Third-wave feminism is plagued by the Marxist belief in the false consciousness. That is that the proletariat would agree with the socialist intellectuals if only the elites had not brainwashed them. Therefore, it is the charge of the “vangaurd”, the socialist elites to unveil that brainwashing. The idea of the false consciousness has sometimes had a dark history, especially when Franz Fanon believed in it and he believed that killing civilian settlers would serve as a therapy of sorts to break the colonized mindset of colonial subjects. I’d prefer peace, if possible, but targeting middle-class settlers as if they were the occupying military or anyone with power is ethnic cleansing and genocide.
I agree with most of third-wave feminism and consider myself a member despite some disagreements with the third-wave consensus. Yet, I am honest enough to admit that most women are not third-wave feminists nor do they want to be. Marylin Monroe, or anyone else who made their money with their body, may complain about creeps and the less savory species of men, that is as far as their feminism extends and that stands to reason. If plus-sized models enter the industry in any great numbers, the supply of models goes up, the relative demand of individual models goes down, and thus the genetically predisposed to be gorgeous loss net worth.
Domestic work may be degrading but wage labor is no less degrading and a wealthy 1950s housewife with domestics at her beck and call would rather be a Stepford Wife. While most slaves yearned for emancipation, the Janisaries likely never did. Now, I am a utilitarian to a degree but Janisarry or not, the status of being property is an afront to human dignity and it doesn’t matter if they want to be free, they should be. I am not, however, going to pretend the janisarries want to be free since their freedom would likely be a massive reduction in status and wealth.
Third-wave feminists need to realize that they are not fighting the patriarchy but also every class of woman whose interests don’t align with their ideology. Models are not oppressed by men as much they are paid by them and it is in their interest to keep their relative value high by keeping their metaphorical club exclusive. In the “teenage girl” movement, it is not creepy guys who are the girls’ primary problem, it is other girls. It is the metonymic Regina George. The boys may be the commodity and source of capital, they are almost immaterial to the politics. It is the capitalists who win the game who are most interested in keeping the social order oppressive.
The world of men is not mostly oppressing women, it is a balkanized diaspora of subcultures who share almost nothing in common with one another. My demographic, a heteroromantic asexual on the autism spectrum and with an oxytocin defecit, are beta males who watch the dating scene and the sex lives of others as spectators who are resentful and confused when we are grouped with the masculine sexuals with whom we share almost nothing in terms of personality, values, or lifestyles.
If a Reviving Ophelia-esque feminist, paleo-esque shotgun daddy, or a similiar or analgous figure approaches me with their perspective of me with relation to a woman (this has happened a few times), my sentiment is “Why are you wasting your fucking venom on my arid and virginal ass? Aren’t there, like, masculine and real men you should be hunting? I am technically a ‘boy’ but I am not the type of ‘boy’ any girl would deign be sexually associated with. I’m going to die without having had my first kiss or having ever been on or asked for a romantic date and it would seem that is your fantasy teleology for all males. If it is your teleology for me since I am male then I am happy to satisfy it!”
It is curious that a feckless, beta-male, who has never been on or asked a girl on a romantic date such as myself has been the target of such venom but the fact that I have does betray the lack of accuracy and the inexactness of much of the rhetoric surrounding gender dynamics. The people who do this live in a paradigm where men are a monolith and the great portion of men who have little to no masculinity, such as myself, don’t exist. And they don’t have a teleology for human eudemonia, only safety. The point is that those activists and people are not focussing on what is actually oppressing women but on inaccurate stereotypes and generalizations. What is their teleology for the human man? I cannot be any less sexual, any less violent, or any less creepy by any real metric. Outside of becoming a hikikimori or dying, I don’t know what their teleology for me is.
I share most of the ideology of third-wave feminism but their social analysis and their teleology are more what they want to be true than what actually is. They want a world where men are men and men are the primary victimizers of women. The truth is that most men are not men and half of the oppression of women comes from other women. And focussing on safety as opposed to eudemonia is anti-human, having the sentiment toward a particular demographic “Do whatever the fuck you want! Just get away from me!” is an immoral teleology that is contrary to human dignity.
Feminism needs to shift its focus to human eudemonia and abandon most of its focus on safety. Safety is much easier to come by if people’s Maslow’s Needs are met and focussing on safety foremost is putting the cart before the horse. They need to abandon conflict and Marxist as their analytical paradigm and try to uncrease human welfare and decrease human suffering. I am not saying they need to abandon the literal pepper spray but they need to abandon the metaphorical pepper spray. Being treated as and labelled as a “creep” is the single most traumatic thing I have experienced being autistic. I am not dangerous or sexual, so the women weren’t safer for it but it was a major factor in my suicide attempts and not graduating from college. They were protected from an imaginary threat and I paid very dearly for it.