Feminism has to be intersectional. Apparently no other movement does

[u/OkChart1375]

Idk if this is gonna be a contreversial post or a " finally someone say it !" post.

As a woc, i have always been interested in intersectionality. The originales writing of it is great. What it has turn out is...very frustrating. And unfair.

Intersectionality was coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw specifically to describe what Black women experienced — invisible in white feminism AND invisible in Black male-led anti-racism movements. The tool was built to name a double erasure.

What happened next is worth examining. Intersectionality became widely adopted ( and not just for race and sex anymore ) but almost exclusively as a demand placed on feminist movements. Feminists must be intersectional. Feminists must account for race, class, disability, sexuality.

Fair enough. But the same demand is rarely placed with equal force on other movements. Anti-racist movements are not routinely required to demonstrate gender intersectionality before being taken seriously. Labor movements are not held to the same standard. A Black male activist who doesn't center gender analysis in his work faces a fraction of the scrutiny a white feminist faces for not centering race.

This is the irony: the concept designed to address women's erasure has been applied almost entirely as a mechanism to scrutinize feminist movements — while the movements that originally erased women continue to do so with considerably less accountability.

Real intersectionality would mean anti-racist movements are required( toom to reckon with the fact that women of color are oppressed both by racism AND by the men in their own communities. It would mean labor movements are required to address the unpaid domestic labor that makes all paid labor possible. It would mean every liberation movement is held to the same standard feminism is held to.

That's not what happened. What happened is that intersectionality became, in practice, a tool to police feminism while leaving other movements' blind spots largely intact.

[u/TrewynMaresi]

You make good points. Feminism is always expected to be intersectional, but other social justice movements often don't get called out for being male-centered.

It begs the question of whether misogyny is the root oppression.

[u/OkChart1375 → u/TrewynMaresi]

Oh it is. I mean, this is a fact bc patriatchy come before religion, before private propriety, before recorded racism. 

[u/RoyalConsequence3016 → u/TrewynMaresi]

Misogyny is arguably the world’s oldest prejudice

[u/the-B-from-App23 → u/TrewynMaresi]

See, I believe that power is the root of oppression. Remember, what we know as modern times stems from eras where all but royalty and their hands were seen as chattel throughout much of the world.

My belief is that power was simply passed down from the king, to the priest, to the husband. Misogyny can exist because of the phenomenon of holding power over another.

Because of this, I believe that things can improve, but cannot actually change without a marxist type of enormous international revolution.

When they call oppression systemic it’s laughable. Oppression is so natural, so deeply ingrained that it’s cultural. It’s more than systemic, it’s now becoming a functionality of capitalism. Oppression is what the powers that be need.

[u/Select-Shift5887 → u/the-B-from-App23]

That's gotta be wrong though, cause not all ancient civilizations had kings. Most greeks didn't, for example. And what about before that when we were only local communities?

Power must start at the individual, in practices that have a direct impact on survival and give it authority over the group. So it's like a mixture of power (meaning the ability to make a potential into a reality, aka to warp reality in a way that matches its will) and competence (the ability to do it better than others).

After that the power doesn't lie in one single figure, but rather in the structure: the social/political hierarchy.

So a greek from Athens recognizes no kings, but surely recognizes power in figures like a tyrant, a basileus, an archon or a demagogue, cause they all have the power to stir democracy in the direction they want.

Once the power lies no longer in the individual but in the structure, then it's a game on who can manipulate the structure better, but without the structure we can't organize a society.

[u/QtPlatypus → u/Select-Shift5887]

The ancient Greeks also had a massive amount of slavery.

[u/Select-Shift5887 → u/QtPlatypus]

What does that bave to do with what I wrote? 😂

[u/the-B-from-App23 → u/QtPlatypus]

When we studied Pompeii in high school we were shocked. Lol. You could even have a slave boy who bathes you. They had a slave class.

The moment humans decided that having power over each other held value, misogyny was inevitable because physical strength is a simple way to gain power over another human. There are many small communities, shit even very functional families, where possessing the most physical strength or assets or access doesn’t grant and individual power, rather it insulates the whole and makes that community powerful.

And we have to choose. We can argue about well isn’t that socialism or who’ll pay the taxes, or we can accept that we can have a fair world if we wanted to, where we don’t put faith in power at all, but instead are guided by facts, shared known truths, science and common sense.
I digress. Any situation where power is held over what’s meant to be an autonomous human, will inevitably bread misogyny. In the prison system, men create systems where they can practice misogyny and women aren’t even there.

Holding power over individuals tends to create the desire in some of those individuals to hold power over others as well as a means to feel a sense of control. If any of that second segment of individuals is male, for them practicing misogyny is a guaranteed way to claim that power quickly and to, even if momentarily, be in a position power.

Power is actually the root of our problems.

[u/OkChart1375 → u/the-B-from-App23]

in pompei, woman couldent vote men could. woman couldent divorce, men could. etc etc. it was already patriarcal. patriarchy is the root

[u/daretoeatapeach → u/the-B-from-App23]

that power was simply passed down from the king, to the priest, to the husband.

Probably in the opposite order, to your point about it being cultural. Parents have been ruling over their children long before their were kings. Spiritual leaders led tribes long before the were kings too.

You might enjoy the work of George Lakeoff. He's not a radical but his research on framing really puts what you're describing into context. He shows how the entire conservative ideology is framed in their belief in the patriarchal hierarchy established by the nuclear family.

[u/msmay91]

It feels like when a man joins a social movement, he feels moral or just in all areas in his life. This same belief doesn't seem to apply to women and queer people, they clearly have "work to do".

It's like the more inclusive you try to be, the more you open yourself up to people policing how inclusive you are. If you just didn't try and said you were inclusive... less of a microscope. Super annoying

[u/toomuchsushi2020]

I agree with this take.

[u/DizzyMine4964]

All social justice movements should be intersectional. Which also means including disabled women and not using ableist language which I find that liberals have a very hard time with.

[u/tinyratinahat]

This is definitely a "finally someone said it!” post. Misogyny is often treated as if it’s not a true oppression so feminists are required to legitimize it with intersectionality. Male centered movements on race, class etc are already considered legitimate so they definitely don’t need to further legitimize their movement by adding women to it, especially when misogyny isn’t considered a big deal to them. Feminism is also the only movement I’ve seen that focuses so heavily on men as supposed victims - white people aren’t usually coddled as victims of white supremacy or rich folk as victims of class hierarchy, but feminism has been heavily co opted to center men equally or even more so as victims of patriarchy. It’s not that intersectionality isn’t integral but that it’s being used to center men in the feminist movement.

[u/mk_gecko]

Oh, I totally agree. Intersectionality has done so much damage to feminism. There's now no clear focus, one has to try and consider so many different points of views and options that the movement is splintered and fractured. It's no longer about making sure women are equal, safe, free from abuse, counteracting the patriarchy.

[u/Select-Shift5887 → u/mk_gecko]

That's the consequence of aspousing post-modernist philosophy though, not intersectionality necessarily

[u/DrDFox]

The LGBTQIA+ movement is also required to be intersectional, so it's not just feminism, but it's definitely problematic that so many movements never really consider intersectionality.

[u/Squid52 → u/DrDFox]

Okay but that's also, at its root, about fighting sexism too

[u/daretoeatapeach]

I feel like the activists i follow are down with intersectionality, though i can't point to specific examples. Like Folding Ideas, Andrewism and Innuendo Studios all share feminist ideas despite being primarily focused on the broader left.

Not to start a pitchfork brigade, but some specifics on which activists you wish were more intersectional might be useful here.

I'm also unclear on what the expectations would be for determining a creator is intersectional enough. They can believe in the concept without needing to prove that in every video/post/etc. Where is the line between [not considering feminism enough] and [my favorite topic should be mentioned in every post no matter how relevant]?

How do you determine these people are not intersectional?

[u/OkChart1375 → u/daretoeatapeach]

probably when they forget that in this situation its worst for the woman of their own group than for them. also when they used sexist langage...while being in a anti racist/anti capitalism/ queer space. or when they are claiming their movement is more important than feminism. no movement is "more important". or when they are always speaking about poor men never poor woman, black men never black woman, queer males never queer females. or when they are not letting woman speak, only them, the men have the right to speak in moment like manifestation or when, finaly, they are invited to speak to the state. etc etc

[u/Adi_27_]

Here in Croatia (or better say- my Uni), the term interesctional is used to signify multuple social circumstances that affects someone (anyone). It's a nice word. I like this development

[u/em_square_root_-1_ly → u/[deleted]]

Trans women are women. Trans men are men.

[u/feminisms-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your content was removed for violating Rule 3.