Monthly Archives: August 2016

Women Pressured Into Abortion – The Subject Feminists Avoid

We read so much these days about women’s rights and how abortion should always be portrayed by the media as the right choice in difficult circumstances. We read about how too much counselling before an abortion is an infringement on these rights, as it might get some to reconsider (as if this were a bad thing) or feel undue remorse afterwards.

However, there are sides to this subject feminists just won’t touch (just like, due to the marvel called intersectionality, they don’t go near the horrors suffered by women in Islamic theocracies). Besides ignoring the facts of the procedure (going as far as defending late term abortions), they also ignore an important part of the cause – which is external pressure.

There are shelters for women who are physically harmed by partners; there is protection from so many types of abuse except one – the psychological coercion of a woman to abort her baby, sometimes relentless, which often involves threats of divorce, homelessness, abandonment and the withdrawal of minimal support for her to have the child or even sustain herself. 

Pro-life activists are covering this intensely; the debate however does not reach the mainstream, as abortion is seen as a “woman’s right” almost exclusively (excluding the rights of the women being “terminated”, as abortion survivor Gianna Jessen points out).

Again, feminists tend to think this is the right choice in a seemingly impossible situation, such as the father not wanting the child, the economical situation being precarious, the mother being underage and unable to support the baby or herself.

But is it really the woman’s choice of what to do with her body when all the negative factors influencing her are external? When she feels she has to make this decision as she has no alternative, because there is no support available? 

Is the only road a woman felt like she could take at one given time the right one for her? How is this defined as her choice in the first place? Saying there was nothing else I could do at the time does not equal this is what I wanted – and yet, this sort of decision would be commended by feminists as mature and brave under the circumstances, without taking the woman’s suffering into account.

People pressuring a woman into an abortion is not an unavoidable fact of nature. It’s a matter of power imbalance, which feminists love to mention every time they feel hard done by when a man gets them to take on more “emotional labour” then they are getting. Power imbalance is mentioned so often – and yet there is no greater power imbalance than the ability to get someone to kill their own child under extreme threats.

I witnessed a similar situation which still makes me boil. It did not involve abortion but the forced giving of a newborn up for adoption. The mother was in the same hospital ward as me after giving birth. She told me, as well as hospital staff (and eventually the authorities, which did not lift a finger) that her hubby – a piece of scum beyond redemption – was forcing her to give the baby up, under threat of eviction and separation from the three children they already had together. He’d previously tried to psychologically force her to have an abortion but had not succeeded. She wanted to keep her baby girl and raise her, but was dependant in every way on the husband’s family, whose home she was living in; the scumbag’s family agreed with him that the child should just disappear. She faced having nowhere to live and no income. Besides that, she already had three kids at home and did not want to be forcibly separated from them as she was their primary carer. All I could do was try to put her in touch with charities and similar organisations; I’m not sure she ever contacted them. I also asked a relative of mine who was a lawyer for advice and he called the police; he said she was entitled to state protection. It went nowhere; it spun in a bureaucratic circle for the few days we were there. Unfortunately, I was in no position to help either as I did not have the living conditions or financial stability at the time (although looking back I feel like kicking myself for not trying to figure out a way; perhaps it wouldn’t have been absolutely impossible). In the meantime, hubby dearest kept phoning her to call her names (as she was lying on a hospital bed recovering from giving birth). At one point he even suggested she put something over the baby’s face and leave her somewhere. I felt like cracking that man’s skull with my bare hands. She kept on taking the calls for some reason and was distraught the whole time, trying to sort out accommodation and figure out a way to care for all her kids. The bastard swore he’d make her life hell; she couldn’t take her kids back from him as she had no income or housing. Even if someone had taken her in with the baby she wouldn’t have been financially stable enough for it to matter in court. Eventually she decided there was no other way than to give her baby girl up for adoption and go back to the bastard to raise her other kids in the only home she had. It took her days of constant crying, barely any sleep and being given no hope by those she appealed to. What would feminists say before that type of case? Many would say an abortion would have been better in the first place.

This was absolutely not her choice. It was a horrible experience to even watch, never mind live.

Nor is it the choice of so many women who decide to abort their babies because those around them threaten them constantly.

Helplessness is not empowerment. 

Instead of advocating for women’s right to abort their babies (which they’ve already got), why not also advocate for women’s right to keep their babies when facing this sort of trouble, which I’m sure is not uncommon?

What exactly is feminism’s stance regarding the situation in China, where forced abortions are carried out and newborns are drowned in buckets or dumped in fountains for being female? They say nothing as they want the word “abortion” to build this positive aura around it – which most people viscerally reject, even when meeting others halfway ideologically. I believe little concerns them if not directly relatable.

I can also share a different story – a story about real systemic oppression.

During the later part of the communist period, abortion was forbidden in my country. So was contraception; it was not available. The purpose was to produce as many people who would increase the workforce. Of course the absolute cretins did not ensure that those children could be provided for and looked after since both parents were forced to work and the country was in dire poverty for a long time. That’s how women turned to back alley abortions. Not because those abortions were their choice, but because the nature of the system made it so that they could not have a normal couple life (denying their husbands sex would have ended in being left eventually) or a normal family life (many children brought up in those times were raised by grandparents, part time or full time, myself included).

My brother’s bones lie somewhere in a communal skip outside Bucharest. So do those of most of my brothers and sisters, whom I don’t know the exact number of and will not ask again, not wanting to cause trauma. That’s what they used to do in those days – and still do in China now. Finding out shocked me but did not make me pro-life; that had been my conviction all along; it absolutely strengthened my conviction. Whereas I can understand the pressure of the times and the motivation of the women seeking these abortions (some to later regret it, especially when babies were delivered alive and still moving), I cannot understand those who “helped” them do this – who could have easily killed those women, under the guise of friendship or for some money. Some had no medical training whatsoever. My brother was killed with the “help” of a nursery teacher – who was also my Godmother. She Christened my sister, then killed and dumped my brother in the trash, then off she went back to church to Christen me a year later. It turns my stomach. I don’t ever want to see the woman again but if I did I might just spit in her face (for the first time to ever behave that way). Although if I asked for details she might just tell me how she did it in the most callous of ways.

Feminists would jump at this opportunity to shout that making abortion legal and accessible would have solved the problems of women who “clearly wanted abortions”. 

Except those women didn’t.

They were forced into poverty, forced into work instead of being home makers and forcibly denied contraception, though it was available at the time (at least condoms were being marketed in Europe but could not be sold here). Those women did not choose abortion because it was “right” or “something they wanted”. Some lived in perpetual hope they would never have to have another one again.

That is a true example of systemic oppression when it comes to reproductive rights. 

I also want to share an uplifting story of refusing abortion and sending children away despite very difficult circumstances. In my grandmother’s day abortion used to happen (feminists often dismiss today’s gruesome statistics by saying it has happened since times immemorial). She never had any (and told me for a fact, without me asking). She had nine children. Lost one to measles in infancy and one to a motorbike crash. She was widowed twice – once by war and again by a construction site accident. She was offered help by the state in terms of taking some of the children into state care and categorically refused. A few decades later, her children have kids and grandkids of their own, most having gone through higher education and established a career. All originating from sheer poverty and destitution. My sister and I were also raised by her while the system did not allow our parents to do so, and for some years after. If anyone asked me the childish question of who my hero was I’d say definitely my Gran. It seems natural instincts are so strong in some people that they fear nothing and stop at nothing for their families.

Spare the family anecdotes, some might say – the world is immense and diverse. And so it is.

What I know for a fact is that no woman ever plans to have an abortion at some point in her life. No woman grows up picturing abortion as a part of her future.

Circumstances cause this and some of these circumstances need addressing.

