One thing about getting old is you’re less tolerant of BS, no matter what the stripe. That’s especially true if you’re one of the women who helped define modern “feminism”.
Germaine Greer, the 76-year-old author of “The Female Eunich,” is making waves by lambasting the idea that Caitlyn Jenner may be honored by Glamour Magazine as “Woman of the Year.” Jenner isn’t a woman, says Greer. He’s just attention-starved and seeking to steal the limelight from the women in the Kardashian family.
He hasn’t actually had to endure what feminists depict as the true horrors of womanhood, such as being cursed with what Greer delicately characterizes as a “big, hairy, smelly vagina.”
When told that such comments are hurtful to the transgender community, Greer doubled down. “Try being an old woman. For goodness sake, people get hurt all the time, I’m not about to walk on eggshells.”
Now frankly, I think much of “feminism” is BS. And especially the phase it is now in. Feminism, as I see it, helped start this movement toward the “cult of the victim”.
All that being said, it is hilarious to see what is happening with the Jenner thing. I happen to agree with Greer – he’s an attention seeking whore living among the ultimate attention seeking whores and he wants more of the attention.
So how does this sort of nonsense (not the repudiation of Greer but the “Jenner thing”) gain traction? The usual suspects are involved:
Our insatiable media must find new ground to break in tantalizing the public and normalizing what was once considered aberrant behavior. Cultivating a live-and-let-live attitude isn’t enough; alternative lifestyles must be celebrated as not only equal but superior to the boring, oppressive traditions that have dominated until now.
Indeed, it is the so-called “cool kids” who dominate the culture wars because the dominate the media and entertainment industry. Who are the “cool kids”? Well, they’re those who don’t want to be judged on their aberrant behavior or actions and thus try to normalize them by shouting down and vilifying anyone who stands up for more traditional lifestyles.
To this point, they’ve been mostly successful in their methods. But there’s always a time in any sort of movement such as this that lines begin to be crossed. Lines where it is obvious even to those who support the cause generally where they can see that “the emperor has no clothes”. Jenner provides one of those moments and Greer calls the “cool kids” out on it.
Reaction? See above. In a petition begun to keep her from speaking at Cardiff University in the UK, Greer is vilified with feminist code language for “dirty, rotten traitor” to the cause:
“Greer has demonstrated time and time again her misogynistic views towards trans women, including continually misgendering trans women and denying the existence of transphobia altogether.
“Trans-exclusionary views should have no place in feminism or society.
“Such attitudes contribute to the high levels of stigma, hatred and violence towards trans people – particularly trans women – both in the UK and across the world.”
So there. The fact that Jenner doesn’t possess that big, old smelly defining thing, nor has had to live with it disqualifies her as a “woman” in Greer’s view. But we’re dealing with post-modern feminism now. And that’s whatever the radical feminists say it is. Greer is no longer welcome in that club.
And I’m laughing my rear end off.
Instead of running around (and talking) in circles.
You’re going to say things that are going to offend and outrage some people (regardless of what you say – politically you’re on the other side, so that, in and of itself is “offensive”), even if what you say isn’t really offensive or outrageous.
[Ben] Carson’s response to the howls of the PC left is the right one: We’ll call it “apathetic conviction.” He’s not outraged by the outrage; he simply doesn’t care. The outrage bores him. And no response is better calculated to rob critics of their power than boredom. You’re offended by my comments? I’m trending on Twitter? Wake me when the shame-storm is over, and then let’s debate my arguments on their substance.
And that’s the way to handle it. As soon as you back down or apologize, they own you. When you jut your jaw out and essentially say, “welcome to the real world, now grow up”, they’ve lost their power. Carson’s response is an adult’s response.
Time to take these children’s pseudo-power away from them.
Via Ace and Bill, here is a clickbait article by some metrosexual pantywaist who purports to tell us all what modern men are like. He intends it to be funny – I think. It’s hard to tell with pathetic beta males. But I think he means most of the advice to be taken seriously even though he’s trying for a humorous presentation.
It’s as pathetic and unfunny as you would expect. I wondered if every single item on his list needed to be eviscerated, and just about every one did. So herewith I recount his items, and for each my own item about what a real man is like compared to this dipwad’s “modern man”.
1. When the modern man buys shoes for his spouse, he doesn’t have to ask her sister for the size. And he knows which brands run big or small.
The real man knows better than to buy shoes for his spouse. He’ll never be able to ensure a good fit. Instead, he takes care of the household well enough that she knows she can buy shoes whenever she wants or needs to. He’s got better things to do than study the sizing proclivities of two dozen brands of women’s shoes.
2. The modern man never lets other people know when his confidence has sunk. He acts as if everything is going swimmingly until it is.
The real man never lets other people know when his confidence has sunk, because it never does. He believes in himself. Temporary setbacks don’t change that.
