this post was submitted on 21 Feb 2026
274 points (92.3% liked)

Comic Strips

22293 readers
1713 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
lawrence@lemmy.world
274
intersectionality forever (quokk.au)
submitted 17 hours ago by Deceptichum@quokk.au to c/comicstrips@lemmy.world
37 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
all 38 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] hark@lemmy.world 2 points 32 minutes ago (1 children)

I mean, it has been applied as a way to divide, like when Bernie proposed all sorts of policies to help the poor and mainstream media ran with "but what does Bernie do specifically for poor black people?"

That's not to say there aren't such specific concerns, but it wasn't like Hillary was doing any better in that regard. It was solely used as a way to make Bernie look less progressive. So instead we got Trump with the simple and straightforward "make america great again".

Fighting a war on multiple fronts is a great way to stretch your resources thin and muddy the strategy.

[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 2 points 27 minutes ago (1 children)

Bernie didn't lose by focusing on black people, he lost because the entire DNC apparatus worked against him.

[–] hark@lemmy.world 3 points 23 minutes ago

That was my point, the DNC and their mainstream media buddies said that he didn't focus enough on issues facing specifically black people. That was one of many attacks they made against him.

[–] AntiBullyRanger@ani.social 19 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)

The one colonists hate the most:
indigenous lives matter.

[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 4 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

Tell them to give the land back and they lose their shit.

[–] Tiresia@slrpnk.net 3 points 2 hours ago

I don't understand what "give the land back" means. Would you mind explaining it?

There are a lot of poor, oppressed people who live on land their ancestors didn't own. In the US, all Black people and most native Americans don't live within 1000 km of where their ancestors lived 600 years ago. So when land is given back, what happens to the people that currently reside there? Do natives become landlords? Is there ethnic cleansing? Or is it only land where people don't reside? Also, many native cultures didn't even have land ownership, so how do you give land back without forcing them into a western mould?

[–] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 3 points 10 hours ago

That's kind of why I like the casino model. Local tribes put here have been buying their land back bit by bit and the casino goers gladly shovel money at them.

I just wish we could rope corporate entities into it. Imagine if casino losses could be a corporate tax writeoff. C-suites would be stumbling onto the floor with the company cards. The overnight wealth distribution would be staggering.

[–] funkajunk@lemmy.world 12 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

Most people want equality, justice, freedom and peace for all. I choose to believe that, at least.

It's a very difficult thing to just fight the entire state of the world, instead it's a much more achievable (and realistic) thing to fight for what affects your immediate group. I don't see anything wrong with that.

[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 6 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

The issue is turning around and attacking others trying to fight for what they fight for.

Intersectionality requires supporting each other.

[–] funkajunk@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago

Say it louder for the people in the back

[–] AntiBullyRanger@ani.social 1 points 10 hours ago

The issue that:

Most people

Are not you, and that a large percentage of the ruling classes do not want:

equality, justice, freedom and peace

Otherwise inequality, injustice, slavery, and war wouldn't exist. So we, the just indigenous liberators for peace have to fight against them lest we live by their oppressions.

[–] Skullgrid@lemmy.world 17 points 16 hours ago (3 children)

I'm dumb, is the point the guy is wrong or that the white woman is wrong?

[–] morphballganon@mtgzone.com 5 points 7 hours ago

The point is that people generally have trouble seeing others' struggles they themselves don't face.

[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 52 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (1 children)

The white woman is being hypocritical in not applying intersectionality when it doesn’t affect her.

And the guy is wrong.

[–] Skullgrid@lemmy.world 9 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (3 children)

being hypocritical in not applying intersectionality when it doesn’t affect her.

I'm still stupid, can you fix the multiple negatives so I can understand

And the guy is wrong.

ok. thank you.

[–] DashboTreeFrog@discuss.online 23 points 15 hours ago (3 children)

I believe it's essentially the "Black Lives Matter" /"All Lives Matter" situation. Yes, we are striving for equality, but the movements are worded to highlight those who are most affected/disenfranchised by the status quo.

Woman gets it when she's talking about the movement that applies specifically to her disenfranchisement, but not when she's in the "out" group of a rights movement

[–] Skullgrid@lemmy.world 3 points 15 hours ago

thank you.

[–] webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 2 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (1 children)

I believe that is the point of the comic But I disagree that these are comparable.

