A Women's Liberation march in Washington, 1970. If feminism is going to work, then we must form a united sisterhood. Photo: Warren K. Leffler/Library of Congress
Show Hide image

If we care about liberating women, then we need a united sisterhood in the feminist movement

To make the world a better place for women, we not only need an intersectional approach to our feminism, but we must find a way to stop fighting and start working together.

Funmilayo Ransome-Kuti was the first feminist I came across. The first books I read on feminism were almost exclusively by black women. I connected with the words of bell hooks and I would go on to read Simone De Beauvoir and connect with her words too. I came across the concept of intersectionality, a term coined by the academic Kimberlé Crenshaw, which asks that we recognise the way in which different oppressions intersect and affect our lives.

I would argue that intersectionality theory is not radical or new; it is common sense. Of course we do not all navigate the world in the same way. I am a woman but I am also black. I have congenital nystagmus, a disorder that means I am visually impaired. I spent the first 10 years of my life in Nigeria. All of these life experiences have made me who I am. Interest in intersectionality may have resurged recently, but people have always lived the concept of intersectionality. Black women have always experienced racism and sexism. As a black woman, I am forced to pick between my blackness and my womanhood.

When I wrote about Rihanna’s Bitch Better Have My Money video, the response I got from friends and strangers alike was that I had “traded in my blackness” and I had been “white-washed” because I pointed out that I didn’t like the misogyny and violence shown towards a white woman. There was the inevitable “STFU” from men, but I was more hurt by the comments from the black women in my life that were disappointed. I felt that as a black woman, I had failed, yet again. I wondered: am I doing my feminism wrong? Do I need to identify as a black feminist? I took the word “feminist” out of my Twitter bio because everywhere I turned I was asked, why don’t you identify as a womanist? Women who didn’t know me said they didn’t mean to be “patronising” but went on to lecture me about intersectionality, to tell me they were worried about me or crying for me. One gave me 10 reasons why I had to hate a particular white woman. I was exhausted. I felt not only like I had failed as a woman but also as a feminist.

Women’s voices, especially those of colour, have been marginalised in mainstream discussions on everything. Many women of colour, myself included, are angry that our voices have historically been ignored. We have a right to be angry. Frances Beal wrote of the “double jeopardy” of being both black and female. I have seen in this country how girls of colour have been “othered” and ignored. I have lost count of the number of times I have been dismissed as angry. Sometimes, I feel like people struggle to read black women. We are always angry and aggressive. I feel more uncomfortable and vulnerable not just because I am female, but because I am a black girl. We only have to look at the case of Sandra Bland to see not only the vulnerability of black bodies, but of black women’s bodies.

I try to make my feminism intersectional because it is powerful to listen to the experiences of women different to me. There is not one lived experience of what it means to be a woman. I want feminism to be a movement where all women feel able to take part if they choose to, not one where some women, their voices and their needs are isolated. Ntozake Shange, the writer of For Colored Girls once said, “I write for young girls of color, for girls who don't even exist yet, so that there is something there for them when they arrive.”

But, dare I say it, I think the way intersectionality is sometimes practiced online is wrong. I have observed a toxic mix of intersectionality and identity politics that we must break away from. Take this, for example. You do not need to have been raped to know that rape is wrong and to speak out about it. Lived experiences of rape and are insightful but we cannot elevate these experiences on a pedestal and do nothing with them. Feminism is, after all, a movement that works to liberate women and sometimes there must be practical solutions to problems. Not all women will be able to speak for themselves. Not all women will want to speak about their experiences, and they shouldn’t have to. However, online, a self-righteous group propose that you must have a lived experience before you can speak. You haven’t been raped? What can you possibly know? Shut up and stay in your lane! It is laughable to think that only those who have disclosed a lived experience of any issue should be the only ones speaking. Imagine how the world would be if we all ‘stayed in our lane’ when we saw things that were wrong? The implication here is that it is better to ‘stay in your lane’ and be voiceless than to share your opinions and speak out when you deem things to be wrong.

In her book Bad Feminist, Roxane Gay says:

Too many people have become self-appointed privilege police, patrolling the halls of discourse, ready to remind people of their privilege whether those people have denied that privilege or not. In online discourse, in particular, the specter of privilege is always looming darkly. When someone writes from experience, there is often someone else, at the ready, pointing the trembling finger, accusing that writer of having various kinds of privilege. How dare someone speak to a personal experience without accounting for every possible configuration or privilege of the lack thereof?

This tiresome rhetoric that only X can speak about Y has allowed intersectionality and “checking your privilege” to be used in some cases to allow and excuse abuse, especially against white women. We are all privileged in one way or another and those with more privilege should work to level the playing field. That said, although an intersectional approach to feminism and “checking your privilege” is good, we are human. Nobody is perfect. We will forget our privilege sometimes. These things are inevitable because as human beings we are inherently flawed. And because feminism is a movement led by people, it will also be inherently flawed. 

We need to do away with a hierarchy of voices within feminism. I know black women that don’t speak because they are scared nobody will listen. I know white women that don’t speak because they are scared that nobody will listen and they will get attacked. I say “attacked” and not “called out” because there is a difference challenging and critiquing a woman’s thinking and telling her she should die.

In an interview with Man Repeller, writer Ashley Ford said:

Women of colour have to work on one thing, and that one thing is separating action from character. Everybody knows what they can handle, don’t get me wrong. But when somebody does something you don’t like, you don’t attach it to who that person is, you let the action be the action. You say, “ You said this or you did this, and that made me feel like this. Or, “That’s racist.” Or, “That’s sexist.” But you don’t say you’re racist. You don’t have to attach one action to someone’s character.

Ford goes on to conclude that white women must learn how to tell the difference between a call out on their action or their character. I would go on further to argue that just because I, as a black woman, has called you out on a “racist action”, that doesn’t necessarily mean than it is racist because I could be wrong.

With online feminism, we are too quick to brand some women as “evil white feminists”. We forget how they might have supported projects for marginalised women. And most of all, we forget the invisible problems that some of the white women that we consistently tear down may face. The feminism we practice is one where we are quick to dismiss. The feminism we practice judges far too much. The feminism we practice doesn’t allow room for mistakes. When we don’t allow room for mistakes, we don’t allow room for learning. The feminism we practice perpetuates the idea that empathy is an impossible concept. Empathy allows us to try and understand what it can be like to inhabit a different body to ours, to live a different life to ours.

When I came to feminism, the last thing I expected was to find women bitching, hating and tearing each other down. I don’t think we can ever go forward if we are always at each other’s throats. “Woman-hating” is not cool. It is misogyny and it leads to unnecessary divides within the feminist movement. I also have to think what it means to claim to fight for the rights of women, but to simultaneously tear other women down and to enjoy doing so. By all means, give criticism where it’s due. But there is a fine line between abuse and criticism, and we seem to be doing more of the former.

Sisterhood: women helping, fighting for and supporting other women is what has got this far. On many occasions, I have asked myself, what has happened to sisterhood?

While we sit there behind our screens deciding who is a TERF or a SWERF, there are women with caring responsibilities who don’t have the time to engage. Due to the way our society is structured, having a baby can lead to innumerable structural inequalities for women. What about what feminism can do for them? Older women are invisible in feminism and we’re not listening to their needs, are we? There are girls being married aged 8 and 62 million girls denied an education globally. What about their voices?

I’m not saying that online feminism isn’t important. I’m not taking the “why are feminists talking about Page 3 when there is FGM?” approach. There will always be bigger battles to fight, and the small battles are important too. What I am saying is that sometimes our time could be better spent. We need to fight the battles worth fighting for. Instead of trolling a woman because you disagree with her, how about you call out her action and move on? The time you save could be spent doing something else, such as volunterring at your local Rape Crisis centre.

I’m not saying that we should all agree because we’re not a homogenous group. There's bound to be disagreement. And a little infighting and challenging each other is healthy. But if we care so much about liberating women then sisterhood – not this constant infighting – is what we desperately need right now. We must somehow find a way to bring our fractured and divided movement together. We must put our heads together to make the world better for women – and men. Because stereotypes affect men too. The first step we can take is to become better at listening because that is what we are all failing to do. We are not listening to other women.  Constant infighting will only keep our movement fractured and divided, making it harder for us to work towards a united sisterhood that focus on the struggle for the liberation of all women.

And sadly, our inability to listen, our inability to work together, to make mistakes, to learn from and support each other is dangerous, because it is costing women's lives.

June Eric-Udorie is a 17-year-old writer whose writing has appeared in Cosmopolitan and the New Statesman among others.

Photo: Popperfoto
Show Hide image

How the Oval regained its shape: the famous cricket ground hosts its 100th Test

The challenge for Surrey is to ensure that the new fans drawn to the stadium in recent years keep coming.

Few stadiums have as rich a sporting history as the Oval. After opening its gates in 1845, it hosted England’s first home football international, the first FA Cup final, and Ireland’s inaugural rugby Test.

Though it took 35 years before a cricket Test match – the first ever in England – was played at the ground in Kennington, south London, it was worth waiting for. WG Grace scored 152 runs, setting the tone for many memorable performances  at the Oval. Among the highlights: Len Hutton’s 364 in 1938, still the highest Test score by an England batsman; Viv Richards’s double century and Michael Holding’s 14 wickets for the West Indies before an ecstatic crowd in 1976; England’s Ashes-clinching match in 2005, when a skunk-haired Kevin Pietersen thrashed the Australian attack.

But just five years later, in 2010, the Oval and its host club Surrey were in a bad way. For the first time since 1986, the first day of the annual Oval Test was not a sell-out, and attendances for county games were down. Finances were so stretched that Surrey made a dozen administrative staff redundant, and there was talk of insolvency. The club, which is owned by its 10,000 members and is a tenant of the Duchy of Cornwall, was “very close to a substantial crisis”, Paul Sheldon, then chief executive, said at the time.

Today that seems far away. On 27 July, the Oval hosted its 100th Test, the third match of the series between England and South Africa. The first day was sold out. And Surrey are now the richest first-class county, with £12m of reserves. In 2019, work will begin on a redevelopment scheme that will increase the Oval’s capacity from 25,000 to 40,000, making it the biggest cricket ground in England. (Lord’s, the Oval’s more illustrious rival, can seat 28,000 people.)

“We are in a good place,” said Richard Gould, the current chief executive, one recent afternoon in his grandstand office overlooking the pitch, where a big group of local schoolchildren ran around in the sun.

How did the Oval regain its shape? Gould, whose father Bobby played football for Arsenal and was manager of Wimbledon when the team won the FA Cup in 1988, lists several factors. The first is a greater focus on non-cricketing revenue, taking advantage of the club’s historic facilities. In 2011, when Gould joined Surrey after stints at Bristol City football and Somerset cricket clubs, revenue from corporate events and conferences was £1.3m. This year the projected income is £4.6m.

The second factor is the surge in popularity of the T20 competition played by the 18 first class counties in England and Wales. Unlike Tests, which last for five days, a T20 Blast match takes just three hours. The frenetic format has attracted many people to games who have never previously followed cricket. Surrey, which like Lord’s-based Middlesex have the advantage of being in London, have been especially successful in marketing its home games. Advance sell-outs are common. Surrey reckon they will account for one in six T20 tickets bought in the UK this season, with gate receipts of £4m, four times more than in 2010.

Whereas Test and even one-day international spectators tend to be regulars – and male – Gould estimates that up to 70 per cent of those who attend T20 games at the Oval are first-timers. Women, and children under 16, typically constitute a quarter of the crowd, a higher percentage than at football and rugby matches and a healthy trend for the game and the club.

The strong domestic T20 sales encouraged the Oval’s management to focus more on the county than on the national team. Until a few years ago, Surrey never seriously marketed its own merchandise, unlike professional football clubs, which have done so successfully for decades.

“When I came here, everything around the ground was focused on England,” Gould said. “We needed to put our team first. In the past, county cricket did not make you money. With T20, there’s a commercial business case.”

To raise its profile and pull in the crowds, Surrey have signed some of the biggest international stars in recent years, including Australia’s Ricky Ponting, South Africa’s Hashim Amla, Sri Lanka’s Kumar Sangakkara and Kevin Pietersen, who is now mainly a T20 franchise player. For the players, as with the counties, it’s where the money is.

The challenge for Surrey is to ensure that the new fans drawn to the Oval in recent years keep coming. In common with many businesses today, customer data is crucial. The club has 375,000 names on its marketing database, of which 160,000 are Surrey supporters. But since the average T20 purchaser buys six tickets, many people who attend games at the Oval remain unknown to the club. One way Surrey are trying to identify them is through a service that allows one person to book tickets for a group of friends, who then each pay the club directly. Another method is through offering free, fast Wi-Fi at the ground, which anyone can use as long as they register their email address.

For all the focus on T20, Gould is keen to stress that England internationals, especially Test matches, are a crucial part of the Oval’s future – even if the business model may have to be tweaked.

“We always want to be one of the main Test venues. The problem we have is: will countries still put aside enough time to come to play Tests here? In many countries domestic T20 now takes precedence over international cricket. It may be that we may have to start to pay countries to play at the Oval.” 

Xan Rice is Features Editor at the New Statesman.

This article first appeared in the 27 July 2017 issue of the New Statesman, Summer double issue