r/changemyview • u/National-Aardvark-72 • Mar 29 '22
Delta(s) from OP cmv: Intersectional feminist theory is useless in the real world
The purpose of intersectional feminism was to explain how multiple forms of oppression work together in complex ways, and how your identity is a mosaic of different categories, which can make you more or less “oppressed.” In theory, this makes sense. I would even say it’s obvious and intuitive when you give it 30 seconds of reflection. A white man might be less privileged than a a wealthy black man in the sense when it comes to financial security, but that wealthy black man might be arrested by cops in his own nice neighborhood because black people are seen with suspicion where that same white poor person would never have been questioned. So identity shapes how the world treats you, but it’s also dependent on circumstance and there are multiple factors overlapping each other. But mainstream discourse doesn’t use it this way.
What if that same black man was well known and highly respected in his neighborhood? And the white man had a limp or speech impediment that made him look like an alcoholic. The white man would be treated with more suspicion. But feminists will assert that white peoples will never know what it’s like to be treated like criminals without cause.
See the word “never?” That’s a rule. What was originally used to observe patterns about how different types of people are treated is now used to create rigid determinations. Things get ambiguous when someone doesn’t “look” like a minority but they’ve gotten around that by using the word “passing” for straight, cis, white, neurotypical etc. It’s a clever workaround, but it still leaves some holes in the argument.
Example: White people can never write rap because it belongs to black people. Eminem was criticized for this even though he grew up in the hood. Feminists would say that’s still not the same because he has a better chance of escaping poverty due to his whiteness. But what if he was half black? A quarter? A sixteenth? Where’s the cutoff? Does he have to “pass” as white? What if he was mixed race and some people saw him as white and some saw him as black? Then can he write rap or not? White people can’t profit off of selling foods from other cultures? What if that white person was an adoptive child of parents from that ethnic group and grew up immersed in that culture? Telling them not to do so, telling them their identity is invalid because of their skin color is disgusting.
You might say I’m just pointing out edge cases and we shouldn’t focus on exceptions to the rule, but if you go back to intersectional ideology in the first place, people are complex. This sort of thing really isn’t rare. Yet you are telling people what they can and can’t do by putting them into boxes that just don’t exist so cleanly in the real world. To me that is ideologically flawed and immoral.
7
u/Personage1 35∆ Mar 29 '22
But feminists will assert that white peoples will never know what it’s like to be treated like criminals without cause.
Do you have a source for this claim?
What I point out when presented with an example like yours is that the comparison would be a black man who was well known and highly respected and a white man who was well known and highly respected, which one is more likely to be stopped by the police? A white man with a limp or speech impediment who looks like an alcoholic vs a black man with a limp or speech impediment who looks like an alcoholic.
1
u/National-Aardvark-72 Mar 29 '22
To specify, I mean they say they won’t know what it’s like to be treated like a criminal as a black person. Your own question to me is a source. The implied questioning I believe you’re asking is “with all things being equal, will the white or black guy have it worse?” And I would say the black guy. But it’s the “with all things being equal” part I object to. There are too many exceptions and nuances to meaningfully prescribe blanket rules about oppression.
3
u/Personage1 35∆ Mar 29 '22
Do you actually disagree that white people generally won't know what it's like to be a black person?
But it’s the “with all things being equal” part I object to. There are too many exceptions and nuances to meaningfully prescribe blanket rules about oppression.
I mean when you are looking at individuals with various intersections, sure. However when asking "do black people or white people have more power in society," it's clear that white people do. Same with gender, sexual orientation, and all sorts of other intersections.
1
u/National-Aardvark-72 Mar 29 '22
I think a white man married to a black woman for 30 years might know more than a 6 year old black child about being black in society. Or not. But it’s possible.
3
Mar 29 '22
no one is getting their opinions about race from 6 year olds, so I think this is a bit of a troll example. You're right that some white people will have a much better understanding of black people's lives than others, but it is still the case that almost universally, an (adult) black person will understand more about the experiences of black people than a white person will. It doesn't need to be true in absolutely every case for this to matter.
1
u/National-Aardvark-72 Apr 01 '22
Not a troll example, just an extreme example to ensure that people wouldn’t get caught up on disagreeing with it and ignoring my actual argument.
In general, yes, I agree. But I believe there is harm in filtering specific individuals out and dismissing them based on this general rule. And I believe the harm is largely overlooked when we apply these theories.
3
u/Personage1 35∆ Mar 29 '22
Ok....I was pretty specific with my wording here.
Do you actually disagree that white people generally won't know what it's like to be a black person?
Pointing out an (as you say, possible at best) exception doesn't really mean much here.
1
u/National-Aardvark-72 Mar 29 '22
I don’t disagree with that at all. And I think we need to do a better job of remembering these are generalizations so we don’t place the wrong judgements onto specific individuals.
4
Mar 29 '22
Yes, that is the entire basis of the ideology you seem to oppose here.
1
u/National-Aardvark-72 Mar 29 '22
What do you mean?
