Steve Sailer has been mining comedy gold in the rich seam of 21st-century feminism:
Feminism: “Feelings / Nothing more than Feelings”
From The Nation, an article about how black feminists scream at white feminists and then other white feminists pile on those vicious racist white feminists. And how “trans” feminists can get very, very upset at the Vagina Monologues-type feminists who actually have vaginas:
… In a revolution-eats-its-own irony, some online feminists have even deemed the word “vagina” problematic. In January, the actress and activist Martha Plimpton tweeted about a benefit for Texas abortion funds called “A Night of a Thousand Vaginas,” sponsored by A Is For, a reproductive rights organization she’s involved with. Plimpton was surprised when some offended Internet feminists urged people to stay away, arguing that emphasizing “vaginas” hurts trans men who don’t want their reproductive organs coded as female. …
Reading this more closely, I realize I may have gotten this backward. The protesters may be individuals who have vaginas but are objecting to the cultural stereotypes that encodes vaginas as being – in some socially constructed sense – female. (Feminism: “Feelings / Nothing more than Feelings”, iSteve, 29th January 2013)
The article in question, Michelle Goldberg’s Feminism’s Toxic Twitter Wars (The Nation, 29th January 2013), is simultaneously funny, freakish, frightening and fascinating. I was particularly struck by this paragraph:
Similarly, there’s a norm that intention doesn’t matter — indeed, if you offend someone and then try to explain that you were misunderstood, this is seen as compounding the original injury. Again, there’s a significant insight here: people often behave in bigoted ways without meaning to, and their benign intention doesn’t make the prejudice less painful for those subjected to it. However, “that became a rule where you say intentions never matter; there is no added value to understanding the intentions of the speaker,” Cross says.
The “norm” is obviously an attempt to turn Women of Color into mini-Popes: infallible and invulnerable to criticism. If a Woman of Color chooses to interpret a statement by a woman of Whiteness as “offensive,” the woman of Whiteness is permitted no defence. If she attempts one, she “compounds” the offence. In other words: “Shut up and obey.” This seems a good example of something I wrote about last year:
If parasitism [exists] among human beings, it will exploit some particular aspect of our biology. Wasps can easily inject chemicals into the brains of other insects. Human beings can easily inject ideas into the brains of other human beings. They do this using something called language. So words like “hate,” “bigotry,” “racism,” “antisemitism,” “homophobia,” “Islamophobia” and so on may be the verbal equivalents of a wasp’s neurotoxins: cheap and effective ways of inducing paralysis in a nutrient-laden host. (Verbal Venom: Biological Parallels for Western Pathologies, The Occidental Observer, 15th October 2013)
When Black feminists claim “offence” and then deny their White opponents a right to defend themselves, they are clearly using verbal venom to paralyze a “nutrient-laden host.” But where does this tactic come from? Which group began the “more victimized than thou” competition? An article posted by Steve Sailer way back in 2007 gives the answer, from no less that the former rabbi-in-chief of the UK:
Britain’s top rabbi warns against multiculturalism; Sacks: Multiculturalism threatens democracy
By ASSOCIATED PRESS
Multiculturalism promotes segregation, stifles free speech and threatens liberal democracy, Britain’s top Jewish official warned in extracts from his book published Saturday.
Jonathan Sacks, Britain’s [former] chief rabbi, defined multiculturalism as an attempt to affirm Britain’s diverse communities and make ethnic and religious minorities more appreciated and respected. But in his book, “The Home We Build Together: Recreating Society,” he said the movement had run its course.
“Multiculturalism has led not to integration but to segregation,” Sacks wrote in his book, an extract of which was published in the Times of London.
“Liberal democracy is in danger,” Sacks said, adding later: “The politics of freedom risks descending into the politics of fear.”
Sacks said Britain’s politics had been poisoned by the rise of identity politics, as minorities and aggrieved groups jockeyed first for rights, then for special treatment.
The process, he said, began with Jews, before being taken up by blacks, women and gays. He said the effect had been “inexorably divisive.”
“A culture of victimhood sets group against group, each claiming that its pain, injury, oppression, humiliation is greater than that of others,” he said.
In an interview with the [London] Times, Sacks said he wanted his book to be “politically incorrect in the highest order.”
(Britain’s top rabbi warns against multiculturalism, iSteve, 20th October, 2007; emphasis added)