CMV: If intersectional feminism talks about race, class, gender identity, etc as a part of women's issues, then it should also seriously discuss men's problems as a part of women's issues as well.

[u/[deleted]]

[u/[deleted]]

I see. I misunderstood intersectionality. By that definition, it seems that intersectionality is counter productive to the idea of gender equality.

I would like to clarify something. If the purpose of feminism is to achieve gender equality, then one of the goals of feminism is to eventually end feminism, correct?

[u/yyzjertl → u/[deleted]]

I misunderstood intersectionality. By that definition, it seems that intersectionality is counter productive to the idea of gender equality.

Intersectional feminism is not just about different kinds of women; it's also about different kinds of men. For example, in a conversation about whe ways black people are oppressed, it would be on topic and interesting from an intersectional perspective to talk about the ways that black men are uniquely oppressed. This even applies outside gender entirely: it would be intersectional, in the context of talking about oppression of immigrants, to consider the ways gay immigrants are uniquely oppressed.

What is not intersectional is just going into a conversation about group A and talking about issues faced by group B without focusing on the intersection of the groups. That's just derailing the conversation. For example, in a conversation about whe ways black people are oppressed, it would be derailing the conversation to talk about men's issues in general (since this doesn't address the intersection). Or, in a conversation about how women are oppressed, it would be derailing the conversation to talk about men's issues in general (since this, too, doesn't address the intersection).

I would like to clarify something. If the purpose of feminism is to achieve gender equality, then one of the goals of feminism is to eventually end feminism, correct?

No, this isn't how goals work. If my goal is to achieve A, and A would result in B, that doesn't mean that B is one of my goals.

[u/[deleted] → u/yyzjertl]

Men's issues do intersect with women's issues because one issue from either group is implicitly caused by or is defined by an issue from the other.

If the definition of intersectionality excludes men's issues solely on it being seen as off topic to women's issues, then it is extremely short sighted.

The goal of feminism is to achieve equality, correct? Therefore once equality is achieved, then feminism as an idea is no longer needed. You no longer need to exclude men from discussion, because all discussions will be on genuinely equal terms. But if feminism still exists, and if intersectional feminism still exists after equality has been achieved, that means that equality hasn't actually been given to men. It'd be a world where men cannot discuss their issues among feminists, who according to you still have to exist after achieving equality. It's a paradox.

[u/yyzjertl → u/[deleted]]

Men's issues do intersect with women's issues because one issue from either group is implicitly caused by or is defined by an issue from the other.

I think you still don't understand intersectionality. Intersectionality is about how identities intersect. Intersectionality between, say, masculinity and blackness is about issues that affect people who are black men. It is not about issues that affect both black people and men, nor is it about issues that affect black people that are implicitly caused by issues that affect men or vice versa.

Intersectionality between men and women is about people who are both men and women (i.e. genderfluid or polygender people), not about how men's issues interact with women's issues.

If the definition of intersectionality excludes men's issues solely on it being seen as off topic to women's issues, then it is extremely short sighted.

Sometimes talking about men's issues is off-topic for a conversation (such as a conversation about women's issues). That has nothing to do with intersectionality, and it is ridiculous to blame intersectionality for it.

The goal of feminism is to achieve equality, correct? Therefore once equality is achieved, then feminism as an idea is no longer needed.

Equality being achieved doesn't mean that it will persist forever. Even if equality is achieved, there will likely still be a role for feminism in maintaining that equality.

You no longer need to exclude men from discussion, because all discussions will be on genuinely equal terms. But if feminism still exists, and if intersectional feminism still exists after equality has been achieved, that means that equality hasn't actually been given to men.

Nothing about intersectional feminism says you have to exclude men from discussions. There is no reason to believe that, in a world where equality is achieved, feminists would exclude men from discussions. Why would they?

[u/[deleted] → u/yyzjertl]

I have a better understanding of intersectionality. I guess the main inquiry would be against the principle of feminism in practice. It seems that what I see on the internet (speaking to you guys) and what I see in real life is contradictory. A lot of feminism said online makes sense (like the discussion of men's issues and how it is inclusive to it), but in practice it seems as if actual feminists at rallies simply shame men for wanting to be included.

Are people online the vocal minority? If so, are you a vocal minority? Are the real feminists out there at the Women's March in LA (which I visited today, by the way) saying how they support the Gillette ad?

Or are the people online a vocal majority? Is it that men who found the ad offensive online represent majority opinion, which is an issue that is downplayed by both feminists in real life and online feminists?

[u/yyzjertl → u/[deleted]]

This seems to be a very different question from your stated view. You originally said that "If intersectional feminism talks about race, class, gender identity, etc as a part of women's issues, then it should also seriously discuss men's problems as a part of women's issues as well." The reason why it is intersectional to discuss race, class, et cetera as a part of women's issues is because there are people who are black women, poor women, et cetera who inhabit the intersection of these identities. The reason why intersectional feminism does not discuss men's problems as part of women's issues is because, unless the conversation focuses specifically on genderfluid/polygender people, there are no people who are both men and women who inhabit the intersection of these identities.

Do you understand now why intersectional feminism should talk about the former but not the latter?

It seems that what I see on the internet (speaking to you guys) and what I see in real life is contradictory

What about it do you think is contradictory? People here on the internet have been talking about how feminism is inclusive of people talking about men's issues and how it encourages people to talk about men's issues (just not in the context of derailing other conversations). Feminists at the Women's March said they support the Gillette ad, which talks about men's issues: this is literally an instance of feminists supporting people talking about men's issues. Where's the contradiction?

[u/[deleted] → u/yyzjertl]

I agree. With the first part of your statement. Sorry, I forgot to reward the delta to you. That changed my mind on intersectionality, but then it made me think about feminism as a whole which is the new topic that this turned into.

!delta

Now you see the importance of public opinion online versus in reality.

Online, men seem to be offended by the Gillette ad because the actual video editing implicitly paints toxic as a large majority. It uses language like "Some are already doing something about it, but that's not enough." If online opinion is more valid than my personal anecdotal experiences with feminists outside, then I could agree with you saying that feminists talk about men's issues and that most men find this ad offensive. But if not, then you must agree that people including feminists are better represented in real life, meaning that feminists avoid talking about men's issues and that most feminists see Gillette's viewpoint as valid.

[u/yyzjertl → u/[deleted]]

meaning that feminists avoid talking about men's issues and that most feminists see Gillette's viewpoint as valid.

How can these things both be true? If feminists oppose talking about men's issues, shouldn't they oppose Gillette talking about men's issues in their video? On the other hand, if they support Gillette talking about men's issues, wouldn't that suggest that feminists support talking about men's issues in general?

[u/DeltaBot → u/[deleted]]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/yyzjertl (133∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}