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.

LassWiTheDelicateAir - that was the entire point of Crenshaw's work and why she called her theory intersectionality. There as no way, in law, to argue against it. The legislation was well-meaning. Liberal American society was congratulating itself on its progressive moves forward. But the legislation as written, on single axes of oppression, not only failed black women, it actually and entrenched their position. Crenshaw is a legal scholar and that there was no legal argument in this case was precisely what she was writing about.

That's what intersectionality actually is - structural oppression operating simultaneously on more than one axis. If you like, the law had taken a 2D view on anti-discrimination and Crenshaw showed that to be fully effective, it had to be a 3D view.

This is why the bastardisation of intersectionality to individual feeling under postmodern identity politics is such a disaster - it's no longer about dismantling systems.

Yes lang thank you, this is what i perhaps haven’t articulated as well as i could.

Quench was probably right to call out my first post for not identifying interesectionality accurately. But i guess my initial reaction exlempified the problem.

It doesn’t actually deal with any problems and now does exactly what crenshaw was warning against. Oddly the term intersectionality seems to be imbeding failure of intersectionality (if that makes sense).

Everything is feeling increaseingly Orwellian

Disclaimer I am neither an employment lawyer nor American.

You would not argue the case with reference to the entire workforce of GM. You do not compare the factory floor with the office.

GM was discriminating against black people, men and women, by not having black employees, who were otherwise qualified to carry out those functions, in managerial and administrative roles.

GM was I assume also discriminating against black and white women by not employing women, if they were otherwise qualified, to carry out those functions , on the factory floor.

W8 - it is Orwellian. Or Through The Looking Glass. Language has been co-opted to obscure meaning and so a great many genuinely well-meaning people are voicing support for things they'd never dream of supporting if only anyone could actually talk about them clearly.

I see it misinterpreted by young women who are unversed in the basic ideas and texts of second-wave feminism- they have no idea of de Beauvoir, Greer, Jeffers, Millett, Friedan, any of them- nor do they understand class because postmodern bullshit has been poisoning academia for decades. Basically they get their feminism off Tumblr and memes. Sorry, bit grumpy today, and increasingly horrified at what's happening to women's rights.

Hi LassWiTheDelicateAir - no, the case was about "black women" as a class and none of the US anti-discrimination legislation created a protected class of "black women". This was the be all and end all of the rejection of the case. It was nothing to do with an incorrect argument, and, as I said before, that there was no possibility of a correct argument was Crenshaw's entire point. She's a legal scholar. She was writing a critique of insufficient legislation. That was the point.

Here is her paper about it, in which she introduced the concept of intersectionality:

chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1052&context=uclf

And here is her very famous later paper, Mapping the Margins, in which she explains that she intended the concept to be structural and not a matter of subjective ID pol:

www.racialequitytools.org/resourcefiles/mapping-margins.pdf

no, the case was about "black women" as a class and none of the US anti-discrimination legislation created a protected class of "black women"

That is my point. It should not have been argued about black women as a class. It should have been argued with specific reference to the constituent sectors in GM.

GM was discriminating primarily in its office against black people.

On its factory floor it was primarily discriminating on sex.

What i would argue is that it is being missused and for those of us who aren’t well versed of the theory behind it thats what it looks like. True. But I think the tipping point and why it’s hated on Mn is the trans ideology, it’s understandable and agree with this.
However, I do think for some people, it comes from a place of racism and hate. The thought that everyone is treated the same unless you are male or female (sometimes) and anyone pointing something that only affects them is an Olympian in the oppression debate. With no in between and all causes can be fought in the same way and everyone can see it. How about the little things in their feelings you can’t be special when we are not. That is definitely there in the mix and it’s undeniable. If anyone is to blame for that rise in the watering down of intersectionality, it’s that group. “What about me with this problem, I am special too”.

