it only predicts it when you are a member of a āprivilegedā class and an āoppressedā class*. It doesnāt predict that being a member of two āoppressedā classes can result in an intersectional āprivilegeā.
I think perhaps we mean different things when we use the words āprivilegeā and āoppressionā. Under intersectionality theory, Group X is privileged in respect of Group Y if they are the beneficiaries of the power relationship, all things considered. Similarly, Group Y is oppressed if they are generally disadvantaged by that relationship. That doesnāt mean that Group X benefits 100%, or that Group Y always suffers.
To unpack that a bit, you might imagine the general structure of a male-female relationship in the early 1900s: Broadly-speaking, a woman born in 1900 would be disadvantaged compared to a man born in the same year. She was treated as subservient to her husband, she would be excluded from positions of power where men were not, and she was (in many countries) denied the vote.
Men were the overall beneficiaries of this arrangement, essentially having a lifelong live-in servant and childcarer. However, women also benefitted from this relationship in some waysāa 1900s woman would never have been expected to go to war, and once her children had grown up she would not have been expected to work a job. Nonetheless, it is fair to say that the power relationship between men and women in earliest 20th Century was a unequal one. This is the sense in which intersectionality theory would describe women as oppressed and men as privileged.
This logic then extends to intersectional disadvantages, meaning that the model doesnāt break even if you get an intersectional āprivilegeā[1]. Going back to Western Asian women, it seems to be true that Asian folks are treated as more āfeminineā than White folks. The feminisation of Western Asians might therefore benefit Asian women (who are āhyperfeminisedā, and so get even more of the benefits which accrue to women) and disadvantage Asian men (who are emasculated, and so get fewer of the benefits which accrue to men).
āIt doesnāt predict that being a member of two āoppressedā classes can result in an intersectional āprivilegeā.ā
Is referring to the advantage that western Asian women receive on the dating scene. My point is that this is compatible with intersectionality theory, because although the general structure of the power relationships between men/āwomen, majority/āminority ethnic groups, and white people/āAsians disadvantages western Asian women, none of these relationships are 100% downside.
So, the idea is that on balance the relationship is oppressive, rather than that the relationship is just 100% beneficial/āharmful for either side.
I think perhaps we mean different things when we use the words āprivilegeā and āoppressionā. Under intersectionality theory, Group X is privileged in respect of Group Y if they are the beneficiaries of the power relationship, all things considered. Similarly, Group Y is oppressed if they are generally disadvantaged by that relationship. That doesnāt mean that Group X benefits 100%, or that Group Y always suffers.
To unpack that a bit, you might imagine the general structure of a male-female relationship in the early 1900s: Broadly-speaking, a woman born in 1900 would be disadvantaged compared to a man born in the same year. She was treated as subservient to her husband, she would be excluded from positions of power where men were not, and she was (in many countries) denied the vote.
Men were the overall beneficiaries of this arrangement, essentially having a lifelong live-in servant and childcarer. However, women also benefitted from this relationship in some waysāa 1900s woman would never have been expected to go to war, and once her children had grown up she would not have been expected to work a job. Nonetheless, it is fair to say that the power relationship between men and women in earliest 20th Century was a unequal one. This is the sense in which intersectionality theory would describe women as oppressed and men as privileged.
This logic then extends to intersectional disadvantages, meaning that the model doesnāt break even if you get an intersectional āprivilegeā[1]. Going back to Western Asian women, it seems to be true that Asian folks are treated as more āfeminineā than White folks. The feminisation of Western Asians might therefore benefit Asian women (who are āhyperfeminisedā, and so get even more of the benefits which accrue to women) and disadvantage Asian men (who are emasculated, and so get fewer of the benefits which accrue to men).
Given the definition of privilege Iāve just set out, āprivilegeā is probably the wrong word for whatās going on here, but you get my point.
Could you clarify? Have I used the term āoppressionā or āprivilegeā here to refer to something that isnāt a power relationship?
So, your comment here:
āIt doesnāt predict that being a member of two āoppressedā classes can result in an intersectional āprivilegeā.ā
Is referring to the advantage that western Asian women receive on the dating scene. My point is that this is compatible with intersectionality theory, because although the general structure of the power relationships between men/āwomen, majority/āminority ethnic groups, and white people/āAsians disadvantages western Asian women, none of these relationships are 100% downside.
So, the idea is that on balance the relationship is oppressive, rather than that the relationship is just 100% beneficial/āharmful for either side.
Is that more clear?