Category: Intersectionality

Introduction

Young girls are frequently disadvantaged by interconnected social categorizations such as race, gender, or class. An intersectional perspective can assist in understanding the interconnectedness between the various categorizations in society by contemplating how social structures and relations create different experiences between and within persons. The life of a girl is diverse and deeply rooted in multiple facets of marginalization and discrimination. Girls continue to experience various forms of oppression due to their queer identities that diverge from normalcy and societys expectations (Dyer 1). As a result, girls often face many devastating consequences caused by their intersectional identities. Taking an intersectional approach to girlhood leads us to consider the inequalities in the experiences of young girls who belong to marginalized groups.

Queerness

An intersectional approach to girlhood can help people understand the queer nature of young girls about their sexual identity and the degree of veering away from social norms. According to Dyer, queerness inheres in disruptions to conventional formulations of sex, gender, and reproduction, but queerness also arises, more generally, from an objects veering away from expectation (5). Queer theory assists in replenishing girlhood studies by increasing the understanding of the creative resistances of young girls against normalcy. Intersectionality can help to empathize with girls who are disrespected by normative development theory. Furthermore, society has rigid expectations of girls, which adversely affect the girlhood experience, especially when a girl feels different from societal norms. For instance, lesbians or gay children may be expected to conceal their sexual identity because it is considered strange. The boundaries between female and male bodies are more blurred than people think. The maleness or femaleness of a human body is inspired by the debate of social actors; therefore, it is unnatural (Dyer 18). Acceptance of queerness enables people to remove heteronormativity and understand sexuality, sex, and gender that are not identity-based.

The Hunting, Criminalization, And Harassment of Indigenous Girls

People can understand the stories of the excessive utilization of force against Indigenous girls by police through an intersectionality lens. Dhillon stated that it is crucial to locate Indigenous girls experiences with policing within the distinct political, ideological, and material formation of settler colonialism and to vociferously interrogate the colonial violence enacted against Indigenous peoples by state institutions (6). Indigenous girls in Canada have endured physical beatings by police who are supposed to protect them. Indigenous girls are vulnerable to physical beatings and breaking of legs because they come from a low socioeconomic class, limiting their ability to report crimes committed against them. Additionally, the police do not ensure the safety of Indigenous girls since they allow their dogs to attack them during arrests and in custody. Furthermore, Canadian police deploy tasers to respond to threats that are sufficiently low level (Dhillon 12). Intersectionality will enable the public to listen to Indigenous girls to understand the insidious and hidden scopes of colonial policing and eradicate such dimensions.

Indigenous girls face verbal denigration, inhumane cell conditions, sexual assault, and rape problems in state cells. Individuals can understand how such instances of social injustice pervade society and their causes. For example, many Indigenous girls constantly deal with widespread verbal defamation, with repetitive references to gendered and racist slurs. In addition, Indigenous girls can get their claims of domestic violence disapproved and shoddily investigated. On the other hand, Indigenous girls who are accused of public intoxication face brutal conditions in state cells as they are starved, live in cold temperatures, and on some occasions can be released with inadequate clothing during the night (Dhillon 13). Ultimately, intersectionality helps to understand the oppressive principles based on colonialist ideas that are influenced by interconnected societal factors.

Indigenous girls and women carry memories, history, and futures within their bodies as police presence is increased in socially developed places for a community to feel safe. Intersectionality can help examine how Indigenous girls often feel caged in their communities due to increased police presence. In Saskatoon, community organizations with the inclusion of Indigenous organizations have been asked to assimilate police into the harmless places they construct for youth safety. Ironically, Indigenous girls encounter police agents in areas meant for accessing youth programming designed to assist the youth. Police hold discussions and rallies on missing and murdered Indigenous girls in state entities established to promote Indigenous extermination. Due to the atrocities committed against Indigenous girls, Dhillon argues that it is critical to recognize the importance of engaging critical praxis that exists outside the so-called justice and freedom offered through state mechanisms of recognition and redress (24). Therefore, intersectional theory helps to comprehend the institutional caging characterized by the constant sensation of controlled movement, truncated freedom, and being hunted (Dhillon 18). Using the intersectional lens, people can understand the daily reality of living as a young Indigenous girl.

Educational Discrimination and Disparities Among Black Girls

Intersectional theory can help individuals comprehend how young black girls are affected by the hyper-punitive and inferior nature of a learning environment characterized by racial isolation. Black girls have high confinement rates and experience high rates of exclusionary discipline such as school expulsions and suspension. The disengagement of young black girls from school is linked to the intersecting inequality structures associated with being black (Morris 6). Morris argues that for black girls, exclusionary school responses may be informed by historically constructed, stereotypical memes that negatively impact and reflect public perceptions about black femininity (5). Young black girls can be criminalized due to features that have always been connected with their existence or survival. For example, being defiant or loud can lead to the utilization of exclusionary actions in schools. As such, Morris argues that in Californias 10 largest districts by enrollment, black females experience school suspension at rates that far surpass their female counterparts of other racial and ethnic groups (5). Juvenile court schools should play a key role in rehabilitating young black girls who are detained through education since confined girls acknowledge the importance of education in their lives.

In addition, black girls are offered low educational quality in juvenile court schools. The struggle to eradicate the remaining segregation from schools in the United States is far from over. There are multiple educational disparities for young black girls in secure confinement. Most of the students who find themselves in juvenile court schools are from marginalized communities, especially black girls. The quality of education in such learning institutions is subpar as most schools may reject credits earned in a juvenile court school. Additionally, such schools rank poorly in their adherence to federal requirements for learning (Morris 5). Most of the schools have been sued for the failure of inadequate provision of educational services.

While the state education department accredits many juvenile court schools, their operations are inconsistent with the state curricula. According to Morris, overall, a set of rigorous educational best practices with respect to detained children of color, or to culturally and linguistically diverse youth in confinement, is limited (5). As a result, black girls in such schools often feel the education they receive is of low quality, causing a lack of confidence in the education system (Morris 7). Intersectionality helps recognize such education disparities among incarcerated and marginalized young girls.

Conclusion

In conclusion, intersectionality allows people to consider how unequal the experiences of young and marginalized girls can be. Intersectionality is the acceptance that peoples experiences are shaped by class, race, or gender. Adopting an intersectional perspective helps individuals to comprehend the queer nature of childhood. Queerness refers to the disruptions of the conventional formulations of reproduction, gender, and sex, as well as the act of veering away from social norms. Girls are often expected to behave in a certain way in contemporary society. For instance, a person can understand the desire of a child to have same-sex relations and the implications of queer intimacy. Lesbians or gay people are expected to conceal their sexual identities due to their strangeness. An intersectional lens is vital in examining police brutality and violence such as rape, physical abuse, and verbal defamation. Additionally, intersectionality helps to understand multiple disparities and discrimination in marginalized communities. Understanding how various interconnected societal factors such as race, class, and gender collectively oppress young girls from marginalized communities is critical to creating a world where gender and sexuality are not identity-based.

References

Dhillon, Jaskiran K. Indigenous Girls and the Violence of Settler Colonial Policing. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, vol. 4, no. 2, 2015, pp. 1-31.

Dyer, Hannah. Introduction: Childhoods Queer Intimacies and Affective Intensities. The Queer Aesthetics of Childhood: Asymmetries of Innocence and the Cultural Politics of Child Development. Rutgers University Press, 2019, pp. 1-33.

Morris, Monique. Education and the Caged Bird: Black Girls, School Pushout and the Juvenile Court School. Poverty and Race, vol. 22, no. 6, 2013, pp. 5-7.

One of the basic theories of identity in the context of feminist and queer studies is intersectionality. It is a critical theory and analytical framework which aims to understand how the various elements of a persons social identities combine to create the various forms of oppression or privilege. Intersectionality can both complicate peoples lives and also serve as a source of privilege. In any form, it is largely inescapable as humans as we belong to the various social groups some under our control while others are not, but personal identity is influenced by these deeply, sometimes opposing concepts of intersectionality (Meem et al. 188). This paper will focus on exploring my own identity as an African, gay male growing up in a highly conservative and religious family and society.

In the words of Eric Effiong from the acclaimed Netflix series, Ill be hurt either way. Isnt it better to be who I am? (Sex Education). The character greatly appeals to me as in the show they experience many of the same struggles with acceptance, culture, and identity that I have throughout my life. I was born in Nairobi, Kenya, which despite being one of the largest economies in Eastern Africa, remains impoverished with high levels of economic inequality. My father was a church minister, we were not wealthy, but he tried his best to provide a life for us. Kenyas population is over 70% Christian since it was a British Colony. A significant portion of society is highly religious and adhering to conservative Christian values. I went to an all-boys boarding school growing up, and despite dating girls, I have known from a young age that I am gay.

Due to the religious values, Kenyan society is extremely homophobic to the point where it is dangerous to come out publicly as non-heterosexual. Families would distance themselves and denounce such individuals in the community, while society is extremely punishing. The state does not recognize any relationships between persons of the same sex, and publicly, an LGBTQ individual can be easily assaulted, raped, or even killed. Any LGBTQ+ communities in Kenya are extremely covert and underground, and as a gay man growing up in the country, I had to constantly pretend that I was heterosexual, even to my closest family members.

Eventually, I was able to move to the United States, where I have worked hard to create a good life for my family. At the same time, being present in a more diverse environment, especially in recent years where being LGBTQ+ has been more accepting in the society, I finally felt that I could no longer have to suppress that part of my identity. At first, when arriving in the US, I was curious, but cautious after witnessing years of discrimination. However, eventually, I felt safe and confident enough to let the people close to me know that I was gay and had known since I was young. Unfortunately, very few of them took it well, and my family and old friends in Kenya have largely disavowed from me and will not attempt to understand. It is painful to experience, and I struggle with personal guilt to this day, that my gayness is the root of so many problems in the relationships I had with family and friends. However, my social circle here in the US is accepting and supportive of me, they are either LGBTQ+ themselves or are so called allies. This allows me to feel comfortable and know that I have a support system that accepts my identity and myself as an individual without letting my sexual orientation influence their judgement.

