Identity Politics is Dangerous

    I want to spend the majority of my post talking about the dangers of identity politics as seen in all three of the readings, but I'll also touch on some other points as well later on.
    The theme of there being danger in identity politics has been seen throughout the course, as the world's obsession with strict categories strips men and women alike of unique parts of their humanity. However, the reading by Crenshaw pointed out a really interesting duality that exists, being that identity politics can be empowering in addition to being restrictive. While simultaneously homogenizing populations, there is still no denying the fact that the group mentality it creates is very powerful and influential in the political sphere.
    So, what you end up with is more public power but a smaller sphere of influence. Most activism will only yield rewards for parts of the activist population. For instance, we saw in an earlier reading that marriage equality is entirely more beneficial to gay white males than to lesbian black females. Still, both populations join under the single heading, "gay marriage". This is a perfect example of an increase in public power via more activists, but a decrease in sphere of influence via the loss of those extra activists' voices.
    We saw a similar case in Tzintzún's chapter when she spoke of being a contradiction in terms of her identity. As she was affiliated with both the oppressors and the oppressed, she felt torn between the two, a part of them both and yet relatable to neither. The sheer amount of categories that we consciously choose to impose on ourselves make their intersection painfully common. Many cannot help but simultaneously be privileged and oppressed, leaving them confused as to their own sense of identity. Gay white males live with the privileged history of whiteness and the oppressive history of homosexuality, while straight black males live with the oppressive history of blackness and the privileged history of heterosexuality. This is the kind of confusing intersection that many of us are faced with every day, and it is important to be able to recognize both our privilege and our oppression.

    Lastly, I just want to re-iterate Elly's idea (and the amazing video) about the Brownmiller reading failing to recognize that women also commit acts of rape. Obviously, there is no denying that men are committing the majority of the sexual violence, but it is ignorant to say that men cannot be victims. I know of survivors that are both male and female, and wish people would come to terms with the fact that rape is not entirely controlled by men.