The V Spot

Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett and Holly Baxter of the Vagenda Magazine

In defence of Caitlin Moran and populist feminism

Some educated women seem to want to keep feminism for themselves and cloak it in esoteric theory.

By Rhiannon and Holly Published 22 October 2012 9:41

Caitlin Moran. Photograph: Getty Images.

Caitlin Moran attends the Attitude Magazine Awards at One Mayfair on October 16, 2012. Photograph: Getty Images.

Feminism has a lot to answer for. In precise terms, it is called upon to answer for 3.3 billion very different individuals, united (mostly) by an additional X chromosome and a vagina - and sometimes not even that. This means that issues of race, class, religion, sexuality, politics and privilege often end up fracturing feminist dialogue, most regularly causing disagreements between those armed with an MA in Gender Studies and a large vocabulary to match, and those without. Recent weeks have seen a backlash against the populist feminism of writers such as Caitlin Moran, whose bestselling book How To Be a Woman has been somewhat snobbishly referred to by academic feminists as "an intro to feminism." It was suggested that because Moran had written a book with such an encompassing title, that she owed it to her audience to attempt to represent every facet of female experience. As the most popular figurehead of modern feminism today, there was an overriding consensus amongst certain groups that she should be campaigning for as many sections of female society as possible.

In How To Be a Woman, however, Moran had depicted a very specific tale of femininity: white, working class womanhood in Wolverhampton. This is not unusual, considering that her book is essentially an autobiography. The fact that it has become an international bestseller is no small achievement: an "intro" to feminism, perhaps, but one that is, unusually, completely free of pomposity. The fact that a feminist book has managed not only to have mass appeal but also to be funny with it is something to be celebrated. The fact that it deals with the experience of someone who grew up on benefits makes the two of us (and our single mums) want to dance around our bedrooms with joy. This woman has removed the dust and the stuffiness from a movement which at its most academic is almost incomprehensible, instead expressing its ideals in a way that thousands of women understand and identify with. It is a massive achievement.

And therein lies the nub of the problem: feminism is, and to an extent always has been, a white, middle class movement. Watching Loose Women the other day, we were struck by how the question put to the panel seemed to woefully underestimate the inequalities still rife in our society. "Does feminism still have a place in this world?" they asked, as we banged our heads against our desks. But then Paul O’Grady said something about how his auntie in rollers, with her Woodbine sticking out of her gob, was completely a feminist, just wouldn’t necessarily have used the term, and we started thinking that perhaps many of the women watching and those in the audience would have answered the question with a resounding "no. Feminism doesn’t have a place. Not in our world, anyway."

And to an extent, why should it? If class or race, and not merely gender, is what is preventing you from becoming Director General of the BBC, or Prime Minister, or the editor of the Telegraph, then equal rights for women in isolation of these factors are going to make sod-all difference. You’ll still be left with hungry mouths to feed, or a violent partner, or a shit school. Winning places for women on the boards of FTSE 100 companies is not a priority when your benefits have just been cut and your ex-partner keeps moving house to avoid the CSA. Going into certain state comps and discussing the nuances of intersectionality isn’t going to have much dice if some of the teenage girls in the audience are pregnant, or hungry, or at risk of abuse (what are they going to do? Protect or feed themselves with theory? Women cannot dine on Greer alone.) "This woman does not represent me", they will think of their well-meaning lecturer, because how can she, with her private education and her alienating terminology and her privilege, how can she know how poverty gnaws away at your insides and suppresses your voice? How would she know how that feels?

What feminism needs is more voices - a whole chorus of them. By all means, we can criticise those already at the top, but we should be combining that with a real desire to listen to women from all walks of life and their experiences: to actively seek them out, rather than waiting for the lucky few to claw their way into our ranks. Giving them jobs on newspapers so that they can write movingly and persuasively about the inequalities they suffer. Because working class women are rarer than hen’s teeth in almost all sections of the media, and just as unexpected. From the newspapers we read a study in, to the PR consultants who compiled it, to the advertising agencies who placed the pictures, the working class are demonstrably underrepresented. Only last month, London ad agency Iris was berated online for producing a pamphlet called Iris on Benefits: a guide on the benefits of working for the company (private healthcare, extended holiday, etcetera) that illustrated itself tastelessly with pictures of "chav" clichés. The joke was that it was a play on the word ‘benefits’, which these Burberry-hatted, Nike-trainered, Jeremy-Kyle-watching stereotypes were assumedly claiming. One of Iris’s lines of defence was that the pamphlet was "only meant to be seen internally", as if it went without saying that none of their own internal employees would be working class, past recipients of benefits, or indeed merely offended by such depictions. Fuck that.

The fact that these assumptions prevail is disappointing but not surprising. And in the case of feminism, real campaigning can often only be done with the time and money afforded to privileged people: students with the privilege of time, middle class people with the privilege of money, or squatting activists playing at being poor with the privilege of knowing they have a moneyed parental safety net behind them. This is not to say that those who campaign are not doing positive things for women everywhere. But when we seek out an actual, tangible voice to the campaigns that are supposed to be equalising the playing field for women everywhere, all too often it’s the same voice that we hear. And it doesn’t have a Geordie accent.

It almost seems as though some educated women want to keep feminism for themselves, cloak it in esoteric theory and hide it under their mattresses, safe and warm beneath the duck down duvet. As long as that happens, though, the lives of many women and men in this country will remain the same. Feminism should not be a discipline far removed from the lives of ordinary people, but part of a larger social justice movement that strives to achieve a better life for everyone. Caitlin Moran may not be perfect, but she has come closest thus far. In the last few weeks some have been bandying about the oft-quoted phrase "my feminism will be intersectional or it will be bullshit." We would suggest that anyone with an interest in genuine equality for all adapt that phrase to "my feminism will be comprehensible or it will be bullshit." Achieving "intersectionality" is impossible unless you can communicate clearly, with everyone. Moran at least speaks a language that we all understand. And how many other feminists can you credit with that?

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Feminism

More from Rhiannon and Holly

View the discussion thread.

90 comments

Wed, 2012-11-28 23:21 — percyandthesea (not verified)

"If class or race, and not merely gender, is what is preventing you from becoming Director General of the BBC ... then equal rights for women in isolation of these factors are going to make sod-all difference ... Going into certain state comps and discussing the nuances of intersectionality isn’t going to have much dice if some of the teenage girls in the audience are pregnant, or hungry, or at risk of abuse ... "This woman does not represent me", they will think of their well-meaning lecturer, because how can she, with her private education and her alienating terminology and her privilege, how can she know how poverty gnaws away at your insides and suppresses your voice? How would she know how that feels?"

But... THAT IS THE VERY POINT OF INTERSECTIONALITY. What you describe, the disconnect between privileged middle class feminists and the experience of women who are also held back by other things like poverty, is the very reason people call for intersectionality - i.e. recognising that issues of class and race and other things *intersect* with the oppression that being a woman can entail, and that for many women, the issues of being hungry, and not having any opportuntiy, and experiencing racism are equally important things that need to have a place in discussions of feminism. I.e., that feminism cannot isolate itself from those things. Yes, "intersectionality" itself is a big word (which appears to be the sum of your argument), but it is an attempt to address the VERY PROBLEM YOU IDENTIFY. Seriously, did you even look up what it meant before you wrote this?!

Wed, 2012-11-21 01:49 — Sarahraspberry (not verified)

What's ironic is that what this article is actually conveying is that intersectionality *is* important. 'If class or race, and not merely gender, is what is preventing you from becoming Director General of the BBC, or Prime Minister, or the editor of the Telegraph, then equal rights for women in isolation of these factors are going to make sod-all difference.' That's the point of intersectionality. Feminism is not just about women's issues, and it cannot empower all women unless it addresses other axis of oppression such as class and race.
I'm underclass and I can understand the concept of 'intersectionality', thank you. I read degree-level books and I don't even have 5 GCSEs. It is possible to educate oneself; as someone said in the comments, if you struggle to read, it's not the end of the world. I enjoy going to libraries/bookstores and reading to my friend who is less skilled at it than I am.
Words like 'esoteric' and 'ebullient' require many to reach for a dictionary, so why the fuss about the language of 'academic' or 'educated' feminists alienating those less privileged than them?
No, women cannot dine on Greer alone, but reading about feminism can still be helpful to the self-concept of women who struggle with poverty-related issues such as food insecurity. Blah blah.

Wed, 2012-11-21 12:27 — McMac

Is the problem with intersectionality that it undermines the premise of feminism? An honest view of Intersectionality says that we ive in a world where white lower-class men have less life chances than middle class women. If this is admitted then much of feminism looks more like a ‘land grab’ by already privileged people, then a true fight for equal rights for all.

Wed, 2012-11-21 17:41 — Sarahraspberry (not verified)

I think that lack of intersectional thinking is a problem within feminism, and has been throughout its history. White cisgender etc women wanting 'equality', i.e. as much power as white cisgender men. That isn't challenging racism or cissexism. It's an issue with women-only spaces and with misandry, which seems to have made a comeback. A justification for women-only spaces is that women are uncomfortable with masculinity because they associate it with rape, but to quote Emi Koyama, a trans woman of colour, 'Even the argument that "the presence of a penis would trigger the women" is flawed because it neglects the fact that white skin is just as much a reminder of violence as a penis'. And isn't it problematic for white women to profess to 'hate men' when that includes men of colour who they are privileged over in terms of race?

