You will have to excuse me, as this is a sort of late night post of a thought I could not excise from brain. Identity politics has become a sort of catch-all for victimhood status, the sacred cow of SJWs around the world. Whatever your identities are, they comprise the whole of your person. Blacks must always be victims of policemen. Women must always be oppressed by the patriarchy. Hispanics are always victims of whites. Whites are always racist.
Recently, an individual ranted at length on Facebook about how food is racist, classist, etc. and ad nauseam. Food, you see, is cultural appropriation. If you are Chinese, then it is safe for you to eat Chinese food. But beware, whitey, if you dare to order takeout lo mein. All of these are in-born attributes, according to the SJW. Another SJW became cross with a white guy who dared to wear dreadlocks. Everything from your diet, to your hairstyle, to your political views, to how society treats you, is pre-ordained by your race, religion, nationality, disabilities (or lack thereof), etc…
It’s so limiting. I couldn’t imagine living that way. Ethnically, I’m part English and part Armenian. Amusingly enough, I loathe most of the food from both countries. I’m 100% American, and very Southern, mostly because my father’s family has been lurking around Virginia since the first boat to Jamestown showed up (that’d be the English side, by the way – so far as I know, no Armenians were on that boat). But my years in California destroyed any sense of Southern propriety I had — I’m almost as vulgar and impolite as Donald Trump himself. Also, I’m Christian, and still in search of a church to call my spiritual home.
But these things are facets of me. They are pieces of a larger whole. Details, as it were. They aren’t unimportant, mind you, but a person is more than the sum of various identity groups. Ironically, SJWs deny this, despite all of their rhetoric about how important feelings are, and how terrible it is to be stereotyped. In the end, group membership is what matters most to them. A man may not have an opinion on feminism that is outside the bounds allowed to him. To do otherwise is “mansplaining.” Rinse and repeat for racism, homophobia, islamophobia, etc. and so on.
I do, say, and think as seems appropriate to me.
Extend this out to yourself, dear reader. I don’t know most of you personally. You might be white or black, Christian or Atheist, and so on and so forth. But these attributes are matters of the flesh. The soul is greater than that, or at least it has the potential to be. I’m no “diversity” advocate, mind you, but I genuinely wish for the peoples of the world to live in peace as best they are able.
You can’t take individual responsibility if you don’t think of yourself as an individual in the first place, and that’s what is so sinister about the actions of SJWs and other radical Leftists. All that is bad is someone else’s fault, they tell you, and it feels good and freeing for a time. But they seldom admit the corollary: freeing yourself of responsibility is itself a form of slavery.
When TrigglyPuff’s lecture material on “fat liberation” hit me, my first instinct was to say “stop liberating donuts and you’ll be fine.” But that implies that you are an individual who can change your own circumstances, that you have freedom to change your own behavior, your own identity. You didn’t have to be a fat woman. In her worldview, fatness was a fixed thing. She felt like she could not change it, she was wrapped up in her identity as a fat person. If she was no longer fat, she likely figured, she would no longer be her.
They act like “liberation” isn’t possible by diet and exercise. It’s all about calories burned versus calories eaten. Change the balance enough and you WILL lose weight. It isn’t always easy for folks, but it is a simple formula.
Race is not so easily changed as fatness. But even there, the individual has control over many things. If blacks have a stereotype for increased likelihood for criminal behavior, you don’t have make that an identity. Don’t be a criminal, and none of that will apply to you. Rather than rant and rave that a stereotype exists, just go on about your life and prove them wrong about you.
Imagine for a moment that Black Lives Matter mourned the death of black soldiers and black policemen instead of blacks with long criminal records. How much more support and sympathy would they receive for that? I would be there with them, in fact, if this was their purpose. But this goes against identity politics. The black Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is spurned, the black economist Thomas Sowell is hated. Why? Because they don’t conform to the group identity. Great men are shunned. Losers are elevated in their place.
I remember a video where a black woman was angry at her fellow black college students because they constantly accused her of “talking white” since she refused to go around spouting off ebonics, and acted like the educated woman she wanted to be. Her detractors weren’t whites. They were other blacks who were angry at her for spurning her group identity! It was a very sad thing to see. To SJWs you are no more than your identities. You can never leave the reservation they have assigned for you.
SJWs have a saying: “stay in your own lane.” It encompasses this line of thinking perfectly.
I’m not saying all of these things are irrelevant. We know that genders, ethnicities, religion, and a host of other factors have real, measurable impacts in life, at least at a general level. We know, for example, that blacks are more likely to be pro basketball players than Chinese folks, simply because blacks are taller. But don’t let SJWs pigeonhole you into a box and force you to stay there. You’re more than that. You are a thinking human being, with a soul of your own. Your various group identities are only pieces of a greater whole. Don’t stay in your lane. Do better.
I’ve been overdue for a good fisking of SJW racism bullshit, so here we are. The usual language warnings apply. If I offend you, now’s probably a good time to leave. Yada yada, don’t sue me because I hurt your feelings, etc… Now look at the title of this one and tell me the author isn’t a lunatic racist:
What, are we a bunch of monkeys or something? Are you going to ring Pavlov’s Bell and cure us of all of our crimethink with some pumpkin spice lattes or some other bit of SWPL swag? The more these people try to deny being racist (they even try to alter the definition of racism so it’s permissible to hate certain ethnicities), the more they prove just how hateful and bigoted they really are. The title isn’t phrased “How to defeat white supremacists” or “How to cure white racists of their delusions,” both of which would restrict the condemnation to the guilty. No. It is how to train white people (all of them) to not be racist. It presumes that you are guilty no matter what.
Are you a Romanian guy, fresh off the boat? Too bad, racist, you need to attend your mandatory reeducation training. Of course, your parents probably went through the same under Communism, but hey, nothing like a family refresher, right racist scum?
But as laughable as the title is, the article itself is worse. Let’s fisk away, shall we?
No one wants to be called fragile. And if you’re white, what you feel reading the title of this article may be indicative of the term. “White fragility” refers to white people’s low emotional tolerance for discussing topics of race and racism.
Oh yes, this “white so fragile” nonsense again. You know what’s damned funny about all this? We aren’t the ones with low emotional tolerance for discussing topics of race. SJWs are! Everytime a white man dares to leave his ideological reservation for even a second, he is rabidly denounced, pounced upon by legions of Social Justice Warriors intent on outdoing one another in virtue signalling. I’m not fragile, you are.
