My main problem with identity politics, intersectionality etc.:
Somehow people managed decades of activism for marginalized groups on the basis of "we demand equal treatment," not "tear down the privileged!"
Conversation
Replying to
This is an important distinction, because a lot of the things people agitate for aren't privileges (body autonomy = basic dignity, for example).
It's stuff certain groups are denied unfairly, not stuff other groups profit unfairly from.
1
You'll always have a sort of relativistic privilege going on in any unfair arrangement.
If I am allowed certain things everyone should be allowed, and you're not, I'm relatively privileged.
1
But, take for example "white men" getting off with a warning for minor misdemeanors while blacks go to prison for years.
Is this a "privilege", or how the blacks should also be treated? The former is essentially an argument for police states...
1
"A mind without purpose will wander in dark places."
What you're trying to achieve matters a hell of a lot more than who you are fighting against. That's only a tactical/strategic concern.
1
A huge issue with identity politics-based negative definition: any time you make a mistake assessing someone's privilege, you undermine your argument.
1
"BELIEVE WOMEN, men don't have to deal with this. Listen up listen up listen up!"
"Yeah, they do though - *cites example*"
"WELL NO THAT'S NOT RELEVANT AND ANYWAY IT'S NOT A LOT."
Complete basic failure in rhetoric, and completely erases the real issue for everyone involved.
1
Something like rape culture, where most women (and some men) have to deal with the very real risk of rape.
Is it more important that it's a far bigger issue for women or that the issue be addressed? If you take the former view, you erase millions of boy child abuse victims...