The Problematic Nature of "Tolerance" and the Responsibilities of White Women

As these articles discussed the barriers, particularly white privilege, to the productive advancement of the feminist movement, I found it interesting that what initially pulled the suffragists and abolitionists together during the First Wave, equality for both women and blacks, now serves to drive them apart to some extent in the Third Wave.

I found Lorde’s article to be especially thought-provoking and was glad to read her interpretation of the problematic nature of the term “tolerance.” I am a member of NCBI (National Coalition Building Institute) at Colgate, which is an organization that uses workshop models to increase awareness of the oppression that exists on our campus and in the world in an attempt to eliminate racism and prejudice in daily experiences and in larger-scale conflicts. During our training session, we discussed the inadequacy of “tolerance” as a goal in diversity work. People tolerate back pain, leaky pipes, and loud neighbors. Progress is minimal if an individual moves from hatred to tolerance of a group of people who may be different. Difference should not be divisive or ignored. It needs to be acknowledged, celebrated, and viewed as a strength in relationships and decision-making. People with different experiences offer unique perspectives to solving problems and, as Lorde writes, to “seek[ing] new ways of being in the world” (2).

Lorde and the Combahee River Collective both address racism within the white women’s movement, but offer different methods to deal with this racism. Lorde writes that white women are educated in many regards, so why aren’t they educated “about Black women and the differences between us--white and Black?” (3). But then she explains that this responsibility falls upon women of color, which is an unhelpful diversion of energy which could be going toward the movement. The women of the Combahee River Collective refuse to accept responsibility to resolve this issue (it is “work for white women to do”), but will “speak to and demand accountability” (Freedman ed., 2007, 329) from white women to overcome racism within the movement. I do not know the Combahee River Collective is more forceful with placing the responsibility of ending racism in the movement on white women (which I completely agree should be upon white women) because they are an organization (as opposed to Audre Lorde, an individual) and feel they have more power to make statements like this, or if there is another more compelling reason. Does anyone have any ideas of why this may be?

As a last thought, I really admired that the Combahee River Collective implemented a nonhierarchical distribution of power within their leadership, modeling what they hope to accomplish for society at large within their organization.