One wonders what the fly stung the new Minister for the Status of Women, Martine Biron, when she declared that intersectionality was not part of her government’s vision of feminism. One can wonder about the reasons that motivate her to consider intersectionality as opposed to inclusive feminism.
The problem may be that the word intersectionality has been repoliticized in recent weeks. Rather than using it strictly in a context of equality between men and women, it is brandished with a view to federal-provincial chicanery.
Intersectionality has become “a weapon of Ottawa against Quebec”, according to the Bloc Québécois. An argument “that could be used in court against the State Secularism Act “, according to the most conservative PQ.
In short, for several weeks, a group of privileged politicians have been playing a dangerous game with a concept whose objective is to take into consideration the realities of the most vulnerable people. They use the word intersectionality to ignite fire, to divide.
However, we must remember what this concept means: the taking into account of all the discrimination to which a person is subjected.
In one of its advertisements, HEC uses the image of a mille-feuille: “each stratum comes with its challenges”.
The origin of the concept dates back to the beginning of the 19the century according to some authors, but the term was updated in the late 1980s by an African-American feminist jurist and researcher, Kimberlé William Crenshaw, in connection with the reality of black women in the United States, victims of multiple discrimination.
Intersectionality as an analytical framework was subsequently recognized at the UN World Conference on Women in Peking (Beijing) in 1995. Over the years, it has been integrated by a very large number of businesses and public bodies.
Today, more radical feminists are right to say that the term, in its current usage, has been emptied of its critical, political and militant charge. That we have rounded the corners. But that doesn’t make it an ineffective tool.
Currently, it is used to analyze working conditions or when developing public policies.
It is a recognized management tool taught at university. In managerial jargon, we talk about GBA+ or “gender-based analysis from an intersectional perspective”, and it is a concept that is no longer revolutionary. Who, in 2023, will dispute that a black woman with a disability faces more obstacles than a white woman in full possession of her means? Unless you are really in bad faith, no one.
This tool is so widespread that even the CAQ government uses it in its strategy against sexual and domestic violence.
“The intersections between different systems of discrimination place some women in contexts of heightened vulnerability to sexual and domestic violence,” reads the document. rebuild trust. In order to propose effective actions, it is therefore important to focus on the interactions, on the intersection between the different identity and social factors in the experience and victimization of women. »
As we can see, there is not much subversive in this statement.
And we guess very well who will be the losers if we eliminate this analysis grid: women.
Because once the door is ajar, we can fear what will happen next. If we deny the concept of intersectionality, will we also abandon the objective of equity and equality targeted by this approach, as well as the efforts put in place to achieve it?
The concept of intersectionality has advanced the cause of women in recent decades. Denying its relevance risks setting it back.