In the 1990s our multiracial and cultural group broke up over the split loyalties issue. It was impossible for women of colors to square with their own class and racial conflicts at the time. There was a perception that Jewish women were privileged and had zero understanding of the struggle men of colors were going through. At that time the women did not prioritize their well-being over that of the men they felt they needed to support. It was a very painful revelation with bruised feelings for all. Bell Hooks did her best to try to bridge the divide. You very succinctly present the issues and arguments. My own experiences during the 1950s were mixed. When I was a 14 year old lost with my little princess overnight bag a young black man called Leroy very nicely told me I was lost in Harlem, found me a cab and sent me safely on my way to the address I needed to be at. My experiences were mainly positive and led me to agree with MLK that it is the color of a personโs character that is the bottom line.
I think it's very complicated (race, class, feminism).
I appreciate bell hooks for her approach to feminism - with the work she did to bridge divides (men and class). And the Jewish feminists - Andrea Dworkin, Adrienne Rich - seemed very conscious of the divide and of bridging it too.
And yes, absolutely; the content of a person's character.
I really appreciate this essay. I listened to Srinivasan's book last fall, I have a strong sensory memory of running on my usual path through the woods and nodding along to the insights. I liked it a lot at the time.
But I think what you identify here - that her book is really about personal relations, and not a political guide to collective action in any way - is fully true. As a woman with relations with men, that I would like to be peaceable and also just, the book felt good. It's the type of book that is smart in taking apart issues, and making you think that thinking about something is good enough.
You point out the obvious - thinking about sexual violence is NOT the same as working to end it. Gosh, I really ought to read the Angela Davis that's been languishing on my shelf. I'm currently reading Native Son, which is not a feminist work at all, but is about the fear of Black men under the regime of pure white womanhood. Nice dovetail with the opening of this essay.
It is smart in addressing a lot of threads/issues in the mostly heterosexual context (there are scant mentions of gay men and lesbians, but I don't think Srinivasan is writing from a place from understanding either of those). I think Srinivasan is really insightful about how racism plays into perceptions of sexuality, and porn. But it stops there. Not that blame Srinivasan for stopping there - she's very much in line with 21st century feminist thought in doing so - writing for her times.
Davis is great. In re-reading Srinivasan and then reading Davis, the difference between internet-era writing and pre-internet era really stood for me: Srinivasan hooks you with controversy (eg, using terms like "fuckable" and launching immediately into modern-day controversial topics), whereas Davis writes of race and women chronologically - her work is slower, it took me a few chapters to get into 'Women, Race & Class'.
People arenโt being honest at all. Theyโre taking all of the credit for โtheir tribeโ and pointing the a finger at the women of color just to assign blame for.
Women of color werenโt willing to be subjugated by white women who were only interested in discussing/addressing issues that were relevant to white women.
Come on, Gloria Steinemโs National Organization for Women, of which Shirley Chisholm was a member, didnโt even endorse Shirley Chisholm when she was running for president!
Donโt rely on opinion pieces. Do your own research. If you do you will see nothing much has changed. People are still trying to mute, erase and silence people of color. Theyโre even trying to rewrite history. Donโt let them . Always fact check
"People are still trying to mute, erase and silence people of color. Theyโre even trying to rewrite history." - oh, I agree with you. And I do all my own research and reading - like for this essay, Angela Davis and Amia Srinivasan (both women of color).
It wasnโt directed at you. Not at all. I was responding to the comments. I didnโt put it in their replies because people have a tendency to erase their comments or block people when someone sets the record straight.
In the 1990s our multiracial and cultural group broke up over the split loyalties issue. It was impossible for women of colors to square with their own class and racial conflicts at the time. There was a perception that Jewish women were privileged and had zero understanding of the struggle men of colors were going through. At that time the women did not prioritize their well-being over that of the men they felt they needed to support. It was a very painful revelation with bruised feelings for all. Bell Hooks did her best to try to bridge the divide. You very succinctly present the issues and arguments. My own experiences during the 1950s were mixed. When I was a 14 year old lost with my little princess overnight bag a young black man called Leroy very nicely told me I was lost in Harlem, found me a cab and sent me safely on my way to the address I needed to be at. My experiences were mainly positive and led me to agree with MLK that it is the color of a personโs character that is the bottom line.
I think it's very complicated (race, class, feminism).
I appreciate bell hooks for her approach to feminism - with the work she did to bridge divides (men and class). And the Jewish feminists - Andrea Dworkin, Adrienne Rich - seemed very conscious of the divide and of bridging it too.
And yes, absolutely; the content of a person's character.
Wow! Very engrossing, and wonderful research. So thought provoking.
Iโm glad you found it so. And thank you so much for reading.
This essay didn't feel like 5k words at all, I was so engrossed!
Thank you! It's exactly 5,003 words :)
I really appreciate this essay. I listened to Srinivasan's book last fall, I have a strong sensory memory of running on my usual path through the woods and nodding along to the insights. I liked it a lot at the time.
But I think what you identify here - that her book is really about personal relations, and not a political guide to collective action in any way - is fully true. As a woman with relations with men, that I would like to be peaceable and also just, the book felt good. It's the type of book that is smart in taking apart issues, and making you think that thinking about something is good enough.
You point out the obvious - thinking about sexual violence is NOT the same as working to end it. Gosh, I really ought to read the Angela Davis that's been languishing on my shelf. I'm currently reading Native Son, which is not a feminist work at all, but is about the fear of Black men under the regime of pure white womanhood. Nice dovetail with the opening of this essay.
It is smart in addressing a lot of threads/issues in the mostly heterosexual context (there are scant mentions of gay men and lesbians, but I don't think Srinivasan is writing from a place from understanding either of those). I think Srinivasan is really insightful about how racism plays into perceptions of sexuality, and porn. But it stops there. Not that blame Srinivasan for stopping there - she's very much in line with 21st century feminist thought in doing so - writing for her times.
There's an interesting essay about how the book came to be (from a viral essay) - https://substack.com/@n8west/p-156756191 that you might be interested in.
Davis is great. In re-reading Srinivasan and then reading Davis, the difference between internet-era writing and pre-internet era really stood for me: Srinivasan hooks you with controversy (eg, using terms like "fuckable" and launching immediately into modern-day controversial topics), whereas Davis writes of race and women chronologically - her work is slower, it took me a few chapters to get into 'Women, Race & Class'.
That is so interesting, the difference between pre internet writing and internet era.
It is! The need to capture and hold attention in internet age versus in the print media era are very different.
People arenโt being honest at all. Theyโre taking all of the credit for โtheir tribeโ and pointing the a finger at the women of color just to assign blame for.
Women of color werenโt willing to be subjugated by white women who were only interested in discussing/addressing issues that were relevant to white women.
Come on, Gloria Steinemโs National Organization for Women, of which Shirley Chisholm was a member, didnโt even endorse Shirley Chisholm when she was running for president!
Donโt rely on opinion pieces. Do your own research. If you do you will see nothing much has changed. People are still trying to mute, erase and silence people of color. Theyโre even trying to rewrite history. Donโt let them . Always fact check
"People are still trying to mute, erase and silence people of color. Theyโre even trying to rewrite history." - oh, I agree with you. And I do all my own research and reading - like for this essay, Angela Davis and Amia Srinivasan (both women of color).
It wasnโt directed at you. Not at all. I was responding to the comments. I didnโt put it in their replies because people have a tendency to erase their comments or block people when someone sets the record straight.
Your article was fantastic and I appreciate it!
Ah, I was very confused.
Glad you liked it ๐งก