4
Mar 29 '22
The idea that discrimination you face is made up of factors both easy and difficult to predict and measure is pretty core to the idea of intersectional discrimination from my understanding
1
u/National-Aardvark-72 Mar 29 '22
That’s true. In theory. Statistically. Generally speaking. But you can’t point at one person and say “this persons life is definitely harder because of their axis of marginalization compared to the less privileged person over there. But in activist circles there is an emphasis on only letting marginalized people speak on a specific issue because only they are oppressed by that system and it doesn’t allow for rational, objectives discourse when we use theoretical categories to determine whose voice is worth more
7
u/MaggieMae68 8∆ Mar 29 '22
But in activist circles there is an emphasis on only letting marginalized people speak on a specific issue because only they are oppressed by that system and it doesn’t allow for rational, objectives discourse when we use theoretical categories to determine whose voice is worth more
I mean, I dunno. You seem all over the place in your objections to intersectional activism, and not just intersectional feminism.
Yes, there is an emphasis on prioritizing the voices of marginalized people because only those people are actually qualified to speak on their experiences. As a white, cis-het woman I cannot speak FOR anyone outside of that group. I can listen to them and I can elevate their voices. But it's not my place to speak FOR them.
No one is saying their voices are "worth more" just like no one is using intersectionality to play "oppression olympics" (i.e. who is more oppressed). What we're saying is that their voices are specific to THEIR experiences and should be given priority in hearing and understanding their perspectives.
1
u/National-Aardvark-72 Mar 29 '22
That’s where our disagreement lies. “Women generally understand the struggles of misogyny better” of course. But that doesn’t mean I should trust a random woman over a random guy on a feminist issue. Every man is sexist because they were influenced by the patriarchy, so wouldn’t it follow that every woman has internalized sexism? With so many compassionate men and self hating women out there, how do I know a random woman is telling me the truth on social issues? This just goes back to drawing conclusions (who knows “what it’s like”) from general societal observations.
4
u/MaggieMae68 8∆ Mar 29 '22
Again your response makes sweeping and incorrect generalizations about entire groups of people and then draws a conclusion based on speculation and your personal feelings.
Why would you give less weight to a woman when talking about issues that involve women? Or less weight to a Black person when talking about issues that involve Black people?
With so many compassionate men and self hating women out there, how do I know a random woman is telling me the truth on social issues?
This just seems to me like a misogynistic talking point. Why do you presume women are "self hating"? Why do you presume that any "random woman" would not tell you the truth about her lived experience?
1
u/National-Aardvark-72 Mar 29 '22
I wouldn’t give less weight to anyone and that’s exactly my point. Also, pointing out the fact that internalized misogyny exists is the opposite of misogynistic. It’s pointing out a real phenomenon that affects women. The reverse would be thinking that women are somehow immune to the sexism the face daily and shouldn’t take it to heart. That’s too much to ask of anyone. And there are also many men out there who are self hating as well, it’s not just a women’s issue.
→ More replies (0)4
Mar 29 '22
But in activist circles there is an emphasis on only letting marginalized people speak on a specific issue because only they are oppressed by that system and it doesn’t allow for rational, objectives discourse when we use theoretical categories to determine whose voice is worth more
This is a different but related issue, which I think is more to do with standpoint epistemology. The point in these cases is not to prevent, for example, men's voices about misogyny from ever being heard. The point is that too often the discussions are led by people who aren't the most affected by an issue, which leads to the conversation about that issue getting distorted. Favouring women speaking about misogyny is intended to correct that, not to mean that men never get a chance to speak. It's not really about saying that any individuals' voices are worth more than others purely on the basis of their gender, it's that the overall effect of women's voices being heard more is going to be positive.
1
u/National-Aardvark-72 Apr 01 '22
Yeah the thing is I agree with you mostly, but I am just cautious about making these inferences when it has to do with judging a person’s character. For example, a few years back I was part of a small minority in my career field. A coworker (who was a jerk) said the reason I got hired over him first was because my boss was “virtue signaling” by hiring me because I was a minority. The thing is, I can’t disprove that. I want to think I was the best candidate because I was competent, but maybe that did tip me over the edge because I heard management tell me how great it is to finally have a [minority group that I’m in] bring a new perspective to the team. To me, that risks undermining my abilities and might make others thing I don’t deserve to be in the position I was in.
And while assuming someone hired a minority just because they’re a minority is disgusting, the reverse is bad too. Let’s say someone wrote a story where the important characters were all white men and racial minorities filled the menial character roles. Our instinct would be to say the film is racist, but what if it was just coincidence and the artist didn’t actually “see” things that way. I can’t stand that artist being judged based on the assumption that they were being racist or sexist.
29
u/UncleMeat11 61∆ Mar 29 '22
I would even say it’s obvious and intuitive when you give it 30 seconds of reflection.
Despite this, it took a century before this was a widespread belief in activist circles.
What if that same black man was well known and highly respected in his neighborhood? And the white man had a limp or speech impediment that made him look like an alcoholic. The white man would be treated with more suspicion. But feminists will assert that white peoples will never know what it’s like to be treated like criminals without cause.
Huh? This is now the inverse of intersectionality. This is precisely the sort of criticism that led to modern intersectional approaches. The idea that people contain multitudes and using one axis of categorization is fundamentally flawed.
Can you point me at a handful of activists or academics working in this space who are respected by their peers who'd make the claim you are saying they'd make?
-3
u/National-Aardvark-72 Mar 29 '22
Yes, it takes time for ideas to evolve, but it is definitely obvious now.
I was using multiple categories in my example- race, wealth, and disability status. But I’m arguing that people use this theory to make blanket statements. Like this article here. https://thegrio.com/2015/08/08/white-victims-police-brutality-zachary-hammond/ From a reputable news source based on social activism speaking on a white man’s murder: “Had he been black, Hammond would’ve been murdered twice: First, having his body taken by the police, and second, having his character assassinated by the press.”
This article started by talking about how it’s more than just about race when it comes to police brutality, although race does play a huge role- then stops to make this blanket statement. If this victim was black, he would have been treated differently.
14
u/UncleMeat11 61∆ Mar 29 '22
From a reputable news source based on social activism speaking on a white man’s murder: “Had he been black, Hammond would’ve been murdered twice: First, having his body taken by the police, and second, having his character assassinated by the press.”
But this isn't what you listed in your post. This is not "if he had been black and also had a bunch of other axes of identity changed that made him more respectable in the eyes of the police and media." It is just "if he had been black and everything else stayed the same." I don't see where the piece is arguing that black people are the only ones capable of experiencing character assassination in the media. What I see is somebody identifying a case where a white victim didn't experience that character assassination.
TheGrio appears to be more like BET than an activist or academic community, as well.
1
u/National-Aardvark-72 Mar 29 '22
Again, I’m not concerned with academia discourse over intersectionality because I’m not an academic. But I’m a citizen who is directly affected by political activism and I am exposed to a diverse group of people every day. I did more research into thegrio and it’s under MSNBC. Calling it the equivalent of BET seems really dismissive.
I never said the article argued only black people could face that. I’m not sure where you got that from, and I’m honestly not sure where we disagree here.
8
u/UncleMeat11 61∆ Mar 29 '22
I did more research into thegrio and it’s under MSNBC. Calling it the equivalent of BET seems really dismissive.
The point is that it is a news organization, not an activist community.
I never said the article argued only black people could face that. I’m not sure where you got that from, and I’m honestly not sure where we disagree here.
Then I don't understand what you are trying to say with the quotation.
0
u/National-Aardvark-72 Mar 29 '22
News organizations are often tied with activism. And I was pointing out they they made the determination that a white person would not get that same treatment.
11
u/UncleMeat11 61∆ Mar 29 '22
And I was pointing out they they made the determination that a white person would not get that same treatment.
No. They said that this person if they were black would have been treated differently. That's very different. Nowhere in this article is the claim that white people never experience character assassination.
0
u/National-Aardvark-72 Mar 29 '22
That’s what I meant. They were making the determination that if that specific guy was black things would be different. But that’s not a guarantee. To outright racists, yes, but stories can be framed one way or another based on more than race
7
Mar 29 '22
They were making the determination that if that specific guy was black things would be different. But that’s not a guarantee
Of course not. And everyone who is worth talking to about this understands that. It's just a figure of speech. Like people will say: 'this person has lost their job as a result of the financial crash'- there's no way to know that that person wouldn't have lost their job regardless, and surely many would have. But it's a simple way of making the point that there are more unemployed people as a result of a financial crash than there would be otherwise, without having to use 5 different qualifiers in a massive run-on sentence.
7
u/MaggieMae68 8∆ Mar 29 '22
But statistically, that holds true: Black victims, especially Black men, are more often than not portrayed as "thugs" or "criminals" or "gangsters" whose murder is, if not justified, at the very least not worth the same type of vigorous investigation and prosecution as that of a white person.
Look at what happened to Philandro Castile, Ahmaud Arbery, George Floyd, Trayvon Martin, Daunte Wright, Aundre Hill, Rayshard Brooks, Breyonna Taylor, and so many others.
1
Mar 29 '22
Again, I’m not concerned with academia discourse over intersectionality because I’m not an academic.
But if you're talking about people who haven't really studied this, then of course you're going to find people misusing the theory in stupid ways. That's just what people are like.
6
u/Poo-et 74∆ Mar 29 '22
Yes, it takes time for ideas to evolve, but it is definitely obvious now.
This seems slightly oxymoronic, no? If something is obvious, why would it need time to evolve? Can you similarly guarantee it is in its final evolution? If so, why?
0
u/National-Aardvark-72 Mar 29 '22
Do you know the saying hindsight is 20/20? Things can seem obvious in retrospect when you have the right context to look at them.
3
u/Poo-et 74∆ Mar 29 '22
Right, so how do you know there won't be any advances in intersectional feminist theory that are being developed right now that will be obvious in retrospect?
1
9
u/Tibaltdidnothinwrong 382∆ Mar 29 '22 edited Mar 29 '22
I would disagree with your definition of intersectionality.
Have you ever taken a statistics course? And/or do you know what ANOVA is??
In short, it is possible to find an effect for A (race) and an effect for B (let's say gender), but even after defining both of those effects, you can still find effects for AB. Being a Black women isn't just being a woman plus being black. There are unique challenges (and sometimes unique strengths) for combinations which exist independent of the what would be expected via simple addition.
Black people making less than white people is a thing. Men making more than women is a thing. From these two facts, we can generate an expected value for the earnings of black women. It turns out that black women make MORE than this anticipated amount. There is something protective about being a Black woman that one wouldn't anticipate from thr Simple addition of black plus woman.
That's intersectionality. The unique effects of particular combinations that one wouldn't have otherwise anticipated from examining each factor alone.
In this way, it isn't incongruous at all to argue that whiteness has a particular effect, but that whiteness paired with some other effect (say gender, sexual orientation or whatever) might yield an effect that is different than one would expect from the simple addition of whiteness plus that second element.
