But realizing that society is more complex than simplistic generalizations is exactly what intersectionalism is. You start off by criticizing it, and then end by saying that it’s exactly what we should be doing.
Yes, now you’re catching on to the idea. Well, aside from animals; that’s a whole different issue.
I find this strange. I’m not any type of liberal and typically only stumble across things written from a liberal point of view, and yet have seen articles talking about intersectionality at least once a month for the past two or three years.
For some reason the quoting isn’t working
The fact that I never heard them be mentioned
Yeah I guess I do think in such a very clever way, thanks…
Nobody answered my other 2 questions.
If anything, it’s a lesson in anecdotes, data and confirmation bias.
The world is big, and you are only aware of a tiny sliver of it.
Here’s the head of the Democratic Party (Keith Ellison) declaring that the Democrats must enthusiastically embrace intersectionality.
And here’s how the commentator in that article refutes Ellison’s claims:
“intersectionality means that once you’ve accepted that everything is racist, consistency demands that you also accept everything is sexist, everything is transphobic, everything is Islamophobic, and so on and so forth. Think of it as the grand unified theory of victimhood.”
The key word here is “Victimhood”.
As **Alessan[/]b said upthread–intersectionality may be a decent concept for professional sociologists to discuss.
But when the concept gets used in political discussions, it becomes a very,very dangerous issue. Because it always turns into a discussion of victimhood.
It is identity politics gone crazy.
Why does that column include a video where he never uses the word and fail to provide a link or any additional context?
Oh, because it’s written by a conservative opinion writer who wants to work in terms like “brand of progressive radicalism”. Never mind.
I don’t even refute the notion that Ellison has ever used the term or spoke about it but it’s a huge leap from “Here’s a time he said a few lines” and “OMG OBSESSION”
I think I understand where you are coming from now.
Bye.
lol
The fact that many older traditional rights-oriented liberals are unaware of what has happened in postmodern leftist social theory in the past 30 years is not something to take pride in, any more than the ignorance over right wing sentiment made the election of Trump such a shock. We’re not just talking about a tiny fringe minority of professors in ivory towers here, it’s the dominant paradigm now in academia, so it’s the hearts and minds of a generation of young people. The obsession (yes, obsession) with identity politics, and taking fine ideas like intersectionality to absurd extremes, all of this is a serious issue on college campuses. Among other things, it lies behind the crisis over free speech. Dismiss it and ignore it at your peril.
Again
Hahahahaha
I think I may see the problem.
You are approaching intersectionality as if it were a scorecard, and whomever can check off the most boxes gets to the top of the “ladder” or otherwise runs the oppression sweepstakes.
I admit to not giving a tinker’s fuck for what intellectuals are writing recently but my layperson’s understanding of the concept is to remind us to take another person’s situation and background into account when making judgements or attempting to help.
Would you mind answering the questions still???
No, because your premise is unconnected with the real world, rendering your questions nonsensical.
How???
Isn’t that the main function of intersectionality?
But of course, everyone can tick off the same number of checkboxes. Yes, blacks have issues that they have to deal with that whites don’t have to deal with, and women have to deal with issues that men don’t have to deal with, and black women have to deal with issues that black men and white women don’t have to deal with, and so on. But by the same token, whites have issues that they have to deal with that blacks don’t, and men have to deal with issues that women don’t, and white men have issues that white women and black men don’t, and so on. Now, it so happens that the issues that white men have to deal with are a heck of a lot less onerous than the ones that blacks and women have to deal with, but there are still some. And intersectionality means looking at those issues, too.
If minority men, white women and gay white men were playing an opression game, which one trumps which? Some argue homophobia is even a bigger issue than racism. I guess the hip hop culture says it all.
Don’t you get it? The Right gets to define the frame, create the context, and tell you which questions make sense, you silly Left person!
Now, defend Obama’s support for replacing the Green Berets with trans PoC FAs. Go.
OK, a more serious take on the thread as a whole:
There’s a difference between Academic Positions and Vulgar Positions, where Academic Positions are defined as being the ones academics write papers about and Vulgar Positions are the ones average people who support those Positions use in day-to-day discourse, especially in discussions with others. This is a convenient feature: Academic Positions are nuanced and logically defensible, whereas Vulgar Positions are simple, pugnacious, and useful in street-fight debates where you primarily want to shut down the person you’re opposed to.
Intersectionality has a Vulgar form: “Check your privilege!” In the Academic sense, that statement is, at most, a gentle reminder to examine the totality of a situation before judging it. In the Vulgar sense, it’s a way to shut someone down by stating that they’re “privileged” and are, therefore, unworthy of having a judgement at all. In the Academic sense, saying someone is “privileged” is nonsensical, or perhaps tautological, in that everyone has some position where they’re privileged and some positions where they’re disadvantaged, so saying that a person is privileged is not very meaningful. In the Vulgar sense, “privilege” absolutely does adhere to individuals, and people with “privilege” must never disagree with those without.
(It’s probable all political philosophies which have gained any kind of traction have this Academic/Vulgar divide. I know Right Libertarianism does, as does Socialism.)
Anyway, the Academic form is the only one officially acknowledged to exist, whereas the Vulgar form is the lived experience, the one which drives actions and policies. Therefore, the Vulgar form is never seriously discussed, because when you mention its features, the person you’re discussing it with will deny that their philosophy has those features, as, indeed, the Academic form does not.