An interesctionalist is under pressure to ignore very disturbing aspects of oppression within cultures which specifically affect women because race trumps gender. I don’t think it’s race trumps gender but patriarchy within a race trumps gender if that makes sense. Race does not eliminate sexism within it. The males within that race set the torn and it’s difficult for women in general to fight it. Even more difficult for the women within that race who are torn between race and gender. It’s easier to cope with misogyny from your own people than some racist you believe is an outsider. “What do they know” attitude. sexism can become very mundane (I am not minimising it anyway shape or form. It just becomes everyday things that happens and part of life” while racism affects men too and with this they voice it more because they can be heard louder as group making it seem more important as it’s constantly debated. But to the female, they are suffering from both. Having a voice plays a big role. Racism that affects women of colour is not being fought by men and that exist too. “Misogynior”

think i have to go away and think about this some more. The pat yourself on the back interectionalists can go do one but there is still something niggling at me about this. The point made that for ethnic minority women, that the femists don’t want to know and the anti-racists don’t want to know rings true to me but how do we mush it together. And therin lies the problem cos in the context of asian culture conflicting with feminism there is a specific problem. Its not just about race, it is often religion, and culture as well. And women will often defend the very systems that opress them on the basis that is an assualt on their culture/religion/race, So sometimes even for women race trumps their womanhood (i fundamentally disagree with this position) Personally for me the rights of women trump all other intersectionalities (at the moment, who knows but I can’t see me changing my mind on that) My right to vote is not in doubt, my right to an education are not being questioned, my rights to medical care are not being questioned as an asian person. My rights as a woman at this point in time (with the gender bill) are. In your position, You can’t deal with all those issues as one issue. You are dealing with both patriarchy, racism and sometimes they entwined. It’s three big issues together and think of it that way. Dismantling the issues around you like you have just done is a start. Siding with one group is not going to help either because it means you will ignore an important parts of the issues you are dealing with and better ways to solve it because approaches varies, and should be applied appropriately to gain the most outcome. learning how to mentality juggle issues with one another to get a better perspective.

You should also pick what you think suits your belief. Mix and match. Just because trans people are using the same method, it does not mean the method it’s self it wrong. You don’t have to label your self with a term you feel uncomfortable using, it’s what you do that matters.

On its factory floor it was primarily discriminating on sex. Yes, the law was sex discrimination. Black women being under both was the loophole the law makers didn’t see or ignored. People at the factory either knowingly or not used that loophole to discriminate because it was possible as all areas stated by law was covered.

It is often said on here that my profession is biased against women (which I don't actually think is true) Racial diversity I am less sure of - it is not racially diverse but then neither is the general population of Scotland.

There are 4 applicants for a traineeship- a white man, a white woman, a black man and a black woman. If that job goes to the white male it might be because the employer is biased on both race and sex or it could be either or neither.

If a pattern emerges you argue the case on the dominant determinator- race or sex. If there are 20 employees and 75% are a racially diverse male group and 25% are white female you argue that the employer is initially discriminating on sex and then discriminating on race. You establish both separately- not that black woman are a separate class.

What I mean is black women have the potential to fall into 2 protected characteristics - but so do the other groups. I don't think that is a loophole.

Lass - in the General Motors case, the women had brought a sex discrimination case and a race discrimination case, had them both dismissed and then were dismissed again when they tried to bring a case combining the two. I don't know how many times I can say it, but that is the whole point of Crenshaw's work and her developing the intersectionality theory. Everything you're arguing may seem like common sense to you. It seemed like common sense to liberal Americans who cheered Title VII. It might well be common sense but it had no basis in law. That's the point. Read the paper.

I am talking from a UK perspective. Under UK law having white women in managerial and administrative roles and black men on the factory floor does not get an employer off the hook for discriminating on grounds of race and sex. UK law look at the constituent parts within the employer's business. The intersectionality is inbuilt.

If I only employ male white trainees it is no defence to say but the typing pool is all female and some of them are black.

