In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

The meaning of intersectionality

Caperton

Update, bright and early 9/6: So, you know when you pull out a concept the implications of which you think you understand, but you really don’t, and people keep trying to tell you you don’t, but you don’t understand the concept enough to see what you don’t understand, and then someone says one sentence that makes everything clear and you realize exactly how much you’ve been offending people, and you feel awful? No, just me?

Thank you for everyone who’s gone to such effort to educate me when it’s really not your responsibility. I’m going to leave this thread open for further discussion on interaction between various interests groups and activist organizations, because Grothe’s comment is a good one and his understanding of skeptical activism is sound and valid. I’m going to step away from the subject of intersectionality, though, as my understanding obviously is neither sound nor valid, and will try to revisit it in another post after I’ve educated myself enough to do it justice. I’m really sorry, y’all.

———

The subject of intersectionality is a big one right now, no more so than on this very blog. No one exists in a vacuum, and any given post has an impact on that post’s specific subject(s) and target audience, but informed by and rippling out to the blog’s general readership and the community it serves.

I heard an interesting perspective on intersectionality–and separation–from D.J. Grothe last night on a panel about skeptical activism. Grothe is a skeptic ( president of the James Randi Educational Foundation), an atheist, and a gay man. He said (and I paraphrase, hopefully accurately) that despite his own GLBTQ activism, he wouldn’t go to his colleagues in his official capacity and say, “Hey, we’re all progressive, we’re all open-minded, and we should put our strength behind this rally for gay marriage tomorrow,” because it falls outside the stated mission and limited resources of JREF. However, if a group were to (as they have) campaign against GLBTQ adoption on the basis of bogus, pseudoscientific claims, it would be not only within their mission but arguably their responsibility to respond, often in a way an expressly GLBTQ-rights group might not.

So now I put it to you (I’m too pretty to write my own posts, so my readers have to do it for me): What is your definition of intersectionlity? What is any one community’s responsibility to the adjacent and overlapping communities? How is it different for an organization with a defined mission statement versus a broader, more individualized movement? Where does “one for all and all for one” meet “every man for himself”?

48 thoughts on The meaning of <strike>intersectionality</strike>

  2. I think there should be separate movements for every cause, and then an individual person can affiliate themselves with as many movements as they like. I think feminism should continue to be defined as working for gender equallity, for example, not helping the polar bears and freeing tibet and ending poverty and oh yeah, throwing women a few crumbs. If you try to help everyone at once you won’t get anywhere. Every oppressed group deserves their own movement aNd organizations, and then if people want to belong to more than one they can, I think.

  3. The short answer is that it depends. But what I will say, having lived in Washington, DC, long enough, the value of intersectionality could not be higher. Organizations with similar values and intentions could easily partner with each other to make greater and more profound breakthroughs. They don’t, and that’s often because everyone wants to be the King or Queen of his/her Kingdom, rather than work alongside someone else.

    And, a degree of micro specialization common here is often based the notion that one ought not to be “a jack of all trades and a master of none.” I’ve never liked that saying because I think it’s better to make an attempt at being well-rounded than to be so exclusive. I don’t see us all being specific widgets or cogs in the work.

    Most people don’t have a single-track intellect. There are intersections in multiple subject areas. The posts here are part sociology, part psychology, part history, part Women’s Studies, and bits and pieces of lots of other things thrown into the meld. Feministe would be boring if the writers stuck to one particular topic all the time.

  4. I corun a blog, NSWATM, about “masculism”, which I define as male-oriented gender egalitarianism (the same way that feminism tends to be female-oriented). I’m often concerned about intersectionality in my writings, in a couple of different ways:

    1) Trying to get a multiplicity of perspectives of men from different groups. Being an able-bodied gay black British trans man is very different from being a disabled straight Asian American cis man. Their relationship to, say, the stereotype that men can’t be caregivers for children is very different. Sometimes we fail (often we fail!) but I at least try to make an effort.
    2) Whether to concentrate on ways that sexist norms harm women too. The whole point of my blog, of course, is that Patriarchy Hurts Men Too. But it’s difficult to write about Patriarchy Hurting Men Too without erasing the experiences of women whom patriarchy hurts– especially given the tendencies in that direction of some of our commenters anyway.
    3) Paying attention to other oppressions. When QUILTBAG issues or race issues or religious issues intersect with masculism or shine a light on a particular point, we blog about them.
    4) Shutting the fuck up. I’m a female-bodied rich white person. I do not know about the prison-industrial complex or constructions of masculinity among black people in the ghetto. While there are masculist issues related to those issues, I need to shut the fuck up and let the people who actually know shit about the issue talk.

  5. I find it amusing that you’re writing a post about intersectionality. Those who don’t check their privilege and fail at protecting women are the last people who should be discussing it from a point of view that they UNDERSTAND IT. Of course even those that DO understand it fail to admit they are promoting racio-misogyny — not acknowledging OR dismantling it. If you’re going to even attempt at having a LEGIT conversation about intersectionality then at least give a thorough overview AND credit the esteemed Kimberle Crenshaw [an African-American woman who SHOULD be on the Supreme Court right now!!!] for coining the term in the first place.

  6. I think it’s really important to support other activist movements, because none of us are just women, or just people or colour or just queer or disabled etc etc so it makes no sense for (for example) women’s rights activists to separate themselves from anti-racist activism.

    er at least i think that’s what you’re talking about?

  7. In theory, intersectionality is the holy grail, but in practice, patriarchy is so insidious that it makes us believe intersectionality doesn’t exist.
    It pits the organizations against each other–using the hierarchy as the answer.

    We would get so much done if we could use intersectionality in practice, but we humans are so resistance to change that we are forced to re-create the hierarchy and change it rank by rank.

  8. Everyone has different ideas about what intersectionality means. Some people think an working for equality of a specific group of people should also work towards equality for all other groups of people who are treated less than equally.
    Some people think they own the word intersectionality or that it has one single god given meaning, which is why it seems better to talk about cross issue organization in the context of cross issue organization instead of intersectionality, and all its baggage.
    Some people think that groups should work to equalize themselves, but also work together occasionally with groups working for other groups as a greater unit.
    Some people leave the discussion of issues they don’t really understand well to people who do and link that as a blog roll type thing, and some people get pissy that people in one place don’t talk about their issues enough, even if they have links to people who do.
    I prefer to allow an organization to define its own mission, and let people in that organization who have other missions join other organizations who also have those missions. And of course the mission of one organization could have inclusive combinations such as all PoC and all Atheists and all Women, or exclusive ones like, all PoC Atheist Women.
    If a group prefers to stick to Atheism, and a member wants to talk about something else, they are free to find an organization which wants to talk about what they want, or start one.
    Some people disagree, and that is fine. This is called tolerance.

  9. anna: an individual person can affiliate themselves with as many movements as they like. I think feminism should continue to be defined as working for gender equallity, for example, not helping the polar bears and freeing tibet and ending poverty and oh yeah, throwing women a few crumbs. If you try to help everyone at once you won’t get anywhere. Every oppressed group deserves their own movement aNd organizations, and then if people want to belong to more than one they can, I think.

    But how can you possibly separate “gender issues” from stuff like poverty?

  10. anna:
    I think there should be separate movements for every cause, and then an individual person can affiliate themselves with as many movements as they like. I think feminism should continue to be defined as working for gender equallity, for example, not helping the polar bears and freeing tibet and ending poverty and oh yeah, throwing women a few crumbs. If you try to help everyone at once you won’t get anywhere. Every oppressed group deserves their own movement aNd organizations, and then if people want to belong to more than one they can, I think.

    That’s the thing. Women have different experiences and face different problems in terms of sexism depending on their race, ethnic group, religion, economic status, weight (sadly), etc. There is no way to focus on gender equality without taking intersectionality into consideration because if you ignore the other problems women face then you wouldn’t be able to fully work on gender inequality because what one woman faces is not what another woman faces. If you know about feminism then you should already know this. For example, working for gender equality is going to have to happen different ways when working with different types of women. Working with Black women is completely different than working on gender equality with a White woman, or with a transwoman, or with a poor woman who can be a mix of all of the above. You’re going to have to take racism, transphobia, homophobia (lesbian women) into account. You can’t ignore those problems and that is where problems begin, because many people like to pretend they don’t exist. If you ignore those problems then you can’t fully work on equality with those groups of people. In a way, I kind of find your comment a bit rude. It sounds like something a middle class White woman (which is the demographic it was historically geared towards) would say because obviously why would a woman who lives in poverty think feminism should be all about woman and not about working against poverty. There is no way to focus on one problem because a lot of social problems are intertwined and you can’t ignore one while focusing on another.

