# Intersectionality and the Oppression Pyramid **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 7, 2025, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intersectionality-and-the-oppression-pyramid/1018016 "2025-05-07T16:38:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2025, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intersectionality-and-the-oppression-pyramid/1018016/21 "2025-05-07T20:09:43Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > She’s saying that criticizing her PAC is racist, because of all the POC who work for her, …what? I don’t think she was saying that at all. It would be a very strange thing to say to a room full of black women. > [@Miller](#): > > while at the same time declining to take any responsibility for how her PAC is actually being run - “It’s not my fault if the PAC is being run poorly, that’s down to the employees! And criticizing my employees is racist!” This also seems weirdly uncharitable. What are we basing this on? I have seen no sign that the PAC was run poorly, and when she joined the Live (after it had gone on for four hours) she defended how the PAC was being run, she certainly didn’t say it was poorly run or that it isn’t her fault. > [@Miller](#): > > Even if the initial complaint was baseless, if you’re putting yourself forward as the representative of an organization, you need to know how to handle baseless complaints gracefully, and she really failed hard at that. If that’s generally representative of her management technique, I can see the content creators backing away from it. Sure, but none of them said “we are leaving because she is a poor manager”, they said “we are leaving because of her microaggressions and racism towards black women”. > [@Miller](#): > > Especially after it came out that the PAC was basically her vanity project, and couldn’t exist if the person running it wasn’t willing to treat it as an unpaid hobby Now this part is _exceedingly_ uncharitable. The PAC is just starting out; would you say any startup is just a “vanity hobby”? The fact that she didn’t choose to take a large salary that could be used to pay someone else is evidence that she’s a bad manager and her PAC sucks? ---
**Author:** ![DemonTree](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/demontree/32/8646_2.png) [@DemonTree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DemonTree)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2025, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intersectionality-and-the-oppression-pyramid/1018016/22 "2025-05-07T20:26:20Z")
> [@Spice\_Weasel](#): > > In fact, it’s hard for me to think of any domain of any social issue where I haven’t seen the oppression pyramid somewhere. Mostly online. Thank you for saying this. It was me who originally brought up the subject, and it’s kind of a relief to have someone on the left simply agree it’s a real thing. > [@Spice\_Weasel](#): > > It is my opinion that this is the reason we even have the concept of intersectionality. It wasn’t invented for people to score oppression points or anything, though some people have certainly run with that interpretation. It was created to take into account, on a service provision, policy and research level, the specific needs that certain populations have. So it is a useful tool in some areas. I don’t have a problem with the concept of intersectionality in itself, but with how it’s been turned into a way to score points, and create a new kind of hierarchy where some people are more equal than others. > [@Spice\_Weasel](#): > > As a parent, I’ve seen it very aggressively from high-functioning autistics against parents of severely disabled autistic children. I’ve seen support Level 1 autistics insist that they understand the parents’ children’s needs better, even though they never met the child or the parents, simply because they are on the same (extremely broad, extremely varied) autism spectrum. They have also discounted scientific research on autism because the researchers aren’t autistic. I saw this long before I had an autistic child and determined to stay the hell out of it, but ultimately I had to become what the internet loathes and make decisions that leave r/autism frothing at the mouth. (Fortunately I have stayed out of it _online._) I have also encountered this view, and I don’t agree with it. I try to push back when it comes up. > [@Spice\_Weasel](#): > > **Sr. Weasel** has had some bad experiences, too. And unfortunately it just put him off trying to learn more from those groups. That’s the end result of this. People disengage. I think a major reason so many young men - especially but not only white men - have become alienated from the left is that they see themselves on the losing side of the privilege equation, and feel unwelcome and unvalued as a consequence. I can’t really blame them, but it’s a bad thing for the world. > [@Spice\_Weasel](#): > > One conclusion I’ve come around to as a result of all this is that having an experience of something does not make you an expert on that thing. It makes you an expert on your own experience. And that viewpoint should certainly be taken into consideration, but so should the viewpoints of, say, people who have been studying the subject for decades, or people related to the issue in other ways, or even privileged people who can more effectively pinpoint the best ways to intervene among other privileged people. You know who knows the most about white people? White people. Well put. I agree. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2025, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intersectionality-and-the-oppression-pyramid/1018016/23 "2025-05-07T20:38:06Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > …what? > > I don’t think she was saying that at all. “You’re treating POC unfairly,” sounds like a pretty clear accusation of, at least, soft prejudice. I don’t really understand how to parse this part of her response as something _other_ than an attempt to one-up the other person on “not caring about minorities.” > [@Babale](#): > > This also seems weirdly uncharitable. What are we basing this on? > > I have seen no sign that the PAC was run poorly, and when she joined the Live (after it had gone on for four hours) she defended how the PAC was being run, she certainly didn’t say it was poorly run or that it isn’t her fault. It’s strongly implied in her response. If someone says, “This PAC is poorly organized,” and you treat that as an attack on your employees, is that not saying that it’s your employees who are responsible for organizing the event, and not yourself? An organization can have the best employees in the world, but if the person in charge is a shithead, the organization isn’t going to function great. Note that I’m not saying she _is_ a shithead, or that the PAC was poorly organized, only that, “but my employees!” is a weird response, from the person running an organization, to an accusation that the organization isn’t being run well. > [@Babale](#): > > Now this part is _exceedingly_ uncharitable. The PAC is just starting out; would you say any startup is just a “vanity hobby”? The fact that she didn’t choose to take a large salary that could be used to pay someone else is evidence that she’s a bad manager and her PAC sucks? No, it’s not _evidence_ that it was poorly run, but if it _were_ poorly run, that’s a big red flag about the possibility of reforming it so that it could be run better. If she’s great at her job, it’s not that much of a problem. If she’s bad at her job, than the entire enterprise is unsalvagable, because without her involvement, there is no organization. Again, I don’t know if she _is_ bad at her job. The only data point I have about her skills as a manager is her response to this situation, which was really not handled greatly, but this could have been an aberration. But its possible that this wasn’t the only time she screwed something up with the PAC, just the most visible, and the content creators decided to use the existing public controversy to exit any association with her. ---
**Author:** ![DemonTree](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/demontree/32/8646_2.png) [@DemonTree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DemonTree)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2025, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intersectionality-and-the-oppression-pyramid/1018016/24 "2025-05-07T21:39:50Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > Mind you, Zee is _also_ part of this world; I think it’s pretty weird that she was specifically complaining that calling the event disorganized is disrespectful to people of color who worked on the event. It’s actually disrespectful to _everyone_ who worked on the event, and the the event itself, and to the mission behind it - why single out POC staffers? Thinking about it, possibly she said the criticism was harming POC staff specifically because some of them were included in the call? It’s still fairly weird, and I’m not surprised she was accused of ‘tokenisation’. It’s not a good thing to do, but this kind of behaviour is encouraged by the double standards they all operate under. > [@Babale](#): > > Likewise, Zee brought up the fact that the staffer who was being yelled at is Arab, as if that makes it _worse_ that she was being yelled at - and the response was “Arabs can be white”, as if that makes it BETTER. The yeller (Julie?) said “So I’m sure when a black person is yelling you just hear yelling. Um, but no, what she had said […] was deeply harmful to me. So the fact that you just see it as me bullying sweet little white Hannah is a problem.” And that’s when Zee says Hannah isn’t white. But also, I gather Hannah is one of the people who works for Zee’s PAC, so it isn’t surprising Zee would react badly to coming into a call and hearing some influencer shouting at her. It’s a stretch to decide this is racism, but it’s an accusation that’s easy to make and hard to push back against in this kind of group. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2025, 7:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intersectionality-and-the-oppression-pyramid/1018016/25 "2025-05-08T07:24:46Z")
I expect lots of people can think of times they were told that their opinion didn’t count or that they couldn’t be oppressed because they were somehow privileged". I’ve been told on this very forum that rounding up and killing every man and boy in a town wouldn’t count as sexism; I’ve been told elsewhere that killing a man doesn’t count as murder or violence, and that killing all men wouldn’t be genocide. I’ve always thought of it as a totem pole, not a pyramid however. I’m no expert - I only recently even heard the term - but after some googling it looks to me that “Oppression Pyramid” is one of those terms that originated in the academic left that the Right has hijacked fairly recently and put their own meaning on. The Right isn’t very creative. > [@asterion](#): > > I have a hard time considering it a right wing strawman of intersectionality when Occupy Wall Street was using the “progressive stack” fifteen years ago. Yeah; people were making fun of the “Oppression Olympics” long before the term “intersectionality” entered public awareness. [That term](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppression_Olympics#Usage) and [intersectionality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality#History) originated at about the same time, but it took a lot longer for Intersectionality to get any traction. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2025, 9:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intersectionality-and-the-oppression-pyramid/1018016/26 "2025-05-08T09:50:09Z")
> [@Spice\_Weasel](#): > > In fact, it’s hard for me to think of any domain of any social issue where I haven’t seen the oppression pyramid somewhere. Mostly online. I would agree with this, except I have heard a more useful phrasing “deference hierarchy” or “deference politics”. There are unwritten (but quite obvious) rules about who should yield to whom in any given discussion. People declare their position by preceding their statements with “as an XYZ…” and if someone speaks out of turn, you will quickly see the contours emerge. In that lens, intersectionality becomes a reminder that intersecting identities have rank, i.e. a white person can’t claim priority just by being a woman or queer, because that’s not enough intersection. The above description might seem hostile because it’s supposed to be observed but not mentioned. You’re certainly not supposed to describe in reductively provincial terms like a pecking order, nor to openly admit that some voices get precedence for reasons other than merit of ideas. But IMO, while at times it does get ovewrought, it’s a valid thing that mostly shouldn’t cause a lot of heartburn. More-oppressed identities ought to get more precedence over any other individual voice, and should have proportionally greater sway over the collective voice. It’s proper that it exists and therefore silly to pretend it doesn’t. The demonization comes from cishet whites (mainly men) who are distressed at the knowledge that there’s one social hierarchy that we can’t dominate. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2025, 10:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intersectionality-and-the-oppression-pyramid/1018016/27 "2025-05-08T10:18:38Z")
> [@HMS\_Irruncible](#): > > More-oppressed identities ought to get more precedence over any other individual voice, and should have proportionally greater sway over the collective voice. > > It’s proper that it exists and therefore silly to pretend it doesn’t. The demonization comes from cishet whites (mainly men) who are distressed at the knowledge that there’s one social hierarchy that we can’t dominate. So it’s either dominate or be dominated? Those are the only two options? ---
**Author:** ![DemonTree](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/demontree/32/8646_2.png) [@DemonTree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DemonTree)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2025, 10:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intersectionality-and-the-oppression-pyramid/1018016/28 "2025-05-08T10:32:17Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Yeah; people were making fun of the “Oppression Olympics” long before the term “intersectionality” entered public awareness. [That term](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppression_Olympics#Usage) So there has been pushback against this phenomenon from people on the left for decades, with seemingly little success. And still many progressives cannot bring themselves to admit it’s not a right-wing fiction when it’s challenged. * * * > [@HMS\_Irruncible](#): > > It’s proper that it exists and therefore silly to pretend it doesn’t. The demonization comes from cishet whites (mainly men) who are distressed at the knowledge that there’s one social hierarchy that we can’t dominate. It would be fairer and more accurate to say they are distressed at being at the bottom of this particular hierarchy, one maintained by people who are ostensibly opposed to hierarchies. And it doesn’t help that it’s existence is frequently denied, and they are told they are just upset at being treated equally, when this is palpably not the case. If there is going to be a hierarchy based on immutable characteristics either way, why on earth wouldn’t they choose the side that puts them at the top rather than at the bottom? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2025, 10:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intersectionality-and-the-oppression-pyramid/1018016/29 "2025-05-08T10:40:15Z")
> [@HMS\_Irruncible](#): > > It’s proper that it exists and therefore silly to pretend it doesn’t. The demonization comes from cishet whites (mainly men) who are distressed at the knowledge that there’s one social hierarchy that we can’t dominate. Or _just maybe_ people don’t like being demonized, silenced or threatened _regardless_ of their gender or skin color. This is classic “dehumanization of the enemy”, putting forward a theory that white males don’t think like human beings or react like they do. Because white males aren’t people, and don’t react like people or have the same motives as people. So when they apparently act like people there _must_ be some hidden nefarious reason for it. It reminds me of strategic bombing in WWII, when both sides simultaneously indiscriminately bombed the other side because that would somehow break their will, while _at the same_ time being outraged and more determined when the enemy did the same to them - and never even considered the inconsistency. The scale is different of course but the psychology is the same; treating the Enemy Other as not thinking or reacting like a human. Which of course leads to the people doing the dehumanization to completely misread their opponents, and being blindsided when they do in fact act like human beings. ---
**Author:** ![Kropotkin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kropotkin/32/18045_2.png) [@Kropotkin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kropotkin)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2025, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intersectionality-and-the-oppression-pyramid/1018016/30 "2025-05-08T12:28:46Z")
The Combahee River Collective Statement of 1977 outlines the arguments for considering race, gender, sexuality, and more–intersectionality–in the context of progressive struggles and may be read here [https://americanstudies.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/Keyword%20Coalition\_Readings.pdf](https://americanstudies.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/Keyword%20Coalition_Readings.pdf) ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2025, 12:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intersectionality-and-the-oppression-pyramid/1018016/31 "2025-05-08T12:30:59Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Or _just maybe_ people don’t like being demonized, silenced or threatened _regardless_ of their gender or skin color. Again, criticism coming from people who see threats and persecution in the mere existence of a status hierarchy that they can’t dominate. It’s OK to listen to other people. It’s OK that (for example) black queer women happen to be experts on what it’s like to be that. It’s OK that white men aren’t the most important voice in that particular conversation. ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2025, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intersectionality-and-the-oppression-pyramid/1018016/32 "2025-05-08T13:13:20Z")
> [@HMS\_Irruncible](#): > > More-oppressed identities ought to get more precedence over any other individual voice, and should have proportionally greater sway over the collective voice. > > It’s proper that it exists and therefore silly to pretend it doesn’t. The demonization comes from cishet whites (mainly men) who are distressed at the knowledge that there’s one social hierarchy that we can’t dominate. And @Left_Hand_of_Dorkness, if I got frustrated with you earlier, this is why. The dynamic under discussion exists - we can easily tell this because there are plenty of people who proudly declare that it’s precisely how they operate. You objected to me saying so, presumably because you yourself have a more nuanced take? But if that’s the case, _your_ take is probably not the one I’m talking about. And whether or not you _agree_, you can’t deny that perspectives like HMS’s above exist. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2025, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intersectionality-and-the-oppression-pyramid/1018016/33 "2025-05-08T13:21:33Z")
> [@HMS\_Irruncible](#): > > It’s OK to listen to other people. It’s OK that (for example) black queer women happen to be experts on what it’s like to be that. It’s OK that white men aren’t the most important voice in that particular conversation. And in a conversation about poverty, should the voice of a poor white man take precedence over that of a middle-class black queer woman? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2025, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intersectionality-and-the-oppression-pyramid/1018016/34 "2025-05-08T16:20:39Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > And @Left_Hand_of_Dorkness, if I got frustrated with you earlier, this is why. > > The dynamic under discussion exists - we can easily tell this because there are plenty of people who proudly declare that it’s precisely how they operate. It does exist. And it’s sometimes problematic. My objection, I think, is to the broad-brush critique, as if “progressives” as a group, not just certain enclaves of progressives, are constantly engaged in this activity. This morning, I was in a training. It was myself and six others: a White dude, four White women, a Latina woman, and a Black woman. As part of the training, we watched a video about a school up north, focusing on a lot of happy, engaged Black students. We talked about what we liked