>1)As you may know, the language of Privilege has been around
>since the days of WEB Dubois in roughly 1903. However, when a
>white woman starts to talk about it, suddenly it's all the
>rave. This is very common within institutions. Black scholars
>talk about something for years, and as soon as a white voice
>comes along saying THE EXACT SAME THING, it's considered
>valid. This is the case with Tim Wise as well who gives you
>ideas taken from scholars as early as the 19th century such as
>T. Thomas Fortune or even Malcolm X.

Either the discourse of privilege was always silly, even when Du Bois and Malcolm engaged in it, or it's not silly. You can't have it both ways. White people acknowledging it now doesn't change the veracity of the concept.

>2)Privilege discourse is largely about white people's feelings
>and more importantly, deflection from the original privilege
>discourse.

See above.

>Here's what I had to say about intersectionality:
>
>Athena Mutua states: "...intersectionaly is an outgrowth of
>black feminist thought and was developed initially to explain,
>explicate, and make visible black women�s experiences. It
>suggested that black women were not simply subjected to a
>system or social structure of racial oppression, but were also
>subject to the social institution of sexism. Black women,
>presumably unlike black men or white women were subject not to
>one, but to two or more social regimes of subjugation. In
>suggesting this, intersectionality also made a second claim
>about identity. It claimed that(initially some) identities
>were shaped, affected, and perhaps constructed by, as well as,
>sat at the very intersection of these multiple crisscrossing
>subordinating structures."
>
>This is why I find black men to be the best group to
>illustrate why intersectional logic is false or insufficent,
>independent of the fact that I am a black man.
>
>It would be fine if intersectionality stuck solely with
>addressing issues of black women and called itself "black
>women's studies." The problem is that it classified only black
>women as existing at an intersection of gender and race; in
>doing so, it posits that black men are privileged by gender
>and is therefore false and dangerous, as that notion is
>disproven in every area of life we study.

How you acknowledge that black women are subject to "two social regimes of subjugation," race and gender, but don't recognize that black men's exemption from that gender subjugation is a motherfucking privilege?