Getting Into Their Heads: What's Up With SJWs/Feminists Anyway?

This is a reply to a friend who pondered about how it is that feminists can not care at all if a man accused of something is in fact innocent of it. I realized others might be able to use this analysis so I made it into a page. Here it is:

The idea that an accused man may in fact be innocent has no effect on feminists/SJWs. Once you understand how they think about things, the fact a man is innocent has no bearing. This is how they view the world:

History is a record of class struggle (Marx). Throughout history, men have oppressed women class vs. class in a myriad of ways. (Feminism) Among its many victims, "the patriarchy" has inflicted distresses of all kinds categorically on women, and in the case of white patriarchy, on non-whites, without regard to its victims deserving it or not. (Feminism, et al.).

Justice for individuals has been denied often were those individuals non-white or female both in courts and in society at large. (Feminism, et al.) Human history is not a record of injustice by accident but instead of injustice *by design*. The design is the consequence of class warfare propagated for millennia by the patriarchy, starting with such concepts as private ownership of land. (Marx, et al.)

Should an enemy resort to some kind of weapon, common sense says that to defend oneself, one should use a weapon of similar or better effectiveness. (Military doctrine) The weapon may be physical, strategic, or tactical (i.e., a good plan is an effective weapon even when faced with superior technology on a battlefield; this has been shown time and again in warfare. (Sun Tzu, et al.)).

Therefore it makes sense to utilize any means necessary to achieve an effective defense against an enemy. Men, especially white men, can collectively be viewed as the class enemies of women and non-whites. It further makes sense that applying a superior strategy against them will be the most effective way to counteract any physical superiority in weapons or social position. Fight from your strong points, attack the enemy's weak points. (Sun Tzu, et al.)

The M.O. could not be clearer: men are weakest when accused of sexual misconduct. Further, accusations of such misconduct tend to lead to situations wherein men are replaced by women in whatever position they hold. Thus in one fell swoop an accusation takes down a member of the enemy class and vaunts a member of the class we are fighting for. Win-win on both counts, lose-lose for the enemy.

Innocence and guilt do not enter into the equation for feminists/SJWs. Securing better positions in society then utilizing them to further secure better positions for members of the class(es) they represent is all that matters. This is war: history is a class struggle, which is to say, a constant state of war acted out physically or socially.

Thus you cannot reason with feminist/SJWs because the end game is not to convince others of their position. It is to knock others away and take whatever position they hold. This is why it's largely men in positions of wealth, influence, etc., who are the targets. At the moment, they are targeting men in entertainment and media because he (or she) who controls the communication channels gets to control the public narrative, thus making people believe that "everyone" believes as the channel controllers do. This is why dictatorships require that they control all press/media. Feminists/SJWs have noticed this fact so are focusing on going after men in these positions. But don't kid yourself, the eventual aim is to replace men at every level in every institution not because they can do a better job at anything than can these men, but because holding those positions makes for the holders being more powerful/well-off. Thus the phrase "social justice" isn't really describing "justice" as we understand it. It is shorthand for one class of persons deciding it doesn't like that some other class of persons has something and they want it. Whether or not individuals of the target class actually earned their place or are indeed best-qualified makes no difference. To feminists/SJWs, the only thing that matters is the relevant indelible characteristics (sex, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc.) of the person holding the position.

This also explains why so many feminists insist no man can be a feminist, but can be an "ally", or a useful idiot. Likewise SJWs further believe that a male, esp. white male, can no more really be an SJW than a Jew can be a Nazi.

To be a man and a feminist/ally is thus to be a counter-evolutionary being, i.e., one that works against its own well-being. Likewise for a white male to be a SJW.

One can and should, IMO, stand up for the classic concept of justice, i.e.: Is a person guilty of a crime that is readily viewable as a crime, such as murder, arson, etc., and he or she should be assessed based only on that basis. That is the kind of justice that is in fact blind to such things as gender, ethnicity, etc. Supporting "social justice" is to, in essence, endorse sexism, racism, classism, etc., exactly the sorts of things feminists/SJWs insist they are fighting against. There is no actual idealism in the notion of social justice. It's strictly gloves-off bare-knuckled class warfare, just with different criteria for what constitutes "class" as compared with "class" of Marx's day. In today's world, Karl Marx would have been pilloried and ejected from the fold because he was white, male, heterosexual, and notoriously sexist and racist: at least, in the wrong direction. Today's SJWs find that sexism and racism against males/whites is fine and so deny applying those terms to it despite the obvious fact that their agenda is both racist and sexist.

There, I hope that clears up what is going on here. :)

6 users have voted.
I like this