One of the toughest challenges the liberal intellectual faces today, is to show that his favourite minorities (blacks, women, homosexuals, etcetera) are still being oppressed. This is because these groups have had equal rights for many years now, and in the past couple of years these groups often even had more rights. But the liberal, who has become attached to his oppressed minorities by now, doesn't want to say goodbye to them yet.
Since he is no longer able to point at any rights his minorities are lacking, the progressive thinker is trying to invent new standards to prove that his pets are still being cruelly oppressed. This search for new standards hasn't been very successful so far.
One of the new criteria of oppression is the income of the oppressed group: groups that earn less than average are being oppressed. This criterion, especially designed for blacks and immigrants, is negated by the 'liberation' of women: the feminization of poverty in the US started only after the emancipation of women. And the income of jews and homosexuals don't fit this theory particularly well either.
Another criterion is succes in the arts, the sciences, literature, philosophy, and the like. Groups that are not succesful in these areas, are being oppressed. This criterion, especially designed for blacks and women, is negated by the succes of jews and homosexuals in these areas.
Two other criteria are life expectancy and rate of imprisonment: groups that have a lower life expectancy and a higher rate of imprisonment than the average population are being oppressed. These two criteria were especially designed to show that blacks in the US are still being oppressed. But if we apply these same criteria to the sexes, we must conclude that it's not women who are oppressed, but men. This conclusion is obviously unacceptable for the enlightened intellectual.
Of course the liberals don't pay any attention to these inconsistencies. The amusing consequence is that when they wear their anti-racist hat, they explain a phenomenon very differently from when they wear their feminist hat; and when they wear their gay hat, they invent a third explanation. They explain the high levels of crime among men by pointing out that men are oppressors, and so it's only natural that they are more prone to crime than women; at the same time, they explain the high levels of crime among blacks by pointing to the oppression blacks are suffering. They explain the high life-expectancy of the oppressed women by declaring women to be biologically superior; at the same time, they explain the high life-expectancy of whites by pointing out that whites are oppressors, who live at the expense of blacks. They explain the artistic accomplishments of the oppressed homosexuals by pointing out that gays are by nature more creative than the unimaginative heterosexuals; at the same time, they explain the lack of artistic accomplishments among blacks and women by pointing to the oppression these groups are suffering; and so on, and so forth.
I don't know if the so-called Multiple Personality Disorder really exists; but if it does exist, then it's obvious that a large part of those suffering from the disease are liberal intellectuals.