There is a very common presupposition that goes something like this: If a group is underrepresented in any given domain, it is purely a result of discrimination, and/or misogyny within that domain. For example, women are underrepresented in fields such as STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) in relation to their overall proportion of the human population. But the argument of the radical left – which you could argue is essentially the mainstream left, at this point – is, “Those who are underrepresented in ANY given domain are by default being oppressed by those who represent the majority group in the given domain.” This is where logic, reason and evidence come into play; and the question arises… Does this concept hold up to logical scrutiny; or is this simply a game played by the Neo-Marxists that divides each group into classes such as oppressor versus the oppressed?
The first step in effectively countering this mindset is acknowledging that everyone is oppressed in some way, shape or form. This is where the term “intersectionality” completely loses all validity i.e. Is a black transgender woman more oppressed than a disabled Hispanic female? Is a gay Muslim man more oppressed than a than a middle class white woman? If you were to say the gay Muslim were more oppressed than the woman, does that make you a sexist since you’re not siding with the woman? Is a black woman living in Beverly Hills more oppressed than a white woman living in the Appalachian Mountains of West Virginia? The train of thought is obvious: How is “Oppression Scale” ranked, and who the hell is deciding the ranking system?
These questions may come off as trivial and abstract but they have real world consequences, just ask Jordan Peterson. One need not look further than the Holodomor Famine of 1932. In 1932, the “Kulaks,” (Ukrainian for “farmers”) had their properties confiscated by the Russian communists under Stalin, had their grain shipped to the cities, and had their families left to literally starve because the Kulaks were viewed as evil capitalists who had an unfair advantage over the population, and were manipulating the prices of grain. The Holodomor Famine led to the starvation of over 6 million Ukrainians, and many more Russians due to the lack of grain production, between the years of 1932 and 1933; and we are beginning to see similar atrocities arise in places like South Africa and Zimbabwe.
These farmers were viewed as having “privilege.” Sound familiar?
Enough with the specifics; let’s dig into principle. If a group is “oppressed” because they are underrepresented (women in STEM, minorities running Fortune 500 companies, etc) then it must be a result of the “systemic oppression” we are so frequently lectured about, right? Because if only 32 CEOs of Fortune 500 companies are women, there must be an evil white man with a beard smoking big cigars ordering women out of his country club, right? :Let’s follow that logic…
Based on current statistics, 93.2% of America’s prison population is male, with only 6.8% being female. If feminists are arguing that any disparity in statistics is purely a result of discrimination, then they would NECESSARILY have to argue that the prison system discriminates against men, in favor of women. I think women’s’ argument would simply be that men simply commit more crimes; which I agree with, but then they would have to apply that logic across racial and ethnic lines, which his a path they would not like to go down seeing as how black males account for around 7% of the US population, but commit around 50% of the murders. By feminist logic, white people need to sue the NBA and NFL for racial discrimination since whites are not equally represented. At this point, the absurdity of this ideology is painfully obvious.
Leftists frequently argue that they want an “equal” society with no concept of what that actually entails. This brings to mind the old phrase, “The path to hell is paved with good intentions.” Communism did mean to do good. Although, the implementation of this “good” by the State resulted in the death of roughly 250+ million people in the 18th and 19th centuries alone. An “equal” society means that any “successful” person (the definition of which is entirely dependent of the State’s mood that day) must have their wealth regulated and confiscated by the state in order to maintain that equality. Don’t believe me? Ask the Kulaks.