Circling back to the concept of intersectionality, it is evident that my personal set of backgrounds, circumstances, and influences have contributed to the formation of my identity as an adult. I have experienced both sources of power and those of vulnerability. Notably, my biggest oppression came from the society where I grew up  the long-held traditions, family expectations, religious suppression, conservative views, and personal guilt. My biggest source of vulnerability in that context is that I am gay. It is not accepted by either my family, my ethnic community or tradition, or my religion. I am also a gay African man, that fact presents its own set of challenges. According to Meem et al., an experience of a gay black man assumes complexities and nuances that are intrinsic to how this culture understands and constructs both race and sexuality (p.188). While being African where the majority of the population is black in Kenya, and African American in the United States are different experiences, the innate factor of being LGBTQ+ while black is also a challenging concept.

The intersectional stigma that occurs at different levels of influence (such as community, structural, or interpersonal) is based on co-occurring and intersecting identities. For example, black men who have sex with men are disproportionately affected by HIV infection compared to other races, despite reporting consistently having fewer partners and even low-risk behaviors. However, half of black gay men are expected to acquire HIV at some point in their sexual lives, compared to 25% Hispanic and 9% white. That disparity stems from a much lower uptake of PrEP use, with 11% in black men, compared to 69% white men. That lower PrEP uptake is attributed to intersectional stigma that creates discrimination based on the multiple identities in areas such as healthcare, counseling, sexual education, and socioeconomic opportunities to access protection or medicines (Samuel). Therefore, my major points of vulnerability that have contributed to my identity in intersectionality are:

• ethnicity/race as an African black individual, an inherent stigma that carries across the world, as I am not only black but part of the Kenyan tradition, which also does not necessarily fit with the traditional African American culture in the US;
• my sexual orientation as gay that I had to suppress for more than a decade for my own safety, and could only learn about it and understand my sexuality based on the rare materials and testimonies I could find;
• social isolation since I was essentially always different from my peers in Kenya, and once coming out in America, many of the deeply ingrained connections with my family, friends, and community were severed because of their lack of acceptance.

However, there are also elements of my identity that serve as sources of power, which have helped me tremendously on my path to becoming a strong, independent, and openly gay man in an environment where I feel safe. My ability played a role, as I have always been strong and could stand up for myself, giving me confidence and some security. I am also a male, which in Kenyan society especially, does have intrinsic social benefits as I was provided more opportunities for education and jobs that eventually allowed me to immigrate to the US. That is something that a female is less likely to have in Kenya without first marrying a successful husband. I also have strong psychological resources, with my life experience giving me the ability to cope with challenges and maintain stability even in the most difficult moments. These points of power and privilege have contributed to my identity and achievements, which in turn, allowed me to explore my sexual identity fully and come out as gay once in America.

Works Cited

Meem, Deborah T., et al. Finding Out: An Introduction to LGBTQ Studies. 3rd Edition, Sage Publications, 2017.

Samuel, Krishen. Being Black and Gay: How Intersectional Stigma Impacts on the Uptake of PrEP. Aidsmap, Web.

Sex Education. Created by Laurie Nunn, Netflix, 2019-present.

Intersectionality, which is how social, economic, and other categories overlap and intersect in a greater framework of oppression. In the United States sexism, racism, ageism, classism, anti-Semitism, and other isms have deeply affected every fabric of human connection and it has become systemic. In this environment, it is one thing to be a white male, and it is another thing to be a gay black man; it is one thing to be a black woman and it is still different to be a Muslim woman who migrated recently from Asia or middle eastern culture.

When a Muslim woman comes to the US, her reality would be worse than mine. She has one more layer of experience for oppression and Intersectionality. As a person of color, she is already systematically oppressed; the sexism brand of oppression still affects her, because she is a woman. Religious discrimination puts her down because she is a Muslim. This is the reality that is shaping many lives in the US.

As a black woman who moved to the US recently, I am a living witness for the oppression and intersectionality. My knowledge of the US was like the song in the anthem “the land of the free and the home of the brave”. However, the current national reality and my personal experience at workplace forced me to think differently. This doesn’t mean that I don’t have things to be grateful for, there are many, however, it is unfortunate to have such kind of systemic realities in post-modern America.

My first job as soon as I arrived in the US was at the Airport. Most of my workmates were woman and migrants. The manager was a white male. My first experience of hatred, disrespectful, and oppression was during my work environment. The manager had a systemic way of oppressing the migrant women, who lack some communication skills. He was insulting us, abusing us, and at the same time threatening us that we may lose our job.

My other experience of oppression and intersectionality was during my work at the Assisting Living facility. Naturally, I have a good work ethic and I am well mannered when it comes to a workplace. As far as I know, I was respectful, friendly, and on time on my job duty. However, when a problem has occurred, someone had to be ‘scape-goat’ in order to cover the situation. And without my knowledge, I was forced to sign admitting that I caused the problem and if anything, happens I would be the first person to get fired from my job.

Martin Luther King Jr., said, “I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the startles midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality… I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word.”

I am hoping that, as we are more enlightened, transformed, and genuinely processed the nature of true humanity, we will have less of all these different forms of oppression and intersections. I hope my new country will be true “land of the free and home of the brave” for all people, all gender, everywhere and all the time. That is my dream.

The notion of Intersectionality can be defined as a concept that connects oppressive notions of racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, classism, ageism and genderism. These notions are all interconnected and play a major role in one’s life. Kimberlé Crenshaw presented the term of intersectionality as she was aiming to make a statement about the marginalization of colored women and the anti-discrimination laws but also with a feminist perspective which lead her to create the margins within intersectionality that addressed the ways in which social movements establish any discourse that does not fit in with societal norms (Carbado, Crenshaw, Mays, & Tomlinson, 2013).

Within a western lens, intersectionality can impact an individual in a negative way. In addition, intersectionality connects the perceptions of racial challenges, linguistic differences, socioeconomic status, and sexist oppression and how they operate within a society and how it can impact one’s life negatively (Orelus, 2012). Intersectionality can be described as multiple discourses that intersect with each other whether it involves race, one’s gender, class in society or other characteristics.

The notion of intersectionality can be applied to many individuals and used as a useful tool as it can help contest the intertwined preconceptions about oppressive groups. This article will argue why intersectionality needs to be addressed and why it can be used a powerful tool when addressing the social equality and the injustices towards specific groups such as gender, sexism, class, and racism. Gender and intersectionality interact together in many forms and in institutions such as universities, the workforce and a political sphere. These institutions greatly influence and shape how people are perceived and treated. Rodó-de-Zárate and Baylina found that race and gender could not be evaluated by themselves when using an intersectional lens, because neither of them is mutually exclusive (2018).

Gender plays a powerful roll in the complex yet dynamic understanding of societal roles. An interesting point that Dei made was that our personalities, physical and mental identities are constantly changing they are not fixed characteristics, and individual is constantly comprising their version of their best self (2016). The oppression of gender is very prominent in society, Salem believes that all the feminist contributions that were made from women of color or migrant women their voices and stories were not told due to their social class, race and gender (2018). In addition, Orelus presents stories of individuals who have experienced oppression throughout their lives, for example, he gathered women, poor working, class people, faculty members at institutions who were either female or people who did not fit into the stereotypical race, and linguistically different students, theses stories that Orelus provided an example that gender and race oppression exist in our daily lives but they function together (2012). We can not overlook the challenges that are faced by people who belong multiple marginalized groups.

Sexism is intermingled with other forms of discrimination such as racism, homophobia, transphobia, ageism, ableism or classism. These forms have created the notion of double-discrimination which has been reoccurring in one’s life’s. When people are oppressed and mocked, it is because others many see them as secondary to the normal societal status quo. Sexism has been very apparent in society as men are favored or deemed the norm and in power. Women have been historically oppressed because of the characteristics that are different from males. These notions have been so stigmatized that women still face sexist remarks, treatments and prejudice towards them. Orelus believe that because sexism and patriarchy is so apparent in our society, female professors are faced with a lot of challenges, include the notions that they have to take care of the children and fulfill their domestic chores while teaching students and meeting their tenure requirements (2012). Unfortunately, sexism happens in many public spheres, whether it is institutions, the work face, pay wages or just in public.

When viewing class and racism through an intersectional lens, these notions can create injustice towards many individuals who do not fit into societal classes or fit in with a monocultural society. Both notions co-exist within a social sphere, if one notion is being oppressed, the other will follow. Having a lower class in society will lead to unequal treatment among the individual, also if the individual in not in the visible minority this can lead to racist remarks, ill behavior towards those who do not fit in. Dei makes a statement about racism and class and how a society can be viewed as performing a measurable practice that shows the power relations between people who do not fit in either through class or race (2016). Carbado et al., state that intersectionality is not a fixed concept that is set to a specific social position (2013). Intersectionality can engage with other categories that hold power, such as sexuality, classism, or racism.

These categories can all intersect within a social, political and economic sphere. When assessing situations that involve one’s class, race, gender, sex, disabilities, it is important to hold an intersectional lens. Those who have been treated with oppression, have experienced either multiple or single forces of subjugation, which can create negative effects upon the group or individual. We need to be more aware of how we treat others regardless of these forces. Carbado et al., believe that by unifying the interconnected social constructions that produce power and marginalization and as humans we need to appeal and oppose the existing paradigms that continue to create these negative dynamics (2013). As a human race, it is important we take into account of people’s overlapping personalities and identities and their personal experiences in order to understand the complexity of intersectionality. Intersectionality can be used as a powerful tool but in order to change these power dynamics, from a social, cultural and economic perspective need to be aware of these marginalized groups and to treat them with equality.

