White Women and Safety: Don’t Fall for the Right-Wing Dog Whistle

By: The Nightly Crew

The protection of white women, whether it be physical protection or the protection of perceived innocence, almost always rests on problematic and harmful rhetoric. This rhetoric frames white women’s safety as being in direct opposition to the very existence of marginalized groups and the wider working poor. It is a critical component of state violence that is used to justify increasing community harm and completely disregards the strength and agency of women– while failing to see women of color as women. These appeals remain commonplace today, despite not being in the best interest of anyone but the state and the continued dominance of white men.

In this article, I hope to unpack the history of this concept and discuss the rhetorical place that white women occupy in our society today. We’ll end by discussing ways we can destroy this narrative and stop playing into the hands of state actors wishing for justification for violent repression.

History of White Women in Colonization, Interracial Marriage, and more…

The rhetoric around the safety of white women is consistent with the settler colonial and imperialist framework we live in, history affirms this. As discussing the entire history of colonialism, misogyny, and discrimination would likely take over a hundred pages, we’ll start by deconstructing one particularly potent historical example that might be a more concise way to pull out the most important points.

In the 1930’s, the State Government in Olympia, would consider a ban on interracial marriage. This was not a new thing in Washington state as decades earlier the prosecution of interracial marriage in Peirce County was used by Governer Issac Stevens as part of the genocide of Indigenous people. Much like the first, the 1930s ban was fueled by racist and misogynistic political sentiments in “an attempt to smash unity” according to The Voice of Action, a communist newspaper at the time. Ultimately, solidarity and action from Black, Filipino, and other communities in the state prevented the state from passing the ban. Below is an account of the formation of the interracial marriage ban published by the University of Washington.

“Days earlier, King County Auditor Earl Miliken received a request for a marriage license from a Filipino man and a white woman. Resolved to prevent the interracial couple from wedding, Miliken denied the request. Soon after, then-King County Prosecutor Warren Magnuson informed the auditor that there was no legal recourse to prevent the marriage. But Miliken was not to be dissuaded. Claiming to speak on behalf of the concerns of parent-teacher and women’s organizations and pleading on a case for decency, convinced Magnuson that something must be done. Magnuson in turn proposed the bill to Representative Todd, who carried the measure to the floor of the state legislature, where it was introduced. What began as an attempt to stop a single Filipino man from marrying a white woman had quickly evolved into a movement to separate all people into racial categories that would determine who they could and could not marry.”

This excerpt tells a story, so we will spend quite a lot of time deconstructing it piece by piece. Most blatantly obvious is the extreme level of racism that is espoused by politicians and state actors like Magnuson, Miliken, and Representative Todd. Their racist appeals rested on the assumption that men of color, but more widely people of color, were violent and presented an inherent danger to white women. The second half of their rhetoric rested on misogynist beliefs that women were unable to make their own decisions and do so with intent and responsibility. It disregarded women in interracial marriages as being confused and manipulated. It goes without saying that both of these assumptions are deeply flawed and incorrect, however, they offer a good start to deconstructing modern rhetoric. Importantly the vague appeal to decency was used to reinforce this rhetoric. Also note the use of traditional women's (white women’s) organizations to justify for violence.

As they are used, appeals to decency view any behavior, expression, or culture other than that of a European christian as indecent by its very nature. The idea of decency echos the state rhetoric used to justify colonization and genocide of indigenous peoples here in the Northwest and across the world. One particularly potent example of this was the colonization of the Philippines, and the subsequent Filipino Genocide orchestrated by the United States. The colonial efforts were largely justified by the US as bringing decency and civilization to indigenous peoples: often called ‘the white man’s burden.’ This excuse is incredibly ironic given the uncivilized atrocities that the US committed against Filipinos during the US occupation. The US continues to commit atrocities in the Philippines and across the world, using the same appeal to decency as always.

The same rhetoric of decency has been used to justify campaigns for increased policing and state violence against communities of color and the unhoused throughout history. From the anti-chinese riot of 1886, where Seattle Police and others forcefully removed a significant amount of Chinatown’s population, to redlining to create one of the most segregated regions in the US, to the increasing over-policing we have seen since the 70s. Appeals to a European definition of decency continued to be used to justify the state’s violence. 

Our American society has evolved to equate diversity to indecency, and indecency to a risk of public safety. The misogynist view of women sees us as weak and in need of protection, the perfect rhetorical tool to power violent state projects.

In the later half of the twentieth century, this idea could be seen clearly by the structure of American society. Middle class women were forced into docility in the home and expected to remain in the sterile and homogenous suburbs while men were allowed to enter the city and have careers. To white society, urban areas were seen as unsafe. The urban-suburban divide was intentional and built by state-austerity, discriminatory banking practices, and violent and racist state attacks on communities. Due to this, working class women and women of color were largely not afforded the same and would have to leave the home to work. To a misogynist this did not matter and the perceived indecency of the city meant it was no place for middle class white women who only belonged in the home. To some extent, white women widely embraced this philosophy.

