Why “Womanism”?

I could put an essay here about why I prefer to identify as a womanist rather than a feminist, but I’d first have to write that essay, and numerous people have already explained what the difference between the two is, in detail. So, instead, have some links:

◎ dank-potion: Anonymous Asked, How Do You Feel About Feminism?

 ◎ ◎ maiamorgan’s response to this hyperprivileged dismissal of dank-potion’s post by psychrophyte

◎ I would really fucking love it if we stopped idolizing cis-feminists who think being trans-inclusive is bad for cis women, a cooperative effort by inflatablefilth, youarenotyou and fromonesurvivortoanother to rebut a noxious defense of exclusionary feminism by unknowablewoman

 ◎ ◎ See also the exchange between clatterandclank and bacon-beer-and-boobs further downthread; or, ‘In which someone formerly blinded by their own privilege sees the light’ 
(I do so love it when people actually 180° and apologize after being called out for committing an -ism)

Or, if you don’t want to read any long discussions or explanations right now, I’ll try to make this short and sweet…

The modern feminist movement (specifically, from the mid-20th-century to the present) has a history of both

• not removing privilege barriers* to participation by people who believed in gender equality but lacked privilege in one or more of the following areas (listed alphabetically):
• ability to “pass” for cisgendered, whether that means the ability to “pass” for a cis woman or to “pass” for a cis man;
• ability to “pass” for White without being having one’s racial identity and/or self-identification questioned or denied;
• ablebodiedness, specifically intellectual capacity measured as being at or above average, accompanied by the presumption one has the ability to speak for and advocate for oneself;
• ablebodiedness, specifically mental health sufficient for one to be able to — and/or be perceived as being able to — care for oneself and/or speak truthfully for oneself;
• ablebodiedness, specifically physical abilities such as coordination, hearing, mobility and sight;
• age neither so young nor so old that one’s ability to reason and remember, and/or one’s breadth or depth of knowledge, are not called into question on the basis of that age;
• body type perceived as ‘normal’, healthy and/or attractive;
• born in one’s country of residence and a citizen of one’s country of residence, descended from parents (grandparents, etc.) who were also citizens of one’s country of residence;
• cisgender status (one’s mental/emotional gender and one’s anatomy are fully consistent);
• clothing preferences which are neither more (e.g. hijab) nor less (e.g. halter-tops) modest than what is considered ‘normal’ or ‘appropriate’ in one’s geographical area;
• comfortable-or-better income level (which intersects with but is not identical to social class);
• employment in an industry other than sex work;
• education level high enough, without being ‘over-educated’ or ‘elitist’, depending on the preferences and prejudices of self-identified feminists in one’s geographical area;
• ethnicity that is perceived as ‘usual’ or ‘majority’ and thus not seen as unreasonably coloring one’s views of issues which intersect with ethnicity; 
• fluency and/or proficiency in the dominant language of the community where one lives;
• gender identity and presentation that fit one side of the gender binary (preferably the female side in most but not all cases within the modern feminist movement);
• gender identity and presentation which are considered real and valid — not delusional, duplicitous, invented, or ridiculous;
• inclination towards, identification with and/or participation in a monogamous (including serially-monogamous) model of romantic relationships;
• lack of interest and/or participation in BDSM sexual activity;
• middle-or-higher social class (which intersects with but is not identical to income level); 
• not (yet) having been the victim of child molestation and/or incest and/or other sexual assault and/or rape;
• relationship status, including the actuality and/or perception that one is in a non-abusive relationship, a heterosexual relationship, a homosexual relationship, or no relationship at all, depending on the preferences and prejudices of self-identified feminists in one’s geographical area;
• religious and/or spiritual beliefs, or lack thereof, which are perceived as “normal” and “mainstream”;
• residing in a home in which one feels secure and at home, and from which one is not under threat of being evicted or otherwise ejected; 
• sexual orientation that is considered both real, and ‘correct’ or ‘acceptable’, by self-identified feminists in one’s geographical area;
• status as a parent or a non-parent, depending on the preferences and prejudices of self-identified feminists in one’s geographical area;
• White racial appearance and family history;
• [I will add to this list as I discover privilege types I inadvertently omitted, so feel free to point out any you think I missed.]

and also

• actively denying to people lacking one or more of those privileges the right to participate in “feminist” discussions, organizations, and activities.

These things happened, and they are still happening today. 

…Hmm. Apparently I’m not terribly competent at “short.”

I’d also like to eventually add links to other statements similar to Yohanna (dank-potion)’s from this page; nominations are welcome and encouraged!

* What do I mean by “not removing privilege barriers”? Well, here are a couple of examples: headquartering organizations and/or holding meetings in locations that are not served by public transportation or paratransit, and are not wheelchair accessible. Choosing such a location would exclude not only wheelchair users, but also people unable to drive for other reasons (including but not limited to blindness and epilepsy) as well as people who simply can’t afford the expenses of buying or leasing a vehicle, plus paying for insurance, maintenance, repairs and fuel… who, due to intersectionality of class, race, ethnicity, income bracket, and other demographic divisions, are more likely to be persons of color and/or recent immigrant status and/or less education, and so on. The decision to use such spaces is rarely a deliberate attempt to keep other people out, but it does exclude them, regardless of intent.