The intersection between gender and racism is at the construction of variations of power, disparities in power, and the naturalization of entitlement/difference that is established in individual attitudes and behaviors through the consistent obscurance of power (Pettman 1992, p. 60).

Racism and gender intersect in their construction of variations of power through individual attitudes identifying individuals by points of difference in race and gender and through individual behaviors of using differences in race and gender to distinguish other groups of individuals (Pettman 1992, p. 60). First a point of variation in gender or race is identified- difference between individuals is noticed; this point of variation creates an individual’s attitude of the individuals being divided/ separated by this difference in race or gender; an individual’s attitude of separation from another-makes individual have an attitude that perceives the “other” individual only as separated from themselves based on race or gender;That point of variation in gender or race is then used again to separate in practice and eventually: form into an individual’s behavior of sorting, categorizing, dividing, and grouping individuals on the basis of differences perceived in the gender or race between themselves differently sorted /different groups of individuals; this individual behavior of sorting creates “groups of ‘OTHERS’” based on race or gender ( (Fozdar, Wilding & Hawkins 2012, p. Ix; Pettman 1992, p. 56). Ethnocentrism is a cause of any power variation (Moreton-Robinson 1999, p. 32-33).

Racism and gender intersect in their construction of disparities of power. They each start building through an individual attitude preference- that eventually contrives a rank of racism and gender into hierarchical scales. Next the pair continue constructing via individual behavioral practices- that forges a separation of races and genders into other groups of individuals on the hierarchical scale; acting to assign power disparities (Pettman 1992, p. 60). Using race and gender as mechanisms of categorization: classification distinguishes and forms“others as a group;” individual’s behavior practicing discriminating negligently forms an attitude toward the points of variations discriminated on; and subsequently begins to associate meaning to the sorted categories of race and gender: the individual’s attitude of race and gender is often biased and favors the category that they have grouped themselves into. Based on this, an individual forms their own preference in categories that expands the variations of race and gender as rankings, rated in a hierarchical system.This system this is the step where the bad notions of “other groups’” of genders and races come in: the attitude preferences instill disparities in the quality associated with- and therefore the power associated to groups of people. An individual often perceives differences in “other group(s)” a danger because it is unknown and a threat that risks what they do know; Fear influences individual’s behaviors toward groups of ‘others’ and it drives a need to act in a way that will “eliminate the threat;” this is exemplified to some degree in a great number of acts of racism and sexism. Shown, simply, by remarks like ‘they take our jobs’ or parents and adults of a community not allowing or limiting children’s exposure to the unknown “other group”(Pettman 1992, p. 56-60). Hughey (2011, p. 144-146) exemplifies this and depicts multifaceted effects of fear in his observations of the the white antiracist organization Whites for Racial Justice (WRJ):

The white male protection of white women from Black and Latino men accomplishes three goals. First, it reestablishes patriarchy through the assumption that white women need white men. The reification of this belief guides both the inter- and intra-gendered social interactions…Second, white male protective surveillance of white women from men of color discourages intimacy across the color line, maintaining a belief in white racial purity. Third, very few white members of either group questioned the assumption that black and Latino men posed a threat to white women, but instead used fear to propel their activism.

These also depict the parallel outcomes of the Cronulla riots in December 2005; but also of those from the fear that constructed black male sexuality and the gender roles of black and Indigenous families (Ho 2007, p. 292; Hughey 2011, p. 143). Fear of difference and the division of races and genders is an ”instrument of domination” that moreover, these interpretations lead to the unjust behaviors that colonization, imperialsism and modernization instilled, like slavery, opression, and the Apartheid. Regarding ‘other(s)’ as distinct “for the purpose of excluding, exploiting or containing them;” an individual’s thoughts and actions may have a limited impact- in addition to its inconsistency- as a whole or an event, yet they are the quintessence of what creates communal variations of worth (Pettman 1992, p. 56).

The simple action of categorization tends to fall into its predisposition and it grows into sexist and racist attitudes, both fortifying one another: ”Gender is coded to mean women; race is coded to mean black, or at least not-white,” proceeding until hinged by “superiority” of one side, the two sociological concepts independently and conjointly inflict themselves into the attitudes of an individual and eventually impose in one’s behaviors controlling communications by intra- and interpersonal relationships (Gianettoni 2010, p. 374-386). The resulting derivative of hierarchy is still saturated in its own deprave roots of power inequality-as thematic dominance remains constant to the dominant -“individuals who control this process (men, Whites, nationals, and so on)”- And only constantly absent to the individuals of the subjugated groups- “others”; “Other” has been objectified by their bodies, stereotyped/exploitation of their sexuality, limitated/ restraints put on their interracial contact, lessened/ identified as less in order to help someone else (dominant) create/find an identity (Hughey 2011, p. 143; Gianettoni 2010, p. 374-386).Women bear alternative experiences of the male’s and the public’s power disparities through the combined subjection of race and gender- making their respective discrimination: Notably within categories of the labor market, the ideals of gender and feminen roles, and in subjections to danger; the additional increase of apathy in response to these happenings is commonly attributed to the female experience as well (Pettman 1992, p. 54-77). The roles of women in the labor markets have been vastly socially and economically under-valued in addition to their lack of respect and payments (Gianettoni 2010, p. 375; Pettman 1992, p. 75). Constructed ideals of gendered roles buttress women as ‘dependent’ and ‘passive,’ undermining their value and the value of their contributions at home, as well (Pettman 1992, p. 68 & 75-76). Both of these in turn accent gendered inequality favoring men’s rights and merit.

These also prop men’s position to be heads of the household- granting familial control and thereby control of violence conducted in the family: Danger everywhere is relevant for women, but the greatest amount occurs at home; showcased by Australia in a country-wide research study surveying its women of ethnic-minority, concluded that 81 percent of them “believed domestic violence to be a Serious problem within their community “ (Pettman 1992, p. 61, 68 & 72-74). However, there is further inequality in this inequality: despite the advantages and benefits over women that men as a group have been assigned, further disparities in power erect themselves in following the fabrication of hierarchy including race (Pettman 1992, p. 62-63 & 66). Naturalized power disparities turned into tools in individual behaviors as an “analysis of domination, exploitation, servility, subordination, oppression and marginalization” (Barrett 1987, p. 35). Where in these people of superior biological characteristics ”have the power to classify, to name, and therefore to ‘construct the Other’”(Gianettoni 2010, p. 375).

Racism and gender intersect in their construction of the naturalization of entitlement through individual attitudes naturalizing gender inequalities and racism; and through individual behaviors of ranking racism and gender by hierarchy of ‘natural biological differences’(Pettman 1992, p. 60). Finally, racism and gender parallel in reasoned “obvious biological differences:” making an individual’s attitude of a ‘preferred’ race and gender seem like the normal/ way of life; the hierarchical system of ranked genders and races is justified in individual attitudes/ normalized and/or overlooked from conscious thought; individual attitudes of naturalization of entitlement turn into individual behaviors reflecting naturalization of entitlement (Pettman 1992, p. 60). From original sin, through social Darwinism of the 1900’s, to contemporary or ‘new racism,’ or “ representations of the New Right,” racism and other socially relevant mechanisms of ranking have been greater “coded” in conditions or “terms of difference” rather “than inferiority,” and by which socio-biologist that “assert the primary claim of kin” and a termination or a “ closure against others as ‘natural’” (Pettman 1992, p. 56). As a ‘question of nature,’Sexism and racism are free to compose differences and inequalities power (Gianettoni 2010, p. 376). Whiteness envelopes “the human condition” and “defines normality and fully inhabits it;” constructed through its own communications and ingrained and naturalized in the bonds of society predating to Imperial England: White cultural values, media images, superiority in academics, all the way to dominance being represented through street names after white British monarchy, white supremacy ideas are trained, neutralized, normalized, merited, and “applied to all areas of human experience”(Dyer 1997, p. 9; Johnson 1999, p. 3-5; Moreton-Robinson 1999, p. 28-33). Racism and gender intersect at their consistent obscurance of power through individual attitudes toward identification and through individual behaviors of not identifying themselves through racism, gender and power (Pettman 1992, p. 60). Identity- or therefore lack of it- is (one of) the most central thematic sociological concepts interlaced throughout the exploration of this relationship. Race and gender are used to identify individuals within the ranking hierarchy system that is used to identify power. Power, racism and gender are poorly- if at all- defined, confused, and inconsistent and the absence of definition attributes to their obscurance of power. anonymity is the most consistent identification & it is the identity of the concepts of interest: gender, race, and dominant groups all remain directly unidentified and obscured (Fozdar & Farida 2009). Without a definition of these, defining power is, too, barred, because power cannot be construed without determination of its constituent elements.

Likewise, individuals do not identify variations of power from these points of difference in gender or race; variations in power/power inequalities, like racism, remain unidentified; because the threat is seen as the values and the cultural differences of the “Other” -not the points of differences, race and gender, themselves (Gianettoni 2010, p. 375).

The confusion of power identification and the enigma of identification through racism and gender is propagated by inconsistencies in individual attitudes and behaviors: such as in how seemingly each entity of society is holding multiple positions within various ranking mechanisms- as per the case of a black man- he is occupying the “dominant position in terms of gender relations” and simultaneously the “dominated position in race relations”(Gianettoni 2010, p. 375-376). moreover, characteristic of the bestrode (or “others”) is an implicit identity -for themselves and for the dominant- that is only possible in companion with “heedless lack of self recognition” by its opposition; together they fabricate an opaque allusion to the identity of power and of dominant individuals that is hiding behind a vague accumulation of theories and ideas of racism, gender and much more known as the “universal point of reference” (Gianettoni 2010, p. 375). The group of dominant individuals: are not seen as dominant, nor are they aware/ see themselves as dominant or as a particular group (Gianettoni 2010, p. 375). White people do not identify themselves as dominant because dominance has become internalised to them; although still experiencing it, conscious awareness of power is numbed by racism’s naturalization of entitlement- leaving the identity of power unbenounced to the powerful as well (Moreton-Robinson 1999, p. 29-33). White people, dominance and superiority is invisible and it “thrives also on invisibility” (Dyer 1997, p. 42).

Pandemic namelessness is presumably also reason for the unseen fact that it is only the “other” that holds multiple hierarchical positions. Similarly to women, black men were victimized by naturalization in being diminished to their bodies: white elites used the origins in forced labor to objectify and reduce black men to immense, tenacious and brainless shapes- rationalizing the harsh conditions they were put under; and yet, contrastingly, the “emasculation thesis” that formed black male masculinity weakened and feminized them simultaneously (Hughey 2011, p. 143).

This motif of power and/or dominance obscurancing used again is synonymous to likewise bewilderment of such in practices lacing processes of difference naturalization: through which the overlapping categories of gender and racism are instilled and the relations between genders and between races are delegated (as inequalities) without explicit expression- seemingly subconsciously (Pettman 1992, p. 60). Ethnocentrism obscures power inequality and the naturalization of entitlement (Moreton-Robinson 1999, p. 32-33).

References

1. BARRETT, M. 1987. The Concept of Difference. ​Feminist Review,​ 0​,​ 29.
2. Dyer, Richard, 1990, ‘Coming to Terms’, in Out There: Marginalization and Contemporary Cultures, eds. Russell Ferguson, Martha Gever, Trinh T. Minh-ha, and Cornel West, MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 289-98.
3. FOZDAR, ​F, Wilding R and Hawkins M. ​ 2009. ​Race and ethnic relations, ​South Melbourne, Vic., South Melbourne, Vic. : Oxford University Press.
4. Fozdar, F Wilding, R & Hawkins M 2012, ​Race and ethnic relations​, Oxford University Press, Victoria.
5. GIANETTONI, L. & ROUX, P. 2010. Interconnecting Race and Gender Relations: Racism, Sexism and the Attribution of Sexism to the Racialized Other. ​A Journal of Research,​ 62​,​ 374-386.
6. HUGHEY, M. W. 2011. Backstage Discourse and the Reproduction of White Masculinities. ​The Sociological Quarterly,​ 52​,​ 132-153.
7. Ho, C 2007, ‘Muslim women’s new defenders: Women’s rights, nationalism and Islamophobia in contemporary Australia’, ​Women’s Studies International Forum​, vol. 30, pp. 290-298.
8. Johnson, Parker, 1999, Reflections on Critical White(ness) Studies, in ​Whiteness: The Communication of Social Identity​, eds. Thomas Nakayama and Judith Martin, SAGE, California, pp 1-9.
9. Moreton-Robinson, Aileen, 1999. Unmasking whiteness: A ​Goori Jondal’s​ look at some ​duggai business, in ​Unmasking Whiteness: Race Relations and Reconciliation, ed. Belinda McKay, Griffith University, Griffith, pp 28-36.
10. PETTMAN, J. J. 1992. ​Living in the margins: racism, sexism and feminism in Australia, ​North Sydney, N.S.W., North Sydney, N.S.W. : Allen & Unwin.

Gender identity is known to originate from experiences that happened in our lives and these type of experiences do not only differ based on gender but also by race and class factors. Stereotypes are formed under narrow structures of these different identities which creates a system of social control. Gender, class and race mechanisms are intertwined in these societies. In the race and class system there is a superior group and the inferior group and in the gender system women are marginalized by men. Therefore, Namibian societies gender, class and race have acquired some detrimental effects that can be traced back to the colonial period. These factors are inseparable when discussing the Namibian societies today due to the fact that colonialism implemented these problems among the African societies long ago and are still fresh among the African nations. For instance, the issue of gender-based violence today in Namibia can be traced basing with class and race that was created by the colonialist among the African, especially during the Apartheid South Africa

Intersectionality can review the relationship between these three different aspects in any given situation. Intersectionality approach examines all of these three categories of class, race and gender together simultaneously to get some sense of the ways these spheres of inequality support each other to maintain the status quo (Zerai, 2000, p 185). Further argues that the approach considers race, class and gender as inseparable spheres in which domination occurs (Zerai, 2000). Though Cole is of the view that much of studies done by scholars in intersectionality has tended to focus on race and gender (Cole, 2009). The term intersectionality discourse was born out of feminist discourse during the second wave of feminism (Biklen, Marshal and Pollard, 2008). It has been predominantly the preserve of feminist scholars and critical race theorists (Ncube, 2018). Therefore, the term intersectionality generally targets the issues of class and race trying to link them with gender issues. In other words, it reviews the relationship between gender, class and race by studying how gender and race relate, gender and class or race and class.

There is no doubt that colonialism played a greater role in bringing and cementing gender, race and class in African continent. Though there are some scholars that argues that these concepts were already there in African societies prior colonialism, it was not visual like after colonialism. Quijano, (2000) argued that;

Colonialism brought with it dualistic constructions of humanness. Through the racist colonial social structure and epistemologies human was divided into hierarchies of superiority and inferiority based on the division of labour, property ownership patterns as well as biological, cultural, religious and linguistic markers.

Grossvogel, Oso and Christou (2014) also invoke Fanon’s concept of being to explain the dualism. The zone of being was constructed as superior and the zone of non-being as inferior. From their argument that is to say, that the zone of being was the comprise of the white people with all privileges and the zone of non-being with the black and all sorts of oppressions upon them. Namibia is still suffering to this structure created during the colonial era by the colonialist, but now the whites replaced by black elites who are now occupying the zone of being while the poor Africans occupied the zone of non-being. Therefore, it is safe to argue that colonialism in Africa brought class, gender and class system which are inseparable, as it is argued that in the colonial matrix of power, class and gender oppressions were always structured by racism (Mignolo, 2007).

The demands of this development in the Namibian societies has some negative effects to men as they are not able to meet them due class difference. This factor is developed out of racism whereby the white people are at the top of the ladder and in Africa it is now operating under class system whereby the black elites in the society are able to occupy the vacuum. Therefore, women in this structured society are on a disadvantage side as they are suffering segregation. Gender, race and class works hand in hand in the social stratification of Namibian societies today.

In support of the above, men in Namibia are now facing the high rate of unemployment, discrimination and marginalization in their country due to this class system. Donald noted that in most of European, America as well as racist apartheid South Africa and Namibia, black men are inferiorised and their masculinity constantly denigrated (Donald, 1993). Further noted that black men often face higher levels of structural violence in the form of unemployment, discrimination, marginalization and direct violence in the form of shootings, assaults and incarceration (ibid.). For example, taking into consideration the works of Manyisa on Xenophobic violence in South Africa, it was grounded on the bases of racism which was grouped in the term of linguistic. Black men from other nations were blamed to take South African jobs, undercutting wages and exploiting them with high prices (Manyisa, 2015). Currently, men of the Namibian societies due to the high rate of unemployment and at the same time being the breadwinners of their families they are being forced to cross the boarders to look for greener pastures to support their families. To a greater extent gender, race and class moves together to the extent that it is not easy to separate.

To add on, the issue of gender- based violence in Namibia is under scrutiny among the scholars, as they are trying to study it with a class system perspective. Edwards-Jauch on the problem of the study points out that;

Common definitions of gender-based violence are limited to physical and psychological violence in the interpersonal sphere for example assault, rape, sexual harassment, abuse by authority figures, trafficking for prostitution, child marriages, dowry-related violence, honour killings and sexual assault. But this direct form of interpersonal violence takes place in a broader societal context of structural violence Edwards-Jauch, 2011).

In support of this statement the Namibian Demographic and Health Survey of 2013 results show a relatively high level of social acceptance of violence against women, particularly among poor rural men with low levels of education and men who fall in the lowest wealth quintile (Republic of Namibia, 2014). To address this problem of class system as a nation by inclusion policy in every sector is an indirect way of addressing the issue of gender-based violence in Namibia. Therefore, from this viewpoint one can note that gender and class system intersect in the Namibian societies.

The colonial power was both racist and sexist. The conquered bodies were racialized and sexualized. Edwards- Jauch, (2011) is of the view that the racism in Namibia around black male sexuality still finds currency in the discourses and literature on gender-based violence. She argues that racism might raise the assumption that the perpetrators of the gender-based violence are primarily, if not exclusively, black. Basing on this argument one can note that racism was taking control among the white people who were dominant over the black people. At the same time class was also at the center of the arguments. That is the effect that if today people are about to talk about gender-based violence in Namibia they are putting the whole blame over the black men. The black men today are being perceived as the most violent, especially by the white communities. However, Andre Brink (2002) also draws attention to the violent experiences of white settler women. The violence over women among the white people was normalized due to the superiority which was vested among them. Arguably therefore, gender, race and class intersect in the Namibian societies.

In an environment where the issues of any inequalities in the African societies is under attack by the scholars and also the policy makers, the women are now involved in the working class. According to Amanda, (2006) the capitalist mode of production shapes class and gender relations that ultimately disadvantage women, because women occupy the working class instead of the ruling class. The Namibian women are still being marginalized on this fact to a greater extent, considering the ration of women in the ruling class. Men are always valued as the most dominant people over their female counterparts. Female are being perceived as the second class in this type of social stratification. Tracing it again one can note that it is a Western concept that is being spread in Africa by the way of capitalism. In the capitalism system men are always occupying the upper class. This class is being determined by people who have control over the wealthy sectors while women are just occupying the working class for the sake of supporting themselves economically. Therefore, gender inequality on this modern stage is being perpetrated by the factors of class and race systems.

