This week, western women march for the right to be unashamed sluts, grossly overweight, ugly and rude. For the right to murder their unborn, to forego responsibility of their sexual behaviour and abandon their reproductive processes to the state. Meanwhile, Islamists, communists and atheist dictators grab their popcorn and quietly wait for the destruction of western civilisation. This is because the core doctrine behind the modern intersectional feminist is not the same as the old fashioned women’s movement. This is not a democratic movement, but one that is in fundamental opposition to the very state structure and ideology that has made western women the freest in history. Despite the rhetoric, intersectional feminists are fighting a structure and an ideology built by western women themselves. By their mothers, who successfully fought for the welfare and protection of themselves and their families. Intersectional feminism is just a new version of Marxism, dressed in a stupid pink hat, and wearing even worse fashion than Mao. This doctrine has nowhere to go, except to the places it has already been. To the deprivation of liberty of women and girls.
When I went to university I was drawn to Marxism. My identity was strongly based in class. I was the daughter of an English cockney labourer and a cleaner. I grew up in a public housing estate, and I didn’t know anyone who didn’t vote labour. I was the first in my family to go to university. My parents raised us on wages earned from their own physical labour. But more important than this, my fathers identity was deeply embedded in his class by virtue of his culture. Along with class awareness, my parents carried an agnostic type of hopeless doctrine, alleviated intermittently by alcohol. Even though they didn’t really believe in God, they still held loosely to the principles inherited from their respective faith traditions.
My parents, like most of their ilk, were labour voters and unionists, but not Marxists. In those days people knew the difference. The union is an organisation of collective strength of individual workers in a pluralist state. Their chant “together united we will never be defeated”, speaks of the collective power of the individual. But my parents generation understood that they organised themselves under a recognised state authority. They weren’t always happy with the state, but most of them knew people who had been on government paid world tours to distant lands. Everyone of my parents generation knew people who had gone to war. Like my mother’s father, who had been to the Middle East, and had fought in the Battle of Beersheba. They knew that our civilisation, as imperfect as it was, was better than most. And they were profoundly proud to be Australian, even my English father.
Marxism, is a different animal all together to the old fashioned working class left, from which I was birthed. Marxism, ironically seems to be a more bourgeois pursuit. Under Marxism people don’t unite as individuals, they yield their identity and rights collectively into the working class and become the ‘proletariat’. As a group, their objective is not better conditions and higher wages, it is to destabilise and overcome the entire power structure. Both are theoretically labour based movements, one has led to higher wages, the other has led to mass murder and systemic deprivation of liberty.
Likewise, the original women’s movement was the political union of women in the fight for change, as a pluralist group. The new ‘intersectional’ feminists is a Maxist based ideology, where women are asked to identify as victims, and yield their identity to a collective in order to overthrow patriarchy.
Neo-Marxist’s, God bless them, have finally found some traction with intersectionality. Now those who remember the horrors of communism are largely gone, they have the opportunity to re-invent themselves to a naive generation. They do this by basing victim-hood in concrete traits of races, gender and sexuality (instead of the proletariat which kept getting prosperous and leaving them). Intersectionality has the same narrative as classical Marxism, just redefined groups. Instead of victim-hood being ground in work, struggle and poverty, we see it ground in implicit bias, racism and misogyny. Instead of problems of poverty and violence, we have people with hurt feelings, being undervalued, overlooked and discriminated against. Critically, instead of capitalism, they get to overthrow patriarchy, white supremacy and hetronormality. These seems like impotent aims with little chance of social change. I have been sitting back rolling my eyes, but now they are taking over governments, and they have my attention. Because they have realised that infiltrating the state, is far easier than overthrowing it.
Let me first look at the liberal understanding of rights. Liberalism, broadly, sees rights and obligations between individual and the state in terms of the “social contract”. The balancing of individual rights of citizen to those it gives over to the state, to organise the society. An example is the the right to bear arms. In the US, this is embedded in the constitution. And it is a real thing. Humans are violent creatures, and it is not an unreasonable argument to suggest they have an inalienable right to hold resources to defend themselves. In Australia we yield this right to the state. we do this collectively so the state can perform the responsibilities of protection on our behalf. This means that those who want to bear arms, have a measure of deprivation of liberty. And I support this, because I believe yielding that right to the state does more good than harm. And the state is essentially good government in Australia. Classic liberals believe that rights come at a cost of responsibility. When we yield the right to the state we also yield the responsibility with that measure of liberty. In this complicated equation, the more the state does for the individual, the less liberty the individual bears. There has been a tussle over the rights/responsibility and individual/state balance in the west for hundreds of years. One could argue we are pretty close to getting the balance right. Central here, are the doctrines of free will, individual autonomy and liberty.
