Tag Archives: intersectionality

“Intersecting Identities” And Public Representation

One little, two little, three little hipsters
Four little, five little, six little hipsters…

Actually, there’s just one and he/ she/ ze seems convinced to have multiple personality disorder.

Much is being written today about intersecting identities; apparently, each of us have them, based on race, sex, gender (different from sex as they say), sexual orientation, country of origin, social status, financial situation, physical ability, physical aspect etc. Each of them comes with its little label; when listed, labels enable others to judge us in a second as one would evaluate a product according to its factory description.

They help a progressive determine whether you are, overall, marginalised or privileged, depending on how many oppression points you can score for each identity. In other words, whether you have the right to speak about social issues or you should just shut up, because the voice of your ilk has been heard for far too long on this planet.

It seems in 2016, no different than two hundred or a thousand years ago, people can still be shut up based on inherent traits, which they have no control over.

This, of course, leads to a problem, as individuals tend to collect privileged and marginalised labels, according to their particular circumstances. After assessing that those who only have privileged identities are not entitled to opinions at all regarding minority-related issues (unless they’re some kind of allies treading on thin ice to make amends for their existence), what’s left to do is dispute this right among themselves, censoring each other constantly; one could joke that the Earth’s surface could melt under their feet and they’d still fight over a microphone, on who should make the announcement.

The truth is there are no intersecting identities. Every person has one identity encompassing many traits, traits which they have the full right to prioritise or ignore. 

One does not owe allegiance to any group claiming to represent them and most certainly does not have a duty to engage in activism with said group, due to “sharing an identity”.

According to the Oxford Dictionary, “identity” means:

The characteristics determining who or what a person or thing is.

Plurality is unnecessary in order to emphasise the complexity of human beings; an identity is presumed to be complex from the start. Your “identities” do not switch on and off according to your environment; you can still be perceived as a full human being, an individual, regardless of where you are and what you are doing.

This is however useful to cultural Marxists as it divides people into strict categories, determining when they should speak and what their claims should be. Putting them in their presumed place, that is, by forcibly bringing a trait or another to the forefront as if the holder were defined by it at that particular moment.

For instance, progressive groups organise events for people sharing specific traits, events which are becoming exclusive to them, everyone else being barred from attending, as they would be violating the “safe space” of said “community”. Obviously, for those participating in multiple events due to multiple oppressed identities, a clash of interests and priorities arises.

The label collection is without doubt divisive, emphasising WHAT someone is instead of WHO they are as a person, how they think and how they could meet these activists halfway. For instance, one is likely to be shunned by them simply for being male, white and middle class, regardless of their beliefs and intentions.

Instead of disputing the claim that their movement is increasingly fragmented, this article actually proves it:

Glossing over the issues faced by specific groups of women for the sake of unity centers the feminist movement on those who have the most privilege and visibility. It allows those who already take up a disproportionate amount of space in the movement to look as if they’re making room for others without giving up any themselves.

It departs from a standpoint of some taking up a disproportionate amount of space due to having the most privilege and visibility, which does not show a desire for collaboration but adversity from the very beginning.

So make an effort to avoid centering feminism around yourself or people of privilege. Because society is more likely to listen to a White woman talk about racism than a person of color, for example, White feminists need to be mindful that they’re not talking over or for people of color.

No matter what work you do or what your privileges are, take care to step back when things aren’t about you, educate yourself on things that don’t affect you, and pay attention when people speak to their experiences.

Aside from claiming that society is more likely to listen to a white woman (which I’d like some actual evidence on), this is a clear call for others to shut up, and a line drawn between groups to establish what they are allowed to discuss in their activism.

The funny thing is leftists do a very poor job of paying attention when people speak to their experiences, if  they are not suitable for leftist exploitation. Let’s take gay conservatives such as Milo Yiannopoulos, who are open about their lives and dispute the rhetoric of current activists in the field.

So when you inevitably mess up or are called out for something, how you respond matters.

When people call each other out in social justice work, it can be an act of love. It’s about holding people accountable and making sure that the work they do is actually of value to those it’s meant to serve.

When cult leaders and religious extremists in general hold people accountable for every trifle, they also refer to it as an act of love. In Jonestown, as I recall, the act of love involved some wooden planks and public beatings. Although this comparison might seem out of place, it isn’t. It’s a matter of establishing oneself as the holder of absolute truth and moral authority over others. 

The resulting atmosphere is not one which is conducive to ant kind of progress, but one of tension, passive aggressiveness, lack of real bonding and stifled resentment, which is so characteristic of militant groups with a fixed doctrine (and ultimately ends in their dissolution).

 

To conclude, here is a true-to-life account from Gavin McInnes, describing the effects of “sensitivity training” on the work environment, amounting to members of any minority being feared and avoided, which is the exact opposite of harmonious integration.

 

 

“Homonormativity” – Progressives Going After Gay People Now

The ultimate proof that progressives are only after their ultimate goal – which is a socialist revolution – without caring a straw about the people they claim to stand up for resides in their spiteful attitude towards those who achieve social reforms and settle for them.

After decades of constantly pursuing rights for gay people, progressives have suddenly turned on them, as they too have become part of the “normality” the left so despises. In a way it makes sense, as nothing currently perceived as normal is acceptable to them.

This incredibly entitled article depicts non-heterosexuals as pawns in a larger chess game, with no agency or individual choices of their own.

Homonormativity explains how certain aspects of the queer community can perpetuate assumptions, values, and behaviors that hurt and marginalize many folks within this community, as well as those with whom the community should be working in solidarity. (…)

It also describes the assumption that queer people want to be a part of the dominant, mainstream, heterosexual culture, and the way in which our society rewards those who do so, identifying them as most worthy and deserving of visibility and rights.  

The author ignores the fact that sexual minorities are not homogenous groups, somehow programmed to make the same lifestyle choices, and almost attacks those who enjoy being part of the “dominant culture” (being monogamous, getting married, raising a family etc), which becomes even more blatant in subsequent paragraphs.

It is important to note that for many years, the advancement of gay rights has been based on the very idea that non-heterosexuals seeked this exact integration, as opposed to being discriminated against, either systemically or through social disapproval.

By dismissing its validity, the author basicly affirms what certain traditionalist activists have argued all along – that the entire movement was based on some Folsom Street Fair culture (do not click if prone to vomiting), which is apparently not the case as it has given rights to regular people seeking to get on with their lives. Where progressives are concerned, however, it seems they have always interpreted this campaign as a way to open the gates for all proclivities formerly deemed unacceptable.

Their focus was not on obtaining rights and visibility for those who wanted normal lives (I’ll use normal for lack of a better word). For all progressives care, now that they have abandoned the radical bandwagon, these people can go fuck themselves, as they are contributing to the oppression of others simply by existing in the way they have chosen.

As social attitudes change around queer relationships, we’re seeing more representations of queer people in the media, though this representation is incredibly limited.

Turn on the TV or flip through a magazine – for each of the few times that you’ll see a queer person, they’ll more than likely be a cisgender, gender-normative, White, middle class, gay-identifying person.

My interaction with the mainstream media is non-existent so I don’t have a clue whether that is true or not; I can however assume, through mere logic, that exposure in certain environments depends on the context. In other words, their exposure might have nothing to do with their sexual orientation but other aspects altogether. But as expected, progressives see them not as individuals but as ambassadors, who must present a desired image (an image chosen by the so-called community). At present, this image doesn not seem to include undesirable traits such as being “cis”, white or not confused about their gender.

What is more, no group out there today, in the western world anyway, can complain of the lack of a platform to share their experiences, as they can build their own visibility on social media.

This is not some inocuous demand for diversity, but a description of how the image of real life people who happen to have these traits while being gay at the same time is hurting the community. And here’s why.

(…) the voices that are given space and visibility tend to be those of a particular class, of a particular gender expression, and of a particular race.

The kinds of queer relationships we see represented in the media are also limiting, in that they tend to mimic heteronormative binary gender expressions.

Which is, of course, wrong, as the author puts it.

Fighting for sexual liberation and equality is, of course, so much more than fighting for the right to marry, but how is the positioning of marriage equality as the major issue also promoting homonormativity?

Marriage as an issue sets up the requirement that all relationships should mimic this heteronormative standard of sexuality and family structure. It promotes the idea that all people want to emulate straight monogamous couples.

Well, some queer people must have wanted this to happen, or else they wouldn’t have campaigned for it for so long. Which means some of them genuinely embrace this type of life – spiting progressives who want it out the window to the detriment of everyone else – including them.

When we focus only on this issue, we exclude polyamorous and other non-normative relationship structures as acceptable, as well as, of course, those who don’t want to get married.

