The pall of intersectionality: “Must everything be everything?”

Yesterday reader Vaal asked me what I thought of the new movie “Black Panther”, which has an all-black cast and an African-American director. The film has cleaned up, nabbing a box office of $361 million worldwide in the first few days after release—nearly doubling the entire production cost! It already is a huge success. Vaal expressed a bit of concern whether this would reinforce black identity politics, but in general agreed with my response; this is what I said:

I haven’t seen the movie, nor read much about it or the Internet reaction, but if it gives black kids role models and makes them feel less marginalized, so much the better. That’s different from “identity tactics”, which are to try to censor others who aren’t in your group; it seems to be just a boost in self-esteem. I don’t see any downside of that. Everyone feels part of a group, and if you’re downtrodden and your group gets celebrated, that seems great to me.

I won’t see the movie, as I don’t like superhero or action films (or even space films). I did see “Wonder Woman”, but it was on a plane and I turned it off halfway. Nevertheless, I wish “Black Panther” well.

The movie, of course, is touted for its black director and cast, giving kids role models from their group. And, as I said, that’s great. But it wasn’t enough for some people. Grania called my attention to a pair of tweets, the first calling out the movie for its “lack of LGBT representation”:

https://twitter.com/BenjaminEnfield/status/965345080335851520

And then actress Ellen Barkin’s weary response; she’s clearly tired of ubiquitous “intersectionality”. 

But was there more than just a single tweet criticizing the movie for its lack of LGBT representation? Checking the internet, I found that indeed there was. Here’s a link to an article at i09 (Gizmodo):

Marvel Misses Another Easy Opportunity for LGBTQ Representation With Black Panther https://t.co/01z1rYIwq8

— LGBT+ History Month (@LGBTHM) February 14, 2018

The article mentions one cut scene in which two women dance around each other lasciviously, suggesting perhaps an impending sexual interaction. And that flirtation was in the comic, too, though involving different characters. (There was no explicit mention of gayness or homosexual activity in the deleted scene). The author of the io9 article beefs:

This isn’t the first time that Marvel Studios have missed a readily-available opportunity to finally bring some queer representation to the big screen, but it’s particularly odd given how right there and on the page this particular story is when you look to the comics.

Though Aneka is not Okoye, characters become remixed and reimagined all the time when they’re adapted for films. A romance between Okoye and Ayo is the sort of thing that easily could have been included in Black Panther with something as simple as a longing look and a bit of flirting kiss, but it looks like we’re going to have to wait even longer for the MCU’s films to catch up with the times.

But wait! There’s more!

It would have taken five seconds of screentime to have Nakia ask Ayo “how’s the girlfriend” and Ayo answer “Aneka is good.” Or insert whoever’s name. Disney+Marvel consistently drop the ball on LGBT rep and this is the second time they’ve done it with a black woman #BlackPanther

— ✨💛✨shinee’s back✨💛✨ (@inkyubus13) February 14, 2018

I’m not sure what this would have accomplished. Would it empower gay black children? Or gay people in general?

Here’s an article (actually, a video) from The Advocate, a gay magazine (click on screenshot to see it):

They criticize the director for cutting the scene and co-writer Joe Robert Cole’s “vague answer” about why the scene was omitted (he noted that it wasn’t a major part of the story arc, and only vaguely remember the comic-book scene).

But wait! There’s more.

When it comes to bringing LGBT representation to a broader audience, they call it “a risk.” But isn’t it their responsibility to elevate the standards and change people’s perceptions? #LetAyoHaveAGirlfriend

— The Gay Robot 🤖 (@iGayRobot) January 30, 2018

Ellen Barkin’s petulant comment pinpoints the problem with intersectionality. You can’t just make a movie about one oppressed minority: you have to put in other oppressed minorities so that they, too, get their day in the sun. It also bothers me that, while I like “Black Panther” and its intended empowerment of black children, we now have to scrutinize all movies for their ideological content, making sure that every group is represented positively and all groups get represented.  It’s fine to give movies political content, and yes, we need movies with gay characters, too, but not every movie has to have a message about oppression or be called out for its absence—or for “cultural appropriation”. After all, every movie that doesn’t deal with oppressed minorities is “missing an opportunity” to do that.

We now even have “sensitivity readers” for children’s books, ensuring that the correct political sheen is given to those books. If something is potentially harmful, I don’t have much of a problem with that, but it’s also led to censorship is some cases (the NYT article in the preceding link gives some, and I discuss one invidious case here).

So good for “Black Panther”, but let’s not make every movie about politics, or screen all art to make sure it conveys the right political message. That way lies the dire and deadening art of Soviet Russia, full of propaganda but lacking soul. And if a movie does tout one marginalized group, it doesn’t have to tout them all at once. The Pecksniffs need to back off.

Here’s when things get nasty—when name-calling substitutes for discussion, an unfortunate byproduct of the intersectionalist hierarchy:

https://twitter.com/lucciXamo/status/963608326402605056