#FTF: Millennials co-opting intersectionality – The new way to say ‘my feminism is better than yours’


“My feminism is better than yours (and you can’t sit with us).”

This is the general sentiment I’m seeing expressed when Millennials online — often, ironically, white people — use the word “intersectional” as a prefix to “feminism.” This is a shame because the text that brought the term intersectionality to feminist discourse – “Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of anti-discrimination doctrine, feminist theory, and antiracist politics,” written by Kimberlé Crenshaw in 1989 — is one of the most important feminist texts of the 20th century.

It highlights a very real need for the women’s movement to understand that oppression against people who are marginalized in multiple ways (through, for example, the combination of sex and race, or sex, class, and disability) is greater than the sum of its parts.

Historically, this failure (primarily by white, middle-class women) to incorporate an analysis of other forms of oppression into feminist politics has manifested itself in a number of ways, both within theory and practice. Crenshaw gives three examples:

First, parts of the women’s movement subscribed (some argue subscribe) to “separate spheres” literature, which focuses — to the exclusion of other labour-based forms of patriarchal oppression — on the history of “women’s” exclusion from the workforce. Of course, this definition of “women” ignores women of colour, who were both enslaved and, later, expected to take on chores and duties within white women’s homes (childcare, cleaning, cooking, etc.) for poor wages when white women entered fields that were traditionally reserved for males. It also ignores women who are part of the working class (or the working poor) who have always had to work outside the home in order to support themselves and their families.

Second, the women’s movement has failed to acknowledge representations and stereotypes of people of colour when we address the gendered roles and stereotypes that men apply to women in order to justify their subordination. As Crenshaw points out:

“Statements such as ‘men and women are taught to see men as independent, capable, powerful; men and women are taught to see women as dependent, limited in abilities, and passive’ [Richard A. Wasserstrom] are common within this literature. But this “observation” overlooks the anomalies created by crosscurrents of racism and sexism. Black men and women live in a society that creates sex-based norms and expectations which racism operates simultaneously to deny. Black men are not viewed as powerful, nor Black women seen as passive” [parenthesis mine].

Third, early American rape law failed to include or protect women of colour, women in prostitution, or women who white men otherwise deemed to be morally unchaste. Additionally, it failed to incorporate an understanding of rape as a “weapon of racial terror” used by white men against women of colour.

The fact that the mainstream women’s movement needed a reproach on its exclusion and erasure of women marginalized by race, class, disability, and orientation is undeniable. Crenshaw asks us to address this by dismantling our “top-down” anti-discrimination practices, which operate under the assumption that each area of oppression should be addressed independently (and that if it weren’t for singular oppressions, all would be fair), and replace them with a “bottom-up” approach. She draws her inspiration for this strategy from a 19th century scholar, educator, and author:

“Anna Julie Cooper, a 19th Century Black Feminist, coined a phrase that has been useful in evaluating the need to incorporate a specific analysis of patriarchy in any effort to address racial domination […] Referring to one of Martin Delaney’s public claims that where he was allowed to enter, the race entered with him, Cooper countered: ‘Only the black women can say where or when I enter…There and then the whole negro race enters with me.'”

She argues that when we address the needs of those who are the most marginalized, we will inadvertently relieve those who are discriminated against for a single cause from the oppression that plagues them.

Crenshaw writes, in her essay “Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of colour”:

“Intersectionality is not being offered here as some new, totalizing theory of identity. Nor do I mean to suggest that violence against women of color can be explained only through the specific frameworks of race and gender considered here.”

This is where my generation comes in. Where Crenshaw defines “white feminism” as “the creation of a consciousness that was distinct from and in opposition to that of white men” and “the failure to embrace the complexities of compoundedness,” Millennials often use the term to denounce anyone who explores topics or holds political views they don’t like, particularly any critique of queer theory’s definition of gender as a chosen and individual identity, sexualization, objectification, and/or the sex industry. The result is that many young feminists, like myself, apply an oversimplified (or simply erroneous) analysis of intersectionality to topics that are complex (not least because women with experience in the sex industry and gender non-conforming folk have diverse and often polarized views).

Image: NinjaCate/Groupthink.com

As readers may remember, a campaign (in May) aiming to have Meghan Murphy, the founder of Feminist Current, fired and no-platformed at rabble.ca, was based on the idea that her beliefs on gender and her analysis of the sex industry “are not sufficiently intersectional.”

It is perfectly possible, however, to have an analysis that is both radical and intersectional at the same time, particularly on issues of prostitution and gender. Having an intersectional practice requires us to address the needs of the most oppressed, putting their experience at the center of our analysis and activism, rather than at the margins. It then requires us to get to the root of their oppression and do something about it.

The problem is not that radical feminists are “not intersectional.” Quite the contrary. The problem is that radical feminists and liberal feminists have completely incompatible understandings of what is at the root of patriarchal/gendered oppression and, consequently, the marginalization of women in the sex industry and people who are gender-nonconforming.

Pearl-clutching feminist (not enough shoulder pad)
Pearl-clutching feminist (not enough shoulder pad)

Radical feminists believe that male violence is at the root of prostitution itself, which is an institution that hovers around the intersections of many different oppressions. Liberal feminists believe the root of oppression against women in the sex industry is “stigma,” which we’re told, when eliminated, will eradicate the violence these women experience.

Radical feminists believe that what oppresses people who do not conform to gender norms is gender itself, which they define as a set of expectations and stereotypes attached to people based on sex at birth and reinforced through socialization (which is used to subordinate women as a class and ostracize anyone who fails to fit nicely into gendered boxes). Liberal feminists believe that the root of oppression against trans folk is hatred, phobia, bigotry, and the unwillingness to acknowledge the gender identity of people who feel that they were born in bodies that do not align with their true selves (as represented by outward performances of masculinity and femininity).

Both radical feminists and liberal feminists rely on people with personal experience in these areas to inform their theory and praxis.

This puts us in a bit of a bind, does is not?

Perhaps this is defeatist, but I do not foresee this fissure repairing itself. What I want to stop seeing is the term “intersectionality” used by women in my generation as a tool for equating radical feminist arguments about and approaches to the sex industry or trans issues with “white feminism.”

We need to ask ourselves several questions with regard to how the theory of intersectionality applies on complex topics. Given two different factions of feminism with conflicting interests, who holds the trump card and who decides which intersecting oppressions are more severe than others?  Where do you draw the line between women that are and are not sufficiently oppressed for their lives to be “centered?”

Turning “intersectional” into a quick, go-to label to differentiate yourself from the “pearl clutching prudes” (a misogynist term in and of itself) you don’t like is not only cheesy and clichéd, it’s a slap in the face to all the women of colour, working class women, working poor women, lesbian women, prostituted women, and, yes, transwomen who subscribe to radical feminist politics and have informed the development of its current theory and practice.

In short, it’s not intersectional at all.

Jess Martin
Jess Martin

Jess Martin is a public relations professional, an aspiring writer, and an assistant editor at Feminist Current. She prefers to write about feminist topics, disability, or environmental issues, but could be persuaded to broaden her horizons in exchange for payment and/or food. In her spare time Jess can be found knitting, gardening, or lying in the fetal position, mulling over political theory that no one in their right mind cares about.

Like this article? Tip Feminist Current!

Personal Info

Donation Total: $1

  • Derrington

    Fab piece, astute thinking re lib fem/rad fem basis. What amazes me is where the lib fems believe stigma comes from – they seem to lack the ability to see that sexism/ racism and all the other isms are part of a belief in social hiearchy, and will never be got rid of without getting rid of the notion of natural born supremacies, white, able bodied, male, aryan, christian and the rest. Besides which, my rape is worse than yours is a pretty stupid game, lets get rid of the rapist terrorists rather than try to pitch one victim against another in pursuit of scarce victim resources. That game plays right into the hands of gender terrorism by moving the focus away from gender terrorists.

  • man

    Certain speech and ideas are incentivized over others in every political movement. One does not have to search far to find the implicit and explicit rewarding going on in liberal circles that explicitly include both women and men in discussions about sex (or, sorry, “gender” “inequality”). In one type of instance, woman will say something “right” and men will stay silent or encourage it; in another type of instance, another woman will say something “wrong” and the men will jump in with emotionally manipulative and accusations. But you really only need one of these two phenomena to produce a general trend.

    This observation allows one to explain everything from the trend of renaming “Women’s Studies” departments to “Gender, Sexuality, and Women’s Studies” to the selection of political media that get the most views (via upvotes, etc) on liberal internet forums. One only needs to discard the delusion that all political ideas exist as independent, genuine instances of individual human thought before they are rewarded, and realize that many exist because men (for example) reward them.

  • Diana

    Did middle class women’s liberationists actively exclude black women and poor women, or were they just ignorant? I think it’s also unfair to expect one movement to solve all problems in one take (btw, as I understand, the right to vote wasn’t limited racially or by socioeconomic status? Please correct me). Of course, today feminism should be intersectional in the true sense of the word, and the rad one does it just fine.

    • Dana

      I’m not going to correct you. You can go read for yourself. The information about race issues from the 1960s onward is out there… take some time away from your TV or your Facebook and learn something.

      Crenshaw’s point was NOT that we have to solve all problems at once but rather that once we solve the worst problems, the rest of them may fix themselves to some extent, like dominoes falling down all in a row. Can you think of examples elsewhere in reality where fixing the worst of the problem fixes all the lesser problems too? I sure can.

      But frankly, even if we were expected to solve all problems at once, HOW many of us are there in this world? You wanna tell me that some of us couldn’t work on Problem A, some on Problem B and some on Problem C and coordinate with one another? Maybe if we spent less time bickering about it, that might be possible.

      • “Crenshaw’s point was NOT that we have to solve all problems at once but rather that once we solve the worst problems, the rest of them may fix themselves to some extent, like dominoes falling down all in a row.”

        I am not sure I buy this argument, unless what you mean by solving the “worst problems” is getting to the core of women’s oppression. That core consists of capitalism and gender (sorry Max Dashu, but the problem is gender, which is my view is almost indistinguishable from patriarchy.) Once these core systems are abolished, the problems associated with them, such as poverty, environmental destruction, imperial conquest, racism, rape, sexual exploitation, domestic violence and body-image problems brought on by an obsession with prettiness can (though not necessarily will) be solved.

        This is different from only addressing the worst problems. Obviously we need to take a stand against rape, domestic violence, sex trafficking, extreme economic exploitation, anorexia, etc., but sometimes things which seem trivial and minority can lead to serious problems. For example, I feel that dressing little girls up like princesses and encouraging them to play with prettiness-focused (often though not necessarily sexualised) dolls leads to girls obsessing over how they look, which then contributes to anorexia (and other body image related problems) and women deciding to be sexually promiscuous or enter the sex industry (in order to prove to themselves that are pretty and receive compliments and money for their prettiness).

        A radical approach to female oppression recognise that extreme forms of oppression may be related to forms which appear more minor and innocuous. In Liberal Land, everything is exactly as it appears (or else nothing can be known and everything is subjective, whatever will spare them the need to think hard about a particular issue.) Pretty-looking dolls are good. Things which make people feel good in the moment (including such dolls) are good. Sex acts which produce physical pleasure are good and nobody can possibly be deceived by anything or suffer long term consequences for an action which initially appears harmless.

        Radicals recognise that this is not the case. We are on the lookout for the (often seemingly harmless) claims and practices which are the basis for oppression. Claims like “you women are so pretty, sweet, nurturing, gentle and sexy, we love you so much” or “you manual labours are so hard-working and valuable to the company” or “those native peoples are so kind, generous, noble and willing to share everything with us” and practices which promote this belief (e.g. gendered toys, beauty practices, religion in some cases.)

        “But frankly, even if we were expected to solve all problems at once, HOW many of us are there in this world? You wanna tell me that some of us couldn’t work on Problem A, some on Problem B and some on Problem C and coordinate with one another?”

        What do you mean by “us”? Radical feminists? There are not that many. This ties in with Erika’s point about how practical, society-caused limitations may cause certain feminist movements to be or appear “white” (in addition to the fact that white women are more likely to go down in history, which non-whites and their contributions are forgotten). Radical feminists do not have the numbers to specialise in and fully address all problems related to women. Universities (which generally promote liberal feminism) do. This is another way in which liberals take advantage of their power in order to assert that they are better than other movements, without even realising how powerful they are and how much they have benefited from such power.

        If by “us” you means feminists in general than there is a reason for the “bickering” as you call it. There are real political differences between liberal and radical feminists which is why they cannot get along. They do not aim for the same sort of world. Liberals want a world where soft and hard-core pornography is everywhere and people are free to blindly act on sexual impulses, even if those impulses are violent, sadistic, paedophilic or otherwise clearly harmful to the principles of liberty and equality. Radical feminists want a world free from the influence of the sex industry, in which people treat each as equals during sex (whether gay or straight) and all other aspects of life.

