82,503
edits
Intersectionality: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a| | {{a|squirrels| | ||
{{image|Squirrel|png|A member of the squirreleaucracy, yesterday.}} | |||
}}{{d|Intersectionality|/ˌɪntə(ː)ˈsɛkʃənælɪti/|n}} | }}{{d|Intersectionality|/ˌɪntə(ː)ˈsɛkʃənælɪti/|n}} | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
Now far be it from the [[JC]] to wade into these roiling waters: he’s seen his 23andme profile, and it’s irredeemable — but, being a contrarian, he did want to play around with spreadsheets a little bit and think about Venn diagrams. | Now far be it from the [[JC]] to wade into these roiling waters: he’s seen his 23andme profile, and it’s irredeemable — but, being a contrarian, he did want to play around with spreadsheets a little bit and think about Venn diagrams. | ||
This being an intellectual inquiry rather than a political one, let’s visit our favourite local population of squirrels. In the north London squirrel community (for the sake of this argument) squirrels can me mapped to four binary, but overlapping classifications: fur colour (grey or red); nut preference (acorns or chestnuts); tail fluffiness (bouffant or ratty) and community position (senior or junior). In each case there is an in-group (where possessing this quality is an advantage) and an out-group (where possessing the quality is perceived as a disadvantage. In most cases this maps to minorityship; nut preference is distributed evenly, but chestnut-loving squirrels are generally accepted to be disadvantaged in foraging potential | This being an intellectual inquiry rather than a political one, let’s visit our favourite local population of squirrels. In the north London squirrel community (for the sake of this argument) squirrels can me mapped to four binary, but overlapping classifications: fur colour (grey or red); nut preference (acorns or chestnuts); tail fluffiness (bouffant or ratty) and community position (senior or junior). In each case there is an in-group (where possessing this quality is an advantage) and an out-group (where possessing the quality is perceived as a disadvantage. In most cases this maps to minorityship; nut preference is distributed evenly, but chestnut-loving squirrels are generally accepted to be disadvantaged in their foraging potential since chestnuts are heavier. The dominant squirrel is young grey, bouffant, and acorn-loving. | ||
The categories break down as follows: | |||
{| class="wikitable" | {| class="wikitable" | ||
|+North London squirrel categorisation | |+North London squirrel categorisation | ||
! | ! | ||
! | !In group | ||
! | !Out group | ||
|- | |- | ||
|'''Nut preference''' | |||
''In: Acorn; Out: Chestnut'' | |||
|<center>50%</center> | |||
|<center>50%</center> | |||
|- | |||
|'''Fur colour''' | |||
''In: Grey; Out: Red'' | |||
|<center>95%</center> | |||
|<center>5%</center> | |||
|- | |- | ||
| | |'''Tail fluffiness''' | ||
''In: Bouffant; Out: Ratty'' | |||
| | |<center>99.6%</center> | ||
| | |<center>0.4%</center> | ||
|- | |- | ||
| | |'''Community position''' | ||
''In: Senior; Out: Junior'' | |||
| | |<center>34%</center> | ||
| | |<center>66%</center> | ||
|- | |- | ||
| | |'''Portion sharing ''all''''' '''group properties''' | ||
| | |<center>'''16.085%'''</center> | ||
|<center>'''0.006%'''</center> | |||
| | |||
|- | |- | ||
| | |'''Portion sharing ''at least''''' '''''one''''' '''group property''' | ||
| | |<center>'''99.993%'''</center> | ||
|<center>'''83.914%'''</center> | |||
| | |||
|} | |} | ||
The group properties provide interesting colour. Just 16% of the total squirrels meet ''all'' the in-group criteria to qualify as fully dominant squirrels; but only 0.006% — fewer than one in 15,000 squirrels — have ''none'' of the in-group criteria, and therefore suffers maximal intersectional disadvantage. That leaves almost 84% of the population being a member of at least one of the out-groups, so having ''some'' kind of disadvantage, and almost all of them (99.994%) having at least one in-group membership. | |||
An individual squirrel’s group membership can be relevant in (at least) two situations: when the squirrel enjoys a ''benefit'', and when it suffers a ''disadvantage''. The temptation is to attribute an benefit to ''in''-group membership; and a disadvantage to ''out''-group membership: the converse (that, in essence, a social minorityship would deliver a benefit over those in the majority, or ''vice versa'') seems intuitively wrong. | |||
Now if we attribute a misfortune to out-group membership, but a fortune to in group membership. | |||