Sunday, June 28, 2015

Social Matter - Progressive Performance Artists

The Rachel Dolezal news media cycle was fantastic to watch. It was beautiful to see progressives struggling to reconcile the problem of glorifying Bruce Jenner’s transition from man to woman, while somehow not glorifying Dolezal’s transracial attempt.
There are problems. The NY Times op-ed (by a woman), which pushes back against Jenner’s move, reveals the torture the left is going through as they say “gender/race is biological but doesn’t have to be but hey why are you claiming to be part of my group and take on my struggle and claim my oppression.”
The coalition of victims is defensive about their identities because their unique suffering is their identity, making trans* a bit more tricky to handle than grafting on immigrants and homosexuals.
There is another revelation. The progressive system is practically exhausted and is at the point where the charlatans are out in the open. Dolezal is a sign that we have firmly reached the phase where progressive activism has reached performance art.
Enjoy the rest there!


Suburban_elk said...

The treatment of Jenner and Dolezal by the media and Progressives in general, raises the question of, Why, in their estimation, is it ok, for Jenner to be a woman and not ok for Dolezal to be black?

Gender is a harder and less permeable category than race. Many individuals are very close to white or black, or white and any other of the major colors - but cases of legitimate biological sexual ambiguity are less common.

As far as racial categories, there is a social definition to it. Race is at the confluence of biological and social organization. When Progressives say that "race is a social construct" they are logically correct, but limited, in their view - race is a social construct that is built on a biological matrix.

On the question of sex, there is much less of a social distinction to be made, upon the biological matrix - and yet it is on that question that the Progressives would have allowances and discretion.

It is a mistake to look consistency or insight, in their views on things. But perhaps it reveals something about the nature of this game that they (and we) are playing, about determining who gets to be what. In "the game", a man can be a woman and vis-versa, but people are bound to their race.

To repeat the question. What does it reveal (if anything), that the Progressive framework will abuse real sex categories, but when it comes to it, will not deny race categories?

Perhaps it is that race has to be real for the racket, for the Narrative; but sex not so much so, because the feminists - and women - don't matter so much? The feminists who are part of that racket are more compromised ("broken") people than the blacks who are actually advocating for themselves and for something real. The feminists are arguing for something they don't really know what.

Suburban_elk said...

In regards to my question above, which is why progressives are ok with Jenner but not Dolezal.

It makes sense because their whole thing is that white men are bad, and so any which way that lessens or diminishes white men is a-ok. If a white man wants to be a woman, that diminishes the man and fits the bill.

But when a white person wants to be black, that reveals that white people don't actually have it so good.

So blacks want to have sex with Dolezal, but if she is black, then it is not the same - they ain't getting no good stuff then? Why do they care if she wants to be black.