        Calling the conflict “bickering” trivialises the real differences between the groups. I don’t hear male politicians get accused of bickering. When men fight it is assumed that they have ideological reasons for doing so. Only politically active women are accused of fighting for the sake of fighting. I think Mean Girls is partially to blame for the belief that women are prone to fighting with one another for no good reason, though this belief probably has its origin in the views that women experience hormonal bursts of emotion for no reason.

        In any case, the Mean Girls reference at the start of the article annoyed me. The film is often used against radicals by liberals (due the former’s supposed “exclusiveness”) and is horribly misogynistic (and also somewhat racist and homophobic.) I know it is popular, but surely you could have found a less reactionary film to reference. I personally like “That’s so Raven” and “Lizzie McGuire” more in terms of their depictions of adolescent female issues, but of course those things don’t contain constant references to sex and drugs, so by liberal reasoning they are “not mature enough”.

        • Gender is culture, not body. Not all culture is patriarchal. Gender means a kind. There can be many kinds of gender and it doesn’t have to be rigid. Where it becomes a problem is when gender is used to enforce oppression on the female sex, colonizing women’s bodies for sexual access, reproductive power, labor, and emotional service. All we hear about nowadays is gender, gender, gender, and it’s displaced a more direct naming of male supremacy and how that works.

        • Meghan Murphy

          That specific reference was mine (edited very slightly from something that held the same meaning but was not a direct quote from the film). I loved (and still love, honestly) Mean Girls. And I have quite literally been told “you can’t sit with us” by 20 year old liberal Twitter feminists who fancy themselves “intersectional.” I could care less about “sitting with” those idiots, of course, and was enormously amused by actually seeing the words written out. I felt it was a rather apt reference, considering my experience with these kinds of people.

          It’s pretty clear neither Jess nor I think feminists fight simply for the sake of fighting. Jess points out the exact ideological roots of the “fight.” It’s about liberals vs radicals. That the liberal Millenials play at high school cliquery, trying to distance themselves from radicals in order to sit with the popular girls speaks to their fear of speaking out and saying something controversial (a rational fear, considering they all see how we are treated when we speak out against the status quo) as well as their lack of analysis and ignorance w/r/t the history of the women’s movement.

          • “I loved (and still love, honestly) Mean Girls.”

            I liked the film once too, though I was never as obsessive about it as many younger people are. I still think the film is funny, entertaining and has a complex engaging story.

            The problem is that the core message of the story is that adolescent females are inherently horrible and that the only solution to their inherent horribleness is for every single one of them to confess their wickedness before a crowd (a ritual which would be condemned as cult-like were it practiced by a radical leftist party or hell, any political party) and then suddenly, out of nowhere, decide that they are not going to be horrible any more. It offers no useful advice to women (beyond “mean statements are mean”) and no explanation for the supposedly horribleness of women. It just takes for granted that they are horrible and commands them not to be.

            I stopped liking the film politically, once I realised that none of the women I knew in high school were actually “mean girls”, just flawed human beings who made mistakes. Even most liberals are not “mean girls”, meaning that they are not being mean and horrible for the sake of being mean and horrible, nor is their meanness an automatic result of them being adolescent females. They are human beings willing to do morally questionable things for the sake of messed-up values (like empty physical pleasure and blind endorsement of all lifestyle choices) which they hold dear.

            “And I have quite literally been told “you can’t sit with us” by 20 year old liberal Twitter feminists who fancy themselves “intersectional.” I could care less about “sitting with” those idiots, of course, and was enormously amused by actually seeing the words written out.”

            I would not be surprised if the liberal actually got that line from the film. When you watch something over and over again notable quotes from it get stuck in your head and you spout them without knowing where they came from. We like to think that we are all too smart to be influenced by the TV, but there is plenty of evidence that people, to some extent, copy what they see, though usually they copy the general idea of it (e.g. frequent consumption of violent media results in aggressiveness) rather than the specifics.

            You can like the film if you want, but I do not believe that it has helped women address their conflicts. In fact it probably encouraged unwarranted suspicion between women (e.g. by promoting the view that women who compliment other women on their clothes are in fact mocking them behind their backs), leading to more unjustified antagonism. You tell a group of people that they are evil long enough and you might just get what you expected.

            “I felt it was a rather apt reference, considering my experience with these kinds of people.”

            The quote is fitting since liberals do exclude people from their group using silly excuses like “intersectionality” and hairy legs. I do not disagree with your use of the quote, only with the fact that it was taken from a film that has serious problems and yet was not criticised. I do not blame you or the author though, since criticising Mean Girls is social suicide (yes, I know that is a term from the film, LOL), though in my view that makes it all the more worthy of critique.

            I think you could have found a less misogynistic film to convey the same message (that liberals exclude people for silly reasons.) There are plenty of films and television shows out there which feature more realistic, less insulting depictions of women. Unfortunately these are not as popular or cool and do not feature enough sex, alcohol, drug references or light-hearted racism/homophobia to make the pre-teens viewing them feel all grown up, while still having the superficial appearance of promoting a good moral message.

            “It’s pretty clear neither Jess nor I think feminists fight simply for the sake of fighting.”

            I don’t think your article was sending that message, but Mean Girls does or did I just miss the scene where the characters clearly spelled out their ideological differences?t Seriously, he characters in the film are clearly fighting for the sake of fighting. They blow minor wrongdoings out of proportion and have no clear visions driving their actions. But I guess that is just a “realistic” portrayal of how women are (or so we are told.)

          • Meghan Murphy

            Well yeah, I mean it’s just a movie — not a political one, really. I don’t mean to say I “love” Mean Girls because of its politics…

            “And I have quite literally been told “you can’t sit with us” by 20 year old liberal Twitter feminists who fancy themselves “intersectional.” I could care less about “sitting with” those idiots, of course, and was enormously amused by actually seeing the words written out.”

            I would not be surprised if the liberal actually got that line from the film.”

            Well yes… she did. That was my point.

            “Criticising Mean Girls is social suicide.”

            What?? I have never felt criticizing Mean Girls is out of bounds. That’s silly. It’s just a critiqueable as any other film.

            With respect, I think you’re focusing waaaay too much on the film and missing the point of Jess’ critique… The post wasn’t about Mean Girls in the slightest and Jess’ argument is that the behaviour IS political and not at all just about “girls being mean for no reason.”

            The reference was just a light example/entry-point to the discussion. Then Jess goes on to discuss the cooptation of intersectionality. The post really has nothing to do with the film at all.

          • Lisi

            I have thought for a long time that liberal feminists are the cool, in crowd of nasty girls whilst the radicals are the uncool nerds who dare to call them out.

      • Diana

        “I’m not going to correct you. You can go read for yourself. The information about race issues from the 1960s onward is out there… take some time away from your TV or your Facebook and learn something.”

        I suppose you mean only USA?

        By one movement I meant the first feminist wave.

        Thanks for nothing.

    • tinfoil hattie

      Women of color, not seen as human beings. were excluded from first wave feminism. Second wavers were ignorant and privileged for the most part, though some women of color were active in 70s feminism. I came to feminism as a 13–year-old in 1973, after I started readibg Ms Magazine. I’m glad “women” no longer implies “white women,” and that we feminists are finally acknowledging that women of color face additional, race-based butdens of misogyny.

      • Erika

        No, black women were NOT excluded from 1st wave feminism. Many white feminists worked closely with black feminists such as Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, and Frederick Douglass (yes, a black male feminist from the 1800s who spoke about supporting women’s suffrage at the Seneca Falls Convention!) It is additionally unfair to describe 2nd wave feminists as ignorant or privileged. Some may have been, but most were not. It is useful for younger people to understand that many older people grew up in neighborhoods that were racially, and sometimes ethnically segregated. They had few opportunities to interact with people from other backgrounds, so they were actually far less privileged than the millennial feminist who takes diversity for granted. This does not reflect badly on them, IMO. It was simply a reality of that time that they had zero control over. Few feminists are privileged, but most celebrity feminists are. That is a huge distinction. Most working class people spend their days working and taking care of their families. This leaves little time or energy for protests and book writing. This does not mean that they were ignorant, but rather, there are certain realities when one is working class that do not disappear because they embrace a progressive agenda. Working class, and black feminists have been crucial to every wave of feminism, and helped in millions of small way that are not chronicled for posterity. I have been a supporter of many social justice causes and not once have I tried to “make a name for myself.” The secret to getting a job done is not caring about who gets the credit. I do not care if history knows my name, but I have done far more than many celebrity activists who get the glory… and there are scores more just like me.

        • Meghan Murphy

          Privileged people are also, in general, capitalists. The feminist movement has not truly been led by the wealthy or by capitalists. Second wave radical feminism came out of the New Left and began because they could no longer tolerate misogyny from leftist men. But those movements were anti-war, anti-racism, anti-capitalism, civil rights movements.

        • tinfoil hattie

          Possibly their efforts were just erased, then. But many feminists of color do not see things the way you do.

          • purple sage

            I think this is the case. Women of colour were always present in feminism but their work is more likely to be ignored or marginalized and so lots of us haven’t heard of it. We are all familiar with the books written by white women but isn’t that because white women are more likely to be given book deals by publishers and have their words taken seriously? It doesn’t mean that women of colour don’t write.
            Gloria Steinhem is very well known and it’s not surprising since she is white and conventionally attractive. Thousands of other women probably did the same activism she did and we just don’t know it because the media haven’t taken an interest in their work.

          • Dandelion

            If you get a chance, see the movie “she’s Beautiful when She’s Angry.” –magnificent history of the Second wave, with a lot of archival material. The Second wave was a lot more radical and diverse than people
            Believe, and I’d the media doesn’t cover it, the fact is that the evidence of that is in libraries across the country, in the small newspapers various women’s groups put out. It is a crime that third wave women have swallowed backlash narrative so completely, without wven investigating, eapecially when that past is not so distant and the historical evidence exists.

          • Meghan Murphy
          • Also read When And Where I Enter, by Paula Giddings, for a Black feminist view of racism in the first wave and the agenda of Black women.

          • Erika

            …and some of us would have shied away from the spotlight anyway. We are okay with Steinem being a “face” because it isn’t what is important. Also, not every feminist contributes by writing. Many of us lobbied our elected officials, raised money, stuffed envelopes, secured permits and insurance and port-a-potties for protests and rallies, attended meetings, served as abortion clinic escorts, participated in consciousness-raising discussions, and coordinated people behind the scenes. This work gets things done, but it is not glamorous, and it does not “make a name for oneself.” Few realize how much goes into planning a major event or into passing legislation. I can assure you that WOC were there, as were white women. I do not think it is a racial slight, as white women’s efforts in these works are also not remembered, nor really meant to be remembered. Their (our) efforts were meant to be effective, a very different thing than “memorability.”

          • Erika

            Erased? Fame and credit were never the point; social change was.

        • DK Wilson

          However, the suffrage movement of the early 20th century was explicit in segregating itself from the civil rights of both Black men and women..

          This segregating was and has repeatedly been revisited by White feminists. When bell hooks famously asked why she had to be isolated as a “Black” feminist, she was addressing problems existing within -at least – U.S. feminism.

          tinfoil hattie- “Ignorance” was never part of the issue in the “2nd wave” of White-centric U.S. feminism. Ms. Magazine was “founded” by an active CIA agent who received funding for the start of the magazine by an intelligence-tied male “angel.” It is the same magazine that offered as a cover article, the thoughts on feminism of “five famous feminist daughters.” One of those daughters’ mother was, at the time the national head of Planned Parenthood. Each daughter was asked if she was a feminist. This daughter replied, “No,” – and no, in part, because she felt pigeon-holed by the label; the article contained only four interviews. You can guess which interview was omitted… and it was not omitted due to ignorance.

          • Meghan Murphy

            Ms. Magazine was funded by women. I know and have spoken with some of the women who started Ms.– notably, Carole Jenkins, who is the one who told me the story of how Ms. began (she is black, ftr) — they literally phoned around, asking for money from other women. They, of course, luckily had connections with women who had money, but Ms. magazine is not some conspiracy.

