Don’t be a white guy in the US?

Just kidding, as previously mentioned I make my own fun. But seriously, if you are a white guy, stop it. I thought this would be a nice tongue and cheek change because of the posts earlier in the week.

Let me begin by saying there is something to oppression even when others don’t see it. Individuals can feel slighted, but arguably that isn't really oppression because by definition the person doing the oppressing has to have more power and privilege in society. This comes up when people try to employ the hierarchy of oppression. My view is that if you feel oppressed we should talk that out and see where it is coming from before we rally the troops. For example, white gay men are oppressed even if they are white. Their oppression is valid. However, when you are the group in power i.e. white, upper-middle class, hetero menfolk you might want to really think on crying oppression because in our society we value whiteness and maleness over other people.

First, equality isn’t a zero sum game. The expansion of rights to marginalized groups doesn’t mean those rights are being taken from another group. Letting women and people of color vote didn’t result in white men losing their right to vote. Secondly, privilege is fluid you can and do leverage it in different situations. Whiteness, just being white generally leaves you in the power group, all white people benefit from institutional racism (call it out and over throw it). A reminder, privilege isn’t necessarily your fault either. It just happens, but how you respond and use that privilege, does matter. Remember that excellent piece on male privilege as the easiest difficulty setting? It is like that. It is just easier for those on the receiving end of privilege, and most of the time we never even think about it because we aren't being challenged. So, why am I lecturing on privilege again? Because Suzanne Venker has another piece for Fox on how oppressed men are; it is entitled “Men—the new second class citizens.” End scene. With a title like that do I even have to go on?  Naturally, she has very little idea of what she is talking about. Venker is a MRA there is nothing more to it.

Venker begins by talking about her credentials, which are writing a book on how oppressed men are after she wrote an article on the same subject. All of this was well received by the conservative right. It is worth noting that she invokes hyperbole of war pitting men and women against one another. I also imagine she conflates gender and sex employing the gender binary. Venker says, “The truth is, men have become second-class citizens. The most obvious proof is male bashing in the media. It is rampant and irrefutable. From sit-coms and commercials that portray dad as an idiot to biased news reports about the state of American men, males are pounced on left and right.”

Take a minute. Those poor menfolk. Did a study just come out about how teenage girls are sexualized on every show they are portrayed on? But Venker’s right, the mens! Save the mens! Venker goes on to say that schools are geared toward women and girls as well. Boys are marginalized and taught like girls. The horror! If Venker wants to talk about the problems within education and gender, let's talk about the transgender issues all over the news right now or if we are completely ignoring a group of people, then the issues with teaching and gender are pretty vast on their own. After all women are conditioned to think we’re incompetent at math and hard science while men are conditioned to devalue traditionally feminine educational fields such as English, languages, and the fine arts. Women flourish in all women schools while men do best in co-ed classrooms, while at the same time if state funding is used for sex segregated classrooms women/girl students are usually shortchanged, but hey, that’s just what research shows. [It should be noted that there are a lot of problems with the data because it is hard to get.] Anecdotally, a friend of mine was studying education for her MA and then teacher’s license. A professor told her class that if a boy needs help in math give him hints or show him, but if a girl needs help just give her the answer. There was nothing else said on the subject…guess girls can figure it out backwards? Or maybe just aren’t deemed worth teaching math?

Venker continues to lament that many schools have done away with recess. This is true, and recess benefits boys and girls (though she argues just boys), but many schools do away with recess because having kids outside in the middle of the day in some violent low income neighborhoods is dangerous and leaves the schools liable, but I’m guessing these aren’t the boys Venker is worried about. The loss of extra-curricular programs hurt all children. Additionally, it is hypnotized that the loss of music and art programs have long lasting consequences on children’s development. I suppose arts and music are for sissies though.

Next Venker takes on Title IX, which of course has advanced women at the expense of men. I call shenanigans! Yes, Title IX has helped women by banning sex discrimination in all educational programs, and it is responsible for these female athletes. But Title IX also handles sexual assaults, which is why it is so important given the lack of concern institutions for higher education have for sexual assaults.

Venker claims that schools will do away with sport programs if there isn’t a female sport she cites hockey and wrestling. But riddle me this, if there were true, then why do universities have all male football teams? Venker says this is a demand for equal outcomes not equal opportunities. Um, no. She continues on to claim Title IX is abused when it is invoked as it applied to sexual assault and harassment cases. She says,

 “Genuine harassment and violence should be punishable offenses, obviously. But the college campus is a breeding ground for sexual activity, which makes determining wrongdoing (and using Title IX to prove it) extremely difficult. Sexual misconduct does not necessarily constitute harassment--and women have as much of a role to play as men do. Here again men are in an impossible situation, for there’s an unspoken commandment when it comes to sex in America: thou shalt never blame the women. If you’re a man who’s sexually involved with a women and something goes wrong, it’s your fault.”

Emphasis her’s. Take a minute. Then see Penn State, Notre Dame, Duke, and the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, just to name a few. Just keep it perspective gents. Also, as for victim blaming it is alive and well and even law is some states, remember Savannah Dietrich, Audrie Potts, and Rehtaeh Parsons? The last two died after being blamed for their sexual assaults, which were spread around the Internet, and Dietrich was arrested for outing her rapists. Just think about that. Victim blaming. Here is one solution, don’t rape. Don’t rape. Teach men not to rape. Ask for enthusiastic consent then this isn’t a fucking problem.

Venker cites Judith E. Grossman on boys being unjustly targeted in sexual assault. I read her piece when it came out; it argues her son’s innocence, but gives no real information about what happens. Except her son couldn’t possibly be the victimizer, and of course employs the same premise we’ve heard a thousand times, you can’t rape your own girlfriend. I find this argument so offensive; I actually had to take a break when rereading this article. I. JUST. CAN'T.

After this, Venker devolves into the arguments about how when men get married and become fathers things become really bad for them. Venker is really just regurgitating Laurie Shrage’s argument, which I deconstructed here.  Beginning with VAWA, which she says can be used for any little old thing, which obviously isn’t true since we had to claw and fight to get it reauthorized. But here are some examples of were VAWA should have been applied if Venker’s assertion were true. Also, VAWA received budget cuts resulting in even fewer people receiving help, also gay couples, children, and some men qualify for VAWA. Venker notes, “’If a woman gets angry for any reason, she can simply accuse a man and men are just assumed guilty in our society,’ notes notes Dr. Helen Smith, author of the new book, “Men on Strike.” This is particularly heinous since, as Smith adds, violence in domestic relations ‘is almost 50% from men and 50% from women.’” Liar, liar. Want to say that again? According to the Department of Justice (2005, dated I know) 73% of domestic violence victims were female (their term), females were 84% of spouse abuse victims and 86% of partner (girlfriend/boyfriend) victims. This 73% is down from the 85% in 2003, where men were 15% of victims. I suppose the numbers could be leveling with the inclusion of other forms of violence i.e. elder abuse, etc. But I call shenanigans on equal.

Venker then asserts there is no war on women in the US, I guess she hasn’t been watching TX, OH, WI, or NC? But who cares about ladies and their lady parts and their lady business, we’re talking about the menfolk! This is how Venker concludes, “Yet it is men who suffer in our society. From boyhood through adulthood, the White American Male must fight his way through a litany of taunts, assumptions and grievances about his very existence. His oppression is unlike anything American women have faced. Unlike women, however, men don’t organize and form groups when they’ve been persecuted. They just bow out of the game. America needs to wake up. We have swung the pendulum too far in the other direction—from a man’s world to a women’s world. That’s not equality. That’s revenge.”

At this point, I’d like to point out she is taking about white people up till this point she hadn't actually stated that. She makes it pretty clear at the end: her default is whiteness. She is right, white women, people of color we have no idea what it is like to be a white man. However, there are groups of men out there trolling women and people of color for the cause of men's rights; they are MRA, rape apologists, etc. There are plenty. Venker like the rest of the MRA’s have arguments that hold no water.