The Intersectionalists are Fragile

Here’s a nice summary of the intersectionalist cultists (HT: stcordova)

I would make one minor correction:

Some blame the new campus intolerance on hypersensitive, over-trophied millennials. But the students who signed that letter don’t appear to be fragile. Nor do those who recently shut down lectures at Berkeley, Middlebury, DePaul, and Cal State LA. What they are is impassioned. And their passion is driven by a theory known as intersectionality.

Fragility and passion are not mutually exclusive.  In fact, they can exist in a synergistic relationship.  We know the intersectionalists are both intellectually and emotionally fragile given their need for “safe spaces,” total, uncompromising intolerance of opposing views, inability to consider criticism, willing to engage in acts of violence, and their hyper-emotional approach to life all revolving the need to be the Victim.  This need to be the Victim explains the fragility, given that fragile minds can be easily victimized.  Leading with the chin and all that.

But the same need also explains the passion.  By playing the role of the forever victimized in an oh so unfair world, the intersectionalists get to funnel all those resulting dark emotions into a Cause.  The Cause depends on the existence of a boogey-man (the “oppressor”) and they passionately go to war against the boogey-man.  While they are truly out for revenge, payback, and retribution, they can masquerade it (in their minds)  as something that is Good.  They get to be both the Victim and the Champion of the Victim at the same time.  That allows them to adopt this snobbish moral sense of superiority as they demonize their perceived oppressors.

So passion and fragility go hand in hand, sucked into the abyss of irrationality.

This entry was posted in Social Justice, Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to The Intersectionalists are Fragile

  1. TFBW says:

    Fragile + impassioned + activism = cry-bully.

  2. GRA says:

    I get the sense, a strong one, that people who play this intersectionality game are the most obnoxious and, at same time, the most boring people to encounter. That and besides modern liberals. I’d seriously would rather hang out with a gun-toting lower-middle class white dude who got straight C’s in high school and who never left the country.

  3. Chris says:

    Alan Dershowitz feels that identity politics do not evaluate ideas or individuals on the basis of the quality of their character. Men, women, and everything in between and outside should be judged by their actions. No more no less.

  4. nsr says:

    Is intersectionality essentially a religion of self-worship for narcissists? Truth is defined by their own subjective feeling and experiences. As the victim they are the centre of the universe and deserving of all love and attention. Anyone who disagrees with them or gets in their way must be destroyed. Any of their failings or failures can be blamed on the oppressive culture that keeps them down.

  5. Regual Llegna says:

    Intersectionality is a form of theft, ther activist take the cause of others to promote His/her own goals. And make the activist feel that they own other people goals.

  6. stcordova says:

    Spot on analysis! I had not connected the dots till you said something. As I’ve grown older, I now spot the signs of fragility which I didn’t before.

    An ex-lifelong friend and business partner of mine inherited almost a million dollars, squandered it and went broke and has no job and is unemployable partly for health reasons.

    But before he squandered his money at dumb investments, I tried to talk him out of it, and he got very very angry at me. I was trying to save him from himself. As far as I was concerned this was just a discussion of numbers. He didn’t want to talk numbers and details. [Ironic given that he is better at math than I (and I’m math and physics person).] He cut me off from speaking about the matter. He refused to listen even as I pleaded with him for almost 1 or 2 years to change course. I lost a relatively trivial amount of money in a joint venture with him as a result of his meltdown. The money I lost was nothing like losing a friend. He’s broken contact with me….

    His sense of self-worth was tied up in his delusional ambitions about how his investment would transform him. He felt threatened by the TRUTH! Likewise, the intersectional cultists don’t want to hear the truth. They might realize they are the villains, and not the heroes. They might realize they don’t understand the world as well as they think. They might realize they are the idiots rather than the geniuses they think they are.

    But this cuts to some sensitive areas. For example, how do we cope when we realize we’re not as capable in some areas as we thought? Is it easier for some women to just blame men rather than biology for certain things. They resent men being in positions of power in the business world. For example, men have the advantage of not worrying about getting pregnant. This gives them one advantage.

    Some feminists were offended by the claim that “breast feeding is natural”. In this video below, Tucker Carlson points out in the journal pediatrics said it’s unethical to say “breast feeding is natural.” It bothers some women that they have to come to terms with the fact men don’t have breast feeding responsibilities and are free do other things with their time.

    Yup, feminists can play victim and champion at the same time. They don’t like the idea that men may have a biological advantage in the business world for what ever reason, even something as natural a breast feeding. They have to blame their disadvantages on the patriarchy.

  7. stcordova says:

    One thing that gets feminists upset is the dominance of men in certain disciplines like quantitative disciplines. For example man have a 400-600% higher incidence of Asperger syndrome. This alone increases the proportion of men obeying the engineer stereotype. They will tend to work with numbers and not so well with people.

    In certain economies this will lead to men being disproportionately represented. One of men who became very rich (fractional billionaire) because of his quantitative skills was neuoro-surgeon-turned-hedge-fund-manager Dr. Michael Burry. He called the 2008 meltdown and made a killing. I think there are a higher proportion of such “maniacs” in the male population. It results males being in higher proportion in certain disciplines. Feminists don’t like this. They feel this is the result of “oppression.” I don’t know of ANY women maniacs like Michael Burry, but I can think of lots of men like Burry (in terms of temperament and ability):

    Anyway, there is plenty of opportunity in the world to feel oppressed. Yes we may be oppressed, but it’s not necessarily because of pre-meditated and institutionalized injustice. It could be biology. I have friends with disabilities. They are oppressed from their biology, not some human institution.

    Interesectionality is a delusion predicated that changing social structure will usher utopia. It’s a religion founded on illogic and delusion and protected and perpetuated by safe spaces and avoidance of truth. GNUtopians and intersectionalists are almost a natural consequence of loss of the Christian faith in the afterlife.

    There is someone in my church who is in his twenties and is terminally ill with a rare heritable disease. For him, GNUtopia is not an option, but rather the Christian view: 2 Cor 4:17 “for this momentary light affliction is building for us a weight of glory” in the next life.

    For those who don’t believe in heaven, they have to find consolation for the bad hand life has given them without the consolation of heaven, and that is GNUtopia and intersectionality.

  8. stcordova says:

    “We propose an Intersectional Theology, a theology that begins in the intersections and moves toward liberation and justice for all people inclusive of all their differences. We propose an intersectional hermeneutic that begins with examinations of the biblical text’s imperial history and highlights the intersectional lives of biblical characters.”

    Evidence and reason aren’t even mentioned anymore, btw.

    They find economies that enhance the economic benefit to “able bodied” as somehow inherently evil. No disrespect intended, but I don’t think I want a surgeon to operate on me who is blind!

    ” this “mythical norm”—white, male, heterosexual, able-bodied, native-born, young to middle aged, and Christian.”

    CHRISTIAN? Ah, the target of the intersectionals. No wonder they invite Sharia loving muslims who mutilate and abuse women to be a part of their group….

    Feminists don’t like the fact that it is natural for women to breast feed. It only drives home a point that each gender might be a bit more specialized to do certain things than other genders. Because men don’t breast feed and get pregnant, they are innately a little freer to hunt and gather and grab power. Feminists may not like that, so even something as supposedly innocuous as pointing out that females get pregnant and breast feed is considered unethical.

    Somehow the feminists joined together with other oppressed groups. Ok, there are lots of oppressed groups. I don’t deny that. They just don’t like talking about the causes and cures based on evidence and reason. They have to impose a narrative that demonizes another group, white males, and also CHRISTIANS!

  9. stcordova says:

    Since I’m knew to Intersectionality, from WIki:

    “Intersectionality is an analytic framework which attempts to identify how interlocking systems of power impact those who are most marginalized in society.[1] Intersectionality considers that the various aspects of humanity, such as class, race, sexual orientation, disability and gender, do not exist separately from each other but are complexly interwoven.

    The term intersectionality theory was first coined by legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw in 1989.[10] In her work, Crenshaw discussed Black feminism, which argues that the experience of being a black woman cannot be understood in terms of being black and of being a woman considered independently, but must include the interactions, which frequently reinforce each other.[11] Crenshaw mentioned that the intersectionality experience within black women is more powerful than the sum of their race and sex, and that any observations that do not take intersectionality into consideration cannot accurately address the manner in which black women are subordinated.[12]

    NOTEWORTHY in the WIki article:
    “Intersectionality’s premises have been characterized by some libertarian-leaning skeptics as manifested similarly to religious faith. Notably, for example, public intellectual Andrew Sullivan has argued that intersectionality manifests itself “almost as a religion. It posits a classic orthodoxy through which all of human experience is explained–and through which all speech must be filtered. Its version of original sin is the power of some identity groups over others. To overcome this sin, you need first to confess, i.e., “check your privilege,” and subsequently live your life and order your thoughts in a way that keeps this sin at bay.”[61][62]”

  10. TFBW says:

    “Intersectionality is an analytic framework which attempts to identify how interlocking systems of power impact those who are most marginalized in society.”

    The key phrase in that sentence is “of power”. This is what makes Intersectionality an essentially Marxist philosophy: everything is a power struggle; a political fight for dominance. It sides with the underdog, and only works against an “oppressor” class who detest the idea that they might be oppressing someone.

