>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.

I explained the difference in McIntosh's brand of privilege discourse very thoroughly under point 2, beginning where I said her brand is a deflection from original privilege discourse. The only thing I see that I could have said differently was to begin point 2 with "Pop culture privilege discourse" instead of just "privilege discourse." It shouldn't have been difficult to understand either way if it was read though. Do you have a legitimate rebuttal or are you sticking with just not reading?


>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?


First of all, you're pulling from the quote where Mutua was explaining the CLAIM that intersectionality makes, which is why the next sentence is literally "In suggesting this, intersectionality also made a second claim about identity." 2nd, the overall point I'm making (and the point being raised in that essay) is that Black men are ALSO victimized based on their gender, as white patriarchy operates according to "hegemonic masculinity" (R.W. Connell) which seeks to exterminate the Black male who is deemed a subordinate male threat. History corroborates this, as do present statistics. The Black male was not scientifically deemed a rapist by the American Ethnological Institute only because he is Black but because he is both Black and male. Same goes for astronomical rates of incarceration, police killings, and funneling of Black boys into special ed.

To drive the point home, here's another quote from Mutua's paper:

"When intersectionality was applied to black men, it was initially interpreted to suggest that “black men were privileged by gender and subordinated by race;” that is, black men sat at the intersection of the subordinating and oppressive system of race (black) and the privileged system of gender (men). Intuitively this notion seemed correct. It also seemed to support the dominant social and academic practice of examining the oppressive conditions that black men faced from a racial perspective. Yet, the interpretation of black men as privileged by gender and oppressed by race appeared incorrect in our observations of racial profiling."

That's just a piece. Let alone what you quoted above was her stating the CLAIM of intersectionality, not a belief. Hopefully you read carefully this time.