“I Hate Straight, White, Cis-Gendered, Able-Bodied Men”

I’m sorry, but how is this not clear? How is the satire not obvious in the statement? How can anybody actually take it seriously?

Look at my picture. Read my posts.

I am a straight, white, cis-gendered, able-bodied man. Despite my extreme anxiety, possible depression, almost-worrying lack of self-respect, and propensity for self-deprecation as humor, I don’t actually hate myself. I’ve been there, oh yes. There was a point in my life where I hated myself. But I don’t anymore.

And no, I do not hate straight, white, cis-gendered, able-bodied men.

I’m pretty sure that the statement qualifies as satire, or at least as an absurdist statement. I use it to make fun of homophobia, racism, transphobia, ableism, and misogyny. I use it to force people to face, head on, all of these forms of bigotries.

It also proves to be a really good litmus test. I find that the people who are offended by the statement are bigots… either subconsciously or consciously. And I can block them easier. It also lets me find friends, because the people who get it turn out to be awesome.

And that’s all I’m going to say from this point forward.

“I hate straight, white, cis-gendered, able-bodied men” is my tagline and my motto. So expect to see it everywhere you see me. Expect to be drowning in it. I’m going to over-do it and make it annoying, because it is, IMO, the funniest thing I’ve ever come up with. I’m proud of that fact because I don’t actually consider myself funny. So yes, I’m going to over-use it, and proudly so.

I think that maybe I should get it on a shirt…


About Nathan Hevenstone

I hate straight, white, cis-gendered, able-bodied men. I also play guitar and sing, and I'm an atheist and anti-theist. What now?
This entry was posted in Bigotry, Homophobia, Misanthropy, Misogyny, Racism, Sexism, Social Justice and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to “I Hate Straight, White, Cis-Gendered, Able-Bodied Men”

  1. Oy Vey says:

    You forgot to include Christian you shook.

    • I don’t understand this comment. For one thing, I’m not Christian. This only works because it’s all things that I am. It would border on outright prejudice if I started including other axes of privilege I don’t have (Christianity, Wealthy, etc).

      For another thing… “you shook”?

      I shook what? I don’t get that at all…

      • Oy Vey says:

        Ok, you only are making fun of the privileges that you have, not of all the dominant privileges. I understand now. Shalom to you.

        And I thought “shook” was a Jewish expression, but I guess I’m wrong here…

      • I’ve never heard “shook” as a Jewish expression, but I’m sure my dad (Jewish clergy: Hazan) can ellucidate that for me. You could be right and it’s one I missed…

        But yes, I’m only making fun of my privileges, and that’s why it’s that. Welcome to my blog, BTW! 🙂

  2. queershoop says:

    Oh gee, a Pitter. And one who still hasn’t come to understand what is understood by ‘patriarchy’.

    • queershoop says:

      ‘Meant’ by ‘patriarchy’.

    • Steersman says:

      Oh gee, a FftBlog common-tater, though one apparently at least brave enough to step outside PZ’s hothouse and echo-chamber.

      As for what is “meant” by patriarchy, that seems a rather nebulous term – rather like the trinity on which I expect no two Christians would agree as to its definition and import. One might reasonably argue that “patriarchy” has as much substance, and as much causal efficacy in “the real world”, as does the trinity and Christian theology, not least for being, apparently, predicated on “critical theory” – which is in turn “rife with tensions”. A situation and limitation which even some “feminists” apparently have (still) enough sense to recognize:

      The theoretical adequacy of patriarchy has been challenged because, for instance, black men to not have control over white wo/men and some women (slave/mistresses) have power over subaltern women and men (slaves).

      As mentioned, a point which Nathan has yet to address, it seems to me that the “patriarchy” is largely and at best little more than an abstraction which has as much utility, and as little causal impact, as Adam Smith’s “Invisible Hand”. And that those who put much weight on it are trying to promote something that is little better than some egregious conspiracy theory. No wonder PZ has parted company with skepticism.

  3. It’s not sexism. It’s mocking privilege.
    And I would totally wear that t-shirt.

    • Steersman says:

      Check your privilege there Iris. You too could also reflect on “intent isn’t magic”.

    • Steersman says:

      But I also wonder how you would respond if I were to wear a T-shirt that said, “I hate straight, white, cis-gendered, able-bodied women”. As “mocking privilege”? Or as egregious sexism? If you happen to be in a reflective mood, which I expect happens rather infrequently for you and your fellow-travelers, you might want to reflect also on the aphorism “sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander”.

      • Yeah, Nate nailed it: you really don’t get it. Thanks for trying to manschool me about sexism, though. Hilarious!

      • Steersman won’t. Blinded by the misuse and abuse of Evo-Psych, he’s under one of two mistaken impressions (I’m not sure which). He either thinks that oppression isn’t a thing anymore, at least in the US, or he thinks that straight, white, cis-gendered, able-bodied men are just as oppressed as anyone who doesn’t fall into one or more of those axes.

        That’s why he wants to know how we’d react if he said he hated “straight, white, cis-gendered, able-bodied women”, because he thinks the two statements are equivalent… they aren’t even close. He just likes to ignore history and context.

      • Steersman says:

        What bloody ignorance; what bloody arrogance. And rather anti-intellectual to boot. I suppose you subscribe to the not particularly tenable view that blacks can’t be guilty of racism, and that women can’t be guilty of sexism? That looks to be into the territory of “four legs good, two legs bad”. Or maybe it’s “two legs good, three legs bad”? In any case, should you actually want to ameliorate that ignorance you could read the source of the original quote, Orwell’s Animal Farm.

      • Steersman says:

        Nathan: … or [Steersman] thinks that straight, white, cis-gendered, able-bodied men are just as oppressed as anyone who doesn’t fall into one or more of those axes.

        Pray tell, where did I say that? But while I certainly think it moot which classes or groups are more oppressed than some others, and that it may be of some relevance, I don’t think it particularly so when one is asking whether a crime has been committed. Or maybe you think that the color of someone’s skin or their sex is some kind of automatic get-out-of-jail-free card?

        But one might argue that what you’re attempting to do there is rather analogous to what you, presumably, and many others, including Yemisi Ilesanmi, are claiming that Dawkins is doing, presumably, in being a “rape apologist” and “rape grader”: using the graduations in the commission of a crime to absolve some while crucifying others. Maybe we could all agree that “crimes” – whether they be rape, murder, or sexism – are still crimes regardless of who commits them, but that they come in a range of severities with some attendant extenuating circumstances?

        In any case, it seems that, generally speaking, no few people, on both sides of this “Great Rift”, tend to have a great deal of difficulty, or unwillingness, to even try to understand where the other side is coming from. Maybe provides some entertainment and drama, but the result seems to generate more heat than light. Really a puzzle to me though as to why “we” tend to come up with so many diametrically opposed interpretations of events and situations and people. Personally, I think it is probably rooted in neurochemistry, like red-green blindness, and rather analogous to the spinning dancer bistable optical illusion.

        Seems like it would be a really good idea to ask ourselves why that is the case.

      • Um… I actually agree with some of what you wrote here. Shit… maybe something’s wrong with me…

        Just kidding.

        I don’t think it has anything to do with neurochemistry, however. I think it has more to do with how one views the world.

        To me, that we live in a patriarchy is about as obvious as evolution, especially since I started working at Burger King and have been mistaken, more than once, for a woman over the drive-thru, and then summarily harassed.

      • Steersman says:

        Um… I actually agree with some of what you wrote here. Shit… maybe something’s wrong with me…

        Just kidding.

        🙂 The horror! Agreeing with a ’Pitter? Careful that doesn’t get back to PZ – it’ll either give him a heart attack or earn you a lifetime ban – “with extreme prejudice”.

        But kidding about agreeing with me? Or about “something wrong with me”?

        I don’t think it has anything to do with neurochemistry, however. I think it has more to do with how one views the world.

        I figure it’s all about neurochemistry – or at least almost all. You might want to read Pinker’s How the Mind Works, particularly the section on stereovision and various visual and cognitive illusions [The Mind’s Eye; Chapter 4]. And, as that spinning dancer illusion suggests, “we” do have a tendency to misinterpret what our senses are telling us – in more ways than one.

        To me, that we live in a patriarchy is about as obvious as evolution, especially since I started working at Burger King and have been … then summarily harassed.

        And, pray tell, what evidence do you have for the existence of said “patriarchy”? Some secretly and clandestinely recorded tapes leaked to some Woodward/Bernstein duo? But I hardly think that one individual being harassed at Burger King qualifies as much in the way of evidence which proves little more than that some guys are dickheads.

        Seems to me that what you and many others have with your “patriarchy” is a classic example of the logical fallacy of reification: “treating an abstraction as if it were a real thing”. One might argue, although this is only a conjecture, that it is analogous if not identical to virtual images; and there’s a real nice illustration of that in a YouTube video. Basically what you have, in those cases and with your patriarchy, is merely a projection, an image that doesn’t have any substance or causal efficacy. And acting as if they do tends to be a source of some amusement if not a recipe for disaster.

        Maybe there’s some value in the abstraction itself, somewhat analogous to Adam Smith’s “Invisible Hand”. And there may even be some value in thinking that the collection of all our social behaviours, particularly those of men, constitutes some limited “emergent property” which could be called “the patriarchy” that might have some limited causal effects that might be worth addressing. But those look like rather tenuous hypotheses, and I would say those putting much weight on the concept of the “patriarchy” are either barking up the wrong tree or chasing their tails – not conducive to engendering much in the way of confidence or support.

  4. Steersman says:

    Sorry, but I don’t think that really “washes”, at least not particularly well. Maybe you think it is analogous to Grouch Marx’ [or W.C. Field’s] “I wouldn’t want to join any club that would consider having me as a member”, but I think it falls well short of that. Seems to me, and apparently no few others, that it qualifies as some highly questionable self-hate, of which there seems to be no shortage of evidence of other cases of it.

    In addition, it still suggests some discrimination against people simply based on the class they’re apparently in – “sexism” in a word.

Did you read the post and all the comments?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s