There have been a number of screenshots captured by self-proclaimed Men’s Rights Advocates (more like Male Reactionary A-holes, or Men-as Rapists Advocates, but anyway …) infiltrating private feminist spaces. We need to get some serious … stuff … clear from the get-go.
Women ARE OPPRESSED. Men, in relation to women who are otherwise similar — who are of the same class or caste, or race, or ethnicity, or sexual orientation, or what-the-hell-ever — are NOT oppressed BY WOMEN. They might be oppressed by other men; so take it up with the men. Yes, there are subtleties and nuances and the fact that the True Elite can play less-privileged men and any women or woman against one another; it’s a perk of elite power. Of course. But we sure seem to be talking white men here, so let’s keep it on the real: men oppress women; white men oppress women of all races, and may add white supremacy to the oppression mix, and often do.
What women say in venting situations, where they believe they are talking to allies in private, and not to spies who are Men Raping-women Advocates who gleefully go public, is going to be at least somewhat different than what gets advocated by such women in public, for real. All oppressions breed resentment, and the fact that resentment rages into unkind postulations should not be a surprise to the oppressors, in this case men. Oppressions also foster feelings of powerlessness, and to some extent, say the extent that Male Reactionary Abusers work to demonstrate for women, to women, that kind of powerlessness, it does appear relatively real. Tough to fight. And with women so divided by coerced loyalties to the oppressor caste (men who do often hold very real powers of life, death, working, eating, and any continued comforts), it’s quite the uphill struggle.
Trust me: privately we who speak up say in hushed tones, or bellows of rage, much worse than anything so far in print. And if you are offended, then stop oppressing. More on this later.
One of the topics broached by a feminist in private was initiating sex selection for female offspring by diminishing the capacity for Y-chromosomes to compete. Via tilting the food acid/alkaline balance in favor of X-chromosomed sperm, for example. Or possibly via the competing Y’s destruction, again with a food or chemical source (remember this was a private fantasy-speculation, not a planning session). This speculating has been decried as “eugenics.” Fine; it’s still NOTHING like the forced sterilization — the surgical slicing up of the reproductive organs, the internal violation — of so terribly many Black and Native American women, in the US, and others here and elsewhere, at the hands of demented, white-supremacist, male-supremacist doctors. And it’s still NOTHING compared to the killing of infant girls the world over, specifically because they are girlchildren, and not the desired males. Girls killed outright though they are alive, viable and already breathing on their own.
Every man needs to take a stand — to stand with feminists, as a person who opposes every oppression of females, or he needs to out himself as The Enemy, an MRA, a painted target. *This* needs to stop being about radical feminists and start being about men either standing up for, or proving themselves too dangerous to live alongside, women. Derrick Jensen writes over and again about men giving their unconditional loyalty to women, of men making “their allegiance to women absolute”*; it’s just not that difficult to do.
I happen to be one of the ones who has faith in men, more faith than many of them do, themselves — that rape is not inherent to maleness, that maleness does not pose an ever-present threat to females. But I have a long memory, and a deep well of fury when my trust and my faith are broken.
I do not advocate harming existing men — except as punishment for their harming existing females. But we know that an overabundance of male humans IS a problem: we know from cultures which have experienced it that it does lead to greater warrishness and violence.
This might be a painful discussion, but the questions arising from it are real. Given how terribly males, who are in power virtually the world over, and most certainly in power in westernized nations, have harmed the planet and all beings on it, they are valid questions about the future of the planet, and the future of our species provided the planet does survive. MRAs are abusive, gleeful oppressors, not neutral reporters of this kind of story — they are the abusers, the violators, within this very context. And if women’s reactions appall men, it is men who have the power to stop those abuses and violations. We women do not, and for now we may speculate in our private spaces about fantasy solutions to end our oppressions — for now. The responsibility for the next step belongs to men. How will men give up their power over women, and, really, how will men reverse the destruction of the very planet on which all beings’ survival resides? How will men make their allegiance to women absolute, as Derrick asks? Or will the MRAs be allowed to continue to speak for the elite, the western male’s view of women’s radical feminism?
(*URL used January 22, 2012: http://deepgreenresistance.org/faq/protection/ )