Even as marriage becomes inclusive of a particular kind of queer relationship, it perpetuates a policing of other kinds of relationships, maintaining the borderline of what is an “acceptable queer relationship.”

Perhaps because they’re not acceptable to just anybody, be they straight or not? Perhaps because there are biological reasons why monogamy is more viable and free-for-all arrangements tend to result in offspring of uncertain paternity, who might face some trouble due to their nebulous origins?

The link will take you to an expose on the ills of marriage, which is, apparently, a tool of oppression, even of those who want it.

By showing that people outside of the heterosexual norm want the same things that “traditional, straight America” wants, themarriage equality movement fights to gain access to this social institution by reproducing, rather than challenging, heterosexual dominance and normativity andusing this as a basis for who deserves rights.

Perhaps the stated goals, which were attained, had nothing to do with “challenging heterosexual normativity”? Maybe, just maybe, some people don’t want to push the envelope every time they gain a right or privilege.

Furthermore, some have committed the ultimate sin of letting their political views lean towards the right – unpardonable indeed, since progressives assume people of a different sexual orientation than the majority should all think the same way in terms of politics, through some biological determinism, probably.

The term homonationalism takes the concept of homonormativity one step further to refer to the way in which queer people — largely White, Western gay men — have aligned with nationalist ideologies of their countries.

While homonormativity describes the alignment of queer people, spaces, and struggles with heterosexual cultural norms, homonationalism describes this alignment within the nation-state, through patriotism, nationalism, and support for a nation’s military and other forms of state violence.

This is not surprising from a Marxist (internationalist) point of view; however, trying to paint patriotism (a dirty word nowadays) as a betrayal of one’s queer activism is laughable; the issues are unrelated, to anyone with half a brain.

Isn’t it strange how they try to control every facet of someone’s personality, by guilting them into thinking it’s not in line with the values they are supposed to espouse?

This is from another article on roughly the same topic:

Marriage was originally constructed to transfer property ownership across generations (especially for white people). Maintaining that married families are superior to other formations, like single parent households, has been key to demonizing low-income black people.

Actually, arguing that single parent households are just as easy to manage is belittling the difficulties single parents face on a daily basis and denying the proven reality that two parents (and ideally an extended family) provide more stability. Far from engaging in any religious puritanism, which sets fixed guidelines for how these families should be, one cannot deny this reality.

Back to the original article:

Some examples include (…) the infuriating participation of White queer people in the denial of their position of privilege and complicity in the current discourse around police violence against Black communities.

(…)And it’s important for us to remember our history: The queer right’s movement’s beginningswere based in a radical politics that consistently challenged corporate capitalism, the military, and the heteronormative structure of marriage.

It is by honoring this legacy of radical politics and prioritizing the needs and voices of those most marginalized that we can truly work toward greater sexual and gender liberation and equality.

And it’s also important to note that the success of said movement was mainly due to a diligent PR campain which detached it from the aspects and purposes progressives are pushing for now. For years, the “hidden goals” of the “gay agenda” were laughed off as conspiratorial nonsense religious fanatics were using as scare tactics. And obviously, it was wrong to paint all gay people with the same brush, just like it’s wrong now for radical leftists to question whether the rights they obtained were actually beneficial. While the right wing argued they didn’t really want marriage, the left now argues they shouldn’t have wanted it.

Instead of the wishes of individuals mattering, it was (and still is) all about political groups and their attempt to micromanage everyone, down to very personal decisions.

The first thing an outsider needs to understand about leftist groups is that they are plagued with infighting, and plenty of it. Far from collaborating peacefully towards a common goal, factions battle each other for oppression points, which leads to a dysfunctionality they are trying to inflict on the rest of society. The success of one faction can bring about not only the envy but the actual disdain of another – that’s how no matter what is achieved, an issue will never be considered resolved in the progressive camp.

 

 

 

The Rich And Spoilt Suffering Over The Gender Binary

Welcome to the pit of gender confusion, where you can drift as far away from reality as your brain cells will allow you before they eventually disintegrate. Presumably, this happens because every atom in your body becomes disoriented, forgetting its natural purpose and refusing to function as it was designed to.

To start with, this is a list of all genders invented so far, which someone took the trouble (and I suspect the headache) to compile. What started as a slight nuancing of male and female stereotypes has morphed into a giant octopus with hundreds of tentacles. The letter A alone encompasses no less than 46 “gender identities”.

