The SocJus crowd, infamous for its identity politics and cultural Marxism, refuses to accept the existence of crime and oppression against persons when the victim and the perpetrator do not hold the correct status of victimhood.
The social justice crowd, the progressives, the ideological left or whatever you wish to call them have taken great pains in establishing in the minds of the public the idea of systematic oppression and how it inflicts near anyone on the planet. They brandish a wide variety of -isms and phobias in an attempt to give credence to this issue: sexism, racism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, etc. These prejudices, whether done intentionally or not, are oft exaggerated way out of proportion to appear to be worse than they are.
In turn, these -isms and phobias have been put in a hierarchy of victimhood; a league table of oppression. This is devised, I’m assuming, by judging which prejudice is most potent and how many people it affects. Some call this the Oppression Olympics whereas those from inside the cause would call it kyriarchy:
“A neologism… derived from the Greek words for “lord” or “master” (kyrios) and “to rule or dominate” (archein) which seeks to redefine the analytic category of patriarchy in terms of multiplicative intersecting structures of domination … Kyriarchy is best theorized as a complex pyramidal system of intersecting multiplicative social structures of super-ordination and subordination, of ruling and oppression.” – Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza, Wisdom Ways: Introducing Feminist Biblical Interpretation
Kyriarchy is the birth product of Intersectional Feminism – “Intersectional Feminism tells us that oppression comes in many different forms”. This mentality is what creates the phenomenon known as the Oppression Olympics because it pits different forms of oppression and prejudice against each other, fighting for victimhood superiority, a Hunger Games of Oppression. This can be seen by the in-fighting of the feminist movement regarding “white” feminism: the argument is that white feminism is the kind of feminism that ignores intersectionality. This led to The Huffington Post releasing a video asking “white feminists” to shut the fuck up. They argue that white feminists are privileged over non-white feminists because of their skin-colour and the related privileges that come packaged with it.
But another interesting phenomenon to arise from their constant crying out of victimhood is the idea that privilege (or oppression) is created from one of the –isms/phobias (or prejudice) plus power. As Anita Sarkeesian said: “There’s no such thing as sexism against men. That’s because sexism is prejudice + power. Men are the dominant gender with power in society” This is what gives the Oppression Olympics, or the kyriarchy, its weight because being victimised matters little in terms of kyriarchy if you are on equal footings of power with your victimiser. As shown with white feminism, being oppressed because they are female is not enough because they are privileged due to them being white: their whiteness gives them white power. You couldn’t make it up.
As the “intersectionality” has grown so has the league charts been silently formed. There is much debate and discussion about who goes where and how it is lain out, as there is no official structure and because the chains of oppression are constantly moving. Carl Benjamin, more famously known as Sargon of Akkad, spoke about a league table – he called it The Progressive Stack. He argued that the Progressive Stack is “the order of importance of identities, this is how they figure out who is more oppressed than other people”. The Progressive Stack goes as follows:
In this stack the importance of identities are ranked in descending order, race is more important an identity than gender, just as the oppression is ranked in descending order (racial oppression is worse than class oppression). Furthermore, each of these stacks have within them more stacks, the positions of Privileged and Oppressed:
In effect, to be a white, straight, able-bodied, middle or upper class cis-male is to be the prime benefactor of your identity and ruler of oppression – to be this is to be scum.
This table can be used to explain intersectionality, kyriarchy and the Oppression Olympics. When persons higher on the Progressive Stack are victimised by persons lower on the Progressive Stack this is considered as Oppression as they are victimising and they have power (Oppression = Prejudice + Power). This can lead to social unrest, online controversy, activism, petitions, etc. Whilst the identities in the Stack column may move around, those who are Privileged stay as such as do those who are Oppressed, otherwise the need for the ideological left to engage in political activities is gone.
This is why it is noticeable and well-known that oppression is a top-down activity, that one can only be oppressed by those above, because of the solidification of these identities. Reverse-oppression does not exist because of the lack of power, as was argued by Anita Sarkeesian; you can’t be sexist against men, you can’t be poor if you’re white, etc.
However, an issue for the progressives is that because many of them have Marxist influences of some form the dichotomy of Bourgeois and Proletariat, or in this case Privileged and Oppressed, must be satisfied. Therefore in their minds the positions of power are, excuse the pun, black and white; there is no grey zone. Oppression is top-down, no question.
So in events of lateral victimisation it is either outright ignored, denied because of arbitrary reasoning (oft the subject is changed in order to deny) or traits/classes are recycled into the Progressive Stack to prove how there is a hierarchy in play somehow. The progressives, in order to satisfy the stack often move the goalposts, utilise a No True Scotsman or employ an addition of sub-classes to maintain this multi-tier layout of oppression – see again the white feminism problem. The “natural order” of Top-Down Oppression must be maintained.
There is much evidence that shows the gears of the oppression engine moving, one such example was the denial/ignoring of black-on-black crime in the early days of the Black Lives Matter movement (BLM) – or by anyone on the ideological left at the time. On the BLM website under section Guiding Principles the first sentence states that “Black Lives Matter is an ideological and political intervention in a world where Black lives are systematically and intentionally targeted for demise.” Demise, unless committed by members of their own community, even if done so at a much larger rate. As they are primarily working-class black men it is near impossible for them to oppress each other, according to The Progressive Stack, so therefore when the issue is raised whomever is dissenting is labelled a racist or a bigot (change subject and deny). This is not entirely in effect now as members of BLM have started speaking out about black-on-black crime, even arguing for a second element of BLM to specifically target this issue.
What is still active though is the constant controversy surrounding #AllLivesMatter which came out in response to #BlackLivesMatter as a retort to the racial exclusion of the latter hashtag, however it further fanned the flames of racial tensions rather than doused them. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg published a post reprimanding his staff about crossing out black lives matter and writing all lives matter at MPK (Menlo Park, California – Facebook HQ). He called this behaviour “disrespectful” and “malicious”. Whilst his point about silencing freedom of speech is correct, attempting to imply racism or harm here is improper, but according to The Progressive Stack it is not. Highlighting that the issues faced are faced by all irrespective of race clearly implies that you do not believe the suffering of those higher on the Progressive Stack matters, obviously.
Another example is female perpetrated or male victim domestic violence, an issue largely ignored by feminists and the media. Feminism and the main-stream media (MSM) plaster stories left, right and centre about male-on-female domestic violence and this form, known as The Duluth Model, is considered the norm for domestic violence. The ManKind Initiative, in their report Male Victims of Domestic and Partner Abuse 30 Key Facts, produced a plethora of information showing the hypocrisy taken to domestic violence: one in three victims of DV are male; male victims are over twice as likely than women not to tell someone; the percentage of gay/bi/lesbian men & women who suffered partner abuse is double that of the percentage of heterosexual men & women and there are nearly 400 DV organisations for women offering over 4000 spaces for women & children whereas for men there are a mere 18 organisations offering around 78 spaces (only 24 of which are dedicated). These statistics are the product of outdated views on DV and the empathy difference for men and women. As a society, because men rank higher on the progressive stack, when we see them getting beaten by women we simply don’t care. As women rank lower on the scale the issue of DV, despite being genderless as many Men’s Rights Activists try to argue, is viewed by the wider society as an exclusively male-on-female phenomenon.
The final example is that of the recent controversy surrounding Zoe Saldana playing Nina Simone. Saldana, an Afro-Latino actress known for playing Nyota Uhura in the recent Star Trek films and for featuring as Neytiri in Avatar, faced criticism after appearing in “blackface” for her role in the Nina Simone biopic Nina. Despite Saldana being black herself, according to the ideological left, she is not black enough. Irrespective of her acting ability and how good the film looks, the trailer can be found here, the argument is being taken to a racial level. In order to satisfy The Progressive Stack the ideological left have employed a No True Scotsman by claiming Zoe Saldana is the wrong type of black so thusly she cannot identify with the racial struggles that Nina felt in her life. As well as being accused of blackface, there have been reports of a petition condemning “light-complexioned actors” playing the roles of “dark-complexioned historical figures” – notice the shift from black and white to dark and light?
This bizarre, cannibalistic racism would be considered astonishing to anyone outside The Progressive Stack, but to those inside it is a constant competition of who is more entitled to victimhood. The race debate, once orientated around fighting discrimination and promoting fairness and equality, lifting those who were held back up to a greater standard of living is now less about the promotion of rights but the degradation of character and the signalling of oppression. Oppression Signalling, dare I call it. This argument is a grim bastardisation of what the civil rights movement stood for.
In summary, The Progressive Stack (Oppression Olympics, Kyriarchy, Intersectionality, Identity Politics, etc) in its current form is destined to fail. Like energy in a closed system it will all boil to chaos as the perpetual competition of cry-babies and wannabe-victims out-shout and out-wail each other for title of most oppressed. The Progressive Stack, unless pulled back under heel, will expand and continue to cannibalise until every activity and every person is judged not by their merit or by content of their character but by their rankings in the Oppression Olympics. Like Sisyphus, they are doomed to Hell.
*I disagreed with the terminologies used originally so I changed them to terms I felt were more correct, sorry Sargon.