Why do feminism blame everything on white males?

Post Reply New Topic

I know, feminism is about equality, and i support it.

But what i dont understand is why feminists always blame white males for everything that is bad in the world. Why do feminists say that white males "spread" intolerance around the world due to the imperalism and that before this white imperalism the world was a perfect place?

Why is white males the only group that is called out for being racist, homophobic and misogynist?

Sure, feminists do admit that there is non-white males that is bad, but feminists never blame arab-males, asian-males etc as a whole for being bad. But they do blame white-males as a whole for being racist, homophobic and misogynist.

Its always "economic reasons or racism" and other explanation feminists have for the bad behavior that some non-white males have, but when it comes to white males there is no excuses, instead all white males gets bashed by the feminists.

Oh, arab-feminists NEVER blame arab males and black feminists NEVER blame black males etc, but white males gets the blame all around the world.

Feminists also claim that white males can not get opressed....eastern whit europeans where never opressed by ottoman empire they claim. They also say that only white males can be racists....

Can you stop saying, "feminists do this"? Feminists are a large group that can't be generalized. I'm sure some do blame non-white males, and there are definitely some (like me) who don't blame any groups of people, but rather misogynistic individuals.

As for why some put more of the blame on white males, it's because of the whole "SJW" thing, which teaches that it's okay to generalize a group of people as long as they're not oppressed. So to them, you can't generalize black males specifically because that would be racist, but you can generalize white males because neither whites nor males are oppressed.

It's probably the same question as why are Western atheists always moaning about Christianity.

This reminded me of a blog post though, that took the question more deeply that I would have. It was written shortly after hyper-feminist Swedish politicians were seen bowing to Iranian patriarchs wearing veils like good little decorations.



Warning for bad language, and triggery masculinity and dismissive attitudes towards feminism etc etc.
https://bloodyshovel.wordpress.com/2017 ... -feminism/


See, these Swedish middle aged women aren’t feminist in the abstract. They are feminist in their local environment. Which means that there are in a power struggle against their men. Not men in the abstract. But Swedish men. Their husbands, their brothers and their fathers. It is them who they want to spite. And to spite them they adopt “feminism”, i.e. they parrot feminist rhetoric, mostly imported from the USA. And the policies they adopt are tailored to f**k with Swedish men: like taking the snow out of the driveways that women walk, instead of the big roads that their men use to drive to work and transport stuff.

Iranian men just don’t compute in whatever drives these people’s behavior. Even the Muslim men who are slowly invading their country don’t count for much. For all they care they aren’t real people. They’re just some abstraction you read about. Only the people in your Dunbar circle are real. So their “feminism” is about f*****g with the men in their Dunbar circle. Anything else isn’t actually there. It is often said that progressive rhetoric assumes that minorities don’t really have agency. Everything is the fault of white men. Same thing. Progressives are in a power struggle against fellow white people: nobody else matters. “Agency” only exists in so far as progressives find it useful in order to achieve more power for themselves against their Dunbar-rivals.

And so when a Swedish prime minister goes to Iran, she puts the veil. Not because she’s not a feminist: but because her feminism is an immediate concern, not an abstract principle. Far away from home, out of sight of her husbands, brothers and fathers who they want to spite, they can be themselves, and enjoy being in the company of real men who force them to behave like decent women.

For more info on the "Dunbar circle"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number

Oh, don't get me started on my irritation Western women who believe feminism stops at the Schengen border, or stops at their national border, or even stops in certain postcodes of the city where they live. But in this case, I'm thinking this is:
1. diplomacy
2. when in Rome...

If the Iranians were meeting in Stockholm and the women were doing this, then we would have a more obvious problem.

I think what puzzles me more than anything - there will always be a really loud vocal minority in any sort of movement politics who makes most sane members of that movement or even people who agree with the fundamental values of that movement weep. Somehow it seems like our legal system and media has been siphoning up their BS like it's an alcoholic beverage and the degree to which certain sectors of academia have been all hands on deck for it have been utterly bizarre, and it's part of how Jordan Peterson's claim that there's a fusion of postmodern, intersectional politics, and cultural marxism at the core of this really doesn't from the outside at least seem that strange at all - it might offend some people a lot, particularly people who'd agree with that line of reasoning, but that doesn't necessarily invalidate the claim although it very likely could be that there's no more a deliberate conspiracy here than the simple impact of a secular/political religion.

Whether it really is proponents of cultural marxism hoping to melt society down to chaos in order to rebuild it in the image of the perfect 'equality of outcome' system or not it seems like a lot of people have been trying to pull movement politics out in this direction. Some people suggest that government loves civil unrest and discord because government has all of the instincts of an international holdings company to grow, make more money, and anywhere that government can inject itself as the solution to a problem is something like Walmart or McDonalds injecting itself into new markets. To that extent Antifa, Alt-Right, and all of that is great stuff - ie. the more riots and unrest the more government solutions that can be offered. I'm sure that's something to watch for, there are claims that the government quite directly sits down with the news agencies and makes coverage recommendations but to what extent, which topics, and which stories and whether progressive, conservative, or both kinds of spin isn't always clear.

The problem with unsubstantiated categories is it's real easy for a person to dive off the deep end and believe almost anything, so it's probably best to look at the bits and pieces of evidence and try to see what they're doing and why rather than suggest an active and coherent will in the trends themselves.

It is because the SJW/regresssive left types have hijacked feminism in the same way they have hijacked the progressive movement as a whole.

I blame jackasses,and they come in all colors.

The impression I get with these people is that they feel that anybody who isn't a white, straight, cis-gender Christian male with no disabilities should be above the law and above criticism.

I’m a feminist who blames humanity in general.

This one (well, former) doesn't.

I've noticed that a lot of the newer 'coming out conservative' sorts seem like they're half serious half trolling, and I can't tell if it's because they saw it work for Milo or if it's just part of the Kekistani state of mind.

Also as far as being combative - it doesn't seem like Laura Ingraham or Ann Coulter are much less so and her posturing doesn't seem all that new even for this gen of conservative women. You could sit her down with Laura Southern, Faith Goldy, Blaire White, or Lana Lokteff from Red Ice and she'd fit right in. Rather than being neocons the new brand seems more libertarian, sometimes ethno-nationalist, but their conservatism seems far more practical than religious in its implications.

My only concern when i see someone laying it on that thick or fishing for laughs so often (Candice Owen also comes to mind) I get concerned that they are taking their meteoric intensity with a high-interest loan against either sincerity or self-knowledge. I think in Daisy's case from what I can tell she's been wrapped in left-wing friends and teachers most of her life so she's got a lot of steam to vent.