Dear Vagenda Editors…
October 23, 2012 in white feminism
By Lianne
Dear Vagenda Editors,
You might be surprised to know that a number of us here at Black Feminists were amazed to hear you declare in your latest New Statesman blog that “feminism is, and to an extent always has been, a white, middle class movement”.
We’re not sure the feminists of the Indian Chipko movement in the 1970s or the Southall Black Sisters would agree either.
It seems that you’re most worried about the “issues of race, class, religion, sexuality, politics and privilege…fracturing feminist dialogue,” even if your fantasy universal feminism actively marginalises the experience of anyone who isn’t you.
You play into the damaging myth that feminism is for an elite and narrow group. In reality many people who don’t actively identify as or even distance themselves from the F-word still have feminist views. Similarly many people know how intersectionality affects them and others around them, even if they don’t consider themselves to be intersectional.
In recent weeks intersectionality – or whatever you want to call it – has been deemed irrelevant and literally not worth giving a shit about. Now you’ve kindly told us it’s too academic. If we’re being honest, both come across as excuses to avoid talking about intersectionality itself and dealing with how it affects people. Given recent events, perhaps you can see why many black feminists and others are angry.
Intersectionality may be an academic term that has spilled into common usage among many feminists, but that doesn’t mean that the concept it refers to isn’t real and worthy of discussion. It’s merely shorthand for experiences that many people recognise and talk about – those points where race, gender, sexuality, ability, class and so on come together. And while language is important, most feminists only really use that kind terminology with others who know what it mean.
In obsessing over the use of one word, you not only miss the point (intersectionality could also refer to education), and imply that a vast swathe of people are stupid, but worse still you actively dismiss the views of people of colour and others.
In many respects, intersectionality actually tries to address accessibility, so it’s dishonest to impose a false hierarchy of accessible language first, then maybe followed by dealing with those minor fringe issues of racism, ableism and classism (you know, if we have the time after we’re done having a go at mythical “educated women [who] to want to keep feminism for themselves”).
Being called out isn’t nice, and pretty much everyone experiences it. Most sensitive and aware people would say ‘thanks for your opinions, we’ll take it on board’ or ‘I wasn’t aware that was an issue, I’ll bear it mind in the future’. But not Vagenda, or Caitlin Moran. What we’re seeing is childish foot-stamping and privileged feminists closing ranks to protect each other from criticism from those they are marginalising.
The real accessibility problem is not the use of one word among perhaps more academically-minded feminists, but the closing down of debate by so-called ‘big name feminists’.
Yvonne Aburrow (@vogelbeere) said on October 23, 2012
If black feminists don’t count according to the editors of Vagenda, then I guess queer feminists, disabled feminists, and other intersectional groups don’t count either.
It’s not even that hard to explain intersectionality – all one has to say is that women can also be working class, people of colour, LGBTQ, older people, a different religion, disabled, etc and that these groups’ concerns intersect with feminist concerns. I figured this out well before anybody coined the word intersectionality to describe it (because I am Pagan and bisexual), and I am sure lots of other feminists did too.
vintagefeminist (@vintagefeminist) said on October 23, 2012
Lianne I am loving this excellent response!
I wrote a response to the original kick off a couple weeks back, I’m not saying it is worth a read, BUT as I call for dialogue in it if you do fancy a read I would really welcome your thoughts and comments if you have any! “The real accessibility problem is not the use of one word among perhaps more academically-minded feminists, but the closing down of debate by so-called ‘big name feminists’.” – Couldn’t agree more.
Vintage Feminist
‘There’s more than one way to be a woman’ http://vintagefeminist.blogspot.com/2012/10/theres-more-than-one-way-to-be-woman.html
goatgirlandthebean said on October 23, 2012
The fact that intersectionality was initiated by a woman of color, Audre Lorde, makes this a bitter pill to swallow
Tamara said on October 23, 2012
“Feminism has always excluded black women. I remember when I started going to feminist groups 15 years ago that my issues and struggles weren’t important to them. (When I think about it, they were the most cartoony feminists I’d ever seen. Seriously, it was all lumberjack shirts, Ani DiFranco albums and cats. There was also the requisite feminist man there with his vegan food and sensitive ponytail.)
