The Black Unicorn Press

I did not want to be writing this post. I wanted to write about the topic of property/land ownership, income disparity and gender. I hope I remember to write that post in the future, because I think it is important to understand how patriarchal misogyny has woven capitalism into gender identity…but thousands of babies are likely to starve in Gaza, perhaps in as little as 48 hours and this is not something anyone in the world can stand by and let happen and still call themselves a human being. Does this topic belong in a blog about patriarchal misogyny? Does women and children dying of starvation have anything to do with a system designed to allow men to treat women and children as property that can be confiscated, controlled and destroyed? I hope that answer is pretty obvious, and I don’t intend to spend much time tonight trying to explain that in the face of what is happening, because letting the people that are murdering children have any opportunity to side track the immediate conversation of “how do we stop this now?” with a debate about definitions is letting children die.

This is also why I am not going to write about whether it is necessary or valuable to call what Netanyahu and his Likud party’s war of the mass murder of children a “genocide” or why it has been such a colossal waste of time trying to create international courts with precise legal definitions of crimes, that have to be proven to judges that powerful nations have now had decades to position and control, because those conversations too are useless to saving children who are starving today.  

The state of Israel is already playing games with people’s lives in many different ways, and for this specific issue, of stopping babies from dying in mass from starvation, they are keep engaging in acts of murder, like pretending to try to provide food to starving mothers, but doing it so slowly and in such restricted quantities that other nations of the world will feel comfortable threatening them with meaningless gestures instead of taking action to remove IDF soldiers from Gaza and accelerate food distribution. The political and military leadership of Israel is playing these games intentionally because they believe that it is ok to threaten children (thousands and thousands of children) with one of the slowest and most painful deaths imaginable, in order to apply political pressure to an unpopular (only about a fifth of the people in Gaza currently support Hamas) political party. 

The State of Israel is not the First Nation to use the starvation of children as a weapon of war, and it will only be the last when the people of the world hold political and military figures that do so to a level of accountability that is far more serious than anything the International Criminal Court has done in 60+ years. That probably feels like a hopeless endeavor to many people, because the wealthiest and most powerful nations of the world have colluded with each other to make holding the leaders of these countries accountable for their crimes against humanity…a hopeless endeavor. Hopelessness guarantees complacence and complicity. We need to believe that people want to put an immediate end to the use of starving children as a weapon of war and bend our rhetoric and our actions to making that happen as immediately as possible. 

I personally think the best way to accomplish that is to save conversations about how this happened or what needs to happen for restitution for a future where the mass-murdering of children for political gain has been put to a stop, and focus relentlessly on the goals of removing the IDF from Gaza and making sure that food is getting to the people in Gaza as immediately and effectively as possible, even if that means handing all of the food aid directly over to Hamas and letting them distribute (or shoulder the consequences of failing to distribute that food)  for themselves as they see fit. 

I think many supporters of the State of Israel will argue that Hamas will try to manipulate the distribution of aid, holding it back from many of the most vulnerable people in Gaza and then claim that it was the Israeli’s fault; that there wasn’t enough food, or it wasn’t coming in fast enough, or that they will try to use the distribution of that food to motivate fighters into increasingly desperate acts of violence. They will try to argue that this is what Hamas has done in the past and what they will continue to do until they are eliminated.

To which I say, “maybe so.” Maybe Hamas will let 14,000 of Palestinian children starve to death in an attempt to somehow “make Israel look worse”…but I don’t care if they actually have done anything remotely close to as bad as starving 14,000 children in the past before or if that is purely false rhetoric to justify endless war…because massive amounts of children are starving (some already to death) and allowing large quantities of children to die by starvation, even the children of my worst-of-the-worst-imaginable enemies, would be the complete surrender of my humanity to cruelty and destruction. 

Children are already dying and thousands of more might die within less than two days. That isn’t anyone who is reading this post’s fault, and political urgency always ends up being used as a weapon against the emotional and mental health of the people it is directed at. I accept that my alarmism around this might very well be an act of emotional violence against people I care about deeply, who don’t feel like know what to do or have the ability to do what they think might actually make the message clear that the mass killing of children will never be tolerated or forgiven. Calls to action always cary that potential consequence, and should weigh heavily on the hearts and minds of the people who make them. But silence has consequences too, and I don’t think I could ever forgive myself if I wasn’t acknowledging that there are no political leaders that are supposed to represent me that are going to do anything to stop this, and thus it falls on all of us. 

600 trucks a day are going to be necessary to tackle the humanitarian crisis happening in Gaza right now. Today 93 entered Gaza, but 0 have had their aid distributed (see the article I linked to at the beginning of this post). This is a crime against humanity. I hope, I pray, and I call myself in to have the courage and strength to do more myself tomorrow, but at least today I can at least refuse to be a silent observer to the murder of children.

This is a topic I have touched upon many other times in my writing, in these blogs and elsewheres on the internet, so much so that I would need to really do some digging to find specific examples, which I will happily do if anyone asks me about something specific, but otherwise, I will try to consolidate some of my ideas about why expectations about gender roles seem to matter so much and to whom, here, now. 

Whether it was actually a simmering issue in the minds of many US citizens who voted in the 2024 election or an issue manufactured by far-right/Patriarchal Misogynistic (PM) media saturation because those media personalities knows the center-right democrats don’t actually believe in youth voters enough give power to platform issues young folks care about, the topic of gender identity (who defines it and why) has really moved into the US political mainstream. Contrary to how many gender scholars and radicals probably imagined gender becoming an active political conversation, it has largely been the right that has been the most effective in generating the stories that define the conversation around gender identity, sensationalizing and exaggerating a very, very small handful of accounts (many of which have turned out to be false) about the threat of a trans people as sexual predators preying on children. On the one hand, this is the argument the right has been making for decades about trans people, queers and anyone that doesn’t conform to “traditional” (read: authoritarian and essentializing) definitions of gender and sexuality, so it isn’t really shocking that it continues to be the avenue of attack. At the same time, the actual, factual violence inspired by people’s ideas about gender and sexual essentialism is so massively lopsided against LGBTQIA2S+ folks, that it is fairly telling how thoroughly centrist democrats have decided to ignore the issue as toxic, rather than use it to strike back at rightwing paranoia and cultural authoritarianism. 

The reason why is pretty obvious. Democrats don’t believe that gender violence (violence directed at people based upon their gender identity and gender presentation) is a winning political issue. They don’t think the people whose votes they are trying to prioritize care about the harm being done, and worst of all, they have pretty much conceded that violence against women is something different than gender violence which has enabled the right to argue that women need protecting from trans people and not misogynistic men. 

