In the STORE
A little excitement.
I don’t know what “intersectionality” insists or thinks or says, because I don’t think it’s a person, but I do think it’s pretty weird to tell Twitter “I passed a black woman in the store today!!”
Tip Jar
A little excitement.
I don’t know what “intersectionality” insists or thinks or says, because I don’t think it’s a person, but I do think it’s pretty weird to tell Twitter “I passed a black woman in the store today!!”
He mentioned it because it was apparently a rare event for him. James Lindsay needs to smile more often. He should smile at everyone, all the time. Black women, mail carriers, shoe clerks, small children, the homeless, firefighters, policemen, parking attendants, and pigeons. C’mon. Cheer up.
Feminism insists that all men should smile and carry on.
And social justice warriors, too – he should smile at them.
Wokeness as a public performance.
After reading the wiki article on intersectionality (hey I learned a new word! :)), I interpret this comment as him having a special kind of prejudice that combines his racism and misogyny. It was bound to happen, Knoxville is only 71% white and 50ish% female after all. There was always that slim chance.
If everyone.is being facetious, then well … I can’t really tell one way or the other from text. So …
It’s pretty clear that he’s mentioning it precisely because the event was banal, unremarkable, commonplace, mundane, boring, innocuous, anodyne, and overall not worthy of note. That the way “intersectional” analysis is deployed presumes something problematic despite the normalcy. Jane Clare Jones has articulated similar criticism of that nonsense vis a vis the trans and non-binary issue.
Again, apologies if I didn’t pick up on a tonguetongue-in-cheek vibe.
Earlier today, at work, I sold a lottery ticket to a black woman. Does that make me some kind of special? Or just someone who thinks all money is worthy, as are the people who spend it.
I can’t remember if she smiled. I think I did. But maybe neither of us did … maybe our intersections were opposed.
HEY! I remember now. I also saw a lot of Chinese and Vietnamese women today. That’s what happens when you work right next to “Chinatown”.
Jimmy Lindsay needs to get out a bit more.
Nullius, I agree that he’s mentioning it precisely because the event was banal but in reality it’s kind of tricky to make that point in that way. It wouldn’t work the same way to say “I passed a white woman in the store” and that fact illustrates why it’s rather goofy of him to make the attempt.
But what if he passed a white Islamic woman? Would he not again question his own potential misogyny combined with his religious intolerance? This is the ‘intersectionality’ as I understand it. I think he’s probably not confused about his prejudices, until he finds more than one existing in one human being. The fact that he posted anything on twitter makes me think he’s most likely xenophobic to some degree. Either that or he’s simply looking for attention like so many of the twitterers are. Talk about banal…
twiliter,
I interpret the post as being an attempt to mock what is either a strawman, or at best a very fringe, version of “SJWs.” Basically, he’s claiming that intersectionality theory implies that every single interaction between people who differ in any way is fraught with meaning and probably “problematic,” etc., and saying (in effect) “but I had this perfectly normal interaction with a black woman, which obviously had no racial or gender subtext, therefore intersectionality is bullshit!”
And… well, I’m no expert on intersectionality, but I’ve never understood it as saying what Lindsay is characterizing.
Now, if that woman hadn’t initially smiled back, and Lindsay had barked “smile!” at her, then yeah, I think there’s a whole history and social context of men ordering women to smile, and white people barking orders at black people, that legitimately comes into play. I’d be curious to know if Lindsay takes issue with that.
Yes I agree that he is trying to say that intersectionality is BS, but I think he tries to point it out in a way that is subtly (or not so subtly) racist and misogynist. Implying that the interaction could have gone otherwise by him pointing out the gender and race of his neighbor tells me he has a problem with one or the other, or both, since he says that intersectionality could be applied there, but not by him? I think it’s telling anyway. Twitter posts are notoriously short winded and lacking any justification, so it’s hard to tell, but it smacks of prejudice to me.
Ophelia:
I’m not sure I agree. The same sort of analysis applies even in situations where there’s apparent difference on only one axis of oppression. As he says in the following tweet, there is any number of ways he could problematize such an interaction by following the methodology. It’s a fundamentally fucked up way to approach the world, guaranteed to make you view things in a threatening, Manichean light.
Screechy Monkey:
As Jane Clare Jones says, there are two sorts of intersectionality. There’s the trivial and true fact that differences can make a difference. Then there’s the far-reaching, totalizing crazy-talk that she and Lindsay are both critiquing. And both of them call out its quasi-religious form where any doubt or deviation is sinful, or even heresy or apostasy.
That’s apparently how Critical Race Theory applies the notion. The question, according to CRT, is not whether racism was involved in any situation, but instead how it was involved. Now, you may think that this is fringe stuff that doesn’t touch culture at large. But if it is a fringe, then it is a long fringe folded over the rug. You’ve probably heard the term “white fragility”. That came from academic CRT.
You might want to read Robin Di’Angelo’s original White Fragility paper. The one that posits that discomfort per se with the idea that you are racist is due to your racist emotional fragility. That if you, as a white person, defend yourself against the claim that you are a racist, then that is evidence of your racism. That the ideals of individualism and objectivity are nonsense and only serve to support white racism.
Here’s JCJ commenting six years ago on the subject:
twiliter:
He’s not implying that the interaction could have been been problematic had it gone otherwise. He’s saying that intersectional analysis of the interaction determines that it actually was problematic. The point being that intersectional analysis is a witch hunter who always finds his witch.
But it wasn’t problematic because of intersectionality, it was problematic due to his own latent prejudices. Pointing out a single civil public interaction does not invalidate the concept of intersectionality, there’s not enough data there to reach that conclusion. It does portray how he thinks when he encounters someone with a different gender and skin color than him.
Reading down this guy’s twitter, it’s pretty obvious that he’s just doing this for attention. He co-wrote a book, so he wants to show everyone how much smarter he is than they are. People with an inferiority complex should have fun too! Isn’t twitter just the perfect platform for that?
Oh yes, he’s one arm of a trio with Boghossian and Penrose, scourge of sjws.
@twiliter: But … What? The whole point is that the interaction wasn’t problematic at all. The only thing it “portrays” is the ease with which any interaction can be problematized.
Just like you are doing.
Yes I got that, I think you’re missing my point, that’s ok. Cheers.