Men’s “token torturers” in feminist spaces

Okay, I perhaps I misunderstood your post Beach, but there are posts on this thread that do seem to reject that there is any benefit in taking an intersectional approach - one reason being some folks feel it's been misappropriated by others.

Extro, I think that's perhaps part of the problem - the labelling. I find there is often a "short hand" assumption that there are radical feminists (with a prescribed set of acceptable beliefs and actions) and there are "sex positive" feminists (with a different prescribed set of acceptable beliefs and actions.)

So, if you don't fit into one, the assumption is that you must be in the other. That simply ain't the case. I'm always more interested in what people believe and why rather than the labels they choose.

Extrospektiv I think the co-opting of intersectionalty is in Derailing for Dummies. They just don't call it that.

It is the; stop talking about that and concentrate on this - otherwise it is proof that you don't care about .

NO... Kritiq supports intersectionality! Where did you get that from?

She says that any feminism that doesn't address intersectional issues is wrong as we only have ourselves to blame if people oppressed by more than one system then refuse to adopt the feminist label/cause.

Kritiq who says that intersectionality must be wholly rejected?

Saying a concept has been co-opted/hijacked is not the same as saying the concept is in and of itself invalid, flawed or must be rejected.

At all.

I have seen intersectionality used as a really grass roots concept to recognise and give power to all manner of oppressed groups. Which is brilliant.

I have also seen the concept co-opted in order to take focus off an oppressed group. Generally in a way that suggests that if the focus is not displaced that is evidence of racism. Which is not brilliant.

I've typed that and am now questioning the relevance to the OP!

Applauds KRITIQ & mini, I can't see any good argument against intersectionality as a principle of feminist political action.

Only against its misuse, but there are far easier ways for an anti-fem/MRA etc. to derail a discussion than throwing such concepts around. I've seen most of the Derailing for Dummies strategies and hardly ever spotted "intersectionality" being misused to send a discussion in an anti feminist direction.

And yes- we need to learn from the second wave mistakes. (WRT non-bourgeois/ non-white/ trans issues. I am pro-second wave on some sexual matters, far preferable to a Marcotte/Valenti pozzer fauxminism...)

I was just summarising what seems to be the two positions being expressed.

However, I do believe that any version of feminism that chooses to address only misogynistic oppression, then it will be letting down those women who's experience of oppression stems from much more than institutionalised misogyny. And, as bell hooks, Patricia Hill Collins and many other feminists of colour continually assert, feminists who address only misogynistic oppression shouldn't be surprised or disappointed if women of colour (or others whose multiple or intersecting experience of oppression is relegated to being of less importance,) turn their backs on the movement.

The op might still be thinking about it. She's quite new to feminism, so I guess she is still working through the books. Maybe she just found it interesting and was having trouble working out her thoughts?

Eats, what was your motive? The problem with just posting quotes or a crappy 'discuss' topic (like the MRAs did) is that it looks like a way to start a bunfight, rather than you chatting about the topic.

I'm monumentally depressed that intersectionality is being trashed in some circles. But always interested in the ideas behind the thinking.

Selective quoting without refs is poor form though.

KRITIQ wrote - "radical feminism increasingly excludes and invalidates the experiences of women who experience multiple and intersecting forms of oppression, thereby becoming a movement to emancipate only those women who already hold the most privilege"

That gives me the impression that you are expecting radical feminism to solve all types of privilege imbalance, otherwise it will have failed. Is that what you mean?

kritiq and gothanne thankyou for your posts

op are you ever going to tell us your opinion on the quote?

The way I see it is that too much attention is always paid to what separates us as women not to what unites us. But then if we just all work from the basis that we are all only women then this does a great deal to silence anyone who faces any additional form of discrimination. A way forward is to see who MOST benefits from ALL discrimination. I propose rich white men, that means the rest of us have something that unites us, the other 80% should if they stop the infighting be able to tackle the root cause of all oppression. Maybe I'm just too naive and optimistic though

So, it would seem we are at a stalemate.

Some here insist that because they believe the concept of intersectionality has been "highjacked" by "anti-feminists" for their own aims that the ideology is now too "tainted," serves to diminish the impact of feminism, is therefore in itself anti-feminist and must be wholly rejected. Some have suggested intersectionality can be used deliberately to minimise the importance of feminism.

Others (me included) believe the ever-narrowing concept of radical feminism increasingly excludes and invalidates the experiences of women who experience multiple and intersecting forms of oppression, thereby becoming a movement to emancipate only those women who already hold the most privilege. As above, some might suggest that radical feminism cold be used deliberately to minimise the importance of challenging multiple and intersecting forms of oppression.

Anybody got a road map that could lead us all to some common ground? My sat nav seems to be acting up at the moment.

(And Beach - to be fair, many a time here folks have taken personally criticisms of views that they hold. Imho, I think those who may have made a similar inference on this thread can surely be forgiven for responding likewise.)

I'm with goth.

I am also dying at the idea that fwr (well, eats, anyway) is now claiming academics as the epitome or public face of radhood.

You new?

Intersectionality is seen by some people as a useful concept for explaining discrimination by class, race, disability, age. Fair enough. It seems less useful to me as a concept to explain sex discrimination and inequality.

What does intersectionality add to the understanding and ending of discrimination against women?

How does feminism and society use the knowledge that rich white women discriminate against poor black women in only some of the ways that rich white men discriminate against poor black women?

Where does that actually get us in trying to stop of male discrimination against females?

Just because concepts can be hijacked, doesn't mean they are not valid or important.

However, if this is just going to turn into "It's hard out there for a radfem", then just say and we'll leave you to it.

Is this where the quote was taken from Eats?

Where men can?t reach women because the space is women-only, these women, most of whom are deeply damaged..........
radicalhub.com/2012/08/09/sisterhood-in-application-part-one/

Third para from the end. I have linked it just in case anyone should like to read it.

Is that a response to me EBAL? I was referring to women who use intersectionality to minimise the importance of feminism. They often seem to be very privileged.

The quote doesn't refer to "pseudo-feminists" (which would be people).

It refers to (and I quote!) pseudo-feminist (masculinist) practices or ideologies.

Two rather different things.

It could be interesting to explore what "pseudo-feminist (masculinist) practices or ideologies" are and how they manifest.

I agree with what ArmyOfPenguins says about the hijacking of intersectionality as a concept.

I have seen "intersectionality" used to obscure male-dominance; it's the same kind of thing as 'but what about the menz' - ie, putting feminism at the bottom of the heap - except far more dishonest.

Obviously lots of people use the theory in the way it was intended to be used, but that doesn't stop the many anti-feminists hijacking it for their own purposes. The women who I've seen use it in an anti-feminist way have tended to be privileged in terms of race and class, interestingly.

Also there has been a nice air of consensus round these parts of late and some very interesting feminist discussions elsewhere on MN, the last thing we need (IMHO), is another round of Feminist King of The Castle.

There are some very good deconstructions of, for example, why rebranding prostitution as sex work is anti-feminist, but they don't involve "ex-communicating" other feminists.

Orange, I've experienced that to - the idea that because one experiences oppression in one way, it gives carte blanche to say and do things that are oppressive/excluding to others. Does it perhaps partly stem from a fear that by acknowledging one's own privilege, it will somehow diminish the significance of the oppression one faces in another sphere?

As always GothAnne - clear and to the point on this one!

I believe it was on a blog that I can no longer find that I found a succinct and sobering comment from a working class woman of colour about her despair when urged by predominately white, class privileged feminists to "get behind the feminist cause" and set aside concerns about racism, classism and other forms of oppression because these are divisive or water down the message. She said that these feminists were asking her and others to put all their energies into fighting for the rights of those women who are already the most privileged amongst women, with no guarantee that the other factors that enforce their oppression will ever be dealt with. This is another variation on what Goth Anne refers to as the "throwing under a bus."

Beach, I don't think the OP here has had a rougher ride than many who make contentious points in this discussion forum. The opening post (the op hasn't offered a citation, but she hasn't said she disagrees with the content) refers to a whole range of feminists as "pseudo-feminists," which in itself is likely to get folks' backs up. Eats then goes on to state specifically that intersectionality is "anti-feminist," and includes (imho) a very weedy statement on, "oh yes, of course racism is bad but not the big deal that sexism is so get your priorities right sister!. So, I don't think one should be too surprised that these views haven't been welcomed by all with open arms.

I think it is an interesting quote and certainly I have come across similar behaviour in elements of prostitution hierarchies.

I'm a bit surprised by the hostility with which the OP seems to be being received

I guess what I am trying to say is that I agree that some women suffer multiple forms of oppression and indeed some privilege in relation to others. I think that making radical feminism an elite enclave of "real" feminists and excluding others is wrong.

In relation to my questioning which original form of oppression, this has much more to do with how we re-engage with the wider liberation movement, which I think is important. I don't think feminism will bring about changes to all other forms of oppression. What is the thing that unites all oppression, is this the same thing that can unite everyone in finding solutions. I am a feminist and if my feminism is not of the Daly variety I'm happy to stay on the outside!

What OrangeKipper said