|
Qwazes posted:That's a bit silly. If that's the standard, we shouldn't do anything for anyone. There's a theory that time and effort is best spent on raising those worst off, and that less marginalized groups will benefit from the process along the way. This argument is pretty essential to intersectional third-wave feminism and is why it's considered acceptable to ignore/deprioritize white feminists and their main issues if it benefits black feminist etc. So, the number of trans people versus the number of gay people becomes irrelevant. Of course, not all feminists agrees with this approach.
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2014 14:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 03:20 |
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:Deprioritizing white feminists is one of those stated goals in activist circles that never seems to amount to much. My experience has been that no matter how much time is devoted to black or latina women it's never good enough. I attended the first gathering of the Florida SDS a year ago. The students packed as many POC presentations into the meeting as they could muster, to the point where they were bumping off presentations by white students to make room for minority students who decided at the last minute that they wanted to give presentations too. This, of course, in addition to a privilege walk, privilege stacking questions from the audience, as well as actively denying additional input from white students beyond an arbitrary point (whatever the facilitator felt like). It's a theory well liked by POC feminists and white feminists privileged enough to afford that kind of idealism (which, granted, is a great many of them). I can see why white feminists who are actively being marginalized, victimized and oppressed might be less than enthused. I can also see why white feminists academics who are used to having their voices heard might dislike it. I'm sure the former group dislikes being lumped in with the latter. Somebody who's a real believer in intersectionality would probably agree that there never can be enough minority voices. I mean, the theory can be simplified and summarized as seeing marginalization happening on multiple intersecting axes. Focusing on those disadvantaged on multiples axes (gay women of color for instance) and addressing their issues will then logically raise those who are only disadvantaged on one axis as well. However, focusing only one one axis at a time (even if they happen to be one where a lot of injustice is being done) would result in some people falling by the wayside. It makes a certain amount of sense as a theory, although I have no idea how effective it is in practice as I'm just a dudebro spectator with a passing interest.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2014 17:40
|
|
|
Space Whale posted:Which is why no matter how hard you try you're still going to think "that wasn't enough." Well, they do have goals. The agenda is not all that different from what we're used to after all, the focus is just broader and less immediately relevant to white straight middle class feminist women. Intersectional feminists are still going to demand more time and power, and in theory that's a good thing if intersectionality works the way it should. At this time it basically incorporates all of "social justice" anyway so if you've got trouble seeing how feminist white women in college could be considered oppressed intersectionality might be just the ticket (increased focus on disabilities, trans issues, sexual minorities, racism etc). As for a pushback, I'm afraid I don't see quite where you're going. Are you talking about a pushback from white feminists? I mean, the logical end-point of intersectionality is that the movement ends up being run completely by people who's disadvantaged on multiple axes so white people will have a greatly diminished role. There seems to be a little bit of it, mostly from people who were not that tolerant to begin with, or from people who have something to lose, but academia seems pretty on board. As for a pushback from the rest of society there's really no need. I'm talking out of my rear end now, but I am guessing that Feminism will probably continue in pretty much the same path no matter who's at the wheel. People who are anti-Feminism are generally nutjobs, and the nutjobs that exist within Feminism itself and want an armed anarchist revolution or whatever can't ever rally enough support to get it off the ground.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
hepatizon posted:I don't get this. If the issues are unique to gay women of color, nobody else benefits. If they're not unique and are instead shared with women, gay people, and people of color, then addressing even one of those axes will still benefit gay women of color. Basically, if you focus on the issues facing "poor gay black trans women" you'll address the the issues of gay people, black people, trans people, poor people and women, as well as those special issues that can arise in the intersection between these axes. If the main focus is "women" the special issues facing those who exist in the intersection will never be addressed and the focus is more likely to be on the majority (white women). thotsky fucked around with this message at 18:55 on Dec 10, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
Space Whale posted:If the point is "Demand more, forever" eventually it's going to end up in an eternal tug-of-war. Sure, but that's basically politics in a nutshell is it not? hepatizon posted:What does it look like, policy-wise, to focus on issues faced by poor gay black trans women? I don't understand how that can be solved without breaking it down into single-axis problems. I honestly cannot say for sure, as I'm really no expert on how these theories are being used, but I'm guessing it means a more nuanced approach when inquiries are made in regards to inequality and a more diverse range of policy changes. It's probably more about the viewpoints that end up not being explored. By adding more context to the data used to inspire new policies they can address more diverse needs.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2014 19:19
|
|