Here is a fragment selected at random:

  • Canisgender– A small, doglike gender.
  • Caprigender– A capricious, rapidly changing/untrackable gender.
  • Carmigender– A gender which is poetic and rhythmic in nature.
  • Cassflux– When your level of indifference towards your gender fluctuates.
  • Cassgender– Feeling as if the very concept of gender is unimportant to you.
  • Caveagender–  Having a “trapped” or “imprisoned” gender.
  • Cavusgender– For people with depression. You feel one gender when not depressed and another when depressed. The gender felt whilst depressed can be attached as a suffix (eg cavusboy, cavusgirl, cavusnonbinary, cavusace).
  • Chaosgender– When your gender does a lot of things that have no identifiable pattern or logic.
  • Cheiragender– A fluid gender that is always or often in opposition to its owner’s desires, or is manipulative towards its owner.

     

You might wonder what arguments anyone could bring in favour of this bad acid trip.

Well, there is a very interesting depiction here, in the form of a cartoon, seemingly aimed at pre-school children considering the level of intelligence the artist presumes any reader must have. The text itself is quite funny, in a … morbind sort of way. It’s called “The ultimate breakdown of the gender binary – why it hurts us all.” For an ultimate breakdown, in terms of depth, it reads like something scribbled down in a train station toilet stall.

Suppose we grew up “knowing” there were only two animals: dogs and cats. We’d have to sort completely diffrent animals into two camps! Silly, isn’t it?

On a side note, suppose we grew up “knowing” there were only two types of people: progressives, who possess the ultimate truth and morality (backed up by absolutely no empirical evidence), and the evil rest. We’d have to sort completely different individuals into two camps! Insane, isn’t it?

But that’s what we’ve done with gender!

Except we haven’t. Mother nature has, or whatever you want to call it. The differentiation between sex and gender is a new phenomenon, without which the human species has evolved and thrived since its earliest days. They used to be synonymous; what we have done is redefine the term “gender”. In other words, we turned a word recogising reality into one attempting to reinvent it. This attempt however cannot and will not change reality; not now, not ever. Nature doesn’t operate with abstractions; only humans do.

We do this for rather arbitrary reasons.

Yes; studying and documenting the human body, down to brain chemistry and the way both sexes are affected by it, has always been an arbitrary, futile practice. That’s how we ended up with this international cohort of  weirdoes called doctors, whose utility we only remember when convenient.

The most common argument is that our genitals correspond to our gender.

As mentioned earlier, gender and sex used to be synonymous. One’s genitals correspond to their sex (though they’re trying to demolish that as well now), hence, until recently, they implicitly corresponded to their gender.In this bastardised new understanding, gender is indeed a social construct (which, I repeat, cannot and will never alter reality). And I suppose it may have to be ditched from general use when/ if this madness ends.

We value the physical… over the abstract.

I hate to break it to you but that’s how living beings survive on this planet, at the very basic level. They tend to worry about preserving the physical first, so they would have the opportunity to delve into that fascinating world of ideas and thought systems. For instance by acknowledging their anatomy and the way their bodies work. An otherkin may well think they are an eagle, but would normally know that attempting to fly from a rooftop would be a poorly inspired idea. That is how some people who identify as trans still refuse to mutilate themselves through irreversible operations; it must be the survival instinct inside of them.

This all made sense when I was a child. After all…

And here come some bullying remarks the child makes towards others for being disabled, fat, homeless and short. Therefore, this comparison associates the general acception of sex and gender with an underdeveloped intelect, lack of sufficient education and a lacking ability to empathise – you know, in most people across the planet, all aside from the illumined progressive bunch. Which would be quite insulting, if it could be taken seriously.

As a kid, I was proud to state all the things I knew were “true”… But as I aged, I realised my understanding had an impact on those around me!

The thing is, the weaknesses noticed by young bullies are usually objective observations that they use to their best advantage. What they lack is wisdom and kindness; however it does not mean they are unable to discern reality from fiction.

My values evolved! And yet, most people are still stuck on “gender”.We get ideas about gender. And somehow, they remain stagnant! “I’m a man cuz I can go pee standing up!”

This person’s values may have evolved in terms of feeling compassion and having a different attitude towards those he used to bully – however, values are not meant to distort someone’s perception until they start seeing what isn’t there as real (such as the ever-expanding gender list).

