Thursday, January 26, 2017

One of the core problems with regressive feminism

I think this comic exemplifies perfectly one of the most fundamental core problems with the modern regressive feminist ideology. In fact, it exemplifies a couple of them.

Firstly, there's the patronizing and mocking attitude. This is really, really common in the regressive feminist rhetoric: Mocking their critics. They have this holier-than-thou attitude and look down their noses at the critics, and mock and ridicule them.

In one occasion, someone posted to Facebook a link to a Finnish newspaper article (written by a female journalist) that was moderately critical of the current politically correct regressive ideology, and how it caused, in part, for Donald Trump to be elected president. I responded to that post by giving actual examples of how far the regressive ideology has gone, such as the BBC engaging in racial discrimination, and psychological abuse of children.

A full-on regressive feminist activist responded to my post. Can you guess what was the very first thing she did in that post? Did she have a rational discussion with me? Or did she perhaps strongly disagree with what I wrote? Did she maybe disbelieve or deny the veracity of those articles? Did she perhaps distance herself from that kind of extremism? Or, perhaps, did she even just outright agree with those things and support them?

No. None of that. The very first thing she wrote in her response to me was mockery. Very similar to the one depicted in that comic above. That's right; when I post links to examples of how far the regressive ideology has gone, the very first response is mockery. Rather than, you know, addressing the actual issue.

Mockery has never persuaded anybody, it only causes even more division and hatred, and this is something that the regressive feminists simply cannot seem to grasp.

Anyways, that wasn't actually the major problem that the comic depicts. The major problem is the "losing your male privilege" part.

A core aspect of the regressive feminist ideology is that if there are groups of people who are disadvantaged and oppressed (I'm going to just assume for the sake of the argument that's true, rather than delve into details on whether it actually is), the solution is not to elevate them to the same sociopolitical status as the rest. Rather, their solution is to bring the rest of society, the "privileged" ones, down. In other words, rather than giving the disadvantaged people the same privileges as the rest, they want to remove the privileges of the latter.

That makes absolutely no sense. Let's use an analogy to demonstrate why:

Some countries in this world are under tyranny, unrest and outright war, while other countries are very peaceful and prosperous. You could say, if we allow ourselves to use the feminist term, that the peaceful countries are "privileged". The ideal here would be, of course, if we could make those countries in war also peaceful and prosperous, like the rest. Our aim should be to try to, somehow, elevate the less fortunate countries to the same level of peace and prosperity as the rest.

But that's not what the regressive feminist ideology aims for. No, they would mock the peaceful countries, tell them that they are "afraid of losing their privilege", use mocking terms like "peace so fragile", and try to remove their privilege and bring them down to the same level as the countries in war.

That would make absolutely no sense. Yes, peace is a very, very fragile thing, and something to embrace and protect at all costs. And yes, you should be afraid of losing such a "privilege".

How does this translate to the actual "losing your privilege" thing in society?

Well, what exactly is it that the regressives want? What are these "privileges" that they are so mockingly saying that eg. men are "afraid to lose"?

What are some of the most common "privileges" that feminists often cite as men having? For example, they will often say that men have the privilege of being able to walk alone on the street without the fear of harassment and assault. (Again, I'm going to just accept this for the sake of argument, rather than going into details of whether it's true or not.)

So the question arises: Why exactly do these regressive feminists want to remove this "privilege" from men? Why are they mocking men for being "afraid to lose their privilege"? What exactly do they want? To make men fear for their safety every time they walk on the street? Why? What for? Some kind of weird petty revenge?

Wouldn't it be more logical to aim for women to be elevated to this same "privileged" status, so that everybody has this same "privilege"? Rather than removing this privilege from anybody, causing some people to lose it, shouldn't we be aiming to give the same privilege to everybody?

This is not just theoretical. Many of these feminist outright state, directly and unambiguously, that they want to bring the privileged (ie. white males) down. It's not just some obscure rhetoric that I'm misinterpreting. They are literally and unambiguously saying that.

And that's one of the major reasons why the modern regressive feminist ideology is so detrimental, and so nonsensical. They do not want to elevate everybody to the same top position, where everybody is equally and maximally "privileged". They want to remove privileges and bring people down. Why? I have no idea. It's an ideology, and ideologies are not based on reason.

No comments:

Post a Comment