I’ve been reading a particular feminist blog more exclusively than usual. Lately, she’s been complaining about the “white feminists” quite a lot. The prompting event appears to have been a radio show episode broadcast somewhere – everywhere? – in Britain. Long story short, she’s complaining that the white feminists are attempting to “own” a concept called “intersectionality.”
Intersectionality (credit to Wikipedia) ” is the study of intersections between different disenfranchised groups or groups of minorities; specifically, the study of the interactions of multiple systems of oppression or discrimination. This feminist sociological theory was first named by Kimberlé Crenshaw in 1989…” For reference, Kimberly is a female black-skinned US-born US citizen – so intersectionality is a black thing. That may be important later, so take note.
Best I comprehend, intersectionality is, in my words, the study of the inter-relationship of systems for ruling a population. The study is pursued from the subordinate end of the authority systems, and has, as a goal of study, exposure of the systems as a means to overcome the rule of the prevailing authorities. If intersectionality seeks to manipulate these systems to change them so that the subordinate become the dominant, such efforts are concealed beneath the conceit of proposed systems of “equality.” Such equality is achieved by means of discriminatory systems meant to provide “social justice” for the subordinate classes. These second-stage efforts, however, appear to lack the academic rigour necessary to construct effective systems for discrimination and subordination of presently dominant populations. On its face, it appears to me that intersectionality fails because it advocates “inclusiveness” and denies its apparent intent to invert the present social systems.
So, what’s this got to do with the Dark Enlightenment (DE)? Neoreaction relies upon the assumption that ancient social, cultural, religious, economic, et cetera systems are evolved to serve the purpose of the populations which they govern and regulate. The religious among the neoreaction movement would even argue that such systems are divinely established and that advocating against them is rebellion against divine will. Being atheist, I won’t go so far. DE, being broader than neoreaction (although occasionally decribed as synonymous), argues that the observed variances between and within human populations are not the result of the institution of ARTIFICIAL systems of social regulation, but are instead NATURAL expressions of a living society seeking cultural health and reproductive success.
Both these movements – DE and intersectionality – are particularly recent. Intersectionality springs from the victim studies departments of USA academia; DE was built on the ashes of post-French-Revolution reaction, the collapse of the KKK and white power movements under the weight of their ignorance, the pressure of affirmative action programs upon the economic prospects of working class men, and the verifiable success of individuals who abandoned chivalry and politically-correct race interaction for pick-up artist (PUA), Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW), and race-realist philosophies. Throw in some post-libertarian economics, doomsday-prepper habits, and a general distrust of democracy, and you’ve got a fair description of the average DE adherent. It’s worth noting that women are among them. Its also worth noting that such folks are “racist” in the traditional sense – even those that aren’t “white.”
If we accept, for argument’s sake, that intersectionality is the study of an observable trait of human sociology, then what we must further accept is that both sides of the relationships describes may be capable of perceiving the social structures that are present and manipulating these structures to partisan benefit. Said differently, if intersectionality is real – and the Dark Enlightenment would tend to support the theory (we’re way past hypothesis here) – then the obvious conclusion is that those decrying the restrictive and demeaning effects of intersectionality may be late entrants to the social science. The early students and practitioners, if in fact “guilty” of the acts which the new students are now exploring, probably call their field of study rulership, mastery, management, or some similar label. What, pray tell, are instructions regarding how men ought manage women and ethnic or religious minorities except manipulations of facts discerned by the latecomers now describing their “new” social science as intersectionality? Sam Ambreen may cry foul at the actions of white women, but what does it matter if the impact of that white female “elite” (yeah, right) still manipulates social structures to their personal advantage. If the manipulated and “oppressed” remain oppressed, what’s the point? Miss Ambreen would better spend her time using her knowledge to manipulate social structures to her advantage: perhaps a steady gig at a left of center political rag.
For our part, the darkly enlightened ought consider the possibility that there is much to be learned from people studying intersectionality. If nothing else, it provides us feedback. If I’m going to be damned as a privileged racist white male, I may as well take full advantage of the opportunities it affords me, right??