Skip to main content

Gloria Lucas, Part 4/4, An Individual Unprepared to Lead a Collective

It seems Lucas is attempting to claim her feminism is somehow distinct from intersectional feminism. On social media, her “intellectual” or “activist” domain, she has openly blasted self-described intersectional feminists for (in her words) claiming solidarity with her or other women of color. On that point, I agree to a larger extent. However, Lucas cannot claim to have somehow developed anything remotely equal to an alternative framework of feminism, as this would be impossible insofar as she could not have developed anything to be taken seriously.
The fact remains, however, that Lucas’s feminism is steeped entirely in intersectional feminist ideals and parlance. Adding to that, another fact remains that the only thing original about “her” version of this kind of feminism is that she simply swapped out the word ‘body’ from body positivity for the vulgar ‘nalgona’ and added the word ‘pride’ thus formulating the grammatically redundant ‘nalgona positivity [pride]’, the namesake of her ‘small business’. Hence, Lucas has done nothing of substance that in any way divorces her feminism from “white” intersectional feminism. She simply lacks the formal training and skill to do so. Again, I call on my reader to recall the letter grade I gave a writing of hers purporting to demonstrate a serious idea about eating disorder research. A potential ‘D’ undergraduate student equals neither a public intellectual nor a community leader deserving of her post!
Understanding Intersectional Feminism and the Dreaded Patriarchy
Following the line of reasoning stated above, what is arguably mainstream feminism or "intersectional feminism" emanates from what I have coined as 'biologic skepticism' (and its variations) or, put simply, a kind of skepticism of biology in terms of what it has to say about matters such as 'race' and 'gender'. That is to say, identities (qua race or gender) are said to be—strictly speaking—social identities holding no mind-independent reality. Rather, these social identities or social kinds (as we'll refer to them hereafter) are not the products of something natural, but rather are the entailments of something I coined his marks. Roughly, his marks are imposed social markings on "the body" of those presumed to be "racialized" or "gendered" or even "sexed" by something like what we've been calling the Patriarch (rather than, say, nature or biology)
This is where many people, especially young people, derive what appears to be a group-sanctioned parlance holding a particular preoccupation with talk of individuals as "bodies". For example, when so-called fat activists or body positivity types allude to something to the effect of "all bodies" being "good bodies", and hence talk of positivity (e.g., the state of being considered "valid") or negativity (e.g., "body shamming") directed at or adjudicated about "bodies". Overall, the idea being espoused here is that a kind of social paradigm (or in some cases "Matrix") which persists on an unilateral intergenerational timeline is the product of what is purely a series of social constructs intended to 'privilege' some segment of the population at the expense of 'subordinating' and thereby "oppressing" some other(s) or 'Other(s)'
All things considered, the reality we think we "know" is paradoxically and therefore absurdly 'unreal' insofar as it is merely mind-dependent, rather than, say, mind-independent. To be clear, this results in social kind identities being mere objects predicated by the injustice of his marks imposed by the Patriarch. Although this idea of patriarchal 'naming and necessitating' (if you like) is not limited strictly to colonialism, at least not according to many if not all of intersectional feminist theory, this concept does endorse the idea that intergenerational colonial practices stemming from old-world colonialism to neocolonialism (which include intergenerational imperialism) in fact instituted what remains a subsisting androcentric (i.e., male-centered) racist system favoring male over female and white over non-white. 
Applying this idea of Patriarchy
Undoubtedly, the predominate culture of the Western or Northern hemisphere (interchangeable depending on continental context) and its narrative from group exceptionalism has an infamous historical record of racism and sexism. Arguably, this record is unfortunately not restricted to history as far as the topic of race and racism is of concern. Though, some would argue that sexism ought to be included, albeit not as arguably true—merely, but as undoubtedly true.
This view, however, is not uncontroversial insofar as it is supported by ideas that are largely unsupported by research withstanding scrutiny such as the so-called gender wage gap, which predicates among other examples the cherry-picked condemnation of U.S. Soccer known as the equal pay for equal play controversy, and to name but a few more, histrionic ideas like rape culture and exaggerated statistics purporting to show the prevalence of domestic violence (both lethal and non-lethal as well as occasions) and sex trafficking, or the systematic tarnishing of girls’ self-esteem.
Most alarming, though, is not the predominance of these otherwise controversial narratives, or even what seems their status as a sort of unquestionable groupthink, but instead it is the state of distraction they enable among the masses even while real injustices are permitted to take shape with little to no attention having been paid. Throughout our recent history social justice is achieved when and only when individuals via something like a joint commitment to (i) band together in collective solidarity so as to (ii) hold collective intentions to (iii) take collective action to do something like X in order to counteract perceived injustices which only a collective of individuals could stand to thwart, mitigate, or overthrow. I argue that systematic sexism was one of those things successfully mitigated if not overthrown—that is, if one is perceived as fitting the Anglo ideal of ‘what is woman’.
