“Black women’s experiences are much broader than the general categories that discrimination discourse provides. Yet the continued insistence that Black women’s demands and needs be filtered through categorical analyses that completely obscure their experiences guarantees that their needs will seldom be addressed” (64)

REFERENCE: Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory, and Antiracist Politics. The University of Chicago Legal Forum, 140, 57-80.

Crenshaw’s article works as a continuation and extension of the ideas I previously discussed. I found her article especially interesting as an argument for the consideration of intersectionality in social and political doctrine because she used specific examples of court cases where the court failed to acknowledge intersections of race and gender in Black women’s discrimination claims. She also creates many interesting analogies that makes her argument all the more captivating and interesting: they were so creative that at points, I forgot I was reading an academic paper. Even though I didn’t include it in my notes, I also liked how she incorporated a personal example from her own experiences as a Black woman. In a nutshell, she had been invited to this prestigious men’s club by a Black male friend. It hadn’t been until somewhat recently that Black men had been allowed in the club. When her and her two male Black friends reached the club, she was told that she had to sneak in through the back because women were not permitted inside. This example shows just how complicated the lives of Black women are: when one challenge is overcome, another one is put in their way. She was not discriminated based on her race as she admits she would have thought was going to happen, but instead was discriminated against as a result of her gender. Crenshaw’s example shows how Black women have to deal with many different levels of discrimination: gender, race, and a mixture of the two. The difficult part, as I discuss later in this post, is determining what the discrimination can be classified as. Is it an issue that affects all women, both Black and white? Is it an issue that affects all Black people, including men? Or is it an issue that specifically pertains to Black women?

That is the challenge.

Anyway. Now that I’ve told you a bit about what this article has to offer, I leave you with my notes:   

“I want to suggest further that this single-axis framework erases Black women In the conceptualization, identification and remediation of race and sex dis crimination by limiting inquiry to the experiences of otherwise-privileged members of the group” (57)

Just as discussed previously, Black women are often erased from research concerning gender (a large majority of feminist research centers on white women) as well as race (while I can’t say I know from my own research, Crenshaw suggests that the experiences of Black men are privileged in academic circles).

“This focus on the most privileged group members marginalizes those who are multiply-burdened and obscures claims that cannot be understood as resulting from discrete sources of discrimination” (57)

“‘The plaintiffs are clearly entitled to a remedy if they have been discriminated against. However they should not be allowed to combine statutory remedies to create a new super-remedy’ which would give them relief beyond what the drafters of the relevant statutes intended. Thus, this lawsuit must be examined to see if it states a cause of action for race discrimination, sex discrimination, or alternatively either, but not a combination of both’” (59)

This statement from the court in the DeGraffenreid v General Motors case makes me so angry! Especially after reading Mackinnon’s article, the idiocy of this statement is even more apparent. Just because white women and Black men were apparently not discriminated against does not mean that you can throw the discrimination against Black women out the window! I’m honestly shocked. Discrimination is discrimination. This might sound a little far-fetched, but what if there was a serial killer who went around specifically targeting disabled Asian women? How could you POSSIBLY look at a case like that as just an attack on women, Asians, or disabled people separately?   

“The court’s refusal in DeGraffenreid to acknowledge that Black women encounter combined race and sex discrimination implies that the boundaries of sex and race discrimination doctrine are defined respectively by white women’s and Black men’s experiences. Under this view, Black women are protected only to the extent that their experiences coincide with those of either of the two groups” (59)

“The court’s preferred articulation of ‘against females’ is not necessarily more inclusive—it just appears to be so because the racial contours of the claim are not specified” (60)

This was really interesting to me. The assumption tends to be that talking about female oppression and other feminist issues is an inclusive practice because other intersections like race are not being assigned (feminism is not just for white women, it is for all women…that sort of thing). Crenshaw, however, is making a point for the adverse being true. Just because the court in the case of Moore v Hughes Helicopters did not attach race to the claim does not mean that Black women and other minority groups are being included. It’s actually often more exclusive to talk about “all women” and make generalizations about the female experience because often these claims are made with white women in mind (which I’m probably guilty of!).

“For white women…there is no need to specify discrimination as white females because their race does not contribute to the disadvantage for which they seek redress” (60)

“In one such case, Payne v Travenol, two Black female plaintiffs alleging race discrimination brought a class action Suit on behalf of all Black employees at a pharmaceutical plant. The court refused, however, to allow the plaintiffs to represent Black males and granted the defendant’s request to narrow the class to Black women only” (62)

It seems to me that Black women just can’t win. In this example, the courts decided that the Black female plaintiffs could not represent Black males and made their claim geared toward Black women only. Even though these women ended up being somewhat successful once the class was narrowed (I say somewhat because their original intention to represent all Black people in the company failed), this example when compared to the other cases makes this situation even more problematic. When Black women make a discrimination claim, they have to be careful in how they approach the matter: are they representing women, the Black community, or Black women? Because there seems to be a big discrepancy across these court rulings in terms of how they are choosing to address these issues. Crenshaw comments on this discrepancy shortly after the above comment:

“Even though Travenol was a partial victory for Black women, the case specifically illustrates how antidiscrimination doctrine generally creates a dilemma for Black women. It forces them to choose between specifically articulating the intersectional aspects of their subordination, thereby risking their ability to represent Black men, or ignoring intersectionality in order to state a claim that would not lead to the exclusion of Black men” (62)

“Black women sometimes experience discrimination in ways similar to white women’s experiences; sometimes they share very similar experiences with Black men. Yet often they experience double-discrimination—the combined effects of practices which discriminate on the basis of race, and on the basis of sex. And sometimes, they experience discrimination as Black women—not the sum of race and sex discrimination, but as Black women” (63-64)

When it comes to legal matters, courts need to be really careful in how they treat discrimination claims. The consideration of intersectionality is paramount in these situations. Courts need to be careful in figuring out if these claims have to do with gender as a whole, race, or a combination of the two. But they absolutely cannot be dismissive of Black women as their own unique group with their own unique issues separate from white women and Black men. It’s a difficult balance and the solution to this problem is certainly not obvious, but all I can say is that an ignorance of the impact of intersections will get these double (sometimes even triple or more) minority groups into serious trouble. Especially in the DeGraffenreid v General Motors case, courts cannot just completely dismiss Black women on the grounds that the discrimination claim has to be “one or the other”…an issue of race, or an issue of gender. It’s completely ridiculous. The only thing I’m still sort of grappling with, however, is when the court dismissed Black women from representing the total Black population in the workforce, as their claim could only apply to Black women specifically. Is this the right thing to do? It seems to me that there needs to be extremely careful assessment of these cases to determine all of the details to what the discrimination involves. I think it might be a little ignorant also to assume that Black women cannot represent Black men in certain situations, but it all depends on the specifics of the case.

“According to the dominant view, a discriminator treats all people within a race or sex category similarly. Any significant experiential or statistical variation within this group suggests either that the group is not being discriminated against or that conflicting interests exist which defeat any attempts to bring a common claim” (64) 

So let me get this straight. What Crenshaw is trying to say here is that in order for there to be “discrimination,” all members of a specific class, race, gender, etc. need to be treated with the same discrimination. This is so incredibly stupid to me, especially in this day and age! Sure, the article was written in 1989…but still! If I was a manager somewhere and I was specifically racist/sexist to Black women, not to black men or white women, then I would not be reprimanded because I’m still treating the Black men and the white women well? Does that make any sense to anyone?! I’m still discriminating against a group of people! Just because it’s a more specific group of people does not mean that it is not discrimination!

“…the paradigm of sex discrimination tends to be based on the experiences of white women; the model of race discrimination tends to be based on the experiences of the most privileged Blacks. Notions of what constitutes race and sex discrimination are, as a result, narrowly tailored to embrace only a small set of circumstances, none of which include discrimination against Black women” (65)

“Because the scope of antidiscrimination law is so limited, sex and race discrimination have come to be defined in terms of the experiences of those who are privileged ‘but for’ their racial or sexual characteristics” (64-65)

It took a bit of thought and further reading to understand this “but for” concept, but once I did I thought it was so interesting. Crenshaw is explaining how antidiscrimination doctrine is often centered upon this notion that certain groups “but for” their race or “but for” their gender would be otherwise treated equally. As a white woman, I would fall into this category: “but for” my gender, I would be a part of the dominant society. This “but for” concept, however, is not open to multiple oppressions. It leaves room for one or the other, gender, race, ability, age, etc., but not for a combination. So as a result, Black women are typically left behind, or forced to choose if “but for” their gender, OR “but for” their race, they would be treated equally. But of course, they cannot make that choice, which underlines the biggest issue with antidiscrimination doctrine. Ironically, antidiscrimination doctrine discriminates against the inclusion of other combined intersections in the identity of a person with regards to their legal and social protection. My eyes are rolling out of my head right now at the idiocy of this.

“When feminist theory and politics that claim to reflect women’s experience and women’s aspirations do not include or speak to Black women, Black women must ask: ‘Ain’t We Women?’ If this is so, how can the claims that ‘women are,’ ‘women believe’ and ‘women need’ be made when such claims are inapplicable or unresponsive to the needs, interests and experiences of Black women?” (67)

I feel so guilty right now! This whole time I’ve been writing specifically about and for white women, never stopping once to consider other groups. It’s just so difficult being a white woman myself: a lot of what I do comes from personal experience. And it’s doubly difficult considering my geographical location: I could count on one hand how many Black students were in my high school. I can’t really speak for all of the Niagara Region, but Niagara Falls is certainly predominantly made up of white people. I think this is even more reason for why I need to move away and experience other places. I’ve been living in this bubble for so long: aside from a few girls I’ve met here or there, at soccer and in a seminar or two, all of my friends are white. It’s time to branch out and learn about other people!

“Feminists thus ignore how their own race functions to mitigate some aspects of sexism and, moreover, how it often privileges them over and contributes to the domination of other women. Consequently, feminist theory remains white, and its potential to broaden and deepen its analysis by addressing non-privileged women remains unrealized” (67)

“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,’ 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 are Black women seen as passive” (67)

This is so important! And once again, I feel extremely guilty because the ideas I’ve developed around feminism are very similar to those mentioned here. But Crenshaw is right! Black women and men do not carry the same social discourses as white women and men. At the same time though, I want to know: if I was to write a paper about my own experiences, to avoid generalizing would I have to write specifically to white women? I feel like if I did this, it would seem racist! I could include other races as well, but being a white woman is it really my place to write about Black women? My hands are tied here it seems…

“Rape statutes generally do not reflect male control over female sexuality, but white male regulation of white female sexuality. Historically, there has been absolutely no institutional effort to regulate Black female chastity. Courts in some states had gone so far as to instruct juries that, unlike white women, Black women were not presumed .to be chaste” (68)

I’m honestly sickened! I know Crenshaw is talking about this in an historical context, but it’s still difficult to read…Black women are assumed to be chaste, but white women are? Where did that even come from?!

“Although patriarchy clearly operates within the Black community, presenting yet another source of domination to which Black women are vulnerable, the racial context in which Black women find themselves makes the creation of a political consciousness that Is oppositional to Black men difficult” (70)

I honestly would have never thought of this. What I think Crenshaw is saying here is that Black women find it more difficult to oppose the patriarchy of Black men as a result of Black racial oppression in general. Since Black men are already oppressed, challenging their patriarchal dominance over Black women is a lot harder than it is for white women to challenge white men. Because white men are the most dominant members of society, white women can challenge their patriarchal rule without fear of backlash. But this is of course not the case for Black women opposing Black men.

“The controversy over the movie The Color Purple is illustrative. The animating fear behind much of the publicized protest was that by portraying domestic abuse in a Black family, the movie confirmed the negative stereotypes of Black men” (71)

My mind is being blown right out of my skull right now. I always knew that Black women faced social problems doubly more difficult and complicated than white women and Black men, but I never thought about all of the many dimensions of these problems. It is problematic for a Black woman to protest the dominance and/or abuse of Black men because it is seen as a reinforcement of racial stereotypes! I’ve found that when people think of the Black community in general, and the negative stereotypes that are often associated, it tends to be focused around Black men. Black women are forgotten! What’s even worse is that these negative stereotypes surrounding the Black community that are more often than not targeted towards men are assigned to the population as a whole. Black women are not included in the equation.

“It Is somewhat ironic that those concerned with alleviating the ills of racism and sexism should adopt such a top-down approach to discrimination, if their efforts Instead began with addressing the needs and problems of those who are most disadvantaged and with restructuring and remaking the world where necessary then others who are singularly disadvantaged would also benefit” (73)