Skip to content

White Supremacy, The Gift that Keeps On Giving

October 21, 2010

WOC of course have more credibility on the issue, and dont have to explain any of this to anyone, if they dont want to. its the alleged “allies” in this scenario that are problematic. they are weak, and ineffectual. is this better than no allies at all? not my call. but i will still call them WEAK, because they are. as one WW to several others: you are weak allies, and you arent doing your fucking job.

FCM, honestly your head is straight up your ass. I don’t know who you are talking to specifically, but to DEMAND that someone educate you is a clear-cut example of exercising white privilege.  Who the fuck are you to DEMAND that white women who ally themselves with black women expend energy educating you, —so you will not be called a racist when you exhibit racism?  You sound like a damn white man talking to a white woman about white feminism.  “Babe, why don’t you go hang out with feminists, learn to articulate their experiences, empathize, connect, love, live with, put forth your time and energy building a relationship, and then come back and tell me all I need to know in order to say the right things so that I will not look like a sexist.”  LAZY ASS ENTITLED SEXIST FUCK! That is what I would call such a man. Not to mention how the second she goes back and tells him, she is perpetuating and upholding patriarchy! She is enabling his sexism by teaching him how to disguise it better. Is it her job as a feminist to build relationships with all women or teach a man how not to appear sexist? So, why in the fuck would white women who have built (and building) relationships with WOC [black women], go and teach [enable] other white women how not to appear racist when they are in fact racists. How is that helping to build and maintain relationships with all women.

If a white woman does not want to interact with black women, on or off line and/or attempt to analyze feminist discourse through a black woman’s lens (the deepest root of oppression), then that is her choice.  However, she will not be given the benefit of doubt that she is not a racist when she openly admits that she refuses to examine white supremacy.  Sorry, that is so 2006.  The whole Feministe/Shakesville crowd and other fun-fems have learned the anti-racist language, yet, they still manage to remain white centered. Imagine that.

Then to talk shit and call white women who are allying with black women weak and ineffectual.  Weak is the opposite of strong.  Ineffectual is the opposite of effectual.  Essentially, FCM is saying white women who choose exerting time and effort in allying themselves with black women instead of exerting time and effort in teaching racist white women how not to appear racist are weak and ineffectual.  Unlike, how the racist white women waiting around to be schooled and not bothering with actual relationship building with black women are strong and effectual.

White women who ally themselves with black women are doing so to de-center whiteness.  Therefore, why in the hell would those white women participate in centering whiteness with white women?

Not to mention how calling those white women weak (and ineffectual) is an act of racism. It is in the ball park of calling a white person a NIGGER LOVER! That’s right.  NIGGER LOVER.  What FCM is doing when she is calling white women who ally with black women weak, is calling those white women NIGGER LOVERS! See how that works.  She is dog whistling to other white women.  “If you side with black women, you are weak, less than, and will be pushed out of the white club, so, get with the program or else.” 

34 Comments
  1. October 21, 2010 8:24 pm

    (((Kitty)))

    I’m so glad you saw that fucking comment.

  2. October 21, 2010 8:51 pm

    And you know I didn’t even get that that’s what they were doing with their ‘bring it, bring it’. It was weird, like ‘Wha…it’s been brought like 100 times now! We’ve all pointed it out, here, here, here, and here.’

    But that’s not what they wanted – they didn’t want their own words pointed out. They wanted us to tell them how to mask their racism whilst still believing in it. As if that’s what we’ve been doing ourselves all along!

    • October 21, 2010 9:03 pm

      But that’s not what they wanted – they didn’t want their own words pointed out. They wanted us to tell them how to mask their racism whilst still believing in it. As if that’s what we’ve been doing ourselves all along!

      Their white supremacy is so entrenched, and they are holding on to it so tight, that they are not even at the point where they can imagine that there are white women actually trying to live an anti-white supremacy life.

      “It is complete sisterly betrayal that the masks were not shared. Do you mean to tell me that it will be harder than just donning a mask? Well, fuck. I think I will just have to change the subject, because, I am not equipped to actually work on anything. Shouldn’t everything just fall in my lap, like it always has?”

  3. October 21, 2010 9:19 pm

    Yes, and look at *this* now:

    This here, Undercover Punk, is a FEMINIST blog. My priority is SEXISM as it affects biological women. XX. And lesbians– to the extent that they are biological women violating social mandates of how Real Women™ should act.

    If you want to discuss intersectionality, by all means, get your own blog. They’re FREE, you know!

    LOL!

