Bibliographic record
Abstract
White feminists have been criticized for their lack of attention to the role of racism in the subordination of women. Early pioneers in critical race feminism, including Kimberlé Crenshaw and Angela Harris, exposed the universalizing of white women’s experiences and cautioned against treating sexism, racism and other sites of oppression as discrete systems of domination. To the extent that racism has been acknowledged in mainstream feminist work, the focus has been on its role in victimizing racialized women rather than in privileging white women, allowing white women to cling to a fantasy that situates them as the oppressed rather than the oppressor. Fantasies of whiteness in early feminist scholarship were rooted in the presumption that a feminist movement founded on white women’s experiences would be beneficial to all women. Through an examination of feminist legal scholarship in Canada over a twenty-year period, I explore how fantasies that perpetuate and protect the invisibility of whiteness have evolved in mainstream feminism. This evolution includes some theoretical acceptance, however reluctant, of the existence of white privilege as evidenced by superficial references to racism that eschew more meaningful engagement. However, it also encompasses the tendency to reject race-consciousness, and thus an interrogation of whiteness, through a stubborn, seemingly beneficent adherence to colour-blindness. Fantasies that simultaneously recognize and diminish white privilege enable racial hierarchies to be preserved in feminist analysis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.053 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".