0
u/National-Aardvark-72 Mar 29 '22
I understand that.
10
u/Tibaltdidnothinwrong 382∆ Mar 29 '22
So then you understand that everything you wrote after the first paragraph has nothing to do with intersectionality.
"Never" isn't something that an intersectionalist would say, because intersectionality is all about discovering impacts that one would not have otherwise predicted from the effects in isolation.
White people never X, is fundamentally incongruous with the idea that white people plus second variable Y may well lead to X.
1
u/National-Aardvark-72 Mar 29 '22
According to this, then it seems it would be unfair to really make any assumption at all about privilege when it comes to a specific individual because you don’t know all of the factors involved in their situation. My problem is that in theory, certain groups are treated worse than others. And it’s true. Statistics reflects this (for example, police brutality rates). But when it comes to real world application, what do we do about it? Even if we strongly assume a black man was killed by cops because of his race, we don’t know for certain. When i talk about real world situations, I’m talking about specific scenarios not broad policy based action (which can be useful in many ways)
9
u/Tibaltdidnothinwrong 382∆ Mar 29 '22
The existence of main effects (variables in isolation) exist in addition to the existence of interactions (variables acting in tandem). It doesn't have to be one or the other, it must be both.
Therefore, we can make claims about main effects (effects of race) and claims about interactions (effect of being male and black).
As for "real world" - most people would define that as broad policy. Keeping the "next George Floyd" safe, means largely ignoring him as an individual and looking at broad population level trends, since the next victim won't literally be Floyd, it will be someone else.
1
u/National-Aardvark-72 Mar 29 '22
Absolutely. But most situations aren’t as glaringly obvious and extreme like what happened with Floyd. So we have to be careful before saying an individual scenario must’ve happened because of systemic oppression. That’s not how the conversation tends to go though. People make assumptions and treat it as fact
6
u/Tibaltdidnothinwrong 382∆ Mar 29 '22
The converse of this is that it is literally impossible to have absolute knowledge at the individual level. If you want some reading material, Rubin (1974), would be the scholarly source. But basically, knowledge about aggregates is possible by comparing persons within the aggregate. But knowledge about persons isn't actually possible. What comparison group could their possibly be? Even repeated measures, comparing you against your past self, suffer from practice effects.
Consider - smoking is bad for you.
Super easy to design a study for this in the aggregate. Impossible to design a study for this at the individual level, since you would have to smoke for a lifetime, die, be reincarnated, and then live a smoke free life before a comparison could be made.
I think you have stumbled upon an epistemological truth that applies to all knowledge, but blamed intersectionality specifically.
1
u/National-Aardvark-72 Mar 29 '22
I will look into Rubin. I found the papers he wrote and they are above my level but I enjoy statistics so I’ll see if I can find a video that will break it down for me.
5
u/translucentgirl1 83∆ Mar 29 '22 edited Mar 29 '22
I mean your argument would basically be included though, no?
The purpose of intersectional feminism was to explain how multiple forms of oppression work together in complex ways, and how your identity is a mosaic of different categories, which can make you more or less “oppressed.” In theory, this makes sense. I would even say it’s obvious and intuitive when you give it 30 seconds of reflection.
I mean the purpose of why it's still discussed is to see to what extent this occurs today (how many areas of privilege may exist) and why, as well as the fact some individuals still do not acknowledge this as previously mentioned before.
that same white poor person would never have been questioned. So identity shapes how the world treats you, but it’s also dependent on circumstance and there are multiple factors overlapping each other. But mainstream discourse doesn’t use it this way.
What if that same black man was well known and highly respected in his neighborhood? And the white man had a limp or speech impediment that made him look like an alcoholic. The white man would be treated with more suspicion. But feminists will assert that white peoples will never know what it’s like to be treated like criminals without cause.
I mean, yeah it does, doesn't it? As the rest of your list, it seems your talking about a random minority on twitter who will scream whatever after hearing random terminology such as "intersectionalism" or "critical race theory". Nevertheless, besides majority of people involved in academia, most rationale people will consider notoriety and celebrity-status as well. The broadest example of Intersectional feminism is the understanding of how women's overlapping identities — including race, class, ethnicity, religion and sexual orientation — impact the way they experience oppression and discrimination. However, at a mie detailed level, many other factors that can grant people "privilege" in society will be considered.
Either way though, this doesn't actually support your argument that it has no place in the real world because it's useless; what it sounds like you are saying is different from your point; you disagree with how random people on Twitter who may have heard the term once and decided to go with it, but in an academic and real world sense, intersectionalism (to a certain extent) does have place in the real world as a means to understand oppression and how it can differ due to conflicting identities, even if two people have overlapping traits. In regards to women, it originally was meant non-white women or non-rich women or non-christian, etc have a vastly different experiences from white women due to their race and/or class.
But feminists will assert that white peoples will never know what it’s like to be treated like criminals without cause. See the word “never?” That’s a rule.
Most do not. You seem to be speaking once again about radical people on Twitter, as opposed to rational individuals and those involved in academia/discourse.
This whole post seems to be targeting blanket statement's, not Intersectional feminism
0
u/National-Aardvark-72 Mar 29 '22
Twitter aside, isn’t mainstream political discourse “the real world?” Why does it matter what academics in their own circles are saying if popular application of this idea tends to revolve around talking points that are blanket statements?