It is often said on here that my profession is biased against women (which I don't actually think is true) Racial diversity I am less sure of - it is not racially diverse but then neither is the general population of Scotland. If the general population is not that diverse, It’s difficult to pin point if something is because of racism unless it’s overt. However, if people say lots of women find it difficult to get into that profession, the obstacle does not start from your office. Lots of issues affect women and might be leading to why you have very few women. How women are affected is the reason why you will get less promotion or high ranking women.(Not in relation to your office but general point of view) ask your self what is needed to for you to be in your job, how society view those who manage it and don’t. Why can’t they and why you? What made it possible for you, excluding intelligence ? not everyone who is clever gets to fulfil their potential because of obstacles both societal and personal.

*There are 4 applicants for a traineeship- a white man, a white woman, a black man and a black woman. If that job goes to the white male it might be because the employer is biased on both race and sex or it could be either or neither.

If a pattern emerges you argue the case on the dominant determinator- race or sex. If there are 20 employees and 75% are a racially diverse male group and 25% are white female you argue that the employer is initially discriminating on sex and then discriminating on race. You establish both separately- not that black woman are a separate class.*
but so do the other groups. I don't think that is a loophole.

I agree with all the above. However, in America seeing that they have more black people and a group of black women decided to bring a case against the company, maybe, it was because they saw a paten that was within the company. Maybe, the black men who worked along side the white people heard things being said or knew the potential of their sisters and thought they can easily do the job. Or the whole thing was an assumption and none of the black women who applied was good enough.
But the bottom line is, the company won on the fact that it’s ok to ignore black women based on race and gender because they fall into both categories which should have covered them and failed. it is a loophole because they can choose in away that would discriminate against black women under what was meant to be positive discrimination. I am guessing they had a quota for both race and women. Both quotas where filled and didn’t see black women as needed. Also, bear in mind that the jobs the men and women where doing was separate. Making it easily identifiable and each group hired to fill them.

Thanks @LangCleg

This very point being made is why people where up in arms with Lena Dunham last week in the sexual assault issue. The inability to realise they are taking said based on race and gender combined. (As a means to judge women of sexual assault based on race).

Lass - I think you are missing the point by getting hung up on the details. Initially, you said that the legal arguments must have been wrong in the GM case (Crenshaw's work would hardly have become a landmark if they were). Now you are saying that this wouldn't happen in the UK. Both things are beside the point.

The point Crenshaw was making - and therefore the original definition of intersectionality she made - is that single axis equality legislation does not cover everyone. And it's worse than not covering everyone - those groups it does not cover actually have their structural inequality enforced, not removed. That is what intersectionality is. A critique of structural and institutional efforts to combat discrimination when they are made up of multiple, single axis policies rather than intersectional, multi-axis policies.

The point insofar as this thread goes, is that the postmodern definition of intersectionality has absolutely nothing to do with this at all. It is about internal feels and not structures of oppression.

Sorry, I meant to say something else. I'll stop thread hogging after this one, promise!

This is important when we are considering self ID for the new GRA. Crenshaw's intersectionality theory will tell you that you cannot make a single axis anti-discrimination law by conflating sex and gender. Because the same thing could happen. A company could fill its quota for hiring and promoting women (who are all trans) AND its quota for hiring and promoting trans people (who are all TIMs) but at the same time employ and/or promote nobody with a female reproductive system (who are either women or TIFs).

That's why understanding that intersectionality is a structural critique not a subjective one, and important on every axis of discrimination - race, sex, orientation, social class, etc etc.

Never heard of intersections before. Sounds like a lot of worry. Really don’t see that most will care two hoots.

This is important when we are considering self ID for the new GRA. Crenshaw's intersectionality theory will tell you that you cannot make a single axis anti-discrimination law by conflating sex and gender. Because the same thing could happen. A company could fill its quota for hiring and promoting women (who are all trans) AND its quota for hiring and promoting trans people (who are all TIMs) but at the same time employ and/or promote nobody with a female reproductive system (who are either women or TIFs).

