I read Privilege, Power, and Difference. The topic seems general enough. I found it to be a very very poor book. The author focused on only a select few types of difference: race, gender, and class.

For pages and pages and chapters and chapters he went on - a white man - expressing all of his learning about the privilege of white males like himself, and more so - upper class white males.

He failed to consider slews of other "differences". It's statistically clear that taller people achieve greater success in business than short. The handicapped deal with prejudice on a very regular basis. Lots of things make us different and many of these things impact our opportunities in life.

Racism is still clearly a big issue in our country. This became top of the public conversation with two recent cases - the New Haven Firefighters and the arrest of Henry Louis Gates by James Crowley. Having spent part of my time growing up around racism, I've seen severe abuse first hand.

I don't believe that the women's rights movement faces issues even remotely close to the magnitude of racial minorities in the USA. Wrapping them together in the same conversation, as the author mentioned above, tends to take the sentiment of one set of issues and applies it to another.

I'm absolutely sure there are parallels between the two - just as there are parallels with the issues handicapped people face. Yet, for some reason, people love to link feminism and race but not oh so many other underprivileged classes. Strange.

I am glad you brought up this issue. I was incensed to hear that the woman in Afganistan have no rights, that a law has recently been passed that the husbands may starve them if they do not have sex with them every four days, and that consentual rights have now been abolished. Who is supporting those women in unhappy or abusive marriages?

What is feminism without the intersection of various oppressive -isms?

First off, maybe you should approach the issue by thinking about the intersection of race and GENDER, not race and feminism.  This is because feminism is not just the invention of white, upper middle class women (though they are the strongest voice in the US).  Asking how race fits into feminism belittles and somewhat alienates women of minority groups, but asking them about how race and gender intersect then you invite them to be part of the movement and enrich it.

Now, I don't know why anyone would take offense to that request, of taking into account race when talking about the future of feminism.  If feminism is about equality between genders, then race, class, ableness, sexual orientation, religon and so on all matter.  They are all immediately implicated and should be taken into account.  No one exists without the other.  Nothing exists in a vacuum.

@PunditMom Joanne: Ok reality is reality and logisitcs is not just logistics.  Have you not put thought into why having women of color there is a logistical problem? Has it occurred to you that there are little women of color in academia and that this is no accident?  Also, what was the proportion of women of color vs. white women in the audience?

There is a problem if women of color are underrepresented in any panel (or feminism in general) and, for that matter, it is a sad matter that the organizers of the event have little contacts with women of color (as you are suggesting). There is a whole structural issue here that has everything to do with the color of your skin, because those who can go to the panels have had a lived reality that differs completely from those who can't go, namely brown and black women.

Feminism is noted by popular thought that it is grounded on white hegemony.  Until more women of color aquire more equal access to education (among other resources), then the problem of all white women in a panel won't go away.  Now, I really want to stress that it is NOT white women's fault, but a much wider, complex and all encompassing social reality that gives rise to certain trends. This is why posing the question is worth discussing.  Hopefully we should achieve a world where we don't have to pose these questions, but for now we have to.

A little discomfort doesn't kill, but instead opens up new realms of possibility for discussion and insights that bring to light the reasons that create inequality in society in the first place.  Your white skin does matter, and great effort must be done to realize and acknowledge the priviledges assigned to your position in society.  Otherwise, your feminists efforts will only go so far.

In other words, as a fellow feminist I would recommend you to take on the responsibility of looking into your own priviledges and question why they are there and what the inplications of those privledges are, just as you would probably like a man to do for his gender.  That is the feminist thing to do!!! :-)

Once that is done, we can clearly see that race and gender go hand in hand, regardless of our race or our gender.