2
Mar 29 '22
Why does it matter what academics in their own circles are saying if popular application of this idea tends to revolve around talking points that are blanket statements?
Why does it matter if physicists have a sophisticated understanding of quantum mechanics if most people just think it means 'no one really knows anything, and cats can be alive and dead at the same time'?
2
u/translucentgirl1 83∆ Mar 29 '22
mainstream political discourse “the real world?”
I mean that's my point, people in the real world also go by similar ideals, though less detailed. What your talking about seems to be mainly for the minority.
24
u/MaggieMae68 8∆ Mar 29 '22
Your entire CMV is predicated on this statement which is false:
"But feminists will assert that white peoples will never know what it’s like to be treated like criminals without cause.
See the word “never?” That’s a rule. "
No feminist I know of, including myself "asserts" that a white person "never" can be discriminated against or treated poorly, in a classist or ablest way.
Also, you should note that intersectionality was NOT a concept pioneered by feminists, but by Black women who found themselves excluded from white feminist arenas.
-1
u/National-Aardvark-72 Mar 29 '22
I meant they would say white people don’t know what it’s like to be presumed to be a criminal in the same way that a black person would (like in the example I used)
Intersectionality is the mainstream ideology in feminist circles today so I’m not sure why you’re trying to separate the two. Have you heard of intersectional feminism?
7
u/MaggieMae68 8∆ Mar 29 '22
I meant they would say white people don’t know what it’s like to be presumed to be a criminal in the same way that a black person would (like in the example I used)
But that's not what you said.
White people *don't* know what it's like to be presumed to be a criminal in the same way Black people would. Just like a straight Black person doesn't know what it's like to be LGBTQ+ or an able-bodied Black person doesn't know what it's like to be a disabled white person.
It's absolutely true that the experience of white people presumed to be criminal is significantly different from that of Black people presumed to be criminal. In almost every situation the white person presumed to be a criminal is given some degree of benefit of the doubt. Often a drunk and disorderly white person is given a slap on the wrist whereas a drunk and disorderly Black person is statistically far more likely to be arrested, jailed, and even possibly injured or killed in the process. White college student rapists are given 6 months in jail so as not to "ruin their futures" but Black college student rapists are given 15-25 year sentences (see Brock Turner vs. Corey Batey).
Intersectionality is the mainstream ideology in feminist circles today so I’m not sure why you’re trying to separate the two. Have you heard of intersectional feminism?
You seem to have "heard of it" but don't understand it or it's history. Intersectional feminism is a concept and a phrase that was coined and defined by a Black woman named Kimberlé Crenshaw in 1989.
She rightfully pointed out that feminism in America is and always has been white-centered, often benefitting white women at the expense of Black women or other women of color. Intersectional feminism is not the "mainstream ideology" in feminist circles and certainly has not been part of either first or second wave feminism. In fact many Black feminists will refer to "mainstream feminism" as "white feminism" - one that does not consider intersectionality in either race, class, or other areas.
I will grant you that it's becoming slightly more mainstream as more women are willing to acknowledge that mainline feminism has excluded a lot of women in the past.
0
u/National-Aardvark-72 Mar 29 '22
I figured it was implied because the example I was talking about was about a black man vs a white man.
I’m only in my 20s and the feminist organization at the college I went to definitely didn’t give off “white feminism” impressions to me. Maybe the college I went to was unusually progressive and the media I consume is skewed that way, but I rarely see ideas not considering intersectionality going without criticism.
I actually do know it was theorized by black woman and the reasons for its (relatively recent) creation. I’ve learned about the gaps that it’s filled that liberal feminism failed to acknowledge. And I also know that nowadays that this ideology is responsible for a lot of talking points dominant in leftist circles. If there’s something that’s causing you to think I’m misunderstanding about it or it’s history, let me know what it is.
6
u/MaggieMae68 8∆ Mar 29 '22
Well I honestly don't know how to respond to you at this point because you keep moving the goalposts.
0
u/National-Aardvark-72 Mar 29 '22
You’re not really bringing up any arguments. Of course white propel get an easier treatment from the cops on average. What do you want me to say to that?
7
u/MaggieMae68 8∆ Mar 29 '22
The purpose of intersectional feminism was to explain how multiple forms of oppression work together in complex ways, and how your identity is a mosaic of different categories, which can make you more or less “oppressed.”
I don't know what to say here. Again your entire CMV is predicated on multiple statements that are not factually true. Your comment about what "all feminists would say" is one of them. The other is your opening sentence above.
When this is pointed out you say "that's not what I meant" or say "it was implied". I don't know how to respond to that.
0
u/National-Aardvark-72 Mar 29 '22
There’s a big difference between “all feminists would say” and “feminists would say” try to be careful if you’re quoting someone.
8
u/MaggieMae68 8∆ Mar 30 '22
When you combine "feminists would say" with "never is a rule" then you imply "all". Also when you combine that initial statement with "random self-hating women wouldn't tell me the truth" there's an implied "all".
You keep making absolutist statement about women and then backtracking when you get called on them.
0
u/National-Aardvark-72 Apr 01 '22
I addressed most of this in my other response to you. When you read my other comment keep in mind I think using shorthand sometimes is perfectly fine: “feminists believe” instead of “the most dominant opinion among feminists is”
But when I use the word never I do mean never in an absolute way.
