I only speak for myself and most of my blog entries are trying to highlight mechanisms I witness in society and I would welcome proper scientific trials to determine how common the phenomena I witness and report on are. I don't have the money to fund such experiments myself. What is clear our society really is very bad at knowing how we really behave.
In some sense, how our society inter-works with itself is very clearly not well understood. There has only been any kind of women's movement for just over 200 years, and I date that from the time of Mary Wollstonecraft's writing, so we women have made a lot of progress in those 200 years and also in that 200 years society, government and industry has changed vastly as a result.
I recently came across a post in a group saying female colleges should prioritize the application of trans women into those colleges, because trans women know more about gender than cis women. While I think a trans woman may have a fascinating perspective on gender, it should not be thought of as being superior to any other person's perspective on gender. I would never presume to speak for trans women, but nor can they speak for me.
Nor would I ever presume to speak for women of color. I think they are very capable of speaking for themselves, and I am willing to listen to whatever they have to say. I fully support the movement to remember Sandra Bland #SayHerName and the #BlackLivesMatter protest at the treatment of black people in this country.
I am not saying the violence POC endure isn't exceptionally bad but so is the violence any woman endures. But I think prioritizing of the ill treatment of one group should not preclude the ill treatment of another group hence we are just building another hierarchy, the essence of the patriarchy. But this seems to be the fundamental position of intersectional feminism, that we must look at the discrimination of one group over another, and I am not saying that we should ignore discrimination of any women because they have already have perceived privilege.
Let me give you an example. The step-daughter of the heir to the Johnson fortune was repeatedly raped by him. This girl is likely to have every advantage in life, she's probably white, lots of money, lots of convenience, a great education... and years of therapy. Should we ignore what happened to her because she has so much privilege? In my opinion, definitely not. Nor should we ignore the treatment of any group.
I completely agree it is important to be reminded of our different perspectives on life, that my life has privileges others won't have, but this is true for every group. And in my opinion, acknowledging and being aware of this is the way we all advance together.
I am rather suspicious of intersectional feminism especially when they write articles like this. It's probably worth noting that Nancy Fraser is a professor at the New University which has neoconservative links and take a lot of private funding. On that note, this article is telling (white) women they should not seek jobs, but rather they should be staying at home looking after their kids instead of employing minority women to take care of her kids or helping her with housework. I presume they aren't telling black women the same. The unfortunate thing about this is women often have to work because their husbands can't, or have died or left. Women should have the option of working outside the house and if they can afford it to employ who they choose to help them.
Prof Fraser doesn't pose a solution other than upending the economy (because she says it's easier to do!) and convincing women that they should be stay-at-home moms and do their own housework in the meantime. She even dislikes micro-loans.
She doesn't want a smattering of women to get positions of power, which would mean that there are more and more role models for the next generation of girls and having women be seen in all parts of society. She doesn't address why there are no 'founding mothers', women on US currency or female presidents or the very few women on the cover of person of the year for Time magazine... She talks about rather how much impact feminism has had on discussions of economics !!!!!! (And no doubt she said this with a straight face too.)
Rather she is confusing the impact of feminism verses the impact of trickle down economics.
The biggest problem with intersectional feminism is that it silences (white) feminists because of all their perceived privilege, no I am not interested in talking over black women and I will listen to them, but my voice matters too. In my opinion, any woman who is silenced in the name of feminism is not feminism.
If this interview with Prof Fraser is anything to go by, all women should go back home and leave the workforce. I am wondering whether the roots of intersectional feminism is the result of Koch Brothers funding or right-wing conservatives who will do anything to stop Clinton and they are doing this by dividing feminists. And with the swift uptake of intersectional feminism it would appear to be very much funded by right-wing conservatives.
And also because they usually point to Hillary Clinton when talking about privilege, and then point to Bernie Sanders (a rich old white man who arguably has far more privilege than Clinton does) as a preferred choice in the current primaries.
I am not interested in a one-size-fits-all feminism, where we all march in lock-step with each other, where we all vote the same way, all say the same things, and wear the same clothes. I am for bringing choice to women, where we can decide for ourselves whether we have an abortion or be mothers, work and get equal pay... without worrying whether we will fit in. We should just accept women doing what we want to do rather than what we think we have to be accepted by society and the same goes, of course, for men.
All in all, all this is doing is pushing women to the back as we see constantly.
When black men are killed by cops in the US it makes news in other countries, but when black women are killed by cops it is completely ignored in other countries. Both are awful and wrong, but the importance of the ill treatment of men as a priority over the ill treatment of women is primarily sexism.
Then there are women who claim to be 'humanists' rather than feminists - and while I completely agree men are experiencing major problems in our society, concentrating on 'human' problems will mean men's issues will be prioritized over fixing problems women experience.
I have been pushed to the back all my life being told to just put up with it because I am a female. I refuse to be pushed to the back anymore.
In some sense, how our society inter-works with itself is very clearly not well understood. There has only been any kind of women's movement for just over 200 years, and I date that from the time of Mary Wollstonecraft's writing, so we women have made a lot of progress in those 200 years and also in that 200 years society, government and industry has changed vastly as a result.
I recently came across a post in a group saying female colleges should prioritize the application of trans women into those colleges, because trans women know more about gender than cis women. While I think a trans woman may have a fascinating perspective on gender, it should not be thought of as being superior to any other person's perspective on gender. I would never presume to speak for trans women, but nor can they speak for me.
Nor would I ever presume to speak for women of color. I think they are very capable of speaking for themselves, and I am willing to listen to whatever they have to say. I fully support the movement to remember Sandra Bland #SayHerName and the #BlackLivesMatter protest at the treatment of black people in this country.
I am not saying the violence POC endure isn't exceptionally bad but so is the violence any woman endures. But I think prioritizing of the ill treatment of one group should not preclude the ill treatment of another group hence we are just building another hierarchy, the essence of the patriarchy. But this seems to be the fundamental position of intersectional feminism, that we must look at the discrimination of one group over another, and I am not saying that we should ignore discrimination of any women because they have already have perceived privilege.
Let me give you an example. The step-daughter of the heir to the Johnson fortune was repeatedly raped by him. This girl is likely to have every advantage in life, she's probably white, lots of money, lots of convenience, a great education... and years of therapy. Should we ignore what happened to her because she has so much privilege? In my opinion, definitely not. Nor should we ignore the treatment of any group.
I completely agree it is important to be reminded of our different perspectives on life, that my life has privileges others won't have, but this is true for every group. And in my opinion, acknowledging and being aware of this is the way we all advance together.
I am rather suspicious of intersectional feminism especially when they write articles like this. It's probably worth noting that Nancy Fraser is a professor at the New University which has neoconservative links and take a lot of private funding. On that note, this article is telling (white) women they should not seek jobs, but rather they should be staying at home looking after their kids instead of employing minority women to take care of her kids or helping her with housework. I presume they aren't telling black women the same. The unfortunate thing about this is women often have to work because their husbands can't, or have died or left. Women should have the option of working outside the house and if they can afford it to employ who they choose to help them.
Prof Fraser doesn't pose a solution other than upending the economy (because she says it's easier to do!) and convincing women that they should be stay-at-home moms and do their own housework in the meantime. She even dislikes micro-loans.
She doesn't want a smattering of women to get positions of power, which would mean that there are more and more role models for the next generation of girls and having women be seen in all parts of society. She doesn't address why there are no 'founding mothers', women on US currency or female presidents or the very few women on the cover of person of the year for Time magazine... She talks about rather how much impact feminism has had on discussions of economics !!!!!! (And no doubt she said this with a straight face too.)
Rather she is confusing the impact of feminism verses the impact of trickle down economics.
The biggest problem with intersectional feminism is that it silences (white) feminists because of all their perceived privilege, no I am not interested in talking over black women and I will listen to them, but my voice matters too. In my opinion, any woman who is silenced in the name of feminism is not feminism.
If this interview with Prof Fraser is anything to go by, all women should go back home and leave the workforce. I am wondering whether the roots of intersectional feminism is the result of Koch Brothers funding or right-wing conservatives who will do anything to stop Clinton and they are doing this by dividing feminists. And with the swift uptake of intersectional feminism it would appear to be very much funded by right-wing conservatives.
And also because they usually point to Hillary Clinton when talking about privilege, and then point to Bernie Sanders (a rich old white man who arguably has far more privilege than Clinton does) as a preferred choice in the current primaries.
I am not interested in a one-size-fits-all feminism, where we all march in lock-step with each other, where we all vote the same way, all say the same things, and wear the same clothes. I am for bringing choice to women, where we can decide for ourselves whether we have an abortion or be mothers, work and get equal pay... without worrying whether we will fit in. We should just accept women doing what we want to do rather than what we think we have to be accepted by society and the same goes, of course, for men.
All in all, all this is doing is pushing women to the back as we see constantly.
When black men are killed by cops in the US it makes news in other countries, but when black women are killed by cops it is completely ignored in other countries. Both are awful and wrong, but the importance of the ill treatment of men as a priority over the ill treatment of women is primarily sexism.
Then there are women who claim to be 'humanists' rather than feminists - and while I completely agree men are experiencing major problems in our society, concentrating on 'human' problems will mean men's issues will be prioritized over fixing problems women experience.
I have been pushed to the back all my life being told to just put up with it because I am a female. I refuse to be pushed to the back anymore.
RSS Feed