The term was coined by Dr. Robin DiAngelo in a 2011 article discussing her experience with white people in anti-racism trainings. She defines it as “a state when even a minimum amount of racial stress becomes intolerable, triggering a range of defensive moves.”
The term was coined by an idiot shit-for-brains with the IQ of a bag of hammers. If you call somebody a racist, and are then surprised when that person *GASP* defends themselves from the charge, you have no business calling yourself a doctor of anything. Take your PhD and wipe your ass with it after a bout with leftover Taco Bell, because it’s clearly not worth anything.
We’ve taught similar anti-oppression trainings at tech companies, where we worked as in-house psychotherapists and emotional intelligence educators, and we’ve struggled with similar challenges.
Psychotherapists at tech companies?!? The sheer level of idiocy here is absolutely staggering to contemplate. Do you know what you should do if you work at a tech company? No, not psychotherapy. No, not emotional intelligence education. Technology! Yeah, fancy that.
In our experience, when introducing the concept of race and oppression, the first defense is usually a diversion led by the students to the topic of the oppression of red-headed people, the overweight, the disabled, or their own immigrant heritages. We aim to explain to the group how although these experiences, while indeed oppressive, are not comparable to the centuries of enslavement, race-based legislation, systematic incarceration, and unequal wealth distribution that is racism in the United States. The other class favorite is the derailment to a discussion about “reverse racism,” where we often defer to comedian Aamer Rahmen’s three minute video to resolve. What begins as a workshop often ends up feeling much more like a battle. Facilitators before us have gone so far as to outline specific participation guidelines for these workshops such as ”speak from your own experience” (i.e. no playing devil’s advocate or using hypotheticals) to nip some of the other common defense mechanisms in the bud and to promote more productive conversations.
Yeah, the author is right. There’s no “reverse racism.” It’s just regular, plain old racism. If whites are a race, and you hate them for being white, congratulations, you’re a racist!
It’s funny how the author here discusses the progressive stack here. If you’re Irish, too bad, your oppression doesn’t count. Disabled? Fat? Doesn’t matter. There are those who are more oppressed, and you have to shut your piehole and submit to them.
You attack someone. They defend themselves from your charge. And then you’re exasperated when it becomes a “battle.” I mean, when Germany invaded Poland, damn those Poles for defending themselves, right? Why would they do that, I wonder?
What makes race so hard for white people to talk about? For many, topics of race and racism trigger intense emotional reactions for a few reasons:
Don’t confuse “trigger intense emotional reactions” with “shocked at the level of stupidity you are demonstrating.” Not the same thing, trust me. Anyway, you’re the ones who need counseling after seeing a pro-Trump slogan chalked onto a park bench, so your accusations of triggering constitute textbook projection. Since you’re a psychotherapist or something, you should know that, right?
They’re not used to it: As the longtime racial majority in the US, white people experience little, if any, race-based stress. When it is experienced, it’s usually only temporary, superficial, and/or by choice. There’s a running joke that you can’t call a white man anything that particularly insults him at the identity level except for racist or sexist—that joke is about white fragility. Louis C.K. expands upon this in one of his routines, stating that the worst thing you can call a white man is “cracker,” but even that harkens back to “a time of owning land and people”—a power position and, therefore, not particularly hurtful. Because white people haven’t been fundamentally exposed to race-based stress, they have high expectations for racial comfort. It’s not only that whites aren’t accustomed to race-based discomfort—it’s a novel type of stress that they have pretty much no practice coping with. Words like “low-income,” “urban,” and “under-resourced” are comfortable because they’re terms used by the media to describe “other” people (i.e. non-whites). On the flip side, words like “white,” “advantaged,” and “privileged,” ignite in us an emotional reaction because suddenly the finger is pointed at us—we are suddenly the problem—and we are overwhelmed by feelings of guilt, shame, and blame. When that happens, all emotional hell breaks loose because we just don’t have the tolerance to deal with it, and, depending on your personality, tend to either erupt or shut-down.
Let’s see, we’re called white trash, rednecks, crackers, wonderbread, “the man”, etc… Also, specific white nationalities have others. We have polack (are these idiots forgetting the incredible variety of polack jokes available?), paddy, mick, guido, greaseball, wop, kraut… Don’t forget a personal favorite: the dutch oven (why is it dutch I wonder?). No, various white peoples have plenty of ethnic slurs aside from “cracker.” And I don’t see how paddy, polack, or greaseball refers to a position of power, numbnuts.
And it you want to talk about an equivalent for low income, don’t forget trailer trash (that’s a stand-in for whites).
Of course, we don’t lose our shit every time someone spouts off an ethnic slur, either. So there’s that.
They don’t see it: Often times, talking about race with white people is like talking about water with a fish. Dr. Derald W. Sue (2004) conducted a series of interviews in San Francisco, with some great quotes from white people answering the prompt, “What does it means to be white?” Their answers can be summed up as several variations of: “I don’t know, normal?” Whites don’t even notice their whiteness—they don’t tend to think of themselves as having race. It’s awkward, because we all have a race and white is one of them. It’s even more awkward when white people say things about envying culture and ethnicity, because they don’t see their own culture and ethnicity as anything other than the baseline.
Whites don’t notice their whiteness? What kind of dumbassery is this? I’m pretty damn sure an Irishman knows he’s white when he burns to a crisp in the Florida sun. Anyway, your whole argument is that whites need to be cured of racism, essentially claiming that they are closet supremacists convinced (albeit unconsciously) of their own racial superiority or something, and then you get angry when whites don’t show a particularly strong attachment to white identity?
As far as seeing their own culture as a baseline, you do realize that if you go to, say, a majority Arab country, the Arabs will see their culture as a baseline. And if you go to China, Chinese culture will be a baseline. And so on and so forth. What you’re seeing is that a country that is majority white, God forbid, thinks Western culture is pretty normal.
Moral dilemmas: Discussions of racism challenge whites’ conception that they’re good people, and “privilege” challenges the belief that they are hardworking and deserve everything that they have. When someone says “privilege” we hear “you’re undeserving of your blessings,” (like this guy) and when someone mentions “racism” we all think we’re being called racists! For whites, racial discussions often become (unintentionally) about whether they’re good or bad people—moral or immoral. It’s the same reason a discussion of sexism lead to the popular “not all men” meme. It’s a knee-jerk reaction to derail the conversation, other ourselves, and separate from the system of oppression. When the core of our existence is brought into question, it gets emotional pretty quickly. But these emotional reactions are track-switching—we’re no longer talking about the issue of inequality, we’re talking about ourselves. When our reality as good and moral people feels threatened, up go the defenses and we stop listening. That “track-switching” process right there is actually a continuation and reinforcement of our privilege—whites get to walk away from the implications of race when people of color don’t have that luxury, so let’s get real about that for a second.
