Book Review: Against White Feminism

Image: the cover of the book is a cream colored background with the word "against" in orange to pink hombre cascading down the page. In smaller letters of the same style is "white feminism." Below that in black is "Notes on Disruption" and below that in black is Rafia Zakaria.

 Rafia Zakaria's collection, Against White Feminism: Notes on Disruption, undoubtedly ruffled some (white peoples) feathers. The title alone grabbed the attention of the kind of white women that need to read it most. Unfortunately, many of them won't, but there's not much in terms of respectability politics that can be done to sway them anyway. If they did take a moment to turn a few pages, they would find that Zakaria is very clear in both the very beginning and in the conclusion that there is a huge difference between white women who are feminists and women who practice white feminism- the latter being a sort of white supremacist capitalism that uses womens "empowerment" as a tool to gain profit and power at expense of the most marginalized women.

In some sections, Zakaria details her own experiences dealing with white women practicing white feminism. They are painful to read and I can only imagine how painful they were to experience. They show that tokenism, silencing, casual racism, microaggressions, and more problems can have humiliating, demoralizing, and traumatizing effects. Even though some saw this book as divisive or too angry, I noticed Zakaria self criticizing quite a bit. She would discuss her lack of preparation or experience leading her to make certain decisions that honestly, sounded unavoidable because, had she had the experience, they already would have happened to her. 

I am not seen as a white woman in the world much these days, but have most definitely made some mistakes that I thought of, cringing, as I read her experiences. I was luckily not the head of an NGO or a CEO or whatever, but still. I briefly note this to shy away from the thing many people do after their social justice educations- pretend they've always gotten it, eager to show their rage on behalf of others. This book should be read by imperfect white people, too. If you're willing to reckon with that, you will get the most out of it.

I imagine that this book is also quite validating for women of color, though I obviously cannot assume to speak for anyone. Zakaria discusses a lot of international cultural experiences of women throughout the world that aren't often discussed, even when people are discussing the issues with white feminism. There is a toxic tendency for white women practicing white feminism to place themselves in the roles of missionaries to save the women of color from their native cultures. White women often do this without even seeing the colonialist and white supremacist cultures that the white women themselves are coming from and how those affect women across the world.

She also critiques "sex positive" feminism and "choice" feminism at length. Some folks, especially those who think that the only thing produced by the second wave is TERFs, felt this to be too "second wave." But, I will again, disagree. As someone who got involved in feminism during the sex positive wave then later read a ton of radical feminist writings, I found a lot to be gained- and a lot that needed work- from both. I think Zakaria walks this line well. She says something like "if everything is feminist, then nothing is," which really hits to the root of it. Many movements, often started or co-created by the most marginalized of women, are capitalized upon by corporations or highly privileged women who change movements for social change into stories of individual empowerment through climbing ladders and stepping on people below you along the way.

In the end, the message is repeated that has been told time and again, yet not listened to nearly enough: helping women of color will help all women. Helping women at the margins and intersections helps all women. Centering the experiences of white women alone does not. It actively does harm. There is much to be done and much to be learned and this book is part of that.

This was also posted to my goodreads.

Book Review: Gang Politics

Image: The cover off the book is a grey fabric textured background with an embroidered patch at the center. The patch is black with a tan border and two orange ribbons inside with the title on them. In the middle are brass knuckles with Kristian Williams name on either side in small letters. Below the second ribbon in small letters is "revolution, repression, and crime." On the bottom of the cover in orange letters is "foreword by Robert Evans."

Kristian Williams' Gang Politics is an interesting collection of three essays discussing some of the intricacies and complexities of behaviors and politics of various gangs, mostly in the USA. The author makes clear that he does not claim to cover all or most of these topics in the short text, but I did learn quite a bit of nuanced information that we don't often hear about gangs and other groups that can behave like gangs. Williams' makes it clear that despite the racist USAmerican (and likely elsewhere) association between the term "gang" and poor/working class Black and Brown communities, there are many gangs of many stripes including the police who often act as a state sponsored gang. 

Robert Evans writes a short foreword for the text that was interesting to read because of how he discusses violence. I have listened to some of his various podcasts and it's well known that he loves guns (I am not a gun person but am not anti-gun either.) So, seeing him talk specifically about how raw force is usually not the answer is important. It's not that he has never acknowledged this on podcasts- he has- but seeing it written in this way here is fitting. I am a little uneasy about a white dude giving a foreword for another white dude's book on gang politics given how much the term gang is weaponized against black and brown folks. I do think they both do their part to focus on white gangs as well including some skinheads, the Proud Boys, and even some iterations of antifa who don't check the toxic masculinity inside their groups.

