sociology – VIVIANNE SERENDIPIA

Below the line.

By Vivianne Serendipia

Point of view of a women criolla in there 20s on 2018-2024

Thanks to all the amazing, uncomfortable, and lovely people, the resources and tools that I used since the very beginning of my first child encyclopedias that my parents provided, the ability to self-expand in body and art. To my incredible parents, Juan C. Salcedo. Vasquez & Clara Patricia Glez. Romo that gives me all the tools I need and more.

Thus, a fundamental Below the line theory attempts to provide a more complete picture of gender-based inquiry and attempts to ﬁll this unfortunate gap in so-called lower-income and uneducated. Has a widespread inclination towards taking the focus on their premise and abandoning women’s relationships to class and racial profile. The neglect and discourse of gender are deeply problematic because women occupy subordinate positions in the most organized production of feminist knowledge. At the beginning of the century, feminists have increasingly begun to recognize this oversight, and several books have emerged highlighting working-class feminism. But mainstream feminists have bypassed this rectifying body of knowledge, despite its importance and relevance. The avoidance of rights and constant distractions concerning vanity and individualism had discourse, which ought to bring gender justice to all women, at least in theory, has suppressed the below-the-line question to such an extent that itself has been seen as a modality of subjugating women from most underprivileged communities.

Thus there are not just theoretical ﬂaws within mainstream feminism but ideological ﬂaws as well. Theorizing feminism within the media and in real life, therefore, entails the need to interrogate and redeﬁne mainstream feminism from a 0.0 point of view.

This observations rethinking notions of patriarchy, feminism, and the individual in a sensitive manner. Only then can we begin to rebuild an adequate theory for the next generations. Is by exploring the implications of gender politics, of the inﬂuence of female scholars, social, location, etc.
Between gender and race considering the perspectival limits of the thesis. For the most part, have neglected the question of inclusion of ideals of freedom, equality, and solidarity, where they can acquire a more collective tone.
Issuing a statement serves as a point of reference for the deep underlying tension between dualism, polarization plus heavily confronted ideas and information given on the intangible and tangible life approaches.

In some cases, we cannot ignore that the choice made by women has certain limitations. The choice is a particular capacity of rational beings to prefer a course of action from among various alternatives. In this case, the choice is not between preferring a profession that is devoid of dignity but choosing between two options that cause health or mental health concerns with a lower pay or one gives a higher wage but has no scalability. If women were availed of dignity through another occupation while earning a similar wage, they would prefer the other profession over the first offer.

This provides a hint about the different social locations that horizon the perspectives of the feminists who enjoy race class and gender privileges over those rights they claim to defend. Neither discrimination in the form of othering nor factual difference should be ignored in our endeavor to establish a society. The aims behind discourse will never be met unless every woman is in a systemic position to avail of equal treatment and dignify underprivileged society. This establishes the structural violence inherent incoherence ordained linkages between sexuality and labor.

Some ignore the factual aspect of the issue which calls our attention to the foundations of the dehumanization of these women.

Arguing that his view attempts to curb women’s freedom to deploy their sexuality in the manner they desire. But those critics have ignored the underlying issue, that prostitution is a systemic option primarily limited to the disadvantaged, and is thus part of a larger system of social exploitation within which individual choice or sexual freedom functions as hardly more than a raw abstraction. Advice in the same impugned speech, that women should notice under conditions that inevitably drag them into a below the line work environment. Distress’s like intensify pain and society giving them options that are mostly fit for the opposite sex pride.

Demonstrate the absence of single-axis thinking in our context or the redundancy of intersectionality as an idea has been subjected to scrutiny. Homogeneity versus heterogeneity dichotomy simpliﬁes the complex debates around the need for a civil code or the continuing pleas for narrowing down gender- laws that encompass not just relational arrangements and entitlements, but social security as well. Such simpliﬁcation de historicisms the trajectory of the women’s movement and the sociopolitical context that shaped it and continues.
The presumed subject of politics has been destabilized most notably by the politics of race, religious community identity, and sexuality.

