(I'm super woke if you can't tell)

https://www.care2.com/causes/what-is-intersectionality-and-why-is-it-important.html

If you don't know what intersectionality is you should maybe not talk about it Flum.

So if I don't fully understand something I should never speak of it and live in ignorance? Is that the argument you're making in response to Flum's post, DO?

You should probably try to understand it first. Flum didn't write that, he copied and pasted it to start shit.

I am trying to figure out if the op is a question or a statement of lack of knowledge about the op..

@abge...wut? Those aren't the only two options.

Intersectionality should've been more central to third wave feminism long before now tbh

Oh, I thought he wrote it. Never mind

I'd like to address something nobody has touched on yet. Sometimes "intersectionality" is used as code for "quiet whitey." However, we should not condemn an idea because some bigots have abused it.

At it's best, intersectional feminism is not about competing over who is more oppressed. I'm by no means an expert, but I see it as a way of acknowledging that different demographics have different experiences, different needs and goals as feminists. Acknowledging that the woc who can't get a job because of stereotypes suffers from more and varied prejudice, does not have to take away from the story of the well-off white mathematician who isn't given the credit she deserves by the old boy's club.

Intersectionality is supposed to include broader perspectives, so stupidfighter nails it. It hasn't been around for very long, so the ones abusing it as a means of silencing perspectives hopefully will learn their errors before the whole becomes something for opponents to delegitimize.

All serious accounts of intersectionality acknowledge even the most privileged position, when broken down, as intersectional. The problem often talked about is when a particular (often privileged position) is treated as universal, and ignores the particular intersectional issues that others face.

I normally disagree with Soc Dis, but currently can't +1 him harder

Lol gold, it doesn't mean your rich white man problems need an equal amount of attention. Because they don't.

I'm glad for the +1, but if you normally disagree with me, and agree with me here, i've probably not expressed myself well :P.

What I meant is that obviously everyone possesses an intersectional position, and all seriously developed accounts, no matter how radical, acknowledge this. A major reason that people (reasonably) bring up the need for intersectionality, however, is that the intersectional issues of systematically disadvantaged people is far too often overlooked.

Dominant privileged groups assume a universality about their view, which is not fitting. For example, when rich white women talk as if they are speaking for all women, and ignore that really they are speaking about issues that pertain to their particular intersectional location; ignoring the fact that other particular intersectional groups (in this case poor women of color) are in a different position and that different considerations may apply for them. Or rich black men ignore the class issues affecting poor black men. Or poor white men ignore the race issues faced by poor black men. etc.,

A (poetic) way of putting the problem is that the particular (intersectional) privileged groups masquerade their points as universal issues, and ignore the fact that the systematically disadvantaged have a different particular (intersectional) standpoint, to which this fake-universal shit doesn't attend to.

@DO

"Lol gold, it doesn't mean your rich white man problems need an equal amount of attention. Because they don't."

actually they do. the problem is that other demographics can have a higher multitude of problems, which altogether require more attention.

problem for problem is the way to go.

I'm the problem.

Problem4problem. Like4like.

except maybe economic problems: if a poor person gets 100$ stolen or a car stolen, it'll affect them MUCH more than the millionare

that said, all else must be equal in the situation. i don't want racial prioritization or that crap.

hell, even economic priority sounds sketchy to me in terms of basic rights... but it sounds rational as i'm saying it. post game analysis later

If you can conceive that economic problems have imbalance why not others?

because monetary problems directly effect expenses and necessities for survival

race and sex are only affected by obscure social ideas by only a certain faction of the population, and do not always convert into tangible effects.

furthermore to my economic point, it is extremely contentious to limit one person's rights to prioritize another person's

Can you describe instances where this contentious limiting of someones rights hapoened to prioritize another? Who are you referring too?

To be honest ive heard people use your argument to say affirmative action is exactly what you described.

Oh and those people against affirmative action are out of touch and selfish by the way. Lol

"actually they do. the problem is that other demographics can have a higher multitude of problems, which altogether require more attention.

problem for problem is the way to go."

As these two perspectives (one group's problems are bigger vs. one group has more problems of equal size) amount to the same thing, I'm not sure what the point of this disagreement is.

I'm sure you can rephrase economic problems in the same way, too. Both rich and poor men have the equal-sized problem of being out $100, the poor man just also has the problem that he's no longer able to pay the utility bill for this month.

