Intersectional Theory

Don't say 'meme' when you mean 'shitty Holla Forumsack idpol' user.

i don't think so

meme for a meme
youtube.com/watch?v=phOW-CZJWT0

This always pops in my head whenever I hear that meme

somebodies body is always their own personal property as they are in constant use of it is therefore their decision what they do with it.

yes and they hold dominion over who and who doesn't get access to it

straight sex requires a peepee too user

They're basically Neocons.

Just like you. Most women are just a bit more picky about it.

Now leave before you completely derail the thread.

Just dominion.

Is it domination that I can't fuck your boipussy whenever I want?

STOP. DON'T make this yet another r9k thread

That's not intersectionality at all. The point of intersectionality, or intersectionality theory to be more precise, is to understand how different identities are form and how different types of exploitation, discrimination and oppression "intersect" with one another. It is for example ridiculous to say that classism today is the only type of discrimination in the US, where a disproportionate amount of black workers are targeted by police brutality for doing the same things a white worker would.

I don't agree with it much because it tends to atomize racism as a phenomenon entirely separate from the history of class struggle (a tool used by the ruling classes to divide and conquer, for example), but intersectionality is not identity politics innately, because it's not prescriptive, although a lot of identity politics are justified through intersectional rhetoric.

Zizek, Adolph Reed, Marx, Luxemburg
if a certain theorist is popular here, chances are they're anti-idpol

How is that not exactly what I just said?

No one said it was.

Agree to disagree. Because of the latter example you gave, it deserves this title.

in the context of your wanting to do that, yes. my point is that a feminist calling for "the overthrow at one stroke of all forms of domination," whilst ignoring female control over sex and procreation, is just convenient ideology. they're ok with some forms of domination and they should just be honest about it

So… Women shouldn't have domination over their own bodies?

stop trying to make left idpol happen

I was writing some shit up, but this guy said it better.

Read the wiki about intersectionality.
The "intersection" is basically a power set [0] of all "identities" that are marginalized some way or another.
Each set experiences oppression in a unique way. So a black trans woman experiences oppression differently than a white trans woman.
Honestly it's not super wrong, but it's not really enlightening in my opinion. Like, yeah, different types of oppression exist and they are shit, but analyzing each combination of these different "intersections" of identities doesn't really take you anywhere. Besides, the oppression felt by a black trans disabled lesbian woman will be different than another black trans disabled lesbian woman.

[0] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_set#Example

stop fighting you fucking idiots.
The guy is either an idiot, or a troll. Stop derailing.

Nigga you retarded.

no, i think they should, i just also think they should admit that they control 'the market' on sex and procreation, and should stop portraying themselves as powerless or as victims

OP has a fair question, imo. Good subject matter & opportunity to address idpol.

The text doesn't say gross, it says "That feel when no gf"

Oh, ok, thanks.
Get out, asshole.

lmao

you seem to be under the impression that you yourself have no sexual agency.

It is not the case that women do not want to fuck guys, they do, you have equal control

We really shouldn't engage him further. Nothing will be gleamed & the thread will suffer.

nah. despite what you might think, feminism is not above criticism and i will continue to discuss it

I guess I'm wondering, what do these people think that interesectionality does that the base-superstructure analysis doesn't do?
I thought Marxist already realized these different types of oppression intersect, they just didn't give it a goofy name.

this is why all non-chads should get the wall

fuck off, lumpen are the most revolutionary class

Intersectionality as an area of study is broad.
Apparently there's a "marxist" perspective from intersectionality. From what I read in wikipedia, it seems to be a critique that class alone (and stuff that goes with it, like education) is not enough to determine labor market opportunities for individuals.

Intersectionality came from feminism and apparently maoists. And yeah, most marxist do realize that.

While class is supposedly an "axis" or an identity of oppression, like gender and sexual orientation, it is very often underplayed, treated as equal in the oppression scale or completely ignored. So a black trans disabled lesbian rich woman is more oppressed than a poor white male.
I've seen shit thinking that comes out of this, such as "a minority can't be bigot to the majority" so, a woman can't be sexist, a black guy can't be racist, etc. So Beyonce can't be racist and can't be sexist because she's being oppressed for being black and female. Since she's not being oppressed by class, then that is irrelevant.
I read an article where a woman was stating that if more white people would start getting shot by the police, she would consider the problem fixed. I wish I had saved it. Liberating an identity by making the "opposite" identity equally oppressed, nice.

It masturbates to oppression, creates oppression Olympics (which leads to self victimization), identifies oppression but fails to understand the origins, essentializes identities, and leads to bad politics (ie. idpol/sjw)

warning: don't criticise feminism or you might get banned

Would put money on you being a habitual shitposter and retard.

...

no, i just refuse to treat feminism and women as sacred cows

To my mind intersectional theory is a theoretical bugaloo that could be reduced to holism, ie. "the whole is bigger than the sum of its parts".
Also, when you study a population for a sociological study, you have to precisely define what is the field of your study, eg you could study "the daily working conditions at the slaughterhouses of Kansas City" (I don't know if that exist), but it would be stupid to call such a study the intersection of classism, slaughterhousism (slaughterers suffer discriminations because they kill animals), and Kansascityism (people from Middle USA are often viewed as wild rednecks).

forgot to remove shitposting flag

It had nothing to do about "criticizing feminism" & everything to do with you being a sperg. Lurk more if this is how you actually feel. Get to know the board you're posting on.

...

Twas a good webm indeed

Not for long. Technology will eliminate the need for women, and they will lose the only value they ever had.

;~; you're mean

I think you mean
The future will be transgender cyborg cat-girls and nothing else.

Men aren't valued for sex, and dildos have existed for a long time. Nothing would change in that respect. If anything women will find more value in the industrial robots which can toil away in darkness 24/7 to provide for the family.

Also, nobody will be "transgender" because gender alteration will be a trivial procedure and gender-swapped bodies will be indistinguishable from natural ones.

Sign me the fuck up.

I beg to differ.

Very few people here oppose ethnic minority/gay/women's rights, it's just that intersectional theory puts them all on the same footing, in theory. In reality intersectionality is used by neolibs to advocate for a certain identity group (often in an obnoxious way) while disparaging real working class action.

Class is not an identity, it is material, one's relation to the means of production. Race is not real, it's a social construct (or a spook, if you will), which does not mean being black for instance doesn't have real a impact on people's lives, but anti-racist action will fundamentally not change the base, only superstructure.

Are you sure? Sounds to me like you're suggesting that everyone will be transgender. And I couldn't agree more; as our selves become ever more divided by the partially considered reality, biotechnocapital will kick in and essentialise trans reality. So strap in kid, cis is about to shit the bed.

transgenderism is a state of the mind
I personally am postgender, ie I don't give a fuck.

As a fa/tg/uy, I can't help but be reminded by this post of SJWs who parasitize RPGs, and in spite of fictional settings that conform to their fevered delusions in every practical aspect, they persist in making themselves out to be martyrs.

For instance, D&D allows you to change sex with a magic any 5th-level character can afford, yet in SJW campaigns and sourcebooks there are trannies angsting about their tranny-ness. Eclipse Phase is perhaps the most ridiculous, because it's a post-human setting where everyone is software that can be loaded into robot bodies, and yet the authors saw fit to fill the setting guide with garbage about how sexism/racism/etc is sooo relevant.

I think victimhood isn't a result of idpol for these people, instead idpol is merely a means for the end of victimhood itself. The whole act is a personal indulgance.

Nietzsche's slave morality, everyone

How come the base-superstructure analysis can't address all the problems intersectionality attempts to solve?
I don't get why it's been abandoned, frankly.

Doesn't it have roots pretty firmly in post modernism, tho?

Literally idpol

criticizing "feminism" /= why can't i get fucked :(

Here's mine for what that's worth.

Intersectionality fails because it doesn't understand the problem with treating people as members of a category. Intersectionality thinks the problem is treating people as members of a category, like only looking at someone's race or gender. Intersectionality seeks to look at all the categories, so not just race and gender but also sexual orientation. Oh and gender identity. Oh and (dis)ability. Oh and age. Etc. What you end up with is a bizarre morass of people attempting to negotiate a Byzantine hierarchy that was invented in an attempt to negate the existing hierarchies. It's the product of way-too-deep navel gazing.

What intersectionality misses that leads it to this quagmire is that the problem is not treating people as members of a category, but the paradigm itself of treating people as members of a category. It looks at existing social systems, which develop to be extremely complex, and picks apart the arrangement of the system in fine detail. All you have to do is notice that the flaws being picked apart stem from not the categories as they are defined or arranged in this instance, but the notion of categorization and hierarchy based on categorization itself. While people are squabbling over the details, they accept the broader narrative that putting people in these categories is alright and they often accept not just the paradigm but the categorization given by the status quo. You see this with people who try to find positive aspects of their categories, which is really just a manifestation of the urge to jockey for a higher position in the hierarchy.

The way you dismantle the system is to destroy the foundation, the keystone, of its ideology: the notion that categorization of people by stereotypes like race or gender is useful. You don't tear down the system by criticizing the manifestation of the system, because that manifestation is largely arbitrary. If you tear it down, the forces that shape the ideology of categorization will simply come up with new versions. You can see this in action with racism - racists today have different stereotypes for other races than they did 100 years ago, meaning combating racism at the granular, detail-oriented level will just force racists to come up with new stereotypes again. You don't destroy racism by rebutting the claim that all black people waste their money on KFC and Jordans. You destroy racism (and all other -isms) by rooting out the underlying absurdity that people form abstract collectives based on these categories rather than being individuals who don't have to conform to some stereotype.

It truly is, the parallels between Christianity's (ESPECIALLY Catholicism's) fetishistic adulation toward suffering and the modern SJW's lionization of victimsurvivorhood are staggering. Being raped, bullied, crippled, etc. is seen as some kind of demented rite of passage, without which one is all but openly declared incomplete as a human being among such circles.

The oppression olympics are the left-wing mirror of the fundies who ogle dying near-stillborn defectives dying comotose in their hospital beds, with worship bordering on envy.

n
o
i
c
e

Sometimes I wonder if people who use the term intersectionality theory actually understand what the term means. Done right, intersectionality is literally the antithesis of identity politics. It is the idea that all forms of oppression are interlinked, and we should focus on studying their relationships, and working to abolish them all, instead of basing our identities around being more oppressed than thou. The problem arises when people leave out class struggle, and it stops being real intersectionality, and becomes liberalism.

Instead of arguing against intersectionality, you should call them out as not really promoting intersectionality for neglecting class struggle.

...

Lesbians are the only true heterosexuals
t. lacan

there needs to be more egoist communism memes

Creating an "intersection" of class struggle and a bunch of things bourgies can also supposedly suffer from doesn't lead to changing anything, and only leads to emphasizing things other than class struggle. It dividing the proletariat into a bunch of demographic groups, each too at each other's throats to change anything, and which struggle with one another instead of the bourgeoisie while viewing bourgeoisie from their demographic as allies.

Intersectional theory can not be distinguished from intersectional practice, and intersectional practice isn't revolution, but strengthened ethnic/gender prejudice and salience, support for neoliberal politicians, and endless arguments about who's most oppressed and what "really" counts as oppression.

bookchin touches on this here:

democracynature.org/vol2/bookchin_nationalism.htm

Agreed. Dr. Bones at The Conjure House is the only outlet so far.

I have recently stumbled across
viewpointmag.com/2017/03/16/identity-crisis/
and I think it's great, because it superficially takes the side of the idpolers and explicitly panders to their special needs, while still making all the important arguments against both the concept and its modern execution.

mods were right.

Yeah, it seems like a mixture of post modernism, maoism and feminism. Honestly I don't know enough about it, I'm repeating what others have said (eg. chomsky, against identity politics by lupus dragonowl).

good post

I guess it's because they come from different backgrounds, besides, reading Marx is hard :P
I would question, does base-superstructure really solve all these problems?
I'm not entirely convinced. What about religion and reactionary thought?
I'm more partial to anarchist thought because any state (in the MLM context) would be capable of perpetuating oppression. Any thoughts?

Because guys can't get doctorates for writing variations on a theory that already works too well. They have to make up some shit for their theses that looks at a problem (real or imaginary–it doesn't matter) in an entirely unique way. Never mind if it makes any sense or not.

In the past, I would have taken the intersectionalists' stance, as there were genuine issues of discrimination that persisted in some places but not in others, in spite of similar economic development. Theocracy, slavery, segregation, disenfranchisement, etc.

But no more. It is precisely government that long ago fixed the "problems" intersectionality flails at today, insofar as they existed distinct from economics.

Since all of the various explicitly discriminatory non-economic "oppressions" have been illegal for decades, the only form they can now exist in is implicitly discriminatory oppression camouflaged by the routine oppression inevitable under capitalism. They are legally indistinguishable from class oppression, because they are also functionally indistinguishable from class oppression.

The final elimination of discriminatory oppression can't be from eternally trying to brainwash people into magically not discriminating, but must come from the elimination of indiscriminate oppression among which it is allowed room to express itself.

overcomingracism.org/resources/White-Fragility.pdf

Please Sassenach, understand that you don't understand intersectionalism because you are white: having white muh privilege means you have the muh privilege not to understand intersectional oppression. That's why when you are talked about this subject, you feel oppressed.

youtube.com/watch?v=HX2z2u3Uar8

Damn.
That's not bad.

Intersectional Theory isn't really wrong but it tends to be used by liberals for them to say "We need more Female Drone Pilots !"

Women withhold sex from poor men ie you so they can commodity it.

"Chads" have outward physical signs of wealth that are hard to attain if you aren't at least petite bourgeois, so women go after men with those signifiers.

I can tell what is considered attractive in the west isn't universal throughout the world.

Women outside the west put way more emphasis on what would be considered "what's on the inside" like empathy and kindness.

If here was no capitalism women wouldn't have any incentive to peruse chads. I can't tell you what they would do instead but having been close friends with a chad I can tell you women are every bit as horny as guys and would probably sleep with a way wider variety of men than now

It's equally ridiculous to say that anything but classism is the only form of meaningful discrimination in the US. This is what intersectionality doesn't account for. Discrimination is a fact of life that isn't a negative, we discriminate based on who to befriend, what to eat, where to live, based on our own personal biases and experiences, we have distaste for certain types of people for certain reasons, and praise for others, it is all meaningless as it is all immaterial. Class is the only form of "discrimination" that makes "discrimination" a pejorative term. This is why intersectionality is nonsense.

Intersectional Theory is not wrong, but it's something to be discussed on a academic setting, not to be LARPed by liberals as a mean to shut discussion and virtue signal.

Transgender specifically refers to the contradiction between how the mind feels and how the body is. When the body can be perfectly reshaped down to the molecular scale, there will be no reason to have any contradiction.

Actually, I'm sure there will still be a tiny minority of people who "identify" with a state of contradiction and use the technology in weird ways, but even they won't really be transgender in the conventional sense.

It's not wrong in the same way that the studies showing blacks are less intelligent than whites aren't wrong.
Every practical use for the information is wrong, as evidenced by everything feminism has done recently.

When one identity becomes obsolete, a new one takes its place.

The only way that intersectionality is able to be not wrong is by never coming to any kind of definite conclusions.

Shouldn't that be 那 not 这

second image there saw a feminist on tv once and decided they understand the ideas in feminism

they are too close to use na. zhe works better.

Just like all postmodernism

Well said

Imagine if the fury that liberals went after racists and sexists (mostly rightfully) could be captured to go after politicians who abuse the working class. we'd have a soc dem government at minimum yesterday

Not just that. Intersection theory, at least as it is talked about and applied in the real world, seems to deal exclusively with masking the symptoms of our species' problems. Feminists almost never try to eliminate the causes of oppression because those are typically hard to understand, hard to solve, and won't even earn them any likes on facebook.

They continually make incredibly stupid mistakes in problem solving too. For instance, it was quite reasonable to use average university admission rates as a metric to measure racial inequality in education, but then they have to go and ruin their own metric by getting universities to preferentially admit candidates of certain races. That isn't how you use metrics you fucking imbeciles! You haven't solved educational inequality. Nobody is any smarter than they were before. You've just made the situation even more complicated and difficult to unravel.

Very well put, comrade.