We Need to Talk About White Feminism—Part II

Last month, we discussed why it’s important to talk about white feminism, and—more specifically—why it is harmful not to talk about it. (If you feel confused or defensive after reading this, make sure to check the part I of this series.) Today, let’s focus on what white feminism looks like, so you get savvy at spotting it. 

White feminism has a limited idea about what feminist issues are

Whenever women of color talk about the issues that are more prevalent in their communities (e.g., police brutality, Black maternal death rates, attacks and murder of trans women, racism, voting suppression) white feminists will say that these are race problems, not gender problems. These issues, they argue, are outside of the scope of the feminist movement. So, if you ever hear a feminist say something along the lines of “we’re not talking about (insert any issue that pertains to women of color, queer, low-income or immigrant women), we’re actually talking about gender.” or “talking about this issue is divisive” well, chances are you are dealing with some form of white feminism.

Corporate feminism

Corporate feminism means demanding that a few women achieve positions of power to “break the glass ceiling,” while ignoring the systemic unequal structures that further block low-income women or women of color from these leadership roles. This type of feminism is satisfied with a world where there are more women CEOs and political leaders, yet it is comfortable with other current inequities.

For example, corporate feminism focuses on closing the wage gap between men and women, while it ignores how Latina and Black women make significantly less than white women in the first place. As Mikki Kendall, the author of the book Hood Feminism: Notes from the Women that a Movement Forgot, said: 

“It's great to want to be a CEO or to be president, but you should also probably make sure that your neighbors have enough food to eat and their homes are safe.”

Ignoring Stereotypes 

Toni Morrison made a very emblematic observation in this 1971 New York Times article. She noticed how Jim Crow signs for white women were designated “White Ladies,” while the signs for Black women read “Colored Women.” Morrison highlighted how the word ‘lady’ implied “a quality softness, helplessness and modesty” while ‘women’ implied that black women were: “unworthy of respect because they were tough, capable, independent and immodest.” Language matters, and this language really exemplifies how womanhood is seen differently according to race. 

White feminism fails to deal with this narrative or even buys into it to this day. This is particularly problematic because the stereotypical image of white women’s ‘purity’ is fundamental in the perpetuation of racist stereotypes that depict Black men as predators and dangerous. In this narrative, Black men are the ultimate threat to a supposed white lady’s victimhood, vulnerability and purity--and this discriminatory image has been used as a justification for racial profiling. 

An example of this happened this year on Memorial day in Central Park, when Amy Cooper tried to intimidate Christian Cooper, a bird watcher who requested her to leash her dog. She threatened to call the police saying that there was, in her own words, an African American man threatening her life. Basically, she was weaponizing the racial stereotype against Mr. Cooper. 

An intersectional feminist approach calls out this narrative and harmful behavior, while a white feminism approach ignores it and sees it as a race problem, one that is isolated from women’s issues.

White feminism fails to call-out white supremacy

It is vastly documented how women of color have historically called out racism in the mainstream feminist movement. And it is equally documented how a great number of white feminists were unwilling to call out white women when they supported exclusionary narratives in the movement and beyond (make sure to read the book This Bridge Called My Back or the The Combahee River Collective Statement to get a better taste of this). 

A white feminist approach ignores the historical relationship that white women have with white supremacy. For example, some leaders in white supremacist organizations were women (e.g., WKKK), many in the movement against school desegregation were women, confederate statues were often erected by women (most notably through the United Daughters of the Confederacy.) and even some feminist leaders supported eugenics. (Also, make sure to check our article about the 19th amendment to learn more about how white supremacy played out even in the suffrage movement.)

But this is not something we can only read in history books. More recently, in 2020, several female business founders step downstep down after being accused of supporting toxic workplaces for people of color they employed (oh, hi there corporate feminism). So, just because someone is a woman, it does not mean that they can’t perpetuate oppression. Again, white feminism ignores that.

This is by no means an exhaustive list. A few other examples of white feminism practices include: Carceral feminism (when feminists exclusively advocate for increased policing, prosecution, and imprisonment to create justice for women, as if the justice system worked equally for all of us and police violence wasn’t an issue), tone policing (when white feminists try to silence the voices of women of color by labeling them aggressive or angry), the white savior complex (when feminists think they are more rational and civilized than other women and should “free” other groups of women.), cultural appropriation, the whitewashing of the contributions of people of color in feminism among others.

It goes without saying that all of the practices described are anti-feminist. Let’s be vigilant to spot, avoid, and call out all of these exclusionary approaches.

And stay tuned. Next month, we will discuss intersectionality. See you soon to talk about solutions!