Here’s an article about a Yale MFA student, who decided to “do something” about street harassment. so she took pictures of men and posted them, and then of course, because she’s a Yale art student, someone else – probably someone who knew someone who knew her – thought This Was Important and wrote an article about the the whole thing. Because she’s “objectified” and “oppressed” and “powerless” and “marginalized” like that.
Go look at the article in the link, look at the men she photographed. See any common thread? These are all working class or underclass men. She’s not only a student at a place like Yale, but a Master of Fine Arts student at a place like Yale, someone who is obviously never going to have to actually support herself or even be able to pay off student loans with what she will earn in her chosen field. Wait. Student loans? As if….
But she’s the victim here, she’s the one on the wrong end of the “power differential”. Don’t you see that?
Here is the history of modern feminism in a nutshell. Here is an elite
white women’s movement, starting with the suffrage movement on down to the present day, tarted up as some kind of universalist social justice movement. I’m not a Maoist but… this is someone who needs to be re-educated. Seriously.
There are a couple of cultural tropes at play here:
Women Are Wonderful – There is the inevitable attempt to explain away her behavior, because after all, she must have meant only the best, and after all, that’s what matters, right, her intentions? After all, it’s the thought that matters, right?
So we get:
“The photos are beautiful and captivating—and also difficult to parse (which might be why they are getting so much press—enough that Price’s site is currently down from all of the unexpected traffic). A Jezebel writer praised them for “humanizing” street harassers.”
Oh please. She is “humanizing” them, because after all they need “humanizing”, hate objects for rich
white girls that they are.
“Did Price intend to communicate respect (Here are some photographic subjects worthy of your attention)? Maybe, through her work, she was modeling the kind of sympathetic gaze she wished the men on the street would adopt toward her? Or was she turning the tables by objectifying her catcallers? (Now who is reduced to a visual image?)”
What do you think? More to the point, what do those men think? Do they feel respected?
What do you think.
How dare this kind of man have the temerity to try to get the attention of a fine young
white lady like her? Uggh! Well at least she’s not calling for this kind of thing to be dealt with the way it used to be, so that’s progress, right? Because she’s just that wonderful.
Oh, and Hypoagency – “Women deserve to go out in public without feeling threatened, embarrassed, or constantly on display.”
This is the same old blaming men for women’s feelings. Maybe these women are so ADDICTED to this kind of man-bashing because they don’t understand the concept of “internal locus of control”. Hypoagency on wheels.
See for yourself. Here’s the entire quotation:
“Obviously, some interactions are not only unasked-for but intimidating and wrong. Women deserve to go out in public without feeling threatened, embarrassed, or constantly on display.”
Here’s the blithe equation of her feelings of threat for external, objective, real threat. Of course people are often correct about the existence of actual threat when they feel threatened, but when you are a person whose gender role is based on hypoagency and a timid, trembling, damseling, dainty parody of femininity, then you should “always and everywhere” examine and “interrogate” your fears, because you can’t ever tell if they are real or the product of your gender conditioning unless you do.
“Price, for example, brings up an instance when a man made a lewd gesture at her and she reacted angrily: “I definitely felt that could have led to something dangerous,” she says. But there’s an openness and generosity in her work that to me also demands mulling over.”
Not so much openness and generosity that it demands much mulling over, because it’s all completely beside the point. She is wielding power over these men and them lying about by calling herself the victim. That’s all the mulling that she is going to get.
Schroedinger’s Rapist – The Schroedinger’s Rapist trope is where this kind of Designated Victim thinking leads a person. SYABM happens to have captured a very good example of that.
Designated Victim – In every instance – circumcision, DV, war – whenever a man is victimized the ultimate and only real victim is a woman. Every time. And if you don’t get that, if Miss Privilege Princess can’t browbeat and guilt-trip into accepting that, well, you’re just a misogynist.
Yes they are all just timid, defenseless damsels so whatever they choose to do to a man is completely justified. I think there is a name in the DSM-IV-TR for this kind of thinking.
[Edit–Clarence has indicated that the woman in question has a mixed race heritage. Our apologies for the mistake. We’re going to leave this piece up for further discussion.]
Latest posts by Jim Doyle (see all)
- The Woman Card - May 2, 2016
- Frat boy bachelorettes and the invasion of gay bars - April 15, 2016
- “Not my kid….” - February 22, 2016