Greenscreen analysis of intersectional feminismfrom @glass__museum

Transcript

I talk about men who do harm, I'm not just talking about some white male edged lord caricature of the male loneliness epidemic. I'm also talking about your abusive immigrant dad. Specifically, I wanna bring intersectionality into this conversation and talk about men who, yes, benefit from the patriarchy, but are oppressed in other ways. I wanna talk about racialized men, queer men, men who are themselves victims of colonial violence. As you talk about men who do harm, I believe that intersectionality and nuance is crucial. Otherwise, feminism risks being co opted into the same liberal and carceral narratives that reinforce colonialism and racism. I was recently watching a video on the missing and murdered indigenous women in Canada, and I saw this comment. Essentially, tier commenter was talking about how it's so horrible that these indigenous men are just beating their wives and admitting to these crimes and not getting punished for it. And a bunch of people in the replies were agreeing, citing stats stats about the violence on reserves. But this is exactly how liberal feminism slides into carceral thinking. It reeks of the same old narrative of the civilized Best versus the barbaric natives. It uses the guise of caring about women's suffering to justify of the carceral state. The same carceral state that has historically and continues to be used to harm marginalized communities. No, it's not okay to beat your wife, obviously. But violence really exists in a vacuum. Violence begets violence. And the greatest violence imposed upon a people is a genocide. And that's what the indigenous people went through in Canada. In the residential school system, which by the way continued until 1997, families are ripped apart rank massive traumas were inflicted on indigenous communities whose effects are still felt today. If you worse raised by violence, then you are much more likely to continue that violence through the cycle of intergenerational trauma. So if violence is higher on reserves, it's not proof that indigenous men are just more violent as some like to twist it to be. It's a direct legacy of colonial violence. This co optation of feminism isn't new. We saw it in Stephen Harper's Tier Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices, bill s seven, which imagined a violent barbaric foreigner who imports gender based violence. We see it in Better portrayals of West Asia where the oh so oppressed hijabi woman must be saved by Better liberal democracy. And in response to all this perceived violence, liberal feminists continue to push for more policing. But carceral feminism isn't gonna solve the crux of violence against women. If we care about women's safety, then we need to address the structures that create unsafe men. We shouldn't look to the same institutions that created the cycle of violence to end it. All that would get is a disproportionately higher rate of incarceration for racialized men and expand what writer Michelle Alexander called the new Jim Crow. That is yes another tool for deepening systems of oppression under the guise of progress and accountability. Real feminist politics means looking at violence through an intersectional and decolonial lens. We shouldn't best be asking who did harm, but also why does harm reproduce in certain communities? Anyway, don't fall into the trap of just pink washing colonialism. Harm is not one dimensional, and we shouldn't treat it as such.