Of Greta, misogyny, patriarchy, technology and shattered dreams

On Twitter right now (in my stream anyhow) people are talking about why Greta Thunberg, Jamie Margolin and AOC are triggering such incandescent (old, white) male rage.

I’ve written a bit about this here and here, but here’s a recap/short0version.

This, in my opinion, goes back way further than August 2018, when one Swedish girl started her solo strike.

Let’s take it back to 1945 (you could take it back hundreds of years if you like, as whip-smart eco-feminists like Carolyn Merchant have, but I promised short).

In August 1945 the “Good Guys” won. They unleashed the power of the sun, via some crazy expensive and smart scientists on two previously untouched Japanese cities. And the bombs were called? Little Boy and Fat Man.

And the next twenty years were all about how white, male, heterosexual scientists were going to control everything. Electricity would be too cheap to meter, DDT would kill all the pests etc. Holiday on the moon, jetpacks, you name it. Production Science, on both sides of the Iron Curtain, would control EVERYTHING. Women in the kitchen, queers in the closet, blacks in their place, mother nature under the thumb/in the test tube.

Then, between 1960 and 1975, all that (was) unravelled. The heroism of countless Civil Rights activists (far too few of them white, but that is another story) meant that black people could no longer be treated like fifth class citizens. Learning from those struggles and disgusted by the patriarchy and male supremacism of the ‘peace’ movement, women’s liberation activists decided fuck your kitchen. Then Stonewall…
And meanwhile, that nature that was going to be under the thumb? Er, no. Impact science began to show the damage that the industrial dreams were creating (thalidomide, Silent Spring -written by another of those damnable women – , DDT, Ozone hole, through to Seveso).

So, if you were a hetero white man, in the technostructure, your simple Great Chain of Being narrative, with you at the top, just went to hell.

Shortly after, with the post-War Keynesian consensus in tatters, the neoliberal pushback succeeded. Now the old settlement – that if you were a working class/middle-class white man, you’d have enough money to keep (interesting word) a wife and two kids on your wage – evaporated. But rather than blame our lords and masters (again, interesting phrase), it’s easier to pin the blame on the feminazis, the uppity you-know-whats, the eco-freaks.

And then, finally, there is also this. The old white men have spent thirty years denying the major consequence of all their dreams – climate change. And now, it’s kinda obvious – even, perhaps – to themselves, that they were…. gasp…. wrong.

NONE OF THIS CAN BE THEIR FAULT. Reflectiveness, humility, none of that was selected for, in the Darwinian sense, at the Darwinian schools and universities they went to.

Therefore, it must be someone else’s fault. Ideally someone young, and whose demeanour (not ‘neuro-typical’) leaves them – and they hope others – uneasy.

If Greta Thunberg, with her guts, her clarity, her humour, did not exist to enrage these [insert your favourite noun here], they’d have had to invent her.

 

UPDATE: It’s been pointed out to me that this is an extremely US/Europe-centric view of the resistance to these things in the 1960s and 1970s (Algeria, Vietnam, Cuba, etc).  Indeed yes. But I was promising to keep it short and as an ‘explanation’ for the white hot old white male rage at Greta…

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “Of Greta, misogyny, patriarchy, technology and shattered dreams”

    1. Hi Margaret,

      Andrew Bolt (and Alan Jones) are EXACTLY who I am talking about. Incredibly rigid, brittle little men, with fragile egos who on some level must know that the climate is being changed by human activities, that they have backed the wrong horse, and are being out-thought, outwitted by teenage girls. It must be extremely painful for them. And they have all my sympathy, oh yes.

  1. “Now the old settlement – that if you were a working class/middle-class white man, you’d have enough money to keep (interesting word) a wife and two kids on your wage – evaporated.” I’d argue that for the working class, that applied for a minutely short space of time if ever – children were working well into the 19th century, and the factories of the Industrial Revolution were staffed as much by women as by men. It was only really the upper layer of the working class, the skilled artisans and foremen, who could afford for their wife and children not to work, even if it was more casualised, precarious, unrecognised work. Kids (like my granddad) pushed barrows in markets, girls were sent ‘into service’ at 13 or 14 right up to WWII.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s