The group was mainly navel gazing and figuring out how to protest against the “Peach Blossoms,” our university veterans group that turned up at sporting events dressed in silly drag. Our group felt that the Peach Blossoms, with their OTT make up, comedy boobs and plungers full of beer were offensive to women because the group was mainly made up of men. Well, duh, most veterans are men but there were a few biologically female Peach Blossoms as well. I left the group after that. I started thinking that feminism should be renamed “White Women’s Problems.’”
Someone please explain to me how the quotation above, which complains about the white middleclass feminism which she wanted to call ‘white women’s problems’ is different from what the author from the New Statesman is COMPLAINING about. The quote comes from the blog on your site “Caitlin Moran and Lena Dunham – ‘Girls’ I’m all too familiar with”. She spends most of the article ridiculing white middle class feminism, but now, a white woman stating the same thing is racist. Read the article, she isn’t saying it is right, nor saying that there are no other strands, but that popular feminism has been what your own bloggers are complaining about.
Tamara said on October 23, 2012
“What we’re seeing is childish foot-stamping and privileged feminists closing ranks to protect each other from criticism from those they are marginalising.”
What Vagenda actually said, beyond one sentence taken out of context:
“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. ”
Gosh, that certainly sounds like closing ranks to me…
sandy (@imaginarystars) said on October 23, 2012
@Tamara: They may have said that in their article, but Vagenda themselves ridiculed, dismissed and flat-out refused to listen to the “chorus of voices” trying to explain why their statement “So instead of fighting the patriarchy we’re wasting time on in-fighting? Count me out. I’m off for a brew.” was problematic. This chorus of voices was on the whole polite and genuinely attempting to be helpful. Vagenda replied with hostility and dismissiveness (literally “chill out”) and then refused to engage or clarify any of their statements.
It’s a problem when feminists with power use that power to shut down other marginalised women. When they refuse to listen to them or care about their experiences. It’s a problem when feminism is only for equality and progress for a select few (sometimes at the expense of other women) because it leaves so many women behind. You can’t ask women of colour to help you fight patriarchy and in the same breath dismiss their concerns as “time-wasting” and fracturing the movement.
Throughout this whole debate, I’ve seen a lot of feminists silence women who bring up issues of race. These feminists use the same language and techniques that men use when being confronted about their sexism and misogyny. Vagenda is guilty of doing this too. Vagenda certainly don’t believe it’s ok for men to tell women to chill out and behave, so why do they feel it’s ok for themselves to say the same to women of colour and anybody who supports them?
The rules of how women should behave seem to change whenever a woman of colour speaks up. Normally, these very same feminists (Vagenda included) would praise, encourage and support women who challenge, speak out and try to educate anyone that’s dismissive of feminism/promotes misogyny. But as soon as women of colour behave this way, they’re seen as troublemakers bringing up trivial concerns and fracturing the movement. We’re expected to to be co-operative and docile and are punished if we’re not, while white women are praised for being “strong and outspoken” when behaving in exactly the same way. it’s a pretty fucked up double standard from people who claim to be feminists.
That quote really isn’t an accurate reflection of what Vagenda are like. Their reaction in the last couple of weeks has made it pretty clear they don’t think the concerns of women of colour are important, and the way they’ve silenced women of colour is even more problematic because they’re shutting down the voices of women who are already marginalised (ie. some of these “chorus of voices” they seem to want are seen by them as less valid and therefore ok to silence)
I also wish we could stop talking about Caitlin Moran and Girls (I literally couldn’t give a shit what Moran says since I’ve never read her book or followed her on Twitter. I remain pretty indifferent. As for Girls, all-white casting has never stopped me from watching a show or being able to relate to characters on it, but I really don’t want to make this discussion about that) It distracts from the real issue that’s come up in light of this whole “racism debate” – which is that a lot of mainstream feminists (some with a platform) really don’t seem to give a fuck about women who aren’t white.
The struggles of all women should be important, even if they don’t directly apply to you because we’re all in this together. That doesn’t mean we have to agree with each other all the time but it means we need to hear each other out and try our best to be inclusive and considerate. Not silence other women and opt out when we think the issues aren’t relevant to us. That will only help a privileged few and leave so many of us behind. And that’s the kind of thing Vagenda seem to be advocating. It’s a pretty sad and disheartening thing to see.
