Before reading this post. Note I'm a black man.

Normally it would be considered racist on the left to say a black person is using the black card to get away with a crimes or bad behaviour.

But again I notice when it comes to women, this is ironically ok to say on the left.

For example, I had a conversation with a black female intersectionalist feminist.

The conversation went like this.

Feminist: Black men hide behind the "you just want to take down a poor black man" argument as a way to get away with harming black women.

Me: Hmmm, so you are saying that these black men are using the black card to get away with abusing women. 🤔

Feminist: 😳

I'm not joking here guys, that's the exact face she made in this conversation. She was lost for words. Because that's how exactly how her argument comes off. This argument is use to explain why Diddy, R Kelly, and Bill Cosby were able to get away with their crimes. Because the system give them a pass because they were black.

This is a perfect example of Horseshoe theory with the Left and the Right.

There’s a shared cynicism on both ends (left and right) that identity can be abused. But each side uses this claim selectively.

The right uses it to dismiss all marginalization (“everyone’s playing victim”).

The left, particularly online feminists, often reserve it for situations where men (even marginalized men) harm women, making their identity “less relevant.”

So ironically, both sides make space for saying “identity is a shield”, but only when it serves their moral narrative.

And it's not just black men either. It's also gay men or artistic men.

All of a sudden gay men can use their gay privilege to get away with misogyny. And artistic men can get a pass for being weird to women because of their autism.

This does come off like a selective use of identity skepticism, which creates real inconsistencies and double standards.

But accusing men, especially Black men, gay men, or neurodivergent men, of using their identity as a shield against criticism is socially accepted, especially when framed as protecting women.

Again normally this would make you be considered a bigot on the left. But when it comes to women, this " you are playing the insert card here" argument is considered valid on the left.

In a way this is a mutation of the "women are more affected by war" meme. Because the left can only acknowledge people using their oppression status to get away with crimes or bad behaviour when women are affected, and men are the bad guys.

And there also as a an extra layer of hypocrisy too. Because the same people on the left would call you misogynistic for pointing out ways women can play the woman card to cheat the system. By benefiting from a bias court, false allegations, or getting away with SA of men/boys.

Calling out women for “playing the woman card” is taboo, while saying “men use their marginalization to get away with harm” is acceptable, hits at a genuine cultural asymmetry. Even when it comes to mental illness. It's common for feminists to say how men use their mental illness as an excuse to harm women.

Why This Happens:

  1. Intersectional feminism often centers women within marginalized communities (e.g., Black women vs. Black men), which shifts focus toward gender-based harm within marginalized groups.

  2. In doing so, it can unintentionally (or intentionally) frame men from those groups as oppressors, even though they’re still navigating systemic marginalization themselves.

  3. So when a Black man calls out systemic racism, it’s valid, unless he’s accused of harming a woman. Then, suddenly, it’s seen as a deflection tactic.

It’s a real gap in how intersectional rhetoric gets deployed.

When men use identity to shield harm = “you’re playing the card”

When women benefit from identity = “don’t generalize, that’s misogynistic”

In conclusion, it is interesting how the "you are playing the insert card here" argument is considered valid, when it's through a feminist or protect women lens.