The left often ignore the complexities of rights and responsibilities because they like to ignore our fundamental difference in ideology. Marx himself did not believe in individual “rights” because he did not believe in the agency of the individual. Under Marxist ideology, the individual is motivated by social agency. For Marx, this was social class, and for the intersectionalists this is race, sexuality and gender. A perfect example of this tension, has been played out in a recent debate surrounding a graduate student named Lindsay Shepherd, in the Socialist State of Canada. Ohh Canada…
Lindsay Shepherd was reprimanded in a meeting at her university, by a female administrator and two male professors. Her transgression was presenting both sides of the debate regarding transgender pronouns in a grammar class. She did this by showing a video to a class, in which Professor Jordan Peterson appeared.  The video she showed, was a state television broadcast. Thankfully she recorded the meeting where she was reprimanded, and you can hear the full recording, and the program that she showed to the class here.  This is a very simple power dynamic where a state university, is exercising power over a student. In this case they are instituting an ‘equity’ policy. The power they use is given to them by the citizens, so the power is perfectly legitimate, and under the new Canadian laws, quite legal. On the track we can hear Ms Shepherd is frightened and bullied. Her free speech is being openly suppressed, and her academic progress could easily be halted by either of the more powerful people in the meeting. But let’s see the intersectional take on this situation.
Most astounding are comments made by Associate Professor Rinaldo Walcott, as part of a panel, on the state broadcaster TVO. Walcott said the Shepherd incident is part of a “long cultural war” in universities against queer people and people of colour. In this scenario young Linsey Shephard is merely a right wing agent of white supremacy. Here the girl’s agency as an individual, is completely taken away from her. She would only have agency if she identified under her intersectional group (women), but she refuses to do so by claiming her individual right of free speech. Marxism has no recognition or respect of the individual as a bearer of rights.
Professor Janice Stein on the TVO panel, defends Ms Shepherds speech rights. She argues that the mechanism we have in dealing such issues, is the “open public square of free debate”. And halting her speech will shut down that mechanism. Professor Walcott reverts that “some forms of speech are intolerable”, and this kind of speech should be shut down without debate. This censorship is an essential part of the Marxist debate, because the outworking of their ideology is unable to stand up to scrutiny, in a functioning liberal democracy where free speech is enabled. If ideas are a marketplace, the Marxist are running a protection racket. Only people who buy into the ideology are given a pass to express ideas in speech. All other spoken ideas are called “morally bankrupt”, and the bearers of the ideas are bullied mercilessly, and given no licence to trade. And since intersectionalists seem to run the media, this racket is widely enforced.
Most astounding of all, is that Professor Walcott depicts Ms Shephard as the one holding the power in the meeting, by virtue of her race. Accordingly, to this analysis, Ms Shepherd’s supervisor, Professor Rambukkana (the only person of colour in the meeting), has been manipulated by the white supremacy, probably through the white female administrator in the meeting. So, the white girl has been cast as transphobic and the administrator as an arm of white supremacy. If the girl does not submit to her group identity as a woman, as ‘the oppressed’, she must be operating as ‘the oppressor’, as part of her group identity as white. She has two groups she can identify with, her sex or her race, and she has to choose which part to play. If she was male and white, both group identities are oppressor, so there would be no choice. White boys and men are always the oppressor in the intersectional story. Hence the white professor in the room, is the elephant, he doesn’t fit the script so he is not given a part in the intersectionalist script. In another analysis I saw online, Shepherd was wielding white power and privilege through her “white girl tears’. Google it, I couldn’t make it up if I tried. This is pure almost unedited Marxism, changed only from the ‘proletariat’ and ‘capital’, to ‘non white’ and ‘white supremacy’. No individual agency, no free speech, all players in a game not of their own choosing.
Women fought long and hard to get agency in western society, intersectionality obliterates this agency, and offers power only as part of a particular victim class. And power only in fighting patriarchy. If you have the courage to watch this horror show,  you will see that the dopey show host just nods in agreement, as the elitist black man completely trumps the girls individual rights, in favour of the group rights he has claimed for his race. A Professor, attempting to use black rights to silence a young white female student. You can’t tell me that MLK saw that in his dream.