The all lives matter reaction was created by the far right and is coded in direct opposition of Black lives matter as a movement which they want to destroy.

Feminism, masculism and equalism are each not good or bad but require balance.

The goal of Feminism is to advocate for women rights, freedom, respect and understanding. We need focused feminism because our world is unbalancedly scaled towards men.

The (intended?) goal of Masculism is the same goal as feminism but for men, we need much less of this because the world is unbalanced in male favor but we still need some people focused on it to combat against male sexism and abuse, which is more rare but equally not ok.

The goal of equalism is to support the above to try and bring balance, to be a voice of non traditional gender groups that do not fit the traditional focus, and to opposite radical versions, comon toxic masculinity or J K Rowling style Feminism.

[–] village604@adultswim.fan 3 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (3 children)

"Why is it called feminism, everyone should be treated equally," is exactly the same as saying, "why is it black lives matter, all lives matter?"

It's misrepresenting their goals by saying that people who fight for one aspect of an issue are saying that no other aspect of the issue matters.

[–] Gathorall@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 children)

Feminists continue to lobby for priviledges in the west in aspects where they are already clearly ahead. They've stepped firmly into the side exceptionalism and supremacy.

[–] webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 1 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

Yes but I don’t think a proper equalist should make such a dumb statement, those are usually misogynists maskerading as equalist.

I consider myself an equalist and i have stated above exactly why i think feminism is important. To be an equalist in this time o history means to support feminism.

[–] webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 0 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

To add to my other comment, the real “all lives matter” is actually antifascism. And as an antifascist I support BLM just as i would support a person of any other color that is the victim of racism of any kind of other human.

[–] village604@adultswim.fan 3 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 children)

Right, but the phrase "all lives matter" is a racist response to the BLM movement. The simple fact that you have to explain that you're not being racist when saying it shows this.

It's just the nature of things. I can't have a mustache because it only grows beneath my nose. Some asshole went and ruined that style for everyone.

[–] webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 2 points 6 hours ago

You mis understand me, i very much agree that “all lives matter” is a racist dog wistle.

I am saying that equalism gets invaded by toxic masculism while “antifa” does not because fascist feel to strong about it.

There for they had to invent “all lives matter” to be a racist copy of antifa/anarchism. Its thus not comparable to how equalism does get invaded.

[–] AlfalFaFail@lemmy.ml 8 points 13 hours ago

The white woman is being hypocritical. She expects the guy to understand her particular case. She cannot use the same logic to understand the black women's case.

[–] Passerby6497@lemmy.world 3 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

The man is trying to paper over the issues that divide men and women, the same way the white woman is papering over the issues that divide white and black women.

[–] Skullgrid@lemmy.world 1 points 15 hours ago

thank you

[–] Tuxis@lemmy.world 6 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

I understand the comic is pointing out hypocrisy. But I also see it as illustrating how perspective can shift depending on where one stands, especially if one does not already have a clear understanding of what intersectionality is and can intellectualize it. Both the guy and the woman do not seem to be portrayed as evil people, just misguided.

The black woman still sees the same underlying point, and the white woman now feels "left out". And perhaps she is next. In pops the Muslim woman.

Though this is clearly not the intended result, one must recognize that this is an underlying point of attack, an exploitable weakness. Bitterness can be created to break groups that otherwise have common interests apart, and without the overall coalition there is no power to enact change.

Ultimately, Black feminism is part of a broader feminist goal that is part of a broader humanist goal. We are together, we are aligned.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 1 points 52 minutes ago

Yeah I think your last paragraph is vital to this discussion. Black feminism takes nothing from feminism as a whole, while adding quite a bit.

[–] DomeGuy@lemmy.world 2 points 6 hours ago

What matters is consistency.

"Why do you have a label that excludes me?" scales up and to a virtually universal group and down to a specialized category with only three members.

It doesn't really matter if you say that men are right to critique the label "feminism" or if you allow specialization all the way down to "Midwestern small city non-theater trans-male part-African part-Irish demisexual furry feminism". Just so long as you're fighting bigotry and applying your principles consistently.

(I much rather spend effort arguing that a man arguing against anti-masculine sexism is a cause worth supporting than bickering over whether or not his cause counts as "feminism", even though I would casually include him in the label.)

[–] xyro@lemmy.ca 1 points 17 hours ago

Class war > all, the rest is just distractions