Wednesday, December 02, 2015

We live in a culture that says that it is acceptable for men to "appropriate" the form of women, but not acceptable for whites to "appropriate" the form of minorities.

From First Things:

//In fact, as a culture, we are always policing the boundaries of transformation, and not consistently. While we celebrate Bruce Jenner’s appropriation of the female gender, for example, we’re told to denounce cultural appropriation in other forms. God help the white pop star who adopts dreadlocks, as Miley Cyrus did recently when hosting the MTV Video Music Awards; and don’t even think about posting a picture of yourself on Instagram wearing something that looks Native American or vaguely “ethnic”—you will be reprimanded by real ethnic people proclaiming, “My culture is not a costume.” Even the liberal stalwart Lena Dunham was chided by her young female fans when she jokingly posted a picture of herself online wearing a hijab.

The transgender debate has so far focused on the liberating aspects of embracing a fluid identity. But it is one thing to transcend your class or your place of birth; it is another to say that your own DNA has gotten you wrong. It is one thing to be liberated from the expectations of demanding parents or a rigid faith tradition; it is another to seek liberation in the removal of body parts with which one was born. The fact that this has become an all-but-unacceptable thing to say is a mark of how nightmarish our liberationist cultural confusion has become.//

What does that say about our culture?

Clearly, we live in a culture that wants to set in stone accidental features, like cultural artifacts, but make essential differences, differences that cannot be removed without violence, totally liquid and fungible.

I'm reading The Devil's Pleasure Palace, in which the author observes:

//The attack on normative heterosexuality— led by male homosexuals and lesbians, and invariably disguised as a movement for “rights,” piggybacking on the civil rights movement of the 1960s— is fundamental to the success of Critical Theory, which went straight at the hardest target (and yet, in many ways, the softest) first. The reason was simple: If a wedge could be driven between men and women, if the nuclear family could be cracked, if women could be convinced to fear and hate men, to see them as unnecessary for their happiness or survival— if men could be made biologically redundant— then that political party that had adopted Critical Theory could make single women one of their strongest voting blocs.//

Walsh, Michael (2015-08-11). The Devil's Pleasure Palace: The Cult of Critical Theory and the Subversion of the West (Kindle Locations 1630-1635). Encounter Books. Kindle Edition.

So, permanent ethnic voting blocs - kept at each other's throats by denouncing appropriation - and the dissolving of the bond that unites men and women by denouncing those who might object to such appropriation....all in the name of political power.

Quite a legacy.


1 comment:

Lauran said...

“...The attack on normative heterosexuality— led by male homosexuals and lesbians, and invariably disguised as a movement for “rights,” piggybacking on the civil rights movement of the 1960s...”

Exactly--the opening gambit is always a plea for tolerance while the end game is a bayonet.

 
Who links to me?