• Intersectionality debunked

    One of the postmodernist delusions is the concept of intersectionality, namely the ways in which “oppressive institutions” (racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, xenophobia, classism, etc.) are interconnected and can not be examined separately. It is more critical theory nonsense and, just like the latter, it enjoys a lot of popularity, since it eases victimhood in several orders of magnitude — it only takes someone having any ‘oppressor’ or ‘privileged’ trait to dismiss anything they say (the most popular one is mansplaining: to say that something is wrong, or has no validity, just because it is asserted by a man).

    In Better Angels of Our Nature, Steven Pinker offers a scientific explanation that refutes the hypothesis of intersectionality:

    Contrary to the common assumption that racism and sexism are twin prejudices propping up a white male power structure, with African American women in double jeopardy, Sidanius and Pratto found that minority women are far less likely to be the target of racist treatment than minority men. Men’s attitudes toward women may be paternalistic or exploitative, but they are not combative, as they tend to be with other men. Sidanius and Pratto explain the difference with reference to the evolution of these invidious attitudes. Sexism ultimately arises from the genetic incentive of men to control the behavior, especially the sexual behavior, of women. Tribalism arises from the incentive of groups of men to compete with other groups for access to resources and mates.

    Category: PhilosophySkepticism and Science

    Tags:

    Article by: Ðavid A. Osorio S

    Skeptic | Blogger | Activist | Journalist
    • Otto T. Goat

      It, and its components, is nothing more than a political program.

    • Simon James

      Thanks for the indepth analysis. I would wonder whether black women receive more sexist abuse than white women, but then the answer seems so incredibly obvious that I actually think for you not to even write about that shows your own privilege. As for the rest of what Pinker wrote, it is so hopelessly naïve, just the typical white male arrogance one always sees with these professorial types. Yawn.

    • Clare45

      I expect Pinker’s assessment would be labelled “evopsych” and therefore immediately discredited, as evolutionary psychology is not a “real” science according to some feminists.