Hi everyone I hope you're all well. So as you can see I have bit of a new setup
going on behind me which I am ver,y very excited about. I got a bunch of new
equipment I've gone to all sorts of places all over the city finding stuff
to put on the wall behind me. So while I am setting all of that up which I'm very
very excited about I have for you today our speech which I did last year at a
conference called LibertyFest and it's about feminism's
"Intersectional Oppression Olympics" which is as you can imagine quite a fun and interesting
topic so I hope you all enjoy it and I will see you next week with some more
original content.
Well good morning everyone. In 1963 American feminist
Betty Friedan published "The Feminine Mystique" which is the book said to have started
the second wave feminist movement. Friedan's focus was the problem that
has no name which was the dissatisfaction and loss of personal
identity felt by middle-class women post-World War Two. After the war women
were expected to step back from the roles that they had filled out of
necessity while their men were away fighting for freedom and occupy a more
docile, subservient role within the confines of marriage. This was the
Feminine Mystique that is the assertion that the purest manifestation of a
woman's femininity was found nowhere else but in domestic duties.
However Friedan early second wave feminism missed one small but quite
crucial detail. None of the women she was advocating for were black. The problem of
Friedan's feminist thought was that it catered only two white suburban women
with houses and husbands and pretty dresses and healthy offspring. The women
neglected by The Feminine Mystique were often the domestic servants of Friedan's
feminist archetype. They were black and Hispanic women who had entered the
workforce out of necessity and would have loved the suburban bliss the white
women enjoyed, regardless of how boring it may have been. More to the point black
women at the time was subject to discrimination not just on the basis of
their gender. They had the add-on of race-based discrimination. Bell Hooks the
black feminists who rose to prominence in the 70s and 80s
sought to forge this rather large missing link into the feminist movement.
Hooks contradicted Friedan's manifesto by suggesting that there were struggles and
modes of discrimination that women encountered not just because of their
gender. She asserted that race also played a role.
Now this at the time was a very, very radical idea and was received with great
hostility by white feminists in the 1970s. As Hooks put it black feminists
were challenging the notion that gender was the primary factor determining a
woman's fate. Black women of course had life experiences that white women did
not because being a black woman at the time carried a particular societal
stigma. As such Bell Hooks laid the groundwork for what is now termed
intersectional feminism. However Hooks did not actually coin the
phrase. The first woman to use the term intersectionality theory which is the
technical term was black feminist Kimberlé Crenshaw
in 1989. Now this theory was all well and good
for the time period, after all it was a very different social landscape back
then and this theory of intersectionality did cater to that
particular world and the attitudes at the time. However in step with the
progressively nutty trajectory of feminism the shadow of extremism crept
through the ranks of intersectional feminist theory. Not satisfied with
simply fighting and winning, might as I add, the major civil rights battles.
Neo-marxist ideologues hijacked the movement and began to throw more and
more allegedly oppressed identity groups into the melting pot. Soon gay, lesbian
and transpeople, both men and women, had planted their stake in the ground, along
with other brown-skinned races, Asians, even fat women or women of size which is
what I'm told they prefer to be called nowadays. That's an actual term you can Google it.
There is no doubt that intersectional theory in its truest form can be used to
explain the complex social dynamics within these groups juxtaposed against
society at large. However the ideology has sadly morphed
into a sort of "Identity Politics Oppression Olympics" in which different
identity groups compete for the title of oppressed champion of the universe.
Now the 2017 women's march against Donald Trump is a very good and recent example
of modern intersectionality in action. Two million women marched
allegedly united under the symbol of the pink pussy hat -- but they're so ugly who
would wear one -- in addition to the pussy factor representing of course the vagina
the color pink, so closely associated with femininity, was intended
to embody the idea of femaleness. Now this would seem like a perfect
unifier for a group with a common ideological goal. Until the trans and
gender non-binary feminists got narky because they felt the symbol of the pussy
wasn't inclusive enough of women without, well pussies. This all actually happened
by the way. Black feminists started chastising white women at the march for
not checking their privilege, which in turn enraged and embarrassed the white
feminists. Then of course you've had the odd trans exclusionary radical feminists
or TERFs, as they're called, floating around further infuriating the
trans women in attendance. Black feminists also insisted and
retrospectively I might add that the color pink was also not inclusive enough
because not all women's genitals are pink. To cap it all a pro-life
feminist group was kicked out of the march because despite the fact that they
did have shared concerns about Donald Trump and women's equality, the group had
the wrong views on abortion so were deemed unworthy to participate. Now the
infighting within the ranks of the Women's March has continued into 2018
with the pink pussy hat now seen by many as symbolic of white women's historic
exclusion of black women from feminism, transphobia and lack of recognition of
the gender spectrum of identity. I'm told there are about 72 now that's the last
that's the last figure I heard on it. And still around and around we go again.
As such the ugliness of human nature is revealed through the lens of modern
intersectional feminism. The left so intent on touting
itself as inclusive while damning conservatives for allegedly divisive
rhetoric has forgotten that identity politics, which is what leftism basis
it's entire modus operandi in, is by its very nature divisive. Dividing people
into your identity tribes based on skin colour, gender, sexual orientation, physical
ability, body shape and so on, while expecting them to unite under the same
agenda, was always going to be a disaster. What the Neo-Marxist Left has forgotten
is that human beings are individuals. While we may have shared traits based on
whether we're a man or a woman or anything like that
people ultimately have different personalities, skills, levels of
intelligence and above all different degrees of self-interest.
Therefore we're always going to compete with each other and in the case of
intersectionality, the competition in question is who can score the most
victim points to win gold at the Oppression Olympics and achieve the
highest ranking and what I like to call the "victimology scale" which I mentioned
briefly in my speech last year. Now the victimology scale is the core of not
just modern intersectionality but the entirety of the feminist movement.
Those at the top of the scale are granted the loudest voice and allowed to express
themselves in whatever way whatever way they want. So they can be as crass, as
bitchy, as bigoted and despiteful as they choose but because they have accrued
the most victim points nobody is allowed to reprimand them. Now on the
other hand those at the bottom of the scale are ruthlessly ridiculed, demonized,
vilified and most importantly, not granted the license to even hold an
opinion, let alone express it. And as for them challenging the views held by those
further up the scale -- forget it. Those poor souls at the bottom
of the victim barrel are condemned to sit in silence while they are bullied to
the core, unable to defend themselves against the barrage of rankest hatred
for having committed the original sin of simply existing in the wrong form.
Now can anybody tell me which group they think is at the bottom of the
victimology scale. Altogether now. Straight White Males.
If you put in a poverty-stricken white man with three kids, a wife with cancer and a crippling
debt next to multi-millionaire Serena Williams. She would still accrue more
victim points than he does because she's both female and black, just ask her.
After all straight white men are feminism's favorite scapegoat and the rest of the
Neo-Marxist Leftist identity groups find them a pretty useful punching bag as well.
They accrue the least victim points and therefore not allowed to hold or
express an opinion on anything especially women's issues. Just try to be
a male while expressing a pro-life stance I dare you. Just so long as you're
careful that your house doesn't get fire bombed by angry Femitrolls brandishing
pickled fetuses in jam jars. White women who are left-wing feminists score more
points than straight white men and conservative women, who according to
feminists, occupy a special place in hell let alone on the victimology scale.
But less points than white men who are gay. However white lesbians win more
points then gay white men because they are women but less points than straight
black women. Black men however score fewer points than straight black women
and more points than white lesbians. However black lesbians score more points
black men and white lesbians but less points than white trans women and men.
Black trans women and men score more points again, but trans women do not
score more points than trans men and this is because trans men used to be
women, so therefore already come with a set of
victim points, whereas trans women are opting in female-dom and therefore
giving up their mythical male privilege so somehow it all balances out.