I am not someone that most people would think of as being at risk of experiencing gender-based violence. I am a large white dude who (especially now as a boring old man) looks like a large white dude most of the time, and large white dudes who pass as straight experience gender-based violence much less frequently than anyone else. At the same time, over the course of my life, the scariest and most threatening violence I have ever experienced has always been directed at me for reasons related to my portrayals of masculinity and sexuality. Literally the only time I have ever had anyone but a police officer push me around or lay hands on me in anger have been accompanied by homophobic slurs, or when I was younger, people calling me a girl, a pussy, or other words questioning my ability or authenticity as a man.  I think there has been a tendency to write off the vast majority of this kind of violence as “boys being boys,” and even in my own thinking about the issue, I dismiss a lot of the violence I have experienced along these lines as “kids at play,” but even ignoring problematic examples of gender-based hazing and roughousing (much of which I am certainly guilty of, some of which I remember, and probably even more that I never even thought of that way),  when I am talking specifically about things like a group of young men chasing me around town in car and throwing rocks at me, for example, situations where I actually thought someone else might actually kill me, the violence was always tied into my gender presentation.I guess there was one time I had someone pull a knife on me, and another time where someone (who was not a cop) pulled a gun on me that should also qualify as experiences of violence, but the thing about both of those situations is that I knew that the threat of violence being made against me was for a case of mistaken identity or purpose that I was going to easily be able to talk my way out of. But the times people, well, men, have threatened or attacked me related to my presentation of gender or sexuality, I knew that there was going to be no talking my way out of those situations rhetorically. 

And this is where I think the Democrats have really dropped the ball by refusing to take up the cause of gender violence as a political issue. Pretending like it is an issue that only affects specific, marginalized communities (when it does horrifically, disproportionately affect marginalized communities), has made it an issue that they are afraid to touch. They have largely (deliberately) ignored the decades of feminist and queer theory writing that has drawn the connections between authoritarianism and gender-based violence, and thus left themselves in a position where they don’t know how to read the newspaper, see example after example of violence with direct ties to patriarchal, misogynystic, homophobic and transphobic views about gender, and say “This keeps happening because, as a society, we refuse to talk about the connection between gender identity, power and violence within society.”

Meanwhile, the right runs rampant getting to claim that leftist “gender ideology” is a real danger to people’s lives while their own vile and reductive gender ideologies are actually, literally killing people. 

My son is one and a half, well, 20 months if you want to be specific, and today was the first time when his response to me asking him if he wanted a hug was to shake his head yes. For a couple of weeks, he has been shaking his head no to everything, whether he wanted it or not, but today feels particularly special to me because it seems like he has entered a stage of development where he is able to clearly communicate “yes” and “no” based upon his understanding of words. And he does understand words. I asked him if he wanted an apple today, with no visual clues for what that meant, and then when I opened the refrigerator, he pointed immediately to the drawer with apples in it, and that was the food that he wanted to eat (incidentally, he has also been getting very picky again about what foods he wants to eat). 

So, if this just a father gloating about the developmental achievements of his son? Of course, but there is another aspect of it that leaves me with a lot to think about and not a lot of positive male examples of in my own past. To many, it might sound like hippy-dippy parenting, but I really do want to believe that, as a parent, teaching my son about consent, respecting the wishes of others with their bodies, and learning how to express his own wishes for his own body in a way that will be respected by others. In all honesty, I probably wouldn’t grade myself higher than a C- on putting this goal into practice, at least thus far in my parenting a toddler experience. It is very difficult not to just physically restrain a child that is trying to climb onto a counter top full of glass dishes, or to just immediately take a way the kitchen knife the boy has gotten out of the dishwasher that he opened by himself. After all, his safety and wellbeing are my primary responsibility 24 hours a day, and exclusively mine for at least 8 hours of most days. Up to the point I start wrapping him in bubble wrap every time I leave the house, I don’t think anyone I know is going to chastise me for prioritizing his safety over allowing him to learn for himself what the consequences are for running with scissors, or trying to drink cleaning products. It is more likely that I will get chastised by people I know for doing stuff like letting him ride in the passenger seat of a golf cart being driven by a 10 year old, or chase chickens around in a coop, in other words, for not taking my obligations for his safety seriously enough. I think probably every parent struggles with this balance.

What makes this a topic worth it to me to write about in this blog is that I don’t think I had very good male role models for this in my developmental years where my sense of self was coming into its own, specifically the kinds who would have been present and involved on a daily basis with shaping my sense of boundaries for myself and for others. I doubt most people do have close memories of this time in their lives, but, knowing the potential male role models I could have had in my life from the ages of 3 to 8, I am actually kind of thankful that  it was mostly really amazing women—my mom, my first teachers, my aunts—that were most active in helping me develop these core memories and aspects of myself. I really don’t think a lot of men are very good at understanding or respecting boundaries, their own or others, and I think that was especially true in the early to mid 80s. 

This is just my experience, and I do have a lot of male friends who grew up at the same time who did have more active male role models in their lives as they were developing their sense of self, boundaries and consent, that I think have become men who are better at understanding these things than the men I am projecting my distrust on to. I am definitely not trying to speak universally, but there is almost nothing about my early childhood that I feel like I missed out on not having a present father figure or male role model for.* I am actually very thankful that I have never felt like I wanted to grow up to be one of my fathers, nor worried that I was suffering for a lack of their attention. 

* I do have other regrets about the kinds of behaviors and attitudes I have learned from men in my life that might partially overlap some of this time, but they are still much more about what these men did when they were being present in my life as opposed to anything I was denied by their absence. 

But now I am a father, of a son that is just beginning to take his first steps towards developing his sense of self, boundaries and consent as an individual person, and already I catch myself exerting the kind of inherent authority I have as a parent over my child in ways that are often about my own ideas and needs instead of his.  For example, nap times. I don’t really know if his life is inherently better when we stick to a fairly predictable schedule about when to start trying to take a nap in the day, but it certainly plays havoc on mine when I have to block out 4 potential hours of nap time every day when making plans, than when I can pretty reasonably narrow that down to 2 to the occasional 3. This is a very mild example that I think is probably easy to relate to. I could have chosen about 100 different ones, like about whether it is better to struggle through having him learn to walk along relatively busy city streets, even as he hates ever having to stop for lights or turn in different directions, or to just keep him in a stroller until we can get to parks or car-free pedestrian areas, or about food, or about interacting with our dog, etc. But it is hard to talk about everything all at once so let’s stick to nap time. 

It takes a lot of class privilege to even exist in space where my nuclear family can be hundreds of miles away from any kind of extended family support with childcare, and that I can be a stay-at-home parent without having to work a job or two that could go past paying the costs of childcare. It is really a rather decadent luxury that I can even be considering whether it is best to let my child just kind of play themselves out in the morning, how ever long that might take, and then nap when he is tired, rather than just being able to provide him with a brief window in which he can take a nap, and then having to keep him on the go the rest of the day whether he needs more sleep or not. This is true of almost all of the aspects of his life that are about giving him the freedom to make choices for himself and start to develop an identity around respecting the things he wants: food, clothes, play times, getting to go outside during the day and not just spending all of his time in one very small little world that is most convenient for me. Like of course kids develop their own sense of selves in all kinds of economic and socially restrictive situation and there is really only so much influence or power parents are ever capable of having on being the ones that create space for their children to develop their ideas about who they are, what their boundaries are and how to respect the boundaries of others, so I don’t want to over blow or under estimate any of class, race, gender, ability or parental preference on these processes, but it is important for me to recognize how all of them affect what behaviors and ideas I think are beneficial to help him develop and which ones will ultimately be harmful to him at some point in his life. Which kind of all swirls confusion around the initial question?

Am I teaching him authoritarian compilation when I establish a rigid “let’s start taking a nap now” time? Or if I never let him experience the frustrations of being held to artificial boundaries established by others  am I essentially just creating an entitled monster that will go around thinking that the whole world revolves around his whims? Am I just creating a justification for myself and my own desires to not have all of my time consumed by the needs of my child? Or is an interplay of my needs and his needs an essential development step in recognizing that survival and life are collective endeavors that require learning how to listen for and understand the needs of others? And does any of these theoretical ideas matter when it is approaching noon, and I am exhausted, and he is refusing to lay down by standing against the wall and slamming his head into the wall? 

In many ways, parenting within a capitalist society (where individual economic needs and expectations have vastly exceeded the capacity of culture or tradition to provide non-economic enrichment) embodies and exemplifies “crisis culture.” Where earning more money is the only way people can imagine getting through the everyday calamities caused by having to shoulder responsibilities that humans never evolved to handle alone. We do what we have to to get through each day, realizing that “more money” would almost always make these processes feel easier, without having realistic means of making “more money” without making even more massive sacrifices of our time and our connections to each other than we ever tend to recognize or acknowledge. Pair all of these capitalist dilemmas with racialized and gendered expectations for what is supposed to be a fulfilling use of our time and the most effective way we can contribute to our own success and the success of our families, and you have a pretty nasty recipe for getting people to concede their time and power over to any institution that offers easy solutions to these problems, even if those solutions usually just involve becoming more dependent on those institutions.

This is a blog post really going all over the place based upon ideas I have about being a parent that I rarely get to think out loud about or share with anyone other than my often exhausted and overworked partner. I am not the first person to think about these things, but it really is amazing how little having read and thought about these conditions before becoming a parent has prepared me for what it is like to live through the experience and have to make choices from a position of being my most exhausted and beaten down self imaginable. Like, yeah, someone providing my family a pizza and a stimulating hour of child engagement that doesn’t have to involve me investing twice as much energy into organizing as my child gets out of the experience is the kind of luxury I very well might sell a week, a month, maybe even a year of my life for, depending upon my desperation in the moment. So who really wants to question whether giving my child twice as much time as might be necessary to develop processes of living for themselves is as feasible as just relying on authoritarian structures that have the time and can make me a much less irritable figure? Especially when some of those structures are things like plopping the kid down in front of the TV or eating junk food, things that kids will choose to do on their own in a heart beat over other options that might require them to participate in the labor of living, or take away time we can otherwise spend together doing the activities that they want to do together…and then new routines and habits develop around those institutions/structures/short cuts that become even harder to question or break, even when we have the time and energy to question them.

I am left with far more questions than answers when I think about all of this, except for the one unquestionable truth that my mother was a super hero for having the strength to chose to navigate all of this alone because it was what was best for the both of us together and not because it would be easier or more convenient.

I wrote the first post for this blog series on February 27th. It is kind of wild how much the world and my life has changed in essentially less than 3 months, and I have to admit that, between the world and me, I have considered calling this project more than once, as it is really hard to squeeze writing time into the nooks and crannies of trying to be a full time stay at home parent and connect back into communities of resistance  in the city of Seattle. 20-30 minutes here, if nap time is going well and I am not so exhausted that I have to nap too. Maybe one consecutive hour late at night after attending a meeting or spending time with my partner after the babe has gone to sleep, which sometimes spills into too and often leaves me extra tired the next day. Writing is not the easiest project to fit into my day, and I am still not really sure about the medium of a blog as the best way to share ideas, but I do think making this time to organize my thoughts and record them is worth my time…so the real question comes down to, do I keep trying to frame my thoughts around the ideology of Patriarchal Misogyny? Or should I stop trying to pigeonhole everything I want to write about and change about the world into one particular framework? After all, I have a lot to say about racism and white supremacy, heteronormativity, capitalism and the concept of property, ableism and the need to “be productive,” why the Great Plains Anarchist Network fell apart and whether that was a model of organizing and networking that is worth trying to build with again…can’t I just write about all of that stuff and try to organize my thoughts? 

Well, I think the answer is probably yes, I can and should also be trying to write about all of those topics, when I can. However, I am not yet ready to abandon my belief that it is actually really important in this current political moment to absolutely hammer and attack the ways in which all of the current authoritarian movements around the world are really fixating on protecting a vision of masculinity that is undeniably patriarchal and misogynistic, and that this has been an incredibly successful tactic, but is also a flaw in their underlying structure that can cause the whole thing to collapse. As a nerd, I will use a Star Wars metaphor and say that Authoritarianism’s dependance on “winning” the battle to be the ones to define masculinity and to use that position as the foundation for their power is like spotting an Exhaust port on the Death Star that leads to its main reactor. From my subject position, Patriarchal Misogyny (PM) is a weak point that can be targeted and destroyed. 

Capitalism, Imperialism, white supremacy, Heterosexism, ableism, all of these might also be effect avenues of attack, and ones I am happy to discuss, think about and act to disrupt, especially in alliance with others who want to attack there. However, I just cannot see any version of Trumpism or this outgrowth of the Alt-Right continuing to exist past the point that people in the US realize that the vision of masculinity being sold through PM is pure exploitive con artistry. There is no actual substance to this central idea of their entire ideology. They have no living or historical example of a “real man” that is worth pointing to and saying, “this is the kind of patriarch who will enact the vision that we are selling with our movement.” The leaders of their movement are pathetic examples of masculinity, only successful in harnessing generational wealth to create cults of personality around themselves and attempting to intimidate and bully those around themselves when the carrot of being a part of their cult fails to draw people in. Few of them are capable of even enacting the kind of violence they want to project onto the world around them except in situations where they have premeditatedly moved to eliminate any potential resistance (like in the sexual assault allegations against Trump, Musk and Andrew Tate). The only possible exception might Vladimir Putin, but I think I will save my critique of him for another day, as he is not a US example, and I am probably not well versed enough on contemporary Russian History to talk about him.

Even their historical examples of authoritarian strong men within a modern global world are almost all pathetic losers as well (With, again, maybe Russian autocrats as potential counterpoints that I am not prepared to speak to).  Hitler was a pathetic loser. People knew it at the time. Too many world leaders humored him and tried to play his vanity for their own benefit, while thinking that his violent ideology could be down played with diplomacy, and so he was able to accomplish absolutely horrible and disgusting things…but his reign of terror was incredibly short and only really ended up creating long term benefit for the nations he went to war with. It is much the same with Mussolini, and the other European dictators. Dictators on other continents have faired slightly better overall (and lived for more than a decade from coming into full authoritarian power), but it has alway been within the context of essentially being a puppet of another nation pulling the strings and if that is not an obvious sign of being a pathetic loser, then I must really not understand what an “alpha male” is according to the dictates of PM ideology. 