Tamara said on October 23, 2012
Sandy, have you actually read the article that the quote was taken from? I’m trying to find the dismissiveness in it, but all I’m seeing is that they are trying to say stop with words like intersectionality, that will alienate people immediately, and speak plainly. A ‘chorus of voices’ speaking plainly. Its not ring fencing, its just saying lets have authentic voices not spouting theory. She’s saying criticise the top… but do it plainly.
This blog is supposedly based on this article. I can’t find the quotes you use in it.
sandy (@imaginarystars) said on October 24, 2012
I was referring to their comments on Twitter, which contradict being open to a “chorus of voices”. They blocked/dismissed a lot of women who were questioning the tweet I quoted as well as this tweet “Don’t bother. You’ll just get accused of being a racist/not caring about ethnic minorities if you say anything.” (sounds pretty similar to “Don’t bother. You’ll just get accused fo being a sexist pig if you say anything”) Here are some of the posts, but not all as it’s hard to go back and find them all.
http://twitter.com/VagendaMagazine/status/254946849935482880
http://twitter.com/VagendaMagazine/status/255056429612937216
http://twitter.com/VagendaMagazine/status/255782411906994177 (this seemed to be in response to women calling them out for body shaming)
http://twitter.com/VagendaMagazine/status/255782574180409344
these are my replies to their initial tweet:
http://twitter.com/imaginarystars/status/254951071380799488
http://twitter.com/imaginarystars/status/254951413812166656
http://twitter.com/imaginarystars/status/254952833558917121
sandy (@imaginarystars) said on October 24, 2012
Tamara, yes, I’ve read it. Hence my reply highlighting that they do not want to hear a “chorus of voices” if the last couple of weeks are anything to go by.
I was referring to their comments on Twitter, which contradict being open to a “chorus of voices”. They blocked/dismissed a lot of women who were questioning the tweet I quoted as well as this tweet “Don’t bother. You’ll just get accused of being a racist/not caring about ethnic minorities if you say anything.” (sounds pretty similar to “Don’t bother. You’ll just get accused fo being a sexist pig if you say anything”) Here are some of the posts, but not all as it’s hard to go back and find them all.
For some reason those didn’t format properly, I’ll try again:
Here is the quote and some of the replies
And here is the “chill out” tweet
I’ve lost all the links for the rest now though but some of them are up there (though not all, as I linked to the actual tweet conversations which don’t seem to have showed up)
ab said on October 24, 2012
@ Tamara
I find it beyond ridiculous that the ‘Vagenda people’ are calling for people to stop using words like intersectionality because oh they don’t get it or its a ‘big’ word.
Well guess what? I’d like people to stop using the word ‘in-fighting’. I don’t like it, it doesn’t mean much and it is confusing.
The word intersectionality has been used for years, it is not new however it might be new to someone who has never had to deal with it. Instead of learning about it and its effects what they’ve done is put their fingers in their ears and say … ohhhh lets just stop saying that shall we… and move right along.
When told what they were doing is dismissive they dug down and showed that they really don’t care about it much.
From their postulations that feminism has always been a white middle class movement, to their defensive posturing on twitter and the like.
You know what? It would warm the cockles of my heart if every black or non-white feminist abandoned this movement and left white women to their devices. Let them fight for themselves by themselves and stop using WOC when it is convenient.
I rejected the feminist movement years ago because of this nonsense.
I will NEVER contribute to something which does not put my interest into consideration.
I will NEVER contribute effort to people who degrade or debase me
I will NEVER contribute any effort to any movement where my concerns are summarily dismissed because ‘its a big word’.
and I will spend all my efforts convincing every woman I meet, never to donate or contribute to anything which degrades, ignores or seeks to undermine them.
I urge black feminists at large to distance themselves quickly from this movement. We have paid to huge a price with very little benefits and an expectation that we will be satisfied with scraps from the table.
Stop contributing your time and strength to people who refuse to learn, refuse to be taught and refuse to acknowledge you.
AB said on October 25, 2012
What is so difficult about understanding “intersectionality”, really? Especially when so many people are speaking out- calmly, coherently, lucidly about the very real ways in which intersectionality in feminism impacts their lives.
I’m not even going to get into Vagenda’s trivialised binaries of “academic feminism” Vs “working class women who don’t care about academics or race issues”, but I’ll say this much- for a British magazine, it seems to be remarkably oblivious to the racial composition of the British working class that it claims to be speaking for in this argument.
Charmaine said on October 24, 2012
Tamara,
I think it is more than a request to stop using words like ‘intersectionality’. The Vagenda article intended to focus on the issue of class in feminism. They used the example of language to illustrate that. They took the word ‘intersectional’ and tried to bash feminists who use it over the heads, knowing full well that many feminists who use it are from marginalised and minority groups because we feel and live it. In particular they were trying to Paper, Scissor, Stone race and class, that’s why they talked about Caitlin Moran’s (please up in heaven, don’t give me occasion to write that name ever again in my lifetime) ethnicity, and then her benefits upbringing and then their own experiences as children in single parent families.
Do you have thoughts on that? Because we all know it’s not just a word that they were really concentrating on, they’ve said it themselves in recent tweets – it’s CLASS. Class – as though class is what matters and race is a side show.
The thing is Tamara, because I think about my feminism in a way that is intersectional I understand that though I am black, and working class I have many privileges. I have those privileges because I have loving and supportive parents (in itself, a privilege) who taught me that because I am black those privileges can be temporary – that job, that home, that car, that non-bleak future, hell, my citizenship. So please tell me where I stand in that over-simplified class structure that Vagenda was attempting to pelt me with? I have what I have, some middle class markers I guess, BECAUSE I am black and because I am black nothing is guaranteed, except that I will stay black and stay a woman, and all of the instability and insecurity and vulnerability will linger.
Vagenda have a point when they say class is important. The argument loses integrity when anyone argues that it trumps race, or that the impact is one in the same despite race – so let’s all go and make a cup of tea and be quiet. They intersect. That’s the point. And it’s worth talking about and worth doing something about. The word has nine letters, we can give it a bly (I’m assuming you know that word because you’re so in tune with what is the language of the people, like the Vagenda lot, natch).
AB said on October 25, 2012
That was meant for Tamara and her difficulty with intersectionality, btwy.
ab said on October 24, 2012
this whole thing is a nonsense.
What they are saying is look follow our agenda, lets fill ourselves up first, because surely OUR issues are feminist issues. YOUR issues are just extra and ‘other’
They can’t see that in doing that they are saying, white feminist issues are the template we need to build. Everything else is just a plugin so why don’t we build the template first.
Whats worse is that they are so bold with their selfishness and comfortable in their defense of it.
Gosh, I really wish all minorities just abandoned them to their echo chamber. We would be better off anyway.
blackfeminists said on October 24, 2012
Ab, with you on that.
That’s why we have black feminism. You, and every other black woman, please consider coming coming join us, we meet every month and join our list!
jenni said on October 25, 2012
Just want to say arghhhhhh in support! I hate it when one group deems anothers issues to be ‘other’ or worse, decide an objection is petty infighting and they are therefore off to ‘make a brew’ as it is so insignificant. Is it so hard to say with an open heart: “sorry, I’ve clearly missed something here, what a great opportunity to learn from another woman, can you tell me why you’re pissed off so I can educate myself?! ” I mean, how can people who claim to fight any system be so closed minded? I am so white and ginger that the sun actually reflects off my skin (!) and I honestly think more feminists of all colours need to get in on this and be angry! Disgraceful.
ab said on October 25, 2012
I’ll be following along and will share your link
work makes it difficult to attend most evening events
Tamara said on October 29, 2012
So, since I was last on here I have asked a whole range of people what intersectionality is as part of the argument seems to be that the word has been out there and its wrong for people to say it shouldn’t be used. Well, I asked a whole bunch of women, different races, education, sexualities, and some men too. No one had a clue or had ever even heard the word. One comment, ‘that sounds like one of those words that George Bush would have made up.’
My point? I’m an English teacher, I teach persuasion and one of the first things in trying to persuade is to use appropriate language. As no one I know has even heard the word intersectionality, I would assume it is, what could be called, a ‘gatekeeping’ word or jargon. It keeps people out because they don’t understand. In explaining it, people were on board with the idea, most understood the phrase ‘multiple oppression’, they cared and were interested in the concept. Don’t use language that keeps people out. In your circles perhaps people use those terms, but it won’t spread beyond that circle until you use language that embraces others not closes gates.
