A recent discourse has made rounds on Twitter by a David, who has taken a buzzwording on the topic of ‘discrimination against men’ as it were. He had argued the Left (which as a term something I will need to dissect later) is ‘too mean to men.’ At the same we have figures to take a high ground that reeks of centralism, trying to use this on topic of ‘countering cultic recruitment’ (with the key speakers of this, Vaush, is actually done opposite with his platforming of fascists while engaging in bigotries) and try to mark the ‘opposition’ (AKA the feminists calling David out) as a mob that is not acting ‘adult’ (’funny’ women get infantized).
This has indeed ugly turnings but there are elements can be salvaged, but in a way that demands we realise that the negative expression men face are a by-product of patriarchal systems.
I am reminded of a article by William Gillis on the abuser manifesto
“Conflict is Not Abuse” by Sarah Schulman; I do recommend one read the article,
One Giant Red Flag, Folded Into A Book. Anyway in the article Gillis makes a very good talk on the topic of power, concepting that:
The ideology of domination is absolutely
founded in a drive for stasis and isolation. Power – at every scale –
is about reducing complexity in the world, simplifying to what can be
controlled, what can be made rigid. The drive for power is deeply tied
to a fear of the complexity created by other people having choices and
thinking for themselves. Nationalism is a great expression of this:
violently slicing through the complex tangle of actually existing human
relationships and creating prisons in which to contain people, limiting
their choice in possible relationships.
Power hates ‘complexities’ and it many ways this is a good way to conceptualise the system of patriarchy that oppresses women and does harm men too.
Power likes to treat people in over simple manners to use them and patriarchy can make things simple by turning people into this and that, in tight boxes which is enforced many methodologies, a load of them with the threat and usage of violence. Under patriarchy women are restricted by power. The same systems also requires a ordering of men to ensure they maintain to their function (particularly remember as this sits alongside class, racism and other elements to keep things ‘simple.’) Those men who do not uphold the standards face great penalties, for none shall go outside the box be the motto of power, in many ways. The fear of complexity is such as no method of containing deviation from the boxes is too great.
It would requires it own greater project to further develop from this but yo can see where I am aiming for.
Patriarchy is harmful to all, including men who are dictated by its standards but it necessary to remember its function in denial of the agency of, to put it mildly, big proportion of the population. In order to full dissect where David follied, is that he blamed feminists rather than investigate the systematic matters in ploy. At best he has taken a failure to realise, that worse he has not unlearned his bigotries.
Anyhow: men will find that feminism can help too, for I recommend one reads the following works by bell hooks:
The Will to Change which talks about love and masculinity, as well as Feminism is for Everybody which talks on the enduring importance of feminism.
I also suggest in light of the discourse that the book
zoom
Fractured: Race, Class, Gender and the Hatred of Identity Politics
by
Michael Richmond & Alex Charnley
needs to be read, in order to help avoid the pitfalls of status quoism. Their book is also good for its sections of Black Feminism in the USA and UK.
Longer pieces would be needed to fully address but the prime factor is that feminism is for all.
As for Vaush of course the platformer of fascists would have a dog in the race, as it were, in regards to this. The funny thing is that the figure he uses, Tate, has fallen recently by hands of him being angry at Thunberg to the point that he made a error in his rant video of a pizza box. Anyhow, the fact that certain figure is taking a “critical thinking requires to take his word…” approach is a pointless abstraction and a sign of not judging motive and not realising one can take elements without criteria to those to do so for objective that would be damaging to causes of liberation.
Feminism is a very significant ingredient to liberation.
kreature-pheature