In conclusively therefore, experiences of our lives has been the cause that gender identity originated and these experiences differ not only based on gender but also by other factors such as race and class. The intersectionality indicates that these factors works interchangeably in every social structured society. In other words, race and gender can work together whereby gender discrimination influenced by the racism factors and also race class can influence gender discrimination such like the apartheid in South Africa did during the colonial era. Therefore, these factors intersect in every situation they are applied.

Reference List

1. Biklen, S. Marshall, C and Pollard, D. (2008). Experiencing second-wave feminism in the USA. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 29(4).
2. Cole, E. R. (2009). Intersectionality and research in psychology. American Psychologist, 64(3).
3. Donaldson, M. (1993). What is hegemonic masculinity? Theory and Society (Special Issue). Masculinities, 22(5).
4. Edwards-Jauch, L. (2011). The effects of HIV/AIDS related mortality on family structures in Namibia: Selected case studies from Namibian AIDS service organisations. Windhoek: University of Namibia. Unpublished Doctor of Philosophy Thesis.
5. Grossvogel. R., Oso, L., & Christou, A. (2014). “Racism”. Intersectionality and migration studies: Framing some theoretical reflections. Identities: Global studies in culture and power. Retrieved on April 18, 2019 from http://dx.doi.org/10. 1080/1070289×2014.950974.
6. Manyisa, A. (April 16, 2015). The real cause of xenophobia attacks. Retrieved on April 15, 2019 from http://www.news24.com/MyNews24/The-real-cause-of-Xenophobia-Attacks- 20150416.
7. Mignolo, W. (2007). Coloniality and modernity/rationality. Cultural Studies, 21(2-3).
8. Ncube, L. (2018). The Intersectionality of Gender, Race, and Class: Implications for the Career Progression of Women Leaders in South Africa, University of South Africa. Unpublished Doctor of Business Leadership Thesis.
9. Republic of Namibia (2014). Namibia Demographic Health Survey 2013. Windhoek: Ministry of Health and Social Services & Namibia Statistics Agency.
10. Quijano, A. (2000). Coloniality of power, Eurocentrism and Latin America. Nepantla: Views from the South, 1(3).
11. Zerai, A. (2000). Agents of knowledge and action: Selected Africana scholars and their contribution to the understanding of race, class and gender intersectionality. Cultural Dynamics, 12(2).

All of us know that if a person is Black or Gay or disable or belongs to another social group, which is often discriminated, it means that their life is way harder than the life of a white straight man, for example. Such people, who I mentioned before face discrimination/misrecognition every single day. Nevertheless, what happens if the person is, for instance, Asian Trans disabled? Which type of oppression does he cope with? The answer is: this person struggles with multiple kinds of discriminations, which is called ‘intersectionality’. People who face different types of oppression struggle enormously and everyone must be aware of such terms as ‘intersectionality’ and ‘politics of recognition’. In my essay I would like to discover which inequality problems intersectional people are dealing with.

To illustrate which struggles people with different social identities can face, I would like to first consider cases that happen to Black, Gay comedians. Being successful in business of making people laugh is possible only if person is liked and recognized by the audience. Do people understand and like your jokes? Will the jokes make the crowd laugh? These are questions that are being asked by all comics. But what if your own identity becomes a problem to achieve success in career? For two Black, LGBTQ stand-up performers – Sampson McCormick and Tammy Peay – their intersectional identities introduce a lot of struggles.

“I had to show up so well as a person, so people would want to see me. I’m a Black man first, but as a gay man, others will say, ‘People don’t want to see that.” Probably, such situations happen for the reason that people are ready to comprehend only one McComick’s identity – as a Black man. Society is focused only on one problem, but not multiple. “I’m not a shady person,” McCormick says, “I’m not apt to throw shade, but sometimes our community throws shade at us.” Echoing McCormick’s sentiment is Tammy Peau, a popular comedian and New York-based LGBTQ advocate. While performing, Peay reaches out to mainstream in much what she does. It is obvious, that LGBT jokes may not be recognized and liked by all people. Their intersectionality offers McCormick and Peay a unique perspective, but sometimes balancing identity and appeal is a razor-sharp tightrope walk. Support for these performers is not always easy to get through even within the LGBTQ community, and both artists acknowledged that this is part of the bigger issue. “At Pride celebrations, when it comes time to book talent,” Peay lamented, “they will find a coked-out disco queen right out of rehab before they’ll sign up a Black, LGBT comedian.’ It makes the job of both comedians even harder.

Let’s examine another case of oppression that took place at Dyke March in 2017 in Chicago. Three women carrying Jewish pride flags — rainbow flags embossed with a David Star — were kicked out of the celebration at a lesbian march in Chicago because, as one of the march organizers said, their flags were a ‘trigger.’ It means that celebration of these women’s whole identities was forbidden. One of the women kicked out of the march, Eleanor Shoshany Anderson said she had attended Dyke March for four years, and she attended the event this year with a Jewish Pride Flag because ‘I really wanted to just be Jewish and gay in public and celebrate that.’ Consequently, march that supposed to be intersectional, prohibited celebration for Jewish women, who wanted to glorify their both sexual and racial identities. This situation illustrates exactly when it is necessary to understand intersectionality. Why that women were allowed to celebrate only half of their identity? Who decides which part of personality is better or worse? That questions don’t have any particular answers.

Accordingly, people in both of the situations described above have been forced to choose their one, ‘better’ identity and hide another. Intersectionality wants to solve problems like this. Regrettably, experience shows that it is extremely demanding to cope with such ‘ double discrimination ‘ due to the fact that society is not ready to understand struggles of people who face not only one kind of oppression.

Following the first part of the essay, I would like to examine which other struggles people with various identities face. As an example, I will look into the treatment of marginalized students in American schools, based on three types of identities, such as class, sex, race and gender identity. Discrimination due to class and race occurs when students of color in schools are less likely to receive coursework that is targeted to grade-appropriate standards, reflects higher-level cognitive demand, and is meaningfully engaging and relevant. To talk concerning student’s sex and race: a study conducted by Crenshaw, Ocen, and Nanda (2015) examining the experiences of ladies in class found that 2 p.c of White ladies were subjected to exclusionary suspensions compared to twelve p.c of Black girls. The study showed that teachers often encourage Black ladies to adopt a lot of “acceptable” qualities of muliebrity, typically associated with appearance and demeanor—standards that seem to mirror a White, conservative plan of feminitity. Further, students of color who identify as LGBTQ+ experienced bullying more frequently, comparing to White LGBTQ students, based on their race/ethnicity and sexual orientation. (GLSEN, 2015).

All of the shown examples make it clear that living with various types of social inequality is exceedingly arduous. What society can do with this? The main and significant thing is to esteem and accept other people’s identities, stop judging people for their gender, race, class, sexuality, disability, etc. and realize that each of us have a spectrum of social and political identities. For this reason, this is highly significant to be aware of what ‘intersectionality’ is. As Anntaninna Biondo, a visual journalist said “We give too many platforms to hate groups, and that takes away opportunities to hear the voices of young black girls. Or a transgender man or woman’s voice. Or someone who is non-binary. It’s easy to “other” marginalized groups of people. Grouping together all of these individuals only to largely ignore them belittles their unique lives. That’s why we have intersectionality. It adds context, nuance, and complexity, and calls attention to the gaps in law and society. It doesn’t, however, mean it’s so complex that we can’t change, understand and empathize.”

In this essay I will explore intersectionality and how it can contribute to the advancement of geographical thinking, specifically drawing on examples concerned with race, gender, and disability. Geographical thinking on race has been largely shaped by Critical Race Theory, encompassing the thinking of Derrick Bell, Richard Delgado, and Kimberle Crenshaw, a movement which can be defined as, ‘a collection of activists and scholars engaged in studying and transforming the relationship among race, racism, and power.’ (Delgado and Stefancic, 2012, pg.7) Arguably, intersectionality is central to this thinking and to understanding human differences because it allows for a comprehensive insight into how these differences manifest socially, politically, and economically, avoiding exclusion as far as possible. Kimberle Crenshaw (1989) claimed the term ‘Intersectionality’ to address the problematic commonality of discrimination cases is based on a singular claim, leading to the marginalization of those subject to multiple forms of discrimination. Delgado and Stefancic (2012) define Intersectionality as ‘the examination of race, sex, class, national origin, and sexual orientation and how their combination plays out in various settings’ (58). Arguably, the fact that antidiscrimination law fails to recognize these individuals, means that intersectionality is crucial to advance geographical thinking on differences because it allows for the voiceless and overlooked to be recognized. However, I will critically explore some of the drawbacks of intersectionality and how its application may hinder geographical thinking, specifically about how the popularisation of the concept may be problematic and questioning whether the concept is useful outside of the US context, drawing on the thinking of Carastanthis (2016), Price (2010), and Kobayashi (2014).

