Intersectional Privilege, 2/12
I think we have a few options for how we treat public discourse. The first two are
Expect everyone who participates in the marketplace of ideas to abide by male standards, meaning you accept some level of abrasiveness and hurt feelings as the price of entry.
Expect everyone to abide by female standards, meaning we care less about truth and prioritize the emotional and mental well-being of participants in debates.
Instead of either of these options, I think we’ve stumbled upon a hybrid system, where
We accept gender double standards, and tolerate more aggression towards men than we do towards women. We also tolerate more hyper-emotionalism from women than men.
Call this “female privilege.” But I don’t believe that it protects women in positions of power. I think that men can get away with aggressive talk against female political figures, for example. And I’d bet that it’s pretty rare for a female corporate officer to cry that something said at a meeting was “hurtful.”
There is, of course, no such thing as “online violence,” because the online world is disembodied and violence can only occur to bodies. Was there ever any chance whatsoever that these three ideologues doing this research would fail to find the effect they were looking for? How much do you want to bet that a vast portion of what they’re defining as violence is in fact perfectly fair criticism?
In fact, Glenn Reynolds points out that the left will say that violence is speech when that violence takes place, say, at a “mostly peaceful” BLM riot. But the left will say that speech is violence when a conservative says something offensive to progressives.
Call this double standard about what constitutes violence “progressive privilege.”
Finally, if a black public figure (other than an outspoken conservative) receives criticism, the probability that the critic will be branded a racist approaches 100 percent. Call this “black privilege.”
Intersectionality would imply that when you are in a room and a progressive black woman makes a comment, you had better think twice about disagreeing out loud.
The intersectionality people talk about isn’t truly intersectional. An ugly woman, for example, is hardly living life on easy mode, whereas a rich black man navigates the world differently than a poor white man. I think a lot of these things are real, but not correctly weighted. We don’t take seriously the implications of class and beauty, either, both are dismissed completely out of hand.
“Silence is violence”
My favorite slogan from the racial reckoning of 2020.