3. The modern man is considerate. At the movie theater, he won’t munch down a mouthful of popcorn during a quiet moment. He waits for some ruckus.
The real man is considerate, because gentlemen have had that characteristic for centuries. Which means he knows better than to put a whole mouthful of popcorn in his mouth at once like some heathen savage or six year old.
4. The modern man doesn’t cut the fatty or charred bits off his fillet. Every bite of steak is a privilege, and it all goes down the hatch.
The real man knows enough about steak to know several things. First, it’s properly spelled “filet”, and the pathetic betas in the NYT editorial department should have known that. Second, a filet has almost no fat so it’s not necessary to trim around it. Third, a real man knows enough about cooking a filet not to char it.
5. The modern man won’t blow 10 minutes of his life looking for the best parking spot. He finds a reasonable one and puts his car between the lines.
The real man knows that where you park isn’t really important enough to think about very much, and that there are literally a thousand other things that say a lot more about whether he’s a real man.
6. Before the modern man heads off to bed, he makes sure his spouse’s phone and his kids’ electronic devices are charging for the night.
Before the real man heads off to bed, he makes sure the home is secure, and that he’s clean and ready to make love to his wife. He doesn’t worry about his kids’ electronic devices, because they need to learn the responsibility of taking care of themselves. He knows he won’t always be around to do it.
7. The modern man buys only regular colas, like Coke or Dr Pepper. If you walk into his house looking for a Mountain Dew, he’ll show you the door.
The real man buys only whatever the f*ck kind of cola that he thinks tastes good, plus some Mountain Dew for his buddy who likes Dale Earnhardt, Jr, and a nice variety of other soft drinks for his guests. Plus some liquor to mix in.
8. The modern man uses the proper names for things. For example, he’ll say “helicopter,” not “chopper” like some gauche simpleton.
The real man uses the proper names for things. For example, he’ll say “pathetic beta male,” not “modern man” like some pretentious douchebag.
9. Having a daughter makes the modern man more of a complete person. He learns new stuff every day.
Having a daughter makes the real man happy that he has children. Just like having a son does. Though he does hope and pray that his daughter doesn’t grow up to marry a
modern man pathetic beta male.
10. The modern man makes sure the dishes on the rack have dried completely before putting them away.
The real man makes sure the household can afford a dishwasher and lets it take care of drying and sterilizing the dishes.
11. The modern man has never “pinned” a tweet, and he never will.
The real man doesn’t do anything stupid on social media, including putting pointless sh!t about his life on Twitter all the time.
12. The modern man checks the status of his Irish Spring bar before jumping in for a wash. Too small, it gets swapped out.
The real man washes his body with whatever is available, including shampoo if he has to. If he has room next to the bathtub, he makes sure fresh toiletries can be reached without getting out. He certainly doesn’t get anal about something as trivially stupid as whether the soap bar is too small.
13. The modern man listens to Wu-Tang at least once a week.
The real man doesn’t give a f*ck about Wu-Tang or any other flavor-of-the-month piece of sh!t rap artist. He’s got a music collection that has decent stuff from Mozart to Pink Floyd to Taylor Swift. Plus some eighties stuff to play during parties for dancing.
14. The modern man still jots down his grocery list on a piece of scratch paper. The market is no place for his face to be buried in the phone.
The real man jots down his grocery list on paper or phone, whichever he’s more comfortable with. He knows enough to stop and step aside if he needs to look at his phone while shopping so he doesn’t run into anything. Which he will probably need to do because he’ll likely have to text his wife for details or clarifications while he’s shopping.
15. The modern man has hardwood flooring. His children can detect his mood from the stamp of his Kenneth Cole oxfords.
The real man sometimes has hardwood flooring because it’s nice looking and easy to keep clean. But he doesn’t stomp through the house on it, because he has better control over himself that that. His children can detect his mood because he tells them when he doesn’t feel well.
16. The modern man lies on the side of the bed closer to the door. If an intruder gets in, he will try to fight him off, so that his wife has a chance to get away.
The real man make sure his house is secure enough that he’ll know about an intruder long before it gets to the bedroom door. That means he can sleep on either side of the bed his wife wants him to. If an intruder gets in, he will either shoot them or take them apart, so that his wife will be protected. Though, for some wives, he will make sure he’s clear of her field of fire so they can both shoot the intruder.
17. Does the modern man have a melon baller? What do you think? How else would the cantaloupe, watermelon and honeydew he serves be so uniformly shaped?
Does the real man have a melon baller? Who the f*ck cares? Hell, he probably doesn’t even know what one looks like.
18. The modern man has thought seriously about buying a shoehorn.
The real man has thought seriously about buying a motorcycle.
19. The modern man buys fresh flowers more to surprise his wife than to say he is sorry.
The real man buys fresh flowers anytime he wants to tell his wife he loves her.
20. On occasion, the modern man is the little spoon. Some nights, when he is feeling down or vulnerable, he needs an emotional and physical shield.
On occasion, the real man is the little spoon because the human body needs to shift around during sleep. If he is feeling down, he is either quiet about it until he feels better, or tells his wife what he is feeling down about so they can confront it together. If needed, she then holds him as a wife should when he needs her support – face to face with their arms around each other.
21. The modern man doesn’t scold his daughter when she sneezes while eating an apple doughnut, even if the pieces fly everywhere.
The real man doesn’t scold his daughter for anything accidental. Though he does teach her good manners.
22. The modern man still ambles half-naked down his driveway each morning to scoop up a crisp newspaper.
The real man is smart enough to know that newspapers have become too biased and unreliable to waste time on. Unless he’s house training a dog or wrapping dishes to move, he has no use for one, crisp or otherwise.
23. The modern man has all of Michael Mann’s films on Blu-ray (or whatever the highest quality thing is at the time).
The real man knows that everyone has their own movie favorites, and that Michael Mann is just one more mid-level filmmaker. But he owns a Blu-ray of Die Hard and at least one Cary Grant movie.
24. The modern man doesn’t get hung up on his phone’s battery percentage. If it needs to run flat, so be it.
The real man doesn’t talk, text, or browse so damn much on the phone that it goes dead every other day.
25. The modern man has no use for a gun. He doesn’t own one, and he never will.
The real man knows that a gun is a tool for killing things that need killing, and that the world unfortunately holds a lot of those things. Depending on where he lives, he probably owns several of them.
26. The modern man cries. He cries often.
The real man cries sometimes. But he’s not proud of it.
27. People aren’t sure if the modern man is a good dancer or not. That is, until the D.J. plays his jam and he goes out there and puts on a clinic.
People aren’t sure if the real man is a good dancer or not. Because he doesn’t really give a f*ck if he’s a good dancer – he just goes out on the dance floor with his wife and has a good time.
I realize this guy just put out his list to get his name in print and try to excuse his pathetic beta maleness. Still, the fact that he thinks any of this is laudable even in jest shows how far some men have sunk in being ashamed of their own masculinity.
I suggest that the real test would be to run the above past a few hundred women who had been out of college at least five years. Let them decide whether they want a “modern man” or a real man. I know which way I think the results would go.
I remember when flying was mostly a pleasant and enjoyable experience. Not so much anymore:
Not too long ago, flying could be a relatively pleasant experience, but executives focused on cutting costs have stripped away everything flyers associated with luxury or even dignity. Food, baggage handling, boarding in a logical manner: Things once taken for granted now must be paid for or done without. Flights are more crowded than they’ve been since World War II, when they were carrying troops.
Competition has winnowed all the perks out of the process (mostly due to the demand for lower fares), security has made the boarding process a nightmare and, frankly, rude and short-tempered people who simply don’t know how to act in public have killed off the rest of the enjoyment. As they like to say, “you get what you pay for.”
Is anyone else laughing out loud at Hillary Clinton’s latest ironically impaired attempt to relate?
I want to send a message to every survivor of sexual assault.
Don’t let anyone silence your voice. You have a right to be heard. You have a right to be believed. We’re with you.
I hear Juanita Broadrick and Kathleen Willey agree. But Willey has a few words of her own in response:
“She believed what happened for sure,” Willey tells The American Mirror. “She just chose to ignore the plight of all of his victims, thus enabling him to continue to abuse and rape women in the future.”
Willey adds, “She’s a money-hungry hypocritical witch who will do anything for money.
“She’s a lying pig. I CANNOT believe that she had the gall to make that commercial. How dare she? I hope she rots in hell.“
Yup, so do a lot of us. One place we don’t want her, though, is in the Oval Office.
Bernie Sanders, the darling of the socialist left, has been getting a bit of traction against Hillary Clinton. In fact, Clinton is losing support so fast that even Joe Biden is considering entering his clown car into the race.
And what does Sanders bring to the table? Bigger government (much bigger), more spending (18 trillion, in fact) and much higher taxes. Wow, what a deal (one that has always appealed to the liberal left):
In all, he backs at least $18 trillion in new spending over a decade, according to a tally by The Wall Street Journal, a sum that alarms conservatives and gives even many Democrats pause. Mr. Sanders sees the money as going to essential government services at a time of increasing strain on the middle class.
His agenda includes an estimated $15 trillion for a government-run health-care program that covers every American, plus large sums to rebuild roads and bridges, expand Social Security and make tuition free at public colleges.
To pay for it, Mr. Sanders, a Vermont independent running for the Democratic nomination, has so far detailed tax increases that could bring in as much as $6.5 trillion over 10 years, according to his staff.
And the “but the government is paying for my stuff” crowd is going wild over him. How do you explain to the economically illiterate where this is all headed and what the result at some point in the future MUST be?
Oh, and by the way, they’re not even trying to deny it:
Mr. Gunnels, the Sanders aide, said the campaign hasn’t worked out all details on his plan—for instance, his version might allow each state to run its own single-payer system. But he said the $15 trillion figure was a fair estimate.
So, let’s elect Bernie and double our debt!
Monday at North High School in Des Moines, IA, President Barack Obama said the notion that people who illegally come to live in the United States, as they have for generations, are suddenly now “less worthy in the eyes of God,” is “un-American.” Obama said, “This whole anti-immigrant sentiment that is out there in politics right now is contrary to who we are. Because unless you are a native American, your family came from someplace else. And although we are a nation of laws and we want people to follow the law, and I have been pushing Congress to make …” yatta, yatta, yatta.
Who is making the argument that anyone is less worthy because of how they ended up here? I think the argument is they’re “illegal”! There is no “anti-immigrant” sentiment. There is an “anti-illegal immigrant” sentiment since our laws prohibit it. As for the “native Americans” they were merely the first immigrants as their families “came from someplace else”, namely Siberia. And this guy, who refuses to enforce the laws about immigration already on the books has the temerity to lecture others about being a “nation of laws”. Ironic guffaw follows ending with a contemptuous sneer.
Did the Obama administration turn down a Russian offer in 2012 to dump Syria’s Assad?
If true, this was a staggering missed opportunity. The President’s string of misjudgments on the Middle East—on the peace process, Erdogan, withdrawal from Iraq, Libya, ISIS as the “J.V. team”, and Syria—is one of the most striking examples of serial failure in the annals of American foreign policy.
Generally speaking, what the President seems worst at is estimating the direction in which events are flowing. He thought Erdogan was taking Turkey in one direction; Erdogan was going somewhere else. He thought there was a transition to democracy in Egypt; there never was a prospect of that. He has repeatedly been caught flatfooted by events in Syria. And Putin keeps running rings around him.
Understanding the intentions and estimating the capabilities of people who don’t share his worldview are not our President’s strong suits.
And now, who is it again that Russia and Iran are reported to be cozying up too? Worst president ever.
VDH has had enough of the whiners too. Since the football season has started he has chosen to highlight Brandon Marshall, the New York Jets wide receiver and occasional sports commentator’s remarks that the NFL is, apparently, racist.
He claims that the NFL favors white players over black players, especially white quarterbacks. Never mind the fact that while blacks make up approximately 12% of the population, they hold 67% of the positions on NFL teams. Never mind the fact that Marshall just signed a 3 year contract for $27 million. Never mind that blacks make up 16% of the coaches and 24% of the general managers … the league is just “racist.”
For whatever reason, Marshall just has to lay racism as a charge. His “reasoning?”
Tuesday, on Showtime’s Inside the NFL, the talented New York Jets receiver said about the reversal of Tom Brady’s four-game suspension, “The race card. There are a lot of players out there that believe that white players—specifically, at the quarterback position—are treated differently.”
If Marshall is accusing the NFL of racism, this is a pretty poor example. The NFL threw the book at Brady for his alleged role in the football deflation scandal. Federal Judge Richard Berman reversed the four-game suspension. Roger Goodell upheld it.
Well, it’s the best Marshall can come up with to illustrate his ill founded charge. He has become another of a legion out there that want to blame every little grievance, substantiated or not, on race, or gender, or men, or whatever. And he’s obviously ignorant of the facts. But in the era of the victim (thanks Obama), none of that matters. It’s the grievance and the narrative that accompanies it that are important.
The cult of the whining victim is now ubiquitous. Two high-school football players in Texas, angry that their team is losing and galvanized by their whining coach, decide to take out a referee and smash him with two cowardly hits. The reason? They claim the flattened ref got what he deserved — because of course he was a racist. The Marine Corps has discovered, as Nature might have advised it, that male ground troops on average perform more muscularly and effectively in rough combat-simulated training than do women. They apparently prove stronger, more combative, blood-thirsty, and aggressive, and fight with greater stamina. One reaction is not to accept the data, but, of course, by whining how the data has been improperly — and no doubt — socially constructed in sexist fashion, or is irrelevant altogether, maybe the standards can be lowered a bit.
This cult has, unfortunately, infected a large portion of our population. And, as pointed out about the Marine Corps test, if the results don’t measure up to the predetermined solution, someone will whine, and they have. The narrative will win out, regardless of reality or the consequences of ignoring it in the real world. And frankly, I agree wholeheartedly with this:
The 21st century has become a cowardly era in which we point to collective race, class, or gender rather than own up to our record of behavior and performance when our exalted expectations are not met.
This was inevitable. It is no longer about equal opportunity that it is your responsibility to take charge of, it is about equal outcomes that is someone else’s job to ensure:
The culprits are not just our obsessions with race, class, and gender, or the careerist aspirations of elites. We also live in the most affluent and leisured era in the history of Western civilization. But given human nature, our bounty has not given us pause for appreciation, but rather increased our appetites in geometric fashion. The more we have, the more we think we deserve — or else. In an affluent society, society can afford now to have no losers. There is enough stuff and praise to be shared by all. In T-ball everyone is a winner; so is today’s student who feels A’s are his birthright. The poor man in the inner city has more computing power in his palm with an Apple smartphone than did the billionaire twenty years ago in his study — but, of course, not as versatile a phone perhaps as that of today’s billionaire, and thus he can legitimately whine that life is not fair due to the machinations of someone else.
And so, as we’re seeing in our colleges and universities, we’re raising a generation of hot house flowers who will never survive in “Hard America”, but will have a thousand and one excuses for their failures and a thousand and one lawsuits presented by lawyers happy to take their (parent’s) money.
This isn’t America anymore.
Anyone who has read QandO for any time at all knows I am fascinated by these sorts of topics. This comes out of Reason’s “Hit & Run” blog. It offers an explanation concerning what we’ve been watching happen over the last 20 to 30 years. The change from a more self-reliant people who tried to be better to a growing culture of “victimhood”.
Some background first:
In honor cultures, people (men) maintained their honor by responding to insults, slights, violations of rights by self-help violence. Generally honor cultures exist where the rule of law is weak. In honor cultures, people protected themselves, their families, and property through having a reputation for swift violence. During the 19th century, most Western societies began the moral transition toward dignity cultures in which all citizens were legally endowed with equal rights. In such societies, persons, property, and rights are defended by recourse to third parties, usually courts, police, and so forth, that, if necessary, wield violence on their behalf. Dignity cultures practice tolerance and are much more peaceful than honor cultures.
Sociologists Bradley Campbell and Jason Manning are arguing that the U.S. is now transitioning to a victimhood culture that combines both the honor culture’s quickness to take offense with the dignity culture’s use of third parties to police and punish transgressions. The result is people are encouraged to think of themselves as weak, marginalized, and oppressed. This is nothing less than demoralizing and polarizing as everybody seeks to become a “victim.”
Indeed. I’ve seen it any number of times personally over the years. And, as you might imagine, this transition into the victimhood culture is becoming both extensive and actually supported by, well “victims” and those with some sort of pseudo-guilt. The “white privilege” nonsense is a perfect example. Cultural “appropriation” is another victimhood scam.
With that background, this is a very interesting explanation of what we have going on and where it is likely to lead (and, of course, note where the impact, at this moment in time, is the strongest and how well that’s going):
A) Microaggression as Overstratification
According to Black (2011), as noted above, changes in stratification, intimacy, and diversity cause conflict. Microaggression complaints are largely about changes in stratification. They document actions said to increase the level of inequality in a social relationship – actions Black refers to as “overstratification.” Overstratification offenses occur whenever anyone rises above or falls below others in status. [Therefore…] a morality that privileges equality and condemns oppression is most likely to arise precisely in settings that already have relatively high degrees of equality… In modern Western societies, egalitarian ethics have developed alongside actual political and economic equality.As women moved into the workforce in large numbers, became increasingly educated, made inroads into highly paid professions such as law and medicine, and became increasingly prominent in local, state, and national politics, sexism became increasingly deviant. The taboo has grown so strong that making racist statements, even in private, might jeopardize the careers of celebrities or the assets of businessmen (e.g., Fenno, Christensen, and Rainey 2014; Lynch 2013). [p.706-707] [In other words, as progress is made toward a more equal and humane society, it takes a smaller and smaller offense to trigger a high level of outrage. The goalposts shift, allowing participants to maintain a constant level of anger and constant level of perceived victimization.]
B) Microaggression as underdiversity
Microaggression offenses also tend to involve what Black calls “underdiversity” – the rejection of a culture. Large acts of underdiversity include things like genocide or political oppression, while smaller acts include ethnic jokes or insults. The publicizers of microaggressions are concerned with the latter, as well as more subtle, perhaps inadvertent, cultural slights…. Just as overstratification conflict varies inversely with stratification, underdiversity conflict varies directly with diversity (Black 2011:139). Attempts to increase stratification, we saw, are more deviant where stratification is at a minimum; likewise, attempts to decrease diversity are more deviant where diversity is at a maximum. In modern Western societies, an ethic of cultural tolerance – and often incompatibly, intolerance of intolerance – has developed in tandem with increasing diversity. Since microaggression offenses normally involve overstratification and underdiversity, intense concern about such offenses occurs at the intersection of the social conditions conducive to the seriousness of each. It is in egalitarian and diverse settings – such as at modern American universities – that equality and diversity are most valued, and it is in these settings that perceived offenses against these values are most deviant. [p.707]. [Again, the paradox: places that make the most progress toward equality and diversity can expect to have the “lowest bar” for what counts as an offense against equality and inclusivity. Some colleges have lowered the bar so far that an innocent question, motivated by curiosity, such as “where are you from” is now branded as an act of aggression.]
C) Victimhood as Virtue
When the victims publicize microaggressions they call attention to what they see as the deviant behavior of the offenders. In doing so they also call attention to their own victimization. Indeed, many ways of attracting the attention and sympathy of third parties emphasize or exacerbate the low status of the aggrieved. People portray themselves as oppressed by the powerful – as damaged, disadvantaged, and needy. [They describe such practices going back to ancient Rome and India] … But why emphasize one’s victimization? Certainly the distinction between offender and victim always has moral significance, lowering the offender’s moral status. In the settings such as those that generate microaggression catalogs, though, where offenders are oppressors and victims are the oppressed, it also raises the moral status of the victims. This only increases the incentive to publicize grievances, and it means aggrieved parties are especially likely to highlight their identity as victims, emphasizing their own suffering and innocence. Their adversaries are privileged and blameworthy, but they themselves are pitiable and blameless. [p.707-708] [This is the great tragedy: the culture of victimization rewards people for taking on a personal identity as one who is damaged, weak, and aggrieved. This is a recipe for failure — and constant litigation — after students graduate from college and attempt to enter the workforce].
Fascinating, frightning and enlightening.
Unfortunately, the broader point expressed below is dead on right:
Who gets believed, in our age of ever-present media, is who talks the loudest. Donald Trump, for example.
Then there’s the Black Lives Matter movement, with its clamorous dedication to the idea that white racism is behind the killing of black men around the country, nothing else — not circumstance, not misjudgment, not fear — just out-and-out racism, end of discussion, period, shut up.
And so, because they interrupt Democratic party candidate rallies and shout down speakers, they’re suddenly “believed” to be a potent and credible group.
But they’re not. They’re just loud. And rude. Kanye West rude. They may represent a good portion of the black population, at least in some form or fashion (i.e. the general belief that, in fact, black lives do matter), but any group that chants, “Pigs in a blanket! Fry ’em like bacon” pointed at the police isn’t about saving black lives. And the various factions which have taken leadership in this group have made that very clear its not really about black lives. One even challenged blacks to kill a white, take a picture and send it to them. Yeah, that’ll ensure black lives matter won’t it? A couple of days later, an officer is gunned down in cold blood refilling his patrol car by a cowardly murderer who happens to be black.
And if you say “all lives matter”? Well, this vocal minority will boo you and try to shut you down.
There’s a larger point here though:
The media, which lean overwhelmingly left, and the political fraternity, with its own leftist component, don’t fool around much with narratives that contradict left-wing (aka “progressive”) essentials. Among these essentials: the conviction that American whites, having racked up a record of racial oppression, are due for a comeuppance. On such terms, a dead white cop, shot by an inner-city (or in the Harris County case, a suburban) black man isn’t half so interesting a story as an inner-city black man shot by a white cop.
That’s right, the media and the narrative they unwaveringly carry and push has culpability in the violence and unrest we suffer today. It also has culpability in setting race relations back 30 years in favor of this false narrative. Advocacy journalism has now replaced fact and research based journalism, much to everyone’s detriment.
The narrative and support of the narrative helps paper over the real problems and shift the blame on the less favored:
Excluding racism as a grievance causes you to fall back on more embarrassing factors: e.g., the country’s moral/cultural climate, wherein Doing Whatever You Feel Like Doing is the normal expectation; when “guilt” for the past can be made to compensate emotionally for present-day failures and shortcomings; when government remedies (gun control, more spending, etc.) can be represented as more urgent than any morally reparative work likely to come out of home or school or church.
It becomes more important, on these paltry terms, to haul away a statue of Confederate President Jefferson Davis from the University of Texas main mall (as happened over the weekend of the Minnesota fair demonstrations and the Harris County execution) than, say, to pray for human reconciliation on terms profounder than modern academic leaders are likely to understand or commend.
And we suffer because of it.
This is what decades of progressivism have wrought. A morally rudderless nation, becoming less and less free and led by incompetent politicians who kowtow to vulgar and racist tribes by trying to make common cause with them … for their “votes”.
What a world we live in.
“Here is what I would like for you to know,” writes Ta-Nehisi Coates in his new book, which is addressed to his 14-year-old son. “In America, it is traditional to destroy the black body – it is heritage.”
Mr. Coates is being widely described as the heir to James Baldwin, the novelist and social critic whose powerful work on the brutal realities of race galvanized an earlier generation of Americans. Much of the nation remained segregated then. Black people were denied their voting rights, and racists blew up little girls in churches.
As Mr. Coates tells it, nothing has changed. Instead of being gunned down by the Klan, black men are gunned down by the cops. Racism is still the essence of America. White prosperity was built on black suffering, which created the privileges that white people enjoy today. Black-on-black carnage (as in Chicago, where gun crime is epidemic ) is the poisoned fruit of white supremacy, and is embedded in a structure that is dominated by whites. If you are white, you have an unfair advantage based solely on your skin colour. You are part of the problem.
Emperor Has No Clothes problem:
Mr. Coates’s book, Between the World and Me, has been lionized by the white intelligentsia. “Extraordinary,” said The New Yorker’s David Remnick. David Brooks, the usually level-headed New York Times columnist, sincerely asked if he, as a white man, has the moral standing to question any part of it. The Times’s film critic, A.O. Scott, called his writing “essential, like water or air.”
But some are skeptical of all this rapture. “This is more than admiration. It is an affirmation of enlightenment,” observed Carlos Lozada, the Washington Post’s book critic. “The more radical Coates’s critique of America, the more tightly America embraces him.”
The racial horrors of the past are undeniable. But the reality of black life has changed immensely since the ’50s. Black governors, mayors, and a president are the new normal. Black families are far more prosperous. Although discrimination has by no means disappeared, social attitudes have undergone a revolution. Yet even as racial attitudes and racial equality evolve, enlightened people rush to don the shroud of guilt.
Yes they do, and for what reason I have yet to fathom. I feel none of the supposed “guilt”, but then I’m conversant with history and understand that while blacks did suffer slavery in this country it was whites who stopped it and whites who’ve ensured that blacks are accepted as equals in today’s society.
Now I understand that’s heresy to the progressive mind. And that it is my “white privilege” that allows me to believe that. Except I grew up when Jim Crow was alive and I lived in the segregated South and I happen to know what it was like and how very far we’ve come since then. So, unlike most of those today who parrot the grievance line, I actually know what it was like then. And the statement above is completely true – “the reality of black life has changed immensely since the ’50s” – but you wouldn’t know it to listen to the left today.
Denial of reality and the result:
Much of the liberal establishment today is obsessed with white supremacy, and what to do about it. Schoolteachers are required to take “cultural proficiency training,” so that they can “recognize the impact of systemic oppression of people in America who are not heterosexual white men.” The New York Times is currently publishing an exhaustive series on white privilege that features interviews with intellectuals such as Joe Feagin, a (white) sociologist who claims that Americans are no less racist than they ever were (they just disguise it better), and that children are indoctrinated into racism from the time they’re babies. When Mr. Coates published an article in The Atlantic last year calling for trillions in reparations, it was received with widespread enthusiasm.
And, of course, guys like Feagin have absolutely no scientific proof of anything. It’s pure poppycock pop science. This drive by the progressive left to don the mantle of “white guilt” is one thing – if they want to feel guilty, let them. But when they talk about messing with my life because they’ve chosen to feel this guilt, the ball game changes. While they’re entitled to their fantasy, they’re not entitled, through the force of law, to fund their fantasy (i.e. reparations in payment for “white guilt”) with my money.
The problem with the fantasy:
The political commentator John McWhorter argues that the doctrine of structural racism according to Mr. Coates has become a new form of liberal religion. His book is not so much an intellectual argument as a fiery testament from the pulpit. White progressives have embraced the gospel because it allows them to feel absolved from the charge of racism. By professing their guilt, they can also display their virtue to their peers. “You have original sin, you have this guilt, you acknowledge your guilt,” Mr. McWhorter said in a recent podcast. “What you’re doing is being religious – eating the wafer and life goes on.”
Mr. McWorter calls this a form of social signalling. Whether it really helps to ease racial tensions in America – or advance the cause of black people – is beside the point. “When you acknowledge your white privilege it doesn’t do anything for us,” he said. “It has nothing to do with creating change.”
The religion of structural racism allows everyone to duck the profound challenges still faced by the black community. It disempowers people and absolves them of responsibility. If structural racism is to blame for black violence, then communities will never be able to heal themselves. Mr. McWhorter argues that blaming white racism for the existential crisis in black communities like Chicago’s is a monstrous evasion.
Indeed it is. As long as one group is able to shift the blame for that group’s problems on another group, the first group will never face or solve their problems. And that’s precisely what is happening. Aided and abetted by progressives.
Secondly, McWorter is right …. “structural racism” has become a religion, primarily because one has to take it on faith it exists since no one can point it in reality.
Sad but true note:
Where is today’s equivalent of Martin Luther King? Tragically, he doesn’t exist. And if he did, nobody would listen to him. He’d be booed off the stage as an Uncle Tom. The tragedy of race relations in America today is that nihilism and rage are a bigger draw.
Obama had a chance and he chose to go in the opposite direction.
We now live with the result.
The freaking world is going off the rails at a faster rate than I thought. Now this silliness:
The University of Tennessee is asking students to use “ze, hir, hirs, and xe, xem, xyr.”
No, those words are not another language. They’re actually the gender-neutral singular versions of pronouns.
Oh, how … nice. And their purpose?
The University of Tennessee Office for Diversity and Inclusion is asking students and faculty to use the pronouns in order to create a more inclusive campus. They say it alleviates a heavy burden for people expressing different genders or identities.
A more inclusive campus? Really? Given the SWJs and their vendettas, how inclusive will the campus be if you happen to forget to use these idiotic affectations?
“These may sound a little funny at first, but only because they are new,” Braquet said. “The she and he pronouns would sound strange too if we had been taught ze when growing up.”
Braquet said if students and faculty cannot use ze, hir, hirs, xe, xem or xyr, they can also politely ask. “’Oh, nice to meet you, [insert name]. What pronouns should I use?’ is a perfectly fine question to ask,” ze said.
Talk about infantile nonsense. Would you ask [insert name] what “pronouns” to use to address them, or would you operate off of your ability to discriminate and choose the proper one all by your stupid little lonesome?
Yes, Ms. Braquet, the do sound a “little funny”, not to mention a little stupid and frankly totally unnecessary. You, madam, have too much time on your hands as well as an unnecessary “job” that is one of the reasons college tuitions are higher (more admin than professors).
Please treat this woman and her silliness as the absurdity it is, students at UT. If not, try using these “pronouns” when you graduate and apply for a job. I can’t wait to here about the results when you do.
Oh, and irony of all … they still seem to identify someone by their … gender! “Hir” is female and “Zir” is male – or so it seems. “Gender neutral” would make no distinction.
Or said another way, anti-authoritarians v. authoritarians. Although the author of the cited article would like you to believe his “coined phrase’ describes a new movement, yeah, not so much. Some of us have been fighting this battle for over 25 years. That said, it’s an interesting article. Here’s the intro (read the whole thing):
A new force is emerging in the culture wars. Authoritarians of all stripes, from religious reactionaries to left-wing “social justice warriors,” are coming under fire from a new wave of thinkers, commentators, and new media stars who reject virtually all of their political values.
From the banning of Charlie Hebdo magazine across British university campuses on the grounds that it promoted islamophobia, to the removal of the video game Grand Theft Auto V from major retailers in Australia on the grounds that it promoted sexism, threats to cultural freedom proliferate.
But a growing number of commentators, media personalities and academics reject the arguments that underpin these assaults on free expression, in particular the idea that people are either too emotionally fragile to deal with “offence” or too corruptible to be exposed to dangerous ideas.
In a recent co-authored feature for Breitbart, I coined a term to describe this new trend: cultural libertarianism. The concept was critically discussed by Daniel Pryor at the Centre for a Stateless Society, who drew attention to the increasing viciousness of cultural politics in the internet age.
There is a reason for the sound and fury. Like all insurgent movements, the emergence of cultural libertarianism is creating tensions, border skirmishes, and even the occasional war with lazy incumbent elites. Some of these rows can be breathtakingly vitriolic, as self-righteous anger from social justice types collides with mocking and occasionally caustic humour from cultural libertarians.
It’s not a new trend, folks. It is as old as anti-authoritarianism – and that’s hardly new. But it seems, given the nature of man, that opposition to authoritarianism has always been an “insurgent movement”. For whatever reason, but primarily false “security”, we, as human beings seem to tend toward various aspects of authoritarianism. My guess is because freedom is hard and it allows a lot of things many of us find a bit hard to tolerate (which is part of the irony, since SJW claim to be “tolerant” but are mostly intolerant of any ideas but their own – and don’t mind looking for ways to stifle those they don’t agree with).
Anyway, I’ve been fighting that battle in this format (blog) for 12 years. Before that, a few years on usenet, and before the internet, on multiple BBS sites (you remember BBS’s where you used your dial up and nifty PK zip and PK unzip to send message packets). Authoritarianism didn’t begin when the internet was invented nor has resistance to it been a recent phenomenon.
That said, it’s good that it continues and, in the age of the internet, is growing even more than it was prior to the internet. That’s because people can find each other no matter where they may be. And, it seems, they’re doing so. That’s a very good thing. It allows “calls to arms” and those of a like mind to rally in opposition. Of course, that works for the other side as well, but, as has been my experience, when confronted with their own words, especially as they’ve tried to redefine them (especially when you deconstruct them), well, they are rarely ever able to explain the hypocrisy. The phrase “I don’t think that word means what you think it means” has never been more true with confronting SJWs.
The other important thing that happens is the anti-authoritarian arguments are now broadcast more widely, so for those who are interested, they’re readily available. Some folks know that what they’re hearing from the SJWs isn’t quite right, but they can’t put their finger on the explanation or counter argument. With the number of well written arguments now published on line in opposition to the authoritarian/SJW arguments, that’s no longer a problem.
Because of the internet, that formerly insurgent movement isn’t necessarily isolated to a geographic region or cultural group. It’s no longer necessarily “insurgent”. It now has the ability to spread and spread quickly. I find that to be a consummate “good thing”, even if some guy at Breitbart who is likely in his mid 20s, thinks this is all “new”.