Tue, 2012-11-06 17:41 — Giuliana (not verified)

Firstly, to call Moran’s book an ‘intro to feminism’ is not snobbish, patronising or incorrect. Considering the decades of in-depth feminist literature, theory and analysis, to call a personal, autobiographical, informal polemic an “intro” is completely reasonable.
I don’t think anyone thought of Moran’s work as encompassing of the entire feminist movement or all women’s experience, so I’m not sure why so many journalists seem to be suggesting this. It is arguably impossible for anyone to write a book that would adequately give space to all historical and contemporary feminist positions and issues. I’m fairly certain there wasn’t a widespread consensus that a light-hearted comment was the new manifesto for femaleness.
It frustrates me that the debate is always so polarised and always set up against feminism as if it’s some sort of monolithic authoritarian structure. Why can’t it be acknowledged that Moran wrote an amusing, populist feminist book but that she made a reckless and insensitive comment about race representation? Her stupid and inclusive views on race don’t totally denounce her work, they just betray her perspective.
Claiming that Moran represents modern feminism is to totally overlook the wide range of contemporary feminist literature, the rise in internet feminism and the academic work done in the field.
Lecturing the reader on the importance of intersectionality is totally ignoring 3rd wave feminism’s extreme awareness of race, class, sexuality, disability and more. Third wave feminism is so aware of its white history that it is hesitant towards even using the word “woman”. It is extremely class, race and sexuality aware and has many voices from many backgrounds. Most modern feminist books by white, middle class authors have a white woman disclaimer at the start to assert their knowledge of their privilege. To suggest that feminism isn’t aware of its historical white focus and shortcomings is to ignore all modern feminist work.
The article suggests that feminism has no interest in poverty, political revolution or economic theory. It suggests that feminists just want women to have good jobs regardless of any other issues. The theme of the article completely changes to a critique of working class stereotypes, which, incidentally, feminists are against too.
There is no evidence, statistics or references given in this article. Why do the writers assume that feminists want to keep it to themselves? Where have they got this from? Who are they talking about?
Lastly, I’m confused by the logic of this article as it seems to argue that that feminism is too white and privileged, yet defends white feminist Moran for her flippant comments on the representation of race on television.
This is a terrible misrepresentation of the Twitter/Moran issue discussed, of the feminist movement, of feminist work past and present, and of the women working hard to make the world a better place.

Fri, 2012-11-02 06:35 — Cecilia W Yu 余詠詩 (not verified)

The fact that as a reviewer you decide Feminism has always been white...reflects your own ethnocentricity and lack of global context....just like this low-brow little book which reflects a certain kind of intelligence hating, racist worldview...I can't think of anything worst than a bunch of white illiterate (in terms of global world history and historic context like you and this little "creature" who pressumes to them 1.6billion non-white Asian women what to do!.... your entire review and her little "lets dum down feminism to sell a few books by being a racist english loud mouth".Please get real. You no longer have an empire and us little yellow people are not here to do your laundry!

Sat, 2012-10-27 06:12 — Eva Bowering (not verified)

Jesus Christ, when did Girls & Caitlin Moran become the epitome of feminism? Also, why are so many feminists so concerned that the show and Caitlin Moran are going to brain wash future women into some how being less then feminists or that we'll become or are racists? I don't understand how these women are the ones being primarily targeted when there are about a million circumstances in the media that are far worse. We are all aloud to think for ourselves and direct our own lives and opinions, so of course I understand the uproar but I really believe this has been taken too far. I think all of these comments are meant to either one up each other, or impress each other or just spiral out of control without actually taking any action. Words aren't going to get us anywhere, actions are and as usual I see no plans to actually change anything. Like the internet as a whole all we have is people sputtering. Until I see a solution I have no problems with Moran continuing to write books and I will keep watching Girls, because I have a mind of my own to create my own ideas and conclusions from them both. I would hate to be targeted for watching and liking these shows and Moran's books, and feel that most commentators do. But like you all, I am able to make my own conclusions and opinions from these forms of media and they are not some how dictating my life or my future.

Sat, 2012-10-27 06:53 — Eva Bowering (not verified)

Secondly, there has been a lot of talk about "privileged whites" & Moran not having a clue about transgender people. This could easily be the case, and I read her book and had many objections to her certain view points but like with everything I read (most importantly comments I read on the internet) I take them all with a grain of salt. As should you all. I highly doubt younger generations are going to be gravely influenced by Girls & Moran. Neither of which represent us as a whole and do not in anyway influence our future. They are but a blip on the radar screen. It's like debating whether or not violence on television influences young people. What exactly will Moran & Girls create? Nothing but much hyped hysteria as witnessed recently. I understand they are now under a microscope, and I respect the debate it has caused..but really that's all this is...debates...debates..debate. Nothing but another Kony 2012. I'd like to know how you're all actually going to boycott Girls & Moran. Oh wait...you can't because like us all they have a certain view point and express it through various media outlets. Which just causes another wave of view points until it's in nowhere-ville. Where do we go from here?

Thu, 2012-10-25 15:44 — Garr (not verified)

Embarrassed for the writers of this article.

Vocal feminist Caitlin Moran publicly and emphatically states that she didn't care that a show she was promoting, set in modern day Brooklyn with four female leads, featured only white women. These writers leap to defend her from criticism that she should care - by branding her critics elitist. Caitlin Moran, they argue, is from a working class background and appeals to masses of "ordinary" women who seemingly should not bother themselves about the big, non-mainstream word "intersectional".

This article, broken down:

Feminism means people with academic interests in the field will pick on Caitlin Moran because they are snobs. (We won't mention the Twitter comment that prompted the "backlash in recent weeks" and the reason we were commissioned to do this article.) She's "working class" i.e not from London/Home Counties, her funny book about her thoughts on life as a woman sold loads of copies and it's really easy to understand - therefore she's redefined a movement. (Like 50 Shades?)
Feminism is white and middle class (is it?) We hate the clueless netmums/Loose Women lot for questioning the deity that is feminism, but lets slum it in their brains for a second and consider why they would not subscribe to our feminist movement. Hmm. Aha - got it - daytime TV, benefits, shit schools, starving, teenage pregnancies and wife beaters - no wonder these poor WC creatures are doubting feminism and without privately paid for education, are incapable of understanding 'lecturers' (who are they and why are they naturally born of private education?)
Hey - the answer is we need more "working class" women (like Caitlin Moran?) in newspapers. Also, the London media scene in general apparently. (Because that fits in with an ad agency's recent bad taste "chavs" campaign posed by its own male and female staff of whose working/middle class backgrounds we actually have no idea.)
Conclusion: Yes, what we said at the top, these academic feminists (any names?) are snobs and they're keeping the feminist potential of "ordinary" women (like Caitlin?) down. Feminism, if everyone is to understand and join in, should not have issues of race, ability, etc., muddy its (our) clear waters and whatever their racial background, "ordinary" women can grasp only one concept at a time. Lets stick to gender and let someone like Caitlin who speaks the common language do the mediating. NB: If you challenge this and start applying big words that we/Caitlin don't subscribe to, you do not have a genuine interest in equality.

Note: When Caitlin Moran got into a Twitter row over the TV show's whiteness, she actually asked for "links" to her critic's feminist credentials, after the obvious replying in aggressive ALL CAPS. Totally subscribing to the esoteric theory in the article.

Also: Moran lived in B'ham for the first 16 years of her life before winning a competition to move to London, living there for the next 20+years, writing for a leading Conservative broadsheet while marrying a writer for a leading left wing broadsheet. The "ordinary" people the authors depicted and who they want involved in feminism were not the types reading her book.

Moran is a funny and skilled writer - who is also massively well-positioned and hyped to the max. She is also slightly out of her depth (her "ebullient retard comment and subsequent begrudging regret/lack of self-awareness, just one example). Think the writers here are happy that this accessible, witty, working-turned-middle class Twitter celeb has opened up the cause they care about to people of a similar background, but that's no reason to defend her every questionable tweet and splutter like so many of her sometimes scarily blinkered supporters. Especially if it makes them stoop to patronising generalisations of both her critics and the people they believe should follow/champion their brand of feminism.

Thu, 2012-11-08 14:04 — brown woman (not verified)

My thoughts exactly. The concept of white privilege seems to have totally passed some feminists by... Or is that another long word that the author's can't be bothered to look up? Intersectionality might be incomprehensible to them because it doesn't affect them as much as women of colour.

Fri, 2012-11-02 07:42 — Alicia (not verified)

You do realize, though, that Lena Dunham wrote Girls based off of her own experiences, right? And that maybe she didn't actually have a lot of close friends in her life that were as culturally well rounded as YOU would prefer them to be. Is that actually a crime? I have friends of all ethnicities, races, cultures, religions, but my three really close friends happen to be white. Do you honestly think it's fair to dictate her artistic freedom in creating something based off of her own experiences? So what. There's A LOT of movies, television shows that are race/religion/culturally specific, Girls just happens to have a broad title so everyone ASSUMES it MUST incorporate every single representation of woman there ever was. Please, I'm sure nobody comes to your house and tells you what kind of people youre allowed to be friends with just so that it's fair all across the boards.

Sat, 2012-11-03 03:58 — Garr (not verified)

Mildly bemused by such a passionate defence of Girls in response to a comment that barely mentions it.

Caitlin Moran crudely dismissed significant criticism/acknowledgement that a show she was promoting features only white women, my issue lay with the writers' reasoning for supporting her. But seen as you're here...

In relation to Girls being singled out, well, if you push out the huge publicity machine on a new show, that's naturally what you get. Those that grow organically and attract a huge audience over time are less likely to attract such a wave of criticism. A massive promotion touting it as this generation's answer to Sex and the City would always prompt questions - on first look at the posters if nothing else - if, 15 years on, its main stars are four white women in a city known for having women of many skin colours.

I'm not sure critics are "assuming it must incorporate every single representation of women there ever was", as this wouldn't even be possible with a cast of four, but you're right that it does have a broad title and it is also written by a self-declared feminist who agrees to be interviewed in a British paper, not by its TV critic for TV pages, but by its vocal feminist writer. By allowing the show to be placed in this context, it of course propels itself into the realm of feminism, giving rise to the idea it is is a show to reflect and represent women and thereby differentiating it from the "LOT of movies, television shows that are race/religion/culturally specific" that you mention.

