The Feminist Response to Ferguson
Ms. Magazine has published one professor's feminist response to the violence (can we call them "race riots" or is that too 60's?) in Ferguson, MO. Loaded with the language of critical theory, Professor Williams cites numerous historical resources ranging from 1892 - 1977 in order to defend "reproductive justice" and rail against what she (of course) believes to be racially motivated "police brutality". Her conclusion (again, based on research dating from 1892-1977) is the textbook leftist response that leaves the casual reader with a yawn:
Police brutality cuts across race, class, gender and sexuality. Feminists that believe in reproductive justice must speak out for the rights of mothers and fathers to parent their children without fear that police and self-appointed neighborhood watchmen will deprive them of a future. Feminists must also ensure that women and sexual minorities that are subject to profiling and police violence are not subsumed by male-centered narratives of racial trauma and oppression. And feminism is not just about women’s oppression. As advocates for social justice, feminists should respond to undue acts of police violence against women and men.
Yada, yada, yada. It's odd how she begins by distinguishing between "white" police officers (who are presumably male) and "black and brown men" (what about burnt sienna, sandalwood, or any of Crayola's 72 other colors?), but by the end has fallen into the classic feminist language pattern of railing against "male-centered narratives of racial trauma and oppression." It could easily be argued that Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the rioters in Ferguson are subjecting us law abiding citizens in all our 72 colors to a "male-centered narrative of racial trauma and oppression." But, that doesn't fit the Professor's well-written screed of contempt against the white colonialist oppressors she's being paid to hate.
Just as there must always be a boss and a prole, there must always be the oppressor and the victim if social justice is to survive and thrive as the lay movement du jour. Social Justice can't save you if you don't need saving, and without its redemptive power, it can't compete with Biblical faith. Therefore, feminists are forced to defend the men they otherwise despise whenever their situation fits the victim narrative of social justice. This doesn't mean that social justice feminists have had a change of heart, merely that the men placed before them suit their need.
Media gatekeepers following the social justice narrative have ensured that audiences have gotten their fill of violent images of "black and brown" (and even...white!) men and women rioting in Ferguson. Yet, when asked if the shooting of Michael Brown was "justified", 64% of the viewing audience responded that they "didn't know enough to say."
Like sacrifices made to an ideological god, the lawbreaking population of Ferguson is praised in their 15 minutes of fame leading up to the altar. Law abiding bystanders look on as the flames wash the color from their faces, turning their once bright and brilliant world into a desperate, so-called "just" canvas of black and white. And the majority of Americans, subjected to the narrative of social justice through media and education, don't know enough to stand up against this cultural tyranny.