People have a tendency to emphasize the importance of one type of oppression over another (ex. white feminists point out gender oppression but fail to realize their white skin privilege.
There are few pure victims and oppressors and that everyone has varying amounts of penalty and privilege from multiple systems of oppression.
Need to create new categories of analysis that are inclusive of race, class, and gender as distinctive yet interlocking structures of oppression.
“I’m more oppressed than you” only leads to competition for attention, resources, and theoretical supremacy.
How can we reconceptualize race, class, and gender as categories of analysis? shift away from additive analyses dichotomous thinking – persons, things, and ideas are conceptualized in terms of their opposites (ex. black/white, man/woman, thought/feeling, fact/opnion); thus, the position of being oppressed and oppressor becomes conceptually impossible hierarchal rankings – one side of dichotomy is labeled dominant, the other bad (ex. black>white, man>woman, etc)
Race, class, and gender all contribute but are not necessarily equally visible/important in certain contexts (ex. in South America, racial oppression is more dominant whereas in Haiti, social class oppression is more dominant); however, the fact that one category has a larger impact in certain situations does not undermine the theoretical importance of assuming race, class, and gender as categories of analysis. Race, class and gender are all present in a given setting even though one category may be more visible or appear more important than others.
Dimensions of Oppression
Sandra Harding: gender oppression is structured along three dimensions: institutional, symbolic, and the individual; this concept can be applied to race, class, and gender oppression
Institutional Dimension of Oppression social institutions (ex. schools,