This is one of few videos I have watched recently that included a lot of words but no message. Trying to understand this concept and why it exists but this does not really give anything to it....
In parts you are right here. It is especially unclear which strategic benefits interesectionality brings. (Especially compared to earlier authors like Herbert Marcuse who already said that the left should build a vanguard of multiple marginalized groups to attack the dominant ideology. How does intersectionality now differ from Marcuses idea or how does it improve apon Marcuses idea?)
While I agree that a person can have multiple disadvantages, intersectional feminism is actually an issue to the core of feminism itself. Imagine this, female from country 1 is considered less privileged than female from country 2. We get this information by looking at each section on an average which is how intersectional feminism is defined. By using the argument of intersectional, we should help person from country 1 more as she is less privileged thereby having less advantage in life. Here comes the issues with intersectionalism: we are making assumptions that could be incorrect about the two different persons. In fact, we have no idea who of tho two might need more help be put out of their disadvantage. The experiences of being a woman in country 1 might differ on an average scale, but it could be likely a person in country 2 has other individual obstacles making her more disadvantaged in life than person 1. All people are different, and label peoples advantages in life based only on colour, race, religion, sexuality etc is never enough to draw the full picture of that person nor to draw an conclusion on who needs help the most. In fact labelling people based on these factors are similar to discriminating regimes do to segregate between its people. Many feminist have pointed this out which is why the terms was widely discarded by the feminist movement in the 1980-1990s.
Well, as Crenshaw explains its not about who suffers more, but about who is affected by certain forms of discrimination. So the goal is not a social triage but rather about liberating those who are most affected by discriminatory systems, because if they are no longer negitivly affected by them, no one is.
So first off, men and women have different needs, so really women need more rights than men, because women have more areas where rights are needed and they need to be legally protected against discrimination and violation of their rights where men don't. It is also not really about rights, mate? Like, paying a woman less than a man for the same job has been illegal in the US since the 60s, and yet it still happens? More than half a century of illegality for misogynistic pay practices, and yet there are still so many cases of it happening today. The fact that you bring up rights, but fail to bring up the fact that women still suffer violation of these basic rights that they have fought so hard for, for so long, is exactly why you're the problem. A right isn't a right if you don't get it, if it's stripped away from you constantly. Yes, there are small examples of women having more sway than men, such as in family court, where mothers are much more likely to gain full custody than father, but even then, this is improving. Since 1994, the percentage of fathers who gained full custody has increased by over 6%. So even then, these are still leveling out, meaning that this slope against men is getting better and so you can't say that the system is sloped against men, because it is improving, and that is one very specific cherry picked example. Also, one more major argument brought up is that the majority of suicides are of men, but therapy and suicide hotlines are not more likely to favour a woman? It is still the patriarchy and the vilification and discouragement of expressing emotions as a young man that leads to these things. OK, so, now that we've established that men aren't as nearly discriminated against as male apologists say they are, and while it's bad, trust me, I've been living it my whole life, I can wholeheartedly tell you that society is geared against women. So let's go back to other ways women are discriminated against in modern society. We've recently discovered that women earn roughly 82% of what men earn, well, that isn't a recent discovery, statistics like this have been floating around for half a century, but you can't discount this, as by a recent study by the PEW research centre, this is based on only the hourly pay of both part time and full time workers, and discounts unemployed people. This completely removes the regular argument of "more women are unemployed because they're staying at home moms". We have concrete proof that the hourly rate of working women is less than that of working men. This is true worldwide and is worst in EDCs and LIDCs, some of which women aren't allowed to work full stop. Now that we've cleared up western sexism, let's go back to your original point, "what rights do women have that men don't? Well, in the EDC's and LIDC's populations that I mentioned before, this can range from none, to most, with a prime example being Afghanistan, which the WPS ranks at just 7.2%. The country also ranks among the highest for gender-based violence, with 35 out of every 100 women reportedly exposed to violence at the hands of an intimate partner. Due to 40 years of conflict, women in this country lack education, marital freedom, economic freedom and worst of all, safety. The world is much bigger than the area you know, Wally. Tldr: you're and idiot, educate yourself.
