Reexamining Who is Doing the Oppressing

If you ask a teenage boy (especially a white one) who has authority over them, you’ll probably hear:

  • Parents (incl. lots of single moms)

  • Teachers (overwhelmingly women)

  • School principals (majority women in elementary)

And if they get in trouble, the next step up the ladder is social workers, who are overwhelmingly women. It’s only when problems get really bad that men are likely finally to show up, in the form of the police. By then, it’s too late.

You can talk all you want about male Fortune 500 CEOs and Supreme Court justices all you want, but it comes across as obfuscatory high theory when the person bringing the hammer down on you is almost always female. It’s a little thing called lived experience and it’s quite immune to high theory. Women in positions of authority over boys telling those boys they [the women in positions of authority] are the victims of oppression is a hard sell.

I suppose this is intended to be ironic? Boys don't think of themselves as oppressors because they aren't oppressors. The men who hold power are other men, not them. They have been raised their whole life, and if I was being uncharitable I would say indoctrinated into a perverse ideology, to believe that class groups are meaningless, and the only thing that matters, the only thing they will ever be evaluated on, is themselves as an individual. So then someone comes along and calls them an oppressor, they think "what, lil' old me?", because they imagine the person is evaluating them as an individual. And then the person explains that in fact they're referring to the class of all men, from which they will benefit. But these boys think that, even if today things are unfair, there's a fundamental equality that lies at the bottom of the pond. And by the time they grow old enough to seize their share of the world, everything will finally be equal (queue harrison bergeron), and so they won't derive any benefit from the patriarchy at all.

And then you get into the perverse sorts of "inequalities" that boys (men) will be the winner of. We say that there is a pay gap, that women are paid less, and we find in large part this is because the people cutting cheques think the women are going to leave in a few years to go have babies, and giving them bonuses now is a waste of money. Now we can recognize that this is unfair, and unequal, and a symbol of oppression, and so forth. But analyse how men "benefit" from it: they get to work longer hours, without being able to meaningfully raise their children, in order to make enough money to fund their wives' early retirements! So it hardly feels like they're making a bank robbery of this deal. And most of the inequalities a man expects to face take this form: yes you'll do better on paper, but you'll be expected to do better, so merely doing better will never be enough, you'll have to do even better still.

Then we have the tycoons, the politicians, the playboys, who can schmooze about taking whatever they want, saying anything to anyone, whatever, and these are all men, and these don't seem to be faustian bargains at all. But these are strictly reserved for a very small class of men, a class that most boys will never join. So you can point to them as symbols of oppression all you like, say its her turn because we've had enough Harvey Weinsteins, but you will win very few hearts and minds in this way.

As a result, men dominate jobs like CEO but also the ranks of criminals and NEET shut-ins.

Classic GMVH. Don't think we need such a complex psycho-social explanation for it.