The Sick Authoritarianism Of The Intersectional Left
J. Oliver Conroy writes in Quillette about those practicing the fundamentalist, anti-individualist religion of intersectionality:
Simply stated, intersectionality refers to the idea that people exist at the intersection of multiple identities, and some of those identities have suffered greater disadvantage than others. So, for example, a white woman is oppressed by virtue of being a woman; but a white gay woman is doubly oppressed, and a black or Latina lesbian is more oppressed than either. Intricate instructional diagrams (such as the "matrix of oppression" table and the illustration below) exist to guide initiates.Many conscientious people will find it difficult to argue with intersectionality's premise. Some of us do have it easier or harder than others, and some fortunate people are astonishingly lacking in self-awareness. But intersectional activists push the logic to its perverse extreme. They insist that some identity groups' "lived experience" grants them unquestionable and unchallengeable authority, both moral and political. Members of other, historically 'privileged' groups (men, whites, heterosexuals) have little right to an opinion at all. If their interests come into conflict, the latter are morally obliged to yield to (certain, recognized) minorities.
The intersectional worldview is obviously incompatible with the basic tenets of life in a liberal democracy. That doesn't bother intersectional activists, however, because they believe liberalism itself to be an elaborate sham that uses the illusory equality of procedural democracy - free and fair elections, courts, the rule of law, the Bill of Rights - to paper over vast social injustices. In the eyes of the intersectional Left, the very idea of universal rights is fatally flawed - or "problematic," to use a frequent, lazy phrase - because those rights can benefit the wrong people, such as white supremacists (in the case of free speech), or campus rapists (in the case of due process and the rights of the accused).
There is a creepy authoritarian bent to all of this. For someone really steeped in the intersectional worldview, almost any tactic or behavior can be justified if it serves the purpose of fighting "oppression," the definition of which is elastic and gets a little more capacious every day. Because many intersectional activists believe that exposing people to harmful ideas can cause them emotional trauma, they view speech as a form of literal violence. For that reason, it is justifiable to shut down opposing voices before they even speak, a tactic called "no-platforming."
...Like most theories that claim to explain everything, intersectionality quickly turns out to explain almost nothing. The presumption that a person's politics and worldview are determined by their race or gender or sexuality is both insulting and easily shown to be untrue, which is why leftist activists tend to react with confusion or hostility when they meet a black libertarian or a gay conservative or anyone who doesn't think of their racial or sexual affiliations as the defining aspect of their humanity.
This was striking:
One of the things that struck me over and over was the protesters' complete intolerance of complexity. Despite intersectionality's roots in academic theory, the politics of the intersectional Left are deeply anti-intellectual. It's not just that many intersectional activists seem to have no capacity for nuance; they fear and hate it, because they hate anything with the potential to complicate their narrative. Things are right or wrong; you're with us or against us. Human beings, rather than complex agents with independent motivations and intellects, are nothing more than the sum total of their identities. Get on the bus or get under it.
Accordingly, under intersectionality, the rights of women violated by brown people are not on the agenda. No white male oppressor? Crickets from the intersectionals. Uzay Bulut writes at The Daily Caller about the often deadly danger Muslim women, especially in Muslim countries, go through -- in leaving Islam (which commands apostates be killed) and in trying to live self-determined lives:
Coming out as an abused ex-Muslim woman is extremely brave yet dangerous for Karissa but she says that she has shared her story on social media to give hope and courage to other women in a similar situation:"I know many women from the Middle East feel the same way and have the same fate as me. But many don't have the courage to speak out. I had two female relatives who got shot in Kurdistan because their family members thought their daughters 'tainted their families' honor.' I would want girls who are afraid of fleeing their homes to take the risk and flee. But they are so afraid of their parents and what their relatives would think of or do to them. And if you are a woman, it is incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to flee your home and survive in any majority-Muslim country."
All of these horrific abuses against girls and women are taking place in Muslim communities while many self-described feminist activists in the West are busy discussing whether or not women should shave their legs or dye their arm pit hair, or what they should do in the face of "slut-shaming," or why they should stop using "guys" to address "mix-gender groups" or what "non-binary pronouns" should be used for those who identify as neither gender, or both.
In the meanwhile, Muslim or ex-Muslim women across the world are violated or murdered by beatings, beheading, burning, shooting, and torture for daring to make their own decisions about their own lives, such as filing for divorce or rejecting their husband's offers of reconciliation. In many cases, the perpetrators are released and not punished.
Violence against women is a serious problem in many parts of the world. But in majority-Muslim countries, it is systematic and broadly tolerated. Oppression of women is allowed or even encouraged in Islamic scriptures - the Koran and at the hadith sunnah literature.
Many conscientious people will find it difficult to argue with intersectionality's premise.
How about this: I categorically reject your premise until you can show me that it models society - any society - in a reasonably accurate fashion.
My first bit of evidence against is
Accordingly, under intersectionality, the rights of women violated by brown people are not on the agenda.
If you would look the other way in that case, but cry foul if I as a white man does the same, you are an actual racist. Because you are saying brown people can't act better than a white guy.
I R A Darth Aggie at October 30, 2017 6:52 AM
No surprise, any of this. I'll say this again: Leftism is the Cluster B personality disorders, expressed as politics. All of the typical Cluster B characteristics can be found in leftism: self-centeredness, impatience, intolerance, splitting (dividing everyone and everything into black-and-white categories), xenocentrism, perpetual anger, short attention span, and various magical beliefs. Leftism is constantly in search of external agents to blame for its failures, since its own ideas and philosophies are perfect and can't possibly be at fault.
It's seldom talked about, but the fatal flaw in identity-groupism is that there are so many identity groups. And being that leftism has created an enormous concentration of government and social power, naturally all of the groups are going to compete for status in order to lay claim to that power. Intersectionality is the playing field, whether anyone involved wants to admit it or not. Intersectionality keeps score. Which group is on top today? Which group has succeeded in denouncing a formerly powerful group and knocking them down in the standings? It's a sport where the playing season never ends. I'm always rather bemused by people who came into the game identifying with groups that were on top, who refuse to admit that they are involved in the contest until the day that one of their groups is knocked down the scoreboard, and then they are shocked! to discover the nature of the contest they are participating in.
The other, and related characteristic, of leftism is that politics and power are the only things in life that are meaningful. Love, pleasure, accomplishment, family, friends, life and death itself -- all of those things take a back seat to politics. The scoreboard is the only thing in life that matters, and so it's no surprise that some people in once-powerful groups that get knocked down commit suicide, because in there minds there is nothing remaining to live for.
Cousin Dave at October 30, 2017 7:03 AM
The premise that these folks have been "oppressed" is a bit sketchy. Being in the minority is not, by default, oppression.
Conan the Grammarian at October 30, 2017 7:10 AM
"The premise that these folks have been "oppressed" is a bit sketchy. Being in the minority is not, by default, oppression."
Beyond sketchy, besides rich is a minority.
And the 'proof' of oppression varies. Blacks are disproportionately shot by police, and get harsher prison sentencing, shorter life spans, do less well in schools. But the same could be said about men fare worse than women even more so in the same categories.
Joe J at October 30, 2017 9:28 AM
On an issue that is tangentially connected to this topic of intersectionality, I withdrew any and all support I ever gave to gay rights organizations years ago. I do not donate my time or money and refuse to attend any of their functions. I know it probably doesn't mean much, since the biggest battle in the struggle for gay rights has been fought and won -- namely, gay marriage. But there are still obstacles that the gay rights movement has to overcome, such as the recognition of sexual orientation as protected status in over half of all states.
And why did I withdraw my support? Because these morons decided that because white males are so privileged, white males will not be elected as officers in these organizations. First, that makes them guilty of the very discrimination they claim to abhor. Second, the idea that white gay men, or any gay men, are privileged is absolutely laughable. Who do they think suffers the lion's share of homophobic bias crimes? I'll give you a hint: it's not the lesbians. But they decided that since white men are the most privileged members of society (a premise which is, at least, debatable) then white gay men must be the most privileged of the gay rights movement. If only it worked that way. But for as long as I can remember, lesbians were regarded with far less disdain than gay men. (I think the attraction for lesbian porn among straight guys has something to do with it.)
There is also the fact that certain other elements have jumped in, claiming themselves to be part of the movement which I don't agree with, such as the soi-disant non-binary.
Patrick at October 30, 2017 11:06 AM
I would think that the biggest struggle was the right for a gay person to stand up and say "I'm gay" with no negative career, personal, or socio-economic implications. To simply be so mainstream as for your presence to be mundane.
There's a gay character on almost every televisions show these days.
Companies value the patronage of the gay market, with a few, emphasis on "few," exceptions; exceptions that apparently have not heard that gay men, when compared with straight men, are in better shape, have more disposal income, spend more on fashion and food, spend more on travel and lifestyle, and tend to be trendsetters among both the gay and straight markets. Cultivating gay patronage these days is good business.
Years ago, any business could have said, "we don't serve your kind" to almost no outcry or opprobrium. Today, half the country immediately joins a boycott or a hashtag campaign.
Just look at the reaction to North Carolina's HB-2 by major corporations and organizations. Corporate sponsorships abound on Pride Day. The battle for acceptance has been won.
The tolerance of discrimination against gay men and women is at a historic minimum. The need to be made a protected class is arguably slight, certainly lower than it ever has been.
Conan the Grammarian at October 30, 2017 12:26 PM
Conan: The need to be made a protected class is arguably slight, certainly lower than it ever has been.
I actually don't believe there should be any protected statuses. I would allow businesses, renters, etc. to discriminate as they will and let the free market decide whether they wish to give their money to these establishments.
However, if we must have them, gays should be included. More important than giving people the right to their biases, is that the law be applied fairly.
In 30 states, you can be denied public accommodations based on sexual orientation. (Although if the owner of the discriminating establishment were prudent, he would simply exercise his right to refuse and not give a reason.)
Patrick at October 30, 2017 4:45 PM
The notion that any demographic group, per se (and therefore everybody in it) are victims (and similarly the reverse notion, that any group are bad guys) equals bigotry. Period.
Anybody who needs to be told this needs to be sent back to kindergarten. Maybe the second time they'll learn the basics of getting along with people, starting with, treat them as individuals.
jdgalt at October 30, 2017 6:22 PM
Many people overcome adversity. This seems to escape the SJWs. The mythology of oppression blows up the real disadvantages people have into a vast conspiracy. There is mythology involved. One myth is that whites have it easy. But in fact only about 5% of whites are technically rich, and even they had to work their butts off to get there. The other myth is the myth of oppression. Let us grant that not having a father around and not having books in the home put one at a disadvantage--but who caused that? Did white people magically prevent the black parents from getting married? Who prevented the parents from checking books out of the library? It is free. And then, what does one do about being at a disadvantage? do you work extra hard and be clever? Or drop out and get tattoos and join a gang? (and do white people make young black men join gangs?). It is choices all the way down.
cc at October 30, 2017 7:01 PM
Who prevented the parents from checking books out of the library? It is free.
_________________________________________
Minor quibble: While complaining professors like Yale's Harold Bloom don't seem to care about this at all, there have ALWAYS been parents (even before TV became common in the 1950s) who just plain didn't enjoy reading even to themselves and so they didn't read to their kids and couldn't very well expect them to read for fun when the parents never did. So how exactly do we convince any parent that reading is fun when he/she never enjoyed it before? You can't tell kids "do as I say, not as I do."
In our hedonistic society, too many ADULTS believe that the only point of getting your schoolwork or paid work done is to spend as much leisure time and money as possible on useless, brain-rotting activities - that nothing else is "fun."
lenona at November 2, 2017 10:09 AM
Intersectionality is the sign of a mind so racist and disordered that individual character and circumstances are invisible compared to group membership. It is the insane theory that an African-American President has it worse than the son of a poor white trash family.
markm at November 5, 2017 9:38 PM
Leave a comment