Firstly, I will briefly explore the foundations of Critical Race Theory and geographical thinking on race. From observing relevant geographical literature, it is evident that race is largely recognized as a social construction (Kobayashi, 2014). Kobayashi highlights how geography has been dominated by the white race, limiting the history of effective racial thinking, but the 1960s US civil rights movement was a pivotal moment as more diverse geographers emerged, Kobayashi critically argues that the earlier thinkers failed to address racialization, although they advocated for social justice, they failed to develop an overarching explanation, but focused on class. On the other hand, arguably the emergence of thinkers like Crenshaw and Delgado contradicts this as they explore some of the underlying explanations as well as social injustice. Kobayashi identifies two dominating discourses shaping the understanding of racial construction, arguing that they both deviate from geographical questions surrounding race, alternatively concerned with the relationship between humans and the environment and the status of geography as a science. Despite this Kobayashi recognizes the importance of how geographical understanding of human relations has shaped thinking about race, although race has been addressed in a partial and fractured way, especially in the context of the black-white binary. Delgado and Stefancic (2012) define Critical race theory as questioning the foundations of liberal order, encompassing ideas surrounding equality theory, legality, rationalism, and neutral principles of law, distinguishing it from the earlier civil rights movement. Supporting Kobayashi’s observation, Delgado and Stefancic assert that ‘The social construction’ thesis is at the center of Critical Race theory, asserting that race is not objective, but rather an outcome of social thought, exploited to advance the position of certain individuals. Considering this point, they argue that ignoring intersectionality alienates large groups, which is why forming a singular movement against racism may be problematic, as other disparities can lead to marginalization, evident in the experience of African American Women. Gilmore (2002) states, ‘A geographical imperative lies at the heart of every struggle for social justice; if justice is embodied, it is then therefore, always spatial, which is to say, part of a process of making a place.’ (16) emphasizing the importance of geographical thinking on race being at the core of this thinking, drawing attention to the unequal distribution of power, to address the underlying causes and structures facilitating discrimination, a problem which arguably the application of intersectionality attempts to address. Price (2010) suggests that geographers’ involvement in the study of race has contributed significantly to not only understanding racialized processes but also how differences ‘intertwine’, linking to the work of Crenshaw. Price emphasizes the influence of Critical theorists shaping current geographical thinking on race about scale and location, arguably it has facilitated the shift from the goal of equality to social justice through radical reform, recognizing the importance of the law in establishing change, drawing on the thinking of Derrick Bell. Ultimately, a common theme throughout geographical thinking on race and other differences is the fact that race is a social construction, and the centralization of single disparities can lead to the marginalization of many individuals. It can be inferred that it is crucial to understand the importance of acknowledging gender, class, and culture, as well as race, (Gilmore, 2002), supporting Crenshaw’s advocacy for intersectionality.

In my opinion, Crenshaw set the foundations for thinking surrounding intersectionality, I will draw on both her 1989 and 1991 papers to illustrate her key arguments. Crenshaw (1989) uses the legal experiences of Black Women in the US, asserting that merely including them in the already established system would be ineffective in addressing their unique experiences, demonstrating how the role of intersectionality can help advance thinking on discrimination, as it addresses the complexities in the context of racism in the United States. I will draw attention to the case of DeGraffenreid v General Motors to show that intersectionality is crucial in advancing geographical thinking on race; the court rejected the attempts of Black female employees to bring a suit because the company had specifically discriminated against Black female employees, as they were required to file on the grounds of either race or sex discrimination, but their claims of sex discrimination were rejected based on the lack of discrimination against white women, and their claims of racism were rejected. Intersectionality would have allowed the women to seek justice as victims of both race and sex discrimination, Crenshaw proposes that they should not need to compromise to be recognized by these broader groups, they are categorized by the experiences of white women and Black men, not as a group in themselves. Crenshaw’s overarching argument is that the uniqueness of marginalized groups, like that of Black women has been disregarded, and antidiscrimination laws are flawed, with a limited definition of discrimination in terms of a singular disadvantage. Embracing intersectionality would mean that groups experiencing multiple forms of discrimination would not be left to wait until they are absorbed by a more generalized claim, but Black women, for example, would have the right to be recognized as a separate group, as their experiences differ to Black men and white women. Crenshaw demonstrates there are many examples in which Black Women have been discriminated against not just because they are women or Black, but faced with double discrimination as Black women. Crenshaw reflects that both feminist and antiracist movements have failed to address intersectionality, leading to compromising the needs and rights of Black women in favor of a larger overarching agenda, ineffectively resisting the patriarchy and structural racism, as both groups respectively reinforce the subordination of people of color and women. Specifically, concerning Feminist theory Crenshaw considers that it has evolved from the White racial context, meaning that Women of Colour are overlooked as White women speak for all women, failing to acknowledge conflicting negative stereotypes associated with sex and race, e.g., Black women are not regarded as passive and traditionally worked, therefore the White woman’s agenda of disputing the expectation of being a housewife does not apply to Black women who have historically been expected to have employment outside of the household, which is an example of how a White dominated movement can fail to understand the experiences of individuals subject to multiple forms of discrimination, further emphasizing the importance of intersectionality. An example of this in the case of antiracist movements is the lack of support for statistics being released on domestic violence against women of color out of the fear that this will reinforce the stereotypes that Black men are violent, even though statistically Black women are more likely to be raped than a Black man is to be falsely accused of rape. Crenshaw (1991) draws attention to how Rape legislation has marginalized the experiences of Black women, as women they are sexually vulnerable, yet as African Americans they are subject to negative racialized sexual stereotypes, the intersecting of racial stereotypes with the narrative that some women are ‘good’, and others are ‘bad’ prevents them from being taken seriously by the court. Crenshaw reinforces her ideas surrounding the marginalization of Black women, as their political, social, and economic needs are less likely to be met as the mainstream modes of information are targeted at white women and inaccessible to minority groups. In addition to this feminist movements often direct their efforts to white women who were not expected to be victims to demonstrate that violence is not just a minority problem, consequently this further marginalizes Women of color, indicating that the message of ‘all women’ is distorted, further demonstrating the importance of how intersectionality considers the marginalization of minorities within broader groups. Disagreeing with common geographical thought that race and gender are socially constructed, Crenshaw argues that this suggests that these categories are insignificant, but as illustrated by the various case studies there are meanings and consequences attached to them, facilitating social hierarchies. (Crenshaw, 1991)

David Gilborn (2015) illustrates how intersectionality can advance geographical thinking on race, class, gender, and disability, specifically in the context of the Black middle class in the UK, demonstrating that the perceived advantages of a higher social class do not necessarily apply when the individual has other differences. The goal of this research was to establish the importance of intersecting race with other forms of discrimination, predominantly learning disabilities, and exploring the treatment that these families receive from institutions. It is largely revealed that schools were reluctant to address the Black parents’ concerns that their children were struggling with learning difficulties, as ‘In [their] research, where Black children’s performance was at stake, schools seemed happy to assume that the lowest level of performance was the ‘true’ indicator of their potential.’ (280) demonstrating how negative racial assumptions can potentially prevent individuals from receiving support, in this case addressing the intersection of race and disability is crucial to understanding their disadvantages. Black parents have to advocate for their children to a much larger extent than white parents to be considered by the school, whose only disadvantage is the learning difficulty in question. This is supported by Paulette’s experience, whose concerns regarding her daughter’s academic performance were ignored by the school, claiming that her daughter simply needed to ‘work harder’, however, after an independent assessment revealing dyslexia and a move to a private school her daughter’s grades increased from Es to Bs, demonstrating how multiple differences need to be addressed to achieve justice. It can be inferred that Paulette’s daughter was ignored due to two differences, supporting Crenshaw’s advocacy for intersectionality. In the two rare cases schools did undertake formal assessments they had the incentive of avoiding addressing racism, one being when Felicia complained to the school about how her son was the victim of racist bullying, and they responded by claiming that he should get tested for underlying problems impacting his academic performance. Felica’s experience shows how schools are willing to address learning disabilities when it suits their needs, and how racial discrimination intersects with negative assumptions concerning other differences, indicating the importance of intersectionality. As well as this, the UK education system arranges students in hierarchal grouped sets based on academic performance, the study revealed that it is common for Black students to be placed in the lower sets based on negative racialized assumptions and low expectations, in which they are commonly ignored and adopt poor behavior due to a lack of hope, it could be argued that because schools fail to consider that Black children have learning difficulties and assume their poor performance based on their race, the UK education system lets down many individuals who fail to reach their full potential. Gillborn draws attention to a child who was condemned ‘to the very lowest teaching groups where his confidence and performance collapsed.’ (282), based on the combination of his Special educational needs and race, despite thriving in primary school in which they acknowledged his needs and supported him accordingly, the high school failed to do so. Ultimately, Gilborne’s study reveals that despite their perceived higher social status as belonging to the middle class, black families in the UK are disadvantaged by their race, and it is evident that this intersects with other differences meaning that children belonging to ethnic minorities are further disadvantaged than white children with the same difficulties, and more likely to be ignored by the educational system due to racial stereotypes. Gilborn concludes that intersectionality can be useful, but there must be the awareness that it has the potential to devalue or even suppress those racially discriminated against.

In the following essay, I seek to present two central concepts, the concept of Intersectionality and Gatekeeping and Passing. The main focus will be on using the example of feminism, gender, and race and showing how both concepts can be applied to this example.

I will start by explaining first and discussing the meaning of each concept that I have chosen to use in my paper and then demonstrate how Intersectionality and Gatekeeping Passing can be applied to feminism, gender, and race and how they illuminate different aspects and issues related to them.

Crenshaw defines intersectionality: “Where systems of race, gender, and class domination converge, as they do in the experience of battered women of color, intervention strategies based solely on the experiences of women who do not share the same class or race backgrounds will be of limited help to women who because of race and class face different obstacles” (Crenshaw, 1996: 363). Her main focus is to explore the race and gender dimensions of violence against women of color, and how the experiences of women of color are frequently the product of intersecting patterns of racism and sexism.

To discuss and analyze intersectionality is very important to understand what it means. To my understanding, intersectionality is something that overlaps and depends on each other, just like how race, gender, and class depend on each other. The way people would explain intersectionality is the combination of their identity and how they are viewed by society. You could be a poor black female who is discriminated against and at a disadvantage because of her race, gender, and class which is overlapping and they all depend on each other which makes it intersectional.

