How to do/think "intersectionality"
DiscussieFeminist Theory
Sluit je aan bij LibraryThing om te posten.
Dit onderwerp is gemarkeerd als "slapend"—het laatste bericht is van meer dan 90 dagen geleden. Je kan het activeren door een een bericht toe te voegen.
1LolaWalser
This is clearly a sorely needed concept in how most of us (non-academic, general public) understand the problems of class, gender, race...
I've been infuriated these past few days, not for the first time, but the latest time, by people insisting that feminist concerns take a back seat to "general" problems. I'm arguing that "feminist concerns" are "human beings concerns" and therefore can never be relegated to some "later" stage, "after" some unspecified but suspiciously male-dominated "we" have come to power. Whether we are women, people of colour, gay, we can't "postpone" being what we are until some "better" time to fight against discriminations we face.
It is necessary to combine, both in theory and practice, ALL the movements for equality at the same time, for the simple reason that multiple kinds of discrimination affect those of us who are not straight white men simultaneously at all times.
Someone who is poor, and black, and female can't leave one of those aspects of their being somewhere on a shelf while they go fight, specifically and "individually", class exploitation, or racism, or misogyny. No. It hits you all at the same time, interconnectedly. And therefore it cannot be "resolved" separately. There is no magic key, regarding singly THE class, THE race, THE gender. Socialist societies didn't end misogyny and racism. Countries without white supremacy didn't end misogyny and economic exploitation. There is no reason to suppose real matriarchies would be more just and egalitarian than patriarchies.
Again, we see the imprint of the super-privileged straight white man on the very theory of leftist struggle. HE can "afford" to limit his lenses to "class" because he doesn't suffer racist and sexist discrimination.
And he's a blinkered fool.
I've been infuriated these past few days, not for the first time, but the latest time, by people insisting that feminist concerns take a back seat to "general" problems. I'm arguing that "feminist concerns" are "human beings concerns" and therefore can never be relegated to some "later" stage, "after" some unspecified but suspiciously male-dominated "we" have come to power. Whether we are women, people of colour, gay, we can't "postpone" being what we are until some "better" time to fight against discriminations we face.
It is necessary to combine, both in theory and practice, ALL the movements for equality at the same time, for the simple reason that multiple kinds of discrimination affect those of us who are not straight white men simultaneously at all times.
Someone who is poor, and black, and female can't leave one of those aspects of their being somewhere on a shelf while they go fight, specifically and "individually", class exploitation, or racism, or misogyny. No. It hits you all at the same time, interconnectedly. And therefore it cannot be "resolved" separately. There is no magic key, regarding singly THE class, THE race, THE gender. Socialist societies didn't end misogyny and racism. Countries without white supremacy didn't end misogyny and economic exploitation. There is no reason to suppose real matriarchies would be more just and egalitarian than patriarchies.
Again, we see the imprint of the super-privileged straight white man on the very theory of leftist struggle. HE can "afford" to limit his lenses to "class" because he doesn't suffer racist and sexist discrimination.
And he's a blinkered fool.
2LolaWalser
It occurred to me in connection with the article Jenny posted in the "women writers" thread--Claire Watkins' "On pandering" article has come under fire now for (so far, maybe there's more to come) ignoring racism and classism, i.e. white and class privilege--so it looks as if one could say she failed (or at least, she's getting criticised) because she didn't present an intersectional argument.
I suppose one could argue that if she wanted to concentrate on sexism, it was her damn right to do so, and others are free to argue whatever they like about whatever they know best.
But, still. Clearly her essay attracted so much impassioned criticism because it came so close to being helpful in pointing out other injustices. The concept she introduced, "pandering", is clearly something others are finding suitable to express the pressures they are under.
OK--how would one go about an intersectional argument about pandering?
Should we just collect these analyses and put them together, or is there a more organic nexus between it all?
I suppose one could argue that if she wanted to concentrate on sexism, it was her damn right to do so, and others are free to argue whatever they like about whatever they know best.
But, still. Clearly her essay attracted so much impassioned criticism because it came so close to being helpful in pointing out other injustices. The concept she introduced, "pandering", is clearly something others are finding suitable to express the pressures they are under.
OK--how would one go about an intersectional argument about pandering?
Should we just collect these analyses and put them together, or is there a more organic nexus between it all?
Aansluiten om berichten te kunnen plaatsen
