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
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.
Replying to
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...