The general acception of what is and isn’t real (aside from spiritual beliefs, which are by default subjective) tends to only change when indisputable discoveries are made about the world. Therefore, there is no need to constantly question the fact that we use our eyes to see and our feet to walk – just as there is no need to re-evaluate male and female genitalia and associated traits.

“This has led to an entire planet… full of people suffering over outdated ideas.”

Perhaps I’m wrong but I doubt the Tumblr crowd ammounts to an entire planet. Across the world, people suffer for a multitude of reasons: war, famine, diseases, poverty, persecution, impairment, the loss of loved ones etc. If a primary cause of suffering was the  antiquated gender binary, that would make one rich, spoilt and secure world. Which it isn’t. This “suffering” is a whim of an immature segment of prosperous societies.

You can tell a lot about a person’s difficulties judging by their priorities. When your house has just burned down you don’t stress over missing a film on television later that night. The more shallow and capricious people are in their grievances, the more obvious it becomes that they don’t have serious problems to worry about.

We have boys who aren’t boyish enough, girls not girlish enough, boys who are too boyish, girls who are too girlish. And they all grow up with serious problems! They’re all victims!

That’s because no individual is spared bullying in this wonderful human tribe; many people seek to raise their self-esteem in the lowest way possible, by exploting the weaknesses of others and feeling better by comparison. Everyone has issues, unpleasant memories and a string of embarrasments throughout life. You cannot be good enough to avoid being taunted or rejected by one group or another. Someone, somewhere will take a dislike to you and express it; if you want to avoid that you might as well hide in a crypt somewhere. Social adversity is part of being human.

In this mindset, we would all, down to the last human being, be considered victims who victimise each other on a daily basis.

Meanwhile, us queer people catch hell just for being queer! If people aren’t going out of their way to harm us? Then we tend to harm ourselves. And it’s all because of this silly, antiquated, dangerous, shallow gender binary!

Hold on a second here. You can’t just include, under the “queer” umbrella, people who genuinely are homosexual or suffer from gender dysphoria and the adepts of made-up concepts such as the one below, randomly chosen from a list of hundreds:

Cendgender– When your gender changes between one gender and its polar opposite, OR a gender that can be summed up as an unidentifiable thing which manifests as hundreds of different genders or none at all at any given time, at the same time and/or separately, fluid, and ever changing.

Gay people were (and are) persecuted for religious reasons, not because of the gender binary, as left by nature and detailed by millennia of studying the human anatomy. As for the Tumblr snowflakes, you cannot talk about the persecution of categories which aren’t even valid; they were literally dreamt up yesterday by people with way too much time on their hands.

It’s time to try something new. Lets’ put the gender binary where it belongs (in the bin). Let’s express our gender as we please.

And in the process, force others to reconsider their idea of gender. Why not; let’s try something new; it sounds as easy as changing your brand of washing up liquid. Let’s just tear down our civilisation, rebuild it according to this new idea and see what happens. It’s not like it could just crumble to dust, like the Roman Empire. This trend is pushing  the gates wide open for those who want to centre their lives around whatever weirdness – and demand that you recognise them, lest you rot in prison.

Is maintaining the gender binary sustainable? Because I don’t think it is!

It’s not like it’s been in place since humans started walking this planet. Suddenly, it’s no longer sustainable. For the feelings of special snowflakes that is. As our species seems to keep advancing, at least techologically, without any hindrance caused by the gender binary monster.

What we’re doing now sure isn’t working for me!

And that’s why the entire world needs to change. Totally reasonable.

Has it done YOU any favours?

This is so funny as an argument that I don’t think it needs any comments.

I’d also like to point out a friendly nudge from the editors of Everyday Feminism, which is very relevant.

How do you defy traditional gender norms?

In other words, from a simple individual preference, defying the gender norms has become some sort of political statement or even social obligation we should all partake in.

Nice try.

Back To Communism: You Stand Convicted

p1aoa2nmff5g8i3ufes1e481hsu4

Although the article I will quote only refers to a base and obviously manufactured artistic level, which is pop music, I strongly suspect this is to become the future of our entire western culture – a ceaseless, petty hunt for those who fail to “promote diversity” to the degree imposed by social justice activists.

To start with, there are 20.5 K shares at the moment – of this. “5 Ways Taylor Swift Exemplifies White Feminism – And Why That’s A Problem”.