Well this is such an old and unresolved argument. It's one that will continue to be spoken about with little done as well. The idea that one has to "cold call" a non-white participant speaks volumes about the separatism that exists in the first place. Every woman that fights for gender equality doesn't even label themselves "feminist". Also the class and race privilege that allows you to opt out of interactions is not going to be dismantled by unindoctrinated whites who refuse to examine their privilege no matter how "liberal" or "progressive" they may like to think they are. Also there are only so many blacks who attend NetRoots Nation anyway. One could have used Twitter to find adequate representation within 5 minutes and taken time to build a relationship. If you really want to open this space you're going to have to do more than make a statement. You'll actually have to ENGAGE some non-white women.

Great observation .I find it hard to believe they could not find any other non white , non hetero , trans , disable women to sit on the panel in the US!! From Haiti I have been looking at the Feminist blog wars and thinking that maybe white feminist don't want to include women of color in the conversation. Feminist women of color should just give up trying to be included in to these circles that is going to end up erasing them , that goes for disable , trans, and lesbian women. It's like the white men country club. Why would you want to be part of that. Let them have their all white women country club. Now if the media would stop with the stereotype that womanhood= hetero /cisgender/able-bodied/white /upper-class it would help a lot. white feminist should also need to stop pretending that they speak for all women. I 'm black , but will never pretend to  speak for all black people. There many of us from all around the world and we are different form one another. I will say that   Feminist of color in the US  are not exempt from looking at world  issues through their western gaze. it can be can be frustrating.Some  Feminist  are more worried about drafting speeches on feminist theory . I live in a country were Misogyny=law. Child slavery is normal. I could care less about feminist theory. It will not save my life when some guy kidnap me of the streets . I 'd rather be an actionist.

Hi Jen.

It was a pleasure meeting you at NN09, and I want to thank you for initiating this conversation.  As a woman of color who did attend the convention – and decidedly chose to attend the panel “Mixtapes to MySpace: How Hip Hop Builds Movement” that was being held at the same time in lieu of yours – I thought I’d chime in with a few thoughts.  No doubt, this conversation about why women of color are missing from the feminist movement is a difficult one to have, and, like someone mentioned, an “old and unresolved” issue.  And for fear of making gross generalizations about all Asian Americans, people of color, women of color, etc., I shall limit the scope of my comments to pertain only to my own experience at this particular convening of Netroots Nation.

First off, NN09 was my first convention and I had a great time.  Save for a few awkward moments with some even more awkward people, which were to be expected at such a nerd-fest, I found almost everyone amiable and open.  I thought the NN team did a fantastic job of running things, and that there was a genuine and concerted effort made to include women and people of color on the program as speakers and panelists.  Furthermore, as someone who serves as an advisory board member to Netroots Nation and claim as friends Raven Brooks and Mary Rickles – their Executive Director and Director of Communications and Media, respectively – I can personally attest to the NN leadership’s commitment to diversity and inclusion.

However, let’s face it: NN09 was a convening for the digital elite.  And by “elite” I mean predominantly white, who earn good incomes (at least relatively), and – in most cases – male. Given that NN09 represented a microcosm of America’s digital elite, albeit one with progressive values, I was not at all surprised about the demographic and psychographic break-down of convention participants – attendees and panelists alike.  Furthermore, because the feminist movement has always been comprised of mainly white women – women who bring with them the cultural framework and assumptions of a dominant white society – neither was I surprised about the lack of racial diversity on your panel, especially since most of the women of color at the convention who would have been qualified to speak on it was convening in the other room where I was, having a discussion about how mixtapes, MySpace and hip hip can help build movements and learning from an all-star panel that was all non-white.

Thus, I don’t think the lack of racial diversity on your panel was any individual’s fault per se.  Rather, the structural barriers arising from institutionalized racism and sexism are what precluded women of color from participating as panelists in the first place. Meaning, because convention participants were given the opportunity to submit ideas for panels at the convention, each submission not only included the proposed topic of discussion but also a proposed panel of speakers – a panel that was probably drawn from each submitter’s personal network.  (Like someone else said, who wants to make a cold call?)

While the Netroots are ostensibly more democratic in that theoretically anyone with a broadband connection can participate, the reality is that 37% of adult Americans still do not have broadband access from home.  Furthermore, compared to the 73% of White (non-Hispanic) Americans that do have access, only 8% of African Americans and 13% of English-speaking Hispanic Americans do.  Income and educational attainment (i.e., class) also preclude broadband adoption, which is why only 18% of those with household incomes of less than $30K and only 34% of people with a high-school diploma or less have broadband access. (These numbers were pulled from the Pew Internet & American Life Project’s Home Broadband Adoption 2009 report, by the way, which based its findings on data gathered from phone interviews conducted between March 26 to April 19, 2009, among a sample of 2,253 adults, 18 and older.)

I provide these numbers not to depress you or bore you, but to illustrate how small the digital elite universe actually is.  And of the people of color who do have broadband access, let’s segment out those who are also political activists, social media enthusiasts, and unabashedly progressive – folks that would essentially make up the “colored” part of the Netroots.  Then, from that group, let’s parse out the women-of-color.  And since this year NN09 took place in Pittsburgh, PA, let’s only consider those women with the means and the time to travel there for a 3-day convention, where the registration fee alone was $275, not to mention food, hotel and transportation costs.  Gender wage gap and disposable income aside, good luck to ya if you’re a mother with young children.  So behold, what’s left is your pool of potential women-of-color NN09 attendees.  Now how many of these women would the feminist faction of the Netroots know personally or deem “panel worthy?”

And of course there were logistical issues.  Of course it’s not easy to find an expert to speak about a specific issue that would complement the panel.  Yet that didn’t seem to stop the organizers of “The Myth of Post-Racial America” panel, the “Women and Minorities In Mobile” panel, the “Stepping it up: Creating Multiracial Alliances with Bloggers” panel, the “Si Se Puede 2.0” panel, and, of course, the “Mixtapes to MySpace: How Hip Hop Builds Movements” panel that was scheduled at the same time as your “Building a Conversation Across Generations of Progressive Women” panel.  Yes, there is a lack of women of color in technology and politics. But of those that are involved, we’re creating a vibrant community, coalescing around pressing issues that impact our communities the most: poverty, green jobs, education, immigration, healthcare, the 2010 Census.  And while reproductive freedom, global warming, sexual discrimination, and domestic violence are equally important to me, the adverse impact to communities of color if we don’t act swiftly on the former will be tremendous.

So at the end of the day, my decision to forgo your panel came down to a simple calculation of opportunity cost.  Despite my identifying deeply as being a feminist, I made that choice because I didn’t think I was going to learn or hear anything new, even though that may not have been the case.  No offense, but having attended a women’s college, worked in corporate America in male-dominated fields, and been actively engaged in politics for a number of years, I feel I’m quite familiar with the culture and issues associated with the feminist movement.  Yet that’s a kind of familiarity that hasn’t necessarily bred comfort.  Because every time I engage I bring all of my “racial baggage” with me:  I am an American-born daughter of Chinese immigrants, raised by a grandmother who didn’t speak English and worked in a sweatshop.  I was the first in my family to attend and graduate from college.  I toiled away for years in corporate America, navigating social and political landmines – daily, constantly on guard and questioning every situation while trying not to be too obvious about it.  I feel I’ve already had too many polite conversations about diversity with those who don’t recognize their privilege, and I just didn’t want to have to do it at NN09, too.

Don’t get me wrong: it can’t be easy for anyone of privilege to own up to benefits that are conferred to them – automatically and systematically – because of their race or gender.  But if white progressives want to work with communities of color to build a strong, long-lasting movement for change, owning up to white privilege will go a long way in moving us toward a peaceful, socially just, economically prosperous, and post-racial America.  And if my white feminists sisters want to find me, I’ll be down the hall with those fighting for economic and environmental justice, education equity and immigrant rights, healthcare and fair labor practices. For in these spaces where folks still struggle for basic human rights, my feminist values are inherently embedded into the fabric of the movement. 