Broadly, there seems to be two camps involved in this Girls race debate; those who accept the show as a biopic of Lena Dunham's real life experiences around only white women and those who reject that her friends' skin colour needs to be reflected in that of the actors cast to play them. You are clearly in the former, others in the latter. That's all.

Nobody's nipping round the writer's house telling her who to hang out with.

Thu, 2012-11-01 15:31 — Rai896 (not verified)

Publish this version instead! Please!

Thu, 2012-11-01 15:30 — Raisa Kabir (not verified)

Publish this version instead! Please!

Thu, 2012-10-25 19:27 — McMac

Ripple of applause

Thu, 2012-10-25 15:41 — Garr (not verified)

Embarrassed for the writers of this article.

This article, broken down:

Wed, 2012-10-24 13:18 — Hila Shachar (not verified)

I'd also like to add that I completely agree with ls_livesey's comment below calling you out on this rather silly sweeping generalisation:

"This woman does not represent me", they will think of their well-meaning lecturer, because how can she, with her private education and her alienating terminology and her privilege, how can she know how poverty gnaws away at your insides and suppresses your voice? How would she know how that feels?"

Um, maybe she knows because she experienced these things herself? Don't glibly assume things you don't know, because that actually reeks of privilege.

Wed, 2012-10-24 12:58 — Hila Shachar (not verified)

The really bizarre and ironic thing about this article is that it plays straight into the hands of sexism by using a familiar old argument against 'serious' women who (gasp) use 'big words': it's the sexist idea that women should be accessible, popular, appealing to all - god forbid they dare to be educated, difficult, uncompromising about their intelligence and vocabulary.

Education is not a dirty thing, it is something that many people around the world, including many underprivileged women, would love to have access to. I worked damn hard for my own education, and it's given me the tools to express what I feel to be important issues. What's the point in attacking academics in the name of feminism? It doesn't really do anyone any favours. I don't agree with those who have had the privilege of an education using that in a superior manner to imply their opinion is more valuable than others. But I also don't agree with using anti-intellectualism to fight for gender equality. It's unproductive.

Most importantly though, this article misses the point that should really be at the centre of this debate: race is an important factor in how we talk about feminism (as are sexuality, religion, economic status and class, and so on). This isn't hard to understand. I have no idea why you've turned a rather valid issue into a non-existent academic conspiracy in feminism, but it's doing us all a great disservice and implying that there is only one 'valid' way to talk about feminism. Isn't there enough pointless derailing written about feminism as it is?

Tue, 2012-10-23 19:58 — Ellesar (not verified)

I must admit I did not understand why Moran has been lauded as a 'new voice of feminism' based on her book 'How to be a Woman'. It is a perfectly readable book, but hardly ground breaking stuff, and certainly not going to make feminism more accessible to ANYONE.
More recently Moran's comments show an egocentrism that I would have thought rather incompatible with feminism - that only HER version of life counts to her was never something that feminism promoted, all but the most incomprehensible of theorists do at least acknowledge that different women have different perspectives and that that is actually a valid position!
If Moran is the new voice in British feminism I am more than a little disappointed.

Tue, 2012-10-23 19:07 — Phi

"We would suggest that anyone with an interest in genuine equality for all adapt that phrase to "my feminism will be comprehensible or it will be bullsh*t."

I get it... so as long as we can understand clearly that privileged white feminists are throwing Black women under the bus, we're all good? You folks must be having a party in the old girls club.

Thanks for that gem of wisdom. I hadn't realised that using everyday language was mutually exclusive with a feminism that treats people of colour, LGBT and disabled people with respect.

Fri, 2012-10-26 22:07 — tee (not verified)

took the words from my mouth. f*** this article

Tue, 2012-10-23 19:07 — Phi

"We would suggest that anyone with an interest in genuine equality for all adapt that phrase to "my feminism will be comprehensible or it will be bullsh*t."

I get it... so as long as we can understand clearly that privileged white feminists are throwing Black women under the bus, we're all good? You folks must be having a party in the old girls club.

Thanks for that gem of wisdom. I hadn't realised that using everyday language was mutually exclusive with a feminism that treats people of colour, LGBT and disabled people with respect.

Tue, 2012-10-23 18:15 — McMac

Much of feminist debate is about the hierarchy of oppressed, oppressors and identity politics.

The state that is prized above all other is victimhood. Some people will cling to their victim points jealously, no matter how good the cards they’ve been dealt in real life. In this world a privately schooled, Oxbridge educated black woman is ‘oppressed’ , a mentally ill homeless white male is ‘having it easy’.

So what we have here is a victimhood dog fight, with people who want to be victims resenting being called oppressors, and others demanding ‘super victim’ status.

Of course there are also real victims, oppressed and oppressors, but it’s not as clear cut as the fans of identity politics believe.

Tue, 2012-10-23 19:35 — Ellesar (not verified)

Naomi Wolf wrote critically about 'victim feminism' over 20 years ago, so assuming that feminism is primarily about victimhood seems to be an attempt of yours to cloud the debate - look above - do you think that Caitlin Moran is promoting victim status?

There is a HUGE difference between addressing issues where women are the ones primarily victimised - I am sure I do not need to list them - and basing theory or action on being a victim. Is a woman who becomes a feminist as a result of male abuse embracing victimhood? Of course not.

Tue, 2012-10-23 20:16 — McMac

I think the over arching concept of 'victim-hood' and the corollary 'oppressors' clouds the debate, rather then me mentioning it, but I pretty much agree with you.

Tue, 2012-10-23 13:45 — Bonnie Bobo (not verified)

feminists...you make me giggle. you really do. you support someone who verbally confirmed that she has no interest in women of color's struggle and defends that willful ignorance by saying you can't challenge her because she's an artist? I read this article twice, ensuring my 'working class' brain could wrap my head around it. The basic idea of your article is that Moran isn't the most ideal feminist model, but because she's white (since feminism is largely a white woman's movement) and doesn't cloud her theories in big words and theories, she's the best model to follow. Are you serious? You are weak and cowardly to support such nonsense.

Tue, 2012-10-23 19:40 — Ellesar (not verified)

Your superior and condescending attitude apparently directed at ALL feminists (and as far as I am aware it is not a term that can ONLY apply to white middle class women) based on this article is pathetic. Moran is a white feminist - I am sure if she started to write authoritatively on the issues for WOC you would be the first to shoot her down in flames!

Tue, 2012-10-23 18:59 — Sensible (not verified)

Bonnie are you reading the same article I'm reading?

I don't see anything wrong with Moran dealing with working class issues when she's working class. Or Bell Hooks dealing with only race/class or LGBT feminists dealing with only LGBT issues. Why should feminists have to ALWAYS deal with EVERY marginalised group? Groups they know little or nothing about. The same is NOT expected from men is it? The writer clearly states that it is better for those people in minorities to be allowed the room to speak for themselves, which is what Moran has done for herself. It is not easy for an oppressed group to get ANY voice in society. She has done well and should be applauded for getting a working class voice heard in feminism. All this intersectionality does indeed need to stop if it means that a working class feminist cannot write her own autobiography without being critisised.

Thu, 2012-11-01 23:58 — piny (not verified)

1) White people only talking about white people =! black people only talking about black people.

2) Gay people focusing on gay people =! straight people focusing on straight people.

3) It is not possible for a marginalized group to talk about itself without referencing the dominant culture--no gay person could write a meaningful biography without including a wealth of material on heterosexuality and heterosexism, because that's the air we all breathe.

4) bell hooks does not only write about black people, black women, or queer black women! She writes about all kinds of people, including white men, and does it in a responsible, comprehensive way. That's scholarship: cf. point (3)

5) Since when does working class mean white and full of unexamined racism? People of color are poor, too, okay? (So are queer people!) (In fact, some people are not straight or white or rich!) Anti-racism isn't the priority--let alone the invention--of white academics with too much time and grant money on their hands. It's the urgent demand of people of color. Their insights are important in the context of their history. And the idea that a book about a young black woman would automatically be less popular, less accessible, or less amenable to "101" themes is really, really, really racist.

6) The author's contention that feminism has always been a white women's movement is ahistorical and really, really, really racist. Women of color have challenged the official limits of feminism, and have sometimes refused to identify as feminist as a result, but there are and always have been plenty of women of color working to conceive and defend a world beyond the hatred of women. White women like to take their stuff! "Ain't I a Woman," anybody? A great many of them have tried--with better success--to bring mainstream, acknowledged feminism out of the ivory tower and into the reach of their experience. They're not excluded, exactly--only unseen by white pop-culture feminists like Moran and the author.

Thu, 2012-10-25 06:54 — McMac

".The same is NOT expected from men is it? "

Yes it is. It's a female critics stand by article. Take a book/film by a male and complain that x,y,z aren't portrayed correctly. You must have seen them, there's plenty in the NS. The same scrutiny is not applied to female authors unless they say something like "I don't give a shit about..."

Just about every book review on Radio 4 will have a feminist critique applied if the author is male.

Wed, 2012-10-24 14:20 — thestooshie (not verified)

Hugely agree with this comment. I don't think it's the place of every author to confront all other issues in amongst their existing theme. Moran chooses not to delve into the complicated problems that confront women of colour possibly primarily because she doesn't feel particularly well-versed on the subject and because it's probably something you cannot explore without crediting with the time and effort it deserves. Trying to incorporate a narrative regarding other demographic groups within Moran's "How To Be A Woman" would have missed the purpose of the autobiographical nature of the text, but more importantly would potentially would come across as completely disingenuous on part of Moran, who has admitted that she hasn't studied these areas.

