Saelune said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality
Which is roughly analogous to
Communism. Nice in theory, but when it comes to practicum it fails catastrophically under the weight of its own (lack of) logic. And, unless adherents recognize its own failings and attempt to overcome them, will go nowhere and yield no effective direct action nor policy.
Kyriarchy is a much smarter, agile, and practical, theory, because it actually provides means for prioritizing direct action and policy-craft, while shifting priorities after direct action yields policy outcome. And, this bears out in that regardless how heavily "intersectionalists" decry kyriarchy, nine times out of ten they default to it without an iota of self-awareness. "Privilege checking" isn't a logical outcome of intersectionality, because the tactic is designed to silence, by enforcing some people are
more privileged than others in accordance to a largely subjective calculus, all while marginalizing the struggles of those whose privilege is "checked" and denying them the space to speak on the basis of those struggles, even if the subject of discussion is a shared struggle. "Privilege checking" is, however, a logical outcome of
kyriarchy which has built into its foundation means of ordering structures of oppression.
In other words, intersectionality is supposed to be the answer to
oppression Olympics. But scratch the surface, and nine times out of ten the default, and generally only, recourse of an intersectionalist is oppression olympics.
Case in point, the
progressive stack. Only one party can nominally speak at a time; time, attention, and platforms are finite resources; ergo, speaking order is attributed value, with higher priority having higher value. Someone has to be first, second, third, all the way to last, in order of whose voices are valued highest. Just as a single example, who speaks first -- a black man, or a white woman? Selecting speaking order alone represents a value judgment, even as a necessary evil, which means even in this simple and dichotomous example the agenda-setter is valuing either blackness or womanhood higher than the other.
Even if the black man and white woman wish to speak to a shared struggle, like for example institutional poverty.
Intersectionality has no applicable answers to this issue, and should be discarded in favor of a theory that does. That progressive activists (of which, again, I am part) cleave to intersectionality and continue paying it lip service, while having long abandoned it in principle and practice, speaks only to the ignorance, hubris, and incompetence of contemporary social activism.
This ain't news. Intersectionality came into this world philosophically dead-on-arrival; this shit started in Seneca Falls, which has been thoroughly
whitewashed, thanks to the revisionist nuclear takes of the same women who walked into the conference (at which poor and black women were excluded) race baiting and shilling white supremacy.