The theory of intersectionality first highlighted by Kimberle Crenshaw, is known as a feminist sociological theory that highlights the relationships among multiple features and the characteristics of social relationships and subject formation (Crenshaw, 1966). Citing again Crenshaw, the key features of intersectionality are gender, race, and class it operates to oppress, dominate, and discriminate among people. Gender, gender/equity, male and female rights, and the battle for feminism even though very old, are still very realistic subjects nowadays. So, the concept of feminism is at the same time very old and it also differs a lot; depending on who you ask a male, female, black or white, you will get different answers about it (Crenshaw, 1966). Does feminism differ when race overlaps with gender and what struggles do black women and other women of color have to overcome that white women do not? When searching in the literature using words like feminism, black feminism, gender, race, and intersectionality, we will get plenty of hits with both negative and positive information. In the case of feminism, that is because there are so many different personalities of feminism, but again it is all dependent on the one whom it affects (http://www.markfoster.net/struc/intersectionality-wiki.pdf, 2013).

Feminism by definition is the belief that women regardless of the race they belong to, should be allowed the same rights, power, and opportunities as men and be treated in the same way (Cambridge Dictionary). In our modern society, in developed countries, women should ideally be allowed the same rights, power, and opportunities as men and have the same treatment. This treatment at first glance seems to exist and be quite realistic, but in reality, in some cases, it shows to exist only on paper. The intersectionality of race and gender has been shown to have a visible impact on the labor market where we can see the impact of intersectionality in wages and domestic labor (http://www.markfoster.net/struc/intersectionality-wiki.pdf, 2013).

In Balkan countries, it is pretty usual that Gypsies,- Egyptian descendants, and other people who fall into the bottom of the social hierarchy in terms of race or gender are hired in most cases for exploitive positions in the public or private sector of the economy or for domestic positions, where they receive lower wages. Both groups have been shown to have fewer opportunities for formal employment than the majority population but if we take into consideration the position of females belonging to the same social groups, they seem to be even more discriminated against, having much less access to education and job opportunities compared to males (ERRC, 2019). The situation of women in third-world countries seen through an intersectionality lens seems to be the same. In those countries, females face a lot of troubles, on top of gender issues they face in their everyday lives and racial discrimination as well. Black feminism, the battle of African-American women against the issues of not only gender but also class and race, is quite realistic even in American countries. Hence, in one study conducted by Nora Stephens (Stephens, 2013), is shown that she was very impressed by the fact “that women of color often referred to themselves as an “Asian woman” or “African American woman,” whereas the white women more often referred to themselves as women without adding their racial or ethnic identity”. This difference led the researcher to wonder why it is that women of color more often attach their race or ethnicity to their gender.

To sum up the discussion above, when looking at today’s society, everyone might have the impression that women can compete and are competing with their male counterparts, in many ways, from education, government, and even television (Oprah Winfrey Show, 2015), regardless the class or the race they belong to. While this might be true, there is still an existing divide between the two genders. As seen through the intersectionality perspective the divide was obvious when using the feminist approach. Intersectionality has recently taken more space in public discussions about feminism, gender inequality, and racial discrimination, and it is not even new. But because of the limitations we have in this essay, could not discuss it further.

The other concept that I would like to highlight in my essay is Gatekeeping and Passing. Bryant Keith (2004) in his performative article uses the figurative meaning of “passing” as a reference to crossing racial identity borders to intra/interracial issues of identity and authenticity. Passing is constructed as a performative accomplishment as assessment by both the group claimed and the group denied. The notion of passing in Black popular discourse is most often relegated to an interracial movement of assumed identity, in which persons of African American descent pass themselves off as White (Alexander, 2004). According to Daniel (1992), “Multiracial individuals for the most part have accepted the racial status quo, and have identified themselves as Black’’ (Khanna & Johnson, 2006: 380). A large number of individuals, however, have chosen the path of resistance. Individual resistance has taken the form primarily of “passing” as white. For example, a lot of Americans passed as white to resist the racially restrictive one-drop rule and racial status quo of the Jim Crow era (Daniel 2002; Williamson 1980, quoted in Khanna & Johnson, 2010).

Kennedy (2003) brings a more precise definition and defines passing as a “deception that enables a person to adopt specific roles or identities from which he or she would otherwise be barred by prevailing social standards” (Khanna & Johnson, 2010: 381).

Gender-wise, women have shown to be more sensitive when analyzed from the Gatekeeping and the Passing approach. According to Stephen (2013) women belonging to the black race, black women are even more fragile as they are left out from both the feminist movement and the black power movement. Therefore in many cases, they try to “pass”. Let’s refer to the example of “Nappily Ever After”, a Netflix film. The film is a testament to how women’s psyches become linked to our appearances, and how relieving it can be when we can shed light on the heavy coils of gendered expectations. Violet the main actress in the film, a 30-year-old black lady has a seemingly perfect life. She is a perfectionist who embodies every fear her mother ever had about her daughter’s place in the world as a black woman. Her mother Paulette never allowed Violet the freedoms of being a child, afraid that any negligent activity would fluff her daughter’s carefully relaxed hair into a curly mop — a look the girl couldn’t afford if she wanted to be taken seriously in a society dominated by white beauty standards. Here we can see exactly the racial passing, a phenomenon in which a person of one race identifies and presents himself or herself as another (usually white) ( Khanna & Johnson, 2010). Her mother always attempted to keep Violet the vision of perfection. Her hair needed to be fixed, only then she was perfect. Every day she used to perform an entire makeup and hair routine before her boyfriend woke up in the morning, pretending that she woke up like that. Everything she did was to escape the social stigma associated with blackness. But Violet was headed toward a breakdown even if no one else realized it. When she got a puppy instead of a marriage proposal from her boyfriend Violet unraveled. She broke up with her boyfriend, shaved her head, gave up her career, started a flirtation with a hairdresser, and decided to take care of his precious daughter Zoe. And at the very end, she realized that she was much happier by being herself.

For some people, passing was continuous and involved a complete break with the African American community (Daniel 1992). They cut ties with their black community friends and even family members to gain access to opportunities unavailable to them as African Americans such as going to school, getting a good job ( Khanna & Johnson, 2010), or having a good future by securing a good marriage as in case of Violet.

Motivations for passing as white, especially during the Jim Crow era, are well documented, but less is known, however, about the motivations for passing as black. One of the main reasons why people pass as ‘black’ is to fit in with black peers, to avoid a white stigmatized identity, and/or for some perceived advantage or benefit (Khanna & Johnson, 2010).

For example, Kristen grew up attending a predominantly white school and a predominantly black gym he says “Going to school and going to gym were just two different things for me, so it is like I had to switch. I was like Superman.” And she liked that she said: “I I would just do little things that I very well knew what I was doing. The ‘little things’ included changing her clothes and speech depending on the race of her audience. When asked why she altered her appearance and behavior between friends, she says “To fit probably, because I wanted friends in both areas” (Khanna & Johnson, 2010).

But why do people pass? There are several reasons why people pass as “white” or vice versa. Passing can be a strategy to avoid cultural and social stigma and to achieve cultural and social benefits, because it is a conscious and unconscious performance of suppression, Others pass because they need new opportunities, access, safety, and adventure. Different people can make a lot of assumptions about us based on stereotypes or culture. And when we do not like these assumptions or when the truth annoys us, we try to “pass”. 

Critical race theory began as a scholarly movement in the early 1970s because of the writings of an African American civil rights lawyer Derrick Bell who presented a theory to understand Western racial history as well as the conflict of interest in civil rights litigation (Delgado & Stefancic, 1998, p. 467). As years passed new critical themes to this theory were presented by critical scholars such as; Delgado, Matsuda, and Crenshaw who discussed interested convergence, while focusing on the social construction of race and the critique of liberalism and critical legal studies (Delgado & Stefancic, 1998). This paper will examine the history of critical race theory; I will argue that the key components of this theory are legal liberalism and the basic tenets of critical race theory (Delgado & Stefancic, 2017). I will also be critically examining the key debates and elements of the sociological theory of intersectionality and anti-essentialism (Hodes, 2017).

The analysis of the critical legal studies movement has led scholars to the birth of critical race theory (Aylward, 1999). Theorists of critical legal studies have analyzed the five tenets of legal liberalism which include; the rule of law, formalism, neutrality, abstraction, and individual rights (Aylward, 1999). The rule of law believes that the government should be bound by laws without distinction in their application to certain individuals or groups (Aylward, 1999). The critical legal studies movement challenges this concept by stating that the rule of law is a “myth” as it is used by those in power to oppress others in society to preserve the existing status quo (Aylward, 1999, p. 20). The concept of formalism is founded upon the basis that legal rules create a consistent whole from which the answer to any legal questions can be logically analyzed by finding the applicable rule and implementing it to the facts of the case (Aylward, 1999, p. 21). While neutrality is upheld by liberals and it focuses on the conflict that laws are not founded on any group’s understanding of moral right or good (Aylward, 1999). For example, this concept allows groups of power in society to control the definition of the political ideas of the good based on theories of domination and their own political biases (Aylward, 1999, p. 22). Legal liberalism also focuses on individual rights because it believes that the state and law should work to give the citizens as much space as possible to follow their self-interests without being held back because of their identity (Aylward, 1999). These tenets are important to understanding the relationship between law and society because, through critical legal studies critique of legal liberalism, we can acknowledge how rights regulate society’s unequal arrangements of power to create injustice (Aylward, 1999). Scholars of color like Kimberle Crenshaw were drawn to critical legal studies because it was a movement that ignored the realities of colored people and how they were obliged to live in a society constructed and controlled by others (Aylward, 1999).