From the minute my grandmother told me I was lucky to be so fair and that getting the light skin was a blessing, I became aware, at about age seven, that color really, really matters, and it can influence people's lives almost more than any other factor, depending. I came to believe that the melting pot was not the best way to go. We need to respect the spectrum and how it influences who we are. That's probably why I loved that Sotomayor spoke about how her Latina experience provided wisdom. I have recently found a distressing amount of bigotry and prejudice in feminism, so I absolutely think we need to discuss race. If the purpose of feminism is to advance women, and we think like this: money and influence = power and decision-making, and white women already get short-shrift, and we know racial minority women get even shorter shrift, then one of the first things we may need to address is parity across women and then how we can make that parity across our culture. That means talking about the instituitionalized racism and being painfully honest about it.

I attended the Netroots Nation Conference as a scholarship recipiant via America's Voice because of my writing on immigration. I only actually attempted to attend one "women's" panel/even and that was the women's caucus which I quickly walked out of cu I was late and wasn't feeling the vibe.

There is no doubt that NN is an "elite" space but part of the problem is also that women who represented at the event as the voice of women have used some pretty devisive and racist tactics that have sought to marginalize women of color. For example, as a radical woman of color, I was exteremely disturbed that Amanda Marcotte's book was featured prominantly, complete with savage imagery.

I think what happens on panels, and I am speaking based on my experiences and info on how some of the immigration themed panels were put together, the voices of the more radical/critical voices are marginalized/silenced/made invisible. As so called progressives, people expect criticism to come from te right, pero when the criticism comes from the left, those voices are labeled as distractions. It's a widespread issue in terms of how we work with each other in general.

Race can play a role in health issues as well. Living, "color blind" would be silly, when you take those points into account.

I think Affirmative Action has contributed to racism/gender bias, more than it has built an even foundation for fairness and equality. I'm not suggesting to disregard it completely, it does have some good points, but I think it needs to be refined. Classifying by race and gender makes an easy target for hate groups. It also validates detrimental racial/gender stereotypes. We can change our hair color, eye color, even gender, but race isn't optional.

The feminist movement is a good place to start; reaching out, educating ourselves, looking at struggles all women face. If we can't identify with racial views, we can identify with each other as mothers, wives, daughters, and sisters.

(I would like to hear more personal stories in this blog, from the minority women. I think it would help me gain insight and understanding of issues I can only hypothesise about.)

I just want to thanks Jen again for starting this conversation, as well as thank everyone who contributed something to the discussion.  Let's keep this going!

And Jane (aka Cynematic), I wish I'd the chance to meet you, too!  Where were you hiding?  I completely agree with your take on intersectional analysis, though your analysis on HRC stung a bit.  I'm still a down-ass Hillary lover.  Having been in corporate America where I saw women get passed up, passed over and shut out, I honestly believe she was just trying to win, and that she'd do the right thing once she got in there.  Like Eleanore Roosevelt on steriods type of stuff.  Maybe I'm jaded, but I gave up on purity a long time ago, and, since politics is still a boys game for the most part, I get why Hillary "went there."  Your critiques of her are valid, of course, but when I saw her campaign falling apart, I couldn't help but fly down to Houston for a week during the primary to help turn out votes in the API community for her.  My husband will tell you: it was about more than Hillary; it was about standing up for another woman. And after she lost, I went to battle in Nevada for Barack because he was going to be our first-ever black president and he was AWESOME (50% of which was because he was Michelle's husband).

So I guess there's the rub: I'm a hardcore feminist and I luuurve flying that flag, but I'm also a person of color...and a first-generation American, and a poor kid from Chinatown, and an urban dweller, and short, and childless, and etc., etc.  All those things are always in the mix.  At at the end of the day, I guess what holds me together - and what I hope holds us "progressives" together - is the belief that the world should be just, which to me means we should all have equal access to opportunities that enable us to be safe, happy, healthy, and fulfilled.