Oh there's more sir, there's more to come. Higher again than trans people are
Muslim women, specifically those who wear the hijab. Now this is where it starts to
get really interesting. Hijab wearing Muslim women are proudly flying in the
face of the core feminist principle that women shouldn't have to cover up or be
modest to protect themselves from the lustful eyes of men. Very basic feminist
principle. Yet for some reason these women are posited as heroes of the
feminist cause. Any criticism of them or their hijab or their religion is
considered an appalling moral transgression. As for Muslim women
who don't wear the veil, well generally they get lumped in with Hispanic women
Italian women and other women with brown skin who tend to fit all over
the place in the point system depending on the sexuality, level of paleness or
social economic status. So who sits at the very top of the victimology scale?
Well that depends on who you ask. Some would argue that all women of color
should sit up the top, others would love Hispanic and Asian women in with white
women and insist that only black women should occupy the top-tier.
LGBT activists think the trans community are deserving of the highest amount of
victim points. Those more prone to race baiting feel that Muslim women
should sit on the top rung alone. Yhe only thing the Intersectionality Brigade
can agree upon is who sits at the bottom of the scale and this
enables them to unite against their common enemy whenever it looks as though
they might have a tiff within the ranks. Far from the empowering progressive
ideology that Hooks and Crenshaw envisioned. Intersectionality Theory has
become victimhood on steroids. The idea of being oppressed has become not only
idealized, the desired and even fashionable. Odiously enough it is also
socially acceptable to use ones oppressed victim status to bully, belittle
and silence those in possession of conceivably unearned privilege.
Characteristic of the left at large the ultimate goal of the Intersectional
Brigade is to silence opposing views rather than debate them. As such the
allegedly oppressed now behave as they accuse the oppressor
of behaving. Because this mindset is so condoned in popular culture the
inhabitants of the victimology scale have become so accustomed to being told
they are correct, that they believe they are totally beyond question or debate.
Anybody who voices their disagreement is dismissed as ignorant, uneducated or
bigoted. Now as my dear friend Anthony Dillon says there is an enormous power
in claiming the status of victim. This may seem ironic as by definition a
victim is subjugated and powerless. However if the ultimatum of being a
victim is that those who oppose you will be accused of cruelty, ignorance and some
sort of phobia, you really are holding the right end of the stick. However
putting yourself in the position when nobody dares to criticize you is to deny
yourself the opportunity for self-analysis and therefore self-improvement.
By clinging to an allegedly oppressed identity
and refusing to listen to opposing voices you rob yourself of the chance to
develop healthy debating skills and will have no idea how to defend your position
if put on the spot. And more to the point your self-esteem will remain at an
all-time low and you will have no idea why this is, let alone how to fix it.
On the flip side and in the case of race-based intersectionality. If you are
a white person peddling this idea of intersectional feminism you are not
doing the minority groups you seek to champion any kind of service. Playing the
"poor little brown person" game is not going to be patronizing but racist.
By shrieking racism in response to any whiff of the suggestion that a minority
community may have a few problems, for whatever reason, you are condemning the
communities you claim to advocate for to wallow in their own disadvantage and
misery. Considering this sadly prolific attitude
throughout the Cultural Left it is no wonder Malcolm X so famously asserted
that white leftists are the worst racists. To put it bluntly
intersectionality has become the sinkhole of modern leftism. It is the
great contributor to victim culture and one of the reasons the left is now a
laughingstock. While the intersectional feminist of the 1970s and 80s did have
the right idea, passive white racists
along with a number of race-baiting, anti-white, sociopathic women of color have
turned it into something that is chaotic unproductive and sloppy. The only way forward for anyone, of any skin color,
sexuality, gender, shape, size, ability or whatever else gets thrown in is to think
as if it as an individual not as a member of a pack. We are all unique.
We cannot be boxed into neat little groups and expected to thrive on a set
of compulsory dogmatic principles that is when we start to eat ourselves
and each other. So as I would say to anyone thinking of entering the
Oppression Olympics based on whatever their oppression needs are on that
particular day of the week. You won't win any kind of gold by allowing your tears
to make you rust. Thank you very much everyone. If you like that video please remember to
like, subscribe, share, leave me a comment and if you really, really liked it then
check out the video description for my subscriber link and other ways you can
support me and I will see you next week in my new studio.