Originally Posted by
IMPress Polly
The basic idea of Kimberle Crenshaw's theory of intersectionality is that our society imposes distinct, often artificial, identities upon various groups of people in order to maintain systems of power and that only by acknowledging the existence of those identities can you challenge the corresponding oppressions. She tirelessly recycles the historical example of an unsuccessful lawsuit against General Motors from back in the '80s when a group of black women sued the company for refusing to hire black women. The court decided that since the company hired black men to work on the floor, there was no racism going on, and since they hired white women to work as secretaries, there was no sexism going on either, even though they refused to hire black women at all. Crenshaw concludes therefore that black women constituted a distinct identity group whether as much was acknowledged in the law or not and that society needed to recognize as much in order to realize that there was, in fact, discrimination going on. That makes sense, does it not?
I'm not personally a big fan of this theory. I mean I get that example. That makes sense. But the theory is so abused. It really is. Some of the common applications thereof that I have run up against have included being labeled a First Worldist for advocating the advancement of Western women...and also being labeled a racist and/or religious bigot for advocating the rights of women in poorer countries in the Middle East and Far East. Try finding a way out of that loop!
Similarly, I've been told that feminists shouldn't support activism (like women's strikes, for example) because that's elitist; only wealthier women can afford to take off work. (That's bull$#@!, by the way. Last year in Spain, for example, 5.8 million women -- 20% of the country's female population -- participated in a women's strike on International Women's Day, to highlight a recent example of how feminist street actions most certainly can be mass events.) And all of this is before we even get into the thornier topics like gender identity (discrimination against "trans women") and the burkha (religious discrimination) and prostitution and pornography (discrimination against "sex workers", another distinct identity group, apparently), and so on and so on.
When I highlight all these things, you can see how it might be more advantageous for the women's movement to go back to being a more autonomous movement of our own wherein we can process all these things through the lens of feminist theory instead of having to always check feminist theory for, you know, offensiveness. The whole ecosystem-of-oppressions perspective really has a tendency to reduce the movement, as well as other liberation movements for that matter, to the lowest common denominators.
Awards:
Senior Member
Senior Member
Senior Member
tPF Moderator
Advisor
Posting Permissions
The Law and Justice Room
Reply With Quote