antilla-dean:

I have always found myself annoyed at the “white feminism” argument because it fails to account for the complexities of where race and sex meet. Of course there are white women who will be complicit in the use of male supremacy and who will function–a la Get Out and Trumpettes–to reify male supremacy whether on the left or right.

But white men need to use white women’s reproductive capacity to sustain their supremacy. They literally have to control their vaginas to continue enforcing that power. So to make it impossible for white women to speak that oppression (vaginas are transphobic! Abortion is evil!), again from either the left or right, is important.

This is the real world example of the @daisydeadhead analysis to answer the ongoing “whaaaaa?” of where MRA theory meets white supremacist meets trans theories of male supremacy.

More importantly, behold the reasons why it is so deeply important to MRAs to program women to not fight on this access, the sanctity of their own reproductive liberation.

You have to be able to speak your oppression to end it. That is at odds with what male supremacy is fighting so hard to keep female people from doing.

Women of color have always been seen as reproductive only. Our function is not to continue male supremacy but to make it run smoothly by surrendering our bodies as the ultimate mode of production. Ownership was not a question and worth was not either. We have always know what our fight was. White women have been confused that the ownership of their wombs was somehow romantic.

—————–

White supremacists have, of course, long sought to “protect their women” — that is, all white women — from the sexuality of black men. In the several heydays of the Klan, southern whites lynched literally thousands of black men based on accusations of rape that were often wholly false, intended to punish those who willingly crossed the sexual color line.

Alt-rightists today remain obsessed with “race mixing.” The Daily Stormer, in its troll-ish but completely sincere style, rails against miscegenation in posts with titles like “Exposing the Race-Mixing Agenda” and “Tom Hanks’ Jigaboo Granddaughter Reminds Us Why Race-Mixing Shouldn’t Happen.” With something close to glee, the site regularly mocks “mudsharking” white women who end up brutalized by their black boyfriends.

In a post last year, Daily Stormer editor Andrew Anglin declared that racists like him react with “a lot of anger” to white women who have children with black men “because it’s OUR WOMB — that’s right, it doesn’t belong to her, it belongs to the males in her society — that is being used to produce an enemy soldier.”

As racists like Anglin see it, when white women become sexually involved with black men they are in effect cuckolding all white men. This insecurity about “race cucking” is undoubtedly the main reason alt-right men are so fond of calling other men “cucks” — a handy way to project their own anxieties onto others.

Anglin assures his readers that the anger they feel about “race mixing” is perfectly natural. “[W]hen you see women with non-Whites, it’s a biological response that you’re having,” he writes. “Women’s eggs are infinitely more valuable than men’s sperm. So there is an inborn drive in men to constantly protect women. And when you see them with non-Whites, you immediately respond negatively.”

Tellingly, Anglin feels no such anger about white men in relationships with black women. While “gross” and wrong, he explains, this “weird fetish … doesn’t trigger the same visceral reaction when you see it, because in terms of the survival of the race, it doesn’t make any difference.”

It seems fairly clear that the relative values of eggs and sperm have little to do with Anglin’s reaction. Black men dating white women trigger his sexual insecurities; white men dating black women don’t.

Be very clear.

antilla-dean:

I have always found myself annoyed at the “white feminism” argument because it fails to account for the complexities of where race and sex meet. Of course there are white women who will be complicit in the use of male supremacy and who will function–a la Get Out and Trumpettes–to reify male supremacy whether on the left or right.

But white men need to use white women’s reproductive capacity to sustain their supremacy. They literally have to control their vaginas to continue enforcing that power. So to make it impossible for white women to speak that oppression (vaginas are transphobic! Abortion is evil!), again from either the left or right, is important.

This is the real world example of the @daisydeadhead analysis to answer the ongoing “whaaaaa?” of where MRA theory meets white supremacist meets trans theories of male supremacy.

More importantly, behold the reasons why it is so deeply important to MRAs to program women to not fight on this access, the sanctity of their own reproductive liberation.

You have to be able to speak your oppression to end it. That is at odds with what male supremacy is fighting so hard to keep female people from doing.

Women of color have always been seen as reproductive only. Our function is not to continue male supremacy but to make it run smoothly by surrendering our bodies as the ultimate mode of production. Ownership was not a question and worth was not either. We have always know what our fight was. White women have been confused that the ownership of their wombs was somehow romantic.

—————–

White supremacists have, of course, long sought to “protect their women” — that is, all white women — from the sexuality of black men. In the several heydays of the Klan, southern whites lynched literally thousands of black men based on accusations of rape that were often wholly false, intended to punish those who willingly crossed the sexual color line.

Alt-rightists today remain obsessed with “race mixing.” The Daily Stormer, in its troll-ish but completely sincere style, rails against miscegenation in posts with titles like “Exposing the Race-Mixing Agenda” and “Tom Hanks’ Jigaboo Granddaughter Reminds Us Why Race-Mixing Shouldn’t Happen.” With something close to glee, the site regularly mocks “mudsharking” white women who end up brutalized by their black boyfriends.

In a post last year, Daily Stormer editor Andrew Anglin declared that racists like him react with “a lot of anger” to white women who have children with black men “because it’s OUR WOMB — that’s right, it doesn’t belong to her, it belongs to the males in her society — that is being used to produce an enemy soldier.”

As racists like Anglin see it, when white women become sexually involved with black men they are in effect cuckolding all white men. This insecurity about “race cucking” is undoubtedly the main reason alt-right men are so fond of calling other men “cucks” — a handy way to project their own anxieties onto others.

Anglin assures his readers that the anger they feel about “race mixing” is perfectly natural. “[W]hen you see women with non-Whites, it’s a biological response that you’re having,” he writes. “Women’s eggs are infinitely more valuable than men’s sperm. So there is an inborn drive in men to constantly protect women. And when you see them with non-Whites, you immediately respond negatively.”

Tellingly, Anglin feels no such anger about white men in relationships with black women. While “gross” and wrong, he explains, this “weird fetish … doesn’t trigger the same visceral reaction when you see it, because in terms of the survival of the race, it doesn’t make any difference.”

It seems fairly clear that the relative values of eggs and sperm have little to do with Anglin’s reaction. Black men dating white women trigger his sexual insecurities; white men dating black women don’t.

Be very clear.