Hey all, here's the response I wrote to all these great comments - check it out:

http://womensrights.change.org/blog/view/one_sky_many_voices

Hi everyone.

Not sure if you caught this, but a woman of color named Rock4Justice posted this very thoughtful blog post on DailyKos about the lack of diversity at NN09: http://bit.ly/3uX9vb.

I also wanted to mention that there was some discussion at NN09 about interpersonal racism vs. institutional racism. (I bring this up because a few of you made the point about how you personally don't see color or discriminate against anyone based on gender, race, disability, etc.)  So while overt, one-to-one racism has actually declined, institutional racism is very much still alive.  (And I'd say this goes for sexism as well.)  Too often when a racist act occurs, we immediately want to reduce it to an interpersonal level, attributing it to one small group or one individual.  The danger in doing this is that we never look at the large, pervasive social forces that created the situation in the first place.  For example, the Professor Gates incident at Harvard revealed existing racial tension stemming from a history of abuse of power and racial profiling by Boston police against African American males.  This was no isolated incident, and the Boston police department reacted according to script: they closed ranks and praised Officer Crowley's exemplary record of service, making a special point of highlighting his leadership role in training other officers on diversity and racial sensitivity issues.  So OK - let's give the guy the benefit of the doubt: he's not a racist.  But how would you explain his discriminatory behavior? An unfortunate confluence of events? A misunderstanding? Professor Gates brought this onto himself by "over-reacting?"  Even if any of these hold true, there's still no denying that racial profiling is a common practice by law enforcement.  One needs to look no further than the prison population, where African Americans and Hispanics are disproportionately over-represented, to see that the racism is institutinalized.  The whole criminal justice system is rigged and we know it.

Yet - YET - the President tried to smooth things over by inviting Professor Gates and Officer Crowley over for beers, essentially reducing the racism from an institutional level to an interpersonal one.  I understand the impulse, but I think our President and we as a nation missed an opportunity to address the bigger problem - that injustice has been built into our institutions.  But before we can dismantle it, we must first call it out, acknowledge it, talk about it and deconstruct it.  Same thing for sexism, because it's institutionalized in our laws, in government, the way we socialize our kids, to the way we dole out economic resources and opportunities.

So yeah...let's keep talking.

Tina

I advocated for intersectionality in feminism since I became a feminist 17 years ago but as Violet Socks notes below, intersectionality works in theory but not in practice. I support intersectionality 120% (see my second link below) but this what happened in the feminist blogosphere over the last two years.

Violet Socks: I really don't want to use the word "intersectionality," even though that's the hallmark of the third wave, because in my experience that word is a pure boondoggle. It's supposed to mean an understanding of how women's oppression intersects with other forms of oppression, which is fine and good, but in practice it doesn't work that way at all. In practice, it means:

A. Racism and any other oppression always trump sexism;
B. Women from different cultures and social groups have so little in common that any talk of "women's oppression" represents the racist hegemony of middle-class white women;
C. Feminism must simultaneously tackle all other oppressions that affect women, including racism, homophobia, anti-semitism, ableism, ageism, poverty, war, and global warming,
D. Unlike feminism, none of the other social justice movements (civil rights, gay rights, etc.) are obliged to simultaneously tackle other forms of oppression, though intersectional feminists can't for the life of ‘em tell you why. (Hint: maybe if they read some second wave feminists they'd get it.)

http://www.reclusiveleftist.com/2009/06/17/how-would-you-define-the-fourth-wave-of-feminism/

http://donnadarko.wordpress.com/2009/03/23/whats-wrong-with-the-third-wave-part-13/

Feminism also became apologist about sexism and misogynist/feminist-bashing. It is a feminism Eldridge Cleaver and Larry Flynt would dream of, a feminism based on the fear of offending men of color.