Case in point (yus they are MRAs, but this is a good example xD )
As many of you may know, modern leftism is concerned with something they call social justice. Whatever they name it, it’s basically a system where people are assigned to castes based on their race, gender, sexual orientation, religion and level of disability. The less white, male, straight, Christian and able-bodied you are, the less “privilege” you have, and perversely, the more your opinions matter. In the world of academia, and its close cousin, the leftist blogosphere, identity politics are the most important factor in whether or not your arguments are accepted. Thus, if you’re a straight able bodied white male, you are barred from commenting on issues related to gays, disabled people, and women, since you have straight privilege, ableist privilege and male privilege. Moreover, you’re not allowed to criticize any opinions by any gays, disabled people, and women on the left, no matter what the subject. Because you have so much privilege, you see.
Which is of course a gigantic strawperson b/c it's easier to knock down "they believe that the more oppressions you have the more right you are on ANY SUBJECT" vs "they believe those with lived experiences are valuable and important voices when talking about the specific oppression that they have lived". >_>;; Nuance. By Calvin Klein.
But then something strange happened. Even though Futrelle had most definitely paid his feminist dues, even though he’d set up and run his own site and criticized only other straight males, thus making sure he wasn’t abusing his privilege, he was still run out of town by the Feministe crowd. Why? Because he used the word “crazy” when describing some opinion Adams had. Obviously this showed what a cruel ableist he was, because “crazy” refers to people with mental disabilities. Check it out, the frenzy the feminists work themselves into in the comment section is worth a read. For the lulz.
Here’s my take on what happened. The crowd at Feministe doesn’t just hate male privilege. It simply hates men, period. This explains why they disqualified a guy who played by all their rules on a technicality. And that goes for the rest of the leftist blogosphere too. Within this world, and academia, straight white males, because of their imagined privileges, are the lowest of the low. They’re the unclean class.
Um. Sure. >_>;; I'll explain later on this post why him being a woman, or even a black woman, wouldn't have mattered. Also apparently I am now obligated (must've missed that memo xD), as an anti-oppression person to think white men are the unclean class. xD Remember all you white guys who read my blog... You must shower at least twice a day, once before you read my blog, and once while you're reading my blog.
This brings me back to these straight men pretending to be gay women. Why did they do it? Because, in the leftist world, it was the only way for their voices to be heard. Even if they’d been complete flagellants, constantly ritually purifying themselves by “examining their own privilege”, they’d still be unclean. And the messed up thing is, as gay bloggers they were effective! “ Paula Brooks” and “her” site was among the most popular, which just goes to show you that when men are allowed to compete on even terms, they win. That’s why Futrelle wasn’t allowed to contribute to Feministe anymore. Because within a week of posting, it was clear that this man, misguided douchebag that he is, was the best writer on the damn site, period.
I love how that they just decided that David was the best writer by far on Feministe b/c well he's a white man. xD It's like pick your poison I guess... the feminist white guy tastes better than any of the other options. xD
But okay, let's start. The issue about ppl pretending to be other ppl and being taken differently, is not that men are hated, or cis ppl can’t talk about video games when trans ppl are around, or w/e… it’s when talking about oppressions that real ppl face, ppl who face those oppressions and are of that group have actual lived exps, and thoughts and opinions formed by those and it isn’t just hypothetical theory :\
And when ppl make up caricatures, they are implying that they’ve had lived experiences as that group and their opinions were formed by those, and more than that they make up experiences they claim that they have personally experienced in order to throw more weight behind their opinion. It’s extremely dishonest. It’s no different than ppl making up military service and situations on the battlefield they’ve never actually been in in order to justify their various stances on military issues. (Former Blue Jays coach Tim Johnson infamously did this to motivate his players and was rightfully fired for it)
We regularly weigh the opinions of ppl who have been thru experiences relating to a specific subject differently than those who have not, not that they are necessarily RIGHT, but that they have a point of view we may not have, whether that means nething to us is up to us. But we have former athletes as commentators, we have police officers and former army personnel to comment on crime and military issues. Former politicians are political analysts. Ppl even do this in the negative sense, accusing ppl of bias, accusing rape survivors of bias or being too emotional to be rational, etc etc etc… it’s funny that suddenly ppl are claiming that real lived experiences do not matter xD
Going back to David Futrelle as an example (since the OP used him), a more accurate comparison wouldn’t be if David pretended to be a woman or even a black woman or even a black trans woman (he’d still get the same treatment, rightly or wrongly) but if he had defended himself by pretending to be a disabled person w/ a long history of mental illness and then made up experiences to back up why he felt it was okay to say the words that some ppl felt were offensive. -_-;; It’s not that he would have just changed the superficial elements of how ppl viewed him, it’s that he’d have changed his background too, innately who he claimed to be, and the experiences that he claims shaped him, as well as making up experiences to back up his point of view and refute critics. I think we all agree that would be extremely dishonest if not screwed up entirely. And it would not prove nething except that ppl using made up personas can make up any experiences they want, interpret them however they want and claim to have lived them and therefore been shaped by them to fraudulently back up their opinions >:|