@brainbomb

the problem is that if two people report 100$ missing, one poor one millionaire, it'd be better to prioritize the poor person (this example is weird)

with affirmative action in colleges specifically, they not only help the poor, they HURT the more well off. they identify a minority who is oppressed: and set quotas.

the colleges will count off Chinese kids, even first gen. immigrants, a certain number of point form the SAT. this is not simply supporting a wrong done against a more afflicted party, it is collaterally hurting non-aggressor bystanders.

i see no justification in that.

@Lethologica

it's probably me being a petty bitch again in semantics that in no way should ever be argued :\

No Soc, you explained well enough the first time. Still got another +1 out of me the second time.

But if our goal is more intersectionality in feminism. Shouldn't we install more traffic lights, stop signs and crossing guards?

Well aren't you the best Gold! Sorry for doubting you :P

Is it limiting rights of some to promote the rights of others, sweetypie & others, or prioritising differing individual needs of people with equal rights but varying degrees of advantage and disadvantage ? Eg every patient entering Accident and Emergency Dept has equal rights, but differing needs so the multiple gunshot wounded patient gets priority in access to treatment ahead of the ingrown toenail sufferer ? (or is it based on who has the best health insurance ? Or other reasons Like the medical chap who led the way in blood transfusion, but later in life was refused medical treatment on the basis of race with fatal consequences for him ? )
Just asking.

As to those godless rich white folk, lol, just saw one of them stand for election against another, for one his sexism was treated as just him being a lad, bit of a locker room type of guy, not that serious, while the other was pummelled by constant gender related offensive abuse...both rich white folk, but one was clearly "protected, his sins largely excused" and the other was subjected to malicious, vexatious harassment, imho.

@JamesYanik: basic facts might be in order here. Quotas have been illegal in the US since 1977.

The basis for affirmative action is simple. There are significant differences in measures of academic performance due to race in the US--even when you control for economic factors. There are two possible reasons for this: either white people are naturally smarter than black and Latino people, or the measures are biased. Affirmative action policies are a way to correct for that bias. People who are opposed to affirmative action policies talk about finding "the most qualified." Affirmative action looks to find the most capable.

One of the reasons affirmative action policies aren't well defended is that the people defending them are the same people who create and perpetuate the biased system we have. So rather than saying "the system we created makes white kids look smarter than they really are," they use fuzzy language about the importance of having a diverse range of perspectives. That's crap--affirmative action should correct for bias.

If they were serious about this, they could pretty easily figure out specific corrections to measures of academic performance based on race and gender. One of the advantages of this system is that it would be neutral based on race and gender. If a disadvantaged group stopped being disadvantaged, the numbers would demonstrate it and the advantage would be dropped.

^ see also: stereotype threat

@pastorolan

"@JamesYanik: basic facts might be in order here. Quotas have been illegal in the US since 1977."

outright quotas do not exist, but if you don't think there is a basic discriminatory practice that is mathematically tabulated (sounds suspiciously like a quota, doesn't it?) then you're burying your head in the sand

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevecohen/2015/07/06/the-secret-quotas-in-college-admissions/2/#587ddd843ad7

"There are significant differences in measures of academic performance due to race in the US--even when you control for economic factors."

yes, this is true

"There are two possible reasons for this: either white people are naturally smarter than black and Latino people,"

i think we all agree this is ridiculous.

"or the measures are biased."

really? these are the only 2 possible options? the MEASURES are biased? massive drop out rates for black kids in high school, and you're attack the bias of what? facts?

how about the highest dropout rates being in underfunded inner city (predominately democrat controlled) public schools? what's your explanation... the liberals are racist? we've had school systems turned on their heads trying to stop "racist" statistics showing that black kids aren't doing as well in school, with little effective results.

(maybe we should ignore cultural problems, like how there are 3x more gang members who are black than white, despite being a smaller population. or maybe ignore the 70% single motherhood rate, which even is 30% higher than the hispanic single motherhood rate [and they have even HIGHER rates of kids going into gangs] no no no, none of this can be it... because then we can't blame racism!)

