There are two strategies to maintaining traditional practices. One strategy is to simply affirm those practices as having intrinsic value and so to teach them to the young, and maintain them as worthy of investment by the community. Another strategy is to say that these practices are “liberating”, that the goal of society is the humanist goal to liberate man from the oppressive status quo. On this view, the goal of social practices is to disestablish the status quo. Then the question for any practice is whether it’s a marker of an oppressive established order or whether it’s a practice that is “therapeutic” and therefore “liberating”.
In order to view practices as liberating one needs to identify an established order which is defined in terms of those with power and those without power, those who are oppressed and those who are oppressors. In other words, you need to see the world in terms of a victimhood stack. If A is a victim than there must be a B who is a victimiser. Moreover, these are not merely individuals but groups. The system must be defined in terms of group identities where all members of group A are victims and all members of group B are oppressors. All women are victims of domestic violence and sexual predation, and all men are perpetrators of these things. Thus, we notice that in the leftist media, the cases that confirm this scheme are always highlighted and cause outrage, whereas cases that contradict this scheme are ignored, underreported and explained away.
The human rights victimhood stack is a totalitarian scheme, however, because it’s a fight for power. The victims at the top of the victimhood stack cannot share power with the lower level victims. All right to complain and rule, to get the maximum resources, etc. must accrue to them first and foremost, such that laws are enacted or administered in a way that favours them at the expense not only of the people who are the arch-oppressors, namely, heterosexual white men, but also all the other victims below them. If a heterosexual white man wants to get out of his predicament and gain victimhood points he would ideally become a gender-fluid, pronoun-fluid, even species-fluid individual like Steph Loehr, the Twitch “Safety Advisory Council” member who has the power to decide what people are or are not allowed to say on their platform. This individual is much less unlikely gain such power to decide what people are allowed to think if he/she/it was just a regular bloke.
The leftist victimhood stack strategy requires that in order to maintain a tradition you need to show that it’s a practice of some oppressed group, and ideally that this group is oppressed by straight white men who are not apologetic about being straight white men. This strategy, however, requires this group to tolerate the other oppressed groups. But this assumes that this oppressed group can coexist with the other oppressed groups, and claim a separate “safe space” for themselves.
However, what we find in fact is that claiming such a safe space inevitably ends up being oppressive to some other “protected” group. Thus, one finds in the governmental schooling system that some “protected” ethnic/religious groups conflict with other “protected” sexual minority groups. We often find that sexual minority groups are always toward the top of the victimhood pyramid and despite their small numbers they tend to conflict with all the other “protected” minorities. Women are clear about their own victimisation by straight white men (which is just taken for granted), but they are less clear about their fellow victims: non-white straight men, white homosexual men, religious minorities that actually oppress women, and women born with male genitalia and high levels of testosterone, etc. etc.
The result of the leftist strategy is that you are now engaged in a battle in which, while the putative enemy, straight white men, were very clearly defined, the other contestants for “protection” (ie., special privileges) are a constantly moving target. Faced with straight white men, women, ethnic and sexual minorities have a clear place in the victimhood olympics. But when straight white men move aside, hunker down, give way, let everyone “lean in”, apologise profusely for their history of oppressive behaviour, they’re then faced with each other and that’s a much more complicated situation.
The end result of the cluster you-know-what that ensues is that, unable to fall back on the old affirmation of tradition, which is the arch-evil in the leftist mindset, they opt for consumerism. Exhausted by the battle of victimhood olympics, they have no choice but to compete in the marketplace. However, in this case the marketplace is no longer tempered by traditionalist scruples but is instead defined in terms of accessibility. In the end, it seems that straight white leftists somehow inevitably end up at the helm of such enterprises, having become fluent in the virtue-signalling woke apologetics that this requires. They are at the bottom of the victimhood stack, but they have the numbers and they’re really good at apologising to the oppressed minorities. In the end, the result is that white women end up dominating white men who do all the work and then let her “lean in” and take it from him.
This is a totalitarian political system that tolerates no diversity. It is administered from identifiable places by identifiable people, and it succeeds in controlling all the media and means of communication. It seems to everyone that the situation is the result of too much free market, when in reality the market is not free at all, because you will find that the moment you express certain ideas or thoughts, in particular, the moment you affirm traditional culture as having intrinsic value, you get crushed. There is total and persistent opposition to that idea. On the other hand, once you opt for the oppression olympics the end result is always and everywhere the same, the ideology of feminism prevails and European men are relegated to the back of the line.