One of the things that struck me immediately when reading this piece was that both authors stated their ethnic backgrounds, economic states, and current marital statuses.
So often in arguments, people do not begin with the ‘why’ of their viewpoints, and I believe that personal backgrounds have a large influence on them. In a way, each woman was effectively relaying why she had a standing on the argument and justified herself in doing so.
It was a simple action, but I found it extremely effective.
If we only did such actions when choosing leaders, we would not have women’s rights/reproductive rights policies decided by male lawmakers whose knowledge on reproductive rights starts and ends with their own wives.
Political advertisements that swarm the weeks before voting day always rave about why candidates have the fundamental qualities to justify themselves as a good leader, and yet somehow, we have been saddled with a president who had never held any prior government office.
The idea of intersectionality– not just as a feminist concept– intrigues me in the modern battle of race relations and police brutality. Often, the teens and young men who are killed seem to blend into the background as they are viewed by society as ‘another murdered black man’. Their race almost defines them, much like the black women of the 1960s who inspired the idea of intersectionality. I despise when videos and pictures of the victim are played after their passing because it infuriates me. Why didn’t society see them as a loving father, husband, or even simply a worthwhile human being until it was too late?