I really don't want this to end up as "here, a series of 101 lectures, turnabout". I'd hope the issues came up organically. But limiting the discussion to published articles means limiting the discussion to well-represented in media-or-scholarship groups. Which is problematic in terms of privilege, again.
I think the answer to the solution is to open up the comm a bit, to make the enticement intersectionality, offer various people with inside experience with various -isms a chance to learn about someone *else's* issues, while giving to the community by sharing about their own. Within a reasonable range, multiplicity guards against fatigue and also illusions of uniformity.
But that's a very, very different community than exists here now.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2010-10-13 06:37 am (UTC)I think the answer to the solution is to open up the comm a bit, to make the enticement intersectionality, offer various people with inside experience with various -isms a chance to learn about someone *else's* issues, while giving to the community by sharing about their own. Within a reasonable range, multiplicity guards against fatigue and also illusions of uniformity.
But that's a very, very different community than exists here now.