The oppressor vs. oppressed
In the 2010s, the concept of “gender identity” rapidly became the new way to understand “trans”. “Trans” took its place as a new social justice movement, amongst other social justice movements around, sex, homosexuality and race.
“Trans” and “gender identity” became the dominant ideology in society, as it followed the template of the other social justice movements, which divided people into oppressed and oppressor groups. The assumption amongst many who saw themselves as progressive was that belief in “gender identity” was also necessary to be progressive, and not be the oppressor.
In 2010, there was a change in the beliefs of social justice movements: in the 90s and 00s, not being racist meant that you didn’t discriminate against people of a different race, not being a sexist meant not discriminating against people based on their sex and not being homophobic meant not discriminating against people who were homosexual.
In the 2010s, the idea of structural oppression came to dominate the beliefs of social justice movements. It became no longer enough to root out and prosecute instances of discrimination, rather it was said that it was the duty of everyone to dismantle institutions that were seen as fundamentally oppressive: society itself was said to be fundamentally sexist, racist and homophobic; a patchwork of oppressors and the oppressed.
Who the oppressor is depends on the perspective of the ideology. For feminists, it is a male patriarchy. For gay rights campaigners, it is heteronormativity. For critical race theorists, it is whiteness. For “gender identity” ideologues, is is cisnormativity (cis, meaning “not trans”).
It was no longer enough to not be racist: you had to be actively “anti-racist”, which meant joining and participating in groups like Black Lives Matter (BLM), in order to “dismantle white privilege”. It was no longer enough not to be sexist: you had to believe in a men conspiring together as a “patriarchy”, and that it was responsible for every disparity between the sexes, such as in wages, or in the types of jobs men and women preferred. It was no longer enough to not be homophobic: you had to support the “queering” of society, such as supporting adult drag queen acts being targeted at minors.
At a time when Western society has never been so egalitarian, the different “social justice” groups portrayed the opposite: that it has never been so racist, sexist, homophobic and now “transphobic”.
The “oppressor” versus “oppressed” narrative, however, was lucrative to social justice movements, comprised of charities and NGOs (non-governmental organisations) who were threatened by the prospect of becoming less relevant in a more egalitarian society. The new “social justice” movements attracted large amounts of donations to groups such as BLM with little oversight, nor evidence that they were actually helping the oppressed groups that they claimed to represent.1
The word “intersectionality” is used to understand how people fit into the oppression hierarchy. At the top, there was the “white, hetero, male” oppressor. Below, there would be discussion on the relative privileges: a black gay, for example, would be more oppressed than straight white women, but both are oppressed by the “white, hetero, male, patriarchy”.
The introduction of “trans” introduced a new “intersection” in the oppression hierarchy: “cis” (Latin for “on this side” i.e. “not trans”) versus “trans”. The new apex oppressor became the cis, white, hetero, male, and “trans” became the most oppressed, and virtuous, identity.
Postmodernism
Postmodernism critical theory asserts that there is no such thing as objective truth, but rather there are multiple truths and whether or not society accepts any one of these particular truths, or narratives, is determined by the exertion of power.
The the idea that society can arrive at objective truth by free speech and discourse, according to the ideals of the “Western Enlightenment” is, for postmodernists, just one more narrative.
Far from being the way that society has progressed away from superstition, for postmodernists, the “Western Enlightenment” is just another myth, this time promoted by a cis, white, male, Western patriarchy, so that cis white men can continue their dominance and power in society.
For postmodernists, it matters less about what is said, but rather who is saying it. If the person saying things is a cis, white, hetero, male, then they are seen as not trying to convince people using facts and arguments, but rather using their power as oppressors at the top of the oppression hierarchy.
When young people are told that the free speech and discourse is a myth, and that it is power and “smashing” the oppressor that brings about change, then it is unsurprising that social justice movements since 2010 have been characterised by aggression both online and offline: of violence, mobbing, cancellations and censorship. Violence is arguable inherent to ideologies that see society in terms of a power struggle between the oppressor and oppressed, and that power is the method to achieve social change.
It didn’t matter if “Western Enlightenment” values, such as free speech, the rule of law and due process, innocence until proven guilty, were abandoned for the causes of “social justice” movements, as postmodernists assert that they were a myth used to uphold the power of “cis”, white, hetero, male “patriarchy” in the first place.
It is the responsibility for the postmodernist student therefore to cancel, “dismantle” and disrupt the narratives of the perceived oppressors, not to listen and argue with ideas, on the assumption that they are being put forward in good faith; there is no good faith, only power.
When the political scientist Dr. Warren Farrell, a supporter of the feminist movement in the 70s, attended a campus in the US too talk about the difficulties of boys and men, which by necessity had to involve some criticism of feminist ideology, feminists perceived that it is was their responsibility to shut down a "cis", white, hetero, male, “patriarchal” oppressor using his power to spread “hate speech”.2
Accordingly, the speech was met with a violent protest, as protestors clashed with the police:
Female protestor: “I came as part of my Women’s Studies group…”
“We’re not super interested in talking to you, first of all, but particularly we’re here to shut down an event that is promoting the patriarchy.”
Male talk attendee: “Two of my friends committed suicide and I want the peace of understanding why that happened…”
Female protestor: “… I’ll ask you, why this space to talk about that? There’s like feminism, for example, offers lots of spaces to talk about mental health issues; talk about depression, in men, women and people who don’t identify within the binary”.
Male talk attendee: “I think everyone’s voice should be heard”.
Female protestor: “You should be fucking ashamed of yourself. You’re fucking scum. You’re fucking scum. You fucking rape apologist incest supporting women-hating fucking scum.”
Male talk attendee: “Is there somewhere else I can wait where she won’t follow me?”
Female protestor: “You fucking scum.”3
At this time, Milo Yiannopoulos, working with the journalist and author Allum Bokhari, became infamous for showing that even tongue-in-cheek criticism of “social justice” movements could be be akin to poking a stick into a hornets’ nest:
Rubin:
You really are against feminism. My sense is that feminism, at least when it started, is that women wanted equality, they wanted the same equality of opportunity, that men had, there is no doubt that most of these roads in our society have been made easier for men, I think you would argue that that’s changed now […]Yiannopoulos:
The picture you presented is perfectly accurate, at least it was until 10 or 15 years ago. It’s changed very recently, I think most people instinctively agree with the equality of opportunity and the equality of access for women: they want women to have the opportunity to do anything they want, to rise as high as a man, if they’re prepared to work as hard and put the same amount of hours in, and of course I agree with that; I think everyone agrees with that. That’s not what modern, intersectional, third wave, as it’s called, feminism is about, which seems to me, and I think to a lot of women too, to be primarily about man-hating. It is a very angry, bitter, profane, lesbianic sort of feminism.[…]
these ideas that are being enforced in popular culture and on TV are not views that are reflected in the public, and the gap between the media and people at home is growing all the time. That’s my insight, and that’s what I seek to expose and ridicule and have fun with. It’s perfectly fine if you’re a feminist, my problem isn’t that; my problem is […] with those feminists who require us all in public to say we are too, when we might not be.
[… ]
I’m not particularly interested in anybody else’s specific positions: what I’m interested in is an open marketplace of ideas; a fair open system where everybody can express themselves without fear of censure, without fear of professional disaster, or social peril, just because they cracked the wrong joke on Twitter, or because they used the wrong language at work.4
Yiannopoulos’s own talks became the target of campus firebombing, like at the University of California, Berkeley where “anti-fascists” likened their actions as fighting a “war”.5
These were students who were primed by an postmodern social justice ideology to fight against the cis, white, male, hetero, patriarchal, oppressor, waiting to express their righteous anger at any target who they thought fitted this mould, who in this this case turned out to be a British comedian who cultivated a flamboyant personality, and regular referred to his own homosexuality.
In doing so, they proved Yiannopoulos’s point that “social justice” movements were in name only, and were instead angry, resentful movements that were out of control.
Part three of this series examines “gender identity” and feminist theory.
“The Greatest Lie Ever Sold”, Candace Owens.
Mothers vs Fathers: Too much empathy creates narcissistic children - Warren Farrell speech & protest
“Feminists Protest Men's Awareness Event with Speaker Warren Farrell”
“Warren Farrell vs. Protestors at University of Toronto ‘Boys to Men’ speech” 20 November 2012.
Milo Hates Feminism (Pt. 3) | Milo Yiannopoulos | POLITICS | Rubin Report
“Anti-fascist activists take on Trump and the far right: 'Resistance is our only shot'” Wong, J. Levin, S. The Guardian 2 Feb 2017