In a case of spectacularly bad timing, Fox News happened to choose the day before the Zimmerman verdict was handed down to publish an op-ed proclaiming “the White American Male” to be the most oppressed creature on Planet Earth. In a piece entitled “Men — The New Second Class Citizens,” professional antifeminist Suzanne Venker declared that
From boyhood through adulthood, the White American Male must fight his way through a litany of taunts, assumptions and grievances about his very existence. His oppression is unlike anything American women have faced.
What is revealing about this quote, besides its complete disconnection from reality, is that Venker makes no other references to race in the rest of her piece, which runs through a number of tiresome and oh-so-familiar MRA talking points about the alleged oppression of men.
Venker complains about schools being biased towards girls, from grade schools that force students to sit still to colleges with their infernal Title IX. She whines about “sit coms and commercials that portray dad as an idiot.”
Quoting antifeminist psychologist Helen Smith, a friend of and sometime contributor to A Voice for Men, she suggests that women can get their boyfriends or husbands locked up on a whim just by claiming abuse.
I’m surprised she didn’t talk about the evils of “friend zoning.”
But when Venker refers to “men” in all of these complaints, she is evidently thinking only of white men — why else would she switch so seamlessly from talking about the alleged oppression of “men” to proclaiming “the White American Male” the ultimate victim?
There’s really no other word for this than, well, racist.
The day after Fox published Venker’s nonsense, we were of course reminded (as if any of us really needed to be reminded) of the very real oppression faced by “the Black American Male.”
Trayvon Martin didn’t die because he happened to see a show featuring a bumbling sitcom dad. He died because George Zimmerman saw a young black man in a hoodie walking home from the store and assumed, apparently because Martin was young and black and wearing a hoodie, that he was up to something sinister.
Trayvon Martin didn’t die because he was male; he died because he was a black male. His killer walked free not because his victim was male, but because his victim was a black male.
Suzanne Venker did us all a favor by revealing the unconscious racism underlying so many Men’s Rights complaints. The Men’s Rights movement is not only a movement that is overwhelmingly made up of white men; it’s a movement that’s almost exclusively about white men, and their largely imaginary oppressions, as well. We might as well call it the White Men’s Rights Movement.
Cloudiah-You’re right. I’m sorry.
“Trayvon Martin didn’t die because he was male; he died because he was a black male.”
Can you honestly argue that if it had been Trayvona, a black 17-year-old female walking down the street instead of Trayvon, George Zimmerman would have shot her, or given her a second glance? Yes, Trayvon’s race made him more of a target. So did his gender. The stereotype is about “angry black men,” after all, not angry black women.
In any oppressed group, the males bear the brunt of the hatred. They’re usually portrayed as lustful, violent, animalistic bastards.My fellow Jews in Nazi Germany were portrayed in a similar way. What does feminism do? Extend this to all men. It’s not just Jewish or black or Latino men who are violent rapists, now. It’s all men. And you call this liberalism?
We MRAs have a good deal of compassion for men of minority groups; they provide a perfect example of why we need to address men’s issues. Just as blacks get longer prison sentences than whites, men get longer prison sentences than women. Just as blacks are more likely than whites to be seen as criminals or evildoers, men are more likely than women to be seen as criminals or evildoers. “Shrodinger’s Rapist” might have been published as “Schrodinger’s Negro” a hundred years ago, as a pamphlet warning young white women of the danger they faced. Why was Emmett Till murdered again? For flirting with a white woman. You feminists chip away at due process for those accused of rape. Your desire – to protect women from the dangerous force of male sexuality, no matter how many men are demonized in the process – is the same. The only thing you do differently is target black and white men roughly equally, and clothe your essentially conservative actions in the language of liberalism and social justice.
On Bill Maher the other day, I saw Cornel West talk about how being criminalized is a form of murder in and of itself. As a fellow male, I can sympathize.
The Trayvon Martin verdict started a discussion about race. It should do the same for gender. Racism is, by its very nature, misandry. And until we acknowledge that fact, there will be many more Trayvon Martins and Emmett Tills.
Don’t say we didn’t warn you.
I’m sure that MOC are so happy that you’re willing to use them as an “example”.
And right on cue, an MRA decides to appropriate the issues faced by people of color in the US. Is there a bingo square for this?
(pollydactyl, no worries; we’re all good.)
@ saintnick86
http://www.nek.uu.se/Pdf/wp20128.pdf
I’m not sure if the takeaway of “if you don’t give MRAs what we want then we white men will keep killing black men” was intentional or if Jason is just suffering from the usual MRA literacy problems and doesn’t realize that he implied that by structuring his rant the way he did.
Chew toys have shown up! Yay!
Cloudiah-I have only recently stopped thinking that I am better than “the other girls” because of choices I made, so I appreciate you calling me out when I started thinking like that again. I really want to stop thinking like that.
Seriously, Google “Marissa Alexander” and tell us she got that sentence primarily because she was a woman, and not because she was black. I am SO glad that feminists increasingly are at least partially aware of the incredibly complicated nature of this shit.
Jason is a fucking idiot.
How about you actually understand the notion of Schrodinger’s Rapist before you make bullshit claims like that?
No, Cassandra, I’m warning you that if we don’t address certain social issues now, more bad things like this will continue to happen. And when men of color are done being insulted by you feminists comparing your “oppression” to theirs, they can take a little of the time left over to be insulted by me.
Wait, Jason just said that when feminists were done insulting men of color, it was his turn to insult them.
He’s … not very smart, is he?
Oh, it’s the “argue with the imaginary feminists” portion of today’s stupid troll show.
(Not to mention there are actual black feminists, but I don’t want to totally blow his little mind.)
@ cloudiah
Jason thinks that “intersectionality” is what happens when multiple freeways meet at an overpass.
@ Jason
“And when men of color are done being insulted by you feminists comparing your “oppression” to theirs, they can take a little of the time left over to be insulted by me.”
Please clarify. Are you saying that feminists can be insulted by you or are you saying MOC can be insulted by you?
And by “to insult them” I mean of course “to insult men of color” which is what Jason’s sentence construction means
So, Jason, can you explain why men of color should take a little of the time left over to be insulted by you?
Oh, it’s the “taking quotes out of context” portion of today’s stupid feminist show.
I think any fair reading of my comment would see my point. So, will you argue with the style, or the substance?
Originality doesn’t seem to be Jason’s strong point.
JASON, THE CONTEXT IS ALL RIGHT HERE. THIS IS THE CONTEXT. OUT OF CONTEXT WOULD REQUIRE GOING SOMEWHERE ELSE. PLEASE LOOK UP THE WORD CONTEXT.
Jason-We can’t figure out your context. That is why several people have asked you to clarify.
Can we not link “low expectations” to becoming a librarian (or nurse, or teacher, or any other “traditionally female” job)? It’s fine if it’s not your thing, but preferring the sciences doesn’t mean the sciences are objectively more challenging, or fulfilling, or whatever. I’m not mad; I just think it’s sloppy thinking.
I second this. I see this attitude in scientists all the time and it drives me batty.
Some of the smartest people I’ve ever met, the best conversationists, the people whom I’ve learned the most from in life, and who have made gigantic contributions to society have been journalists, lawyers, housewives, people who never got a degree, bellhops, whatever.
I’m familiar with the notion of “intersectionality,” thank you very much. And that’s exactly what black men should be insulted by. They were taken from their homes, deprived of names, shipped across the sea in chains, worked to death, punished brutally if they disobeyed, forced to live under a system of apartheid for a century after being freed, and still face inequality in many aspects of life. And now they have to hear feminists say, “We’re oppressed just like black men! Someone asked me out in an elevator and respected me when I turned him down!”
@Jason
There’s this stereotype about black women, perhaps you’ve heard of it, it’s called Jezebel. It means that black women are often perceived as lascivious and overly-sexual. Now, does that stereotype support the demonization of men or the demonization of blacks?
Please note that I am framing this discussion in your selected terms.
Good point, Polly. When I’ve talked with my other guy friends, it was common to hear one of them mention how women just “talk about stupid shit.”
Of course, considering a lot of conversations I’ve had – guys talk “stupid shit” as well. I’ve never been fond of televised sports and hearing other guys obsess over the stats of athletes we won’t remember 20 years from now befuddles me. None of it is exactly important and yet they put a ton of energy and investment into it as if it did. I might read comics and play videogames – but at least I can admit to enjoy such as entertainment and not as some de facto social ritual I feel obligated to care about because everyone else does.
Besides, a lot of that “stupid shit” is actual meaningful…it’s just that guys don’t want to come off as emotionally open. It seems – in most groups of dudes – the only valid behavior is to either be angry, pick on others for their weaknesses, or being an arrogant show-off. Talking about your personal issues for psychological catharsis and peer support? Totally off the table. Bringing it up was like putting albatrosses around your neck. Makes sense why I prefer talking to women more these days – my guy friends made chatting into either a debate or contest out of the silliest things and made it forbidden to be deep and sincere (’cause you don’t want to ruin their buzz) about anything. It’s not fun to talk to someone while also have to walk on egg-shells…
I do not want to assume, but is it a private school? Given how absurd it is to tell someone they can’t wear pants during the winter – that was my guess. They’re sticklers for the dress code and even the slightest deviation (perhaps wearing a t-shirt under the jacket) isn’t tolerated, as if it really matters at all (it doesn’t). The fact they still expect girls to wear skirts even in colder areas is utterly preposterous and pretty fucking backwards culturally. I’m sure corporate office buildings let their female employees wear pants if they wish, and they’re not exactly the most progressive places either.