OUT OF ONE, MANY
Emba observes that despite the rise of intersectionality, some argue that it reinforces identity politics, which she claims the progressive movement was supposed to break down. She also writes that it’s leading to infighting within the feminist movement and “encouraging ‘privilege-checking’ as a form of bullying and silencing.” Others contend that intersectionality is spawning academic studies but isn’t producing fruit in real life—in law, policy, or day-to-day action.10
Whether the progressive movement ever meant to reject identity politics as Emba claims, today identity politics permeates the left’s advocacy of almost every policy issue. Race, gender, sexual orientation, and class are the left’s driving obsessions. But it’s undeniable that intersectionality is causing infighting and “privilege checking.” How can constant intramural competition among aggrieved activists not be divisive? Will this friction not impact various causes?
Take slavery reparations. If we’re going to make reparation payments to all black Americans, wouldn’t it be insensitive not to provide greater compensation for black women, the victims of double oppression? Beyond that, why limit reparations to blacks? Yes, slavery was uniquely horrendous, but intersectionality emphasizes that all women (and men, except for white men, unless they’re gay or transgender men) have been oppressed in American society. So why not just cut through all the noise and demand that straight, white men write checks to all non-white groups in varying amounts, as determined by the social justice gods?
Here’s another recent example of the absurd contradictions created by intersectionality: the cancellation of the Eureka Women’s March in Humboldt County, California, scheduled for January 19, 2019. The organizers released a statement explaining they scrapped the event because “[u]p to this point, the participants have been overwhelmingly white, lacking representation from several perspectives in our community.”11 This would be funny if it weren’t so pathetic and destructive. It shows the deep-rooted distrust among these groups—that the fight against oppression and discrimination cannot be advanced by sympathetic surrogates alone. A diversity-identity purity test must be imposed. Unless there is proportional representation among the participants from all identity groups, the cause is compromised. For intersectionality’s true believers, it’s not just a matter of sufficient diversity among the body of protesters. It’s that the causes of oppression of one identity group cannot be properly understood by others, so all must be directly involved or their grievances cannot be adequately presented.
In this sense, intersectionality is self-defeating. It claims to champion inclusiveness but fosters rank exclusiveness by encouraging groups to regard their own experiences as unique and incomprehensible by other groups. It’s like saying, “We demand you acknowledge society’s sins against us, but don’t think you will ever understand what we’ve been through. We demand your help, but you’re incapable of helping us, so just shut up and listen.” This impulse is increasingly seen in the ridiculous, growing tendency of leftists to denounce Hollywood actors for playing minority characters if they don’t belong to that minority group in real life. Thus, an amputee criticized actor Dwayne Johnson, a.k.a. “The Rock,” for portraying an amputee in the movie Skyscraper because amputees should be “given the agency to tell our own stories.”12
How can there ever be closure when true believers are manifestly unforgiving—when they regard historical wrongs as irremediable? How can reconciliation occur when intersectionality encourages various groups to regard one another with suspicion, jealousy, and rivalry? The groveling statement by the organizers of the Eureka Women’s March reinforces this mind-set, as they apologize for the event’s unforgivable whiteness:
Our intention with this march is to affect real social change by raising the voices of all women within our community. We recognize the majority of our current leadership team is white, and planning for this event has been centered around our experiences. In recognizing our failure to put enough effort into being more inclusive, we are attempting to make things right by taking this time to create a more balanced leadership team. Our goal moving forward is to ensure the voices of women of color are heard and centered when we come together for the furtherance of the rights and protection of women. Throughout history, women of color have been proven over and over again to be some of the most vulnerable populations. From the suffering of enslaved Black women in early gynecological experiments, to the current epidemic of Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women across the nation and beyond. Having their voices go unheard can be a matter of life and death, and it is imperative that a safe community is created for everyone.13
Note that these mostly white organizers sheepishly acknowledge they can’t possibly understand the experiences of minority women and can’t adequately promote their cause without ample participation by non-whites. Are we expected to believe they truly feel remorse for having organized what they obviously believed was an empowering event? Or are they merely genuflecting to the gods of intersectionality to avoid race-bullying? This is not normal thinking. It’s as if they’ve been reeducated into a real-life 1984-style groupthink in which dissent is forbidden. Imagine the level of anxiety in that environment—knowing that at any second you might utter the wrong words and be shunned or banished. Thus, another contradiction of this philosophy is exposed—it uses oppression to try to rectify oppression.
