Monthly Archives: June 2016

Obsessed With Race

Being called a racist today is one of the most feared labels, as one can’t really defend themselves with anything but “I’m not” – aside from pathetically invoking their friends of different backgrounds as arguments, which most people I trust would stay away from. There are so many sources elaborating on this concept, taking it to the moon and back, clinging to anything they can come up with, no matter how ridiculous.

Intersectional feminism partly deals with racial oppression. Not necessarily apartheid or genocide in some countries (past or present), discrimination in the workforce or anything palpable; these are rarely mentioned. What is mentioned very often and plies on SJWs’ specialty – feelings – is the harm caused by offensive comments. Given the broad scope allowed by subjectivity, one can consider just about anything offensive.

Right now, the end to this likeness of a caterpillar infestation, which devours everything in its path, is not in sight yet.

Although the titles below are self-explanatory, reading  the articles can put you in a trance, as they defy the most basic logic. In this twisted maze, there is only one certainty – if you’re white, you are guilty of racism. Regardless of you denying it or not even believing it. After all, who the hell do you think you are, claiming to know what’s in your own head? Progressive rhetoric itself becomes tainted when coming out of your hypocritical mouth.

Here’s why refusing to see colour doesn’t actually mean you’re not racist (which is nonsensical, like saying here’s why being alive doesn’t actually mean you’re not dead).

Among the reasons given is that not seeing colour ignores someone’s cultural background and heritage, denying them their uniqueness – as if taking an interest in someone’s culture had anything to do with the melanin in their skin. As a side note, in similar articles you can read about how being too interested in someone’s culture fetishises and “exotifies” them. Perhaps if you figure out just the right amount of interest you can show (not too little, not too much) you might just escape the labelling.

Here’s what a “white saviour” is (and why it’s the opposite of helpful). It starts with “volunteering in African countries”. Apparently even that is disingenuous, to the comfortable middle-class feminist. I was under the impression that folks go there to do actual community work, like helping to develop infrastructure. Skimming through the projects on the very first website I clicked on, that seems to be accurate. It’s not a “feel good story”, as the article claims. Bricks and mortar are not made from feelings.

My logic is that volunteering has nothing to do with race and everything to do with wanting to help those who need it,  while risking one’s safety (in politically unstable countries) as well as being exposed to health hazards one’s body might not be able to cope with. Unbelievably, feminists think their endless diatribes are more useful than the actual building of safe water systems or hospitals.

“When white people say they’re progressives” – The perfect reply to fake allies . Translation, the perfect reply to people we think are fake allies. And that reply is a longer version of I think you’re full of shit. Which is fair enough – I personally believe self-labelled progressives are full of it. However, it is the racially-obsessed militant clique that creates these types’ need to keep proclaiming their “ally” status in the first place. Without this constant push, people would just be people; they wouldn’t divide the world into “allies” and the rest.

However, this one takes the crown. The feminist guide to non-racist flirting with women of colour .

It’s some of the most illogical, constipated nonsense I’ve ever laid eyes on. The imagined dialogue is so far out you can just tell the whole issue is made up for the sake of creating acrimony. Consider the situation of a guy meeting a woman he likes and flirting with her. If this guy really was racist, he wouldn’t do that in the first place. There; problem solved.

Instead, the author explains for about 20 paragraphs that as a white guy he is bound to have toxic attitudes and will doubtlessly behave like a jerk, even without meaning to, as the patriarchy has brainwashed him since birth. This poor, hapless individual does not stand a chance with a woman of colour without her precious hopscotch tutorial. It’s not like he just might treat all women the same way and doesn’t need any dating advice, because he is, you know, an adult.

So unless you’ve deliberately worked to unlearn what these oppressive systems have taught you, you’re probably working with some unconsciously hurtful ideas about how to approach a woman of color.

Dating advice however is a euphemism. This reads more like how to deactivate a human landmine.

  1. Don’t focus only on her race

I honestly doubt anyone would do that openly, even if secretly that is their preoccupation. It’s beyond stupid.

You probably hate to be “blamed” for the actions of your ancestors, but the truth is, white men throughout history have really fucked this one up for you.

So she’s judging this guy’s presumed attitude due the actions of his ancestors, from hundreds of years ago. I’m sorry; who was supposed to be the racist here…?

For instance, have you ever watched pornography featuring Black women? Don’t be embarrassed – I have, too. And sadly, it’s difficult as hell to find porn that doesn’t market and depict us with demeaning characterizations like “Jungle Booties” or “Ebony Whores.”

Perhaps white women doing porn are portrayed as saintly virgins…? If you’re looking for morality or something to uplift your spirit, pardon me but the last place you look is pornography. Everyone is debased there, with moral expectations out the window.

Okay, so all you know is that she’s a woman of color, but you’re not going to open with a line about her race. So what will you open with? Think about your goal here – are you relating to her or are you othering her? After all, if you’re trying to establish a connection, you’re not going to do that by essentially saying, “Hey, I noticed you’re Black.”

No, that’s not all he knows. He knows whether he finds her attractive, her approximate age, her behaviour in that context (how inhibited she might be, for instance if she dances or sits by herself, if she talks a lot, if she seems approachable or seems to have a bridge pillar up her backside etc).

The only reason the author assumes he’s obsessed with race is that she is obsessed with race herself – that’s how she analyses everything this guy might do or say through the lens of him being born white. In fact, race has turned into some kind of OCD at this point.

2. …But don’t act like you can’t see her race

This is where it gets from plain stupid and presumptuous to downright twisted.

Now before you go avoiding any mention of race at all, let me clarify. Focusing only on a woman of color’s race is a problem, but it’s okay to acknowledge that you are, in fact, aware that she’s a person of color. In fact, it’s a hell of a lot better than saying things like “I don’t see color.”

Should you also acknowledge the fact that she only has one head? And one mouth and only two eyes, positioned where eyes normally would be?

It’s cool to be treated like you’re special, but the idea that a woman is different simply because she’s Asian is not so great.

So is she different or isn’t she? I really don’t follow.

It essentially means that you’ve internalized what the mainstream media and other dominant institutions have told you – that white is the default identity, and anyone who’s not white is abnormal. So if you’re telling a woman that you don’t “see” her race, you’re implying that you only find her attractive because you see her as the default race, white, and noticing that she’s not white would be a bad thing.

So basically, “all people are equal” would turn into “I’m just pretending all people are white so I can like them better”. It’s the first time I’ve ever come across such an argument. This also implies that a white man should relate differently to women according to their race, as approaching them in the same manner would somehow mean he sees them as white. There’s a mindfuck to decipher.

Don’t treat her race like it’s something to be ashamed of, something she’d have to “overcome” in order to get your attention.

At this point she already has his attention (he is approaching her), and plus, I’d love to hear a chat-up in a pub which centres on a woman overcoming her race or ethnicity.

Be thoughtful about how you acknowledge a woman’s race – which means not saying any of these things: “What are you?” “I’ve heard Latinas are wild in bed.” “I may look white, but I’m a Black guy in my pants, if you know what I mean.”

Right. Because that’s exactly the type of thing you’d say to someone you just met. I wonder if the person who wrote this has ever been around people before. And that’s coming from the female version of Mr Bean – but still sane enough to notice one does not approach others in such manners.

Say you meet a South Asian woman. A common pitfall is asking “Where you from?” and not accepting an answer like “Arizona.”

Not accepting as in what? Thinking she’s lying? Right enough; immigration is so new around those parts; it’s not like the US is a nation of immigrants from all corners of the Earth.

There are better ways to learn someone’s background and allow her to share about her identity on her terms. One great way to do this is by following her lead. If you seem genuinely interested in getting to know her, there’s a good chance that her background will naturally come up in a way she’s comfortable with. For example, if you asked me where I’d like to travel, I’d probably tell you I’d go to my father’s home country of Trinidad and Tobago. Then you could ask any number of respectful questions about when he immigrated to the United States, and what my Trinidadian roots mean to me – without ever having to perpetuate xenophobic ideas about immigrants.

Why stop there with the indications? Why not write down the exact list of respectful questions, with intonation guides included? Is this for people with Asperger’s only? And God forbid you should ever bring anything up out of curiosity, before she is “ready” or “comfortable” to talk about her ethnic background. God forbid you should ever go near such a sacred subject as where she’s from; it would be like asking at what age she lost her virginity.

3. Don’t assume she’s interested in talking to you

Unfortunately, society encourages men to believe women are always sexually available to them. For example, romantic movies often show men interpreting a woman’s “no, thank you” as “try harder, and eventually you’ll get me.”

Of course the obvious question would be why would you assume; however,  subsequent paragraphs show the true nature of this point.

If she’s not interested, it’s not because she’s being “oversensitive.” It’s not even necessarily because she doesn’t find you attractive, or assumes you’re going to do something racist, or has any other impression of you being a “bad” person because you’re white. The real problem isn’t just you. It’s the fact that women have to deal with being objectified all the time, and for women of color, that often includes a combination of racism and sexism.

Every woman of color has developed her own boundaries throughout her lifetime to protect herself from the impact of this constant weight.

Sometimes that includes turning down a polite stranger who’s trying to flirt – no matter how respectful he is.

Boundaries are not a form of discrimination against you. They’re an essential part of self-preservation for people from marginalized communities. She’s developed them for the sake of survival.

In other words, women of colour are allowed to be plain racist and reject someone on the sheer basis of their skin. It’s not racism; it’s “self preservation”, even if that man has nothing but good intentions. The woman being chatted up is to be understood if she engages in the generalisation and dehumanisation of a prospective partner  – the exact behaviour the author urges the white man not to engage in, throughout the entire article. Furthermore:

If you’re frustrated with this, direct your anger to the systems of white supremacy and patriarchy that put this burden on women of color. Don’t get angry at us for doing what we have to do to maintain our personal comfort and safety.

Right. Unashamed – in fact, proudly proclaimed – double standards.What a huge pile of dung, for lack of a better comparison.

4. Don’t use the same lines as everyone else

Take, for example, the white men who say something along the lines of, “So, how do you feel about white guys?” …. He’s already demonstrated that he doesn’t see anything in me beyond my race, and he’s even categorizing himself as no different from a general idea of what “white guys” are like. To me, that communicates that he’s not promising any kind of experience that I haven’t been offered many times before.

OK – so it’s totally kosher for her to be obsessed with his race and with her own, but not all right if he’s preoccupied by the same dynamic. And what is “a general idea of what white guys are like?” This whole paragraph is so dismissive, generalising and racist.

Are you flirting with her because you find her “exotic” or because you truly appreciate her beauty? Will you treat her based on the way the rest of society tries to define her, or will you look beyond her appearance to connect with her as a person?

How can this paragraph closely follow the one pasted above? Am I going insane or is she accusing one side of the attitude she tolerates, if not encourages, in the other?

The key to everything including gauging if a woman of color is interested, knowing her boundaries, building a connection, and finding an original way to relate to her is all the same –listening.

Not as easy as it sounds, when dealing with the race-obsessed. If you listen to his kind of talk for half an hour, you just might need medication to keep your neurons from imploding.

So you’re not the only one who has some unpleasant lessons to unlearn. You’re committing to doing better, and that’s what’s going to make the difference.

You’re committing to doing better; what a lovely way to humiliate someone. Let’ s pat Bisquit on the head; surely he meant to use the litter box and surely he’ll do better in the future. We just need to educate him, kindly and generously. And aren’t we angelic to do so!

I already think you’re pretty cool for sticking with me through this guide to learn how to be respectful.

No shit! I need a cigarette.

Mandatory Verbal Consent – What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

In recent history, there have been a few widely circulated yet non-existent threats to western societies. Weapons of mass destruction was one of them. The “rape culture” called out by third wave feminists is only the latest one – although effortlessly demolished numerous times, statistic by statistic, through its sheer use, this fabrication persists, used in their rhetoric as  proven fact.

To combat this “crisis” (not to be mistaken with the assault on western women by people from radically different cultures), feminists propose broadening the definition of rape, as well as the obligation for people to obtain verbal consent from those they sleep with (not a Christian Grey style contract as well, I hope).

This makes no sense. To begin with, if there is a rape allegation denied by the person who is accused, there will still be one person’s word against the other’s. Either one can lie about having given or received verbal consent. It brings no revealing evidence whatsoever, unless, of course, it is recorded somewhere – which would mean little unless the act was actually videotaped, because someone can still give consent one minute and withdraw it the next. Or claim to have done so/ not have done so.

consent2

According to some feminists, even instances classed by default as consensual sex are actually rape. Leaving aside genuine concepts such as marital or statutory rape, these feminists measure the nature of the act by how “joyful and excited” those involved are, arguing that it shouldn’t take actual resistance for it to be considered non-consensual. Which is bat shit crazy, of course.

consent 1

Constantly worrying about picking up cues which are not even expressed can only make people insecure for no reason.There is no such thing as unintentional rape, or one the rapist doesn’t understand is happening. It’s an absurd concept.

 

In the convoluted minds of these feminists, instead of enjoying their time with women, men should constantly worry about the possibility that they’re actually raping them.

It’s time to rediscover the true meaning of consensual sex.

Consensual sex is when:

  • Both parties agree to have sex (ideally verbally but at least physically)
  • Both parties show excitement and willingness to have sex.

How to know it’s consensual:

  • Look for visual clues – Does the other person seem excited or happy? Are they smiling? Or do they seem scared or unsure?
  • Check body language – Is the other person seem to be in a positive mood or have high-energy? Or do they seem tense and uncomfortable?
  • See if they’re engaged in the sexual act – Is the other person proactively kissing or touching you? Or are they still and only move if you ask them to?

And lastly and most importantly,…

  • Just ASK and watch for if the answer is said with fear or joy. If it’s a “yes” said in a small or fearful voice, wait before progressing and find out what’s going on. It may be shyness or it may be fear – don’t you want to find out which one it is?

 

This article presumes there is some confusion in people’s minds regarding what consensual sex is and it should be a purpose in itself and not the natural state of things; the default interaction.

There is no need to go into details such as how shy a person seems at first or how much they end up liking it. What they clearly want is for men to become obsessed with the idea that they are exploiting women.

consent3

This concept of one-sided exploitation is made clearer by another article on the same website, regarding sex after consuming alcohol. This is actually hilarious through the sheer ridiculousness when trying to picture in real life:

The best rule is that if you or a partner have been drinking, make sure to check in regularly about any sex that you’re having.

Ask things like:

Do you still want to do this?

Imagine being right in the middle of it, and the partner suddenly asking that, for no apparent reason. I don’t suppose that happens to many people.

Is this okay?

I guess if it weren’t, the other person would just say so. Or, they would immediately assume you’re about to do something uncanny and they just haven’t noticed.

Do you need a break?

If that’s not objectification on the part of whoever wrote this, I don’t know what is. So this woman is some poor fragile object in danger of overuse, or some beast of burden being tired out. I know it’s sometimes called “riding”, but she’s not actually a horse.

Are you having fun?

As in rate me on a scale of one to ten…? Honestly…? Who asks that?

What do you want to do next?

And here comes a detailed description, I presume, straight out of a porn magazine, of what she “wants to do next”. The author may have listed this as a way to check for coherence.

 

consent4

 

The way these guidelines are formulated indicates the man and woman involved are having two separate experiences, totally disconnected at a mental and emotional level. Which is a really sad way to see things.

Furthermore, the article about alcohol consumption gives some indications which to me read like a cold, calculated guide to use someone’s body with enough legal precautions:

Ask yourself a few key questions like:

  • How much has the person drank since you last checked in?
  • Have they ever indicated that they wanted to have sex with you when sober?

Remember, though, that even if a person has said yes to sex when sober, and continues to say yes to sex after drinking, it’s still important to confirm this and to do regular check-ins to make sure that they’re still capable of consenting as more alcohol is consumed.

So imagine this guy, as the woman is enjoying his company, calculating her alcohol intake in order to make sure he’s safe enough. If anything, that has a predatory air to it, even with an emphasis on consent. Life isn’t like that; people bond and have a good time together; things evolve naturally.

Whereas rape is the aberration, not the norm, defining the norm with a clear focus on aberrations is nothing new to the SJW camp.

Gossip: Small Talk For Small Minds

Strong minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, weak minds discuss people. —Socrates

gossips

 

After all these years of the same old hobby, it’s a wonder they don’t suffer from professional gossip laryngitis. Every afternoon without fail, when the weather is good enough, they gather on the same bench, monitoring who goes in and out of the tenement, who they’re with, what they’re doing. On occasion, they slightly tilt their heads, as if they feared a lip reader perched up on a tree branch nearby. You hear the sarcasm in their tone, even when they manage to keep it down. The mockery, the arrogance, the righteous indignation. Oh, what a shame! What an outrage! What an embarrassment! It’s when the noise dims that you know they moved on to what  even they understand they should not be discussing; at least not in public.

They don’t read, except maybe the odd prayer book and the religious calendar, to check if they’re allowed to wash, if they should lent or do anything special. Their tired eyes are so sharp they can spot a stain on a coat from twenty metres away. The hearing, that the always moan is worsening, miraculously betters when strange noises are picked up from other people’s flats. They have all the stereotypes nailed down.  All except their own, of course.

Gossip is something society perpetuates even when generally irritated by it. Even those who hate it feed the rabid monster.

This becomes apparent  on every  “side-dish” Daily Bile Bait Mail article, laden with pics taken seconds apart, of celebrities trying to enjoy a day out at the beach. The comment section seems to scream quit this already, you superficial pricks working for this exasperating rag. They don’t understand that the marketing ploy is not based on the righteousness or meaningfulness of those “stories”, but on the number of clicks the publication manages to attract, no matter how. By bothering to sign up and comment, these people are participating, indignation and all, to the success of said rag and its paparazzi vultures.

 

What the rest of us need to understand about gossips it’s that their habit is never about others, but only about themselves. If they want to find you a flaw, they will – and if not, they will make one up. To give just a few examples, here’s what can come out of the mouths of the very same people, based on your circumstances.

Looks

If you don’t care much about your physical aspect, you must’ve given up on yourself or you must be a waster. If your clothes are modest, you must be too poor to afford decent ones. If you look spotless every day, you must be a narcissistic, attention-seeking whore who neglects other duties while spending too much time in front of the mirror. You probably spend too much on yourself as well.

Money

If you’re unemployed, you are basically a deadbeat and potentially hopeless. If you have a high paying job but don’t work many hours, or otherwise they don’t think your work is stranuous enough, you probably don’t deserve all the money you’re getting. If your other half works and you don’t, you’re basically lazy and are being kept by them. If you work and your other half doesn’t, you’re an idiot for sharing your wages.

Marriage

If they think you do too much for your spouse, you’re an idiot. If they think you don’t do enough, they count the days until you’re (presumably) dumped. If you divorce your spouse, unless they do something terrible (in which case you’re an idiot for having married them in the first place), you’re probably selfish and promiscuous. If you stay with your spouse despite frequent problems such as arguments, you’re also hopeless idiot. And if your spouse treats you wonderfully, to the point of making them jealous, they must have someone else on the side, because you’re nothing too special.

Parenting

If you’re too permissive in their eyes, your kids are miniature monsters running a mock doing whatever they like and will grow up to be no good. If you’re strict, you’re probably selfish and impatient and don’t love them enough. If you don’t work, you’re giving them a bad example by lacking ambition in life. If you work long hours, you’re not spending enough time with them. If you had them out of wedlock, you must be promiscuous. If you decide not to have any, there’s something wrong with you.

Socialising 

If you tell these people too much about yourself, you’re a loose mouth, which they associate with shamelessness. If you tell them too little or nothing at all, then you have something to hide. Either way, they’ll doubt everything that comes out of your mouth and find a way to twist it to fit their narrative.

You can’t win with them. People who strive all their lives to maintain a spotless facade don’t realise that no matter what they do, they will never achieve that. A spotless facade is even more fun for them to demolish than an easy target, who doesn’t make an effort to fend them off.

 

 

“Emotional Labour” – Humanity Down The Toilet

Noun 1. dehumanisation – the act of degrading people with respect to their best qualities; “science has been blamed for the dehumanization of modern life”;
degradation, debasement – changing to a lower state (a less respected state)

Starting the post with this definition is very appropriate. We live in bamboozling times, when our natural instincts of empathy, nurture and bonding are constantly challenged by misanthropic rationales disguised as intellectual endeavours.

Tearing down the concept of faithfulness in relationships was not enough – the mere concept of heartfelt  companionship has to come under fire, in a mercantile attempt to redefine how people interact with each other.

So what is emotional labour?

the feminist idea that women – and other people that society labels “feminine” – are socialized to provide a vast array of emotional services for other people (usually men), most often without acknowledgement or pay.

Throughout history, people from across the globe have lived in such diverse conditions, some of them truly dehumanising, yet have always been capable of experiencing attachment. It is part of our nature and not something taught to us by our environment (unlike systemic cruelty or religious fanaticism).

If empathy is a social construct, what do these individuals imagine that prompted the fight for human rights in the first place?  Some abstract morality, developing out of thin air?

My boyfriend, though, says that the idea of emotional labor misrepresents the relationship between men and women by placing a monetary value on interactions that are priceless. He says that women give the gift of their love and attention to men, just as men do to women, and trying to compete over who gives more is pointless and creates unnecessary conflict.

And that is very accurate, as proven by the fact that this has been the natural way since times immemorial, but even more so in our day, when freedom has allowed consciousness to thrive, extricated from many societal constraints which were a must before.  In the developed world, people choose who they associate with; they freely give each other affection and attention.

But of course we have to start screwing that up. Never mind that we are no longer subjected to forced marriages; that we have such broader lifestyle choices and every chance of encountering the right people. After millennia of women being subjected to impositions in their daily lives, when they can finally please their own hearts, enter the progressives – who seek to drag them right back into mercantilism.

For many people, if not most, bonding emotionally makes life worth living. In fact, loneliness  is a major cause of suicide. Meanwhile, others, who enjoy (let’s use and SJW term) the privilege of unconditional company, still bitch and moan about it, trying to cut the branch from under their feet, encouraging others to sabotage their relationships as well.

How can I explain to him, prove to him, that what I’m talking about isn’t just some silly feminist idea made up by whining bra-burners?

You can’t. Because it is.

In this post I’m not trying to dismiss or ridicule the author’s personal experiences; however, I have to oppose the impetus to draw others into this dark zone, leading to a toxic mentality.

First off, the author remembers being annoyingly held by her grandfather, who would ask how much he loved her. Whereas that can be bothersome to a child who wants to be left alone, I can think of far worse things children endure across the world. Many of us remember “that one relative” who wouldn’t stop pestering with hugs and kisses. Provided no criminal behaviour took place – and presumably that would’ve been mentioned – feeling invalidated as an individual based solely on that is an exaggeration, not to be encouraged.

Secondly, she recalls being given an excessive amount of information by her father regarding his past and family members, as she listened quietly. Whereas I agree ten is an early age to hear about certain aspects of life, I must note that children are more often hurt by family secrets than being shown too much of their surrounding reality. In fact, they often learn about the world by listening as adults talk among themselves, or even eavesdrop on conversations to learn what really goes on.

I fully agree a child should not be burdened with adults’ problems – however, the issue rests with the adult who does that and does not label the child a “provider of emotional services”, by default, for life. Though one might say it can shape them to a degree.  The thing is, this dynamic only lasts as long as childhood does. One cannot superimpose a disclosure by an adult to a child, on one by an adult to another adult, treating others poorly later in life because of past events.

As a side note, the author refers to Chinese culture, which is known to regard family relationships differently. Besides, it’s common knowledge that the real abuse women suffer from birth is very serious over there, starting with baby girls being dumped in fountains, women forced to have abortions, working in inhumane condition, suffering political persecution and executions.

Anyway – neither one of the situations described above have anything to do with being female. They are based on interactions between children and their families. No one is to say that a male child would have been treated differently.

Among other instances considered significant to the point of this article are the support given to a friend who had been raped, as well as a career in social work and the help sought from her by women via the internet.

So my best friend can only tell me. I’m terrified, but I know that I can’t make this situation about me. I have to take care of her, the best way that I know how. I listen. I nod. I hold her as she cries. I rock her back and forth in my arms and tell her that I believe her, that she’s not alone. 

The act of comforting a friend who has been traumatised, depicted as an unpaid emotional service, is quite chilling. Analysing one’s own vulnerability in retrospect, for having to listen, is very selfish indeed, an attitude which I suspect arose from feminist doctrines alone.

The same with a former boyfriend who was torn by something he had done and needed a significant other to listen. Again, this is seen as an unfair situation, one of becoming too invested in the needs of others and neglecting their own, even for an hour or two – even when someone very close is involved. And the same with emotional support in general.

You know the kind of girl I mean. There’s one in every friend group, a bunch in every community. 

The girls who help you stumble home after you spend the night drinking too much. The girls who hold your hand as you cry about the break-up, about your drinking problem, about your fucked-up childhood. The girls you call at 3AM when you’re thinking dark thoughts and you need someone to talk you off the ledge of doing something you’ll regret.

These girls, and boys by the way, are commonly referred to as friends. And those who see more people coming to them with their troubles should consider themselves fortunate, as they inspire trust and wisdom to those around them. These are indeed qualities not everyone’s got, provided that they’re genuine and not faked for popularity. Instead, judging by the tone of this article, we are to see this as a subtle form of exploitation.

As I scan the faces of all the women in the room – teachers, social workers, nurses, the people who do the grunt work – the hard, deeply underpaid, usually thankless labor of working with mentally ill, often under-privileged children – I see that we all share the same exhausted look.

I wonder how it came to be that so many of us, women, came to join these so-called “feminine” professions. How it is that we were somehow all drawn to this “calling” of caring for others’ minds and health only to end up in impossible working conditions?

Well, women tend to do these jobs because they are more geared towards supporting others emotionally, as well as more likely to be patient.

If one ends up resenting their job due to aspects they signed up for, and ends up slightly resenting those they help (at least this is the gist I get), one should consider a different profession, rather than practicing their own acrimoniously and harbouring feelings of injustice. There are plenty who do these jobs wholeheartedly, without overanalysing whether they are giving of themselves too much.

Again, this is a career this person chose, knowing full well what it involved. When realising how difficult it is in practice (I wonder if that realisation had ever come outside the context of feminism), it’s much easier to blame systemic oppression than admit that the choice was not a suitable one to begin with.

After publishing a few well-shared pieces, the e-mails start pouring in, from literally all over the world. But most of the e-mails are from young women, queer people of color, trans women, asking for advice, for opinions, for friendship. Some of them are even from men, asking me to explain feminist concepts to them. Sometimes the e-mails are desperate cries for help asking me what to do in situations of intimate partner violence, mental health crises, and suicidal thoughts.

I do my best to help however I’m able. What else is there to do?

Well, to start with, becoming active in this field was a choice. If the response is more than this person can deal with, there is always the choice of stopping altogether, taking breaks from time to time or publicly announcing their limits.Those people have no way of knowing how many emails a public figure receives daily or weekly. If they cannot cope, why don’t they just say so.

However, the preferred solution seems to be to keep doing it, while harbouring resentment and complaining on other channels, such as this feminist website. Which is intellectually dishonest.

Because instead of labor, we’re taught that the work we do to care for others is an act of love which must be given freely, even when it comes at the cost of our own well-being and self-expression. 

We’re taught to doubt ourselves, our instincts, our needs, so that we can play the role of loving child, friend, mother, nurse, therapist, lover.

With the risk of repeating ad nauseam, I have to reiterate these two points: except for the role of a child, the others are taken on voluntarily. If they are unsuitable, so be it. Change your career, remain single, remain childless and friendless (and get a dozen cats).

Do not expect to change the understanding of human nature to suit your limits.

“Calling Out Misogynists” – Really Funny

 

Feminism-page-0

From this intellectual masterpiece we can all learn how to identify and shame ten types of misogynists, each type more vile than the other, in a perpetual quest to oppress women, as well as the gender undecided.  But first, a quick word of tolerance for self-conscious men and the allies of feminists, whatever that means.

Let’s say you know better than to use words like “hysterical or “bitch, and you sure as fuck know not to blame heated arguments on the fact that someone is on her/zir/their period. If this is you, you’ve got a running start.

So to make it clear, there is no such thing as hysterical behaviour on women’s part in recorded history. This is a made-up word, unlike “zir”, which is completely legitimate. I don’t suppose this SJW who was protesting Milo Yannopoulos at UCLA counts:

 

Anyway. Moving on to the perpetrators.

  1. “Manterruptors” 

It’s so common in multi-gendered situations to witness men talking out of turn, interrupting other people while they’re talking, or completely disregarding the allotted time-limit a facilitator has set for individual questions or comments. These men will often highjack the conversation and/or derail its original topic in order to match their own personal interests.

Coming from a feminist, whose “allies” routinely disrupt speakers they disagree with, that is just side-splitting. I don’t suppose shouting “racist” undeservedly to shut up a conservative speaker, whose presence had been carefully planned at a venue, with time and resources invested, counts as interrupting. Which these groups and their “allies” engage in on a weekly basis, from what pops up on YouTube. Rarely has there been a more vicious and relentless manner of impeding free speech than the one we witness nowadays from so-called social justice warriors.

“Misogynistic? you might ask, skeptically. Isn’t that kind of behavior just plain rude?The answer is yes – regardless of who you are, these kinds of behaviors are just plain rude. But the larger question I would pose is: What possesses a person to act this way in the first place? Who is it that feels comfortable (or oblivious) of dominating space in this way?

The larger question is directly related to one of the subsequent points regarding a supposed entitlement to “take up space” – namely “manspreading”.  Hence, from the fact that men sit with their legs apart on the tube, we deduce they are prone in one and all situations to be bothersome, which stretches logic far more than any pair of legs ever could.

This is logic doing the splits.

2. “Emotional labour dodgers”

By emotional labour, we understand a man’s act of listening to women and supporting them in their hour of need.

But here’s the thing: Men will often pour their hearts out to their female or gender non-conforming friends in a therapy-esque fashion, but when the tables are turned, men are often not willing to reciprocate the same kinds of emotional labor.(…) The unconscious expectation that men often have regarding this one-sided caretaker dynamic is explicitly rooted in misogyny. It implies that every woman or gender non-conforming person owes you some kind of free, maternalistic, emotional labor.

Even these words, emotional labour, are more than relevant to this person’s attitude towards friendship and support. It’s an exchange. A trade. An endeavour. You can’t get any colder and more mercantile than that.

A therapist, mind you, expects remuneration for their time; a friend or lover doesn’t. People who are close do not hold a stopwatch while listening to each other, monitoring whether they’re getting as much as they’re giving. Anyone should think twice before confiding in a person with this type of attitude.

3. The “manspreader”

While this term was coined specifically in relation to the subway car environment, I feel it can be applied to all sorts of scenarios: men who leave piles of their personal shit everywhere in shared living environments, men who leave unfinished projects spread out across designated work stations they might share with their co-workers, and so on. In my opinion, the definition of a manspreader can be extended to any dude who – by virtue of the amount of physical space he is taking up with his physical body or personal items – makes it impossible for anyone else to utilize a space that they should also have equal claim to.

Farther down the pit of ridiculousness, it seems that even men being messy at home or at work, which many people are, is somehow misogynistic. This makes no mention of women who have a hard time keeping a place tidy and whom they are in turn “oppressing”.

Again, logic doing the splits, this time while riding a fun fair bull.

4. “Manbabies” and accidental manipulators

This refers to a breakup situation inspired by a pop song, where the man, though declaring he was not in love with his former partner, insists that she shouldn’t have cut him off completely. Hence, she has the “cojones”, or indifference, whatever you want to call it, and he wants to stay friendly. That makes him a “manbaby”.

There is something odd about expecting anything relevant out of a pop song, which might’ve been produced on the bog by one of those conveyor belt writers the industry uses. Accusing all men of having this attitude – which is not even strange by the way, but a variation of human behaviour – is, again, a stretch so painful to the more sophisticated parts of the brain. Not to mention that women can – and do – the exact same; in fact it is more characteristic for a woman to have a hard time letting go.

5. Unauthorised advice givers

For instance, try being a woman alone in a hardware store! Hardware stores are like breeding grounds for unauthorized advice givers!

These would be the people who try to help out on a technical level or in other ways, with the would-be recipient of said help feeling insulted. Nothing to do with the dynamic between men an women, and everything to do with arrogance (that of thinking one is above advice, especially from people who might have helpful pointers). Quite ironic after describing “manbabies” above.

6. The “mansplainer”

This would be a guy who over-tries to convince others of his point or pretends to know more than he actually does. Again, human behaviour, nothing to do with misogyny.

Another common and unchecked form of mansplaining is the refusal to stop and ask for directions when you know you are fucking lost!

And how is that oppressive to women, again? Who are these people bothering by wandering about not being sure where they are? It seems every form of male behaviour, either common, potential or made up, is “misogynistic” to some.

If a man looks lost, maybe you should stop him and engage in some good ol’ unauthorised advice giving.

7. “Manarchists”, “mactivists” and “brogressives”

Assuming this is not attempted typing after a litre of vodka, it appears the feminist community has come up with yet more awkward terminology.

In its most basic sense, these terms refer to men in activist communities who perpetuate misogynistic behaviors by virtue of failing to put their revolutionary theories into practice. These are men who have made commitments to their communities to challenge systems of oppression like capitalism, heteropatriarchy, white-supremacy, sexism, and ableism.

OK, so here’s a progressive sabotaging their own activist movement from within, by creating tension between the men and women forming it. Bravo to the queens of discord; what can I say.

SJWs often display cannibalistic tendencies and tend to separate into ever-smaller groups, based on “irreconcilable differences” (minor issues dealt with in a hysterical way). No wonder they can never get on with the rest of the world; they can’t even get on with each other.

8. Racist sexualisers 

These are men who perpetuate racialized tropes through the ways they sexualize women and gender non-conforming folks. (..)You don’t have to actually say these things aloud in order for them to influence your dating life.

While agreeing that stereotyping is the hallmark of small minds, I can’t help being curious regarding the second phrase, which indicates the author might not hear these things with a frequency that is proportional to the indignation.

If men don’t say them aloud, how in the world do other people determine these are in fact their thoughts? Is it just a guessing game? Or is it a phenomenon you think might be prevalent but in fact might not be at all? Just asking.

Another common phenomenon that occurs under this banner happens when men tend to have women of color in their lives take on the roles of casual lover, booty-call, non-primary or “sidepiece,” while considering the white women they date as more“serious relationship material.”

Again, there is nothing to suggest that in real life this has anything to do with race. If anything, it is this approach which objectifies the women, treating them as passive in said relationships, being acted upon, when they in fact make a conscious choice to be in that position.

9. Cis-sexists

Negating someone’s gender identity is extricably linked to misogyny. You do not get to decide what qualifies someone as a “man” or a “woman.” When you fail to see transwomen as “real” women, you are asserting patriarchal control over what is and isn’t considered “womanly.”

As a human being and a man, one might have a tiny, tiny right to assert an opinion regarding their own condition. And as such, “discriminating” against a man’s chosen new identity, one would not be discriminating against a woman, in their own view.

10. Fetishisers of non-consensual pain

This was all caused by someone telling the author she had a sexy voice while having a sore throat and being barely able to speak. What was that word again? “Manbaby?” No further comment required.

There is a way that we are all taught to fetishize women’s pain. If this is in a BDSM context, that’s one thing – but when someone is in pain non-consensually, don’t fucking fetishize that shit. This might seem trite, but I’m telling you: It’s something men do all the time without even thinking about it. This also goes for telling a woman she looks hot after having lost a ton of weight. Aside from being fatphobic, you also don’t know how or why that weight loss happened! Maybe she has a parasite that has had her throwing up every meal for the past six months.

Personally, I’ve never seen or heard of any case of a man “fetishising” a woman’s illness or injury, in these few decades of being alive on this planet. If it does happen, I’m sure it’s not a widespread phenomenon.

Here’s where it gets twisted – apparently it’s normal for men to actually cause and get sexual gratification out of a woman’s pain, emulating physical assault, but somehow inappropriate to make comments about her voice or even innocently compliment her appearance. These people have everything upside-down, honestly.

However, after all this, the ally’s guide takes the cake, in terms of being so far removed from reality.

When venting to a close female or gender non-conforming friend, ask yourself, “Am I willing to reciprocate the same emotional labor that’s being offered to me right now?”

For someone to even think they are a match for the demands of “emotional labour”of a social justice warrior, they would have to be unrealistic. The constant winging over nothing, the fabrication of drama out of thin air, the thousands of trigger words to avoid and the stick up those behinds which are too precious to compliment – all these make an SJW ineligible as a friend to a normal person. One would have to be masochistic to engage with such people, let alone give them details of their personal life. Allow me to assume that this guide might be aimed not at real friends, but at hypothetical ones, who will fail to manifest in the form of actual humans.

When in multi-gender company ask yourself, “Am I talking out of turn?” “Am I dominating the conversation?” “Am I feeling a need to be the know-it-all at the table?” “Do I actually know what I’m talking about or am I bullshitting so as not to compromise my masculinity?”

In other words, be uncomfortable. Be very, very uncomfortable. Be anxious, be self-conscious, see this interaction not as an encounter with friends but a test you must pass; feel unworthy of your company; pray that they can tolerate your obnoxious nature.

Or, alternatively, simply don’t engage with this lot. Which I’m sure will be the most popular choice.

When in need of emotional support ask yourself, “Who are the men in my life I might be able to seek support from?”

Because, it seems, women are “not your mother or therapist”, so you don’t want to impose on them; even if said women are very close to you, the main thing on your mind should be a feminist’s opinion/ demand, creeping its way into your personal relationships. Speaking of which:

After a breakup with a female or gender non-conforming partner, ask yourself, “Am I taking up a ton of space with my reaction? Am I relying on her/zir/them to caretake me through it?

If trying to control how men approach their breakups is not entitlement, I don’t know what is. If a man does this as an ally, it means he is starting to politicise his romantic relationships and sees everything through the feminist lens. Creepy, as usual.

Be humble and ask yourself, “Do I make a concerted effort to learn from my female and gender non-conforming friends about what sexism/ misogyny feel like first hand?”

In a context of being misogynistic by existing, as feminists seem to put it, one needn’t make an effort aside from understanding they were born with the wrong genitals.

Dismantling patriarchy is hard work, but you’re well on your way to becoming the feminists we need you to be!

Um…. No, thanks.

No one will ever rise to that status. Or has a sane reason for attempting.

8 Pearls Of Wisdom From “Everyday Feminism”

If ever there was a parody of SJW mentalities, this website would be the perfect example. Prepare for a trip to Wonderland, down the rabbit hole of delusion.

  1. Hugging Granny may lead to molestation later in life

Apparently, a child who doesn’t automatically reach out to hug someone (perhaps out of shyness) should not be encouraged to be affectionate.This may result in them internalising the concept of submitting to being touched.  Their body, their choice. Surreal.

2. Being rational is overrated and unnecessary

It turns out demanding rationalism from social justice activists is completely unwarranted. Although discussing the use of  the brain is definitely ableist when referring to people who don’t possess one, we must still acknowledge its importance throughout history. After all, human brains have produced marvelous things, such as laptops and the internet, which SJWs dutifully use on a daily basis.

3. Biological sex is non-binary by default (in humans)

Welcome to a world where not only exceptions are the rule but there are no longer rules in nature. It seems chromosome annomalies suffered by a very smal percentage of the population are just normal variations, unlike being born with, let’s say, four hands. The creator of the video claims most people are unaware of these variatons (and their own) because they simply “don’t have their chromosomes examined” more often. Good one.

4. Law enforcement and the judiciary should be abolished

There is a film called “The Purge”, which indulges in a detailed picture of what would happen in that situation – the limitless theft, rape, murder one would expect in a jungle somewhere. I doubt further explanations are necessary to anyone who is not high on some hallucinogenic, besides being severly mentally impaired.Granted that the prison system is unfair and reforming it is not a bad idea – however, dismissing the fact that some humans pose a danger to others and some even torture and murder for fun, is well, about as ridiculous as discourse can get.

It seems the prison system and police force are a concoction of the … what was it again? Cisheteropatriarchy. Translation, the world.

5. Working out results in thin privilege

Because it’s not like socialists to say one should not have the right to fully enjoy something they’ve worked for.

We’re desperately drawn to the idea that an underdog can win with a little effort. (…)

The thing about privilege – whether it’s circumstantial or gained – is that it’s unfair. It’s inequitable. It’s an injustice. Because regardless of how you come by your privilege, it can only exist based on the oppression of others. (…) And therefore, if you believe that you “deserve” your privilege (perhaps because you “worked for” it), then you also inherently believe that others “deserve” to be oppressed.

Here’s a progressive opposed to… well, what most people understand as progress. And it’s plain to see that instead of developing our own qualities, we should envy what others have and call it “privilege”. Women wilfully opress other women though the sheer size of their knickers. It can’t get more cringey than that. This type of attitude shows that the body positivity movement is not based on empowerment through acceptance, but on actual resentment of others. There’s nothing positive about envying other people’s attractiveness. It’s petty.

6.“Gendered language” is offensive

Here’s a creativity exercise – can you spot the problematic words we use on a daily basis? If not, let me give you a hand by pointing them out and replacing them with the PC terms, as shown by this article and many others of this type.

Last night I attended a baby shower with a few ladies; the baby’s mother is a close friend of mine from highschool. She is joyful about expecting a baby girl, and so is the father. I also went to their wedding last year. The bride and groom were quite nervous but elated at the same time.

Last night I attended a baby shower with a few female-presenting people; parent one is a close friend of mine from highschool. They are joyful about expecting a biologically female baby whose gender is not yet known, and so is parent two. I also went to their wedding last year. Partner one and partner two were quite nervous, but elated at the same time.

I remember Christian publications warning years ago that it would come to this. And I remember many people laughing it of as silly or paranoid.

7.Complimenting trans people on their appearance is offensive

But I’m finally going to just say it: The Validation Response is the act of cis people – even the best, most well-meaning ones – subconsciously exercising their power as cis people. (…)

But let’s say you’re a super awesome ally. (Yay you!) Let’s say you comment on their looks only in a healthy, respectable way. That’s still not enough. Now you must follow up with something else about them. (…)

If you can’t do these things, then please keep quiet.

On the other hand, in some parts of the world, failing to give that validation may result in a hefty fine. But finally, if this doesn’t stop, keeping quiet might just be the solution, which will most likely be interpreted as  exclusion. When society at large becomes angry and fed up with this prima donna caper, it will affect even those who are innocent of it. Keep teaching people to require more ceremony than royalty and they will be the only ones losing out. Make others uncomfortable enough and you will achieve the pariah status  for your entire group, faster than you can say “pre-op”.

8. Appropriating hairstyles, clothing styles and prints from other cultures

In recet years, Halloween has become a scandal, as some people wear costumes which stereotype other ethnicities, though one might think it is not to be taken more seriously than a witch or Batman costume. In everyday life, some are scrutinising each other for culturally suggestive aspects and call them out on not being “racially entitled” to wear dreadlocks or certain types of clothes.

What does this look like when someone thinks the art is cool, but not the people with whom it originates?

And who says that? How can you determine by bumping into someone on the street that they are guilty of disrespcting the culture they borrowed a trivial aspect from?

A little empathy might be helpful here. Imagine you’re a part of a community that has been stigmatized (…) Then suddenly one thing you do, eat, or wear gets taken up and celebrated by a community with a hell of a lot more money, visibility and power than you but gives negative twenty fucks about you, your culture, or its value.

More importantly, why would I give “negative twenty fucks” about what they wear or eat? Why would that be any of my business? They’re not stealing it off me, FFS. They simply go into shops, see something they like and buy it. What’s the big deal?

If you’re appropriating a cultural thing literally because your friends are doing it or it was on an episode of Girls . . .  You. Need. To. Check. Yourself.

If you spend your time staring at people’s clothes and the content of their plates … You. Need. To. Check. Yourself. Into. A. Mental. Hospital.

 

The source of inspiration is unending, as that community is a bottomless pit.