Intersectionality

KRITIQ - thanks for the link to the blogpost by Chitra Nagarajan, I will be interested to read that. I've read various of the discussions about SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen but by no means all.

The thing that puts intersectionality into relief for me is when lots of white women were really happy that Lena Dunham (I think, can't stop to google, sorry) had her tv show Girls, because it was obviously a strongly female cast, doing stuff we often don't see women or girls doing on the telly. But when women of colour weighed in saying, well actually it's not that progressive is it, it's very white, there is no representation from non-white women (and this is unrealistic in the situation that it was set in), the typical white feminist reply to this was rather on the lines of "but it's female representation on the telly, it's all good". Caitlin Moran was famously indiscreet in the way she often is, where in reply to this whole debate (being challenged on her championship of the show, I think), she said "I literally could not give a shit". Now surely what that says to women of colour is, we (white feminists who are all that count as feminists) don't care about your battles and difficulties, we've got white women more visible, we're winning the battle (which is our battle).

It's not about trying to do all the things at once, trying to actively battle racism as well as sexism. It's seeing that sometimes in battling sexism we can be being massively racist at the same time without even noticing it.

Clearly there are people who are not fans of Intersectionality - the OP of this thread! So I don't disagree with you there. On the other hand the OP is interested in socialism and therefore presumably class - so she is interested in that particular intersection, she just deals with it using a different form of analysis.

Your arguments for what the absence of intersectionality causes - classism, not looking at additional oppression, relegating marginalised women doesn't make any sense when the OP is arguing for socialism and other broader forms of political analysis.

Your argument is essentially that various women are oppressed in different ways and to different extents and combinations change the nature of their oppression. But we already know that and have kinds of political analysis to deal with it. Feminism in that sense is already intersectional.

If you want to use intersectionality as a term to be something beyond a way of claiming moral superiority, it has to be able to compete with other forms of analysis as a way of providing solutions and courses of action.

Your link is an example of that. The writer mentions an issue which her audience recognises as intersectional but then does nothing about. I would suggest the reason for that is because the writer gives them no course of action to follow, which is what generally happens when people mention intersectionality.

In terms of the amount of intersectionality, I think we can crudely measure it. Currently a large amount of feminism seems to be about young women with no kids. Being a mother is a major intersection of oppressions. The amount of intersectionality around that issue has reduced, while the amount of intersectionality around other issues - sexuality has increased.

Perhaps I'm still not understanding what you mean.

Both in real life and via the internet, I have certainly encountered those who describe themselves as feminists, sometimes advocating for specific "strands" of feminism who clearly oppose intersectionality as a concept and the views of intersectional feminists as a strand of feminism.

Again, I don't really understand that last sentence. By its very nature, intersectional feminism requires consideration of a range of factors, connections and intersections. If you see that as "changing the focus," I don't understand why that is a problem. I'm not sure how one "increases the amount of intersectionality," either. It's not something that can be counted or measured. As an intersectional feminist, I would seek to increase awareness, understanding and consideration of intersectional privilege and oppression in campaigns, in education, in policy, etc. That's something quite different.

No, it isn't the same thing I'm describing. There are clearly feminists who are socialist feminists and some who most certainly are not. That makes socialist feminism a strand of feminism.

There is no strand of feminism that is opposed to intersectionality. People who refer to themselves as intersectional feminists tend to change the intersection they focus on rather than actually increase the amount of intersectionality.

To be fair, I've noticed those who follow all strands of feminism suggesting that their version is "best" in some way - most progressive, most authentic, most practical, closest to the "root," or similar, and that other strands don't "make the grade" in the same way. Surely that's the same thing you are describing here.

I don't actually understand your last sentence though, but it is very late. Very interested still in responses to Chitra's article.

It isn't that intersectional feminists have or claim to have moral superiority, it is the idea that there are intersectional feminists and non-intersectional feminists that has to be about moral superiority.

It is like saying there are kind feminists and unkind ones, and you are one of the kind ones, or informed and ignorant feminists and you are one of the informed ones. We are all sometimes sometimes intersectional, kind and informed and all sometimes not.

I first encountered the concept of intersectionality about 20 years ago in a workshop led by the late Ellen Pence, co-founder of the Duluth Domestic Abuse Intervention Project. We were using the Power and Control Wheel to explore the similarities between the mechanisms of oppression used systemically against women and other marginalised groups in society. What also occurred was that for women who were also part of one or more other marginalised groups, heir experience was bound to be more than just "oppression plus." Conversely, those disadvantaged due to one part of their identity might have a greater degree of resilience and resources to draw upon than those who faced exclusion on more fronts.

Soon after, I experienced something of an epiphany reading this article by <a class="break-all" href="http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar_url?hl=en&q=multipleidentitieslgbtq.wiki.westga.edu/file/view/Crenshaw1991.pdf&sa=X&scisig=AAGBfm1lzLEZ8Dz1B63v2fKiQo9W1_7B_g&oi=scholarr&ei=Y5MSUq6hHKiR0QXxw4DgBA&ved=0CC4QgAMoADAA" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> Kimberle Williams Crenshaw (link opens a PDF) named "intersectionality" and enriched my understanding of the complex social, economic and political interplay of oppression and privilege.

So, it's not a "new fangled thing" as some claim, nor is it an "academic concept." Its roots stretch back to the 19th Century racism and classism of early women's rights campaigners and suffragettes and the sexism of abolition and civil rights movements. More recently, Women of Colour in America, including Audre Lorde, Patricia Hill Collins, Alice Walker and bell hooks have spoken about being excluded from mainstream feminism, (led by white women) and mainstream civil rights movements, (led by Black men.)

For those who follow Twitter, the hashtag #solidarityisforwhitewomen started by Mikki Kendall the other week (I posted a link to her blog on intersectionality on another thread here last year,) led to an outpouring of frustration from Women of Colour worldwide, citing experiences of exclusion from mainstream feminism. There was also plenty of defensiveness from white feminists.

(This was followed by a hashtag #blackpowerisforblackmen where Women of Colour similarly vented their frustration at Men of Colour for expecting their support but not reciprocating on specific concerns/issues for Women of Colour. Cue similarly defensive Men of Colour!)

This exclusion happens when those who are amongst the most privileged in a group (in this case white, non-disabled, relatively economically privileged, etc. etc. feminists,) assume that their experiences are universal experiences of women and their issues and concerns are the ones that must be prioritised. When other women challenge or question this, they are often ignored, told their issues "aren't about feminism," or that in complaining, they are being divisive and damaging the feminist cause. Sometimes, this may come from genuine ignorance and naivety, but I suspect often it comes from those more privileged feminists wanting to hang tight to the power and status they DO already hold and not share.

In my view, an intersectional approach starts with a genuine commitment to wider social justice and the liberation of ALL women from patriarchal/kyriarchal oppression - not just fighting for the things that affect you. It's more than just acknowledging different experiences, but locating those within a complex patriarchal/kyriarchal structure that values some people more than others (quite likely including you.) It's continuously reflecting on how one's own actions contribute to the liberation OR oppression of other women. It's using the status and opportunities one DOES have to ensure the voices and issues of those more marginalised are represented and not just relegated to the "fringe." It's being open, listening to and acting upon the painful truths of more marginalised women without getting defensive and compounding their sense of exclusion.

Wider awareness means feminists can learn from other social justice initiatives and often join forces to increase impact (e.g. tackling poverty, saving NHS, promoting human rights, etc.)

I highly recommend this article by Chitra Nagarajan, White Domination, Challenge and the Feminist Movement ? ‪#Solidarityisforwhitewomen‬ and What It Meant for Me. I'd be really interested in folks' response to this.

I don't see my advocacy for intersectional feminism as "gushy" but just as giving a damn about other people and issues that I don't have to care about because of my own privilege. Do intersectional feminists appear to have or claim "moral superiority?" I suppose it depends on how one's moral compass is calibrated! :)

I think - from my perspective being a married, middle-class white woman - it would be massively patronizing of someone like me to get all gushy about 'intersectionality' in the way I've seen some people do.

I agree context is perhaps a better term, or yes, common sense! But I think it's ok to say, sorry, this is a debate I'm not informed about. And I will try to inform myself about whatever it happens to be so that I don't drop clangers or unintentionally perpetuate prejudice, but I'm not going to pretend I can make all the issues that affect other women my own, or central to my feminism as they stand. What's central to my feminism is that women deserve to be treated equally to each other and to men, and that we need to liberate ourselves from the patriarchy.

I think as long as people are honest about what their own context is, and aware of how it might limit their perspective, it doesn't matter that we all have different perspectives on what issues are most important to us as feminists. Trying to construct an overarching feminism that includes everything and we can all agree on is one of those projects that might be interesting on occasion, but is basically unnecessary.

NiceTabard, isn't the first part of your post more of a description of diversity than intersectionality? The first part can be applied to the issues of children as being different to those of those of the elderly, but those are two mutually exclusive groups; there is no intersection there. But we would still think about them in the way you describe as part of diversity. You can of course make it intersectional by adding extra factors to both groups, but what you say remains true even if you don't do that.

The second part of your post is one of context - a woman in Afghanistan has different issues because their context is totally different. I don't know if intersectional thinking helps there or not.

Intersectionality has to be adding something more than just diversity and context. Maybe it is the issue that two groups in the same overall context experience the same prejudice differently because homophobia (for example) manifests differently against lesbians and gay men. So being a lesbian isn't about experiencing generic homophobia and generic sexism; it is that the kind of sexism you experience will take a different form to that experienced by straight women because it often takes a different form when carried out against lesbians.

I agree with a lot of what freya has said, so well. I am not an adherent to intersectional theory but I accept that the theory helps to make sense of the real material, emotional and structural inequalities faced by some people who experience subjugation in ways that are particular to them. I accept that a poor black women or a women living under a reign of fear from the Taliban suffers a different form of oppression, its particularities different. I do though think that the reason for all oppression stems from class inequality and exploitation for material resources, so a joined up offensive is needed to end all inequalities.

Where I would agree with you dashoflime is that Feminism situated within a broader left wing politics is most likely to succeed.

But what of Liberal feminism? Not a natural bedfellow with socialism!

Isn't it sort of to do with keeping at the forefront of your mind that people are different and have different lives and stuff and to endeavour to remain open to what other people say?

So I need to be aware of my privilege and understand that the things that resonate with me are because of who I am and where I live and all of that stuff. And to understand that why those things are important to me, I have to understand that other things might be more important to other people and that some of the things that have affected me are just not in their life experience and so are not so important to them...?

So it's just sort of common sense really and being self-aware and listening and keeping an open mind and stuff.

I do think that feminism shouldn't be watered down by saying that feminists also need to fight x, y and z as people often say, in an attempt frankly to get feminists on the back foot (oh you don't care about X you are MEAN that stuff). At the same time I think that all women need to be listened to so eg a white woman growing up in a middle class UK family will have different experience and ideas about what needs doing to a poor woman growing up if Afghanistan and again and again to do with colour, wealth, education, opportunity and so on and so on. It isn't an either / or though, which critics often seem to overlook.

That's just what I think anyway

I think that everyone uses intersectional thinking all the time. As far as I understand it is the idea that somebody having experience A and somebody else having experience B cannot combine their knowledge to know what is is like to be somebody who is having experiences A and B at the same time. I find it hard to understand how anybody can get through life and survive without employing that principle to basic day to day tasks. For example the facts that I have painted metal items and have been on a bridge doesn't give me the skills or experience to be an expert on how to paint a suspension bridge. If I just went out and tried to do it or tell others how to do it, there would likely be terrible consequences.

What has gone wrong with intersectionality is that it has become used as a way of claiming moral superiority, as if there are people who use it and people who don't. People merely saying they are intersectional doesn't make it so. It has no more meaning than me saying I am altruistic and somebody else is not. The truth is more likely that these are traits everybody sometimes employs and sometimes does not. The other issue with is is that it is only one a range of ways of thinking that are useful in working out what to do, and sometimes people seem to think intersectionality is the only theory you need, which seems totalitarian.