I know that's my modus operandi at least.

I don't have an excellent background in feminist philosophy, nor the history of feminism, but this apparent third-wave feminism strikes me as a rather hateful movement whose proponents are getting angry over things that never happened to them decades ago, i.e. taking the abuse of others in the past as a personal attack.

Additionally, it's striking imo how these radfems are so vocal about the woman's right to choose or the woman's liberty and yet oftentimes act quite paternalistic themselves. Ideas such as "all sex is rape" is justified by appeals to the Patriarchy, as well as claims that women "don't know what's best for them" - as if a woman can't think for herself despite the apparent influence of the Patriarchy. Is it still oppressive if the woman enjoys it? If so, then this becomes an aesthetic argument and not an ethical one.

Much of what humans do - the majority, in fact - consists of a game where they seek social status while pretending to do other things. The "social justice" movement is nothing more than this; advertise to everyone else that you have the right opinions in order to increase your status.

I don't have an excellent background, either. Hence why I'm saying that diving in is probably the best path to knowledge -- I know basics, and I know what I believe, and I know why I believe, but I'm not an educator on the topic.

I'd half-agree. Where I would disagree is in your use of the word "nothing more" That some people indulge in a sort of status game is undeniable. That it is "nothing more than" a game of status is easily refutable, though, at least insofar that real political gains, such as the passage of legislation or changing of policies in the workplace or changing the role of a particular class of people within society at large, count as something other than the game for social status. I would say that any of those three categories would be real political gains, and are very different from simply trying to put oneself on some kind of pecking order within a group -- those sorts of gains make differences for everyone within the class, even if they don't participate.

feminist — Bitter Crank

Can't help but think you're on to something.

There were, and are, examples of discrimination.

However, the heavily intellectualizing, reality-removed feminist philosophy you sometimes see these days, seems a world apart from issues that some face daily.
Who cares about all that abstract arguing, when there are real-life problems to do away with?
It's instead become an intellectual sport, sort of a new, ideational, detached battle of wits, using fancy words, ready to get picked up by edgelords.
(I've encountered such real-life discrimination personally, by the way.)

Much of what humans do - the majority, in fact - consists of a game where they seek social status while pretending to do other things. The "social justice" movement is nothing more than this; advertise to everyone else that you have the right opinions in order to increase your status. — Pneumenon

Reading this, I'm surprised you weren't more open to what I was getting at in Sophistry: The Obscene Father. I don't know how to quantify the game you mention, but the structure of this game is fascinating. And perhaps you'll agree that it seeps into philosophy and into your very description of the game. Indicating awareness of the game is a move in the game. This gesture too.

Just a note: I've seen the SJWs out there on one end of the spectrum and followers of Milo ("Feminism Is Cancer") on the other. They need one another to sustain their interdependent conspiracy theories. Both can point to other as the confirmation of their "worst fear" (or dark desire, if only to inflate the Mission). But there's also a reasonable feminism that may not call itself such that's basically just individualism. If you can do X competitively, gender (and race, etc.) shouldn't be an obstacle. True, there's a sort of chivalrous "make fun of Dad" meme, but I don't take it too seriously. The fact that (white) men universally approved targets could also be read in terms of continued dominance. Special protections seem to imply inferiority, at least on some level. What's odd is that providing a "victim card" may only decrease "performance." Ready made excuses are quite the temptation. Those without the "privilege" of the card might be more privileged in some sense than they were before.

I've had my ear to the digital ground specifically in regards to how feminism has been manifesting online for over a year now. It's really difficult to put into words, and so I'll begin by answering the question from the OP's conclusion: What do "feminists" want men to believe and do for "feminism"?

Some want you to call yourself a feminist because feminism is simply the desire for gender equality under the law (this is also egalitarianism by definition)... Standard stuff...

Other feminists want you to declare yourself a feminist because certain gender inequalities persist across the globe and or at home in the west and it is only by focusing on the problems of the people who are most affected by inherent imbalances in societal systems that we may begin to correct the currently existent and pervasive gender inequalities which afflict us.

Still more feminists will tell you that by definition you cannot be a feminist, because as a man and have been raised in a system where because of your privileged gender you have been ingrained in, benefited from, and contributed to the ongoing and systematic oppression of women. You can be an "ally" of the feminist movement, and as such you must constantly ask yourself whether or not you are in a position of privilege which might deprive a woman of that same opportunity. At feminist rallies this means marching at the back of the crowd, or at least not at the front; it means not occupying a speaking role at feminist events (and other events in larger society) when instead a woman could be given that opportunity.

Generally the new wave of feminists that the OP encountered wants all men to confront their inherent sexism and accept that the west is currently a patriarchal system of oppression. Their main issues are bringing to attention the earnings disparity between men and women in an effort to see the disparity eliminated, pointing out sexism and sexist micro-aggressions in every-day life and culture (see: sex in in media (see: "sex-negative feminism") and sexism in video games by Feminist Frequency), and pointing out that the western culture is "rape culture".

-------
Some of this may seem like an unfair portrayal of this new wave of feminism but if anyone is interested, I will endure the cringe-worthy task of providing direct links to the source. There are actual ideological origins for this stuff, and by that I mean books containing (re)definitions of terms which paint entire narratives of the west and are being taught in western universities... And these narratives are, shall we say, somewhat less than charitable...

A part of the confusion comes with redefining sexism itself to mean"privilege plus power", which essentially means that since women have no power, while they can certainly hold prejudices towards males, since their actions would amount to nothing they therefore cannot carry out meaningful acts of sexism. This position is uncomfortably commonly wielded in what might appear to be an otherwise academic approach to understanding social dynamics. Not all feminists will assent to this position (there has long been discord between feminists regarding the specifics of their theories), and this kind of controversially worded position is a main contributor to why many if not most people, including women, would currently prefer to distance themselves from the label of "feminist" altogether.

These ideas are not so new though, and without needing to get into a history of feminism, suffice it to say it has been growing in popularity since the 90's. The source of the contemporary phenomenon that drove the OP to write his post is a combination of the ideological positions described above (and more) with easily accessible mass media and social networking platforms which inevitably condense and simplify their messages. These new online social networks also seem to magnify whatever is the most emotionally evocative with emergent trends that can gain very quick and wide-spread support. What we're then left with is a visible and vocal minority of individuals, with a very generous and passionate following, espousing very condemning views of the state of sexism in the west; they want you to agree with everything they say, and if you disagree and they get offended, it might be pointed out that disagreement in and of itself is an example of sexism.

Having considered myself a feminist for quite a long time I first got interested in this new cultural phenomenon (a new wave of full blown PC'ness) because I kept hearing and seeing things which rather disturbed me. Whenever (albeit rarely) I speak to feminists who focus on the problems that western women face (mainly an overall earnings gap, and "rape culture"), instead of deconstructing the truth of these claims I like to instead bring up the issues which I, as a feminist, am presently focused on. FGM (female genital mutilation) is currently very widespread in Africa, with some countries such as Somalia having a rate of 98%. UNICEF estimates Egypt at 91% and Guinea at 96% as of 2013. In some countries, not only is sexism systemic or systematic, actual rape is carried out systematically. Forced marriage, human trafficking, and various other forms of modern slavery are just a few of the other problems that are widespread in many countries across the globe and which afflict women the most often. Even if I did believe that in the west we have a patriarchal society which systemically oppresses women through vehicles like paying female workers lower rates for the same work and rape culture, I would sooner invest my money and time as a feminist toward initiatives focused on countries which see much more severe magnitudes and intensities of these problems. I would inform them that I am entirely unconcerned with their feelings of being offended at my lack of concern for their discontent, and that they should get over whichever gendered micro-aggression I might have happened to commit against them, it being my ingrained and inherent nature after-all.

Even with this text wall I've only began to lightly brush the surface of this topic. I find it fascinating.

If anyone is interested in looking deeper into the specifics of the ideologies these "SJW's" are wielding, look up: "Inter-sectional feminism and Identity politics". Kimberly Crenshaw is a notable proponent of these ideas, having coined the term "intersectionality" as a part of her feminist theory.

Still more feminists will tell you that by definition you cannot be a feminist, because as a man and have been raised in a system where because of your privileged gender you have been ingrained in, benefited from, and contributed to the ongoing and systematic oppression of women. You can be an "ally" of the feminist movement, and as such you must constantly ask yourself whether or not you are in a position of privilege which might deprive a woman of that same opportunity. At feminist rallies this means marching at the back of the crowd, or at least not at the front; it means not occupying a speaking role at feminist events (and other events in larger society) when instead a woman could be given that opportunity. — VagabondSpectre

This sort of feminism is so nakedly sexist that it cries out for satire if not condemnation. I'm embarrassed for the men who show up under such conditions. We have here, it seems to me, the idea of a "gendered" idea. It's an attack on gender privilege that assumes gender privilege as its MO. It's just like women being ask to cover their heads in church not so long ago, for another arguably gendered idea. Thankfully this seems to be the exception rather than the rule. Or I just know cool women who treat the men in their lives as they expect to be and are treated: with kindness, as equals. A**holes come with both kinds (or all kinds) of genitals just around the taint, of course.

Only if you aren't thinking about context. Such polices are in place to prevent women's voices from being overwhelmed, particularly by men saying horrible stuff when they try to talk about women's issues-- I don't have to go far to find it. This thread has multiple examples. What would the feminist march look like if those men were leading it, saying that a whole host of the issues which affect women didn't really matter?

For sure it's gendered, but that's the point: to avoid instances where women's voices are overwhelmed by men who think they know what's best for them.

While I don't quite agree with men not being classed as feminists, the argument alludes to something important about our motivations. Why is it so important, for example, for men to be at the front of the march? If the women are up their advocating for their rights, why does the man have to be lauded as a feminist hero? Is not enough to have women speak it?

We, if you are counting me (as I have a body which is AMAB), frequently have a selfish interests in these contexts. Our reason for complaining in this context frequently has more to do with our voices not being considered the authority than anything else. Part of giving-up privilege is not holding that we are the authority and that our opinions are needed everywhere. Why give the floor to women to advocate about their issues? I mean are we only supportive of feminism to get the cookie for when we lead the march?

The men in the "ally" group are far from embarrassing. They are secure enough in themselves to let women have authority in this context. If the women say they want to speak about something, they let them, without getting angry that they aren't the voice or authority of the moment.

They need one another to sustain their interdependent conspiracy theories. — Hoo

This.

Radfems and co. often berate the Men's Rights movement, and the Men's Rights movement often berates the Radfems and co. It's an endless series of fear-mongering and strawmen.

For sure it's gendered, but that's the point: to avoid instances where women's voices are overwhelmed by men who think they know what's best for them. — TheWillowOfDarkness

You see the same thing from women, though. It's apparently wrong for men to tell women what is best for them, but it's totally okay for women to tell other women what is best for them. As if there is a strict metaphysical divide between men and women, and personal liberty is thrown out.

A woman prostituting herself is shamed by many feminists, and used as an example of the Patriarchy's influence. But is the woman actually being oppressed here, or is that just an aesthetic of the feminist ideology? What if the woman doesn't mind prostituting herself, or actually, god-forbid, enjoy it? Should other people be able to tell her what it best for her, or tell her that she doesn't know what is best for her because of something-something the influence of the Patriarchy?

First, I respect your position and appreciate your directness and politeness.

For sure it's gendered, but that's the point: to avoid instances where women's voices are overwhelmed by men who think they know what's best for them. — TheWillowOfDarkness

While I don't quite agree with men not being classed as feminists, the argument alludes to something important about our motivations. Why is it so important, for example, for men to be at the front of the march? If the women are up their advocating for their rights, why does the man have to be lauded as a feminist hero? Is not enough to have women speak it? — TheWillowOfDarkness

I can understand the desirability of female leadership. But I can't get behind "men cannot be feminists" at all. I think one can derive a strong and appealing feminism from individualism alone.

The men in the "ally" group are far from embarrassing. They are secure enough in themselves to let women have authority in this context. If the women say they want to speak about something, they let them, without getting angry that they aren't the voice or authority of the moment. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I shouldn't be too hard on these guys. I like the sensible feminism that permeates the people I'd call "cool." I'd call myself a liberal with a sense of humor. I'm pro-woman, pro-gay, pro-trans, and yet I don't do more than vote in that direction and treat everyone kind with kindness. But I wouldn't show up to support bitter, divisive voices. Rolling Stone published that false story abut gang rape. There's a morbid desire for outrage that is counterproductive. As "rape" is smeared around carelessly, I am less eager to take accusations at face value. There are some man-hating crazies out there. They are not my friends. For the same reason that woman-hating crazies aren't my friends. It's the same crazy I object to in both cases. It's the "Alex Jones" spirit. There's a dark "second religiousness" among lots of liberals. The words "racist" and "sexist" are used without precision or empathy in a way that reminds me of crude religion. From this perspective, the world is run by the devil (the old rich heterosexual white man) and those not with me 100 percent are necessarily "sinful" (racist and/or sexist and/or X-phobic).

Finally, solidarity movements are two-edged. If I am a woman, do I have a duty to all women? To women as a concept? Must a black man fight for the abstraction of all black men? This is the subordination of the individual in terms of gender or race. I do not feel a duty toward whiteness or maleness generally speaking. It's only when I'm attacked in such terms (indirectly, as the gender or race is attacked) that I slip into solidarity thinking. I understand the temptation, but isn't the point to get beyond such ultimately anti-individual identifications?

Radfems and co. often berate the Men's Rights movement, and the Men's Rights movement often berates the Radfems and co. It's an endless series of fear-mongering and strawmen. — darthbarracuda

Exactly. I see the same spirit on both sides. In my view the individual does well to transcend the temptation of this morbid solidarity. "Fear is the mind-killer."

This sort of feminism is so nakedly sexist that it cries out for satire if not condemnation. I'm embarrassed for the men who show up under such conditions. We have here, it seems to me, the idea of a "gendered" idea. It's an attack on gender privilege that assumes gender privilege as its MO. It's just like women being ask to cover their heads in church not so long ago, for another arguably gendered idea. Thankfully this seems to be the exception rather than the rule. Or I just know cool women who treat the men in their lives as they expect to be and are treated: with kindness, as equals. A**holes come with both kinds (or all kinds) of genitals just around the taint, of course. — Hoo

Most women actually do not call themselves feminists, and of the minority of women who do consider themselves feminist, many wholeheartedly reject reject the idea that men cannot be feminist or are inherently sexist.

This vocal minority subscribes to the notion that "micro-aggression" constitutes a vast part of how and why west is fundamentally patriarchal (micro aggressions constantly devalue and oppress women). When this idea is combined with a subscription to "identity politics", which states that the experiences of the oppressed are much more valid than the experiences of the privileged, something scary then tends to happen...

If I say something that in any way criticizes these particular feminists, as a white male, they tend to question the validity of what I'm saying on the basis of my privileged male gender. If they disagree with my position, then to them, I become the embodiment of what they despise: "A male oppressor using his invalid ideas to suppress the more valid ideas of women and thereby perpetuate the unfair privilege that as a male I constantly benefit from". Once this argument is levied emotions quickly run wild and the previous discussion is made inaccessible. Instead if I wish to continue the discussion I somehow need to begin by convincing them that I'm not actually sexist, and that my ideas might have merit all on their own regardless of my gendered experiences.

This is why safe spaces exist. This is why these feminists think they ought not to risk letting a man have a voice within or in regards to their movement. This is why we have so many examples of (mostly young/university students) immortalizing themselves in the forms of internet memes where they freak out over the smallest possible real or perceived social slight and collapse into the most cringe-worthy outrage fueled tirades imaginable.

Thankfully these kinds of people are a minority, but unfortunately they are the loudest and they are very very angry at times. Here's the most recent example of this phenomenon which has gone viral:

This vocal minority subscribes to the notion that "micro-aggression" constitutes a vast part of how and why west is fundamentally patriarchal (micro aggressions constantly devalue and oppress women). When this idea is combined with a subscription to "identity politics", which states that the experiences of the oppressed are much more valid than the experiences of the privileged, something scary then tends to happen... — VagabondSpectre

Micro-aggressions remind me of sprites and goblins. Sure, they are sort of there, but, yeah, it's perfect for a conspiratorial outlook on the world. I wouldn't say that the world can't be improved, but I don't trust the radically outraged to accomplish much. In fact, I suspect they take a dark pleasure in this outrage and depend on the situation that installs them in their heroic role.

Micro-aggressions remind me of sprites and goblins. Sure, they are sort of there, but, yeah, it's perfect for a conspiratorial outlook on the world. I wouldn't say that the world can't be improved, but I don't trust the radically outraged to accomplish much. In fact, I suspect they take a dark pleasure in this outrage and depend on the situation that installs them in their heroic role — Hoo

On the button. I add that the frequent appeals to "subconscious" biases and behaviors is rather convenient, rhetorically speaking.

these kinds of people are a minority, but unfortunately they are the loudest and they are very very angry at times. — VagabondSpectre

The example provided in the video seems fairly far from ideology and much closer to someone who is in need of a sedative. Winding oneself up that way is either playing a "game of uproar" or it is uncontrolled anger. In either case, it was clinically interesting.

This is really a helpful summary. Thanks.

This particular game of uproar came about as the result of the kinds of ideologies I described becoming over-internalized.

Keep in mind that the woman who went on arguably a hysterical tirade in the video recorded it herself, and then uploaded, herself, to the internet thinking that her video evidence of sexual harassment would completely vindicate her.

Here is the message that she posted along with the video:



Here is a video of a talk given by the producer of the video which contains a great deal of insight into her particular world views and their emotional gravitas (If there is yet still doubt): (watching the first 10-20 minutes alone gives a good sense of her ideological leanings)



You're quite right that the original video does not contain a humongous amount of this persons ideology, *snicker*, but I do feel it is quite a good example of the emotional and rhetorical effects of these ideologies. When I first saw this video I instantly recognized it as the product of "identity politics". She identifies "Hugh" early on as "a person of color" as a part of her criticism that his opinions on the "bunker" (some sort of local police thing) are unwarranted, harmful, or otherwise unjustified/objectionable. This makes sense to her because she presumes that all people of color ought to have the same political opinions given that they are all victims of colonial oppression. It's not only that he disagrees with her that infuriated her so, it's also due to the fact that he IS a person of color and therefore per her theory has a valid opinion, and frankly, cannot be easily discounted as a racist.

Quoting her paraphrasing her 'guru' from the Colonization and Animals video, beginning at 3:30: ""Just so you know my guru always told me, that if you are ever speaking anywhere you should always let your audience know who you are, so that they know why you even have a right to speak on this subject. It is important you as my audience have a right to demand my credentials".

The kind of credentials she is referring to is however not the traditional kind of "credentials" that we might imagine. Here are the credentials she provides beginning at 3:58 : "I was born in England. My family is from India. And I have been a traveler in this land, shall we say, for many years. So I have experienced the racism, the colonization, the patriarchy, and the capitalism of three continents. I've felt it deeply, I've experienced it; It is in my racial memory. And this is not a superficial surface movement for me. This goes deep into my soul, and it comes from that place, because this is a spiritual movement.".

This is one of the starkest examples of identity politics being employed that I've ever seen...

Glad you found it useful, I only wish that it was possible to go more in-depth without basically writing an entire book on the subject.

The speed with which these new feminist and other progressive schools of thought are emerging, spreading and evolving makes them difficult to track and overall appraisal of the movements is made difficult by the fact that the shape of it's network is broad, diverse, and with diverse and inconsistent interconnections.

There is also a wave of reactionary pundits which are emerging in response to the greater social justice movement that is occurring (largely thanks to new online social media networks), and where the "Social Justice Movement" goes too far, they seem to be there to lampoon and ridicule. The bulk of these anti-"SJW" reactionaries actually consider themselves to be a part of the progressive left. They refer to "SJW's" as "Regressives", and while they too have their overblown extremists, many of their criticisms are much more digestible to the public than the positions of those whom they label to be "regressive".

There is also a kind of media bias to consider. Campaigning in the name of eliminating social inequality is a very marketable and advertiser friendly thing. But trying to make the argument that a specific given campaign for social equality has fundamentally flawed positions is by nature negative; critical, sensitive, controversial, offensive. A gay conservative provocateur became the only person to ever have been "unverified" by Twitter, and then the only person to ever have been "banned forever" (I suspect not just because of his provocative views, but because of the way he flaunted his flamboyantly gay identity knowing that this presented a bit of a challenge to those using the lens of identity politics and intersectional feminism). At the same time, a feminist producing Youtube videos on sexist micro-aggressions in video games is able to make it onto popular talk shows and even all the way to the UN to point out that online harassment and micro-sexism in everyday life is a major problem facing western women. Not a lot of the "social justice gone wild" crowd are very marketable, but almost none of the "anti social-justice" crowd is marketable at all from the perspective of large corporations, advertisers and media operators. It is for this reason that the clash between the "SJW's" and the "anti-regressives" is going somewhat under he radar with most of it being filtered out of the mainstream, but more and more the so named "regressive left" is making it into mainstream media outlets. The nature of online social networks are such that generally they are compartmentalized in that unless you get into specific circles you might be entirely unaware of them (given how many there are) which is somewhat different from traditional media which has much less biased outreach.

In short it's all a big clusterfuck right now. The "regressive left" get's play on national media, which pours gasoline on the "anti-regressive" fire, which then ridicules the "regressive left" via social networks, which pours gasoline on the "regressive left" fire, which gets them more attention from the mainstream media, and thus the flame war self-propagates. It's really quite fascinating but unfortunately it is also quite a tedious subject. I wish I could say that I think these controversies will decline in intensity, but since the main ingredient which has seen to it's rise is only growing (social media), I think it is likely that more and more people are going to start being drawn into the specifics of this discussion and the ensuing ideological flame wars.

Feminism is, or ought to be, activism for increasing female literacy, social recognition of problems of sexual harassment and domestic violence, and for changing rape law, unequal land laws etc..

But instead of working practically with changing legislation, educating the population, funding safe houses for persecuted women, etc. many "feminists" seem to believe that speaking seditiously among themselves at conferences or in feminist publications would matter somehow.

This is arguably the result of the influence of bad philosophy (e.g. Foucault and other formerly fashionable postmodern thinkers).

I didn't listen to the whole talk, but long enough to hear that she has a coherent, reasoned view of history. From her perspective, big dick white males did indeed rape, colonize, co-opt, and corrupt the colored world, in oppressions of patriarchy, capitalism, colonialism, racism, sexism, etc. Rage is the appropriate response to this construction, though she wasn't raging here (as far as I watched).

From my perspective, what is universally true is that whoever happens to have superior power tends to expand at the expense of those with inferior power. Europe colonized so much of the world because it had superior power derived from superior technology (per J. Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel). It is also universally true that the recipients of colonization do not like it--no reason why they should. When they can, they revolt.

Homo sapiens behave this way. It's what we do. It's who we are. There isn't an acre of land worth having anywhere that somebody else hasn't tried to take it away from the previous occupants. This is true everywhere: in Africa, Asia, Europe, and the Americas. People accumulate, and those who are the most successful accumulators, as a rule, do not give very much away to less successful accumulators. Zama Joshi can look to her ancestral homeland (India) for vivid examples of this.

Identity politics focuses intensely on the specific over the general, which can (but doesn't have to) set the stage for an experience of continuous multi-point oppression. At any moment, in any location some specific aspect of an identity group is being oppressed, discriminated against, abused, disrespected, discounted, and so on. The narrow focus does not allow for a wider perspective (like, maybe at a particular moment nothing untoward was happening).

The longer, wider view doesn't miss the fact of maintained structural disadvantages and exploitation, but it allows one to also view the progress that has been made in reducing disadvantages and exploitation. The wider view makes it a bit easier to maintain emotional equanimity, which is damned useful in "the struggle".

(Y)

I had a trouble understanding the main thrust of the entire talk. It's main focus is colonialism and only a few times goes into any specifics regarding animals. The bulk of the talk consists of citing examples of white colonialism and cultural appropriation, while also emphasizing that climate change is inherently a racial issue. What does bother me about the talk is that so often "identity" comes up in such a way that broad issues become inherently "racialized" and identity itself becomes the rhetorical basis for appraising the value of someone's ideas. There are many points in her talk were she gets side tracked on tangential points, and the Q&A section from beginning to end was essentially a repetition that white people need to step down and not talk to people of color about white supremacy and patriarchy. The solution to these problems which she did repeat fairly often was to "decolonize the mind, heart, and soul" through (her) understanding.

Here are just a few paraphrases and quotations beginning from the 30 minute mark and on for those who are unable or unwilling to view the lengthy source video:


The question section and answers portion was really not very noteworthy at all. It consisted of nothing but ideological and rhetorical correction and self-correction (from all sides) aside from the poem which was read, whose reading was itself corrected. The first main takeaway from the overall Q&A are that white people need to talk to (or "process at/with") other white people about racism and patriarchy, not people of color, mainly because to do so inflicts suffering of some kind, and also that there is no conflict of interest whatsoever given that "Women of Color Speak out" is a group sponsored by the same corporations they are criticizing.

From the start of the Q&A:

"I'm going to enforce a "progressive stack". that means that those who are from marginalized communities get to speak first. And I'm also going to give certain rules of engagement, so, one is progressive stack, the other is when you're processing all of the things that you've heard from me, from "Ahh", from so many of the amazing speakers that you've heard from today, please, if you are a white person, please do not process AT A PERSON OF COLOR! PLEASE DON'T DO THAT. They don't need to hear it. Because these things you may have been hearing maybe for the first time today, or maybe you heard it in a way that you have not heard it before, and that's wonderful and I'm glad that you're processing it, but you're hearing it today and they have been living it for their entire lives, so please don't do that." 45:25

The overall talk seeks to explore colonialism, climate change, and it's impact on animals, but it is constantly derailed with politicized positions regarding tangential issues, and constantly invokes race as a necessary measure to even begin to understand issues like climate change, let alone things like "veganism/vegetarianism" and animal rights. Too often it appeals to historical events to put down the very idea of whiteness, and uses race as a basis for genuine discrimination over the course of her talk and advocates for such within the very content of her talk. "Colonialism" becomes anything and everything "white" by the end of it, and if the whole of it is accepted, I see no other way to come away from this other than with the idea and feeling that as a white male, I'm a guilty patriarchal oppressor who has nothing but stolen culture and ideas. If rage is the rational response to these things, should I then project this rage at myself?

I wish I could say that I think these controversies will decline in intensity, but since the main ingredient which has seen to it's rise is only growing (social media), I think it is likely that more and more people are going to start being drawn into the specifics of this discussion and the ensuing ideological flame wars. — VagabondSpectre

I was going to ask: where do they find the time? But I spend lots of my free time here. So it's really a question of morbidity/resentment. Some of us (maybe not self-consciously) associate virtue with righteous indignation. Others have come to question righteous indignation as a mask for something questionable. Don't get me wrong. I think there is some genuine or respectable indignation out there. But I do see some sort of doomed, "infinite" desire out there, too.

The world will always be imperfect for those who identify with the role of the accuser and/or the victim. I remember the allure of these roles in my 20s. I felt like I significantly evolved when I started to question them as basic investments. Someone should (yes, selfishly) assert their "right" to have a good time down here, or what's the damned point? "Infinite" conscience looks anti-life. Life is exploitation. We are at the very least twisting plant proteins into human proteins. Of course, be nice, at least to the other nice humans. But the desire for purity looks doomed. If we are lucky, we act decently. But to wash one's heart/mind completely of "sin" or the various x-isms? Here's a theory: the victim role is a refuge from guilt caused by the "infinite" conscience. Yes, there are victims and that sucks, at least to the conscious nice guy if not to the news-as-entertainment-consuming horror-monger, but there is also a somewhat optional identification with the victim as hero that I'm getting at.

I a

If rage is the rational response to these things, should I then project this rage at myself? — VagabondSpectre

No. You should not. It's not healthy for privileged males to feel as bad as relatively privileged feminists would have us feel. That advice, of course, is coming from an unrepentant W.A.S.P. male,

Not feeling guilty is a privilege, and since I'm privileged... I choose to not feel guilty. I don't feel guilty about the sun never setting on the British Empire. I don't feel guilty about manifest destiny, either, or the genocide of Native Americans. I don't feel guilty about the Holocaust. Guilt is the appropriate response for wrongful acts that one has committed. There are certainly many strong responses appropriate for all the wrongs of history, but guilt isn't one of them. Rage against the crimes of the past seems a bit beside the point, too.

