harmless wrote:Just as an example, I was talking with a couple of disabled women, campaigners for disability and feminism, on Twitter. They were rightly complaining that the 'glass ceiling' concept (how far women are able to get 'up the ladder' in business) is in no way relevant to them, since 70% of disabled people in the UK are not in work, because they can't work, or because they can't access work. For them, feminism needs to address that before the glass ceiling is even relevant. Intersectionality, when carefully applied, addresses their concerns and ultimately is a way of welcoming more people on board, not less (as mainstream feminism likes to claim).
I'm the uniformed woman in the equation who is teetering on the precipice of becoming the woman in the suit and yet the woman currently in the suit gets awfully manly sometimes when she holds my head under the water to keep me from getting too far ahead of her, you know?
If that's what intersectionality is, then color me black girl dangerous too. Let the other women squabble over their next fuck - I prefer to build a legacy to pass on to my children.
How does Intersectionality deal with competing interests? For example: if there was one space left open at a University, and given the applicants had similar academic achievements and histories, who would an Intersectionalist support if the choice was between a disabled white man and an able-bodied black female?
harmless wrote:Just as an example, I was talking with a couple of disabled women, campaigners for disability and feminism, on Twitter. They were rightly complaining that the 'glass ceiling' concept (how far women are able to get 'up the ladder' in business) is in no way relevant to them, since 70% of disabled people in the UK are not in work, because they can't work, or because they can't access work. For them, feminism needs to address that before the glass ceiling is even relevant. Intersectionality, when carefully applied, addresses their concerns and ultimately is a way of welcoming more people on board, not less (as mainstream feminism likes to claim).
I'm the uniformed woman in the equation who is teetering on the precipice of becoming the woman in the suit and yet the woman currently in the suit gets awfully manly sometimes when she holds my head under the water to keep me from getting too far ahead of her, you know?
If that's what intersectionality is, then color me black girl dangerous too. Let the other women squabble over their next fuck - I prefer to build a legacy to pass on to my children.
Well, that's what intesectionality is about; it's misapplied and badly applied and well-applied, but that's what it's generally about. Black women have valid bugbears with white women and they have amazing disputes and disgreements on Twitter. Same with disabled and able-bodied women, and poor / rich women. But generally the intersectional people agree that they won't get anywhere in society without those disagreements and discussions and 'scraps', whereas mainstream feminism just scoffs at the lot of their discussion by calling it "Toxic Feminism". There are parallels with my experience of disability campaigning, where mainstream able-bodied political discourse in the UK at the moment tends to call disability campaigners "Extremists" for opposing the government. It's all just disparaging minority voices, which is something governments have always done. Of course the mainstream has all the money and the reputation so there is a political interest in disparaging the mainstream.
But that's wandering away from my original point. Basically, nothing should be a competition of credentials, and generally, intersectional feminists tend to speak about acknowledging privilege and allowing people around you of less privileged groups more access to things your privilege has given you better access to.
RisingTides wrote:There is more kindness on the internet than we would care to admit to ourselves. Sometimes we are so afraid of falling victim to a ruse, we miss out on actual opportunities.
broken iris wrote:How does Intersectionality deal with competing interests? For example: if there was one space left open at a University, and given the applicants had similar academic achievements and histories, who would an Intersectionalist support if the choice was between a disabled white man and an able-bodied black female?
I can't give you a definitive answer to that, but at least it would acknowledge the question. I think people with this mindset would think carefully about the context of the situation. Context is very important because it would depend (for example) on the relative chances these two people had in that particular university relative to other people, as well as (again, for random example) what chances they would have of finding another opportunity. But again, in real life these disputes tend to get figured out in pretty unjust ways and ultimately ways which favour the economy (patriarchal ways, in fact). Remember that 'patriarchy' affects everyone, and a woman can act in the interests of patriarchy as much as a man can. That's what they're doing when they say a transwoman can't be a proper woman / feminist, being patriarchal and ultimately misogynist.