Feminists often speak of the emancipation of teens and the authority teenage women should have over their bodies – especially in terms of being able to access abortions. How aware are they that so many young women undergo abortions pressured by their families, in order not to lose face or not risk compromising their daughters’ academic future?

Many types of pressure are considered criminal and decisions made under duress are not always considered valid.

However, trying to corner a woman in this manner is merely frowned upon in some situations and even commended in others.

It should be criminal. Women who are financially or otherwise dependent on the person trying to coerce them into an abortion should be protected. It should be a basic human right. End of story. 

 

 

 

 

Feminists Explain Why Trifles Matter

Sick of having the meaningless minutiae argument thrown in their faces when they passionately talk about their middle or upper class “oppression”, progressives are trying to pacify public opinion by nicely stating that an individual is free to care about a multitude of social ills and hold them as more important than others.

This is one example.

As placating as the tone is, there is a significant qualm with this explanation, which omits one important aspect.

Not only do progressives claim their “problems” matter to them (which they’re fully entitled to): they claim they should matter to everyone else as well. Not only that, but they also claim the rest of society should “take a stand” regarding their grievances; that we are all morally obligated to do so, hence they try guilting us into joining their activism or threatening legal repercussions if we don’t share their views.

This is not Kumbaya; their attitude is a declaration of war, so to speak. If you don’t side with the “oppressed”, you are an oppressor yourself, even if you remain neutral.

This is another one about anti-feminists exploiting tragedies to prove that feminists don’t care about actual atrocities in terms of human rights and women’s rights in particular.

And instead of tragedy, you see opportunity – now’s your chance to prove you’ve been right all along.

You take to feminist pages, racial justice pages, anywhere you can find those “social justice warriors” whose anti-oppressive values bother you. And you bring up what you heard to make your case.

In an excellent demonstration of mental gymnastics, the author tries to paint anti-progressives as some sort of sociopaths who revel in the suffering of others just to “put down” the brave social justice crowd.

What you really mean: “I don’t actually care about these victims – but I’m willing to use them to put you down.”

This type of activist does not – and will never – get the basic logic of this conundrum: it’s not necessarily that they don’t cover important matters, but that what they do cover is absolutely ridiculous, contrived and the product of self-obsession.

This would be true regardless of having or not having more pressing matters to worry about. Stirring up racial division by promoting sensitivity to so-called microaggressions would be just as ludicrous and detrimental if no genuine racism existed any longer. Pointing out the so-called sexism in men’s words or actions, down to the air they exhale, would be harmful even in the absence of rape or the real oppression of women in backward theocracies.

The “problems” they raise are, 95% of the time (to be generous) complete non-issues. No comparison is needed in order to determine that.

However, it is even more annoying to digest such drivel after reading about these tragedies. It’s a bit like walking through a God-forsaken dump of a place where everyone is in rags and starving, straight into a posh neighbourhood where an entitled damsel complains that the champagne bottle hasn’t been cooled to her liking. And not only is she complaining but also claiming that everyone around her – including those who have it worse by far – should care and protest by her side. That her petty annoyance should become everyone’s cause.

So you’ve heard about some “real” oppression happening around the world – starving children in Africa, persecuted women in the Middle East. And now you want to know how US feminists can have the nerve to care about our own liberation.

To understand, think about the last time you had a so-called “first world problem” – for example, a broken cell phone. Did you decide not to get your phone fixed because there are starving children in Africa who don’t have phones at all?

That is such bullshit – comparing a very small but practical – as in real – issue with spreading Marxist propaganda to “solve inequalities in the world” and “obtain liberation”, based on exaggerated or made-up claims about suffering when someone asks where you are from or gives you a compliment in the street.

The phone being broken is a fact. You needing a phone is a fact. Phone calls save lives, you know. Especially when made to call an ambulance or the police. Phones are not a whim, and we are indeed lucky to have this technology.

Instead… what should I use as an example, out of the ever-expanding swamp of offences listed by feminists and progressives in general? It could be anything. Men taking up too much space on the subway. People asking you where you’re from or innocently asking whether a neutral stereotype about your ethnicity is true.

I’m adding the adjective and adverb because I was repeatedly presumed to be a thief, a prostitute and a “Gypsy whore” just because of where I come from – by fellow Eastern Europeans that is (exclusively Polish, regardless of the environment), but not by Brits, not even once. Of course I did live in Scotland so I’m not sure what the situation is south of the border. I’ve met people from all over the world, living in a youth hostel for almost half a year, and never had any stereotyping issues by anyone except Poles. Weird enough. And even they loosened up as we spent more time together and they figured out I was just a normal person, in spite of their initial prejudices. So I’m not “traumatised” and bitter. Life is what it is and assholes will be assholes, no matter where you go. My life did not become about them and their assumptions about me. My life is much more than that. And so should anyone’s be.

Strangely enough, when I met a family of Americans trying to settle in Scotland, they told me “you must hate Americans”, just as a default. And I never would discriminate against an individual because of their country’s fucked-up foreign policy – or anything based on where they’re from. People are people; they can can be of any make this universe provides.

Anyway, sorry to be ranting away.

I just mean I’ve had my fair share of discrimination – and was able to live with it, as long as it was not systemic and did not impact my chances in life. What some perceive as trauma is just a simple part of life – one that others get over quite easily. And when they overreact to things which are obviously not traumatic, it does become queasy.

Later edit

Finding even more ludicrous articles on this subject seemed like a challenge – however, one swiftly turned up.

5 Reasons Why “First-World” Feminism Isn’t Actually Trivial

I actually think the other side of the debate can come up with a good comeback to the famous “check your privilege”. It would be “check your logic”.

We get it. There are a lot of horrible things happening all over the world, including the United States.

But the issue here is that trying to tell people they can’t be angry about their oppression because others may be more oppressed is not activism. This is derailing.

I personally think it’s a positive sign when people are aware of human rights injustices and are invested in changing them. But when that comes at the expense of belittling another person’s personal struggles, I no longer think that’s useful.

In other words, by no longer thinking that’s useful, the author would prefer that those around them just ignore more serious issues to better focus on theirs. Perhaps they meant not useful in the context; it’s not clear whether they would prefer that nobody cared about said issues at all; however, it’s a dodgy way to put it and open to interpretation.

Because while there may be causes that affect some more than others or that are more explicitly violent than others, feminism isn’t about taking a stand for every single cause. It’s about allowing marginalized people to dictate how issues relating to them are discussed and addressed – and recognizing that all forms of violence, big or supposedly small, are tied to the same larger issues.

Dictate how issues related to them are discussed and addressed. No group of people should ever have that privilege. And it’s actually unheard of, outside of totalitarian regimes, for a certain category to dictate how the discussion unfolds. This is not about raising objections to stereotyping and small-mindedness, but actually being able to control everything that is said and what action is taken as well, as if public actions were not up for debate anymore but for them to decide unquestioned.

The reality is that it’s entirely plausible for one person to write about an important and life-threatening issue or experience, while also writing about dating and makeup.

Of course. As long as they’re not trying to radicalise those around them and call for a socialist revolution over makeup, or guilt trip them for not caring about it. Which is what happens with feminist non-problems.

And because all of those issues affect our daily life in various ways, we absolutely have every right to talk about it.

Yes. And other people absolutely have every right not to care about it, especially those who are facing pressure to make radical changes to their daily activities (like what is currently happening in universities). All because some people are mildly annoyed over words used in courses or “offensive” portraits of historical figures on the walls. Talking is one thing and attempting to change everything around you is quite another.

Also, trying to police what is a feminist issue and what isn’t is oppressive – which brings me to my next point.

How about trying to point out what is an issue altogether and what isn’t? Regardless of its importance in feminist circles.

Derailing a conversation about street harassment in public spaces to talk about how Saudi women can’t even leave their homes without a male guardian does nothing for those of us dealing with street harassment on a daily basis – or for women who are infantilized by their government.

When said women are calling gazes or compliments “street harassment”, they are infantilising themselves. Besides the fact that most men are not assholes, the reason the overwhelming majority don’t harass women in the street is that it’s fucking illegal to do so. If someone claims they are followed or grabbed on a daily basis, maybe they should consider living in a different neighbourhood as soon as they can afford it. Because in most civilised places that doesn’t happen. Of course that’s beside the point as they’re not claiming that at all; anyone who looks at them the wrong way is guilty of “harassment”.

Moreover, derailing is always done at the expense of supposedly more oppressed people, who are usually Black and Brown.

This reinforces white supremacy and the status quo, and sets up a hierarchy of us (the liberated modern people) and them (the backwards and oppressed people).

That’s a REALLY good one.

So anyone criticising a genuinely oppressive regime is guilty of racism towards the people who are suffering under it, as if the speaker attributed said political circumstances to their race, nationality etc.

If anyone thinks there’s no difference between a democratic country and a theocracy, like Saudi Arabia, since it’s mentioned in the article, they’re free to try living there for a year or two. If anyone thinks it’s morally wrong to describe the reality of a place in order to be in line with exclusively western concepts (such as not seeming racist), they are incredibly hypocritical. You cannot re-frame executions for adultery and blasphemy, where entire crowds engage in savage murders. You cannot call that anything but backwards. And you cannot deny the difference between living in a (still) free country or one of those appalling places.

People risk their lives every day to leave countries where political or religious oppression is the norm. What would the author say to them – that by describing their former life conditions they’re being racist towards their own nations?

Whether or not one believes that there are more important issues, only those affected by them directly should be spearheading any conversation on that topic.

Right. Never mind that if they do they are sent before a firing squad or put in jail. Never mind that some don’t have access to the internet or their access is strictly controlled. Never mind that when they manage to leave those places the last thing on the planet they would want would be to expose themselves and become targets of those regimes, to risk being assassinated. Westerners who manage to go to places like North Korea and capture video footage do so with hidden cameras, risking their own lives.

Defectors of such countries are either unable to speak publicly (while still there) or at risk of death or persecution when abroad. They don’t have the luxury of becoming public figures. Those who do are very brave to take on such a task and live under constant threat. And it’s not a threat of being whistled to at a street corner.

Check your logic.

For example, it wouldn’t be proper for me to talk about Muslim women and the veil.

I don’t practice Islam, I was not raised in a culturally or religiously Muslim household, and I have never worn a head veil. There is nothing about my identity, upbringing, or lifestyle that makes me an expert in the lives of Muslim women, except that that we identify as women.

What I can do is listen more than I talk.

My opinion is not valuable when it comes to marginalized groups that I do not belong to.

Again – it’s a bit difficult to listen to people who are unable or afraid to speak out. And it’s a known fact that in many parts of the world these women are persecuted – or executed – for not wearing it.

Making a judgement on that being right or wrong is not an opinion. It is inherent to our civilisation to deem it unacceptable for anyone to be beaten or murdered for what they are wearing.

You can’t just wave the issue and say you won’t express an opinion because you “have no right to” – that is a comfortable way of saying you don’t want to risk offending a certain religious group.

Using the lived experiences of others to play devil’s advocate is dismissive and angering.

What is angering is your cold-blooded hypocrisy, stemming from a desire to have feminist non-problems prioritised and given actual legitimacy.

Seemingly harmless acts of oppression have a detrimental domino effect on our daily lives.

Most of the derailing I experience comes as a result of sharing stories of street harassment:

“Sometimes a compliment is just a compliment.”

“Why can’t you just say ‘thank you’ and keep walking?”

“I wish people would compliment me on a daily basis.”

If only street harassment was really about men telling us how much they like our cute new shoes!

Catcalling is about dominating public spaces and asserting power over another. It’s a way of controlling what we do with our bodies and who gets to enjoy them.

It is infuriating and upsetting when it happens occasionally, but it can escalate to physical violence or death. If the only outcome is that our confidence is shattered, that’s actually the best-case scenario.

Anything can escalate to physical harm or death, inside or outside your home. Claiming that western countries are full of demented beasts who are ready to pounce on defenceless women around every corner is knowingly deceptive. We do not have that type of culture, for such behaviour to be widespread. Others do. The mass attacks on women across Europe by recent immigrants (attacks which involved group rape, being groped by dozens of men, clothes being ripped off in the street etc) prove that there is a difference and that rape culture is more prevalent in some parts of the world than others. Comparing compliments to being raped in a parking lot by twenty savages (I’m labelling them based on behaviour, not origin) is quite nauseating.

We take different paths to avoid groups of harassers. We pay for taxis instead of walking alone. Sometimes, we refuse to go out during certain times and avoid some places altogether.

If a woman is bothered by a group of individuals she can identify, it seems stupid to extrapolate the problem to her entire environment. Also, in certain areas where crime and drug use are rampant it makes sense to take precautions, such as not walking alone or not going out at night. And that’s not due to the risk of receiving unwanted compliments – you could just have all your belongings stolen or be stabbed by a junkie. A compliment is the very last thing to be afraid of.

And for those of us who are women of color, the exotification of our bodies is so widespread that we deal with racialized sexual harassment in the streets and in our workplaces.

It isn’t trivial to us.

For actual harassment, you can always sue.

Feminism will not eradicate crime. Those who think they are above the law in that sense will definitely not be swayed by feminist campaigns. Predators are a law unto themselves from a moral point of view and that will never change. Treating all other men the same way is never going to solve that problem.

Suggesting that first-world problems are unimportant misses the connection between how commonplace things have massive impact on our daily lives.

Being harassed at work is a serious issue. Being complimented by a stranger in the street, to never see them again, isn’t. The fact that feminists cannot tell the difference makes it difficult to take them seriously.

By assuming that feminists fighting for “first-world” problems aren’t doing enough about “real” gender-based violence, you’re actually belittling the work being done by other groups.

Nobody ever expected feminists to save the world. Heaven forbid they should ever have the authority to try their version of it. This paragraph is insultingly silly – claiming that declaring feminist grievances trivialities somehow insults the real activism carried out around real matters. It’s a mighty twist and stretch of logic – again. It’s basically saying that by respecting what those groups do, you are belittling them. No sense whatsoever.

It’s hypocritical to speak of caring about feminist issues in the developing world, but not do the research to learn about groups and individuals fighting for these causes.

If you really care, support them – and give them a platform when they need it the most.

Perhaps not everyone who dares to take an interest in a matter is able to provide actual support or has a platform to do so. Perhaps most of those people are impossible to support as they are unreachable. Perhaps even with the lack of said ability, someone is entitled to use their brain and choose what they care about or at least form an opinion regarding what is more important.

Dismantling Oppression Requires Chipping Away at All Things

No, it requires being able to identify it correctly and not mistake it for mild annoyance.

The extreme version of street harassment is laws that control women’s bodies and ban them from public spaces.

Comparing religious zealotry, which can excuse murder, to manifesting a fleeting interest in someone’s look, most likely without expecting anything to come out of it, is like… well, it’s absurd.

It’s human to sigh at someone complaining about their coffee shop running out of their favorite pastry when there are millions of children worldwide with nothing to eat.

But the truth is that while it’s easy to sigh at pastry-agony, condescension is never the best way to solve any problem.

A normal person wouldn’t sigh; they’d be too busy to even notice. The problem starts when the flustered customer stages a protest outside said coffee shop and tries to put it out of business. As has happened to many businesses whose owners or employees pissed someone off based on a so-called “principle”. I remember a story about a coffee shop in Dublin advising vegans to announce their visit before hand so vegan dishes could be available – the so-called vegan community raised a shit storm trying to ruin the owner’s reputation.

