“Feminist Accountability,” by Ann Russo, highlights the ways that oppressive structures are often unintentionally replicated in the very groups and organizations that attempt to abolish and fight against them. In addition, Russo offers ideas about ways to foster accountability within those groups, hopefully stopping the pattern of those oppressive structures and patterns. In chapter 4, “Shifting Paradigms to End Violence,” Russo writes about the shift in feminist anti-violence organizing from institutional services to community-based work for transformative justice.

One piece of this chapter that I found interesting was Russo’s point that when anti-violence efforts were handled by social service agencies, people in the U.S. viewed sexual violence as a “hyperdelicate issue” that should only be addressed by professionals. This mindset takes away the power to help and support anti-violence efforts from the communities who may be fully equipped to help. This shows how stigma around sexual violence can be harmful, as casting survivors as untouchable. I thought Russo’s specific detailings of the structures of social services, and that many agencies adopt a “one-size-fits-all” model, which results in ignoring the multifaceted lives of many survivors of violence. This has been a topic in other classes I’ve taken, and the way that standardized treatment and intervention affect survivors of domestic violence. For example, mandatory arrest laws which dictate that police arrest abusers right away when they are called to the scene of domestic violence. This approach doesn’t take into account the women who rely on their partner for financial stability or other things that may be left without any resources. I think Russo’s ideas about how to challenge those forms of structure are important and tangible.

Russo focuses on the importance of accountability being a proactive pursuit. Accountability has to be something the community actively works towards, communicates about, and an ongoing process. The way that Russo outlines the ideas of accountability make it seem like a real possibility and solution to the problems in many organizations.

I was tasked with leading discussion during class on 3/28 and I decided to lead the discussion around Susana Loza, “Hashtag Feminism, #SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen, and the Other #FemFuture” reading. I was nervous about leading discussion because I know that it is hard sometimes to get very involved and talkative discussions going for our class. The discussion went well and I found that a lot of the points that I had made about the article a lot of classmates could agree upon. I also discovered even more key takeaways that the class brought up through discussion. We could all agree that social media has given women of color a voice and a platform that they had not had previously. We also found that this new platform gave white feminists another means of denying our rebuting WOC voices. We discussed how social media has progressed from the time that this article was written until now. A lot has changed since this time, yet a lot has remained the same. We could all agree that social media helped with the development of movements or activism but what it did well in gathering people together it failed at keeping these people connected and together.

We continued the discussion around social media and related it to the other readings for this week. We began to discuss the differences between conflict and abuse and what that meant to us. We could all agree that white feminist feeling innocent or bothered by WOC tweets or posts was more of a conflict problem, however, posts that were made that inflicted or proposed actual pain or emotional distress was considered to be more abuse like. We had a very good and thorough discussion around Sarah Schulman, “Abandoning the Personal: The State and the Production of Abuse” and how we felt about what she wrote. While there were good points made in the article, a lot of the class could agree that it was not all true or correct in our eyes. We then compared this article to Leah Lakshmi Piepzna-Samarasinha, “Protect Your Heart: Femme Leadership and Hyper-Accountability” and how her idea of abuse is different and that many people have stories similar to hers. This class was very involved and I believe that we each learned something from the other opinions and experiences that were discussed from each classmate.

We began class with Loza’s “Hashtag Feminism…” article and discussed how social media has given women of color a platform but also how white women/white feminism online has accused WoC of sounding “angry” and subtracting from, rather than contributing to, these conversations. The impact of social media on grassroots movements and community building was also considered, especially with attention to how many movements, specifically those led by women and people of color, have found their footing in online spaces and eventually expanded into in-person chapters/organizations (for example, the Black Lives Matter movement). With the Katherine Cross article we went back to the discussion of anger in Loza’s article. Specifically, how anger and backlash coming from within one’s own community can result in silence out of fear of being attacked. Cross’s article also mentions the “Tumblr-isation” of activism, noting how call-out culture and the idea of a “perfect” activism has contributed to this hypervigilance, especially for marginalized people online. After this, we contrasted the Schulman and Piepzna-Samarasinha articles. One point that was brought up was the difference in language used in both pieces, and how Schulman’s approach in her article comes across as condescending whereas Piepzna-Samarasinha’s approach is more personal, and thus comes across as being more accessible and relatable. It was also mentioned how Shulman’s discussing of conflict and abuse, although it has some value, can be harmful in terms of how it adds a layer of complication to being able to recognize and address abuse.

