Photo by Dipak on Unsplash

White Feminist Series: #6 Carol Gilligan Part 2

White Feminist Victimization Industry

I emphasize that I publish these because I believe women of color and intersectional feminists MUST SEPARATE from white feminism and create a separate movement.

Article by Gilligan: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/60bf7eeb36252e1b53064736/t/615cc71ea927a0245654846e/1633470239202/Carol+Gilligan_Women_Mech-2.pdf

White Feminist Scolding:

‘the vision of women coming together, crossing racial alignments on behalf of girls, aligning instead with one another as women in an effort to spare the next generation from the scourges of racism; a vision of committing ourselves, as women, to repair the world by acting in concert as a force for transformation.’ (my emphasis).

Gilligan repeatedly refuses to hear that her idea of ‘repair’ and ‘self-determination’ is ONLY ‘repair’ for her and other white feminists: it is actually damage, disfigurement, erasure, and destruction for many BIWOCs.

Victimhood: (Yet Another) Redux:

‘This remains true: when it comes to discussions of race in America, the experience of Jews is irrelevant; all that counts is that Jews are white.’

Equivocation, AGAIN:

Woman of color to white women in AMERICAN group (including Gilligan): ‘Where were you, white woman, when they came for me in the middle of the night?’

…and AGAIN: Inappropriate Conflation

‘we also have too much in common — Jewish women and women of color — even when the categories of oppression don’t overlap and the white women are, so to speak, pure white. Because we both have a sharp eye for hypocrisy and betrayal, and we both have been activists and initiators of movements for social justice and peace’

Repeatedly Declines Intersectional Feminism…. While Implying It is ‘Divisive:’

Narcissistic Triangulation

Gilligan: ‘Once suffrage has been won, women are a voting majority, which may be a clue to the investment of some in fomenting dissention among women, especially now when the gender gap in voting is increasing and women’s votes may be critical to electoral success.’

Women of color leave white feminist marches because our equality is not considered. As a result, white feminists are Janus-faced: claiming victimhood while refusing to admit their privilege. White feminism is fundamentally hypocritical. We, as BIWOCs, do NOT want white feminists in our marches.

Unlike Gilligan, we do NOT view ourselves as BIWOCs as DIRTY, as ‘staining’ others. As long as white feminists view us as inferior, we don’t want THEM in OUR marches.

Gilligan: ADL and Greenblatt as ‘Reliable’

Gilligan refers to the ADL and Jonathan Greenblatt’s beliefs as if they are legitimate. Greenblatt is an aggressive, long-standing purveyor of Zionism and anti-Palestinian activism. Gilligan’s reliance on his beliefs forces me to consider her views with skepticism. Most damaging, Greenblatt deliberately conflates Judaism and Zionism; Gilligan implies she agrees.

‘If we listen closely enough, we might ask: What is the conversation under this conversation?’ Narcissistic Triangulation, Redux

Gilligan poses this question after a long paragraph criticizing the women’s march for inviting Zahra Billo, an activist for the Palestinian cause many consider legitimate, in covert narcissistic fashion, by triangulating. Gilligan repeatedly implies that Palestinian rights are the problem, that all of us should center Jewish people as victims, yet even in conclusion she exhibits her covert narcissism/white feminism.

Gilligan: ‘Is it too early for a united feminist political front — or, more disconcertingly, too late?’

From many BIWOCs perspective, there has never been a united political front in the US: the US has always been, from its inception, a country based on oppressing others.

Gilligan: ‘And what happened to the idea of the Women’s March as potentially transformative?’

The Women’s March has never been transformative: it has been about white feminists. It can be transformative, but to do so, it must include all women and aspects of equity in its agenda even under conditions of disagreement. That is, white women like Wruble act kindly towards Mallory, Sarsour, and Perez as long as her dominance isn’t threatened; as soon as her feelings are hurt, she is prioritized — and a wide range of women of color — in this case, three — are erased. This is NOT equality. Under equal terms, Wruble would not have been able to eject three different BIWOCs because all four points of view would have had to matter. To have real equity, ALL views must be equally considered in ZERO-SUM contexts, where the conflict is revealed.

Gilligan’s assumption that three BIWOCS subjected to shameful public ostracization is somehow their fault — that BIWOCS left to remove their ‘stain’ — is the most onerous of her statements, dripping as it does with internalized superiority. BIWOCS did NOT leave your white feminist marches in shame: we left because white feminists are the collectively shameful ones, and we don’t want them around us.

Gilligan centers herself and manages to frame herself as victim relative to those loud ‘n angry, stained BIWOCs who, hanging their heads in shame, finally realized their error:

--

--

She/Her: Distort lies until they amplify truth. CryBaby: As loud as necessary.

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store
Mia George

She/Her: Distort lies until they amplify truth. CryBaby: As loud as necessary.