This glaring contradiction is also evident in the rabid anti-Semitism of some leaders of the Women’s March, a feminist group created to protest the election of President Trump. Intersectionality holds itself out as a champion of all oppressed groups, and who could dispute that Jews have been among the most oppressed people in history? But as they are regarded as members and beneficiaries of the white race, their persecution doesn’t count as much as that of other minorities. “On the extreme left, Jews are seen as part of a white-majority establishment that seeks to dominate people of color,” writes Emma Green in The Atlantic.14 They are seen as heirs of “white supremacy,” which mitigates any suffering they’ve endured.15
This is surely what Women’s March co-organizer Tamika Mallory had in mind when she reportedly instructed her Jewish colleague Vanessa Wruble that “Jews needed to confront their own role in racism.” Wruble believes she was pushed out of the organization partially because of her Jewish ancestry. Though the Women’s March and another co-organizer with a history of anti-Semitic statements, Linda Sarsour, eventually issued separate statements condemning anti-Semitism, their declarations don’t square with their association with notorious anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan—Mallory called him the GOAT (greatest of all time) and was notably reluctant to distance herself from him during an appearance on The View.16 Anti-Semitism among Women’s March leaders eventually became so acute that Women’s March founder Teresa Shook called for four leaders, including Mallory and Sarsour, to leave the organization, while other members launched a petition with a similar goal.17
Progressive activism, being rooted in negativity, suspicion, jealousy, and rage, invariably leads advocacy groups to turn on one another. Intersectional ideology demands that everyone constantly keep score and flay himself over past discrimination and its lingering effects on present generations. Assuming nearly every group is being treated unfairly, it engenders perpetual anxiety over who’s being treated more unfairly, instead of encouraging people to focus on the uplifting aspects of life. Regardless of inequalities among various identity groups, is it healthy for people to endlessly navel gaze, dwelling on their own plight? Will grievance merchants ever be satisfied with progress they’ve made?
The Civil War, Reconstruction, constitutional amendments, and civil rights legislation were obviously not enough on slavery. But what about the lasting damage caused by salting this wound in perpetuity? Even if you could eradicate all human prejudice and bigotry, what would be next? Would the next generation of malcontent activists demand equal outcomes in every aspect of life to compensate for the different talents and abilities in
dividuals have? If group identity politics could ever reach its logical conclusion, would activists next switch to disparities among individuals?
Progressives essentially reject the notion that every human being is made in God’s image and therefore entitled to equal dignity, rights, and protection of the laws. For them, equal opportunity is an unachievable myth, so central planners and social justice warriors must continually interfere in society to “level the playing field.”
“WHITE MEN AREN’T PART OF THE PROBLEM; THEY ARE THE PROBLEM”
Leftists believe they serve a higher moral cause and owe no one an explanation. Once they’ve undertaken a new mission, sundry activists rush to glom on it like flies on dung. In the Star Wars bar scene of the Democratic presidential primary field, former candidate Kirsten Gillibrand showed just how quickly and uncritically Democratic leaders attach themselves to the latest cause to ingratiate themselves to their rabid base. On December 4, 2018, Gillibrand tweeted, “The Future is Female… Intersectional… Powered in our belief in one another… And we’re just getting started.” Unwittingly, she committed the cardinal sin of championing old-school feminism (the notion of a “female future” was apparently a rallying cry of lesbian separatists in the 1970s) and intersectionality at the same time.18 She obviously had no clue what intersectionality is but figured she would mouth the popular leftist slogans to boost her campaign. Unsurprisingly, she received a firestorm of criticism in response.
Gillibrand tried to walk it back in an interview with CNN’s Van Jones, saying her intended message was, “Please include the ladies in the future, because they’re not really included today.” Once again, this sentiment, and even her original tweet, may strike conservatives as commonplace left-wing sloganeering. But thanks to intersectionality, yesterday’s cliché is today’s heresy. In a biting piece denouncing Gillibrand in The Atlantic, Caitlin Flanagan proclaimed, “[A]s something that a middle-aged, hyper-successful white woman such as Gillibrand can play around with, [intersectionality is] a hand grenade that’s going to explode in her mittens.” For example, says Flanagan, when Gillibrand told Jones, “It’s worrying that the top three presidential front-runners are white men,” she assumed she could leverage just one piece of intersectional theory to wedge her way to the top of the pack. “She’s used to feminism being a jet pack that she can fire up any time she needs a boost. Not this time.”
Gillibrand clearly didn’t understand that white women are a bit of a problem for intersectionalists because they may be oppressed as women, but they’re still white, which means they’re part oppressor, or at least a partial beneficiary of oppression. Flanagan cites Brittney Cooper, an African American professor and author of Eloquent Rage, who argues that intersectionality allows people to confront white women on their notion of feminism if they are using it to have access to the power that white men have. That is not what the fight is about. “White women don’t want to change the fundamental paradigm of race and gender in this country,” argues Cooper; “they want to exploit it so that they can gain access to the power that white men have.” Concerning Gillibrand’s worries over white men’s dominance in the Democratic Party, Flanagan writes, “If there’s anything intersectional feminism has no time for, it’s white men—which must have seemed politically useful to her in the moment. According to the intersectional framework, white men aren’t part of the problem—they are the problem.”
