They thought me soft in high school
Thank god I’m jagged
Forgot you don’t like it rough
I mean he called me a faggot
– Earl Sweatshirt, Sunday
Feminism, having taken its place as the unquestionable position of the mainstream paradigm, has devolved into a horizontally evolving and haphazard dogma. As a result, an active and vociferous opponent of racism has found themself in a position that can only arise from misogyny to much of this movement. This clarifies the misogynist as a part of no part of feminism. It exists only with reference to feminism and dissolves with feminism. No part of feminism is misogyny but misogyny, as it is currently understood, only exists as the negation of feminism. I dismiss the label and the paradigm that upholds it as inherently chauvinistic and a betrayal to the anti-bigotry foundation of the 20th century left.
To demonstrate the dogmatic implosion of one of the great liberation movements, I will pose one question. In practice, how can a man correct a feminist with progressive support? If you ever accept the argument that because a person feels that something is true then it is true, you are lost, you will remain lost, and you will not be found.
Feminism has become so enraptured with some requirement of remaining as significant as it did at the beginning of the 20th century that it has turned towards pseudo-intellectualism with a ferocity that would have seen Martin Luther King Junior’s civil rights movement beaten back a generation. The clearest example that I’m aware of is the ostensibly cynical appeal to mystery that underpins many feminist victories. That is, given your identity, how could you understand whether or not I’m correct? This is a fundamental rejection of both logic as a tool of discovery and empathy as a tool of intuition. The almost pitchfork wielding mob that this rhetoric engorges will accept this absolutely. If a debater or demagogue contradicts themself, logic dismisses them and feminists instantly considers that insufficient. My ability to feel your pain and know when iniquity arises is eternally insufficient to the feminist. This is pseudo-intellectualism because the position cannot be disproved. Understanding cannot be objectively measured or demonstrated and the feminist slowly drifts away on their raft, apparently ignorant of the scum with which they move. This is truly a movement of the victor.
It is from this unquestionability that I propose my flail. If the feminist is unquestionable to the ally of feminism, as men have been relegated, then I can’t see how a feminist ally could understand how they are not that which they are labelled. The divorce of feminism from the principles of anti-bigotry, seen in the #yesallmen campaign, left them with the knowledge that yes, all men are potential rapists.¹ Until such a time as the feminist movement respectably allows feminist allies and unaffected and reactionary men to be able to deny feminist positions, I can’t see how any feminist ally can deny that they are a potential rapist. I, as a proponent of the radical left who has and will always reject bigotry in all its forms,² can sit comfortably knowing that rape is beyond what is allowable to the personhood that I have always enjoyed. I don’t see how a thinking feminist ally can claim the same with any consistency.
² To defend the quotation with which I prefaced, I ask that any curious reader read John Austin’s How to Do Things with Words on the difference between using and mentioning words. I would also beg the offended to jettison the belief that art should be primarily normative and not truthful, you’re thinking of marketing.