|
This article is a useful insight into how people from oppressed groups can believe in FYGM. The author, a white (they only learnt about racism when they started university) gay person has felt oppression but an oppression that, for their generation, has had one of the most relatively painless paths to acceptance. So now their sexual orientation is broadly accepted and they're about to graduate (perhaps into a nice job) other groups need to quiet down, the author got what they want so it is clear the world is just. While the whole article is catnip for bigots this paragraph is perhaps the most interesting: quote:Let me give an example. A gay person is typically much better acquainted with homophobia than a straight person. Moreover, a gay person has a much greater stake in what society does about homophobia, so their view on the matter is more important. However, there is nothing about the experience of being gay in itself that enlightens a gay person about the ethics of sexual orientation. For MRAs this is a clear indication that Mansplaining is a-ok. Women's experience of sexism doesn't really mean their opinions are more valid than a man's apparently. The self evident truth MRAs clearly know is men really have it worst and women's experiences of being women are irrelevant. Simultaneously however, on issues where women may appear to have a point MRAs will still happily defer to the small number of prominent antifeminist women who will offer pat dismissals of those issues. These women will be the only one's with valid experiences. The author claims to oppose anti-intellectualism but their arguments just so happen to enable blanket dismissal of any evidence or opinion that is not considered "common sense" by the majority.
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2014 10:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 12:14 |
|
|
Mortley posted:ReV VAdAUL, How on earth did you use that quote and make that analogy? She writes that gay views on homophobia "more important"; you write that that equates to "women's experiences of being women are irrelevant." Yes, some poorly educated and hateful people will misread her, but that's always the case with any public rhetoric. The context of the rest of the article lays out a further list of reasonable behaviour towards the majority a good activist must take. If one fails at one of the criteria one becomes one of the bad ones. Thus if one is too uppity one's personal experience can be discounted. "Just because you're a person of colour doesn't mean your experiences contradict Cosby's call to pull up your pants and get a job. He is so polite and calm whereas you are so crusading and unwilling to meet us halfway, we're people too you know." The Gay/Female/Black people whose opinions are important are those who the majority anoints as such because they've been "reasonable" as defined by the article.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2014 14:04
|
|