I would like to explore articles written from both a Western and Arabic perspective on feminism. There tends to be certain polarizing topics between the two (such as the importance and focus on the hijab) that causes conflict in the feminist community. This conflict is important now because there is already conflict of culture between Western nations and Arabic nations, and feminism needs to adjust to be able to understand Arabic women and their experiences, which are completely different to women in the rest of the world. For the format of my paper I will compare and contrast academic articles, newspaper cartoons, and other examples of media from both Western and Arabic perspectives on women’s issues. I don’t have many concerns, except that I am unsure as to whether I will find enough Arabic resources that are in English.

I found this reading particularly interesting because I am very much interested in 21^st century social movements. The “hashtag” movements or “hashtavism” has been heavily discussed in some of my other government courses about social movements and protest. Loza starts her article discussing the #solidarityisforwhitewomen hashtag from 2013, where it went viral and started a conversation about white feminism. Loza uses this example to illustrate her question as to whether mainstream feminism is still in the hands of only white women. Some could argue that the Internet and hashtags give minorities the opportunity to share their experience and help white feminists better understand the experiences of others. However, it can also be argued that it the Internet has been swept up by white feminism, and that tweets “against” white women end up meeting a lot of backlash and critique. White feminists may feel that they are being attacked by these WOC-led twitter campaigns, and the results end up become more polarizing rather than a healthy discussion ending in solidarity. Personally, I have witnessed both take place, however, I believe that overall digital feminism is a way for white women, such as myself, to learn about the experiences of others. It is incredibly important, however, that as white women we listen to other women of color, and make a conscious effort not to speak over them or speak for them.

These two readings reminded me a lot of the past readings and discussions we’ve had about trashing, and the productiveness of punishing activists who misstep. Katherine Cross is an writer and feminist activist. In “Words, Words, Words,” Cross writes about the fear of sharing and writing opinions on feminist discussions, in the political climate of the feminist movement; Cross believes that there are harsh punishments for those who express problematic opinions when it is done so unintentionally, and in some cases that punishment is too harsh. According to Cross, the culture of rage within the feminist movement entails fear among those activists. As we’ve discussed in class, rage and conflict are inherently part of the feminist movement, and even essential to producing positive change.

I especially like Cross’s way of explaining this in terms of “Madonnahood.” Cross writes that as a feminist writer in the movement, women have to “show their scars” to prove that they have in fact been hurt by the patriarchy, but they are not allowed to digress from perfection despite this upbringing. This perfection is near impossible, and when activists stray from it, they are trashed. Today, when social media is such a prominent platform for communication, the trashing occurs online, Cross says, because we are easily able to dehumanize over the internet. While rage is part of change, there are ways that it should be harnessed. Cross further illustrates her ideas of how to do this in “Beyond Niceness.” She argues that the harsh punishments are unjust judgments. Cross reiterates that “this is not about “niceness,” it’s about humanity.” I like this piece because it offers a sort of course of action and suggestion for how we should engage with each other in the feminist movement, not just pointing out the problem with no solution.

Sarah Schulman’s, “Abandoning the Personal: The State and the Production of Abuse,” acknowledges the overemphasis of people calling out as an “abuse” when they actually mean “normative conflict.” The misuse of the word can create harm and consequences on how people are treated and seen by the state and society. Schulman further defines abuse as “power over’ while conflict as “power struggle,” and it is shown in numerous relationships other than interpersonal. She explores the context through experiences and other narratives. Instead of asking the accuser, “are you being abused,” she suggested alternative questions borrowed from Hodes to consider: “What was happening when the behavior occurred? What happened before? What was the outcome? What was the context?”  

What intrigued me the most was reading “when the community encourages overreaction” section because it reminded me a bit of the Jussie Smollett incident in Chicago. A lot of people expressed their outrage and support on social media initially. However, as investigation unfolds and knowing he was indicted on allegedly filing a falsified report, most people switched their opinion. There is a divide on whether or not Jussie staged the attack. It just shows that most people tend to draw conclusions rapidly without all the information, and it can affect an individual.

