Attention all insensitive and arrogant hipsters, liberals and bobos, I’ve already said it here, but one more time: sadly, highbrow arts reviews, knowing cartoons, Woody Allen and even a lifetime subscription to the New Yorker are not an amazing elixir that will protect you from being racist, or classist, or sexist, or homophobic or ableist or just an all-round jerk. It’s not as if as soon as you pick up that Jim Jarmusch box set, no hateful words will ever be able to pass from your lips again. [...]

I’ve seen this attitude manifest itself in lots of different ways. I’ve known feminists who thought that any opinion they articulated was feminist - even when it wasn’t - simply because they identified as feminists. I’ve known people of colour who termed every slight against them racism - even when it wasn’t - because they were people of colour. And I’ve dealt with people who thought they were incapable of mistakes, and would insist until blue in the face that they were right - when they weren’t - simply because by their own logic, no act committed by their hand could ever be wrong.

It’s that same logic that makes hipster culture what it is. Whether or not they intend it, whenever a hipster dresses up in an NKOTB t-shirt and a fanny pack, they’re saying “I’m so clearly above actually dressing like this that it is funny.” [...]

Unless you have your PhD in Anti-Racism 101, when you mock something that is hateful by repeating it, you’re not mocking it, you ARE it. There’s a level of insanity that underpins the false distinctions the New Yorker paints between itself and those allegedly ignorant, stupid right-wingers who actually think Obama is Osama. It’s a delusion: when you say something that is racist, I don’t care if you’re the ghost of Malcolm X: you are racist.

But the thing that happens when a poor, ‘illegal,’ imprisoned Latina is centered in a feminist movement is that the goals and priorities of that movement necessarily CHANGES. The shifting of goals and priorities to benefit the weakest and most disempowered of us all does not kick rich white women out of a movement–it, in fact, makes those women stronger. They don’t have to fear being kicked to the streets if they stand up to their boss in their never ending quest to smash that glass ceiling. They can challenge their boss with the full comfort of knowing that they will have food for their kids and a warm place to live if the shit hits the fan (please, read about how welfare made it possible for black people to escape forced sharecropping–welfare, it’s been argued, in many ways, laid the ground work for the Civil Rights movement–or examine why the divorce rate *really* became so high in the 60’s/70’s–could it have been because feminists made it safe–less of an economic/social risk to leave abusive assholes?). It’s amazing how much freedom to resist that you have when you don’t have to worry about feeding your kids or losing your house or otherwise becoming destitute.

But the problem I have with coming at intersectionality through how it benefits rich white women is that it is assuming that an intersectional analysis is here on this earth to benefit rich white women. As if feminism that is by and for radicalized women of color must spend its time explaining to rich white women what the benefits of this type of feminism could possibly be for them.

Because we don’t have enough to do.

This form of activism will bring benefits to rich white women–but it *prioritizes* the most marginalized of the marginalized. Is there something wrong with this? And if so, why is there nothing wrong with a feminism that *prioritizes* rich white women?

The girl who loathes the physical changes her body is undergoing; is shocked at the thought of motherhood and horrified at the idea of ever being beholden to a husband. She wants to be a man to get even with women for being one. She'll usually neglect her appearance, adopt sloppy attire, engage heavily in strenuous athletics, and pursue the subjects leading to male occupations and professions....

The same type of boy rebels at the role of provider and raising a family, preferring the soft comforts he imagines go with womanhood. He usually spurns sports for an exaggerated interest in the libraries and museums, will be over-fastidious in dress, and will find his only real companionship in the company of girls. Poor health, a doting mother, a deep artistic or scientific bent, or any number of environmental influences may be causing him to adopt the retiring, more-feminine-than-masculine attitude.

But, you, in your very normal way of thinking and acting, have probably jumped to conclusions and pegged such kids "peculiar." They are not so at all. On the surface they may appear to be. Actually, they are momentarily socially distraught and therefore very emotionally self-conscious. In constantly denying themselves the company of their own sexes, such boys and girls are both bound to have trouble adjusting to their normal roles of man- and womanhood in later years; unless, of course, their mental outlooks are radically changed....

And there are the very few whose glandular systems are awry, throwing their sexual development in reverse... the girls who are more masculine than feminine; the boys who are more feminine. They are the true homosexuals and lesbians, not responsible for themselves or their actions. Medical aid can possibly set them back on the right physical track bringing with it the normal mental attitude toward the opposite sex. Fortunately, they are usually blessed with above-average intellect and can understand their own plight. Your first duty to them is to stop calling them "fairies" or "queers." It's unfair, uncouth to do so, and labels you very ill-bred.

Masturbation does not, however, lead to insanity, illness, or any of the other horrible fates heretofore attributed to it, any more than biting your nails, sucking your thumb, or wetting your bed could. BUT kids, don't kid yourselves. Habitually practiced, it can be a very bad personal investment with the entires all on the debit side of your ledger. Eventually you may wind up bankrupt of vim, vigor, and vitality- all the prized natural wealth of youth, lavished on yourself instead of shared with a lifetime companion.... But you can bet your beat-up moccasins that no average teen has time enough left over from work and play to be more than passingly concerned about masturbating. Who wants to hide in the attic all alone to play with his own anatomy when the gang's going skating? Not YOU.

Holding hands is another way of saying, "I like everybody today, especially you." It's a sort of hangover from babyhood- a kind of possessive dependence for affection on someone you like a lot.