When big-bootied FLOTUS Michelle Obama was heckled last week by a grizzled lesbian activist who sort of resembles Glenn Beck with AIDS, the entire progressive coalition nearly came crashing to the ground.
Mrs. Obama was speaking about somethin’-somethin’ black when the activist interrupted her to start screaming about somethin’-somethin’ gay, at which point Obama left the podium to confront the woman. Video documentation of the event is scant, so it’s unclear whether Obama did that black-lady thing where they wag their finger and swivel their head.
“She came right down in my face,” said gay heckler Ellen Sturtz. “I was taken aback.”
One can only imagine the furor if the lez had accused Michelle of chimping out.
A fat black lesbian who says she embraces the term “BlaQueer” to describe her multiple Identities of Oppression wrote a Huffington Post puff piece about how she couldn’t decide whose side to take:
I, like many other queer people of color, can’t separate my race and its history from my sexuality (or my gender performance/identity) and its history.
Like my mom always said, “‘Can’t’ means ‘won’t.’”
In the event’s wake, pro-homo serial event-interrupters Code Pink apparently made remarks critical of Michelle Obama on Twitter, then offered a groveling apology when told to check their privilege.
This shit never ends, and I love it. Since a white penis dangles atween my legs, progressive identity groups have designated me as their natural-born enemy. Therefore, I take tremendous pleasure when my supposed enemies start shooting each other with friendly fire.
One of the most fascinating aspects of the O. J. Simpson murder trial is that it forced the progressive-minded to take sides: Do they go against the woman-killer or the racist cop?
There are numerous examples of such seemingly insoluble liberal dilemmas, all of them hilarious to me.
Do you protect the environment, or do you allow the Third World to continue breeding like dusky hamsters?
Do you support Islam or the women who are getting their clits sliced off?
Do you come down on the side of unions or illegal-alien scab laborers?
Do you support Greenpeace or Injun whalers?
Do you oppose censorship or rape jokes?
Such constant squabbling usually devolves into pissing contests about who is more oppressed and who exactly is bullying whom.
The term for when one person’s oppression collides with another’s is intersectionality. It was allegedly coined by a black female lawyer named Kimberlé Crenshaw, and the way she spells “Kimberly” is really all you need to know about her. The general concept supposedly arose in the 1970s when black feminists started bitching about white feminists over who was more oppressed. In other words, it was the fruit of infighting among leftist identity groups, the result of cannibalism among the oppressed.
People who buy into this notion that they suffer from multiple forms of oppression—rather than the more likely explanation, which is that they suffer from multiple personalities—tend to explain intersectionality in ways either histrionically angry or academically tortured.
A shining example of the histrionically angry school is a screed called “MY FEMINISM WILL BE INTERSECTIONAL OR IT WILL BE BULLSHIT!” written by a “Latina” who claims she screams so much, it sometimes scares her cat.
Intersectionality, because it is by definition an insane if unfalsifiable notion, has gained traction in the so-called social sciences. In Sweden (of course), you can get a master’s degree in it. Never have so few used so many words to say so little. Intersectionality’s proponents prattle on about standpoint epistemology and interlocking matrices of oppression, about how intercategorical approaches are needed to determine how essentialist identities foster stereotyping, about how power carries gendered connotations and has androcentric biases that promote racialized belonging, and about how straight white males suck.
This is one of the reasons I sort of hope for a wholesale economic collapse—because people who talk like this will not have jobs.
The concept of intersectionality is also related to the “progressive stack,” which assumes that white males at all times bear noxious degrees of unearned power, which is why they have to get to the back of the line and let all the legless black lesbians speak first.
So much for transcending labels and viewing one another as individuals. These people want to institutionalize such labels. They balk at the concept of “assigned identity,” yet they also seem unable to live without it. So many of these multitudinous oppressed “identities” seem like nothing more than cheap cloaks to mask nakedly annoying personalities. People with bad personalities seem to have a built-in defense mechanism that makes them believe you actually hate them for any other possible reason besides their bad personalities. With all the banter about oppression, it’s hard to think of anything that stifles free speech and free expression more than such strident humorlessness.
As an unapologetic white male and therefore a designated cultural pariah, I take a sort of emperor’s glee in the gladiatorial spectacle of these special-interest ninnies eating each other. But it’s different from lions eating Christians. It’s more like Christians eating Christians.
Personally, I found these people far more likable when they were disenfranchised.
Copyright 2017 TakiMag.com and the author. This copy is for your personal, noncommercial use only. You can order reprints for distribution by contacting us at firstname.lastname@example.org.