****Note: most of this applies to stuff written in Academia the ’80s and ’90s. I think things have been cooling off since then*****
Liberal Academics (predominantly of western origin) can’t have their cake and eat it too.
You can’t simultaneously insist that (1) horrible patronizing patriarchy for saying women are physically weaker and should be protected and also that (2) female-on-male domestic violence is probably justified while male-on-female domestic violence is reprehensible.
They contradict eachother. Pick one and stick with it.
A few more examples: You can’t say (1) horrible white people are the source of the world’s problems (and all non-white’s problems are the results of colonialist white modes of thought) and also (2) that white and non-white people are equal. Apparently non-white people worship trees and live in perfect harmony, dancing about in our festive uninhibited innocence before they showed up and taught us greed, patriarchy, and racism.
Look, there is something incredibly eurocentric to make only white people the source of all sin. You can’t hold the British Empire to a higher standard than, say the Chinese or Aztec Empires, and then say you believe in equality of all. To gloss over, say, Granada in 1066, and then go deep into Rhineland 1096–is to betray a double standard where whites held to a higher standard than everyone else. If you just pick on whites–even just to bash them–you are showing that you still believe in the White Man’s Burden. You know, if whites rob and kill or say they’re better than everyone else, then it’s bad, but if the “lesser breeds without the law” are reported doing the same thing, it must all be bias, or them rightfully grasping violent empowerment (hooray Nietzsche)….
You can’t talk about (1) horrible horrible white people for criticizing the sexual practices of Indigenous Culture #1 and also (2) horrible horrible white people for looking down on Non-White Culture #2, when Culture #2 would’ve even more harshly judged Culture #1.
And you can’t (1) denigrate conservative opponents of the sexual revolution and (2) be fully respectful of the vast majority of non-white traditional cultures who also oppose the sexual revolution.
Pick your side and stick with it. If you believe in equality of humankind, then judge us all the same. If we are equal, then moral censure and morality don’t just belong to the whites. And if you believe women ought to be extra-protected from violence, then accept paternalism and don’t bite the hand that feeds you. Yes, it’s “women and children in the lifeboats first!”, yes it’s paternalistic, but maybe they don’t just want to “propagate discourses that justify their imposition of the patriarchy, etc. etc.”, maybe they just want to protect you.