"Intersectionality" is the OPPOSITE of Feminism

1/12/2016

A Jewish survivor walks into a Sexual Assault Awareness support group...

Feminism has a PR problem. What, to me, is clearly about empowering women to expect and demand equal treatment, some people weirdly think is about "hating men."

What, to me, is clearly about encouraging women to think for themselves and make their own choices -- whether that means breastfeeding or bottle feeding; pursuing a career in physics or fashion; filing charges against an attacker (regardless of what you were wearing) or just seeking support within your community -- some people think is about imposing conformity and restricting critical thinking.

Yes, I’m talking about “intersectionality”: the idea that, in order to be a “real feminist,” you have to believe in all the exact same social causes as I do – regardless of your own thoughts, knowledge or experience on the topic. According to Everyday Feminism, I am not a “real feminist,” because I’m not convinced that “medical fat shaming” is a problem in our healthcare system. Even though I am very vocal about my feminist viewpoints (as illustrated by posts like 10 Things to Remind Your Daughter to Do Every Day That Are More Important Than Brushing Her Hair;The REAL Reason Women "Spend So Much Time in the Restroom"; and The Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt Gif All Women Need to See ASAP)… I’m not “intersectional enough.”

And, sure, I understand that the feminist LGBT community faces some unique challenges. I see the value of examining the challenges black women face that I don’t. Feminism is far from a simple cause.

But. It is harmful to conflate completely unrelated political issues with feminism. Especially when the “politically correct” viewpoint is toxic to both feminism and the women it’s trying to help.

The best example of this is the anti-Israel stance imposed upon so many normal feminists, by radical feminists, in the name of “intersectionality.”

In November 2015, the National Women’s Studies Association voted to endorse the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement against Israel. Even though Israel happens to be the most progressive nation in the Middle East. It is committed to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women international treaty. It's guaranteed gender equality since the establishment of the state in 1948. Women in Israel actively participate in Israeli life. The Israeli Declaration of Independence declares: “The State of Israel will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex.”

Israel was the third country in the world to elect a female prime minister. Its parliament is 18% female -- which equals that of the US, and is well above the Arab world's average of 6%. (Also worth noting: Israel is considered to be more tolerant of sexual minorities than any other Middle Eastern country, and even recognizes gay marriage.)

Meanwhile, Palestine is plagued by spousal and child abuse, rape, incest, and "honor" killings of women.

This is not feminism.

But let's go ahead and pretend that's not something I, as a feminist, "should" think about. You know. In the name of "intersectionality." The fact remains, the Israel-Palestine conflict is an incredibly complicated issue, with an abundance of misinformation on both sides.

For one, there is no “illegal occupation.” There is a lot of history that most people don't fully understand, or even necessarily know about. Chances are, if you think that everything Israel does is right/wrong, you have no idea what is going on in the Middle East.

In fact! A board member of the Michigan State University Hillel recently told me (anonymously), “I’m Jewish, and I’m generally pro-Israel. But it would be pretty ignorant and ridiculous of me to just blindly support everything Israel does, and I have plenty of problems with their policies.”

It’s wonderful to see someone who subscribes to independent thinking, rather than a more tribal/mob mentality.

(Also worth noting: the same board member also told me that the MSU Hillel no longer lists its board members online. “It’s possible to find out who we are, but we don’t make the information public anymore, because too many of us were being harassed and targeted.” But more on that later.)

For two, Palestinians attack Israel every day. Even the "small" matter of "kids throwing rocks" at Israeli citizens and soldiers is a serious consideration for Israel -- because "rocks" can mean anything from stones to bricks, and "throwing" can mean "slinging." People have died from "kids throwing rocks," which Palestinians tout as a "nonviolent" form of protest.

A Palestinian slings a rock at Israeli soldiers in a refugee camp. Image credit: AP/Majdi Mohammed

If I believe that Israel has a right to defend itself… does that make me not a feminist? Does that make me unwelcome at feminist talks and events? Or, to use an extreme example, does that mean I need to silence a part of myself in order to attend rape survivors’ support groups?

As it turns out, yes.

A Columbia University student group called No Red Tape (NRT), which aims to raise sexual assault awareness and end rape culture on campus, recently – in the name of “intersectionality” – adopted an official “anti-Israel stance.” Which means that NRT is

No longer a “safe space” for all victims of sexual assault – if you’re Jewish, pro-Israel, or Israeli, how can you possibly feel comfortable attending NRT meetings?
No longer survivor-centric. What the f@#$ does Israel have to do with college women in New York preventing sexual assault on campus?

It is shocking -- shocking! -- to me that Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), a group that receives funding and logistical support from American Muslims for Palestine, an offshoot of the Hamas-supporting Islamic Association of Palestine, have managed to hijack and politicize a movement that was mean to support survivors of horrific assaults regardless of politics.

Meanwhile... there's been no corresponding "intersectionality" or compassion from radical feminists for students who have suffered discrimination, harassment and other antisemitism on college campuses across the nation. For example, here is a (non-comprehensive) list of antisemitic incidents that took place on college campuses in 2015, as reported by the Anti-Defamation League:

- In May at Drexel, a student came back to his residence hall to find a swastika and the word “JEW” taped next to his Israeli flag.

- Several swastikas, along with personal slurs and epithets, were spray-painted on Stanford University’s chapter of Sigma Alpha Epsilon in April.

- In April, vandalism of a residence hall at the University of Missouri included a swastika, the Illuminati symbol, and the word “heil.” Later, another swastika and the words, “You’ve been warned,” were discovered in the same area.

- A residence hall at Purchase College, SUNY was vandalized on March 18 with swastikas and other hateful graffiti.

- Swastikas were spray-painted inside the house of a Jewish fraternity (Alpha Epsilon Pi) at Vanderbilt University on March 15.

- In March at the UCLA, a student was asked, "Given that you are a Jewish student and very active in the Jewish community, how do you see yourself being able to maintain an unbiased view?" during the Student Council's confirmation of the nomination of the student to the council's Judicial Board.

- At the University of California, Berkeley, the phrase “Zionists should be sent to the gas chamber” was found in a campus restroom in March and a swastika was found on a university owned building in February.

- On February 22, University of Chicago students and staff reported anti-Semitic posts on a Facebook page called UChicago Secrets, such as “People are hypocrites. This is a fact. One example? The Jews at UChicago…” and “As a Person of Palestinian descent, I don’t think it is unreasonable or horrific for me to hate Jews…”

- At the end of February, threatening anti-Semitic comments were posted on Yik Yak (an anonymous social media app that allows people to send and receive posts in a localized area) for the University of Chicago area. Some posts named specific students, while others expressed more general anti-Semitic sentiments such as, “Gas them, burn them and dismantle their power structure. Humanity cannot progress with the parasitic Jew.”

- In February, three swastikas were drawn inside a George Washington University residence hall.

- On January 31, two large swastikas were spray-painted on the Alpha Epsilon Pi fraternity house at the University of California, Davis.

Swastikas at UC Davis, 2015.

It's weird that in 2015, the year we obsessed over microaggressions, these total major MACROaggressions were taking place all across the country, and the "intersectional" feminists said nothing. (Except that pro-Israel feminists were no longer welcome in their movement.)

But it's not that weird. Because this kind of "intersectionality" isn't about empowering all women. It's not about fighting prejudice. It's about imposing conformity and restricting thought.

***

Let's look at another example of an extremely complicated issue that introduces a conflict between "intersectionality" and feminism:

Immigration.

Droves of young men from African and Arab nations are settling throughout Europe, fleeing violence and bad conditions in their home countries. These men come from very different cultures, where women are seen as property, exposed skin is seen as an invitation to do whatever you want, and violence against women frequently goes unpunished.

Naturally, this can -- and has! -- caused problems for women in Europe. For example, 2% of Germany's population now consists of recent immigrants... and on New Year's Eve, a group of over 400 (some sources say over 1,000) of these men assembled a mass attack against women. They formed coordinated rings around more than 600 different women in public places and robbed, groped, raped and assaulted.

This is horrifying enough... but almost equally disgusting is that the attacks were covered up for at least five days. According to The Daily Beast, the authorities and media were choosing between stirring racial tension and observing these women’s rights. By covering it up, they were effectively putting more women's lives in danger.

Germany is far from the only country that, fearful of "stigmatizing migrants as potential rapists," has put women in harm's way. (Just "stay at arm's length from male strangers," advised Henriette Reker, the mayor of Cologne.)

Protesting crimes against women in Germany.

It was later revealed that this coordinated attack... is suspected to be a "game." It might even have a name. According to the BBC, an official report describes "taharrush gamea," an "Arabic gang-rape game," in which an inner circle of men attacks, assaults an even rapes a woman, while an outer ring of men distracts onlookers from noticing or intervening. The practice is described in a short and relatively recent Wikipedia post. Here is what it looks like (TRIGGER WARNING - this is legitimately disgusting and disturbing, and will probably ruin your day, if not haunt you for the rest of your life):

While reading more about the attacks online (it is almost too shocking to be believable), I stumbled upon this comic, which was clearly written by someone who also recognizes the problem with "intersectionality":

Before "intersectionality" became the atrocity that it is today, would you see leaders dancing on egg shells instead of protecting women? Probably not. Between 2009-2011, Norway experienced a series of rapes that was attributed to immigrants who were clueless about Western values. So Norway responded. By 2011, it established voluntary educational programs that teach cultural norms to immigrants and seek to prevent sexual and other violence.

Even then, it was controversial to "suggest that all brown men were potential rapists." Forget common sense! Forget that these particular brown men come from an extremely conservative society that is largely segregated! Forget that they have never seen public displays of affection. Forget that (as per the New York Times) “people from some parts of the world have never seen a girl in a miniskirt, only in a burqa.”

Forget that, before any student ever does any kind of study abroad program -- even one that only lasts a week or two! -- they are inundated with orientations, information and workshops to teach them what to expect and how to stay safe in the new culture. (I studied abroad in Australia and Oxford -- two places full of white people who speak English, and I still benefitted from such orientations.) It is a bizarre double standard to say, "Yeah, it's fine to tell American students who are going to Morocco for two weeks how the culture works, how gender roles are different, and even how to dress in public -- but it's totally not okay to tell African/Arab people who are going to Europe for the rest of their life what to expect and how to transition more smoothly."

During orientation, I learned that I would be hunting camels, kangaroos, bush turkeys and other wildlife. I was also taught what to do and not do while hunting -- both for my personal safety, and to ensure I showed proper respect to the Matru people.

Programs like the ones in Norway, while probably not sufficient to address what's happening in Europe in 2016 (#taharrush), are beneficial to everyone! They help educate newcomers on ways to be more successful in their new lives, socially and professionally. They connect migrants with opportunities and resources in the community. And they protect unsuspecting women from harm.

And, again, sure! It is important to look at feminism as it affects people of different races and sexualities. But right now, we have this weird situation where feminist values and "cultural tolerance" are in direct contradiction with one another. Paralyzed by fear of "intersectional" feminists and "political correctness," politicians and the media are pushing the conflict under a rug. Which, again, is toxic to everyone. It means measures are not being taken to fight misogyny and protect women. And it means that people who could truly benefit from a program like Norway's are, instead, left to their own devices.

There is no good reason programs like this should:

a) Be considered "controversial"
b) Not be happening everywhere.

Except that everyone's scared of looking "racist." Everyone's scared of not being "intersectional" enough. But I think I can pretty objectively say, if the New Year's rapes in Germany didn't shock you to your core -- if they didn't make you seriously think about the "intersection" of immigration and women's safety -- then you're not thinking. You're blindly following dangerous and counterproductive dogma.

***

The TL;DR is that "intersectionality" is out of control. It selectively promotes tolerance of some...while isolating and excluding those who don’t agree.

Why did feminism stop being about choice? When did it go from uniting a diverse group of people to support one cause… to forcing a diverse group to agree on every cause, or be condemned?

I’m not a real feminist, anymore, because I support freedom of speech on college campuses.

I’m not a real feminist anymore, because I haven’t decided how comfortable I am sharing a locker room with people with penises. That doesn’t make me a bigot – it makes me a modest girl who has had more than her fair share of encounters with dangerous creeps, and who is undecided about what is clearly a very complicated issue that affects women of different nationalities, religions and backgrounds differently.

I’m not a real feminist, anymore, because I eat burritos and Chinese food without fully understanding and appreciating the culture, history and colonization of these foods. (To make matters worse, I’ve also attended a few yoga classes. SO MUCH APPROPRIATION!)

You know who else isn’t a real feminist? Taylor Swift. In spite of being the most powerful woman in the music industry – in spite of philanthropic efforts, and in spite of standing firm in her belief that her talent, not her sexiness or sexuality, will bring her success. In spite of bombass quotes like these:

... She’s not a real feminist because, according to Everyday Feminism, "every love interest that Taylor has ever had — both in real life and in her videos — has been a straight, cis, able-bodied, fit, middle-to-upper class, white dude." (Forget who she's actually attracted to! Forget that the videos are about her own personal experiences! Forget artistic integrity! She should date gay, trans, disabled, overweight, poor black dudes, right?)

She’s not a real feminist because she’s “not real friends” with her background dancers – a very racially diverse group of talented women. The women of color who dance with her are, allegedly, “token minorities.”

And she’s not a real feminist because she failed to rewrite history in a recent music video set in Africa… and instead donated all her proceeds to the African Parks Foundation of America.

Whatever.

Writing this article, I've realized something. The problem isn't that I'm not "intersectional" enough. It's that this brand of "intersectionality" is the opposite of feminism. If you truly can't accept that some of my ideas are different from yours -- and that I don't necessarily have to agree that your pet cause "should" be at the forefront of feminism -- then you are the one who is not a real feminist.

