Predatory Explanation And Collective Security

The second primary technique of Predatory Explanation is the assimilation of personal interests to the interests of the oppressed group. That is, the Predatory Explainer should argue as if whatever she wants furthers the welfare of that group, and that whatever hinders or annoys her is part of its continued oppression. The second is easier than the first.

Deliberate confusion between individual and collective interests is, of course, an old story. It is always to the individual’s advantage, at least in the short term, to spend the moral capital accumulated by the group. “Trust me”, says Dr. Groper, “I’m a doctor”. Moral capital may be frittered away by being frivolously invoked in defence of individual members’ private agendas, but as long as this capital lasts long enough for the purpose, the rogue member can continue drawing on it. If another woman disapproves of her discrediting the Cause by her use of feminist rhetoric to defend her every private action, the Predatory Explainer can easily denounce her back as a sell-out. The whistle is not lightly blown on techniques that are, after all, employed mostly against a common enemy.

Whatever the Predatory Explainer happens to want for herself should, therefore, be presented as justified by the need to right a massive historical wrong; and that wrong should henceforth be the sole focus of discussion. When her acts are presented exclusively in terms of what was done to her foremothers five centuries ago, in terms of what is being done somewhere to women even now, or in terms of the results her acts will allegedly produce in ten, fifty or a hundred years, it becomes more difficult to weigh them on their own merits in the here and now.

If a man wants something that the Predatory Explainer doesn’t want to give him, therefore, his wish must be made to seem an integral part of the whole system of male oppression. Any unfavourable reaction to her behaviour, any disagreement, protest, avoidance or dislike, should be attributed entirely to his pathological hostility to the cause of women’s liberation and not by her own deeds, words, agenda or personality.

All the very real horrors of past and present may be pressed into the service of the Predatory Explainer’s own particular interests. For example, it is obvious that putting a stop to the atrocity of female genital mutilation requires global women’s liberation, and that universal liberation reasonably requires her own liberation and the destruction of the patriarchal structures nearest her. Although she herself is in no danger of suffering FGM at the hands of the men at the office, therefore, whatever she does at their expense may be presented as self-liberation and thereby as a new link in the chain that will ultimately abolish such horrors as female genital mutilation. Indeed, whatever the Predatory Explainer does to a man can be justified in terms of it having been done to other women by other men in the past, which means that she remains a victim in the very act of mistreating others.

The sky is the limit: especially if the Predatory Explainer makes the Taking of Offence into a full-time occupation. Everything she does, should be said to be done as a woman, everything done against her to be done against her as a woman, and anything that frustrates, offends or even inconveniences her oppresses her as a woman, which is to say, it “oppresses women”, after which there is no more to be said.

Almost any arrangement may be portrayed as male oppression of women, even if championed by feminists in the past, or by other feminists now, or even by she herself in other conversations. This use of Morton’s Fork doubles the amount of offence she can take and the victimhood she can enjoy. If the Predatory Explainer fails to take the final step and brand all unwelcome treatment as “oppression” and all unwelcome words as “offensive”, then the more fool her.

Leave a Reply