It is important to note here, that as soon as women identify as victims, as part of this ideology, they automatically get into bed with the rights claims of all the other ‘minority’ identities. These rights claims are part of the same set of narratives. Under this group are transgender women, here the very definition of woman is being re-defined. Also part of the set of ‘group identities’ are Muslims. So any speech critical of the importing of Islamist behaviours or ideology, is also outside the protection racket. By submitting to thee group narrative of intersectionality, women lose all rights as individuals to have an independent opinion about their own sex, gender or safety from dangerous religious doctrine, unless it is Christian doctrine. Christianity is the enemy of Marxism and can be critiqued ridiculed and despised at will. Definitely not part of the protection racket.
The most poisonous thing about intersectional ideology for women is the abdication of personal responsibility, and turning responsibility over to the state. No Marxist ideology, gives you group rights without your individual agency being submitted to the group identity and ideology. And once that ideology is embedded in the state, that is where both the rights and the responsibility lay. There is a cost to abandoning individual rights and agency to collective rights and agency. When the individual claims a right for the state to expel a fetus, provide contraceptive, provide cheap childcare services, it implies the individual’s agency to choose and believe freely in these matters is abandoned to the state.
Women! The state is not your daddy! You must stop this!. By lobbying the state to take responsibility for women’s reproduction, and the morality of reproduction, feminists are effectively advocating for state ownership of their bodies and the ideology of reproduction and ideology of womanhood itself. You are in abandoning your body to the state, in exchange for the right to be free of the responsibility of your own sexual behaviour, reproduction, childcare, gender definition and most bizarre of all, weight gain.
This is the reason Pro-life feminists were excluded from being ‘official partners’ at the recent women’s march in Washington . Pro-lifers, agree to individual, societal and moral responsibility over their own reproductive capital. They will not accept ‘reproductive rights’ because they are not prepared to abandon their responsibility to the unborn. This is not an offence to most women. But the pussy hat Stalinist do not tolerate dissent, because their power is based on collective rights submission and denial of individual agency.
Absolutist power brokers like Justin Trudeau know the game, and play along to maintain their place in the power structure of the left. This is why the handsome dictator is now cracking down of any expression against the intersectional groupthink. In a new decree, he is denying funding for particular organisations if they do not acknowledge women’s “reproductive rights”.  In other words it is prohibited for women to take agency in advocating for the unborn, while operating, even in unrelated areas with state funding. Women have handed the reproductive power to the state and in return the state now enforced the ideology around a woman’s reproduction. Just as an additional kick in the teeth, to get the funding for these programs you must sign off on equity policy. In other words, you must submit your right to define gender as you please. This is now a decree of the state in Canada. I think Trudeau is flying a kite here. If it flies, he will take it throughout society. If it becomes law that government employees, charities and industries subject to government regulation, have to sign these “equity” and “diversity” statements, it will make Canada the most authoritarian state the west has ever seen. Because idology will be managed at a micro level.
Women in the west have have become very free, largely because they have exercised agency and insisted on the broadening of citizenship rights to include them. Women have gained rights through free and open debate and no one was censored in this debate. Women survived the hurt feelings. Reject the narrative. ‘White’ and ‘male’ are not poisons to eradicate in western power, this is shit Marxist ideology. White men largely build western greatness (they had help), and removing them is not a sane objective. Teaching our children this lie is very bad, and racist and sexist. I’d rather live under the patriarchy in a western liberal democracy, than come under the oppressive matriarchy of the pussy hat Stalinist.
Marx looked to a day when the proletariat ruled the world, he didn’t think that once they ruled, they would no longer be the proletariat. That on the march to power, power itself would became the objective. That the proletariat would hand their individual rights and power over to the collective in order to be handed starvation, tyranny and despair. Women if you use your collective power to submit to a Marxist doctrine aimed at the conquering of the western world, rather than the advocacy of women and girls, you may just find the cost to get there will destroy not only what it is to be a woman, but the greatness of our society as well. That if you hand your collective ‘rights’ over to have them enforced by the state, individual liberty itself is the only possible cost. Central to liberalism is being responsible for the rights we have, and holding them with a measure of dignity and respect. Ignore this, and you ignore the very foundation on which your liberty is based. I, for one will not be complicit in this nonsense.