Self Defense vs. Fighting…

I think I heard about this guy through Daran at Feminist Critics. I’ve been in a fight or 3 back in the day. Somehow, trouble seems to find me, I’m one of those assholes. I’m ready to move onto others things in this world though…

Here’s a very interesting read…

Upon discovering this site, I read through for about 2+ hours…

Here’s a link that’ll make A. Marcotte and H. Skeezer vewy, vewy angwee… hahaha, if you infact are looking for a fight, you might want to drop this off at a feminist site and see how fast you get banned…

2 thoughts on “Self Defense vs. Fighting…

  1. Very interesting read with those links- lots to comb through. One part that really stood out was this quote:

    “In claiming the status of victim and by assigning all blame to others, a person can achieve moral superiority while simultaneously disowning any responsibility for one’s behavior and its outcome. The victims ‘merely’ seek justice and fairness. If they become violent, it is only as a last resort, in self-defense. The victim stance is a powerful one. The victim is always morally right, neither responsible nor accountable, and forever entitled to sympathy.” –Ofer Zur, Ph.D

    Zur really captured the essence of the rhetorical leverage inherent to those who claim aggrieved status: the moral unassailability of victimhood, and the entitlement to have it redressed strictly on their own terms. How can that NOT be appealing to invoke when pushing one’s worldview? It’s also paradoxical to realize that such a potent source of power is rooted itself in the appeal to one’s own ‘powerlessness.’ It turns it on its head. 

    The victim/victimizer binary fits in very neatly with some of Thaddeus Blanchette’s, and particularly, Stephen Buckle’s observations about feminism being wedded to a very traditional Marx-like ‘class-conflict’ model. What they’ve identified is that mid-twentieth century feminism and beyond has adopted an almost classical version of Marxist structuralism (the binary class conflict model) and essentially just replaced (or equated) “class” with “gender.”  

    Significantly, Buckle observes in feminism: “Present-day conflicts over the social roles of men and women are to be explained by reference to some more fundamental form of conflict. Society is conceived as a scene of a basic division of interests between men and women, whether it be between actual men and women, male political structures and female political inclusiveness or male conceptual hierarchies and female conceptual fluidity… This is why, despite apparently greater intellectual sophistication, not to mention the much-touted diversity of feminisms, it remains a marker of feminism that, when pressured, it resorts to familiar rhetoric about millenniums of oppression, misogyny and so on. It is also why feminism has become so thoroughly preoccupied with those areas of social life in which there is conflict between the sexes: rape, domestic violence, and so on. In short, whatever its disclaimers, feminism continues to believe that the problem society must deal with and overcome is (some form of) maleness.”

    This binary conflict model views itself, its observations, and its presumptions as impartial, infallible, as well as totally, objectively true; not subjectively relative. And so, it can’t cope well with the notion of differing subjective experiences and/or realities. So, I think a lot of the problem with the Marcottes and Futrelles (side note: is it just me, or do they sound like mafia families there?…) of this world isn’t just that they’re going out of their way 24 hours a day to be hugely obnoxious, self-righteous (or, for the Schwyzers, condescending) assholes. Character and disposition aside, their rhetoric and the structure they’ve built it upon is so inherently flawed, contradictory, and self-serving in its ‘logic’ that the flaws quickly become impossible to ignore or negotiate. Even if I sincerely, desperately, want to believe (and, for that matter- whoever says that I, or most people, really don’t? – generally, it’s easier to accommodate than it is to confront) even if the Futrelles & Marcottes were the most angelic, eloquent, and gifted orators in the world- all the flaws in the structure of their gender ideology remain thoroughly glaringly, unoriginally, the same. It’s so frustrating, because even when you agree with some of their broader objectives or altruistic desires, even when you want to empathize with them and their ideology on some level, once you’ve seen the flaws, it’s very very hard to UNsee them.   

    It’s inevitable (or virtually inevitable) then that a Futrelle, a Marcotte, and the like would adopt contemptuous, confrontational, and hostile stance; in such a binary conflict model any resistance to the ideology’s architecture compounds & reinforces both the belief in the correctness of the worldview itself, as well as the idea that the doubters are being willfully, spitefully ignorant, intransigent, or belligerent. It’s like a perpetual-motion machine of one-way gender tyranny that mere mortal doubters cannot overcome with logic, anecdote, or objection. You’d have better odds trying to bring Baptists & vegetarian atheists together in a Jewish mosque for beer, ribs & vespers on Good Friday.  

    Like I said, I myself think it’s because extremist interpretations of ideologies (or religions) often can’t coexist with the idea that different, subjective realities, equally valid, exist for different people: Most ideologies, like most religions, demand a degree of faith & fidelity that doesn’t allow -that can’t allow- for different subjectivities: Only its own ‘objective’ truth & causality is real & true. So it’s a heady thing to be an agent of this ‘objective’ truth, justice, and righteousness. And if you think THAT’S not going to affect one’s worldview, consider then how those arrayed ‘against’ them must appear: like class photo of ‘The Legion of Doom’ meets the Imperial guard. 

    A third piece in the puzzle is the (rhetorical) role of privilege: To cry ‘privilege’ (or, more accurately, a discrepancy of privilege) is a powerful rhetorical tool, in a similar mode to ‘victimhood’: For it immediately insinuates that the accused is immune from any introspection, objectivity, and is in some way blatantly, blindly & selfishly deluded by their overwhelming good fortune. And, of course, in a rhetorically self-sustaining paradox (that no doubt must delight the accuser as surely as it vexes the accused) – to deny any such accusation is to confirm the very accusation itself: That’s the power & privilege of crying ‘check your privilege.’ It conflates ‘privilege’ with luxury (but not responsibility); belligerent (not benevolent) and undeserved power without constructive purpose or responsibility, and therefore evil. 

    Sorry to go on and on there- a lot of that has been ruminating for a while, but the Zur quote really helped tie it all together.

    The quote from Stephen Buckle was from an article here: 
    http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=1480

    And there’s another good one Buckle wrote more recently here…  if you like long reads: 
    http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2013/1-2/the-myth-of-misogyny

    1. Most,

      Looking forward to checking out the links…

      One thing I’ll add is the “victim card” seems to be working for feminist’s perhaps because men tend to want to protect women. There was a tiff between Stardusk and Elam. The MRA’s seem to think this is cultural whereas Stardusk tends towards “biological determinism.”

      In my mind, a mature woman would either accept that due to pregnancy and less upper body strength, she will find that she is dependent on men/society or the path of equality means that she accepts getting her but kicked just as hard as a man. It seems like modern feminism is demanding the benefits while shirking the responsibilities. Just look at the “men can stop rape” campaigns. It’s all on men to protect drunk women who more times than not put themselves in a potentially dangerous situation…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s