Talk:Intersectionality

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)

Good Scholary Resource

I look for good academical papers that Intersectionalists themselves recommend. I'm not interested in the introduction-level stuff, but want to see the academical heavy lifting that is mentioned sometimes. Can anyone point me to something? ~ Aneris ✻ 11:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

That's a pretty vague query for wanting something besides an introduction. Plenty of gender study journals apply intersectional analysis to various issues. Considering it's an analytic tool and not a conclusion, I'm not really sure what you're asking for. Considering your post history I'm gonna guess this is some sea lioning thing.

Let's clear up a couple of your more basic understandings before you reply too.

1. The existence of intersectionalism doesn't really imply the existence of intersectionalists. It's like saying because I understand and appreciate the utility of Freudian analysis in interpreting works of fiction I'm a Freudianist who sets that as the highest mode of interpretation. Which is crazy. You'd have a hard time finding, even on the internet at large, many people who would call themselves intersectionalists. There are a couple who seem to have the same misunderstanding as you.
2. Intersection, by it's very nature, tends to not be a singular focus. There's not just a given pair of factors that are always relevant. You don't just throw it at a question and pretend you've answered it. So to that end there aren't going to be many papers that are about intersectionalism. Obviously there's a couple early ones that helped establish the idea, but most are just using it as a lens of analysis.

Now that we've got those two big problems out of the way, what exactly are you hoping to learn? ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 15:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Why are we even bothering with the crank? --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Because leaving sea-lioning type objections on talk pages unanswered gives them a tiny fraction of credibility(pretty much only to other cranks looking for confirmation bias) as "unanswerable because we're hiding something" and the alternative of removing it wasn't warranted. I pretend like he's asking a sincere question, and then get clarification for what he's looking for, because the question, as given, could be answered out any gender studies journal. With radically different qualitative meaning based on the focus of that journal. So there's no one answer, and I sincerely have concerns Aneris is too dumb to know that. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 16:44, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Since all the SJWs here are unlikely to be helpful, I suggest you try Googling "intersectionality bibliography", read some book reviews, consult the bibliography at the back of your favourite introductory text, or ask a librarian. Annquin (talk) 16:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@ikanreed: I could have written "intersectionality proponents" or something the like. I want to understand how the model is applied in practice and see some heavy lifting. The explanations I know, and I've read several and actively tried to educate myself, including in papers, are in some sense trivially true (disabled, black woman is disadvantaged in several ways), but in another sense suspicious nonsense, because (1) it goes against reductionism — which pretty unique in the sciences, and (2) embraces Combinatorial explosion, which is also unintuitive to say the least. Assumptions in it seem implausible, and the intersection of oppression doesn't seem to be regular or linear, but actually seems to subvert the whole principle. And of course, last but not least, it's a poststructuralist/postmodernist idea, developed by Patricia Hill Collins and Kimberlé Crenshaw who are both postmodernists proper, and the combination of "trivially true, yet rubbish" is a key element of postmodernism. My question stands: point me to some scholary, more in-depth material that you regard as good, and which is accessible (I can read without ordering books), because I want to be shown wrong, or at least ensure that I don't misconstrue, misunderstand or strawman the theory due to maybe incomplete introductions, which might be too simplifying or even false. Hence, I ask. In other words, if you (or anyone else) recommends something, and it's poppycock, I know that this is really the poppycock I think it is. ~ Aneris ✻ 16:53, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Combinatorial explosion is such a lazy objection. Serious papers never really focus on more than about 3 factors unless they have very good reason to. The whole hypothesis, test, verify basis of science still exists in sociology, and formulating a hypothesis based on expected variable interactions is still core to the whole premise. I don't get how you can be so angry about something you don't understand.

At any rate, ignoring your ill conceived "concerns", let's talk about particular papers then.