"Affirmative action policies are a way to correct for that bias."

a bias on statistics... jus making sure that point is reiterated. you believe the measurements of black children doing worse in high school and on national tests is racist. or... do you mean college admission rates? maybe the reason why a smaller proportion are getting into college (in relation to their population size) is because of.. you know. HOW READY THEY ARE FOR COLLEGE.

"People who are opposed to affirmative action policies talk about finding "the most qualified." Affirmative action looks to find the most capable."

no it doesn't. it works of the presumption that math tests and english tests are racist against blacks (oh sorry, the statistics are wrong) and then put out an arbitrary number to correct for that.

also: unless if you're asian. why are you ignoring this again?

"One of the reasons affirmative action policies aren't well defended is that the people defending them are the same people who create and perpetuate the biased system we have So rather than saying "the system we created makes white kids look smarter than they really are," they use fuzzy language about the importance of having a diverse range of perspectives. That's crap--affirmative action should correct for bias."

alright, that's something i can get behind, though you'd have to admit, quantifying bias is an extremely hard thing to do. you're attempting to determine whether the end results of "qualified" or "unqualified" was simply due to preferential leaning, or bias.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6lyURyVz7k

John Oliver isn't my favorite political comedian, but he's pretty damn accurate here. we need to reconstruct our education system.

"If they were serious about this, they could pretty easily figure out specific corrections to measures of academic performance based on race and gender. One of the advantages of this system is that it would be neutral based on race and gender. If a disadvantaged group stopped being disadvantaged, the numbers would demonstrate it and the advantage would be dropped."

once again, there's a differentiation between "disadvantaged group" and "disadvantaged individual" that i think is much more important to define.

Furthermore, you're going to have to identify where the "disadvantage" comes from: is it localized culture, or is there a discriminatory aspect?

99 times out of a 100 it will be a combination of both, and quantifying to what extent it's one or the other, i can't say with confidence we have the capacity to do.

Hey James:
"maybe we should ignore cultural problems, like how there are 3x more gang members who are black than white, despite being a smaller population. or maybe ignore the 70% single motherhood rate, which even is 30% higher than the hispanic single motherhood rate [and they have even HIGHER rates of kids going into gangs] no no no, none of this can be it... because then we can't blame racism!)"

We can address those cultural problems as long as we also take time to address some others. Like long-term self-reinforcing wealth accumulation gaps, such as differential need for extended family financial assistance, or differential access to the miracle of compound interest (fewer relatives conversant in investing + historically justified distrust of white-owned banks), or neighborhood-level residential segregation (which has oodles of other implications--schools are more segregated now than in the late '60s).

Or how about we discuss perhaps *the* seminal work on the issues of black family structure, Moynihan's 1965 paper "The Negro Family: The Case for National Action," and about his attribution of cause:

"What then is that problem? We feel the answer is clear enough. Three centuries of injustice have brought about deep-seated structural distortions in the life of the Negro American. At this point, the present tangle of pathology is capable of perpetuating itself without assistance from the white world. The cycle can be broken only if these distortions are set right."
https://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/webid-meynihan.htm

In short, we can address cultural problems as long as we're clear that "cultural problems" goes beyond blaming blacks for having inferior black culture. I'm sick and tired of that shit.

The overview of past research in the following article helps to inform my comments about wealth accumulation gaps. Note: link downloads a PDF.
https://www.aeaweb.org/conference/2015/retrieve.php?pdfid=603

@Lethologica

"We can address those cultural problems as long as we also take time to address some others."

sure

"Like long-term self-reinforcing wealth accumulation gaps,"

generally due to low competition and poorly constructed welfare systems, but yes that needs to be addressed.

"such as differential need for extended family financial assistance,"

um... that's more localized welfare problems, but yes another good point.

"or differential access to the miracle of compound interest (fewer relatives conversant in investing + historically justified distrust of white-owned banks),"

it's not JUST historical disinterest. one example of racism which i use AGAINST conservatives is the bank discriminations from like 8 years ago.

"or neighborhood-level residential segregation (which has oodles of other implications--schools are more segregated now than in the late '60s)."

yes but that's because of anti-poor people, less anti black. still, a major problem to be sure.

