminism is the result of said criticism- you cannot say "intersectional feminism" without implying that feminism was lacking in intersectionality before.

While it is worthwhile to have a discussion on why white woman may have been dismissive of women of color in their time, it is a heated topic today. I worry that the first and second wave feminist history may be interpreted by a modern political standard: for example, American white feminists during the early 1800s would have had unique trending and individual views on how to apply their feminism to black women and Native American women. Black women and Native American women at the time might have also intentionally distanced themselves from such movements just as how some POC women do today, though I don't have enough historical knowledge in this area to know what happened. The phrase itself is a modern term that will ignore how some "white" feminists might discriminate against other "white" feminists: for another American history example; Irish women, Italian women, and Jewish women. For the sake of a neutral-view encyclopedic article under the headed name "White Feminism" I think that it should be include what that word actually is: a criticism of white women who called themselves feminists or fought for women's rights but did so in a manner that to the modern eye appears or does dis-include women from different ethnic backgrounds (especially in how we interpret that these days). "Others question the label and often confuse it with attacking white feminists, whether or not they are inclusionary of minority women" is a phrase used in the article meant to lead white feminists in thinking that these sorts of writings are okay and calmly attack those who criticize the article. This leads some feminists who are white to further explore the topic and quell their feelings off diss-ease.

It is important to understand that when intersectional feminists say "white feminism" they imply not only historical and modern racism, but also criticism of alternatives forms of feminism that don't highlight race. Radical feminism can sometimes include racial issues, but intersectional feminists push racial issues to a top-priority list. For example, black prostitutes being more likely to be murdered is a concern of radical feminism, but it is noted to be a racial issue as well as a feminist issue. A white prostitute who is murdered is an equally problematic occurrence that may have had no racial bias attached. In intersectional feminism, while both are supposed to be bad, the former is more concerning due to it being a racial issue. This is because intersectional feminism focuses itself as an anti-racial group while radical feminism may or may not acknowledge racism depending on the individual or sub-group, as it is more focused on the female-aspect of the issue. If there was an area where the reversed occured, numbers of white prostitutes increased while murders of black prostitutes were nil despite both people being common to the area, it is of my experience and opinion that a radical feminist of any color would be concerned; whereas an intersectional feminist- even white feminists in that group- would either look away or snigger at it (as white women got what they deserved for historically being racist). This intent push away anti-white bias as impossible or "not bad" a racial rights group is an important aspect to consider in all feminist articles nowadays as intersectional feminists push their agenda and viewpoints onto other people and work hard to convert the people they want into their group. Intersectional feminists tell the world that radical feminism is racist to draw other women into intersectional feminism. When the woman is a person of color, they tell her that they're the only feminism that advocates for their rights. If the person is white, they say that the other forms of feminism are racist, and racism is bad, so therefore intersectional feminism is the only form of feminism you can trust. But that isn't true. There are POC radical feminists who are against abortion and transwomen, and their existence is hushed by intersectional feminism to push the agenda of gaining more followers. The same issues can be seen in this article, where non-muslim feminists of all colors are labelled into "white feminism", as if there are not Korean or African feminists who are against the hijab. Where anti-trans feminists of all colors are labelled into white feminism, as if there aren't Latina or Polynesian women against transmen. In English-speaking nations intersectional feminism has a chance to use white people as a part of its politics, but while it utilizes different nationalities and ethnicities; issues of transgender and muslim issues in non-white countries are noted, but not used. A transman in Japan cannot say that discrimination against them is the fault of a white person, as it does in this article. It is a valid statement that a lot of transpeople make, but it is only relevant to the English speaking world. Which white feminism does encompass, but not wholly. There are other countries of people we would call "white" who do not speak English as their main language, and who may not have the same racial tensions America has.

If we're going to have an article about how white feminists are racist, then the article should be "Racism in Feminism". This article discusses some approaches white feminists have had towards POC and gives positives to lead you forward into thinking it's a neutral article, or in an attempt to be a neutral article, but is ultimately to dismiss the view of "white feminists". The paragraph about the hijab gives a view some white feminists have had towards the issue and adds a certain side of Muslim-feminist views. It doesn't add the views of Muslim feminists who are fighting against the hijab and want it gone, nor does it discuss a very important topic in feminism: social trends and how those influence women's decisions. This issue is very important and divisive in feminism. Is it feminist to shave my legs because I like it and it's my choice, or should I ignore how I've been taught to enjoy smooth legs because it's a beauty standard enforced by society? The issue of wearing a hijab boils down to this issue, but it's not discussed. This is because modern fourth-wave Intersectional feminism's stance on the hijab is "it should be legal to take it off, women shouldn't be slaughtered for taking it off, but it is slightly encouraged that Muslim women wear it for religious and cultural devotion." That is not a neutral POV.

The article in itself is almost a nice read, but the subtext and lack of full historical perspective around the world needs to be dealt with. It pushes away the POV of POC feminists whose agenda and narrative isn't in agreement with Intersectional Feminist views. That isn't neutral POV. I'm adding templates to this article to address these issues. Wacape (talk) 11:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I can't help but notice that you haven't cited any sources, or quoted from the literature, or mentioned any names of experts. Instead, you have shared your thoughts.

Wikipedia is built on WP:SECONDARY sources so that it ideally summarizes the literature for the reader. If you would like the article to say something other than what it says now, please suggest some sources that have not been used, or list what sources have been misinterpreted. Your thoughts alone are not leverage enough. Binksternet (talk) 19:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

April 2018

This article is currently written as an opinion page. It states personal attacks and personal views as facts.

I agree, I will place a template to signify this. --Thorseth (talk) 09:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Suggest to remove the two first references

The two first references used to justify the definition of the term should be removed.

• Frankenberg, Ruth (1993-01-01). "Growing up White: Feminism, Racism and the Social Geography of Childhood". Feminist Review (45): 51–84. doi:10.2307/1395347. JSTOR 1395347.
• ABPP, Monnica T. Williams, Ph D. (2019-01-16). "How White Feminists Oppress Black Women: When Feminism Functions as White Supremacy". Chacruna. Retrieved 2020-10-13.

Frankenberg does not mention "White feminism" at all and the Williams text is essentially a blog post on a site devoted to psychedelic plants, I think more weighty references are needed here.--Thorseth (talk) 12:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Coaston, Jane. "The Intersectionality Wars". www.vox.com. Retrieved 24 August 2020. Does not mention White feminism

The reference should be removed or the text rewritten. --Thorseth (talk) 12:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

introduction should be more specific

The last sentence of the introductory paragraph is unclear. Who questions the label? I think this should be more specific (name some feminists who think that white feminism is an attack against them). Kaleagurf (talk) 03:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

21st century intersectional feminism: Shire

The mention of Shire in the last section should be removed. This is not an example of white feminism, but rather a difference within the feminist movement about whether feminists should all have the same agenda or be allowed to prioritize different things. Kaleagurf (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Tyram99.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cbarton1. Peer reviewers: Smolfeministpup, Feminist Magic, Femme fatale218.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 January 2021 and 4 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Madss26. Peer reviewers: Marianaarose.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

peer review

Looking at the source of the references number 13 does not have the correct link. Also, is SparkNotes a reliable source? ---- Cristal G — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cristalgal30 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 12 March 2022 (UTC)