Making a storm into a teacup, trying to vilify a person or group without real provocation or solid grounds, is always worthy of condescension. You cannot help solve what is not a problem.

So whether a cause is about “freeing the nipple” or ending the death penalty, it’s necessary and valuable – and I’m always here for that.

No, not everything is necessary and valuable, or worthy of public attention.

This inability to distinguish between the importance of certain issues is almost disturbing.

Could Reincarnation Explain Transgenderism and the “Transabled”?

This is just a hypothesis and might be absolute bullshit, but bear with me (unless you dismiss reincarnation altogether).

The thing is, due to personal experience I had gone back and forth on due to religion (Christianity denies the possibility as far as I know), I fully believe in reincarnation now. And because of that I’ve been reading research which highlighted many cases – some of them involving people having been of the opposite sex in the past but knowing remarkable, identifiable details about who they believed to be their past selves and the ways they had died. Some were children. Of course there is no proof they had actually been those people as opposed to having known those people in the past so I’m not saying there is definite proof of migrating from one sex to another between lives.

And I’m in no way saying I think all those who are confused about their gender and bodies are necessarily right about it (perhaps they are just going through a phase and might reconsider), especially nowadays when this sort of thing is encouraged on a mass scale. And I’m in no way saying that should that be the case they should try to butcher their current bodies trying to make them into something they are not (that can be very dangerous and is irreversible should they change their minds).

I do think though that it is possible for their motivation to be a past self (a past life).

The “transabled” puzzle me even more.

For someone who is able-bodied it is naturally a frightening thought to lose some of their physical abilities as life is guaranteed to be more difficult and restraining. What I usually read in these cases is that the person feels a body part or ability does not belong to them. Also, I logically deduce they are not afraid of facing their existence while not having said body part or ability – as if they had managed it in the past.  This leads me to suspect they might have been disabled and are now mixed up about functioning in their current bodies. One lady wanted to be blind (and succeeded). To anyone who can see this is a terrifying prospect. Unless one has been blind before and can handle life as such, without fear.

Perhaps these people are trying to revert to their former selves.

Again, I am in no way saying physicians should indulge them by mutilating them. It is absolute craziness to “help” someone become impaired just because it feels more natural to them, regardless of what the cause might be. Surely healing the psychological/ emotional aspect and continuing to function in a healthier body would be much more beneficial.

I don’t know. It’s just an idea. Which I’m sure has been thrown out there before, though I haven’t come upon any material but haven’t exactly looked for it either.

 

Disgusting Cult-like Training: “I Am A Racist”

For anyone who still doubts there is actual brainwashing going on by the “progressive” left – have a look at this. It’s a step-by-step guide on how to realise you are a racist, as it appears that if you’re “privileged” enough to be born white, you are one by default.

It involves repeating mantras inside your head until you finally crack and label yourself as such, even if you’d never thought you were one your entire life. Repeat to yourself enough that you are guilty and you will eventually end up believing it.

First, there is the prepping.

So cut yourself some slack if you have internalized racist ideas. It doesn’t mean you are bad; it means you watched Peter Pan as a kid (or the thousands of other biased films and television shows). It means you were likely raised by folks who too fled racism.

Then repeat the following:

“I can internalize racist beliefs and still be a good person.”

“I can internalize racist beliefs and still be a good person.”

“I can internalize racist beliefs and still be a good person.”

And that statement can be true, as long as you complete this next step.

Notice at first the article seems to address those who knowingly have internalised racist ideas; however, the next step, titled “unearth your racism and challenge it”, proves it also addresses those who have never associated themselves with this notion. So basically this is for everyone.

Most of our racial biases go unnoticed. There’s even a name for them: Implicit biases, which can be defined as the “thoughts about people you didn’t know you had.”

Remember that smog? It means our bodies are full of polluted thoughts. Even mine. Even yours.

But you are never going to unearth these biases until you finally pick up the shovel. In other words, it takes work – deliberate and sustained effort.

You must actively bring your implicit biases to the surface. (There’s even a test for them here!) You must actively challenge the stereotypes you have internalized (which generally don’t hold up). You must actively learn about microaggressions and cultural appropriation so that you aren’t perpetrating them.

Do the work, and you won’t be able to help but repeat the inevitable:

“I am racist.”

“I am racist.”

“I am racist.”

To start with, I do not believe in the concept of a self-deprecating genuine racist; it’s a contradictory notion. Not only are these people full of themselves enough to believe they are genetically superior to millions or billions of others; they are also angry and have destructive aspirations. This article clearly does not address them.

Also, I do not believe in the concept of a racist who doesn’t identify himself/herself as such. You cannot hold extreme views and not be aware of it; it’s nonsensical.

This is a brainwashing endeavour seeking to convince everyone that if they look hard enough, they will find the bigot within, repent and be saved, much like sin is treated by religions by examining one’s every thought and feeling.

Like religious leaders, they claim to be inside your head, to know you better than you know yourself, seeking to bring you on the right path.

The point is: Racism is bigger than one person; it’s not about you.

At the same time – and I don’t think this is stressed enough – individuals make up systems.

White individuals can become cashiers who make the checkout line an unpleasant experience for shoppers of Color. White individuals can become teachers who don’t recognize the brilliance of their students of Color. White individuals will invariably make up many hiring committees, holding the keys that open the doors to upward mobility.

Thus, it’s crucial to analyze how the individual interacts with and connects to the institution.

All of this is redundant considering the fact that the addressee in this case is not even aware of having racial biases, thus having to fish for them in the abyss of their subconscious mind – never mind being an overt racist likely to cause trouble to others in the form of hiring discrimination or “unpleasant experiences”, whatever that means.

If it’s not about me, then leave me the fuck alone, why don’t you. Except it is aimed at every single individual who can be manipulated into thinking they are guilty of something they never took part in.

Of course, there is a reason to all this besides causing needless mortification.

Dismantling these systems will require action. Awareness and education are certainly part of the process but, alone, they are not enough.

Once this imaginary guilt is established, the fun part comes – enrollment in their social justice activism, to wash away the sin that was never committed. They want to inflate their numbers by pulling at the heartstrings of gullible strangers to help them “change the world”. Just like a good old-fashioned cult.

Racial injustice infects pretty much every facet of our world.

This fact can be overwhelming, but it also makes it relatively easy to find a struggle to join. Maybe it’s at your workplace, in your child’s school, in front of your computer, or on the streets during rush hour. 

There is no shortage of ways to act. In fact, in a search engine of your choice, type the words “White people fight racism” and you will find endless articles with ideas (many of which are compiled here).

It’s quite something when the people behind a movement (an intended Marxist revolution in this case) manage to convince the masses to join them not on the basis of hope and positivity but to redeem themselves as human beings.

Unpaid “Emotional Labour” – Feminists At It Again

Emotional labor is the exertion of energy for the purpose of addressing people’s feelings, making people comfortable, or living up to social expectations. It’s called “emotional labor” because it ends up using – and often draining – our emotional resources.

By their own  definition, addressing other people’s feelings is absolutely draining. This brilliant article  (irony intended) is eerily reminiscent of how a sociopath might view the world, a world in which most humans are at ease with the natural interaction they have with each other, yet a certain segment finds any emotional involvement a chore.

One could safely say most people naturally “invest” those “emotional resources” into interacting with others, aside from introspection, which is also mostly based on interpreting the experiences they’ve had with others. If they were to draw a line marking the point to which they are willing to “invest” these “resources” with anyone, family members included, what exactly would they be “saving up” for?

Now, don’t get me wrong: Asking friends for advice, reaching out to people in your line of work, and other actions I’m about to mention can be part of a healthy relationship. The issue arises when it’s not reciprocal.

OK. So it’s a bit like a transaction. You put in ten hours to help someone through an emotional crisis and then demand the same for whatever problem you might have. Or you might just make them listen to you for the same length of time just to make sure you got enough value out of the relationship.

No, it doesn’t work that way.

Sometimes people crush into your daily life badly needing a friendly ear or other types of help. Making an issue out of it (unless they are definitely using you or making your life truly unbearable) is just petty. And so is expecting someone going through a very difficult time to make a priority of your problems, just out of moral obligation.

Because we’re assumed to be naturally emotionally intelligent and nurturing, people don’t always understand that this is work for us.

No, it’s not. It’s a simple part of being human and a simple part of being female. We’re not assumed, but scientifically proven to be that way. Of course, to a progressive, everything that has already been proven about humans becomes an “assumption”, if it doesn’t coincide  with what they aspire to convince others of.

1. We are asked to watch, entertain, or help take care of younger siblings, cousins, and other children more than men because people automatically assume we must love kids and be naturally nurturing.

And because you are presumably able to communicate, you can always say no in a situation which makes you uncomfortable. But you’re afraid that would make you seem uncaring and bitchy, wouldn’t it? Can’t have it both ways.

2. Friends offload their problems – sometimes serious problems that we’re not equipped to handle – onto us before we have agreed to talk about them, often expecting an immediate response.

An adult can usually deal with the facts of life. An adult normally knows all kinds of things happen on this planet – and can at least handle hearing about them. Heaven forbid such a person might be trapped in a tragical situation such as a natural catastrophe or war – they think their comfort zone will be there forever and must be preserved at all cost, even by avoiding life outside their windows.

You might be surprised to hear that’s what friends are for – otherwise they would be referred to as mere acquaintances, not friends. And I’m not referring to FB friends either (though I’ve seen close friendships form online and experienced that as well). It’s a matter of trust and involvement. People confide in those they trust. It’s as simple as that. If you’re uncomfortable with that, you are simply not that person’s friend.

3. Casual acquaintances and sometimes complete strangers do the same, often over the Internet and often sharing triggering details.

That means they must be in a really bad place emotionally and you really should try to help (if you’re at all a decent human being). As for online interactions being triggering, well… keep off the internet, why don’t you. Or outright tell them in the information you are sharing that you’re not psychologically equipped to read certain words. By the way, if you’re on a platform which often involves that, do not be shocked when it happens.

4. Street harassers and other people who make us uncomfortable guilt us if we don’t respond to them. If we don’t say no, we’re supposedly asking for it. And f we do respond, we’re not “polite enough.”

If someone is actually harassing you, you can rest assured they don’t expect you to be polite. Or nice. If they’re giving you sudden unwanted attention, 99% of the time they are not expecting anything out of you either. Guilt presumes some sense of obligation one might feel – how does that apply to strangers in the street? Anyway – how is that draining your emotional resources again?

5. People who believe we can provide them with professional gain ask to “pick our brains” with no pay or reciprocation in the name of “networking.”

You’re free to say “no”.

Everyone I know who is a professional is more than happy to advise family, friends and acquaintances in terms of work without expecting anything back. They are, you know… happy to be helpful? Perhaps they feel good just for being in a position of pointing others on their path? Perhaps they’re just nice? Does that word exist anymore?

6. When we have relatives or friends with physical or mental illnesses, they and their loved ones are more likely to reach out to us than men to take care of them.

That is a delicate situation and depends on a lot of variables. One has to have a certain personality type (enough patience and kindness) to be able to do that. Selfish types with a perpetual victim complex are not likely to ever be asked, if one knows them well enough.

7. If we are in professions that involve interactions with people, those we serve expect us to act as their therapists.

Interactions with people…? As in what? Mc Donald’s could qualify for that, as well as any job in retail, hospitality, healthcare… you name it. Everything from medicine to prostitution and drug dealing entails interactions with people. There are a few jobs one can do behind a computer screen or in a completely isolated place, without having to speak to anyone (offshore lighthouse keepers used to have that “privilege”, but the job is mostly outdated).This is way too generalising.

And with the risk of repeating – those who confide in complete strangers out of the blue are either having very serious problems, needing immediate attention, or trying to rob you blind – one of the two. Yes, someone might confide in a physician, lawyer, teacher etc to a greater extent than normal, but that presumes they think said confidant might have valuable perspectives or advice. If you’re out of your league on certain issues you can always point them in  the right direction (someone who is specialised in their type of problem).

8. We are judged more harshly for lacking social skills and criticized for not being sentimental or warm, so we go to great lengths to present ourselves in a desirable manner in social interactions.

Perhaps 50 years ago. I don’t think that applies now. Not in western cultures anyway. Though to think of it, one is generally intimidated by someone who only shows harsh mannerisms; it’s a human instinct. Stone cold equals reptile, which equals predator. By the time you reach old age some traits are imprinted on your face. For some it happens even earlier. You see someone staring meanly, with a mouth “like a cat’s arse”, the way they put it in Scotland, and you are immediately intimidated by them.

9. We are more often criticized for swearing, talking about sex, and doing other “vulgar” things men get away with, so we go to great lengths to censor ourselves.

Not if you’re working class. But you’re not. Which says a lot, corroborated with everything else.

10. If we don’t take immediately to parenthood, want to put our kids above all else, want to be the primary caretaker, or want kids in the first place, we are made to feel like something’s wrong with us.

That’s because the middle and upper class have a certain view on parenthood which does not apply to real life. In real life, people get by however they can. In my country, many young couples go abroad to secure a higher income and leave the kids with relatives for a year or two. During communism, many children were brought up by their grandparents as the parents were always working (mandatorily). Things are difficult for many struggling families across the world – but well-to-do individuals wouldn’t understand that; they cling to the ideal situation and sometimes that’s not enough for them either.

I’d say start by not killing them. That would at least give them a chance at whatever this existence has to offer.

11. We have to justify the decisions we make about our bodies, including whether or not we wear makeup, shave our body hair, get surgery, eat salad, eat ice cream, and eat pretty much anything.

First of all, please indicate the benefits of having body hair as a woman. There aren’t any. Secondly, I don’t see who gives a shit about make up nowadays, unless you’re sixteen and walking about like you’re working along the harbour at midnight. Thirdly, men are judged in terms of weight just like women are. Except they might not feel so offended because they might not crave constant attention and adulation, like some women do.

I wholly agree people should leave each other alone in terms of appearance, as it’s nobody’s business what a stranger looks like at one point in time. However, I think it’s detrimental to encourage women to put themselves in a vulnerable position of being mocked (such as posing naked while morbidly obese), knowing 95% of the feedback they will get will be negative. There’s no need for that. Those women have enough humiliation on a daily basis to encourage them to expose themselves completely, in the name of progressiveness.

12. We have to justify decisions that are perceived as threats to our safety, such as drinking, walking alone at night, or being alone with men.

Being aware of the real dangers out there does not mean you have to justify anything. As an adult you are presumed to know the risks and make decisions in good conscience. The world of pink unicorns does not exist.

13. Others expect us to justify all of our sexual decisions, whether they’re deemed “slutty” or “prudish.”

How about keeping them private instead? But no, I forgot, we have to “shout our status” and show off the content of our underpants.

14. We’re expected to take part in “heart to hearts,” “girls’ nights,” and other emotionally intensive occasions that we may or may not have the energy for or interest in.

According to whom is one obligated to participate in these meetings between close friends? If you’re not keen on that, simply say no. And if you’re not keen on friends, just don’t have any.

15. We feel pressure to feign interest in “feminine” topics like beauty and fashion even if we have no interest in them whatsoever. (Masculine-presenting people experience this, too, just for other interests like sports and cars.)

What kind of pressure is that? Is there really a perceived advantage to being stereotypical? Or is this a high society issue, of being rejected by peers if one’s interests do not fit within a certain range? Anyway, claiming that this expectation “is draining” someone is really far fetched.

16. Our coworkers expect us to mediate conflicts, brainstorm ways to improve company culture, and perform other roles typically assigned to human resources.

Allow me to doubt that the perpetual complainer is ever sought for mediation – in fact, they are much more likely to start conflicts than solve them. In fact, one should see this assumption as a compliment, as it’s not a skill many people have.

17. When men explain things to us that we know as much or more about, they expect us to listen as if they are educating us in order to stroke their egos.

You know, in 30 years of existence on this planet this hasn’t happened to me even once. I’ve never met a man who was keen to explain things to someone he thought knew nothing about them – and when asked to handle something they usually just do it and find it tedious to explain more than necessary. In fact, some men are annoyed if you nag them with questions about what they’re doing. As for things women certainly know more about, which relate to womanhood directly, I haven’t noticed men starting discussions at al. Everything else is always up for debate.

18. If we are dating men, people advise us to play the exhausting game of “hard to get” in order to give them the “thrill of the chase.”

And you really have to handle your dates the way other people tell you to? Are you under a microscope? Do you really have to tell everyone around you how soon you ended up in bed with your date? Or is this a high society issue again?

19. If we are in a male-dominated profession or academic field, we feel pressure to always be perfect, lest our colleagues take our imperfections as evidence that all people like us are flawed in the same way.

All people like us? That’s very vague. Oh yes, women and “femmes”. Of course, since no one really knows what a woman is anymore, things get quite complicated.

20. We are judged more harshly in the workplace and in social interactions if we don’t spend time polishing our appearances.

It depends on your line of work, really. If you’re a cleaning operative, for instance, I can say for sure you don’t need to worry about showing up in an evening gown and high heels.

21. We feel pressure to avoid looking or acting too “feminine” out of fear that people will judge us negatively, not take us seriously, or make assumptions about us.

Fear is internal. Pressure is vague and can be perceived even in its actual absence. Plus, define “feminine” as a feminist.

22. We feel pressure to avoid looking or acting too “masculine” out of fear that people will ridicule us, deem us undesirable, or distrust our gender identity.

Well, some girls suit it, whilst others overdo it and appear false to some extent. Being natural in every aspect is far better than deciding if you want to be feminine or masculine, as if you were picking a brand of ice cream. Women can be feminine in some regards and masculine in others. “Distrust our gender identity” is a new non-problem as people don’t generally question someone’s gender unless said person is making an effort for their appearance to be confusing (and certain individuals do it for fun).

23. We are judged more harshly if we don’t keep our living spaces neat, succeed at cooking and other forms of homemaking, and do a great job entertaining guests.

That has a really simple solution: either don’t invite anyone to your home, or invite only people you are comfortable with and vice-versa. Entertaining guests is not a mandate in life. Not to mention it’s a posh way to describe having someone over. Unless you have rats crawling out of tins in your kitchen, you’re probably fussing over nothing.

24. When we’re hosting people from out of town, we’re expected to not just give them a couch to crash on, but also keep the fridge and pantry stocked to their liking, show them around like tour guides, provide them with comfortable living spaces, and constantly be available to them.

Again – this seems to apply to snobs people of a certain social status, facing high demands and expectations, which have to embody perfection in everything they do. It also applies to very formal relationships.

25. We’re expected to constantly ask questions and make observations to keep conversations going, while men often get away with waiting for others to ask questions and giving one-word answers.

In a culture which makes fun of women’s chattering habit, I never really noticed them being expected to talk even more than usual. I have no idea where the author gets this from.

26. Our significant others expect us to initiate important conversations like defining the terms of the relationship, taking stock of how the relationship is going, and addressing conflicts.

Noooo, they do not. In my experience and that of those I know, it’s not something they look forward to. In fact, I’ve never been around a man who was keen on that particular conversation. And I know for a fact that they often give the cold shoulder when women insist on initiating it.

27. When we decide not to enter into a relationship, we risk being guilted for failing to reward a “nice guy” who “deserves” our affections.

 Guilted by whom? The person who expected their feelings reciprocated (which would be a natural response, although not helpful to them) or society in general? I’m not aware of any pressure western women are under regarding the partners they choose. If you want to talk about oppression in that sense, how about the women in remote parts of the world refusing arranged marriages and being killed for it?

28. When we end a relationship, we’re often demonized and blamed for not doing enough to maintain it, even if we devoted extensive time and energy to discussing problems and trying to make the relationship work.

Perhaps a source of negativity consists of this precise energy and time devoted to the discussions many men cannot stand, which women think “make a relationship work”. In fact, they do the exact opposite. I can say that from my own experience and that of others. The obsession with perfection, with “how it should be” (the ideal relationship), constantly holding grudges and grievances, can put a lot of stress on a man.

Feminism in particular encourages women to keep evaluating their relationships, looking for flaws and offences in every word, bad day, failed plan etc, down to political persuasions and opinions having nothing to do with family life.

29. We’re expected to provide our children and other people under our care with the majority of the emotional support and caretaking that they need.

If one does not feel naturally inclined to do so, they should at least be aware of the emotional consequences of refusing to, when it comes to children and teenagers, and not be surprised when they end up in dangerous situations because someone claimed to offer said support they were desperately craving (an exploiter, an abuser, a cult).

30. We’re expected to keep the peace with our cohabitants under all conditions, facilitate bonding between us and our roommates, put up with disruptive behavior, and, if we have male roommates, do the majority of the housework.

Says who?

For me personally it wouldn’t be an issue as I’ve lived in shared accommodation and would have gladly formed fraternal bonds with the people I was dwelling with, had they not been a bit (more) xenophobic towards me since the beginning. Had I been able to form friendships in that context, I wouldn’t have grudged loud music or cleaning or anything like that. Sharing one’s daily life with someone is likely to lead to bonding, if everyone is willing.

31. When we’re survivors of sexual misconduct, people sympathize with the perpetrator to the extent that we feel bad about “hurting their reputation” due to a “misunderstanding” or “ruining their lives” for reporting a crime.

Sexual misconduct is vague terminology. No one empathises with a rapist or child molester, not in western democracies anyway (except maybe people who come from different cultures). It would be useful to know what a feminist includes here. Rape is not a misunderstanding but a provable act – so I’m deducing this refers to interpretable situations, although crime is mentioned.

32. We’re expected to grit our teeth and put up with disrespectful and objectifying behavior from men because “boys will be boys.”

Whereas it can get nasty at times, women do the same to men, if not worse, nowadays. Plus, define disrespectful and objectifying. To professional offence takers, this could mean just anything at all. It could even mean a compliment.

33. In the workplace, we have to worry about presenting our ideas in a non-threatening manner so that we won’t be labeled “aggressive.”

That may apply to the corporate environment, which most women on this planet have no interaction with. I personally have never met a woman who was afraid, as a professional, to put forth an idea (for this reason anyway). Creativity is normally valued anywhere.

34. But we also have to worry about being assertive, not apologizing too much, and avoiding other behaviors that will get us labeled as “feminine” and consequently ineffective leaders.

Corporate speech again. Not everyone works in a version of The Apprentice. For the most part, it’s just humans interacting with other humans. I’ve got a bit of sad news – when dealing with assholes bent on finding flaws, they will anyway, regardless of what you do or don’t do. There’s no point trying to please an asshole; it’s impossible. The more artificial one’s attitude is in any work environment, the more they will be disliked by genuine folks.

35. Those of us with uteruses are expected to make regular doctors’ appointments, do research on birth control methods, and potentially undergo physical pain or remember a pill every day in order to ensure that an unwanted pregnancy doesn’t occur.

