This is in response to my article below, Witch Hunt. You must read it first. I INSIST.
Have you read it (and the “think piece” it links to)?
The following was sent to me by a reader:
I don’t think it’s an accurate description of what they think to say that “they are campaigning for male supremacy”. These people who are denouncing you are intersectional feminists. They’re not for male supremacy. What they’re doing is trying to assemble a coalition for their fight against republicans, and using virtue signaling and loyalty tests to cement that coalition together.
They are essentially doing the same thing certain republicans did when they argued that 2016 was a “flight 93 election” and silly things like truth and decency and norms had to be thrown under the bus, because it’s a binary choice between Trump and Clinton and winning is all that matters, because the Democrats want to destroy democracy and freedom.
Intersectional logic is similar, except instead of unquestioning loyalty to a candidate, they demand unquestioning loyalty to the coalition. The coalition consists of various “marginalized groups” and each one of those group’s most radical activists speak authoritatively on their issues. Thus men must not be allowed to have their own opinions on MeToo or abortion, white people must not be allowed to have an opinion on BLM or police violence, only Palestinians are allowed to speak on Israel and BDS, and cis people must not speak on pronouns or trans identity.
Intersectionality demands absolute loyalty to the left on every one of these issues and more, and if you disagree on any of them you are a heretic and a traitor.
You can be a feminist, MeToo, woman’s marcher, Hillary voter, BDS supporter, and a criminal justice reformer but if you also think police violence isn’t primarily caused by racism, that makes you a heretic. They will denounce you as a racist.
You can agree with them on everything in the world except trans pronouns, and they will call you an evil transphobic bigot.
So no, they aren’t male supremacist. They’re not, as I’ve heard some gender-critical feminists claim: “men’s rights activists”. Put an intersectional leftist in a room with a MRA and you will see they react hypergolically. What they are is hyper-partisan political bigots. They cannot tolerate a difference of opinion with anyone, and if they detect one, they denounce that person furiously. They believe that by only by behaving this way can they assemble a workable coalition against the republicans and right wingers, who they think are 100% nazis and white supremacists.
First, it is a travesty that Kimberle Crenshaw’s phraseology “intersectional” has come to mean this. Let us pay our respects: R.I.P. Second, it is both ironic and sad that the author uses “cis” this way, accepting and perpetuating another misuse of language that’s only going to kill more beloved words (like “female,” “male,” and “woman”).
But he absolutely has a point. Identity politics does seem to be the Democrats’ strategy – and it is destined to either backfire spectacularly (best case) or lead us even further into authoritarianism. They are fortifying fiefdoms of “minorities”, when a true Left would represent the “marginalized majority”. Workers and women are majorities, and they already include all races, religions, sexual orientations, and facial piercing/hair-dye preferences.
While I continue to see male supremacy, it’s not the only lens, and even those to whom “patriarchy” is a dirty word have ample reason to object to this movement. I’m still considering and processing, but in the meantime:
Why not both?