***

As I wrote in The Top Happy Talent Posts of 2015... and What's Next in 2016:

"If I write something you disagree with... don't unfollow me! Don't unfriend me. Just leave a comment (unlike some publishers, I will not delete it unless you are spamming or bullying). OR! Contact me about writing your own guest post. I'm looking forward to growing as a civil, open-minded adult, and I hope you are, too."

50 Comments

LearnaboutInteresectionality link

4/18/2016 08:40:15 am

I suggest that you look up the term, intersectionality before writing a post about it. The term, intersectionality was coined by Black Feminist, Kimberely Crenshaw in 1989 to talk about how various types of oppression intersection to oppress others. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/10572435/Intersectional-feminism.-What-the-hell-is-it-And-why-you-should-care.html For example, the plight of Black and other non White women is intersectional. Non White women go through both racism(due to their racial backgrounds being different from the dominant society) and sexism and if these women happen to be queer identified(meaning LGBT), they go through homophobia, transphobia and even classism. Understanding intersectionality is a must because there are other types of women out there besides White women and women of all races need their issues to be discussed too.

In fact, the problem with White feminists and mainstream feminism today is the lack of understanding of intersectionality. And your post emphasizes this ignorance and lack of understanding. In order to be for ''all women'' like White feminists like yourself proclaim, you should understand intersectionality and how it plays a role in the lives of Black, Hispanic and Asian women's lives and even the lives of some White women out there too. Feminism is not only for cisgendered, heterosexual, middle class, able bodied White women, it is for women of all races, backgrounds and nationalities.

Eva Glasrud link

4/18/2016 10:49:17 am

I'm well aware of what intersectionality is supposed to mean -- and I agree that it is important to look at issues through an intersectional lens.

What I disagree with is this idea that because of intersectionality, all women have to agree on everything. I disagree with the idea that, in order to be a "real" feminist, I have to support gender neutral bathrooms and censorship and safe spaces. I disagree that I need to support Palenstine, a corrupt state that is guilty of countless human rights violations, and condemn Israel, which is the most progressive state in the Middle East -- and is, indeed, more progressive than many western countries.

I disagree that there is some sort of hierarchy of oppression, and that I have to put more "oppressed" groups opinions and interests above my own. I disagree that in order to NOT be a "white feminist," I have to let someone else do all the thinking for me and simply subscribe to all their beliefs and opinions.

I hate that so many "intersectional" feminists remained silent in the wake of the Cologne attacks -- and those who spoke up only did so to point out that white men rape, too. Who cares? Comparing a rape committed at a frat party on a college campus to one committed by an immigrant from a misogynist country is beyond ignorant and ridiculous.

To me, the first and foremost cause of feminism is to prevent violence against women. When you conflate completely unrelated issues, like the global issue of Palestine vs. Israel, with local ones, like supporting women who have been raped on your college campus, you are harming women. When you insist that women should have choice over their bodies, but not over their own minds and political beliefs, you are undermining the very cause you claim to be supporting.

So yes. I understand the history of the term "intersectionality," and I have no problem with it in that context. But the way people are using words like "intersectionality" and "white feminism" now is a little too much like forced conformity and thought policing for me to be on-board with it.

youmakemyheadhurt

8/21/2016 12:20:09 am

Stop. Just stop talking. Your lily whiteness is blinding you from a reality that runs deeper than the comforting echo of your victim hood ideology. Your discomfort with intersectionality derives from you - white lady - not occupying the head and center of a movement that white women have used to advance their interests in the name of all women. Kind if like the white man's burden of manifest destiny except with a sweet ring to it. It must be nice to be white and removed from the consequences of living in a world where ones identity as a woman is separable from the struggles, issues, and yes the men who are part of us. Just shut your white mouth, you embarrass yourself.

Fred

8/21/2016 09:26:13 am

youmakemyheadhurt,

Your comment commits the cardinal sin of reinforcing the points the author makes in her post.

There is no effort to launch a point-by-point critique of her argument, nor do you attempt to engage in a dialogue or conversation.

Instead, your post neatly encapsulated the glaring weaknesses we often see from those enmeshed in identity politics—a series of unsupported assertions based on group identity, a personal attack on the author in lieu of a rebuttal of her arguments (what Jonathan Haidt calls "ad hominem albus"), and an unwarranted sense that one's expertise should be bound entirely to her group identity and lived experience (oddly, this only seems to apply to people in some groups). All of this is bound in an insufferably smug post that concludes with the assertion that the author should shut her "white mouth."

You claim that her "lily whiteness is blinding you from a reality that runs deeper than the comforting echo of your victim hood ideology." This is a perfect example of a tautological ad hominem albus generalization (although you do deserve credit for employing so many fallacies in one sentence). It's striking that you're so steeped in your own ideology of rigidly constructed identities that you can't see the irony of your use of "victim hood ideology," given the regressive left's use of victimization as a form of social currency, as you do yourself in this post.

The discomfort with intersectionality stems from a number of critiques of the divisive nature of identity politics, the casual dismissal of evidence in favor of narrative and group identity, and the frequently authoritarian impulses of its adherents, as well as practical questions, such as those raised above concerning the intersection of fundamentally conservative social norms with progressive ideals. I might also add that your claim that feminism is a vehicle for advance "white interests" is strikingly similar to those utilized by anti-feminists, who dismiss concerns about equality, free speech, and secularism as "cultural imperialism."

Perhaps you should be embarrassed by the tone and message of your response, though I thank you for proving proving her point and for providing my future students with a cardinal example of the dangers of emotional reasoning and of using non-existent argumentation masquerading as a rebuttal.

Richard Chwalek link

12/24/2021 08:24:46 am

I think you were mostly slamming intersectionality, it was a convenient conservative way to explain your xenophobia raping concept. You used all the David French and other right winger talking points.

Yes, some nations have a big majority who may be involved in something but relating it to Brown people is scary. It is patriarchy, which the Jewish religion is not totally free of now. Should we be more suspicious of men with tall black hats and long beards, and black coats? Or confuse Sikhs with Muslims? Japanese with Chinese? Sure let's discriminate against whole communities, or the entire is probably better, but especially if they are fleeing for their lives like the Hondurans whose little kids are probably drug mules.

And obviously you write as a person who is not very objective about the Palestinian's plight, which is fine, but you might want to avoid also slamming other cultures with such a big hammer. I would assume you understand that due to how you support Israel. I am not Jewish and I have even heard quite a few stereotypical views about Jews.

The history of claiming of land in Israel in the last century has many obscene elements. There might be reasons some who lost their land and homes are still upset. Ya think?

A good percentage of Israeli Jews, conservatives mostly, think much of the land should still be theirs even if there wasn't a holocaust. Those building more settlements prove it, they own it because god said so. That is pretty creepy. But I am ex-Catholic, so "god's dominion over" is not something I readily accept from any religious sect.

The pickle Israel is in is at least partially self inflicted. You accept that right? Just like I love my parents, and can also abhor some things they did.

Our war in Iraq and Afghanistan will likely come around in the next decade or two. The next 9-11 is then partially our fault.

