No announcement yet.

The Left Wing Feminist/LGBT Alliance -

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Left Wing Feminist/LGBT Alliance -

    Hey, I started working on a theory about politics for my Political Science course at Uni on the topic of the Same-Sex Marriage in Australia (a hot-button issue here right now).

    I really wanted to explore the question of why the LGBT rights movement is so aligned with Feminism and is oriented in Left Wing politics. It's been really interesting to think about and delve into. The more I look into things the more I'm shocked at how Feminism has managed to sink it's hooks so deep into so many gay men and has figured out how to turn them against MRAs like they used to do with me.

    Here's what I got started with. I'm not gonna reference anything here because it will take too much time, but I have everything in endnote so in case anyone wants to know where I'm getting my information let me know and I'll link it.

    Recent developments in the political landscape and changing cultural attitudes suggest that gay men are unsurprisingly at odds with Feminism, a political ideology essentially defined by social theories that negatively characterise men and masculinity. Despite this, campaigns for LGBT and Women’s rights have long worked in alignment with one another, assuming an underlying interdependence between gay men and Feminism that warrants clarification. This is possible by exploring the historical changes in cultural attitudes towards marriage, which highlights the incentives of the the LGBT and Feminist movements' motivations in working towards the common goal of women's livelihood independent from marriage for gay men's liberation from fulfilling the male gender role of providing for women in marriage. With this alliance, Feminism has overtly extend political support to gay men in areas such as Same-Sex Marriage, however, Feminist groups and institutions covertly act against the interests of gay men by neglecting the issues relating to their masculinity and male gender. This is well reflected in the relevant debate on the Safe Schools Program – a focal point of the debate on SSM - which overtly claims to assist against the bullying of gay male students but which covertly contains Feminist ideological material of great concern to proponents of boys’ education, which they argue will further influence the alarming rates of male failure in education.

    If it had to be a choice between the two, randomly arranging the labels of Feminism and Men's Right Activism would mean there would be a 50/50 chance that either one of the two diametrically opposed ideologies would have wound up attached to the LGBT movement. Despite gay men being arguably the most visible amongst the LGBT community, how then did every Western country end up with LGBT and Feminism being politically aligned with one another? Queer protestors aggressively demonstrating against the Red Pill documentary screenings on Australian university campuses make clear the movement for women’s rights is more aligned with the LGBT movement than the men’s rights movement. While the protests against the Red Pill were more aggressive than any other country, the Queer involvement in the demonstration against MRAs was not an isolated occurrence. In fact, Red Pill film itself contains footage of Queer protesters in Canada demonstrating against an MRA with chants incredibly similar to those of the Usyd Queer/Feminist protestors. So, while outside of the lecture hall one would’ve heard the angry chants of protestors outside with megaphones screaming – “Racist, sexist, anti-queer! Bigots are not welcome here!” – within the lecture hall, viewers of the film were watching footage of Canadian protestors screaming – “MRAs, go away! Racist, sexist, anti-gay!”. While the relevant Men’s Rights Group would obviously interpret the definition of sexism differently, they do not fit the descriptions of racists or anti-gay/queer. Had the Queer protestors in Sydney watched the film instead of protesting it, they would’ve witnessed a speaker at the Canadian Men’s Rights Rally saying “It doesn’t matter what their ethnicity is. It doesn’t matter what their religious or non-religious views are. It does not matter if they are gay or straight. Men and boys are in crisis… they need your help and support”.

    The growing appeal of the Men’s Rights Movement on universities can be reasonably attributed to animosity towards the increasing levels of male-dropouts in education, particularly in Universities, where women outnumber men even amongst STEM graduates (in NSW Australia). While attractive to heterosexual men, Feminist studies hold strong influence over university curricula, and since Feminist Queer theories frequently reference sexuality, it is unsurprising that gay men in academic circles are strongly motivated by Feminism against MRAs rather than acknowledging their gender's fading presence on University campuses. The relatively lower-class issues of drug dependency and HIV/hepatitis transmission suffered more by gay men than possibly any other demographic of the LGBT community would also tend to insulate the considerably middle-class academic circles from their concern. This explains the tendency of gay male students on University to assume the Feminist narrative that their concerns as men rank below women’s. The Feminist narrative of the oft-recited gender wage-gap demonstrably does not apply to gay men and lesbian women - studies showing they earn similar, with gay men earning on average less than straight men and lesbians more than straight women - but this is not common knowledge. This mentality of gay male privilege is reflected well by the recent events of an LGBT student union in the UK recommending gay men 'step down as representatives', argued as 'not facing oppression' and hence 'not requiring representation'.
    The influence of these academic circles has filtered down into journalistic work catered towards similarly middle-class, tertiary-educated readership and has spurred the creation of a cultural taboo against masculinity amongst gay men themselves. Increasingly within gay news media over the past ten years there have been articles decrying gay male misogyny as well as articles chastising gay men for advertising masculine dating preferences. This represents that probably for the first time ever in the history of gay communities it has become culturally unacceptable for openly gay men to admit their attraction to masculine men.

