Letters to the Editor
meeneecat
Published Letters: 37 Editor's Choice: 1
-
you folks don't seem to understand
[Read the article: Quote of the day: It's a gynocracy!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]much about the common elements of oppression that were outlined in that article. I suggest you REALLY read that article, because none of you are indicating that you have any idea about the power structure that must be in place IN ORDER for oppression to occur. Misandry would be a type of oppression (if it exists, I'm talking about the concept here, not the word). Without a certain power structure in place, that is economic and institutional power, than oppression cannot occur. Methinks that neither of you are willing to admit this because it makes you see something deeper as far as your own privilege goes. Many people are not willing to admit to their own privilege whether it be race privilege, economic privilege or sex privilege, and thus these people have a hard time talking about racism/sexism/ and other forms of oppression because they are unwilling to see constructs that allows this oppression to take place. They would just rather keep on arguing that either it doesn't exist or that white people are oppressed too and other silly arguments about racism and sexism that are just derailing or beating around the bush. (i.e. what's wrong with saying: white people are discriminated against too / men are discriminated against too)
You seem to want to just insist that something exists without making an argument or responding intelligently to the issue of economic and institutional power, fine. I'm not going to explain this again. But, just to realize what it sounds like: ask any non-white person about the oppressive power structure that is in place. Ask any non-white person if they feel white people are oppressed and you will get laughter. Ask any women if they think men are oppressed and you will get the same. There is no such thing as "reverse racism" or "reverse sexism". It's a simple equation of {A} must exists in order for their to be {B}. There must be economic and institutional power in place in order for oppression to exist. Currently white able-bodied Christian men are the cultural norm and thus this group occupies economic and institutional power. Thus the groups that are not included in this norm become the targets of oppression. That is, non-white, non-male, non-christian, non-able bodied, etc. (this was all in the article that you didn't read) This is what feminism and the civil rights movements are all about, changing this power structure so that everyone is treated with equality. Now one thing I must point out, is that I am not saying that because you might fit some of the characteristics of the norm, that I am not calling you a racist, or sexist or oppressor. I am just pointing out the structure of this system. No need to get defensive because no one is attacking you. But, for you to recognize where you fit into this system is one of the first steps in changing it. It's also a very mature thing to be able to realize, it's also something that the pundits and newsmen never seem to be able to do. The other option is that you can be stubborn and insist that poor white men are oppressed, and we'll never get anywhere talking about either racism or sexism.
Then again, maybe this is why we can't expect any intelligent dialog by the likes of the MSM because it's coming from people like Cavuto, and others who fails to see the bigger picture, and who would rather whine about how they are so oppressed by immigrants and women and non-whites...etc.
IT'S THE GYNOCRACY!!! IT'S THE IMMIGRANTS!!! (scary music in the background) /sarcasm
-
@AKA smith
[Read the article: Quote of the day: It's a gynocracy!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't know how many times I've said this but I'm not talking about a definition here, AKA Smith, I'm talking about an agreed upon theory of oppression that's been written by many intelligent people who understand race and cultural dynamics, people who understand them much better than you and a few other commenters here who responded to me, apparently do. Feminists and civil justice scholars and activists alike have written about this theory of oppression, the fact that you would think we're just talking about definitions from a dictionary or mere opinions speaks to your lack of knowledge of the civil justice movement and it's theories. I could give you dozens of links that discuss this, dozens of links on the constructs of oppression, dozens of links that discuss intersectionality, and links discussing privilege, but what point would that serve knowing that none of this will be read, digested, and understood. I don't mean to be offensive, but from what you and several other people here who have responded to me have shown it that you apparently don't have the breadth of knowledge or willingness to have an intelligent conversation on racism or gender. I feel like I've been repeating myself here, and it's met with nothing but baloney and half-wit remarks about definitions and what it means to have an opinion.
This immaturity in dialog is exactly the reason why we get this vapid stuff from Cavuto and the other 24 hour new networks when confronting race and gender, and I'm so sick of all this drivel. People can't seem to speak maturely and get over themselves enough to talk about this stuff.
Not trying to be rude or anything but I really expected more from some of the commentators on a progressive site like Salon, I hope that there's at least some people here willing to have an intelligent conversation on race and gender....
-
Thank you smallfox
[Read the article: Quote of the day: It's a gynocracy!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]for pointing out what I was trying to say. You got it.
-
Boycotting Salon's comments sections
[Read the article: Quote of the day: It's a gynocracy!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm boycotting salon's comment section. Too much toxicity and STUPIDITY. *last post*