That's why understanding that intersectionality is a structural critique not a subjective one, and important on every axis of discrimination - race, sex, orientation, social class, etc etc. This ^ x forever.

The point I am making is one would not argue this case on the basis of the entire workforce of GM.

It is no defence under UK law to say "of course we don't discriminate - we might have no black men in management but look at the factory floor ; we might have no women in engineering but look at the typing pool"

If US law does not distinguish between categories of work within an employer that it is a failing of US law.

UK law and EU law operates on the basis I have described- to dismiss that as "beside the point" is rather high handed. UK and EU law has intersectionality built in.

Never heard of intersections before. Sounds like a lot of worry. Really don’t see that most will care two hoots.

Our laws are currently being changed because of this ideology.

You might not give two hoots now, but when you find an male-looking person in a space you perceive as being for women, and you challenge their right to be there, you might be surprised when you are the one in trouble for abusive language (misgendering a transwoman) and removed from the premises - or possibly find yourself being interviewed by police.

Or if you protest that the girls' netball team at your DD's school is entirely made up of boys who recently decided they were girls, and your DD who has trained for years isn't getting a look in, it's you who are in trouble for being a bigot for questioning these "girls'" identity.

Or if your DS is determined to take puberty blockers after making friends with other trans kids online, but you know he's been bullied for being gay and you genuinely fear he's not actually trans but trying to find an escape route from being bullied.

You worry he's treading a path that may cause him long term harm, including sterility, but when you try to get him to see a private counsellor you found who can work with him to explore options other than transition, the school contacts you to tell you that you're doing somethign akin to gay conversion thereapy and gets social services involved, who take a very dim view of you saying anything other than positive things abot your DS's transition, even though you are deeply concerned he will live to regret it.

Or if your teen DD very nearly gets a female-only scholarship, but you later find our several teens who were changed gender only weeks before the scholarship got awarded spaces.

Then you might wish you'd given a hoot before it was too late to stop the proposed laws.

If US law does not distinguish between categories of work within an employer that it is a failing of US law. That was the whole point of the conversation. It’s the reason why a lawyer argued the case which was denied. The concept is American by origin for the American people to understand what was going on. Other people adopted it to suit their needs in different walks of life.

In Europe/uk, it might not show in the work places because the people are protected in that way but I doubt that would cover women of colour in all walks of life because it does manifest in different forms.

While other people are arguing it’s a bad method/ideology/strategy, concept, whatever people want to call it, and making it void because it’s being used in a way they don’t agree with, both groups are making a mockery of a well meaning answer to understanding structure of oppression.

@raisinsarenottheonlyfruit
Trans issue would have still been a problem even if Intersectionality had not caught on. It’s not like it’s a new phenomenon. What is new is the policing by trans activist based on power structure from them, the mistreatment of children, invasion of female spaces and eradication of the female identity.

Black women have used different phrases in the past before and it’s intersectionality that has caught on as method, and widely being used as stated below.
“But the concept was not a new one. Since the times of slavery, Black women have eloquently described the multiple oppressions of race, class, and gender—referring to this concept as “interlocking oppressions,” “simultaneous oppressions,” “double jeopardy,” “triple jeopardy” or any number of descriptive terms.” To put the blame on the introduction of the word removes blame from us as a society and why it’s there in the first place, also, why it’s being hijacked.

To be honest there was bound to be another movement after lgb because they have gained a lot in the last 30 years. Where there is a vacuum, there is space to be filled by young movements (Not people). that space is always filled by different groups following in the footsteps of those before them. My best bet is transracial is next or those doggy lovers who see themselves as dogs and want to be treated as dogs. (Yes they do exist and the majority are in Germany)

I guess it’s how we deal with it and right now it’s not being done very well.