Recent iterations of continued campaigns of state violence continue to rely on the rhetorical crutch of protecting white women. The escalation of anti-trans hate in Florida is a prime example of this. Early on DeSantis’ propaganda heavily relied on transgender women’s participation in sports, framing them as a direct threat to cisgender women, and often as predators. To validate false claims, organizations like parent-teacher associations (traditionally dominated by white women) were employed. This rhetoric proved to be very useful to DeSantis and has enabled more and more drastic state violence against transgender people across Florida and the US.

While claiming to protect women, this rhetoric completely overlooks women of color, transgender women and often sees us as a threat to cisgender white women instead of as equals.

This rhetoric has been used to justify colonial violence, policing, anti-trans hate, and more by framing white women’s safety in direct opposition to the existence of these groups. In case it is not clear at this point, this is a false dichotomy, yet a false dichotomy that ‘public safety’ campaigns seem to embrace.

Appeals to ‘Public Safety’

On a rainy afternoon last spring, a group led by UW Panhellenic, showed then Seattle City Councilmember Alex Pedersen and police officers around Greek Row. Dubbed as a ‘safety walk,’ Greek Life used this as an opportunity to voice their concerns about public safety directly to state actors. Greek life has repeatedly called for increased policing under the guise of ‘safety.’ A few years ago, I even recall a forum where a sorority leader pleaded for Cauce to reinstate broken windows policing: a form of policing that seeks to eliminate all visible signs of disorder often through harmful criminalization and increased prosecution. Greek Life’s extreme calls for increased policing are based upon a continuation of the rhetoric we have been discussing– framing safety, particularly that of white sorority members, as being in direct opposition to the very existence of marginalized groups like the unhoused.

As mentioned earlier, this fallacy is quickly debunked, especially when looking at who is actually at risk from who. As research has shown, unhoused people are far more likely to be the victim of violent crime than the perpetrator. 

Walking around Greek Row as a woman, it’s hard to ignore that safety concerns come not from marginalized individuals, but instead from Greek Life itself, which continues to objectify women and allow space for sexual assault and harassment to go unchecked. 

In the months leading up to the ‘safety walk,’ Greek Life had aimed to attend a town hall on public safety in large numbers. But the Black Student Union released a statement on the performative nature of the safety town hall, after which, Greek Life did not show up for fear of being seen clearly for the racist nature of the rhetoric they spout. Here is an excerpt from that statement:

“UWPD asks us to police eachother, telling us to be hyperconscious of ‘suspicious activity’ on campus and to actively call in tips anonymously… For administrators, we have to ask; when you’re concerned about safety, this means safety for whom?”

Reducing this rhetoric to Greek Life, however, would be a grave mistake. As the BSU alluded to, there is a substantial state effort to make us police each other and instill a fear of our neighbors within us. Despite historic uprising in the past years against systems of policing, this rhetoric has continued and has been largely persevered. 

A concerning example of this is the escalation of the city’s ‘war-on-crime’ in recent years. Across Seattle, politicians have selectively used women's safety as an excuse to ramp up encampment sweeps, increase policing, and expand other forms of violence; once again ironic, as money for this ‘war-on-crime’ was freed up by halting sexual assault investigations. State actors are able to get away with all of this and more in part due to their rhetoric: often alluding to mythical daughters, an idealized feeling of safety, and constructed victimhood of white women. For reasons mentioned earlier, this rhetoric is deeply embedded in American society and therefore deeply embedded in all of us.

What should we do instead?

What is left is to figure out how to effectively organize to destroy this way of thinking and devalue the rhetorical tool that frames white women’s safety in direct opposition to the existence of marginalized people. This section is a simplified list of a few of the steps and tactics that can be employed.

Critical Thinking. One of the first steps is to think critically about what we perceive as dangerous, asking why we view it as such. We need to deconstruct biases and look into the historical origins of them.

No Alliances With the State and the Police. UW and the state have made it clear that they want us to be “hyper-vigilant” of one another and report “suspicious activity” to the police. Unless absolutely necessary, we should avoid calling the police, especially against marginalized strangers who we subconsciously deem ‘indecent’ in passing. This is the bare minimum we can do to prevent escalated harm. For white women, let it be clear that alliances with state actors will only bring long-term harm and serve to divide you from the larger feminist and worker struggle against state attacks on the autonomy of women.

Engage in Combat. As the system seeks to continuously spout the rhetoric of a false dichotomy between white women’s safety and the presence of marginalized groups, engaging in combat against the system and working to destroy the system is an critical step. This could range anywhere from engaging in mutual aid, learning how to do harm reduction, or de-escalation. But it could also entail literally taking up arms against the state one day. Either way, it includes getting involved and becoming part of the community while building political consciousness and fighting back against the lie of ‘public safety’ as it is sold to us. 

The use of white women’s safety as rhetorical tools of oppression is ingrained in our settler-colonial and imperialist society. This specific rhetoric is one of the most prevalent and harmful employed by the state to justify violence today. Finding ways to dismantle this rhetoric will be a critical part of our effort to destroy the misogynistic and racist system around us.

Published 1-30-24