I have endlessly heard Moran accused of speaking solely from a privileged standpoint by people that speak also from a somewhat privileged standpoint. I am aware that education is not the enemy, I wouldn't be at university if I thought that. It's simply that I fully believe in the communication of a basic feminist message to all women who haven't had the chance to explore it academically or from an educated position. I'm not saying that Moran is THE BEST example of such, but I don't see why a book such as her's isn't allowed to portray feminism from her point of view without getting muddied with all of the swathes of different facets that the concept encompasses.

Tue, 2012-10-23 18:40 — McMac

This reminds me of the People’s Front of Judea and the Judean People’s Front.

Tue, 2012-10-23 11:57 — M.K. Hajdin (not verified)

The authors seem to be unaware of what feminism means. It means the abolishment of male supremacy. Not "more voices and choices", because some of those voices are only mimicking feminism to sell rebranded patriarchy to women, and not "equality", since equality is male-defined and men keep insisting we already have it. The meaning of feminism hasn't changed and will not change. Only those who pretend their appeasement strategies are empowerment can be tricked into letting the goalposts be shifted.

Rhiannon and Holly imply that women are so stupid that they are capable of understanding only Moran's brand of watered-down, tarted-up, self-absorbed white-bread fauxfeminism. The reality is that every woman on this planet is capable of understanding why we need to end a system of male domination and female oppression. Claiming that only "tabloid" feminism is suitable for the masses is an insult.

The authors also claim that only Moran possesses the power to appeal to the general public, but fail to add that the only members of the public likely to find Moran interesting are those who already share her privileged, selfish, racist views.

Tue, 2012-10-23 11:47 — huwman (not verified)

I live in a very working class area and find that feminism certainly isn't on the agenda. Many women I speak with seem to feel that feminism as they understand it doesn't speak for them or represent how they think about their roles in life. Many value their traditional roles as mother and wife/partner and want to support and provide for their men. They see feminism as an attack on these traditional values. These are not intellectual women seeking progression in the work place; they like their part-time jobs in retail etc. and just want to bring up their kids and look after their hard-working men. I guess until feminism listens to them and supports their wishes to live these lifestyles without making them out to be wrong, then it will always mainly appeal to the intellectual middle-class.

Tue, 2012-10-23 11:37 — ls_livesey

""This woman does not represent me", they will think of their well-meaning lecturer, because how can she, with her private education and her alienating terminology and her privilege, how can she know how poverty gnaws away at your insides and suppresses your voice? How would she know how that feels?"

Because for some of us, we've been there. Perpetuating the myth that all lecturers are born to their position - completely ignores that Women's Studies, amongst other areas, was founded by and is now largely run by women who have experienced life including in many cases poverty, discrimination, violence etc. Women's Studies (which does promote an analysis of women's lives which includes intersectional issues such as race, class, sexuality, ableism, age, poverty etc) exists to challenge academia on it's privileges, just as, for me, feminism exists to challenge the mainstream about it's privileges - including dismissive attitudes to racism, exclusion and making invisible oppressions.

The fact that, thrown in amongst gross, inappropriate generalisations, was this gem perpetuating the assumption that all academics interested in gender are privately educated, unable to communicate to audiences (and indeed that all audiences outside of academia are unable to understand academics) is insulting and exclusionary. I'd be the first to point out that some of my (academic) peers have led privileged lives but that shouldn't render invisible those of us who haven't - after all that's what all privileged people want to do and my brand of feminism isn't about maintaining those privileges but challenging them.

Tue, 2012-10-23 11:23 — Whoosh oleander (not verified)

personally i have always found her style to be straight from the Julie Burchill school of bo11ocks,even to the point of actually asking her via the twit thing,never answered me though,thereby compounding my suspicions.Come on Julie come clean.

Tue, 2012-10-23 11:19 — Whoosh oleander (not verified)

she has a hairy nipple you know.

Tue, 2012-10-23 10:53 — Herbert (not verified)

'... feminism is, and to an extent always has been, a white, middle class movement.'

Very much like 'socialism', it appears.

Tue, 2012-10-23 10:30 — Hugh C Markey (not verified)

Feminism is going the way of all 'isms' which come up against patriarchal capitalism. The rule is simply divide and conquer. It was So easy, ladies!

Old Geezer Programme

Tue, 2012-10-23 10:30 — Hugh C Markey (not verified)

Feminism is going the way of all 'isms' which come up against patriarchal capitalism. The rule is simply divide and conquer. It was So easy, ladies!