          • Erika

            I think it is important to realize that society was segregated in general in the USA in the early 1900s. It is likely that most people simply did not personally and intimately know many people outside of their race. I do not think early 20th century white feminists went out of their way to segregate themselves from WOC, but they lived in a larger society that did. Even so, many prominent early 20th century white feminists were very vocal about racial justice and way ahead of their time. I have already cited 3 African-Americans who lobbied with early white feminists publicly in a high profile way. (There are doubtlessly others we do not know of.) Also, all black men could vote in the USA 50 years before any white women could, much less WOC. To some degree, some black men segregated themselves from feminism because they didn’t want to be pulled down in status to female level. At the end of the day, a black man could assure himself that he was still a man, and therefore, above any woman in the social hierarchy. Black men were also able to obtain credit in an era when white women still needed the permission of their owners—oops!— fathers or husbands, to open a bank account or apply for a loan. I do not understand why it is always assumed that it is white women who are the villains doing the excluding. The truth is much more complex than this.

    • What Crenshaw is saying, and I strongly believe, is that if we fail to consider how sexism affects women of different sexual orientations, races, social classes, ability levels, and so on differently, we will draw bad conclusions about what should be done. We will fail to liberate all women by overlooking needs specific to less privileged women. We may even do something that helps one group of women while harming another.

      Crenshaw was not focused on assigning blame. She was focused on describing and solving a problem.

      • Morag

        Excellent comment, somebody42. Very helpful in understanding how badly Crenshaw’s intentions have been degraded — to the point where her description of a problem and a solution is so misunderstood and misapplied, that it’s been turned on its head. Because bad conclusions are not being avoided, but made. So the bastardization of intersectionality must be regarded as backlash. And how much harm has this caused to women living at the intersections of multiple oppressions? Will we ever be able to measure it?

  • sal

    If you read writing from any young feminist, it is a given that you are supposed to hate white feminists. If you write something, you are supposed to use any other source as a footnote rather than mention that there was anything good done or written by a white feminist. If someone asks who you admire, you are to never mention a white feminist. They are the source of all evil.

    It’s a weird divorce. There are white women. There are feminists. Young white women approach being feminists. Are told that what they are is the worst curse word in feminism.

    Not patriarchy. Not religious conservatives.

    If you do a Google analytics of new feminist writing on feminist blogs, the word count of teh evil is always white feminists before any other causal agent. Not even the word “privilege” is higher in the count. Some how it is white women who are liberal and believe in the equality of women are the source of all evil.

  • This is a nice article. I also dislike the use of the term ‘white feminism’. It’s an attempt to discredit some types of feminism by associating them with racism or white-centeredness, but the things actually labelled that way are not generally racist: they just involve different ontological and other assumptions.

    I’ve never in my life come across a ‘pearl clutching white feminist’. I’m not sure what it even refers to.

    Also: whether someone is white or whatever doesn’t mean their views are wrong. The problem with white-centeredness, Western-centeredness, etc. in feminist theory is a problem in the content of the theory, for example such theory may make false claims about the ways that females are oppressed, or may miss out on important features of patriarchy. It is good to point out these problems, but pointing out that the people producing the theory are white or using words like ‘white’ to describe the theory amounts to focusing on the people and not the content. I find that sort of thing annoying in general.

    And finally, where you talk about the conflict between second wave feminists and queer theorists, you mentioned disputes over the definition of ‘gender’ and the source of the oppression of gender non-conforming people. But the matter is unnecessarily obfuscated by using the word ‘gender’, and unnecessary controversy is created by fighting over the definition of it. If my interpretation is correct, you said that the second wave feminists believe that gender norms are oppressive to women and gender non-conforming people, and queer theorists believe that transgender people are oppressed by phobia and hatred. Those two statements sound perfectly compatible to me (and true).

    • Dana

      They should be compatible, yes, but liberal feminists and queer activists don’t seem to comprehend where all the hatred and discrimination are coming from. They are coming from, of course, society’s response to people not performing gender “correctly”! You would think the libqueers would stop for two seconds and think about it, but nope.

    • Agreed, Komal. I don’t believe that the problem is “gender.” Radical feminists originally talked about patriarchy, oppression of the female sex, male supremacy, not “gender.” Gender is entirely a matter of culture, and there have been other kinds of culture than patriarchal. But naming male supremacy is frowned upon in these backlash times, so many prefer to talk about gender, either as The Solution or as the Enemy. Gotta change the culture.

  • Carmen Speer

    I have never understood the claims that radical feminism–particularly the radical feminist approach to prostitution–lacks intersectionality. Has anyone ever done an actual study on the demographic of those who refer to themselves as “sex workers” (and who are active in the sex worker movement) as opposed to the rest of the world’s women who are prostituted? I would be willing to bet white women are over-represented among the empowered sex worker demographic, and brown women of all shades among the voiceless prostituted globally.

    Personally, when I am against prostitution as an institution, who I am fighting for in my mind is the most marginalized woman–the homeless teen on the streets, the poor girl from a developing nation (mostly likely of brown-skinned people, and therefore oppressed by the white developed world) who goes to work to support herself and/or her family at a young age.

    I am white; and yet I have never understood white men, nor have I related to the country I come from (the United States). I never said this to myself aloud before, but it’s there; I’ve lived abroad much of my adult life; the three loves of my life, since I was only seventeen, have been Mexican, Japanese, and Mexican again. All three of them grew up poor and were affected by both racism and class struggles…my first boyfriend, Mexican in the US, was constantly profiled; in Japan, my boyfriend was enraged by white people, by white people’s actions and white people’s standards–something which often confused him, considering his attraction to me, and hurt me–yet it was understandable; in Mexico, my most recent love grew up dirt-poor, worked long days for almost no pay, and suffered both from the cognitive dissonance of relying on tourism (both of North Americans, mostly whites, and wealthier Mexicans) and resenting the rich (who are often white)…he is oppressed by Mexico’s incredibly racist class structure, in which race has often determined economic success; he was born white to an impoverished mestizo family (he showed me with pride pictures of himself as a child; he was born “guero”–light-skinned, with Caucasian features–but burnt dark brown when I met him and as “moreno” as the more indigenous-looking in his family from so many years working outdoors, since he was a young child). In the end our differences–which mattered more to other people than to us, at least in the beginning–came between us.

    My sister’s husband, who is Pakistani, accused of her having a fetish for “brown men,” as he put it. And it doesn’t seem to just be us; many of our left-wing friends have also grown up dating outside their race. But–at least on my and my sister’s part–there was never anything deliberate about it.

    So what is it, then? If we are good feminists, why would we relate better to men who come from much more traditional cultures, where machismo still reigns supreme?

    I have a feeling it might have something to do with an understanding of oppression, through our own experiences as women, and a certain feeling of alienation from our own culture…which is the culture of white men.

    I remember my sister saying to me, “Do you think Dad would rather we brought home someone who looks like him? I always wonder. If maybe he isn’t, deep down, slightly disappointed. But he would never say it.”

    I have a brother, too, and he is a wonderful person, and his girlfriend is beautiful and an all-out radfem.

    There are plenty of open-minded, good white men out there. But I feel like there is also a push back; there are also so many–so, so many–who grow up aware of and flaunting their privilege…and I don’t feel I fit in there, with that privilege; as a white female, to fit into the white male world (where white women have so often been fetishized themselves) I have to put myself in a gilded cage. At least, to some extent, that’s how I feel. I know I’m white, and middle-class; yet I have an experience of oppression, as a woman (in my case, a lot more than theoretical or microaggressive, as I’ve experienced a lot of violence). I don’t feel as protected as the middle-class white man, nor do I want to be protected by him.

    The idea that white women are even more privileged than white men is a fallacy that is steadily gaining traction. It’s so infuriating. I always feel like standing up with a bullhorn and saying, “I am a middle-class white woman. And this is what I have experienced.” (How much of it in my adulthood is due to another intersection of oppression–mental illness–is something I have just begun to grapple with).

    Nevertheless, despite falling in love with men who were not white, it’s only recently that I have begun to feel, fully, how oppressive is the white machine. How racism is every bit as real and bad as sexism, something which even some of my peers who have been luckier will not admit is real and bad (too painful. But for me I have no other option but to admit it). My experience of living in Mexico, while reading about the race problems back home–police profiling, incarceration, police shootings–the “BlackLivesMatter” movement–has changed me. It took all this time to feel, at a gut level (rather than as some thought experiment) how bad racism is. So I suppose I cannot entirely blame the uber-privileged for often so much trouble understanding anything.

    Liberal feminism, in my humble opinion, is a capitalist repackaging of the old misogynist values. It cleverly reframes oppression as choice, co-opting the language of the feminist movement. It is more palatable to young women who’ve grown up inundated with messages about their place in the world (pleasing men) who are not ready to accept yet that things are not as they should be. Some liberal feminists are more sinister and deliberate than this; they are corporate shills, sex-industry mouthpieces. But not most.

    Then again, I am a radical in all things. Another reason “a job like any other” doesn’t work in my world is we shouldn’t have those jobs like any other that force us to do something we hate all day long for the benefit of a powerful few–it’s unnecessary to the functioning of the world and to society. We need to change our approach to so many things.

    But that’s just me.

    I’m not sure where I was going with any of this anyway…just one middle-class white radical feminist’s experience with the issues of race and class in her own life.

    • Mar Iguana

      “How racism is every bit as real and bad as sexism…”

      Actually, racism could not exist without its root cause: Sexism.

      • Priscila

        Mar Iguana, I see you making this point in many comments and I’m curious. Could you please explain it in more detail or link me to some reading about it? (No irony, honest interest.)

    • lizor

      “Has anyone ever done an actual study on the demographic of those who refer to themselves as “sex workers” (and who are active in the sex worker movement) as opposed to the rest of the world’s women who are prostituted? I would be willing to bet white women are over-represented among the empowered sex worker demographic, and brown women of all shades among the voiceless prostituted globally.”

      Excellent point.

  • The Real Cie

    Sooo…caring about the lives of trafficked persons makes me a pearl-clutcher.
    Not thinking that porn is “empowering” to women makes me a pearl-clutcher.
    I suppose I’m also just no fun because I tend to wear modest, loose-fitting clothing because that’s what I feel most comfortable wearing.
    Not wanting to allow prostitution to exist unchecked does not mean that I hate sex workers. It means that I want them protected. It isn’t sex workers who will benefit from across the board legalization of prostitution. It’s the pimps and the johns.
    I realize that people with privilege need to shut up an listen to the experiences of those who don’t have privilege. I fail to see where demonizing white feminists across the board accomplishes anything other than to be telling women to shut up–something we hear since the day we’re born.

    • Mar Iguana

      Not using the term “sex workers” would be a good start. Prostitution is not sex and it is not work. It’s a term used to conflate the prostituted with the johns and pimps. The consumed cannot also be the consumer.

  • sporenda

    the article states that’s it’s perfectly possible to be radical and intersectional. in theory, yes, but unfortunately, in reality, there are very few radical intersectional feminists. Intersectional feminism, concretely, has become essentially a way to discredit white radical feminism–and to justify the worst attacks against women’s rights, like prostitution (” a way for poor racialized women to make a decent living”), porn, wearing the burqa etc.
    Some intersectional feminists tell us that white feminists must respect the original culture of the women of color present in feminist groups–which means tolerating FGM, arranged marriages, marriage at an early age etc.
    Intersectional feminism used this way becomes a justification for patriarchy’s worst abuses of women. Ask yourself : based on what it has become now, does intersectionality really advances the recognition of the special discriminations faced by WOC–or does it mostly serve the interests of antifeminist males?

    • Lydia

      That’s all due to a poor understanding of intersectionality on the part of liberal feminists.

      • Rich

        “That’s all due to a poor understanding of intersectionality on the part of liberal feminists”

        To my mind, it is just identity politics in action. First you rank groups by how oppressed they are. Then you rank the importance or validity of what people have to say by how oppressed the groups they belong to are. It is ridiculous. Just think about how the same attitude would play out in the hard sciences. Mathmatical equation from rich hetero white guy from MIT: inherently suspect. Equation from a black transgender person from someplace nobody ever heard of? Automatically has more credibility.

        It is idiotic, IMO.

  • mauritia

    I knew tumblr-style intersectionality had truly gone off the deep end after I read a white woman criticizing a woman of colour for being a “white feminist”.

    • Meghan Murphy

      I saw someone on twitter accuse bell hooks of the same thing.

    • Rocio

      But don’t you see the chart? Women of color can be “white feminists” too! Vomit.

      Whatever happened to critiquing counter-revolutionary minorities or women on the grounds of their politics?

      AKA Clarence Thomas is indeed a Black man but he’s a conservative jerk who does nothing for Black people and actually shuts down policies that would help them.

    • sal

      Well it’s gone beyond just a description of “hey she’s a white feminist” to being a curse word. And people allow it. Therefore a black woman CAN be a “white feminist” if you are insulting her, that is.

