Our Shared Shelf discussion

http://affinitymagazine.us/2017/08/01...

Old but interesting article. It raises the question, well why should they given their history?

Did anyone else follow the case of feminist journalist Verashni Pillay who was unfairly pushed out of HuffPost South Africa for daring to defend an opinion piece she green-lighted that advocated the same - Disenfranchisement of white males.

But thankfully she won her appeal against the ruling that is was 'hate speech against white men'

She's a real feminist hero, check out her work if you have the time:

' “The fact is that white men still enjoy disproportionate power,” Pillay wrote a few days before resigning. “And yes, I believe that a loss of oppressive power is necessary to create a truly level playing field.” '

Didn't read the text but I agree that it's more than time that the end of the patriarchy comes and a feminist society is won for all of us. But I don't get it why the struggle against oppression means to turn oppression against those who are in power now?

I mean: smash patriarchy and sexism? Yes! Feminism and a society full of emancipation, freedom, dignity, solidarity and equal rights? Yes of course! But "white men" losing their right to participate democratically and that also means having the right to vote? I don't think so! And if you think it should be that way could you please explain the reasons why you see it that way?

Sascha wrote: "Didn't read the text but I agree that it's more than time that the end of the patriarchy comes and a feminist society is won for all of us. But I don't get it why the struggle against oppression me..."

Totally agree with you, Sascha. I want to add a question. Why should all men pay for some men abuse? Btw, I think patriarchy and sexism is not only applied and perpetuated by one race and one sex.

Sascha and Eva put it very well. Change is needed for true equality to be realized, but if we oppress those in power now, we become no better than them. As Eva said as well, the perpetrators are not of one race and one sex. Anyone can be guilty of patriarchy and sexism, and anyone is capable of putting another human being down.

The Beauty Myth talked about woman putting each other down (the book took on the viewpoint that society has brainwashed women into doing so, but the point remains). The same is true for men putting other men down. We put down other races and those within our own races. None of this is helpful toward the feminist goal.

Plus white male isn't intersectional enough. What about Gay White Men? or Poor White Men? or transitioning to and from white male?

What about very light skinned people who have racial imposter syndrome? https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswit...

Where do we draw lines? How can we draw lines if we truly believe in an intersectional feminism? We're not easily categorized, any one.

Winston wrote: " or transitioning to and from white male?"
>Feel free to insert bad Michael Jackson joke in this space<

But seriously, while it makes for a thought provoking discussion piece - it's not an idea I (as a privileged white male) could endorse.

It doesn't matter if those who hold the power come from a privileged or an underprivileged background - power corrupts, always.

Jasmine, the feminism you're fighting for is what I call "Toxic Feminism".

That's 'cause of this kind of feminism a lot of people are misled and think feminism is a bad thing...

Jasmine wrote: Old but interesting article. It raises the question, well why should they given their history?

Easy answer: No, they should not be ripped of this right!!! No one can change the past, what is important is how we deal with it, what we make out of it. And of course we can't deny the past, which we so often do...
People can change, and not all white men behave in a way that would allow it to strip them of their rights... what you suggest, ripping white men of the vote, that is right away from democracy back into dictatorship... do you really wanna go down that road?

I really do wonder what such a post is for here on OSS...

So you think white men shouldn’t be allowed to vote? I mean we also shouldn’t have a feminist society. We should just have a normal society where no one cares what gender you are, people just care about character, work ethic, etc. a society where better performance gets more. Not feminist or patriarchal

This would go against everything feminism should be about, in my opinion. It's not about man hating and it's certainly not a race issue. It's about equality for every gender and race. Articles and thoughts like this fuel the race war that already has been dividing the US and the world.

Ashley wrote: "This would go against everything feminism should be about, in my opinion. It's not about man hating and it's certainly not a race issue. It's about equality for every gender and race. Articles and ..."

What evidence is there that this article has fueled anything?

Jasmine wrote: "Ashley wrote: "This would go against everything feminism should be about, in my opinion. It's not about man hating and it's certainly not a race issue. It's about equality for every gender and race..."

You are literally sharing an article that was meant to cause tension and division. It was created by a man using an anagram for a name....Malia Rolt - "I am a Troll." Coincidence?

http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/17/huf...

Sascha wrote: "Didn't read the text but I agree that it's more than time that the end of the patriarchy comes and a feminist society is won for all of us. But I don't get it why the struggle against oppression me..."

Well said. I didn't read the text either, but I definitely don't think oppression is the answer to oppression.

Lewis wrote: "Jasmine, the feminism you're fighting for is what I call "Toxic Feminism".

That's 'cause of this kind of feminism a lot of people are misled and think feminism is a bad thing..."

What she endorses is toxic and counter intuitive to gender/race equality. However, her line of thinking is actually pretty common the only difference is Jasmine is willing to wear her feelings on her sleeve. I believe there are a lot of feminists out there who believe in these ideologies like she does but simply dont say it out loud.

Emma wrote: "I don't think preventing white men from voting would help advance equality. Then it could flip-flop, and we would be the oppressor - exactly what happened in The Power."

I'd happily live in the society depicted in The Power. Most women would compared to our current situation.

Jimmy wrote: "Is your feminism Equality or Revenge? As a white man raised by a feminist, this topic is only revealing that answer. It illuminates immaturity and bitterness. Isn't it obvious it is the white male ..."

Such a classic whiny white male response.

James wrote: "Lewis wrote: "Jasmine, the feminism you're fighting for is what I call "Toxic Feminism".

That's 'cause of this kind of feminism a lot of people are misled and think feminism is a bad thing..."

Wh..."

Yes, many women proud to call themselves feminists agree with me thankfully and are not afraid to smash the patriarchy. Your mistake is labelling it as 'toxic'.

What is truly toxic and a cancer on society is maleness.

Jasmine wrote: "Yes, many women proud to call themselves feminists agree with me thankfully and are not afraid to smash the patriarchy. Your mistake is labelling it as 'toxic'.

What is truly toxic and a cancer on society is maleness.
."

And many do not agree. Neither that revenge is the solution nor that maleness itself is a problem.
But that's why we have OSS, to discuss this in a well mannered way.

Jasmine wrote: "James wrote: "Lewis wrote: "Jasmine, the feminism you're fighting for is what I call "Toxic Feminism".

That's 'cause of this kind of feminism a lot of people are misled and think feminism is a bad..."

That point of view is fueled by anger and is more likely to lead to more oppression, whether that be further oppression of women or the oppression of men, it doesn't matter. It becomes a hindrance to the fight for equality, We can never have a truly equal world if we are constantly fighting one another.

Jasmine wrote: "Such a classic whiny white male response. ..."

Hey, I feel offended by that!
At least have the decency to call us by our full title:
Privileged whiny white males! :D

Jasmine wrote: "James wrote: "Lewis wrote: "Jasmine, the feminism you're fighting for is what I call "Toxic Feminism".

That's 'cause of this kind of feminism a lot of people are misled and think feminism is a bad..."

Smash the patriarchy doesn't mean to establish matriarchy instead. We can certainly have a system at mid way between matriarchy and patriarchy, isn't it ?

For me maleness isn't an issue but toxic maleness is.

Lewis wrote: "Jasmine wrote: "James wrote: "Lewis wrote: "Jasmine, the feminism you're fighting for is what I call "Toxic Feminism".

That's 'cause of this kind of feminism a lot of people are misled and think f..."

Think of the Haudenosaunee/the Iroquois Confederacy: They didn't practice matriarchy the way we from a Western perspective understand it, but it is the term that comes closest to it. They actually also were consulted in forming the US Constitution, but many things the US constitution allowed, were forbidden among the Six Tribes.

I interpret the feminist movement as a movement for equality, not to establish dominance over men (which the dictionary defines as misandry, not feminism). Throughout history we can see examples of minorities, or the oppressed, attempting to get revenge on past misdeeds. My question is this: When has it ever worked? When has one group of people establishing dominance over another ever made the world a better place? If holding on to anger and using it as fuel to create policies to demean men based on their sex as well as their race isn't considered "toxic feminism" then we might need to go and review the definition.

Jess wrote: "Throughout history we can see examples of minorities, or the oppressed, attempting to get revenge on past misdeeds. My question is this: When has it ever worked? When has one group of people establishing dominance over another ever made the world a better place?"

Well, though I generally agree with what you are saying but I don't think history is a good argument here. Because we don't have that many examples in history where one group of oppressed people changed the system and turned oppression against those who oppressed them before. What we actually can see happening quite often is oppression being challenged by the oppressed and when the pressure is too much then the system of oppression makes some concessions but the oppression still continues.

That's the problem with capitalism. It's an unjust and repressive system and everytime the workers rise up in history the capitalist system manages to adapt without being overturned by revolution. Some concessions are being made so at least some small amount of workers don't have to live in too much poverty and misery. But the oppression and injustice continues for the majority of workers.

So I think the problem is not so much that the oppressed become the oppressor but the bigger problem is that oppression which is rooted in dominance manages to adapt and so the oppression continues. Often on a much more subtle level. It would be really cool to break this dynamic and stop every form of dominance and oppression. We all deserve real freedom without dominance and oppression.

Sascha wrote: "Jess wrote: "Throughout history we can see examples of minorities, or the oppressed, attempting to get revenge on past misdeeds. My question is this: When has it ever worked? When has one group of ..."

I agree with the point you're making that the oppressed have never really become the oppressors nor have they eliminated the oppression. But I'd also like to throw in that a member of the oppressed, when given the power and opportunity to make a change and eliminate the oppression, has in history let the power get the better of them. They see the advantage of having oppressed - an advantage that they can now obtain because they have ascertained power over the oppressed, and they don't want to let that advantage go, just as much as the original oppressors did not want to let the advantage go. The original Dictators in Rome is an example of this. The dictator system originally placed a person of low standing in the community, someone who did not seek or want power, in the position of power. It worked for a few dictators, but then one dictator saw what he could do with the power he were given and acted on it.

Ashley wrote: "Jasmine wrote: "Ashley wrote: "This would go against everything feminism should be about, in my opinion. It's not about man hating and it's certainly not a race issue. It's about equality for every..."

Well, maybe the purpose was division, the result is the opposite :)
There is always a positive point in everything.