The fanatical intolerance of intersectionality can be seen in the bitterness Flanagan expresses toward Gillibrand—and toward men in general. In her view, Gillibrand can’t possibly understand intersectional feminism when she admits to having deferred to her husband and sons as to whether she would ultimately run for president. In the end, Gillibrand’s transgression was apparently unforgivable to Flanagan, who suggested she refrain from running altogether and support a “deeply accomplished potential candidate who really would help make the future intersectional: Kamala Harris.”19
As for white men, they play the role of arch-villain in the intersectionality drama. As Flanagan remarked, they are “the problem.” Many leftists will go much further in describing the threat they pose. In an August 2019 CNN appearance, left-wing commentator Angela Rye became offended when Republican strategist Patrick Griffin observed that Reps. Ilhan Omar and Rshida Tlaib were hijacking the Democratic Party from Nancy Pelosi. After berating Griffin for using the word “hijack” in connection with two Muslims, Rye proclaimed, “[T]he greatest terrorist threat in this country is white men, white men who think like you.”20
“ANOTHER UNPASSABLE PURITY TEST”
Intersectionality, then, requires that only the most identity-disadvantaged can lead the cause. White women, no matter how much they profess their faith in the concept, are disqualified on racial grounds. It is profoundly divisive and alienating to restrict the leadership of a cause to those directly affected by it. Such thinking would have disqualified William Wilberforce and Abraham Lincoln from their abolition advocacy. It violates the biblical principle that we should all serve one another.
Ultimately, this paranoid philosophy might hoist itself on its own petard. CNN’s Don Lemon questioned whether Flanagan’s favorite presidential candidate, Kamala Harris, is black enough, as Harris descends from an Indian mother and Jamaican father. In an interview with White House correspondent April Ryan, who asked why the “blackness” of mixed-race candidates is relevant, Lemon said it wasn’t about being black but whether she was an African-American black—a descendant of slaves. When Ryan noted that some slaves from Africa were taken to the Caribbean, Lemon responded, “Jamaica’s not America. Jamaica did not come out of Jim Crow.”21 African-American columnist Renee Graham comments on the absurdity of debating who is black enough. “There is no monolithic way to be black,” writes Graham. “Such attacks on Harris are idiotic when there are real and serious policy issues to be discussed.… It’s yet another unpassable purity test, not unlike the so-called birthers who sought to undermine Obama’s citizenship.”22
Another columnist, Morgan Jenkins, questions Harris’s bona fides from another perspective. Jenkins believes Harris was strong on many issues but had a poor record on criminal justice reform. This causes Jenkins to agonize whether she could possibly be justified in withholding support from a female black candidate. “No candidate is perfect, and the idea that I might not support a black woman who is qualified for the job is excruciating,” writes Jenkins. “My life’s work is centered on black women and their stories, no matter how complicated those narratives might be. Was my hesitation premature and unfair? But the alternative is almost as painful—giving someone who looks like me a pass on actions that have hurt our communities. I want a black female president. But I want an end to mass incarceration for all black women, for all black families, even more. Who can deliver that? Could it be Harris? Maybe, but I need her to make that case.”23
Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard picked up on this theme, brutally attacking Harris’s criminal justice record during one of the presidential debates, prompting columnist Jeff Yang to ask, “Why did a key focal point of a two-hour-long, 10-person debate end up being a confrontation between the only two women of color, despite frontrunner Joe Biden standing at center stage, and a cackling Trump watching the sparks fly from the White House?”24
Fundamentally, intersectionality is intellectually dishonest. The ideology purports to be based on one’s identity alone—race, gender, class. So shouldn’t intersectionality proponents defend Justice Clarence Thomas when he’s attacked by white liberal men? Shouldn’t everyone be outraged at the abuse heaped on Condoleezza Rice including racist caricatures of her? Shouldn’t the opinions of black conservative Thomas Sowell carry more weight than those of white liberal Paul Krugman? Intersectionality peddlers, like other leftists, want it both ways. If they were consistent, they wouldn’t treat black conservatives—men and women—white conservative women, and gay Republicans so contemptuously.
Virginia Democrats displayed their hypo
crisy as the clashing hierarchies of privilege illustrated that intersectionality is only useful when it serves progressive and Democratic Party causes; otherwise it must yield. In early 2019, wearing blackface became one of the deadly sins. A photo emerged from a yearbook page of Virginia Democratic governor Ralph Northam, depicting someone in blackface standing next to someone in a Ku Klux Klan outfit. Northam offered nonsensical, conflicting explanations, but it was widely understood he was one of the two men. Meanwhile, Virginia attorney general Mark R. Herring admitted to having worn blackface as a young man. Around the same time two black women accused the state’s Democratic lieutenant governor, Justin Fairfax, of sexual assault. Most Virginia Democratic leaders and legislators called on Fairfax, an African American, to resign, even though the two white Democrats were resolutely remaining in office. But how could Democrats impeach Fairfax while the white male race-sinners refused to resign?
President Trump succinctly summarized the dilemma. “African Americans are very angry at the double standard on full display in Virginia,” he tweeted. The New York Times was also exercised over this potential insult to intersectionality. Don’t whites have to defer to blacks? Which is worse, sexual assault or racism? Doesn’t intersectionality require that female allegations trump male denials? Or must these celebrated causes yield to crass calculations of political power? What should the Democratic Party—the self-proclaimed guardian of all disadvantaged groups—do in the face of these competing interests? How do you mollify the women’s movement without alienating blacks, and vice versa? Former DNC chairwoman Donna Brazile expressed the Democrats’ quandary well, observing, “There’s no playbook for this.”25
Guilty by Reason of Insanity Page 5
