Intersectional feminism

And hardly any feminists mention economics.
Lots of feminists mention economics from Marxist feminists critiquing the capitalist elements of self-obsessed identification politics to radfems campaigning around a basic national income, from women in rural communities establishing micro-credit projects to women in deprived areas establishing small banks.
The concept of class, privilege and economics are central to feminism and most modern theorists. I prefer them as tools than vague notions of undefined 'power' because 'power' becomes impossible to quantify or view systemically. It leaves you chasing round trying to establish hierarchies of power in individual situations which puts you right back in the intersectionality morass.

Not all privileges are measured in wealth. ignoring the basic sexism and misogyny that women face regardless of class as what can constitute privilege is wrong. I thought you understood what you were talking about, that's is why a put the question forward.
To assume that most men are not sexist or money prevents all who are rich from it, is silly. It never does and that is what people fight against.

It's like telling a wealthy black women she has privilege when talking about racism and not wealth. A poor white man can still be racist and sexist. That does not take that away. The power to demean the woman, he still holds. It's weather he carries it out or not. It's weather he was brought differently to most men or not. It's about being different to the norm of what men are regardless of money privilege. Some are extreme and other aren't.

When I made my comment about the woman. That was not intersectionality. That was an equal divide between two sexes for the most likely chance of what might happen. Based on how society works. If anyone thinks thought that was intersectionality then they have no idea what it means. To think that it was what I was referring to is bonkers.

That's the point, it's not about individuals. I don't agree with you that it's a worthless concept.

Yes that's true she does live in a very real fear of rape, but is that best thought of in terms of 'privilege'? Is the power to rape women a 'privilege'?

And presumably the homeless lives on fear of freezing to death, or being beaten up and urinated on the middle of the night. How do you tot up the banker and the homeless man's privilege in order to ascertain who has more in total? What unit is privilege measured in?

Sorry I think it's a crap idea, and is actually counter-feminist because it takes the emphasis away from the concrete power dynamics in which women are raped, assaulted, prostituted, genitally mutilated and murdered every day and instead sees power as a form of capital. It's a totally neoliberal concept. The idea that a homeless man has privilege because he could rape a woman if he wanted to is just...beneath contempt, to be frank, on multiple levels. It's insulting to women, men and everyone.

The privilege issue is that the female banker has to think about the possibility of being raped more because women are much more likely to be raped. She has to change her behaviour because of it. She is limited by it. It's a class issue. Men as a class and women as a class.

It's one way of looking at the world. There are others.

What if the homeless man is raping the female banker?

Well, sure..but equally what if he isn't? See? It's a predicate that just doesn't work. You could say the homeless man has more power if he's following the female banker down a dark alley with an intention of assaulting her, but if he's just sleeping in a doorway while she walks past on the way to her 150'000 K a year job then his 'privilege' is not really the problem is it? In fact, he should justly be given a bit of hers. But even in the dark alley, he has power rather than privilege. Should we even be talking about the power to rape someone as being a 'privilege'? That's fucked up. Because it really isn't a privilege to express a hatred of women by committing one of the most evil acts there is. 'Privilege' is a perfect example of a feminist discourse that is complicit in what it critiques.

I agree with you that when you try to apply it to individuals it becomes meaningless.

Exactly, and the problem with something that can't applied to individuals is that it's an abstraction. It's got nothing to do with individualism and the identity stuff...in facts those things are often based on abstractions of privilege in that it's assumed that in identifying as one thing individuals have more privilege that those identifying as another. It's not that simple.

Power is much better. Power is real and exists concretely in concrete contexts.

A rapist has more power than his victim. But then a banker has more power than a homeless person - even if she's female and he's male.

What if the homeless man is raping the female banker?

Privilege is a valuable concept, but it only makes sense to look it as part of a class analysis. I agree with you that when you try to apply it to individuals it becomes meaningless. That is my problem with what tends to pass for intersectional feminism now. It's all individualism and "identity."

Let me ask you this. A middle class women walks into a room full of sexist misogynistic men, what do you think would happen? Would she she get the same treatment a middle class man would if he walked into the room? I doubt it.

No, of course not - and what's that got to do with my point? Because suppose she walks into a room of working-class men who aren't sexist (and they do exist, as hard as I find that to believe sometimes)? Who has more privilege in that context? Where is the room and who are the men? Are they her friends? Is this the pub? Her kitchen? The company boardroom?

Systematic privilege does not mean everyone in a particular group has more of it than those in another. You can be a man have fuck all power or privilege and be a woman and be PM.

Actually I don't really know what privilege means anymore. Anyone? At least, it isn't a quantity that can be measured. There's no easy way of ascertaining whether one person has more of it (whatever it is) than another independent of context. In certain contexts certain people have more power than others certainly, and a lot of those contexts are ones that favour male power. A pimp has more power than a prostitute. A rapist has more power than his victim. But then a banker has more power than a homeless person - even if she's female and he's male.

I think we should dispense with privilege - it's stupid.

It's great that she wants to get back to basics of old feminism, however, the world has moved on and it's moving even faster.
I agree with probably a quarter of what she says. The other points, some, sound great but might not be applicable to the current world and environment.
Take for example; eradicating capitalism. Capitalism is now global system that's interlinked. Her view on how to dismantle capitalism is regressive. Patriarchy works within that system because it's easy to ascribe gender and race in order to distribute work load and wealth within societies that it exist.
What she should focus on is tackling issues within that system. By doing that, we as a whole should be able to change it into a completely different system. No! And I don't think matriarchy is the answer. That's just taking one system and replacing it with one that mirrors the negative other. We want A system which would evolve into what it is that we want. We can't predict the future to change of events. But what we can do is help put laws and educate people in ways that would help change mindsets and structures. Whatever that structure may be. As long as it's not racist, sexist, homophobic or anyway shape or form that has a disregard for other people in which ever way big or mall. That's how you tackle issues. Taking your self away from the equation of something you can never leave is pointless. It leaves you powerless. She has her book being sold for profit. That's within the capitalist system. She has been able to do what she did because the capitalist system and patriarchy enabled that. She was able to make money and quite the social media where she lived and spouting her views. Taking her self way and creating something she thinks it's worth wild within the capitalist system.

Also, patriarchy does not have to be the driving force for how capitalism morphs into something different. With more young girls doing stem subjects, law changes, and views changes, we can only fight for space, and hope there will be even more young girls joining in. Hopefully too many that they can't be ignored. They will have to fight for there spaces but opening more for those who come through.
Let's not for get that men should join the moving and forward thinking that men are not the only people in the world. The world does not belong to them a lone and nor does race.

Our fight is for the future and not now for our selves. I say this because it takes time to see the change and most it's generational.

What I didn't like about her stance is the belief in the glory days of feminism. For me, my feminism, our feminism can only get better. My feminism walks hand in hand with racism. And any feminist think piece that comes my way will be racially evaluated too. What I found distasteful was her attack on a few people I believe have done a lot of change and good. Attacking Adichie without even mentioning her name but only looking at it from the perspective of L.Dunham. Her lack of perspective in understanding in differentiating the white women vs the women of colour and how their feminism will play out differently in our society and also, from the basis of history.
The other thing was, being oblivious that her attack on Durham does not included the racist (mysognior) take on what she and her friends thought was a feminist stand point. (Maybe it's mentioned in the book. But I doubt it because it would have been mentioned in the attacked. Unless I missed it).

A general conclusion, from reading her work, I feel that her recreation back to where she thinks feminism stoped being being feminism, to me is the turning point at which black women's voices become prominent. Black feminist discourse become scholastic. I don't want to go back where I would not have heard a voice, no! thank you! It sounds very much like trump a policy to me.

And why can't we just all agree that middle-class women effectively telling poor, working-class men to 'check their privilege' is fucking whack? Because it is. Let me ask you this. A middle class women walks into a room full of sexist misogynistic men, what do you think would happen? Would she she get the same treatment a middle class man would if he walked into the room? I doubt it.

I agree with Crispin insofar as she's saying that much third wave feminism is more about personal achievement within an oppressive system. But even she doesn't really propose anything in its place.