In my conference paper ‘The Western Hero System and Its Dogmas’, I demonstrate quite effectively (albeit briefly) the ways in which intersectional feminism facilitates or even causes more injustices than it helps to resolve or solve. In fact, I’m unsure it helps to mitigate anything real problem at all. I am more convinced that as an ideology it actually creates the appearance of more victims by obfuscating the question concerning who or what is deserving of social justice. As I showed, intersectional feminism and its unfounded skepticism of biology and, in particular, social constructionism enables Northern nations to continue their neo-imperialist attacks on places such as Mexico in particular, as I’ve shown you, and, as I shall show later on, Latin America in general.[i] How? By distracting the masses pining for what they are led to believe is social justice. Specifically, the perception of social justice for those whose collective membership qua historically oppressed group is at best questionable if not entirely baseless. 
Intersectional feminism and its predicated parts such as body positivity derive from what is oft called ‘white feminism’ and its ‘white savior complex’. And no amount of vulgar adjectives deriving from the Spanish language, Mexican culture, or so-called xicana identity will change that fact. Perhaps, one could modify these ‘white feminism’ ideals, but this kind of work demands the author(s) have been not only formally trained, but also be able to perform against what is already established, and at an elite level. Suffice it to say no one whose “intellectualism” consists strictly of regurgitations of postmodern derived memes or some informal readings of such ideals will be able to fill this role. Furthermore, merely reading (or merely skimming) cherry-picked research without having the training to question methodology or distinguish between what does or does not constitute scientific knowledge, or between good and bad scholarship is not intellectualism. If that were the case, literally all or us would be qualified to speak at conferences or to promulgate our beliefs on large platforms—no training or experience required. Alas, it appears as if it is this kind of thinking that creates leaders nowadays.
But, just how effective could one’s “leadership” be if its “wisdom” leads one to support or give permission to some of the injustices s/he purports to be fighting? As I demonstrated in part 2, Lucas’s reasoning is absurd insofar as it is contradictive. And, as I showed in part 3, body positivity in general is a movement that is antithetical to social justice to the extent that it is harmful to Mexico and Mexicans—indigenous or not. The premise supporting NAFTA is analogous if not equal to that which underpinned the inequity encompassing the circumstances under which the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was negotiated for Mexico. It makes no sense that one such as Lucas would claim not only xicana Chicana identity, but, Chicana identity in the capacity of indigenous identity, yet promote a social movement that supports and thereby gives permission to NAFTA corporatism to harm her people. Therefore, we are led to believe, on a reasonable interpretation of the facts, that Lucas is either knowingly doing this or she is ignorant of the facts. Either way, Lucas is not a trustworthy voice for the Chicano movement, especially not when it stands to impact the lives of would-be immigrants and migrants or Mexico’s indigenous population. So, besides her lack of expertise or training, why is Lucas’s narrative (if you will) so antithetical to her aims or those she claims? Answer: Northern Individualism.
Lucas is claiming to some degree, and whether or not directly, to be a voice of group rights and collective responsibility. However, at the same time, Lucas spouts off much rhetoric consisting of jargon I posit to be reducible to Northern/Western and by extension American individualism. You may be asking (and rightfully…) how? Good question, let’s see below.
I will unpack Lucas’s entire philosophy (if you will) here. Lucas endorses ideas such as gender as a social construction. To what degree she espouses this view—that is, is gender and sex distinct or is the latter merely an ideal—I’m not sure. Frankly, I’m unsure she knows either. That being said, we’ll commit Lucas to the general idea of gender as a social construct (irrespective of its actual rootedness). Why? Lucas oft makes reference to so-called gender “non-binary” people. I’ve said elsewhere this is a belief in what I call biologic skepticism. Thus, Lucas espouses skepticism—to whichever degree, either gender-sex distinction or sex-body idealism—about the biology of gender. To be clear, skepticism of biology of gender holds—at minimum—a single concomitant—skepticism of biology of race. That is, skepticism of this kind reduces into social constructionism about things like race and gender. This means that history and poststructuralist social science are the end-all, tell-all on matters of race and gender, not objective science, since objectivity and truth—in manner of speaking—are the enemies. That is, since objectivity and truth are tools of the Patriarchy.
Recall, however, I showed you how the patriarchy cannot be entirely responsible for at least one example of global injustice—Motivation/Permission for the continuance of NAFTA. This point will be put to the side for now. What I want to focus on is the fact that Lucas conveniently uses ‘epigenetics’ and other biologic science studies to provide evidence for her claims about eating disorders in people of color. But then, is Lucas not a skeptic of what biology has to say about things like race? Adding to this contradiction, Lucas then helps herself to parsing a philosophy of race in the capacity of biology of race when she says:
“Then you add years of poverty and limited access to food, which inevitably leads to disordered eating. Recent studies tell us that if someone in your family engages in eating disorder behavior, your chances of developing an eating disorder are higher. Now imagine 500 years of this ongoing trauma.” -Gloria Lucas
Recall, I showed that there is currently no connection between these things. As well, remember I showed how these matters are distinct as far as no one has provided a connection between overeating as a consequence of forbear historical trauma and an O.C.D.-like illness like binge eating disorder. I demonstrated to you, my dear reader, that as much I would like to see such a connection, it simply isn’t there now. Consequently, there may or may not be one. Yet, I’ll not simply say it is so, so as to make a point or write a paper. Facts are facts, no matter what I or anyone else feels. Again, Lucas is promoting the same idea. People of Color suffering some form(s) of ED are ignored by researcher, which means we need more information. Yet, here she is making grand claims without said-information! However, this is not the worst of it.
Obviously, Lucas is cherry-picking what biology has to say about things like race and by extension racial differences to the extent of biological mapping of racial histories. By extension, she is contradicting her skepticism of biology of gender insofar as these things are concomitants or concepts that exist or naturally reoccur together. To be clear, gender and race are the result of the Patriarchy and his marks (i.e., recall, historical social markings) if and only if they are social constructions, not natural occurring biological identities. This is precisely the philosophy of race and gender espoused by mainstream or intersectional feminism, which makes its way from the academy to society and its institutions such as social media. Lucas like many of her cohorts tends to conveniently contradict this meme whenever she sees fit. So then, how can an ideology such as this hold any kind of solidarity or joint commitment, recall, if they cannot even remain consistent with their basic tenets? The fact is there is no collective here, only individuals, perhaps a mob at best.
To begin concluding this expose, I want my readers—thank you, by the way—to consider the intersectional feminist movement and its species. Arguably, intersectional feminism, to which Lucas’s rudimentary feminism ultimately subscribes, predicates things bodies of concepts underpinning belief in Northern/Western patriarchy such as body positivity (i.e., #effyourbeautystandards or #effyourhealthstandards), biologic skepticism of race and gender, and the variety of boogie-men narratives such as rape culture, the gender pay gap, truncation of girls’ self-esteem, et cetera.
Beginning with body positivity, we’ve already seen how this movement is antithetical to social justice for at least Mexican people.[ii] I mean take into consideration how ‘fatness’ has been employed as a status symbol during times of endemic food security or famine. It’s no different now. This is especially when arguably it has always been more a choice for one than another, speaking of global epidemics. Recall, insofar as NAFTA—as it is established and as it functions against Mexican interests—was not chosen by Mexico, their own obesity epidemic also was not chosen. It follows that body positivity is a white feminist ideal that supports and thereby gives permission for the continued harms endured by the people of Mexico and potentially beyond. Hence, these harms are not entirely the marks of something we could call—properly speaking—the Northern Patriarchy.
What about biologic skepticism of race and gender, or alternatively, the accepted tenet by white feminism that race and gender are purely social kinds or social constructions? Allow me to delve (albeit briefly) into some recent history—the oft-called Transgendered Bathroom Law here in the U.S. In what is now an academic conference paper, I’ve demonstrated how the media and advocates alike celebrated this so-called victory for social justice even while the Obama administrationramped up mass deportation efforts (May 12, 2016). These efforts were said to pose dangers to families, especially women and children. Yet, virtually nothing was said ordone on the part of these people (May 16, 2016), not when social justice was being served as far as they could tell anyway.
Oh, and by the way, one of the leading advocates for the bathroom law and by virtue against the 'bathroom bills' opposing it, the Anti-Defamation League, actively funds the Israeli state and itstraining of foreign police which (in its words) aims to combat what it calls extremist or terrorist activity. Recall, the Zapatista Uprising, a virtual rehashing of the Zapatista revolution in response to NAFTA. Well, the same program by the Israeli state trained the Chiapas Police tocombat the Indigenous Zapatistas who (again recall) rose up amidst referring to NAFTA as a “death sentence. Make no mistake, I’ll never assert unfounded claims, yet one has to wonder: Is this connection a coincidence or is it a distraction? This is especially contentious given that so-called transgender according to the Bathroom Law provisions is simply what Intersectional feminists (Lucas included) call “non-binary” people. In reality, this identity is merely an amalgamation of the gender binary—i.e., masculine and feminine. Hence, non-binary gender holds no place in reality, yet Latin American immigrants do! And so it follows that biologic skepticism is yet another white feminist ideal, one that appears to pose some harm, whether direct or indirect, to people of color in the capacity of (at least) immigrants and their families. Hence, these harms are not entirely the marks of something we could call—properly speaking—the Northern Patriarchy.
Finally, we have the intersectional feminist boogiemen narratives. I’ve given you links to honest cut-and-dry responses to these narratives. Believe what you will until I have the time to combat these myself, as that is not what compelled me to write this expose`. Yet, it is important to point out that even these narratives broke out in the media even while actual injustices occurred, typically to people of color. Again, I’ll tackle this issue here in the future, as I’ve already done much of the research for other projects. That being said, I’ll prevent myself from making grand assertions about these matters over boogiemen narratives by simply stating what appears to be the case. It appears that these boogiemen narratives are all delusions of victimhood, which distract us all from actual injustices. Hence, these harms may not entirely be the marks of something we could call—properly speaking—the Northern Patriarchy.
In the three foregoing arguments, I established that body positivity, biologic skepticism of gender and race, and boogiemen narratives as a whole appears to be indirect or direct harms imposed by something other than a Northern/Western Patriarchal system. This holds insofar as the guilty institution is the white feminist project ‘intersectional feminism’.
Based on the evidence, it appears that intersectional feminism at minimum facilitates what is otherwise thought to be injustices brought about by Colonial patriarchal power, yet it appears that matriarchal power could be behind these colonial injustices too. If right, this stands to link colonialism to neo-colonialism from old-world patriarchy to contemporary matriarchy or something analogous.
Recall, Western ideals are premised on concepts of individualism. Roughly, individualism is in most instances an antithesis to collectivism. Then, group solidarity (on this view) is thought to be minimal if ever possible, that is, relegated to something like mobs rather than coherent or determinate groups acting as individual-like entity. Since body positivity like its leaders act in ways incongruent with group solidarity to the causes each purport to combat, it is not obvious that this movement is nothing more than a collection of individuals reciprocating fake knowledge (recall) within an abstract echo chamber. Since ‘fatness’ is a condition able to be changed in one’s lifetime unlike phenotypic traits like race or gender, the state of being fat is more like the state of being ‘sick’, not a social qua biological identity like ‘Mexican’ or ‘woman’. To be sure, being ‘fat’ never precluded any individual or group from basic rights such as education or voting, nor did it warrant violent seizures of land, or lynching, or slavery. Though I don’t think Lucas is making this claim, a few in the body positivity movement have such that the “social justice” oriented academic field of study ‘fat studies’ now exists; that is, thanks to intersectional feminism.
Finally, skepticism of biology of gender engenders individualistic gender schemas (and by extension gender-neutral ‘pronouns’) that are not and perhaps are never fixed, but instead ever expanding insofar as individual gender identity is subjective, not contingent on scientific evidence but rather on individual feelings about personal gender identity. On the face of it, this epitomizes a strong sense of individualism, even bordering on solipsism. By the way, the Aztecs viewed the gender binary as a matter of common sense as well as social justice. But I digress.
These beliefs form what we’ve been calling biologic skepticism. For example, body positivity is biologic skepticism insofar as health standards are viewed as mere “beauty standards”. Skepticism of this kind is part of the intersectional aim to overthrow what it views as the patriarchy, which seems merely the all encompassing boogieman narrative, and which appears to have no basis in reality. This overthrow is analogous to a coup d'état aimed at grabbing power from a perceived enemy of sorts, yet the aggressor acts suspiciously in ways similar if not equal to the subject of the coup. Consequently, it appears as though white feminism shares similarities or perhaps even extends from white colonialism. Ultimately, this pair shares, if nothing else, a premise of individualism. How?
First, individualism is a hallmark of Northern/Western society and its manner of neo-colonialist gains, which intersectional feminism via body positivity celebrates through ‘the body’. Though unproven here, it seems we can at least begin to argue for the existence of an extension between white exceptionalism from old-world colonialism to white feminism of neo-colonialism. Second, all of these movements are nothing more than collections of individuals inputting and outputting “validation” of one’s existence via fake knowledge, which—as I showed you via evidence—serves as an antithesis to group solidarity with historically oppressed groups. Remember, if a group of individuals lack group solidarity or joint commitment, they are acting as a mere mob if not strictly as a collection of individuals. Lucas herself spouts off noise incongruent with established ideas outside what she parrots from white intersectional feminist rhetoric or parlance. Putting an end to this expose`, it seems clear an open letter addressed to those enabling Lucas is imperative. To Gloria Lucas herself, I’ve this to say:
From thesis committees to conferences (both graduate and academic), my work has undergone peer-review. I have endured comments and criticisms to the things I say. This expose` is your chance to undergo the same kind of rigor. This is your chance to apologize to your followers by (at minimum) retracting the falsehoods in your work and then correcting these errors by speaking more carefully. This is why a formal education, contrary to what you’re on record as saying, is important! Alas, your track record suggests you will likely block us, perhaps without ever reading what we have to say, which for your followers and even yourself is unfortunate. This is why we’ll be in contact with those who’ve enabled you to spread your misinformation, a deed that stands to harm others, as we showed with evidence. If you truly care about those you stand to harm, we expect you to address these concerns one-by-one. This is serious. This is not a game. Lives are at stake.

[i] I would also savor the chance to discuss how this ideology impacts the Middle East and the rest of the Muslim world.
[ii] Believe me, there is more to this fact, way more, unfortunately.


Popular posts from this blog

Gloria Lucas, Part 3 of 4 : A Chicana Girl Leading Women to Colonize the Collective Body of Her People

****This part of the series was accepted for workshopping and presentation at the Public Philosophy Writing Workshop at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, which took place between May 18-19th****
For part 3, I'm to redirect our focus a bit from Lucas and her Nalgona Positivity [Pride] by addressing concerns about the body positivity movement in general. Imagine I drive a pickup truck, say, a 1998 Chevy, which requires the action of consuming more fossil fuels than most other types of vehicles. Now, assume I'm a member of a Late-model Chevy Truck Club, whose slogan reads: “Loving my truck means unapologetically filling it with as many fossil fuels as I want.” Clearly, mass consumption of fossil fuels is bad for the environment. However, assume my conscious intent is NOT to pollute the environment, but merely to have fun with my beloved truck. Yet also assume that I'm aware of the negative effects that mass consumption of fossil fuels has on the environmentPerh…

Gloria Lucas Part 2 of 4: A Chicana Girl Attempting to Lead Women

By Jeremy Watkins-Quesada
Recall 'Part 1" of this series in which I offered an anecdote about the spreading of misinformation. The misinformation or 'fake knowledge' in question arose from none other than a world-class, world-renowned expert in evolutionary biology and ethology. Nonetheless, according to Philosopher Erik Reitan, also recall, Dawkins is not an expert in Philosophy, much less the Philosophy of Religion (PoR). This raises the most salient point for our discussion here, for it is not necessarily the case that Reitan's adjudication is the lone basis for doubting Dawkins's philosophic expertise. You see, although Dawkins is a well-trained and likewise skilled evolutionary biologist, he lacks the same kind formal education in Philosophy (in general) and PoR (in particular). Yet, there Dawkins was speaking through his untrained or underdeveloped philosophic skill set as though he were some kind of expert, thereby permeating or spreading through his rea…

The Border Landed On Us

What factors led to the invasion of Mexican territory by American settlers? How did Manifest Destiny justify this assault? There are many varieties of this question. However, I think this version best captures what is necessary for a comprehensive answer like what I am to give here. However, I think this question warrants its due before a related question catches steam or whatever. We need to talk about this now! The answers to the particular questions highlighted above are as follow: Q1: What factors led to the invasion of Mexican territory by American settlers? A: Racism from what I am coining ‘racial narcissism’ and treason according to the U.S. Constitution Article III, Section 3. Q2: How did Manifest Destiny or MD justify this assault? A: Depends on what the question intends to ask. If what is intended is 'how did the means to pursue Mexican Territory justify its seizure, then the answer could suggest an air of collective (racial) narcissism; a metaphysical conception underpinning …