This is where she set it all out anyway. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://uk.search.yahoo.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1052&context=uclf …
Yes, I know. There wasn't a way to complain of that. Now there is. Is that a bad thing?
-
-
I'm going to leave it here. The article reported what Crenshaw did accurately. If you think this is itself is bad, think about whether you'd like to be able to complain if straight, white men get discriminated against by SocJus ppl when just one of those identities wouldn't be.
-
I've literally been trying to explain for hours that it ISN'T the case that you can discriminate against a subset of a protected class by narrowing parameters so it's not "racism". Never once said "it's ok if ppl can discriminate against black women". Not once
-
And if you haven't read what you linked in awhile, try doing so and getting through the first few sentences without believing there's an ideological motivation for misrepresenting what occurred in the GM case
-
I'm more concerned about the ideology than the law cases which seemed quite a strong argument. I thought you might know more about the law changes but you keep talking about something else very abstractly as tho it wasn't something that actually happened & the rationale recorded.
-
If she actually reported it incorrectly. I'd like to know but I think someone would have said so in all these years because she has a lot of critics. She's not wrong to say all the black women were laid off because black men were too because both of those things that can be true.
-
My point here is that by omitting the fact that black men were also laid off, she's letting the reader believe black women had a substantive claim beyond simple race based discrimination
-
That's the claim, yes. I'm not sure it needs for no black men to have been laid off to be true. You're arguing it could well just have been racism & the black women were wrong to think it was a compound of racism and sexism?
-
It's possible that she had no grounds to think this & I can't be bothered to look into the reasoning they gave for this. I don't know that she was right in this case. We probably agree that she was right to say there must be a way to address compound cases?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I'm not making a value judgement one way or the other. I'm simply stating that the concern Crenshaw raised, repeated in the article I responded to, wasn't a valid concern.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.