I don't get what feminism is about anymore, or what its overall goals are supposed to be. We still live in a shittily sexist society in which piece of shit men rape girls on video and stick it on Facebook and all a lot of feminists do is have stupid arguments about identity politics. Sure, we bitch about it, but no one is prepared to take on Facebook or the porn industry. In fact, many think the answer is for middle-class women to get jobs in Facebook, and then it'll presumably all be fine just by virtue of some women being there. Because women are like, so much more compassionate and caring than men and will make all these ruthless capitalist operations all nice and cuddly. Or is the idea of women being nicer than men not just a patriarchal myth? Why have we gone back to believing it then?

And hardly any feminists mention economics. Some give this vague suggestion that capitalism is, like, a bad thing; but they don't have any idea of what kind of an economic system would be better for women. Most of them want to just do better in the existing one and get cushy jobs in elite industries while the working-class women get all but forgotten.

Finally, while I'm loathe to defend for men, and certainly don't think it's feminism's job to do so - the kind of crass scorn with which an entire gender is regarded is not doing anyone any good. In fact, it just reinforces gender boundaries. Isn't it the feminist principle that we're all equally human? And why can't we just all agree that middle-class women effectively telling poor, working-class men to 'check their privilege' is fucking whack? Because it is.

Sorry, don't meant to ascribe any of this to people on here, just sick of the hijacking of feminism by wankers like Dunham.

This is one of the ones I remember reading. It doesn't sit with me but it's very Mn. People here would love it.

themuse.jezebel.com/a-frank-talk-with-jessa-crispin-about-why-modern-day-fe-1792367458

The whole piece is worth a read though.

A lot of the rhetoric in your book is a call to arms—this idea that “we need you on the side of radical feminism.” Do you view yourself as someone who manages to live outside of the patriarchy?

One is always trying to get to that space, right? I mean, if you have sex with a man, you’re automatically in the patriarchy, so that’s a problem for heterosexual girls like myself, but, you know, you try!

@user1490125033 there are two more articles I saw about that book. I will try and find it. That was a while ago though.

Sorry that was the wrong Jessa Crispin piece I linked to. Should have been this:

nymag.com/thecut/2017/02/self-empowerment-is-just-another-word-for-narcissism.html

All I would say is that much third wave feminism has failed to integrate issues of economic class into its analysis.

You can stick as many privileged, white women into the higher echelons of morally bankrupt neoliberal institutions as you like, but there will still be poor women cleaning their offices for a pittance. If the economy is not restructured so that all women (and men) have the time and remunerative employment to raise children either independently or on an equal footing, then there will no gender equality - or equality of any kind.

Of course, it's not that simple, but such an economic reconfiguration is the bare minimum precondition of any deeper cultural change. Cosmo fems who think it's all about getting rich quick and buying loads of stuff fail to appreciate that lots of women can't join the capitalist middle-class. Therefore, their feminism excludes women from other marginalised groups, and is therefore is not really feminist. All that 'Lean In' bollocks needs to be roundly rejected.

May I suggest some bedtime reading:

www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/the-case-against-contemporary-feminism

And this:

www.commondreams.org/views/2015/06/15/jenner-dolezal-one-trans-good-other-not-so-much

Totally agree with you GuardianLions. Great post.

An attack on "white feminism" is an attack on radical feminism.

Liberal feminism is just as white as radical feminism but it has been "defanged", as Gail Dines says, by neoliberalism + postmodernism.

It's such a dishonest tactic, to appropriate the struggle of women of colour in order to shut down second wave radical feminism. Most of the people that are lead on by this to distance themselves from radical feminism haven't read a word of what these women have written (which of course is the plan).

And then we have the no platforming of women like Bindel, Greer and Jeffreys. All radicals who are accused of being white "whorephobic" (ugh) transphobic, dinosaurs (nice bit of ageism).

It's a scam.

I watched Crenshaw's TED talk recently and I recommend it, particularly to anyone who has got a bit sick of hearing the word as it's a good reminder about the importance of the concept.

BTW - I haven't seen the RD thread, but I know that her example is often used in trans arguments to say that there''s a double standard for 'social slumming down the privilege gradient' okay along the sex axis, not okay along the race axis. I'd be interested in your thoughts about that - or maybe you could direct me to the thread?

Fauchelevent
From what I have observed over time, with the rise of popular intersectional feminism, which has really been the 'social media age' feminism, is that there appeared to have been hijacking of the movement in a deliberate effort to try to break the radical feminist movement - in my opinion -because radical feminism is the only feminism that is a genuine threat to male dominance. Lots of younger feminists were wrongly led to believe that radical feminism = white feminism - contrary to the many significant black radical feminists past and present who kick patriarchy''s arse.
We live in a sexist, racist world and I noticed all the rage and anger (by people who claimed to be intersectional feminists) about this directed at 'White Feminists/Feminism' [radical feminism] rather than at men or antifeminists.
I noticed that intersectional feminism was hijacked online by MRA''s and TRA''s posing as WoC trying to shepherd the harassment and silencing of radical feminists by intersectional feminists so as an outsider it was hard to tell who was a real person and who was being suckered in. I also noticed the sex industry had a big hand in there - rebranding sexual exploitation as sexual orientation so that 'White' ie 'radical' feminism could be called transphobic, whorephobic, racist and a product of 'white privilege'.
I agree it's annoying when people compare oppressions as though one is worse than the other, but white-dominance, just like male-dominance can be scrutinised with a radical analysis.
From what I observed about recent intersectional feminism, was too many interested and unhelpful parties jumped on the intersectional feminist bandwagon. Although I have not been part of it, I imagine that a meaningful examination of sexism/racism and how they intersect to oppress WoC would be really tough in the midst of all that.
WoC have historically had to fight to stop being sidelined in both the civil rights and the feminist movement and that obviously has to stop.
Sorry for the garbled post - I am writing on my phone.

almost all issues comes down to the setup of our society, Patriarchy and who it benefits. That includes wars, feminism, cultural, trans issues (because I believe that if they were comfortable to be who they are, they would not have the need to be women), class and others I cannot think of at the moment. In order for feminism to become a non issues, you need everyone involved to fight their own corners against patriarchy and dismantle it. If we do it alone, we hit walls after walls with lots of push backs. Raise your son a feminist. Teach young boys feminism too. Patriarchy is not just a system but a mental state of being. It's like brain-washing. You can change the system, but it's the people who will need to change to stop uprising against it. Example, how trump won.

This is how I feel. Thank you for articulating it so clearly Quencher.

Well I'm glad I wasn't missing the anatomical aspects of the hats - mainly because I would need to make a doctor's appointment to get my missing ears looked at!

I don't think anyone here has any issue with intersectionality, only 'intersectionality'.

Hell yes YetAnotherSpartacus

And there was nothing to stop them being outraged in solidarity at this affront to women

I fully admit I'm cranky and it isn't hormones. Having got that off my chest (should I say 'tits') this is what gets to the freaking heart of all this transwacktivism to me. Transwomen want us to simultaneously believe that they are women and that they are in some ways different, meaning that us natal women simply being who we are offends them and we need to pander to them like men have always expected us to. Which is it?

If they are women then surely they would stand with us and be as outraged as we are. And you know what? They'd probably be more fucking accepted by women than they are now. But instead, whilst they claim the be women they also want some extra special attention paid to them and their specialness that involves sacrifices on our part and us 'giving' whilst not receiving. No, just no. Can't they see that this is what it has been like for 1000s of years and now women finally have a public voice (which we've had for for only a little over 100 years) they want to take this away from us by robbing us of our very identity? This is patriarchy in a dress - it's the same old 'put men first', 'suck dick' and sacrifice yourself wearing a fucking frock and speaking in our name (but because women are actually the lowest of the low and everyone knows that) also making sure that everyone knows they are different and above and special (caveat - I don't mean 'old school' transexuals, just the TRAs).

Some people did have it shaped like the labia. That's the one I saw with the article

Maybe they were just not very good knitters? :)

MOstly - does your friend identify as a Leprechaun? :)