The New Society

Before I begin, let me start of by saying this: yes, misandry is real.

However, misandry is not evil.

Confused? You shouldn’t be. Misogyny is the enforcement of patriarchy, designed to plant a foot firmly on the face of women worldwide. Misandry is simply a natural reaction to patriarchy.

Compare it to terrorism. We hate terrorists because they drive fear into the hearts of everyday citizens. We do not want them to accomplish their goal of harming us, nor do we want to be bound by the fear of their violent threats. We have a desire to fight against them because we want to protect ourselves from them, as well as prevent their ideology from spreading.

Think of misandry as a sort of anti-terrorism. Except in this case, the patriarchy are the terrorists.

Would you not hate an abusive person? Is it not reasonable to despise those people who actively harm you? Then why is it that hating men is so condemned? If it’s perfectly normal to have contempt for the people that directly benefit from your oppression, why is misandry seen as the opposite equivalent of misogyny?

Misandry is a necessity in a world where women are made to apologize after a man exploits them.

People don’t seem to understand why we use “it’s 2016″ or “it’s the current year” in our arguments.

It’s the shorthand version of “this is long overdue, why are we just now getting to it?”

It’s the current year. Some of our society’s problems with obvious solutions still haven’t been rectified. No excuse is good enough.

With a title like that, I’ve more than likely made some of the people reading this more than a little bit uncomfortable. I’m sure there are some of you out there right now, thinking, “She’s going to call me a racist, isn’t she? I dare her to try.” Even more of you are likely thinking that no matter what, you couldn’t possibly be a racist. You have black friends, or judge people by the content of their character, or voted for President Obama, or never use racial slurs.

Those of you who are so adamant about ensuring that you are not racists, I have bad news. You’re probably racist.

To dispel the first argument to drip from my critics’ lips—no, not everyone can be a victim of racism. And to dispel the inevitable follow-up argument, racism is not simply “prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination on the basis of race.”

Racism began through conquering certain people groups, and has been facilitated through the enslavement of those groups. Aristotle, the Greek philosopher, referred to non-Greeks as “barbarians,” the equivalent of uncivilized human beings, in order to justify the persecution and enslavement of non-Greek peoples. Of course, throughout the centuries, this idea of the “uncivilized man” would continue to evolve, until it began to describe native Africans. The Tunisian scholar Ibn Khaldun referred to native Africans as “humans who are closer to dumb animals than to rational beings,” justifying the enslavement of their race. “Therefore,” he continues, “the Negro nations are, as a rule, submissive to slavery, because (Negroes) have little that is (essentially) human and possess attribute that are quite similar to those of dumb animals, as we have stated.” Even the term “Negro,” coined by Portuguese traders in 1442, was coined to effectively divide the white Europeans from the black Africans, thus relegating them to the “other.”

This concept of “othering” would be the basis on establishing the concept of race, which is nothing more than an attempt to divide humans based on skin color and common physical traits associated with that color. In all instances, the white European race were seen as having the most desirable skin color and associated traits, establishing their “superiority,” which is the driving force behind racism. Because of the white Europeans establishing themselves at the top of the pyramid centuries ago, the prejudices associated with being “non-white” continue to be perpetuated today. White Europeans effectively colonized a grand majority of the world, bringing their prejudices with them and using them for the purposes of subjugation, as history notes in the transatlantic slave trade, the conquering of Native American tribes, and British Imperial rule over India, Australia, Africa, and the Asian Pacific. Because these practices of subjugation were so effective, no other conquered nation but India has been able to emerge as more than a global Middle Power. The only other non-white Great Powers, China and Japan, benefit from their absence in European colonization and global slave trades, and from the many positive stereotypes attributed to East Asian races. It can also be theorized that the lighter skin tone of East Asians allows for a certain degree of privilege among non-white races, as darker-skinned Asians are more likely to be discriminated against for their race. This is why we use the term “people of color” to define disprivileged races.

