I’ve often said the Left loves to control the narrative through control of the English language. So much of our modern vernacular comes from the Left’s lexicon (if you’ll pardon the expression, and even if you don’t, I’m using it anyway), such as “woke,” “political correctness,” and “Joe Biden is sharp as a tack.” And when there isn’t a word that describes what they want, they invent one.
I ran across one of these new words recently. As with most things these days, it started with a message on the Social Media Platform Formerly Known As Twitter by James Woods about sitting Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. As you might expect, Leftists didn’t take too kindly to his take on the Justice’s intellectual prowess or lack thereof, but it wasn’t until one poster used the term “misogynoir” that I paid attention because once you’ve heard one Leftist bitching about something, you’ve heard their laundry list of offenses, real or imagined. Even so, this was a new one to me, so I decided to jump down this rabbit hole for this week’s Lexicon entry.
misogynoir
What the Left thinks it means – the intersection of racism and sexism
What it really means – a new term for old bullshit
Misogynoir isn’t exactly a new term, but it has its roots in more modern history. The term was coined by black feminist Moya Bailey in 2008 to describe hatred aimed at black cisgender and trans women and is steeped in the wonderful world of intersectionality. For those of you playing along at home, intersectionality is the idea that all oppression is connected. Think of it like one long human centipede, but with weirder hair color.
This allows for people of all walks of life (except for straight white men) to claim multiple systems of oppression at the same time. Conversely, it also creates an environment where you’re playing Pokemon: Oppression. Gotta catch ’em all! The more systems oppress you, the more of a victim you become and, thus, the higher your stature is within the Left.
Which is kinda sick when you think about it, and I do because my bank account is lower than the insole of a millipede with fallen arches.
Regardless, there is one thing about victimhood that often gets overlooked in the race to see who can be the most victimized: victimhood doesn’t define you unless you let it. The Left doesn’t see it that way; they only see the victim as a helpless soul that only they can “save” by…let me check my notes here…oh, yeah, enabling them.
Yes, the same people who say trans women can get pregnant are the ones saying it’s okay for you to be a victim, to feel all the fee-fees connected to it, and, above all else, vote for Leftists so you can continue to be a victim and get paid for it by the government. After all, it’s not your fault you were born the way you are! This was put upon you by The Man, and as long as you survive, you are the living embodiment of the double bird directed towards The Man.
Say what you will about the Left, and believe me I do, but they have the ability to get people to feel oppressed at everyday shit down to a science. I guess that makes them the Party of Science…
I’ll see myself out.
Anyway, I’m gobsmacked by how many otherwise semi-normal people are willing to take up the burden of others and make it their own, even if/when the most oppression they’ve actually faced was having a Starbucks barista charge for an extra shot of coffee in their steamed milk. And the ones who seem to feel the most guilt? Leftist white women.
It’s that reason that misogynoir is even a thing.
Leftists of color know they can get whites to capitulate to whatever bullshit they can imagine because they prey on guilt. And the more victimhood they can pile on, the guiltier white Leftists feel. Pretty good work (and I mean that in the professional wrestling sense) if you can get it.
But does it actually fix anything? Not really. Much like putting a Hello Kitty bandage on a gaping chest wound, it’s not helpful and actually counterproductive. Of course, if you put some Bactine on the wound…yeah, still not helpful.
When you start oppression stacking without attempting to get to the core of why you feel oppressed, you never make progress, which is ironic considering how many Leftists call themselves “progressives.” This is by design because once you do an honest assessment of your oppression it puts things into perspective. Those who experience real trauma spend years processing it in an attempt to overcome it. But those who perceive trauma never take those steps because it would expose how little actual trauma they’ve experienced, thus it ruins their victim status.
I don’t know what Ms. Bailey experienced, so I can’t and won’t paint her as someone in the latter category. There are still racist and sexist assholes out there, and it’s entirely possible, if no probable, the Venn Diagram of both groups come pretty close to a single circle. Having said that, the idea of misogynoir seems to be pretty rare in the real world, where women of color are held in high regard for their accomplishments. And those who aren’t find themselves in Congress.
