This is in part the older, gender neutral usage of “man” meaning “human” and in part ignorance about woman issues. There were black women who felt left out both from black liberation movements and from feminism.
This is in part the older, gender neutral usage of “man” meaning “human” and in part ignorance about woman issues.
Sure, in good faith we need to take into account the historical background. Still, the quote “If you’re a man, you take it” in 2026, sounds more like something coming from the manosphere.
There were black women who felt left out both from black liberation movements and from feminism.
This is why feminism evovled to be intersectional.
Still, the quote “If you’re a man, you take it” in 2026, sounds more like something coming from the manosphere.
He didn’t say it in 2026. So what’s your point here? OP shouldn’t quote Malcolm X because his language is outdated?
This is why feminism evovled to be intersectional.
That’s a very generous reading of events. I would say, intersectional feminism evolved. White – or otherwise exclusive – feminism never ceased to exist. TERFs are still a thing. You can claim, this isn’t true feminism, but that’s the “no true Scotsman” fallacy.
You said “feminism evovled to be intersectional”. I pointed out that this isn’t true because there is still anti-intersectional feminism out there and anticipated the argument that this isn’t true feminism. If you were never to make this argument, I guess I waisted some ink.
The way I see things, the current wave of feminism is using the analytical tool of intersectionality which allows mistakes of the past to be addressed and not to be repeated.
Last time I checked, I also concluded that terfs are still a thing. For me, there is nothing radical in being a transphobe, so I think we should just call them that: transphobes. They can call themselves feminists, the word is out there for anyone to use. And this is why every time someone tells me they are a feminist I ask them and/or try to see how they see intersectionality so I know to who I am talking (if they are westerners, that is). And I hope by now it is clear, I don’t go into conversations defending the purity of movements.
And I hope by now it is clear, I don’t go into conversations defending the purity of movements.
As I already said, I just debunked this in case you might bring it up. If you never were to do so, fine. Can we please move on? I see how this might have sounded like a personal attack but please believe me that it wasn’t.
The way I see things, the current wave of feminism is using the analytical tool of intersectionality which allows mistakes of the past to be addressed and not to be repeated.
This isn’t too far from what I’m saying either but there are two points I’d like to make:
Feminism isn’t a monolith. There are intersectional branches of feminism but there are also transphobic, racist, imperialistic, Zionist, … branches. That’s why I brought up TERFs as an example for bigoted feminists.
Your framing makes it seem like earlier feminists realized their errs and opened up. Which might not be wrong but neither is the focus correct. It was black (and queer) feminists that fought their way into the movement. Or rather they had to create their own movement that later fused with feminism. My point is that it’s the achievement of intersectionalism, not of feminism. This might seem irrelevant and it doesn’t really contradict what you said but I think it’s an important aspect you didn’t mention.
Your framing makes it seem like earlier feminists realized their errs and opened up
I really don’t know where you got that impression. I specifically talk about feminism, so that the focus is on an intergenerational time-frame.
My point is that it’s the achievement of intersectionalism, not of feminism
I am not familiar with the term intersectionalism. I know that intersectionality started as a term for legal analysis coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw and then was adopted by feminists because it created a helpful analytical framework.
This is in part the older, gender neutral usage of “man” meaning “human” and in part ignorance about woman issues. There were black women who felt left out both from black liberation movements and from feminism.
Sure, in good faith we need to take into account the historical background. Still, the quote “If you’re a man, you take it” in 2026, sounds more like something coming from the manosphere.
This is why feminism evovled to be intersectional.
He didn’t say it in 2026. So what’s your point here? OP shouldn’t quote Malcolm X because his language is outdated?
That’s a very generous reading of events. I would say, intersectional feminism evolved. White – or otherwise exclusive – feminism never ceased to exist. TERFs are still a thing. You can claim, this isn’t true feminism, but that’s the “no true Scotsman” fallacy.
Personnally, I do not reproduce quotes that haven’t age well. The OP, you and everyone do as you want. I am not quote- police or something.
I find it weird you mention the 'no true Scotsman" fallacy for TERFs. The acronym means Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist.
You said “feminism evovled to be intersectional”. I pointed out that this isn’t true because there is still anti-intersectional feminism out there and anticipated the argument that this isn’t true feminism. If you were never to make this argument, I guess I waisted some ink.
A few more words to clarify a couple of stuff.
The way I see things, the current wave of feminism is using the analytical tool of intersectionality which allows mistakes of the past to be addressed and not to be repeated.
Last time I checked, I also concluded that terfs are still a thing. For me, there is nothing radical in being a transphobe, so I think we should just call them that: transphobes. They can call themselves feminists, the word is out there for anyone to use. And this is why every time someone tells me they are a feminist I ask them and/or try to see how they see intersectionality so I know to who I am talking (if they are westerners, that is). And I hope by now it is clear, I don’t go into conversations defending the purity of movements.
As I already said, I just debunked this in case you might bring it up. If you never were to do so, fine. Can we please move on? I see how this might have sounded like a personal attack but please believe me that it wasn’t.
This isn’t too far from what I’m saying either but there are two points I’d like to make:
Feminism isn’t a monolith. There are intersectional branches of feminism but there are also transphobic, racist, imperialistic, Zionist, … branches. That’s why I brought up TERFs as an example for bigoted feminists.
Your framing makes it seem like earlier feminists realized their errs and opened up. Which might not be wrong but neither is the focus correct. It was black (and queer) feminists that fought their way into the movement. Or rather they had to create their own movement that later fused with feminism. My point is that it’s the achievement of intersectionalism, not of feminism. This might seem irrelevant and it doesn’t really contradict what you said but I think it’s an important aspect you didn’t mention.
I really don’t know where you got that impression. I specifically talk about feminism, so that the focus is on an intergenerational time-frame.
I am not familiar with the term intersectionalism. I know that intersectionality started as a term for legal analysis coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw and then was adopted by feminists because it created a helpful analytical framework.