#do not take the decolonial nature of intersectionality and use it to argue that man are systemically oppressed FOR being men

[canichangemyblogname]

I think a lot of you on here wildly misunderstand intersectionality. Because it accounts for the fact that men are not oppressed for being men *and* the fact that man-ness is and has been inaccessible to black, brown, indigenous, disabled, and queer men. Man-ness is narrowly defined to exclude the most, but that does not negate that men are not oppressed for being men. One may, however, be oppressed for not fitting into that narrow definition of manhood.

Intersectionality accounts for the fact that white women are oft second best in a racialized sex-caste system. It accounts for the fact that they, too, oversaw the plantation and garnered wealth on the backs of enslaved men and women. It accounts for the fact that white women were the homemakers of the land they or their people helped steal and the mothers of children meant to supplant the indigenous population of the area. And it accounts for the fact that denying black men and gay men and disabled men access to manhood was a way to also strip them of personhood. Because humans have a gender; animals only have a sex.

It accounts for the fact that M > F is not the sole or predominant dynamic in the world, but is only one dynamic. It accounts for the fact that a woman (often white) can hold all the cards and the sociopolitical power in a relationship (dynamic) when the other half of that dynamic experiences specific marginalizations. It accounts for the fact that blackness and transness affect a man’s relationship with manhood and the sex caste system.

And it accounts for the fact that while men may be oppressed, they are not oppressed *for* being men.