The questions arrive of race, religion or region destabilize the political thrust of trends like race /gender based issues. That destabilization alone is no guarantor of a more genuinely inclusive politics.

Intersectionality itself is a space as a person bears only a single relevant identity at a given point in time.

In other words, pointing to the dynamics of power relations within these and similar groups, we should not further fracture the woman or any segregated sector.

Associating a woman with identities other than gender or race weakens the struggle. Then a debate opposes that if intersectionality is to have any genuinely liberatory potential it must be that it contributes to building solidarity across subjects that are recognized.
Otherwise getting lost between movements and agendas. A major noted with minor undertone aspect of the success of US hegemony in the intellectual ﬁeld is its heterogeneity, a capacity to house positions of opposition, and to ﬁnd space for immigrant differences.

There is a binary opposition between class politics and gender politics.

Historically and in practice, women have always been triply burdened subjects whose issues can thus only adequately be understood within an intersectional framework.

Intersections and synergies pose a threat toward building solidarity-based feminist politics, serving instead as a tool to facilitate government utilizing and the depoliticizing of gender by foregrounding other identities besides gender.
Such engagements with an intensification of the subject under the environment pose a hazard to the sincere attempts to improve the tools available to women, tools that could otherwise be helpful moving us forward toward a gender just society.

This originated in the context of prudence, and it is a truism within legal thinking that law and policies are more just when it does not recognize differences. There are several problems with this criticism.
The context out of which a concept emerged does not necessarily condition the possibilities of its applicability for research in other areas or for understanding social realities.

Also, the foundation for the existence of a legal discourse or notions of legal justice is the fact of injustice, including the inequalities prevailing across the world. Given this, if the law remains blind to differences among individuals, it can scarcely provide justice.
Regarding the legal run counter to the nature and functioning of law itself. It is argumentative that since each identity is unstable and uncertain the subject would inquiry to must be people.

Questions arrive, who are these people? Can there be people void of social, economic, or political identity? We neglect to clarify their inner dimensionalities and where are referred to?

Despite the opening call to locate point 0, there seems an urgency to theorize in response to global debates. This leaves us, even after going through the latter half of the chapter, asking for more. Listening to mix messages, seems to be self-contradictory: intersectionality at a global/international level has rejected it at the corporation level. Opens up the possibilities of claiming intersectionality for other purposes.

The mainstream standpoint on intersectionality is in some ways inscrutable. Why are so reluctant to seriously engage with the concept? I think is their refusal to reﬂect upon their privileged status within society. This endangers the potential for feminism to contribute to achieving the goal of gender justice for all.

Contextualize how uses intersect work for its purposes, we will turn to certain peculiarities about the nature of masculinity levels in their particular growth; peculiarities all but ignored in mainstream media and corporation structures.

Known as untouchable society, which explains a speciﬁed modality of masculinity by explicating a set of discriminatory levels constituting a hierarchical organization of society based on class. Within this untouchable structure, implicit, insidious, and seemingly impossible to challenge, men are most privileged, upper-class and race women are more privileged, lower class and gender men are more deprived, and lower-class and gender women are most deprived.

All others ﬁnd their place between these frames depending upon their class and gender identities location within the system.

The nature of patriarchy.
The operating system in the United States today, from a one-view perspective is inﬂuence and in subsequence become obsolete as a point of reference. For further readers, it will be satisfying to see humans themselves be proactive towards a better quality of life.

This is a structural concept also known as untouchable society, which explains a speciﬁc modality of masculinity by explicating a set of discriminatory levels constituting a hierarchical organization of society based on class. Within this “untouchable society” structure, implicit, insidious, and seemingly impossible to challenge, men are the most privileged, upper-class and race women are more privileged, base class and gender men are more deprived when in terms of gender women in below the line structures(live it by experience).

All others ﬁnd their place between these frames depending upon their class and gender identities and location within the system.

Lower-class women are most prone to violence as they face oppression at three levels:
1.- Class, as subject to class oppression at the hands of the higher class;
2.- Class, as laborers subject to class-based oppression, also mainly in the hands of the higher class who form the bulk of landowners;
3.- Gender, as women who experience masculinity oppression at the hands of all men, including of their class system.
Women face Class-based discrimination in the vertical structure of society and gender-based discrimination in the horizontal structure of society. Therefore, the gender issue cannot be comprehended without bringing in the question within the social structure.

The logic behind this claim can be better discerned by considering the example of not being respected, exploited, or unequal.

It is important to observe that the concept of patriarchy does not refer to the patriarchal practices followed by men; instead, it represents the multiform nature of patriarchy against women. Anyone regardless of their class or gender, who believes, practices, preaches, or encourages any kind of discrimination based on this hierarchical structure would be considered a follower by deﬁnition.

Fourthly, it has been conceived as a conceptual tool to further the work of equality, then there is obviously some confusion about the meaning and scope of the latter. The United States has evolved for very much the same reasons as the emergence of Black feminism vis-à-vis first-world feminism. Black feminism recognizes the multiple deprivations of black women based on race, class, and gender. Similarly, feminism recognizes the multiple deprivations of women based on race, class, and gender. If, then, there is a hierarchy, one would expect that there would have been forwarded an analogous concept of Black patriarchy. However, no such concept has been posited either within Black feminism or First World feminism in general. Such is, perhaps, the uniqueness of race in the United States, and the cunning of individualism, that here we have a proliferating discourse on the spurious concept of detrimental use, despite the lack of empirical evidence and the untenability of its logic. In sum, mainstream media’s attempt to coin a different term for the same practice, patriarchy, is futile and misleading. Such an attempt is indicative of certain irresponsibility of scholars who enjoy race-class privilege and do not regard women’s issues as central to feminism because systematic issues aren’t their problem. For this and other reasons as well, we must encourage theorization by those who live and share these experiences in an effort to honestly address race-based issues in feminist discourse. This approach has been championed by, among others, to whose position we now turn.

Contextualizing how uses intersect work for its purposes, we will turn to certain peculiarities about the nature of masculinity levels in their particular growth; peculiarities all but ignored in mainstream media and corporate structures.
The operating systems in the United States today are inﬂuence and in consequence, become obsolete as a point of reference. For further future next generation, it will be satisfying to see humans themselves be proactive towards a better future.

All others ﬁnd their place between these frames depending upon their class and gender identities and location within the system.

The logic behind this claim can be better discerned by considering the example of ‘honor-killing’.

Below-the-line theory with an intention to understand radical individualism

This includes attempts to reduce the status of “Here this is for you to ask me if you have any questions”
Incentives other than political initiatives, commercialism, and hyper-capitalism acceptance. Counter your face conceptual production to mere works of social matter, poetry, short stories, popular music, and other social activism increments.

As opposed to academics. intellectual scholarly or physics. Theoretical
works that contribute to the knowledge production of feminism. This US (feminist scholar) versus them (active narrators) dichotomy has been nicely represented in a different context through expression, theoretical and empirical structure, which he has deployed while exposing the nature of doing social

Thus, thought is subordinated by both a masculinity approach to theorizing (the patriarchal nature of academia) as well as, ironically, by the mainstream feminist community. There have been a variety of ways that feminists have addressed the problem of what we are calling world justice. As has been argued by numerous feminist movements today, the category of experience is used as an important tool in the name of building international sisterhood; however, this has been resisted by mainstream media.

In other areas, marginalized women are emerging as a source of a more comprehensive understanding of gender-based problems; however, feminist scholars consider marginalized women as mere objects under investigation. Thus, questions the status of experience, which is of course substantively different for the different women involved within the feminist inquiry.

To criticize the us vs.

The dichotomy prevalent in feminism charges mainstream feminists with the manipulation of experiences about which they are too conveniently selective. Along the same lines, had argued early on that since the reality of women is perceived from a social location, demish feminist theories fail to capture the reality of women. Consequently, women’s representation by non-women is unauthentic and distracting in moments of real distress and inequality.

Well-wishers and fellow travelers must also be welcomed, as well as those who express sincere solidarity. But we cannot be glib; the risk of appropriation is serious and omnipresent. These concerns have received studied attention in the seminal essay.