No, I’m an asshole. I freely admit that. I’m a sinner, and there are days I wake up and think that when it comes time for Christ to sift the wheat from the chaff, he’ll see me, rub his chin for a moment, and point downward.
I’ve had a lot of blessings in life, not the least of which is being born in a first world country. Although, many “people of color” share that blessing with me. I’m really not sure what they are complaining about. If America is one tenth as shitty as these people are claiming, they should go someplace else. When my father-in-law realized that Cuba was a tyrannical shithole, he left. It’s called voting with your feet.
You wrote an article claiming that whites need to be trained out of racism, and you are shocked that they think they are being accused of racism! Defenses go up when we are accused of something bad, especially if we didn’t do it. I didn’t own any slaves, I didn’t kill anybody, I don’t hate people for their skin color, or any of that. So don’t be surprised if, when you associate me with any of those things, I get pissed off and think you’re full of shit.
But this is the problem with Social Justice. It presumes that if you are not with them, you are against them. When people asked me about gay marriage, they were often shocked with my answer: “I don’t give a shit.” That’s right, I legitimately didn’t care. Not my barrel of monkeys. Now if you ask me about people being forced to participate in gay marriages or get sued, you’ll get a very different answer from me. But the point is, I was neutral. Still, SJW-types would get angry with me for not doing enough for gays. “You’re no ally.” Well, of course not. I said I was neutral, dumbass.
So when an SJW accuses someone of racism, the response they expect is for you to stop, nod your head, agree with them, beg for forgiveness, and promise not to be a poopyhead meanie racist person anymore. Anything else is”track switching.” They say I’m not listening, and they are right. When you spout off bullshit accusations, why would I listen to you anymore?
What can a white person do?
Build tolerance by consciously moving past the good/bad reactionary thinking and learn how to manage feelings of guilt and shame without putting up defenses. Racial conversations are not about you individually, or if you are a good or bad person, racist or not racist. For white people, understanding that racial oppression is not your fault as an individual can be both revolutionary and incredibly helpful. You were born where you were born, your skin is the color that it is, and you grew up how you did, exposed to the media and a society that you had no control over, all of which led you to being exactly who you are today.
“Manage” feelings of guilt and shame, the author tells us. This means, effectively, that you cannot expunge your guilt and shame, you must feel it constantly. You must not defend yourself.
But that’s not the most egregious thing here. Dear readers, analyze this gem again:
You were born where you were born, your skin is the color that it is, and you grew up how you did, exposed to the media and a society that you had no control over, all of which led you to being exactly who you are today.
Remember when I told you that Progressives are Fatalists? Here it is in, pardon the pun, black and white. You were “exposed” to a media and society. You had no control. This is why you are the racist you are today.
Has it ever occurred to these people that free will even exists? That a person can choose to ignore or directly disagree with media and society? You are not your skin color. You are a thinking human being, with a will of your own. You have a choice. God made you in his image, that is to say he gave you the capacity for reason, and the will to choose to use it.
Unfortunately, this SJW clearly didn’t choose to exercise that God-given ability.
We all have biases, regardless of our race, gender, sexuality, class, or religion, many of which are unconscious. The human brain uses split second reactions to make sense of the world using only cues in appearance and behavior, and those reactions are highly socialized by cultural norms and media influences. If you don’t believe us, check out the Harvard implicit associations test (IAT) to measure your own.
Of course humans have biases. I like the color blue, I always have, and I couldn’t give you a reason for it. And, contrary to the assumption that some people have about race, I actually prefer Latin women (and not just because I married one). When it comes to food, I loathe Armenian food (except Khorovats), and don’t think much more highly of English cooking. I prefer Italian and Chinese food.
The question is whether or not these preferences are pathological. You see, an SJW will see that I prefer Latin women and suggest that this means I don’t like black women as much. Therefore, the SJW will say, that is an expression of casual racism.
Except that many black men prefer black women. Are they racist against Latin women, then? SJWs have also claimed that gay men are misogynist because they prefer to have sex with men and not women.
No. There’s no reason to sit here and split hairs over perfectly normal human preferences. In order to expunge them, all humans would have to be identical clones of one another, with identical life experiences. Since this is not possible, absolute equality of preference is also impossible. This is not racism, in the sense that racism requires that such preferences are somehow pathological. Making second-class citizens of somebody, or enslaving somebody, is clearly pathological. Saying “I prefer to date women who look kind of like this” is not. After all, someone else may prefer to date someone of a different ethnicity.
Society and media have contributed to inlaying some biases you didn’t choose to have. Does having biases make you a bad, immoral person? No. Is it good to acknowledge and work to challenge your own biases? Absolutely. Are you “bad” because you didn’t know that you had unconscious biases until now? Not at all.
If we follow this logic to its ultimate conclusion, I would have to challenge why I like the color blue instead of saying, quite simply “I like blue.” And, anyway, if you’re going to ask me to challenge my biases, how about you start with yours? Because if what you say is true, then you also have biases. And then my racism charge against you is equally valid.
That’s right, you evil wonderbread cracker hater. If you’re gay, you need to go date women, you sexist.
In retrospect, you might realize that some of your learned behavior or speech has been pejorative, supporting a system of oppression, or exclusionary, but that’s not a definitive character judgement and recognizing that could be a really valuable moment. We’re building awareness here. Try to let go of the good/bad binary, and open yourself up to discussion and possibility that if you’re American, you almost definitely have racial biases, and if you’re white, add unearned access to privilege to that too. Still with us?
You know, when everything is part of a “system of oppression” it starts to get ridiculous. Like that manspreading deal a few months ago. Also, exclusionary is sometimes good. We recently found out a registered sex offender took up residency in our neighborhood. I intend to exclude him from all the neighborhood get-togethers. Yes, I am exclusionary to pedophiles. Don’t like it? Fuck off.
“Try to let go of the good/bad binary” is quite possibly the dumbest thing ever written. It’s a real doozy. In life, some things are clearly good, and other things clearly bad. Some things are neither, and other things… well it’s hard to tell. But have you noticed how Progressives are looking to make everything this way? There is no male, or female. Get rid of the gender binary (because there couldn’t possibility be utility in differentiating genders when 99.99% of all people are one or the other, and clearly so).