There are countless issues with the dumbed-down excuse for art that popular music is today – however, this isn’t one of them. And if it were, these would definitely not be pertinent arguments to prove it. Even clutching at straws is euphemistic.

All accusations could be thrown aside with a simple observation – that pop stars are simply figureheads for the industry to mould and manipulate; I don’t suspect them of any contribution to the ideas behind their music or videos.

But to indulge this – here are the five reasons:

  1. Showing hip-hop dancers (among other types of dancers as I understand) performing better than the protagonist.
  2. Describing dating violence as positive or normal – I agree, but where is the racism?
  3. A video where no minorities are present.
  4. She seems to have no Black friends.
  5. A video which includes African landscapes, without referring to oppression and colonisation.

To start with, let me point one thing out about regressive leftists (social justice warriors): their aim is to follow Anita Sarkeesian’s (by now legendary) words to the letter: “Everything is racist, everything is sexist, everything is homophobic and you have to point it all out.”

The author of the piece admits she is a fan of the celebrity she is attacking. This is a very interesting phenomenon from a psychological point of view, where SJWs are concerned. Somehow, the author feels the need to rip into someone she likes, dissecting their work bit by bit, for the sake of intersectional feminism, simultaneously admitting to enjoying the music even after said dissection is over.

This alone is very weird and creates the impression of a destructive mindset, fixated on demolishing everything, including the objects of its own attachment if needed. In its extreme form, fanaticism pushes people to absurd actions such murdering their own family members in the name of their religion.

A few relevant quotes (and sideways-fucking in terms of insanity)  can be seen below.

Okay. I admit it: At first glance, I couldn’t see anything vehemently, inherently anti-feminist about this video. And even in preparation for writing this article, I rewatched it, scrutinizing it for something obviously racist, homophobic, or ableist. But nothing jumps out at me in particular.

So I’ll take this space to state the obvious: Every love interest that Taylor has ever had — to my knowledge, both in real life and in her videos — has been a straight, cis, able-bodied, fit, middle-to-upper class, white dude.

As this proves, she was bent on critcising the video even before finding fault with it. After deciding to come after this particular singer, the author made a list, off the top of her head, of the videos she would tear into. After still not being able to find any fault, even at closer scrutiny, she still left it in place, confessing to simply “filling a space” with ad hominem since no real arguments could come out of her false point. It’s this ingenuity of confessing to their own practice that will hopefully bring social justice warriors down.

This is what they do. First they label, then they strive to back that up.

Regarding the second paragraph, it’s me who strives to find the words to qualify this level of entitlement. I can only reiterate the obvious: that “intersectionality” demands your very life and soul – your work, your art and even your intimacy – to be placed on its altar. They bring that up so naturally in conversations that it becomes plain creepy, like staring into the manic eyes of a deeply disturbed individual.

And while it’s in Taylor’s right to be attracted to and date whomever suits her fancy, her ivory tower fantasy worlds aren’t doing much to push back against systemic oppression — which, like, is what feminists are supposed to do.

With this in mind, we should simply assume that every music video and every artistic creation (proper or manufactured) should mandatorily involve all the above-mentioned categories. It also means that the purpose of decent art and entertainment in general should by default be to “push back against systemic oppression”. In other words, it should all be political propaganda.

Anyone who calls themselves a feminist after learning about the movement from, of all people,Lena Dunham, is not to be trusted. I mean, she actually had to be called out for not includingany women of color in a TV show based in New York City. And I think she passed that same oversight to Tay, because I’m really not sure Taylor has any friends of color.

And if you watch the “Bad Blood” music video — which is supposed to be a miniature action movie about girl gangs — the evidence is clear.

Sure, Taylor includes both Selena Gomez and Zendaya in the video, as well as other women of color, but here’s the problem: Selena, admittedly one of Taylor’s best friends, herself has been known to perpetuate White Feminism via cultural appropriation. And while Zendaya consistently says on-point, feminist things, I’m not buying the notion that her relationship with Taylor is really that close. Their relationship feels a little, well, “this is my black friend” to me. (…)

The problem is how the video highlights one of Taylor Swift’s biggest problems as a feminist IRL: She constantly surrounds herself with beautiful, thin, rich, famous, white women.

And personally, I don’t trust fellow white people when their only friends are other white people.

And has anyone else noticed that the more Taylor gets called out for her White Feminism, the more people of color are popping up as guests on her tour?

That’s not friendship. That’s not authenticity. That’s not intersectionality. That’s PR.

Allow me to attempt a recap of what this woman is accused of.

First, her love interests are always white. Secondly, she includes women of different backgrounds in her videos, but either they are accused of “white feminism” themselves or they seem to be her “token friends”. Thirdly, she is suspected of not having genuine friends of colour. And as a last point, whenever she invites people of colour as guests, she must be doing it for PR (not in any way because they might be famous singers simply sharing the stage with her).

It never ends, does it? Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Everything must be about race. And just how objectifying is that to the people around this singer, who are appraised like poodles based on their melanin, backgrounds, reputation and closeness to her?Who’s doing the objectification here?

Taylor’s latest video takes place on a 1950s-era movie set on desert plains in what is judged, based on the wildlife, to be an unnamed, overgeneralized “African” country – without a single person of color to be seen.

That is to say, the biggest problem with “Wildest Dreams” is that it isn’t. It isn’t a wild dream. It’s a direct representation of historical accuracy: the colonization of Africa, through the eyes of the colonizer.

And if you don’t think that — of all things — colonization is racist, then I fear that you’re suffering from White Feminism, too.

I watched it just to see if it had anything to do with colonisation. It doesn’t. It’s just a video based on the attraction between two actors who are playing a couple in a film. That’s it. The film could have been set anywhere else and the story would have remained the same. You have to hand it to pop video creators when they manage to do anything slightly different than clubs, boobs and ass shaking, to complement the corny music. But that’s all there is to it. Attributing deeper meaning and a geopolitical perspective to the simple narrative of a woman fancying her colleague is like throwing a ball upwards, hoping it lands on the Moon.

The mere thought that this cheap form of entertainment is supposed to hold the weight of the world on its shoulders is, of course, ridiculous. Like the entire creed social justice warriors live by.

 

“Decolonial Love” – Politicising Your Hormones

If you’re one of those people who worry about discriminating against others by exhaling carbon dioxide, with the aid of intersectional feminism you can reach a whole new level of devotion: you can now fight oppression by politicising your romantic relationships.

All you have to do is rewire your brain in order to only experience attraction towards individuals in social categories classed as underprivileged. Sounds easy, right…? Forget the fact that this has no discernible purpose under the Sun – your only goal in life should be the application of feminist principles in every little thing you do, say or even experience internally (while reassuring yourself that feminism is not actually a cult).

If you need to alter your brain chemistry and subconscious mind in order to manipulate your attraction criteria, so be it. Your hormones are supremacist.

During his speech, Diaz introduced the concept of decolonial love with an “apocalyptic proclamation”: “We’re never gonna get anywhere as long as our economies of attraction continue to resemble more or less the economies of attraction of white supremacy.”

In other words, if we cannot change the thinking around who and how we love, as a society, we’ll stay stuck in the ideology of colonialism.

Making our love decolonial is a necessary step to a completely decolonial self, because if we don’t let go of our privileges and closely examine how the forces of oppression play out in our love lives, we are powering the existing injustices of the world.

And the existing forces of oppression for decolonial lovers to fight are numerous: patriarchy, heterosexism, skinny worship, classism, ableism, and what Diaz aptly calls “pigmentation politics.”

In other words, by feeling sexually, emotionally, intellectually attracted to people who are considered privileged – white, heterosexual, “cisgender” etc – we are contributing to the perpetuation of injustice against other categories. As if somehow the community – or the world at large – owned each one of  us down to the bone marrow, holding us accountable for decisions regarding our personal happiness, which have no impact on others. You can’t get more fanatically socialist than that.

These people must live and breath oppression theories every second of their day; they are so high on their own fumes they don’t realise how much these fantasies of micromanaging each individual are straying from human nature.

In former communist countries, each citizen was expected to be completely subjugated to the ideology of the party; to be immersed in it and energised by it. No intrinsic value was to be held in higher regard and no other loyalty was to be prioritised – not even to family members. As such, even small choices made daily were filtered through what the party wanted from an ideal citizen. The same mentality is shared by this so-called social justice crowd.

Your personal happiness means nothing in the grand scheme of things. Hail the matriarchy; everything for the cause! Your entire life should be a shining example of a devoted, practicing feminist – and nothing else.

