One of the most arrogant, and at the same time, ignorant, of all the new Perfectionist Progressive buzzwords added to the popular lexicon, by default, is woke. When I say “by default”, I mean that people who should know better just repeat the new words without truly understanding that they are surrendering control of the dictionary, which is de facto control of reality. I will only use the word “woke” when I am ridiculing people who take it seriously. At any rate, the most sweeping concept in the world of wokies is intersectionality. This concept insists that separate issues in human relations are actually ONE BIG BALL OF STRING, and thus if you are guilty of violating one area, you are guilty of violating all, whether you are or not.
Four of the most popular intersectional violations are in the arenas of abortion, LGBTQ+, race and #MeToo. The last one means if a woman accuses a man of non-consensual touching or innuendo i.e. sexual harassment, he is guilty, evidence be damned. In fact, evidence be damned in all the violations. If a wokie accuses you, you are guilty. “Accusing” usually takes the form of a tweet or some other passive mass electronic missive, to better activate the hive mind of the outrage machine.
A more accurate description of intersectionality is grievance studies. I just watched a YouTube video called Academics expose corruption in Grievance Studies. Now I don’t think there’s really a field formally called Grievance Studies, but some of the academic journals which publish the intersectionality claptrap are called Gender, Place and Culture (the #1 feminist geography? journal), Hypatia (journal of feminist philosophy), Fat Studies (not to be confused with Fat Tuesday, it bills itself as “an interdisciplinary journal of body weight and society), Sexuality and Culture. The video highlighted a scholarly paper called Human reactions to rape culture and queer performativity at urban dog parks in Portland, Oregon (of course!) in Gender, Place and Culture. The paper was submitted by academics as a deliberately contrived hoax to see if it would be accepted. Not only was it accepted, but the reviewers expressed concern that the purported examination of the dogs’ genitalia violated their privacy. I am not making this up!
These academics have been submitting similar papers to these journals for awhile, to illustrate the corruption occurring in the fields of sexuality, gender and race studies, which together they call Grievance Studies. They say the problem is not the fact that there are such fields, but rather that only certain conclusions are accepted and published….those which make “whiteness, masculinity and privilege”–the unholy trinity of intersectionality shibboleths–the root of the problem. In other words, social grievance trumps objective truth. They have tested this hypothesis over and over. One of these academic debunkers says, “what appears beyond dispute is that making absurd and horrible ideas sufficiently politically fashionable can get them validated at the highest level of academic grievance studies.”
Did we ever doubt that? Are we sufficiently shocked? I want to separate one of the issues from the rest, because the Bible does condemn the actual injustices in that area, and that is racism. Have there been injustices committed by men against women? Certainly, but feminism not only doesn’t correct them, but visits it’s own injustices against women. Have there been injustices committed by heterosexual society against homosexuals? Yes, though not nearly as much as the LGBT propaganda would have you believe, and that lobby has more than avenged itself on society at large, and continues to do so with trans activists. The #metoo “movement”, if it can be called that, has demonstrated no respect for the rules of evidence.
I said the Bible condemns racism and it does so in many ways. The big problems these days are the lack of a consistent definition of racism, and conflating the actual wrongs with monetizing the grievance (i.e. reparations and set asides). In Numbers 12:1, it says “Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman whom he had married, for he had married a Cushite woman.” Cushites were Ethiopian, i.e. black. The Lord then berates Miriam and Aaron (Moses’ sister and brother), and says of Moses: “He is faithful in all my house. With him I speak mouth to mouth, clearly, and not in riddles, and he beholds the form of the Lord. Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?” And the anger of the Lord was kindled against them, and he departed. When the cloud removed from over the tent, behold, Miriam was leprous, like snow. And Aaron turned toward Miriam, and behold, she was leprous.
As far as I know, this is the only explicit reference in the Bible to prejudice against an African, though there are many others that describe how relations between people are not to be partial or unjust. But this reference is very strong, in that the punishment for speaking against Moses because of his marrying an African woman was being turned leprous, “like snow”. Now I don’t know how much of that was about challenging Moses leadership or authority, and the color of his wife, but I believe the very fact of referring to her nationality, which probably also denotes her skin color, is a statement against racism. At any rate, I am saying racism is more sinful and more real than the other elements of intersectionality.