Skip to content

Pomposity and Priorities

November 24, 2009

White women going on about how good the darkies have it now, and how it’d be great if white women could only have it so good, remind me of MRAs.  MRAs whine constantly and bitterly about the few superficial gains women have made (I say superficial because even as the details of women’s oppression change, the power differential, that is, male supremacy, remains static), resentful that women have a little bit more license to pursue their own happiness in a still male-supremacist society; and white women are not very different.  You see, males, especially white ones, always frame female progress in terms of males having “allowed” women their gains, of males having “given” us rights, which does nothing but perpetuate the notion of males as benevolent stewards over women.

White women seem to understand that males don’t get to decide when white women have been “allowed” enough license over their own lives, that males don’t get to decide when they’ve “granted” white women enough rights.  White women seem to understand that whatever gains white women have made are not a reflection on men’s kindness and generosity, that white women’s gains have been hard-earned and even harder-maintained.

Yet these same white women believe that whatever paltry gains non-white, especially black, women have made are gifts granted us by white folks!  Yes, they want credit for the few laws on the books criminalizing certain discriminations against us.  They seem to believe that if black women cannot be called crack hos in the workplace that someone should in turn reward them with not only an equal law with regard to white women (which law already exists) but also a meaningful improvement in the societal psyche toward women as a result of said law.  And even further, they judge themselves qualified to determine that such a change has already occurred in society’s view of non-white women.

They insist that white women are separate from white males, that white women are somehow not the beneficiaries of racism, even as they lump non-white women together with non-white men as “POC,” insinuating that non-white women are equal beneficiaries of white men’s and women’s “anti-racism” as non-white males.  Even while white women stamp their feet about how discussing racism in general means discussing males, they neglect to ever mention that failing to discuss racist-sexism means excluding the vast, vast majority of women.  “Talking about sexism is talking about 50% of the world’s population!” they holler.

Sure, but some 88% of those women are not white.

  1. November 24, 2009 1:54 am

    In case you haven’t heard we have a black president now, from what I over hear racism is officially over!

    Forty years after feminism and the only thing white feminist are interested in hearing from black feminist is “would you like some more coffee ma’am”?


  2. November 24, 2009 2:11 am

    Oh, yeah, right after we lick their boot for having been so magnanimous as to vote for that black president (for the “anti-racist” points they get from other white folks).

  3. November 24, 2009 2:52 am

    It is truly the inability to empathize with black women. I see and hear it from white women all the time. It comes out in the media, in comments on blogs, everywhere. Right now with that case concerning Shaniya Davis, white women (Nancy Grace) are so removed from black women (Antoinette Davis) that the only way they are able to express empathy is to identify with the white father. His whiteness bonds them even though he is a man. If he were a black man, they would see how he is using the opportunity of his dead daughter to grandstand.

    If a rape victim is white, a white woman can empathize. However, if the rape victim is a black woman who was raped and tortured, the closest the white woman can empathize is imagining the same happening to her pet dog. Her pet dog would have never been thought of first if the victim had been white, instead she would have put herself in the shoes of the victim. It is as if the second the skin color is revealed she can no longer relate to the victim as being a woman like herself but some other being. It is like suddenly it becomes a “black thing” and not a woman thing.

    • atheistwoman permalink
      November 24, 2009 3:32 am

      Well, when you see someone as less than human and on top of that, dirt, you can’t empathize, much the less put them in your “category.”

      White women (especially wealthier) are put on pedestals, black women are put about ten feet underground, with the worms and such, untouchable…

      Naturally white women wouldn’t those women in their “category.” I have to wonder if it has to do with/sprouts out of being used by black men vs. being used by white men?

    • atheistwoman permalink
      November 24, 2009 4:00 am

      Err, sorry, to be clear the dirt in that comment has nothing to do with the commenter “dirt.”

    • November 24, 2009 4:16 am

      I have to wonder if it has to do with/sprouts out of being used by black men vs. being used by white men?

      What do you mean here. Can you elaborate?

    • atheistwoman permalink
      November 24, 2009 4:40 am

      Well, white men are valued, so naturally anyone they use as a dick dumpster (too nasty? But I do love the alliteration!), their “property””their women” would be more “valuable” as a result of that.

      Whereas black men are not valued so anyone they use as a dick dumpster, their “property,” “their women” are considered less than less.

      Isn’t marrying white/light-skinned considered a way to move up in the world, because having that proximity to white men rather than black gives you white man fairy dust (prestige, access, white social networks), or some such?

    • atheistwoman permalink
      November 24, 2009 4:41 am

      In this environment marrying a black man is like cheering for the losing team? No?

    • atheistwoman permalink
      November 24, 2009 4:42 am

      Err, I’m using the term “marry” in the loosest sense.

    • November 24, 2009 4:50 am

      Okay, I understand. And that may be loosely connected to what Margie was talking about when she said in a previous post about how American white women do not care about women of color and sex tourism as much as they are pissed that their white men were able to circumvent them.

    • atheistwoman permalink
      November 24, 2009 4:52 am

      Really, could you explain more? (I’m sorry, I am always doing that! And I am always clogging up your comment bar…)

    • atheistwoman permalink
      November 24, 2009 4:57 am

      Margie said something the other day about privileged people assuming they are welcome, and it made a large clicking sound in my head…

    • November 24, 2009 4:59 am

      Yes! Kitty, yes!

      It’s not so much the fact that black women are black men’s property – it’s more that they aren’t white men’s property. White women derive their value – and their sense of self-value – from the fact that they are white men’s property (misogyny). So, it definitely does go back to what I was saying about white women’s “outrage” over rape tourism and mail-order rape. White women want white men to tolerate white women’s gains AND they want white men to stay at home and be “enlightened” white men for them. If white men go abroad, especially if they go abroad citing white women’s liberation as a cause for going abroad, then white women are no longer the prized pets of white men, even though they still enjoy their “liberation” at the expense of non-white women.

      Of course, it should go without saying that this fear that they will lose their prized status is an illusion, since white men need white women for progeny in a way that they don’t need non-white women, but even a false fear makes for a decent rationale for their behavior.

    • November 24, 2009 5:02 am

      AW, your welcome is not just assumed; it has been confirmed and re-confirmed several times over, as has that of a few other white women.

      White women in general, though, would do well to heed that clicking sound. 🙂

  4. November 24, 2009 3:24 am

    His whiteness bonds them even though he is a man. If he were a black man, they would see how he is using the opportunity of his dead daughter to grandstand.

    Yep, and not just that white man in particular, but all white men, as a class. White women even accept white men’s definition of “anti-racist.” If white men consider it “anti-racist,” that’s good enough for white women. Fuck non-white folks for having a different standard. White men say they “care” about racism, so white women believe it, and then demand that white men “care” as much about sexism against white women. Never mind all those black women trying to tell white women that white men don’t really give a fuck about racism either. White men say it, so it must be true!

    And, yes, yes, yes, about the animal thing. White women give much more of a shit about the animals than they do about black women. I was watching Amazing Race once with my mother; she loves that show. Anyway, the teams were in India, Calcutta I think, and there was just overwhelming, heart-breaking poverty. Girls and women were eating out of dumpsters, along with any number of stray cows. One team, 2 blond white women, upon seeing this travesty, immediately started wailing about the plight, not of the human beings living in such dire straits, but of the fucking bovines!!! It was like they didn’t even see those people resorting to the same unfit food source; they only had compassion for the animals.

    • November 24, 2009 4:21 am

      I was watching Amazing Race once with my mother; she loves that show. Anyway, the teams were in India, Calcutta I think, and there was just overwhelming, heart-breaking poverty.

      I was saving that story for my Whiteness and Animals post. That’s what I get for being so slow, and lazy.

      If white men consider it “anti-racist,” that’s good enough for white women.

      All one has to do is take a good look at who has capitalized on the anti-racism circuit,—Tim Wise and Robert Jensen (white men).

  5. theunmarrieddaughter permalink
    November 24, 2009 3:44 am


    You are a powerful writer. Thank you for sharing.

    Your description of us liberal white feminist women is dead on accurate.

    Someone please explain how women can sell out any other woman regardless of her class or race over a man, or animal. I don’t get it, and I don’t want to get it.

  6. November 25, 2009 3:44 am

    Boy, the eunuchs and wannabe eunuchs sure did white women a favor today by diverting the conversation from issues of white-woman racist-misogyny to the “me me me-ism” of “but you’re hurting my FEELINGS by calling me male.”

    • November 25, 2009 3:46 am

      “You scratch my back, I will scratch yours.” There are plenty of white women who go out of their way to defend the eunuchs, insomuch as depriving themselves of basic protection against misogyny.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: