• RobbieGM@discuss.tchncs.de
      3·
      1 year ago

      Are you just not even making an attempt to understand my point? In this scenario, of course black women would benefit, as they’d experience no police brutality. My point is that this magical elimination of a racial inequality problem would not make a gender related issue (e.g. the wage gap) automatically worse somehow, which seemed to be Leylaa’s point if I’m understanding that correctly.

      • fkn@lemmy.world
        5·
        1 year ago

        You missed the point.

        Intersectionality isn’t that there is a fixed amount of bad things or that fixing/working on one of them is a problem. Your example would obviously be a good thing.

        Intersectionality is that there are more bad things than one or the other individually. The sum of the parts is less than the whole.

        The point is that even if you fixed all of the racism/inequalities faced by each group individually there would still be inequalities left over that the people at the intersection of those two groups face.

        • RobbieGM@discuss.tchncs.de
          3·
          1 year ago

          I see, thanks for clarifying. Where I was confused by Leylaa’s comment was when she said that getting rid of one type of discrimination would merely “shift” it to another group, which does not sound like the same thing you are saying here.

          • fkn@lemmy.world
            4·
            1 year ago

            I see, let me add some words.

            Feminism without anti-racism means that the discrimination we see towards women won’t disappear, it (The discrimination that currently affects all women) will just be shifted towards people (women) of color.

            (Or the difficulties that women of color face that don’t affect white women won’t be addressed at all, and this the discrimination that is left over is shifted solely to black women).

            As an example, feminism of the 30s and 40s was only for the promotion of white women.

            Feminism today suffers these same problems. As I have said elsewhere, JK Rowling is a feminist. She is also a terf. Feminism, without the inclusion of trans rights, will result in actions that will exclude the rights of trans women. Without the knowledge that terfs are a thing terfs would 100% silently advocate for the removal of trans women’s rights from the feminist movement.

            The same thing happened, and is happening, to black women.

            We (the royal we) like to say that feminism is for all women… But is it? Is it for women if black women’s issues(which are unique to black women) are not included? Is it feminism if black women aren’t included?

            That’s the point.

      • TotallynotJessica@lemmy.world
        3·
        1 year ago

        They said it in a slightly incorrect way. It’s not like there’s an unaddressable amount of discrimination that gets shifted over. It’s that other forms of bigotry can fester in a movement if diverse voices are not part of the conversation. Intersectionality is about praxis: not just theory, but how movements practically function as well.