#to argue that misandry is an axis of oppression

[canichangemyblogname]

I think a lot of you on here wildly misunderstand intersectionality. Because it accounts for the fact that men are not oppressed for being men *and* the fact that man-ness is and has been inaccessible to black, brown, indigenous, disabled, and queer men. Man-ness is narrowly defined to exclude the most, but that does not negate that men are not oppressed for being men. One may, however, be oppressed for not fitting into that narrow definition of manhood.

Intersectionality accounts for the fact that white women are oft second best in a racialized sex-caste system. It accounts for the fact that they, too, oversaw the plantation and garnered wealth on the backs of enslaved men and women. It accounts for the fact that white women were the homemakers of the land they or their people helped steal and the mothers of children meant to supplant the indigenous population of the area. And it accounts for the fact that denying black men and gay men and disabled men access to manhood was a way to also strip them of personhood. Because humans have a gender; animals only have a sex.

It accounts for the fact that M > F is not the sole or predominant dynamic in the world, but is only one dynamic. It accounts for the fact that a woman (often white) can hold all the cards and the sociopolitical power in a relationship (dynamic) when the other half of that dynamic experiences specific marginalizations. It accounts for the fact that blackness and transness affect a man’s relationship with manhood and the sex caste system.

And it accounts for the fact that while men may be oppressed, they are not oppressed *for* being men.

[gay-otlc]

A popular sex ed blog has decided trans men & mascs aren't allowed to use our own words to describe our own oppression, and seems to be deleting replies and asks that say otherwise, so I've decided to take my ramble over to main.

Regarding TMA/TME language, they've brought up a couple of times how "exempt" means "set apart" rather than "never experiences transmisogyny ever," and how words can have multiple definitions (this post). So it's best to hear people out before jumping to bad-faith interpretations of their words.

However, they also say, "misandry is a term for the 'oppression of men based on gender'" (this post) as a reason why "transmisandry" can never be used.

That is one definition of misandry, yes, but as they pointed out, words can have multiple definitions! Regarding the oppression against trans men & mascs, misandry is generally used to mean the literal "hatred of men," and people in these discussions don't believe that misandry is an axis of systemic oppression (which has been stated over and over).

Yes, it has negative connotations, which is why people more often use transandrophobia or anti-transmasculinity instead. (This poll shows more specifically which terms are most preferred.) But that doesn't mean people who use the term transmisandry are MRAs or believe in the MRA concept of misandry.

Transmisandry is not claiming a combination of systemic transphobia and "systemic misandry," but hatred against trans men & mascs for being trans men/masc. Again, many people prefer other terms that leave less room for that misinterpretation, but people who do use the term transmisandry aren't responsible for others repeatedly ignoring their actual explanations of the term.

In general, arguing over the words rather than the concepts is a very common way to silence people who are trying to talk about their oppression. Jews talking about antisemitism get dismissed because "You're not Semitic, you're from Poland." Aromantic and asexual people get dismissed because "Aphobia literally means 'fear of nothing,' that's a stupid term." And trans men & mascs get told "You can't use that word to talk about your oppression, it's problematic." (Time and time again, and every time we pick a new word, that one gets called problematic too; it's almost like the problem was never really the word?) The words get picked apart but people don't listen to what we're actually saying, the ways we're suffering.

In their own words, from this post: "Do you have to like the language? No. Do you have to respect the way and language oppressed people have chosen to speak about their oppression? Yes. Yes, you do."

Trans men & mascs shouldn't be an exception to your respect.

[llycaons]

I don't feel like arguing w strangers on the internet today so if you really feel that transandrophobia is a genuine axis of oppression and that misandry is just as real as misogyny go read whipping girl by julia serano. or block me. idc I'm not arguing this

[nothorses]

opinions on this post? https://bosstheme.tumblr.com/post/656731854457765888

It's a wordy re-hash of the same argument people have been making against words for transmascs experience for, like, forever.

OP is just arguing that because cis men aren't oppressed for being men, and because transmascs can experience misogyny, transmascs can't name our unique experiences with oppression.

I've addressed the flaws in this logic again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again. This post is also great.

To sum it up, though:

Cis misandry does not need to exist in order for transandrophobia to exist. Patriarchy does not view trans people as either men or women, and "transmisogyny" is not saying it does, either!

It's not "transphobia + misogyny". Trans women and transfems are not oppressed for being trans and for being women separately; they are oppressed for being trans women and transfems, specifically, as a unique category that is viewed neither as "man" or "woman" under the patriarchy.

Similarly, "transandrophobia" does not seek to describe "transphobia + androphobia (or misandry)", implying the existence of an axis of oppression impacting all men for their maleness. It describes the unique way that trans men and transmascs are oppressed specifically for being trans men and transmascs.

I also want to stress that some men are specifically oppressed for their relationship to manhood. Black men are viewed as uniquely "scary" and "dangerous", and their relationship to manhood is ridiculed; they're seen as hypermasculine in a distinctly threatening and negative way, but often not as men- a category reserved for those afforded more humanity. Disabled men and fat men are also generally viewed as subhuman and incapable of "real" manhood or masculinity.

Misogyny is not just "hatred of women", it's a weapon the patriarchy uses to control gender expression and reinforce a hierarchy. Just like homophobia, transphobia, transmisogyny, and, yes, transandrophobia.

[oatsmilk]

idk how to say this but misogyny in online spaces has been on an exponential upswing for years now and if you as a trans person are arguing that misandry exists as an axis of oppression you are contributing to that bioessentialist misogyny

[a-polite-melody]

If your activism hinges on, “I MUST be in The Most Oppressed group, and it is Bad to imply anyone has it as bad as Me/My Group,”

…

Fuck, even if it just hinges on, “[x] group is The Most Oppressed, and it is Bad to imply anyone has it as bad as [x],”

I want absolutely nothing to do with you.

“But This group has unique experiences that this other group can’t possibly even fathom!!!”

And?

You think that’s unique to your group?

Oh yeah, of course you do. Because you’re The Most Oppressed.

Relatedly: transandrophobia as a word does not blunt the word transmisogyny, it DOES reflect actual systemic oppression because it’s the only way to talk about the intersection of transphobia and misogyny that is unique to transmascs without stealing the word transmisogyny, and using the fact it doesn’t have The Right Words To Reflect The Systems In It as your reasoning for why it doesn’t reflect systemic oppression is bullshit because we all know you don’t want us using transmisogyny and would also throw a shitfit if we tried to use misogytransphobia or some other shit in order for the word to reflect the systems it talks about better. It’s not the same as “Anglo-pauper-phobia” because you’re right that the Anglo part doesn’t change classism measurably, but transandrophobia is not at all operating the same way as a word as transmisogyny and that shit example because it fucking CAN’T because there’s only one way to put transphobia and misogyny together in a way that isn’t extremely clunky, and so we HAD to use something else to specify the misogyny that directly and uniquely intersects with transness with transmascs unless we wanted to steal a word, and so transandrophobia. It never, ever was intended to be the intersection of transphobia and misandry/man hating and the fact that people who argued with us in that vein are changing their minds and turning around and repurposing and regurgitating it back at us now. It’s fucking disgusting that someone fucking said that — that comparison of “androphobia” being part of the word and “Anglo” being part of the other word when transandro is meant to specify transmasc oppression along the intersection of transness and misogyny, and the person who said that being from the US and so choosing something that is not an axis of oppression to use as the comparison between the combination of two —and got no backlash for it. (Also fucking. “If we’re all in the same sinking boat, the people in the dry part of the boat don’t get to complain as loud as the people in the wet part.” Fucking. How about we all complain as loud as possible together to make as much noise to get people to notice we’re sinking and not put limiters on some groups!)

[elftwink]

oh my goddd like i empathize with the trans*ndroph*bia guys like i think it's normal to want to talk about your unique group experiences but then the rhetoric plunges straight off the cliff into "and this is because society teaches us to only value femininity and view men as disposable" like HUH? the literal reddit mra talking points in 2022?

exactly like there's obviously nothing wrong w/talking about your experiences as a trans man* but it's so transparently not about that in the slightest because you don't actually need a special term for you only to do that

and that's the kicker for me is these people are approaching the language we use to describe axes of oppression from a place of inclusion, which is well meaning but so totally beside the point. that's simply not a coherent analysis of oppression dynamics because the goal is to look at the intersections of systems, not to identify and label groups. transmisogyny as a term doesn't exist because trans women experience a unique form of oppression (although they do), but because it's describing the intersection between misogyny and transphobia. i think transmascs get bent out of shape on this point because they view this statement as tantamount to dismissing their own experiences of misogyny which is not what it is at all. but your experiences with misogyny simply do not exist at that fucking intersection even if you are still impacted deeply by them. i do genuinely think many people who use that term view it the same way they view labels for gender identity and sexuality where it's about community and shared experiences and it's like if you want that we have that. it's called the "transmasc" label. but that is not how discussion of oppression dynamics works

like nobody else is doing this. men of colour are not arguing they need specific terms for their experiences even though the racism they experience is unique to them BECAUSE THEY ARE MEN. gay men are not arguing they need terms specific to their homophobia even though their experiences with it are unique to them BECAUSE THEY ARE MEN. does the lack of terminology there mean their experiences are worth less? does it mean their experiences as marginalized men are outright dismissed? does it mean there is no uniqueness in the way their manhood interacts with their marginalization? does it mean every marginalized man is always better off than marginalized women of the same group? does it mean those groups never have the ability or language to discuss their oppression? of course not! it literally just means maleness is not an axis on which people are oppressed, EVEN THOUGH someone being male can radically change the ways in which they are marginalized. even though they may not have access to male privilege in the way cishet abled white men do (sidebar trans men love to pretend they're the only group of men who cannot [always] access male privilege. i'm not debunking that because it debunks itself but it's worth pointing out how dismissive it is to the experiences of other marginalized men). ex. the term "lesbophobia" does not imply gay men experience "less" homophobia than lesbians, it is pointing out an intersection of two systems- homophobia and misogyny. there's no inverse term because there's no systemic misandry and no power system that privileges men over women, even though the homophobia gay men face is often specific to them being men.

but bc trans men* approach this discussion as if the goal is to 'represent' everyone's experience rather than to create a coherent analysis of the different systems of power and how they interact with one another, they get so fucking bitter and hostile at the implication that this isn't useful to any of us. and for many the use of the term comes not from any desire to discuss issues the community faces but from jealousy that the experiences of transfem people are discussed more often (which. are they? but i digress). and they are incapable of viewing this as an extension of transmisogyny (hypervisibility) and instead act like it's their [transfem people's] fault. there's such a rabid need to validate one another's experience with manhood as unique and worth talking about (something that it already is with or without specific terms) that it comes out as misogyny. the assertion that women (cis or trans) couldn't possibly understand the complexities of the transmasculine experience and outright vitriol to people who point out this is a stupid assertion, ESPECIALLY if the people pointing it out are not binary trans men themselves. and because they're so wrapped up in their experiences w/misogyny, they're like incapable of recognizing just the possibility that they could have power on that axis, even while literally wielding it like a blunt tool to dismiss or belittle the opinions of women.

the irony of this is that it is constantly derailing any actual conversation about the transmasc experiences by making it into a petty contest of who is more oppressed and who "deserves" to be talked about and who "deserves" a special term (even though again, that's not how you fucking use terms describing oppression dynamics). like i don't want to talk about my unique experiences as a trans man because i'm tired of people on this website putting words in my mouth and weaponizing my experiences against other people in my community. and then that hesitance is characterized as further proof of the necessity of the term and thus the serpent eats its own tail.

anyway. i'm sympathetic of course. as a trans man myself i think there's lots to talk about in terms of unique experiences and forms of oppression. i just wish people actually wanted to talk about it instead of taking out their bitterness on other trans people. you're oppressed for being a trans man, yes. you are not oppressed for being trans and also for being a man, even though you being a man has unique impacts on the transphobia you face.

(*i'm saying "trans men" instead of "trans men and transmascs" because i do not think this term nor its proponents are using it to mean anything other than "binary trans men and people who i can lump in with binary trans men". because it doesn't describe any intersection of oppression, the edges of who does and does not experience trans*ndrophobia are messy at best and the term is simply not equipped to describe the experiences of people whose gender identity and trans status is not clear cut. in terms of use value, saying "trans men and transmasc people" in this context is like saying "women and femmes" when talking about feminism. sounds inclusive, but is so vague as to be meaningless and often outright excludes people in the latter category because it presupposes their experiences are going to be functionally identical. which they aren't. obviously.)

[bi-sapphics]

honestly smth that just makes me really angry (thinking abt that anon again) is the “you owe your thriving lifestyle to xyz group who is either more oppressed than you or is somehow more valuable and liked and worthy than you” bullshit. this goes for ANYONE.

and, yes, to some degree i think we owe different groups of people our gratitude and respect. like that’s just true, i’m not out here trying to say it’s all about me me me and i don’t owe anyone anything at all.

what upsets me is this derogatory “you’re helpless and weak and you wouldn’t have any rights if not for our kindness in allowing you to be a part of our community conditionally, so stop complaining that you had your own culture stolen and gatekept from you.” there’s a difference between getting rightfully angry at a minority with privilege via axis of oppression (i.e. white bisexuals, cis lesbians, black men, etc.) for being selfish & unruly (which is not whom i’m talking about) and bullying a minority group you personally see as lesser and/or more privileged than you (regardless of the truth) and gaslighting them into believing “the bad unjust thing we did to hurt you that you’re complaining so much about could have been worse, so you should be grateful that you aren’t being treated even worse nowadays” (i.e. lesbian separatism).

and this doesn’t even just go for angry and hurt bisexual women vs. selfish lesbian separatists, it also goes for gay men vs lesbians in a specific way as well. lesbians (and i’m assuming bi women who were considered lesbians at the time, but for the sake of convenience we’ll say lesbians) played a huge part in aiding gay & bi men during the time when the government was killing the LGBT community with its serophobia. gay men will always owe lesbians a great debt of gratitude, but that doesn’t mean lesbians get a pass in speaking over gay men and dismissing their issues. i myself am not gay nor a man so i will not be speaking over them, but what i do know is that many of them are tired of being silenced for the sake of it being “their duty” or whatever. gay men oppress lesbians on the basis of misogyny, sure, that can’t and shouldn’t be ignored, but both groups face homophobia and erasure within their own communities. this post explains it a lot better than i could and gets the point across much better without sounding silly, but be warned that there are lots of radfems arguing against op in the thread. that should tell you that it actually carries some weight if it makes radfems mad. misandry isn’t real but bigotry is not the same as oppression and it doesn’t give us the right to ignore mlm when they speak about being mlm.

i didn’t put as much effort into this post as i did with the original that i mentioned above so feel free to correct me on and/or inform me of anything. hopefully i came across the right way and the correct audience reading this post will actually understand what i’m trying to say and not purposefully twist the message to start an argument. don’t do that. please lmao. just read the post i linked above about the aids crisis before you do.

[rathbian]

Sexism and Danganronpa

Apologies for the length of this post but this issue needed to be addressed. There have been some fundamental misunderstandings in how sexism works in the DR fanbase and I want to clear them up in relation to discourse surrounding certain characters, namely Tenko Chabashira and Kaito Momota.

I’m sure everyone knows how much discourse Tenko has been in. We’re here to focus on one part of that: her supposed sexism through misandry. To clarify, misandry does not exist as an axis of oppression. Allow me to explain. A decent chunk of what is considered misandry is actually the result of misogyny or a different form of oppression(the backlash against gender non-conforming men due to equating presenting in a way that’s perceived to be feminine or gay for example). The rest is either a: not considered systemic oppression(discrimination by law or by a history of societal standard) or b: injustice caused by individuals which should not be considered an equivalent to misogyny but instead the fault of the individuals perpetrating it. 

Someone making a blanket statement about hating men is not misandry. Blanket statements made by an oppressed group of people about their oppressors is not a targeted statement to any particular individual of that class unless the statement applies to them. Additionally, as oppression is inherent(affording one advantages over those who are not oppressed in that manner) and not merely active discrimination, one cannot cast off the label of oppressor, which is not a bad thing on its own, all this means is that one must be conscious of this fact when interacting with others. Statements like these are not an attack on a given person or a wish of ill will onto every member of a group but, rather, an expression of frustration with particular facets or behaviors of this group that are unsavory. They are hyperbolic in nature and hold no real power due to how oppression works, as oppression is one-sided, or completely improbable and impractical threats that absolutely cannot be followed through on. In other words, do not take someone who says that they hate men personally, whether as a man or a misguided attempt to protect men from something that doesn’t exist. 

How then, do we address Tenko’s hatred for men? As discussed before, some things perceived as misandry can be sourced in misogyny, which can be applied to this case. In fact, Tenko’s entire existence is steeped in misogyny, from her history in canon to her treatment by the fandom and even by Kodaka himself. I’ve spoken briefly on this before, through a submission on @momotaphobe, about the misogynistic culture surrounding how Tenko was raised to hate men in order to remain pure and innocent. The manipulative and infantilizing behavior of her teacher is never stated to be wrong, instead placing the fault on Tenko for not realizing her teacher’s hypocrisy, and the fetishistic nature of this trope is indulged in by the inclusion of the Love Hotel scene. Between this, Kodaka writing her into a corner by making a grand majority of her scenes revolving around either her hating men or being infatuated with Himiko, and the fandom misrepresenting her character due to misinterpretation and bias, it’s clear that rather than Tenko being a perpetrator of misandry, she is a victim of misogyny.

What of Kaito and his sexism? Another point for Tenko’s case as a victim of misogyny in the DR fandom is that Kaito’s sexist views when applied to a number of the boys in NDRV3 is never called misandry. He very clearly states that his issue with them is that they are not acting according to his standards of masculinity, but even then, only Tenko is brought up as being a misandrist. This double standard when analyzing sexism in the two characters is misogynistic in that Tenko is held to a standard that Kaito never was. Not to mention that the aforementioned misandry(the idea that weakness is a bad trait in men because it is associated with women) is the result of toxic masculinity which stems from misogynistic views. On top of that, his comments to Maki aren’t exactly the most respectful of her capabilities or sensitive to her feelings. With all this in mind, one can say that, within the NDRV3 canon, he acts in a misogynistic manner.

In order to properly address the issues these characters have in regards to sexism, we must differentiate how they are affected by misogyny. There are a number of people who wish to separate Kaito’s misogyny from his other character traits due to either his implied background as being raised by his grandparents and, from just that, inferring that they would be conservative or simply due to a Kodaka writing him that way. No matter how you wish to explain away the origin of his sexist leanings, you cannot ignore his canonical actions. The way he is portrayed is as a sexist and to not address that either in canon or in your analysis of his character is to excuse the way he is written. Tenko and her relationship to misogyny is different. Thanks to the amalgamation of factors both in canon and by people, Tenko is affected by misogyny throughout her character as well, albeit as a victim, thus, examination of her actions should consider this to be a factor as well. Like with Kaito, the sexism at play should not be ignored, but instead, be examined in a different manner than Kaito. Though one could argue that Kaito, too, is a victim to sexist values, it will not change his position of oppressor, the actions he took, and words he said. In the end, Tenko is a victim of misogyny and Kaito is a participant of misogyny, unwittingly or not, and discussions, critiques, and analysis of either their characters or sexism should take care to address them accordingly.

[republicstandard]

Lower Learning: The Collapse of Higher Education

The fundamental divide of our time is hereditary nationalism versus globalism. The defining struggle is the nation-state and the right for all people to have self-determination versus the supra-national corporatocratic Leviathans. A plethora of dystopian and totalitarian futures are presently on the table, but so is the return to the nation-state with real, enforceable borders and a people united in purpose, spirit, and common ancestry.

(function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:10817585113717094,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-7788-6480"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.lockerdomecdn.com/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");

Nationalism itself is exclusively the province of the Right —borders (for Western nations at least) now being anathema to the Left— and is calibrated along the civic nationalist-to-ethno-nationalist axis. Civic nationalism is a very enticing siren song, but it is a lethal illusion. Most non-Whites do not share the same values as Whites, and a truly “Proposition Nation” is doomed to fail. In the Western context, the Left has inadvertently tipped its hand by attempting to de-construct “Whiteness,” with the implicit acknowledgment that Western civilization and the White race are inextricable. This does not mean it is exclusive to Whites, as we have “fellow travelers” of soul and spirit, but it does mean that, to quote Sam Francis:

In so far as White Americans still care about their culture — the Constitution, religion, science, art, language, literature, aesthetics, social institutions, and morals — they must care about the race that created them and sustains them and without which they cannot exist. [The new racial rhetoric of publications like American Renaissance] does not, as far as I can recall, argue that race by itself is sufficient to create and sustain our civilization, but it does insist, clearly and unequivocally, that race is necessary.

The spread of “liberalism” has proven to be little more than the intentional knocking down of the foundational pillars of Western civilization, and the “dismantling of Whiteness” necessarily takes on an increasingly genocidal character in such an environment. Witness the consequences of the “championing of democracy” in South Africa and Rhodesia. Does it look like reconciliation and national harmony, or does it look like ethnic cleansing under the guise of redress of past wrongs? Returning to Francis:

A concerted and long-term attack against the civilization of White, European and North American man has been launched, and the attack is not confined to the political, social, and cultural institutions that characterize the civilization but extends also to the race that created the civilization and continues to carry and transmit it today. The war against White civilization sometimes (indeed often) invokes liberal ideals as its justification and as its goal, but the likely reality is that the victory of the racial revolution will end merely in the domination or destruction of the White race and its civilization by non-White peoples.

In a country that has been utterly fractured demographically, the only tie that binds is a shared hatred for Whites—and reinforcements arrive daily. Our immigration policy is geared specifically to demographically swamp the Whites that built this country, and it also serves another ideological purpose: Victor Davis Hanson points out that the bulk of the immigrants—legal and illegal—that arrive in America are low-skill and have low educational attainment, and when they fail to immediately achieve parity, the Democrats can start screeching about inequities and systemic racism. The academy has become both a forward operating base for anti-White indoctrination and genocidal rhetoric, as well as but one arm of the multi-billion-dollar “diversity” and grievance-mongering racket, which has burrowed itself like a tick into every corporation, every law firm, every federal department of something-or-other, and every university, engorged with self-righteousness and others’ capital, buttressed by a multiplicity of bloated “non-profits” and advocacy groups.

In today’s colleges and universities, things are worse than ever; the race-baiting of the Obama administration exacerbated an already strained campus environment:

During the Obama administration, the Education Department…received 1,073 complaints about racial harassment in higher education. Generally, the number of complaints a year is up, compared to prior years. Since 2010, the smallest number of complaints in a fiscal year is 137 (in 2010). In the five years prior to the Obama administration, the number of complaints never exceeded 95 and was generally smaller than that (in the 50s).

As college becomes a veritable “rite of passage” for today’s youth, it means a growing number will be forced to endure at least four years of relentless pro-Cultural Marxist indoctrination. There is a very good chance they have been marinated in it from an early age as well, given the state of the teaching profession and its unions. Once on campus, Steve Salerno gives us a disturbingly far-from-comprehensive overview:

New York’s Hunter College promotes coursework for poli-sci majors in “the abolition of Whiteness.” Stanford examines “abolishing Whiteness as a cultural identity.” Elsewhere, to cite just a few examples, classes at Grinnell and UW-Madison confront “the problem of Whiteness.” New Mexico’s St. John’s College takes on the “depravity” of Whiteness. Moreover, academic theorists crusade to purge Whiteness from STEM courses, because critical thinking and research are regarded as tools of “White hegemony.” Engineering students at Purdue must contend with the school’s indictment of “racist and colonialist projects in science,” while a UC-Irvine professor condemns even “technical prowess” as a White male construct. A Linfield college Gender Studies professor even condemns her peers for putting “stellar” colleagues in leadership roles, because stellar individuals, she notes, tend to be White and thus have benefited unfairly from “a logic of meritocracy that is built on this racist assumption that everyone has had the same access and opportunities.” UCLA pays students a stipend to act as professional social justice activists who will diagnose, expose, and combat “Whiteness” and “the patriarchy” in all campus manifestations.

So it’s not just anti-White, anti-Western Marxism, but misandry as well—selectively applied, of course. If their protected classes of various colored peoples “act out,” the behaviors will be explained away as reflecting some iniquity of the White Male Patriarchy. The University of Texas just launched “MasculinUT: Healthy Masculinities Project by Voices against Violence in the Counseling and Mental Health Center,” yet another program dedicated to the feminization and excoriation of all things “male.” The Left wants men to basically be sea-horses. It is gestation in this milieu that produces creatures such as recent New York Times hire Sarah Jeong. As Heather Mac Donald informs us:

There is a multi-million dollar diversity bureaucracy on most college campuses today that is dedicated to the very propositions that Sarah Jeong embodies—things like “Whiteness” is a source of all evil in the world, lethal to people of color; a contempt for objectivity and truth-seeking; a belief that all females exist in a state of oppression by “rape culture.” This diversity bureaucracy hits students with this ideology from the moment they step foot on campus, putting them in the throes of a very terrible delusion. American college students are the most privileged human beings in history, simply by virtue of their access to vast educational opportunities and yet college presidents on down tell them that they are the subject of ubiquitous racism on the college campus itself.

Regarding the uniform defense of Sarah Jeong’s anti-White tweets by the Left and the “Muh Principles” Conservatism, Inc. drones, Rod Dreher addresses the former group:

What’s awesome is how progressives are defending Harvard Law graduate Sarah Jeong’s racism because she’s “punching up.” A graduate of Harvard Law School. Punching up. My God, the left today is a demented, privileged joke.

Not only that, but Sarah Jeong’s race—Asians—are the highest-earning race in America, with a median household income over $16,000 greater than that of the Whites she’s “punching.” The Left defines racism as power plus privilege. Jeong is the walking embodiment of privilege and yet somehow her defenders on the Left have arrived at the conclusion that she is a champion of the oppressed. Universities such as UCONN with their “Social Justice Organizing” minor are becoming more blatant in their commitment to churning out a steady supply of “professional activists” and agitators. As Heather MacDonald explains:

[Universities] are hatred machines. There is a conveyor belt from the academy into the world-at-large into corporations, into the media…Sarah Jeong was treated with a big yawn by mainstream media and by liberal institutions because her ideology is banal. It is simply the state of the art right now, whether it’s the New York Times, CNN, or the Washington Post.

(function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:10817587730962790,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-5979-7226"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.lockerdomecdn.com/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");

When the students hit the job market, they can expect to be advantaged or disadvantaged based on race just as in the college admissions process. The cost of compliance is prohibitive; in 1991, what amounts to a whopping 4% of GDP ($225 billion) was spent on enforcing and complying with the various procedures and regulations of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), a number that grew to $347 billion by 2005 and $540 billion by 2008, to say nothing of the opportunity cost of being forced to hire an under-qualified candidate based solely on race or ethnicity. The US government offers a certain percentage of its contracts to companies that are minority-owned—with no consideration given to price or quality. Despite the fact that both the 1964 and 1991 Civil Rights Acts explicitly ban racial quotas, and the fact that Affirmative Action is unconstitutional, the practice not only continues, and has not only become even more entrenched, but it has expanded as well. The EEOC is but one arm of the vast federal Leviathan that lavishes minorities with entitlements, advantages, special legal protections, and various programs and benefits over and beyond what the average White American can expect to receive. The average negative budgetary impact of a single black individual over the course of their lifetime is $750,000! For Hispanics, it is $500,000, but for Whites, it is a positive $220,000. The average White will, in the course of their lifetime transfer close to $400,000 in taxes to a single black individual. As of 2012, 54% of all native Hispanic households and 55% of all native black households used some form of welfare, as opposed to 23.1% of Whites and 21.8% of Asians.

As presented in Edwin S. Rubenstein’s “Affirmative Action and the Costs of Diversity,” Harvard economist Richard Freeman noted that young black male and young White male college graduates had achieved income parity by the 1970s. Black college-educated females out-earn White college-educated females by 125% and they are also awarded more college degrees as a percentage of the population. Women, in general, earn 60% of Bachelor’s degrees, 60% of Master’s degrees, and 52% of PhDs. Single women under thirty out-earn the men in their peer group in 147 of the 150 largest cities in America, and female CEOs of all age groups out-earn their male counterparts. Yet we incessantly hear about “racism,” discrimination, and pay gaps. For once, the Left is right, but the only thing is they got their races and sexes mixed up.

from Republic Standard | Conservative Thought & Culture Magazine https://ift.tt/2nZb8zz via IFTTT

[silver-and-ivory]

Interesting list. I feel weird about it.

For one, these ideas aren’t bad because they’re radfem ideas. I don’t like that they’re mostly only argued to be bad because they’re connected to radfems. Presumably radfems also think the sky is blue and are pro-choice.

This feels like a cop-out. It’s hopefully a convincing rhetorical tactic, but it’s not particularly solid reasoning for why something is bad.

Some of these things aren’t limited to radfems. Especially with regard to misandry, I think that plenty of non-radical feminists make generalizations about all men or all women.

Some of these things are mischaracterizations of radfeminism (I think). Ime, radfems try really hard to be intersectional. They include womanists on their recommended reading lists. They’re often (?) communist and pro-working-class. Adrienne Rich was in fact (close?) friends with Audre Lorde. Inconvenient as it is, some portion of radfems are intersectional in the sense that they recognize that different positions in regard to oppressions interact to create wholly new problems and oppressions and in that they care about people marginalized on more than one axis.

Radfems are indeed often biphobic and transphobic and are not notably inclusive of disabled people. They also tend to emphasize gender oppression. However, this doesn’t really make them non-intersectional, imo, especially given their ties (?) to womanists.

Regarding comp het: I read the linked explanation for replacing it, and I disagree. Comp het isn’t something that affects all queer people, nor is it a poor synonym for heterosexuality. It’s something that affects all women and no men; it refers to how society is (was) arranged to prevent women from living without male involvement, whereas it is easier for men to live without female involvement.

Whether or not you agree comp het is a thing, it’s clearly pointing to a different phenomenon than heteronormativity. The fact that it was proposed by a radfem doesn’t automatically make it Tainted; we shouldn’t throw out useful theoretical constructs just because radfems touched them.

My largest disagreement with this post is that it seems to be going along with sj purity instincts, in that it connects things with Bad People and implies that these things are bad for the association. This is a really unfortunate tendency and I don’t think it’s a solid basis for an anti-radfem-ideas argument.

unmasking radical feminism

aka how to recognize radical feminist fingers on content that isn’t blatantly anti-trans or anti-women-in-porn

(note: it’s difficult to navigate the word ‘woman’ when talking about people who don’t use the term correctly. except when talking about what radfem people think about women, ‘women’ refers to cis and trans and intersex women, and ‘afab’ refers to, well, afab people, no matter what gender they identify as.)

radical feminism isn’t always straightforwardly forcing a gender binary or attacking sex workers because when it’s not taken to … radical … extremes, radical feminism isn’t obviously gender essentialist or blatantly about controlling the behavior of afab people. and i think that a lack of knowledge about these subtler radfem looks have allowed a lot of radfem rhetoric to slide into our language on tumblr, which has harmed trans people, 

radical feminism preaches that all or nearly all social ills can be attributed to misogyny and patriarchal social structures. to overthrow this world order, women must collectively throw off the yoke of male privilege by prioritizing women and womanhood, turning our backs on that which prioritizes men’s feelings or wants, and deconstructing the gender roles that hold back women and promote men in society.

in practice, radical feminism:

is non-intersectional (ignores racism, classism, queerphobia, ableism, cissexism, etc as factors in oppression)

denies female agency (believes patriarchy subconsciously guides the actions of non-radicalized women, demands women ‘self-examine’ for internalized misogyny and prioritize the good of the female collective over their individual selves)

‘Deconstructing gender roles'  (’gender critical feminism’) becomes 'there is no such thing as gender’:

erasing nonbinary and transgender struggles

gender essentialism (if there is no gender, privilege is conferred by genital arrangement), and 

transmisogyny (trans women are privileged people (people born with penises) trying to invade safe spaces for non-privileged people (people born with vaginas).)

and so radical feminism leads to trying to control the actions, bodies, sex lives, and social roles of women … which is exactly what it’s supposed to be stopping men from doing.

another amazing example of horseshoe theory in practice.

–

however, most radfem talking points aren’t so blatantly transphobic/transmisogynistic. for one thing, not all radfems are entirely trans(women)-exclusionary: many are transmedicalist instead, especially in an era where being transgender has so much comparative visibility. and being anti-porn rarely takes the shape of accusing sex workers of being awful people. usually it’s more the shape of disrespecting the choices that people make in regards to how they use their genitals, or even their imagination (sexual fantasies). 

so here’s a brief snapshot of a few ways to recognize subtle radfem rhetoric on your tumblr dash:

if a post makes sweeping claims about 'all women’ or 'all men’: it’s probably radfem.

if it questions the ability of unimpaired* women/people with vaginas to consent to sex with men/people with penises: probably radfem. (*unimpaired = not underage, not drunk, not drugged, not fucking unconscious, not pressured/coerced, not abused.)

related: if it asserts that some kinds of sex/kink are inherently oppressive to women/people with vaginas: sign of radfem.

if it states that calling [potentially] non-straight women-identifying people/characters anything other than ‘lesbian’ is lesbophobic (queer, bi, pan, questioning, ace, etc) even though the woman/character in question has not self-identified as a lesbian, it may be radfem.

related: if it claims that self-identifying with non-specific labels indicating separation from cisheteronormativity, such as ‘queer’ or ‘questioning’, are harmful to the pride community/homophobic/lesbophobic (or a slur that has never* been reclaimed), that has its origins in radfem rhetoric. (*I recognize that many young non-straight/non-cis people around the world have negative associations with the word ‘queer’, but it was mostly reclaimed in many parts of the US from the early 1990′s to ~2012 or so. radfems hate ‘queer’ because it unboxes people/labels.)

if it asserts that people with vaginas are inherently superior to people with penises and that sexual attraction to people with penises cannot be natural/sexual attraction to people with vaginas is the natural state of vagina-havers, it’s likely radfem.

(side note: ‘compulsory heterosexuality’ was coined by a radfem and specifically refers to people with vaginas being attracted to people with penises only because society forces them to be.)

if it calls negative depictions or news coverage of women being abusive (including sexually abusive), violent, racist, ableist, cruel, etc. ‘slanderous’ of women, a falsehood, misogynist, or blames men for her actions: probably radfem. (necessary exceptions for mitigating circumstances.)

if it asserts that misogyny accounts for most, if not all, social ills, and race, sexual orientation, disability, etc do not meaningfully interfere with male privilege or affect female oppression: that’s radfem.

and finally - and maybe most insidiously:

if it asks women/people with vaginas to put aside their jobs, personal desires, goals, wardrobe choices, sexual preferences, hobbies, interests, kinks, trauma, religion, etc because they are damaging to women as a whole: it’s radfem.

yes: our world, our lives, our existence is absolutely influenced by patriarchal power, and not for the better. it changes how we think and behave. it influences us. but that’s no excuse for treating women (with any genital configuration, thank you), afab people, or anyone else as if they have had all their agency utterly stripped from them by oppression.

bottom line: radical feminism reduces everyone to their genitals, and thus homogenizes ‘womenhood’. it strips women/afab people of their race and culture, their experiences and struggles, their choices and goals. but women/afab people are not a collective. they are many individuals, sharing some experiences but not all, and often as wildly different from one another in personality, experiences, and goals as anyone can be.

if your feminism does not value each and every woman and/or vagina-haver  as an individual and respect their individual autonomy and right to make decisions for themselves, your feminism effectively changes nothing. instead of freeing people up to live their own lives, you’re just asking them to stop submitting to patriarchy and submit to you instead.

please feel free to add anything I missed to this post, and thanks for reading.

[canichangemyblogname]

#It’s really cheap—actually—to use the words of women like Mikki Kendall and Kimberlé Crenshaw #to argue that misandry is an axis of oppression #and a meaningful lens to look at the racial and sexual and ableist oppression of men under a white supremacist patriarchy #there are men who are systemically hated. but they aren’t hated for being men #for being black? for being gay? for being trans?— absolutely #and those are ALL identities that have and continue to be excluded from ‘true’ or ‘real’ manhood #but that’s not man-hating #that’s racism. homophobia. and transphobia that affects certain men in a unique way #intersectionality isn’t the simple intersection of multiple oppressions #it’s about the interaction between multiple identities—including privileges and marginalizations—at the sociopolitical level #man-ness does intersect with trans-ness in a unique way— but their oppression is not misandry. it is still transphobia #do not take the decolonial and anti-racist aspects of intersectionality and use them to argue that men are systemically oppressed FOR being men

Reblogging this with my tags.

I feel like most people’s understanding of intersectionality has been created through rhetorical reactions to Trans Exclusionary Radicalism as opposed to actually engaging with the theory and actually speaking with the very people who live the reality that intersectional theory sought to explain.

Rather than seek to deconstruct how manhood has been defined to serve a white-supremacist patriarchy, these pseudo-intersectional rhetorical reactions instead argue that TERs are being misandric for their rhetoric and beliefs about trans men. Said rhetoric and beliefs often revolve around one of two conspiracies: a cabal of deep-state Jewish doctors are queering children, or predatory “men in dresses” (trans women, it’s trans women) are grooming our perfect, tiny (white) daughters (trans men) into hysteria.

People assume that because TERs (also) obsess over a specific group of men and take pot-shots at the validity and legitimacy of those men’s man-ness, that they “hate men” or that “man-hating” is systemic or an axis of marginalization. It’s not. They are taking pot-shots at the validity and legitimacy of trans men’s man-ness to uphold a very narrow definition of manhood that purposefully excludes men who do not perfectly fit into a white supremacist, eugenicist, and patriarchal sex caste system. Men are excluded not on the basis of being men, but their race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and disability.

This is why I prefer the term “degendering” over “misgendering.” It’s a mistake to assume that a TER actually treats a trans man as a woman, just as it is a mistake to assume that your conservative uncle is treating gay men as women when he says something to the effects of, “real men don't fuck men.” The TER’s rhetoric is no more misandry than your uncle’s; it’s transphobic in the same way your uncle’s rhetoric is homophobic.

I think a lot of you on here wildly misunderstand intersectionality. Because it accounts for the fact that men are not oppressed for being men *and* the fact that man-ness is and has been inaccessible to black, brown, indigenous, disabled, and queer men. Man-ness is narrowly defined to exclude the most, but that does not negate that men are not oppressed for being men. One may, however, be oppressed for not fitting into that narrow definition of manhood.

Intersectionality accounts for the fact that white women are oft second best in a racialized sex-caste system. It accounts for the fact that they, too, oversaw the plantation and garnered wealth on the backs of enslaved men and women. It accounts for the fact that white women were the homemakers of the land they or their people helped steal and the mothers of children meant to supplant the indigenous population of the area. And it accounts for the fact that denying black men and gay men and disabled men access to manhood was a way to also strip them of personhood. Because humans have a gender; animals only have a sex.

It accounts for the fact that M > F is not the sole or predominant dynamic in the world, but is only one dynamic. It accounts for the fact that a woman (often white) can hold all the cards and the sociopolitical power in a relationship (dynamic) when the other half of that dynamic experiences specific marginalizations. It accounts for the fact that blackness and transness affect a man’s relationship with manhood and the sex caste system.

And it accounts for the fact that while men may be oppressed, they are not oppressed *for* being men.