Intersectional Feminism - please explain

[NappiesNappies]

I was on my local Facebook mums group, having an idle discussion about how newspaper articles always mention if an interviewed female executive has children, but never comments on this for men in public life. It was a good robust feminist chat.

Then someone came on saying that this was exactly the type of thing that would be discussed at an upcoming local intersectional feminist conference. I asked what intersectional meant. I was told by this person that it was 'feminism that's not just for middle class white women'. She explained that it asks women 'to be aware of their privilege as white/cis-gender/heterosexual etc.' I thought about replying (particularly how the original topic was pretty solidly a concern for white middle class women) but am now afraid of doxxing after reading about it on here.

Since Spartacus I've been doing a bit of reading and realised that all my life I've been an unreconstructed second waver. I've done a fair bit of activism in the past for women in third world war zones and am horrified that this cis-gender concept is marginalising genuinely appalling things to women and girls who don't get to choose to identify out of their oppression, rape and torture.

It seems to me, though, that 'intersectional concerns' have always been a feature of progressive movements. We didn't just have that terminology. I'm a bit confused that old school feminists have been reconstructed as elitists. It seems to me that it's actually the other way around. Are there any good texts to read so I can understand the issues more clearly?

I thought the point of intersectionality was to axknowledge that women of colour, and women with disabilities face more and different challenges to white, non disabled women.

I doubt it was intended to include men....

Somewhere along the line intersectional feminism seems to have become a way of distracting and diffusing the focus of feminists to the point of inaction. At worst, the term seems to actively promote internal division and discord and the ensuing arguments make feminism look ridiculous and easier to ignore.

Totally agree, Perspicacia.

I wouldn't stress over it though. Just use it properly and take back the term.
Bringing it back to Crenshaw's writing helps ime because mostly the people misusing it haven't actually read her.

Totally agree, Perspicacia ., me too,

there was a very interesting thread on here a couple of years ago with black and Asian women talking about their personal experiences, and how, in their lives, race did play a bigger part than sex as the place where they found oppression at its most acute.

I think this is that thread. I was on it under a previous nickname.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/2316090-Feminism-for-women-of-colour

To be honest, I agree that an intersectional approach is called for when it comes to black, Asian or disabled women. But i wouldn't be falling over myself to consider the issues or experiences of transwomen intersectionally because I simply don't consider them to be women. They are men. Sorry, but there it is.

Very interesting discussion. I'm glad to have found the original concept by Crenshaw which helps untangle its original (benign) purpose and how it's been misinterpreted or misused.

Astrid makes a good point about solidarity. That was my concern with the 'identity politics' virus when at uni. It seemed to cripple people against solidarity campaigns and ended up with all sorts of navel gazing nonsense. In fact I even remember that an indigenous solidarity group, which promoted justice issues, locked itself into a room for days and emerged saying that they couldn't educate others until they'd educated themselves. FFS. Reading about what it's like on campus now, with the treatment of Magdalen Berns and that article linked on another thread that mentions trigger warnings for Sophocles..well. Words fail me. Such a disappointing, regressive environment.

I've just tried to look for details about the conference. There's nothing up about it yet, but there is an intersectional feminist workshop, the blurb of which starts with 'What is a 'woman'? What is a 'man'?' So yep, it seems to be all about smooshing up definitions of biology.

To the poster who likes the term 'one pot screamer' it does out me rather as to what part of Australia I live in. Each state has a different term for a beer glass.

Off topic, but I'm another one who loves the phrase "one pot screamer" - hadn't realised it was specific to one part of Australia.

Thanks for digging out the "women of colour and feminsm" thead, Seneca. Now that is an example of where intersectionality is useful, and white middle class feminists should listen and learn. As others have said, other issues, maybe not so much.

Thank you too Seneca and I will have a read during a long breastfeeding session.

As an aside I wonder if intersectional feminism is linked to cultural relativism, in so far as we (ie Western women) should understand and respect different (ie patriarchal and sexist) cultural traditions in the non-West.

I might be controversial here, but I've always felt deeply uneasy about oppressive clothing for women, such as the hijab, because it has been reclaimed. I've heard it said that one can't criticise it if you're not part of the culture.

As far as I'm concerned oppressive clothing, including head coverings, ARE part of my culture (Anglo/Celtic), but feminists have fought to scrap them, and many women historically have been labelled sluts (i.e. flappers) and demeaned, so we can consider it NOT part of our culture today. There was a time when widows had to cover their heads for a period of time, or cover their slutty wrists or else men would swoon I suppose.

I know that there are a lot of people on the left for whom this is an uncomfortable notion. But I feel like I don't want to apologise for disliking anything that singles women out as being required to do an uncomfortable/annoying thing.

Sorry will come back and read the thread but Ain't I a Woman Too by Bell Hooks was the first book that I read that made sense to me as far as a feminism that was for every woman.

I always find it odd that those who constantly berate feminists for not being 'intersectional' rarely do the same re other social groups such as anti-racist ones, or disability rights ones. Thus, many anti-racist groups and organisations don't pay particular attention to the special barriers faced by women, or disabled black people, etc., and they are not constantly called on this in the same way that women / feminists are.

Nappies
Don't confuse left wing politics with this new wave of identity politics.

Liberal / neo-liberal "politics" the opposite of which is totalitarian, exists on both left and right politics.

Maria Miller right wing Tory has recently tabled a motion to allow anyone to self-declare their sex at will without any need for sex reassignment surgury or any effort at all really. (a disaster for the rad-fem movement).
This was supported by my Labour left wing MP who chastised me for being non-intersectional when I argued against the motion.

Liberal identity based politics is not exclusive to the left. (Although it is more prevalent).

HermioneWeasley
Oddly Bell Hooks includes men in her re-appropriated feminism:
(Copied from a review of her book, quoting her book)

"It is a contradiction that white females have structured a women's liberation movement that is racist and excludes many non-white women," hooks states, "However, the existence of that contradiction should not lead any woman to ignore feminist issues...I choose to re-appropriate the term 'feminism' to focus on the fact that to be 'feminist' in any authentic sense of the term is to want for all people, female and male, liberation from sexist role patterns, domination, and oppression."

Well fuck. I thought I had worked out for myself what I thought about intersectionality until I read this discussion. Always messing things about in my mind, this board.

dire I'm not a feminist academic, writer or thinking so I could be wrong, but I don't think feminism is for men

I think that by rejecting gender roles and achieving equality we will gain benefits for men, but that's not the purpose of feminism

But isn't it an acceptable idea that patriarchy is damaging for men too?

I'm really really not a "won't somebody think of the menz" person and I'm not asking s rhetorical question - I thought it was a given that patriarchy is bad for everyone, not just women.

Yes, the patriarchy is damaging to men too. But feminism is not about making things better for men. Great if it does. But that's not what it's for.

Yes, I agree entirely Bertrand

Yes, what Bertrand says.

As feminists often say "patriarchy hurts men too" but the focus of feminism is not to save men from themselves.

So do any of you agree with hooks definition as I've quoted above? I'm not sure it's explicitly stating that feminism is "for men"

I accept that there is an issue with the public face of feminism being too white and middle class.

I do not accept that this should be solved by redefining feminism to mean "women should take on everyone else's struggle and if there's any time left after than then maybe there'll be some space to look at women's oppression"

I think that our burden, as thinking people, is much higher than that of our foes. They can say, "Life's not fair".

We have to work out things like intersectionality.

I think there's an additional problem in that a lot of people insist on reading "intersectionality" as "hierarchy", then (what a surprise) placing women's rights at the bottom of the hierarchy. Which is not to say that in individual people's lives, they will experience some forms of discrimination more acutely than others. But I do resist attempts to turn these variations in lived experience into a one-size-fits-all list of what we should and shouldn't be fighting against.

I will listen when a black woman tells me that her lived experience is that racism has a much more detrimental effect on her life than sexism.

I will not listen when a white dude (thinking in particular of some Guardian columnists here) tells me I should prioritise the fight against racism, or the fight for white working class men, or the fight for trans rights, above my own personal fight over pay discrimination in my own work place.