Isn't intersectionality the answer to that? My understanding is that it's the idea that multiple oppressed groups should pool their resources to fight overall oppression, rather than each small group clawing over each other for air.
But that's called "solidarity" not "intersectionality".
Intersectionality doesn't *in practice* work anything at all like solidarity. It's the Intersection of the Venn Diagram, not the Union which is highlighted in almost all mentions of intersectionality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IntersectionalityIntersectionality, also called intersectional feminism, is a branch of feminism asserting that all aspects of social and political identities (gender, race, class, sexuality, disability, etc.) discrimination overlap (or "intersect"). For example, race with gender in the case of a black woman. Intersectionality aims to separate itself from white feminism by acknowledging the fact that all women have different experiences and identities.[1] It is a qualitative analytic framework that identifies how interlocking systems of power affect those who are most marginalized in society.
The point being is that it makes a hierarchy out of how many points you are on the intersection of, and actively devalues the input of groups or people with less intersections. It then defines a "good side" (oppressed) and a "bad side" (oppressor) of each intersecting set, and you have inherently less right to contribute the more "wrong sides" you are on for each line. Also, there is a hierarchy of the hierarchies themselves - and this is just about as far down the rabbit hole of tokenism as you can get.
For example, we focus on intersectionality with black women, but very rarely if at all on intersectionality with black
men. The fight for racial equality is thus
subsumed by the ideological movement. The idea is that if you only focus on black women in the context of feminism then the rights of black men will just float along as if by magic. This is actually *appropriation* of the reality of racism to serve the political needs of the ideology itself. The reality is that if you
only focus on black women as a special class of women with "extra patriarchy" then you completely fail to deal with the actual real mechanisms behind racism, failing both black men
and black women, in pursuit of what is in effect ideological purity. Also, if there's a black woman who's not actually all "feministy" I'm kinda guessing the "intersectional" movement doesn't have a lot of time to listen to what she has to say. Promoting the views of
only black women who happen to agree with your movement is almost the definition of tokenistic behavior. There are a
ton of black women in America who are religious and pro-life. I'm guessing the "intersectional" feminists are inviting them to speak? /sarcasm
Similarly, they make a thing of "ableism" when it suits them, but if you're a straight cis white guy in a wheelchair, i'm pretty sure you can go fuck yourself - No special "intersectional" points for you - which pretty much shows that they're more concerned with appropriating the pity-points of the disabled than actually listening to how disabled people feel. if you're a disabled
feminist then maybe.
This is exactly the opposite of a solidarity based approach.
EDIT: Virtually every one has at least one trait that they could be said to be on the "privileged" "oppressor" side of the line, so there's a lot of infighting, backstabbing and victimhood e-peen measuring. For example you see this when the twitter mob turns on some white feminist woman for some perceived slight: they suddenly focus on their
whiteness, while when they're still saying things we agree with, we focus on their
womanness. Or if it's a black man, you can switch focus from his blackness when he says something you like, to his man-ness when he says something you don't like. What this aspect of intersectionality culture actually does is provide post-hoc justifications for why we shouldn't have to listen to people we disagree with, or to justify why someone else
has to listen to someone we agree with.
"Solidarity" is actually the healthier version of pulling together. In solidarity, people work together even if they don't have any traits in common, rather than only "intersecting" having meaning. For example, unionists and gay people can work together. It doesn't make fuck all difference if there are "gay unionists". Being gay and being in a union have absolutely nothing to do with each other. It's effectively a meaningless distraction, and divisive, to focus only on the value people who "intersect".
My prediction is that it's likely that the intersectional type feminism will eventually implode and be replaced by some other doctrine, some sort of 4th wave variant.
Author
Topic: AmeriPol thread (Read 4202730 times)