In a much debated OpEd last week by former conservative MP, Louise Mensch, Mensch defiantly declares that intersectionality is bollocks and that she for one, has “no intention of checking her privilege”. Mensch went on to hold this intersectional bollocks culpable for “the modern feminist movement […] wasting most of its time in frenzied internal debate about absolutely nothing and in the process, solving absolutely nothing.”
However, mind you, feminists in America were excluded from Mensch’s critique because they, after all, practice “power feminism” that “is about running for office, founding a company, becoming COO of Facebook or Yahoo.”
First of all let me just say that American feminists are no less grappling with intersectionality than any others are, or did it escape Mensch that the term intersectionality was coined in the US? As for power feminism, sure, I agree that American feminists are worthy of the praise in many aspects, but their impact is not due to an absence of intersectional feminism but rather it owes much thanks to it. Secondly, intersectional feminism is real feminism, the term describes real experiences, if not Mensch’s.
Nevertheless, I welcomed Mensch’s OpEd for two reasons.
First and foremost because no good idea is left uncontested, especially not by those who fear the change it may usher. If no one’s arguing about an idea, it means it isn’t saying something new. Ideas thrive on public discussion.
Therefore, as intersectionality has entered the mainstream, it is splendid that it is meeting criticism. It is brilliant that it is creating heated debate. As a black feminist I welcome all that because it implies that intersectionality is pushing all the right buttons.
Of course, there’s been a buzz about intersectionality in scholarship for a long time, not only within feminist studies but many faculties now incorporate it in their curriculums. Hell, even the official gender institute in Norway has adopted an interesectional approach.
The other good thing about Mensch’s article is that it raises critique of the “check your privilege” meme, one which I too find problematic. Not because I wish people wouldn’t (check their privilege) but because it doesn’t encourage less classism, racism, sexism, homophobia or other discriminations. Most people with privilege, which is most of us in some capacity, have, like Mensch, no intention of “checking” it on a genuine basis. It is much more useful to tell a person that their views are disregarding or offensive. Why? Because it’s more difficult, and valuable, to acknowledge that you have behaved in a racist or sexist way, for instance, than to declare that ouch, checking your privilege, really hurts. It also forces the accuser to be more elaborate, and again, valuable, in formulating their criticism.
When Kimberlé Crenshaw coined the term intersectionality, her aim was not to tell folks to “check their privilege” but rather to elucidate the experiences of black women in order to create stronger movements.
She highlighted that black women experience discrimination in ways that are both similar to and different from those experienced by black men or by white women. Sometimes our experiences bear more similarity to those of black men and sometimes they are similar to white women’s experiences and so black men and white women who are serious about anti-racism and feminism respectively, must acknowledge the ways that oppression works within the movements themselves.
I think that the debate intersectionality has stirred proves that Crenshaw’s sentiments are still relevant.
What do you think? Any thoughts on intersectionality; love it, loathe it, don’t know much about it? What do you think of the CYP meme?
For more about intersectionality, read my three part blog series about it
1. Why you need to know about intersectionality
2. A cultural history of intersectionality, and it dates back to Sojourner Truth
3. The multiple jeopardy of being an African woman
—
—
SUBSCRIBE TO MY NEWSLETTER
Leave a Reply