Some people think it means reserving our love and respect only for people of color (POC) or queer (LGBTQIA+) folks — or especially queer folks of color. That is not the case, as only loving any group of people can fall into exotification or fethishization.

All throughout, the author remains concerned only with the object of the debate, namely those who are more worthy of love than others – never with those she is asking to rewire their hormonal drive in some weird bid to exclude the “privileged” from their desires, which is extremely racist, by the way. What is this supposed to achieve, again? Who would this help and how? The “especially” points out that there is a rank of desirability based on how many oppression badges someone can collect. And the warning follows closely – love them very much, but not too much, as too much would also be insulting.

Since the LGBT community is mentioned, may I ask how a gay person only loving gay people is guilty of exotification or fetishisation? I imagine she would not demand that straight folks reserve their romantic interest for queer folks or vice-versa. So this fetishisation caper doesn’t make any sense between categories which do not interact on a romantic level.

It appears that a significant swathe of the addressees of this moralising piece must be the ones singled out as less lovable – white, heterosexual, “cis” people.

The concept of love as decolonial is not opposed to loving someone deemed desirable by society (in other words, an individual who is able-bodied, conventionally attractive, wealthy financially and socially, and/or comes from a first world country).

The issue is when we are only attracted to those kinds of people and not open to making a romantic or emotional connection with others.

Can I also ask why are anyone’s preferences an issue stretching farther than their private lives ? Whose business is it exactly? Where a person comes from matters for very logical reasons, in terms of the culture they were brought up in. There could be major discrepancies based on that.

I can’t believe I even have to say this, but people don’t actively choose whom they are attracted to. It’s an instinct. What they do with that is a whole different matter – yet that does not alter their initial drive and intrinsic selection criteria.

Just as no one actively chooses to be gay or straight. In fact, LGBT activism is based on the idea of following one’s natural inclinations in terms of attraction, while resisting societal pressures to live conventionally. Whether or not they see themselves as revolutionaries defying the status quo, these lefties are still trying to pressure others regarding a very personal matter. There are trying to set moral norms in an area which needs no intervention or regulation.

Anyhow, the disclaimer was a blatant lie, as you can read below.

The first step to addressing the colonial mindset is awareness. Awareness is key to retraining our reflexes and stopping habits in their tracks.

When I first came to the US, I had a crush on every blond-haired, blue-eyed boy in my class. In my way of thinking, those were the characteristics of a good person. Clearly, I had been exposed to some white supremacy in my early years in China. But when I realized what was at work that magnetized me — and many others — to whiteness, I was no longer so helplessly attracted to those traits.

While questioning what we take for granted can be hard work, it is made exponentially easier if we have practice.

Therefore, this whole movement is not concerned with the inclusion of certain categories but the explicit exclusion of others. Or rather, the exclusion of a specific one, I should say.

Due to this presentation, an individual who “likes Asian women” may think of that as a “preference,” when in reality, it’s a learned form of prejudice that’s based on fetishizing an entire group of people. The same can be said if you rule out an entire race as unattractive or unsuitable. In both cases,it is the stereotype that is deciding, not you.

Excuse me…? What was it you were saying about white people and making a conscious, successful effort to stop being attracted to them, because of colonialism? Isn’t that ruling out a race as unsuitable? Isn’t that letting the stereotype decide? Incredible double-think.

For example: If we are less emotionally invested in our partners, we may end up with the upper hand in the relationship while the other person feels powerless.

There are ways to de-escalate the commitment level without making the other person feel disrespected or powerless. If you communicate your level of commitment clearly, and the other person is still willing to engage in a relationship based on that knowledge, then neither person is taken advantage of.

Treating romantic relationships as pure power dynamics is par for the course with feminism, which rejects the idea of actual love. That’s why, even though “investing emotionally” was involved, the author shies away from the word “love” and uses less intense ones which make the situation seem less personal.

Even in equally committed relationships, it is good to check in about how empowered and respected you feel by your partner and vice versa.

Why not, check in regularly, to verify both parties are still satisfied with the arrangement. Fill out an “equal partner” satisfaction form every month and rate the empowerment you are experiencing.

Engage your decolonial muscles. Build them up. Because we want it to be a fair fight between the reflexes we have inherited and the ones we have chosen for ourselves.

Again – to what avail would this “fight” take place, if not the complete submission to SJW principles, against one’s own natural inclinations?

For the time being, it seems producing these grand ideas vigorously engages people’s decolonial muscles.