RisingTides wrote:There is more kindness on the internet than we would care to admit to ourselves. Sometimes we are so afraid of falling victim to a ruse, we miss out on actual opportunities.
Intersectionality is very interested in who eventually profits, even from feminist activities. Who profits tends to be able-bodied, white, men of corporations. So there's a patriarchal interest to mainstream feminism. Hence intersectionality hopes to break that linear system.
RisingTides wrote:There is more kindness on the internet than we would care to admit to ourselves. Sometimes we are so afraid of falling victim to a ruse, we miss out on actual opportunities.
broken iris wrote:How does Intersectionality deal with competing interests? For example: if there was one space left open at a University, and given the applicants had similar academic achievements and histories, who would an Intersectionalist support if the choice was between a disabled white man and an able-bodied black female?
I can't give you a definitive answer to that, but at least it would acknowledge the question. I think people with this mindset would think carefully about the context of the situation. Context is very important because it would depend (for example) on the relative chances these two people had in that particular university relative to other people, as well as (again, for random example) what chances they would have of finding another opportunity. But again, in real life these disputes tend to get figured out in pretty unjust ways and ultimately ways which favour the economy (patriarchal ways, in fact). Remember that 'patriarchy' affects everyone, and a woman can act in the interests of patriarchy as much as a man can. That's what they're doing when they say a transwoman can't be a proper woman / feminist, being patriarchal and ultimately misogynist.
Sounds reasonable. What about situations where traditionally-assumed patriarchal members are in the minority? Poor whites in South Africa for example.
broken iris wrote:How does Intersectionality deal with competing interests? For example: if there was one space left open at a University, and given the applicants had similar academic achievements and histories, who would an Intersectionalist support if the choice was between a disabled white man and an able-bodied black female?
I can't give you a definitive answer to that, but at least it would acknowledge the question. I think people with this mindset would think carefully about the context of the situation. Context is very important because it would depend (for example) on the relative chances these two people had in that particular university relative to other people, as well as (again, for random example) what chances they would have of finding another opportunity. But again, in real life these disputes tend to get figured out in pretty unjust ways and ultimately ways which favour the economy (patriarchal ways, in fact). Remember that 'patriarchy' affects everyone, and a woman can act in the interests of patriarchy as much as a man can. That's what they're doing when they say a transwoman can't be a proper woman / feminist, being patriarchal and ultimately misogynist.
Sounds reasonable. What about situations where traditionally-assumed patriarchal members are in the minority? Poor whites in South Africa for example.
I can't speak for them; better to read their perspectives (and the black people who engage with those perspectives).
RisingTides wrote:There is more kindness on the internet than we would care to admit to ourselves. Sometimes we are so afraid of falling victim to a ruse, we miss out on actual opportunities.
Alex wrote:broken iris just seems like a great person
It seems like his argument was at the very least thought-out and voiced in a civil manner, so why not try explaining why you take issue with it? This way you might actually contribute something constructive to a conversation for once, instead of just offering us your bold-faced stupidity again(stupidity which you understand to be the ultimate form of humour). Seriously, try forming an argument.
Also, do you think there is any reason any of us should find you to be a good person? Since you value such things you will probably find it worthwhile to do a little introspection on the matter.
Do you ever take anything but the easiest position?
People shouldn't have to explain why they disagree with default RM opinions. Work it out.
RisingTides wrote:There is more kindness on the internet than we would care to admit to ourselves. Sometimes we are so afraid of falling victim to a ruse, we miss out on actual opportunities.
harmless wrote:People shouldn't have to explain why they disagree with default RM opinions. Work it out.
It's pretty dumb of me to get in the middle of it, but I'm bored at work and a sucker for RM dramatics.
So Dev unleashed some pent up animosity towards Alex and being a fan of the Alex account I'm curious what he had to say.
harmless wrote:People shouldn't have to explain why they disagree with default RM opinions. Work it out.
