you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Barber_Acrobatic 19 insightful - 1 fun19 insightful - 0 fun20 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I'm currently working my way through Douglas Murray's book and he did have an interesting theory on how intersectionalism has created the assumption that being a woman, or gay, or black (amongst other identities) has become synonymous with being left wing. That to say someone is one of those things comes with an assumption of value judgements on their political stance and morality, and that those who openly disagree have simply lost their way. At the root it is essentially deeply paternalistic and patronising in a way that I find deeply uncomfortable. It seems to fall to the idea that those who do not fall into those groups and disagree are morally repugnant, whilst those in the in-groups are ill-educated and stupid.

It does feel like a new religion at times, right down to the missionaries going out to 'spread the word'.

[–]Complicated-Spirit 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It goes along with the idea that “woman” is a category, whereas “man” is a person. A person can think independently; a category cannot, since categories are blocks of groupthink.

[–]respectmyidentity 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I took African American history in college (I'm white). Colin Powell came up (due to his conservatism and general lack of activism in the African American community during his time under the Bush administration) and I said well "Does he need to care about racism if his life's passion is education? Why does he have to be an activist or care about racial issues just because he is Black?" I was the only white person and my Black classmates let me know in no uncertain terms that what I said was fucked up. Looking back, I have to agree. It was fucked up of me, and invalidating, and unrealistic. Colin Powell is a Black person who has some power and privilege, and he should use it to help the disproportionate number of Black people who don't.

Later, I realized this is what OJ says/said about himself. He is just OJ, he isn't Black. And that really worked for him in terms of getting business deals and acceptance from white wealthy people (of course before his trial anyway). I'm thinking about the parallels between that and TWAW.

My presumption from my college class is that most Black people don't appreciate someone trying to opt-out of their responsibility to help Black people as a class. That is how I feel about "feminists" who support TWAW. And about TIM's who appropriate the female experience. How could a white person possibly speak to the experience of being Black? How could a male possibly understand being female? And just being feminine does not make one female. It's almost like TRA is the gay male (and AGP male) perspective overtaking/defining what it means to be a woman/female.

It just reinforces to me how little respect women have from men, across all races, ethnic groups, and sexual minorities. Males literally think they can do woman better than females can. And no one thinks this is wrong!