The feminist blogosphere is: young, but not too young (25-35); mostly white (and of northern european extraction); middle to upper-middle class; highly educated (always degreed, usually grad school or law degree); able-bodied and healthy; non-religious (but typically with a Protestant or Jewish background); childfree by choice (also not a caretaker of an elderly or disabled adult); body size from thin to very thin; cisgender; heterosexual; conventionally feminine/pretty; fashionable; not employed in a nontraditional (>25% female participation) workforce; native English speaking (family of origin usually native English speaking also); non-indigenous and several generations removed from immigrant ancestors; raised in a nuclear family (either intact or divorced—but not “unwed” or extended family); lives in a large metropolis; favors capitalism; unmarried/unpartnered (meaning: no formal or legal ties of responsibility to a partner); never incarcerated (no family incarcerated either); and has plenty of personal contact with people in positions of actual power (gets invited to policymaking meetings/summits).
Latoya Peterson On Being Feminism’s “Ms. Nigga” | Racialicious – the intersection of race and pop culture
The demographics above are quoted by Latoya but she didn’t write that particular part herself. The analysis (and to provide context I would like to add that it referred to the “popular” blogosphere; the one that gets book deals and mainstream media presence) was originally made by La Lubu on Feministe. Latoya lifted the quote because it pretty much illustrates the points she makes in her fantastic piece from yesterday.
Now, about Latoya’s post, it was linked yesterday extensively but I had to Instapaper it for this morning because it was lengthy and I wanted to take the time to read it and reflect on it. It has to be one of the most lucid and in depth analysis I have seen as of late of the problems with what is usually called “mainstream feminism” and the politics within the movement.
A point she didn’t touch on, but I think is also relevant: how US centric this mainstream feminist discourse is. Not just by virtue of touching on issues pertaining to American women (which, of course, given the fact that these feminists are American makes sense), but also as to how this US centrism contributes to the erasure of other forms of political discourse about women’s rights. This US Centrism is dangerous because it does not count for different cultural paradigms and a good portion of it ends up engaging in neo colonial attitudes by attempting to impose values and standards that are not relevant to these cultures. The most glaring example of this is the Islamophobia that sometimes transpires in feminist’s approach to Muslim women and their very specific set of issues. The US Centrism attempts to impose one set of seemingly universal values and analysis to regions and unique sets of problems where these “universal values” do not apply. I see the same US Centrism every time the issue of Dutch women in the labor market is discussed or brought up, with a superficial analysis that usually concludes that Dutch women must be oppressed because surveys and census data show that they mostly work part time.
Latoya’s piece is written from the perspective of an African American feminist but every argument she makes could very well apply to several other types of feminisms and minorities.
Oh, and incidentally, as to the demographics above: clearly the reason why I shall always remain in the margins. Throwing stones from the outside has always been appealing to me, anyway.
For the past decade and a half I have been making all my content available for free (and never behind a paywall) as an ongoing practice of ephemeral publishing. This site is no exception. If you wish to help offset my labor costs, you can donate on Paypal or you can subscribe to Patreon where I will not be putting my posts behind a lock but you'd be helping me continue making this work available for everyone. Thank you. Follow me on Twitter for new post updates.