Experience and Representation: Beyond Hierarchy’. alternative to the impasse posed by the dichotomies that we face. Employing a collectively, shared experience by those who live, share, and articulate experience.

Main cities, offers an anon to epistemic critique that helps to ground innovation: The meaning of an object is not a concept graspable by pure understanding. Its meaning is the objects it is disclosed to us in the overall relation we sustain with it, which is action, emotion, and feeling.

From the point of view of theory, to satisfy the minimal conditions of authenticity for a given analysis, the embodiment of the analyst and investigation are both required to be recognized. Does not regard experience as an incorrigible starting point but rather as a dialectical process of collective articulation by the persons belonging to conﬂicted social locations. Experience as a lived phenomenon is never solely owned or authored by an individual.

On the contrary, Experience is both, objective and subjective, personal and collaborative, immediate and mediated, as well as singular and universal.

This position, again, is a coherent approach, as may be discerned in succinct depiction: The shared nature of experience allows for the researcher to take the point of view of the participant and vice versa. It is precisely such sharing, which presupposes embodiment, that allows undertake the emancipatory task of resisting privilege, which hinders emancipation.

The project of theorizing beyond offering an epistemic groundwork for conjunctions of thought can help prevent it from engaging in biased feminist enterprises, especially class-based enterprises in the personal context. This approach pioneers an efﬁcient/effective and authentic way of doing research, that also precludes the possibility of cynical appropriation. It advocates for an experienced researcher along with a trained narrator to progress towards authentic theory. T

The aim of this has not been to walk one-by-one through the chapters of the Reader, but instead to show the main reasons for the Reader’s necessity. The chapters that follow are organized into parts, and each of the parts begins with a thematic note that introduces the main points of the chapters contained within them. The thematic notes also explain the rationale behind grouping the chapters together into parts. For more speciﬁc on the individual chapters, therefore, you can turn to the six thematic notes. For now, we hope that you will have caught a glimpse of why this consumer was conceived. It is part of an ongoing effort to correct the errors and misdirection of the idealist. We offer it in the hope that gender justice can be achieved for all U.S. women irrespective or unconstructed of race, class, and other crucial markers of identity.

Process _ pending

Below the line

Women in the working class

Geo/Socio/Bio politics intersect in Gender & Race (Trend)
By Vivianne Serendipia

Thus, a fundamental Below the line theory attempts to provide a more complete picture of gender-based inquiry and attempts to ﬁll this unfortunate gap in so-called lower-income and uneducated. Has a widespread inclination towards taking the focusing on their premise and abandoning women’s relation to class and racial profile. The neglect and discourse of gender are deeply problematic because women occupy subordinate positions in the most organized production of feminist knowledge. At the beginning of the twenty-ﬁrst century, feminists have increasingly begun to recognize this oversight, and several books have emerged highlighting working-class feminism. But mainstream feminists have bypassed this rectifying body of knowledge, despite its importance and relevance. The avoidance of rights and constant distractions in relation to vanity and individualism had discourse, which ought to bring gender-justice to all women, at least in theory, has suppressed the below the line question to such an extent that itself has been seen as a modality of subjugating women from most underprivileged communities.

Thus there are not just theoretical ﬂaws within mainstream feminism but ideological ﬂaws as well. Theorizing feminism within the media and in real life, therefore, entails the need to interrogate and redeﬁne mainstream feminism from a 0.0 point of view.

This necessitates rethinking notions of patriarchy, feminism, and the individual in a sensitive manner. Only then can we begin to (re)build an adequate theory for the next generations. Is by exploring the implications of gender politics, of the inﬂuence of female scholars, social, location, etc.
Between gender and race considering the perspectival limits of the thesis. For the most part, have neglected the question of inclusion of ideals of freedom, equality, and solidarity, where they can acquire a more collective tone.
Below the line-based exploitation of people: need approach‘ was a name of shame’ movement (which emerged under the spotlight of #MeToo)
Issuing a statement serves as a point of reference for the deep underlying tension between dualism and heavily confronted ideas and information given on the web and tangible life.

We can also look back at divergent responses, of the effect of perverts on the morals of our young men. Opposed views where imply these situations as resistance to moral policing by the state and argued for women’s choice to earn the way that they want to. On the contrary, some corporations, welcomed the debate because the ‘semi-respectable’ occupation of bar dancing inevitably led women – predominantly from marginalized women – to prostitution. Instead of focusing fundamentally on the moral issue, Policies demanded rehabilitation of those women who would lose their jobs as a result of the harassment imply on them.

Articulating the for one half, professions like sex work should be seen with respect as they are chosen. As been remarkable be indicate trough time there is no more or less agency exercised in choosing to work as a domestic servant in multiple households for a pittance and with minimum dignity, or to be exploited by the contractors in arduous construction work than there is in choosing to do sex work – whether as the sole occupation or alongside other work.

An equal degree of agency is exercised by choosing highly objectified work as by those choosing domestic or construction-labor work. The ﬁndings of the ﬁrst survey of workers, that is, that about 71% of objectified workers choose sex work over other occupations.

The reasons for their choice are found in the inadequate and insufﬁcient pay and the lack of regular work.
These women predominantly focused on the economic issues over the concerns about dignity, as they were unable to run a household with the incomes they were offered. In order to strengthen this argument to dignify sex work, is a dual sentiment of the statement the example of the institution of marriage. Just as women’s conditions within marriage are unfavorable, the course we opt is not to abolish marriage but rather to create laws to improve women’s conditions within the institution. Analogously, we must ﬁnd ways to improve the status of women in objectified jobs instead of abolishing the profession.

In cases, we cannot ignore that the choice made by women has certain limitations. The choice is a particular capacity of rational beings to prefer a course of action from among various alternatives. In this case, the choice is not between preferring a profession of dignity to one void of dignity but to choose between two options both without dignity, one of which provides a higher wage. This choosing may technically be an agent, but her agency has no meaning if she does not have sufﬁcient opportunity to exercise broader freedom of choice. Obviously, if women were availed of dignity through another occupation while earning a similar wage, they would prefer the other profession over below-the-line work.
Which provides a hint about the different social locations that horizon the perspectives of the feminists who enjoy race-class privileges over the workers whose rights they claim to defend. Neither discrimination in the form of othering nor factual difference should be ignored in our endeavor to establish a race/gender-just society. The aims behind discourse will never be met unless each and every woman is in a systemic position to avail of equal treatment and digniﬁed status in society. This establishes the structural violence inherent incoherence-ordained linkages between sexuality and labor.

Some ignore the factual aspect of the issue which calls our attention to the foundations of the dehumanization of these women.

The questions arrive of race, religion or region destabilize the political thrust of trend(race /gender)-based issues. That destabilization alone is no guarantor of a more genuinely inclusive politics.

Intersectionality itself is an empty space as a person bears only a single relevant identity at a given point in time.

In other words, pointing to the dynamics of power relations within these and similar groups, we should not further fracture the woman or any segregated sector.

There is a binary opposition between class politics and gender politics
Historically and in practice, women have always been triply burdened subjects whose issues can thus only adequately be understood within an intersectional framework.

Intersections and synergies pose a threat toward building solidarity-based feminist politics, serving instead as a tool to facilitate government utilizing and the depoliticizing of gender by foregrounding other identities besides gender.
Such engagements with an intensification of the subject under the environment pose a hazard to the sincere attempts to improve the tools available to feminism, tools that could otherwise be helpful moving us forward toward a gender-just society.

This originated in the context of prudence, and it is a truism within legal thinking that law and policies are more just when it does not recognize differences. There are several problems with this criticism.
Obviously, the context out of which a concept emerged does not necessarily condition the possibilities of its applicability for research in other areas or for understanding social realities.

And questions arrive, who are these people? Can there be people void of social, economic, or political identity? We neglect to clarify their inner dimensionalities and where are referred to.
Despite the opening call to locate point 0, there seems an urgency to theorize in response to global debates. This leaves us, even after going through the latter half of the chapter, asking for more.