about the video. Then the Black woman spoke up. She said (paraphrased), “I just think it’s kind of weird, that we’re in here watching all these videos of happy Black kids, when our school is full of so many Black kids that don’t feel welcome in this space. As a Black woman that strikes me the wrong way.” And we listened, and paused, and thought about it. And nobody came back to explain to her why she was wrong or off-topic to bring this up or why she shouldn’t feel bad, because that would’ve been super dickish of us. Instead, she was offering a perspective that we needed to consider. She wasn’t being awful about it, she wasn’t bullying us, she was just saying something that needed saying. It cast the rest of our conversation in a different light, and got us to remember a problem that maybe we weren’t thinking about at the moment. This is, in my eyes, the positive side of the coin, if the whole anti-Kirk debacle is the negative side. Progressive spaces are often better about paying attention to perspectives that get shut down in non-progressive spaces, and sometimes there are mechanisms put in place to amplify the voices of folks who aren’t used to having their voices amplified. And that’s a really good thing. I’m a White dude. I grew up hearing most of the people who spoke with authority be people similar to me. I grew up knowing that I could speak and be listened to by my peers. I have no trouble speaking up in a group, and I do generally get listened to when I speak up. Other folks? Not so much. It is good and appropriate that, recognizing this dynamic, we sometimes pay extra attention to ensuring that everyone gets heard. But that doesn’t excuse weaponizing the principle. That doesn’t excuse people using identity as a cudgel, doesn’t excuse shutting people down when their view is a crucial part of the conversation. I think I worry that the conversation all about “the oppression pyramid” can end up stifling some very positive dynamics, and I get irked when it seems like people are steering the conversation to that end, intentionally or otherwise. > [@Spice\_Weasel](#): > > At work, during staff trainings, I’ve seen people stand up and say the conversation, which is open to everyone, is centering white voices and experiences\*\* because they obviously couldn’t deal with the fact that our discussion of identity included things like mental health limitations and being a religious minority, which both fall lower on the totem pole than race. I I wonder whether this is more prevalent in certain arenas–especiallly social work/therapy/domestic violence nonprofits. The worst stories I’ve heard about this sort of “shut up cishet White lady” nonsense are from someone else I know who recently left her job at a domestic violence nonprofit, because of so much of this exhausting rhetoric and conversational manipulation. But back in the 90s, when leftist circles (at least the ones I was in) were all about consensus, I had people manipulate the rules of consensus to bully and shut down other folks. And I still thought consensus was good, I just thought they were being assholes. Maybe a big part of the problem is that progressive circles lack sufficient tools, and social support, for recognizing when someone is taking a valid, valuable structure and perverting it to manipulate and control a group. I think a lot of progressives are so worried about being unjust that, when they face a bullshit accusation of injustice, we fold instead of treating the accusation thoughtfully and critically. ---
**Author:** ![puzzlegal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puzzlegal/32/3827_2.png) [@puzzlegal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puzzlegal)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2025, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intersectionality-and-the-oppression-pyramid/1018016/35 "2025-05-08T17:15:35Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > I’m a White dude. I grew up hearing most of the people who spoke with authority be people similar to me. I grew up knowing that I could speak and be listened to by my peers. I have no trouble speaking up in a group, and I do generally get listened to when I speak up. Other folks? Not so much. This starts really young. When i was shopping nursery schools for my kid, i went to one, and sat in on “circle time” with the youngest class. And i felt like it was almost all boys in the room. So u actually counted the kids, and it was the same number of boys and girls. But the boys spoke so much more that it felt like a group of mostly-boys. (I picked a different nursery school for my daughter.) ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2025, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intersectionality-and-the-oppression-pyramid/1018016/36 "2025-05-08T17:22:24Z")
Absolutely. I don’t know the extent to which it’s nature vs. nurture–but I mention that because I want to head off any side-tracks, because _it doesn’t matter_. If we think that in communities of peers, all perspectives are important and should be taken seriously (while also considering the value of expertise, as @Spice_Weasel points out), we should take steps to promote that belief. And if some groups taking those steps do it clumsily – privilege stacks or whatever – I’d rather they try, clumsily, and re-evaluate than to ignore the dynamic and end up with what you get by ignoring it. ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2025, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intersectionality-and-the-oppression-pyramid/1018016/37 "2025-05-08T17:35:13Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > It does exist. And it’s sometimes problematic. My objection, I think, is to the broad-brush critique, as if “progressives” as a group, not just certain enclaves of progressives, are constantly engaged in this activity. I think racism is a problem among conservatives, but I don’t think that conservatives are constantly engaged in racist activity. If the clarification helps, I _don’t_ think that _all_ progressives engage in this kind of behavior. AOC is a good example of a progressive who generally knows better. And guess what? Now she lost her DSA endorsement, because she’s no longer ideologically pure enough. > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > And we listened, and paused, and thought about it. And nobody came back to explain to her why she was wrong or off-topic to bring this up or why she shouldn’t feel bad, because that would’ve been super dickish of us. Instead, she was offering a perspective that we needed to consider. She wasn’t being awful about it, she wasn’t bullying us, she was just saying something that needed saying. It cast the rest of our conversation in a different light, and got us to remember a problem that maybe we weren’t thinking about at the moment. That’s an example of the academic definition of intersectionality. I have absolutely no issue with that, I think it’s really important. I certainly wouldn’t describe this interaction as part of the phenomenon we describe as an oppression pyramid. The _only_ quibble I’d have is this, that Alessan alluded to earlier: > [@Alessan](#): > > And in a conversation about poverty, should the voice of a poor white man take precedence over that of a middle-class black queer woman? What if you guys were talking about an issue that impacts boys, and a white staff member tried to give his take as someone who was once a young boy. What do you think the reaction to that would be? Would it also be positive and respectful, or could it be reminiscent of the attitude on display in this article? > **[Young white men do have problems, but they need to man up](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/04/05/young-white-men-do-have-problems-but-they-need-to-man-up/)** > > Yes, masculinity is in crisis, but the truth is that masculinity has always been in crisis > [@](#): > > Despite its zeitgeistiness, I have refused to watch Adolescence. I may be among the last few, at least in the chattering classes, who have not tuned in. > > There are several reasons for my refusal. One is that the miniseries is obviously far too depressing. When I turn on a streaming platform these days, I want something jollier, something more along the lines of The Real Housewives of Salt Lake City or The White Lotus. > > The second is that, while I recognise that this group is suffering, I simply don’t feel inclined to indulge in either the huge pity party, or the jamboree of toxic-masculinity-awareness-raising, that Adolescence has inspired. > > Yes, masculinity is in crisis, but the truth is that masculinity has always been in crisis – ask any social historian. And as with all moments of media-friendly crises of masculinity, we find ourselves talking about men like they are helpless little flowers. It is odd. > > Working-class white boys are found to be treated badly, and therefore to do badly and act badly. One of the big issues cited is that they don’t know their worth or purpose anymore in a society constantly calling them “toxic”. > > Very sad, but it is possible to get over such slights and thrive anyway. Women faced derision for almost all of history for simply being women – they were seen as neurotic, nervous, intellectually inferior, limited to backbreaking domestic labour and breeding. Any who tried to go beyond this were stymied, ridiculed and often simply barred. So long as the respectful dialogue you describe isn’t open to _only some_ groups, I think it’s a wonderful thing that has nothing to do with the Pyramid of Oppression. > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > But that doesn’t excuse weaponizing the principle. That doesn’t excuse people using identity as a cudgel, doesn’t excuse shutting people down when their view is a crucial part of the conversation. > > I think I worry that the conversation all about “the oppression pyramid” can end up stifling some very positive dynamics, and I get irked when it seems like people are steering the conversation to that end, intentionally or otherwise. I agree with you that, just like accusations of prejudice can be weaponized, highlighting this fact can _also_ be weaponized. But I don’t think that stifling any criticism of this phenomenon from people on the left is a good idea. I think what that leads to is _only people who don’t give a shit about what is on the left do or don’t stifle_ talking about the issue; which means that when someone comes across this situation - maybe they read about an example, or maybe it happens to them - it is _incredibly damaging_ if the response on the Left is “I have no idea what you’re talking about!” while the response on the Right is “You’re so right, come, sit down, have a mug of Black Rifle Coffee, put on a MAGA hat, and I’ll tell you all about how right you are.” If left wing people do dumb shit due to their misinterpretion of left wing ideas, _left wing people need to correct that_, or it gives the impression that the interpretation _was correct_. > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > I wonder whether this is more prevalent in certain arenas–especiallly social work/therapy/domestic violence nonprofits Or politics. People who fundraise, campaign, or canvass are going to be the most dedicated and politically active people, which often means that staffers are further to the (right/left) than their candidate. > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > But back in the 90s, when leftist circles (at least the ones I was in) were all about consensus, I had people manipulate the rules of consensus to bully and shut down other folks. And I still thought consensus was good, I just thought they were being assholes. I still think intersectionality as defined in academic circles is good. You’ll note that I didn’t use that term to describe the thing I am critical of, except for in the context of this thread, where I did specify that I think it’s the wrong name for it. I’m not conflating the complex of behavior that the Oppression Pyramid is meant to evoke, and Intersectionality. I think they’re two totally different things. I’m not sure where the conflation comes from; it seems like when I criticize the behaviors of the Oppression Pyramid, people come in to defend intersectionality. > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Maybe a big part of the problem is that progressive circles lack sufficient tools, and social support, for recognizing when someone is taking a valid, valuable structure and perverting it to manipulate and control a group. I think a lot of progressives are so worried about being unjust that, when they face a bullshit accusation of injustice, we fold instead of treating the accusation thoughtfully and critically. Yeah, I very much agree with this. ---
**Author:** ![puzzlegal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puzzlegal/32/3827_2.png) [@puzzlegal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puzzlegal)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2025, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intersectionality-and-the-oppression-pyramid/1018016/38 "2025-05-08T19:47:03Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > But back in the 90s, when leftist circles (at least the ones I was in) were all about consensus, I had people manipulate the rules of consensus to bully and shut down other folks. And I still thought consensus was good, I just thought they were being assholes. I actually think that requiring consensus is toxic, and leads to bullying. If you require a supermajority to make a decision, everyone is still incented to try to persuade others, and to listen to other perspectives. But if someone really fundamentally disagrees, there’s no need to bully that person into consensus. So long as the outlier is willing to say, “i don’t like it, but I’ll follow the rules we’ve agreed to as a group”, you can all move on. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2025, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intersectionality-and-the-oppression-pyramid/1018016/39 "2025-05-08T19:50:28Z")
> [@puzzlegal](#): > > I actually think that requiring consensus is toxic, and leads to bullying. If you require a supermajority to make a decision, everyone is still incented to try to persuade others, and to listen to other perspectives. But if someone really fundamentally disagrees, there’s no need to bully that person into consensus. So long as the outlier is willing to say, “i don’t like it, but I’ll follow the rules we’ve agreed to as a group”, you can all move on. That’s how I learned it. Most of the time, outliers would say exactly that. You don’t need enthusiastic consensus. The option to block is a powerful option, to be exercised rarely, in cases where you think the group’s decision will result in significant harm. However, some people would use it to slow the entire process down so that they could be the center of attention, refusing to go along to get along for no reason other than a power trip they were on. ---
**Author:** ![puzzlegal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puzzlegal/32/3827_2.png) [@puzzlegal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puzzlegal)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2025, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intersectionality-and-the-oppression-pyramid/1018016/40 "2025-05-08T19:52:41Z")
I think it’s cleaner on both sides to require only a supermajority. One person can’t grandstand, nor does anyone need to bully a tiny minority into acceptance. You are free to vote your conscience if you profoundly disagree, and still live with the rest of your community. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intersectionality-and-the-oppression-pyramid/1018016.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intersectionality-and-the-oppression-pyramid/1018016.md?page=3)