"It should be noted that both white women and the women taking the position of sacred victims have agency and benefit. The victims let themselves be used because they know that this is one of the few ways to gain social capital in white professional circles. They prey upon white women the same way they see white women preying on them by using them as shields. I’ve never heard anyone discuss this mutually beneficial arrangement in the open. To acknowledge it would be to open oneself up to expulsion from the group. One does not name the games we play as women to one-up each other. This is not about justice but personal advancement."
I've never heard anyone discuss this game before either, and your comments on it are greatly appreciated! Women are the only people who can deconstruct these manipulations, because we are the ones who create and enact them, and men are generally not psychologically sophisticated enough to understand them. It would be extremely helpful to the advancement of women if we could shine a light on all of our intra-sex power tactics, because women use them constantly to compete against other women, wield power over them, and silence speech that exposes and threatens that power. Manipulations generally cease to be effective when moves in the game are exposed.
Female type social aggression has received some attention in the professional and popular social science literature, starting during the peak of the Second Wave (1970's) when I was a grad student in psychology. Jean Baker Miller's book Toward a New Psychology of Women was seminal. I also recall a fascinating paper in the volume Women Culture & Society, edited by Michelle Zimbalist and Louise Lamphere. This is a collection written by women anthropolists. I don't remember which paper it was (maybe Peggy Sanday?), but it described power dynamics among women who lived in an African country (Dahomey?) where women had gained considerable economic status in their society. The author's observation was that women competed by claiming to have more "purity" than other individual women, in terms of codes of conduct that were valued within that culture. Purity values have since been widely studied and documented by anthropologists in the context of other cultures, but I am not familiar with this literature. With respect to research conducted in the U.S., there is evidence that girls and women tend on the average to be more likely than boys and men to obey and enforce moral rules and to want to get approval for being "good."
I’m Italian and I’ve wondered why there is not a racial category called “Mediterranean” — people of the the early Roman world. I’ve always associated the term”white” with the English-German-Dutch first settlers and the second wave of Scotts-Irish. Italians were certainly on the Know-Nothing anti-list, so we are not WASPs, but where is a place on the stack?
You are exactly right in all of this. What I'd like to add as a white woman who runs in these circles even though I don't do it professionally as I am the dreaded housewife: what white women won't ever say out loud is how they think and talk behind the backs of the "marginalized" they champion. Let's just say they know exactly what they are doing. And this may be hard to hear for some, but the reason they've chosen the specific order they have is not a nice one. They choose the people least likely to ever be able to show them up, the people least likely to beat them on grading or career ladders, the least likely to take attention from their outward appearance, and the people least willing to do that cruel thing it takes to get ahead that one time. It's a method of keeping your enemies closer. When I say that Democrats of a certain type are more racist than Republicans, I mean that. All the things they believe are still the same. They just focus their public commentary and ire towards those of a lesser class. People shouldn't get it twisted. If they can be cruel to poor people or make fun of people for their education, lifestyle, religion, etc. it should be obvious that it isn't morality that truly drives them.
Wow I hadn’t considered the part about keeping your enemies close; that’s astute. It goes with research on female intrasexual competition whereby women do tend to keep their enemies close through enforced sameness and through sharing gossip plus fake complimenting and never judging others behavior out loud. This means women never improve because the feedback tells them not to. And the progressive racial hierarchy is a way, I’m pretty convinced, to keep Asian and south Asian women at the bottom.
Bingo! Your last statement is very important. Asian and south Asian women tend to be very competitive. Now you see it and know why specific groups are chosen and others ignored. There really is no genuine morality driving these choices.
I read a few years ago (pre-2020 I think) in some Progressive/Marxist online magazine that "Black men are the new White Men." They were giving away the game even then.
I have only just discovered your writing and its interesting that you blame female-specific dynamics for some of the problems like cliquism. You are not the only thinker to do so - there are a couple of writers Helen Dale & Lorenzo Warby here in Australia who have been covering the culture war and who've delved into these female group dynamics:
This was such a fantastic article and something that needed to be said, Radha! This piece is packed with so many gems and great insights! The hierarchy of oppression dictates that the more marginalized identities one possess the more valuable their opinion is. Truth and facts are irrelevant and if you’re not from that group and if you dare to disagree or even worse are from a minority group and disagree, then you’re either a bigot or an Uncle Tom or race traitor who suffers from “internalized racism” or “internalized misogyny” or other such nonsense. I was not aware of the origins of this way of thinking, it was fascinating to learn about how it sprouted out of second and third wave feminism! I’m really glad you found you’re way out of that hateful and toxic world and freed your mind, Radha! You’re absolutely right that the foremothers of American women in the first and first half of the second wave of feminism didn’t take the courageous stand they did so that their daughters and granddaughters would go around acting like spoiled, immature children and be perpetual victims. I think if Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, Delores Huerta, Betty Friedan, Margaret Chase Smith, Clara Barton, Ida B. Wells, Patsy Mink, Abigail Adams, Eleanor Roosevelt, Florence Nightingale, Barbara Jordan, Shirley Chisholm, and Marsha P. Johnson were alive today they wouldn’t be at all happy with the state of the feminist movement in America or what the third and fourth waves turned out like. I also would agree with you the under this hierarchy of victimhood, white people treat people of color as children, so they come to be that way and start treating others like trash feeling the amount of melanin in their skin gives them that right. You are absolutely right that this is ironically, how European colonists often treated the people of the third world. It’s stunning they can’t see how those attitudes are just two sides of the same coin. I agree, it’s also interesting how class is rarely if ever brought up in the world of DEI. You are spot on this is because the adherents and apostles of the Church of Social Justice are upper class people. Chief among them being educated liberal white women, who are the most enthusiastic supporters of wokeness in the United States. The rich irony of this can’t be overstated. Also, Latinos and especially Asians being excluded as they are deemed “too successful” or “white adjacent” is a great observation as well. In addition, along with never mentioning class, why are Jews never included in these conversations? They are a minority group as well. Are woke people not familiar with the thousands of years of persecution the Jewish people have faced and still do to this day all around the world? Also, no Jews are NOT white! I know the woke ideology just erases them by classifying them as such but they are not. Also, you are so right Radha that we need to organize along class lines! There are to be sure, still issues as it pertains to race, gender and the LGBT community in this country. But the biggest overall struggle in our society today is without question the class struggle. We need universal solutions to the problems of our country and to stop racializing issues that effect Americans of all colors like policing, healthcare and education. The Democratic Party if it wants to start winning again, needs to drop identity politics and political correctness and welcome the white working class into the fold! Should we address things like racial inequality or the legacy of slavery? Absolutely. But we need to do that not with nonsense like reparations for slavery or programs for a specific race or gender but with things like universal healthcare, a higher minimum wage, building more affordable housing, strong labor unions, jobs and education programs, criminal justice reform, police reform, and ending the War on Drugs. In terms of poverty, we need to have social programs like the ones advocated by MLK in his classic book “Why We Can’t Wait” or by the 1968 Poor People’s Campaign. Universal social programs would disproportionally benefit the poorest demographics: black, Hispanic and Indigenous people while also helping the millions of white poor like those who live in Appalachia.
I'm no longer sure that socialist remedies are the best path, but I'm also not ready to throw them out. I say this because in my reading from authors like Batya Ungar Sargon, it's clear that the working class doesn't want a transfer of wealth but wants to earn their living with dignity like anyone else. And this feeling of having earned something through hard work is even important to the bourgeoisie; it's why we tell ourselves that it was hard work and nothing else. I agree though that a focus on class based remedies will go far to help the people we want to help. But, I noticed that most people who adhere to these ideas don't even want to have that conversation (I still don't understand how class based remedies ignore racism).
Class first politics is what Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai represents. He is starting a movement based on Truth, Freedom Health and uses system analysis, which he taught at MIT and now offers free online to participants. He opened my eyes to the “Look here, not there,” method employed by the elites. For instance, the elites get us to argue about abortion and freedom of choice so we do not ask the questions such as what causes women not to want to have and raise kids because then we would go down the path of expensive daycare and cost of living, where the working class would be united. So they keep the focus on choice in regards to abortion- doing what you want whenever you want. They do not want us to recognize that better paying jobs and freely available substance abuse centers would go a long ways to healing society. The elites only want to divide us, much like the women you discuss in the DEI world with their deference towards black women. They give deference but hold onto all the assets. They raise the status of some black women - those from the right college, but do nothing for the working class black women by design.
I think I'll write a reply to this soon, though, I won't be coming from an identitarian standpoint, at least not how you conceive of identitarian in this piece (that some sort of fixed identity is central to Being), but rather, a historical-philosophical one. My problem isn't with the acknowledgement of power structures and hierarchies, every society has them, my gripe is with the way it's carried out by some very overzealous activists in the name of social justice—deference politics, as you said. What this piece gets wrong is it's extremely broad and really doesn't understand the terms it uses. What is "Leftist politics?" Here in America, taking a look at the Democratic Party, hardly anyone is guilty of this kind of overzealous activism you're describing (and that most of us abhor). There are, like, three house members informally known as "The Squad" and that's about it, and none of those representatives traffic in the kind of crap you see on the Internet. I think one big takeaway here is that online is just a terrible representation of the real world.
I'm a very libertarian leftist, along the lines of Hunter S. Thompson, and we're fundamentally different from the people you assail in this piece. So, I guess my main line of criticism here is simply don't paint with such broad brushes. From Bernie Sanders to Boring Joe Biden, the "left" is a lot of different viewpoints.
Hardly anyone - I'm not sure how you see it as this small of a group. A great many commentators have observed that even if the extreme identitarian left is small minority, they exercise outsize influence. And it matters not if the rest of the mainstream thinks like the above or not; they will defer to the extreme minority because it will call them racist if they don't. There are activists and bomb throwers, and then there are conformists. Enough people in the PMC writ large are conformists because centering race and gender and practicing deference is the ideological norm in those spaces. They won't call it that or recognize it even exists, but if you've spent any time among professional class women in particular in knowledge jobs, this is the default attitude.
Wow. As a white male I really appreciatebthis article. I worked in museum for over a decade and saw much if this type of ideological management transpire. I also appreciate the nod towards our debate as critically thinking white men, being muted. I have a very hard time finding critically thinking females, many friends or work associates, that are willing to debate with an open mind. It is very frustrating. I love this article and I am certain that I and the author may not agree on everything but common ground is often there. One must simply be willing to allow it room to become fertile. Thanks for a great read.
Well said!! I am a white male heterosexual of the Classical Left who retains the economic values with an emphasis on uniting the working class on a class basis and to resist identity politics. We differ in that I am one of those who departed the Democratic Party for third parties after the debacle of the Obama presidency doing nothing for our class and instead paving the way for Trump; and the back-to-back in-party sabotages of Bernie Sanders two election cycles in a row. So, yes, I have gone over to third parties since the Democrats, in my view, have proven themselves utterly capitalist-controlled and non-salvageable.
However, it is good to see some who have stuck with the party fighting to restore it to its original class-first values. That, however, is something those who truly run and control the party do not want. Which is why I am fighting for class unity outside any party associated with Wall Street and Silicon Valley. However, you are a Democrat I could ally myself with, as we have enough in common outside fealty to that particular party of the duopoly. That said, it will be an honor to continue reading your insights and restacking many quotes from your articles.
As for concerns that you will be attacked by identitarians, you already noted that comes with the territory of doing the right thing that is unpopular with a certain powerful segment of society. It's difficult and trying, but necessary and it contributes to the greater good. And the more bullying they do, the more they anger enough people outside their circles to give up their fear of them and start standing up against them. And the world needs to know that it's not just conservatives who stand against them, but some of those who continue to respect the traditional values of the Left.
Well done on this article! I don’t know if there any fellow Canadians out there but I would say our stacking is different, with Indigenous people (and probably women) up on top (or bottom). The idea of deference based on someone’s innate and congenital characteristics is there at the heart of it. I also, embarrassingly see myself in the Caucasian woman gaining capital from a First Nations colleague. How tedious. Have recently come to my senses but it’s a hard system to escape completely.
Thank you for reading (I am very late in getting to comments that happen more than a week after posting, so my apologies). Do you find it pervasive? I ask because someone above said I'm extrapolated based on a tiny minority, but I'm unconvinced. Even if the people pushing these things are a tiny minority, among the professional class, this is the default ideology because enough people conform. And, there are gender-based differences, ideologically speaking, even among people who vote Democrat.
When I read polls about who identifies as "Progressive" or "extremely liberal" or the like, it consistently adds up to about 10% or less of the American population. But when I follow how the Dems in Congress vote, it's often lockstep along the "leftist, woke" edge of an issue. Seldom are there more than three Dems who vote down the most radical woke bills. So on the level of federal power, that means to me that the most extreme "Progressives" are in control of 100% of the Dem Party representatives.
This is spot on! Worse than pawn treatment, it sometimes veers over into shelter pet treatment. It makes me sick to my stomach and I'm not sure the condescension could be more obvious. But so many do not see it. It makes me want to scream, 'WHY can't you see this!!??" Next question...how much time will pass before the white men be the minority?
Great article, thanks for the honesty and self-introspection, it's rare! The Democrat Party is beyond redemption, it cannot be saved. Their actions to elevate these types of women to degrade Society and human relationships simply for their own benefit and power is beyond irresponsible, it's anti-civilizational and anti-human.
I used to be a Democrat, I drank the Kool Aid and at this point all I see is how detrimental those actions were not only to myself, but to the betterment of Society and the human condition. I regret ever casting a vote for nefarious sociopaths like Obama, Clinton and Biden. How blind was I?!
The Democrat Party is a Cult, nothing more, nothing less. It's about the accumulation of power in service to the destruction of the individual and to healthy human relationships, which is a particularly feminine attribute. Unfortunately Democrats have not just pushed me away, they've opened my eyes as to who they are, and it is unacceptable! You can't undo this type of psychopathology and expect someone to forget and forgive. When people show me who they are I listen. Sociopaths and Narcissists don't change, they simply get better at their tricks. This whole "women of color" bs has harmed you significantly, I would never trust it again, and as such, you've made yourself irrelevant to the greater good. From now on, I'll take a pass when one comes asking for a position, because I know what will come next -
What is Trump doing with his fake anti-anti-Semitism campaign, and how many entities will he destroy?
"It should be noted that both white women and the women taking the position of sacred victims have agency and benefit. The victims let themselves be used because they know that this is one of the few ways to gain social capital in white professional circles. They prey upon white women the same way they see white women preying on them by using them as shields. I’ve never heard anyone discuss this mutually beneficial arrangement in the open. To acknowledge it would be to open oneself up to expulsion from the group. One does not name the games we play as women to one-up each other. This is not about justice but personal advancement."
I've never heard anyone discuss this game before either, and your comments on it are greatly appreciated! Women are the only people who can deconstruct these manipulations, because we are the ones who create and enact them, and men are generally not psychologically sophisticated enough to understand them. It would be extremely helpful to the advancement of women if we could shine a light on all of our intra-sex power tactics, because women use them constantly to compete against other women, wield power over them, and silence speech that exposes and threatens that power. Manipulations generally cease to be effective when moves in the game are exposed.
Female type social aggression has received some attention in the professional and popular social science literature, starting during the peak of the Second Wave (1970's) when I was a grad student in psychology. Jean Baker Miller's book Toward a New Psychology of Women was seminal. I also recall a fascinating paper in the volume Women Culture & Society, edited by Michelle Zimbalist and Louise Lamphere. This is a collection written by women anthropolists. I don't remember which paper it was (maybe Peggy Sanday?), but it described power dynamics among women who lived in an African country (Dahomey?) where women had gained considerable economic status in their society. The author's observation was that women competed by claiming to have more "purity" than other individual women, in terms of codes of conduct that were valued within that culture. Purity values have since been widely studied and documented by anthropologists in the context of other cultures, but I am not familiar with this literature. With respect to research conducted in the U.S., there is evidence that girls and women tend on the average to be more likely than boys and men to obey and enforce moral rules and to want to get approval for being "good."
I’m Italian and I’ve wondered why there is not a racial category called “Mediterranean” — people of the the early Roman world. I’ve always associated the term”white” with the English-German-Dutch first settlers and the second wave of Scotts-Irish. Italians were certainly on the Know-Nothing anti-list, so we are not WASPs, but where is a place on the stack?
You are exactly right in all of this. What I'd like to add as a white woman who runs in these circles even though I don't do it professionally as I am the dreaded housewife: what white women won't ever say out loud is how they think and talk behind the backs of the "marginalized" they champion. Let's just say they know exactly what they are doing. And this may be hard to hear for some, but the reason they've chosen the specific order they have is not a nice one. They choose the people least likely to ever be able to show them up, the people least likely to beat them on grading or career ladders, the least likely to take attention from their outward appearance, and the people least willing to do that cruel thing it takes to get ahead that one time. It's a method of keeping your enemies closer. When I say that Democrats of a certain type are more racist than Republicans, I mean that. All the things they believe are still the same. They just focus their public commentary and ire towards those of a lesser class. People shouldn't get it twisted. If they can be cruel to poor people or make fun of people for their education, lifestyle, religion, etc. it should be obvious that it isn't morality that truly drives them.
Wow I hadn’t considered the part about keeping your enemies close; that’s astute. It goes with research on female intrasexual competition whereby women do tend to keep their enemies close through enforced sameness and through sharing gossip plus fake complimenting and never judging others behavior out loud. This means women never improve because the feedback tells them not to. And the progressive racial hierarchy is a way, I’m pretty convinced, to keep Asian and south Asian women at the bottom.
Bingo! Your last statement is very important. Asian and south Asian women tend to be very competitive. Now you see it and know why specific groups are chosen and others ignored. There really is no genuine morality driving these choices.
I read a few years ago (pre-2020 I think) in some Progressive/Marxist online magazine that "Black men are the new White Men." They were giving away the game even then.
That’s crazy. I don’t even understand that tbh lol
Dear Radha:
I have only just discovered your writing and its interesting that you blame female-specific dynamics for some of the problems like cliquism. You are not the only thinker to do so - there are a couple of writers Helen Dale & Lorenzo Warby here in Australia who have been covering the culture war and who've delved into these female group dynamics:
https://www.notonyourteam.co.uk/p/worshipping-the-future
See the articles relating to the above topics - amongst a series of articles covering the entirety of the problem.
This was such a fantastic article and something that needed to be said, Radha! This piece is packed with so many gems and great insights! The hierarchy of oppression dictates that the more marginalized identities one possess the more valuable their opinion is. Truth and facts are irrelevant and if you’re not from that group and if you dare to disagree or even worse are from a minority group and disagree, then you’re either a bigot or an Uncle Tom or race traitor who suffers from “internalized racism” or “internalized misogyny” or other such nonsense. I was not aware of the origins of this way of thinking, it was fascinating to learn about how it sprouted out of second and third wave feminism! I’m really glad you found you’re way out of that hateful and toxic world and freed your mind, Radha! You’re absolutely right that the foremothers of American women in the first and first half of the second wave of feminism didn’t take the courageous stand they did so that their daughters and granddaughters would go around acting like spoiled, immature children and be perpetual victims. I think if Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, Delores Huerta, Betty Friedan, Margaret Chase Smith, Clara Barton, Ida B. Wells, Patsy Mink, Abigail Adams, Eleanor Roosevelt, Florence Nightingale, Barbara Jordan, Shirley Chisholm, and Marsha P. Johnson were alive today they wouldn’t be at all happy with the state of the feminist movement in America or what the third and fourth waves turned out like. I also would agree with you the under this hierarchy of victimhood, white people treat people of color as children, so they come to be that way and start treating others like trash feeling the amount of melanin in their skin gives them that right. You are absolutely right that this is ironically, how European colonists often treated the people of the third world. It’s stunning they can’t see how those attitudes are just two sides of the same coin. I agree, it’s also interesting how class is rarely if ever brought up in the world of DEI. You are spot on this is because the adherents and apostles of the Church of Social Justice are upper class people. Chief among them being educated liberal white women, who are the most enthusiastic supporters of wokeness in the United States. The rich irony of this can’t be overstated. Also, Latinos and especially Asians being excluded as they are deemed “too successful” or “white adjacent” is a great observation as well. In addition, along with never mentioning class, why are Jews never included in these conversations? They are a minority group as well. Are woke people not familiar with the thousands of years of persecution the Jewish people have faced and still do to this day all around the world? Also, no Jews are NOT white! I know the woke ideology just erases them by classifying them as such but they are not. Also, you are so right Radha that we need to organize along class lines! There are to be sure, still issues as it pertains to race, gender and the LGBT community in this country. But the biggest overall struggle in our society today is without question the class struggle. We need universal solutions to the problems of our country and to stop racializing issues that effect Americans of all colors like policing, healthcare and education. The Democratic Party if it wants to start winning again, needs to drop identity politics and political correctness and welcome the white working class into the fold! Should we address things like racial inequality or the legacy of slavery? Absolutely. But we need to do that not with nonsense like reparations for slavery or programs for a specific race or gender but with things like universal healthcare, a higher minimum wage, building more affordable housing, strong labor unions, jobs and education programs, criminal justice reform, police reform, and ending the War on Drugs. In terms of poverty, we need to have social programs like the ones advocated by MLK in his classic book “Why We Can’t Wait” or by the 1968 Poor People’s Campaign. Universal social programs would disproportionally benefit the poorest demographics: black, Hispanic and Indigenous people while also helping the millions of white poor like those who live in Appalachia.
I'm no longer sure that socialist remedies are the best path, but I'm also not ready to throw them out. I say this because in my reading from authors like Batya Ungar Sargon, it's clear that the working class doesn't want a transfer of wealth but wants to earn their living with dignity like anyone else. And this feeling of having earned something through hard work is even important to the bourgeoisie; it's why we tell ourselves that it was hard work and nothing else. I agree though that a focus on class based remedies will go far to help the people we want to help. But, I noticed that most people who adhere to these ideas don't even want to have that conversation (I still don't understand how class based remedies ignore racism).
Class first politics is what Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai represents. He is starting a movement based on Truth, Freedom Health and uses system analysis, which he taught at MIT and now offers free online to participants. He opened my eyes to the “Look here, not there,” method employed by the elites. For instance, the elites get us to argue about abortion and freedom of choice so we do not ask the questions such as what causes women not to want to have and raise kids because then we would go down the path of expensive daycare and cost of living, where the working class would be united. So they keep the focus on choice in regards to abortion- doing what you want whenever you want. They do not want us to recognize that better paying jobs and freely available substance abuse centers would go a long ways to healing society. The elites only want to divide us, much like the women you discuss in the DEI world with their deference towards black women. They give deference but hold onto all the assets. They raise the status of some black women - those from the right college, but do nothing for the working class black women by design.
Rightists also use PoCs.
Interesting points.
I think I'll write a reply to this soon, though, I won't be coming from an identitarian standpoint, at least not how you conceive of identitarian in this piece (that some sort of fixed identity is central to Being), but rather, a historical-philosophical one. My problem isn't with the acknowledgement of power structures and hierarchies, every society has them, my gripe is with the way it's carried out by some very overzealous activists in the name of social justice—deference politics, as you said. What this piece gets wrong is it's extremely broad and really doesn't understand the terms it uses. What is "Leftist politics?" Here in America, taking a look at the Democratic Party, hardly anyone is guilty of this kind of overzealous activism you're describing (and that most of us abhor). There are, like, three house members informally known as "The Squad" and that's about it, and none of those representatives traffic in the kind of crap you see on the Internet. I think one big takeaway here is that online is just a terrible representation of the real world.
I'm a very libertarian leftist, along the lines of Hunter S. Thompson, and we're fundamentally different from the people you assail in this piece. So, I guess my main line of criticism here is simply don't paint with such broad brushes. From Bernie Sanders to Boring Joe Biden, the "left" is a lot of different viewpoints.
Hardly anyone - I'm not sure how you see it as this small of a group. A great many commentators have observed that even if the extreme identitarian left is small minority, they exercise outsize influence. And it matters not if the rest of the mainstream thinks like the above or not; they will defer to the extreme minority because it will call them racist if they don't. There are activists and bomb throwers, and then there are conformists. Enough people in the PMC writ large are conformists because centering race and gender and practicing deference is the ideological norm in those spaces. They won't call it that or recognize it even exists, but if you've spent any time among professional class women in particular in knowledge jobs, this is the default attitude.
The standpoint epistemology point is so very important in evaluating Leftism, writ large. Sort of a chicken and egg feedback loop I suppose.
Wow. As a white male I really appreciatebthis article. I worked in museum for over a decade and saw much if this type of ideological management transpire. I also appreciate the nod towards our debate as critically thinking white men, being muted. I have a very hard time finding critically thinking females, many friends or work associates, that are willing to debate with an open mind. It is very frustrating. I love this article and I am certain that I and the author may not agree on everything but common ground is often there. One must simply be willing to allow it room to become fertile. Thanks for a great read.
Well said!! I am a white male heterosexual of the Classical Left who retains the economic values with an emphasis on uniting the working class on a class basis and to resist identity politics. We differ in that I am one of those who departed the Democratic Party for third parties after the debacle of the Obama presidency doing nothing for our class and instead paving the way for Trump; and the back-to-back in-party sabotages of Bernie Sanders two election cycles in a row. So, yes, I have gone over to third parties since the Democrats, in my view, have proven themselves utterly capitalist-controlled and non-salvageable.
However, it is good to see some who have stuck with the party fighting to restore it to its original class-first values. That, however, is something those who truly run and control the party do not want. Which is why I am fighting for class unity outside any party associated with Wall Street and Silicon Valley. However, you are a Democrat I could ally myself with, as we have enough in common outside fealty to that particular party of the duopoly. That said, it will be an honor to continue reading your insights and restacking many quotes from your articles.
As for concerns that you will be attacked by identitarians, you already noted that comes with the territory of doing the right thing that is unpopular with a certain powerful segment of society. It's difficult and trying, but necessary and it contributes to the greater good. And the more bullying they do, the more they anger enough people outside their circles to give up their fear of them and start standing up against them. And the world needs to know that it's not just conservatives who stand against them, but some of those who continue to respect the traditional values of the Left.
Well done on this article! I don’t know if there any fellow Canadians out there but I would say our stacking is different, with Indigenous people (and probably women) up on top (or bottom). The idea of deference based on someone’s innate and congenital characteristics is there at the heart of it. I also, embarrassingly see myself in the Caucasian woman gaining capital from a First Nations colleague. How tedious. Have recently come to my senses but it’s a hard system to escape completely.
Thank you for reading (I am very late in getting to comments that happen more than a week after posting, so my apologies). Do you find it pervasive? I ask because someone above said I'm extrapolated based on a tiny minority, but I'm unconvinced. Even if the people pushing these things are a tiny minority, among the professional class, this is the default ideology because enough people conform. And, there are gender-based differences, ideologically speaking, even among people who vote Democrat.
When I read polls about who identifies as "Progressive" or "extremely liberal" or the like, it consistently adds up to about 10% or less of the American population. But when I follow how the Dems in Congress vote, it's often lockstep along the "leftist, woke" edge of an issue. Seldom are there more than three Dems who vote down the most radical woke bills. So on the level of federal power, that means to me that the most extreme "Progressives" are in control of 100% of the Dem Party representatives.
This is spot on! Worse than pawn treatment, it sometimes veers over into shelter pet treatment. It makes me sick to my stomach and I'm not sure the condescension could be more obvious. But so many do not see it. It makes me want to scream, 'WHY can't you see this!!??" Next question...how much time will pass before the white men be the minority?
Great article, thanks for the honesty and self-introspection, it's rare! The Democrat Party is beyond redemption, it cannot be saved. Their actions to elevate these types of women to degrade Society and human relationships simply for their own benefit and power is beyond irresponsible, it's anti-civilizational and anti-human.
I used to be a Democrat, I drank the Kool Aid and at this point all I see is how detrimental those actions were not only to myself, but to the betterment of Society and the human condition. I regret ever casting a vote for nefarious sociopaths like Obama, Clinton and Biden. How blind was I?!
The Democrat Party is a Cult, nothing more, nothing less. It's about the accumulation of power in service to the destruction of the individual and to healthy human relationships, which is a particularly feminine attribute. Unfortunately Democrats have not just pushed me away, they've opened my eyes as to who they are, and it is unacceptable! You can't undo this type of psychopathology and expect someone to forget and forgive. When people show me who they are I listen. Sociopaths and Narcissists don't change, they simply get better at their tricks. This whole "women of color" bs has harmed you significantly, I would never trust it again, and as such, you've made yourself irrelevant to the greater good. From now on, I'll take a pass when one comes asking for a position, because I know what will come next -