You may have seen this (very long) piece by Scott Alexander criticizing feminist attacks on ... well "Nice Guys" actually although this is NOT an article about that at all. I say he's feminist-leaning anyway. That's my judgement. He seems to be elaborately proclaiming that he's not attacking feminism as a whole in his essays about feminism, and he carefully takes a big shit on MRAs whenever he can. You know the type.

http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/01/01/untitled/

So to the point of this article. In trying to make sense of the vicious feminist attack on people like him, he deduces that feminists have an exceptionally black and white, "with us or against us" sort of view of privilege and victimry. he calls this being "one-dimensional" (feel free to search through the essay for that word to see what I am talking about).

Her obvious worldview is – since privilege and oppression are a completely one dimensional axis, for Aaronson to claim that there is anything whatsoever that has ever been bad for men must be interpreted as a claim that they are the ones who are really oppressed and therefore women are not the ones who are really oppressed and therefore nothing whatsoever has ever been bad for women. By Insane Moon Logic, it sort of makes sense.

He notes that even the most "nice" feminists still seem to endorse this view and that even the feminists who admit that men have non-zero issues (which they have to do to not look like totally crazy people) nevertheless have to elaborately use a caveat that the pain men feel isn't real bad pain somehow, and doesn't count as a comparison with the pain women feel. So basically they take it back and say "no but really - men have no issues at all".

Laurie Penny is an extremely decent person, but like a shaman warding off misfortune with a ritual, she must dub Aaronson’s pain “not structural oppression” or else risk her own pain not counting, being somehow diminished.

I mean, I don’t think she thinks that’s what she’s doing. But I’m not sure why else it’s necessary to get so competitive about it.

Absent the one-dimensional view, it would be perfectly reasonable to say something like “You feel pain? I have felt pain before too. I’m sorry about your pain. It would be incredibly crass to try to quantify exactly how your pain compares to my pain and lord it over you if mine was worse. Instead I will try to help you with your pain, just as I hope that you will help me with mine.”

So he concludes that it appears to be necessary to feminists to keep excluding all others (ie all men) from a claim of victimry and excluding themselves from any claim of privilege, because of this heavy line saying that privilege and oppression is totally a zero sum game.

But what he doesn't realize is that he's just disproven the feminist theory of intersectionality. or to be more preceise he's proven that feminists don't really believe in intersectionality at all, and in fact they helplessly believe the exact opposite. Even when they would rather say something sane like "yes men suffer too" and even when they feel forced to say that sort of thing to not look like super crazies, they just can't do it. They have to take it back by saying "blah blah structural privilege bla blah" male pain doesn't count.

Intersectionality is the feminist fake "belief" that says "we are not crazy lunatics that think only we women feel pain" because that's exactly what they do think.