Similarly, there is no good or bad, no racist or not-racist. There is no sexist or not-sexist. There is no choice at all. One choice is the same as another. You are not responsible for anything, because everything is the same. But, clearly those white men are bad, anyway.
What a load.
So, while it’s not your fault that you were born white, and benefit from white privilege, it is your obligation and responsibility to develop awareness of the ways in which you benefit. Whites can and should acknowledge the past and present of their own racial group—the people who look like you (whether you share a hereditary bloodline or not)—and acknowledge how racism preserves today without the need to call into question your own morality. Individualism here is not to erase history or to negate the fact that white is still part of a racially socialized group. You as an individual are not outside of socialization or messages from society about race in culture. You are not outside unequal wealth distribution by race. No one is.
I don’t have an obligation to do jack shit about any of this. In fact, if anything, I have the opposite obligation, to provide my child with all of the advantages I can in life. If I must acknowledge the past and present of people who look sort of like me, then so do you. That means the guy who looks vaguely Arabic must immediately denounce ISIS. Blacks should denounce the slave profiteers who sold them to European slave traders, not to mention that whole Rwandan affair.
The author tries to cover himself with a brief spout about individualism, but the fact remains if you didn’t do the crime, you shouldn’t serve the time. What’s worse, he even suggests that you are even responsible for people who aren’t related to you at all, but who look sort of like you. So the people who liberated Europe in World War II are to be held equally accountable to those who perpetrated the Holocaust because they looked vaguely similar? It’s utter lunacy. You are not responsible for the actions of the group unless you, yourself, willingly participated.
Resist your defenses and keep listening. There’s a role in this system of oppression that you are playing, and the sooner you can tolerate that reality, the sooner you can decrease that participation. Rather than have the fragility and inability to talk about it, why not put on a new attitude and try to accept a few things about you that might not look so hot? In life, there are certain chain reactions at play that lead some people straight to the top and leave others at the bottom. The myth of meritocracy gets in the way of seeing this—we all want to hold onto our story that we’re strong, smart, and deserve everything we have. Maybe a white person graduated from Princeton because she was a good student, but it also might be because they had sufficient funds to attend, access to resources to take all those SAT prep courses, and look like the people Princeton has traditionally accepted. Maybe that white person is really good at her job, but they may also have had some connections (from Princeton, perhaps?) that helped get her in the door, not to mention an anglicized surname that may have pushed their resume to the top of the interview pile. Yes, some people get scholarships, take out loans, have at it the hard way, and rise to the top despite many significant challenges, but these are the outliers. So let’s let go of the myth of meritocracy, and make way for a more fully encompassing (and validating) truth—that if the former sounds like you, you had the golden ticket—a lot of help (financial and otherwise) to get to where you are today.
Meritocracy is a myth, this guy says. He uses Princeton as an example. Does he realize how few white people could afford to go there? Sure, there are some children of rich folks who have the money and connections, but I sure didn’t. No Ivy League schools called me up because I was white and had an Anglo surname. The people he is describing are an exceptionally small super-wealthy elite.
They are privileged because they are super-wealthy elites, not because they are white. I mean, you don’t think the kids of a multi-millionaire basketball player are going to public school, do you? Is Obama going to send his kids to an Ivy League school, or Podunk University?
At least a regular (non-rich) member of a minority can play the Oppression Olympics and maybe sneak in that way. That route isn’t available to regular white folks.
Become an ally. The more white people can increase their tolerance for these conversations, they immediately decrease their entitlement and open themselves to the possibility of being allies. When a white person responds to a conversation about race by taking a breath and listening instead of being defensive and trying to prove how “not racist” they are, they are seen as an ally—and allies are easy to spot! There’s an understanding in the field that people of color may have a greater access to what it means to be white than white people, just as women have a greater understanding of what it means to be male than men—it’s a product of living as a minority. So calm yourself and try to listen, even if only because you look foolish grabbing at straws for an explanation of something much greater than your own small behaviors.
If an SJW wanted to have an honest and open debate, and put his weapons of tarring and feathering away, I would be more than willing to debate him on the subject. The lack of tolerance isn’t on this end. It’s the end of screeching hags screaming racism and needing group therapy because someone wrote “Trump 2016” in chalk.
I mean look at this lunacy. “Women have a greater understanding of what it means to be male than men.” How does this man’s brain manage to avoid self-destructing in a monumental explosion from the sheer level of double-think? I mean, let’s follow this logic through to its ultimate conclusion. If women know men better than men know themselves, it’s likely that the reverse is true. I.e. men know women better than they know themselves.
To say otherwise would be claiming that women understood everybody better than men, which would mean they were female supremacists.
Imagine the outrage from feminists if a man actually claimed that. “Get in the kitchen, and strip naked for me, for I know what it best for you,” says the dickhead. But since he’s a man, he’d have a better understanding of women, right? RIGHT?!
Okay then, shut the fuck up.
Work to transform the system—not perpetuate it. White people perpetuate the problem by being fragile in their inability to even discuss the issue, by the denial of white privilege and the significance of race. We perpetuate it by being angry when someone “accuses” us of benefiting from racism. Transform the system by understanding how whites have and continue to benefit from it. White people have the power to transform it by accepting the psychological burden that we live in a racialized society. It’s heavy, and no one wants to hold it, but maybe, just maybe, we can.
Transform the system into what? Nigeria? Somalia? Saudi Arabia? Look, if you don’t like majority-white countries, I understand. No bullshit, I really do. If there is someplace on this Earth you think is better for you as an individual, then vote with your feet and go there. I support you!
Gavin explains this for us in the first minute of a debate with a radical feminist:
Look, I’m not saying we have things right in this country. If you’ve read my blog, you know that I’m pretty disappointed in things. But I vote with my feet and stay here because, as bad as things are here, I know they would be worse for me someplace else.
You benefit from being here, too, regardless of your race. If for some reason you didn’t, you would vote with your feet, just as I would, to go elsewhere. You have no shackles on your feet. Slavery is gone. You don’t have to stay here if you don’t want to.
Yet you remain, because you are privileged. Of all the privileges we have in this world, living in a First World country may be the biggest. We share that.
So let the elites send their kids to overpriced colleges, and leave me alone about it, for I could never go either. Don’t bother me about things my ancestors may or may not have done, nor hang me for things I have actively opposed, even though they were perpetrated by those who share a skin tone with me. I don’t have anything to give you, anyway. A meager home, an inexpensive car, and some secondhand furniture. Will that change your life, or that of the oppressed peoples of the world?
And that’s the essence here. I want peace between the peoples of the world, I really don’t give a shit about your skin color. But this works both ways. Peace requires two parties, not just one. And if you want ethnic politics to go away, then you have to bury your hatchet, too.
So I ask Progressives this serious question: what is the price of peace in America? What payment, what coin, would be acceptable to you for this all to go away? Because you never seem to have one. It’s always “have a conversation” and “on to the next issue.” Your idea of progress has no endpoint, no destination. Once you win one thing, it is on to the next, ad nauseam. There is no place you want to be. You just keep agitating and subverting, digging deeper under the foundations while everything collapses above you, because all you know how to do is dig.
You are destroyers of culture, not protectors of it. You are wrecking balls in minority communities, not saviors of them. You ruin economies, you do not elevate them to greatness. Everything you touch turns to ash. And then, when the dust has cleared and the smoke has wafted away from the smoldering flames of the world you’ve destroyed, you point to the wreckage and say “why did you make me do this?”
We didn’t make you do any of this. You did it on your own.
Feminism is loaded with terms like “the Patriarchy” and “misogyny” without really defining what they mean. This, of course, works to the advantage of Feminist leaders, who can define them however they like. The goalposts aren’t so much moving as they are permanently attached to wheels, or perhaps equipped with a cloaking device.
Even Time magazine admits that more women have college education than men, now. Females outnumber males in higher education. And the gap is widening significantly. If this is all true, how can the Patriarchy be in control of the university system, as feminists claim?
But it goes much deeper than that. Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, explains for us:
Most women in the United States believe they live in a patriarchy. Most men (as far as I can tell) believe they live in a matriarchy.
They can’t both be right. Right?
But they are both right. Because we all experience our own reality. As a wealthy, single male over 50, I live in a patriarchy bubble for sure. Let me give you a perfect example.
Scott Adams’ thesis is that there really is a Patriarchy, but that it is absurdly small and populated solely by the uber-wealthy men with political power, fame, and other such things. He explains further that, while he is a member of this class today, it wasn’t always so:
When I was young, poor, and penniless, my experience was that of a being in a matriarchy. My mother was my dominant parent. My first teachers were women. And I later failed at two careers because of my employers’ gender preferences for women. I tell those stories in my book. In both cases my bosses told me – in direct language – that the company had a diversity problem to fix and the executives had ordered them to stop promoting white males.
I’m not complaining, just reporting, for context. That was a long time ago. Obviously things worked out well for me.
When I was a young, unattractive male with no money, I had no social power, no dating power, and some very real career obstacles because of my gender. My subjective reality was that I was living in a matriarchy, even if those around me were not.
This is my own experience, also. If you are a man who isn’t driving a Ferrari or a Lamborghini, living it up in a mansion, with fame and/or political power, you are less than a nothing. You are an object of contempt. And, oddly enough, it isn’t other men making it this way. Most men have an instinctive understanding of equivalence.
In one of my previous jobs, I frequently rubbed elbows with some very wealthy and powerful people, including not one, but two people who were personal friends with two separate political candidates running for President, right now. In my dealings with them, they did not show one bit of contempt for me. They shook my hand like any other man would, and discussed the things which I was there to talk about without rancor or obvious superiority complexes. They saw me as a man, and someone who was there to to do a job for them.
My experiences with women of similar social rank were considerably less pleasant to say the least. I was a menial to them, a mere servant. Their attitudes toward me were that of a master to a slave, and an unfavored slave at that.
It is women who choose this expression of the Patriarchy.
Women reward boorish brutes who have political clout, and frequently ignore or even express outright loathing for men who do not have this power. In simple terms, they create their own boogeyman.
The rest of us live in a world which is unfavorable to men. We live in a Matriarchy, where most, if not all, social power is in the hands of women. Again, Scott Adams explains this:
The younger men without money – and most of the men with wives and families – are living in a matriarchy. That group of men doesn’t have anything left to give.
As a mental exercise, pay attention to which demographic group almost always plays the idiot on television commercials. It is usually a young male who is not wealthy. That group is the shit of society.
Scott Adams also means this literally. When a man and a woman are walking their dog down the street, look at who has to clean up the dog shit with one of those little plastic baggies and cart it around until a trash can is found. Yes, shit is a man’s job.
I’ve been discussing this cartoonish bufoonery heaped on men for a long time, now. Men are either drunken frat boy slobs, or balding middle-aged losers who can’t even read a map. The State Farm commercials are famous for this particular depiction.
State Farm advertisement. This is the image of modern man. A crying loser who can’t drive, calling a strong-independent-woman-of-power for help.
But then look at advertisements for liquor and beer. Bacardi, Dos Equis, Absolut and Stella commercials are famous for this. Wonderful, good looking, wealthy and powerful men are depicted in a positive light. And the women are seen making eyes at them with barely-restrained sensuality.
Stella advertisement. This is the real Patriarchy, or at least the one most women dream of.
There’s your Patriarchy, folks. Except that, contrary to every piece of conventional wisdom about Feminism, Feminists like this Patriarchy. The contempt they have for most men isn’t because they are too powerful, or oppressive, or control anything.
It’s because those men are contemptible slaves. And, like all masters, whips and chains are necessary to keep the slave in line. Most of us live under the Matriarchy, and don’t even know it.
Have you ever looked at an SJW and wondered “just what is this idiot trying to tell me?” Or, have you perhaps contemplated the intellectual musings of a Tumblrista and wondered “what in the everlasting fuck is this person actually saying?”
Well, wonder no more. Your friendly neighborhood Lord High Inquisitor of Capitalism has provided these translations from Communese into modern American English. For my friends of British persuasion, just add an occasional pointless “u” into words like color, in order to translate into the Queen’s.
1. “Let’s have a Conversation.” The direct translation for this is “your opinion hurts my feelings and you need to change it.” But this fails to capture the essence of the phrase. When an SJW says this, what they really mean is that you have departed from the traditional narrative, and you are being warned that your non-conforming opinion needs to be changed immediately. Failure to do so will result in denunciation and accusations of racism, sexism, etc… Having a conversation means agreeing with the SJW on all particulars.
2. “Educate yourself!” Directly translated, this is “I can’t understand why you don’t agree with the accepted narrative.” But again, there are nuances here. This can be considered a final warning before denunciation and attempts to attack your character. The SJW is warning you that there will be consequences if you don’t agree with the politically correct narrative. Perhaps they will try to get you fired, or dox you, or some other form of unpleasantness. The subtle translation is “obey the dictates of Social Justice or else!”
Educate Yourself = Listen & Believe = Turn off your brain so that we can fill it with as much Taco Bell-derived intellectual sewage as humanly possible.
3. You are a Racist!” You’re white. And probably male, cis-gendered, and straight. Remember, all white men are racists, and any accusation of racism is prima facie evidence of guilt. Progressive white men can be exempted by proclamation by the SocJus community. But this exemption can be revoked at any time, in which case you revert to being a racist.
4. “You’re a Misogynist!” You’re white. And probably male, cis-gendered, and straight. Remember, all white men are sexists, and any accusation of sexism is prima facie evidence of guilt. Progressive white men can be exempted by proclamation by the SocJus community. But this exemption can be revoked at any time, in which case you revert to being a sexist.
5. “You’re an Islamophobe!” You have common sense, which is, of course, a violation of accepted SocJus norms. The only sense you are allowed to have is fed to you by the media. When the media tells you Islam is good and Christianity is evil, you must accept this with no further discussion or demands for evidence.
6. “I can’t be a racist because racism equals privilege plus discrimination.” This means the SJW is a racist and hates white people. Bahar Mustafa, a woman of Turkish ethnicity famously proclaimed that her Turkish heritage meant that she could never be a racist. My Armenian ancestors would disagree, of course. But college feminists are far more oppressed than people thrown into rail cars, shot, beaten to death, and/or crucified.
Totally doesn’t count. Why, look at those Armenians oppressing the poor Turks.
7. “That’s Triggering!” Directly translated, this statement means roughly: “waaaaaaaah waaah waaaaaaaaaah!” A more nuanced translation would be “this made me cry, and I will throw a temper tantrum unless you make it go away.”
8. “We need a Safe Space!” The SJW wishes to re-institute segregation along racial and ethnic lines. Members of the KKK are currently kicking themselves for not thinking of this idea first. “Damnit,” says the Grand Wizard Dragon of Podunk, “if only we called Jim Crow ‘Safe Spaces for People of Color’ we could have pulled it off…”
Don’t worry, I’m sure the guys with torches, crosses, and pointy hats will be happy to provide them for you.
9. “Sexuality is Sacred!” When the dog humps the couch and manages to get himself off, you are required to give thanks to the environmentally-friendly, non-judgmental, transsexual, ethnic Goddess of Fedora-wearing neckbeards. Femen protesters, of course, can run around buck naked, touching themselves, and this is no big deal. The SJW is really saying that if you are not an SJW, all sex is rape and therefore you are a rapist. Of course, male SJWs never have sex with women anyway, so de facto, the SJW is saying that all heterosexual activity is rape.
10. “This is an example of Rape Culture!”It’s something that normal human beings have been doing since the dawn of time, or creation, or whatever. This may mean having sex, reproducing, looking at attractive members of the opposite sex, etc… Usually, however, this is a specific reference to anything which depicts a beautiful or attractive woman in any way that would interest men. Wearing a bikini on a magazine cover, for instance. A direct translation would be “I saw a woman more attractive than my lard-filled, unshaven rear-end, and this hurts my feelings.”
11. “I am oppressed.” Generally uttered by upper-middle class white SJWs, but can occasionally be spoken by wealthy members of other ethnicities. What it really means is “I feel threatened by the peasantry.” It is a variant of the famous phrase attributed to Marie Antoinette: “let them eat cake.”
She was a woman, therefore she was more oppressed than the white guy cleaning shit out of the sewer. Let him eat cake.
12. “I was raped.”Directly translated, this means “I had sex and later regretted it.” But sometimes having sex isn’t even necessarily a prerequisite for this statement. It may also mean “I want attention from the media” or ” somebody said hi to me when I was walking to my gender studies class.” Context is important when deciphering this phrase.
13. “Gamers are dead.” Gamers are very much alive and are an irritant in the eyes of the SJW who uttered this.
Dontcha know? Gamers are dead. I read it on a Progressive “gaming” site.
14. “Fat is beautiful.” Directly translated: “Every human being is equally attractive to every other human being, except white males, who are really, really ugly.” Usually uttered by the most vile, mammoth, sloth-like, vaguely-female “humans” ever to walk the Earth.
Thin Privilege… if you weigh less than 400lbs, you have it.
15. “Jesus was a Socialist.” Direct translation: “I’m a moron who thinks that a cursory understanding of religion fed to me by the media is more accurate than the beliefs of those who actually adhere to and study their faith.”
16. “Everybody should be equal.”Directly translated: “Give me money. Really. My Patreon is over there…”
17. “I was discriminated against.” Directly translated: “Somebody doesn’t like me. I’m a good gender-queer, hydrosexual, poopkin, trans-ethnic feminist, so I can’t imagine why.” Usually uttered by the dumbest, most unpleasant people imaginable. Most individuals would rather hang out with Jeffrey Dahmer than whoever said this.
18. “I think you’re a Nazi.” Directly translated: “Everything I don’t like is literally Hitler. The undercooked fries from McDonalds? Hitler. The fitness magazine depicting attractive men and women? Hitler. Republicans? Hitler. Straight people? Hitler. White people? Hitler.”
19. “You’re a Homophobe.”This one has a bit of nuance to it. This is really code for being a cis-gendered heterosexual who failed to praise homosexuality with every second breath. However, any homosexual (Milo, basically) who departs from the narrative can be safely attacked. Indeed, failing to insult a conservative homosexual is grounds for immediate expulsion from SocJus and is, paradoxically, proof of homophobia.
20. “That’s Cultural Appropriation.”Translation:India’s culture dates back at least 4,000 years, but it is threatened whenever a white girl wears a bindi. Chinese civilization is ancient, and arguably the largest economy in the world at the present moment. But it is threatened by the presence of a white guy ordering take out. Cultural Appropriation is one of those nebulous terms that periodically pops up in SJW discourse. Since, according to them, white people have no culture, they must steal it from everyone else. And this stealing is racism. But, since they view everything as cultural appropriation of some kind, the only way to satisfy them would be to cease to exist. Or, perhaps, you could pull a Shaun King and declare yourself to be black. That, of course, is not Cultural Appropriation.
That about covers it. But, as always, your friendly neighborhood Lord High Inquisitor of Capitalism (and literally-Hitler) is always searching for more translations. Post in the comments and I’ll pick the best ones for a followup.
When I was a child, I had dreams like any other, impossible goals and obnoxious ambitions. There was a time when I wished I were the Emperor of the Earth. Never let it be said that I think small. Then there were times I wished I could invent a time machine and travel back to the days of Christ to solve the deeper mysteries of Christianity. Childhood dreams are like that. There is no sense to them, but they had a magnificence, a purity our smaller and more realistic adult ambitions sometimes lack. Did you ever want to be an astronaut or an Olympic swimmer? Did you see yourself writing the next great Science Fiction novel or directing a Hollywood blockbuster?
One thing I did not want to be growing up, however, was a victim. At least, not at first. But when I left private school, near to being kicked out for atrocious behavior (I was not a terribly pleasant child), and wound up in public school, that’s what they taught. In seventh grade I got into a fight with this kid, a bully who I had been having trouble with for months. He threw the first punch, and everybody saw him do it. But when I stood, poised with a textbook over my head, prepared to smash it into the insolent little shit’s face, it was me who got the phone call home and barely avoided suspension.
Why? Because I didn’t look like the victim, irrespective of whether or not I actually was. Somehow, his tearful face made him the victim, and me the oppressor. Ironically, this turned me into an actual victim, for before this I had adhered to my father’s maxim of punch the bully in the nose and he’ll probably go away. After this, I learned that self defense was punished. The rest of middle school and much of high school was spent being the butt monkey of every bully and meathead jock around. I was a laughing stock, but at least I wasn’t being threatened with suspension or expulsion anymore.
It wasn’t long before I noticed this behavior everywhere. One thing I was good at was distance running, and I remember a day in which I was on fire. I can’t remember if it was sixth or seventh grade, but I blew through the mile in under 6 minutes, which was a pretty notable achievement for that age. I was more than a minute faster than the next guy behind me. But the PE teacher didn’t even care, or bother to notice the achievement. He was busy congratulating and urging on lazy kids for actually bothering to jog instead of walk.
We interrupt this regularly-scheduled victimhood article to inform you that Brianna Wu, transsexual, is a victim even though somebody handed her $200,000 out of the blue.
This was a talent that was wasted. I look back on this with sadness, because I was truly gifted in Cross Country and distance running. I could have gone somewhere with that ability, but the Cross Country coach spent his time focusing on the girl’s team, because that was the way the political winds were blowing in the public school system, and my motivation waned over the years, until I walked away from it completely.
You might think that I’m blaming other people for my failings (the very thing I’m speaking against). I’m not. I blame myself for succumbing to this idiocy. Hell, there was a time in which I took Marx seriously and a time when I believed the Keynesians has the right of things. Now, if I had that time machine I dreamed of as a child, I would go back to my younger self and tell him to ignore the administrators telling him not to fight back, or the coaches who spent their time working with people who didn’t even want to run. I would find my own motivation, as I have today, and go to the gym on my own accord. But I’m in my thirties now, and dreams of running in the Olympics, or even competing in college are long dead. It should be noted that I intend to tell my son this when he is old enough to understand, it would be well if he could learn from my failings.
A middle schooler is more susceptible to these things. Children can be influenced in this manner more than adults can. If you tell a child that he is a victim, day in and day out, sooner or later he will start to believe it. And if you penalize a kid for achievement, or fail to acknowledge it at all, sooner or later, he’ll probably just give up. I owe it to my father, a good and strong man, that I ever conquered this problem at all, even later in life. Most everyone else in my childhood spent their time extolling that victimhood (i.e. getting punched in the face) was morally superior to fighting, or that people who jogged 10 minute miles were to be commended while people who ran 5 minute miles were to be ignored.
This is an inversion of all good sense. Like much of Progressive Leftism, the celebration of Victimhood defies rational explanation. In many ways, it even defies emotional explanation, for a childhood full of bullies you cannot strike back is one which is emotionally painful.
We celebrate failure. We extol being a victim, which is, in essence, the glorification of losing control over one’s life.
Take rape. A lot of Leftists define rape very broadly, so that anybody (except a while male, of course) can be raped. Drunk sex that you later regret? Rape. Catcalling? Rape. Looking at somebody? Stare rape. Then there are lunatics who genuinely believe that pornography is, somehow, rape. The culture of Victimhood almost celebrates the practice, while those of a Right wing extraction have a different take on the matter:
No, she didn’t. And if this woman shoots a rapist, we on the Right consider that an ACHIEVEMENT worth celebrating.
Have you ever read a story about a disabled person overcoming their handicap? These used to be celebrated, too. The man who lost the use of his legs, but through the help of family and strength of will, manages to walk again is heartwarming because it is an achievement. In essence, the person who defeats their own handicaps is saying “I refuse to be a victim.” Achievement is not always absolute in the sense of a 5 minute mile. It can also be found in the person who has cerebral palsy running a marathon.
Some of those stories still make it out, now and again, for the Social Justice Warriors cannot suppress them as much as they would like (for such stories dismantle the victim narrative), without giving up the fact that they are concerned with power not with people. But consider the female marathon winner who didn’t even make the press, because some other woman running half as fast, decided to “free bleed” her period blood all over her track suit in some vague protest of patriarchal supremacy. Everyone knows who the bleeder was, nobody cares about the woman who achieved victory.
Because, somehow, the bleeder was a victim. Of something. I suppose there was some sort of conspiracy of old White men that decided women shouldn’t bleed all over their clothing. Similarly, men and women both are expected not to shit themselves. Perhaps we shall see the Social Justice Warriors cheering the end of toilet oppression, soon. Go ahead, since you’re a victim of some nebulous and undefinable conspiracy, I’m sure it’s fine if you take a dump in the middle of the street. Then we can go back to being the infantile, uncivilized imbeciles they seem to worship.
There was an article I read this morning asking the following question: “Why Spend Money on Space Exploration When We Have So Many Problems Here on Earth?” Mr. Garan tells us that technology transfer is the greatest reason to support space travel, for NASA often pioneers technologies that will later trickle down into the consumer market. To be fair, the answer is a good one, but in a nation which once left footprints on the moon, it omits a far greater reason: achievement.
The thing is worth doing on its own, irrespective of the material benefits. In other words, Mr. Garan has to justify why funds that could be given to poor people, or to the “marginalized” people of color, or even the Syrian refugees, should instead be spent on space exploration. The achievement of, say, going to Mars or inventing Faster-than-light travel doesn’t even enter into his calculations.
Why does a high jumper flop over a bar at the Olympics? Does this have some material benefit to the poor starving people of wherever? No, it’s about achievement. It’s about celebrating humanity and defeating our own self-imposed limitations.
But the wheels of victimhood culture have gone so far off the wagon that, rather than training to be great athletes, or learning to be geniuses and leaders, people are instead choosing to cut off body parts so that they, too, may experience the joy of being a disabled victim. Individuals like Rachel Dolezal and Shaun King are pretending to be Black, because in their twisted minds, doing so means becoming a powerless victim (isn’t that a form of patronizing racism?).
Hundreds of thousands of refugees are tearing up Europe, including places like Greece, which don’t even have the money to pay for them. These “victims” are mostly young males looking to hop on to the welfare gravy train of the European Union, while the continent is simultaneously experiencing a period of austerity measures for the same.
Patents please, so that we may establish that you were a victim for at least six generations. Else you will not be allowed to debate, for you are a racist, sexist, homophobe, transphobe, you hate kittens, etc…
Social Justice Warriors often introduce their victim credentials in the same manner a nobleman might list his titles, or in which a PhD might list his degree(s). Hi, I’m Jane Doe, a transsexual, mixed-race, adipostive genderqueer woman of color. My pronouns are Fe Fi Fo and Fum. Patents, please, is their cry. And, like the noblemen of old, they are dismissive of the plebs with no titles (those evil straight white males). Furthermore, the titles they give to themselves, they will deny to you if they can. I’m just a white guy, or more charitably, a guy of white and Middle-Eastern descent. SJWs generally describe Anita Sarkeesian, who is of Armenian extraction, as Middle-Eastern because it boosts her victim score. This is, of course, politically useful in a culture that celebrates victimhood. They are usually reluctant to extend the same courtesy to me for the same, and will do so only grudgingly.
In the meantime, the footprints on the moon have not been matched for more than 40 years. Today, I have no doubt that there are children sitting in school as I type this, people who could someday be great engineers or marathon runners, or even defeat the limitations of their station in life, but who will be discouraged instead. For, when everybody gets a trophy it is effectively the same as when nobody gets a trophy.
And if there is no reward for greatness, why even bother at all? After all, the celebration of failure has always been easier.
When perusing the chaos that is Twitter, I discovered this little gem: AN INTERVIEW WITH JULIE BINDEL. Now, this rapidly circulated across a number of Social Media platforms, and was soon taken down, but the Archive.is version remains so that we can see this self-described RadFem’s hatred for what it is. Here is the individual in question, in the words of her interviewer:
julie bindel – outspoken journalist, tireless radical feminist activist, and political lesbian – has been at the forefront of our no platforming campaign, which aims to tackle the no platforming of radical feminists by organisations who seek to silence our voices.
I’m not entirely sure what a “Political Lesbian” is supposed to be, exactly, but in the annals of SocJus there are worse constructs, like Post-Modernist Marxist Occultist Pedophile Apologist. But I digress. This sort of word salad encompasses something like a parallel language, using the same terms as the English language, but where nothing is as it seems.
Political lesbians are really crucial, because we were the ones that first said that women should be able to determine their own sexuality. We were the ones that said that all women can be lesbians…
It sounds to me like this woman is looking to convert more women to Lesbianism. Is that what Political Lesbianism is? She claims that women should be able to determine their own sexuality, but then suggests that all women should be lesbians. Sounds to me like she is making that determination for them.
We used to talk about sexual politics, rather than sexual practice. But what the libertarians did when they borrowed US gay male culture was they focused obsessively on sexual practice, and they eroticised inequality, subordination, pain and dominance.
We can safely dismiss this woman as a complete and utter moron, for she equates Libertarianism to gay sex. I’m not sure what the connection is between gay men doing what they do and having a small government bereft of tyrants, but I’m sure this Political Lesbian is going to tell us.
how do we dismantle gender?
We have to get rid of it. There is no point looking at reforming it. It would be like saying we could reform the Tory party. We just need to abolish and obliterate it.
Now we see SocJus for what it is: the denial of objective reality. According to this woman, one can simply declare that gender does not exist (she does this while still speaking of genders: i.e. men and women), and then reality must then comply. She is flogging the sea to change the tide. We used to call the denial of objective reality by the term “insanity” but that, apparently, is out of fashion in these “progressive” times.
will heterosexuality survive women’s liberation?
It won’t, not unless men get their act together, have their power taken from them and behave themselves. I mean, I would actually put them all in some kind of camp where they can all drive around in quad bikes, or bicycles, or white vans. I would give them a choice of vehicles to drive around with, give them no porn, they wouldn’t be able to fight – we would have wardens, of course! Women who want to see their sons or male loved ones would be able to go and visit, or take them out like a library book, and then bring them back.
I hope heterosexuality doesn’t survive, actually. I would like to see a truce on heterosexuality. I would like an amnesty on heterosexuality until we have sorted ourselves out. Because under patriarchy it’s shit.
And I am sick of hearing from individual women that their men are all right. Those men have been shored up by the advantages of patriarchy and they are complacent, they are not stopping other men from being shit.
I would love to see a women’s liberation that results in women turning away from men and saying: “when you come back as human beings, then we might look again.”
And here we see Third-wave feminism for what it truly is: a genocidal monstrosity. She wishes to place half of humanity into concentration camps and blithely describes them as inhuman, while decrying the notion that some women love their men and are attracted to them. According to her, biology does not exist. Remember, dear readers, that Leftists repeatedly claim to be the champions of science, the paragons of rational logic.
They do this while denying that reality exists, declaring that the universe should obey they dictates of their lunatic minds, and completely throwing out the door everything humanity has ever learned about biology, natural selection and human nature.
Because lets face it, we know we are right – we are learning all the time, and we change our minds on all kinds of strategic issue, but radical feminism is common sense.
Because she believes she is right, even as she admits she has continually changed her mind, i.e. been wrong in the past. But trust her, she says, because she’s got it right this time. This time it’s “common sense.” That her common sense requires genocide and concentration camps, that it requires mothers to hate their sons, wives to imprison their husbands, sisters to turn their backs on their brothers, is a mere trifle to this witch.
Radical feminists need to be committed and treated for mental illness, not taken seriously.