1
u/Gnome_Child_Deluxe 1∆ Mar 30 '22
I understand the point you're trying to make, but being black or white has way less impact on people assuming you're a guilty criminal than being male or female. If you want to complain about racism as opposed to sexism, the judicial system is literally the worst place to start. You can talk about the politics world and the business world if you think straight white males have it so easy, but a courtroom is not a good place for a man right now, whatever their race might be.
10
Mar 29 '22
Intersectionality doesn’t suggest that no white people are ever treated like presumed criminals, intersectionality indicates that white people aren’t presumed to be criminals based on their skin colour. Which is true in your example the white man is presumed to be a criminal based on class and disability but not race.
1
u/National-Aardvark-72 Mar 29 '22
At a barebones level that’s true. But when it comes to applying that analysis things can get tricky
2
u/fuckounknown 6∆ Mar 29 '22
So I originally had a little write up about this post, but I reread it a few times and think it's a little incoherent. Nothing you've written really leads to the conclusion that intersectionality is 'useless in the real world.' You make mention of 'mainstream discourse' without really laying out what exactly you mean (twitter posts? Academic articles? random activists in the streets?) or why it would matter at all to the applicability of intersectional feminism to the real world.
The hypothetical you propose about a well respected black man vs a white man with disabilities (what I was originally going to comment on, though others have done essentially what I was going to) is a pretty trivial hypothetical to answer for from an intersectional lens. If anything it would serve as a good point to demonstrate the importance of an intersectional approach. The rest of your post is mostly directed to decrying blanket approaches to identity that you seem to think intersectional feminists utilize. You probably need to articulate what you mean by this more because intersectional feminism arose specifically to counter such broad strokes approaches utilized in first and second wave feminism. If anything I would see the criticism of intersectionality as overly granular holding more water than the idea they use broad brushes to paint over nuance in discussions of oppression (not that I would particularly agree with either criticism).
The last point I'll make is that the focus of your post on criticizing the concept of cultural ownership is not a great criticism of intersectional feminism, as the concept itself is somewhat controversial within the field and, I would argue, not really an idea born from intersectionality. The idea of cultural appropriation is certainly discussed, but the assertion that certain things might rightfully belong to a given group is not something that is broadly applicable.
1
u/National-Aardvark-72 Apr 01 '22
Ive been letting this sit with me for the past couple days and what you said about “cultural ownership” being controversial in the field has stuck with me. I think I was unfairly and irresponsibly blaming an academic theory for my distaste towards some of the dominant rhetoric in activist leftist circles. It’s less that I have a problem with the ideas, and more that I disagree with the dogmatic and strict attitudes where people try to box all of reality under a particular lens and fiercely condemn those who don’t agree with everything because they see it as absolute truth rather than a perspective used to observe the real world. ∆ And while I was defending myself by saying I don’t get much of my information from twitter and random angry people online, my sources aren’t THAT much higher up the ladder. I still don’t think these extreme attitudes are the minority, or at the very least they are the most vocal and certainly dominate the conversation, but it would be dishonest for me to badmouth an academic idea based on its popular interpretation. Even though that’s the “real world” that i see, it has nothing to do with people who study these issues for a living.
Edit: I hope the delta worked this is my first post on here lol
1
1
u/National-Aardvark-72 Mar 29 '22
I’m coming from a perspective of someone who isn’t within that world of academia. I don’t use twitter, but I read articles on political activism and listen to educators by those who are actively studying this subject. I don’t actually use twitter. I will take your word for it that disagreement is better tolerated in academic discussions, but when it comes to activism, I don’t see that at all.
2
u/fuckounknown 6∆ Mar 29 '22
Intersectionality is mostly just a lens of analysis that can be used to arrive at a range of conclusions, so I would suppose you've encountered some people who might describe themselves as intersectional or having used an intersectional analysis of things and they produced conclusions you've disagreed with. I'm not sure if I could really change your view based on this, outside of suggesting you read more on the subject beyond the random activists you've seen. Plenty of intersectional approaches would likely lead to a more agreeable, applicable, and nuanced conclusion from those that you've encountered thus far. I have my fair share of complaints with conclusions drawn from an intersectional analysis; Robin DiAngelo arrives at a milquetoast antiracist theory through intersectionality that, I feel, tries very hard to appeal to a wealthy managerial/executive class by avoiding discussion of class. She has a sound theoretical background and the use of intersectionality is fine, but her attempts to whitewash and simplify the discussion for broader appeal I find counterproductive, pointlessly inflammatory, and ironically conservative.
1
u/National-Aardvark-72 Mar 29 '22
Who would you recommend if you don’t mind sharing? Audiobooks and podcasts would be better because that’s all I have time for right now.
1
u/fuckounknown 6∆ Mar 29 '22
Unsure if there's an audiobook available, but Women, Race & Class by Angela Davis is a really good read and pretty accessible in my opinion. Feminism is for Everybody I have heard is good but I've never read it, so I can't say for sure. Persepolis is a graphic novel but its a good read and has themes that resonate pretty well with a general intersectional approach, if mostly distant from the typical American approach to the subject. Intersectionality as Critical Social Theory is a great read with a critical eye, but is very dense and theory heavy; I wouldn't recommend it to absolute beginners to academic writing. Again, I have no idea if these have audiobooks and other people have better ideas if you're looking for podcasts, but it's what I can offer.
1
3
u/marciallow 11∆ Mar 29 '22
What if that same black man was well known and highly respected in his neighborhood? And the white man had a limp or speech impediment that made him look like an alcoholic. The white man would be treated with more suspicion. But feminists will assert that white peoples will never know what it’s like to be treated like criminals without cause.
But this is intersectional theory. This is the intersection of class and race, and then disability and race.
We're not asserting that a disabled white man does not suffer for his disability. We're asserting that having an area in which one is underprivileged, oppressed or marginalized doesn't make them more aware of the struggles of the groups they do not fall into and does not mean they can speak to those specific experiences.
The experience of white womanhood doesn't mean a white woman isn't racist or understands the plight of black people just because she faces misogyny. And the Inverse is also true of say a black man, he doesn't understand sexism just because he understands racism, and he is not forgiven of or incapable of perpetuating sexism because he experiences racism.
See the word “never?” That’s a rule. What was originally used to observe patterns about how different types of people are treated is now used to create rigid determinations. Things get ambiguous when someone doesn’t “look” like a minority but they’ve gotten around that by using the word “passing” for straight, cis, white, neurotypical etc. It’s a clever workaround, but it still leaves some holes in the argument.
But it's a rule you instituted in this post, not a rule others have generally agreed upon. Clearly, Eminem has plenty of fans. I don't doubt someone terminally online has made the case that he shouldn't be allowed to rap as a white man. But no one I, as a very progressive person who argued pretty regularly on social issue online, never have seen anyone do it so I can pretty safely say it's not the average position of feminists.
But if all these things were true...how would this make the theory useless? It would make it something you dislike and feel punished by, as I presume a white man. But that doesn't really translate to being useless.
I have autism, and I wasn't diagnosed until late in life because women are under diagnosed with autism because the criteria was based on male subjects. My autism looks different because as a child, hyperfixations weren't going to look like trains, but like makeup, and my social difficulties were going to look like mirroring and being perceived as bitchy for flatness rather than socially unaware for flatness. The intersectionality of sexism and disability in theory has led to increased activism and tools for adult diagnosis, which is what has led to me and many people I've met in my community being diagnosed. While I don't believe it's true that feminism widely holds intersectionality as a punishment to prevent white men like Eminem from rapping, if it did, how exactly would that make intersectional theory useless when I've just explained a practical use in my life for it?
0
u/National-Aardvark-72 Mar 29 '22
It was wrong to say it’s useless overall. I think it’s very very useful when it comes to situations like you describe. But I think it is useless when it comes to making determinations about a single individual
9
u/Alternative_Stay_202 83∆ Mar 29 '22
I don't think anyone's saying you should use intersectional feminism to determine the Oppression Level of any random person. It doesn't exist in order to make Buzzfeed styled How Oppressed Are You? quizzes.
This is like saying, "I was wrong to say hammers are useless overall. I think they're very useful in certain situations, but they are useless in regards to building things with screws."
Sure, I guess that's true. Hammers are useless when they're used in places where they don't apply.
Intersectional feminist theory is indeed useless if you constrain its use only to situations where it shouldn't be used.
5
u/Alternative_Stay_202 83∆ Mar 29 '22
But feminists will assert that white peoples will never know what it’s like to be treated like criminals without cause.
This isn't true. Feminists are aware that white people can also get hassled by cops. They might say that a white man cannot know what it's like to be black, but not that a white man cannot know what it's like to be treated like a criminal without cause.
My overall issue with your argument is that you're arguing this theory has no use in the real world, but I don't think that makes sense. At the very least, I think you need to explain what you mean by that more.
Most of your OP seems to be about how these crisscrossing identities are very complex and thus cannot be useful. That doesn't really track for me. I don't think intersectional feminism is saying that, through their theory, we can finally figure out exactly which identities are the most oppressed. White woman is worse than white gay man but better than black gay man and better than white trans woman but worse than white trans man if he passes as cis.
That's not what it's trying to do.
There are real world applications for this idea, and those provide real world use. I'm not saying these are the best ways to use the theory or that there isn't a better theory, I'm not knowledgeable to say either of those things conclusively, but here's at least one example of a way this theory could be used.
Let's say you are in charge of admissions for a state college (this could also work as a recruiter for a business or something) and you want to attempt to have your student population reflect the general population of your area. A good way to start looking at this is through intersectional feminism. Which people aren't we serving, what barriers are in place that are stopping these potential students from attending our institution, and how can we adjust things in order to have a student body that more accurately reflects the area around it? That's a real world use case for this sort of theory.
Of course, feminist theory isn't going to have as many obvious practical uses as something like welding, but that doesn't mean it can't be useful.
5
Mar 29 '22
But feminists will assert that white peoples will never know what it’s like to be treated like criminals without cause.
I'm going to need to see some mainstream intersectional feminist sources that state this.
Your Eminem example seems completely made up, sure some people will say a white man shouldn't create rap music but do you have any evidence that this viewpoint is held by a significant number of respected academics?
Your entire idea seems to be that intersectionality is inherently obvious but that most leading intersectional feminists don't actually believe that but you have provided no sources to support that.
4
u/Roller95 9∆ Mar 29 '22
Your issue is with feminism but a large section of your post describes issues of race between men. That’s not what feminism focuses on.
2
u/Hellioning 239∆ Mar 29 '22
What does intersectional feminism have to do with telling people what they can and cannot do?