What Mr. Woods posted doesn’t mention Justice Brown Jackson’s race or gender, just her intellectual prowess or lack thereof. In order to make the statement misogynoirist, one has to insert those subtexts and fixate on them rather than the substance of the statement.
And those who are happy to do so have a problem on their hands, namely the statements of another Supreme Court Justice, Sonia Sotomayor. The “Wise Latina” herself wrote an concurring opinion on a matter before the High Court that called out Justice Brown Jackson for addressing matters that were not involved in the case before them.
So…is Justice Sotomayor misogynoiristic? She is a woman of color, so that would negate both sides of the misogynoir equation. Not to mention, she’s right about Justice Brown Jackson.
As is James Woods.
The difference is when Woods makes the statement, he’s painted as misogynoiristic regardless of the merits of said statement. When Sotomayor makes the statement, the Left gets reaaaaaaaally quiet. But we’re not supposed to notice that, kids. We’re only supposed to believe Woods is the racist and sexist here, which is the whole point. The Left doesn’t want to admit Justice Brown Jackson has been a bit of a lightweight on legal issues in spite of her bona fides (as Leftists have and will tout as a defense of her inane decisions), which has caused more than a little friction with her ideological allies on the High Court, both with the substance and the style of her decisions.
But I’m sure they’re just racist and sexist, amirite?
While I’m sure there are legitimate examples of misogynoir out there, this ain’t it, kids. The Left throws out labels as a way to defend those they see as victims to divert attention away from any substantive debate. Calling out a Supreme Court Justice for bizarre legal arguments and those alone is fair game and should be done. Inserting intent, especially negative intent against the person making the comments, isn’t. But in the realm of Dungeons and Dragons…I mean Pokemon: Oppression, no quarter is given to protect the precious, even if it makes the Left look like hypocritical assholes.
Oh, and I’m waiting for the misogynoir crowd to condemn the racism hurled at Justice Clarence Thomas by their side. If they do, I’ll be in my cryogenic chamber.
Tag: intersectionality
The Curious Case of Jasmine Crockett
As you might guess, I hold politicians in the same esteem as I hold most used car salespeople, but it’s a rare individual that makes me do a double take, and not just to look at their two faces.
One such individual is Texas Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett. She has garnered a lot of attention from both sides of the political aisle for her blunt talk and seemingly intelligent questions/retorts when asked questions or speaking at a committee meeting. Many on the Left consider her to be the de facto leader of the Democrats, and many on the Right are perfectly willing to let her be that. Regardless of the reasoning behind it, I figured I’d do some homework on the good Congresswoman and give my honest appraisal of her.
One of the first things that caught my attention was not where she stands on issues, but how she articulates them. (Sue me, I have an ear for that kind of thing.) I noticed there are times when she can be eloquent, even if her points are dumber than a bag of hammers. She reminds me of the old time fire and brimstone preachers when she speaks sometimes, full of passion and direct rhetoric designed to get us motivated to do better.
Then, there are times she takes on a different tone for different audiences. Behind her bravado there is also a woman who can speak softly or more down-to-earth. When she does this, she becomes more relatable and is actually charming.
Which makes for an interesting question: who is the real Jasmine Crockett?
That…is a complicated story.
Judging from her past, she has an educational pedigree that would rival many of her peers. She also has a legal background, where performance can mean the difference between a guilty and a not guilty.
At the same time, she’s kept in touch with “her” community. I put “her” in quotation marks because her pedigree clashes with the experience of the people she represents. She looks like them, but that doesn’t make the Venn diagram of her ability to relate to her constituents into a circle.
Not that it stopped her constituents from voting for her, mind you. For a lot of voters and politicians, there’s a notion that if someone looks like you, they’re better able to represent you because the voters feel a kinship. It’s not racially, politically, or socially driven; it’s hard-wired into our societal DNA. Sociologists note we feel most comfortable when we’re amongst people who look like us. And to be fair, whites have done some pretty shitty things to blacks in history, and vice versa, so it’s not hard to understand why we have racial division in this country stoked in part by the political leadership.
That brings us to the wonderful world of identity politics. Instead of being seen as the sum of one’s parts, identity politics seeks to strip a person down to his or her (still two genders, kids) basic attributes. And I’m not talking about anything more complex than surface attributes here. Then, consider intersectionality (which is pretty much trying to figure out who is most oppressed by looking solely at the aforementioned superficial aspects and checking off boxes because that’s totally how you determine how oppressed someone is in America, amirite?), and you’ve created Franken-Candidate. Or Franken-Candidate’s Monster if you’re pedantic. Or if you’re trying to excuse a former Minnesota Senator’s joking behavior caught on film.
Anyway, the point is Crockett is the right mix of racial and gender factors, well-heeled connections and urban appeal, and above all else Orange Man Bad levels that are over 9000. Yet, even with all of that, we still don’t really know who she is because there are so many conflicting pieces to this puzzle. For example, she gives two different stories about how she got promoted to a position early in her career. In one story, she busted her butt to earn the position, and in another she simply demanded it because she was black. Vastly different story depending on what version you hear at what time.
More recently, she’s gone on to the Social Media Network Formerly Known as Twitter to attack MAGA supporters who troll her. And this is after the multiple times she’s gone after MAGA supporters in Congress and in real life. When she gets on a roll, she sounds like a badass, but after this most recent social media meltdown, that may be the extent of her badassedness. She’s a Tweeting contradiction.
And that’s what makes Jasmine Crockett such a mystery to me. You don’t know what she’s going to say at what time, but she’s built up a fan club based on it (not unlike a certain President I know). As long as there are conflicting stories out there, there will always be some doubt as to what she truly stands for, at least to anyone paying close attention. To the Left, she’s a hero, taking the fight to the Republicans. To the Right, she’s a loud-mouthed joke not to be taken seriously.
And somewhere in between is…well, I can’t say for sure, but I’m not sure it’s where Jasmine Crockett is at any given time. All I know for sure is she’s going to be in our faces for a while longer.
Or until her district gets redrawn and she’s out of a job.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
This week’s Lexicon entry has nothing to do with current events because there really isn’t anything new out there that some other commentator or dumbass hasn’t already covered. Good thing you have me so you can check off both boxes in one fell swoop!
Instead, I want to talk about a concept popular within Leftist circles, a little thing the kids like to call intersectionality. As much as I would like to say this is about determining who goes first at intersections, I’m afraid I can’t. Intersectionality is something far less useful, yet far more stupid.
intersectionality
What the Left thinks it means – the study of how systems of oppression/privilege overlap
What it really means – figuring out ways to make people into much bigger victims than they actually are
The Center for Intersectional Justice (and I swear this is a real thing), defines intersectionality thus:
The concept of intersectionality describes the ways in which systems of inequality based on gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, class and other forms of discrimination “intersect” to create unique dynamics and effects.
Think of it as one big Venn Diagram, only a lot less orderly.
The idea behind intersectionality is where there is overlap, there is more opportunity to be a victim. A white lesbian quadruple diabetic amputee has a different number of touch-points than a black gender fluid left-handed bisexual with a speech impediment because…reasons! And with more touch-points of oppression comes more victims and, oddly enough, more privilege in Leftist circles. But intersectionality is supposed to address privilege, so…
Fuck if I know!
Along with intersectionality comes a process for Leftists to determine a victimhood hierarchy called a progressive stack. In short, the more victimized/marginalized you are (or are perceived to be by other Leftists), you get to speak before others who are less victimized/marginalized. Which further makes victimhood a positive…which defeats the purpose of fighting inequality since the Left is making inequality a means to elevate others…
I got nothing.
Like, literally. I got nothing.
There is no making sense of intersectionality or the progressive stack because it’s not about logic. It’s all about fee-fees. Leftists thrive in a world where feelings don’t care about your facts. Why else do you think 6’8″ 350 pound bearded men wearing pink taffeta can demand to be called Susan and Leftists don’t bat an eye? It’s because it doesn’t matter if the man has more between his legs than a male porn star because he feels like a woman and, thus, we have to respect that.
And the more you can claim you’re being oppressed, the more secure your position within Leftist circles.