All of this Nuevo-Facism today is about creating delusional fantasies about ancient figures who lived in much smaller worlds that they did not control through their own authority, but because too many people bought into and staked their entire selves upon collective identities that were much bigger than their leaders, like Greek city states and the Roman Empire. Incompetent authoritarian leaders are the ones who bring about the end of empires, not build them. And that is exactly what we have here in the United States. The more power and authority that Trump manages to secure for himself out of the US empire, the more of that global empire he will end up being responsible for seeing violently destroyed, as is the true legacy of authoritarian masculinity. PM masculinity will never accept anything less than holding power for itself, or seeing the sources of that power destroyed. Do the central figures supporting Trump’s authoritarian rise know this? I think they do. They see the unilateral but multicultural Neo-liberal empire that the United States has made for itself as something that they actively want to destroy. They want to carve off all of the concentrations of people power that have been accumulated within the US, from moments in history like the Civil Rights movement, the Americans with Disabilities Act, Feminism, and LGBTQIAA2S+ movement and till that power back into soil that can be sold off as new property under their control. They think that they are going to be able to hang on to the authoritarian power structures of the United States without the people power structures that they are intentionally undermining, because they really don’t believe in the power of people to overcome the power of the gun, and they never have. As an Anarchist, it does sometimes get tempting to want to see if all the authoritarian power structures of the US will  collapse along side the people power structures that have kept US citizens believing that they are doing more good than harm in the world, but world history doesn’t paint a pretty picture of what happens when authoritarian power structures collapse after belief in the people powered power structures of a nation or society collapse. After all, bullets and bombs tend to still exist long after networks of solidarity, mutual aid and compassion have been murdered and destroyed. 

So yes, perhaps foolishly, I believe that there are lies that Trump administration are telling that will end up mattering to their supporters, but they are the ones that supporters have been conditioned to tell about themselves and what they stand to gain from staying in line. Overwhelmingly, these feel like lies of identity, and that seems why attacking vulnerable groups like immigrants and trans folks seems to be so successful for the Patriarchal Misogynist right. Because their vision of masculinity needs boogymen that it can easily bully and push around without fear of retaliation. It is far too fragile to handle any kind of actual resistance, and that is why Trump has consistently back tracked out of any rhetoric that draws him too much heat. He, and his followers are trying to outlast sustained resistance by creating a circus of outrage that they think will burn itself out on dogwhistles and groups that are pushed so far to the margins of the population they are targeting with their rhetoric that they are essentially invisible to the average MAGA supporter. In other words, it is an administration of cowards that is particularly effective at harnessing fear to motivate people like them, because fear is the thing that keeps motivating them to stay one step ahead of the calamity they create behind them.  I really do believe that if we can get the larger US public to see and believe that this is the essential model of masculinity behind Trumpism and the PM right, that could be the trigger that leads to the collapse of their entire support network’s will to participate. Maybe next time I will refute this possibility, by talking about how it is possible that most of Trump’s supporters already know that fear-based masculinity is already the model that drives their Patriarchal Misogyny, but if I do, I will temper that critique with ideas about how to at least get that model on the process of destroying itself instead of just hiding itself with lies. 

– or maybe a tangent into ways to fight back against Anti-Trans legislation.

I kinda sorta started writing about this as a random social media post, but it is something I have been thinking about all day and I want to try to delve into the idea a little deeper, so I am going to try to write a blog post about it. The overall premise of this post is going to be that, in the mid 2000s, it used to be fairly common for people to identify as “gender fucked” as a gender identity, specifically meaning that social constructions of gender have left them “fucked” as far a feeling like they were excluded from a society that had such rigidly enforced expectations for the performance of gender. I want to kind of reminisce a little about what that was like, talk about why it kind of went out of favor, and then talk about my concerns about current conversations about gender identity.

Before I dive into this though, I think it is a good idea to get my confessions out of the way:

1. I did strongly identify with the idea of being “Gender Fucked” for many years, so that is something I will talk about from a first person perspective.

2. I still think of gender as an authoritarian social construct and am very worried that all the work trans folks have done to achieve political acceptance, and to reject much of the authoritarianism of gender as it was, is getting burnt to the ground under the current Trump administration.

3. I have a lot of Trans and Non-binary friends for whom battle lines of Trans-inclusion and the right to exist are very personal, very intimate, very embodied battles. Each of them have had very different experiences, many of which, I have only observed from a pretty great distance, so I am going to try very hard not to make a complete ass out of myself by pretending to know or understand exactly what “the trans community” thinks about all of this, or about how it intersects or maybe even crashes into non-binary experiences. I am, in all likelihood, going to fail to be as respectful, thoughtful and understanding as I want to be around all of this, and it might even be the case that this entire post turns into a very sloppy mistake on my part. If you read this post and feel this way, you are only doing me a favor if you call me out on something that feels off or offensive, or ignorant, and if you don’t want to waste your time calling me into conversation about it, I totally understand that too. 

Ok, so let’s fuck with gender. Gender is a social construct. There are a lot of places I could go to with this statement as far as sources for why I don’t just think it is true, but consider it to be the position of scholarly consensus, but instead of going that route, I will just share this link to the World Health Organization’s explanation of gender and how it relates to health.  I choose this one because it states it plainly and it establishes this as the most international perspective on the topic. The US right, especially authoritarian Trumpism, tends to heavily reject the idea that anything is actually socially constructed and not based upon some other trait that is more innate and likely determined by god, but that is mostly because they are trying to stoke and feed malevolent ignorance, and refuse to acknowledge that many things are socially constructed, but that doesn’t make them less real than things that are not. Like money, language, forms of government, even lower stakes things like the rules of sports…these are not things that inherently exist or have been given to us by divine sources, they come to exist because a very large number of people invest their own personal power and resources (mental, physical and even spiritual) into making these social constructs have collective meaning. Tradition, and generational story telling play an absolutely massive role in repeating the generative ideas (memes really, in the academic sense) that give these social constructs power. Some nations and organizations attempt to enforce the “rules” or expectations of some of these constructs more directly and rigidly than others, but influencing or changing any of these social constructs often requires a lot of social and cultural (and often economic) capital to even start to move the needle on, and even then, most of them are too big for any one person to just instantly or intentionally change or control.  

Gender, being a social construct, is not inherently a positive or negative thing, by itself. In a society where people share political and social power, it is entirely possible to imagine genders existing as categories that simply exist to provide a loose and flexible collection of traits that might help some people find a sense of shared identity and purpose. While I am personally skeptical that this idealized version of positive constructions of gender is ever achievable in the real world, I recognize that that positive ideal is incredibly powerful and motivating for very many people. I would even argue that authoritarian gender essentialist (people who believe that gender is a direct projection of biological sex into the social realm) are as invested in the positive idea that gender can help people find a shared sense of identity and purpose, and that is why they are so alarmed and sensitive to anyone questioning traditional constructions of gender, even ones that are pretty obviously harmful to enforce. Gender essentialists are absolutely terrified of losing the power and convenience of being able to divide all of humanity into something as simple as 2 categories that can be used to define purpose, motive, and expected behaviors and abilities within society. 

I think a lot of Gender scholarship over the last 20 to 30 years has been driven by people trying to hold on to the idea that gender can be a positive social force in the world. Even on the radically left, I think it is common to uphold this idea, as long as gender categories can be blown up beyond just a male/female binary and that association with any of these categories can be voluntary and mutable as necessary, according to the needs of the individual. This has been a powerful idea that has largely gained a lot of traction in a relatively short period of time, especially amongst youth in the United States, as it fits in very nicely to a liberal (as in libertarian) world view that each person’s ability to define who they are for themselves is the most fundamental freedom a person can have. It is a beautiful idea, and one very much worth fighting for. It is also one that is going to inherently butt heads with the reality of everything that is socially constructed:

Things that are socially constructed can never actually be defined by an individual. That is why they are social constructs and not simply classified as expressions of the self, or individual. Now, a lot of leftists do understand this, and what they are really talking about with things like “preferred pronouns” is not that every individual gets to just make up their gender on the spot in a way that makes that gender immediately functional as a social category that everyone will understand (which is kind of how the right/“anti-woke” crowd tries to spin it), but that it is possible for society to be compassionate and understanding enough that immediate assessments of other people’s gender identities don’t actually need to be made without giving the person being assessed for “gender” the time and ability to be an active participant in  that process. In other words, gender doesn’t have to be an essential category that needs to be authoritarianly applied and instantly identifiable. This is where the real cultural war battle about “pronouns” and “gender ideology” is being fought, because authoritarians absolutely want every social category that might define one’s power and prestige within that society to be as immediately recognizable and enforceable as possible. Otherwise, the risk of people gaining access to power that is not meant for them becomes to difficult to police and control.

For the record, I do want to live in a world that is compassionate, kind and patient enough to let everyone be part of the process of defining who they are.

However, I think focusing so heavily on that goal, making gender identity as open and participatory as possible, has had a cost in the world of gender politics, in that it has made questioning, critiquing, and even attacking gender as a source of social power and control, look like it is anti-social, hateful behavior towards those who just want to fit into those categories. This is why I have always been lukewarm towards advocating politically for same-sex marriage rights instead of attacking the legal privileges that being married provides, and why I have always identified most strongly with “queer” as a sexual identity instead of something like “bi” or “pan” sexual. When you let bigots turn people’s right to exist into the topic that can be debated, instead of staying on the attack and questioning why we let these socially constructed categories have so much pauthority over people’s lives, the bigots will always choose the path that focuses the light on other people instead of the corrupt basis of their power.  They will still try to make radical attacks on sources of hierarchy and authority sound extremist and impossible when necessary, but most of the time they can let the center or moderate leftists make those attacks for them, while they just keep pushing to expand their power and authority. The centrists and moderates then tend to blame the radicals for not fighting hard enough to protect the most basic rights, while the moderate right is pretty much just completely content to let far-right extremists do whatever they want and just deny that “those people belong to us” unless they can receive a reward for doing so. 

The right has been incredibly successful in accomplishing this in the last 20+ years in regards to gender, and I deeply question whether that is partially because they have been able to claim that the (incredibly moderate) position of “Gender is not binary and Trans People exist,” is the extreme left position on the issue, because the radical and far left critique of gender within a capitalist society has pretty much been pushed out of the conversation entirely. It is really hard to be critical of masculinity or femininity (or a system that encodes and enforces both of those categories) within a capitalist society when you are trying to hold space for people to have the right to have those categories be accessible to anyone (who can afford the costs of fitting into them).  That is a real dilemma, especially because a nuanced critique that says “gender is a social construct that we have to work long term to undermine as a source of social and economic power, but also acknowledge that people living today might have to be able to freely navigate, for their own mental and physical health” is never going to be something that translates effectively into a talking heads sound bite. Also complicating that critique is the fact that people with access to extreme wealth almost always have been able to have more freedom navigating restrictive social constructs ( at least within specific environments) than the general public, and the United States has been a place where the extremely wealthy have been able to very publicly live above the constraints of social and political expectations.

So where does this leave us today, when it feels like more than half the states in the US are attacking Trans People’s fundamental right to exist, attempting to criminalize and demonize Trans folks as perverse predators and pedophiles? Does the need to protect Trans lives require that the whole left unite to adopt the most political expedient methods to create the broadest shield possible? I think that answer can be “Yes!”…“and” also, let’s acknowledge that doesn’t have to mean silencing people who are trying to do more than just lend their own political power over to the the political institutions and organizations that have massively failed thus far to provide that protection. Going soft on social constructs like gender, marriage, family and heterosexuality have paved the way for all of the right’s success in framing basic compassion and decency as far-left ideologies because more radical and leftist ideas are being silenced internally. The right continually makes its greatest strides when it courts and empowers its extremists with as much media attention as possible, while the left keeps acting shocked how effective that has been, even though that same strategy has always worked best for it as well. 

In the face of an authoritarian rejection of the science, the sociology, and the appeal to compassion, I don’t really see any room for trying to negotiate meager protections for only the wealthiest people who fall outside of a patriarchal and misogynistic understanding of the social construction of gender.  For example, if the rules of college sports are so tied up in definitions of gender that can so easily be rewritten in direct reputation to scientific consensus, then it is time for colleges and state politicians to pull the funding out from their sports programs until either new sports not dependent on gendered classifications can be established, or executive orders signed by the president are incapable of infringing upon universities intellectual and scholarly freedom. If gendered bathrooms are going to sites of the policing of people’s bodies, then we have to demand that bathrooms be de-gendered, no matter how costly a process that becomes. If schools and businesses are going to start enforcing gendered codes for clothing and behavior, then students, faculty, workers, and customers have to actively defy and reject those codes. We pretty much have an obligation to make the enforcement of any gendered based laws and policy so impossible to enforce that Trumpism has to constantly defend the expense of this enforcement.  I think even moderate, but consistent disruption to college sports programs that adopt anti-trans measures (not just those specific sports, but the whole college’s athletic programs) alone could scare Trump off from this course of action when the economic and social impact of these ill-thought out choices his administration has made become real and tangible. We have already seen it with his bluster on Tariffs. We know he himself has no spine for confronting actual resistance, especially not on issues that he doesn’t actually care about any more than is inspired by a random talking head on the TV program he was just watching. 

Between loyalty, honesty and now family values, I have a feeling some imaginary folks reading this blog are probably just assuming that I hate goodness and decency and am an antisocial miscreant. Maybe one day this blog will be used to prove my moral ineptitude, but I would counter argue that my willingness to be honest about reservations I have about socially upheld values should prove me to be more honest than many people who claim honesty as a virtue. So why does Benjamin C. Roy Cory Garrett hate families?

I don’t. I have amazing families. I say “families” because “family” is a more complicated concept than people generally give it credit with ideas like “nuclear family” or even “chosen family.” In fact, I would argue, the idea that each person has only one family, highlights one of the biggest problem I have with the social construction of “family values.”

I think, tell me if I am wrong, that one of the core features of “family values” that even folks who hold it as a central defining value is the idea that the individual should be willing to do anything for their family, and that family comes before nation, or the self, or any identity category. I think that can be a very beautiful idea in the right social context, but within a patriarchal society, I am not sure that it is ever possible for a patriarchal figure to actually mean that they value the individual members of their family (I’ll come back to the families thing) more than they value themselves, because, within a patriarchal society, a family is an extension of the patriarch and his lineage. If the (man’s) family name is the most important generational property handed down from father to son (as is inherently the case within patriarchal society), then conditioning everyone in the family to place the family above themselves is really only a power play at getting everyone in the patriarch’s family to surrender their labor, property and independence over to the patriarch. Patriarchal constructions of family inherently turn the belief in family values over as a tool to keep power in the hands of the patriarch of the family. It is, in essence, a kind of selfishness, when espoused by men at the head of a family,  in the same way that it is for a king to claim the fealty of his people as necessary for the good of the kingdom, or for the head of an organized crime organization saying that they are doing everything for the good of “the organization.” 

That might be a contentious claim to some people, but I think the way we talk about “family” makes it pretty clear that this is how family was intended to work, at least within the rise of the United States as a global cultural powerhouse. The fact that people say “my family” instead of “my families” is a pretty strong example of how a hierarchal authority is supposed to position oneself as the center of their family, as it is only other people’s relationship to the patriarch’s definition of family that matters for their own inclusion in that family. Is a hypothetical cousin or, even more removed, that cousin’s ex-partner a part of my family? Probably only if there is some social or economic benefit for me to claim so, and for them to want me to be a part of their family. The ability to define and control who gets to be a member of “the Family” is at the heart of many current culture war issues, and is an example of how this nation’s patriarchal legal system and definition of property have made it pretty impossible to exist as a person or as a collective group outside of patriarchal definitions of family. 

If society was truly going to value the social unit of families as collective power holders, people wouldn’t talk about “my family.” They might abstractly talk about “family” or they would specifically talk about “my families,” recognizing that “family” shifts based upon each person in the social unit, especially over time, and that any one person can belong to multiple families at once. It is only within a patriarchal definition of family that it is necessary for daughters to be sold off for a dowery, to become a baby factory for another family’s name. 

Modern US society has taken old patriarchal definitions of family even further into the realm of individualist imaginary by defining the “family” unit most prominently as the “nuclear” family. While children and wives might no longer be as directly defined as property as they once were, a nuclear family in a capitalist society is going to pretty inherently become the defacto property of the highest earning member of that family, which in the United States, is still about 69% male dominated. I think the fact that this has come down from 85% since only the 1970s is actually something that is worth looking into more later, and might be where a very big part of the Manosphere-crybaby attitude of “women now run everything” might be coming from, but that is a little tangential to this discussion of family (perhaps in this pew research center study). With older family members pretty much written out of the nuclear family narrative, or perhaps more arguably written down to tangential family member status, likely to be seen as much of a drain of family resources as a contributor, it becomes even easier to essentialize “my family,” down into the category of “the people I am economically responsible for,” and thus allow for people like Donald Trump and Elon Musk, who have cheated on partners multiple times and treat their children with various levels of contempt or inclusion in “the Family” business, to claim that they respect “family values” when it appears to most outsiders like that is complete bullshit. The reason why they can appear so sincere when they talk about family though is exactly because they are defining their families along lines that run exactly parallel to how much economic responsibility they feel for the people they are defining as family, and thus as long as they are capable of providing for those family members (while they are still worth calling family members), then, in their minds, they are upholding family values. 

This also allows for the richest men to be the laxest in actually doing anything to prioritize their families in their lives and still use “family values” as a bludgeon, especially against people poorer than themselves, because wealth becomes a way to fulfill the contractual obligations of family without actually having those obligations become any kind of meaningful burden or investment. “Family values,” for those rich enough to easily materially provide for a large number of people, becomes a very easy way to present the illusion of caring and compassion, without actually having that mean anything to their sense of self or character.  And this is why I am so skeptical of it on a personal level, and the way it has been pushed onto so many people who lack that wealth. Because sincerely caring about the welfare of others is hardest when you have just enough resources to take care of yourself, or maybe a few other people, and when working class people do form family bonds that stretch their ability to provide for those families (by blood or by choice), it can be harrowing, stressful, backbreaking, and soul crushing…but also amazing and compassionate, and an incredibly beautiful act of mutual aid and solidarity. In other words, it can be the kind of thing that ruins some people’s lives while it gives others a purpose worth pushing through all the risk and danger and difficulty. And it really, really pisses me off that rich people get to somehow make some kind of moral claim on knowing what it means to “value family,” especially when they use that claim to manipulate working people into surrendering their time, energy and collective power over to those lying bastards. 

Could “family values” mean something beautiful and worth fighting for? I think the answer, at least for me is, yes, sometimes, when it becomes about sharing power willingly with others…but not in a political reality where “family” has been used and defined to maintain the power and authority of wealthy elites who are incapable of actually understanding what kind of unit a family could be.

Men who do not have support for handling difficult emotional situations often do terrible things when faced with difficult emotional situations. I don’t really think this is saying anything new or insightful, but it is an important starting place for understanding why men’s emotional support networks are important and worth talking about on a collective level.

It is a pretty common stereotype that Men are bad at feelings. This is often represented in media as men having difficulty talking about things or experiences that they want or desire, as well as tending to avoid conversations or situations where other people expect them to express their feelings. This stereotype typically arises from the idea that men are supposed to portray strength at all times, and strength is often interpreted to mean independence and not needing help from anyone. I think this is a terrible definition of strength, but independence, especially in the United States is seen as core social virtue, and being the opposite, dependent upon others, is not only a sign of weakness, it is a sign of subservience. 

Even as someone that is highly critical of Independence as strength, because people pretending to be independent are just ignoring or deliberately hiding the ways they get help from others, it is very difficult not to let the desire to “handle my own shit,” and not burden others with my problems. One reason for this is experience. Even when your friends and family are amazing people, big problems are difficult to deal with, and there are only so many difficult problems that people have the emotional, mental and physical capacity to deal with at once. Having problems, and sharing those problems with others is undeniably increasing the burden that those people face. (I will come back to this specific idea in just a minute because this is both true, and also often exaggerated, or made worse more by how the sharing occurs than by the sharing of the problems in the first place). 

One time, I was in a relationship that created a lot stressful and difficult situations for me to handle emotionally, which I mention in Post 9 of 100. This was a romantic relationship with a cisgendered woman who had very bad experiences with emotional men acting out violently, and thus she would immediately get incredibly uncomfortable and upset around men expressing difficult emotions. This is a very rational response to the trauma she had experienced, but it also made it really difficult for me to process some of the more challenging emotional experiences of that relationship, especially because I was young, and not as emotionally mature as I imagined myself to be. I also was mistakenly trying to contain all of my difficult feelings in that relationship to that relationship because I was afraid of being judged by others, both for the situations I was creating for myself and how I wasn’t capable of handing myself in them. After one difficult in person conversation, I started crying pretty intensely, and she told me I needed to leave. This wasn’t a relationship ending “get out,” even if it kind of felt like it to me at the time, it was more like “I can’t feel safe talking to you about this while you are having such intense feelings,” which is something that I want all of my partners to be able to say when it is necessary. At the same time, it put me in a real bind as I was not in my home city, and I was broke as shit. So the emotional difficulty and intensity of the situation was really only getting amplified for both of us (and I am now much more sympathetic now to how dangerous it can be for someone to be in a romantic relationship with someone socialized as a man who doesn’t have a strong economic safety net, but that is a little off topic for this conversation). 

It is incredibly dangerous, for everyone, when people socialized as men are afraid to talk to anyone except their romantic partners about difficult emotional experiences, for many reasons, but especially because romantic relationships often become the source of difficult emotional experiences. According to National Domestic Violence Hotline, 1 in 4 women and 1 in 7 men, 18 and older, have been the victims of severe intimate partner violence, and that more than 12 million people in the US experience intimate partner violence each year. Almost half of both men and women have experienced psychological aggression by an intimate partner in their lifetime, and more than half of women killed by gun violence in the US are killed by family members or intimate partners. It is very unlikely to me that most of the men that end up engaging in intimate partner violence plan on ever having to use physical violence in their relationships, but it does seem incredibly likely to me that men tend to resort to physical violence when they have no other plan for handling difficult emotional situations in their lives, especially when they can point to one person in their life causing the emotional difficulty. This doesn’t excuse any violent behavior, but it strongly indicates to me that there is a large number of men who end up engaging in intimate partner violence that probably wouldn’t, if they had other ways of handling difficult emotional situations and people to help train them to use those other means before the situations escalate.

Cue: Men can’t expect women to do their difficult emotional labor for them. It is not healthy for men, and it is incredibly dangerous for women. This isn’t to say that folks socialized as men shouldn’t have any friends that women, or that they can’t share emotional difficulties with their friends, family and partners who are women, but, especially for straight men, when the women they are close to are the only ones they talk to about their emotions, there is a very real danger of creating a situation of creating a situation where a source of emotional difficulty is the only person the man trusts to talk to about their emotions. 

We, folks socialized as men or in the process of becoming men, really need to step up and supporting each other. It would be great if seeking professional mental health support were normalized, destigmatized and freely available, and that is a worth-while goal to work towards in the future. At the same time, our friends and family members are alive now, in a country that tends to criminalize and scorn anyone presenting any signs of potential mental or emotional distress, and that only increases the risk of the people we care about getting hurt or hurting others when they, or someone in their life can’t handle the emotional difficulties in their life. Men need to stop repeating lies that tend to lead to harm down the road, like “men need to be able to exert control and authority over their families and their partners or they aren’t really men,” but also lies like “real men sacrifice everything for the benefit of their family,” and “having a relationship end before you are ready is a sign of weakness and failure.” Men need, instead, to make sure that their friends know that it is normal to talk to each other about emotional difficult situations from a place of vulnerability and uncertainty without being judged as weak, or just needing to toughen up. If men aren’t sure they can offer that support to each other, it is probably a good idea to make sure that you know what free and low cost resources are available to people struggling with difficult emotional situations in their lives, in their area, and they really should practice getting better at being a supportive friend. It is ok to feel like you are not good at talking to people about emotions or providing support to people struggling with emotional stresses. Being up front about that at the start of conversations, and trying to avoid assuming that providing support requires you to act like you know everything about someone else’s situation or how they should respond is a very, very good place to start getting better at providing emotional support. In fact, most of the time, a person experience intense emotional distress really is not capable of having someone else “solve” the cause of their distress for them, and what they really need is someone to listen to them make sure that they are considering potential actions or reactions that they might be capable of taking to respond to the distressing situation  if they don’t rush into doing something brash, or based off of socialized patriarchal instincts.

It is ok for friends to practice providing emotional support to each other. In fact, if we want to live in a world with much less intimate partner violence, it is probably essential.  Figuring out how to do that is a great idea, but one that each of us is going to have to do together, with the people we want to be able to count on for providing us support, and who want us to be there providing support to them as well.

I have had some people ask me questions about Post 18 of 100: A discussion about loyalty, and while I do want to address those questions, I think I need to better explain why I don’t believe that honesty can be a neutral value that can be equally shared or prioritized within the context of a hierarchal society. This will come back around to patriarchal misogyny (PM), but it might take a bit to get there.

The idea of honesty is very nice. I don’t like having relationships with people who who are dishonest with me, whether they are doing so to manipulate me for their own personal gain, or to “protect my feelings.” This is particularly true of the kinds of social relationships where someone has an immense amount of power over me. When Donald Trump lies as president, for example, everyone (who can) needs to call him out on his dishonesty and hold him accountable for both what he has lied about, and to what purpose he is telling lies from his position of authority. Is he delusional, and so badly misinformed that he really actually believes that there was voter fraud in the 2020 election? Or did he know he was lying and using those lies to foment insurrection? Both are bad things for a leader of a nation that justify removing this person from power, but one probably requires mental health care, and the other probably requires some kind of trial for social justice. So honesty becomes an important value for people placed in positions of authority over others, but does that make it a universally good value?

Perhaps most people would say honesty remains valuable in power-neutral relationships as well. Again, no one likes knowing that other people are lying to them (with an exception we’ll get to later), especially not in situations where you are supposed to be interacting with someone as an equal. It is hard to establish a pattern of trust and mutual aid in a relationship where you don’t know if the person you are working with is really telling you what they want from you, what they are offering in return, or how much they value the relationship. At the same time, in very small stakes interactions and low investment relationships, there are definitely “white lies,” or what I would personally call “lies of social conformity,” that very few people would consider to be an immoral breach of value of honesty. This probably gets into very muddy ethical waters quickly with questions about myth making for children (Santa Clause), creating hope in situations of despair, and just not burdening some random worker at a grocery store who asks you how you are doing when it feels like the world is collapsing around you. Not to mention all the tricksy/philosophical manipulation that occur around rhetorical questions like “what even is ‘the truth?’” So people might like to sign post that they value honesty, because honesty is something that is generally valuable when other people offer it to you, but most people can also find times in their lives where they only value it so far, and in certain circumstances. 

But then there are situations where authority is being exerted over us when we know that the expectation of honesty from us is actually just a tool of control and power, where being honest might mean capitulation to that authority and cause actual harm for ourselves or others underneath the yoke of that authority. People absolutely love stories about tricksters who topple tyrants, and phrases like “snitches get stitches” arise from an understanding that honesty to authority is subservience. But authoritarians and people who want to use their power over others are even worse than to just expect honesty from their subjects. Because fundamentally, the “TRUTH” does end up being subjective, and so the power to make people repeat a lie until it becomes true is a measure of control that can even exceed the power of making people be honest. In other words, the situation of “how truthful should I be in this situation?” is not really a question of individual values and respect, it is an entanglement of power and what truth or reality can be created within the context of a relationship between two or more people. To say that “honesty” stands alone as a value, separate from its place as just a tool that can be used to shape relationships and define how power is shared within them, is almost always a commitment to uphold existing power structures. This is because of a fundamental reality about hierarchy. Values can have an infinite variety of personal meaning and nuance, but shared social values are always enforced most heavily against those with the least amount of power in a society, and their enforcement amongst the most powerful is often so lax as to be nonexistent. Thus the values of a society or nation are almost always directed at controlling the least powerful, not about expressing the actual character of a society or nation. Saying “Murder is a crime punishable by death,” doesn’t make that universally true in the nation where the law allows for capital punishment. It means that being accused of murder is a very serious threat for those without the power or authority to challenge that accusation, and, the more byzantine and expensive the process of challenging that accusation, the more wealth and privilege it takes to succeed in that challenge. This also spills over into interpersonal relationships.

This is why I am actually very sympathetic to anyone who wants a value like honesty (and loyalty) to be important and respected in a relationship. Dishonesty is absolutely a method of exerting power against the interests and desires of another person/group/institution. In an interpersonal relationship, especially one like a romantic partnership, everyone should want power to be so equally distributed that anyone using a tool of power-over would stand out as an abusive, bad partner.But for that to work, all the members of that romantic relationship have to fully and actually believe that it is a relationship of equals, and that exerting power over your partner(s) is wrong.

This is just not the default position of romantic relationships in the United States (the place I am most familiar with). From popular media, to religion, to the pressures of family, friends, and other community influences, there are incredibly gendered expectations (in heterosexual relationships especially, but also in homosexual, pansexual and queer relationships) on how power within romantic relationships develops and is used; power dynamics that often walk hand in hand with class and race, even when those things might otherwise appear homogenous. I recognize that this is a massive claim, and while I think I thought I was going to be able to wrestle with it in this post, I now think that thought was a little naive, and this conversation about gendered (as well as classed and raced) expectations in relationships probably deserves future posts of their own. For this conversation, about whether honesty can be a fair value to universally apprize, I think it is enough to just point out that power within relationships can be very complicated and while honesty can be tool of sharing power equally, it is very often a bludgeon, used by the powerful against those with less power, because only one party can innately know whether it is being fully honest, and testing another person/party for their level of honesty requires the power to invade their privacy without their consent.

Anyone keeping secrets is going to try to keep those secrets in a private and contained space, otherwise, they are not actually secrets. Lies are one thing that people generally tend to keep secret unless there is great compensation for revealing them, but there are many other things that people might not feel comfortable or safe sharing with everyone, or anyone. A demand for honesty within a relationship is essentially a demand for any privacy barriers within that relationship to be removed. Some people might feel comfortable with that idea “ a romantic relation is a place with no privacy,” but that is going to be the most true for people who feel like they have no experiences in their pasts, or aspects about themselves in the present, that they fear being shared with others. And not just the romantic partner(s), because we live in a world where most of our forms of communication are being surveilled. Placing too heavy a burden for honesty on a romantic partner can very much mean placing an expectation on them that they not only have nothing they want to keep secret from you, but that they have no secrets that could place them in jeopardy from anyone, especially forces that have the power to invade their privacy with easy, like powerful corporations and nations. Prioritizing honesty as a value can be much more invasive into some people’s lives than others, and not being aware of that can create the kind of environment that is incredibly exclusionary for people who can’t feel safe in an environment where everyone can gain access to their their most personal and private information. This is a much bigger social issue than just about whether it is generally good to have honesty in a relationship, hence why I realize I haven’t yet put it all together in words all that effectively just yet, and why I understand why prevailing attitudes about honesty as a value tend to be pretty monochromatic about whether honesty is good or bad. Saying, “I want to be a partner with whom my partners can feel safe and comfortable sharing any secret with me,” is a very wonderful attitude to have for anyone entering a romantic relationship. However, I don’t think most people consider how much work that can entail, especially if that partner has things that they absolutely do not feel comfortable sharing with the world at large, or very many people in it, and if they have any experience being hurt by people who made similar promises in the past, it is very reasonable for someone to not actually value honesty in the same way that it often gets presented.

To some up why this all feels like something worth talking about in a blog that is supposed to be about addressing the spread of Patriarchal Misogyny: living in a nation that espouses the value of honesty publicly (even while its leaders completely mock it) while simultaneously creates environments very hostile to very many people, can make valuing honesty to be a tool of oppression and social control. And it can be very easy to say, “well that doesn’t apply to me and my romantic partner(s),” but you can’t really know that, except for yourself. So placing that expectation on someone else might not be as egalitarian and power-sharing of an expectation as you might believe it to be.A better way to enable egalitarian and power-sharing relationships than pushing a value like honesty or loyalty would be to demonstrate a commitment to creating a world where people are not attacked, harassed and judged for being themselves.

Virginia Giuffre is dead. I have very little doubt that in the next couple of months we are going to hear awful things about how mentally ill she is and that her life has been spiraling out of control. I would not be surprised if we see both Prince Andrew and Ghislaine Maxwell use this incident and the fall out from it to make all kinds of claims about Giuffre’s character and accusations against them. This might just be the pessimist in me, but there is a reason why Harvey Weinstein is pushing to have his case retried now and why I think most wealthy perpetrators of sexual violence see this moment in time, with Donald Trump as president and a massive backlash against women’s rights and gender equality, as the time to reclaim their freedoms and clear their names. After all, the left is about at their wits end trying to hold on to the idea that courts have power outside of empowering and protecting the executive branch of the government. Democrats in the US have basically just become moderate Libertarians who are hoping to win back mainstream voters by waving around the constitution, as if anyone in history actually valued the ideals of democracy espoused in that document and not just the power they could claim in its name.

Trump and the patriarchal misogynists he has empowered will go on and on about how out of control the Me Too movement got in leveling accusations against innocent rich men to steal their money, while  the reality is that women who have stepped up to call out their perpetrators have been bullied, harassed, doxed, and had their lives ruined while the perpetrators have risen to the highest levels of power and authority in society. Hopelessness and misplaced guilt seem like terrible, sad, and predictable consequences of how badly society has failed believe survivors, support them, and hold perpetrators accountable. But the sadness and anger I feel over learning of Giuffre’s death isn’t just about past crimes or battles. It makes it clear to me that people like Elon Musk, a known sexual predator is using his own social media platform to send unsolicited messages to women trying to manipulate them into having his children, offering obscene amounts of money and manipulation of the visibility of their social media platforms in exchange for signing NDAs and keeping quiet about this plot. 

This really would sound like a supervillain plot, or a bad joke, except fairly rightwing media sources, like the Wall Street Journal have been reporting about it, and yet in the grand scheme of “how are these monsters abusing their power and authority to ruin the lives of others,” I think a lot of people who would/should care about this, are overwhelmed by other events, and perhaps feeling like standing up for right wing social media influencers that are also part of many other problems just isn’t something they can spare energy for. It is really hard to have to fight everything all at once, I am not pointing any blame fingers about this.

However, when people do start looking deeper into the idea of billionaires buying popular social media platforms and using them as a personal sex trafficking service to create a legion of new angry white men with women who might take decades to realize how fucked up Musk’s deranged fantasy of essentially Genghis Khan-ing himself into US right wing politics. In what will probably amount to just about as much incest as European Monarchies, I fully expect generations of Musk-spawn to grow up and dominate the Republican Party for decades to come. I fully recognize how much this sounds like a wild conspiracy theory, but Musk is actually pretty terrible at hiding his secrets and the closer he comes to success, the more he will feel compelled to brag about it. Maybe with groups like the WSJ starting to look into him, and some of the women he has tried to manipulate and coerce into his harem coming forward and sharing these details as they realize just how abusively and uncaringly he treats them, and they start to experience the hatred that the Right will always have for the women who their leaders use as sex  toys, just for existing as evidence of their own hypocrisy and lies, well maybe the budding collapse of his economic empire and his reckless failure to bring efficiency to the government will peel back some of the social armor that has protected him from past accusations, and his whole imperial fantasy will crumble around him!

Or maybe we have to look at the fate of Virginia Giuffre and recognize that patriarchal misogyny is ready to levy an unimaginable amount of violence and threats of violence against anyone that tries to stand up and call out abuse from the powerful elites of society.