Feminism is Not Intersectional

Bridget Eagles

Feminism has been attacked for only accommodating to the needs of white, cis-gendered, heterosexual, able-bodied women while leaving out other minority women from the movement. As a result of this, other forms of feminism have emerged, such as womanism, which is a form of feminism that specifically for black women. To be intersectional, one must have overlapping identities that create a different form of oppression than if only one identity was had, for example being both black and being a woman is to be intersectional. Today I will argue that the exclusion of minorities from the feminist movement and the lack of direct support for minorities in the movement leads feminism away from intersectionality. I will lay my argument out below:

1. If feminism is intersectional, then it directly addresses the needs of women who are disabled, LGBTQ, women of color, and the lower class.
2. Feminism does not directly address the needs of women who are disabled, LGBTQ, women of color, and the lower class.
3. Therefore, feminism is not intersectional.

An important term to define for my argument is ‘directly address.’ When I argue that feminism does not directly address the needs of the intersectional, I mean that the needs of feminism thus far have been targeted at improving the lives of white women. Other minorities and people with intersectional identities may have benefitted from these awards only if their needs happened to overlap with the needs of white women. For example, white women have decided to tackle the pay gap and other minority identities may, over time, notice a change in the worth of their dollar to the dollar of a white man but only because it was originally chosen as a topic of concern by white women. Other issues for minority women, such as the inappropriate touching of black women’s hair or the vast difference in the pay gap for women of different races and ethnicities (with Hispanic women making 53 cents to the white man’s dollar), are all harder problems to solve because the white women in the movement have not immediately observed it as a problem to their freedom. The solution for this lack of intersectional awareness may be to form other versions of feminism for specific identities like womanism has done for black women. Another solution to this issue could be to give the movement time to include the needs of minority women by ensuring minority women have a place in leadership positions within the movement. Although minority women have benefitted from the feminist movement, feminism is not intersectional because it does not work to directly address the needs of intersectional women.

Echarmion

The question that comes to mind is how valuable it is for feminism to be intersectional? Can strutcural issues facing other minorities not be resolved within the context of that specific identity?

Terrapin Station

Feminism has been attacked for only accommodating to the needs of white, cis-gendered, heterosexual, able-bodied women while leaving out other minority women from the movement. — Bridget Eagles

So, as someone who is normally skeptical, my first thought is to be skeptical of this claim. What sorts of data support it? (That is, the claim that feminism only accommodates the needs of white, cis-gendered, etc.)

Aside from that, jumping ahead a bit (because we probably won't get to it otherwise), and just as a point of logic, this seems to have a problem to me:

"1. If feminism is intersectional, then it directly addresses the needs of women who are disabled, LGBTQ, women of color, and the lower class."

Shouldn't that be something like "If feminism is exhaustively intersectional . . . "?

Because let's suppose that feminism also addresses racial concerns. That would make feminism intersectional in that respect, even though it might not be intersectional with LGBTQ concerns. The only way that wouldn't be the case is if we were to argue that "intersectional" is necessarily exhaustive, but that would be dubious.

Terrapin Station

↪Echarmion

Yeah, to want ideological focuses to all be exhaustively intersectional would seem to suggest that they'd "all" address everything, all the same issues, so that there couldn't be different ideological focuses, and the idea of intersectionality would just dissolve away (since it's all the same movement).

BC

the vast difference in the pay gap for women of different races and ethnicities (with Hispanic women making 53 cents to the white man’s dollar — Bridget Eagles

At first glance it would seem that hispanic women were grossly underpaid compared to white men. However, there is an intervening factor: On average, hispanic women are not engaged in the same categories of work as white men (or for the most part, white women). Anyone working in the lower-skilled layers of the service sector is going to be paid a lot less than anyone working in the skilled or professional layers of the service sector.

The current fad (or big mistake) is to sequester every conceivable identity in pigeon holes AS IF there was no commonality across the species. So white gay men are in one pigeon hole, gay black men in another; middle class white women go into one slot, middle class white men into a different one. Disabled "cis-gendered" middle class white women go into their hole; disabled transgendered lower class people of color go over there, and so on and so forth.

There are clear historical reasons why hispanic women would be paid much less than middle class white women and men. The same goes for black people, native Americans, and so on. None of the pay gaps are going to be eliminated by anything short of huge changes in the social/political/economic structures of the country, which nobody thinks is going to happen in the near future.

Labor has always been layered from management at the top (high pay) down to unskilled labor at the bottom (low pay). If you take all cis-gendered white male workers, you find the same layering from top to bottom. MAYBE race, gender, and ethnicity aren't the critical factor.

NOS4A2

↪Bridget Eagles

I’m not sure why feminism would even try to be intersectional. The female sex is a very broad umbrella and should, at least theoretically, cover everyone in it.

Artemis

Although minority women have benefitted from the feminist movement, feminism is not intersectional because it does not work to directly address the needs of intersectional women. — Bridget Eagles

The female sex is a very broad umbrella and should, at least theoretically, cover everyone in it. — NOS4A2

Right, so two things:

1. All general women's rights issues are rights issues for all intersections of women.

2. In the past feminism may have neglected intersectional issues, such as poverty and natural hair rights, but I don't think that
a) that has been the case in the last 20 years at least.
b) there are any important feminists alive who would argue against the importance
intersectional issues.
c) adding intersectional issues to the core issues of feminism changes fundamentally changes
what feminism is really about. They are more like very useful, and much needed amendments to
the constitution of feminism.

NOS4A2

↪Artemis

2. In the past feminism may have neglected intersectional issues, such as poverty and natural hair rights, but I don't think that
a) that has been the case in the last 20 years at least.
b) there are any important feminists alive who would argue against the importance
intersectional issues.
c) adding intersectional issues to the core issues of feminism changes fundamentally changes
what feminism is really about. They are more like very useful, and much needed amendments to
the constitution of feminism.

But those “neglected intersectional issues”, such as “poverty and natural hair rights”, also apply to men. If feminism is turning intersectional it is no longer feminism, but rather another incident of identity politics poisoning another historical movement.

Artemis

also apply to men. — NOS4A2

Feminism applies to men.

I know I talked mainly about women's rights, but feminism is also fundamentally about opposing patriarchy, which is widely known to benefit men, but also harms them in significant ways.

Artemis

“poverty and natural hair rights”, also apply to men. — NOS4A2

Also, poverty affects black women in different ways than it affects black men, for example.

NOS4A2

↪Artemis

Feminism applies to men.

I know I talked mainly about women's rights, but feminism is also fundamentally about opposing patriarchy, which is widely known to benefit men, but also harms them in significant ways.

I would argue it benefits woman and children more than it benefits men. But of course there are upsides and downsides.

Also, poverty affects black women in different ways than it affects black men, for example.

Because they are women?

Artemis

I would argue it benefits woman and children more than it benefits men. But of course there are upsides and downsides. — NOS4A2

Well, yes, because women have been more disadvantaged by patriarchy. There's less to fix for men.

Because they are women? — NOS4A2

Bingo. Or because they are black and women at the same time.

NOS4A2

↪Artemis

Well, yes, because women have been more disadvantaged by patriarchy. There's less to fix for men.

Traditionally, men have toiled in work, given their lives in war, and gathered enough resources to supply their families with a decent life in order to protect them, not to disadvantage them.

Bingo. Or because they are black and women at the same time.

Sounds like a job for feminism.

Artemis

Traditionally, men have toiled in work, given their lives in war, and gathered enough resources to supply their families with a decent life in order to protect them, not to disadvantage them. — NOS4A2

Women have toiled just as much, traditionally, and currently the female workforce does more labor than the male.

Men start wars and then call themselves heroic for getting blown up in them. Women are left to heal the wounded nation.

And, protect me from what? Other men, I assume. Also, hello paternalism!

Sounds like a job for feminism — NOS4A2

Bingo again. You're on a roll.

Artemis

not to disadvantage them. — NOS4A2

The way men have tried to "protect" women has historically included keeping them in the house, telling them whom they can be friends with, what jobs they can do, not allowing them to vote, not allowing them property, and beating them when they get rebellious. If that's not disadvantaged, I dunno what definition you're working with.

NOS4A2

↪Artemis

Women have toiled just as much, traditionally, and currently the female workforce does more labor than the male.

Men start wars and then call themselves heroic for getting blown up in them. Women are left to heal the wounded nation.

And, protect me from what? Other men, I assume. Also, hello paternalism!

Traditionally, all these men who start wars and call themselves heroic were raised by women during the most important moments of their upbringing. Hopefully that’s changing, I suppose.

Artemis

Traditionally, all these men who start wars and call themselves heroic were raised by women during the most important moments of their upbringing. — NOS4A2

1. Modern psychology recognizes the limited impact of paternal influence on children.
2. Women, though disadvantaged by patriarchy, have often been brainwashed into being proponents thereof.
3. Children watch and learn from society and their father's as well. Parenting does not happen in a vacuum.

Hopefully that’s changing — NOS4A2

Do you have some particular problem with mothers?

NOS4A2

↪Artemis

1. Modern psychology recognizes the limited impact of paternal influence on children.
2. Women, though disadvantaged by patriarchy, have often been brainwashed into being proponents thereof.
3. Children watch and learn from society and their father's as well. Parenting does not happen in a vacuum.

I don’t mean to pooh pooh feminism, I just recoil at its latest iteration. I understand it’s necessity during certain periods and places.

However, if it wasn’t for the so-called patriarchy and the systems supposedly built by men, woman could not have found equality in them. Universal suffrage had to be fought and killed for, then implemented, long before Woman’s suffrage was even possible for example. It’s the same with education and employment. It seems feminists want access to the patriarchy more so than its alteration.

Artemis

I just recoil at its latest iteration — NOS4A2

Which would be....?

However, if it wasn’t for the so-called patriarchy and the systems supposedly built by men, woman could not have found equality in them. — NOS4A2

So-called?

Supposedly built? Who else built them? Unicorns?

It seems feminists want access to the patriarchy more so than its alteration. — NOS4A2

Some women have tried to access power through patriarchy (see Hilary Clinton's attempts to out-hawk the men on war). Feminists seek to dismantle patriarchy. The systems (by which I assume you mean economies and government, etc.) can be largely left standing, whilst still being altered to reflect equality.

Tzeentch

Well, yes, because women have been more disadvantaged by patriarchy. — Artemis

I disagree. I'd say women have benefited disproportionately to the weight they've been pulling.

Artemis

I'd say women have benefited disproportionately to the weight they've been pulling. — Tzeentch

I'll refer you to a previous post of mine:

The way men have tried to "protect" women has historically included keeping them in the house, telling them whom they can be friends with, what jobs they can do, not allowing them to vote, not allowing them property, and beating them when they get rebellious. If that's not disadvantaged, I dunno what definition you're working with. — Artemis

Tzeentch

↪Artemis

I had already taken it into consideration.

Artemis

I had already taken it into consideration. — Tzeentch

Well, then you have a very strange idea of what it means to be benefited by something. I guess you wouldn't mind being someone else's property.

Echarmion

Also, poverty affects black women in different ways than it affects black men, for example. — Artemis

But do the different ways differ (meta-difference) between black men and women and white men and women? Intersectionality only seems to have a genuine advantage if there is something specific to the combination of being poor, black and female that cannot be adressed from either framework individually.

NOS4A2

↪Artemis

Which would be....?

I don’t even know what it’s called.

So-called?

Supposedly built? Who else built them? Unicorns?

There are plenty Queens, Pharoahs and Emperors of the female sex throughout history.

Some women have tried to access power through patriarchy (see Hilary Clinton's attempts to out-hawk the men on war). Feminists seek to dismantle patriarchy. The systems (by which I assume you mean economies and government, etc.) can be largely left standing, whilst still being altered to reflect equality.

Exactly, where previous feminists sought freedom and equality in society, today’s feminists seek its destruction. There is still plenty of work for feminists to do, in Islam and in places where slavery is the norm for example.

Echarmion

There are plenty Queens, Pharoahs and Emperors of the female sex throughout history. — NOS4A2

Really? Can you name 10 without using Wikipedia? Bonus points if you omit the English queens.

Artemis

Intersectionality only seems to have a genuine advantage if there is something specific to the combination of being poor, black and female that cannot be adressed from either framework individually. — Echarmion

I think there are elements of racism, classism, and sexism in many of the problems poor, black women face, and the point of intersectionality would be to draw on criticisms of all those isms to explain the unique position of poor, black women.

For example, the "angry black woman" stereotype seems to be a combination of "hysterical woman" and "uppity black," sharing with both the general sentiment of "shut up and let white men speak," while still being a unique stereotype of its own.

Artemis

There are plenty Queens, Pharoahs and Emperors of the female sex throughout history. — NOS4A2

Along Echarmion's lines: define "plenty"?

today’s feminists seek its destruction. — NOS4A2

Its? I'm assuming the referent here is "society"? Which is only true if you assume patriarchy to be synonymous with, or indivisible from society per se. Not a position I myself would support.

NOS4A2

↪Echarmion

Really? Can you name 10 without using Wikipedia? Bonus points if you omit the English queens.

Probably not. Your point?

NOS4A2

↪Artemis

It's? I'm assuming the referent here is "society"? Which is only true if you assume patriarchy to be synonymous with, or indivisible from society per se. Not a position I myself would support.

Which parts of society are not patriarchal?

Artemis

Probably not. Your point? — NOS4A2

Cleopatra did not single-handedly create the systems of today's societies.

Feminism is Not Intersectional

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions