On Intersectionality and Feminism
Judith Charpentier (Centrism)
The idea of viewing people according to the groups they identified with is a common occurrence. Feminism, which relies heavily on tribalism, has expanded on this concept and called it ''intersectionality''.
Intersectionality is the understanding that various groups of people experience varying degrees of oppression. In essence, it's the bastard child of tribalism mixed with a heavy dose of Marxism. It's part of the postmodern narrative that power and authority might as well be done away with because those of the majority couldn't possibly understand the unique experiences of someone in a minority group. It's meant to give everyone a sense of belonging, a sense a group identity. But there is also an ugly downside to this. When people start to look only at the group they sometimes forget that the individual matters. That the group doesn't define everything about the individual. It becomes easy for those people to judge everyone belonging to the group as equally guilty. Intersectionality becomes a way to practice discrimination of the individual without guilt, due to the belief that your own group is obviously without sin. It's the others who are wrong.
Karl Marx took the idea that groups are either oppressing or being oppressed, whereas intersectionality takes the idea even further. Those who are oppressed aren't one monolithic group, after all, they can be fragmented into subgroups and each subgroup faces specific types of experiences (not recognizing this is a feminist crime known as a microaggression). A woman is oppressed, but not more than a gay woman, or even a gay black woman. Men, of course, are the new bourgeoisie. They cannot be oppressed in any way as they are the ones who oppress, which is an idea some men who've experienced hardship find completely ridiculous. In the marketplace of oppression, high degrees of victimhood is the currency. This creates of a hierarchy of oppressed groups where everyone is oppressed, but some are more oppressed than others. The more someone feels oppressed, the more victimized they are. The more victimized they are, the higher they place in the social hierarchy.
Those who follow the tenets of intersectionality see the world as a battleground where groups constantly fight each other. Like Marxism, the goal is the attainment of a more egalitarian world where the ''Powers That Be'' have less control over those who exert less power. This leaves no room for understanding and cooperation, two fundamental values of peaceful co-existence. The oppressors must be fought and removed from power before progress can be made. So much for their claim that: “more power for some doesn't mean less power for others”. And with the way they go on to assert their position in the world, it seems they are currently more interested in inflicting damage on those they disagree with than setting in a more egalitarian state of affairs. Power corrupts after all. It is arrogant to think that you will handle the power you've never had better than those who are used to wielding it.
Intersectionality is also a way to keep alive the old ideologies of gender theory and to remind people of the ongoing necessity of feminism, even in a relatively egalitarian civilization. Women of the West enjoy the same rights men do. They enjoy gender equality like the world as never seen before. So how do you keep a movement for equality alive in an egalitarian society? First, you appropriate other people's struggles, like gay rights, and you include them under the ever-expanding notion of what constitutes feminism. Then you take your group of ''oppressed'' people and you stratify them ad infinitum according to new evidence and definitions of oppression. Example: claiming that in a majority heterosexual society, a gay person will automatically experience oppression. You can do that with gender, race, sexual orientation, etc.
Intersectionality exists to keep feminism prevalent by pointing out there will always be groups and subgroups of disadvantaged people that could be helped, and that feminism is the best tool they have. There are even groups of what I call ''progressive feminists'': people who have adapted their concept of feminism with the knowledge that men can also be oppressed by unfair gendered norms.
It is possible to look at men as an oppressed class because feminists are like artists...always coming up with new ways of looking at the world. As a movement, it has no clear leader. Only a few loud emblematic voices supported by the whims and fancy of its public; public figures who's notoriety come and go as the time and situation demands. There is no agreement on what proper feminism is or how it should be put into practice. You'll have a hard time finding any voice of authority in a movement steeped in hatred of authority figures. There are only two things all feminists have in common: they call themselves feminists and they claim to support equality.
Feminism is a collective effort, and this creates a cacophony of definitions (everyone's voice matters!). The belief in intersectionality also prevents a unified group from forming because every group deals with life differently, and no one gets to rise above others. This causes various groups to clash against each other. There are few places where this is more obvious than social media, especially Twitter, where feminists are constantly reminding everyone what their definition of feminism is, even if it contradicts the definition of other feminists. Some types of feminists look down upon more than others. Like the TERFs, those radicals who refuse to recognize trans women as women due to the fact they once had penises. Sexism has always been alive and well within feminism, but now racism also rears its ugly head as ''white feminists'' are seen, usually by black feminists, as being more privileged than they are oppressed. What else would have happened to a movement looking for an enemy to fight? It finds enemies among its own ranks.
In my opinion, intersectionality is tribalism trying to look progressive and ''woke''. It breeds cowardice due to the desire of being viewed as a victim, which in itself contradicts the message of empowerment offered by feminism. Why stand proudly on your own and risk ridicule when you can hide comfortably in a crowd and feel safe? It is all about groups trying to gain power over other groups they have found guilty and undeserving of wielding power. Equality is just the pretty front they hold up to disguise their thirst for it. Intersectionality is what happens when people are looking for attention and demand to be seen as some sort of authority. All groups matter, but apparently some matter more than others.
Writer, YouTube personality and Twitter person with lots of opinions.
Read Evan Klim's Rebuttal
Read Lala Drew's Rebuttal
Read Jerry Barnett's Rebuttal
Read More Articles on Third Wave Feminism