If all of this arrives to me, it’s because I’m “strange”, “odd”, “bizarre” or “extraordinary”. This is what explains my situation: the fact that I suffered and still suffer cases that are excluded from mainstream point of views and that I have a personality that transgress traditional points of view, recognized paradigms and, among others, gender and sexual identities.
This is not because the accusation on me: it’s because my personality and my social position. Also, I’m an annoying foreigner in this country.
As far as I’m particular, I can suffer violence and exclusion from both: capitalists and workers, men and women, machismo and feminism, heterosexuals and homosexuals, white or not-white, progressive or conservative, right and left wing and specially from any form of established power: States, governments, political parties, police, attorneys, institutional feminists and others.
Moreover, as I’m a white man from an education level tending to high (so it implies better working conditions) and with strong tendency to heterosexuality, many people, because of prejudices or uneven interests, can pretend that I’m the most privileged man on earth (someone, not so clever, could even believe that I’m a “bourgeois” or a “capitalists”) – I’m even doubting that I’m a “man”.
So from one side, because the “positive social privileges” that operate on me, I can be a danger for upper social classes or sub-classes and established powers.
From the other, because of my “particular case and situation”, I can be a danger for points of view and paradigms of alternative (left wing, feminist, altercapitalists) groups, movements or parties. It’s also true that this “particular case and situation” can bring me close to the worsts social positions (homeless and others).
So I can be a danger for any established power, even this is not part of upper classes. Thus, there are a lot of material interests that push for that I’m silenced, oppressed and excluded.
Let’s take the case of radical feminists. I’m a problem for them because I also suffer from patriarchal oppressions and because the sexual orientation that society has imposed to me it’s not necessary heterosexuality. In fact, since I has child and so on, the sexual orientation that has been imposed to me in many cases is homosexuality. This reality (of many boys and men) brings some important troubles to their analyses. So they prefer to ignore it or to erase it or to destroy people that talk about this. In the name of feminisms and gender normativity they took transphobic, alterphobic, machists, patriarchal and anti-humanists positions [say it with love :)].
If some of them can attack me, they will use all the topics about that I’m an heterosexual white man, despite the fact that these topics don’t properly apply to me. If they don’t listen when I explain my situation, it’s because they prefer to discharge all their hate and violence on me (because the problems that I pose to their analyses) than to understand my case.
It’s because my personality and my social position: this explains how I can suffer many violence, abuses and exclusions since I was a child and it goes on.
When I protest, I get more violence and more exclusion.
I will finish with this. Cueste lo que cueste.
P.d.: I have no problem with homosexual men or trans-identities, as far as they do not support these people that believe that can impose me my sexual orientation and identity. In fact I think that homosexual men and I can work for the same cause: the freedom for the sexual orientations and identities.
P.d.d: In fact, these are two things absolutely different. One thing is gay people – I’m not an expert, but I do think that they are using their freedom.
Other thing is the imposition done by men that are not necessarily homosexual (I think that most of the imposers or aggressors are self-defined as heterosexual men) of a kind of “degrading homosexuality” from a heteronormative position; this is: the “heterosexual man” imposes a homosexual relation to another man (or mutation) that becomes a “degraded homosexual” from the point of view of the attacker (and some people of the same society).
This would be a form of patriarchal and traditional degradation of some men. It’s quite inverted as the aggressor keeps their status of “heterosexual man”, despite the fact that he’s imposing the homosexual action, while the aggressed one would became “the homosexual” and the “degraded” one.