  11. Ciara:
    I think it’s really important to support other activist movements, because none of us are just women, or just people or colour or just queer or disabled etc etc so it makes no sense for (for example) women’s rights activists to separate themselves from anti-racist activism.

    THIS!!! You said it a lot better than I did.

  12. anna:
    You mean every person for themselves.

    I think she meant “every man for himself,” a common expression which she was quoting. How do I know she was quoting? She put the expression in quotation marks.

  13. Now that the pedantry is out of the way, to answer Caperton’s original question, I think that organizations should be able to stray from their original mission statement if the cause is one that the members agree is worth dealing with.

    For example, if there was a serial killer targeting creationists, as a member of a skeptic organization, I would feel that was speaking out against, even if as an organization we believe the world would be a better place with fewer creationists.

  14. I’ve been thinking a lot about this topic, lately. I care about a lot of issues and different forms of oppression, but I think it’s impossible to spread passion, time, and–perhaps more than anything–knowledge equally among all of these concerns and do them all justice.

    At the same time, I think that systems of oppression are connected so deeply that fighting one is connected to fighting the others, just as promoting one is connected to promoting the others.

    For that reason, intersectionality should be an important tool for progress, but that can only happen if we don’t view progress as a zero-sum game.

  15. BalancingJane: That’s a tremendously important point. To fight classism, you must fight racism. To fight homophobia, you must fight sexism. The oppressions are interlinked enough that to end one of them is to end all of them.

  16. why is there a blog post about intersectionality with not one mention of the women of color activists generally or black women specifically that created the theory, applied it in their work and complexified and nuanced it in the 100+ years of academic work and organizing?

    if there was mention of some of that work, it might be more obvious that intersectionality is not a pomo attempt at deconstructing the “feminist movement” into non-existence–but is instead, as mentioned above, a theoretical framework used to better understand the multiplicity of gender. That is: rather than women having to work for racial equality and polar bear equality and sunshine equality–it is instead a way to understand how race IS gender IS race. if you shift who is at the center of the analysis–you see that white supremacy *is a function of patriarchy* and vise versa. The reason Planned Parenthoods are under such violent attack right now is because nationalism is running rampant throughout the US. And what is nationalism but the *control of who is allowed to reproduce* within the borders of the nation/state?

    And the point of this analysis is NOT to say ok, we must now organize for every movement and spread ourselves super thin for everybody but feminists! but to say–how can thousands of us who are interested in ending violence against women in all it’s manifestations *coordinate* our work into a powerful grassroots base? So; if Chicanas need a strong US government to enforce labor protections in the fields–but Native women need tribal sovereignty to enforce anti-rape laws within the tribe–how can Chicana and Native women begin to coordinate their work in such a way that they don’t negate each other or make things worse–indeed, transform and connect both communities in ways that are lasting and powerful?

    This work is not done as a way to be “inclusive,” it is not done as a way pomo organizing into it’s most dream like state–it’s a *practical* response to *practical* needs of community members that more often than not do not have the resources we’re told we need to organize, and so must find ways to work with other communities. it’s about creating a *world wide movement* of transformative change rather than overworking all the feminists even more.

  17. I don’t think intersectionality is a tool (although the naming of the concept is certainly incredibly useful) so much as a reality. From a systems-oriented perspective, we all exist within layered, dynamic, interdependent systems and, to be effective, our activism must reflect this reality. I don’t like the idea of picking and choosing between which “causes” or “movements” I will support (too formal and rigid), but rather try to identify a coherent set of beliefs and do my best to keep my actions consistent with them in every aspect of my life. I’m not aiming for perfection, but to minimize hypocrisy, and I’m counting on the fact that while I can’t fight every fight, as a member of the diaspora of activist communities, my actions contribute to a larger social force that will resist and check other social forces that operate in similar ways – like capitalism, nationalism, etc. Intersectionality reflects my reality as a complex, multifaceted person with myriad changing relationships with the complex, multifaceted people around me. If I boiled everything down to a single narrow approach, I’d be limiting my ability to interact with those informal activist networks.

    But that’s just what it means to me.

  18. Faith:
    I find it amusing that you’re writing a post about intersectionality. Those who don’t check their privilege and fail at protecting women are the last people who should be discussing it from a point of view that they UNDERSTAND IT. Of course even those that DO understand it fail to admit they are promoting racio-misogyny — not acknowledging OR dismantling it. If you’re going to even attempt at having a LEGIT conversation about intersectionality then at least give a thorough overview AND credit the esteemed Kimberle Crenshaw [an African-American woman who SHOULD be on the Supreme Court right now!!!] for coining the term in the first place.

    Lol, this.

  19. Intersectionality, as I understand it, says separating an individual’s identity into separate parts, such as race, gender, sexuality and class, is problematic. Suppose someone is a trans woman of color. You shouldn’t view her trans identity as separate from her racial identity. They both are a part of who she is; society marginalizes her not only for being a trans woman and for being a woman of color, but also for being a trans woman of color.

    For example, African American women face not only some of the issues that white women face and that African American men face, but also issues that are unique to African American women. If there are two social movements, one dedicated to ONLY white women’s issues and the other dedicated to ONLY African American men’s issues, then an African American woman would still be marginalized in ways that are not addressed by either group.

    Thus as others have pointed out feminists cannot examine “just” gender. Race, class, sexuality and various other things contribute to the ways that women are marginalized. Feminists need to make sure that feminism isn’t a movement only for educated white women. If incorporating other women’s experiences is too hard, then we should at least do them the favor of changing the name from “Feminism” to “Rich White Feminism.”

  20. bfp:

    This work is not done as a way to be “inclusive,” it is not done as a way pomo organizing into it’s most dream like state–it’s a *practical* response to *practical* needs of community members that more often than not do not have the resources we’re told we need to organize, and so must find ways to work with other communities. it’s about creating a *world wide movement* of transformative change rather than overworking all the feminists even more.

    I want to second everything that BFP said, but particularly this point. For me, intersectionality can sometimes look entirely different to inclusion. Being truly intersectional doesn’t just mean adding more women of colour to white feminist organisations, or even expressing solidarity with other organisations. A commitment to intersectionality, especially from groups experiencing relative privilege, demands a vulnerabilty to change. It means having to abandon, deprioritise or substantially alter certain goals and ways of organising, even when those goals might seem important or convenient.

    A lot of my organising and activist work is within the queer movement, so I’m going to speak to that because it’s what I have experience with, but it’s like the way the push for marriage equality has so massively failed on the trans* rights front. It’s not enough for mainstream QuILTBAG orgs to stop saying “same-sex marriage” or find trans* speakers for their rallies, intersectionality in this case might mean actually deprioritising marriage entirely in order to focus on medical, mental health and housing access (which, not-really-coincidentally, are also vital issues for disabled queers).

  22. bfp:
    This work is not done as a way to be “inclusive,” it is not done as a way pomo organizing into it’s most dream like state–it’s a *practical* response to *practical* needs of community members that more often than not do not have the resources we’re told we need to organize, and so must find ways to work with other communities. it’s about creating a *world wide movement* of transformative change rather than overworking all the feminists even more.

    I think that is what I was most hoping to examine in this comment thread: What the work looks like in practice. What the actual, tangible activities look like that enable two (or more) overlapping groups to share resources and efforts in a constructive way. Because it’s easy to say, “Feminism should recognize and respect the unique experiences of all women and support them in their efforts,” and then sit back with a smile of satisfaction in a job well done. It’s another thing to actually act on it. And while I’m hardly an expert on the subject, I’m sure you’re right that the activist efforts of black women who had to work largely unassisted to have their issues addressed and validated as an integral aspect of the feminist movement as a whole is a great example.

  23. I’m big on the concept of familia, and “you mess with one of us, you mess with all of us”, so intersectionality to me is just redefining who the “us” is. And that takes realizing that everyone has multiple identities, which means multiple ways to connect us with someone else.

    It’s a lot to ask someone to fight for a stranger–but fighting for your sister? Your cousin? Your neighbor and friend? Much easier.

  24. Caperton: I think that is what I was most hoping to examine in this comment thread: What the work looks like in practice. What the actual, tangible activities look like that enable two (or more) overlapping groups to share resources and efforts in a constructive way. Because it’s easy to say, “Feminism should recognize and respect the unique experiences of all women and support them in their efforts,” and then sit back with a smile of satisfaction in a job well done.

    But the thing is, feminism DOESN’T support all women in their efforts. For example, there have been many commenters here who are not White/cis females who have stated that feminism doesn’t help support them, and may in fact harm them/their efforts (like the discussion of BWE on another thread by Miss S). As another example, I’m sure that Sarah Palin has had unique life experiences (such as being the VP candidate for a US presidential ticket that got the highest percentage of votes ever- arguably the closest to the White House), and she’s identified as a woman, but I wouldn’t say that this site or feminism in general does/should support her in her efforts.

  25. twisty, over at blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com, just wrote a piece about intersectionality today. check it out! i’m sure the comments will be plenty and varied.

  26. On a purely practical, rather than theoretical level, using the original example, there are a few observations that come to mind as current barriers to greater intersectionality: logistics, expertise/education, and blur/breakdown.

    1. If being a member an activist group implies a very specific umbrella of action, then the desire to support other causes may mean you need to join other groups. You may not have the time, money, childcare or other resources to be involved in multiple groups, hence people are often forced to choose between causes to support. The groups themselves also may not have the resources to support broader issues.

    2. Groups that specialize tend to accrue the most information, develop the best arguments, and have personal narratives that speak powerfully to the change that needs to happen. Larger umbrella groups don’t often seem have the same ability to persuade people with the same fervor as single-issue groups. People seem to respond strongly to key struggles in their lives, and it’s not always easy to convince them that there are other issues that connect or are intertwined or can be addressed in a broader way.

    3. The example of “should the atheist group be supporting gay marriage” is a good case in point. As the central core of the group concern moves outward the chances that issues blur or people become uncertain about the focus increases. Perhaps certain atheists support gay marriage. What if some support it as a state institution but not as a religious concept? What if some actually don’t support marriage as a state institution either? What if some atheists are flat out homophobes or bigots?
    (As we’ve seen recently with “Elevatorgate”, clearly just because people are supportive of one issue doesn’t mean they
    get” other issues, or see the relevance thereof). Single issue groups seem to be clearer in their aims.

    All this said, I don’t know what the best route is towards addressing these weaknesses and creating effective and broad social justice movements. I’m eager to hear what people have to say.

  27. I’m sure that Sarah Palin has had unique life experiences (such as being the VP candidate for a US presidential ticket that got the highest percentage of votes ever- arguably the closest to the White House), and she’s identified as a woman, but I wouldn’t say that this site or feminism in general does/should support her in her efforts.

    Melissa at Shakesville has said at least twice that I’ve seen: I disagree with {inset latest misogynist hate speech} even though I oppose everything Palin stands for, because that’s what feminists do. (Paraphrase).
    But that doesn’t mean “support her in her efforts”, that is, support her in her push to roll back just about every progressive facet of US life.
    “As a feminist, you hafta support Palin/Bachman/etc cause she’s a *woman*” is a 101 mistake.

  28. I cosign to everything bfp said, and give a shout-out to Italian and Sicilian immigrant comari in the labor movement (socialists, communists, anarchists, syndicalists) who were speaking along these lines back in the early 1900s (like Virgilia D’Andrea, who in her many appearances at rallies urged workers to oppose nationalism and imperialism “based as it is on colonial conquest and the subjugation of peoples of color.”)

    Why were all of these different groups of women, across time, place and race, speaking the same language of intersectionality? Because it was experiential, as bfp noted—based on their immediate needs and recognizing that they weren’t alone in those needs and in their oppression. They were thinking globally because they had to, and because they had a background framework for examining their oppression through a global lens.

  29. If YOU don’t understand it Caperton, YOU SHOULD DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH ON YOUR OWN TIME. Stop appropriating the work of the very same black women who’ve fought for social justice you playing connect-the-dots? This is ridiculous! DO your homework and stop trying to foist the heavy labor on others. Black women are NOT yours…or Feministe’s BEASTS OF BURDEN to USE and DISCARD. You are the last person who has anything significant to say on the subject with ANY authority. You ARE an example of those who play-act in engaging in legit, nuanced, transparent, HONEST conversations when you and others who deny and excuse your participation [via APATHY] your unexamined racio-misogyny. Answer for THAT and then you will the first gestures regarding intersectionality.

  31. In theory I agree with bfp. The problem is, in my experience, what happens when woman-centered organizations try to reach out to and work with other social justice organizations is that yes, priorities get reevaluated. And usually, the issues that primarily concern women get put on the back burner. Most of my experience is with either socialist or LGBT groups, and in both cases that’s what happens. Ever sat in a socialist meeting and watched a bunch of dudes completely ignore the gendered nature of poverty and declare that any issues that affect poor women specifically can wait till after the revolution? It’s infuriating, and it’s also very common.

    So I think a lot of the resistance to intersectionality from feminist groups is based on that – those of us who’ve also worked with other social justice movements are painfully aware of the fact that when a whole bunch of issues are put on the table at once, it tends to be the ones that primarily affect women that get de-prioritised.

  32. @ Caperton:

    Yes. You really should have done your research. Type in intersectionality on google–the first link at the top of the page (a wiki article), or even the second. You don’t even have to read the whole article, it’s right there in the blurb on the google.

  33. Agree with Faith and bfp. Bhuesca made a good point, similar to what Faith said on the other post. When groups have different and sometimes opposing goals, there’s no way of working together and having your needs met, unless it’s at the expense of someone else. Historically, it’s been black women whose needs were put on the back burner and promptly forgotten about.

  34. miga:
    @ Caperton:

    Yes.You really should have done your research.Type in intersectionality on google–the first link at the top of the page (a wiki article), or even the second.You don’t even have to read the whole article, it’s right there in the blurb on the google.

    I wasn’t really looking for the definition of intersectionality–obviously, as you pointed out, that’s available at the touch of a Google. I was looking for a discussion from a more personal standpoint of Feministe readers as individuals. As I mentioned in the post, it’s a topic that’s come up a lot lately, notably on the Michael Vick post but also in comments about transphobia and homophobia on the Period Sex post. Because there are so many different concerns represented in Feministe’s readership, I thought it would be interesting to hear different perspectives from individuals as to where they see themselves within the feminist movement and how they see their needs being addressed and not addressed.

  35. CassandraSays: In theory I agree with bfp. The problem is, in my experience, what happens when woman-centered organizations try to reach out to and work with other social justice organizations is that yes, priorities get reevaluated.

    that hasn’t been my experience. but then again, when the work that needs to be done to end violence against women of color and their communities in all it’s manifestations is so *huge*–i’m not sure why the natural inclination is to immediately go organize with the male dominated marxists. why wouldn’t you do some outreach to other women first? for example, get out of the university classroom and go up the street to your grocery store and start talking to your check out lady. that’s the danger and the problem of organizing in the states–people think organizing should happened between organizations rather than communities and community members.

    women of color organizers like UBUNTU, INCITE! Women of color against violence, Sista II Sista, the audre lorde project and so many others have been instrumental leaders of intersectional organizing. Books like “The revolution starts at home” demonstrates the *multitudes* of ways that anti-violence organizing as led by women of color has been far thinking, far reaching and transformative. If you think of a “movement” as a way to build a base of power by which transformative change can then be demanded–you start to realize that organizing in a “cause” to “cause” (how can feminism intersect with animal rights) sort of method or in an “organization” to “organization” method (how can NOW work with Communists) is a tired, rarely useful and often simply self defeating method of organizing. Look at the Christian Right and what they’ve been able to do. That whole movement started and remains frighteningly strong and entrenched (as Andrea Smith notes) by going to church potlucks and volunteering for the school PTA. In other words: reaching out to people who weren’t already firmly entrenched in 501c3 culture.

  37. @bfp Simple reason – I started as a marxist, long before I got involved with any feminist communities. Also, I’m not American (interesting that that’s your assumption, along with the idea that I/anyone making comments similar to mine must be in college? I’m nearly 40).

  38. Also, my Dad is a trade union veteran, as are several of my uncles. I’m not willing to give up unions as valuable organizing tools, but there’s no question that they often suffer from entrenched sexism which leads to issues most relevant to women being sidelined.

    (In the UK. Again, I’m not American, so I’m not as familiar with how American unions operate. In the UK, though, the most powerful unions are so entwined with the Labor Party that you pretty much can’t do anything involving leftist electoral politics without them. And that’s a blessing and a curse at the same time, and most of the “curse” part is because of how sexist a lot of union guys are.)

  39. CassandraSays: I’m not American (interesting that that’s your assumption, along with the idea that I/anyone making comments similar to mine must be in college? I’m nearly 40)

    See: comment 36.

  40. also @cassandrasays: the reason I am pointing to exclusively US based organizations/organizing is because intersectionality was theorized as an organizing model by US based women of color generally and black women specifically. See: the The Combahee River Collective Statement, Women of All Red Nations, Patricia Hill Collins, Kimberle Crenshaw, This Bridge Called My Back, Ida B Wells, INCITE!, Angela Davis, the Comisión Femenil Mexicana Nacional, the Chicana union organizing, and so so so many other US based women of color organizers and theorists.

    it is tiring to see these repeated discussions over and over and over again debating what “intersectionality” means with absolutely not one single reference to the century of theoretical and community driven work that women of color organizers have done/ are doing. Me referencing that work was done in an effort to make visible what is so often (purposefully) invisibilized.

  41. @ bfp – Still a bit odd, the way you framed your comment to imply that women whose experience doesn’t match yours are probably college girls/academics who just need to get out of their ivory tower and talk to regular people (our hypothetical checkout person). How do you know that hypothetical/generalized me isn’t herself a person who works checkout at the grocery store?

    We’re getting a bit off topic here, but I do find the assumptions being made a. strange and b. a bit baffling.

    Back on topic – I think that intersectionality should ideally mean that all the parts of a person’s identity should be considered when making organisational policy. So, for example, in a group that’s working on poverty issues, you can’t just ignore how different those issues might look based on gender or race or sexual orientation, and it’s not cool when issues that men care about are deemed to apply to everyone, and issues that women care about are deemed to be too specific to be part of the core concerns of the group. Which does happen, unfortunately.

  42. Caperton: I wasn’t really looking for the definition of intersectionality–obviously, as you pointed out, that’s available at the touch of a Google. I was looking for a discussion from a more personal standpoint of Feministe readers as individuals. As I mentioned in the post, it’s a topic that’s come up a lot lately, notably on the Michael Vick post but also in comments about transphobia and homophobia on the Period Sex post. Because there are so many different concerns represented in Feministe’s readership, I thought it would be interesting to hear different perspectives from individuals as to where they see themselves within the feminist movement and how they see their needs being addressed and not addressed.

    I get where you were going with this post and why (I can even imagine myself doing a very similar post), but I think the very relevant point has been raised that the context of this discussion is a movement in which POC feminist and womanist activists are erased, ignored, overlooked, silenced, and so forth. I remember when I was introduced to the concept of intersectionality, it was done without any sort of relevant context to the history of the term, and I never even thought to look for something deeper to it because I, naively but understandably, assumed that if there was anything else to it that was important, it would have been mentioned in the first place. It was much later (and on a black woman’s blog) that I finally found out there was a lot more to the history of the term.

    Sure, a lot of that was on me for not taking the initial step to Google in case there was something else to the term and that’s a lesson I hope I’ve learned (the value of reminders notwithstanding), but I think it stands to reason that one way to make our discussions better and more productive is to ensure that a minimum level of background knowledge on a concept is made available, even if only through a brief citation of a Wikipedia entry, which is also more respectful of the history of both the concept and the erasure of POC women from feminism. The sharing of feelings in an artificially decontextualized “we’re all equal here” individualistic framework is almost certain to reinforce the existing status quo which is decidedly unequal.

    Honestly, I’d have a more optimist feeling about the future of this particular discussion thread if there was some indication that you were stepping back, considering the very relevant criticisms of your approach (regardless of your intentions), and maybe tried to improve the post based on that feedback.

  43. Jadey:The sharing of feelings in an artificially decontextualized “we’re all equal here” individualistic framework is almost certain to reinforce the existing status quo which is decidedly unequal.

    At which point the author of the post feels really, really stupid.

    My thanks and apologies to everyone who’s been trying to drag me those last few logical steps while I struggle to not get the point. An update is due.

  44. CassandraSays:

    Back on topic – I think that intersectionality should ideally mean that all the parts of a person’s identity should be considered when making organisational policy. So, for example, in a group that’s working on poverty issues, you can’t just ignore how different those issues might look based on gender or race or sexual orientation, and it’s not cool when issues that men care about are deemed to apply to everyone, and issues that women care about are deemed to be too specific to be part of the core concerns of the group. Which does happen, unfortunately.

    I don’t really follow how your ideal meaning of intersectionality is in reference to “organisational policy”? As someone who doesn’t belong to any organizations, and who has a lot of life stuff that isn’t under influence of any organization, I’m a bit confused by the emphasis on organizations.

    For me, intersectionality is a deeply personal thing with deeply personal ramifications on my life, and if intersectionality is only employed in organizational policy, it won’t do very much for me. And frankly I don’t want to work with organizations for whom it’s a “policy” thing and not a deeply personal commitment, because in my experience people who don’t really get it will end up doing really awkward, hurtful or harmful things no matter how sanitized the organization’s policy.

    I think once one gets past the initial knee-jerk reactions to difference (difference being the diversity of our lives, experiences, bodies, selves) like fear and erasure and denial, it’s easy to be all “Yes! Celebrating difference!”. But if one tries to do liberatory work, one discovers that difference, while very cool, also presents some very real challenges.

    For me, intersectionality is a tool for dealing with those challenges – a way of wrapping our heads around difference so that we can make, as people, better choices for treating each other in better ways.

    So for me personally, the fundamental purpose of intersectionality is the same as with social justice in general: not to be “right” or “good” or “more equal”, but to treat each other better – which is not just important because that way people, you know, feel less shitty – but also because treating each other better is probably one of the most subversive and radical and ground-breaking things we can do, and is a big part (I think) of building a better world.

    As to whether using intersectionality could lead to, say, women being dropped – I think if one is actually doing intersectionality, nobody gets dropped, by definition – and underserved people become better served, and resources become more not less. But maybe that hangs on finding the right tools to use with your intersectionality tool. Maybe those tools, for a given person or organization, include stuff like radical outreach, interdependency, skill-sharing…

    In my case, someone I care about a lot experiences 4 different oppressions (that I know of!) and I don’t see how I could be anything other than an asshole to this person if I don’t “factor in” those 4 oppressions when I deal with them. I don’t see how I could get so caught up in their poverty that I put their gender on the back burner…likewise, if your women’s organization gets hijacked into a sexist Marxist meeting, I see that as a failure to be intersectional, not a shortcoming of intersectionality…

    I’m really tired so I may not even be making sense at this point.

  45. I thought you made a lot of sense Saurus, and it helped me think about things in a clearer way, so thank you (and bfp, and Faith, and Jadey).

  46. Pingback: I’ve been missing BFP… | I Heart Feminism

  47. @saurus – I guess I’m emphasizing organisations because a. they exist, and b. given that they’re going to continue to exist, I’d like to see them get better at the things that they currently kind of suck at (eg, labor movement completely ignoring issues that are woman-specific). Take trade unions – they’ve been a force for good in many ways, and they could in theory be a force for good in this way too. But right now they’re mostly not, because they don’t see “woman stuff” as being part of their mission. I think that can and should change, and if they embraced the idea of intersectionality it would change. Does that make sense?

    @ bfp – I didn’t see your last comment until today, long after I made mine – sorry about that. Makes sense now. I guess I in turn tend to automatically try to apply just about any political idea to the UK. Also, wouldn’t you consider Southall Black Sisters
    (dunno if you’re familiar with them) another group that’s been doing intersectional work for a long time? I know they started with a narrower focus (domestic violence/abuse), but their core mission expanded a lot over the years. I tend to think of them as a good example of how a group can start out with a narrow focus and then have that focus expand to meet the broader needs of its members.

  48. Regarding “do atheists need to support gay marriage?”:

    What if we threw “solidarity” in as an institutional value/practice alongside “intersectionality”? I’ve always understood intersectionality as emerging from the theoretical stance that systems of oppression/inequality are inherently intertwined, mutually reinforcing, etc.

    Solidarity is similar, but doesn’t always require that intersectionality to be present as reason for alliance. There’s a moral/philosophical kind of solidarity that stems from empathatic recognition – I’m a person, I suffer, I can see that you are suffering, and that makes us one. One step down from that is what you might call “common interest” solidarity – we might not be as one, but you’re my enemy’s enemy, so why not cooperate against them? Finally, you could have purely pragmatic solidarity – we have nothing in common, but I’m going to support you because I could use an ally who’ll return the favor.

    So on one level, you could say “atheists should support gay marriage because anti-gay marriage laws/movements are based in encoding religious dogma into law” or “atheists should support gay marriage because there aren’t a whole lot of atheists and they could use more votes on Proposition X.”

Comments are currently closed.