Comment by setr
1 day ago
I mean, the technical definition provided “the movement to end sexism, sexual exploitation and sexual oppression'” is expanded quite rapidly into including racism and then labor practices (which I’m very much struggling with the jump; the link appears to be that both involve power relationships?).
And I’m not really clear why this doesn’t extend further into basically all of human suffering in any society. Or perhaps extended upwards and encapsulate systems-thinking and any graph-relationship whatsoever
The term "feminism" as an actual technical definition seems to be quite loose; this strikes me as a 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon definition
> expanded quite rapidly into including racism and then labor practices
The jump you referring to is a quote with a reference attached. But in short terms so that might be useful to Google, but in short the concept of intersectionality means that things like feminism and anti-racism and other forms of prejudice can potentially be inter-related in terms of using different forms of marginalization as tools to enforce a hierarchy.
> which I’m very much struggling with the jump; the link appears to be that both involve power relationships? And I’m not really clear why this doesn’t extend further into basically all of human suffering in any society. Or perhaps extended upwards and encapsulate systems-thinking and any graph-relationship whatsoever
Not to really go off the rails too much but you sort of just given a not too bad description of anarchism, so like yeah it wouldn't necessarily be a leap to extrapolate that and plenty of people do
> The jump you referring to is a quote with a reference attached
I mean, your first complaint was asking the question instead of hunting down the about-me; your second complaint is that I need to recursively resolve all references before querying. At what point is it more reasonable to… simply ask? Or expect that a body of text is roughly self-contained, despite the infinite array of information that could have informed that body of text?
FWIW I googled it and found nothing to explain this. It’s not even clear to me that Ahmed engages in this behavior herself, of inverting the “intersection” from nexus between relating subjects, into a giant umbrella term called feminism
To preempt your next request, I’m not buying/reading the book(s).
> anarchism, so like yeah it wouldn't necessarily be a leap to extrapolate that and plenty of people do
The part I find to be a jump is to subsume it under feminism. The study of slavery and labor inequality can help to inform feminism is reasonable;
the study of slavery and labor inquality help to inform feminism, therefore they’re are really the same thing and feminism refers to both is a wild reasoning. It appears to be pure scope creep.
The basic logic seems to be: a relationship exists, therefore it is feminism. And I don’t see why such a definition won’t eventually consume all information ala 6 degrees.