Seriously, do you not see it? Do you not see that all this is nothing more than further division, placed in the system to keep the plebes from getting together and really changing anything? The idea that one person's movement is better than or more than another person's movement, when those two movements have similar goals is just lunacy. I think of it more as code switching, speaking to the audience you have or are after. What does a beginner's manual take away from advanced study? They are meant for different audiences. One group working on one aspect of an issue need not be absorbed into some other group. You work on your thing, I'll work on my thing and where our things overlap, we work together; you use your expertise and experience to combat it your way and I will use my expertise and experience to combat it my way and we'll coordinate efforts for maximum effect, if workable. The more surface area exposed, the faster the melting, right?
This is such a fine, but such an important, line to walk. More and more as I see the interactions, especially within feminism, between different strains of thought, I realize just how fine. It's easy to justify laziness with "I'm speaking to my audience." It's easy to accuse of laziness what is actually speaking to an audience. It's easy to criticize because the group you're passionate for is getting left out. It's easy to overlook, and leave out, groups you're not passionate for.
But these all are part of the greater whole. Which is what I was getting at with my strength through diversity post. To approach those places where we overlap and interact with as much sensitivity and lack of defensiveness is the best we can do. To come to terms with it when we are called out for lacking that is the second best.
I still have high hopes we will learn this, in our opinionated, passionated and incredibly diverse movement.