The following piece is part of a series of articles and essays on sexual assault and harassment in WashU’s social justice and activist community. This piece contains discussion of sexual violence.
How to tell if someone is critiquing white feminism or just hates women
We cannot talk about violence against women without talking about women of color and we cannot talk about violence against women without talking about women. All women and femmes face oppression. Sexual violence is part of our daily lives. Most people on WashU’s campus would not disagree with that statement.
All women face the sexual violence of a patriarchal culture, but white women also benefit from white supremacy and cannot disassociate from that privilege. Intersectional feminism calls out white women and white feminism for their passivity or active opposition to racial equality. The tension between white feminism and intersectional feminism is the tension of having marginalized people within an umbrella community of oppressed people.
It’s a tension that has been co-opted by select members of WashU's social justice community to perpetuate violence against women.
There are people in our community who talk about sexual violence with the intention of erasing women from the discussion. They gaslight survivors by either explicitly or implicitly categorizing white women as a group of people who cannot face oppression.
It can be hard to distinguish between anger toward white women for the erasure of women of color and trans women from feminist politics and rhetoric that erases sexual violence from the experiences of white women.
Here are a list of questions to ask in order to get to the root of someone’s rhetoric and answer the question: are they critiquing white feminism or do they just hate women?
Are they implying sexism is not inherently violent?
Sexism is part of a violent power structure. From passive comments to harassment, all acts targeted at specific gender identities are rooted in sexual violence. Sexual assault is a specific brand of violence that is fixated on anti-feminine oppression.
If someone is implying that sexism is not tied to sexual violence, or if they are implying that the experience of sexism, and the experience of womanhood, is free from violence, then they probably just hate women.
If someone is implying that sexism is not tied to sexual violence, or if they are implying that the experience of sexism, and the experience of womanhood, is free from violence, then they probably just hate women.
Are they using intersectionality to silence Survivors?
Intersectionality looks to dismantle and reorganize the hegemonic politics of women’s rights. It’s not just about inclusivity; it’s about addressing the race and identity based violence enacted by white women. What intersectionality doesn’t do is tell survivors that their assault is any less legitimate because of their race or the identity of their perpetrator.
If someone uses identity to question a survivor in their community, then they probably just hate women.
If someone uses identity to question a survivor in their community, then they probably just hate women.
Are they talking exclusively about white women when they really mean all white people?
White women are often scapegoats for oppression within social justice and activist communities. As previously mentioned, white women benefit from white supremacy, and will always continue to, no matter how much they denounce their identity. Is it unfair to hold white women and trans people more accountable for white supremacy than white cismen because we don’t expect better from cismen? Honestly, I’m not sure. Either way, that’s not what this question is about.
If white femininity is targeted when white identity over all is intended, that’s a problem. The image of white femininity as representative of white identity as a whole conflates white femmes to white men and erases a femme’s subjection to sexual violence.
If someone talks about white femmes like they do white men, then they probably just hate women.
If white femininity is targeted when white identity over all is intended, that’s a problem. The image of white femininity as representative of white identity as a whole conflates white femmes to white men and erases a femme’s subjection to sexual violence.
If someone talks about white femmes like they do white men, then they probably just hate women.
Are they imposing white womanhood on women of color?
What is a white woman besides white? Light skinned women of color and women of color with socioeconomic or nationality privileges are often considered to lie on the border of what whiteness is defined by. Phrases like “white-passing” make that association explicit without considering the individual’s identity. White womanhood is imposed on femmes of color to accuse them of sympathizing with white supremacy. Their identities are rejected under the umbrella of a “white-” label.
The nuance of members of the same identity having different privileges is within that own identity; it is for members of that own identity to negotiate and discuss. The imposition of white womanhood on women of color is an outside intervention into that negotiation process.
If someone labels a woman of color as “white-” when discussing white feminism, then they probably just hate women.
The nuance of members of the same identity having different privileges is within that own identity; it is for members of that own identity to negotiate and discuss. The imposition of white womanhood on women of color is an outside intervention into that negotiation process.
If someone labels a woman of color as “white-” when discussing white feminism, then they probably just hate women.
Are they talking about women’s bodies as agents of violence?
In our community, the way we talk about the bodies of survivors as weapons automatically questions the legitimacy of their assault.The association of body with thing not only removes a woman from her own body, but also subverts the gendered power dynamics of sexual violence. Rhetoric that weaponizes feminine sexuality assumes a woman’s body is a tool the same way the act of assault assumes a woman’s body is a tool.
If someone talks more about a woman’s body than their agency, then they probably just hate women.
If someone talks more about a woman’s body than their agency, then they probably just hate women.
Are they defending sexual violence?
If so, then they definitely, without a doubt, 100%, just hate women.