The critical race theory movement when blacks and scholars of color attended the 1986 Conference on Critical Legal Studies annual meeting in Los Angeles held by organizers who picked race and racism as the core theme (Delgado & Stefancic, 1998). Many of the scholars felt colored people were divided from legal discourse and Richard Delgado who attended the conference voiced his beliefs on the failure of critical legal studies discourse (Aylward, 1999). He critiqued this movement by stating that it did not pay attention to minorities and that it was unrealistically idealistic because it held society back through racism, threats, and indifference (Aylward, 1999). At the core of critical race theory is that legal discourse does not properly take into account the reality of race and racism and it has neglected the truth of how the law “is both a product and a promoter of racism” (Aylward, 1999, p. 30). Delgado sets out the basic tenets of critical race theory as well as analyzes the key elements that critical race theorists believe (Delgado & Stefancic, 2017). First, is that racism is ordinary and is a common everyday experience for most colored people (Delgado & Stefancic, 2017). This feature argues that racism is hard to address since it is not recognized but it also expresses that color-blind and formal conceptions of equality can provide a remedy to obvious modes of discrimination (Delgado & Stefancic, 2017). The concept of racism is a way for society to assign privilege and status through racial hierarchies to decide who gets the best benefits, jobs, and schools (Delgado & Stefancic, 2017). Through the eyes of liberals, the idea of color blindness is evident in society and they believe in equal treatment for all no matter what their history or current situation is (Delgado & Stefancic, 2017). The idea of racial integration over racial separation enforces formal equal chances through a policy such as color-blindness (Aylward, 1999). Color-blind constitutionalism is critiqued by many scholars and it is said that to move past racial beliefs, we need to be race-conscious (Aylward, 1999). An example of color-blindness is within the law presented in Supreme Court opinions which state; “that is wrong for the law to take any note of race, even to remedy a historical wrong” (Delgado & Stefancic, 2017, p. 27). The problem is that if there is racism fixed in our thought and social structures then the practices and institutions within society that citizens and the law rely on will keep minorities in inferior positions (Delgado & Stefancic, 2017). A second feature is that our system functions as white over color to serve the dominant group (Delgado & Stefancic, 2017). The second element can be described as interest convergence or material determinism because racism pushes forward the interests of white elites and working-class whites. An example that is used to describe this feature is Derrick Bell’s idea that Brown v. Board of Education is seen as a triumph of civil rights litigation which emerged from the self-interest of elite whites rather than from an eagerness to help black people (Delgado & Stefancic, 2017). Interest convergence connected to Bell because he argued that civil rights advances for black people seemed to be aligned with changing economic conditions and the self-interest of elite whites (Delgado & Stefancic, 2017, p. 22). When the case of Brown was decided in American it was during the end of their role in World War 2 and many black servicemen and women had to come back home after fighting against fascism (Delgado & Stefancic, 1998). For the first time, these soldiers came home to the United States thrived cooperation and survival took priority over racism (Delgado & Stefancic, 2017). This case was important not only for socio-legal studies but for critical race theorists to have it integrated into understanding the ins and outs of minority legal history especially those of Latinos (Delgado & Stefancic, 2017). This was a case of interest convergence because it came at a time to boost America’s self-image to show its allies that they were creating racial progress (Delgado & Stefancic, 1998). The third key component is the social construction that upholds that race and race are the results of social thought and relations (Delgado & Stefancic, 2017). This feature allows us to understand that races are categories that society creates, manipulates, and resigns when beneficial (Delgado & Stefancic, 2017). Societies ignore the scientific truths that people who share common physical traits like skin color do not play a role in higher traits like personality and intelligence (Delgado & Stefancic, 2017). The legal construction of race emerges out of cases like Hernandez v. State in which Mexican-Americans were constructed as white. In this jury participation case, a Chicano was convicted of murder and wanted to reverse his conviction on the basis that Mexican Americans like himself were excluded from the jury (Delgado & Stefancic, 1998). The court did not want to see that Mexican Americans were a non-white group and since the Hernandez jury contained numerous white members he was therefore not being denied a fair trial (Delgado & Stefancic, 1998). Chicanos are a primary example whose identity plays a role in troubling the legal system while the law takes part in constructing the white race (Delgado & Stefancic, 1998).

The concepts of intersectionality and anti-essentialism are key themes in critical race theory literature and focus on the role of categories in assigning power and authority (Delgado & Stefancic, 1998). Many critical scholars have been utilizing the intersectional and anti-essentialist analysis to study how race, class, and other categories associate with each other (Delgado & Stefancic, 1998). The notion of anti-essentialism stems from acknowledging the role of small groups like black women within larger ones that work for social change such as the feminist movement (Delgado & Stefancic, 1998). Many women of color have occupied white feminism because of the absence of colored women and giving them a voice (Crenshaw, 1995). Through the anti-essentialist analysis, feminism essentializes the category “woman” and gives credit to the postmodernist belief that categories we see as natural are in reality socially constructed (Crenshaw, 1995, p. 375). The term intersectionality on the other hand was formulated by Kimberle Crenshaw in 1989 to signify the numerous ways in which race and gender interact to shape the many dimensions of Black women’s experiences (Crenshaw, 1995, p. 358). Critics like Carol Aylward (2010) believe that this concept is “an offshoot of critical race theory which originated with Black and other scholars of color who felt that existing legal discourse was alienating to all people of color” (Hodes, 2017, p. 72). Crenshaw acknowledges that intersectionality allows us to understand the relationship between law and society as it is used as a metaphor to interrogate everyday social life as well as appear within legal jurisdictions (Hodes, 2017). This concept has become the groundwork of feminist theory as it has been applied to the idea of how the intersection of race and gender operate separately within anti-discrimination law (Hodes, 2017). She argues that anti-discrimination law will work to recreate the essentialism and violence that intersectional resistance tried to obstruct (Hodes, 2017). Crenshaw’s work is significant in socio-legal studies as she lays out what happens to intersectionality when it is present in the court of Canada (Hodes, 2017). Through legal and social policy in the U.S. and Canada, intersectionality functions as a tool of diversity management with intersecting categories (Hodes, 2017). These intersecting identity categories of race and gender or race and sex create different experiences of discrimination (Hodes, 2017). The violence that women face is shaped by their identity for example, “many women of color are burdened by poverty, childcare responsibilities, and the lack of job skills” (Crenshaw, 1995, p. 358). This is a form of structural intersectionality in which the intersection of race and gender makes experiences of domestic violence, rape, and poverty different from one of a white woman (Crenshaw, 1995). Within Crenshaw’s research she focuses on the methods of identity construction, which is needed by the grounds approach within Canada (Hodes, 2017). This approach states the different categories of identity have become a set of fixed physical characteristics, which further creates a fact of being (Hodes, 2017). The rules that create the context of the grounds approach alter anti-discrimination claims into interpretations of colonial modernity through the application of Lockean principles about the body and identity (Hodes, 2017, p. 73). The conception of identity carries ontological beliefs, which are mirrored by John Locke’s thoughts about difference and diversity (Hodes, 2017). Locke argued the significance of categorizing identity and that identity was used to define something that is confined inside the body (Hodes, 2017). These ideas of the body and categories are crucial to earlier expressions of intersectionality in Canadian law (Hodes, 2017). She also discusses the additive approach presented by Kamini Steinberg (2009), which produces a hierarchy of oppression in which claimants experience more types of discrimination (Hodes, 2017). Steinberg’s approach contradicts Crenshaw’s later analysis of discrimination that cannot be discussed through the separation of identity categories or types of oppression (Hodes, 2017). Kamini Steinberg pays attention to the application of intersectionality by arguing the need for more comprehensive analysis within Canadian courts (Hodes, 2017). An example of identity construction in Canadian courts is the McIvor case, which challenges Bill C- 31’s amendments to the Indian Act as it did not include both sex and race as means of discrimination (Hodes, 2017). This anti-discrimination case is not only founded on the cruelty of settler colonialism but of sex discrimination between men and women (Hodes, 2017). For example, women who had Indian status but married non-Indian men would lose their status meanwhile Indian women who got married to Indian men would obtain status (Hodes, 2017, p. 75). The Indian Act creates rules that control identity formation in Canadian anti-discrimination law due to the patrilineal descent rules that were to assimilate Aboriginal people into Canadian society (Hodes, 2017). Through these cases, it becomes evident that in Canadian anti-discrimination law, to be more than an identity it becomes a fault that needs to be studied through scientific inquiry (Hodes, 2017, p. 76). This needs to be further examined because identity becomes a prison for the body (Hodes, 2017). Intersectional analysis is significant in socio-legal studies because it allows us to understand the multiple systems of oppression and the various identities that place people in diverse social groups (Crenshaw, 1995).

Works Cited

1. Aylward, C. A. (1999). Critical Race Theory. In Canadian critical race theory: racism and the law (pp. 19-49). Retrieved from https://books.scholarsportal.info/uri/ebooks/ebooks0/gibson_crkn/2010-12-16/1/10192244
2. Crenshaw, K. (1995). Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color. In K. Crenshaw, N. Gotana, G. Peller & K. Thomas (Eds.), Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings That Formed The Movement (pp. 357-383). New York, NY: The New Press.
3. Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (1998). Critical Race Theory: Past, Present, and Future. Current Legal Problems 51(1), 467-491. Retrieved from https://doi-org.ezproxy.library.yorku.ca/10.1093/clp/51.1.467
4. Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2017). Basic Tenets of Critical Race Theory. Critical Race Theory (3rd ed., pp. 8-11). New York, NY: New York University Press.
5. Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2017). Hallmark Critical Race Theory Themes. Critical Race Theory (3rd ed., pp. 19-39). New York, NY: New York University Press.
6. Hodes, C. (2017). Intersectionality in the Canadian Courts: In Search of a Decolonial Politics of Possibility. Atlantis 38(1), 71-81.