82,259
edits
Intersectionality: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| 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 their foraging potential since chestnuts are heavier. | 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: | The categories break down as follows: | ||
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
|- | |- | ||
|'''Community position''' | |'''Community position''' | ||
''In: | ''In: Senior; Out: Junior'' | ||
|<center>34%</center> | |||
|<center>66%</center> | |<center>66%</center> | ||
|- | |- | ||
|'''Portion sharing all''' | |'''Portion sharing all''' '''group properties''' | ||
'''group properties''' | |<center>'''16.085%'''</center> | ||
|<center>''' | |<center>'''0.006%'''</center> | ||
|<center>'''0. | |||
|- | |- | ||
|'''Portion sharing at least''' | |'''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. | |||
Now if we attribute a misfortune to out-group membership, but a fortune to in group membership. | |||