    Genuine oppressors wouldn’t put up with this nonsense for a second. As such, Intersectionality is a corrosive doctrine which uses false guilt and shame in order to cow productive people with a sense of decency, eventually leaving the political landscape clear of effective opposition such that the strong, brutal, dominant types, against whom guilt and shame have no effect (e.g. stereotypical Nazis), can take over.

    I think in general that the Intersectionalists have no idea that they inevitably sow the seeds of their own brutal oppression, and the more effective their activism, the sooner that brutal end-game will arrive.

  11. Dhay says:

    stcordova > “We propose an Intersectional Theology, a theology that begins in the intersections and moves toward liberation and justice for all people inclusive of all their differences. We propose an intersectional hermeneutic that begins with examinations of the biblical text’s imperial history and highlights the intersectional lives of biblical characters.”

    “We propose an Intersectional Theology, a theology that … We propose an Intersectional Theology that … we desperately need an Intersectional Theology to …”

    I see that both of the article’s authors are ordained ministers and each very well qualified to move their mere proposal from mere proposal to a fleshed out Intersectional Theology, one which can be examined for its faithfulness to text and spirit, assessed for whether (or how far) it is based on exegesis or eisegesis.

    I recall having Miroslav Volf’s “Exclusion & Embrace” as suggested reading in preparation for an inclusivity course I went on a few years back; not only were the Biblical references few and far between, they were usually irrelevant. Even the well-known names can produce works which owe more to their wishes than to the text.

    The article’s a year old, so perhaps the book is at an advanced stage of preparation right now and a critical assessment of its merits can be made. Or perhaps not.

  12. stcordova says:

    “The Intersectionalists are Fragile”

    The term is “snowflake”. 🙂

  13. stcordova says:

    Mike: “They get to be both the Victim and the Champion of the Victim at the same time. ”

    Spot on! In fact, a Intersectionalist movie won the Academy Award for best Picture. EESH! The plot follows exactly what you said, “Victim and the Champion of the Victim at the same time.” The villains in the move are no less, Christian White Male, Hetero, Ex-Military, able-bodied. LOL! Also a younger man that refuses the advances of an older gay man is portrayed as a bigot. Any way:

    Our first introduction to Elisa, our protagonist, is going through her daily routine which includes setting enough time for her to masturbate. Rarely when we have a heroine who is disabled are they also allowed to be a fully realized sexual person with wants and needs, but Elisa is just that. Elisa has a job, friendships with people two other marginalized people (closeted gay Giles and black co-worker Zelda) who speak sign-language. Her muteness is not a hindrance, it is just a part of her identity. Nor are we ever meant to feel bad because she is mute. She is an “other,” and the movie addresses how that can be frustrating and difficult, but the film does not act as though she was sitting alone waiting for some magical fish man to love her. Elisa was already whole when the movie begins. Love is just a new experience.
    Through Michael Shannon’s character, Richard Strickland, Del Toro puts the white alpha male military man as the toxic force stepping on those beneath him. He makes racist comments towards Zelda, commenting on how “it’s rare for [her] people” to only have one child when she states she has no siblings. Strickland begins making sexually aggressive comments towards Elisa. He runs his household like a mini-army with his children all in perfect formation to set his table and a wife he has bland missionary sex with while she takes both that and his bloody fingers in her face. Part of the reason it takes Strickland so long to figure things out is that he doesn’t believe that two women, especially a disabled woman and a black woman, could be smarter than him.

    Giles (Richard Jenkins) is a closeted gay man, but the story does not portray him as a sexless, romantic-free force. He has needs, desires, a B-plot separate from Elisa’s conflict concerning him trying to get a job. Giles ends up having a crush straight guy who runs a terrible pie shop and is forced to come to terms with the fact that pie-guy is a racist and also a homophobe. When Giles to told to leave the restaurant because it is a “family place” it is a reminder that every single character is dealing with the cruelty of their reality.

    Zelda can be read as the sassy black friend, but while Octavia Spencer has a history of playing versions of that character, Zelda doesn’t feel like that when you watch the entire film. As the second act begins and she becomes a confidant and co-conspirator in Elisa’s escape plan, Zelda is a sold force. She stands up to the bullies and fights injustice she sees the best way she can. She’s also super sex-positive in a way that older black women are not always allowed to be.

  14. unclesporkums says:

    What typical filth..

  15. TFBW says:

    “… an Intersectionalist movie won the Academy Award for best Picture.”

    Of course it did. The members of the Academy would never pass up such a wonderful opportunity to show how progressive they are.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.