comments on a steve shives video
October 12, 2015 § 1 Comment
This is another broken-record rant. It’s just a rehash of the same points I’m always making on this blog. If you’re a regular reader, feel free to skip it:
Feminism has nothing to do with equality, it’s little better than racism at this point. In fact, its roots and racism’s roots are identical.
It’s middle class and upper class women and their self appointed saviors asking the dominant group within society or the state to coerce a demonized the “other,” usually men they find threatening. Emmett Till, by modern standards, was a “street harasser.” The suffragettes wanted alcohol banned because they associated it with poor men and immigrants who drank. It’s criminalizing and persecuting out-groups for the same reason the drug war generally was an excuse to wage war on the poor and minorities.
Every assumption about male violence and threat that feminists make about men generally in practice adversely affect black men more than anyone else, yet curiously the crusaders for social justice and racial equality don’t seem to notice or care if we’re talking about women’s petty grievances and fears. Need I remind you that this is a country with one quarter of the world’s prison population and in which the sentencing disparity between men and women is six times the one that exists between the races? But please, let’s act surprised when the petty and frivolous manspreading law becomes an excuse to hassle men who are minorities on trains. Is this not how bigotry and racism works generally? What else is it if not hatred of demonized and marginalized out-groups because they make us feel afraid?
The reality is that feminists think of “other” men the way conservatives think about the poor. It’s embarrassing and impossible to square with the left’s politics generally. Sooner or later it will become apparent to most of you that this is just a form of reactionary persecution politics, no better or worse and psychologically identical to social and religious conservativism.
And by the very same logic of intersectionality, which apparently would have us believe that white women can still be oppressed on one axis simply because they are women, we would have to conclude that white men would still be oppressed on one axis because they are men, unless you want to explain how it is that the “privileged” gender is three times as likely to be homeless and six times more likely to be sentenced for the same crimes as the other. What’s more, the “privileged” gender is four times as likely to die by violence, three times as likely to die by suicide, experiences 90% of workplace injuries and deaths, is less likely to graduate high school and college, and on and on and on and on, on virtually every single metric which would measure human progress and well being.
So the idea that legal inequalities faced by men pale in comparison to women is utterly absurd. That’s unreal… you can’t possibly be this clueless, Steve. Could this be why you get the push-back on feminism that you do? Is there ever a point where the introspection and doubt begins?
And could it be possible that you’re telling lower working class and unemployed white men what their experience is when you yourself actually have no concept of it given whatever class privilege you enjoy? If men’s life outcomes tend towards extremes in a way that women’s don’t, then you really are being pretty presumptuous to assume that all men benefit from “patriarchy.”
Which is it? Does it “hurt men too” or do all men benefit from it? When you figure it out, be sure to let Laurie Penny know.
Men do not oppress women. Men oppress one another while competing to adhere to a female imposed gender role. Women are not oppressed by society; women and the minority of men they approve of are society, while everybody else’s existence within that social group is conditional. That is after all why we make the distinction between “real” men and other men. It’s because men’s value and social existence is conditional, while women’s is conferred by default and never in question. Consider that the next time you’re assuming that an anti feminist wears a fedora,lives in his mother’s basement, and is bitter because he’s unattractive to women. I mean, did it not occur to you this whole time that what women are saying when they accuse them of all this is that he’s not a “real man” and that this is the very imposition of the masculinity feminists complain about?
Later on, downthread, an anarchist calling him or herself “AlmightyDeku” said:
“You must not know about intersectional feminism if you think feminism is a white liberal thing.”
I thought intersectional theory was an attempt to address the obvious racism and bourgeois class perspective of second wave feminism. So really, its existence is an acknowledgement of feminism’s root in bourgeois bigotry, but whatever.
I guess we should assume that the third wave feminists successfully unearthed and uprooted all those underlying assumptions, many of which go back not only generations but centuries. Sorry, I’m not convinced feminism isn’t a white liberal thing. Would feminists know if it wasn’t?
On the question of anarchism, what relationship does in-group and out-group sociology have to the formation of power structures? Do you think it’s possible that power structures form when some men who appoint themselves the good guys, saviors and protectors of the damsels, wage war and persecute the “bad guys,” or the out-group which is believed to menace women?
Look at war propaganda during the world wars. How often did it invoke the “trope” of the damsel in order to convince men to kill off some out-group of men? Didn’t the Nazis accuse the Jews of exploiting and menacing “Aryan” women?
I’ll give you another example, the Klan lynched Emmett Till because he whistled at a white woman. Do you guys form your own embryonic power structure when you’re saving the damsels from the fedora’d misogynists and menacers of Anita Sarkeesian?
Am I the reactionary, or are you?