Trust fund baby IOZ recently came out of the bigotry closet with the following:
The principal locus of the oppression of men is the state, whereas the principal locus of the oppression of women is men. Anarchism implies the most radical feminism. If you are not antidude, you are not an anarchist.
This hatred--which this one had earnestly hoped to be put deliberately badly for the purposes of sparking discussion--did indeed spark a long discussion on the merits of human males being vile, which unfortunately turned out to not be the point. IOZ recently ended the discussion with a lengthy essay explaining that, in order to be "anarchist," one must be also "against" Othered male humans. Naturally, being a "male human" himself, IOZ delivering this message was seen by some as just as effective as when Christian organizations front gay men who have been cured of their gayness and promise that you can be, too.
His essay, which I'll quote below at length, can be found fully here.
What's IOZ doing here? Well, he's using the principle of classification to divide humanity against itself in the ultimate interests of antilife (Hatred via Classification discusses in more general terms how classification tends that way).
Right now, it's relatively hip and cool to say that male humans have great advantages over female humans that require what would otherwise be seen as "unfair" (terrible and mean) treatment to be meted out to them by society at large. Right here, we'll look specifically at IOZ's sickness. Quotes are his unless otherwise indicated.
Most libertarians and anarchists are not really concerned with freedom or liberty or self-determination or property or the nonexistence of property or any of their other infinite set of synonyms for autonomy per se.
A good opener as far as mass slurs go. IOZ's anecdotal experience of human beings who say they are libertarians or anarchists gives him the wherewithal to make such a sweeping generalization. Sure, maybe he's just whining--which could well be appropriate--but here, we're not talking about identities that have a publicly stated platform and formal membership status. We don't know how many anarchists, for example, are out there, because it is professionally dangerous to be an avowed anarchist. Just like it would be personally dangerous for IOZ to be an avowed homosexual in a gentleman's club seventy years ago.
Keeping things hidden from others out of fear allows bigots like IOZ to slur people with little fear of mass recrimination. A bigot of yore might stand up and say, "All fags are child rapists!" And this could go unchallenged, because the only publicly-known male homosexuals were "homosexuals" convicted of child molestation. Disgusting, ignorant slurs work really well--particularly when you're so comfortable and arrogant that you never imagine your claims might end up applying to someone who can't openly disagree with you. Because who's going to stand up in, say, 1920s America and say, "I'm proudly a male homosexual and I am not going to rape anyone's son"?
To some degree or other, we are all in it for the weed, the guns, or the butt sex. By we, I mean men, and I'll come back to that.
Ahh! So, the token "man" has stood up in open court and confessed--to the delight of all the members of the opposition party--that all the men are, in fact, selfish pricks. And because it came from the mouth of a member of that group, it must be an accurate depiction of that group.
Just like when Obama says racism is over. Cheap demagogue.
This is delivered from a sorely ignorant human being who has never known a male who has worked two and three low-paying jobs for fifty years, straight into the grave, so that he could send three daughters to college and make sure his wife doesn't lose the medical insurance that keeps her, albeit lying in bed all day shaking, at least alive. Oh yeah. Because it's worth it for the "dominance" of the patriarchy. Even when the kids are all working careers in other states and the wife is in a care facility one of your pensions helps pay for, being the "head of household" is so worth it, because you get to emotionally repress the women "around you"--that's the only reason you go through it.
Oh yeah, IOZ--because all the men are wife beating rapists who spend up the cash at the bar on the way home from diddling the secretary. This stereotype is riotously popular right now; almost as popular, perhaps, as the old one about the henpecking, lazy housewife who gets fat and gossips constantly and wastes all the money just as soon as the door-to-door vacuum salesman shows up.
(A mean person might take this as an opportunity to point out that a family-less richie jerk like IOZ, a childless wunderboy who never had to grow up and help another human being learn how to breathe, move, speak, shit in the toilet and not on the floor, and provide for itself the way someone else did for him and his partner, is exactly the type of scum to start spouting off at the mouth--in between lubed up assfuck sessions with his "bottom," trust-fund-paid trips overseas and expensive wine and organic food--about how society just doesn't appreciate women enough. Thank goodness we're not mean, here.)
Now, tell one of these freedom lovers that every interaction with the state rests on a foundation of violence, and he will nod in considered agreement, but tell him that every interaction between women and men rests upon a foundation of rape, and he will throw up his hands in genuine bewilderment and cry that he is never going to rape anyone! The theory is disproven.
Yeah--every relationship between female and male rests upon a foundation of rape. That's why women never physically abuse men in relationships. When an urban, American, black father jumps in front of a car to push his daughter out of the way--or an Iraqi man lets his mother have the last spot in the bomb shelter, then walks into the street to wait for four hours to die--that's evil patriarchal oppression and rape. That underscores that encounter.
Luckily, rape doesn't exist as a problem for men. Rape belongs to women as a popular hot-button issue. It's not as though the most powerful government in the world maintains a massive, primarily male population of prisoners subjected to rape, and it's not as if every American man knows that, if he ends up in prison, he might end up taking dick or just getting shanked to death.
"No one's paying the bills. No jobs in this town and I can't afford to move. I don't wanna get shot--I saw what happened to that guy from high school after he'd only been there a year--but welfare's like $300 a month and if I apply I'll never get a job or get into school again. Rachel's scared and says the baby's hungry and why won't I do something?"
Yeah, IOZ--rape. Right there above, that's rape. That evil patriarch selfishly went off and put himself in mortal danger because he was a bloodthirsty, egotistical chauvinist willing to die just for the video-game pleasure of proving academic concepts of masculinity by shooting darkies until they shoot him in turn.
This is a large part of why opposition to war cannot connect with the proles: the unbelievably arrogant, violently abusive condescension to people who really have no other choice and are struggling to keep their heads above water. War is really being driven by bratty, selfish domestic people; the pawns who actually get their limbs blown off, get PTSD and die are not the ones making the policy. The elites, and their arrogant, PC, neoliberal fucktard flunkies--whether they blather about bad Republicans, bad Democrats, bad patriarchy, bad "state," or the like--are the ones shifting the money scales such that the only choice for some is martial maybe-death.
Yeah, the only choice, Arthur Silber. Maybe you're content living on charity as a pauper senior, slowly starving yourself and your cats, but you can't fairly say that someone else should let themselves, their human children (or their domesticated animals, if that's all you care about), or their infirm parents starve if they can take a way out serving in the military. Or working in the coal mines. These things I do that others might live, you sad, malignant little souls. You back a rat into a corner, and it will fuck you up. The expression "high horse" might not coin well for Silber, who is genuinely miserable, but it does for a plump richie shit like IOZ--who isn't even interested in anything except men--when he offers patronizing criticism of people whom he's sure can't possibly care about women except as rape-objects.
...men rule women--a statement so banal as to be a truism in any other circumstance...Yeah. Joe Blow rules Ms. Thatcher. Some guy in Iraq is guilty of exerting patriarchal dominance over Hillary Clinton. What a simplistic pile of shit that "one size fits all" statement is.
What is banal and utterly oblivious is that being a "female human" and/or a "male human" has no absolute bearing on how one fits into any of these equations. Or what makes a male human or a female human. Perspectives like IOZ's are medieval in their disallowance of genderqueer and transgender people, and what rights they should or shouldn't have. Does a "man" who identifies as a "woman" suddenly have all her interactions with men underscored by rape? Even if they can't tell who she is?
When a "woman" identifies as a "man," does he instantly inherit culpability for patriarchy? Does he need to stop being an asshole and start trying to make it up to all those oppressed women out there?
Sorry; no room. Bigotry doesn't see those kind of shades. Cisgender pricks like IOZ can behave so blindly at times, insulting whole groups of people they aren't even aware of.
What about people who don't want to be pigeonholed either way? What about a straight man physically abused by his wife, who stays at home while his wife works as a corporate lawyer?
Just like the "and what if the negro scored higher on a test than you did, Bob?" example, thought experiments like these destroy the fanciful illusions of bigots. That's why they usually get mad and ignore them, relying on the bandwagon to support them for the rest of their life, until society switches to a new target and it becomes popular for the kids to hate and slur someone new.