15.9.15

EMPTY INTERSECTIONALITY.

Carter County, Kentucky, county clerk Kim Davis has been getting her fifteen minutes of fame refusing to issue marriage licenses, which makes her a cause for civil disobedience to some people, and the personification of bad policy to others.  But there are intellectually honest ways of supporting or objecting to her behavior, and there are intellectually dishonest ways.  Take Abby Zimet.  Please.
Oh Lord, save us. The wingnut circus - cue crosses waving in the delirious air - came to town to welcome Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk and aspiring martyr to the cause of telling other people who they can and can't love by refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, as she was released from five days in a heathen jail. In a seriously bizarre spectacle worthy of "Life of Brian," Davis sobbed her way to the podium as the 1980s hit "Eye of the Tiger" erupted from loudspeakers - illegally, as it turned out, given that the song's creators never gave permission for its use. Said an outraged Frankie Sullivan of Survivor, “I would not grant her the rights to use Charmin." Whatever. Davis was in jail for already breaking the law by refusing to do her job, so what's a little copyright infringement? Once up there in her moment of shining glory, Davis stood with her lawyer, her fabulously hillbilly fourth husband, and a grinning Mike Hucksterbee, who had reportedly shoved Ted Cruz out of the photo-op so he could proclaim “God showed up" in the form of Davis. Then God sobbed some more, giggled, raised her arms Rocky-style in triumph, and told the cheering if bigoted crowd, “I just want to give God the glory...Keep on pressing. Don’t let down because He is here.” More crosses insanely waving.
It's better, apparently, for a red diaper baby to make her fellow-travelers comfortable with their prejudices, rather than deal with the substance, or not, of the clerk's protest.  (I don't consider it a mitigating circumstance for a leftie to endorse property rights.)

But there's this culture-studies notion called intersectionality that appears to apply here.  What sort of behavior might you expect of people who grew up in an agrarian, religiously fundamentalist, honor culture with strict sex roles?  Why does that not merit consideration as a root cause of the clerk's behavior, or the endorsement her supporters -- constituents -- appear to be providing her?  Why, in her case, is subverting the dominant paradigm or being transgressive not an understandable response to the intersecting oppressions of race, class, and gender (blue-collar white people, in this instance)?  Graffiti vandals get more respect from the Perpetually Aggrieved.

Perhaps it's because intersectionality is not serious social science with rigorous intellectual foundations.  It's simply a pose within which advocates-masquerading-as-intellectuals can sneer at behavior they disapprove of and sugar-coat-with-wordnoise behaviors they encourage.  Put another way, it's nothing more than an aesthetic pose, claims to be on the right or wrong side of history notwithstanding.

The serious social science?  Are religiously fundamentalist honor cultures with strict sex roles evolutionary stable, or an evolutionary dead end?  Discuss.

But that's not what the Perpetually Aggrieved are all about.  No, there are some, like EisenBolan, SJW, who like to compare the Christian Right with the Sillies.
Like members of ISIS who see their form of Islam as the correct one and Shiite and those who do not see eye to eye with them as not true Muslims. Well Christian right has followed them down the same path. With now Marriage Equality now the law of the land the religious right is now targetting progressive Christians for being for marriage equality.

You can just see the hatred the religious has for those not agreeing with them. Clerks refusing to do their jobs.
As if there is any chance of the Sillies and the fundies ever making common cause against the secular progressives.  There was a schism in the Russian Orthodox Church, in part about whether to genuflect with two fingers extended or three.  That was not the only doctrinal dispute, but if truth-praisers (the Russian word pravoslavie, which we render in English as orthodoxy) can differ over relatively small things, and Barnstead can spin off Centre Barnstead and Barnstead Hills, all of these illustrating minor differences among New England Puritans or Congregationalists, is there really any chance that religiously fundamentalist people who profess Jesus Christ as the Word of God Incarnate can ever make common cause with religiously fundamentalist people who acknowledge Jesus as a prophet useful to Allah's Messenger?  There are nontrivial differences in their eschatology to boot.  Please.

None of which deters some boutique multiculturalists from cutting fundamentalist Moslems slack whilst mocking fundamentalist Christians.

No comments: