Does the left hate women?
Jerry Coyne notes that blind spot on the putative left:
The decision of LGBTQ people and feminists to support Muslim societies—societies where they’d never want to live, for many of them would be killed because of their sexual orientation—is an example of MacPherson’s Law, confected by one of our readers. According to Diana, if progressives must choose between conflicting causes to support, and one of them is women’s rights, the women’s rights lose. (By “causes”, I mean “supporting a group deemed to be oppressed.”) I’ll add a corollary: if progressives have to choose between two conflicting causes, and one of them is LGBTQ rights, those rights also lose.
Diana is not wrong. Another label for it could be The Karen Principle. Whenever there’s a conflict, shazam, women become Karens.
For this reason I don’t agree with Jerry’s corollary. Purported “LGBTQ” rights are constantly canceling women’s rights, especially, of course, the T (and whatever the Q may be). Women’s rights never cancel any T rights but T rights always cancel women’s rights.
The Karen Principle features prominently in Does God Hate Women? Many on the left see Islam and [male] Muslims as in every way and every sense the downtrodden persecuted minority, and foam at the mouth if anyone points out that Islam treats women like shit.
The left used to regard Jews as oppressed (and yes they were, historically); but along comes the woke version of leftism and suddenly the Jews are no longer oppressed. There’s a new set of cool kids in town, the Muslims. And now the Muslims are the oppressed ones, relegating Jews to “white” status.
The left used to regard women as oppressed (and yes they were, historically); but along comes the woke version of leftism and suddenly women are no longer oppressed. There’s a new set of cool kids in town, the trans people. And now the trans people are the oppressed ones, relegating women to “Karen” status.
His corollary maybe should have been “in any conflicts between rights, L and G always lose to T”. That’s one I could agree with.
Since MacPherson’s Law would be more fundamental than its corollary, in a clash between Women’s rights and Transgender rights, the law predicts that T rights would always win. And since the term “LGBTQ” lumps homosexuality with Genderism, it’s not possible to infer anything about an internal clash using MacPherson’s law.
If even LGBTQ groups are willing to overlook a regime’s well known commitment to murdering gay people in favor of throwing their support behind it because it’s being “oppressed by white colonialists” or whatever, then that may be the corollary in action.
The teaching of the hatred of women is such an intrinsic part of the social education of many boys, many men are completely unaware that there is an alternative. Given that, I would like to propose an alternative to MacPherson’s Law – let’s call it McPherson’s Law:
It will always be the case that, in any conflict between the desires of men and the needs of women, the women will always lose.
Reverend: Must say this is an excellent summary. No I cannot justify Hamas (which has been renee by Likud just to stir things up). Fervid marches supporting either side seem to forget the terrible history in this sliver of land…this is a case where both siderism is understandable
Rev @ 4 – I wasn’t saying that Palestinians should be repressed or evicted from their homes or shot by settlers or the IDF. In fact I didn’t say anything about Palestinians or Israel at all.
This post is not about Israel and Palestine. Rev’s comment is off-topic and the above is even more so.
In fact they’re so off-topic I’d like to delete them. Me could you copy yours to the Miscellany Room please? Then I’ll delete it. Rev has moved his.
I’m not quite understanding the objection to the corollary.
What I see the corollary as saying is that “LGBTQ” rights take precedence, in the minds of progressives, to any other rights. I know that “LGBTQ” is malformed, but let’s just consider gay rights, which come into conflict with freedom of speech, freedom of association, and freedom of expression. I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that gay rights wins, in the views of progressives, every time.
And of course the “T” wins every time.
Am I missing something (other than the point that the corollary takes the focus off women’s rights)?
The corollary: “if progressives have to choose between two conflicting causes, and one of them is LGBTQ rights, those rights also lose.”
Like what though? Black rights? Workers’ rights? Women’s rights? Indigenous rights? They all trump LGBITQ rights every time? I don’t think that’s the case. Sometimes, but not all the time (except for women’s rights).
Oh wait, maybe I have it backward – maybe he meant the other rights get trumped. I don’t think that’s the case every time either though.
In other words I just think the pattern is more conspicuous and predictable in the case of women. Karenism.
Yes, I think that’s what he meant–I got it backwards at first, too.
He’s very critical of trans flapdoodle, so it’s possible he was thinking “LGBT” as in “who are we kidding, it’s all about the T” as opposed to “LGB.”
That was my interpretation, that “LGBTQ” rights win in a conflict with other rights (in the minds of progressives). I do think it’s a reasonable statement, not always true but mostly. Thanks for the clarification.
I agree that the pattern is more conspicuous and predictable in regard to women’s rights. Infuriatingly so, especially in regard to “T rights”.
@ Tigger #5
Or maybe “McPerson’s Law.” In any conflict between the desires of men and the needs of women, the women always lose. Men are the only real people, the ones who matter. Women are mere ersatz “McPersons,” not real people.
Me: I moved your comment to the Miscellany Room.
Considering we’re talking radical left, I think a lot of it has to do with Antifa, or the philosophy behind Antifa.
Antifa is fundamentally, as an idea, a validation of violence as a form of political expression, as a tactic in political debate.
Now this strain of thought predates Antifa as a formalized idea on the radical left, but it was with Antifa that it formed enough coherency to be properly identified.
So when Islamists launch terror attacks in Western nations – think the Charlie Hebdo massacre for example – that is seen as not just a political statement, but a valid one. The conversation is always shifted to historic “context” with an emphasis on demonizing the victims. There is always the excuse of justified grievances.
Now in less radical spheres, in civil discussion we tend to consider violence an invalidating factor. If you punch somebody because they disagree with you, you’ve ceded the argument, because my ability to thump you doesn’t translate into me being right.
But with this ideology where violence is considered a legitimate means of making a point, those who are more willing to use violence are afforded greater credibility than those who are not. If we allow violence as a response to non-violence, we descend into rule by thuggery.
LGB and women are generally less willing to use violence than the trans community. I think the problem with saying LGBTQ will always lose, is T are prized over the rest of the alphabet soup, because lets face it a baseball bat wrapped in barbed wire isn’t a lesbian symbol.
Atheists and women tend to land at the bottom of the list, women because physiology means that women are at a disadvantage in a fight. The same reasons for the sex divide in sports, means that women trying to defend that divide are at a physical disadvantage. Atheists because of the meme about how religious militants kill, atheist militants write books.
I think a part of this is the psychology that comes from phrasing radical leftwing identity politics as “allyship”. I think the concept of “allies” is fundamentally toxic – men who identify as “feminist allies” aren’t feminists. By definition they are men who see feminism as something that can be exploited to further their own political goals, that is the nature of an alliance.
You don’t have to agree with an ally, you just need to see them as a useful tool.
So who is more useful as an ally if you accept the idea that violence is an appropriate means of arguing political points? A 60-year-old woman, or a 30-year-old male pervert in a dress? Women who are simply stating biological fact, or men who will spend the better part of a decade smearing and sending death threats to a much beloved female author because she said something they didn’t like?
Of course, one needs to bear in mind that the only really successful movement in the left since the rise of Antifa, has been atheists. We’re so wildly successful that when a religious conservative doesn’t like an idea, they proclaim that idea to be a “religion”. Even the people who are pro-religion, phrase being a religion as a problem.
An increased willingness to use violence might help you with the radical left, but I’m not sure it would help you with literally anyone else.
@Ophelia:
I don’t think that Jerry Coyne’s corrollary was all that clear either, but, in context, I think the underlying sentiment is that Muslim identity trumps LGBTQ identity.
That is, the left refuses to criticise Muslims for their lack of acceptance of LGBTQ identities (“Queers for Palestine” is just bizarre), even though any hint of lack of acceptance of LGBTQ people by whites or Jews would be instantly pounced on.
Hence the pecking order is: Muslims >> TQ+ >> LGB >> women >> men**
Diana’s law is that the TQ+ trumps women. Jerry’s corrollary is that Muslim identity trumps the lot.
[**unless they qualify as Muslim or TQ+, of course]
Sackbut #9
I don’t see how you’re able to parse the corollary as saying “LGBTQ” rights take precedence? The phrase “those rights” (i.e. the ones that lose) obviously refers back to something that’s already been mentioned. That “something” can hardly be “two conflicting causes”. The only other potential antecedent I can see (indeed the only “rights” previously mentioned) is “LGBTQ rights”.
Since Coyne is specifically talking about “The decision of LGBTQ people and feminists to support Muslim societies”, the corollary kind of makes sense (or would if not for the forced teaming of LGB and TQ [1]). Nick Cohen has made a similar point about the Western Left’s betrayal of people in Islamist societies (feminists, gay rights activists, secularists, human rights activists etc.) who share their values [2], people who want the same rights and protections that Western liberals and leftists want for themselves, and for the exact same reasons, the very people who should be able to turn to Western lefties for support.
Without doubt, much of the reason for this betrayal goes back to the fear of handing ammunition to the far Right, even by accident. I also think there is a lot of overcompensation, not to mention plain old sloppy, bad thinking going on (e.g. “Racism has something to do with saying negative things about non-white people or their culture, and criticizing the noble tradition of stoning women to death has something to do with saying negative things about the culture of people who happen to be disproportionally non-white, therefore criticizing stoning is racism”). Last but not least the “any enemy of my enemy is my friend [3]” mindset is pervasive and almost impossible to resist for a lot of people. If you have determined that Western imperialism is the only real source of injustice and oppression in the world, it seems to follow that any act of cruelty that cannot be directly blamed on the West cannot be a problem.
1. It’s not at all obvious to me that the interests of Muslims take precedence over the interests of “TQ” in the minds of the woke. E.g. many have pointed out that allowing biological males into women’s changing rooms etc. amounts to a de facto ban on devout Muslim women from those spaces. I don’t see wokesters up in arms complaining about it.
2. What used to be “leftist values” anyway. Identity politics, rooted in postmodernism, explicitly rejects any appeal to common values or universal rights as metanarratives with no justification apart from justifying and upholding the prevailing dominance hierarchies.
3. Or as Cohen puts it “any enemy of the West is better than none”.
Oh, and once again, isn’t it a remarkable coincidence how the groups most deserving of our unconditional sympathy and support always just happen to be the ones who shout loudest, the ones who can assemble the biggest mob (whether online or in meat space), the ones who promise to make our lives Hell (or possibly end it) if we don’t comply?
@Bjarte Foshaug:
Hence why hordes of Western youths on TikTok are praising Osama bin Laden as a prophet for our times, while J. K. Rowling is beyond the pale.
Ophelia’s comment: “This post is not about Israel and Palestine. Rev’s comment is off-topic and the above is even more so.”
The title at the link from Ophelia’s original post: “Western feminists largely ignore gender-based violence (rape and mutilation) inflicted by Hamas on Israeli and foreign women.”
I could take issue with the assertions of Mister Coyne but I can’t be bothered.
Congrats. You’re rid of me. For realsies this time.
Oddly enough the post is not about the title at the link, it’s about what it’s about.
Me @22 I’m sure there will be posts forthcoming about the stupid religious warmongers in the Middle East and their stupid religious practices and stupid ideologies. I don’t see any reason to leave, your comment in reply to Rev is still there at Miscellany #10, #398.
https://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2023/miscellany-room-10/
I agree with Coel that the most logical reading is that he’s saying that the rights of Muslims (or whatever other group) trump the rights of LGBTQ people. In his first sentence he makes a connection between LGBTQ groups and feminists who support Muslim societies, and his corollary is parallel in structure to MacPherson’s law. I think it’s pretty clear that he’s claiming that progressives will sacrifice LGBTQ rights for any other cause.
Bjarte @ 19
I took “those rights” to refer to the the other of the two conflicting causes. I recognize now that it would not be good writing to indicate something that way, and Coyne is a careful writer, but I’m sure I’ve seen constructions like this elsewhere and I am sure I’ve written this way. Thanks for the analysis, it’s helpful. I was wrong.
Also:
That also clarifies. I had lost the beginning of the paragraph by the time I got to the end. Again thanks.
I just wonder at how many people have fun with “Draw a Picture of Muhammad” on Blasphemy Day and then turn around and vociferously defend the practice of Muslim women covering their heads to signify submission as “diversity and inclusion.” I’m still puzzled by the reaction several years ago of observing that the idea of a woman clad in a burkini in the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition seeming to be a double dose of sexism.
1. The swimsuit edition has nothing to do with sports, just a springtime ogle of women in bikinis.
2. A woman in the issue needing to wear a suit that covered her because of her sex.
I don’t get the dichotomy of women who call themselves feminist covering their heads to accept that their naked head appearance is sinful.
[…] a comment by Bruce Gorton on Does the left hate […]