Dear the People,
It seems the fight for truth continues.
Last week, I rebutted the Arbourist’s radical third-wave feminist assumption of patriarchy in my post titled “Identity Politics and Their Lack of Intellectual Credentials”. Recently she replied in her post entitled, “What Do You Do With Internalized Patriarchal Misogyny”. I would recommend reading it for full context before continuing to read this post.
Today, we are taking another look at the arguments presented by my fellow blogger. To my relief and pleasant surprise, the Arbourist was most careful in addressing only the arguments at hand and did not use coarse language. This mature change of tone is deeply appreciated on my part, even if the logic used is not entirely sound.
“The discussion is quite, erm… interesting as DtP doesn’t seem to realize that they live within[g] a patriarchal society”. The author hasn’t given me any reason to believe that such a patriarchal society exists and will not provide any evidence for said “patriarchy” throughout the majority of this post.
“How does one even get to this place? Asserting that patriarchy hasn’t harmed them personally and what is the big deal with it?” If you are making a universal claim that every woman must make a patriarchal bargain [“Feminists realize though that each woman must strike her own patriarchal bargain within society and do what she must to survive.”], then why does my exception to that rule not count? Am I not a part of society?
“Where does one even start with that and what society did you grow up in? I want in.” What society did you grow up in? I grew up in the freedom of America where opportunity allows anyone – regardless of race, origin, or gender – to make themselves successful. The US I grew up in was more free than the America I live in now, where hate-free speech zones are imposed on campuses to protect those who are adverse to opposing viewpoints and kids must be frisked just to enter a local county fair or theme park.
And for someone who doesn’t want to be profiled, why is it that you are okay with profiling white men? While we’re on the subject, let us not ignore the fact that you made an assumption as to my identity based solely upon my political views. Clearly you have no problem making claims based on people’s identity and telling them what they think based on their gender. “
“I think that in many cases it is easier to choose not to see the systematic obstacles and biases that severely curtail the experiences and life trajectories of women in our society.” In what way am I choosing to ignore the systemic biases and obstacles (which by the way, you have not given any proof for and supported with any evidence or fact whatsoever)? No matter whether I am a man or a woman, there are obstacles in the way of accomplishing any plan. A man who wants to go into a business must work his way through school and gain years of experience before even gaining a higher-earning position, only to be replaced by a woman who may or may not be qualified because the company wants to fill their gender quota. Those are obstacles, but no one would call those “sexist” or “matriarchal”, despite the fact that they represent systemic misandry.
“The choice women face is how to deal with the fact that they are treated as the submissive class in society and their base humanity is always in question” Again, you have not given any example or evidence to back up your statement. You continuously repeat your position without affirming it by proof. How on earth are you viewed as subhuman? Have you ever been sold into slavery? Have you ever been shipped as a piece of property to a man who views you as his possession? These are criminal acts that are severely punishable in America, Canada, the UK, and most civilized countries, so how can you claim you are treated as “subhuman”?
I’m not at all part of a class that is treated as subhuman. Not only am I treated as human, I am treated exceptionally well. Women are privileged; we have rights that men don’t have and opportunities that men don’t have. If men are so privileged, why is it that women are offered scholarships, grants, and all sorts of governmental aid when men are not? Why is it that women are being offered high-paying positions even if they are not qualified for it?
“Women all over the world are dealing with internalized misogyny that puts them in opposition with other women and themselves. Some of them think less of women as a whole and place their faith in the opinions of men. Others have been raised to believe that men are superior and women are inferior.” [Patty Ramsen] First of all, no. I do not hate myself and I do not believe I am inferior to men. Just because I agree with views that men hold does not mean I am some mooing serf who is being led on a rope. The opinions you hold are entirely subjective and reversible. I could point out that those who believe in “internalized misogyny” are fooled into a narrative of victimhood. They are taught that they are the victims who are more knowledgeable than everyone around them, even the members of their own gender who disagree. They refuse to admit that they could be wrong and place their faith in the opinions of other women who echo back their feelings of victimhood, giving them fuel to face any dissenting views with the conformist reply that they are “under attack”. Your claim is so arbitrary that it can be turned back on you.
“Right-wing women have surveyed the world: they find it a dangerous place.” Yes, the world is a dangerous place, especially for the unborn child in the body of a woman who did not take into account the consequences of her actions. The safest place in the world has become one of the most dangerous, regardless of your gender and race.
“They see that work subjects them to more danger from more men;” Exactly where do you get the idea that right-wing women think that the workplace is more dangerous for women? Did Margaret Thatcher think the workplace was more dangerous? Does Candace Owens? And, if the workplace is really that dangerous for women, then aren’t the right-wing women intelligent for recognizing that danger and not putting themselves in its path?
“they see women thrown out of the circle of male civilization for having ideas, plans, visions, ambitions.” Where exactly are women thrown out of male civilizations (if this civilization exists) for their ideas? There are many women in arts, humanities, and the sciences. There are more women in colleges than men [http://time.com/4064665/women-college-degree/]; there are girls in boy scouts [https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/boy-scouts-will-admit-girls-allow-them-earn-eagle-scout-n809836], but not the reverse. Exactly where are women being thrown out of the “male circle”?
“They see that traditional marriage means selling to one man, not hundreds: the better deal.” Right-wing women see that marriage to one man is more ideal than marriage to a hundred. Therefore, what? What does that statement prove?
“They see that the streets are cold, and that the women on them are tired, sick, and bruised.” Women on the streets live in the same conditions as men on the streets and more men than women are homeless. [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11787304/Homelessness-is-a-gendered-issue-and-it-mostly-impacts-men.html] National Health Care for the Homeless shows that more white men are homeless than women and more than members of other ethnicities [https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/may/07/men-gender-divide-feminism] You’re conveniently ignoring these facts that white men don’t have an easy time of it.
“They see that the money they can earn will not make them independent of men” According to Time magazine (a predominantly Leftist publication) women earn higher salaries than men: [http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html ]According to Psych Central, women out-earn their husbands [https://psychcentral.com/lib/when-women-earn-more-than-men/]
“[that] they will still have to play the sex games of their kind: at home and at work too.” So if women choose to throw away their virginity and use sex as a way to get ahead instead of hard work and determination, therefore they are disadvantaged by men? No man forced a woman to choose to use her body to get ahead; she chose to take an easier route to success instead of putting in the time and work that the men she is using probably put in. They are no different from the women involved in the recent college scandal concerning faked test scores.
“They know too that the Left has nothing better to offer: leftist men also want wives and whores; leftist men value whores too much and wives too little. Right-wing women are not wrong. They fear that the Left, in stressing impersonal sex and promiscuity as values, will make them more vulnerable to male sexual aggression, and that they will be despised for not liking it. They are not wrong.” So you are admitting that the Left is no better and that they devalue women as nothing more than pretty faces and bodies. How exactly are you proving your case? How is choosing to retain your virginity until marriage not having authority over your own body? This would be like having a gun and choosing not to use it. It’s not that you can’t use it; you are choosing not to use it and exercising much more self-control than the person who decides to fire their gun because it sounds fun.
“They know that they are valued for their sex” If women are valued for their sex, regardless of which political side they fall on, why is it worse for women to be conservative (when you have already cited they will be taken care of and given security)? Aren’t you proving that the Left is worse for women? How exactly is a woman empowered by the fact that she is treated as something to be pawed over by Leftist men, regardless of personal connection and love?
“They see that intelligence displayed in a woman is a flaw, that intelligence realized in a woman is a crime.” Where do you get the idea that right-wing women view intelligence as a flaw? If right-wing women really viewed intelligence as a flaw, I would not be making intellectual arguments in response to your discourse.
“I couldn’t find who said the quote about women not wanting to accept the reality of their situation, only because in doing so would only reveal how deeply misogyny is rooted in society.” How exactly is finding or citing your sources proving the misogyny of society?
Once again, the Arbourist has failed to prove how patriarchy exists and to give evidence, instead making the claim that those who do not agree about its existence are just sheep who refuse to see the truth. The irony of this abounds. As always, one has to come back to the fundamental principles: what proof of a patriarchy exists? And if a patriarchy does exist, why would it be wrong? What are your grounds for morality?