Response to #1:
Summary
In the journal article Intersectionality: Multiple Inequalities in Social Theory, by Sylvia Walby, Jo Armstrong, and Sofia Strid, the idea of intersectionality, mostly in regards to women, is explored with critical thinking, which offers solutions to the interconnected dilemmas women face daily, as well as systematically. The authors explore scholarly input from Crenshaw, McCall, and Hancock to understand commonalities between all of their arguments that could offer analysis as to why multiple inequalities take place for women. All of their arguments share inclusivity when it comes to women and disregarding generalizations put on them. However, the authors note that many dilemmas are left unsolved, even with Crenshaw, McCall, and Hancock’s input. The first problem involves figuring out how to address the relationship between structural and political intersectionality while not dismissing the other and instead focus on their connections. Structural intersectionality is when unequal social groups are considered, and political intersectionality regards political and systematic projects. The next dilemma asks how we address the relations between the inequalities without dismissing the powerful parts? Another problem regards balancing stability and fluidity, while the next wonders how to address class since all debates regarding intersectionality think of it differently. The authors offer solutions to each of these remaining problems, which all are similar because they all propose that one has to isolate each issue, take away its “status,” and think of all of them equally. This way, one can see the issues at hand more clearly and constitute a new critical way of thinking.
Analysis
This source is crucial to my research because it focuses on what problems still have to be fixed rather than listing success regarding intersectional thinking. By doing so, it leaves room for different perspectives and ideas to form different solutions. This is where preconceived bias can come in. With more research about bias and prejudice, I can see if this information can fill the gaps. The solutions the authors have mentioned are more complex than I gave in my summary paragraph, one being the solution for fluidity and stability. The solution reads, “The way forward is to recognize that concepts need to have their meaning temporarily stabilized at the point of analysis, even while recognizing that their social construction is the outcome of changes and interactions over time and to note the historically varied construction of these categories.” This solution is critical for my research because by stabilizing the meaning of a concept, one can see how it naturally is. There are no preconceived opinions or subconscious biases. There can hopefully be no underlying prejudice as well. The second part of the solution states that one can still recognize that social construction has caused changes and injustices, hence pre-conceived judgments. If people can start seeing a corrupt concept for how it is, without bias getting in the way, they can understand how it was historically constructed and maybe even dismantle it.
Response t0 #2:
In Kristin W’s response to the original article, she essentially notes that there are no ways to avoid the pressures of an open office, even if you tried. She states that in her experience, women would go to work early to get a seat close to the wall not to be stuck in the middle of the aisle. However, even if the women got wall seats, the men then had a perfect view to watch them. It made me honestly sad to know that these women could not even slightly avoid the poorly laid-out office. Not only was the layout awful, but the sexism revolved around it. Additionally, Kristin mentions the pressures of dressing nicely in an open office, which would create unpaid overtime at the end of the day because the men were still talking about work. By this point, too, I can already imagine the exhaustion the women have had from their days. Kristin’s writing illustrates a cycle- she notes that women can barely start their day off right in the workplace and can barely end it well. She does not necessarily mention the in-between parts of the day, but with the “cycle” being apparent, readers can certainly assume it is not so great either. Kristin W’s writing essentially demonstrates the inability of women to make their situation better because it was not designed to be changed; men have designed the office, therefore controlled by men. The beginning and ends of their days revolve around a man, whether that being watched from the aisle, expected to dress nicely for them, as well as staying late to work because the men haven’t left yet.
Solid work, Kate–a detailed summary and discussion of how you plan to utilize this source. We would benefit from a bit more definition of the source (help us to see what it *is* in addition to what it *says*–i.e. what journal does it come from, what kind of study is it, what’s the authors’ project). Make sure to include the full bibliographic citation, as well.