A new addition to the diverse cast of the Huffington Post blog, Shelley Garland describes herself as “an activist and a feminist”, now debuting with the only article to her name: Could It Be Time To Deny White Men The Franchise?
The article starts naturally by subscribing the faults of events clearly not beneficiary to her “progressive cause” to white men (what’s more “progressive” than a referendum of self-determination? I kid). Hilariously, Garland misplaces her confidence that the white men are alone in their support of the Republican candidate and now President Donald J. Trump, failing to consider that at least 25% of each racial demographic (with the exception of African Americans) were in favor of the candidate. Now, now, I am not discounting that of all the racial categories noted, the only majority in favor of Trump were white people and that this demographic makes up the majority of the United States, around 70% to 75% as of 2010 United States census. However, Garland seems to exempt women from the category. Wasn’t it the critique of the third-wave feminist movement that men often place women on a pedestal, where women can do no wrong as the guardians of moral standards? Interestingly, CNN exit polls not only shows that a sizeable portion of white women voted for Trump but also the majority of the white women – a sharp 52% – voted for the man now currently in the White House.
Outside the remarkably low creativity, the article is honestly nothing but an entertainment piece, fashioned by a follower of a boring brand of identitarianism. The rest of her work not follows that the white men in the United States should be dealt justice for the crimes of white South Africans in the South Africa, but that the course of justice is acceptable as if disfranchisement should beget disfranchisement in spite of our country’s now general consciousness of disfranchisement as a breach of universal human rights. Unsurprisingly, the author does nothing to credit liberalism with its celebration of ideas and programmes such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, civil rights, etc. Instead, she champions a society where membership of a group is met with marginalization and/or bounties. An example of a society such as this would be Garland’s fantasy of a United States that decides to disfranchise its majority based on the crimes of their ancestors and/or people of similar race.
However, in the end, Garland makes the supposition that her radical ideology is not only necessary albeit “unfair” but also implicates that the literal disfranchisement of the majority in favor of the minority is an acceptable choice. Whether this is through violent revolution or legislation is made vague, but the plan seems largely implausible, given the United States’ violent ties with “taxation without representation”. It was because of this, that I had trouble distinguishing whether the article was satirical or not, reducing an entire social movement to a page only championed by out-of-touch, likely privileged, and self-described “feminist” college students midst their completion of a Gender Studies MA degree.
Then, I read Garland’s bio.
I certainly hope that Huffington Post, if they continue to employ the ramblings of left-wing authoritarians, does not quickly degenerate into a hotspot for Garlands of the Western world to tinker on to produce more unproductive, aggressive solutions to global inequalities. Regardless of whether Caucasian men are responsible for the atrocities worldwide, I thank the Lord that the United States is still a functioning constitutional republic in protection against these crazed ideologues.