Angel H. said on October 30, 2012
Personally, I couldn’t give to farts about your point Tamara. You are everything that is wrong with mainstream feminism. How dare you come into Black women’s space and say that, basically, they’re doing feminism wrong? Well, who are you, and why should we care? As a matter of fact, why are you here in the first place? It’s not to learn, because all you’ve done is attempt to turn the narrative around to how Black women should be more welcoming to White women: In this post you whine about you don’t feel welcome on this feminist site, as if a site that’s called “BlackFeminists.org” has any obligation to make a whiny White woman feel welcome, and in the previous post when you have the nerve to tell Black women how to make present their feminism in a way that’s more accessible because some people are too lazy to google one word. (I find it hil-freakin’-larious that you went to around to ” whole bunch of women, different races, education, sexualities, and some men too” teaching them about intersectionality. You, of all people.)
Tamara, if you are the best that White Feminism has to offer, then I don’t need, nor do I want, White feminist allies.
Tamara said on October 31, 2012
Angel, thanks for the measured response. I’m on here because it was a link from the F-word and I was interested. What I have found has been fascinating. Some people have engaged with my questions and observations and some people have been insulting. The role of learning is to be able to ask questions, but you obviously don’t think I am allowed.
But perhaps you can answer the question as you seem so offended by me: If the original complaints from both blogs was that middle class white women don’t care about the experience of Black feminists why are they supposed to when they try to understand and engage and ask questions they are told they are unwelcome? Do you get to have it both ways?
Angel H. said on November 4, 2012
Angel, thanks for the measured response. I’m on here because it was a link from the F-word and I was interested. What I have found has been fascinating. Some people have engaged with my questions and observations and some people have been insulting. The role of learning is to be able to ask questions, but you obviously don’t think I am allowed.
If you had merely been questions, there probably wouldn’t have been a problem, but from the get-go you have been *telling* us that we are wrong, and what Black feminists should be doing in order to make ignorant White people like you feel more welcome in our movement. What you have yet to offer is why we should be the ones welcoming you.
But perhaps you can answer the question as you seem so offended by me: If the original complaints from both blogs was that middle class white women don’t care about the experience of Black feminists why are they supposed to when they try to understand and engage and ask questions they are told they are unwelcome? Do you get to have it both ways?
The only ones who seem to want it both ways are you, the Vagenda editors, and other White feminists who refuse to acknowledge the different ways in which Women of Color experience sexism – you want our support, but you refuse to support us. *That* is what it means to feel unwelcome by an entire movement.
Lola said on October 30, 2012
@Tamara, I too am an English teacher, and when a student asks me to tell them the meaning of a new word, I don’t tell them, ‘oh, you know what, that is just too big and complicated, you won’t ever need to use it because hardly anyone understands what it means and only a particular profession uses it’. Where I to do so, what would it say about me as a teacher? Well, you and I both know that were OFSTED to be in the room during such an exchange I would be criticized for not stretching and challenging my pupils, for, in essence, choosing to limit their opportunities for learning and understanding. The more appropriate response would be to ask the student to use the dictionary and find the word’s meaning for themselves. IF after reading the dictionary definition, students still didn’t understand the word, we might have a little discussion about it; I’d use other students as experts, asking those confident in using the term, to give a definition explaining its meaning. Not only that, I would challenge them to use it in some of their own sentences, learning through application. Why do I do this? Because as a teacher, I recognise that for the pupils to really retain this new learning, I cannot simply just tell them what the word is and leave it at that.
To continue the analogy, the feminist movement has, for over two decades been faced with this ‘new term’ and yet, rather than allow itself to be stretched and challenged by the possibilities of truly thinking intersectionally, to allow others in the movement, experts who understand what it is to live intersectionality, the actual gatekeepers of the movement, white middle class women, have shut us down by essentially saying it is too difficult a concept to apply, much less understand. Rather than truly come to grips with the concept, the movement has instead chosen to largely ignore it because it is ‘jargon’ only ‘academic’ black/working class/gay/disabled/trans/ young/old women need to use and think about.
But to engage with your argument at the level of vocabulary- which is what you are suggesting when you say no-one knows or cares about the word because it should be ‘mulitple oppressions’- is to get suckered into thinking that the problem is with the term rather than white middle class feminists not giving a damn about what it is trying to explain and conceptualise.
If the Vagenda girls had done a little more reading, to as it were turn to their feminist dictionaries, then they would recognise that the term intersectionality is a metaphor for the experiences of many people facing multiple oppressions. If they were remotely interested in the power and legitimacy of the concept they might have at least come up with a British version, e.g. Cross Roadsion or Spaghetti Junctionality. Doesn’t quite have the same ring to it does it? Either way, they didn’t seek to properly understand the importance of intersectionality because for them, being a white working class woman is as difficult as you can get it in this world. All those white working class lesbians in mixed race relationships had better pipe down! And what about the rest of us? Well, we will just have to get lost because they really need a cuppa, you know, with them being down to earth feminists tired from a day’s arguing with elitist black/working class/gay/disabled/trans/ young/old women.
Tamara said on October 31, 2012
Lola, thank you for your genuinely thoughtful response. I guess my main question with your analogy is the role of teacher and student – the larger population – or even mainstream feminism – isn’t a classroom where you have the power as a teacher does over students. Which takes us back to the intention – if you are genuinely trying to expand the understanding then you need to realise it isn’t a classroom, I suppose my metaphor would be that it is a TV with 100s of channels. If I’m flipping through the channels and hear something I understand and am interested in, I’ll stay on the station and listen. If it has jargon I don’t understand, I’ll change over quickly.
As to the Vagenda Editors’ intentions, I don’t know. Rather than quoting from the article, where I would swear they were asking to hear and understand a ‘chorus of voices’ this seems to be a diatribe about not liking the website in general. The article that this cited, which I read, seemed to be asking for what people here say they want, a space for a whole bunch of people to give their widely varying experiences. How genuine it was, I can’t say. If someone here submitted an article to them, would they post it? That seems the way to test them, and to reach another audience and engage with them. Then again, looking at Vagenda, it’s pretty media/feminism lite (which has its place) vs deeply philosophical engagement with issues (which also has its place.)
What I have heard loudly, is that asking questions and trying to engage is wrong. A few people have been helpful in explaining, without knowing what any of my intersections might be, but many more have made some pretty big assumptions about me, my background and been quite rude. I’ve been treated by some like a troll, when I came to this from genuine interest, but it is clear from the posts above that I am not welcome. Thank you to Sandy and Charmaine, and you who did answer and engage in a way that helped me to understand a bit more, but I’ve been told quite clearly I have no place here.
Charmaine said on November 1, 2012
Tamara,
Your trying to engage is not wrong, but your approach is important. I have bristled at your use of words such as ‘should’ and ‘don’t’ which are words that 1) imply you KNOW BETTER – ugh ugh, and 2) you are demanding – neither behaviour is acceptable on a black feminists forum by a white woman. If you had not have used those words, I feel pretty certain your reception would have been different.
Also, this idea that you ran a pop survey. That’s all very good, but I think context is important. If you said ‘what does the word intersectionality’ mean to you, I’m sure people would say a lot of things. It would be the same for many words in our language that have more than one meaning, or are not (yet?) common parlance. If you had said, people who are black and also women, or disabled, or have any number of characteristics that might be discriminated against use the term intersectionality – what do you think that means? You might have had a better answer.
There are lots of words that people just don’t understand out of context and I hope your survey took that into account.
Next, there are lots of words that are really common and people still can’t define them, like, say ‘feminism’, but yet we are all still here doing our bit for it. We pitch our conversation how it is best understood, so talking to a white, affluent straight man living in London and working in the City, I probably wouldn’t throw ‘intersectionality’ into a conversation without explaining it, and you could successfully argue he is the very picture of elitism but would be befuddled.
I think it is great that you want to engage. We are hoping to put together an event where we can talk about these things, but it’s not for US to educate EVERYONE ELSE, as this forum shows, we are busy trying to spend time on ourselves. On our email list which is for black women only, this was recently sent round, and sums up my position fairly well:
From the good men project – http://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/why-i-dont-want-to-talk-about-race/
It would be great for you to come to the get together, but please please, leave the ‘you can’t', ‘you must’, ‘you should’ at home or you won’t be leaving with any new black feminist mates.
C