Introduction
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.
Discussion
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.
Conclusion
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.
Comments
Post a Comment