The American Left is surprised and appalled to awaken to the fact that a white woman named Hillary Clinton gained 41% of the white female vote. Her opponent- a white male often characterized as a “misogynist-” took 53% of that vote. This caused the sisterhood to have a national temper tantrum centered in DC the day after the Inauguration. When faced with the above facts, a pair of entrepreneurial woman began marketing a shirt that read: “NOT THIS WHITE WOMAN.” Not to be outdone, it appears to have riled the black sisterhood. Welcome to the wonderful world of intersectional feminism.
The phrase was originally coined by a black lawyer named Kimberle Crenshaw three decades ago. Unfortunately, since there remains a red squiggly line under the word, it probably hasn’t made it into Webster’s Dictionary yet and with good reason: it’s pure B.S. The general gist is that it is a made up concept to justify black feminists bitching about white feminists and a pecking order to see who is the most oppressed.
In short, black feminists want to talk about not only their oppression based on sex, but also on their race. The black feminist will often point out the “privilege” of the white feminist and tell her to “check it.” They claim it is because feminism has broadened its agenda to include black empowerment, traditional women’s rights, gay rights, trans rights, amputee gay rights, etc. Could it be that they just ran out of something to fight for?
In reality, it is a pissing match between feminist groups. It is a race to the historical oppression bottom feeder where the most oppressed rises to the top in this inverted pyramid and deemed the most worthy of protection and recognition. It is identity politics on steroids…er, estrogen.
For example, the recent women’s march in Washington was originally called the Million Women’s March, but that sounded too much like the Louis Farrakhan-inspired Million Man March. They (black feminists) were being culturally appropriated. Nor could it be called the Women’s March on Washington because that sounded suspiciously like Martin Luther King’s 1963 March on Washington. Beaten down, the organizers added a Latina, a black and Muslim woman to reach out these “oppressed” communities.
The Portland, Oregon branch of the NAACP pulled out of a sister march in that city. The local chapter president said:
“I didn’t want to be part of the march if it was going to be a white-woman kumbaya march.”
One would think that if pay inequities (a myth) or reproductive rights (another name for abortion on demand) were so important, the color of one’s skin would not make a difference, but it apparently does. Attempts to reach common ground are met with article titles such as “Dear White Feminists, Your Good Intentions are Not Enough” with the subtitle “The question is not IF you are part of the problem; I am here to tell you that you are” in Huffington Post. Said self-proclaimed feminist LeRhonda S. Maginault-Bryant:
If this most recent presidential election has revealed nothing else, it has shown that this specific ilk of white feminism must die. Rather than holding up your weeping, weak selves, You must now do the intensive work to heal your troubled soul. And after you have come to terms with your own guilt, embarrassment, and pain, I encourage you to run with your newfound perspective.
Even fellow Leftist travelers like Code Pink have met the wrath of the feminists who took them to task for criticizing Michelle Obama dressing down a gay protester who interrupted one of her speeches. Code Pink, ones never to bow to pressure, did just that to the intersectionalists and issued a groveling apology to Ms. Obama. Referring to Lena Dunham, that unsightly walrus of a woman, someone named Kesiena had this to say:
The aforementioned white women don’t use their privileged platform to uplift sisters below them. Instead they dig their heels into our shoulders, stride across the bridges we call our backs, without so much as a glance down. They ignore women of color’s righteous fury at the double bind we face under white supremacist patriarchy like discussing acts of sexism against Iggy Azalea without acknowledging her own racism and homophobia. This says to minoritized women that they and their feelings don’t matter.
What a load of words that mean little and, incidentally, there is no such words as “minoritized.” However, one should remember an inconvenient truth: that America’s very own suffragists were racist. Elizabeth Cady Stanton lamented the fact that “degraded black men” were granted the franchise before women. Frances Willard condoned the lynching of black men in the South based on the myth of a rape culture even back then.
And feminists hate labels and describe them as the constructs of a white patriarchy. But these people seem hell-bent on institutionalizing labels. Strident opponents of “assigned identity,” they cannot live without the identifiers.
This is how intersectionalism works: Black people have it worse than white people which translates into black women need extra support. Homosexuals have it worse than heterosexuals, so gay women should be empowered. One can more or less increase the power and support by being a gay, black lesbian. One supposes that if they were an amputee suffering from mental illness, they too would move up the pecking order. These constant peeing matches devolves into a discussion of who is more oppressed than the other.
Considering that women in America today have never had it better and their standard of living and access to the workforce far exceeds anything in any Third World country where some women live in fear for the mutilation of a certain part of their anatomy, if not death, the whole idea of intersectional feminism seems rather banal. They gloss it over saying that it is wrong, but has to be understood in terms of the native culture. In other words, in the worst examples of female oppression, they tacitly run away, remain silent or even sometimes condone it under the rubric of “cultural relativism.”
When you have to create something to justify something against some perceived ill, you yourself are mentally ill. Consider some of the phrases these people have come up with as they rant about “standpoint epistemology” and “interlocking matrices of oppression.” They say that “intercategorical approaches” are needed to determine how “existentialist identities” foster stereotyping. They tell us how power carries “gendered connotations” and has “androcentric” biases. In short, white straight males really suck!
Some women are starting to see the light but sadly, too few. Said one woman from New Jersey about the DC march: “I’m starting to not feel very welcome in this endeavor.” Another with the commonsense not to climb on the bus for the trip to DC said, “This is a women’s march. We’re supposed to be allies in equal pay, marriage, adoption. Why is it now about, ‘White women don’t understand black women’?”
Feminism has descended into mental illness where today’s asylums are the Women’s Studies Departments of major universities that crank out these creators of silly words at an incredible pace. Intersectionality is feminism in its more-than-welcome death throes. There are no more issues to address and they know it. The injustices and the oppression they rail against is not there to the degree they claim. It is not about caring about and acting upon someone’s problem; it is appropriating everyone’s problem and applying it to themselves. It is an abrogation of personal responsibility. Suggestions: Want to narrow that mythical wage gap? Become an engineer. Want reproductive rights? Stop treating abortion as a form of birth control. Want to shatter that “glass ceiling?” Run a more competent, less scandal-ridden candidate the next time.
Basically, it is the feminist movement looking around and saying they have run out of things to fight for. What better way to keep the “cause alive” than stealing from everyone else’s agenda? It’s a wonderful cat fight to watch unfold and who doesn’t like two women- in this case, two groups of women- fighting?