Talk:Intersectionality

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon SJ.svg

This Social justice related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be with improvement.

This article is of HIGH importance to the wiki.

See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Copperbrain.png

[edit] Something re: progressive groups resisting intersectional critiques.

I can't really find an apt way to say it, but the article needs to address the way in which progressive movements have denied that insectionality and asked people of particular identities within the movement in question (often, if not usually, women) to put their own specific issues "on hold" until after the "REAL" issue gets solved. Historically, I'm thinking about, maybe the American labour/trades unionism movement's position on race at various points in time, maybe how some communist approaches assumed that the liberation of the working class would neccessarily mean the liberation of women without going specifically pursuing women's concerns, and certainly the need for women working in the civil rights/Black Power movements to get their issues recognized by male leaders. Anyone want to take a stab? Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm with you on this, not sure if I have time to do this now, but yes. They even have names, e.g., manarchism/brocialism. ·Femilisk 17:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Manarchism and brocialism are probably way out of my wheelhouse (sounds kind of internet-y to me....), but I'll take a stubby stab at it and y'all can take it apart as willing. Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 17:19, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
2-3 years ago both RH Health and the blog Feministing dealt directly with this issue in their own way. Each was dealing with the more insane political rants against women, birth control and rape, and in each case, the site/overall approach was challenged by women of color because they were focusing on white women's views of everything, without really being aware of it or acknowledging it. For a while, there were serious "fights"(?) as the editors said, "we need to address rape of woman, first, before we focus on women of color", or "we need to get all women access to birth control; why should we spend time focusing on the special needs of minority women when they are still just women". But eventually, the "yeah yeah, voices aren't being heard" pat on the heads became real opinions, and the sites realized their errors. Both sites had largely white only staffs, and had to scurry to deal with the fact that they were leaving out huge areas of discourse. In the following year, each has buffered up their diversity and made a strong point to address issues around women of color, then open up to issues around transgender women, issues about women who are drug addicts or living on the street, etc. The sites both read remarkably differently in the last year.
Equally, you can look at the whole "women going to atheist conventions" kerfuffle as a failure to deal with intersectionality. Atheists say "the most important thing is being present as atheists". female atheists said "um, no, not really". women of color (the rare article out there) went even further to say "hey, at least they SEE you".
It's not hard to find moments when intersecitonality is dismissed, even while being "acknowledged" in some "here, dear, have a cookie" way. One tin soldier (talk) 17:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
All is captured within these comics:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/iluzomilrdjb3oj/1391440_10200335346299774_1694231905_n.jpg
https://www.dropbox.com/s/y5623w0wd80eg88/6008918971_06a74b3240_z.jpg
https://www.dropbox.com/s/5eboio3xrgsr6dd/manarchists.jpg
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hnfip4z5hns1adg/tumblr_lt7trb2jgP1qdavgxo1_r1_500.jpg
·Femilisk 15:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support