# data[].attributes.headline
Article 3: Origin of #MeToo movement - Started in 1997 by Tarana Burke

# data[].attributes.subject
Article 3: Origin of #MeToo movement - Started in 1997 by Tarana Burke

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Woman Who Created #MeToo Long Before Hashtags (Published 2017)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Tarana Burke was helping victims of sexual harassment long before Alyssa Milano’s tweet gave the movement a boost.

# data[].attributes.headline
Image 1: Women's March 2017 - This march was worldwide, and it was for women's rights, equality and so on.

# data[].attributes.subject
Image 1: Women's March 2017 - This march was worldwide, and it was for women's rights, equality and so on.

# data[].attributes.headline
TwitterPost: #MeToo is online movement about victims of rape and sexual assault who are coming out as one. This movement has started long before but it has gone viral now. 160

# data[].attributes.subject
TwitterPost: #MeToo is online movement about victims of rape and sexual assault who are coming out as one. This movement has started long before but it has gone viral now. 160

# data[].attributes.headline
Article 1: Kelly Campbell have never participated in any political protest till Women's March. Like her, many people who have never spoken up are speaking up against injustice women and those who are under attack since President Trump's election. 158

# data[].attributes.subject
Article 1: Kelly Campbell have never participated in any political protest till Women's March. Like her, many people who have never spoken up are speaking up against injustice women and those who are under attack since President Trump's election. 158

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Donald Trump made Kelly Campbell an activist. "Before January 21 I had never participated in a political protest, never worked on a political campaign and never been active in any way civically," she says. "So for me to have flown out to Washington, D.C. for the Women's March-that was completely out of character, but what it started helped to enable me to channel all that rage since the election into action."

Since returning back to Minnesota, Campbell has not only joined a Women's March huddle-she is hosting next month's meeting-but has also donated to a number of causes, made phone calls to her state and federal representatives and has volunteered to do research for SwingLeft on Minnesota's second district. She is even considering running for state or federal office. "With Trump being elected what is funny is that any reservations-things like not having a law degree, no experience in politics, digging up dirt in my personal life-obviously none of that matters because he had those same limitations and he was elected president," she tells Ms. "So it freed up my own thinking in, 'well, why not me?'"

Campbell is just one example of the millions of women who have, since the election, become activists in their communities. There have, of course, been large organized and publicized events-like the Women's March, which spread to over 600 marches across the globe; the Pussyhat Project and grabyourwallet.org, run by San Francisco-based Shannon Coulter. But there are also a large number of women who are doing things-from huddles to book clubs, salons, blogs and letter-writing meetings-who are not only making a difference locally but helping to reignite civil society across the country.

"It is like we have been complacent to some degree and I think there are some gaps and challenges in our civil society but I think we do have these strong traditions that we can draw on," says Carrie Booth Walling, a political science professor who formed Wo(men) of Action in Flint, Michigan after the Women's March. "I am finding a sense of reawakening to the rights and the powers that we do have over our government and it is much more of an empowered action. And while it may have been motivated by some negativity and outrage, it has actually turned into something positive and inspiring."

One of those inspiring events was Baltimore's Sing for Justice concert, where a group of people in the community got together, held a choir concert with just an hour's practice and raised over $1,000 for both Baltimore Racial Justice Action and the Southern Poverty Law Center. "We have only had one event so far, but we had a great response," says Allison McElheny, one of the group's organizers. "[We] hope to grow and hold similar events every few months for a wider variety of social justice organizations." Halfway across the country in Denver, on March 25, there will be a Women's Day of Service event engaging women in volunteer opportunities ranging from working in a community garden to helping in a local domestic violence shelter.

Kendra Komp, who works for a start-up in suburban Detroit, hosted a "Pints and Postcards" event earlier in February where over 200 people wrote over 1,200 postcards to politicians with statements like "global warming is real; it is not an alternative fact" and "I am a woman, and I vote." "I realized the focus of the event was bringing people together to have real conversations and not feel so isolated," says Ms. Komp, who next month will host her first women's salon-with one planned afterward to happen every eight weeks. "A few older women who protested against Vietnam and for women's equality in the 1970s came up and thanked me for carrying the torch."

Meanwhile, Vermont-based artist and teacher Alyssa Goss DeLaBruere started mendamerica.org -a website selling t-shirts, jewelry and art prints with inspirational messages and designs. For the first 100 days that Trump is in office, 100 percent of their profits will be donated to organizations including the Sierra Club and Vermont Rights and Democracy. "I would never have called myself a feminist prior to November 2016," says DeLaBruere. "Do I see myself as a feminist today-damn straight. I am a badass feminist that will stand up against injustice for my own gender and anyone else that is under attack."

And it's not just Americans who are getting active. In London, Sam Roddick-an artist and founder of lingerie company Coco de Mer-was frustrated not only over Trump's misogynist statements but also concerned about Brexit. Since December, she has hosted two political salons. Next month, she will start holding letter-writing events. "We are getting a writer in to do a workshop on how to write the most profound, witty, concise letter and graphic designer to give insight on how to make a letter visually captivating without looking like a nutter," joked Roddick, who is the daughter of the late activist and Body Shop founder Anita Roddick. "We will then walk to the end of the road to put them into letterbox, so that they are signed, sealed and delivered."
Ginanne Brownell Mitic is a London-based freelance journalist who writes about arts, culture and education. She and her Denver-based friend Kristin Kirsch Feldkamp launched she-files.com on January 21, a webzine focused on covering stories about women and profiling inspiring women that is written exclusively by women.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Donald Trump made Kelly Campbell an activist. "Before January 21 I had never participated in a political protest, never worked on a political campaign and never been active in any way civically," she says. "So for me to have flown out to Washington, D.C.

# data[].attributes.headline
YouTube Vidoe: Feminist Praxis Activism video that gives glimpse of how gender-based violence against women has been happening.

# data[].attributes.subject
YouTube Vidoe: Feminist Praxis Activism video that gives glimpse of how gender-based violence against women has been happening.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
From November 25 to December 10, the 16 Days of Activism against Gender-Based Violence will be going global. Here is all you need to know about the event: Subscribe to us on YouTube: http://ow.ly/Zvqj30aIsgY Follow us on: Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cgtnafrica/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/cgtnafrica

# data[].attributes.headline
Article 2: Anti-Feminist Praxis - This article is movement against feminist praxis. It defines feminism as ideology, which means "a body of ideas which embrace self-concept and self-description." This movement is to stop feminist triumph that is going on currently.

# data[].attributes.subject
Article 2: Anti-Feminist Praxis - This article is movement against feminist praxis. It defines feminism as ideology, which means "a body of ideas which embrace self-concept and self-description." This movement is to stop feminist triumph that is going on currently.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
---
In the beginning was the world. Then, feminism emerged from the womb of history. What matters is the order of appearance: we were here first and feminism showed up later. That is a fact of key importance: one should bear this in mind continually, and make continual reference to it.

Among other things, feminism is ideology - meaning, a body of ideas which embrace self-conception and self-description. However, it is more than ideology because it is more than self-conception or self-description. Feminism is situated both within its own understanding and within the understanding of the world at large. This makes feminism a subject for itself, and an object for the world, which means that two separate dimensions of understanding must be considered: the feminist-subjective and the feminist-objective.

To say that feminism is on trial means it is under the evaluative gaze of an "other", an outside intelligence which is specifically not feminist and views feminism in highly objective terms. We contend that feminism lacks complete understanding of itself, and that only non-feminist alterity can supply the needed information to remedy this lack.

We further contend that such understanding, if it should arrive, would spell the end of feminism altogether because lack of self-awareness is a critical feminist feature. Therefore, it is not in the feminist interest to gain such understanding - because this would render feminism non-viable.

To sum up, feminism is not fit to judge itself because it will always rule in its own interest - and feminism's interest is to remain viable by preserving its own myth. For that reason, feminism must receive corrective input from beyond itself - the kind of input that would problematize feminism's mythically-based self - conception and give rise to a more inclusive and holistic state of knowledge.

Again, feminism is more than ideology. Yes, ideas are a part of it, but ideas exist only in the human imagination. What concerns us is the power of ideas to shape human conduct in the objective world - the extensional reality of ideas, to give it a name. This reality has objective consequences which chain-react into further consequences, and the ensemble of it is fraught with moral ramifications. So when we speak of feminism per se, and of feminism being on trial, we speak of all that.

Feminism's consequences are integral to feminism's being. Feminism is under discussion as malfeasant, and feminist malfeasance cannot be isolated from any idealistic notion of feminism's essence. No moral quarantining of what feminism is "supposed to be", from what it actually DOES, is feasible or worth considering.

In our summation of feminist phenomenology, we take both ideas and consequences into account. At the same time, we expose every aspect of feminism to an intellectual audit, with all feminist claims or theories (from the greatest to the smallest) being open to question. That is the plan from here on out, growing and spreading with the years.

Every time a feminist speaks, it should occur to us to wonder if that person is lying, or at least self-decieved. Even if a feminist says "the sky is blue", we are entitled, on principle, to greet that claim with skepticism.

It is hard to overstate just how radical and fundamental this counter-feminist critique, from all quarters, has got to be. The awareness that lying is a foundational feminist behavior has got to be an instinctive, bedrock realization for everybody. It should be second nature, instilled in our marrow and etched into our neurons. "Lie like a feminist" should become a commonplace expression, taught to children at a young age.

So in the end, feminism is under both moral scrutiny for its transgressions and intellectual scrutiny for its ideas. The trial process aims to shine a light on every possible facet of the feminist problem, and non-feminist men and women of all classes are encouraged to participate in this project.

At its fullest reach, feminism is a densely connected cultural web that includes both ideas and objective circumstances. It is an extended social organism whose character is invasive. It occupies both public and private realms, and we who don't partake of it experience this as a hostile intrusion into the fabric of our lives. We were here first, an uninvited guest barged in, and we naturally have a few things to say about that.

It is unseemly for any guest to abuse a host, but when an uninvited guest does this it adds injury to insult. Feminists, as a rule, have comported themselves in exactly such a way: they abuse us, they treat us cavalierly, they twist our words, they misrepresent us, they invent stories about us, they exploit our good nature - why, they even try to wreck our lives! On it goes.

The worst of it is that they parade themselves under a banner of moral supremacy, acting like they own the world or like they ARE the world. We have a name for such behavior: feminist triumphalism, the narrative-based notion that feminism is right because it's right because it's right, that the case is settled for all time and no further discussion need be tolerated.

Non-feminist men and women should no longer tolerate feminist triumphalism. The feminists must be put on notice and told to get off their high horse.

Feminism is not the world but only a part of it. For one thing, self-declared feminist people are a minority of the human race. For another, feminist theorizations don't stretch far enough to cover all of the world's complexities. Not only that, but these theorizations often fail consequentially - for as stated earlier, ideas have consequences. Non-feminist men and women (the rest of the world, mind you!) are forced to live with those feminist consequences, and for that reason alone are entitled to speak their minds.

It bears repeating that ALL feminist claims and theories are open to question, starting with the most basic question of all: "What is feminism?" Any feminist definition of feminism constitutes a claim or theory open to question. Hence, from the standpoint of non-feminist alterity, we may define feminism in the light of our own observation and study.

The dictionary does not accurately reflect what many people mean by the word "feminism", so the dictionary must be revised. However, a lot of us aren't waiting
for the lexicographers to get busy. Within our non-feminist speech communities, the word feminism will continue to mean what we say it means, despite what any feminist (or dictionary) might say to the contrary.

Dictionary or no dictionary, we take back control of the language by an act of political will. Non-feminist reclamation of language is a revolutionary act, and feminists who don't understand this must educate themselves about the reality of the situation.

We have spoken of feminist triumphalism, but we should also mention feminist subjectivism, a state of mind closely entangled with it. Feminist subjectivism (which resembles solipsism) may be summed up as the idea that no correct understanding of feminism can originate outside the realm of feminist discourse. In other words, that feminism can be nothing other than what a feminist says it is. Feminist subjectivism occurs not only when they insist upon the dictionary meaning of feminism, but when they impose feminist terms and categories upon the living reality of the non-feminist sector.

Putting it simply, the feminists theorize about the rest of the world on no authority but their own, and with sweeping generalization. Hence, in the spirit of "turnabout is fair play", we are licensed to generalize feminism and feminists as sweepingly as it was done to us. In fact, we have been using that license for some time and will continue doing so. They started this, and if they want to stop the music, the onus is on them to make the first move. The aggressor owes the world a "mea culpa".

For them, the lesson is straightforward: don't start a cultural street fight if you can't finish it. And don't complain if people who are goaded beyond endurance finally turn your own tactics against you. What did you think a street fight was, anyway? Fair?

Right now, somebody might be saying "you have called this a trial, and you have called this a street fight. Which is it?"

Very simply, it is both, because it contains aspects of both. That feminism is on trial is not strictly "fair" since the trial is convened by a process which, on its face, does not look strictly fair either. Yet ironically, that process turns out to be "fair" after all when you consider that it plays by the very same unfair terms of engagement which feminism (the predominant aggressor) established in the first place.

What goes around comes around. The aggressor feminism has redefined "fair", and we're just playing along because the conventions of fairness, or any notion of "Queensberry rules", went out the window when feminism made the opening moves. Those were unfair moves, aggressor moves - and the maxim is, that the aggressor sets the terms of engagement. It follows that the aggressor must lie in the bed which the aggressor has made. We non-feminist men and women are punching "up" while feminism is punching "down". Accordingly, we do what we must, to equalize the game.

Strictly considered, we don't need feminism at all. That has been our conclusion for quite some time. If feminism went away, only two things could possibly take its place: A.) more feminism, or B.) nothing. You should bear this is mind the next time some feminist asks what you plan to "replace" feminism with. You should understand that this person is preemptively loading the talk with a feminist assumption: that feminism's departure would leave humanity, somehow, in the lurch. But to ask what would replace feminism is pointless. The answer is that the waters of life would instantly close up to fill the space, as when a rock is lifted from a pool.

Whatever is good about feminism is not original, whatever is original is not good, and if we flung away the not-good parts it would leave us nothing that wasn't ours originally. Feminism offers no special wisdom or guidance that regular people couldn't light upon by their own lights, and if every form of feminism were to vanish in a puff of smoke, the general quality of life would take no dramatic nosedive - not for women, not for men, not for anybody.

As non-feminists, we are offended that feminists would deprecate our moral competence or suggest that we are incomplete for want of feminist indoctrination. Plenty of non-feminist men and women have got the relationship thing sorted out just fine, thank you very much. They know how to treat each other right, and always have. Non-feminist men and women don't want sanctimonious liars and busybodies mucking around and poisoning their world, so if the feminists won't back off politely, these people can offer some rude encouragement.

The trial of feminism will go on for many years, until feminism as a whole comes to a proper humility and a posture of atonement. The universal critique and the intellectual audit will involve people from all walks of life exposing feminism to every imaginable deconstruction. Little by little, the upholders of feminism's worldview will find their avenues of evasion sealed off and unavailable for further use.

The world will never be converted to feminism. The feminists must eventually face up to this and make terms accordingly. When that day arrives it will usher in a radical transformation to their way of life because feminism will confront the cultural limit of its expansion. This will be on a par with confronting its own mortality - simply stated, an existential crisis.

The nature of feminism is, that it must maintain a continual growth and expansion called " perpetual revolution. " That is how feminism rolls. If perpetual revolution fails, feminism fails, and begins to die. That is why we can predict that feminism must die eventually, because it simply cannot expand forever. Sooner or later, the rest of the universe will either actively push back or passively refuse to budge. The implications are the same in either case: feminism confronts a terminus.

The significant question is, "can feminism coexist?" The answer is no, feminism cannot coexist. To "co" exist means to accomodate the existence of an other. For feminism to coexist, it would need to dwell eternally alongside of something specifically not feminist - and the operative term is "eternally", since there would be no question of that non-feminist "other" ever fading away.

This would raise existential questions that would strike the root of feminist identity and feminist reality. It would proffer the spectacle of something self-sufficient which had no need of feminism whatsoever, and such a spectacle would knock the wind out of feminist triumphalism while putting feminist subjectivism on shaky ground.

It is small wonder that implacable hatred of the non-feminist sector simmers just below the surface of all feminist manifestations. The fact that non-feminist men and women simply exist and persist, confronts the feminist power like a form of kryptonite. They hate us because they fear us - because they know that they can never assimilate us.

Granted, the feminists will tolerate our existence on condition that we act like we don't exist at all, but sooner or later the plain fact that we DO exist (silently or otherwise) will need to be reckoned with. It's a reckoning that cannot be put off forever.

So let us consider that feminism has effectively become a cultural default which may impose the burden of proof on its challengers. It has gotten to this status by presumption, imposition, and a "long march through the institutions". Oh, and a certain proclivity of the masses to bow to any fait accompli and believe any narrative that gets sufficiently signal-boosted.

The upshot of all this is that feminism, no matter what you think of it, has become The Establishment - and feminists themselves strut around with the cocky self-assurance that this is so, even while pretending to be the underdog when it suits their purpose.

However, there is a big difference between admitting that a bully has power, and believing that the bully is entitled to it. The bully's power, you would say, is not legitimate - and so it is with our present bully, feminism. Feminism is the establishment only because it has established itself by usurpation, and its title is only as secure as it can gull people into believing. We who are not gullible are free to assess the value of feminism's title and make plans for feminism's future. That is why we say that feminism is on trial.

There is a vast edifice of moral and intellectual privilege now slated to collapse in a heap. This loss of feminist privilege will bear down hard upon the feminist psyche everywhere. We believe that it will signal the end, not of feminists as individuals, but of feminism as a hegemonic cultural power.

Yet in spite of all this, we do extend an olive branch, of sorts, to the feminists. Yes, when we say that "feminism cannot coexist", we are prepared to be wrong. Naturally, the burden of proof lies with the feminists. After all, they are so keen to negate presumption of innocence in the criminal justice system that it is only fair they should now get a taste of it on their own account. Turnabout is fair play. The aggressor sets the terms of engagement. They have made their bed and now they lie in it.

But we do extend that branch. We do proffer a benefit of the doubt, that feminism can coexist with the world despite our theory to the contrary. However, the onus is on them to show this to our satisfaction - to approach us with downcast eyes, to address us in respectful tones, and to answer, with no hint of guile or deceit, such queries as we put to them.

And further, we hope to see a moral and intellectual perestroika of the entire feminist project, actively undertaken, along lines that non-feminist men and women will suggest. Surely, if coexistence is to be realized, something like this is warranted.

Can feminism co-exist with the rest of the world? Non-feminist men and women are waiting for an answer.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the beginning was the world. Then, feminism emerged from the womb of history. What matters is the order of appearance: we were here first and feminism showed up later. That is a fact of key importance: one should bear this in mind continually, and make continual reference to it.

# data[].attributes.headline
Image 2: Website Screenshot: This image includes make-believe town where everything is taken over by oppressed people, and making people with privilege realize how they would feel if they were to live in this neighborhood. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Image 2: Website Screenshot: This image includes make-believe town where everything is taken over by oppressed people, and making people with privilege realize how they would feel if they were to live in this neighborhood. 

# data[].attributes.headline
Intersectionality101 Video: This video shows and demonstrate super easy way to understand intersectionality and how to use privilege.

# data[].attributes.subject
Intersectionality101 Video: This video shows and demonstrate super easy way to understand intersectionality and how to use privilege.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Oscar's boyfriend is abusing him and reaching out for help hasn't been easy. Sometimes we feel powerless as a result of our overlapping identities-as though it is impossible to change our circumstances. But the parts of his identity that make it difficult for Oscar to seek help actually make him a powerful ally in different contexts.

# data[].attributes.headline
Online Blog: This blog talks about how intersectionality is looked upon when it comes to being Black and feminist (oppression). How race comes to play, and how everything is taken away from white people.

# data[].attributes.subject
Online Blog: This blog talks about how intersectionality is looked upon when it comes to being Black and feminist (oppression). How race comes to play, and how everything is taken away from white people.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Working in student affairs on a university campus, I feel like I hear the words "intersectionality" or "intersectional" said out loud at least 20 times a day (no exaggeration). The word is regularly used as a powerful critique from young women of Color about how White feminist staff members don't seem to understand the violence we enact. Often, though, I hear the term used by White feminist or "social justice focused" staff such as myself.

We use the term in many vague ways. "We really need to be sure our work is intersectional...We need to be more intersectional in how we talk about student identities...Our teaching strategies must be intersectional and culturally responsive." I don't use "we" in the royal sense. This is something I do all the time without thinking critically about my meaning.

But what the hell are we even saying when we use the term?

We have students fill out " identity wheels " but don't interrogate how those multiple forms of identity compound in our own complicity in the oppression of students. We treat intersectionality as if it's simply a way to understand our differences.

Intersectionality as a Theory of Oppression

It is indeed true that the term's originator, Dr. Kimberlé Crenshaw, called for us to "account for multiple grounds of identity when considering how the social world is constructed" ( p. 1245). In this way, Crenshaw's concept echoes Audre Lorde:

We need to be clear, though, that Crenshaw didn't take up critique of the ways that discrimination law erases Black women by framing "subordination as disadvantage occurring along a single categorical axis" ( p. 140) to paint a cute, liberal portrait of the unique experiences of Black women.

She was making a pointed argument about how the very law that feigned protection for Black women was further marginalizing them by refusing to consider their oppression at the intersections of identity.

In short, intersectionality isn't a theory of difference. It's a theory of oppression. And when we treat it simply as a way to understand our differences, we erase its powerfully subversive critique.

Thus, we need to recognize that it's an act of intellectual, discursive, and rhetorical colonization for White folks (and folks with other forms of privilege) to erase the critique of power from our use of intersectionality. Unlike colonization of land and bodies, this discursive colonization is harder to interrupt because it's harder to see, but this doesn't mean that the colonization of inersectionality is somehow not violent. As Zeus Leonardo and Ronald Porter point out:

"It may be a euphemized form of violence, a discursive 'cool violence' compared to the 'hot violence' of economic exploitation...but linguistic racism is no less a violation...maintains links between material distributions of power and a politics of recognition...and lowers standards of humanity. It reaffirms Zizek's (2008) insight that violence is part of the fabric of the daily functioning of social life where systemic and symbolic violence passes as natural" (p.140).

Of course, it's seductive for those with access to power and privilege to (intentionally or unintentionally) treat intersectionality as a frame for understanding how our identities are complex. But it is because of the fact that understanding intersectionality as a frame for difference erases the power I hold as a White cisgender man and the ways I am complicit in oppression that such erasure is an act of colonization.

This Isn't Exactly New: Racial Liberalism and Cooptation

What's driving the colonization of intersectionality? Said simply, the problem is liberalism.

No, not that liberalism, not the "R vs D," "the democrats are liberals" type of liberalism. We're not talking about partisan politics.

We're talking racial liberalism in the sense put forth by Charles Mills and Kimberlé Crenshaw. Liberalism reflects a way of thinking about injustice and inequity in society. Liberalism as an ideology emphasizes reform - relatively small tweaks to fundamentally unjust systems - that preserve the overarching structure and as a result poses little threat to the racial contract.

Whereas intersectionality (as a tenet of Critical Race Theory) challenges the very foundations and structures of our society, demanding profound transformation, liberalism (by intent or impact) preserves Whiteness as property and the White supremacist, capitalist hetero-patriarchy (to borrow from bell hooks).

Crenshaw makes an important distinction between expansive and restrictive views of equality, noting that critical activists, educators, and theorists seek transformation that impacts the lived realities -the actual outcomes - of people of Color and other oppressed groups.

Liberal reform, though, serves a "restrictive view" of equality, which treats equality as a process, downplaying the significance of actual outcomes. "The primary objective of antidiscrimination law, according to this vision, is to prevent future wrongdoing rather than to redress present manifestations of past injustice. 'Wrongdoing,' moreover, is seen primarily as isolated actions against individuals rather than as a societal policy against an entire group" ( p. 1342).

For example, the overwhelming and oft-unexamined Whiteness of teaching lends itself to a liberal view of equality in schools, and as such, there is a long history of liberal cooptation of racial justice projects in ways that serve the status quo and offer little hope of transformative change. The "multiculturalism" movement in education originally started as one calling for radical restructuring of curriculum and pedagogies to meet the needs of students of Color who are owed an education debt.

Such a radical restructuring would demand a great deal of White teachers, particularly as it relates to divestment from Whiteness, and as such, those committed to Whiteness have managed to coopt the concept into a liberal, feel-good approach to education that highlights " food, festival, folklore, and fashion." Similar to what's happening with the colonization of intersectionality, multicultural education was divorced from its critique of White supremacy.

3 ways that White Folks are Colonizing Intersectionality

Though I've been describing the colonization of intersectionality in some really abstract, theoretical ways, it's actually playing out in specific manifestations that demand interruption. Here are but three of approximately one million that can help to ground the abstraction.

1. Columbusing Intersectionality while Teaching it as a Theory of Difference

Columbusing refers to the all-too-common act of White people taking something that was originated by people of Color, divorcing it from its roots, and re-appropriating it in some way that serves White interests. Ironically, I couldn't actually trace the term Columbusing back to its originator (though it seems fitting to perhaps credit Urban Dictionary contributor Harunei).

In the case of intersectionality, it's rare that I meet White folks who are able to identify the term's originator, and as a result, we often distort the term's meaning, thus robbing it of it's power. More often than not, I hear us use intersectionality as a stand-in for "difference," as in "we need to recognize the intersectionality in this issue = we need to recognize that identity makes for differential experiences." I've even done it myself. Check out this slide from a keynote I wrote in 2013:

First off, by simply calling Crenshaw a "legal scholar," I ignore her profound contributions to feminist and Critical Race legal theory. Second, while I did name oppression, the primary explanation of intersectionality in my slide focuses on how identities "compound to create new experiences."

My point here is to highlight just how common and insidious the Columbusing can be. In my slide, I did give credit to Crenshaw, but I twisted the meaning of her term in a way that serves White liberalism.

2. Highlighting One's Marginalizations to Avoid Accountability

Another common act that contributes to the colonization of intersectionality is using the term to avoid accountability for one's privilege. I've seen it countless times to avoid accountability for being called out on all sorts of unchecked privilege, though most often I've seen it from fellow White folks. There's the appeal to another aspect of marginalization with a surface-level appeal to intersectionality to shift the focus of critique away from oneself.

With White men, the appeal usually is to one's class/wealth status to avoid being held accountable for one's privilege, or among White Queer men, we default to identifications of our Queerness and intersectionality. But with White women it can get a little more complicated. A common way this happens is when White women are reminded of how their tears can function in spaces of interracial dialogue or conflict as a tool of oppression of women of Color, as it can lead to the centering of the White woman's feelings and a shifting away from the critique that was offered which led to the tears. Many times, I have seen this shift done while directly citing how we need to be "intersectional" in how we offer critiques.

When a surface-level understanding of interesectionality is used as a cudgel against those offering us criticism of how we wield our societal power, we have completely bastardized the concept. No part of intersectionality as a theoretical frame demands that those who are oppressed temper their criticisms of those with power in order to avoid offending those with power because they also hold marginalized identities.

3. Calling for Intersectionality without Doing the Work to Disrupt White Supremacy

Perhaps the most common and pervasive way that White folks are colonizing intersectionality is through the near-constant use of the term in White leftist circles without any clear attention to work to dismantle White supremacy. Phrases like "we really need to be more intersectional" or "intersectionality matters" or "let's make sure to bring in an intersectional analysis here" could not be more common.

Yet when we are pressed to do work that might actually decenter Whiteness or challenge systemic White supremacy in our spaces, we don't show up. A perfect example is at my university where students with multiple marginalized identities came together to offer a list of demands from the institution. More than a year later, relatively few of the demands have been met, and the very same administrators and university personnel who use the language of interesectionality constantly have stood in the way of possible changes because they were "unrealistic" or would (for example) damage the university's relationship with Border Patrol (a fundamentally oppressive and violent institution).

The Will to Realize Change

White folks in social justice circles have a responsibility to interrupt the active colonization of intersectionality. We have to demonstrate a will to change our own investments in realizing racial justice, part of which means pushing past platitudes and surface-level rhetoric to actually strive for more accountable commitments to people of Color in working for justice.

We must stop using the term unless we're being faithful to the originator's critique of power and oppression, particularly centering and emphasizing race as a central operating principle in the oppressive project that is Western capitalism. If we are using intersectionality as a frame for understanding the difference rather than for understanding power, we are participating in the colonization of the term.

We need to stop erasing Black women (most notably Kimberlé Crenshaw) in how we talk about intersectionality. And we must work for more nuanced incorporation of intersectionality, not just as a term, but as a way for understanding oppression and for working to dismantle oppressive systems in which we are often most complicit.

While there's no simple playbook for taking up truly intersectional praxis, there's one obvious place we can start: listen to and follow the leadership of people of Color, most often women and Queer folks of Color, who are living intersectional resistance and calling for accountability from those of us who are complicit in colonizing intersectionality.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
"We're all just different!" How Intersectionality is Being Colonized by White People

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Working in student affairs on a university campus, I feel like I hear the words "intersectionality" or "intersectional" said out loud at least 20 times a day (no exaggeration). The word is regularly used as a powerful critique from young women of Color about how White feminist staff members don't seem to understand the violence...

# data[].attributes.headline
Online Article: Talks about Intersectional feminism, which "examines the overlapping systems of oppression and discrimination that women face, based not just on gender but on ethnicity, sexuality, economic background and a number of other axes."

# data[].attributes.subject
Online Article: Talks about Intersectional feminism, which "examines the overlapping systems of oppression and discrimination that women face, based not just on gender but on ethnicity, sexuality, economic background and a number of other axes."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It took Kimberlé Crenshaw, an esteemed civil rights advocate and law professor, about 60 seconds to lay out the importance of "intersectional feminism" on Friday ― and the internet could not get enough of it.

Intersectional feminism examines the overlapping systems of oppression and discrimination that women face, based not just on gender but on ethnicity, sexuality, economic background and a number of other axes.

Crenshaw introduced the concept of "intersectionality" to feminist theory nearly 30 years ago in a seminal paper for the University of Chicago Legal Forum, describing the "intersectional experience" as something "greater than the sum of racism and sexism."

On Friday, during a panel discussion at the annual Netroots Nation conference in Atlanta, she gave a gloss on intersectionality in a way that made clear the immense value of the concept.

Kimberle Crenshaw explains intersectionality in one minute. #NN17 @sandylocks pic.twitter.com/Am13k53MFv
- 📢 PPNYC Action Fund (@PPNYCAction) August 11, 2017

"There are many, many different kinds of intersectional exclusions ― not just black women, but other women of color," Crenshaw said. "Not just people of color, but people with disabilities. Immigrants. LGBTQ people. Indigenous people."

"The way we imagine discrimination or disempowerment often is more complicated for people who are subjected to multiple forms of exclusion," she continued. "The good news is that intersectionality provides us a way to see it."

Crenshaw noted some of the ways in which intersectional feminism helps activists advocate for women of all backgrounds and identities.

"When we advocate for violence against women to be eliminated on campuses, we say, 'Well, actually, it's not just on campuses we have to worry about.' We might have to worry about high schools," Crenshaw said. "We might have to worry about police precincts and cars. We might have to worry about public housing."

"We might have to broaden our scope of how we think about where women are vulnerable," she added, "because different things make different women vulnerable."

Supporters on Twitter were quick to praise Crenshaw's words of wisdom:

THIS THIS THIS: "We cannot have an intersectionality that excludes Black women." @sandylocks #NN17 pic.twitter.com/k8WmuHKA0h
- Tiffany Wang (@tiff_wang) August 11, 2017

Kimberle Crenshaw is on fire! Black women voting 94% for Hillary wasn't merely incidental. Put some respect on their name! #NN17
- Yanick Saila-Ngita (@wunderkind87) August 11, 2017

🙌🏼 "Twisting 'intersectionality' to be used against anti-oppression is a form of ideological gentrification" - Kimberlé Crenshaw #NN17 pic.twitter.com/qmWb9O1XnJ
- Robert Avruch (@RobertAvruch) August 11, 2017

Kimberle Crenshaw just dropped an incredible metaphor for recognizing co-opting of progressive ideas as "glitches in the matrix." 🙌🏾 #NN17
- Collette (@collette_music) August 11, 2017

When the other side attacks intersectionality // that's a glitch in the Matrix. #nn17 pic.twitter.com/VVJYu10t2c
- Bethany Khan (@BethanyKhan) August 11, 2017

We need to prevent the gentrification of intersectionality. We can't have an intersectionality that excludes WOC. #NN17

- Kimberlé Crenshaw
- Vitamin J (@jexxicuh) August 11, 2017

Dr. Kimberlé Crenshaw: The most loyal constituency in last election, despite every reason not to be, was black women #AintThatTheTruth #NN17 pic.twitter.com/oRfNLwwjr6
- Bilan Arte (@BilanArte) August 11, 2017

BEFORE YOU GO

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Kimberlé Crenshaw Explains The Power Of Intersectional Feminism In 1 Minute

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It took Kimberlé Crenshaw, an esteemed civil rights advocate and law professor, about 60 seconds to lay out the importance of "intersectional feminism" on Friday ― and the internet could not get enough of it. Intersectional feminism examines the overlapping systems of oppression and discrimination that women face, based not just on gender but on ethnicity, sexuality, economic background and a number of other axes.

# data[].attributes.headline
Image 1: This image hows how one person can be oppressed or privilege in the same time, and it shows how there are different way of intersectionality that overlaps.

# data[].attributes.subject
Image 1: This image hows how one person can be oppressed or privilege in the same time, and it shows how there are different way of intersectionality that overlaps.

# data[].attributes.headline
Article 2: In this article there is list of questions that can let any men to know if they have male privilege or not, and how women are oppressed and aren't in the big position when it comes to workplace.

# data[].attributes.subject
Article 2: In this article there is list of questions that can let any men to know if they have male privilege or not, and how women are oppressed and aren't in the big position when it comes to workplace.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Do you ever worry that having children will affect your career? Or have you been called "bossy" when you tried to be assertive at work?

If the answer is no, you might be experiencing some gender privilege in the workplace, according to a new report from Diversity Council Australia (DCA).

The Men Make a Difference paper aims to get blokes on board with addressing gender equality and offers tips for how they can do so.

It also includes the following list and asks people to check off the statements that apply to them, with the more boxes ticked indicating the more gender-based privileges they are likely to have in the workplace.

Try it for yourself:

I can work comfortably (or walk down a public street) without the fear of sexual harassment.

I have never felt unsafe because of my gender.

If I fail in my job or career, I can feel sure this won't be taken as a sign that people of my gender shouldn't be doing this type of work.

The decision to hire me will never be based on assumptions about whether or not I might choose to have a family sometime soon.

If I choose to have children, I'm not questioned about how having a family would hurt my ability to do my job.

If I have children and a career, no-one will think I'm selfish for not staying at home.

I can be assertive at work without being labelled "bitchy" or "bossy".

My ability to make important decisions and my capability in general will never be questioned depending on what time of the month it is.

I can look up to plenty of professional role models of my gender in my field.

When I ask to see "the person in charge", odds are I will face a person of my own gender.

I can be confident that day-to-day language always includes my gender. "All men are created equal," mailman, chairman, the man in the street, etc.

I make more money than my professional counterparts of the other gender.

Associate Professor Michael Flood was one of the researchers on the report and told News Breakfast that while some men said they were committed to equality at work, they needed to do more to follow through.

"One issue is some men come on board but their commitments are token, they haven't done their homework," he said.

"We argue that for men, for example, to be a male champion of change, to be a senior advocate for this issue, they've got to put their own house in order, and they've got to walk the walk, not just talk the talk."

Dr Flood said the report had a positive message about male involvement, and outlined three things men could do in the workplace: be a positive role model themselves; speak up when they see double standards; and become an advocate for change.

The first release of data from the 2016 census shows Australian women still assume the lions' share of the housework.

DCA CEO Lisa Annese said the existence of a gender pay gap, the high incidence of pregnancy discrimination and the lack of women in positions of leaderships showed there was still work to be done.

"While engaging men is not a 'magic bullet', men are part of the problem of inequality so they need to be part of the solution," she said.

And Dr Flood said there were benefits for men if change was achieved.

"There's a business case for gender equality," he said.

"The research shows that workplaces which are more diverse - which have a greater participation of women in them - are more productive, more sociable, more cooperative and that has pay-offs for the business.

"Beyond the bottom line, beyond the questions of profit and so on, we know that men benefit from progress towards gender equality more generally, in their relationships, in their health, in our communities and so on."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Check your male privilege with one questionnaire

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Do you ever worry that having children will affect your career? Or have you been called "bossy" when you tried to be assertive at work? If the answer is no, you might be experiencing some gender privilege in the workplace, according to a new report from Diversity Council Australia (DCA).

# data[].attributes.headline
Image 2: This image shows how the society thinks all the men and women has equal distance to race for any sort of positions or jobs, but they forget that being born as a woman is form of oppression, and they have 10x obstacles on their road comparing to other men. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Image 2: This image shows how the society thinks all the men and women has equal distance to race for any sort of positions or jobs, but they forget that being born as a woman is form of oppression, and they have 10x obstacles on their road comparing to other men. 

# data[].attributes.headline
Image 1: Two different group of burglar was caught but had different treatment in the news, showing white privilege. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Image 1: Two different group of burglar was caught but had different treatment in the news, showing white privilege. 

# data[].attributes.headline
Youtube Video: This video is called the "Tunnel of Oppression" where many different people who are oppressed in different ways has a poster that shows how they are judged and looked down.

# data[].attributes.subject
Youtube Video: This video is called the "Tunnel of Oppression" where many different people who are oppressed in different ways has a poster that shows how they are judged and looked down.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Office of Multicultural Student Affairs and Residential Life and Housing present VCU's Inaugural Tunnel of Oppression. The Tunnel of Oppression is a live simulation where students will be able to identify specific examples of oppression. Students will be able to make connections between individual actions and how they either challenge or reinforce systems of oppression.

# data[].attributes.headline
Twitter Post 1: This tweet by Ryan is pointing out how privilege is invisible and uses hashtag to show what includes within the privilege category.

# data[].attributes.subject
Twitter Post 1: This tweet by Ryan is pointing out how privilege is invisible and uses hashtag to show what includes within the privilege category.

# data[].attributes.headline
Twitter Post Video: Coach demonstrate what privilege mean through easy activity with his team.

# data[].attributes.subject
Twitter Post Video: Coach demonstrate what privilege mean through easy activity with his team.

# data[].attributes.headline
Article 1: This article is by Frank Bruni who is white male and very privileged but he is also gay.

# data[].attributes.subject
Article 1: This article is by Frank Bruni who is white male and very privileged but he is also gay.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Mark Lilla, a Columbia University professor, got a big, bitter taste of this late last year when he wrote, in The Times, about the presidential election and "identity politics," which, he argued, had hurt the Democratic Party. He maintained that too intense a focus on each minority group's discrete persecution comes at the expense of a larger, unifying vision.

Many people disagreed. Good. But what too many took issue with was, well, his identity. "White men: stop telling me about my experiences!" someone later scrawled on a poster that was put up to advertise a talk, "Identity Is Not Politics," that he gave at Wellesley College.

"But I wasn't talking about their experience or my experience," Lilla pointed out when I spoke with him recently. "I was talking about an issue."

In a new book coming out this week, "The Once and Future Liberal," he asserts that "classroom conversations that once might have begun, I think A, and here is my argument, now take the form, Speaking as an X, I am offended that you claim B. This makes perfect sense if you believe that identity determines everything. It means that there is no impartial space for dialogue. White men have one 'epistemology,' black women have another. So what remains to be said?"

And where are the bridges?

Race, gender, sexual orientation, class: All of this informs - and very often warps - how we see the world. And for much too long, this country's narrative has been scripted by white men, who have also dominated its stage and made its rules. Our advantage, as a class, is real and unearned.

The "check your privilege" exhortation asks us, rightly, to recognize that. It's about "being aware of systemic injustice and systemic inequality," Phoebe Maltz Bovy, the author of the recently published book "The Perils of 'Privilege,' " told me. And she applauds that.

But she worries that awareness disclaimers and privilege apologies have ferried us to a silly, self-involved realm of oppression Olympics. They promote the idea that people occupying different rungs of privilege or victimization can't possibly grasp life elsewhere on the ladder.

In her book she mocks the inevitable juncture in a certain kind of essay "where the writer (probably a cis White Lady, probably straight or bisexual, probably living in Brooklyn, definitely well educated, but not necessarily well-off) interrupts the usually scheduled programming to duly note that the issues she's describing may not apply to a trans woman in Papua New Guinea."

Should we really have say and sway only over matters that neatly dovetail with the category that we've been assigned (or assigned ourselves)? Is that the limit of our insights and empathies? During the Democratic primary, a Hillary Clinton supporter I know was told that he could not credibly defend her against charges of racism for her past use of the word "superpredators" because he's white.

That kind of thinking fosters estrangement instead of connection. Lilla noted that what people in a given victim group sometimes seem to be saying is: "You must understand my experience, and you can't understand my experience."

"They argue both, so people shrug their shoulders and walk away," he said.

Across a range of American institutions, we need more diversity. We need it to expunge and guard against the injustice that Bovy mentioned, and we need it because it's indeed a portal to broader knowledge and greater enlightenment. That means that white people - men in particular, even Google engineers - must make room in that narrative and space on that stage.

But I question the wisdom of turning categories into credentials when it comes to politics and public debate. I reject the assumptions - otherwise known as prejudices - that certain life circumstances prohibit sensitivity and sound judgment while other conditions guarantee them. That appraises the packaging more than it does the content. It ignores the complexity of people. It's reductive.

Thomas Chatterton Williams, the author of the memoir "Losing My Cool: Love, Literature, and a Black Man's Escape From the Crowd," got at this in an essay about privilege that he published last year, writing: "My black father, born in 1937 in segregated Texas, is an exponentially more worldly man than my maternal white Protestant grandfather, whose racism always struck me more as a sad function of his provincialism or powerlessness than anything else. I don't mean to excuse the corrosive effects of his view; I simply wish to note that when I compare these two men, I do not recognize my father as the victim."

At the beginning of this column I shared the sorts of personal details that register most strongly with those Americans who tuck each of us into some hierarchy of blessedness and affliction. So you know some important things about me, but not the most important ones: how I responded to the random challenges on my path, who I met along the way, what I learned from them, the degree of curiosity I mustered and the values that I honed as a result.

Those construct my character, and shape my voice, to be embraced or dismissed on its own merits. My gayness no more redeems me than my whiteness disqualifies me. And neither, I hope, defines me.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Mark Lilla, a Columbia University professor, got a big, bitter taste of this late last year when he wrote, in The Times, about the presidential election and "identity politics," which, he argued, had hurt the Democratic Party. He maintained that too intense a focus on each minority group's discrete persecution comes at the expense of a larger, unifying vision.

# data[].attributes.headline
Image 3: Women superheroes costumes is more sexier and showy than men's superheroes costumes.

# data[].attributes.subject
Image 3: Women superheroes costumes is more sexier and showy than men's superheroes costumes.

# data[].attributes.headline
Image 2: Image comparing male and female superheroes outwear 

# data[].attributes.subject
Image 2: Image comparing male and female superheroes outwear 

# data[].attributes.headline
Twitter Post: Male students in Isca Academy wearing skirts to school to protest.

# data[].attributes.subject
Twitter Post: Male students in Isca Academy wearing skirts to school to protest.

# data[].attributes.headline
Toy Aisles Differences (male vs female) in stores 2017. Pink for girls and blue for boys. Makeup and dolls for girls, gun and construction toys for boys.

# data[].attributes.subject
Toy Aisles Differences (male vs female) in stores 2017. Pink for girls and blue for boys. Makeup and dolls for girls, gun and construction toys for boys.

# data[].attributes.headline
Nepali Movie Shakuntala Trailer 2016: Features Rajesh Hamal (top and most famous Nepali Actor) as a transgender supporting and fighting for woman's rights.

# data[].attributes.subject
Nepali Movie Shakuntala Trailer 2016: Features Rajesh Hamal (top and most famous Nepali Actor) as a transgender supporting and fighting for woman's rights.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
SHAKUNTALA - Nepali Movie Official Trailer 2016 Ft. Rajesh Hamal, Kishowr Khatiwada

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Don't forget to like and share with everyone if you liked this video! Greenhill VFX Media Presents!

# data[].attributes.headline
Image 1 - Wonder Woman 2017: Wonder Woman is the first superheroes  movies that featured woman as main protagonist and made it to big screen. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Image 1 - Wonder Woman 2017: Wonder Woman is the first superheroes  movies that featured woman as main protagonist and made it to big screen. 