The only problem (well, aside from being batshit insane) is the Left keeps shifting the meanings of key words to suit the situation. Try to get them to define a woman that doesn’t get dropped faster than a TikTok fad. Yet, gender and gender identity are part of intersectionality. So, how can these two concepts be so ill-defined in Leftist circles and still be parts of the intersectionality puzzle?
If you think logically, they can’t co-exist. If you think Leftically, they co-exist like they belong on a lame-ass bumper sticker on a Prius.
This same exercise can be repeated with race (which Leftists say is a social construct), gender identity (which Leftists say you develop as a toddler), and gender (which Leftists say is also a social construct), just to name three. And believe me, you don’t want to go down this rabbit hole any more than you have to. Leave that to me so you don’t burn any brain cells you might actually need.
Where intersectionality gets really fucked up is when you consider it makes personal pain into a tangible real world (or as real as Leftists feel) benefits. As you accumulate more and more sources or potential sources of oppression, the more valuable you are to a Leftist because it makes you easier to exploit. And if you think that’s harsh, there really is no better term to use here because, well, it’s fucking exploitation.
But wait, there’s more! With this exploitation comes an ego boost to generations who are already narcissistic from the jump. So, there is an instant dopamine boost from being a victim because you get attention and sympathy. If you have actual oppression in your life, what is the motivation to overcome it? If you fix yourself or your situation, you become less valuable to Leftists, which means you don’t get as much attention to feed your ego. You might even identify as an oppressed class because the Left’s definitions are looser than the world’s least profitable casino.
I’m lookin’ at you, Rachel Dolezal and Shawn King.
This notion is reinforced by progressive stacking. The way the stack works is the most oppressed gets to speak first. Implicit in that is the idea the most oppressed has the most important viewpoint and should be listened to by virtue of that oppression. The problem is that’s not true. After all, Puddin’ Head Joe and Kamala Harris say equally stupid shit on the regular, regardless of the order in which they speak.
Although this is theoretical stuff, we shouldn’t judge intersectionality and progressive stack until we see it in action, right? Well, it works as well as you might expect, which is to say it doesn’t.
But you know what does work? A little thing called the Golden Rule. Treat everybody else like you would want to be treated. And unlike intersectionality (and the people who push it), it actually works. Give it a try, Leftists, and let me know what you think.
In the meantime, we need to remember not everyone who claims to be a victim is a victim. Yes, this means we have to do some digging and not just believe, but when you consider how the Left uses oppression as a bargaining chip, it’s worth it. In these matters, Ronald Reagan’s “Trust, but verify,” could be the best stance to take.
Well, aside from pointing and laughing at the Leftists pimping pain, that is.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Remember when Bill Maher was Leftist Jesus..you know if they actually believed in Jesus? During Republican Administrations, Maher would consistently rail against what he saw were Republican mistakes and idiocy, and Leftists cheered. Then, when Joe Biden became President and Maher started railing against what he saw were Democrat mistakes and idiocy, the Left no longer found him to be a voice of truth. But they did find him to be a traitor.
Welcome to the party, Bill. Go grab some punch and a cookie.
The reason I brought up Bill Maher (something I try not to do much for the sake of my sanity) is he recently introduced a Leftist term I hadn’t heard before: presentism. Apparently, Leftists are applying this whenever they discuss history, and it may be coming to a history discussion near you.
presentism
What the Left thinks it means – framing historical figures and events with modern sensibilities
What it really means – holding the past up to present standards to establish modern superiority
There’s an old saying, “History is written by the victors.” Although, these days, it could be written by the Victor/Victorias, but that’s not important right now. The saying refers to how some aspects of history get ignored or forgotten because people tend only to think in terms of winners and losers. Leftists have seized upon this tendency to push for what they call a more comprehensive view of history, i.e. downplaying the “white” view of history in favor of the histories of marginalized people.
And that’s how we get Post-Modern Native American Albino Lesbian Literary History degrees.
It’s all a part of the Left’s intellectual (stop laughing!) approach to all academic fields called intersectionality. Although this could be a Leftist Lexicon entry in and of itself, the long and the short of it is every form of oppression overlaps with others, like racism and sexism. By recognizing it, Leftists hope to undo the damage by…well, they haven’t figured that part out yet, but it has lead to some interesting discussions on who is considered more oppressed in a country where they’re allowed to drive, vote, and dress like Miley Cyrus during a performance at a strip club. Or, as she calls it, Tuesday.
By framing everything in terms of oppression, the Left has created a hellscape where just about everyone is oppressed to some degree. Unless, of course, you’re a straight white male. Then, you’re everybody’s asshole. Of course, I already have a lot of Leftists think I’m an asshole, so it’s nothing new.
Presentism plays into this framework by allowing Leftists to dictate the standards by which figures of the past (i.e. straight white males) are to be held without those figures even knowing it. Because, you know, they’re dead. That gives the Left all the power to frame the past with none of the piddly little details that add a little something the Left has a love/hate relationship with called context.
When I was in college back when dinosaurs still roamed the Earth, Leftists at the time were up in arms over Mark Twain’s The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn because of the book’s use of the n-word. I won’t give the whole word for a number of reasons, not the least of which being I want to save Chris the headache of having to answer more angry emails about me than he usually gets. In their attempt to virtue signal before such a thing was a thing, they ignored a lot of context, namely the historical backdrop for the story and how Huck became the voice of those who wanted to treat blacks like everyone else. If it weren’t for people who actually read the book for comprehension rather than to find naughty words, there might be a generation that wouldn’t even know who Huck Finn was long before YouTube turned their brains into tapioca pudding.
On the other hand, it prepared them in case they ever got elected to be President of the United States.
The same attitude the Left used over Huck Finn is the same drawback presentism faces today: the lack of context. I’ll be the first one to admit human history is rife with events and attitudes that elicit shame and disappointment (like when Gary Cherone took over singing duties in Van Halen). Having said that, the people then didn’t have the advantage we have of being able to look back at the historical record. In more than a few of these dark periods of history, what happened was unprecedented because it had literally never happened before with the circumstances they had to work with. It’s like trying to put together a jigsaw puzzle in the dark blindfolded while strapped to a ticking time bomb. You’re going to make mistakes, and the results won’t always be good.
Then, there’s human nature to consider. Contrary to Leftist belief, yet completely consistent with their actions and thoughts concerning others who disagree with them, humans are assholes. We will consistently choose evil over good for whatever reason we can justify in our own heads. Hatred, lust, greed, convenience, having to listen to “Baby Shark” on repeat because your child loves it, and so on. It is only through work, thought, and determination that we overcome our base nature to be better, and you can’t regulate your way to that end.
Can you say “War on Drugs,” kids? I knew you could.
In spite of those dark periods, there are points of light that Leftists will likely overlook or disregard because of the race, gender, and sexual orientation of the ones responsible for them. Take William Wilberforce, for example. During the British slave trade, Wilberforce worked to end it at great personal expense and against the prevailing attitudes of the time. But given the Left’s current prevailing attitudes towards white men (especially Christian white men like Wilberforce), I’m guessing he’s going to be mentioned well after someone like Cardi B.
Which is to say probably never because, well, Cardi B.
The big issue with presentism for me is how easily it can be manipulated for ideological gain. And by “can be” I mean “will be.” With Leftists controlling academia, they have all the power and, since they’re around other Leftists, none of the accountability. Combine the two and you have the perfect storm of academic and historical malpractice through the revision of history in real time. It will be like Wikipedia, but with more academics signing off on it.
Of course, nothing bad will come from academics signing off on bad ideas just to fit in, right? That reminds me, how is Michael Mann’s “hockey stick graph” holding up these days?
The worst thing we can do right now is to overlook how far-reaching presentism is. We’ve seen how Common Core has fucked up math and English, and presentism will wind up no differently from where I sit. And as George Santayana once wrote, “Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Or was it my high school history teacher threatening summer school if I didn’t get my grades up?
Either way, we will have to be on our toes and make sure what is being presented as historical fact meshes with actual historical facts. Yes, that will require us to be honest about our past, even the dingy corners of it, because that is the only way we will have the intellectual high ground. Opting for a version of history that just so happens to fit our beliefs doesn’t achieve this. We have to be above board because we know the Left won’t be.
So, Bill Maher was good for at least one thing. Yay…I guess?