The purpose of Leah Lakshmi Piepzna-Samarasinha’s piece is to tell her story of abuse and struggle as a femme woman of color with disabilities, so that others who have shared experiences and identities could both see they are not alone and change the negative mantra and community abuse that comes along with these identities. Piepzna-Samarasinha’s focus was on her experience of being a leader in social justice work and QTBIPOC community and how she was abused and drained in ways many middle to upper class masculine able-bodied white people aren’t. This piece both gets to share the story of and have healing affects on the author, while connecting to others who are experiences similar hardships and telling them they don’t deserve or have to stay around people who are toxic and abusive. I know I’m using the word abusive a lot, but that is so much of what Piepzna-Samarasinha experienced along with being disabled and living through chronic illness. This piece was so raw and that really connected with me. Most people go through at least one hardship in their lives and others especially those who are marginalized and oppressed go through of hardships on a monthly basis. I’m positive this story is not an isolated experience and I know this piece meant a lot to me, so I can only imagine how much it means to people who have even more in common with the experiences described. Overall the message take away I ended with was that Piepzna-Samarasinha is telling the reader they matter, their time and emotions matter and need to be prioritized, especially in many cases of femme leaders in social justice movements. 

Transgender studies, despite becoming a recently discussed topic in mainstream media and politics, has been around far longer than most people realize. Susan Stryker’s “Transgender History: The Roots of Todays Revolution” gives readers an overview of the history of transgender in the United States. She starts with the feminist transphobia in the 1970’s, where many feminists did not accept the trans community due to several instances where transwomen were not considered “real women.” These trans-exclusionary radical feminists (TERFs) use the reasoning that transwomen did not spend their entire lives in a biologically female body and therefore have not experienced the entire female experience. Sheila Jeffreys wrote “Gender Hurts: A Feminist Analysis of the Politics of Transgenderism” to explain her point that the transgender community and trans-politics do not have a place in feminist politics. Jeffreys is one of these TERFs and makes that very clear in her writing. Her arguments include that transgenderism encourages patriarchal interpretation of gender and the acceptance of transgenderism can hurt lesbian communities. The lesbian communities argument Jerffreys make is interesting when paired with Sandy Stone, a trans woman who describes her experience of living with lesbian separatists in the 70’s in an article written by Zackary Drucker. Stone says that there were some women who were quite transphobic to the point where it didn’t matter what she said to them, they were committed to the idea that she could not be a true woman. Stone discussed the stigma around surgery and how terrifying it was to be careful not to tell anyone. Beth Elliot, a transgender lesbian, caused a lot of women to get deeply upset when she was the entertainer at a lesbian conference in 1973, which is pictured in the research article “Collective Memory and the Transfeminist 1970s: Toward a Less Plausible History” and also mentioned in Strkyer’s piece. Kai Green wrote about the trans community and black lesbians and the relationship between the two. Green explores the idea of no judgment and making room for all kinds of experiences, especially for trans and black lesbians. This idea of listening and acknowledging the experiences of others, and acknowledging when previous concepts did not encompass everyone’s experiences (such as black women in the concept of “women”) is a theme in many of the readings. Finn Enke, the author, wrote the article in response to the recent rise in white supremacy and extreme transphobia in the United States. They cite many scholars of transgender studies and activists including Susan Stryker and Sandy Stone to illustrate the strength of the community and how feminism has adjusted to do a better job of acknowledging transgender studies. Taking all of this into account, right now is truly a pivotal time in transgender history, and it is important at this time that feminists, the queer community, and transgender community work together.

After class discussion today, I’ve decided the conflict I want to research for my project is TERFs. This conflict is significant because it is a conflict that is recently gaining a lot of traction an resurfacing as a possibly prominent and definitely dangerous and harmful rhetoric. Questions to explore in this conflict could be how does TERF ideology synch up with right wing ideas, even though they claim to be oppositional, and how do we address this rhetoric when we come across it. I will be writing a paper for this assignment. One difficulty I may have is finding enough scholarly sources for my paper, and also not getting so frustrated with the subject matter that I throw my laptop out a window.