      I’ve read several editorials saying that the feminist movement would have a lot to learn from the LGBTQ movement. It’s not like there are no arguments within that movement. But words are taken seriously. Relatively recently, the term “tranny” has been taken off the “good” list because people who are transexual or drag queens find it got to be an offensive term. It took a turn, whereas a generation ago, there were those that embraced the term. RuPaul still uses it. Feminists don’t even have a word for “Ally.” An “A” has been added to the LGBTQ movement by many.

      But using the term “white feminist” to mean all things bad in the feminist movement is pretty awful and we don’t even give respect to people who are white feminists saying it has gone offensive. In fact, there are “feminists” who write with glee about how they “pissed off white feminists” and in their wordpress and twitter description they define their brand as haters of “white feminism.” A “white feminist” can’t even be an ally. It’s out of concept if you define them as the evil you are fighting against.

      I think it is cool to talk about privilege. Class privilege…white privilege…thin privilege… call it out, name it, look at it.

      But this thing where if you are a white girl and you just simply walk into a feminist conversation and immediately you learn that “white feminist” is the community curse word, there is something wrong with that. Something that cannot be overcome. Because if you are white and you are feminist, you are a “white feminist.” which is now a curse word.

      I come from a poor rural background where women really weren’t heard in families. The biggest thing for me was to go to college and discover feminism and hang with people who valued equality. But it’s not cool to discover that in this group of people who are supposed to value women, what you are is the curse word.

      I once would make silly “I’m just a white girl” jokes. Jokes about “white people.” Always a cutdown. Kinda like making “fat girl” jokes when you are fat. These jokes would make people laugh, but then I realized it was just part of mindlessly telling all the people around that it’s okay to minimize me. I’d do the same thing with the term “white feminist.” It’s like a gay person making fag jokes after a certain point. They get laughs, but it’s about hating, really. I’m over that. It’s not about being a supremacist. It’s about just walking in a room and thing that you are is not cursed. You are not guilty before charged to Women of Color. It’s possible you are an ally. Being a white feminist should mean you are working for equity for all and something people want to be who are white.

      There’s a difference between occasionally making a “white girl” joke and accepting a hateful definition that an essential part of what you are – white being the race, and feminist being the politics is a hateful thing. If you want to bring it up to shift the conversation asking people to not stamp all “white feminists” as hateful and please shift to the words “white privilege”, you might as well be talking to a bunch of dudes who don’t want to give up their cherished term “fag.”

      All women should be welcomed into feminism.

      No race should be defined as awful just because of the race, and it becomes impossible to use the words “white feminist” someone’s race, and someone’s politics without it being an insult. Isn’t it weird that we’d jump to stop anyone speaking for “black feminism” or “mexican feminism” who was not black or mexican, but when it comes to “white feminism” in many feminist sites, it’s totally okay to have someone who is not that creating lists for things they need to do, creating lists of things that they are, creating lists of sins of Lena Dunham and one or two other white feminists and calling sin on ALL white feminists, and defining what they are and what they believe. It would not be tolerated for people to do this with any other group you can think of. Can you imagine a ven diagram of Muslims on liberal sites, with Muslim being the bull’s eye of evil? Yet we just recently saw an liberal author use “white feminists” as the bull’s eye of evil – one stereotype of hate for all.

      At least in the LGBTQ community, they are open to some sub-group saying “hey, the terms you call us has now taken a turn to just hate.”

    • It gets even better. You’re a “white feminist” if you’re gender-critical. Because apparently trans is a skin color now.

      • Meghan Murphy

        All women who actually have a radical critique of patriarchy are called ‘white feminists.’ Doesn’t matter if you are Indigenous, Asian or black. And it’s usually middle class white liberal feminists calling radicals ‘white feminists.’

        • I got accused of “white female privilege” by a white man pretending to be a woman. I was so stunned I forgot to ask whether it is his belief he’s BME or not at the time…

          There is no doubt that there are enormous human rights abuses of PoC in the USA and it sounds like there are some systemic abuses of native people in Canada too but liberals in the UK really minimise that when they try to make out like the UK is the same as USA and this is very irritating since the history and present cultures of these countries are simply not comparable. Scots also have a long history of being enslaved and oppressed as do the Irish which they’ve a right to talk about how that has affected their own psyche too. The kids of Rotherham [et al] benefit from no “white” privilege, if anything the converse is the case for them. Eastern Europeans are also trafficked into the country and treated like crap the same as every other underrepresented group. In the UK there are of course the are problems specific to BME people but on the whole “privilege” is largely enjoyed by those who come from “right” social/economic class, religion, those who are male and who talk with the right accent.

          With all that said, liberals bring racial ‘identity’ in as just another way of silencing whoever disagrees with their profit-driven ideology… So it’s still worth continually pointing out that the vast majority of these liberals are *in fact* largely white and privileged themselves and are actively silencing the voices of victims racism along with everything else though, since that’s they’re damned guilty of what they’re accusing radical feminists of!

          I do however, worry the way the liberal media seem to conflate privileges with core human rights though so I am becoming more concious not to fall into that trap: To suggest a human right is a privilege (e.g. not getting harassed or murdered by police officers), is to infer that it is a privilege to be taken from one class rather than something to be afforded to all classes. Liberals seem to *love* language which promotes the memo that we should all be racing to the bottom in order to be “equal” rather than that we should bring an end to practices which are denying core rights to certain groups that are not denied to others…

  • Cassandra

    This piece is an excellent summation of the differences between radical feminism and liberal feminism (which isn’t feminism, in my opinion). Sadly, the people who most need to read it, won’t. It’s mind boggling how thoroughly people have swallowed the individualism neoliberal kool-aid. False consciousness, super-sized.

    • Elena

      Finally, some one said exactly what I was thinking. All liberal feminism does is ensure some women live a little more comfortably, while the rest (the majority) are left in the dust to be raped, abused, enslaved, trafficked, starved, and murdered. That to me is not feminism at all. How women go on for so long going against radical feminism and even when confronted with the facts and the reality of the porn industry and prostitution is just completely bizarre to me. It really makes me sick.

  • purple sage

    It’s very sad to see the way intersectionality is being misused. It is very important to analyze the way that race and class intersect with women’s oppression, but when ‘white feminism’ is being thrown around as a way to shut women up because they’re making an unpopular argument, that doesn’t further the analysis at all. In fact, it demonstrates a lack of caring about actual racism and classism, and a lack of analysis about class structure and systemic oppression.

    I’ve been reading Audre Lorde lately, and there is an enormous differences between her writing on black feminism and the stuff we’re seeing today on Tumblr and in the commentary on Rihanna’s latest music video. Lorde was very intelligent and perceptive and really captured the way that white women leave black women out of their analysis. In her Open Letter to Mary Daly, she writes about white women being “unable to hear black women’s words” because white women will write entire books about feminism and will not include any examples, stories, or references to the work of black women. White women can sometimes be in an echo chamber where all they hear about is other white women. For instance, in her Open Letter she provided some examples of black women’s experience that Daly could have included in her book Gyn/Ecology but didn’t. However, even though she criticized Mary Daly, she did not use any misogynist slurs or abusive language against Daly; she was very professional and treated Daly like a sister who had made a mistake in her analysis and needed to be corrected. In contrast, what we see on Tumblr and in the commentary surrounding Rihanna’s video is that white women are evil and should be abused by black women, that this abuse is justified because the women are white and therefore have done something terrible; that misogynist slurs should be used against white women to punish them for their sins. This is not the voice of black feminism saying this. Black feminism doesn’t seek to abuse white women. Black feminism seeks to liberate black women from oppression, and to promote the inclusion of women of colour in feminism and in public life. The sexual abuse and misogyny directed at white women does not liberate black women from oppression. If Audre Lorde were alive today, I seriously doubt she would defend Rihanna’s video or call white women “pearl clutchers,” “prudes,” or “anti-sex.” These are misogynist slurs coming from men, which get repeated by women who haven’t properly considered what it is they’re really saying. As a woman-identified woman, Lorde put women first in her analysis and did not repeat the lies that patriarchy tells about women.

    In the first page of her Open Letter to Mary Daly, Lorde writes: “Thank you for having Gyn/Ecology sent to me. So much of it is full of import, useful, generative, and provoking. As in Beyond God the Father, many of your analyses are strengthening and helpful to me. Therefore, it is because of what you have given to me in the past work that I write this letter to you now, hoping to share with you the benefits of my insights as you have shared the benefits of yours with me.” Lorde describes how the only quotes Daly included from black women were in regards to female genital mutilation in Africa, but she did not include any quotes from black women when it came to female strength and bonding. The effect is that Daly did not seem to consider that black women are people she could learn from about female strength and bonding; that they are only to be quoted in reference to how oppressed they are. She asks of Daly: “Have you read my work, and the work of other Black women, for what it could give you? Or did you hunt through only to find words that would legitimize your chapter on African genital mutilation in the eyes of other Black women? And if so, then why not use our words to legitimize or illustrate the other places where we connect in our being and becoming? If, on the other hand, it was not Black women you were attempting to reach, in what way did our words illustrate your point for white women?” Notice that Lorde did not let Daly off the hook, she called her out on the fact that she largely left black women out of her analysis, but she did this “calling-out” without the use of misogyny or abuse, because Lorde was a true feminist, she did not promote misogyny toward any women, even women who made mistakes.

    We need to be able to point out where white women are short-sighted in their analysis, where they are forgetting to include the experiences of women of colour, where they are perpetuating racism in their actions, speech or attitudes. We cannot do this properly if “white feminism” and “intersectionality” are merely silencing tactics to get feminists to shut up about objectification, exploitation and gender. These words need to be meaningful and the analysis of systemic oppression based on sex, race and class need to be there. I encourage everyone to read the words of Audre Lorde, bell hooks and Kimberlé Crenshaw, and to stop relying on celebrities such as pop singers and actresses, who haven’t done the analysis.

    This phenomenon reminds me of “call-out culture” in general; where instead of doing activism in real life and making real, positive changes for people’s daily lives, activists simply go online and tear down what they perceive other people are doing wrong. Instead of tearing each other down, we should be building each other up. We should be working collectively, improving our analysis and our work as we go along, and seeking to help each other. This business of witch-hunting and slandering is not helping anybody at all.

    • Lucy Wainwright


    • Lucy Wainwright

      Purple Sage, have you blogged about this? If not would you consider doing so?

  • Non-PC RadFem

    The radical [root] truth here is that; liberal (or worse: neo-liberal) anything needs to die; liberal politics, liberal economics, liberal feminism and whatever else liberal I forgot: they all need to go. Period.

    Liberalism is where true egalitarian and revolutionary ideologies go to die. The old-school, true left got hijacked by liberalism, it did the same to feminism and it also took over classical economics. And while classical economics is not great either – it’s still is capitalism after all – liberal [and neo-liberal] economics is even worse since it’s just another version of classical economics but on steroids, plus it’s based on a great deal of deception and phoney figures [no true price discovery is allowed, no true figures on unemployment, inflation, GDP, etc.]

    I would even argue that a form of liberalism hijacked the original Environmental Movement too, sidetracking it away from the industrialist/capitalist caused environmental degradation, and re-aimed it at a more abstract [and single] cause; Global Warming, in effect deflecting the blame away from the capitalist real culprits and projecting it into the consumers/masses.

    • Yes. Derrick Jensen writes about that last part when he says taking shorter showers is not going to save the planet. Ultimately who’s using up the vast majority of our fresh water? Factories, of course, also industrial farming (of both animals AND plants). All owned by capitalist industrialists. Same goes for climate change. We yell at people who drive cars while doing nothing about the fact that the coal industry gets a slap on the wrist.

  • corvid

    Did anyone else notice that in the diagram explaining “White Feminism”, there is no “TERF” category under “the menz”? Does that mean that men who subscribe to radical feminism cannot be “TERFS” according to the third wave, only women? Seems suspicious….

    • Meghan Murphy

      It’s interesting they present women as the utmost oppressors of trans people, considering it’s men doing all the abusing/assaulting/killing, isn’t it.

    • But it’s never the fault of men, doncha know? Or anyone with any power. I mean, you start arguing with those people and you could get hurt.

      Much easier to pick on some woman who can’t really do a thing to you. “Burn the witch” is still a thing in some parts of the world. Elsewhere, it’s “Ooh, white feminist!” “Uncool!” And always the added bonus for participating women of getting cred with the menz who bestow brownie points.

      If they weren’t nasty and pathetic, it’d be funny. The super-advanced leading edge Twitterits are the direct spiritual descendents of the mobs working the ducking stools.

    • That’s because TERF is a sexist slur.