[2Wycked]

I had the privilege of taking a Critical Race Theory course in school. It was a small class, obviously trying to encourage discussion. To be expected, there was no real discussion. The class was run by a woman, and the majority of the students were women. The men the in class rarely spoke – except me, of course. I quickly earned the ire of the teacher and one feminist in particular. It was uncomfortable, tense and I could tell most of the women did not like one another but really didn’t like me.

Regardless, the main point of this writeup is Cultural Marxism and narcissism, but race will be important. I will draw on my experiences in the class and the materials I still have to outline what Critical Race Theory (CRT) is about, my experiences in class and how it really is narcissism.

CRT was developed in the 1980’s on the heels of the Critical Legal Studies movement that started in the 1970’s. A number of prominent law professors, most notably Derrick Bell, began to piece together the movement in the halls of America’s elite law schools. The main thrust of CRT is that white privilege and white supremacy is so thoroughly engrained into the fabric of society, that the traditional approaches to combat racism against blacks are not enough. CRT scholars regularly attack all sorts of institutions, legal decisions and approaches that have generally been deemed to benefit minorities.

It has to be said that there many good points are made in some of the articles, but the Marxist and feminist framework is damning, as are other reasons, which I will talk about next.

CRT has a few main points that need to be laid out to fully understand what CRT is about. First, is the use of the narrative/storytelling. One of most striking parts of CRT is the emphasis on the personal narrative. Many CRT articles are framed completely through the experiences of the writer. It was referred to me as “naming one’s own reality.” That phrase stuck with me, as often racism is assumed on the part of the person who invokes CRT doctrine. For example, one young woman in my class was discussing a situation in which she was turned down for an internship at the school. She said it was because she was black. I pointed out that she could be right, but the conclusion you reached isn’t necessarily true. I was smacked down and told to stop dictating women’s experiences to them.

Another striking feature of CRT is its emphasis on intersectionality. Intersectionality, essentially, is the fact different people have different life experiences – like the difference between a gay black dude born in Harlem v. a white woman born into wealth in Boston. It is one the most mind-bogglingly obvious concepts in the world, but the creation of the concept has been credited to Kimberlie Crenshaw. This means that feminist and homosexual critiques of society are necessarily read into CRT. This probably is one the biggest failures of the theory, as by bringing feminism in, they are necessarily hurting black men.

The final point I would like to highlight is opposition to essentialism. Essentialism means reducing one group of people to definable characteristics shared by all members of the group. Race, sex , class and sexual orientation are generally listed. One of those categories is not like the Other – sex. CRT does not entertain any notion that men and women are biologically different. Well, they may assume some differences, but one isn’t going to get away with an outright “essentialist” argument that men and women are fundamentally different.

Let’s examine one article I read in class that jumped to mind when I started this writeup – Race and Essentialism in Feminist Legal Theory, by Angela Harris.

A picture of the crusty battleax:



Let’s examine one article I read in class that sprung to mind when I started this writeup – Race and Essentialism in Feminist Legal Theory, by Angela Harris.

The article is fairly predictable fare. In her critique of her fellow radical feminists, she goes out of her way to emphasize that they aren’t racist – even though she takes them to task for ignoring black voices; she knows how damningly judgmental feminists are. Her point that white feminists have generally ignored black voices and assumed that their experiences are the same for all women is on point – but her article comes off the rails after that. She makes an exhortation for women to recognize their common enemy – men. She projects a bunch of personal issues onto other people – she has a bizarre part where she talks about that women can gain identities before male domination is eliminated? Huh? Are some feminists waiting to sort out their personal issues once the dreaded patriarchy is destroyed? She makes a point that feminists need to move beyond superficial changes.

I agree with her that feminism, in some ways – and CRT – isn’t about real change. It’s about moral judgmentalism and inaction. I can’t even count how many times I read the phrases “white power structures” or “female subjugation,” or “privilege.” Instead of trying to empower themselves via change, the movement simply wants to spin their wheels in the mud and judge everybody else. It is a form of therapy. At this point, I want to highlight what I am talking about how and why people come to and use CRT. They don’t want to take charge of their life; they want to blame everybody else.

I see this reflected in anti-game blogs, like the dipshit site Omega Virgin Revolt. Instead of hitting the gym, getting real ambitions and learning game, these fools blame all their problems on everybody else and get insanely jealous when they see former equals going out and getting laid on the regular. I believe part of the psychology is that they want everybody at their level – frustrated, angry and impotent – so through their bleatings that game isn’t real, they are hoping that some men that otherwise would have bettered himself doesn’t and stays a simp. The less men stepping up and making their lives better, the less jealous they are. This point I thought up on the fly, so take it as you will.

However, this mentality is the one that pervades CRT. We entertained a guest speaker one day. You could just tell this white girl had a seething temper. Just sitting there, smiling at us, you could tell this warhammer was an angry woman – and, yes, no ring and she was in her 40’s. Despite her professional accomplishments, it was obvious she was very angry at men. She literally couldn’t get men out her damn mouth. Whinging endlessly about sexist men and all that rot. It was clear that instead of really learning about men, she wanted to force onto men the notions about men she created in her own head.

Which is one of my fundamental problems with CRT. I came to the class naively thinking were going to have some real discussions about race in America, but I was dead wrong. It was clear all the women in the class, save one, had some serious issues – most of them related to men. They didn’t want to hear the truth. They wanted to hear some honeyed words about how it’s racism’s fault they have a bitchy personality or it’s patriarchy’s fault ugly women don’t get alphas. I was pissed off being told repeatedly that I “just kinda have to believe this.” One of the few times I lost my temper was when some rich white girl told me that. I snapped back I don’t have to believe a damn thing if I don’t think it’s true. Getting lectured by rich, heterosexual white women about race and sex is just too much for me.

She actually talked to me after class, as we were walking to our cars. She was “concerned” about my comments about class. She said I needed to be more sensitive to the poor in this country – which was a baseless claim. We made some mindless, awkward small talk after that till we got to our cars. Her Lexus was right up front, with the expensive parking decal that allows her to park there. I said something along the lines to her of, “You gonna lecture me about class when you are driving a Lex and I’m driving a car I bought for 2,000? That’s bullshit and you know it.”

Back on point, it isn’t about helping black people or minorities. My presentation was the last one of the year, and I got assigned a doozy – violence in the black community. I pulled out my copy of Myth of Male Power, drew on some the resources in the materials and got to work. When I was finished, I had managed to cite evolutionary psychology, two of Warren Farrell’s books and even The Prince by Machiavelli. I sat for a moment there, with Sportscenter flicking in the background, realizing even though I cited only mainstream sources, this level of analysis was just too red-pill. I couldn't give a speech about real shit to help black men. In class, I had to suffer through some bullshit my classmate gave about “Masculinity Contests” (the article itself I started a piece for this forum about). I gave my presentation to mostly crickets, as the one sane woman in class said, “Discussions about the constructions of masculinity are important.” There actually wasn’t any commentary on my speech at all by my classmates.

Which sums up my experience in class. Even though my speech was pretty blue-pill, it was way too much for the hamsters in class to handle. The class about romance and love I was just biting my tongue the whole time. The hamsters uncloaked themselves and it was a total car crash. I could make a post just about the articles we read and the reactions of the women in the class.

It was about therapy. The women came to class to blame all their problems on race and sex. They didn’t have the drive to better themselves. They did what probably pisses off many psychologists – the whole idea that, yeah, racism does exist and hurts you but you are using racism as a way to self-aggrandize and tell yourself you are better than you really are. It really is fucking depraved when you think about it – the black women need black people to be hurt by racism so they can prop up their flagging egos by using racism to explain away their failures to live up their out-sized visions of themselves. Didn't get the cush job in Nashville (most likely because of your grades in school and because you weren't friendly in the interview) - blame racism!

As for the white women, they just doubled-down on “female oppression” so they didn’t have to check their privilege. They blamed all their problems in life on patriarchy and sexism. One woman in class was the most paranoid fuck I have ever met - more paranoid than me. If I were to describe her world, violent rapists lurk behind every potted plant and men are conspiring to fuck women over. I shot back in class after one of her rants that I will bring up her concerns about men at the next union meeting.

In the end, the articles I read did often make some good observations and, sometimes, some good analysis. However, the framework was fucked. It was too narcissistic, as evidenced by the concept of the personal narrative and inability to understand the world around them. It was like some perpetual therapy session – they pretend to want to change themselves or the world, but just seek to blame others so they can avoid dealing with reality.

[Genghis Khan]

I'm starting to get the entire notion that most college degrees are bullshit/they teach hard core feminism in college now (I was an engineering major, so I never dealt with any of this crap).

[Lemmo]

TL; DR version: academics in the social sciences write a lot of self-serving nonsense, attempting to make a reputation by either arguing against common sense and offending the public or spewing bile on behalf of some small, incestuous group with a persecution complex.

[BortimusPrime]

I want to sign up for one of these discussion classes, show up on the first day and then halfway through stand up and loudly say "Wait a minute, I thought this was a racism class, but all of you are against it?" then leave and drop the class so I don't have to pay for it.

[Benoit]

Nice to see some original research.

You come across as intelligent and clear-headed in your writing, more evidence that arguing (discussing objective facts) logically with women is wasted effort 99% of the time.

[Caligula]

Quote:

I agree with her that feminism, in some ways – and CRT – isn’t about real change. It’s about moral judgmentalism and inaction. I can’t even count how many times I read the phrases “white power structures” or “female subjugation,” or “privilege.” Instead of trying to empower themselves via change, the movement simply wants to spin their wheels in the mud and judge everybody else.

This in itself if a way of grasping for power. I paste and earlier post of mine from the hamster thread.

It's how the weak seek status.

They can't achieve status by mainstream means; so they re-value the traditional trappings of success (beauty, financial and social success) and call them bad, and place their own self-defined 'success factors' (being ugly, being an outcast, being 'queer') above those. They turn necessities into virtues.

They grasp for power by turning the hierarchy upside down. Hence the anti-hierarchical rhetoric: they hate the hierarchy because they are stuck at the bottom of it with no hope of rising. Their only shot at improving their lot is to convince the world that the hierarchy should be reconfigured to put them at the top.

They pretend that the situation they have been forced into by their own mediocrity, lack of drive, beauty and intelligence was their own choice. Maybe they have chosen it for themselves (depending on how much you believe in free will), but mostly they're stuck there until they manage to convince the world that the prevailing hierarchy is wrong. In the meantime they get to feel the rush of high status and power within the small group of misfits that buys into their upside-down value system. With enough numbers they can exercise a tyranny of the weak over the strong. Democracy is a great enabler of this dynamic.

This is how Nietzsche argued Christianity began: slaves making a virtue out of weakness to revolt against and seize power from their pagan overlords.

Women are more drawn to these ideologies because they are the ideologies of the weak. Their weapons are social cohesion and the threat of excommunication, both of which women are more susceptible to. Manipulation is used to change the rules of the game. Men are more inclined to try to improve their score in the game - and indeed men are more capable of doing so. That's why men are less likely to buy into this bullshit.

[WestIndianArchie]

Amazing post.

I have many of the same criticisms of CRT (and Feminism, which I think informs a lot of the way CRT is written).

And I'm glad you didn't dumb it down for the TL;DR crowd.

What possessed you to take the class, and why did you antagonize them with your essay? Sounds like you're into masochism. <- See what I did there?

WIA

(04-26-2013 01:43 AM)2Wycked Wrote:  



I had the privilege of taking a Critical Race Theory course in school. It was a small class, obviously trying to encourage discussion. To be expected, there was no real discussion. The class was run by a woman, and the majority of the students were women. The men the in class rarely spoke – except me, of course. I quickly earned the ire of the teacher and one feminist in particular. It was uncomfortable, tense and I could tell most of the women did not like one another but really didn’t like me.

Regardless, the main point of this writeup is Cultural Marxism and narcissism, but race will be important. I will draw on my experiences in the class and the materials I still have to outline what Critical Race Theory (CRT) is about, my experiences in class and how it really is narcissism.

CRT was developed in the 1980’s on the heels of the Critical Legal Studies movement that started in the 1970’s. A number of prominent law professors, most notably Derrick Bell, began to piece together the movement in the halls of America’s elite law schools. The main thrust of CRT is that white privilege and white supremacy is so thoroughly engrained into the fabric of society, that the traditional approaches to combat racism against blacks are not enough. CRT scholars regularly attack all sorts of institutions, legal decisions and approaches that have generally been deemed to benefit minorities.

It has to be said that there many good points are made in some of the articles, but the Marxist and feminist framework is damning, as are other reasons, which I will talk about next.

CRT has a few main points that need to be laid out to fully understand what CRT is about. First, is the use of the narrative/storytelling. One of most striking parts of CRT is the emphasis on the personal narrative. Many CRT articles are framed completely through the experiences of the writer. It was referred to me as “naming one’s own reality.” That phrase stuck with me, as often racism is assumed on the part of the person who invokes CRT doctrine. For example, one young woman in my class was discussing a situation in which she was turned down for an internship at the school. She said it was because she was black. I pointed out that she could be right, but the conclusion you reached isn’t necessarily true. I was smacked down and told to stop dictating women’s experiences to them.

Another striking feature of CRT is its emphasis on intersectionality. Intersectionality, essentially, is the fact different people have different life experiences – like the difference between a gay black dude born in Harlem v. a white woman born into wealth in Boston. It is one the most mind-bogglingly obvious concepts in the world, but the creation of the concept has been credited to Kimberlie Crenshaw. This means that feminist and homosexual critiques of society are necessarily read into CRT. This probably is one the biggest failures of the theory, as by bringing feminism in, they are necessarily hurting black men.

The final point I would like to highlight is opposition to essentialism. Essentialism means reducing one group of people to definable characteristics shared by all members of the group. Race, sex , class and sexual orientation are generally listed. One of those categories is not like the Other – sex. CRT does not entertain any notion that men and women are biologically different. Well, they may assume some differences, but one isn’t going to get away with an outright “essentialist” argument that men and women are fundamentally different.

Let’s examine one article I read in class that jumped to mind when I started this writeup – Race and Essentialism in Feminist Legal Theory, by Angela Harris.

A picture of the crusty battleax:



Let’s examine one article I read in class that sprung to mind when I started this writeup – Race and Essentialism in Feminist Legal Theory, by Angela Harris.

The article is fairly predictable fare. In her critique of her fellow radical feminists, she goes out of her way to emphasize that they aren’t racist – even though she takes them to task for ignoring black voices; she knows how damningly judgmental feminists are. Her point that white feminists have generally ignored black voices and assumed that their experiences are the same for all women is on point – but her article comes off the rails after that. She makes an exhortation for women to recognize their common enemy – men. She projects a bunch of personal issues onto other people – she has a bizarre part where she talks about that women can gain identities before male domination is eliminated? Huh? Are some feminists waiting to sort out their personal issues once the dreaded patriarchy is destroyed? She makes a point that feminists need to move beyond superficial changes.

I agree with her that feminism, in some ways – and CRT – isn’t about real change. It’s about moral judgmentalism and inaction. I can’t even count how many times I read the phrases “white power structures” or “female subjugation,” or “privilege.” Instead of trying to empower themselves via change, the movement simply wants to spin their wheels in the mud and judge everybody else. It is a form of therapy. At this point, I want to highlight what I am talking about how and why people come to and use CRT. They don’t want to take charge of their life; they want to blame everybody else.

I see this reflected in anti-game blogs, like the dipshit site Omega Virgin Revolt. Instead of hitting the gym, getting real ambitions and learning game, these fools blame all their problems on everybody else and get insanely jealous when they see former equals going out and getting laid on the regular. I believe part of the psychology is that they want everybody at their level – frustrated, angry and impotent – so through their bleatings that game isn’t real, they are hoping that some men that otherwise would have bettered himself doesn’t and stays a simp. The less men stepping up and making their lives better, the less jealous they are. This point I thought up on the fly, so take it as you will.

However, this mentality is the one that pervades CRT. We entertained a guest speaker one day. You could just tell this white girl had a seething temper. Just sitting there, smiling at us, you could tell this warhammer was an angry woman – and, yes, no ring and she was in her 40’s. Despite her professional accomplishments, it was obvious she was very angry at men. She literally couldn’t get men out her damn mouth. Whinging endlessly about sexist men and all that rot. It was clear that instead of really learning about men, she wanted to force onto men the notions about men she created in her own head.

Which is one of my fundamental problems with CRT. I came to the class naively thinking were going to have some real discussions about race in America, but I was dead wrong. It was clear all the women in the class, save one, had some serious issues – most of them related to men. They didn’t want to hear the truth. They wanted to hear some honeyed words about how it’s racism’s fault they have a bitchy personality or it’s patriarchy’s fault ugly women don’t get alphas. I was pissed off being told repeatedly that I “just kinda have to believe this.” One of the few times I lost my temper was when some rich white girl told me that. I snapped back I don’t have to believe a damn thing if I don’t think it’s true. Getting lectured by rich, heterosexual white women about race and sex is just too much for me.

She actually talked to me after class, as we were walking to our cars. She was “concerned” about my comments about class. She said I needed to be more sensitive to the poor in this country – which was a baseless claim. We made some mindless, awkward small talk after that till we got to our cars. Her Lexus was right up front, with the expensive parking decal that allows her to park there. I said something along the lines to her of, “You gonna lecture me about class when you are driving a Lex and I’m driving a car I bought for 2,000? That’s bullshit and you know it.”

Back on point, it isn’t about helping black people or minorities. My presentation was the last one of the year, and I got assigned a doozy – violence in the black community. I pulled out my copy of Myth of Male Power, drew on some the resources in the materials and got to work. When I was finished, I had managed to cite evolutionary psychology, two of Warren Farrell’s books and even The Prince by Machiavelli. I sat for a moment there, with Sportscenter flicking in the background, realizing even though I cited only mainstream sources, this level of analysis was just too red-pill. I couldn't give a speech about real shit to help black men. In class, I had to suffer through some bullshit my classmate gave about “Masculinity Contests” (the article itself I started a piece for this forum about). I gave my presentation to mostly crickets, as the one sane woman in class said, “Discussions about the constructions of masculinity are important.” There actually wasn’t any commentary on my speech at all by my classmates.

Which sums up my experience in class. Even though my speech was pretty blue-pill, it was way too much for the hamsters in class to handle. The class about romance and love I was just biting my tongue the whole time. The hamsters uncloaked themselves and it was a total car crash. I could make a post just about the articles we read and the reactions of the women in the class.

It was about therapy. The women came to class to blame all their problems on race and sex. They didn’t have the drive to better themselves. They did what probably pisses off many psychologists – the whole idea that, yeah, racism does exist and hurts you but you are using racism as a way to self-aggrandize and tell yourself you are better than you really are. It really is fucking depraved when you think about it – the black women need black people to be hurt by racism so they can prop up their flagging egos by using racism to explain away their failures to live up their out-sized visions of themselves. Didn't get the cush job in Nashville (most likely because of your grades in school and because you weren't friendly in the interview) - blame racism!

As for the white women, they just doubled-down on “female oppression” so they didn’t have to check their privilege. They blamed all their problems in life on patriarchy and sexism. One woman in class was the most paranoid fuck I have ever met - more paranoid than me. If I were to describe her world, violent rapists lurk behind every potted plant and men are conspiring to fuck women over. I shot back in class after one of her rants that I will bring up her concerns about men at the next union meeting.

In the end, the articles I read did often make some good observations and, sometimes, some good analysis. However, the framework was fucked. It was too narcissistic, as evidenced by the concept of the personal narrative and inability to understand the world around them. It was like some perpetual therapy session – they pretend to want to change themselves or the world, but just seek to blame others so they can avoid dealing with reality.

[2Wycked]

Quote:

What possessed you to take the class, and why did you antagonize them with your essay? Sounds like you're into masochism. <- See what I did there?

It was my last semester in school, and I had already established myself as rabble-rouser in Family Law. I already knew most the of the liberals in school hated my guts with a passion - so there really wasn't much to lose from a reputation standpoint.

Frankly, it was a fucking easy class. If you coughed up the ridiculous analysis in your papers, you passed the class. Since it was based on your personal experiences and you could lie with impunity, I fired off one of the final papers drunk as hell and got a good grade.

The problem with my speech to the class was I used the Myth of Male Power as a primary source. My lead-off quote was Farrell's quote of how black men are, basically, fucked seven ways to Sunday in America.

It was clear the women wanted to hear some shit about how pathetic black men are - but through a thinly veiled critique of masculinity. They praised the masculinity contest speech for attacking how stupid male hierarchies are and how it encourages violence against women. Seriously, these broads have less empathy for black men than Heartiste.

I got up before the class with a speech decrying the plight of the black man in America, and how their desperation leads to violence. My point could be distilled as: Who the hell needs violence when your needs are taken care of - people don't lash out if they are chilling, they lash out when they are hurting. Even that was too much.

I knew I could have penned some speech about how men use violence to hurt and oppress women. I knew I could have coughed up some feminist analysis about how violence in the black community was really misogyny. However, it was just narcissism on the part of women, especially black women. They wanted to hear a critique of black men and how they use violence simply to just hurt each other and women. They didn't want to hear some shit that was going to implicate women as part of the problem.

I could tell the women were sexually frustrated and black men were sexually appealing to them. One ugly white woman totally wanted to be dominated by a black man - probably some form of racism as she saw black men as extremely dangerous, but got to hide behind feminism as she whined constantly about violence against women.

It wasn't as bizarre as I initially thought, because it so emblematic of how pathetic America's universities are.

[WestIndianArchie]

(04-26-2013 04:47 PM)2Wycked Wrote:  

It wasn't as bizarre as I initially thought, because it so emblematic of how pathetic America's universities are.

lol @ thinking this is only endemic to American universities.

Good stuff.

WIA