The first essay- The Other Side of the COIN: Counterinsurgency and Community Policing- is a bit dry at times but still very interesting in its exploration of how gangs threaten state power and some of the ways that states use counterproductive and unethical means to reclaim that power. The next essay is where I was hooked. Gangs, States, and Insurgencies offers many specific examples of gangs roles in their communities. It does not paint a false perfectly rosy picture to combat the stereotypes of all gangs existing purely for violence and clout. It instead describes the complicated and often political nature of gangs for whom drugs and violence may play a part, but also who did a great many constructive things for their neighborhoods that often made them a far bigger threat to the state. I did not know that many gangs of today started "as protective measures against racist violence." I had heard of truces occurring before and during the L.A. Riots in 1992 when another group of truces occurred during the recent uprisings after the murder of George Floyd, but before that I was relatively unaware of the specifics and how truces in order to unite gangs stretched back before either of those. 

It came as no surprise to me that police did as much as possible to sow discord between gangs who cooperated with one another just as they did with more well known social justice movements. The details in this essay show clearly that, if attacking gangs was truly about stopping violence, protecting communities, etc, cops wouldn't have been doing everything in their power to stop gangs from cooperating. There are a great many instances of where gangs were successfully working out their differences and contributing to their communities such as with free breakfast programs, agreed upon principles of nonagression, tangible reductions in homicide and violence rates, involvement in politics, etc, only to be fractured by police infiltration and deliberately reinvigorating of old or fabricated conflicts. There are also examples of how a focus on capitalism and working with police corrupted the gangs core principles, leading to protection rackets.

In Street Fights, Gang Wars, and Insurrections: Proud Boys vs Antifa (vs Police,) Williams discusses these groups' gang politics, their huge differences and occasional similarities, and their histories and tactics. There is also examination of skinhead culture including the stereotypical neonazi and racist skinheads as well as apolitical and antiracist skinheads like SHARPs and RASH. This was a primer to lead into Anti-Racist Action and Anti-Fascist Action (aka Antifa or AntEEfa as everyone now insists on pronouncing it) groups of today. There is also a lot of nuanced discussion here. Williams examines the need to meet fascists with a variety of tactics including force while also discussing how force itself can become the star of the show rather than an occasional tactic. There are discussions of how the decentralized nature of Antifa as an idea rather than a group like the Proud Boys with a very strong hierarchy can be both a strength and a curse. There is great variety between chapters and people who identify as antifa and these can be a great things, especially when they design and use tactics best fitting each event and area. But, if a group bases their organizing around machismo, street fights, and reflecting that dynamic inward, they can end up as an authoritarian structure that does not allow for disagreement, growth, or the safety of marginalized people who are or want to be involved.

There is also a history of the strange dynamics of the proud boys, how white men like Gavin McInnis with clear white supremacist and fascist backgrounds managed to convince people that they were somehow post racial, including men of color in their groups rallying around "Western Culture" and "traditional values" instead of (directly saying) race. Despite some leaders openly denouncing men of color and/or gay men from participating, the group remains multiracial, though skewed white for obvious reasons. Proud boys' targeting of Antifa has ended up resembling some of the street fights of racist skinhead groups and traditional street gangs all the way down to their uniforms. Police have also been shown to be cooperative and/or full members of the Proud Boys, though mistrust of law enforcement came later.

All of this history is wrapped up with various analyses that I will leave for the book. But, I liked the nuanced way that Williams discussed the dynamics and tactics of Antifa. I wasn't interested in a book that painted a picture of two one dimensional groups in a perfect war where one side only does bad things and the other is perfect. The book and essays are also well organized and easy to follow even when they get heavy due to William's outlining and summarizing of his points. The postscript offers a telling summary. I normally do not quote from ARCs because they sometimes have text changes, but I think this quote is one that would remain in the book:

"A genuinely anarchist society would likely be, on the whole, pacifist. If we want to eliminate coercion from our social relations, it follows that the role of violence- personal or institutional- would be reduced to infinitesimal levels and likely condemned (or at least regretted) when it does occur. However, to build that world, we must act in this world. The process of change will sometimes entail violence, if only to protect peaceable people from police raids and death squads. This introduces an irresolvable paradox: the means required to build a just society may not be suited to that society...

Violence should, I think, always be understood as morally compromising and politically problematic, as well as physically dangerous and psychologically damaging- even when absolutely necessary. It should therefore only be organized with the utmost care..." 

I had to cut that down for the sake of this review, but the whole section is even better. I think this book could be a very important tool for anyone's organizing, but especially those whose organizing involves violent struggle and a tendency towards toxic masculinity or to attract the toxically masculine. I would like to read more takes like this rather than some of the one dimensional defenses of groups or tactics across all scenarios. 

This was also posted to my goodreads.