Sunday, 4 December 2011

Womyn? Says who?

Revisiting “Politically Correct”

Revisiting "Political Correctness"

Your first instinct might be to dismiss words like “womyn” and being asked not to use “gay” as an insult as “that PC crap”. If so, sit back and think about that. Your privilege gives you the power to dismiss the decisions of non-privileged groups, and further deride them by turning “politically correct” into a slur. Part of engaging in a language of respect and equality is in recognizing the validity of a person’s choice to use language, and “politically correct” terms, even if you may not understand or agree with them.

Um… did I miss something here? Women, a “non privileged group” apparently, decided that “women” is unacceptable and that it needed to be spelt “womyn” instead? Really? I mean, if there was a vote where all women in English speaking countries had to say which they preferred, I’m pretty sure the outcome would be 99% in favour of “women” over “womyn”.

And herein lies the problem of “privilege” theories within the social justice community. They are essentially a group of fringe nutcases. Most “oppressed minorities” go about their day to day lives like people with supposed “privilege”, being perfectly happy and doing well, sometimes coming across bigoted wankers who thankfully most people hate and disapprove of.

Making people paranoid about fictional ponies not being black, or fictional ponies being “smart shamed” because a teacher told one of them to stop studying and make some friends, or fictional ponies being “homophobic stereotypes” because a “butch” one has rainbow hair, is not helping anyone.*

In fact, the groups who hold these radical, weird, fringe views are in fact promoting bigotry. A schizophrenic person uses the allegedly “ableist” word ‘crazy’ in the sense of “this game is crazy good”? The “social justice” police jump on him/her with accusations of “internalised ableism” and lectures about how his/her words are damaging to “the oppressed people who are hurt and dehumanised by this word”.

A gay guy uses the word “gay” in what may or may not be a pejorative manner? He’s usually just told to “check his privilege” if he’s cisgender and white, as “he’s probably an oppressor” himself. Where does this “consensus” come from, where people with any kind of mental disorder (I myself have been diagnosed with ADHD and OCD) apparently “decided” that words like “stupid” and “crazy” should be banned from use and that they’re hurtful?

It seems that it’s a tiny tiny minority of people who are calling all the shots in these communities, dissecting words to try and find “problems” in anything (like the word ‘muggle’ being ableist and racist apparently) and the minions don’t want to be labelled “oppressive douchefucks” so they go along with it and try to impose it on everyone. I despise the word “quirky” and it makes my skin crawl. I’ve been described as “quirky” by quite a few people and every single time I’m thinking, “Oh fuck, not again… What did I even do to be “quirky”? All I said was ‘hello’ and I’m wearing really normal clothes and gaahhhh everyone thinks I’m weird, what do I have to do for people not to say this?” But then rather than trying to tell everyone not to use the word because it might be “problematic” or “ableist” or “kyriarchist” I just ignore it and assume they meant it as a compliment and that I’m paranoid, because I realise I shouldn’t have the power to try and dictate others’ language.

Everyone is different and I’m sure different things annoy them, but by catering to the whims of a tiny minority of an oppressed group (as most women are fine with the spelling as it is, most “neuroatypical” people aren’t all bent up over someone saying “that tv show was stupid”, and most east asian people aren’t offended by the word oriental) you are creating an unpleasant “call out” culture where everyone is suspicious of everyone and our language is constantly monitored. It also gives tiny minorities of nitpicking oppressofiles disproportionate power over the majority of the people in their “oppressed group” and distracts from doing something about actual issues.

Thursday, 1 December 2011

Alleged "Proof that male privilege exists in Western society"

goforthandagitate says:

Can anyone think of a situation in western society where a white, cis man could be in a bar or walking down the street, generally just going about his business alone and be scared to be a man?

Because I could lists dozens of real life examples women face, but I’m struggling to think of a situation that it would suck to be a cis man all alone.

What prejudices would he face?

The fact that no obvious examples spring to mind tell me feminism is still needed.

thefremen says:

Not because he’s a man per se, but often times because someone isn’t white would be a reason for them to be afraid. Also I know a guy who openly wears anti-swastika patches and he once got street harassed by neo-nazis who then got out of their car and chased him down, pummeled him. (I’m not saying that male privilege doesn’t exist as far as moving through public spaces and certainly there’s a lot of misogynists, dangerous ones at that, than there are racists or neo-nazis, but there are some cases where a cis-man can be in danger in public.)

But none of those are because he is male. Wearing anti-nazi iconography and being attacked by neo-nazis is not an example of neo-nazis deciding “OH hey its a man alone at night, lets attack him!” it’s “Oh hey that guy doesn’t respect our ideology! Let’s attack him!”

Men are frequently scared to be men when walking past pubs alone in the evening. A hell of a lot of men I know have been beaten up because they happen to be walking past a gang who want to show they’re “tough” or past a pub with some aggressive drunk people hanging out outside. Men are far more likely to be attacked, statistically, and it is dishonest to try and dismiss this by saying “Oh well it’s not specifically for being a man”. It’s also dishonest to pretend the only time men are ever targeted in a racist way is when ethnic minorities are spotted by “neo-nazis”. Just… no. There’s a lot of black v south asian/middle eastern violence in areas such as Birmingham and the Times recently reported some South Asian men telling a middle aged black woman to get out of a bus stop because “black people aren’t welcome anymore”. Black gang members often attack and rob lone white men. White football gangs often attack South Asian people and their businesses. This little pretence that the only people who commit racial attacks are bogeymen “neo-nazis” (who are so tiny in number they must be managing to get around a hell of a lot and manage to escape police pretty damn prolifically) is achingly politically correct and utterly blind to actual problems.

Back to the “it’s not because they’re a man” fallacy. What sort of attack is committed on women “just because they’re a woman”? Going by the “logic” of, “oh it wasn’t because he was a man it was because he was wearing anti-Nazi regalia and the thugs didn’t like his ideology,” one could argue sex attacks “aren’t because she’s a woman but because the man wanted sex,” and it also completely disregards the fact that men are victims of sex attacks too. One could argue women who are beaten and robbed aren’t beaten and robbed because of being a woman but because the people wanted to steal something, plus men are more frequently badly attacked when robbed and this reiterates the fact that men are more unsafe when walking the streets than women are. Hey look, this link from the national statistics site quite clearly states that men are more likely to be the victim of violent crime.

People need to get their heads out of the sand here and stop manipulating things to further their political dogma.

Why I'm an anti-feminist

Feminism was great in the past when it secured women the vote and the same opportunities as men. What is objectionable however is the disregard for equality that feminists today routinely show. They want quotas for jobs where women are under represented, despite the fact that with all these jobs where there are fewer than 50% women get far more men applying than they get women applying. The police force for example, get a lot more men applying whilst hairdressing salons get a lot more women applying? Why could this be? Ahh, perhaps because women are more averse to violence (seeing dead bodies and pictures of dead bodies etc in the police force) and more interest in hair styles and hair colours. These are of course generalisations as lots of men like hair styles and lots of women aren’t bothered by corpses but in the main this is true. Thus, if 40 men and 2 women apply for a police job, the police will be under pressure from “diversity quotas” to employ a woman, even though the pool is far smaller and discrimination against men is clearly taking place. I have never seen women mention gender disparity in jobs which are mostly occupied by females.

Women can have children but they can also choose not to have children. Employers are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of a woman being of child bearing age though. Small businesses can be ruined by having to pay a woman wages as she goes off to have a child/look after it whilst she is doing no work for the company. Men are not allowed to have random paid years off with the guarantee of their job afterwards.

This is not even mentioning the millions of pounds of taxpayer money spent on “programs” to do things like attract women into science and engineering. Women have the legal rights to contest being unfairly discriminated against and I personally hate the idea of being given a job just because I’m female and just to fill quotas.

This is barely scratching the surface on anti equality measures feminists support, but essentially, yes I am anti feminism. I am for women having the same rights as men (they have more rights at the moment) and gay/people of colour having the same rights as everyone else, but I remain staunchly anti-feminist due to the fact I want equality, not a world in which men are made to grovel and apologise as second class citizens which modern feminists advocate.

Anti-Zionism and Islamophobia

debrumas said:
Opposing the genocidal imperialism of the state of Israel on the Palestinian people is not the same as religious discrimination, and nor is it motivated by it. It's motivated by the acknowledgment of the fact that Palestinians are in fact people, and are just as deserving of the right to live without persecution as any other person on this planet.

Why is it I never hear leftists say
Anti-Islamism does not equal Anti-Muslim
Opposing the genocidal imperialism of some Islamic states and people on other religions (imprisoning people for carrying bibles, Egyptian and Pakistani people murdering Christians and burning down churches, jailing people for being Christian, teaching in schools that Jews are wicked and evil), women (being worth less in the judicial system, being imprisoned for being raped [under the pretext of “extramarital sex”] and being generally second class citizens in every way) and homosexuals (being stoned to death) is not the same as religious discrimination, and nor is it motivated by it. It’s motivated by the acknowledgement of the fact that non Muslims, women and homosexuals are in fact people, and are just as deserving of the right to live without persecution as any other person on this planet.
But leftists never say that, do they? Criticising militant Islam is not the same as hating Muslims on an individual basis, and yet it is thrown out as “Islamophobia” by progressive circles. Despite not understanding the fact that being anti Islamist doesn’t equal being anti Muslim they then expect us all to listen to the fact that being anti Zionist isn’t the same as anti Semitic.
And sure, I believe it doesn’t mean it (though there are some “anti Zionists” who are definitely anti Semitic), just as anti Islamist doesn’t mean anti Muslim (though there are some anti Islamists who are anti Muslim).
I’ll believe them, but maybe next time they should take this into account when branding any criticism of Islam as being anti Muslim or “Islamophobic”.