I would not claim that everyone is a potential murderer (though there is some evidence that just about anybody might commit murder under the right circumstances) but I do insist that there is no group of like-minded people on earth who are incapable of launching atrocities against their enemies, their neighbors, and anyone who gets in the way. Were feminists to actually form a matriarchal state, they would be as prone to commit all the crimes of a patriarchal state, given the same amount of time in which to perform them--their high-minded rhetoric notwithstanding.

This isn't a reason to celebrate or gloat. It's just that there is no Promised Land of milk and honey. No matter where we go, there we are -- and we are a problem we have not come close to solving.

Identity is descriptive rather than prescriptive for the intersectionalist. Climate change, for example, is a racial issue because it's going to impact on different racial and enthic groups in different ways. Many parts of the world do not have the technology or capacity respond to the effects of climate change.

In the West, we have the wealth and technology to relocate many people pretty smoothly, if climate change render a particular area uninhabitable. Not true of many other parts of the world and the people who live there. Identity is a part of appraising the world and society because each person has an identity. No-one is the faceless everyman of classical liberalism.

We are white, black, gay, trans, philosophers, etc., etc. Circumstances which affect an individual constitute a life of somone within an identity.

"Guilt" within intersectionalist philosophy isn't the traditional kind. It's not about personal wrongs you have committed (though one may have done so). Rather, it is about describing how people of different idenities are affected within society. It's a call not to just dismiss how society understand and treats people of identity as irrelevant.

Feminism is, or ought to be, activism for increasing female literacy, social recognition of problems of sexual harassment and domestic violence, and for changing rape law, unequal land laws etc.. — jkop

I'd change rape law by eliminating it. Not because I think rape should be legal, but because a general assault law covers it.

Climate change, for example, is a racial issue because it's going to impact on different racial and enthic groups in different ways. Many parts of the world do not have the technology or capacity respond to the effects of climate change. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Headline in the New York Times: WORLD WILL END TOMORROW. WOMEN AND MINORITIES TO BE DISPROPORTIONATELY AFFECTED.

I don't think anybody has the resources to respond adequately or smoothly to the unpleasant challenges of global warming.

Just consider the cost of the intensified storms, flooding, droughts, and forest fires the US has experienced so far: In the last 6 years climate change has cost just the US around $150 billion. Two hail storms in Texas in March and April, 2016, lasting just a couple of hours each, cost $5.6 billion. How could that be? A lot of very large hail (up to 4.5 inches in diameter) and high winds struck the heavily populated area of Dallas - Fort Worth - Plano, TX. (Information from NOAA).

Granted, these are manageable in a multi-trillion dollar economy. But Hurricane Sandy cost $60 billion alone, and that damage is still being repaired. There are a lot of heavily populated flood-prone cities. A good share of Boston, for instance, was built on filled-in ocean-side marshes. New York took an unexpected beating from Sandy's flooding. So would Washington DC and other cities. Then there are the gulf-coast cities... New Orleans, for instance.

The US does not have the resources to smoothly relocate 20 million people from east and southern coastal regions, cope with a year round forest fire threat, periodic severe flooding anywhere a heavy, slow-moving rain front stalls, drought, tornados, hurricanes, forest fires heat waves, and other threats (insects, disease...) as the effects of global warming intensify. Let's hope the San Andreas Fault doesn't finally let loose the Big One.

So, Bangladesh is in far worse shape. There many millions of people live just a little ways above the average high-water mark, which keeps rising. They do not have the resources -- or the territory -- to move everyone into higher and dryer land. Where are these 30 million people going to go? India? Burma? Australia? China? California? Scotland? Uzbekistan?

I don't think it's a manageable problem. Global warming does and will disturb all plant, animal, and human ecologies and we probably will not be able to cope--which means the crises will not be met with adequate and graciously humane responses.

"We" didn't do "global warming" to "them". No one even suspected that there would be a long-term consequence to burning all the fossil fuel we could get our hands on until fairly recently--and already it was too late. The countries that burned a lot of coal and oil did so because it was there, and it was readily accessible, reasonably cheap, and it unleashed tremendous energy which we put to good use (more or less).

Global warming is a global disaster, a human catastrophe.