Recently, we had the bizarre spectacle of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle (I didn't use her title because I can't remember it) waxing lyrical about "unearned privilege" (LINK). Of course, with them being members of an aristocratic royalty this looks like an obvious case of the dog calling the cat hairy-arsed (granted she's a non-white woman who married into it, but still she's a Royal).
This is typical of the "woke" movement, who've seen fit to create a hierarchy of suffering referred to as "privilege" or as some have cynically called it, the "oppression olympics". These bring about ideas that are kind of loosely based on the theories of Karl Marx, who in his writings described society in a paradigm of the "oppressed" and "oppressors".
One can read this in more detail in Marx's own writings, but the paradigm to put it very simply works like this.
- Rulers at the top (kings, emperors, prime ministers).
- Clergy second from top to deceive people (bishops, priests, religious leaders).
- Army third from top to keep people in line.
- Capitalists live off the profits (bosses, bankers, middle class).
- Workers at the bottom sustain this all.
There have been references to this in literature, such as the "morlocks" in 'The Time Machine' written by H.G. Wells in 1895, the creatures that live underground to sustain the leisurely life of the "Eloi" ruling class. Of course, Marks and Wells were both writing in the 19th Century, when the world was in many ways, very different, but the "woke" brigade has taken this rather un-nuanced idea and via people who're in the old media of film and TV. The way they've set this up has been something like this:
- White straight males at the top.
- White women next down.
- Black men next down.
- Black women next down.
There are other groups that fit into this theory, but you get the idea. Basically, because some of these self-proclaimed "liberal" types have bought into this theory, because some of these groups face different types of injustice, everyone must believe it.
Then you get theories that comedy should "punch up" and not "punch down" when it comes to gender and race. (Interestingly, the proponents of these ideas seem happy to turn against working class people if they don't follow their ideas, or to do so anyway, such as jokes about "chavs" and "rednecks" from white middle class "liberal" comedians).
The truth is group A might face an unfair injustice that group B is safe from, but group B might face their own injustices that group A does not experience. The alternative viewpoint is that you have the idea that if you're a white man and straight (therefore with some advantages historically or the like), you're fair game, even if you're working class, or an abuse survivor. Therefore you have the grotesque spectacle of rich women and rich men calling male survivors (or men with mental illness/living in poverty) "oppressors" or "abusers".
And here lies the rub. The result for these "liberal" attitudes to male survivors has not been pretty to say the least.
A few years ago, it was - and arguably still is - deemed as fine and acceptable to treat male survivors of abuse in such a callous way. Here's a rather nauseating example from mumsnet circa 2017. Read it if you can stomach such vile abuse apologism but if not, skip to "grotesque circus" below instead (TRIGGER WARNING):
https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/2836753-To-wonder-why-domestic-violence-is-seen-as-a-womans-issue-and-abused-men-are-often-ignored
It's enough to make you sick isn't it? The trigger warning remains for the comments below. I've gathered them together, but looking at them is pretty unpleasant as a male abuse survivor, and is enough to make you lose your sanity, so don't look at them if you can't stomach them. It's like looking into a padded cell, because the words of these men and women commenting on some distorted feminist viewpoint is disturbing and shocking, and even delves into abuse apologism and victim blaming.
"men have privileges that prevent them from being able to empathize with the struggles of women, even when they are survivors of sexual crimes."
Kaelyn Polick Kirkpatrick, The State Press, 2014
"Yes, please, let's not forget the poor men, who make up a whopping 15% of the domestic violence victims (nonsarcastic saide: this includes situations in which the violence is mutual, or the woman used violence in response to violence), who are far less likely to be hurt by domestic violence given the differences in size and strength between most men and women, and who aren't laboring under lifetimes of oppressive gender hierarchy. I'm glad that you raised awareness of this terrible scourge so that we can convince the public that more of the ample, nay, surplus of resources that we throw at alleviating domestic violence against women can now be re-channeled to help the poor, oppressed men. Thank you. Thank you for thinking of the dudes."
Username Petronella, Jezebel.com, 2007
"It's okay, ladies. They can just consider it payback for binding our feet, shoving our chunklet asses into corsets, leaving chick babies on mountaintops, droolin' over size 0 asses, and generally making us miserable for centuries."
Username Warmaiden, Jezebel.com, 2007.
(NOTE: I had to correct some of the grammar in this comment)
The reason that feminist(s)* are opposed to ["MRAs"]** opening men's shelters is because there is next to no funding as it is, and when women are experiencing the brunt of the violence, feminist(s)* are doing their best to stem the tide of victims who need support.
Jamie Utt, changefromwithin.org, 2013
* My correction
** I can only assume that this man is opposed to general assistance to male abuse victims.
"Men smell funny, especially when they're on fire"
A pro-abuse Feminist T-Shirt recently for sale online.
I have seen about three genuine male victims in over 7 years of DV work. I once saw one who put on a very convincing display - sobbing about how he was going to lose his kids, was afraid for his life. Yet his partner recorded him saying she was a mad cunt, he was going to take the kids away from her, she was so worthless she might as well just kill herself.
I'd love to tell you that was a one off but I have a similar tale of life nearly - nearly - every male "victim" I ever came across.
No one's refusing any services, but if men truly suffer domestic violence to the extent some here seem to think they do they can go ahead and set up refuges. Why won't they?
Username Bibblewanda, mumsnet.org, 2017.
Why aren't men fundraising for men's refuges then? BECAUSE THEY DON'T NEED ANY.
Username 1484317265, mumsnet.org, 2017
Sorry but I do not think the demand for men's refuges is there, and women's refuges are closing all the time due to budget cuts, which is a travesty.
Username bananaleaves, mumsnet.org, 2017
If you're a feminist or a general "progressive" or "liberal" and reading this, I hope that this sorry parade makes you feel uncomfortable, because that's a sign you're a human being with compassion. Hold onto that. It tells you that something is wrong, that this is wrong.
The problem is of course, due to this grotesque circus, it just seems to go on and on, and now it appears to have finally come full circle.
A few weeks ago, the Guardian, one of the most foremost left wing newspapers in Britain, published an article referring to former Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron's pain of losing his son as "privileged pain". Now personally I've never been too fond of David Cameron. I found his line on tuition fees infuriated me, especially as I was about to go to university. I found his attitude of "we're all in this together" completely insincere, feeling more like he was saying, "you're all in this together" instead. When riots broke out in England in 2011, he claimed that there'd been a "moral breakdown" in the country, which enraged me considering some of the misdeeds of some of the folks from his class of society, and the liebor scandal of banks robbing consumers and businesses blind through fraud and deception off the back of the 2008 recession.
Of course, even if I was a big supporter of him, this is and should be immaterial. His policies are immaterial. His flaws are immaterial. It is unacceptable to use the death of someone's child to attack them, because it is wrong. That's all there is to it. It is wrong, and to do this to David Cameron leaves others open to being attacked in the same way.
Here is the wikipedia page on King George V.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_V
He was the King of England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and the various colonies of the British Empire, and the Emperor of India. He was a Field Marshal in the British Army, an Admiral of the Fleet of the Royal Navy, and Chief of the Royal Air Force. A former Duke of York and Prince of Wales, and the recipient of countless of domestic and foreign royal orders. Arguably, considering the sheer size of the British Empire he was the most powerful man in the world.
He lost his son, Prince John, to epilepsy in 1919. He suffered from epileptic fits and a learning disability, possible autism. He only lived to the age of 13.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_John_of_the_United_Kingdom
Is anyone deluded enough to not think that the King, because he was so wealthy and powerful, was able to just shrug his suffering off easier than a working class family who'd just lost one of their own in the First World War? Would anyone with a heart or a brain be able to fathom that maybe being human means that we all share the same pain?
Now, I've published an article earlier on suicide, detailing the death of a friend of mine to suicide, and how utterly awful it was. In particular, his parents came to mind, it's hard to imagine how utterly heartbreaking it must've been - and still must be - for them now. The same goes for a girl I knew in school (I was in the same class as her brother), who was lost to blood poisoning, leaving behind her mum and dad, brother, husband, and two children. Now they came from one of the richest countries in the world, did they feel it less than someone who lives in a war zone? Or in the third world?
This isn't about David Cameron, this isn't about 'Austerity', this is about compassion and setting an unforgivable precedent. Personally, I will never forgive the Guardian for publishing this vile article, setting a moral standard that says it's acceptable to attack grieving parents anywhere in order to prove a point. I have absolutely no respect for them as a newspaper, or the "woke" crowd who treat people's suffering as a new hierarchy and do away with compassion that they somehow demand of other people.
The "SJW" crowd have attacked vulnerable people, and when it comes to male survivors of abuse, we've had the spectacle of so-called feminists outrageously claiming that said male survivors still have "unearned male privilege" because "they won't be asked what they were wearing". Many thanks to James Landrith for highlighting this, because I find it just as sickening. This hierarchy of suffering I suspect has not helped a single person, and in fact it has piggybacked on the pain of others for selfish power, profit and ego, increasing human misery exponentially.
It is not good enough or acceptable to insult and abuse those suffering from very human pain. I don't care if it's a homeless person or a millionaire, compassion should not be treated as a finite resource with only enough to go to those "most" in need. It's truly shameful for selfish so-called "progressives" to lecture people with mental illness, poverty, and abuse issues, just because they enjoy some advantages through accident of birth. And it is outrageous for the same people to treat male abuse victims like utter garbage with no right to live on this earth because they upset their "narrative".
I've run into lowlife types who behave like this, it comes with the territory talking about male abuse issues, but the scum who do it to me will happily do it to others who might not be so willing to put themselves at risk.
We all feel pain. We all suffer. There are a few things that we have in common that unite us. They're called "being human".
We should take care to remember that.
We should also remember that nobody should have to suffer abuse, no matter who they are or what their standing is (which pond life at mumsnet and these other examples seem to forget).
And that no parent should have to bury their child.
Sincerely,
The Invisible Man
No comments:
Post a Comment