    This imposition of Feminist ideology into the sex lives of gay men ignores the foundational motivations of the Gay Liberation movement - by forcing gay men to appeal to femininity with threats of social ostracism, gay men are obligated to live under the same social norms that historically constituted their oppression: open displays of sexual preferences towards masculinity meant a failure to fulfil the male gender role of protector and provider for a wife in marriage, justifying societal discrimination.
    This goes against the initial incentive of gay male support for Feminism and undermines the alliance with LGBT politics. The surfacing of the Women’s Liberation movement in the 1970s made a fitting partner for LGBT rights, since advocacy for women’s livelihood independent from marriage promised the indirect freedom of men from gendered expectations to provide for women. While there is no such obligation for Lesbian women to advocate for the issues of men in exchange for their rights, gay men have been obligated to advocate for women's rights in exchange for theirs. While punishments for gay men have been objectively harsher in terms of capital punishment, they have also exchanged their rights under greater force.
    This was how the concept of hegemonic masculinity originated, since it stemmed as an explanation for the violence suffered by gay men at the hands of straight women in a way that fit the patriarchal model, defining gay men as oppressed for their inherent effeminacy and straight men as oppressors for their inherent patriarchal aggression. This crumbles under further exploration, however, since Feminist institutional advocacy in campaigns to stop violence against women frequently cite that the majority of sexual assault victims are female while the perpetrators are majority male. While the vast majority of gay men do not sexually assault straight men, it logically follows from this that just as women are justified in their fears to stop sexual assault by men, straight men are justified in their fears to stop sexual assault by gay men. The Feminist theory of hegemonic masculinity inherently then blames not only straight men, but also gay men on their own masculinity, despite the overwhelming majority of both groups are innocent of sexual violence.
    LGBT lobbies have nonetheless used Feminist ideology to conduct research of violence against gay men as attributable to their gender identity. A research paper conducted within the inner city suburbs of Sydney does not follow this logic. The majority of violence against gay men referenced in the study occurred in public areas renowned as meeting places for gay men to engage in sexual acts with one another, most often inflicted upon older men. Another major group contained violence that occurred between casual partners where there is no information provided about the effeminacy of one compared to the other. Another study conducted in South Australia found that there was no difference in the overall rates of violence suffered by gay men compared to straight men. The LGBT movement has likely in these cases merely leveraged their alliance with Feminist movements and adopted their social theories in their agenda to advance the rights of gay men at the expense of demonising heterosexual men.
    While this may seem extraordinary, the same is evident in the arguments posed by the LGBT rights lobby in their campaign for Same-Sex marriage in reference to cited research about high rates of LGBT suicide. There is no conclusive evidence that Lesbian and gays commit suicide at higher rates than heterosexuals, as sexuality is not mentioned on death certificates. The research that has been provided points to higher rates of suicide attempts amongst gay men. An analysis of the broader heterosexual demographics means that this information does not even logically follow as evidence of oppression of gay men, which the LGBT movement argues as a reason to allow Same-Sex marriage. The heterosexual female attempt rate of suicide is significantly higher than that heterosexual male rate of completed suicides. With this line of reasoning, stopping suicide attempts rather than completed suicides is the main priority, despite stopping actual deaths from suicide is objectively more important than stopping attempted suicides. The high LGBT attempt rate might mean that their rates of completed suicide is actually lower than the heterosexual population, but it seems far more likely that areas of higher socioeconomic status are generally more tolerant to LGBT people, meaning that the sample sizes more often included lesbians and gays from wealthier backgrounds with better access to mental health resources.

    Regarding the contemporary debates on Same-Sex Marriage in Australia, the concerns for the well-being of children have been the focus not just of the LGBT lobby, but also the Christian Right who stand in stark opposition to Same-Sex Marriage. While the Christian rights concerns for children and the traditional family structure are rooted in religious ideology, other proponents for the traditional family structure are also Men's Rights activists, who campaign for the rights of Father custody. The debate of the most ideal family structure to raise a child is an incredibly contentious topic when it comes to this area, as it lies deep at the heart of both MRAs and the LGBT movement. Australian studies suggest that same-sex parent households perform just as well as male-female parent households, but convincing research has also been cited by MRAs that parenting without a father results in poor outcomes for the child. Insofar as this is concerned, it would seem that further research is needed to resolve this debate. Nonetheless, Feminists are in no position to leverage their influence with the LGBT movement on this matter, especially considering Feminist input on the Personal Safety Survey undertaken by the Australian Bureau of Statistics which argued that the majority of child abuse as perpetrated by mothers is the result of societies' unreasonable expectations on women that hyper-focusses on their neglect of children. Given that Feminist organisations have been equally at odds with MRAs regarding child custody debates, and the validity of the concern for Father's rights, the LGBT movement has no reason to be at odds with Men's rights on these grounds.
    The second area in which MRAs and the LGBT movement have been unnecessarily pitted against one another is on the debate of the Safe Schools Program. The educational program was designed as an anti-bullying initiative to assist LGBT students by the Australian Coalition for Safe Schools. The Safe Schools program has been criticised by MRAs for providing a poor educational model for boys in education, who have been failing and falling behind in education since the 1990s. An analysis of the Rights, Resilience and Respectful Relationships teaching manual for the Safe Schools program reveals these concerns to be founded. The manual uses misinformed, unsubstantiated and misquoted sources from Feminist institutions, including gross misrepresentations of the ABS statistics Personal Safety Survey of 2013 regarding rates of violence against women. Within the evidence base of the teaching manual is the claim is made that violence against women stems from disparities of equality between men and women. This same reference was lampooned by senator David Leyonhjelm in public questioning to the executives of the campaign for stopping violence against women and revealed as misquoting a World Health Organisation report and depending on an unpublished survey conducted by Victoria Health.
    With the politicisation of young people touted as a concern amongst the proponents of Same-Sex marriage, it should be to them of equal concern that young people may be negatively impacted by Feminist interference of gay boys' education as well as unsubstantiated characterisations of lesbian and gay teens as excessively suicidal and mentally unstable. There is every bit as much of a reason to assume that the research cited in the SBS advert supporting Same-Sex marriage of Suicide attempts of lesbian and gay teens dropping following other countries passing it into law was due to fewer kids being driven to mental instability and trips to the psychologist from absorbing agenda-driven messages in the media that misleadingly refer to them as suicidal. Even if it is true that Safe Schools assists in the mental stability of LGBT youth, it does not justify peddling gender theories that all experts on the state of boys of education say will only make their situation even worse than it already is. What good is helping gay boys in education at the expense of straight boys? Since academics are already leading the charge against gay male privilege in Universities, gay men have no reason to assume that supporting Feminist infiltration of the school system under the banner of LGBT rights will ultimately benefit them in any way.

    While undoubtedly much of this is not common knowledge amongst gay men in University, simple ignorance of these facts is not the only motivating factor that so boldly animates gay feminist men to incite such vitriolic attacks against MRAs. This neglects the underpinning Leftist political motives of LGBT and Feminist activism. This can be noticed within the University of Sydney's Queer Collective, which is headed by a self-described Communist and whose group Facebook page posts memes with Hammers and Sickles. Indeed, Marxism is a common theme amongst LGBT and Feminist activism on campus, and the Socialist Alternative has actively campaigned on campus to encourage a 'yes' vote in the Australian Same-Sex Marriage plebiscite.
    Why should any demographic of people be so inclined to fall specifically onto one side of the political spectrum? This is answered by revisiting the above-mentioned references to changing gender roles throughout history - while gay men are no longer are no longer obligated to protect and provide for women directly through marriage, they have been indirectly obligated to provide and protect women through surrogacy by supporting Feminism. The Left wing, LGBT/Feminist political alliance has in effect developed a method of liberating gay men from supporting women directly through marriage by instead providing a way for them to provide for women through surrogate support of Feminism. This development oriented itself in Left-Wing politics since it is mediated through the state – e.g. for women in welfare for single mothers, public health access to birth control, affirmative action policies; for gay men in civil unions, subsidised HIV medication and workplace anti-discrimination laws – and therefore enhanced state authority, predominately advocated by Left wing politics and opposed by the Right. The blending of Feminism with Marxist class theories incentivises gay men to fight in a righteous class-struggle, taking advantage of prejudices between gay and straight men - straight men who are afraid of sexual harassment from gay men, and gay men who fear retaliatory abuse for expressing their natural sexual orientation for men.
    Feminism has insidiously neglected these issues to the detriment of both gay and straight men. It has written off heterosexual retaliation as inherent masculine aggression and shaming masculinity while simultaneously denied gay men the opportunity to understand and grow from fears of sexual rejection. Feminism has touted flexibility in gender expression using the rainbow flag while hypocritically shaming natural desires to express attraction to and identify with masculinity within the LGBT community, causing auto-cannibalism within the gay community and a hierarchy that places the concerns of transgendered men below transgendered women. While there is no hope of it any time soon, the quicker Gay men decide en-masse to escape the stranglehold of Feminisms and put their differences aside with the Men's Rights movement the better.
    Last edited by Cam_Schwz; 09-09-2017, 07:31 PM.

  • #2
    A well written exploration. You've explored well, the divisive and demonising tactics of feminists. They spread hatred wherever they can. Straight men don't have a universal bad attitude towards gay men, as has been pushed. Straight men have always been pushed and expected to show interest in and appreciation of women, if they don't women soon start spreading rumours about them. I've had this myself more than once, for reasons of shyness, plain old shitty experiences and simply because I don't want to I choose not to fawn over women. That has led more than once to rumours being spread about my sexuality and that was solely by women. Men never gave a hoot. When you think about the effect and what was done, three things, women are doing that for their own self indulgent reason because they don't approve of a male's behaviour when he doesn't put them on a pedestal, it's not been done to show acceptance of homosexual men they are not judging because of any behaviour towards a man but behaviour towards them and lastly they are using being gay as a negative and social put down whilst creating a situation where a straight male has to deny being gay - which lets face it a lot of guys in the past don't do that very well. But as you've explored there is a lot of manipulation and setting people up going on.
    "...especially when it comes to communication, it can be observed, if it is not a negotiation it's a war."
    Originally posted by menrppl2
    Can't live with em, life is great without them.