More like interSEXYnality, AMIRITE?

complete-idiots-guide

It’s your lucky day. I’ve just been reading the European Journal of Women’s Studies (2006; 13[3]) and I’ve whipped up a tl;dr version for those of you without the time/journal access/interest to read it for yourselves. Frankly, that really ought to cover all of you.

Here goes:

‘Intersectionality’ seems perfectly fine, and actually quite handy, as a broad, catch-all term, provided everybody involved with the discussion in which it is invoked is actually a sociologist. Even then, Judith Butler would prefer that Kimberlé Crenshaw just stop talking, while Nira Yuval-Davis screams ‘Why don’t you BOTH shut up?’ after which, I think, Dr Marvin Monroe enters and gives everybody electric shocks.

Seems when intersectionality is adopted by the masses, though, there’s a tendency for things to devolve into an oppression-pissing contest, whereby the words of the most underprivileged necessarily become the most privileged by those desperate to publicly demonstrate the depth their compassion for those less privileged. Which is fine—about time they had a win!—unless the group’s multi-race queer transgender land mine survivor also happens to be a complete fucking nitwit with terrible ideas, and nobody is willing to acknowledge it for fear of being called a racist, ableist homophobe who needs to check their cis-privilege.

Which they absolutely would be.

Happens every time.

Because people who make a point of telling the world how intersectional their views are (typically by means of a hashtag in their Twitter bio*) tend not to be about good ideas or workable solutions; more often they’re about everybody knowing how racist/sexist/ableist they DEFINITELY AND CONSPICUOUSLY AREN’T, and pointing their finger at (or ‘calling out’, the more publicly the better) those whom they have determined ARE.

They also tend to constitute the majority in any discussion, resulting in their unique ability to both gang up on those with a dissenting opinion, while also claiming to be the victims of bullying because, after all, they are the Allies of the Oppressed, doncha know.

Intersectionality is identity politics rebranded, to make dullards sound smarter while simultaneously giving them a handy ranking system, so they can tell to whom they must defer.

<sarcasmfont>Because, obviously, ALL knowledge must come from lived experience. It’s like that history teacher I had who had the nerve to try to tell me about the Napoleonic Wars, only for me to find out later HE HADN’T EVEN BEEN BORN THEN.</sarcasmfont>

Privilege doesn’t have a monopoly on stupidity, and a lot of those bandying ‘intersectionality’ about could lay a pretty convincing claim to a sizeable chunk of it.

*The contents of these parentheses do not necessarily appear in the Journal

Not sure how sound your argument is? Try Gawker’s handy quiz to see where you rank in the Oppression Matrix!

Oh, and then read this very good thing on trigger warnings.

(Disclaimer: I am a white, heterosexual male, so be sure to mention that you’re not and thank me for whitemansplaining in any criticism you might proffer, a courtesy that allows other readers to know how right-on you are and what a typically butthurt MRA-who-clearly-views-your-liberation-as-a-threat-type I am.)

Advertisements

About samquigley

I'm Sam Quigley.
Aside | This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to More like interSEXYnality, AMIRITE?

  1. Helen Razer says:

    I would simply like to know why you are championing cancer and promoting rape.
    Otherwise, a sound piece.
    You cancer raper.

  2. carlene58 says:

    I like your piece & clearly see what you are saying. I don’t believe you to be doing any of the things of which you will be accused but then again there are many experiences I haven’t lived

  3. dgunsberg says:

    It also seems to me that in a world full of uncertainty and ambiguity the transient (and ultimately unfulfilling) certainty of outrage or indignation becomes addictive to certain folks. For a split second they can be sure they have done ‘the right thing’, been the ‘most right’ and use that as a salve on their subconscious knowledge that such things as ‘right’ are never that simple.

    Great piece.

  4. Helen Razer says:

    It’s brilliantly solipsistic, though, If one disagrees with this (or any other) proposition, it is out of fear of relinquishing one’s privilege.
    And, if one has little in the way of privilege to relinquish and still agrees with any proposition (especially those that point out genetic fallacy) one is self-loathing.
    IN short, the idea of ‘objectivity’ is summarily dismissed in favour of endless personal Lived Experience that is a basis for nothing but talking about personal Lived Experience. No logic or action is possible beyond the solipsism that identity politics give us.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s