    My priority is sexism (as it pertains to white women)! I refuse to talk about anything else! Oh except lesbianism. Did you know, lesbians actually get treated worse than straight women, even BY straight women? So it’s okay to talk about that intersectionality, oops, I mean, um, those two things at the same time. The fact that I am a white lesbian and therefore still only acknowledging my own experience under patriarchy has nothing to do with it!

    • October 22, 2010 3:34 am

      Well, Undercover Punk wouldn’t know anything about lesbians being treated worse than straight women because she’s a lesbian who looks like a straight woman. People might know she’s a lesbian because she told them, but it’s certainly not the same thing as people looking at you and judging for themselves that you’re a dyke and treating you accordingly. She certainly wouldn’t get all of the admonishments not to dress “like a man,” or to stop being so “masculine.” And since she was actively forcing the label “masculine” on non-feminine lesbians not too long ago, I don’t imagine she wants to acknowledge the ways in which she enforces heteronormativity on butch lesbians, just like your average straight woman, even though she’s a lesbian.

      She should narrow down her proclaimed focus to thin, white, professional, feminine lesbian women. That’s a lot of intersections, but I guess it doesn’t matter because they’re HER intersections and not someone else’s.

    • October 22, 2010 6:00 pm

      Oh yeah, I had forgotten about that ‘defending femininity’ rubbish.

  4. October 21, 2010 11:12 pm

    In addition, another reason FCM’s comment is racist is because it is an attempt to isolate the black woman and prevent her from obtaining support outside of other black women. As long as there are only black supporters, white supremacy dismisses that group as black specific, thus no concern to whites. If white is right, black must be wrong. So to maintain the façade of superiority one of two strategies is employed. Deem the white supporters defective (weak and ineffective) or persuade (emotionally bully) the white supporters into abandoning the black woman, —leaving her to fend for herself. If no one is supporting her, then there must be something wrong with her, not them.

  5. Pseudoadrienne permalink
    October 21, 2010 11:45 pm

    Wow. I’m surprised Kitty, Margaret, Valerie, and TBL haven’t suffered massive heart-attacks-ulcer combos from covering all of this racist shit. Kudos for your incredible ability to withstand racist vitriol (though you shouldn’t have to endure such hate, but that’s white feminism for yah).

  6. October 22, 2010 4:03 am

    Another day, another insensitive comment from FCM. Considering this woman essentially called rape survivors “stupid fucking cunts”(sic) this comment is just another layer on her cake of racist, sexist shit.

    FCM, honestly your head is straight up your ass.

    Yep, got it in one.

    Honestly, I dropped out of high school for many reasons, not having to listen to this dumb-arse shit about “bringing it” is one of them. Like nearly everyone has pointed out, damnit, it’s already been “brought-en”.

  7. Katie permalink
    October 22, 2010 4:10 am

    What I don’t get about that comment is the way it paints FCM, UCP, and the other white women over there. She is saying that Julian Real painstakingly explains male privilege to privileged men who won’t listen to women, and then saying that white allies need to do the same for her, UCP, etc.

    Let’s put that in analogy form.

    Julian Real is to privileged male douchebags as white allies are to FCM.

    Um.

    Isn’t she basically admitting to herself and others there being privileged white douchebags just by making that comparison?

    Does she really want white allies to have to do the energy-sucking and life-draining work that the likes of Hugo Schwyzer demand of Julian Real? Actually, the truth is, men like Hugo don’t even listen to Julian anyway, so by telling white allies she wants us to do what Julian Real is doing, is FCM actually asking white allies to expend precious energy on the useless pursuit of convincing her of her white privilege?

    • October 22, 2010 4:20 am

      Hi Katie, and thanks for taking on that portion of the comment.

      I couldn’t even dive into the deconstruction of all that man love talk. I caught the gist of it, and that was, she admired Mandos for giving the smack down to a male-“feminist.” I don’t have anything against Julian, other than this is a space for females, and he needs to make his own space (which he does and he does not bother us), but Mandos has intentionally antagonized many women and has bad mouthed Margie and I, personally. So, all I could read in that part of the comment was her admiration for a male-abuser. That right there reveals where one’s priorities lie. And yes, she is equating herself to Hugo. And like Hugo, she ain’t listening.

    • Katie permalink
      October 22, 2010 4:52 am

      yeah that completely makes sense. I am new to this amazing circle of rad fem bloggers; I actually came to FCM’s blog through Hugo (something good does come of his blog after all!) and kept following links through to other blogs. So I don’t know anything about the history with Mandos but it sounds ugly and I can see why that made her comment even more reprehensible.

    • October 22, 2010 5:05 am

      I just don’t think some women are ready for primetime. And I am not talking as serious as walking the walk in real life, but just walking the walk on-line where it does not cost a thing. FCM goes on and on about how great she is for not patting Mandos on the head while she is in fact patting him on the head. It does not matter that it was not done at Hugo’s, because we all know that Mandos reads us all. If anyone should be giving out anything, it should be Mandos telling us all how great we all are (not that we need it or asking for it), because how much he hangs on every word we all say, it is obvious that he needs us. So expecting a cookie for not giving a cookie when you did in fact give a cookie is sort of silly.

  8. October 22, 2010 5:02 am

    Well, and, for me the idea that white women get to define what an alliance with black women should mean is just unbelievably presumptuous and entitled. I have stated on numerous occasions that it seems more effective in my opinion for white women who don’t want to behave in racist ways toward nonwhite women to simply walk away from all-white “feminism.” I have said time and time again that to continue to make appeals to white “feminists,” to continue to devote time and energy to them, is to continue to validate and grant relevance to them.

    And I suppose we’re not to take the fact that their definition of a good ally is black women’s definition of a bad one to be yet more evidence of their white-supremacist ways of thinking. But, in case they’re reading, I’ll go ahead and disabuse them of that notion. Yes, the fact that you think you have any authority whatsoever to define the terms of an alliance on my behalf – when you already admit you don’t know jack shit about the majority of the female experience (which is nonwhite) – is racist-sexist. The list of specifics they keep demanding grows every time they touch fingers to keyboard.

    • Katie permalink
      October 22, 2010 5:14 am

      Yeah, this is part of the reason I haven’t been commenting a lot yet. I knew the feminist blogs I used to read (feministe, shakesville, etc.) were problematically white-centric, but I didn’t realize just how much till I started reading some of you folks. Clearly I have a lot to learn, and I am really glad that I’m finally in the right place to do that.

    • October 22, 2010 5:17 am

      Don’t get too happy. In a week or two you may regret ever laying eyes on our blog.

      LOL!

      It has been known to happen.

    • Katie permalink
      October 22, 2010 4:12 pm

      lol! I guess we’ll find out 🙂

  9. October 22, 2010 5:16 am

    FCM goes on and on about how great she is for not patting Mandos on the head while she is in fact patting him on the head.

    Yeah, I saw that too. I mean, she’s hailing these males as a model for female behavior. She’s practically throwing these men a parade and handing them a medal. I was almost too embarrassed for her to keep reading that groveling.

    • October 22, 2010 5:19 am

      You know what you do in such cases? You don’t fucking mention him? What does he have to do with females? It is as if she saw no value in her own work until he used it to argue. If I waited around for a male to validate my work, I would be a pile of melting jello on a Ridgecrest [a very hot and unpleasant looking place] sidewalk.

    • October 22, 2010 5:30 am

      Exactly, Kitty. She does feel validated by white males. She values their opinions more than she values those of black women. And you don’t get much more white-supremacist than that, really – measuring your own worth by the level of white male approval you’ve gained.

  10. October 22, 2010 1:09 pm

    Fucking hell. One of the reasons FCM and UP are so outraged about being called racists is because they already think they are doing a good job of disguising their racism, and can’t believe that anyone is smart enough to see behind their masks. To them, anti-racism is nothing but putting on a mask, so they can’t work out what they are doing wrong. After all, they don’t throw about the n-word (at least not in public), and they always mention the poor Phillipinos and urge us to have pity for poor, third-world women, so what more could anyone possibly ask of them?

    • October 23, 2010 3:49 am

      Yes, totally agree with this.

      Like I mentioned to sargassosea on my blog this morning that by reading + commenting on their blogs she would be supporting and perpetuating racism. She took this as me calling her a racist, and made a big deal about how she’s partnered with someone of colour. Apparently I’m the *first* person to eva!! do so. I think that she probably meant “the first white womon make to go, hmmm and not go along with my internalised crap”

  11. Level Best permalink
    October 22, 2010 1:33 pm

    “She is dog whistling to other white women. ‘If you side with black women, you are weak, less than, and will be pushed out of the white club, so, get with the program or else.'”–Kitty

    “And you know I didn’t even get that that’s what they were doing with their ‘bring it, bring it’. “–Valerie M.

    I know, Valerie! Me, too. It took reading this post by Kitty for me to understand there was a “dog whistle” message and exactly what it was, first, because I don’t think that way in general, and probably also because I’ve never been in the cool girls’ club of trust-fund babies and urban white professionals. All I knew was that the whole conversation was severely irritating me, as a lot of the conversations at UCP have done, because I’m just not of that world. It’s sort of like an exclusive little girls’ tea party that you have to have a password to get into. At bottom, I think there is not only a HUGE and obvious racist thing going on there, but a covert classist thing, too, and I hate both.

    Well, it’s decision time. Although I’ve tried to participate at some other blogs in order to encourage what I think are conversations in the right directions, I don’t think I will comment anymore where I don’t feel fully welcome and don’t feel like women of all circumstances and races are welcome. I’ve only felt really comfortable commenting here and at some of the blogs this one has links to, like the bearded lady and Peacocks and Lilies. I don’t know the personal circumstances of the bloggers at these sites, but there seems to be an openness to working class people in general.

    I feel the bitter aftertaste of elitism. I suspect the best thing to clear it will be some pinto beans, raw onion, and cornbread–none of which get served at tea parties.

    Giving credit where it is due, I really do think that the meme that FCM has introduced into internet feminism about turning away from PIV and recognizing its inherent oppressiveness and dangers is a vital one, and I think it serves a real purpose in bettering young heterosexual women’s lives and futures. I hope she keeps it up and that PIV criticism finally is acknowledged and discussed even in liberal and “fun-feminist” blogs. This would be a great service towards the betterment of women’s conditions. Her perception on this subject is born of her own experiences as a sexually active heterosexual woman, and it is valid. Being right about this, however, doesn’t mean she is right about what the relationships between black and white feminists should be.

    • October 22, 2010 1:56 pm

      I don’t even think the classism is covert. For me, wherever there’s classism, there’s racism, there’s fat-hatred, there’s ableism, everything. They’re all the result of a hierarchical mindset, and I don’t really think a person can be hierarchical in just one aspect of their interactions. Kitty’s always said that, too. I remember her saying that any white person who would call another white person ‘white trash’ couldn’t possibly be anti-racist either. And I definitely think that’s true.

      There’s certainly a tea-party atmosphere over there – the constant appeals for niceness and etiquette and the conspicuous absence of any such call to treat poor, lesbian, black, non-feminine, fat, or otherwise “below-standard” women with respect.

      As for criticism of PIV, yes, it’s nice that FCM’s doing it. But she’s certainly not the first radical feminist online to do so, and I think her conceit about the whole thing now that she has gotten around to writing about it after a long list of other online writers, let alone print-published ones, is a bit overblown. I also think the fact that she can’t seem to write about her experience as a sexually active heterosexual woman without simultaneously disrespecting and condescending to lesbians is pretty bigoted.

    • October 22, 2010 6:16 pm

      I was thinking about the ‘white trash’ thing about three days ago, specifically, that it implies that at least you’re not as bad as non-white trash. It’s definitely a racist term. And then I just saw it somewhere too, but now I can’t remember where, because I’ve been all over the internet in the past couple of days.

      Yes, I’ll bet you wouldn’t have to look very hard around here to find a critique of PIV. Even I’ve critiqued PIV, and I am not exactly known for providing amazing feminist analysis so much as knowing it when I see it. 🙂

    • October 22, 2010 6:20 pm

      It took reading this post by Kitty for me to understand there was a “dog whistle” message and exactly what it was, first, because I don’t think that way in general, and probably also because I’ve never been in the cool girls’ club of trust-fund babies and urban white professionals.

      Yeah, I can relate to that. Anyway, I think you’re making an excellent decision. 🙂

  12. Level Best permalink
    October 22, 2010 2:34 pm

    Yes! Any personal investment in the heirarchy will let all manner of prejudices and controlling/policing behaviors seep in. Heirarchial mindsets produce a many-headed monster. And Kitty’s very right about whites who use the term ‘white trash’ also being racist; I’ve seen it first hand. It’s all about “some people” being better than “those people.”

  13. Level Best permalink
    October 22, 2010 2:41 pm

    I guess I wouldn’t notice the feminist tea parties so acutely on-line except that I’ve been excluded from them IRL. When I was young in the 70’s and excited about the women’s movement, I attended a local women’s day rally in my town (none of those anymore, of course), and a couple of NOW members approached me. Their first damned words, spoken with big toothy smiles, were, “And what do you do?” When I told them my job at the time, they walked right away from me without another word.