It's pretty dumb of me to get in the middle of it, but I'm bored at work and a sucker for RM dramatics.
So Dev unleashed some pent up animosity towards Alex and being a fan of the Alex account I'm curious what he had to say.
Dev wrote:you're delusional. you are a sad sad person. fuck off. you're mentally ill beyond repair. i don't need your shit. dissapear.
harmless wrote:People shouldn't have to explain why they disagree with default RM opinions. Work it out.
It's pretty dumb of me to get in the middle of it, but I'm bored at work and a sucker for RM dramatics.
So Dev unleashed some pent up animosity towards Alex and being a fan of the Alex account I'm curious what he had to say.
the broken iris character is hidebound in its allegiance to the dialectical process. it has assumed the role of RM's pre-eminent sentinel for the white middle and upper classes, now that thodoks has relinquished the role. it is this dogged persistence that imbues the character with an exacting capacity for insight and rhetoric. he spearheads, and guides, more on-topic discussions than nearly any other poster, in the name of the betterment of white america.
the alex character, while decidedly more explicit/aggressive in the current incarnation of RM than in past incarnations, has an established oblique streak--appearing unwilling or unable to engage in "real talk" for reasons unknown. it instead provides commentary from the fringes of discussions, providing occasional glimpses of conviction/belief.
the dev character, as one of the youngest members of RM, possesses the dislike of insincerity that characterizes the salad days of youth. he strives for meaning with an intensity match by few other posters, and, as such, does not tolerate askew commentary.
a volatile mix, indeed.
Malloy wrote:making this place inhospitable to posting is really the only move left.
harmless wrote:People shouldn't have to explain why they disagree with default RM opinions. Work it out.
It's pretty dumb of me to get in the middle of it, but I'm bored at work and a sucker for RM dramatics.
So Dev unleashed some pent up animosity towards Alex and being a fan of the Alex account I'm curious what he had to say.
the broken iris character is hidebound in its allegiance to the dialectical process. it has assumed the role of RM's pre-eminent sentinel for the white middle and upper classes, now that thodoks has relinquished the role. it is this dogged persistence that imbues the character with an exacting capacity for insight and rhetoric. he spearheads, and guides, more on-topic discussions than nearly any other poster, in the name of the betterment of white america.
the alex character, while decidedly more explicit/aggressive in the current incarnation of RM than in past incarnations, has an established oblique streak--appearing unwilling or unable to engage in "real talk" for reasons unknown. it instead provides commentary from the fringes of discussions, providing occasional glimpses of conviction/belief.
the dev character, as one of the youngest members of RM, possesses the dislike of insincerity that characterizes the salad days of youth. he strives for meaning with an intensity match by few other posters, and, as such, does not tolerate askew commentary.
harmless wrote:People shouldn't have to explain why they disagree with default RM opinions. Work it out.
It's pretty dumb of me to get in the middle of it, but I'm bored at work and a sucker for RM dramatics.
So Dev unleashed some pent up animosity towards Alex and being a fan of the Alex account I'm curious what he had to say.
the broken iris character is hidebound in its allegiance to the dialectical process. it has assumed the role of RM's pre-eminent sentinel for the white middle and upper classes, now that thodoks has relinquished the role. it is this dogged persistence that imbues the character with an exacting capacity for insight and rhetoric. he spearheads, and guides, more on-topic discussions than nearly any other poster, in the name of the betterment of white america.
the alex character, while decidedly more explicit/aggressive in the current incarnation of RM than in past incarnations, has an established oblique streak--appearing unwilling or unable to engage in "real talk" for reasons unknown. it instead provides commentary from the fringes of discussions, providing occasional glimpses of conviction/belief.
the dev character, as one of the youngest members of RM, possesses the dislike of insincerity that characterizes the salad days of youth. he strives for meaning with an intensity match by few other posters, and, as such, does not tolerate askew commentary.
