While the core issue of feminist studies is a gender difference, the representatives of feminism have had difficulty conceptualizing differences and finding ways of talking about it. One of the most successful strategies to meet the challenge of speaking about the difference is considering it not only from one side. Rather than emphasizing what things one of the opposing parties lacks, feminists have chosen to talk about the benefits owned by the other party.
The current paper discusses three views on the difference presented by Abby Ferber, Peggy McIntosh, and Maxine Baca Zinn, and Bonnie Thornton Dill. In each of the analyzed articles, feminist authors dwell on the problem of explaining differences and the challenges emerging from such discussions. All of the authors agree that it is impossible to consider the only gender when conceptualizing difference. Ferber, McIntosh, and Zinn and Dill emphasize the racial divergences between women as a crucial aspect of feminism.
In her article, McIntosh draws attention to the fact that while men admit women’s state of being disadvantaged, it is not easy for them to acknowledge their own privilege (29). The refusal to speak about the benefits men obtain due to women’s disadvantages defends men’s prerogative from being “fully recognized, acknowledged, lessened, or ended” (McIntosh 29). Further, McIntosh mentions that similarly to the male privilege over females, there is a prerogative of whites over blacks (29-30). This difference is also rather significant to acknowledge since, as McIntosh assumes, whites are “carefully taught not to recognize white privilege” (30).
Thus, the scholar remarks that it is necessary for feminists not only to defend their rights as those being deprived and diminished by men but also to reach equity in the feminist world where women of all races fight for the common goals. McIntosh mentions that, to a great extent, the refusal to realize privilege is “unconscious” (30). However, it is the duty of feminists as of those trying to reach fairness and justice to draw attention to the problem of difference at all levels and not only at the level of gender.
Ferber also admits the difficulties feminists meet when talking about differences (48-49). She argues that the issues of gender and age are “inextricably linked” (Ferber 48). Ferber analyzes the white supremacist movement and notes that while its representatives paid due respect to the problem of races, they failed to dedicate sufficient efforts to considering the problem of gender (49). The author remarks that only a few scholars pay attention to feminist analysis of the white supremacist movement and explore “the intersections of race and gender in depictions of white men and women, black men and women, and Jewish men and women in contemporary white supremacist discourse” (Ferber 49).
Ferber argues that since gender and race are “social constructs,” they are not built in isolation but are closely related to other identity classes (50). Whereas white feminists consider it sufficient to regard the differences between genders and base conclusions on these divergences, feminists of color disapprove of such an approach (Ferber 50).
As well as McIntosh, Ferber agrees with this opinion and emphasizes the significance of exploring the connection between gender and race in the “construction of white identity and privilege” (50). Therefore, the white supremacist movement is considered as an important opportunity to defend not only the rights of the people of color but also the rights of women.
Research by Zinn and Dill also serves as the encouragement to analyze the problems of conceptualizing differences in feminist studies (321). The authors emphasize that feminist views are “infused” by diversity and difference (Zinn and Dill 321). Zinn and Dill agree with other feminists who argue that rather than noticing the problem of difference, it is necessary to recognize this difference (323). The authors are not satisfied with the fact that difference is used as “a euphemism for women who differ from the traditional norm” and think that it should be employed to “rethink the category of women” (Zinn and Dill 323).
In this connection, Zinn and Dill discuss a new array of theories that gave life to the trend called multicultural feminism (323-324). The representatives of this movement speak not only of gender problems but also of racial issues within the representatives of the same sex (324-325). Zinn and Dill agree that such an approach to the analysis of difference is more productive than the idea of viewing all women as similar.
The challenges of addressing differences by feminists are concerned with racial disparities between women belonging to the feminist movement. As scholars mention, difference necessitates hierarchy, so any attempt to change inequality is regarded as a “threat to difference” (Ferber 48). In order to eliminate this threat, it is necessary to pay attention to all kinds of injustice rather than merely dividing people into men and women or white and black. The question of injustice is one of the crucial issues in the discussion of differences in feminist studies. However, it is necessary to bear in mind that not only the disadvantages of one group of people should be taken into consideration, but also the benefits owned by the other group’s representatives.
Works Cited
Ferber, Abby L. “Constructing Whiteness: The Intersections of Race and Gender in US White Supremacist Discourse.” Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol. 21, no. 1, 1998, pp. 48-63.
McIntosh, Peggy. White Privilege and Male Privilege: A Personal Account of Coming to See Correspondences Through Work in Women’s Studies. 1989. Web.
Zinn, Maxine Baca, and Bonnie Thornton Dill. “Theorizing Difference from Multiracial Feminism.” Feminist Studies, vol. 22, no. 2, 1996, pp. 321-331.