• a 2006 paper concerning attitudes towards affirmative action. What's notable here is that the interaction seems to suggest beliefs opposing affirmative action are not just tied to prejudice against black people, but are particularly tied to prejudice against black women. And an effect size difference of .1 ain't no joke. There's an extent to which this defies expectations: most of the worst stereotypes about black people in society seem to center on black men. As the authors note, this doesn't necessarily mean there's a greater scale of direct bias against black women, but rather that the political impact of those views seem to be greater.
• from the journal of men and masculinities, a gender studies journal I personally read once every few months, a high level meta-analysis of the history of research and analysis of how being disabled specifically interacts with the social notions of being male. This being a subjective analysis, you won't find the hard numbers of the above paper. Notably there's no novel research here, because they're trying to establish areas that need improvement. It's an important piece to read because it can be a good way to grasp how empowered group+disempowered group-> even more disempowered group. Men who feel ability loss can and do feel like they lose a piece of their masculinity because of how masculinity is expected to be followed in society.
• who doesn't like PLOS ONE? This is a really straightforward application of the idea. They quantify "advantaged groups" as whole aggregates and sort on outcome measures and find pretty reliably the intersection of advantage produces more advantage, though they find economic class is a comparatively powerful driver(duh). The utility of their evidence in closing achievement gaps is pretty straightforward.

Now, all these show different ways to apply and use intersectionality, without a hint of your combinatorial explosion undermining p-values or even effect sizes.

I suspect what I'm going to learn very quickly is that somehow I failed you, that this didn't really answer your question. Or that somehow these questions could be answered without intersectionality because you know better than those damned academics. Regardless, I've done as you've asked. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 17:47, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll look into these. Preliminary response: when I wrote "intersection of oppression doesn't seem to be regular or linear" I thought about how a disability would knock a most privileged (male, white, cisgendered etc) person not down "one step", but actually kick him off the ladder. So far, the overview explanation you provide remains in the trivially true area. I will read it to have a proper idea! Thanks. ~ Aneris ✻ 17:58, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@Annquin, I suspect this, and it's the stereotype, but why is that? Since the three years plus I see the whole social justice movement growing, I've seen not once that people heed a request and provided material they have. Not once. I understand when atheists are annoyed when they have to point to material on evolution; even more so when they have to deal with yet another PRATT from Creationists, but even in that area people are more forthcoming. And that's Evolution. By contrast, social justice "sociology" is prima facie a pretty arcane subject and nobody cannot expect that some specialized ideas are readily known to everyone. And SJWs themselves know this, too, because their whole movement didn't exist a few years ago, hence they didn't know at one point, either. If I'm charitable, I must assume that they have read some good stuff that convinced them of the ideology they now embrace. But I actually suspect that their views are transmitted by bullying and tribalism, and SJWs actually don't know anything else than what is in overview articles (such as the one here). I routinely encounter people who seem surprised that they embrace postmodern ideology, and even react angrily and upset when this is pointed out to them (but it's demonstrably true). ~ Aneris ✻ 17:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah, the anti-intellectual shows their face. Let's take your stupid position and put it to sincere analysis. What tool in the toolbox of science should be used to understand the behaviors, nature, and effects of humans forming groups together if not sociology.

I've seen your type enough. You think because you've studied a "hard" science that you necessarily will understand society better than those contemptible "soft" science people. But I've never once seen anything resembling a coherent theory, much less an entire branch of study proposed as an alternative to sociology. Because invariably, 100% of the time, these arguments come from a anti-intellectual contempt for understanding rather than anything better.

The closest I've come to an answer to this question is the proposal of a kind of NOMA for humanity. "Science can't understand people, therefor shouldn't try, but my beliefs are still totally valid"

So tell me, Mr. Sociology-is-useless. What's better? What will science recognize as the framework with more predictive value? ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 17:56, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Your assumptions are false. I don't have a problem with sociology per se, and I actually did study in humanities/liberal arts, including subjects in sociology. ~ Aneris ✻ 18:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Eh. Fine. I can't really go back to giving you the benefit of the doubt, but you've got no reason to lie here. I misunderstood, and apologize. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why people would think I lied. I tend to explain (with sources) what I think, and why. Other than that, I don't hold grudges. 😊 ~ Aneris ✻ 18:21, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Since I was reading the article anyways

Here's a study that applies the notion of intersectionality to identify more effective approaches to reducing intimate partner violence. PLOS ONE is great because you can just read articles any time you have some downtime. The approach was to see if culture-specific methods could be used to address a problem that women of many cultures face. And while the results for 3 of their four attempts were inferior to control, one proved superior, exactly the kind of thing that advances scientific knowledge.

What I want to drive home is that this isn't a case where intersectionality was a goal, something to prove, it was a tool for broadening understanding. And the results are discrete, quantifiable, and, more than anything, useful. This is why my reaction to your objections is more to roll my eyes than to want to argue specifics. Like evolutionary science, intersectionality is already out there, doing useful things. And objecting to it on vague, theoretical grounds kinda puts you into the same camp as people say "The second law of thermodynamics means evolution is impossible!" ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:54, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I have read the paper you provided, though not in depth. Could it be that you attached the wrong link? I don't find references to Intersectionality in it. Should you think that studying several criteria at once, e.g. sex/gender and “race” was the same as Intersectionality, you would be mistaken. Crenshaw starts with identity politics, which she embraces, but where she found a problem: because the race and feminist discourses are separated, she argues, certain experiences fall through the cracks. Hence, Intersectionality is a way to recentre the discourse on those intersections. Another way of putting it, Intersectional proponents criticized the internal model of femininity or womanhood that emerged as a subject within feminism (“how it is to be female”) which is of course necessary to propose improvements. They found that this prototypical woman was white, and middle class and that it left out the “lived experiences” of woman of colour, who are maybe also poor. Consider that feminism for a while was most visible on issues of equal representation of women in leadership roles, in company board rooms, in politics or in STEM. Obviously “this kind of feminism” (predominantly 2nd wave) wouldn't improve anything for poor women of colour. So that's the context. Your Creationism comparison rather makes you look like with egg on your face. Can you provide sources that state Intersectionality is firmly established and to such a degree that it must be considered standard knowledge? I am confident that it's a very recent buzzword that was popularized by the recent Social Justice movement, and I'm also confident that proponents usually never explain their ideas in any depth, and — anecdotes — never heard of Crenshaw, never read her paper and spent no time at all to sort out their ideas from CRT (if they are indeed different). ~ Aneris ✻ 14:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, okay, I get it, you're an obnoxious ass who shifts rhetorical focus when your original premise for believing something is completely and utterly destroyed. Here's RW's own definition from the top of the article for you

Intersectionality is a theoretical framework which describes how individuals and groups can experience oppression or privilege relative to one another, depending on their supposed position within various social categories, such as gender, ethnicity and sexuality.

That's it. Trying to drag in a half million other half-thought objections to the idea based on what you think kids on tumblr say is probably the stupidest thing yet.

Fucking Stop. Do you know why I called you a sea lioning piece of shit in my first fucking response?

Because of shit like this. You cannot or will not acknowledge a single goddamn thing about the reality of what you argue about and instead rely 100% on nutpicking and changing what your objections are every. single. time.

Seriously. There's nothing about your behavior that's excusable as a difference of opinion. You are just an intellectually dishonest asshole. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 14:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC) _{(PS, yes you did deserve that)}

There is no shift whatsoever. Rather, what you do is called Motte-and-bailey, not at all surprising and paired with hostility, just textbook Social Justice Warrior, I'm told here, actually don't exist. Now that you notice that your position becomes untenable, you switch to a general passage that is in the article. Of course, you conveniently overlook that the article, too, references Crenshaw (of course, as credit goes to her). It remains mysterious why I shift my position when I discuss her very concept and did so all the time. ~ Aneris ✻ 14:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Here's yet another article I just came across, and I thought I share it: Beware These 10 Types of Feminist Men. It's from the popular bona fide Intersectional Feminist site Everyday Feminism. You and Percy, and others in denial won't accept it, but this list contains plenty of postmodernist and identity politics assumptions. The former is visible when they mention reason, rationality or objectivity — practically always in a negative context. This is standard. This article is just the one I happened across this time. Identity politics is of course implicit in the headline, and the assumption that these things are only bad when men do it.
fnordFurther, have a read of Crenshaw's original idea. It also rests on dubious assumptions, but I'm sympathetic to what she's trying to do. Her criticism — irony supernova alert — would make her a shitlord and racist in the eyes of today's social justice crowd. It's bizarre, her original take is similar to the criticism levelled against the Regressive Left; namely that antiracism paired with feminism erases minority women, because antiracists don't want to talk about e.g. black-on-black crime, and hence abuse of “black women” (Crenshaw's term), overrepresented as victims of rape and domestic, falls through the cracks. Hence Intersectionality. The same critique is of course nowadays applied to the Regressive Left, where — as in Crenshaw's argument — antiracism and “Islamophobia” accusations perpetuate patriarchal oppression. We know that the RationalWiki does this too (it should be named RegressiveWiki), by erasing religious dimensions in FGM, for example, or by deriding Dear Muslima. Social justice warriors have perverted the intersectionality idea, and repurposed it into a hook to use to rope in their pet subjects into other fields of activism. Not the feminist discourse gets diversified and enriched, as intended by Crenshaw, but it became a tool to inject (postmodern) feminism into other areas. ~ Aneris ✻ 10:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Definitions

For those of us wanting a clearer explanation - could Intersectionality be defined in terms of a mathematical matrix/having certain points of similarity to a matrix? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Matrix of domination. To my mind (also see above), there's nothing mathematical about it. Postmodernists love to prop up their cargo-cult science with mathematical language, used metaphorically, because it sounds fancier. ~ Aneris ✻ 17:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

A phenomenon also known as physics envy (applicable in this context or not). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

And of course, sociologists, who are the primary users of this tool of understanding, overwhelmingly use empirical, numeric analysis, and don't create physics-like conclusions by and large. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 17:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

When confronting 'sociological word salad' ([1]) known-to-be-simplistic analogies can be useful. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah, the restate-the-original-premise class of stupidity. When countering the notion that sociology is empirical and numeric, your response is something vague about "word salad". Psychobabble is a thing that exists, but it tends to be used by laypeople trying to sound smart, and the actual field is different than your mental picture of it. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Intersectionality is not a sociological framework, but comes from law schools, just like the rest of Critical Race Theory. The credit usually goes to Kimberlé Crenshaw, lawyer, and professor UCLA School of Law, who developed and popularized it. Patricia Hill Collins is a sociologist and she ported it in sociology, but its far from universally accepted, and she likewise walks in the footsteps of CRT, as pretty much all SJW notables. bell hooks (Sarkeesian's influence) — the same. Further, as already demonstrated multiple times, but apparently it doesn't register, the framework rejects the scientific method and is radically postmodernist. Intersectionality “works” with storytelling and lived experiences. Delgado, also from law school, who wrote the introductory book for CRT is credited with “introducing storytelling into legal scholarship” (see WP). ~ Aneris ✻ 22:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

You know what it's like when you're watching the fifth season of a TV show and there's that one guy there who loudly keeps interrupting and asking what's happening and who that character is and why they're doing that and complaining they don't understand it and you can see they've got their laptop in front of them and could look basic shit up but they get really upset at you when you tell them to shush and stop being a tedious pain in the arse? - David Gerard (talk) 15:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

(reset) Often with the 5th series there is an ideas shortage/'severe constraints on what plots can be developed (before hordes of annoyed fan(ficcer)s start complaining/'which pair of people haven't hit (on) each other' etc. I get 'you react to (whatever) because you are in (one particular group) and many not "get" how (other particular group) will react/be affected' - but #there are such things as imagination and empathy, and group V raised (this issue) last time so better do something to accommodate them before they complain.' And - quite a large amount of 'literary theory, sociological analysis and similar' does consist of 'long sentences with little or no content and one idea spread over many chapters.' 82.44.143.26 (talk) 14:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)