[LaGrange]

> This fails to address for countless nuances and by default simply stating "You're white, ergo you're instantly privileged." is just false and dishonest.

That’s not what modern (that is intersectional) feminism says. It says that whiteness gives you privilege over colored people. It says that being male gives you privilege over people who are female. And being rich gives you privilege over people who are poor. An interaction between a middle-class black man and a rich white woman can be a fascinating minefield, where either of them can be the „oppressed” side depending on the context. In fact it’s getting more popular to use the word „kyriarchy” to avoid the overly-specific „patriarchy”.

Of course yes, many feminists actively hate intersectionality, and others don’t completely grasp the context. But ignoring its existence in modern feminism shows certain amount of ignorance or bad will. The radical thought goes against the dominance-obsessed behavior in general.

[vezzy-fnord]

It says that whiteness gives you privilege over colored people.

Not inherently and once again, very centric to Western culture.

It says that being male gives you privilege over people who are female.

Historically and still in certain areas, yes. But once again complicated and dishonest to inherently portray it as such. Especially in the West, where it can be completely false. That or the privileges of being male are equalized by the privileges of being female (and please don't tell me they don't exist).

And being rich gives you privilege over people who are poor.

Oh wow, and bears shit in the woods. No wonder people mock the social sciences.

In fact it’s getting more popular to use the word „kyriarchy” to avoid the overly-specific „patriarchy”.

Kyriarchy is a moronic term, as virtually all systems have some concept of power or control.