Listen, little man.

Patriarchy is a political system, and as such it martials its forces to fight those who stand against it.

The methods of attack run an extraordinary gamut, from ongoing harassment, to impugning the character, or the general competency, of the person that the troll considers it worthwhile to attack.

In all of this, psychological warfare is the primary approach at hand. Disguising the harassment of a feminist as either meaningful and legitimate criticism, or as concern for her well being (concern trolling), or as genuine moral outrage, or indeed, as an authentic critique of her competency, is the name of the game.

Now, there are ring leaders in all of this -- the anti-feminist opinion makers -- who know what they are doing. Then there are the muddle-headed patriarchy advocates who follow in tow. These are the foot soldiers in the war against women -- the ones who genuinely buy into the arguments presented; who take them at their face value. These swallow whole all moral condemnations against feminists, without wishing to see that attacks on feminists are political. These may even accept a biological basis for discrediting women, whist choosing not to see this as payback for feminists' criticism of the patriarchal system.

In all, discrediting the characters of feminists has been the game the patriarchal warriors love to play. Silencing an enemy reduces its influence over others, and makes it more likely that your side will triumph.

The spoils of a patiarchal war against women are, of course, domination of the defeated enemy. Women have been dominated for centuries, to the point that when feminists speak out about it, their words sound threatening and strange to ears attuned to listening to their enemy.

The art of The Listen

I was originally intending to point out that Westerners presume I was brought up with all sorts of advantages, and to look down on others, whereas my actual situation differed very much from what they presume to have been the case.

As for WHY my situation differed, or indeed, who was to blame for that, these are themselves very Western preoccupations, and that is not a way in which I was brought up to think. I mean, if we find out why something happened, that does not immediately solve the problem, or make it better in any way.

What would be of benefit to me is if Westerners themselves were capable of listening to the stories of those whites who happen to have come from Africa, instead of hatin' on them.

Morality in Western culture

The problem with the Western mode of moralizing is that it is inherently capitalistic. I have found this to be true in general, that unless somebody has some really substantial intellectual training (and sometimes even then), they will tend to take the moral position that will enable them to capitalize. That means they want to shine at very little cost to themselves -- or at a cost to you, rather than to them. Ask them to do something difficult, so as to be really superior and they will not even have a clue what you are getting at. "Take a difficult position in order to be genuinely righteous, rather than seem to seem to be moral at a little cost? That doesn't make sense!"

When it comes to Westerners and what they take to be "morality" one has to lower one's expectations to the lowest level possible. They are brought up to compete -- to look for any moment that advantages them over you and to capitalize. It is very hard for them to mitigate this competitive tendency with anything solid. So, one must lower one's expectations absolutely to the breaking point.

And then lower them again.

A way of eating ice-cream

Richard Chinheya writes as follows:

There was a long held view by white citizens in Zimbabwe to conclude that it was pointless to pay a black man much money as 'he would spend it on beer'.

Whereas whites had a solid foundation where they would plan for their children so that by the time they were of age they had a car, and/or house and a job they thought the blacks did not have these owing to their laziness and stupidity. These circumstances justified a superiority complex and perpetuated an impression that blacks were stupid, dull or unintelligent.

Perhaps the domestic employees were the basis for these perceptions but these were important to make whites feel intelligent and the blacks dull. sadly even now both blacks and whites are victims of these syndromes.

Certainly, what your write is true, especially of past Rhodesia, although it is less true of present day Zimbabwe, but still the racial divide persists along these lines, to some degree.

I want to suggest the presence of an alternative reality, however, even in the midst of all of this unfairness. The logical assumption that all whites cared for their children by setting them up with the material benefits of life could prove to be occasionally mistaken. Injustice is only perpetuated when it is assumed that one been given all the positive things in life, which will set one up in good stead for a middle class existence. Some parents -- even in Rhodesia -- might find that scenario to be all too easy. Their own children might not necessarily be favoured in this way.

So it was with my father, who didn't necessarily want to transfer benefits to me automatically. The common sensical assumption that he would, or did, has always followed me like a bad smell.

His failure to do so, however, was a fact, albeit one not likely to be believed.

In KG1, for instance (I was five), me, my schoolfriend Nicky, and my father took an afterschool walk in Ballantyne Park. "I'll buy an ice-cream cup for anyone who can walk along those bricks without falling off!" This was my father's challenge to me and Nicky.

So we stepped onto the line of bricks that formed the exit to the park, and walked along them, one foot in front of the other, wobbling. After a few seconds, I fell off, but Nicky kept on going for a few more seconds.

"Nicky wins!" proclaimed my father. "I will buy her an ice-cream."

"What about me?" I wanted to know.

"No, I only have enough money for one ice-cream, so I will buy one for Nicky."

That's what happened -- and Nicky ate her ice-cream in front of me.

I don't hold a grudge against my father for whatever he thought he was demonstrating on that day. He taught me quite directly that I couldn't depend on him too much, and that his judgements were unlikely to count in my favour.

The problem is I have been punished for having been given all sorts of unfair advantages in life -- those that pertained to being born white in Rhodesia.

The fact is that most of those advantages I am assumed to have had did not really exist.

It has taken me a long time to realise that in the eyes of Westerners, my father's was pretty abnormal behaviour.

But then again, it is also the reason why Westerners themselves have always seemed to irrational to me. I mean, in the sense that they have treated me like I've had unfair advantages by being brought up in a colonial society, when to my mind it is the Westerners who have lived in the lap of material luxury. They would be insisting on a very crazy interpretation of life if they think that somehow I have been set up very well for success in life, and need to face "reality" by being brought down a level or two.

Darwinism and adaptation

What is strong and what is weak is not necessarily as easily observable or even "objective" as we take it to be. Rather, the context of the environment and culture determines what is or isn't strong and weak. Put most U.S. citizens into an African culture or environment, and watch them flail. One doesn't even wish them to admit their "moral failings" as there is no meaning or point in it. Their success or failure has nothing to do with morality, but simply with their competency in meeting the circumstances as they actually are. If such an American admits that he is not all-seeing and all-conquering by virtue of his innate nature, then this might better facilitate an adaptation of sorts, but it still doesn't mean that there is any intrinsic virtue in his proclamation of his weaknesses. It just means that he is reducing his arrogance level in such a way that maximizes his chances for adaptation. Whether or not he succeeds in adaptation, even after this adjustment, still has nothing to do with morality, but with social and environmental features.

patriarchal thought processes

To understand the psychology of the patriarchal mind one must delve deeply into patriarchal logic.

The first matter that comes to our attention is that the patriarch wishes to avoid being "influenced" by factors in life that he defines as "feminine". If you are female, that means YOU.

By that biological fact alone you represent a threat to him, such that he will do anything -- and I mean anything at all -- to avoid an appearance of being influenced by you.

This explains the second feature of our patriarch: He isn't really listening.

To understand the reason for this, go back to Matter One. To listen to you implies that he is making himself vulnerable to be influenced by you. That is the whole outcome that has to be avoided at all costs.

Thirdly, and because of his embrace of these two preceding predilections, the patriarchal mind has no idea of what you are talking about.

What you say literally doesn't make any sense to him at all.

This is because he has taken care to shield himself from your ideas on the basis that they might be seen to "influence" him. Not understanding you at all puts him into an extremely vulnerable position with regard to you. He is quite jittery when you are around. He avoids direct contact, and tries to stage all public interactions to take place in formal contexts, where the "script" for the interaction is already decided.

The fourth direction in terms of the logic of the patriarch's psychological development is toward trying to resolve this crisis of confidence he has created.

He concludes that what seems true (that he actually does not know you at all) cannot be so.

After all, it is he who is patriarch -- the one defined by intellectual purity, by power and by truth.

Therefore, you must have been hiding your real self from him all along.

Why so? Well, obviously, because you have something nefarious about you that needs to be hidden.

In fact, it now seems that you are not just hiding something, but you are also withholding important information with the express purpose of making the patriarch feel jittery about his position.

(You are, indeed, the living embodiment of all the "influences" that the patriarch has refused to accept. You have become the manifestation of all the negative and disowned parts of his own mind. )

Solving the problem leads to the consolidation of the final term of patriarchal logic: "Either I am good and you are evil; or you are good and I am evil."

On the basis of his previous choices, who do you think the patriarch will pick in order to represent the "good" over the "evil" forces?

Himself? Or you?

Midnight #2