"Or how about we discuss perhaps *the* seminal work on the issues of black family structure, Moynihan's 1965 paper "The Negro Family: The Case for National Action," and about his attribution of cause:

"What then is that problem? We feel the answer is clear enough. Three centuries of injustice have brought about deep-seated structural distortions in the life of the Negro American. At this point, the present tangle of pathology is capable of perpetuating itself without assistance from the white world. The cycle can be broken only if these distortions are set right."
https://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/webid-meynihan.htm"

those distortions being... what? racism by people with direct power over them, the inability to access better job markets due to localized geo-economic constraints? i mean... a 1965 paper probably has a LOT more to address than today, but i understand that.

"In short, we can address cultural problems as long as we're clear that "cultural problems" goes beyond blaming blacks for having inferior black culture. I'm sick and tired of that shit."

less against the culture, more against the effects. Still, I don't even blame black people for the start of gangs, the initial gang movements were because kids felt a since of comradeship, and when put in a crucible with racist police: a pretty dangerous cycle got spun up.

nonetheless, i always feel a bit weird when saying "black culture" because many black people have quite different cultures.

overall i don't have a problem with what you're saying, but my initial argument was against affirmative action. it has the right mindset, but its implementation has been riddled with faults.

plus we're living in a world right now where ANY self-critiquing of a movement can lead you to be ostracized from your own constituency, and then you get called an "apologist" by the opposition.

your complaints go unheeded, and nothing good gets done.

"generally due to low competition and poorly constructed welfare systems"

Please elaborate.

Family need is a local problem for a given individual, but there are pervasive differences at a collective level that inhibit wealth accumulation (because someone who acquires wealth statistically has to spend significantly more of that wealth helping out relatives).

I think we basically agree on banks. But I'm surprised that you downplay the racial elements of residential segregation; even our illustrious president has a history with redlining, and the particular impacts of segregation on black and Latino communities is documented. That there is *also* classist residential segregation is an issue worth remembering, but not to the exclusion of race.

Moynihan uses 'distortions' in terms of black family structure. What you describe would be part of the historical injustices giving rise to those distortions. (I have more reading to do to find out the extent to which calling them 'distortions' is accurate.)

I think we agree that affirmative action is *ultimately* a band-aid over deeper structural issues. The thing about band-aids, though, is that they don't *have* to be the ultimate solution to be helpful. Encouraging networks of education and opportunity is part of the path out of those 'cultural problems', after all.

I don't think your counterargument is very strong. I'm sure many white students were hurt to some degree by enforced school desegregation, non-aggressor bystanders to national triage efforts on behalf of racial justice, but to argue against desegregation on that basis would have been poor prioritization. So, as one of those Asian-Americans you're holding up as a blunt instrument against affirmative action, I think you have more work to do to make your case.

"Please elaborate."

low wage jobs from uncompetitive markets, and gov't programs deterring people getting full time jobs (even at low wages)

"Family need is a local problem for a given individual, but there are pervasive differences at a collective level that inhibit wealth accumulation (because someone who acquires wealth statistically has to spend significantly more of that wealth helping out relatives)."

this is true, though there is a major work problem. children are going into debt to support their parents (quite honorably), rather than the other way around.

"I think we basically agree on banks. But I'm surprised that you downplay the racial elements of residential segregation; even our illustrious president has a history with redlining, and the particular impacts of segregation on black and Latino communities is documented. That there is *also* classist residential segregation is an issue worth remembering, but not to the exclusion of race."

oh there is definitely racism in housing, but most laws i see now specifically and outright mention income levels.

"Moynihan uses 'distortions' in terms of black family structure. What you describe would be part of the historical injustices giving rise to those distortions. (I have more reading to do to find out the extent to which calling them 'distortions' is accurate.)"

we'd need to start another thread for that

"I think we agree that affirmative action is *ultimately* a band-aid over deeper structural issues. The thing about band-aids, though, is that they don't *have* to be the ultimate solution to be helpful. Encouraging networks of education and opportunity is part of the path out of those 'cultural problems', after all."

yup

"I don't think your counterargument is very strong. I'm sure many white students were hurt to some degree by enforced school desegregation, non-aggressor bystanders to national triage efforts on behalf of racial justice, but to argue against desegregation on that basis would have been poor prioritization. So, as one of those Asian-Americans you're holding up as a blunt instrument against affirmative action, I think you have more work to do to make your case."

wait when was i arguing against desegregation? my "non-aggressor bystander" comment was about college admissions.