  14. October 22, 2010 6:29 pm

    Hi Level Best. I know you read 19th century Literature so this is directed to you mostly (or if I am mistaken about the Literature tell me so and I will stop) and not in general because when I usually bring up Literature it is an automatic conversation stopper. LOL! I’m sorry. I do realize the rest of the world does not live through Fiction like I do. Nevertheless, I first started thinking about the dynamics of white classism when I was just so appalled by it in 19th century Literature. It is funny how Bev Jo brings up UCP mentioning purple sweaters and leggings and getting so many comments on it, it is as if 150 years has past but no it haven’t. Materials things are closely tied to worth for people who invest in classism, —which of course is a major sibling to racism. Of course Dickens and to an extent Trollope and at times Gaskell were being funny (parodying) classism when they gave us characters who instantly changed when they got a new coat or hat or silk dress. As if literally changing one’s clothes puts you into another bracket. It is no wonder that people who are struggling will forgo paying the electric bill or buying groceries to instead buy the latest fashion piece, —jacket and/or shoes. Groceries and electricity are here today, gone tomorrow, but a pair of leggings and a purple sweater can pay off daily as you walk through the streets imagining that everyone thinks you are a member of the “superior class” since you are wearing the latest purple sweater and latest leggings. I thought specifically about classism in 19th century because no characters are black. None. It is 19th century England, most people are white. To witness time and time again how the second someone lost their money they were kicked, literally, made me imagine how if those people treated each other if they had the systematic license to feel superior to another race. They would jump on that opportunity. And they do. They do it instinctively. Because, not to be a member means having to work toward gaining more substance than a purple sweater and a pair of leggings provide. It takes work.

    • Level Best permalink
      October 25, 2010 1:53 pm

      Yes, Kitty, I am the one who reads 19th century lit voraciously–you remember well! My favorites are the ones who recognized and dealt with classism and the developing feminism of the time, like George Gissing, David Graham Phillips, Fanny Trollope, and Margaret Oliphant, although I’ll read just about anything/anything from that time period.

      I’ve actually read more by Anthony Trollope’s mother, Fanny, than I have by him so far, but the one by him I’ve read recently, The Way We Live Now, is a doozy. He could be scathing about classist pretentions.

      “Materials things are closely tied to worth for people who invest in classism, —which of course is a major sibling to racism.”–Kitty

      This is brilliantly put! I agree completely.

  15. October 25, 2010 9:16 pm

    My class post has been linked in several places, and one link took me to another… you know how that goes… I am now smack in the middle of arguments about whether Tim Wise (educated white man, anti-racist author) is doing the right thing, making a living teaching white people to behave. The irony is that it has to be a white person … white people will not listen to POC on race, so it has to come from him. Lots of POC get suitably pissed about that, since they are not getting paid the big bucks to say these things that they have always known and take for granted as truth.

    But that’s just the point, say some (Wise has a parcel of POC-supporters also), you have to TRANSLATE it for them/us, into the appropriate White-language, or they ain’t listening.

    I was leaning towards the radicals criticizing Wise (whom I really do like and respect), but then, I read what this woman writes and I hear myself saying:

    Undercover Punk, please go read Tim Wise. Anything. Just pick any one of his books and read it. Please.

    (And now I see the importance of Wise, unfortunately.)

    After Wise, you can move on to WOC and feminists, but first, you need 101 in language you can understand.

  16. October 25, 2010 9:31 pm

    It is in the ball park of calling a white person a NIGGER LOVER!

    Kitty, OMG.

    I thought I was one of very few people who still thought about that (having been called that by my own father) … but I’ve noticed it too. It is usually verbalized as white people “trying to get approval from POCs”–an accusation that doesn’t really make any sense, if you think about it.

    Unless it really means what you have said it means, then it does.

  17. October 26, 2010 2:45 am

    Oh, yes, Daisy, I’ve seen that “trying to get approval from POCs” thing said with a sneer. That’s a variation of the “just parroting what black women say,” thing. As if a white woman could never repeat what a black woman said because it makes sense, but only because she’s “parroting.” And as if parroting a black woman, in the few cases where it happens, is worse than parroting the whitemale supremacist bullshit white women usually parrot.

    I think white men like Tim Wise actually do more harm than good in the long run. I mean, he and others like him can only ever effect reform, not revolution, because he actually prevents white folks from ever listening to black women. So long as there is a white male “authority” to turn to, white folks will always pick him over black women. And that’s why he’s able to make money doing it. If it weren’t ultimately in the interests of the powers that be to have him talking and writing about these things, he wouldn’t be able to get rich off of it. But, yeah, reading his writing is better than nothing at all, I suppose, when it comes to racist white folks.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: