Since almost everyone else has done so, I will, too: Props, kudos, a really big SmackHug,a permanent slot in the SmackDog Baddddddassssss Wall of Fame, and a free gallon of concentrated SmackDog Whupass (TM, 2006) goes to Nubian of Blac(k)ademic for her righteous response to all the haters (especially Ginmar and SarahS) who attempted to pile on her for saying the truth about race and gender. A sample of her brilliance from the original essay, also posted to Alas, a Blog:
in the case of the current duke scandal, some folks feel that we must pay attention to the issue of gender before race since, she is a WOMAN and was allegedly attacked by MEN. however, i don't see how we can only pay attention to her as a woman, or as just a black woman, or even as a economically disenfrachised black woman, for that matter--all of her identities must be taken into account. her race is already determining who believes her and who doesn't, how bad of a parent she is (the myth of the bad black mother), and it's determining how she is misrepresented in the media. additionally, we must not forget that we exist in a media saturated world that continuously reproduces negative images that deem black womens bodies as disposable sex objects. it is all too impossible to deny that those images do not play a strong part in concluding how she was/is/will be treated by men of all races. furthermore, if one believes that gender trumps race in this specific situtation, then they deny the harm of the racial slurs that were hurled at the dancers, which i personally see as a form of violence towards these women--no matter what.
moreover, the argument that "gender trumps race," also ignores the fact that women of color see men of color as necessary allies in the struggle against "the patriarchy." men of color do have a complicit relationship with fostering the oppression of women based on gender differences, but, we cannot ignore the fact that these same men face similar oppressions due to the color of their skin aside from their gender. in the case of the duke scandal, if it were men of color who allegedly attacked a woman of color, issues of race would still be in play and i still wouldn't see how gender would situate itself in a hierarchical position above race, or vice-versa. rather, we would have to take into account how race functions within the specific racial group to understand fully the scope of the attack, what should and can be done about it, ways to prevent future attacks on women, etc.
finally, if gender trumped race, there would be no need for black feminism, for third world feminism, for chicana feminism or for women of color feminism. generalizations about "the patriarchy" and the oppression of women in a heirarchy based on gender, only ignores the multiplicity of the number of oppressions all women face that are not soley based on gender. however, to some white feminists who face gender oppression in exchange for racial privilege, gender does trump race.
For spelling this essential truth out, Nubian has been basically ambushed and smeared as "whiny", a "petulant child", a "token", and "setting third-wave feminism back" by promoting "racism in reverse" (quotes from SarahS in comments from Feministing)....and those were the more friendlier comments.
But the mother of all attacks came from none other than our dear radicalfeminist friend Ginmar, who obviously is so connected to the microcode of MacDworkinism (the combined and shared ideology of Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon which states the feminism -- defined as the abolition of essential male domination and essential female victimhood) is the one and only oppression and all others should take a back seat -- that she wouldn't know racism it it stood up and bit her on her behind. To quote the G.rummy:
Long before protohumans crossed oceans and discovered people of other colors, men discovered they could beat up women and make them afraid and obediant. That includes black men, who had an additional excuse white guys don’t: they have truly suffered. Yet they inflict their suffering on black women. When they do it to white women, it’s something we should all ignore, except if we want to call white women liars. Within oppressed groups, the men inflict their abuse on the women to assert the only thing they’ve got: manhood. Black women may consider black men their allies, but I wonder if that includes the kind of guys who are sexist in the way as white guys. Because that’s what it boils down to.
Talking about rape, race, and black-white feminism never brings up the thing that lurks underneath: men of color can be sexist, too. None of the black feminists want to touch that one. Instead they want to talk about white female privilege and how black men are their allies. Maybe it’s a privilege to look at a sexist guy and see just the sexist and not the skin color and not give a shit, either. But standing by your man or men in this case…..
That last one was also from Alas, a Blog....
Sorry, but what it comes down to is whether or not women support other women or men. Support men first? Call them innocent victims of lying bitches? Yeah, sorry, I'm a teensy bit skeptical that you're feminist. Call women liars who victimized men? Yeah, I'm convinced. Sorry, but if you bash other women to protect men, then I'm a wee bit umimpressed. Why does the label feminist matter so much then?
...and that one was from the Feministing thread...
...but Ginmar really showed off her ass at her own Live Journal blog, where she launched a virtual chemical laden Scud missile attack on Black feminists (and by extension, all non-White "feminists of color") as traitors of their gender and apologizers for innate (Black) male sexism...even going so far as to channel Susan Brownmiller's exhumation of Emmett Till's old bones:
When white women lie about being raped by black men, no one resurrects photographs of black bodies hanging from trees, or the mangled and bloated body of young Emmitt Till who, supposedly, only whistled at a white woman.
Well, first of all, you have to prove that white women lied in the first place. That statement presents as fact the idea that white women lie. Period. So....huh? The Emmitt Till case doesn't work here, becuase the white woman in that case didn't kill him and didn't even tell her hubby that he'd whistled at her----one of Till's murderers got the information from one of Till's own relatives. White women served as an excuse for two grown up men to defend their property from a fourteen-year-old kid. Exactly what do women have to do with these guys at all? Reminds me of the way some guys will compete over anything. To both groups of males, that woman was property. She might as well have been a ping pong ball being batted back and forth over a net. How the hell am I supposed to feel about that? Evidently, I'm supposed to keep quiet and not dare mention this because what men to do to women just makes us symptoms in their world, and we're supposed to be content as symbols, trophies, excuses, or anything but human beings. Is it racist to see the sexism first and then not give a shit about the race? If it winds up with these things, I don't give a shit about what the colors of the partipants are:
1. a penis gets shoved into a woman's body without her consent;
2. she gets called a liar;
3. and a community stands behind their men, claiming that some women lie.
WOW. Just plain f'n WOW.
I guess that G.rummy missed the part of the Emmett Till history that HE NEVER PHYSICALLY ATTACKED THE WOMAN (I put this in ALL CAPS in case she didn't understand), and that he did in fact GET LYNCHED for his trouble. WTF does that have to do with "shoving a penis into a woman's body"..unless she happens to be implying that the men who lynched Till actually were acting right because (since all men are invertabrate rapists and all women should be assumed as saying the truth when they say that they are raped, then Emmett Till must be guilty..and therefore deserving of his fate!!! And by logical extension, one can actually argue that those who executed Emmett Till were indeed radicalfeminist ALLIES for taking such a strong stance against brutalizing women...whatever the actual evidence may be.
Oh, but wait; there's more where that came from:
Moreover, the argument that “gender trumps race,” also ignores the fact that women of color see men of color as necessary allies in the struggle against “the patriarchy.” Men of color do have a complicit relationship with fostering the oppression of women based on gender differences, but, we cannot ignore the fact that these same men face similar oppressions due to the color of their skin aside from their gender.
(Ginmar's response, again)
"Fostering the oppression of women based on gender differences" is such a passive, academic phrase. And, you know, I notice that black men were regarded as possessions for three hundred years, but women have been regarded as possessions forever, everywhere, by every kind of man there is. Once again, I ask, exactly how am I supposed to feel when some oppressed guy chooses not a white guy to act out his issues on....but a woman? They'll fight over a woman, with the clear indication that she's just a piece of ass they're fighting over, but when they want revenge on society, suddenly women are the most powerful villains there are. Why is that?
They had something to gain–namely that their otherwise unbelievable stories would take on a patina of common sense in a racist society. Remember the mom who murdered her children by driving them in to the lake, but claimed they were kindnapped? Case in point.
Oh, come on, don't be coy. Everyone knows who Susan Smith is. How come this one white woman is responsible for a racist society, though? Did she create racism? Probably not--it's been around a lot longer than she's been alive. How does she have any more to do with other white women, though, than Tawana Brawley has to do with other black women? Isn't that we're supposed to be against?
How come when white guys like Charles Stewart claim the same thing, when they have way more power than any white woman can dream of, that they're not demonizied, too? HOw many people know who he is off the top of their heads?
First off, Ms. Moran, it's Charles STUART.....and secondly, I'm sure that the innocent Black men who were stripsearched, questioned, harassed and otherwise targeted by the police in both these cases would readily appreciate your analysis. And what about the basic fact that Susan Smith's father (or stepfather) was infact the head of the Christian Coalition in South Carolina at the time of the incident?? Or perhaps she doesn't really have any privileges there all because she is a woman??? Oh, but even right-wing racist women are nothing more than victims of patriarchy and evil men, even if they don't act like it.
A few more tidbits of Ginmar's racist madness:
That's why the difference between the way racism and sexism get discussed has always pissed me off. People really don't want to see sexism that crosses racial lines. It makes it too easy to see that women are still propety to too many men, and that the only real difference is between what price tags we get stamped with, and if we're important enough to get locked up so we don't get stolen. The idea that we might want to own ourselves and not have to sell ourselves to some guy still hasn't arrived yet. We're still arguing about whose possession is worth more.
Unfortunately, black and white people come in two genders. It would be so much easier if one were male, the other female, or vice versa. Nobody wants to deal with the idea that men of all races, creeds and religions can get together over one thing: whether or not that girl or any girl is a slut. Whether she asked for it. Whether the bitch lied. Those are things a man can sympathize with, now that women don't know their place any longer---in the home, in the kitchen, or in the bedroom, or just by his side, sympathizing when he has to deal with whatever the latest excuse for being sexist is. His treatment of women becomes something that's a sign of his pain, and we're supposed to stand by him.
All races have within them the poison of sexism. You can avoid other races. You cannot avoid the other gender, and one of those genders, no matter what, gets pregnant and is smaller and lighter and less respected than the other.
White women are privileged, I'm told. I wonder if Martha Stewart believes that while she watches the very tardy trial for the Enron bigwigs, who aren't being villified the way females are. Years from now, Kennyboy Lay is not going to get a tabloid soubriquet or be the subject of a gossipy, bitchy bio like any female who crosses the line. Leona Helmesley got called the "Queen of Mean" but Michael Milken sure never got labelled the "King of Cruelty." That privilege comes with a vicious backlash, which comes into play whenever a woman isn't perfect. If she's perfect, she's fake, and if she's not perfect, she's whatever the guy wants to blame---slut, whore, bad mother, bad girlfriend, lying bitch, evil stepmother, what have you. Not only are all women property, but some women are marked down from the get go. Then they blame---other women.
The last two sentences, I guess, are particularly telling of Ginmar's snide rejection of Black and WOC feminists as gender traitors and male rapist enablers..since they have the unmitigated gall to question the privileges of upper-middle class White radicalfeminists, they are undermining the great cause of toppling patriarchy by dividing women from each other and tackling the REAL source of oppression..namely, men with penises. And notice how she gets a dig in favor of Martha Stewart as a "victim"..never mind that she's never been raped by anyone, only jailed for insider training while Ken Lay apparently relaxes by his pool awaiting his fate on the same charge.
And here's the supposed knockdown blow:
Here's the thing about racism, though. Men are human beings. Always. Women are still possessions. Nobody thinks of black men as possessions, but any and all women are possessions, to be taken or stolen or destroyed. Some men of various minorities get regarded as animals, but after walking down the street and getting harassed by different-colored guys who don't see my owner anywhere and think I'm a freebie, I'm damned if I can the difference. Am I supposed to ignore the sexism for the race?
There you have it...walking down the street and facing a few boorish men hurling sexist catcalls is far, far more important an issue than Black men getting lynched and murdered and beaten up for being in the wrong place at the wrong time..and any Black woman who attempts to place the latter above the former is simply a traitor who defiles all women. See, gender not only swamps race, gender is the SOURCE of racism, and until it is eliminated first, you uppity nigg....errrrrrr, Blacks...will just have to take their seat at the back of the bus and wait your turn. So there.
With "radical feminists" like Ginmar....who the fuck needs David Duke????
I'd rather take my chances with a porn starlet and a stripper as an ally than this racist crackhead whiny-ass fool.
Here's to you, Nubian, for breaking her sorry ass off real proper.
(And the usual tip of the rack to K at Bitch Lab for documenting the whole sorry episode and bringing her own can of Whupass.)
Oh, my Goddess...get a load of this classic comment from Ginmar from further down the same thread, which I just sent over to Bitch | Lab :
But going back to Ginmar….I read through the responses to her thread and I discovered this gem that I just have to share:
2006-04-28 01:12 am UTC (link)
Actually, there is evidence that white women were raped by black men, but no one knows which men, how often, or much of anything. The NAACP report which I cited a week ago found that while rapes were the excuse for lynchings only in one third to one quarter of all cases, in hte public mind they became the only cause. The strangers who have posted to this blog have ignored that repeatedly in favor of accusations of racism.
There is also evidence that white women resisted the lynchings, but, hey, let’s ignore that, shall we? Anti lynching societies were formed by white women who saw clearly that they were being used. funny how nobody is making generalizations about white women’s character on that basis, is it? It’s just so much more satisfying, for some reason, to have a ‘no class, low class whore’ white woman being blamed for lynchings instead of a white male establishment which would eventually prove useful to the black community—-which is something white women never have been, an inadvertant endorsement of their lack of power. What is clear is that white men orchestrated the lynchings and claimed t hey were doing them on behalf of southern womanhood. What is also clear is that rape of black women was so common as to be in effect legal. What I have always objected to is the blanket characterization by the black community of white women as lying bitches who killed black men. Men are men. It is impossible to believe that any community of men does not contain rapists, especially when said community makes sexist generalzations about the women that are all too familiar.
Yup..just like it is impossible to belive that any community of women (especially upper-class radicalfeminist women) does not contain racists, especially when [representatives of] said community makes racist generalizations about Black men and women that are all too familiar.
Hello..Kettle…this is Pot calling. How ‘ya doing??? BTW…you do know that you are Black, don’t you???
And while there were a few White women brave enough to oppose the mass lynchings, the overwhelming majority of them (including most of the feminist sufragette activists of their day) mostly ignored the issue…and quite a few even lent their support to the Southern regime which supported lynching in the first place, as a compromise to obtain suffrage, I guess). Most of the main activism against lynching was mostly launched by Black WOMEN and Black men…does the name Ida B. Wells ring your bell, G.rummy???
Asshat…pure racist asshat. I say it again…with such radicalfeminists like this, who the f*ck needs David Duke??
The more she talks, the deeper the BS. Keep this up and Bill Napoli might have someone to share his title of Asshat of the Year with.