“Inter-sectionality” is the basic theory in “Women’s Studies” or “Gender Studies”. It divides up everyone, based on things like gender, skin color etc….and then it says that white men have been evil in all of human history and that the best way to understand society is by embracing the idea that men…white men in particular, are evil, must be put in their place, as control of society must now go into the hands of women…and feminists in particular….who will set up rules for everyone, to bring in “social justice”. So if you are a white male, you must be put in your place, according to feminists. Your power must be reduced because of feminist theories about the past.
Chloe Valdary is an interesting character. She has studied this theory up close for a long time, then rejected it…and wants to tell the world, why she rejected feminism…so let’s examine feminist beliefs:
Inter-sectionality is built on the belief that everyone belongs in a category, based on race and gender, and that all categories compete for power and that the whole and complete and fundamental truth about life is it’s nothing but a power competition…with white men as the evil “oppressor”…and everyone else as “victim”. So feminism is a revenge-based belief system that targets white males…and males in general. My conclusion after examining this feminist belief system, is that feminist inter-sectionality belief is stupid, de-humanizing and ignites violence. But let’s do a “thought experiment”…. let’s accept that feminist idea, and see where it leads. Here’s where it leads: If we follow feminist logic about life being a power struggle between groups to it’s logical conclusion, we end up having a race and gender war…that is the logical outcome of the feminist belief about life supposedly nothing but a power struggle among groups…who must all fight it out for power.
Who wants that? Not me, not any decent human being.
Plus, in a real fight, where white men actually took off the gloves and went after feminists and other races, white males would win very, very easily. White males produced Hitler. We can be quite nasty. Are we the people that feminists want to pick a fight with? Really?….if you are a feminist, go look up a Hitler and WWII video if you think that’s a good idea. Of course, I’m not buying into the feminist argument that white men have done nothing good. The opposite is true: Most of what white males have done, especially the creation of the modern world, has enormously benefited everyone in the world and we would still be dying young in a primitive society if not for white males. I’m quite happy to be a white male. We have done amazing things and will continue to do so and we won’t let feminists stop us.
Of course, if you buy into feminism and inter-sectionality and you believe all of life is nothing but a power competition between groups, there has to be someone to arbitrate between the groups, make moral decisions about who has advantage, who does not, and what should be done about it. To understand the complexity and struggle of every person’s background takes a very wise, almost infinitely wise human to fairly and compassionately understand competing realities, and to arbitrate between them, so that society is organized base on compassion and god-like objectivity, of one who knows all and can judge all, fairly. It’s similar to the Christian idea of an all-knowing and wise God judging everyone, on The Day of Judgement. And guess who feminists recommend for this God or Goddess-like dispensing of judgement and compassion? Why…themselves of course! Feminism is a power grab. It’s all about giving feminists control over the lives of men. We saw that pretty clearly in the Judge Kavanaugh hearing recently.
One of many problems with inter-sectionality theory, which oversimplifies social complexity in order to impose judgements on society, is that human beings in real life are frail and complex…none of us are gods. And that presents us with a problem: how to speed up the process of judging people? This judgement process needs a system of categorizing humans, to dispense with nuance, in order to speed up the process of judging people, for feminists to re-order society, based on their dictates…..for the sake of efficiency of process, if nothing else…since human beings in actuality are cumbersome and complex…thus hard to deal with. So how do feminists accomplish this speeding up of judging others?
Feminists reduce us all to caricatures, putting all humans in little simple boxes which miss our humanity, our nuance…and that process of putting us in boxes, that mental-sorting act by feminists, it speeds things up…as it dispenses with actual complexity, which is thus avoided. And putting people in tiny boxes to control them?…That’s standard tactics for intellectual terrorists: dehumanize people, take away their humanity, so attacking them becomes morally defensible. People who believe in this inter-sectional feminism are incapable of dealing with nuance. It’s like a religious fundamentalist who believes you are either “saved” and will go to Heaven, or you will go to “Hell”…. However, Christianity is compassionate by comparison, for in Christianity there is plenty of room for forgiveness. In feminism, there is no compassion, no humanity, no forgiveness. There is only temporary reprieve from the emotional terrorism of feminists, by agreeing with their latest talking points.
Humans are full of depth, in real life. Humans are full of complexity. We are not caricatures. We are best understood as full human beings. Theories which reduce all human beings, to little boxes they must fit into, they miss 99.9% of who each human being is. By putting people into little boxes, based on skin color or gender, feminists take away our common humanity, while trying to control us.
A far better, far wiser and more compassionate human being, once said something much more moral and profound, than anything to ever come out of the mouth of a feminist:
“I have a dream when men will be judged, not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character”
And this feminist hate-mongering is sad, because men get attacked, but maybe the worst part is, the mostly feminist women who are trained in this form of ideological hatred, they turn themselves into monsters, when they engage in this form of over-simplification, of who people are. This sort of horror show has happened before. We should learn from history, so we don’t repeat it: Some of the worst white men in the 1950s, were in the KKK…and emotionally destroyed their own humanity, by engaging in the horrors of that organization, which de-humanized black Americans. Feminists have taken up the mantle of hatred and are using academic theories to do the same thing, with ideas…and targeting men in general.
Misandry is the new racism and feminists are the inheritors of the mantle of hatred, from the KKK. Men are the new blacks and feminism is the new KKK.
Feminism makes great efforts to sound like they are well educated, using supposedly serious sounding post-modern language, which if you analyze it, is actually intellectual gibberish that only fools people who lack the ability to see through that con. Yet this feminist rubbish has taxpayer funding at university. You are paying for this gibberish to be taught. Gad Saad has done a good job in the past, of mocking their intellectual pretentiousness. In this video, he discusses how some feminists would like to kill and castrate white males:
The point I’m making is that feminism is hate speech…against white men, mostly. The radical feminists are pretty horrible human beings. Feminism is ignorant bigotry that sees human beings as nothing but, the category the feminists want to put them in. Feminism is similar to racism, in it’s simple minded categorizing of people, into far too few groups, based on superficial characteristics. Some day, when the fight is won against feminism, people will shudder if you call them a feminist, like they should shudder if you call them a racist.
But is Dave buying this? Mild mannered Dave? He is starting to think feminists are the new racists? Judge for yourself:
15:28 Dave Rubin, referring to feminism: “Do you think it’s an overstep to call it the new type of racism? Because I’m really coming around to that belief. I’m right there, on that.”
So there you have it. Mild mannered, very reasonable, very middle of the road Dave Rubin is thinking that. And that makes me wonder: if Dave is thinking this way, how many other people that are very reasonable, middle of the road people, are thinking the same thing?
My guess: Lots
Feminism is built on the thought process of post-modernism. France is now burning, thanks to listening to the post-modernists, and letting them run their society. Stefan Molyneux does a great job of explaining that horror show: