How Mainstream Feminism Exploits Intersectionality

During a Black Trans Lives Matter rally in Los Angeles, I overheard some of the other white transgender protesters discussing how they were great allies for attending and how rallies like this even help the white trans community. While ending police violence certainly does help white trans people, this is not why we should be participating in acts of solidarity. We should not use a self-centered metric of intersectionality to be our reason for working alongside marginalized groups we don’t belong to. Instead we must recognize ending all forms of oppression as our collective goal and not play into individualist methods of activism.

Intersectionality – a term coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw in her 1989 essay “Mapping the Margins” – has reached the mainstream. Originally focusing on the unique experiences of Black women, the term proliferated to become part of everyday feminist discourse. With articles like “8 Awesome Intersectional Feminists You Need To Follow” that included notable White Cisgender Feminists Emma Watson and Laci Green, intersectionality has become diluted beyond recognition. Feminists advocating for racist imperialism are allowed to freely capitalize on the term as long as they give the briefest recognition to some intersections of identities. Mentioning race or trans issues once doesn’t make you an intersectional feminist.

Neoliberal feminists consider intersectionality critical to their personal wellbeing. Instead of operating under an anti-oppression framework, they are freely allowed to admit they only care about themselves and others like them (“Economic justice for Black women helps White women like myself, too! I’m in!”). Perhaps this mindset is effective to enact change within self-centered societies such as that in the U.S., but reinforces individualism, which consistently oppresses marginalized groups through prioritizing one’s own identities. The logic of “what’s in it for me?” has no place in activism. The individualist methodology directly corresponds with the rise of neoliberalism within and mainstreaming of feminism.

Neoliberalism dictates that individuals are obligated to gain private capital, including social status. By adhering to this approach and centering oneself and personal identities within a political framework, they are ignoring struggles outside their own community. This often leads to advocacy for equality, which only benefits those currently in power, instead of justice and liberation. Intersectionality is also not limited to crossroads of just two or any finite number of identities. It should be a lens that considers all the possible intersections of identity and embodiment.

The spread of the individualist pseudo-intersectional attitudes cannot be blamed on one origin alone. However, like all social movements, media takes forms of activism and presents the public with the most watered-down and liberalized versions of them. This significantly shifts discourses and may change movements. As we know, feminism is no exception. Media’s portrayal of respectable intersectionality that doesn’t question oppressive social systems has a multitude of consequences on social movements and intersectional theory. Despite media’s claims, simply acknowledging that the intersections of identity are significant is not enough.

Bustle’s “7 Gifts For The Feminist In Your Life Who Cares About Intersectionality” embodied the commodification of intersectionality for privileged mainstream feminists’ benefit. The gifts included a “Safe Sex” clutch for $79 imprinted with the ableist BDSM slogan “Safe, Sane, Consensual.” Never mind the specific items, what’s really concerning here is the concept that one can buy intersectionality and feminism. To commodify political views into products is to ironically ignore the long-term feminist goal of ending White supremacy, capitalism, and consumerism.

Aestheticizing with “intersectional” merchandise and bragging that you’re an intersectional feminist tells marginalized people you want credit for not (as) actively supporting violence against them. Simply recognizing one’s privilege does very little for social movements and should be a responsibility rather than an act that necessitates reward. Emma Watson’s viral claim that she isn’t a White Feminist because she is aware of her own privilege doesn’t exempt her agency in advocacy for imperialism and White saviorship. Simply claiming someone is an intersectional feminist does not make them an intersectional feminist. They need to act on it!

Intersectionality should be used to foster a culture against white supremacist neoliberalism, not for it. Intersectional feminism should pay attention to and work with those facing some of the harshest conditions, particularly trans women of color. While this essay is critical of the misuse of intersectionality, I am not claiming it is an oppressive or “wrong” theory by itself. As a White person, it is not my place to critique its existence. Its origin in Black Feminism had a profoundly positive impact on all forms of activism and we must be thankful for its creation. Liberatory intersectionality exists and is all around us: It is about enacting a system of “trickle up” change, focusing on those at the bottom of the social hierarchy. It is a way of advocating for transformative justice, critical self-determination, and collective liberation.

Disclaimer: This post was written by a Feministing Community user and does not necessarily reflect the views of any Feministing columnist, editor, or executive director.

Los Angeles, CA

Eli Erlick is a 20-year-old queer trans woman, an activist, and the director of Trans Student Educational Resources. Her work and writing focuses on trans and queer organizations, youth, education, linguistics, identities, media, and health.

Read more about Eli

Join the Conversation