Amazing how oppression again disabled people NEVER gets a mention. -- Tarquin 17:13 Jan 13, 2003 (UTC)
- I think it's because it's so hard to crate an -ism for it. Disabledism? // Liftarn
- Ableism is not mentioned because this article focuses on Claudia Jones's notion of Triple Oppression, which encompasses race, sex and class. If you have any links which bring up how disability and ableism relate to the notion of Triple Oppression, please post the link on this talk page and I'll see if I can incorporate it into the article. Vis-a-visconti (talk) 18:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I am not really up on this topic, but isn't triple spelled with just one l and oppression with two p's? This page also seems to be an orphan. Someone is more familiar with this subject should redirect this to Triple oppression (if that is really how it is supposed to be spelled) and link it to a related article. -Frecklefoot
- Yes, I got a few hits for "tripple opression", but "triple oppression" seems to be more common. // Liftarn 17:20 Jan 13, 2003 (UTC)
Speceism/Specism: Are they really words?
Like I said, I am not up on this subject, but are speceism or specism really words? I couldn't find them in any dictionary. I left them in just in case I am wrong, but someone up with this subject should give it the once over. -Frecklefoot
- A quick googling gives a few hits for speceism and quite many for specism. The word is mostly used within animal rights groups and I don't think it has catched on. // Liftarn
- Yes, they are certainly used in the community of animal rights activists, so it may be a 'term of art' in that community. However, in general the usage of that term is strictly perjorative, and doesn't actually specify anything more than semantics (although that does matter).
- Increasingly, more specific and positive notions like great ape personhood, and more specific and negative notions like ape genocide, are being introduced to eliminate specism in the concepts of 'person' and of 'genocide', where there is sufficient similarity of individuals (clearly both ape and human beings have their own unique personality and relationships and feelings) to justify the use of terms like 'genocide' and 'personhood', etc.. A humanist would of course fight such usage, as diluting "dignity" etc., but dignity is considered a bad thing by many of the people advocating change in how we view so-called 'animals', especially those very much like ourselves.
- It's also worth noting that this is more or less a mainstream view among the experts on apes, etc.. Jane Goodall was appointed a special ambassador by the UN, to cast light on this problem, and a recent National Geographic special, hardly a source of much radical political opinion, flat out said, "if we destroy our nearest relatives, we have little chance to save ourselves."
- So, for all these reasons, there should be an article on 'specism' and these specific issues within it, 'genocide', 'personhood', 'animal rights' and etc.
- The commonly used term is speciesism, and yes, it is in use. Interstates (talk) 10:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I do not believe the link between oppression of animals and humans belongs here. It is a connection many are willing to make, but for a different reason than the connections between human oppressions. Much of the theory of interconnected systems of oppression rests in their tendencies to reinforce one another: racism helps reinforce classism because a workforce divided by race is more difficult to unite against the bosses; classism helps reinforce sexism because no owner would make a woman the manager of a bunch of sexist men who will not accept her superiority to them. (This stuff should make it into the article, probably.) This is not the case for oppression by species, though, because very few animal rights activists argue that we should fight sexism and racism (breedism?) in animals, and the link between speciesism and sexism (in human relations) is tenuous at best. DanKeshet
- All very true, but you have simply proven another point of great interest. Looking more closely at animal behavior and similarities to human behavior is the only objective way to understand which of our 'racist', 'sexist', 'classist' behaviors are rooted deeply in our animal/ape/hominid biology, and which are not. So informed, the race, sex, and class struggles can be radically better at choosing their battles and focusing their limited resources, and can win more battles. This is exactly the argument of those who advocate the term 'triple oppression', that the struggles reinforce each other. The role of the ecologists and anti-specists is to help provide a reality check on what can reasonably done in a population of animals like us, and ensure that hopeless causes (like absolute gender equality in such fields as the military or representative politics) are not undertaken, or don't distract us much from winnable wars.
I think that it is horrendous to use any other species in an article about Oppression- especially the Oppression cited here as a way of describing the Oppression (Triple Oppression is supposed to be a strong enough word for this, I guess not according to the rightly discussed concerns raised in this discussion.) It seems as if there is a myopic yet energetic people (yes, I am referring to an entire population) willing to spend the amount of time required by the cite (and on the surface rightfully so) to post opinions by a disregarded and discredited source, all because they can, where having a legitimate concern as to the morality, and actual evidence of objective conduct is an undertaking unless one can spend an evening citing sources as to why it is no longer, Im disappointed in myself for not being able to think of a stronger word than, appropriate to compare a person of color (accepted term) to animal, which is being done in this article to define the term Triple Oppression. Describe if you must the way people have been compared to animals under the definition of the history of slavery in this country. Colleges and universities are allowing Wikipedia to be used as a reliable source (first person research.) Batvenn (talk) 01:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Comparisons to (other) animals was done my speciesists against people of color, just like a sexist would attempt to insult a man by calling him a woman or a girl, or equivalent slang terms. The very idea of using those as insults are founded on discrimination. But of course even if it's clear they are reliant on a discriminatory world view, it's clear the person saying them has this view and clearly intends to demean, so it's harmful nonetheless. Dehumanisation (as opposed to, say, depersonification) only works when people look down on other species of animals as "lesser than". And unfortunately that was and still is common among racists, but it's also still common among humanity generally. They're really failing to realize the fact that all humans are animals - and that that's not a bad thing. So if someone insults someone by referring to them as an animal, there are really two issues with it:
- It's attempting to demean people of color to be worth less than white people. It's irrational, destructive and unjust.
- It's based on the irrational and unjust premise, that other animals are worth less than humans. It's also irrational, destructive and unjust.
German origin of Triple Oppresion theory?
In the corresponding article in the Swedish wikipedia it is stated that 'triple oppression' is a theory developed by a Klaus Viehmann, 1990, in the text "Drei zu eins", wheras the text continues such as in the English wikipedia. Which is correct I do not know, but examining which is would most certainly be suitable.
- hi, i'm from germany and involved in the "Drei zu Eins"-discussions. a few years before the dutch feminist Anja Meulenbelt has written a book with the title "Scheidelinien. Sexismus, Rassismus, Klassismus". But I think, the roots are really in the USA in the discussions by black feminists. -- Schwarze Feder 15:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Use of Opinion is not common definition
When this article refers to Intersectionality as “the sister” to Triple Oppression, it uses an opinion to define the former. I am not bringing this up because there is a problem with the source, it is that Intersectionality, by definition, is a unifier- or description- of the way different social movements converge, overlap, open a discussion ( I’m citing the Merriam Dictionary online googlable definition of intersectionality, I will comment with sources on this discussion) not a way to describe ways in which these movements/ideas/moments in history. This is important because on the Intersectionality page, there is a discussion about using “Triple Oppression” as an interchangeable term, according to one source on the latter’s page they are “sisters” but there is not enough information to suggest they are interchangeable.... I pose the question as to wether Intersectionality should be interchangeable with Triple Oppression (No) Batvenn (talk) 01:02, 30 April 2019 (UTC)