Earlier today I commented on a post Brownfemipower made as a response to the criticism Daran from Creative Destruction presented in his post about the media marginalization of violence against the men, specifically the men of Beit Hanoun.
While much can be said about Brownfemipower’s comments, one thing stands out more than anything else: she dodged (and therein perpetuated) the issue of the marginalization of males by changing the subject. I wish I could say this was a one-time incident, but the same thing was done by Dharmaserf on Daran’s post. Instead of addressing the presented issues and giving it the same consideration any other issue would be given, a host of unrelated tangents were brought up.
Yes, several comments made by Brownfemipowert about white soldiers were egregious and racist. As a culture and society, if we honestly want to stop racism then we have to condemn comments and philosophies that use whites as scapegoats for any and every social wrong. Any ideology or philosophy that purports whites cannot experience violence, discrimination, marginalization or oppression to the same extent as other racial groups should never be tolerated. That is part of the very foundation of racism.
That said, the real issue is that instead of addressing the misandry within the media and within feminism, it was utterly dodged and unaddressed. Why are feminists so unwilling to specifically address misandry? What is it about the discussing the marginalization of males as a group that makes it an insurmountable obstacle for feminists? Why do they inevitably (attempt to) change the subject?
To a certain extent, when Daran acquiesced to the position that his post failed to acknowledge race as a prominent, if not the, component of this biased treatment, he also conceded that the overall issue of male marginalization, which affects all males, is inherently less important than any other issue. But if this is what the proper response should be, this notion that one should ignore the larger issue/issues that affect an entire group of society and rather focus a smaller subset of that group, then what is the point of bringing up the issue at all? Why call it marginalization or misandry if the “real” problem is racism?
Regardless of what role, if any, race plays in the media’s coverage of violence, the fact remains that when the victims are male, the media coverage “exemplif[ies] incidentalisation and displacement which, together with exclusion are the three strategies commonly used in the media to marginalise and conceal the gender-selective victimisation of men.”
That is the point.
It should not be overlooked, disregarded or dodged because it makes people uncomfortable. It should make you feel uncomfortable. It should make you feel disgusted and outraged in the same way you would be if this were done to women or minorities or gays or any other group. It should never be acceptable and should never being minimized or ignored.
And just like every other issue in our society, it cannot be solved if we fail to address it head-on and without animus. These victims deserve to have violence done to them discussed for the reasons why it was done: because they were male. To do anything less, to change the subject, is to commit the very sexism, racism and bias that so many of us abhor.
