I took a gander at Manboobz’ article on “apexuality” and confirmed to myself that doing so was exactly as pointless as I thought it would be.
He essentially restates my argument and calls it “loopy”.
But here’s the thing. Patriarchy theory asserts, fundamentally, that men share a positive identity. Not just that men are in power, but that they share a positive, loving relationship with other men that would result in them benefiting other men with that power.
Where’s the evidence that this is so? If you’re going to assert something as a fundamental fact, you should have some evidence for its existence. And since feminism bills itself as “science” rather then belief, one would assume this evidence is a result of careful study into male identity and what it’s actually based on.
I have yet to see any evidence that male-bodied individuals in power share a positive social identity with male-bodied individuals not in power.
Do they campaign on platforms to benefit the male bodied? Do they promote the issues of the male bodied? Do they do anything other then shaming the male bodied into conforming to sets of behaviour that apexuals find useful?
Hell, you could say the relationship between the male-bodied and the label “man” is akin to the relationship between pigs and the label “pork”.
And as for the commentator who said, sarcastically, “that’s why male politicians are so concerned about trans women.”
Well, you know what they say about homophobes…
Latest posts by Alison Tieman (see all)
- How men’s issues show men’s strength | Negative Sum Game 2 - May 19, 2018
- Youtube’s first sandboxed video; white women get out! – Polecat News 124 - August 29, 2017
- Youtube Censoring Wrongthink – Rant 88 - August 2, 2017