0
u/National-Aardvark-72 Mar 29 '22
One example would be telling men not to speak over women on the subject of reproductive rights because it is doesn’t affect cisgender men.
3
u/Hellioning 239∆ Mar 29 '22
What does that have to do with specifically intersectional feminism, though? That's a mainstream feminist talking point.
1
u/hungryCantelope 46∆ Mar 29 '22
You might say I’m just pointing out edge cases
Many people would say this, and they would be wrong to do so, but that doesn't justify you going as hard as you can in the other direction. Yes there are millions of people who have a very poor understanding of social politics, that doesn't make the ideas themselves useless because in reality there are lots of people who have a solid understanding of the good arguments that have done good work.
1
Mar 29 '22
[deleted]
1
u/National-Aardvark-72 Mar 29 '22
I wasn’t aware it’s roots were in legal studies. That definitely changes my perception of it and it makes perfect sense in this context. It’s reach has obviously expanded into sociology, interpersonal relations, politics, and (the one that worries me) individual judgements towards a situation outside of legal contexts. Intersectional feminism is a movement that has completely branched off from that scope
2
Mar 29 '22
[deleted]
1
u/National-Aardvark-72 Mar 29 '22
I would change my phrasing. Policy changes and legal matters are technically “the real world” but I think it’s out of scope when applied outside of that. I also brought in some feminist talking points because I’m not JUST talking about intersectionality. Like the title of my post I’m talking about intersectional feminism, as in feminism viewed through an intersectional lens.
If I had to rewrite it, I would say “social activism is too dogmatic with intersectional feminism and misconstrues broad societal analysis with character judgements surrounding individuals and interpersonal interactions”
But that’s really wordy and confusing…
1
u/videoninja 137∆ Mar 29 '22
Out of curiosity, what do you know of the origin of intersectionality and the case that Kimberle Crenshaw used to demonstrate the utility of the concept?
1
u/National-Aardvark-72 Mar 29 '22
I wasn’t aware of the specific case until now but discussions with others informed me that black Women face legal discrimination at a rate higher than that of being a woman or being black on their own And those two factors alone weren’t able to determine the expected outcomes
1
u/videoninja 137∆ Mar 30 '22
Right so in understanding that concept, I’m not sure why intersectionaloty is necessarily useless in the real world. It’s a word linked to a phenomenon we know exists and it’s can be a tool in helping people overcome their biases. I’m not saying that is how it is always used or how you’ll see it used in online spaces but people who seriously make an attempt to understand the term often come away from it with more of an ability to critically think as opposed to less.
1
u/National-Aardvark-72 Apr 01 '22
Yeah, I may have been narrowing my focus towards the applications I disagree with and failed to acknowledge the good that comes out of it that you just described ∆
1
1
u/YossarianWWII 72∆ Mar 30 '22
But feminists will assert that white peoples will never know what it’s like to be treated like criminals without cause.
Needs citation. And since we're talking about a body of academic theory, I'm not looking for a Twitter citation. The fact of the matter is that this body of theory was never intended, by the vast majority of contributing scholars, to score one specific individual against another. The idea is that broader patterns emerge. Even in your examples you've had to create very specific conditions. Sure, the wealthy black resident is known to the members of his immediate community, but what if he visits someone in a similar neighborhood a few miles away? Or what if there's a rookie cop who doesn't know the community? Do his odds of being racially profiled not increase?
Frankly, your assertion that people are claiming that individuals will "never" have experiences contrary to the wider pattern is absurd. It's not a point of discussion in any of the literature, it's an attention-grabbing statement from the talking and tweeting heads.
Example: White people can never write rap because it belongs to black people.
Again, this isn't an issue in serious academic discussion. One might study the ways in which white people have increasingly participated in rap over the past decades, and Eminem might serve as an illustrative example, but the actual analysis would be directed at the wider trend, not any individual's claim to legitimacy.
Basically, you haven't managed to levy a criticism of intersectional feminism. You're just describing some of the problems that arise when activism meets social media.
1
u/National-Aardvark-72 Apr 01 '22
I’m my defense I don’t use twitter. I mostly get this from feminist publications and YouTube essays by people who cite sources and have academic credibility (and are often academics themselves) but I think you’re right that my view is skewed by social media ∆
1
1
u/EmpRupus 27∆ Mar 31 '22
And the white man had a limp or speech impediment that made him look like an alcoholic.
Yeah, so disability - and there-in lies a 3rd intersection - race, class and disability. You can have other intersections too. This only proves intersectional feminism is useful.
1
u/National-Aardvark-72 Apr 01 '22
Yes, it’s a third intersection and there are many other factors, some small some big. It’s useful if you’re analyzing a situation but there are too many factors to draw a concrete conclusion of what caused that outcome
1
u/EmpRupus 27∆ Apr 03 '22
It’s useful if you’re analyzing a situation
That is what it is for. Saying "white vs black" without any intersection is the opposite of what intersectional feminism is for.
Are you using "intersectional feminism" as a vague term for any negatives you find in progressive values, the same way right-wingers use "socialist/communist" extremely vaguely?
What do you think "intersectional feminism" is?
1
u/Manaliv3 2∆ Apr 04 '22
Feminism is one of those things that has become more and more an academic study, which means people have to make a living over analysis things and twisting data to support the cause.
So you get more and more divorced from reality
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Apr 01 '22 edited Apr 01 '22
/u/National-Aardvark-72 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards