Can someone explain why intersectional feminism might be problematic?

[CaptainWarbeck]

My sister is big on intersectional feminism, and when she explained it to me it seemed to make a lot of sense. Some women more oppressed than others, recognise your privilege etc. Just like we tell men to recognise theirs.

I also hear Sofie Hagen taking about intersectional feminism, and again she is a big proponent.

But on these boards I see it mentioned critically and I'm not sure why.

Can someone explain? I'm keen to hear all views.

Funny you mention Sophie Hagan. I think her comedy is awesome, but her (old?) podcast is an excellent example of some of what's wrong with intersectional feminism. There was a group for following the The Guilty Feminist. Sophie welcomed in intersectional feminists and obviously wanted to create a space they could be.

Only it was a fucking car crash. It quicky became a place full of people calling each other out on not using the "right" language (even though people were obviously trying), lots of oppression olympics (where people decide their mate is the most oppressed therefore everyone else should STFU and listen to them). If you ask someone to explain the rules you'll probably get a lecture about emotional labour. Loads of people with very rigid thinking and so up their own arses they think it's absolutely fine to just being really fucking unkind to anyone who doesn't get their exact rules.

They had no respect for Sophie either! She got told to STFU too IIRC.

Sophie tried really, really hard to solve the issues. She trained up a load of new admins and tried to moderate the situation. But it was beyond saving. Her co-star Deborah came along and pulled the plug on the whole thing (I suspect because Sophie had reached the limit and I don't blame her).

Before anyone jumps down my throat - I know this is not a critique of intersectional feminst theory. It's a critique of a certain kind of person who represents intersectional feminism online. There are lots of them sadly.

Magdalen Berns does a good critique of the actual ideology, I'll dig it out...

Or, a critique of the culture of intersectional feminism perhaps.

For me, it’s because although it is generally a good idea, it only seems to apply to feminism. Race activists don’t have to be intersectional, gay activists don’t have to be intersectional, it’s only women who have to put everyone else’s feelings first before getting down to their own specific fight.

Everyone else is probably the wrong phrase. Having to fight all issues simultaneously makes it hard to fight the specific issues that are common to all women.

If you want to understand several of the criticisms of the ideology of intersectional feminism, this is an excellent place to start.

I'd be really interested to know what you think.

nowt tbh I think you were right the first time it’s only women who have to put everyone else’s feelings first before getting down to their own specific fight.

Fighting every other group's battles just means that women's rights will be pushed down the list, as the men in other groups will unfortunately become centred.
Also, it risks diluting the message, as everyone who feels strongly about feminism probably won't feel equally strongly about every other cause. E.g. race rights are important to me but class isn't such a biggie. Everyone has their own hierarchy.

The only time I've really seen intersectional feminism in action was in a babywearing group. It seemed to involve white American women "calling out" everyone else for using the wrong terms, including shouting at women of other races for apparently using the wrong labels for themselves. They then gave each other virtual high fives, whilst bullying and driving out a number of members from different racial groups. The admins removed the 'troublemakers' who wouldn't repeat the standard script and complimented the aggressive social justice warriors. The whole thing was grim.
As an aside, I'm mixed race and refuse to use the sjw preferred label "women of colour" although I didn't get involved in the arguments. I stepped in to stand up for a friend but in general I like to stick to my policy that life is too short to argue with idiots on facebook .

A contention that occurs to me is I would have no idea how to form a null hypothesis for intersectionality. In other words what would the data look like if it was an inaccurate model? Thus it becomes more like religious doctrine than rational analysis.

We are then in territory of what if we're wrong? If we misdiagnose a problem we spend a lot more time chasing our tails and arguing than arriving at tenable and actionable solutions.

‘it’s only women who have to put everyone else’s feelings first before getting down to their own specific fight.’

But it’s about other WOMEN...ALL WOMEN. It’s not about putting other people first. There are gay, disabled, non-white women who have it harder than most and it’s about recognising that and all the structures in place that mean it is twice or three times as hard if you fall into those categories.

It’s not so much that there’s something wrong with intersectionality but that the idea is being interpreted badly - in a way that obscures the original thinking around how specific and different types of discrimination meet (as at an intersection) and how it’s sometines difficult to distinguish in law the motivation for discrimination. Intersectionality is a term coined by an American academic, an African American woman named Kimberle Crenshaw. She speaks clearly and in a way that’s easy to understand in the video I’ve linked to here. I think the most unfortunate thing about the current interpretation of intersectional feminism is that it has lost sight of race/sex/disability intersections and also that the idea is meant to help those who are fighting discrimination through the courts.
Krenshaw herself says here that intersectionality is not about a pick and mix of identities.
m.youtube.com/watch?v=-DW4HLgYPlA

Goosegrass have you watched Magdalen Berns's video above?

The theory makes complete sense. But in practice it creates dictators who say things like "only poc are allowed to be angry" or "poc are allowed to be rude [to allies in a fb group]" because if oppression. They create a system of handmaidens who fawn on them and who are scared of getting cast out in the cold so when someone falls out of favour with the queen bee they join in as bullies. It's very unpleasant. Note terms like 'calling out' and 'check your privilege' are part of this culture.

It prevents solidarity and ignores multiple perspectives from an opressed group. It is condescending and elitist.

*oppressed

I agree with wrappedupinmyselflikeaspool.

Kimberle Crenshaw intended the concept of intersectionality to be a structural critique. She is a legal academic and her paper, Mapping the Margins, which introduced intersectionality, was a critique of equality legislation. The US had legislated for anti-discrimination in hiring for both sex and race. And everyone thought job well done.

Crenshaw used an anti-discrimination law suit by black women at a particular company to show that the job wasn't well done. The women lost their case because the firm employed both women (who were all white) and black people (who were all men). Therefore legislation intended to outlaw discrimination actually reinforced it at the intersection of sex and gender.

This structural concept of intersectionality has, like everything else, been hijacked by postmodernists to make it all about subjective identities when Crenshaw itself introduced it as something entirely different. I find it infuriating!

"Crenshaw herself". Sorry. Awful typo.

nancywheeler thanks for that lovey Berns film.
"They hate you" seems a fair summation.
I always wondered why 'everyday sexism' smelt funny.
Angela Davis and Magdelen Berns. Puts a spring in my sunday step, cheers

My understanding of it is that (if done well) it acknowledges that there are layers of oppression.
E.g. a white hetrosexual female is affected by being a woman whereas a BME heterosexual female has being a woman and being BME against her.

Theoretically, it's just about being aware that certain elements of discrimination against women only affect some women. (E.g. a straight woman will have a different experienve from a lesbian or bisexual woman) and it is useful to be aware of that.

Sadly, it can easily become oppression top trumps where people try to gather as many labels that make them a victim as possible (go read the bios on everyday feminism with their 'trans-gender-non-binary-femme-lesbian who is interested in the intersectional experiences of queer women of colour and writes from the perspective of someone expliring gender critical views through the medium of interpretive dance and painting with ethically sourced teabags'

God I love Magdalen Burns

It's 'divide and rule' of 3rd wave feminism. Old tricks and new names.
Like Berns said, MRA been doing this nonsense for 100s of years.

"Intersectionality does not mean everything must intersect with penis"

Not sure if it's a Berns-ism, but it's a pithy summation I came across about the misinterpretation about intersectionality.

Thank you for posting the Krenshaw video, intersectionality in her terms makes sense and I can see in her laid out example in employment law the specific problem, it's origins and a solution.

Shame it has been hijacked by identitarians.

I’m part of a vegan group on Facebook that is run by intersectional feminists, it’s a total car crash.
I’ve just scrolled down the feed and there’s someone telling someone off for saying being vegan can be cheap because what about food deserts, there’s someone telling someone off for posting a recipe where they’ve said it was healthy because what about people with eating disorders, there’s someone getting told off for posting a picture of an avocado that looks like a vagina because they said it was a woman, there’s a big discussion about whether it’s ok to say female cows get milked and there’s a woman saying she likes a tv show but is worried there might be something problematic in it that she can’t see so can people tell her if she should like t or not

I think it’s really important to listen to marginalised groups within a movement, but in feminism that doesn’t include men.

I was under the impression was the people who most vocally 'practise' it as opposed to the idea itself (which I consider to be very reasonable, especially in this day and age).

Rya has made a video about it this week too.

I’m a “POC” (i dont know why but this make me cringe, sounds like a make-up advert) so everyone hush and listen because y’know i’m mega oppressed.

Right so i do think that there are cases where other aspects of your identity can amplify discrimination you face as a woman generally. BUT structural inequality due to biology and gender norms touch ALL women. There are two seperate issues, I am focussing on race as thats what I di actually know about.

The problem is that for many asian women for example the opression they face as specifically asian women comes often from within their own communities. If you are burderned by expectations about norms that come from inside your culture, people shouting about using the right word is not going to make a difference to your actual life. The problem is actually the men who make choices for you. I am usually bewildered by the hesitation to call out asian men who are happily oppressing their wives directly and the women who put up with it (and offten enforce it on mens behalf) while screaming about white middle aged men, instead of brown middle aged men. But you can’t say that if you are white obvs. I think the intersectionality thing is dishonest.

Advocating for women benefits ALL women regardless of other aspects of their identity. Being aligned with anti-racism and pro gay rights movements is very different from taking total reponsibitiy for them. It often creates conflict between different aims. So back to brown men (i dont hate brown men, i have one, he’s lovely). An interesctionalist is under pressure to ignore very disturbing aspects of oppression within cultures which specifically affect women because race trumps gender. This is just true, Theresa May’s bloody stupid shariah panel thing where its packed full of men who are basically going to say “its great we see no evidence of women being told they have to go back to abusers” which is blatantly NOT true is a good example of this. Feminism would say every women should be able to expect immediate access to UK law courts in the event of divorce, abuse, custody etc. These are her rights and they must be respected and observed. So get yourself to court my love. An intersectionalist will worry about if they are being racist by criticising what is blatant discrimination. So they ignore it. All I’m seeing is people who are supposed to be femnisits ignoring abuses of other women just in case they get called a racist. Whereas I think an old fashioned, straight forward feminist would quite happily call a spade a spade.

Also as reasonably confortable middle class brown woman with assets and a happy stable marriage is my oppression really more than that say a white single mother who lives in poverty? REALLY?? Intersectionality encourages this idea of a hierarchy of oppression, which muddies the waters and harms women as far as I’m concerned. I dont see myself as a victim (and yes I have faced actual racism, been spat at, called a paki, been patronised - but i think that was more a woman thing) so I object to being painted as one by people who advocate apparently on my behalf while ignoring some of the biggest barriers women “of colour” face.

Theres a goodness gracious me reunion special (cant find it on youtube) where an asian woman goes to a DV shelter and the response is “i’m sorry but we can’t help you its part of your culture to be beaten by your husband”. Thats what intersectionality is to me. Nice idea but in practice it means moaning at white people while simultaneously ignoring whats wrong in ethnic minority communities.