Intersectionality and the increasingly obsolete theory of patriarchy

Hamakua · 2013-09-20T14:53:12+00:00

I feel this is a small step in the right direction for feminists because it admits that men aren't always more privileged than women, depending on other forms of discrimination (such as race, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status).

You misunderstand. They are falling back onto something like Intersectionality (they would fall back on anything) to explain away and then further dismiss any disadvantage men have or any privilege women have as "a symptom of patriarchy".

In other words, the old hoops they used to jump through are getting run down and worn out. These are newer hoops that can be twisted in all sorts of new ways.

The underlying ideological goals have not changed, at all. Women's emergence (or recognition) as a privileged class has spread.

Uncrack · 2013-09-20T16:24:34+00:00

The only thing intersectionality does is ensure that a straight, cis, able-bodied, white man's problems should be ignored, and that a person like that's opinion never matters because privilege.

Lightfiend · 2013-09-20T14:08:32+00:00

Kyriarchy still pretends that men are privileged over women.

It's just Patriarchy 2.0

guywithaccount · 2013-09-20T16:23:56+00:00

I have no particular problem with intersectionality, but note that even intersectional feminists generally retain the belief that men are privileged and elevated above women, with all the misandry that follows.

FeministBees · 2013-09-20T13:08:24+00:00

Intersectionality is a new movement in feminism

Intersectionality isn't actually that new, it's been around for over 20 years.

dungone · 2013-09-20T16:15:12+00:00

Intersectionality does for gynocentrism what Ptolemy did for geocentrism.

This is about about special pleading away evidence that contradicts traditional feminist theory and there's no reason to praise it. Feminists use it to try to add a little bit of a hierarchy on what would otherwise be black and white extremes and then carefully pick and choose how that hierarchy is supposed to look like. At it's core, these are rationalization techniques designed to erase anything that might make men look like a disadvantaged cohort and women as an advantaged cohort. If a woman points her finger at a man and ruins his life, it may be because she was white and he black, or she rich and he poor, and nothing to do with gender. Never-mind that a black hotel maid can point her finger at a powerful white man and do the same. This is how "intersectionality" is used in practice. It is therefore worse than useless to men's rights - it's detrimental.

Liam_Banks · 2013-09-20T14:22:00+00:00

Intersectionality is basically just dual classing in identity-based claims of oppression. It compounds the underlying fallacy that you can identify someone, on an individual basis, as "privileged" or "oppressed" based on their race, their ethnicity, their religion, their sex, or their sexuality.

The term for this way of thinking - making assumptions about an otherwise unknown individual based on generalizations arising from a group or groups they belong to - is stereotyping. That thing that SJWs and feminists rail about when it's applied to them to their disadvantage. Suddenly it's okay when stereotypical assumptions serve their agenda.

This way of thinking lies at the root of so many problems men face. People assume certain things about men based on their identity - things that are false, insulting, and in some cases, egregiously discriminatory and unconstitutional. What we need is not more of this kind of thinking. What we need is to expose it for what it is. Hypocritical, wrongheaded, unfair, and in some cases, illegal, no matter who it applies to.

2013-09-20T15:46:33+00:00

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1c25f4/feminist_only_feminism_can_effectively_advocate/c9cqrxd

Of course, the official definition of the word is divorced from actual usage. Some credit is due the author here for being unusually honest about what "intersectionalism" actually means, since so many feminists claim that the concept means that feminism acknowledges men's issues. In actual practice, it means exactly the opposite- it's a way of sweeping them under the rug by attributing any problems a man faces to something other than sex. The way being male intersects with other categories is something feminists typically go out of their way to avoid talking about.

(Resulting in ridiculous claims about, for example, the draft being about classism rather than sexism. Which is why hundreds of thousands of working-class girls were killed at the Battle of Verdun in whatever alternate timeline feminism comes from, I suppose.)

typhonblue · 2013-09-20T16:10:45+00:00

When you centre your group as "most vulnerable" you take advantage of our psychological compulsion to protect the vulnerable.

"Intersectionality" is just another word for a hierarchy of sympathy.

Attractive white women always come out on top because the only thing more sympathetic than vulnerability is attractive vulnerability and white women ensure they are considered the most attractive by supporting and perpetuating a white beauty ideal.

seenloitering · 2013-09-20T16:04:43+00:00

You lean heavily on a notion of "nature" here. Fundamentally, relations of power are a concern for two reasons: 1) purpose and 2) justice. Intersectionality is mostly concerned with the latter. This means that what is important about this theory isn't just that there is discrimination, but whether that discrimination is just (and by just I mean whether or not there is a valid reason for discriminating).

Your argument is responding to the claim that discrimination is necessarily unjust. You claim that discrimination cannot be unjust because discrimination is unavoidable (and your hidden premise is that someone cannot be ethically obligated to avoid something that is unavoidable--this is a well grounded and pretty widely accepted premise among ethicists, so no problems here). This is a perfectly valid argument if intersectionality argued that discrimination is necessarily unjust (or relied on that premise). It doesn't. Intersectionality only holds that unjustified discrimination is a problem, not that the only kind of discrimination is the unjustified variety, therefore, it concedes that not all discrimination can be avoided by conceding that not all discrimination should be avoided. As a consequence, it is free to help itself to the following premise: while discrimination is unavoidable, unjust discrimination is avoidable, therefore it is reasonable to condemn unjustified discrimination and to hold persons accountable for it.

rightsbot · 2013-09-20T12:56:18+00:00

Post text automatically copied here. (Why?) (Report a problem.)

ruboos · 2013-09-20T14:14:31+00:00

I really like this idea. Can you write a blog post about it, saaayyyyy around 1,500 words? If you could give a short primer in Intersectionality, follow it with mens status inside the theory, and then explain how those two ideas mesh with the MHRM, I think that would go a long way to contribute to this subreddit.

SteelCrossx · 2013-09-20T15:33:49+00:00

[permanently deleted]

Title	Intersectionality and the increasingly obsolete theory of patriarchy
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	33
Comments	28
Date	September 20, 2013 12:55 PM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1mrwa1/intersectionality_and_the_increasingly_obsolete/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/intersectionality-and-the-increasingly-obsolete.1163374 https://theredarchive.com/post/1163374

Comments