We interrupt the string of kink-posts and frustration-feasts to feature a bit of an exasperated rant at another branch of wokeism. Fondles recently published a post about a woman who dismisses the “not all men” argument. I would suggest a visit there to either watch the video or read the accompanying article/interview. Here is everything that is wrong with Evelyn's position:
“Pick me”. 1: while this may be true for some men who say this, it is equally or even MORE true for the men who fawn over her argument and thank her for enlightening them. By reading what CERTAIN women want to hear, guys are now saying exactly that. So in a different approach: “I agree with you that I shouldn’t say ‘not all men’ and I appreciate you telling me this…..so pick ME”, is STILL, "pick me." 2: In my own case, I raised two girls to be assertive, confident, professional women in a world where some men…..especially back when Michelle was a kid, could be a problem. So, was I empowering my daughter for this same ‘pick me’ motive? I did this because I wanted my daughter to ‘pick me’? Pick me for WHAT, over what? I thought I was preparing her to be her own person…...but I guess, as a guy, I am incapable of that?
Controlling women’s voices. I love arguments like these. “I say that you are all out to control me. If you agree, you admit to being out to control me. But if you disagree and tell me I’m wrong, you are trying to silence my voice because you are trying to control me.” Nowhere does this type of position allow for the fact that the person saying all this could ever be objectively wrong. Convenient.
Male superiority complex. This is hysterical if you take the same premise and apply it to ANY other situation. A “good samaritan” tries to help someone who they see as in need of protection because another person is clearly posing a threat and they feel they could be of help. How dare he! It is implying that the person can’t defend his or herself. He should let whatever happen happen I guess. But in her interview she says the problem is that men don’t actually do anything to help women but just brag about not causing them harm. But if they do act, according to her, aren’t they saying the woman can’t help herself? So which is it?
Cuts both ways: At one point she, using the knight/damsel analogy, denigrates men who act on women’s behalf as having other motives. (like pick me). But she is writing an article and making videos. Could she possibly be motivated to earn recognition? Is her thesis to be regarded as utterly altruistic in a world where motives are complex? She also admits that anyone who grew up in our society has learned to live in it. Wow, that is earthshaking news, isn’t it? But she completely leaves out views. Aren’t there enlightened people and sexist people? Aren’t women, conditioned in the same society just as likely to embrace sexism that they find appealing as a man (women Trump voters for example?) But is the implication then that by virtue of vagina, these women are inherently more supportive of trying to end gender bias than a male who actually believes in ending gender bias? Even if they seek legislation to thwart it? Sounds like SHE might be gender biased.
The challenge. She says she challenges anyone to show they are without sexist bias. I accept her challenge. She stated earlier that men don’t defer to women. Poor gal. She is obviously hanging with the wrong people. I am FAR less likely to defer to a man than a woman, but that’s only because men are likely to be more aggressively ‘asshole-ish’. But there are women like this too, and they don’t get my deference either. (See? No sexism in my approach to assholes.)
Skepticism. Her degrees keep being brought up as justification for her controversial position. Anyone with a degree or who knows people with degrees understand what nonsense such a criteria is. Her arguments fail the simplest of logical analysis, but I'm sure she paid her tuition and passed her tests and wrote her obligatory theses. (Also does it strike anyone else as funny that her serious dissertation on this subject is on TikTok and not in some professional journal?) And it's not a 'her' thing or a degree thing. Shall I post a list of all the things said by people with degrees? LOL
Pragmatism versus “woke”. Though not stated specifically, articles like this are a woke-trend. I would bet anyone from the past would look at our current woke environment with incredulity. Life can be a battle to get one’s way, whether that way is noble or selfish. To achieve anything big, one needs allies. In the past the motives of a potential ally were ALWAYS in question, and yet, people still knew they needed them, at least temporarily to achieve anything. What difference does it make to the progress of any “ism” whether the people fighting on your side are pure, altruistic, and in complete lockstep with you? What is the benefit to alienating potential allies as not being “woke enough” when there is still another side out there in flagrant opposition to you?
There are men who DO want to keep women repressed, and others who don’t, but with articles like this, guys who are ostensibly on your side…….regardless of motive…..are being told that their penis renders them incapable of being a true ally. Better to seek the help of an Ann Coulter or Marjorie Taylor Greene, right? They have vaginas, so they MUST be on your side. LOL
Another implied argument is common to all woke tropes, be they about race, gender, or any defining feature that makes a person discriminated against, is the dismissal of empathy as offensive. In the past people shared stories of their situations to shed light on a plight. A sympathetic reader could see what was being said and perhaps relate a portion of it to something in their own experience so they could better understand, to the degree they could, what the other person was going through. Now? That’s sacrilege.
“You’re not me and have no idea what it is to be me!” they scream. Well, ok, there is some truth to that, that we can all understand. But is it really a stretch for a person of an ethnicity that has been persecuted in some way to relate to the pain of the persecution of someone from a different ethnicity? Why are we working so hard to stop people from trying to relate to people different from themselves? Isn’t that the goal? Does a woke person think the best strategy for that is to alienate the potentially sympathetic party because they aren’t EXACTLY the same as them? If so, then “shut up!” Don’t tell me your story. Don’t bemoan your situation. If no matter what I attempt, I am still “not you” so therefore incapable of understanding….then leave me alone. But if you want my understanding and support, why not embrace my empathy? How do you fight the real enemy when you lump all the “non-you”s into the enemy/them camp? Then EVERYONE is an enemy, and I suppose that is great to feel like a perpetually misunderstood victim.