This is a continuation of Part 3, looking at an opinion piece published by the NYT.
White Women, Come Get Your People
In Part 3 I highlighted how, according to the author of the article, the "problem" the author sees is both a race issue and gender issue. It is a race and gender issue in that white women are trading "basic rights" for "mutual benefit" and being "cherished and revered" by white men, and that's a bad thing because it interferes with the political goals of colored women who want to dress slutty and vote for Democrats who will take money away from white men to give to everyone instead of letting white women "monopolize resources" of those white men.
I also noted that, while appearing to be about "white women", the article is also revealing much more about the author herself, in that the motivations for her castigation of white women has a lot less to do with "colored women" and a lot more to do with the specific life circumstances of the author herself. This is seen in how things which are normal and healthy in a family dynamic are painted as being indicators of something wrong.
Before I continue, I want to cite a verse that is pertinent:
Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness;Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! - Isaiah 5:20 (NKJV)
It is not innocent when things that are "good" are called "evil".
Let's continue with the article.
This elevated position over women of color comes at a cost, though. Consider what Kellyanne Conway, a top adviser to the president, said at a dinner last year for New York’s Conservative Party. She suggested that higher birthrates are “how I think we fight these demographic wars moving forward.” The war, of course, is with non-white people. So it seems that white women are expected to support the patriarchy by marrying within their racial group, reproducing whiteness and even minimizing violence against their own bodies.
So here we have a formal identification of at least some sort of conflict with "sides", in that we've got a bit more of a definition to "patriarchy". The "Demographic Wars" are fought with reproduction, with those that actually reproduce and whose offspring survive to reproduce as well and so on and so forth, will be the one that "wins" these "Demographic Wars".
That's called "basic survival", by the way. The author is literally trying to make basic survival of white people into some sort of oppressive act on everyone else in the world. The dynamic of natural selection is now being accredited to "white men", or at least "the patriarchy", as something they're responsible for putting into place and sustaining, to the detriment of all non-whites.
Well, if you take the gendered labels for God into account, that doesn't sound quite so crazy, does it? If God were masculine, and God set things in a particular order, and you think there's something wrong with that order, and you aren't masculine, would it be a surprise that masculinity would then become "toxic" to your efforts to undermine the current order and put a new one in its place?
But let's step down from the supernatural narrative though, take the fancy language out of this, and just look at the basics. A woman is upset at other women for having babies and protecting themselves from danger with men who are of the same skin color.
Put any other race into the mix, and nobody bats an eye. But when it's "white people"?
Saying things like "white people should be able to exist and their children not live in fear" is considered supremacist, if you didn't know.
Seriously. I just re-worded the "14 Words" that supposedly only white supremacists dare recite, which are:
We must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children.
That's the state of modern "white supremacy", the most terrible form of racism that exists in the world. Existing and having white children, and wanting your white children to have a future, means you're a white supremacist. That's the "Demographic War". That white people, who do not constitute a majority of the world population, want to exist and have children, and so white women are betraying colored women in this "Demographic War" by marrying white men, monopolizing resources, and having white babies.
Because, you know, women are supposed to stick up for other women before their own interests otherwise they might get kicked out of the group and have to eat their lunch somewhere else.
Welcome to the front lines of a cold war few had idea they were always a part of. A war that the author of the article is losing, by the way, because she has no partner to help her bear children. So, instead of trying to find one, she'll instead try to discourage white women from "fighting" in the "Demographic War" to begin with, by making the existence and having children that look like you "supremacist", and subsequently, "evil".
We'll see what other methods the author thinks can work to upset the "supply lines" in Part 5.
No comments:
Post a Comment