@@attomo2047 men and women are different and hence have different needs. I wouldn’t necessarily say women have more needs unless proof is given but they do have different needs. Nowadays a lot of women want equality only when it benefits them, not necessarily wanting to have their needs met due to their differences. Plato said “treat like cases as like” - identical things should be treated identically so different things should be treated differently. Feminism does not accommodate for differences between men and women so it has less explanatory scope. So why should men accept feminists failure or accept it as a presupposition for answering their questions? Why is there an assumption of legality of absolute equality? This assumption itself is unsubstantiated. Feminists need to argue from principles why different things should be treated the same, not us. is the assumption that different things should be treated the same? We believe that equality of value does not mean identicality in rules. When men are forced to go to war that isn’t power but lack of power. By large feminists ask for equality where it benefits them and not for difficult things, same want for privilege the initial founders have. A lot of feminists don't care about equality and humanity, they want to privilege themselves and are using ideological arguments to do so but they realise it goes against their natural disposition so it backlashes. These women will end up just like founding mothers of feminism in a regretful state. If white woman has a black slave, it can't be argued that the black man is taking advantage of the white woman and has power superiority. You can’t compare colonised tribes in africa or middle east or asia with those benefiting from feminism in the west. So women being oppressed by men perpetually all through history is an untenable thesis as there’s a intersectional different layers of identity - not just a woman, there’s disabled woman, black, white man etc. With a multi-factor analysis you can’t make blanket statements. It depends on what man and woman spoken about and what power relations and how you define power as there’s so many definitions. Robert Dahl said along the lines the ability of person a to get person b to do something b would otherwise not do. Sambaris has a different understanding, Foucault believed power was like a fog that was everywhere. No consensus of what power is. They have to prove a lot, give classical definition of power and define power as oppressive. Their argument is a man being in charge of a woman in any capacity is oppressive. a woman in a corporate environment given 5 ppl to look after as a manager and when given 5 more people to look after will see that as expansion of power because more responsibility but would never say that about having more children even though it’s also expansion of responsibility.” So they’ve denigrated the domestic environment when the influence she has on kids is more than employees at work but because it’s within a capitalistic framework.
This view of seeing it in terms of privilege and "if you are privileged, there are fewer ways you are discriminated" ... In that form, it is not true. Especially if you take economics into the mix.For example, in russia, there are/were the so called old believers who refused to accept a certain reform in the russian orthodox rite. (One of the most famous persons associated with the old believers, but who was controversial for other reasons, was Rasputin) They were persecuted by the church. BUT: In certain times, old believers were better in economic conditions than other russians. Thus, there, they had privilege. Many ordinary people hated the old believers for their economic success. So, their success in economics helped making the discrimination they faced much worse.
@@aaronsailor827 Where to begin? Intersectionality in the way that is applied through things like DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion) rests on the notion of systems of oppression as evidenced by inequalities between various demographics. The base problem is that they start with the notion that inequality means racism, sexism, homophobia, white supremacy, etc., and then use DEI initiatives to rectify the inequalities. Diversity means more people that believe in intersectionality wokeism, equity means quotas, inclusion means excluding. Going against intersectionality and DEI can mean lost jobs, ostracizing by family, friends, co-workers, smear campaigns, etc. On face of it. Intersectionality seems nice, but there’s problems underneath. I think there are better ways. We need to stop being ideological about issues and start looking for real solutions.
@@robr.5044...Funny, how you tried to use intellectually then throw a stupid term like woke-ism. Woke-ism is NOT A THING. Give it a rest. Intersectionality is something that affect people. Maybe NOT YOU but, it does affect minorities and minority women.
@@aaronsailor827 Yes it is a thing, and it absolutely affects me and everyone around me. Go ahead and play along with that cult for awhile and see where it gets you.
Awww, I get it... Intersectionality militant, feminist (choose your word) just means WOKE AF... Lol, hard pass! Enjoy the anti depressants, cat collection and boxed wine XD XD XD
This is one of few videos I have watched recently that included a lot of words but no message. Trying to understand this concept and why it exists but this does not really give anything to it....
In parts you are right here. It is especially unclear which strategic benefits interesectionality brings. (Especially compared to earlier authors like Herbert Marcuse who already said that the left should build a vanguard of multiple marginalized groups to attack the dominant ideology. How does intersectionality now differ from Marcuses idea or how does it improve apon Marcuses idea?)
What barriers do women have compared to men in the western world?
literally everything
@@givemethelead Lol, in what regard? You are free to express yourself as you see fit.
i love this video it will help me a lot in my speech about intersectional femenism, tysm.
Hi Mam
Can you explain theories on ethnic food and feminism in food literature
While I agree that a person can have multiple disadvantages, intersectional feminism is actually an issue to the core of feminism itself.
Imagine this, female from country 1 is considered less privileged than female from country 2. We get this information by looking at each section on an average which is how intersectional feminism is defined. By using the argument of intersectional, we should help person from country 1 more as she is less privileged thereby having less advantage in life.
Here comes the issues with intersectionalism: we are making assumptions that could be incorrect about the two different persons. In fact, we have no idea who of tho two might need more help be put out of their disadvantage. The experiences of being a woman in country 1 might differ on an average scale, but it could be likely a person in country 2 has other individual obstacles making her more disadvantaged in life than person 1.
All people are different, and label peoples advantages in life based only on colour, race, religion, sexuality etc is never enough to draw the full picture of that person nor to draw an conclusion on who needs help the most.
In fact labelling people based on these factors are similar to discriminating regimes do to segregate between its people. Many feminist have pointed this out which is why the terms was widely discarded by the feminist movement in the 1980-1990s.
Well, as Crenshaw explains its not about who suffers more, but about who is affected by certain forms of discrimination. So the goal is not a social triage but rather about liberating those who are most affected by discriminatory systems, because if they are no longer negitivly affected by them, no one is.
What rights do men have that women don't?
So first off, men and women have different needs, so really women need more rights than men, because women have more areas where rights are needed and they need to be legally protected against discrimination and violation of their rights where men don't. It is also not really about rights, mate? Like, paying a woman less than a man for the same job has been illegal in the US since the 60s, and yet it still happens? More than half a century of illegality for misogynistic pay practices, and yet there are still so many cases of it happening today. The fact that you bring up rights, but fail to bring up the fact that women still suffer violation of these basic rights that they have fought so hard for, for so long, is exactly why you're the problem. A right isn't a right if you don't get it, if it's stripped away from you constantly. Yes, there are small examples of women having more sway than men, such as in family court, where mothers are much more likely to gain full custody than father, but even then, this is improving. Since 1994, the percentage of fathers who gained full custody has increased by over 6%. So even then, these are still leveling out, meaning that this slope against men is getting better and so you can't say that the system is sloped against men, because it is improving, and that is one very specific cherry picked example. Also, one more major argument brought up is that the majority of suicides are of men, but therapy and suicide hotlines are not more likely to favour a woman? It is still the patriarchy and the vilification and discouragement of expressing emotions as a young man that leads to these things. OK, so, now that we've established that men aren't as nearly discriminated against as male apologists say they are, and while it's bad, trust me, I've been living it my whole life, I can wholeheartedly tell you that society is geared against women. So let's go back to other ways women are discriminated against in modern society. We've recently discovered that women earn roughly 82% of what men earn, well, that isn't a recent discovery, statistics like this have been floating around for half a century, but you can't discount this, as by a recent study by the PEW research centre, this is based on only the hourly pay of both part time and full time workers, and discounts unemployed people. This completely removes the regular argument of "more women are unemployed because they're staying at home moms". We have concrete proof that the hourly rate of working women is less than that of working men. This is true worldwide and is worst in EDCs and LIDCs, some of which women aren't allowed to work full stop. Now that we've cleared up western sexism, let's go back to your original point, "what rights do women have that men don't? Well, in the EDC's and LIDC's populations that I mentioned before, this can range from none, to most, with a prime example being Afghanistan, which the WPS ranks at just 7.2%. The country also ranks among the highest for gender-based violence, with 35 out of every 100 women reportedly exposed to violence at the hands of an intimate partner. Due to 40 years of conflict, women in this country lack education, marital freedom, economic freedom and worst of all, safety. The world is much bigger than the area you know, Wally.
Tldr: you're and idiot, educate yourself.
@@attomo2047you couldn’t be more wrong
@@attomo2047 men and women are different and hence have different needs. I wouldn’t necessarily say women have more needs unless proof is given but they do have different needs. Nowadays a lot of women want equality only when it benefits them, not necessarily wanting to have their needs met due to their differences.
Plato said “treat like cases as like” - identical things should be treated identically so different things should be treated differently. Feminism does not accommodate for differences between men and women so it has less explanatory scope. So why should men accept feminists failure or accept it as a presupposition for answering their questions? Why is there an assumption of legality of absolute equality? This assumption itself is unsubstantiated. Feminists need to argue from principles why different things should be treated the same, not us. is the assumption that different things should be treated the same? We believe that equality of value does not mean identicality in rules.
When men are forced to go to war that isn’t power but lack of power. By large feminists ask for equality where it benefits them and not for difficult things, same want for privilege the initial founders have. A lot of feminists don't care about equality and humanity, they want to privilege themselves and are using ideological arguments to do so but they realise it goes against their natural disposition so it backlashes. These women will end up just like founding mothers of feminism in a regretful state.
If white woman has a black slave, it can't be argued that the black man is taking advantage of the white woman and has power superiority. You can’t compare colonised tribes in africa or middle east or asia with those benefiting from feminism in the west. So women being oppressed by men perpetually all through history is an untenable thesis as there’s a intersectional different layers of identity - not just a woman, there’s disabled woman, black, white man etc. With a multi-factor analysis you can’t make blanket statements. It depends on what man and woman spoken about and what power relations and how you define power as there’s so many definitions. Robert Dahl said along the lines the ability of person a to get person b to do something b would otherwise not do. Sambaris has a different understanding, Foucault believed power was like a fog that was everywhere. No consensus of what power is. They have to prove a lot, give classical definition of power and define power as oppressive. Their argument is a man being in charge of a woman in any capacity is oppressive. a woman in a corporate environment given 5 ppl to look after as a manager and when given 5 more people to look after will see that as expansion of power because more responsibility but would never say that about having more children even though it’s also expansion of responsibility.” So they’ve denigrated the domestic environment when the influence she has on kids is more than employees at work but because it’s within a capitalistic framework.
@attomo2047 Women, know your limits.
This view of seeing it in terms of privilege and "if you are privileged, there are fewer ways you are discriminated" ... In that form, it is not true. Especially if you take economics into the mix.For example, in russia, there are/were the so called old believers who refused to accept a certain reform in the russian orthodox rite. (One of the most famous persons associated with the old believers, but who was controversial for other reasons, was Rasputin) They were persecuted by the church.
BUT: In certain times, old believers were better in economic conditions than other russians. Thus, there, they had privilege. Many ordinary people hated the old believers for their economic success. So, their success in economics helped making the discrimination they faced much worse.
can i talk to you?
Intersectionality in all its flavors is a cult.
How so?
@@aaronsailor827 Where to begin? Intersectionality in the way that is applied through things like DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion) rests on the notion of systems of oppression as evidenced by inequalities between various demographics. The base problem is that they start with the notion that inequality means racism, sexism, homophobia, white supremacy, etc., and then use DEI initiatives to rectify the inequalities. Diversity means more people that believe in intersectionality wokeism, equity means quotas, inclusion means excluding. Going against intersectionality and DEI can mean lost jobs, ostracizing by family, friends, co-workers, smear campaigns, etc.
On face of it. Intersectionality seems nice, but there’s problems underneath. I think there are better ways. We need to stop being ideological about issues and start looking for real solutions.
@@robr.5044...Funny, how you tried to use intellectually then throw a stupid term like woke-ism. Woke-ism is NOT A THING. Give it a rest. Intersectionality is something that affect people. Maybe NOT YOU but, it does affect minorities and minority women.
@@aaronsailor827 Yes it is a thing, and it absolutely affects me and everyone around me. Go ahead and play along with that cult for awhile and see where it gets you.
@@robr.5044 saying that going against intersectionality might lead to job loss, is not an argument against a political theory
This is great. Thank you for explaining this.
Brilliant exposition of the theory. Thank you for sharing
Thank you
"Theory" 😂😂😂😂😂😂
Thank you.
Confused tribalism.
Feminists for military conscription
Basically a victim ranking
Really well explained video (:
Thanks for the explanation, I’m still against the use of the word “privilege”, though.
Awww, I get it... Intersectionality militant, feminist (choose your word) just means WOKE AF...
Lol, hard pass! Enjoy the anti depressants, cat collection and boxed wine XD XD XD
That joke felt so forced😬
That's cause it was a fact (facepalm)
@@thebirdsite I thought you guys considered "aww, lol, xd, af" feminine
@@ianwazowski5607 "you guys"? Spoken like a true racist... Let's cancel you now
Great video and presentation!
wonderful, thanks!
Pfff, womansplainer :(