Last night, as you probably have heard, a Dallas man named James Boulware launched a one-man quasi-military assault on the Dallas Police Department headquarters, firing an automatic rife with such abandon that early reports suggested that there were as many as four different shooters. After fleeing the scene in an armored “Zombie Apocalypse Van,” leaving behind an assortment of improvised explosives as a kind of going away gift, Boulware was cornered in a restaurant parking lot; after a long standoff, he was eventually killed by a police sniper’s bullet. It was something of a miracle that no one but Boulware ended up dead.
Boulware’s father told local news that his son had been “pushed past” his “breaking point” after losing custody of his son. Men’s Rights activists often describe men who “resort to violence” after losing a custody dispute as victims of a cruel family court system.
But in Boulware’s case, it appears, nothing could be further from the truth.
Because, you see, he lost custody of his son two years ago — after a violent incident that offered a chilling prequel to last night’s rampage. As the local NBC affiliate reported at the time
A Paris man was arrested after family members reported to authorities that they were concerned he could go on a shooting spree. …
Officers confiscated several guns from a Paris home, after arresting the owner. “There are four or five long guns and three or four pistols, tubs full of ammunition, and the body armor,” says Paris Police Chief Bob Hundley.
James Boulware, 33, allegedly grabbed and choked his mother in Dallas on Tuesday morning, and he has made other threats, police and family members said.
“That he was going to just kill all the adult members of the family and then that’s when he made the comment he may shoot up some churches and schools,” says Hundley.
“He had been talking about the schools and churches being soft targets, being easy targets because no one in them was armed,” a man who identified himself as Boulware’s brother “Andrew” said.
After this incident, a judge handed over custody of Boulware’s son to Boulware’s mother; it seems rather clear that the court was right to deem him unfit to care for the boy.
Further confounding the standard Men’s Rights narrative is the fact that the mother of the child, reportedly a drug addict, was also deemed unfit; both were ordered by the court to pay child support to Boulware’s mother.
Boulware was well-known to local police for this and other family disputes — as well as for repeatedly threatening the judge involved in his case.
Indeed, he littered Facebook and other websites with comments ranting about the alleged injustice done to him, alongside angry and often hateful attacks on “Comrad [sic] Obama” and the “fag loving, abortion have typical queer American brain washed troll[s]” who argued with him online. After a commenter called him “dumb” in one recent discussion of American foreign policy, Boulware declared that “I’M TRYING TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU LIVE SO I CAN DRAG YOU OUT OF YOUR TRAILOR AND BEAT YOUR BITCH A$$!!!!”
His conspiracy theories may have been driven by delusions; Boulware’s mother says her son “heard voices” and that she and other family members had tried in vain to get him the mental health treatment he needed.
After last night’s events, Boulware’s father told local media that, while he didn’t think what his son had done was right, “we all have a breaking point, and they pushed him past it.”
But Boulware, it seems fairly clear, was already plenty broken long before “the system” got to him. And no matter how sad or angry he was about losing custody of his son, nothing justifies a violent attack on innocent strangers with assault rifles and explosives. Most people, even if they were pushed far past their breaking point, wouldn’t respond with attempted mass murder. We are not all rage bombs waiting to go off.
And that’s when this post comes back around to the Men’s Rights movement. No, despite his anger at the police and courts for “taking away his kid,” and his penchant for calling people “BITCHES” in comments sections he doesn’t seem to have been a Men’s Rights activist.
But his was the kind of rage that Men’s Rights activists like to “warn” us all about; his violence was the sort of violence that MRAs all too often excuse.
I’ve written many times before about the way the Men’s Rights movement has lionized Tom Ball, a New Hampshire man who committed suicide several years ago by lighting himself on fire outside a court building — in hopes, as he explained in a long and inflammatory manifesto — of inspiring other men to start fire-bombing courthouses and police stations to avenge the wrongs allegedly inflicted on men by the family courts.
We’re lucky no one took him up on this suggestion, just as we are lucky today that no one except Boulware died in his assault on the Dallas police.
Boulware’s apparent mental illness, and the extreme nature of his assault on police, may keep him from becoming the MRA martyr that Ball became after his death. But MRAs have been willing to excuse if not justify similar violence in the past.
Consider, for example, “How we kill Johnny,” the story Men’s Rights celebrity Paul Elam has just posted to his new “consulting” site An Ear for Men.
In the story — presented as a true one — Elam describes his feelings upon learning of the murder-suicide of a young man he’d worked with as a substance abuse counselor. After a quick mention of the murder part of the murder-suicide — Johnny was said to have “killed that little girl he was married to” and shot, though not fatally, the man she was sleeping with — Elam moves on to the real victim, in his estimation: Johnny, the guy who pulled the trigger.
Johnny, as Elam sees it, was really only guilty of loving the woman he killed too much.
You see, men love. They love with the most profound intensity and selflessness of which any creature on this earth is capable. And the steely bond between them and women is, unlike their hearts, unbreakable. …
They will lay down in traffic for the women they love and stand in the way of bullets to protect them.
Yes, that’s right. He’s waxing poetic about men protecting the women they love — in the middle of a story about a man who killed the woman he loved.
I hope, more than anything else, that at some point in our future that people start to think. When you see the story on the evening news about a man who set himself ablaze outside a family court, ask yourself what kind of pain could drive someone to cure it with fire?
I can only assume this is a reference to Ball, who hoped that men would rise up to avenge his pain with firebombs.
When you read in the newspaper about the man who holed up in his house with a gun and his children, threatening to take them all out, ask yourself if this is just a crazy man, or a man driven to the brink by a pain so monstrous and devastating that even the unthinkable could become an option?
The fact is we “read in the newspaper” and on the internet about men like this all the time. And they are virtually always men. Murder-suicide, while rare, is an overwhelmingly male crime. Women lose custody too — as did the mother of the child in Boulware’s case — but outside of a few exceptional cases they don’t react to this by trying to murder fathers or judges or an entire police departments at once. Men sometimes do.
Elam has in the past “warned” us all that unless we start kowtowing to angry men like him, and soon, we will create a massive “male bomb” that will tear apart society as we know it today.
But men — or at least the vast majority of them — aren’t rage bombs. Those men who do resort to extreme violence — like Boulware and all the men we read about who kill their partners and sometimes even their children before, as they say, “turning the gun on themselves” — aren’t the victims they and Men’s Rights activists would like us all to see them as. They’re the perps — invariably men with an overgrown sense of entitlement, too in love with their own rage.
Those who use these men as a “warning” to the rest of us are playing a very old game, perfected by domestic abusers and bullies of all sorts. Abusers and bullies learn very quickly that they don’t always have to use violence to get what they want; the threat of violence is enough. “Don’t push me,” they say, and the implicit threat of an “explosion” of rage does the rest, all while enabling the bully to pretend to be the victim.
The Men’s Rights movement, to a large extent, is all about taking that implicit threat to the societal level.
It’s up to us to keep them from getting away with it.
Blaz blah, bluh, blerg.
Uuuuuugh he never shutasup. Why do all the fucking trolls leave their shitty novels lying around here, as if any of us really care what they say?
@sparky “An MRA who’s never heard of Paul Elam?”
I am not an MRA. I oppose identity politics, on principle, which includes the MRM.
I am an individualist. If someone does you harm, particularly when they do so in my name as a purported representative of us all (with a badge or office), I object regardless of whether you look like me or pee like me.
My criticism is of the use of a broad brush to smear every self-identified MRA with the blood of James Boulware’s evil acts.
@Lea “Shut up, Keith. You’re an ignorant racist.”
I’m actually far more informed than most of the rabble here, obviously, and, as an individualist, I am fundamentally opposed to bigotry. You just call me a “racist” because that’s easier than putting up an actual counter-argument.
“GTFO.”
Is this your website? If so, let me know and I’ll leave.
Could we not throw the word “psycho” around?
@Pandapool “Is that Keith guy the one who derailed the topic about Walter Scott about his fucking boohoo about child support?”
No. You’ve aimed your middle finger in the wrong direction. I’m not an MRA, just critiquing the article on logical/factual grounds.
I’ve never been divorced, nor fathered any children out of wedlock. I actually took up the slack when my step son’s father failed to pay child support. So, you know where to put your finger.
Keith mentioned “cultural Marxism” like it’s a serious thing and then claimed to oppose identity politics as if people who think cultural Marxism is a real thing aren’t always neo-Nazis.
@Keith
You’re still full of shit because people DID march in the streets over the murder of James Boyd.
http://www.abqjournal.com/374350/news/hundreds-protest-shooting.html
What, is the truth too hard to handle so you’re just going to ignore the evidence that blatantly proves you wrong?
@Keith
No, I’m pretty sure you’re the asshole who changed a topic about a black man getting shot to being about child support.
Note that there was no mentions of child support in the topic you derailed. Note I never called you an MRA.
Note I am calling you a fucking ignorant asshole, who thinks we can’t remember you derailing a topic about a black man getting shot in the back by a police officer.
So fuck you.
@Moocow I’m glad people did protest Boyd’s shooting. You’re right, I should have checked into that.
BTW, where was Al Sharpton?
I can produce a long list of victims, of all different racial backgrounds. I know that very few of those ever attract much mention. And, so it’s not all about race, I’ll point out that many black victims of police abuse, for which evidence shows them to be infinitely more sympathetic than Michael Brown, don’t get anywhere near the level of anger. Sadly, videos of police shooting dogs often generate more sympathy on social media than when the police shoot people.
“Checkmate.”
Spiking the football on the chess board is not a winning move, Moocow.
The point is that the real struggle isn’t black vs. white, it’s blue vs. poor.
*puts cat with a full bladder on Keith’s head*
Go away or I shall unleash the feline fury. =P
*aims cat butt at Keith’s face*
http://www.lolmaze.com/pictures/9f067d8d6df2d4b8c64fb4c084d6c208.jpg
@Pardoxical intention “‘These people say things that I don’t agree with….'”
You put quotes around words I never wrote, which is a lie. My criticism of identity politics is not simply that I don’t agree with them, it’s that they make irrational statements and push collectivist politics, which fundamentally contradict the basic idea of each individual having the same rights as others.
I don’t want MRAs gaining influence, either.
“This was three years before I was even born.”
If you can’t be bothered to learn about the topic, child, go do some reading instead of speaking in ignorance.
http://bit.ly/1Leyt72
“…hating women like you….”
Play the sexist card. You’re quite ignorant, youngster.
As for you portraying feminism vs MRM as “us vs. them”, to include me, again, I’m not an MRA. I fundamentally oppose identity politics, and MRM is identity politics.
I never claimed anything about Muslims being monolithic. My point was about Muslims who carry out violent acts or engage in threatening protests. I said nothing about the vast majority who are not violent.
Most Muslims I know do not express hatred of Jews or support for terrorism, and have always been good to me and my family. But I have had arguments with some Muslims about their irrational hatred of Jews and their refusal to condemn all terrorism. It’s very ugly. At least when I argue about evolution with a Christian fundamentalist, they aren’t justifying beheading biologists.
Don’t lecture me about sexual orientation terms. I said nothing of the subject and your assumptions that I know less than you is impertinent.
The WBC never beheaded anyone, as repulsive as they might be.
“The reason why we don’t ‘criticize’ Islamic people the way you think we should is because we’re not fucking racists who want to treat people badly simply because stereotypes and propaganda.”
Islam isn’t a race. Nobody is born a Muslim. And, the fact that some people murder you if you decide you don’t want to be the same religion as your parents is a stark reminder that the First World problems with which this article seems mostly concerned are trivial by comparison, yet fail to garner mass protests among SJWs, for some bizarre reason.
It’s not that I expect you to criticize Muslims, as a group. But protesting the murder and oppression of people for their beliefs or sex would seem to be more appropriate than sniping at MRAs who say things on the internet you don’t like. Burqa, beheading, defenestration are worse than comments.
But that wasn’t even the point. Boulware was blamed for his violent acts. MRAs were deemed guilty by association. Nobody in the media or among the SJW type asked what the police did wrong. Contrast that against the Walgreens in Baltimore, Pamela Geller, or Charlie Hebdo.
Again, stop blaming the victim of violence. That’s all. Don’t exempt certain types of people from criticism when they engage in violence or threats. That’s all.
“This isn’t a “holy war”, Keith. This is a fight for us to simply survive and exist. And MRAs don’t think we, as women, deserve that.”
Actually, it is. Every comment I’ve read portrays MRAs as woman hating. You just did the same thing. The other side is evil and wants you to die. Well, they don’t but that’s a sure fire way to completely reject everything they say.
“People should be judged individually. So, please tell that to people who say things like “All women are bad drivers!”, “Girls suck at math!”, “Black people are thugs!”, “Muslims are terrorists!”, etc. ”
I’ve got news for you: I was attacking bigots on the internet before you were born. Just because I disagree with the politics of feminists, race hustlers, and the like doesn’t mean I approve of bigotry against women or minorities. I’m for reason, not taking sides in holy wars.
One of the things that MRAs complain about is the inequality when it comes to men hitting women versus women hitting men. Well, as much as I can agree that a woman shouldn’t physically abuse a man, I’m not going to stop being the man my father raised with the strict rule that boys don’t hit girls. I have no sympathy for dead beat dads. Etc.. I judge issues on a case by case basis.
“Privilege” is a bullshit anti-concept. One can describe reality with words like bigotry and prejudice without asserting that whites, males, or other groups have special, magical protection, regardless of context. Dirt poor whites don’t have “white privilege”. You can’t slip from discussing percentages and habits to stark class labels. Reality doesn’t work that way.
“The world is not a level playing field, and insisting that we just say that the playing field is level now and keep going would ignore that there’s very real sexism, racism, and other discrimination going on right now.”
The world will never be a level playing field. You stop bigotry and prejudice by enlightening people, not by envy-driven policies to get even.
I don’t want equality. I don’t want a level playing field. That’s artificial and, since fallible humans would be in charge of “correcting” inequalities, it means the corrections will be arbitrary and capricious.
Again, another novel.
OK, Keith, let’s take a look at your words.
From your first post:
To which David replied, and you quote him:
So, Keith, you’re not an MRA (but…), you claim to have no idea who Paul Elam, one of the most prominent leaders of the MRM, is; and yet you insist on ‘splaining to David (someone who’s spent years tracking Elam, the MRM and the manosphere) and the rest of us (many of who have also spent years tracking Elam, the MRM and the manosphere) how the MRM operates and what it believes and what it’s rhetoric is. You have no idea who Elam is, and you’re lecturing us about how he’s some kind of extremist outlier in the MRM? Really? Do you often barge into conversations to blockage about topics about which you know next to nothing?
Again, David is not “smearing MRAs with the blood of James Boulware’s evil acts.” He’s saying MRAs lionize men like Boulware and often say the exact same things that Boulware said. He’s saying that Elam believes that men like Boulware are the “real victims,” of women and feminists, when men like Boulware commit violence. And you’d know that if you could read for comprehension.
But you’re too busy explaining things you don’t understand to people who know more about it than you do.
@Keith
Aw, trying to move the goalposts?
Your point has been dismantled, you claimed that he was not getting a protest and thus there was some sort of great injustice. Well, he did get a protest, so GTFO, your argument fell apart.
Also, Keith:
You’ve yet to provide an example of an MRA who isn’t. Please do so. Please back up your assertion that feminists are unfairly painting the MRA as hate-filled misogynists based on the cherry-picked quotes if a few extremists, rather than accurately describing their woman-hatred as woman-hatred, with some actual facts. Find us an MRA who isn’t a misogynist.
We’re waiting.
Eh. That sentence should read “Do you often barge into conversations to bloviate about topics about which you know next to nothing?”
Why, autocorrect, why?!?
Fun fact about autocorrect: if you press the backspace when you just notice it changed, it reverts the change.
They always ignore the request to find a non misogynist MRA. They all claim that it’s unfair of us to call them misogynistic, but every one of them fails to produce one who isn’t!
“Blockage” is pretty accurate when talking about this drainpipe of a troll, really.
@wwth
I haven’t even seen them try…
@Luz
I have once on a different blog. Sure, the “Non-misogynistic MRA” they linked to (whose name I’ve long forgotten, something 4Chan-ish) turned out to have a Twitter account filled with racist “Jokes” and Roosh retweets, but hey, it’s the thought that counts! [/s]
You can go out on your feet or out on your ass, Keith. But when the Mammotheers are done chewing on you, you will GTFO.
…and we’re not rabble. We’re Riff Raff.
http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s–sXA9XfU2–/17muhyu71mvdpjpg.jpg
Mmmmm…Richard O’Brien.
Oh good, Keith left me a novel to chew on. *sigh*
OH GOD YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND MOCKERY. I’M GOING TO PEE FROM LAUGHING SO FUCKING HARD!
I was MOCKING you. MOCKING. That’s the point of the site, in case you fucking missed that.
So, you don’t agree with them, is what you’re trying to get at in this round-about way, hence your use of the word “irrational”. You don’t think “identity politics” are “rational”, because logic is the only thing you seem to think we should make decisions on, apparently.
Neither do I. But, judging from your posts, you seem to agree with a lot of things they have to say. “Neutral party” or otherwise.
If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck…
Oh here comes the condescension! I should have known you’d play that card as soon as I mentioned my age.
The thing is, I did go and read up on it. I mentioned in my response to you that I read up on it.
Someone needs to learn to read the whole post before responding, methinks.
But, allow me to ask you again, because you failed to respond the first time: How the fuck is this relevant to the discussion?
And you need to knock it off with the condescension because of my age, old fart. It’s not cute.
If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.
Fine, but the “Muslims are violent and engage in threatening protests” are quite the itty bitty minority, just for reference.
No, but they’d still like it if they didn’t exist, right? They’d like it if they weren’t questioned.
But they have done some nasty things in the past.
You referred to “gays”, and I corrected you saying that that’s not an acceptable term to refer to people of other sexual orientations as a whole. Clean your glasses. Or is your old age affecting your reading comprehension?
Perhaps if you’d learn to listen to someone who doesn’t share all of your characteristics, you might learn a thing or two and not be such a self-righteous shitweasel. But, perhaps it is true what they say about old dogs, hmm?
And YOUR assumptions that I know less than you about certain subjects because of my age is laughable. So, right back ‘atcha, gramps.
So, they somehow get a free pass because they haven’t physically killed anyone?
Hate to break it to you, but they still hold “opinions” that lead to queer people of all ages getting killed in some way or another. Religious families leaving their queer children no choice but to commit suicide, queer folk getting beaten to death and their murderers citing the “Panic Defense” (which is illegal in my home state of California, bee-tee-dubs)…the list goes on.
They haven’t killed anyone themselves, but their views still lead to death. In a way, they are still responsible. Their “opinions” still have body counts.
No, it’s not. However, slurs and stereotypes referring to Islamic people still fall under the category of “racism”.
And here comes the “you kids and your “first world problems”!” argument! I knew that little chestnut of a turd was going to be in here somewhere.
First of all, America is Third World, because we haven’t been around as long as some so-called “Third World Countries”. The current classification of “First World” is due to a lot of classist bullshit.
Secondly, what makes you think that people in the so-called “Third World” don’t have some of the same problems we do? What makes you think they don’t watch TV, or read magazines, or deal with catcalling or harassment?
Because they do. And it’s really fucking ignorant (and let’s face it, racist) of you to assume they don’t.
One, if Muslim women are wearing burquas, or any other religious garment, of their own free will, why is this a problem? How does that make them any different than, say, Catholic nuns? They’re both making a choice to wear such garments because of their religion.
Two, who says we don’t protest beheadings or defenestration as well? Who says we don’t care about those things as well? You’re making an awful lot of assumptions about our personal lives here, Keith. You’re also assuming we can’t multi-task or read more than one website. We’re people, our brains are capable of such things.
Three, who says it’s us “first world” folk’s duty to take care of these things and “save” those poor people? It’s not our job to force ourselves into a situation we don’t belong in and take over. It’s our job to listen to the people actually involved and support their voices first, and help them deal with the problem their way. We should be allies in their struggles, not “saviors”.
Four, the Oppression Olympics are not a thing. We can still have problems and still care about the problems of others, no matter their “severity”. There’s no reason why I can’t care about catcalling and sexual harassment and also care about young girls being denied an education elsewhere in the world.
So kindly fuck off with your argument that other women have it “worse”, so we need to sit down and shut up. It’s a silencing tactic, and it’s not going to be tolerated here.
Points for effort on the derail, but overall it was a failure.
You had a point? Besides writing novellas all over the thread, I mean.
Because Boulware didn’t get the help he needed and attacked police needlessly. The police didn’t antagonize him. Boulware saw them as having wronged him (despite them doing no such thing), and attacked them because of it. The police are, in fact, blameless in this. They were attacked, and had to kill Boulware out of having no other choice. Boulware was armed to the teeth, had expressed a desire to shoot up schools and churches, and went off on the police.
Had the police had the opportunity to take him in alive, I’m sure they would have.
The other examples are either of racist people who did racist things getting attacked (and no, I don’t condone threats of violence or rape) by the people they were being racist towards, or, in the case of Walgreens, a large corporation who can take a hit because people were looting one branch (that was most likely insured) for supplies they needed to live because other places were shut down and/or they couldn’t get to them.
On top of that, all of your examples have privilege, and were using it to walk all over minorities. Especially Pamela Geller (a rich white woman) and Charlie Hedbo (a French magazine company run by white people).
The thing with the Walgreens that I’ve seen via social media is that people were breaking into it to get basic supplies they needed to live, since a lot of places were shut down and people have basic needs.
Despite major news outlets only reporting on the “riots” because they wanted to sensationalize the whole thing, there were still people out there giving us the blow-by-blow of the protests. There were also people who were protecting local businesses from being looted by people who were taking advantage of the chaos.
False equivalence.
We don’t. I have no idea where you got the idea we did. Boulware was not the victim here, he was the aggressor. An aggressor who, if reports are to be believed, needed mental help, but an aggressor nonetheless.
Your “counterexamples” are bullshit, but you get the idea.
Speaking of, did you ever track down those sources I asked you for in my last post, or are you conveniently ignoring my request for proof that SJWs engage in violence and threats?
When every problem they have is blamed on women, when they can’t imagine a world where women are their equals, when they call for women to be raped and beaten for percieved sleights, when they fantasize about killing us for “rejecting” them, I fail to see how I could perceive them to be anything else but evil or loathing the fact that I exist in ways they don’t approve of.
Why do you think they’re “not evil” for wanting me to die or be raped or be subjugated by them? How many comments have you read here? Are their own words not enough for you?
Why do you think this is a “holy war” when I’m just fighting for my right to exist?
“I’m for reason” tends to be shorthand for “I’m okay with things they way they are now, and I’d appreciate you shutting up to maintain my illusion of peace because your problems aren’t important to me because they have no affect on me.”
I don’t care how long you’ve been “attacking bigots”, when you’re acting like a bigot, you’re going to get called out. I don’t give a flying fuck how good you think your intentions are.
Look, I’ve done some bigoted shit myself in the past, and I was called out for it and I learned from it. We’re all learning and growing. Mistakes are going to be made. It’s fine if you didn’t know some things, or aren’t aware of concepts.
However, when you double down and insist that you’re some kind of untouchable paragon of non-bigotry despite being called out for bigotry (especially when it’s by the people that you’re claiming you’re being non-bigoted towards), that’s when you’re going to get burned.
As for your “not taking sides in a holy war” argument, allow me a quote:
“If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.
-Desmond Tutu”
Because they fantasize about abusing women, a good chunk of the time. If you go to their sites and read up on their ideas, you’d see that they want a world where they can beat and rape women with no consequence.
Finally, something we can agree on!
While I agree that it’s good your father taught you not to hit girls, I would still like to point out that that’s based in a bit of a sexist concept that women are delicate little flowers who need men’s protection, rather than their respect.
No one should be hitting anyone.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.
Oh wait, you were serious?
Here’s a few questions: Have you ever felt threatened by the mere presence of police? Have you ever felt like your co-workers talked over you or disrespected you? Have you ever walked down a street at night with your keys in your fist, wary of anyone who comes near to you? Have you ever been denied a marriage and all that comes with it because of who you wanted to marry?
“Dirt poor whites” do have white privilege. What they don’t have is “class privilege”, as in, they don’t have privilege because of their lack of financial stability. This can cause problems, yes, but they don’t face the exact same problems that, say, a “dirt poor black person” would have. They’d both be sent to work menial jobs and disrespected because they’re poor, but the black person would also have to face slurs, discrimination when it comes to getting hired for jobs, and stereotyping, whereas the white person does not.
For instance, I’m white and cisgendered, so I have privilege because of my race and gender, but I’m also a woman, so I don’t have “male privilege”, and I’m queer, so I don’t have “straight privilege”.
I still face problems because I’m a queer woman, but I don’t face as many problems as someone who would also be a queer woman, but, say, a black transwoman.
I don’t have to deal with racism and I don’t have to deal with transmisogyny (just misogyny).
Hopefully that clarifies things, since you seem to have been confused about what privilege actually means.
Which is what we’re trying to do here. We enlighten people about the problems women face (and yeah, sometimes we get on the topics of queer rights or racism as well) at the hands of people like the MRM.
Problem?
So, we shouldn’t fight for equal rights because humans are fallible, so it’s just a waste of time to maybe make the lives of other human beings a little less shitty, and the world a little bit of a better place?
A real champion of justice, you are. [/sarcasm]
It just sounds to me like you honestly don’t give a shit about people’s suffering, you just don’t want to deal with it or hear about it or confront it in any way that would challenge what benefits you have in society.
You like the way things are, and you’d prefer we keep them that way for your comfort.
I saw that coming too.
Funny how misogynists always argue that teenage girls are enough like grown women to have sex with, or if not have sex with than at least sexualize their bodies in various ways. But if a woman in her twenties dares to have opinions, especially opinions that conflict with the almighty white man; they’re inexperienced, stupid children.
I still remember canvassing on behalf of John Kerry for president when I was 24. I was told more than once by old conservative men that I was only liberal because I was young and that I’d become a conservative as I matured. Well, here I am at 35. As much of a leftist as I ever was. Maybe even more so because as I’ve matured, I’ve learned to be better at intersectionality and learned that although I’m intelligent enough, I don’t know everything.