Should White Men be Allowed to Vote?, page-17

It was amusing to read HPs confusion on the strong response they got to the blog and came up with the conclusions below.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.za/201...r-response_a_22039753/?utm_hp_ref=za-homepage
Garland's underlying analysis about the uneven distribution of wealth and power in the world is pretty standard for feminist theory. It has been espoused in many different ways by feminist writers and theorists for decades now. In that sense, there was nothing in the article that should have shocked or surprised anybody (or so we thought.) It would appear that perhaps much of the outcry derives from a very poor reading of the article -- or perhaps none at all. Dismantling the patriarchal systems that have brought us to where we are today, a world where power is wielded to dangerous and destructive ends by men, and in particular white men, necessarily means a loss of power to those who hold it. A loss of oppressive power. Those who have held undue power granted to them by patriarchy must lose it for us to be truly equal. This seems blindingly obvious to us.

Any student of history or any student who avoided the Marxist indoctrination universities of today, will know that disenfranchising white men in a western society will not lead to peace but to a very short, sharp coup.  I am not sure if the snowflakes realise who is in the military/police and in the US home grown militia or why white men are in power in the first place.

But, all in all, the usual left 'intellectualism' does provide some light entertainment.