Old Geezer Programme

Tue, 2012-10-23 09:17 — Li (not verified)

CAITLIN MORAN SAID SHE LITERALLY COULDN'T GIVE A SH*T ABOUT WOC
CAITLIN MORAN SAID SHE LITERALLY COULDN'T GIVE A SH*T ABOUT WOC
CAITLIN MORAN SAID SHE LITERALLY COULDN'T GIVE A SH*T ABOUT WOC

Before we get any further in this little debate, may I please just remind you again that CAITLIN MORAN SAID SHE LITERALLY COULDN'T GIVE A SH*T ABOUT WOC. Well, then, why should I care about HER feminism if it seems clear she LITERALLY COULDN'T GIVE A SH*T ABOUT ME? (Thanks, New Statesman comment policy for making it seem like I'm afraid of my own swearing!) Give me a single good reason why I should care. In fact, give me a single good reason why I should think her feminism is a good feminism. AND GIVE ME A SINGLE GOOD REASON WHY I SHOULD BE GLAD HER FEMINISM, WHICH IS FLAWED AND DOESN'T GIVE A SH*T ABOUT ME, IS MAKING ALL THE BESTSELLER LISTS instead of wanting to burn something down.

Look, here's a comment that consisted of a) no real jargon and b) actual lived experience, condescending editors of the Vagenda! But seriously - GIVE ME A SINGLE GOOD REASON. I DARE YOU. OTHERWISE F*CK OFF.

Wed, 2012-10-24 14:27 — thestooshie (not verified)

Moran didn't say she "literally couldn't give a shit about woman of colour, did she though? She said she didn't give a shit about the accusations of "whitewashing" that have been leveled at Lena Dunham's "Girls", (which are dubious in themselves, considering the autobiographical nature of the programme) which is why she didn't confront the issue when she was interviewing Dunham.

This doesn't mean that she doesn't care about women of colour, it means that she doesn't care about the complaints being dealt to Lena Dunham regarding that issue.

Tue, 2012-10-23 10:24 — McMac

Before you get all CAPS LOCK on her ass, shouldn’t you at least check what it was she actually said, and the context in which it was said?

Tue, 2012-10-23 12:33 — Li (not verified)

Before you get all condescending on my ass, rest assured that I did. I'm not looking to explain or justify why her Tweet was clearly racist and clearly uncaring. Rest assured that I 'at least checked' (oh at least five times! to make sure that someone whose book I had read previously, with hearteyes, had said she LITERALLY COULD NOT GIVE A SHIT ABOUT ME, and women who look like me, and their COMPLETE EXCLUSION from Lena Dunham's work of fiction, SET IN BROOKLYN! I don't know if you've researched or 'at least checked' what New York is actually like, McMac, but apparently it is the most diverse region in the world where over 140 languages are spoken) what she said it, why she said it, in what context, and all the stupid shitty excuses she offered as reasons for it, and her attempts to shut down critique. Rest assured that I did.

Tue, 2012-10-23 13:04 — McMac

But that’s not what she said. She didn’t say “I don’t give a shit about WOC in generall and secificaly that LI”

She said I don’t give a shit about the depiction of WOC in a particular book. That’s a world of difference isn’t it?

Wed, 2012-11-21 01:13 — Sarahraspberry (not verified)

'Girls' isn't a book.

Wed, 2012-11-21 12:32 — McMac

No, sorry TV show, but the point stands....I think

Tue, 2012-10-23 08:53 — Sensible (not verified)

Great review. Spot on. The middle-classes hate this kind of review. Intersectionality is fine, unless it's the working class it seems. If Moran was black and didn't include disabled folk in her book, nobody would say anything about her not being intersectional. I've read Bell Hooks and she rarely mentions LGBT or disabled folk. A working class woman though!!!! How IGNORANT is she that she didn't include everyone!!! They're all just ignorant aren't they???? Those working classes talking only about themselves! How dare they!!!!!!

Tue, 2012-10-23 04:29 — topaz_grrl (not verified)

I have never taken a journalism class, but heck, I learned that I needed to cite my sources in MIDDLE SCHOOL. Seriously, a well-circulated quote doesn't even merit a Google to see who said it? It is LITERALLY the first result that comes up. This is shoddy journalism. I have never heard of this publication before, but now I know to treat it and it's writers with the disdain they deserve. You owe the author of the quote an extensive, sincere apology at the very least, and if you wanted to regain any reputation, give a decent representation of why intersectionality is crucial to feminism.

The author and her editor make me want to apologize as a white feminist to all WOC feminists/womanists, because holy cow. Doin' it RONG.

Tue, 2012-10-23 01:21 — Kiri (not verified)

So you plagiarize a WoC in order to make some BS excuse about how it's JUST TOO HAAAAAAAAAAARD to make an effort to understand what WoC are talking about? Wow.

It's not at all difficult for anyone who really cares to find out what intersectionality is. It's far from "incomprehensible", and I say this as a working-class white woman with numerous learning disabilities. Mind you, since I am also a trans woman, I have my own visceral (oops, I'm sorry, is that too big a word for you?) understanding of the shortcomings of feminism, so "intersectionality" was an important, live-giving word for me. I supp0se I can see how it'd be a buzzkill for you, but that doesn't suddenly make the problems go away.

As for the "comprehensibility" problem posed by the scary scary big word, I have a solution: it's called Google.