Then you did not read the original black womens theory of intersectionality and do not believe in it! Because not acknowledging all parts of an identity is not applyying it correctly. There is in fact huge contradiction to using that theory and then leaving out a pice of someones intersection.
All idenities intersect here!
Stop butchering black womens theories!!!!
also holy patriarchy batman can we talk about how this is just the idea that gender is a thing women have whereas men just are. the idea that being a man is a neutral non-identity while being a woman is to be the quintessential gendered other. which is like cultural misogyny 101. do you see this shit simone!!!!!!!!
I. I just. I know the original post of this is old, and the screenshot is also therefore old but this is literally the first paragraph of Kimberlé Crenshaw's paper, Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics:
One of the very few Black women's studies books is entitled All the Women Are White; All the Blacks Are Men, But Some of Us are Brave. I have chosen this title as a point of departure in my efforts to develop a Black feminist criticism because it sets forth a problematic consequence of the tendency to treat race and gender as mutually exclusive categories of experience and analysis.' In this talk, I want to examine how this tendency is perpetuated by a single-axis framework that is dominant in antidiscrimination law and that is also reflected in feminist theory and antiracist politics.
This is fully free to read online, published in 1989 in the University of Chicago Legal Forum, and cited at least 53,395 times according to Google.
You might wonder, does the seminal paper about intersectionality talk about men as a point of intersection?
The point is that Black women can experience discrimination in any number of ways and that the contradiction arises from our assumptions that their claims of exclusion must be unidirectional. Consider an analogy to traffic in an intersection, coming and going in all four directions. Discrimination, like traffic through an intersection, may flow in one direction, and it may flow in another. If an accident happens in an intersection, it can be caused by cars traveling from any number of directions and, sometimes, from all of them. Similarly, if a Black woman is harmed because she is in the intersection, her injury could result from sex discrimination or race discrimination.
Judicial decisions which premise intersectional relief on a showing that Black women are specifically recognized as a class are analogous to a doctor's decision at the scene of an accident to treat an accident victim only if the injury is recognized by medical insurance. Similarly, providing legal relief only when Black women show that their claims are based on race or on sex is analogous to calling an ambulance for the victim only after the driver responsible for the injuries is identified. But it is not always easy to reconstruct an accident: Sometimes the skid marks and the injuries simply indicate that they occurred simultaneously, frustrating efforts to determine which driver caused the harm. In these cases the tendency seems to be that no driver is held responsible, no treatment is administered, and the involved parties simply get back in their cars and zoom away.
To bring this back to a non-metaphorical level, I am suggesting that Black women can experience discrimination in ways that are both similar to and different from those experienced by white women and Black men. Black women sometimes experience discrimination in ways similar to white women's experiences; sometimes they share very similar experiences with Black men. Yet often they experience double-discrimination-the combined effects of practices which discriminate on the basis of race, and on the basis of sex. And sometimes, they experience discrimination as Black women-not the sum of race and sex discrimination, but as Black women.
And the answer is yes, of fucking course it does, because people experience both having racial and gender identities and discrimination can happen on the basis of such identities, and people can get hit in the intersection in more than one way at the same time, that's literally the whole fucking point of the essay.
It's also free to sign up for Jstor and read her other article, Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color, published in the Stanford Law Review in 1991.
For the low low price of $zero dollars and reading 30 and 59 pages respectively, people could stop themselves from being embarrassingly wrong on the internet.
Just what the fuck do people even think intersectionality MEANS? I'm so baffled!!! Of course "man" is a meaningful point of intersection. OF COURSE IT IS!!!
Racism (against pretty much any race, from pretty much any dominant culture) is going to apply to men and women DIFFERENTLY. It's not a matter of better or worse, that's the wrong question.
In the USA, Black men have an easier time being seen as authority figures than Black women, but are also more likely to be seen as a physical threat. Is this better or worse? Wrong question.
What are the stereotypes against Asian men and Asian women in the USA? They're DIFFERENT.
Understanding this is what intersectionality is all about.