What do these effects have to do with racism? Everything. By establishing themselves not only as the “superior” race since the coining of the term, but also effectively preventing the dark-skinned races from attaining global power, white Europeans have firmly established themselves as the privileged class, worldwide. They have not experienced oppression based on the sole status of skin color (anti-Irish prejudice does not count, as their oppression was less about race and more about anti-Catholic and classist practices). They have not had their lands stolen and their people systemically eradicated through genocidal practices. Their nations have never been considered “third-world countries.” Therefore, we can say, without a shadow of a doubt, that the white race is the only one that can claim to be outright privileged.

Because race was established as a system to “other” for the purposes of division and oppression, it is foolish to believe that racism is any more than the result of power and privilege working in tandem. As we’ve established, the white race has seized both, and remains in control of both in our global society. And, because racism has been used through history to justify subjugation and to further cement the white race as “superior,” it is equally foolish to say that anyone but the white race can engage in racism or hold racist views. To clarify, this does not mean that people of color cannot be prejudiced, but that they cannot use such prejudices for the purpose of perpetuating institutional powers in order to subjugate others based on race. In short, racism is power plus privilege.

And now for the bad news: Any white person reading this essay is indeed a racist, no matter how much you wish to deny it.

Allow me to explain. A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by the system that sees the white race as “superior” (a white supremacist system). Because whites worldwide fall into this category, all whites should be considered racists. It is important to note that racism is not a state of mind, nor is it always an individual action. Racism is the result of whites seizing global power over other races, and exploiting that to etch the idea of white supremacy into the minds of other races. Once again, because whites are not and cannot be discriminated against on the sole basis of race, they cannot be victims of racism. “Reverse racism,” or the idea that whites can be victims of individual acts of prejudice on the basis of race, is a term used to deny the fact of white privilege. It is often used out of ignorance of how racism is defined, as well as the misconception that people of color acting out of prejudice against the white race is somehow morally wrong. Though unjustified violent acts and sexual crimes will always be moral wrongs, regardless of who commits the crimes, prejudice against the white race on the sole purpose of race is not a moral wrong, and never will be, for as long as the white race holds worldwide institutional power.

What, then, is a non-racist? This term was created by whites to deny their responsibility and complacency in systemic racism, in order to maintain their innocence in the face of racial oppression, and to shift the responsibility to people of color. This is, in effect, victim-blaming. The responsibility for perpetuating, legitimizing, and benefiting from a racist system lies with those who actively maintain it and those who refuse to challenge it. To remain silent in the face of oppression is to consent to it. Being apathetic to it may as well be the same as vocally supporting it. However, being a vocal anti-racist is not enough to suddenly wipe racism from a white person. So long as the structure stands, whites will always be racist. If white people want to clear themselves of their racism, they must do their part in ensuring that these structures are dismantled completely. Inequality comes in all forms, and in our global society, the challenge is to destroy white supremacy wherever it may stand—even if it means radically transforming the nations that perpetuate it.

However, if you are more concerned with absolving yourself of the label of “racist,” you will never lose that label. Your goal, as a white person, should be the end of racism for the benefit of people of color, not the benefit of yourself. A racist will go out of their way to fight any accusation of racism, all while exhibiting textbook racism. You are not a racist because you treat people equally. You are not a racist because you admire the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. You are not a racist because you support Black Lives Matter. You are a racist because of your heritage and because you refuse to renounce that heritage and dismantle everything it stands for. You cannot (supposedly) hate racism while still loving everything that enables racism and stems from the fact that we live in a white supremacist culture. It’s the equivalent of calling yourself a vegan as long as you didn’t kill the animal, even though it’s perfectly fine for you to load and hand over the gun that did the killing.

“But not all white people,” right? Of course, some people may bear the mark of a racist, but certainly you don’t, right? Consider that by saying such things, you state that reinforcing your own self-image or reputation is of more importance than acknowledging the immorality of white privilege, and the harm faced by its victims, who have their pain flung back in their faces because they should cater to your sensibilities first and foremost. Further, you ignore the possibility that you are enabling such structures of privilege and any responsibility you had in perpetuating it. Even if you were hypothetically innocent of perpetrating racism, you are invalidating the struggles of people of color who have to climb uphill every day just to get to the place you were born at. Do you honestly think things would be better if, when discussing how whites are racist, we pointed to you and said, “You’re the exception, though”?

If you are white, and you are not an active anti-racist, you are a racist. Period.

The Walking Dead introduces another LGBT character, only to kill them off just a few episodes later. So diverse! So progressive!

We are not disposable.

The framers of our the United States Constitution have often been romanticized as some of the wisest men to ever walk the earth. Criticizing the ones who shaped the United States is tantamount to treason. Similarly, the US Constitution is held up as an faultless document—the gold standard of how to run a nation. Within that, the Bill of Rights holds a particular reverence, shaping the very ideas of inalienable rights for Americans. Most important of these rights is the freedom of speech, guaranteed by the First Amendment. “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech,” it reads. Simple and straightforward, the right to free expression is guaranteed.

Consider in recent years that there have been limits imposed on free speech. In the case of Miller v. California, the Supreme Court deemed that obscenities were not considered protected speech. Obscenity, according to the Miller test, is anything that an average person, “applying contemporary community standards,” would find offensive or objectionable. Similarly, speech is not considered protected if it constitutes a reckless or intentional infliction of emotional distress, though the Supreme Court has only extended this to speech against private figures (Hustler v. Falwell prevented it from covering public figures). In Virginia v. Black, it was ruled that speech intended to intimidate, such as cross-burning, is not Constitutionally protected.

The common ground that these rulings stand on is the idea that contemporary community standards define the speech that we do not consider free, as such speech can cause real-world harm. As humans, it is our responsibility to minimize harm wherever possible, and speech is no exception to this rule. Speech can be used to destroy lives, to dehumanize people groups, and to influence others to cause harm. We acknowledge the dangers that certain forms of speech have. Therefore, it is only reasonable that speech that glorifies or otherwise supports standards that are not welcome in our contemporary community should be prohibited.

Unrestricted free speech is not a right, it is a threat. It allows for the spread of ideas that can cause a clear and present danger to others, whether it be individuals or entire groups of people. The Supreme Court has acknowledged as much by restricting speech that seeks to intimidate, “fighting words,” and obscenity. It is important that we recognize that it is not the words that deserve restriction, but the ideas behind them. Our contemporary community has already deemed forms of bigotry such as racism and sexism as unacceptable, and those who exhibit such ideas are rightfully ostracized. However, the ideas remain, and the concept of free expression is to blame for it. Groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, Neo-Nazis, Mens Rights Activists, the Westboro Baptist Church, among others, are given the right to demonstrate, so long as they are “peaceful.” Consider though, that the ideas that these groups espouse have been used in the past to disparage others, and to justify oppression and even murder. It stands to reason that the expression of such ideas, because of the harm they have led to in the past, should neither be considered peaceful, nor should they be remotely protected under any rule of law. Again, because we recognize and accept that these ideas are objectionable in our contemporary community, they should not be expressed, both because of their destructive capabilities and because their expression contributes to their survival. By continuing to say things like “protecting free speech means protecting unpopular ideas,” we allow the spread of bigotry, hatred, and the violence that goes hand-in-hand with them. And by that, we are implicit in the crimes associated with them.

There is a common misconception with the idea of free expression as an absolute right. We must acknowledge that freedom of speech is nothing more than a legal right, and as such, can be subjected to limits. In fact, there is no country in which freedom of speech is an absolute right, being subjected to limitations based on obscenity and incitement to commit crimes. Concordantly, we must recognize that limits must be placed on rights such as the freedom of expression when social values conflict. Some would argue that the government should not exercise such powers, since it would be considered a form of unethical control or outright tyranny. This stands in contrast to the harm principle, coined by John Stuart Mill, author of On Liberty. The harm principle states that, “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.”

As previously detailed, the unrestricted right to free speech will ultimately give safe harbor to harmful ideas, which ultimately lead to harmful actions. Because these exercises of free speech can be linked to physical violence, psychological trauma, and social harm, it is necessary to modify the harm principle into the offense principle, which is as follows: “The purpose for which limitations can rightfully be exercised over the free expression of ideas in a civilized community, against the will of the speaker, is to prevent harm, where the expression of ideas cause more harm than the exercising of such freedom of expression.” Because the easiest way to judge whether or not an idea is harmful is through offensiveness, that is, that it would be considered objectionable to a reasonable person applying contemporary community standards, the nature of the offense principle is necessary to decide what limitations should be placed on speech in order to prevent harm.

Some would challenge that the idea of setting limits on free speech is effectively censorship, and the only way that offensive speech should be countered is with more speech, through the rationale of the marketplace of ideas (the concept that free speech should be treated as free-market capitalism, where inferior or negative ideas and speech will be culled through competition with other ideas and speech). Censorship is widely seen as a negative concept, because of its use to suppress criticism of certain ideas, yet there are forms of censorship that we are perfectly fine with, such as censoring material to protect children, or to prevent slander and libel, or to control obscenity, as has been discussed. Censorship can be used for the sake of good, and the idea that censorship, being “objectively evil,” is always a threat to free speech and individual liberty, is often used to defend harmful ideas and expressions. The thought that these objectionable ideas can only be defeated with “more speech” is also preposterous. To eliminate harmful ideas from our culture permanently, the root cause of the problem (the expression of those ideas) must be eliminated. In this way, we can treat the problem, rather than its symptoms. Yes, if we are to prevent harm, we must advocate for censorship.

We, as a society, have a collective obligation to protect one another from harm. Human security should be considered a basic human right, but is not, because of persistent imbalances of social power. These imbalances give certain societal advantages to specific demographics, called “privileges.” You may have heard of the concepts of white privilege or male privilege, for example. These are in reference to the advantages that people of the white race have over others in Western society, and the similar advantages that men have over women, respectively.

What does this have to do with preventing harm and free speech? Everything, to be fair. Free speech inherently favors the privileged. The people with the most disadvantages are often silenced and spoken over, ultimately devaluing their ideas. Concordantly, ideas that disparage the disprivileged are still allowed, and are defended under the concept of free speech. The imbalance of power through speech is obvious. To defend free speech is to defend oppression.

Many free speech advocates in the United States refer to the Constitution, and how the right to expression without government limitation was the First Amendment to the document, denoting the importance of the free exchange of ideas. Consider that the Constitution is not a faultless document. The Eighteenth Amendment was ratified, and later repealed with the Twenty-first Amendment, showing that we are capable of both recognizing the mistakes that we make in lawmaking, as well as proving that we can repeal constitutional amendments. If we are capable of acknowledging that the current ideals of free speech granted by the First Amendment are both too broad and afford too much power to the privileged class, it stands to reason that we would be capable of repealing the Free Speech Clause and replacing it with a more appropriate substitute that will better prevent harmful ideas from manifesting.

This task will be difficult because of the sacrosanct nature of both the Constitution as a document and its Framers. This idealized version of the Founding Fathers ignores the faults that these men possessed. Most notably, their prejudices towards people of color and women. The Constitution’s idea of “We the People of the United States” only recognizes white men who own property. It does not acknowledge those people of African origin, relegating them to “three fifths of all other Persons” in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3. It does not acknowledge those people of native American origins, as evidenced in the conquering of native territories to establish the what would become the United States. It does not recognize women, nor anyone who does not own property, as these people could not vote, hold political office, or enter into contacts of any sort. We may like to idealize the Constitution and our Founding Fathers as champions of freedom and equity under the law, but the ugly truth is that the United States was founded by the privileged for the privileged, and, as it is our duty as a society to prevent harm, so it is our obligation to tear down the structures that allow harm to be perpetuated.

While this is only a solution for the problem of free speech in the United States, it would not be impossible for other nations to follow suit, or to enact their own censorship policies on their own merit, because this is not an issue that is limited to the United States. Because we now live in a globalized culture, we must acknowledge that our contemporary society must transcend national borders, so that we may establish equality for all humans, worldwide. The elimination of unsafe, undesirable thinking is a necessary step to establishing true justice in our time.