Almost all conflicts like ours and Israel's are chicken or egg scenarios, or at best the unintended––yet should have been understood––consequences of disrupting the status quo. Or what the status quo was previous to the last disruption.

All of these are simplifications of various issues, but so is your dumping on intersectionality when it should have been on intolerance. Anti-Intersectionality is a right winger hack-on du jour term. You likely used it to boost your views.

Funny, you don't have to be on board with it. I give you the freedom to dissent. ;-)

And you really don't seem to understand intersectionality. Okay, you "understand" (in regurgitated rote terms) the right winger version of it.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/03/intersectionality-is-not-the-enemy-of-free-speech/555014/

Zeph

12/24/2021 02:42:20 pm

Richard,
I would be interested in what you consider the value of "intersectionality" (Read below first tho)

1. Yes, a given individual can be advantaged or disadvantaged in many different ways, and one could (at least conceptually) "sum" all of these for some "net advantage or disadvantage". More individual disadvantages could lead to more net disadvantage (and other combinations). I find that trivially true, certainly something to take into account but hardly a big insight or fresh perspective.

2. Hypothetically, different advantages or disadvantages could interact in complex ways - not just as a simple sum. But rarely does anyone give an example of that, and so far I've not seen a very convincing example, much less anything which indicates that dynamics other than additive are common and highly relevant.

3. In legal battles, a company could meet a defacto quota of Blacks, and a defacto quota of women, yet not meet its quota of Black women. So if we accept that social justice demands that all positive and negative conditions, jobs, and statuses have population statistics in alignment with overall population statistics, we can slice and dice the data looking for intersections of conditions which are above or below proportionality. Then one question becomes how deeply to subdivide, how many factors to take into account in seeking population proportionality across each factor and across all combinations of factors. Some seek this, some do not.

Intersectionality is hardly required to support the concept that it's useful to consult people of various viewpoints and interests when devising policies, because if we consult only a limited subset we may miss some wisdom or knowledge (sometimes people falsely pretend this concept depends on intersectionality).

What further insights has intersectionality per se produced over the decades? Why should it be more than a historical footnote?

To be clear, I'm not talking about the problematic political bastardizations which Eva criticizes, but about the "good" concepts of intersectionality which you (and the Atlantic) article find valuable. I just don't see much depth, insight, or texture there.

Reason

5/26/2016 12:11:35 am

Intersectionality is a farce; there is no such thing as "feminism for all women," because the issues women face are completely different and at times diametrically opposed depending on the culture they live in. Thus, under the pretext of treating all women "equally," intersectionality must privilege the "more marginalized" voices at the expense of - and often in direct opposition to - the majority voices (or as Orwell put it, "some animals are more equal than others.")

Which brings us to the true point of "intersectionality," that it is nothing more than a pivot point by which communists (having failed AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN under their own banner) can infiltrate and hijack a movement (vis-a-vis feminism) that has actually accomplished things and achieved astounding victories -- this will of course destroy feminism entirely in the end, leaving nothing but a desiccated husk as Marxists always do, but surely by then there will be some other healthy host to leech onto and exsanguinate.

Feminism is a movement that says, "there is no wrong way to be a woman." Intersectionality is a movement that says, "there is only one right way to be a feminist." Intersectionality is not feminism.

Eva, thank you for this post.

Amanda

12/8/2016 01:50:18 pm

Marxist Feminists are one of the only groups criticising Intersectionality in academic journals, etc. Your post makes no sense.

Mr Otaku

10/29/2021 08:12:29 pm

Your comment makes less sense and more like a dialogue.

Veronica link

9/6/2017 03:50:04 pm

With due respect, I think you missed the point of the blog post. She acknowledges the general value of an intersectional lens. However, the gist of the essay is to highlight the actual abuses of intersectionality.

Exclusion of Jews and Israel supporters is probably the most obvious misuse of intersectionality. Jews are a religious and ethnic minority -- and one of the most likely targets in the US for hate crimes, on a per capita basis. Israel is the only democracy in its region, and a country that has guaranteed women equal rights since its creation.

It's an abuse of intersectionality to privilege hurt feelings -- especially of those who support patriarchal religions -- over actual harm done to actual women.

Desley

4/21/2016 07:37:40 pm

Well Taylor Swift can take heart because Aziz Ansari is the new target. Apparently he should have casted an Indian woman as his love interest in Master Of None. It doesn't matter that explained that he didn’t set out to cast someone White, auditioned people of all ethnic backgrounds, and wanted to cast the person he seemed to have the best chemistry with to sell this huge relationship arc. It doesn't matter than "in the end, Noel blew them away." It doesn't matter that the writing is being pulled from his own real current relationship with a White woman. It apparently doesn't even matter that many South East Asians resonate with this, as interracial relationships are rarely depicted this way in the media.

Now I find out that even though this depiction of an interracial couple might be helping to normalize interracial relationships among East Indians -- even though women and children are currently being abandoned by their partners and fathers because of the shame associated with dating a White girl -- and even though many Indian children are being disowned by their families because of the prejudice against interracial relationships, they don't care. All that matters to them is that was the love interest of Dev was White.. and White is bad. White is racist. White is automatically oppressive to POC.

I have been seeing the contradictions within intersectional feminism for a few months now. In the last month I have been referred to as a "cracker" and "White idiot" by intersectional feminists with no opposition from other feminists. I have watched them hail Beyoncé as some kind of feminist hero while unfairly demonizing Taylor Swift, and I have been called a racist by them for pointing out that Beyoncé sexualizes domestic abuse in Drunk In Love. I have been called an Islamophobe for pointing out the cultural connection to the Cologne attacks, and for wanting to explore the basis of the hijab/niqab/burqa/chador that they keep promoting. Today I was told "nobody cares" when I countered the unfair attack against Ansari with an explanation that depicting an interracial marriage might be fostering progress within the Indian culture regarding interracial marriage.It may not sound flattering to Indian culture, but it is still the reality.

Basically, I want to know how much coloured blood you have to have running through your veins to matter to intersectional feminists. I want to know how much Indian DNA my children, who are currently being rejected by their grandparents, have to have before they matter to intersectional feminists. I want to know how far my white guilt has to go before it is enough to satisfy them. How am I to weigh the feminist principle of being able to speak my mind with this white guilt that they are using to silence me every time I speak up about anything? How am I to just tow the line when I disagree with what they are promoting and the manner in which they are going about it?

I can no longer align myself with this movement. I have never experienced so much hatred, exclusion, and bullying in my life.

BNW86

8/25/2016 05:32:20 pm

How can anyone take these people seriously? I wouldn't even call them feminist. Seems that the whole point of intersectional feminism is to complain about how much of a victim they are, shut down conversations when people disagree with them, and to attack the viewpoints of white people, which includes calling them derogatory names. Why would anyone take any of that seriously?

Without a doubt intersectional feminism is one of the worst brands of feminism I have ever come across. They do nothing but divide and attack people with insults, and much of what they focus on does nothing for women, but take away discussion of female issues and direct the focus to issues that have nothing to do with females at all.

I got sick of the constant praising of beyoncé as some kind of feminist hero a couple of years ago. I got sick of her popping up on just about every feminist website.

8/25/2016 09:34:37 pm

There are a number of wonderful critiques of the regressive left; this is one of the more useful, as it critique's Marcuse's concept of "liberating tolerance": http://heterodoxacademy.org/2015/09/23/how-marcuse-made-todays-students-less-tolerant-than-their-parents/

The author, April Kelly Woessner, notes, "The idea of “liberating tolerance” then is one in which ideas that the left deems to be intolerant are suppressed. It is an Orwellian argument for an'“intolerance of intolerance' and it appears to be gaining traction in recent years, reshaping our commitments to free speech, academic freedom, and basic democratic norms."

She also writes that "multicultural tolerance allows individuals to limit the rights of political opponents, so long as they frame their intolerance in terms of protecting others from hate. This is what Marcuse refers to as 'liberating tolerance.' In fact, the idea that one should be 'intolerant of intolerance' has taken hold on many college campuses, as exemplified through speech codes, civility codes, and broad, sweeping policies on harassment and discrimination." This can also explain in part the contradictory position of criticizing the values of one group while tolerating, defending, or even venerating similar beliefs held by another, provided that the second group is deemed sufficiently oppressed. Thus, some intersectional feminists can defend profoundly anti-feminist positions if such positions are held by the "proper" group.

For a different take on these issues, John McWhorter, a linguist at Columbia, notes that many in the far left have adopted what is essentially a religious dogma (many of us have noticed this over the past year): http://heterodoxacademy.org/2015/12/10/john-mcwhorter-joins-heterodox-academy/

The following passage is from one of his articles in The Daily Beast:

"The idea that only the naive or the immoral would question issues connected to something as broad and protean as race and racism is hasty at best and anti-intellectual at worst. What qualifies as discrimination? As cultural appropriation? As aggression? What is an ethnicity? What does racial courtesy consist of, and for what reasons? These are rich, difficult questions with no hard-and-fast answers. Any insistence otherwise is religious. The term is unavoidable here. When intelligent people openly declare that logic applies only to the extent that it corresponds to doctrine and shoot down serious questions with buzzwords and disdain, we are dealing with a faith. As modern as these protests seem, in their way, they return the American university to its original state as a divinity school—where exegesis of sacred texts was sincerely thought of as intellection, with skepticism treated as heresy."

His analysis could just as easily apply to discussions of gender, and we have to look no further than to some of the responses to this article to see the reliance on attacks, code words, and quasi-metaphysical avoidance of reasoned debate.

The University of Chicago just stuck a blow for freedom of speech and rational debate this week. Let's hope that other institutions follow suit—I'd rather see the authoritarian left countered by moderate, liberal, and conservative intellectuals rather than sparking a backlash from an equally authoritarian far-right.

8/21/2016 02:55:59 pm

@Fred

You are not in a position to critique my argument, as that would require knowledge off, and facility with, my motivations and experience. I clearly point out -and call out- the blindness of the concept of intersectionality conferred to white women by virtue of their white skin privilege. You're in over your head Fred, you cannot employ de-constructive sophistry to assail my argument. You Sir, need to take several seats and listen for understanding.

8/21/2016 03:19:16 pm

Fred didn't say anything about your motivations or experience. He addressed the content of your comment. We are discussing ideas. You are attacking our race. Was there something specific in this article that you didn't like, or is it just that the person who wrote it is white?

Remember: "I disagree with you" doesn't mean the same thing as "white privilege."

8/21/2016 04:39:54 pm

"You are not in a position to critique my argument, as that would require knowledge off, and facility with, my motivations and experience."

You don't actually make an argument; rather, you engage in question-begging, as you did in your response to my earlier comment and as you do now. Asserting that we're not in a position to critique your argument is fallacious (and presumptuous) as you know nothing about our experiences—additionally, no positions are logically beyond critique, particularly those held by individuals who see themselves as being beyond critique.

"I clearly point out -and call out- the blindness of the concept of intersectionality conferred to white women by virtue of their white skin privilege." This is both a sweeping generalization and an example of a genetic fallacy (linking ideology to race). The act of making an assertion is not an argument in and of itself; you are assuming that a claim without support is an argument, but "privilege" and "whiteness" are contested and complex ideas that are often used speciously to discredit opponents without addressing their arguments. As you've made an ad hominem albus claim that you clearly see as self-evident without providing relevant support, there's really no argument to critique.

"You're in over your head Fred, you cannot employ de-constructive sophistry to assail my argument. You Sir, need to take several seats and listen for understanding." Words have meanings. Deconstruction id a branch of post-modernism. My terminology is derived from classical rhetoric and logic, concepts rejected by deconstructionists, post-modernists, and regressive leftists alike.

You argument, such as it is, appears to be premised on the idea that your identity confers upon you have a unique "way of knowing" that somehow places you beyond the realm of conventional logic; it does not. It merely provides a solipsistic and, frankly, intellectually vacuous way of asserting a claim while dismissing critiques before they're made. Nothing is beyond critique or rebuttal, particularly self-serving claims that you should be the only one to hold the conch-shell on the island.

You also imply that your ideology is so strongly rooted in truth that it needs no evidence, and that those exposed to the dulcet tones of your truth will be swayed to your view merely by the hearing of it. That is the essence of blind faith and sophistry, not logic or reason. "Lived experience" is often used as a surrogate for argument, but as I stated above, emotional reasoning is deeply flawed—as is the tactic of telling others to shut up and listen—or by claiming that we're "over our heads."

Once again, you've reinforces Eva's message.

3/28/2017 06:04:00 pm

Fred - very well said.

I'm not disagreeing with your analysis/rebuttal, which is intellectually spot-on, but I want to look a bit at the meta level. This is not chastizement, but a reflection, born of trying to grapple with how complex the path has become towards using our skills to improve the world we find ourselves in.

Your rhetorical skill easily let's you tie knots in the position of your opponent; your reply likely went way over their head. And while I actually appreciated your virtuosity and intellectual integrity - to your direct target, it means less than nothing. And, unfortunately perhaps, that's not a good thing in the real world. At least not if we want to make some positive difference.

Um, and it's something like I might say; I'm examining my own approach to public discussion as well.

If you and I were debating some point (tho we seem more in agreement), it would be a relatively fair combat; we both understand and appreciate rhetoric, and can parse complex sentences to extract nuance. But when responding to somebody unversed is this kind of discourse, it just come across to them as an elite put-down. Your opponent tried to convey that as "deconstructive sophistry"; intellectually you accurately corrected this misidentification, but that resposne also ignored their intended meaning: "you use words better than I do but that doesn't make you right". From their perspective, you are a skilled word twister treating them with disrespect, and that just reinforces their emotional attachment to their passions, and their resentment towards "elites".

So I will share with you the challenge I now set for myself - to use my intellectual and emotional skills to find more effective ways of engaging with people holding other view, as often as I can manage. That means for example, listening beneath their words for what they are trying to convey, rather than picking on their mistakes and inaccuracies to invalidate their presentation (fun tho that might be). It also means restraining my vocabulary and conceptual sentence structure, trying to find easily understood words and concepts to express myself. I kind of like the way you express yourself, and you can feel free to talk with me that way any time; I certainly don't suggest that you give up your word skills. But it doesn't work when engaging a general audience. Finding more effective ways (I almost said efficacious but translated on the way to my fingertips) is actually a challenge, but I think a worthwhile one (you have the intellectual discourse mode mastered, this is a new challenge).

Anyway, I invite you to consider using your obvoius talents to find ways to "get through", when engaging someone who is not going to benefit from your more abstract approach, engaging them on closer to their level. Attempt to understand what they are trying to express and engage that as respectfully as possible.

It's not just about word and sentence choice, it's also about finding more empathy. People with higher EQ can be better persuaders.

(I've been reading Righteous Mind and other great books, and am inspired to take a broader approach to discussion and persuasion than I have in the past).

And - I had to pause and ponder the impact, to let this perspective rise up within me. My first instinct was to cheer you on. But that kind of business as usual approach is failing badly in the real world, we all need to shift tactics.

And this is only a suggestion...

9/5/2017 06:11:22 pm

You may not think he's in a position to critique your argument. That could be because you didn't actually present an argument. But he did knock you down a notch, and it's pretty clear you can't get back up.

mr Otaku

10/29/2021 08:15:15 pm

Learn to present an argument instead of whining like 5 yr old

Jen

8/24/2016 11:36:58 am

People like the woman posting in your comments section just dismiss any type of disagreement as "whiteness" instead of actually addressing your arguments. I suppose dissent and disagreement are not tolerated by intersectional feminists.

Rowan

1/14/2017 03:33:08 pm

I don't think the poster wants to address any arguments, just to attack the author of the article and sadly to air her racial bigotry on here. Attacking someone's race or their skin colour is not feminist, there's a different term altogether for that...

CarobSteviaMatte

8/25/2016 02:43:20 pm

You are seriously my hero. This stuff drives me so insane you don't even know. I'm pretty damn left on most topics, but this PC 2.0 Social Media totalitarianism is unbelievable. Islam is storming the planet like White Walkers from GOT, Far Right nutters are stockpiling weapons, and the Left is whining about "a white girl (becky in their terms) complimented me on my curly hair and I felt triggered!". Keep up the amazing work. Everyday Feminism and Twitter's "medium.com" seem to be the worst, though Huffpo is certainly in the mix. I'm a Hillary supporter, but there are days where I wake up and wish Trump would WIN, just to create some REAL busy work for these morons. Then they will get what actual racism, sexism, and general "phobia" look like. Or they can just keep on keeping on and attacking their ALLIES like Aziz Ansari or Matt Damon. That is also what I find repulsive. They NEVER post articles like "9 Ways to Expose the KKK" or "5 Ways to Help Hillary Win". It's always "8 ways to make liberal allies uncomfortable" or "5 Things that White Liberals Say about Race that You Should Not Allow". They spend WAY more time attacking people who are basically their allies than they do going after their actual enemies. Fuck them all. If I was a racist, sexist Facsist, I would ENCOURAGE the modern SJWs as they are likely to only produce a backlash and extend sexism and racism for decades more...

8/25/2016 04:02:42 pm

While women and men forage the world for sustenance, security, tranquility, and alliance with others, SJW children like the author of this garbage heap, find ever-creative ways to center themselves and their victim-hood and to escape scrutiny of their own shortcomings and unearned privilege and protection. I enjoy watching the greasefire-fueled immolation of white middle-class feminists who have time on their hands to mimic the intersectional struggles of other women.

Susanna Krizo link

7/26/2018 03:47:54 pm

Youmakemyhearhurt,

I'm astonished to see the level of disconnect between reality and ideology that IF advocates. IF has created a scenario in which it is perfectly acceptable for woc and all men to threaten violence against women, just because they are white.

If this is feminism, no one should be a feminist.

LapsedFeminist

9/13/2016 05:47:22 pm

I've been thinking this way for a while now. Social justice under the guise of interesctionality seems to have become a way to drum up outrage and gather people who feel powerless and disenfranchised into a mob and aim them at the sinner of the day. I've lost my idealism about achieving a sisterhood with women because of how awful some feminists are to other women. I hesitate to even call myself a feminist now because I don't follow any of the common party lines and disagree on what seem to be some really essential topics. I've considered myself a feminist since before I even knew the word, but seeing what's happening in mainstream feminism today is disgusting. And with the migrant issue: I have friends from Sweden who have told me the horror stories of what's been happening to women and how liberals care way more about appearing racist than about women's actual safety. This fear of appearing a bigot is leading young girls to bully another young girl into accepting a transgender "girl's" harassment in the locker room. And the attacks on race are getting worse, from either side. I've been called a racist just for disagreeing on Twitter with a person of color on an entirely unrelated issue!

Thanks for having enough idealism left to speak out about this. I guess I've lost all mine to the point where I just don't even want to bother.

1/14/2017 03:08:51 pm

It's hard to find a feminist group that that focusses on gender equality and isn't overwhelmed by extreme-political-correctness nowadays. It is important to make sure that feminism includes all groups, but unfortunately "intersectionality" is being used by those with agendas that have less to do with women's equality and more to do with racial hatred or misandry. "Racist", "white feminist", "male privilege" etc. are often used to shut down discussions, or silence anyone who disagrees with them.

Good point about the rapes in Cologne and Sweden, if that isn't a feminist issue I don't know what is.

Sarah

11/21/2016 08:47:12 pm

I am waiting for intersectionality to eat itself. Bring of the fourth wave, quick, while there are still actually feminists alive.

11/21/2016 09:18:34 pm

Intersectionality seems to be immolating itself now. I don't put too much stock in the idea that the regressive left drove voters to Trump, as he received roughly the same number of votes as McCain in '08 and Romney in '12, but they certainly didn't win many friends among moderates and independents, and the far-left's antics make it easy for conservatives to paint universities with a broad brush.

This is one of the better critiques of the disconnect between intersectionality and working class voters: http://stv.tv/comment/1373303-trigger-warning-the-left-can-t-connect-with-the-working-class/

I dread the next 4 years—I've never felt so awful in the wake of an election—but I hope the we on the left can find a way to balance the need to empower traditionally marginalized groups with the classical liberal commitments to unity and equality. The far-left's obsession with identity, its solipsistic focus on experience over evidence, and its unwillingness to engage in rational debate or dialogue will make weaken the left as a whole, and the Trump/Pense/Alt-right crowd poses a serious threat to all of us (and certainly far more than a few angry bloggers and college students).

Ironically, it looks like many conservatives have suddenly developed thin skins and are calling for safe spaces, so the faults we decry here are by no means confined to any one ideology.

Lizbrella

1/24/2017 08:15:32 pm

I'm very grateful to have found your blog.

I too consider myself a feminist yet find many of these "intersectional" policies to be harmful because they shut down discussion. To find someone else who supports the empowerment of women yet critiques the messages of privelge checking silencing and overuse of cultural appropriation to ghettoize cultures is heartening. There has to be more of us who take this critical standpoint.

I feel there needs to be more of us. THANK YOU.

Intersectionality is racist

2/15/2017 12:25:14 pm

Wonderful post! I really appreciate your clear insights and well presented arguments. Bookmarked!

I found out last year just how hostile so-called "intersectional" feminism has become when I found out someone close to me had been abducted and gang raped by a group of black men who specifically set out to attack random white women. I saw the news articles from the attack and the men admitted - bragged really, that they were just targeting random vulnerable white women in a rape spree.

This was so traumatic for me to learn, and when I sought counseling at the local rape crisis center (learning of this close friends assault dredged up my own triggers), I found out the hard way just how much social justice politics rules feminist social services these days.

In the first 15 min, before I had even mentioned why I was there the white counselor mentioned "our white privilege". It was a shock so I said, "I don't want to talk about those sort of politics". Instead of respecting me she launched into a defense of why acknowledging racial privilege is important. I looked at her and said, "I'm here because my close friend was gang raped because of racial hatred, how dare you keep dragging race politics into this."

In other words, I made an appointment with a feminist rape crisis center to help cope with finding out a close friend had been the victim of race-based gang rape, and the idiot white counselor wanted to talk instead about "our white privilege" and "intersectionality". I guess the counselor was too stupid to consider that I wasn't there to take a class in "Race-based Social Theory for Postmodernist Feminist Academic Assholes" but rather there to get help for sexual violence trauma.

As a result, I will NEVER pay lip service to feminism again or attempt to use feminist services again. I don't owe people who were "historically oppressed" anything, and I don't extrapolate guilt of the crime to other people of the same race - in other words, I don't blame black people or culture for what happend to my friend - that is enough.

Feminists obsession with forcing white guilt on other women is going to backfire because of people like me who KNOW that in the real world (not the ivory tower) that race based crimes occur in every combination. I don't deny that black people face different challenges but professional trolls like Crenshaw with their divisive rhetoric don't help ANYONE.

Kimberle Crenshaw is just another academic - millions of people have academic degrees, just because she wrote some shit social theory means nothing. Just because she is a black woman does NOT mean her "intersectionality" theory is valid or has ANY merit whatsoever. I'm sick of being expected to kowtow to some random woman just because she had enough money to go to college and get a degree and spend her time "theorizing" about how the world works.

What about women without degrees? Why are feminists so classist and hateful? Why does Miss Crenshaw think she gets to tell other women how to view the world? Maybe her worldview is clouded by her narcissism and all the funding she gets from monied political agitators who are interested in causing American racial unrest and making sure feminism isn't a united movement for all women?

I personally think her work is an embarrassment to true intellectualism and the rantings of an insecure and bitter political hack. I have no respect for people like her who promote divisive rhetoric from ivory towers in the soft sciences.

Many other black academics in the hard sciences are busy doing research that will save the lives of millions of people of all races. These people I have great respect for - for trolls like Crenshaw I have nothing but contempt. It's frankly time that things like critical race theory social science which don't bring about measurable benefits for people get defunded and relegated to the dustbin.

2/17/2017 06:41:54 am

I believe you and I agree with you. The anti-white racism going on nowadays in the name of feminism sickens me. I don't agree with bigotry or racial hatred in any form and have stood up for people of all colors because it's the right thing to do, even at personal risk. Yet I have been accused of racism because I don't believe that all black people are innocent angels and I won't kowtow to "white privilege" and white guilt. I was severely harassed when I was young by a black boy who targeted me because I was white, I know because he straight out told me so. And one of my best friends told me how one of her friends was gang raped by migrants but the police wouldn't do anything out of fear of being accused of racism. Feminism needs to go back to giving a crap about women over PC BS and allow us to acknowledge the reality of racial hatred, racism, and misogynist cultural traits as a universal possibility that no group is exempt from. This doesn't mean I agree with any conservative racists or look for an excuse to discriminate against anyone, but I think if we're going to decry racism in one group, the principle should hold true for all groups. Every group is capable of racism, but that never makes it all right.

Fenna link

3/19/2017 09:19:57 am

1. So over people calling bullshit on Taylor Swift. 2. The main problem I have with "intersectionality" and why I stay away from it; Intersectionality says, "If you don't experience MY sexism problems, then you don't care about me or real feminism." When you made the comment about fat shaming and medical culture, I thought, "She probably doesn't buy it or understand it because she is not fat or hasn't experienced it." I am going to assume that if I could present to you a very clear case for it, you are intelligent enough to understand it exists. But I also don't think you have to agree with it and fight for it if it doesn't affect you. I'm also incredibly tired of "white" people being blamed for all the problems happening to minorities and how "white feminism" isn't real feminism. Because A. Minorities are just that, a very small part of the population that have different problems that "white" people might not face and should not be held accountable for. And 2. It is proven that the vast majority of "white" people in the U.S. will never have a meaningful relationship with a minority, which means they will never be faced with let alone have to understand what minorities encounter. Which is to say, WE ALL could use a lesson in understanding that our world is not someone else's and we don't all face the same problems.

Amin Riadh

3/21/2017 03:36:17 pm

"For one, there is no “illegal occupation.”"

This is factually incorrect. And then you link this to an extremely biased website.

The websites starts off as follows:

"Arab spokesmen regularly complain about what they call "the Israeli occupation" of the Judea-Samaria-Gaza territories. But the truth is that there is no such "Israeli occupation.""

Why isn't there any "illegal occupation". The website answers:

"In fact, Israel has the strongest religious, historical, and legal claim to this land, The territories of Judea-Samaria-Gaza and the Old City of Jerusalem were integral parts of the Jewish kingdoms throughout the biblical eras, and are explicitly mandated by the Hebrew Bible as part of the Land of Israel."

So they are not occupied because they have always been part Israel since the time God granted the land to the Jews!

How can anyone challenge such unique hardcore dogma?

- -

This too is factually incorrect:

"From the standpoint of international law, it is important to note that prior to 1967, there was no other recognized sovereign power in the territories."

- -

So you paint a wonderful picture of Israel, which isn't inaccurate just misleading. And then you compare and make out Palestine to be as follows:

"Meanwhile, Palestine is plagued by spousal and child abuse, rape, incest, and "honor" killings of women."

Take away the word honour and every single one of those happens in ALL countries. Is that all that happens is Palestine? Really?

Um, so what kind of point is that?

I have read quite a few sections of your blog... I do not agree with all your views but I have always find you to be quite moderate...

So what went wrong here?

Katalina Bürger

8/18/2017 10:01:31 am

Spot the Palestinian.

Found them!!!

Jeannie E H

9/6/2017 02:30:42 am

Please tell all of us what kind of rights women and gays would have in "Palestine".
We'll wait while you google it or fabricate it.

efiaogheap

3/25/2017 03:15:29 am

This is the best article I've read in ages. Go you!!

Tone Police

5/30/2017 07:56:09 am

I want these assholes to march their "intersectional" asses over to the Gaza strip. See how Hamas views their rants about "rape culture". They will throw Koranic verse back in their SJW faces that SUPPORTS rape culture.

8/14/2017 12:46:33 pm

I'm not a feminist but I think you got it in part.

This intersectionality has made for a very rigid structure and saying anything outside of it gets you hounded out of the flock like villagers with torches in the olden days.

Concepts such as 'internalised misogyny' deny women the opportunity to think for themselves. It's infantilising. 'Oh you don't agree with my view... therefore you have internalised misogyny'. I guess that's an easier response than engaging. There's something almost cult like about it. Replace Internalised misogyny with demons or the devil and you're back in the days of villagers with torches vilifying innocents who dare to stray from the accepted dogma.

It's this shit show - which is happy to endlessly blame white people for everything - which helped to set up the gamergate debacle.. which eventually lead to Donald Trump becoming president. Galvanizing a bunch of 'weaponised autists' into action to hijack an election with memes and getting America a rather bizarre version of a president should be mentioned, albeit more prosaically, on the epitaph of this identity politics bullshit.

georgia

10/19/2017 02:23:01 am

You can't tell taylor swift shes not a real feminist. She supports equal rights to men and women. Bam feminist. Her dating life doesn't mean shit to her being a feminist or not. She has dated a lot of guys, but she doesn't go into the relationship expecting to have sex and leave. She tries to make it work but her expectations or something with her don't fit to the guy. We don't know if its her that wants to get serious and the guy doesn't or if its the other way around or if she has these jealousy flips that guys can't handle. No idea why her relationships don't work but they do at times last a while. No right to claim shes not a feminist. That's like when Christians tell other Christians they aren't real Christians.

suzanne holt link

10/28/2017 01:44:40 pm

I like your daring.
Feminism - if it's not organic and rooted in one's own
experiences - is just dogma.
The new self-described, self-appointed "one&only" feminism & its supposedly feminist attackhappy rhetoric
is a thin disguise for all sorts of ill-feeling---
contempt, jealousy and what
would seem like one helluvalot of swallowed spit.
Too bad for us all.
While we're busy taking down all the women
whose estimated privilege is too much by
intersectional calculus and
smacking around the new fave posterchild,--
the promise of early women's movements
is flushed down the commode.
Thanks for thinking this through in a public way~

7/26/2018 04:54:23 pm

Thank you so much, Eva, for writing this article.
I'm a fellow feminist who is equally concerned and dismayed of what I'm seeing. I've been writing against IF since last year from a religious woman's perspective, as IF completely ignores religious women and their need to speak up against the discrimination they experience in their own communities.
Thank you for your bravery in the face of the increasingly hostile overtake of feminism by patriarchal forces. Blessings and kudos.

Kellie

2/6/2020 07:39:36 am

I think you should call yourself the Happy, White Liberal Feminist Talent. It's clear that you define feminism by your whiteness, your middle-classness, your privileged American exceptional self. Claim that and stop trashing discourses that define feminism as being against ALL FORMS OF OPPRESSION, not just those that happen to inconvenience privileged white women like you. Just claim it. Be honest and say you don't give a damn about other bodies, or other people's other struggles. You don't give a damn about the how mass incarceration and U.S. military adventurism around the globe has devastated other people's life so that white middle class women like you can parade themselves as being special and exceptional and "interesting". Just be honest. And that way people will respect you rather than envy your (which is what you secretly want) or simply ignore you and keep you the hell away from legitimate feminist discourses.

Susanna Krizo

2/6/2020 09:39:16 am

Oh wow, it's so very rare to get an honest response from an intersectional. It's great to finally see that your kind of feminism is about excluding women, which is what you claim "white feminism" does, which makes you the same. Have a great day. ☺

2/6/2020 10:00:30 am

Susanna, EXACTLY! My feminism doesn't exclude women, and it DOES include facts, data, research, and evidence.

2/6/2020 09:46:54 am

I wonder.... Have you ever met any young people at all? They all believe themselves to be special, exceptional, and interesting. And how does US military power, that impoverishes people in the US, make white women "interesting"?

3/20/2020 06:08:39 am

glad to read this article..I notice there’s sooo many women starting to recognize that there’s a serious attack on women's rights coming at us from all directions- the right and make no mistake shots are being fired very much from the left too.

The only issue with “intersectionality” is that faux-feminists have appropriated the term with zero respect for the principle Crenshaw describes in her 1989 paper. She refers to a specific mode of Radical Feminist analysis that incorporates axes of oppression that intersect with sex, which is extremely valuable and crucial going forward in any feminist movement. However, it’s being used in the mainstream in a bad-faith way to center everyone & everything in “feminism” EXCEPT human females and the advancement of our women’s liberation movement.

It def seems like there’s something sinister going on and efforts to undermine women’s ability to organize effectively. On one hand, the media deliberately misrepresents everything that is most definitely not feminism, as “feminism" and on the other hand it seems that actual legitimate feminists are relentlessly demonized & misrepresented (see: Chimamanda Adiche, Andrea Dworkin, UK Feminists).

I’ve noticed an there’s been phenomenal efforts to almost sever association between woman/female, thus alienating women from ourselves and each other. At an event like the “Women’s March” for example, it should neither be a revolutionary act or blasphemous to boldly assert that women are full human beings with a female body and potentially any personality (ranging anywhere from hyper-masculine to hyper-feminine, or even better neither).

3/21/2020 11:56:53 am

Seriously. I'm all about empowerment and try not to obsess over the ways in which I'm "oppressed".... But undoubtedly, factually, my oppression is sex-based. It is because I have female anatomy, not because I "think like a woman" and sometimes wear dresses and lipstick.

When people go on Twitter like "TRANS WOMEN ARE WOMEN. TRANS WOMEN RE WOMEN," I'm like... are trans women women? Or is "intersectionality" a thing? Because both can't be true. Either trans women are trans women, whose experiences and identities are different from those of females/biological women... or trans women are women, and there is no such thing as intersectionality.

I hate how regressive "progressives" have become -- like you said, feminists fought hard for women's right to assemble, to have legal protections, to have their own sports. Now, that work is being erased. Words like "woman" and "female" are dirty words now -- you've got to call them "womxn" and "non-males" (because THAT'S not degrading). I went to an olympic tryout late last year... and every time a male walked into the gym, I was like, "Is that person here to watch... or to compete against me?"

Strange (and very sad) times.

J O H N

4/12/2020 01:50:28 pm

Being generous,fifty percent of feminism
is human females disapproving of other
human females and framing males for it.

And why do i get the feeling that this
is as old as the hills?

4/12/2020 11:41:06 pm

You.... you know that feminists can be men, right??? And that many "woke" people are also men?

It's just, regardless of their gender, I can't let their "wokeness" erode my rights or their "inclusiveness" exclude me.

Penny

5/7/2020 08:44:33 pm

I think you mean Martu.

Great article as always.

"Intersectionality" is the OPPOSITE of Feminism

Leave a Reply.

Want more?

Categories