If it’s in your direct interest to avoid an accident, as you would try to avoid any other accident, there is no strife in prevention. After all, a man can just walk away. It’s certainly not unheard of. A woman is left to deal with the consequences – she is therefore the most interested to make sure a pregnancy does not occur if she is certain of not wanting it. Do you remember to put your seatbelt on every time you get behind the wheel? Do you wear protective gear when the work environment demands it? If so, then why is it so fucking hard to make sure you have a condom in your possession or you take your pill regularly?

36. In the case of an unwanted pregnancy, we risk being shamed for the decision we make about it.

In case of an abortion, I’m inclined to think regret is involved more than shaming, when you’re not dealing with self-righteous street saints who threaten others with the fires of hell. In the case of single motherhood, it has become extremely common nowadays so there is little shaming if any, I would think.

37. If we have children, we’re shamed for everything from how we give birth to how we feed them.

BY OTHER WOMEN.

I had to stress that as I’ve briefly come across so-called “mums’ forums”, where strangers stumble in to ask about one thing or another. The acidity which some of the questions were met with showed me in a heartbeat they can be very toxic environments, where everyone’s way is “the right and moral way” and any deviation is unacceptable or even criminal in a moral sense. People there, from what I’ve seen (though again, briefly, so I might be wrong in a general sense, but based on who niche communities operate, I don’t think I am). It’s all about competition, about proving who is the best and most successful at their job, so to speak. To be fair, I’ve never participated in such forums. But seeing what goes on, I wouldn’t want to either. Birth and feeding are actually just two issues. Television or the lack of it, ideologies, religion, freedom, scheduling their lives to the minute etc – anything you say can be used against you. The main focus is fear. Fear of getting something wrong. Even in a fucked up, confused culture.

38. We’re made to worry about what we wear because there’s a chance someone will label it “slutty,” “prudish,” “boyish,” “frumpy,” or some other derogatory term used about women’s clothing.

Again, this is mainly done to women by other women. I see men focus on how women look, in terms of attractiveness, but never hear fashion-related discussions among them. Somehow I doubt they’re very interested.

39. When we go out, we’re encouraged to be hyper-vigilant by keeping our eyes on our drinks, keeping track of our friends, and taking out our keys before we get home in case we’re attacked.

So on the one hand the world is  full of street harassers and men seeking to take advantage of women, and on the other hand, those who show concern (warranted, by their own admission) for women’s safety are responsible for depleting them of emotional resources. Are women supposed to worry about rape and harassment on social media but ignore the possibility in real life? It’s really confusing.

40. During sex, we feel pressure to make artificial faces and noises and fake orgasms in order to turn our partners on and make them feel good about their sexual prowess.

Or maybe you’re watching too much porn and assume that everyone does and feels pressured to imitate it?

41. When we speak out about sexism, we have to deal with backlash and criticism for being “bitchy,” “too sensitive,” or “the PC police.”

In any given situation of thinking one has been wronged, if it’s questionable at all (and 99,9% of these reported “sexism”-related incidents are), one has to keep in mind that there’s still a chance they might be wrong about the “offender’s” reasons for certain behaviour. When non-feminists watch feminists pinpoint sexism with such certainty you’d think their conclusion had been reached in a laboratory, they have every right to distrust them. People who think they cannot be wrong are not to be trusted.

42. If we get angry, we risk being labeled an “angry feminist.”

The notion itself is repetitive. Feminism is based on resentment, anger and frustration, not to mention a victim complex.

43. If we show any emotion, we risk being used as evidence that women are emotional.

There’s nothing wrong with women being emotional; it’s a fact of life. The only women having a problem with it are denying their own nature and are trying to convey a stone block facade.

44. If we cry, we risk someone assuming it’s because we’re on our periods.

I doubt anyone but a close friend with whom banter takes place would refer to your period in any context. I don’t see it happening in public places, at work etc. I just don’t see it.

45. If we actually are experiencing physical or emotional health issues related to our uteruses, we risk being used as evidence that women are irrational.

That is very vague and I don’t see how someone’s ability to reason is affected even by emotional health problems. Being emotionally unstable does not imply being stupid. It’s more of a disconnect between the rational mind and your emotions, which does not mean the rational mind ceases to function and know wrong from right.

46. If we ask for what we want in relationships, we risk our partners labeling us as needy.

If what you want is unrealistic or something they are unable/ unwilling to provide, it might not be the right relationship or you might need to reassess whether you are indeed asking too much. Which is not impossible to do. You cannot expect others to keep adapting to your needs while you are unwilling to compromise.

47. Men we date often expect our full attention while they keep their options open and only devote as much time to us as they want to.

Women do the same nowadays. Selfish people in general do that.

48. People frequently tell us to smile and otherwise adjust our appearance and behavior to make ourselves more pleasing to other people.

I have never experienced or witnessed that. It would be patronising as fuck for an adult to be told what to do to that extent. If you’re referring to advice on how to be more successful when meeting strangers (potential employers, customers etc), seeming approachable is indeed a useful skill. Although if not sincere, a smile can turn into a very strange grimace.

50. When men try to advocate for us, even if they fail miserably and even if they hurt us in the process by promoting benevolent sexism, we’re expected to pat them on the back for their efforts and be grateful our problems are getting any attention at all.

Let’s face it. You lot will never be satisfied, no matter how hard someone tries to accommodate your bullshit. And when they do try, it obviously comes out wrong as it was an unnatural idiocy to begin with. It seems forced,contrived and overdone because it could not be any other way. It’s like trying to deal with the clinically insane and go along with their delusions; nothing that comes out of that situation makes sense, regardless of the good intentions.

For this reason, the emotional labor demanded of us exacerbates other problems women and femmes already face in the workplace, politics, and other realms. We can’t fight for gender equality when we have no energy to devote to it.

It’s funny because to me it seems feminists only have energy for feminism and anything else seems like a black hole to them.

Here’s my take on the little sense I can make out of these fifty points:

  • I want to be completely selfish in everything I do but still seem caring and considerate. Also, I want to see myself as caring (even though I analyse every contact with others through the lens of what I’m getting from it) and others had better lower their standards for me to preserve this illusion.
  • I want to be seen as a victim but to be treated as a strong individual entitled to take offence when someone alludes to my need of protection (mindfuck; I want to have my cake and eat it).
  • I could not care less about most people (all people?) but I still want them to like me, as I worry about what they might think of me in every situation (reminiscent of narcissism).
  • I am unwilling to meet anyone halfway but the entire world had better adapt to my needs.

Feminists, Abortion And The Media – It Doesn’t Get Much Sicker

Three Ways The Media Could Step Up To Stop Abortion Stigma

Whereas many feminist articles are of a cringeworthy stupidity, some are much, much darker. This one is potentially the sickest one I’ve read so far. I think even a segment of those who are pro-choice would agree. These are the main ideas:

  • Television and cinema productions should be used as political propaganda (which is the case already, but not overtly), in order to shape people’s moral values according to cultural Marxism. Depictions of abortion on the screen should be policed for conveying anything but the idea that it is always the right choice.
  • Abortion should be shown “in all its glory”, portrayed as a normal part of life and a positive decision women do not regret, in order to desensitise people into thinking there is no trauma involved.
  • An emphasis should be placed on “all its benefits”, disregarding the “scare tactics” of the “anti-choice” bunch (disregarding disturbing truths about its physical and psychological consequences, as well as the prosperous industry built around it).

Just reading through this is morbid and chilling.

I want to see people on my television having abortions. I want to see them thinking it through, weighing the options, and choosing what’s best for themselves and their families. I want to see people at the clinic, filling out the paperwork.

I want to see them in the procedure room talking to the doctor. I want to see them after their abortions as they wait to go home and in their kitchens having a bowl of cereal the next day.

I want to see people so sure about their choice they don’t think twice, and I want to see people not as sure, but who end up making the decision that’s right for them. I want to see people who never think about their abortions again, as well as people for whom they become a formative experience that impacts their entire life.

These are all things that people experience every single day, and I want to see them on screen. I demand to see them because representation is important, and we all deserve to see the real experiences we have day-in-and-day-out in the media. That’s the only way we can normalize these experiences.

In a matter of years, abortion has gone from being accepted as an extreme choice faced by women in circumstances of extreme pressure, to this – a normal, day-in-and-day-out experience. As a spit in the face to all those who have suffered as a result, in so many ways. The want it promoted. They enjoy watching these scenes;  they demand more of them.

These are the same individuals who also demand trigger warnings in literature courses, yet at the same time, revel in depictions of what is, however you want to frame it morally, a gruesome procedure, as described by medical staff who performed or witnessed it.

Never does this person care about the reality of those who regret having gone through with it. Where are their trigger warnings in this frenzied celebration of death?

The only thing I assume she does not want to see is the bloodied limbs scattered on a tray, the severed heads or the babies born alive and left to die. Or does she?

How long will it be until the above-mentioned images are themselved portrayed as normal, against every natural reaction a human being is born with (if they’re lucky enough to be born, nowadays)? I guess that answers it:

The thing is, though: We don’t just need to see abortions. We also need to see factual representations of what abortion actually looks like.

The only such issues mentioned in the other article (if you click on the link) are “cramps, pain, vomiting and blood”.  I guess the dead body is not factual enough; we can always leave that one out. The little cartoon also adds “the sense of pride in making the right decision”.

Some would argue that going from the acceptance of an irreversible act to pride is a very long stretch.

I also want to see all the people who have abortions.

Women, women of color, teens, mothers, trans men, non-binary people – everybody! I want to see people experiencing what all of these people actually experience.

Of course. Why should they be left out of the macabre party? The tone is very unsettling; it’s almost joyful.

Instead of depicting abortion using medical falsehoods and anti-choice scare tactics, we need more factual and honest representations that show abortion for what it is: just something that happens to some people.

Talking about honesty while omitting the most relevant aspect of this procedure: a dead body having suffered a horrendously violent death.

Decapitation is also something that happens to some people. Quite often, in certain parts of the world. And they surely celebrate it there. It’s true that certain folks – perhaps even most – can be desensitised to witnessing just about anything. All it takes is enough brainwashing and every natural instinct goes out the window.

Later edit

Actually, I was wrong. It does get sicker, but coming from the same band. Here is an article titled “5 Problems With Keep Abortion Rare.

Declared proudly by former President Clinton and repeated by “pro-choice” politicians over the last decade, the phrase often accompanies a plea to keep abortion legal.You’ll see it on signs and banners at an abortion rally,  with the phrase: “Keep Abortion Safe, Legal, and Rare.” This sentiment is often championed and portrayed as “something we can all agree on.” But is it really a desire we have, let alone one that we should be making heard? Is it even right?  How does this kind of logic affect the abortion movement and all those who seek abortions?

Perhaps the logic is in not treating this lightly, as an ordinary occurrence, since it affects lives irreversibly. Perhaps it is in recognising the fact that no one grows up planning to have abortions; it is no one’s intent or desire when starting their intimate life to end up in that situation. Perhaps it is in admitting the difficulty and sensitivity of a decision most times taken after a long emotional struggle. Not to mention the intention to focus on prevention rather than women having to go through this.

As feminists, one would think they are all for this positive focus, instead of encouraging the use of a traumatic procedure as birth control. One would think they want women to experience as little suffering as possible, both physically and mentally. Why not make an issue out of using contraception and reducing the number of abortions then?

1. We Can’t ‘Keep Abortion Rare’ Because It Isn’t

Abortion isn’t rare.

1-in-3 women in the United States will have had an abortion by the time she is 45.

This is an experience that a lot of people have had, and it’s far more common than many of us are willing to admit. Thanks to that big awful bubble of stigma, many of us just keep our stories locked up and hidden away in shame.

Which doesn’t make it the optimal outcome or the status quo in perpetuity.

There were times in history when infant mortality was very high, and mortality in general, due to diseases which are now treatable. Most families would lose a child or two at a very young age, which amounted to grim statistics. And yet, thanks to medicine progressing, those statistics did not last forever.

Also, in our day and age, people are being murdered in remote parts of the world for heresy, homosexuality or adultery. That amounts to very grim statistics indeed – but does not mean that things will remain the same or that change should not be attempted where it is needed.

Beneath the desire to keep abortion rare, people say, is a desire to reduce unintended pregnancies, which is completely legitimate.

Unintended pregnancies are hard, can put undue stress on everyone involved, and can be reduced in pretty simple ways, like better sexuality education and greater access to contraception.

But the word being used here isn’t unintended pregnancies, it’s abortion.

And when people say “keep abortion rare,”they’re promoting a narrative that says abortion is inherently a bad thing.

But abortion isn’t something bad, and it isn’t something to be ashamed of.  It can actually be a positive experience for some people and is something that many people are glad that they have access to when they need it.

It’s unfortunate and hurtful to our movement when people who identify as pro-choice continue to view and promote the perspective of abortion as a “bad” thing and something to reduce.

The author somehow seeks to separate the concept of abortion from that of unintended pregnancies – which is disingenuous. To claim that something is needed and has to happen even though it is fully preventable in most cases is downright absurd.

It is never the ideal outcome – in fact it is the worst possible outcome of a sexual encounter (except maybe for HIV, some would argue). It is not a positive experience, but merely seen as the less disastrous option at one point in time.

The fact is, abortion is a relatively simple medical procedure and should be viewed similarly to other medical procedures in that all those who need or want it should have access to it.

Tell that to the families of the women who died during that “life-saving” “simple” procedure (not to mention their offspring, but I understand they don’t matter anyway).  Or to the women who became infertile. Or to those who are now regretting it.

I have to quote this in full because it’s not only imbecilic but actually chilling.

3. Not Rare, But Accessible

If we need a slogan, why don’t we make it, “Keep Abortion Safe, Legal, and Accessible?”  Because that’s our biggest problem today.

With countless women needing abortions and not being able to have them due to legal, geographical, and financial barriers, the number of abortions in the US is, if anything, actuallytoo low.

When there are women who can’t get an abortion because they live in one of the 87% of counties in America that does not have an abortion clinic, that number is too low.

When there are poor women all over the country who can’t get an abortion because the Hyde amendment prohibits Medicaid from helping women pay for abortions, that number is too low.

When are there are girls under 18 who can’t get abortions because of parental notification laws in their state, that number is too low.

When there are women who don’t get an abortion because of scare tactics through crisis pregnancy centers and mandatory counseling laws, that number is too low.

When there are women who don’t get an abortion because of harassment and violence outside of abortion clinics, that number is too low.

When there are women and girls who don’t get an abortion due to the intense cultural stigma and shame surrounding the medical procedure, that number is too low.

We don’t need to lower the number of abortions happening in a time when too many women who need an abortion cannot get one.

I have to take exception to a couple of points. But first, let’s clarify that the number of preventable deaths and traumas in this world is never too low.

The author mentions women under 18. They are not women. They are minors and need protection from decisions which might harm them in the future. There are reasons these legal statuses are in place. You would not allow a minor to sign a legally binding contract but you would allow them to terminate the life of another human being, without being fully developed psychologically to make sure that decision is something they will not regret or become depressed about.

And since we’re on the subject of minors and their right to their own bodies – why not draw more attention to child brides in the Islamic world, female genital mutilation and teens being  raped by their “husbands” and forced to give birth naturally at a young age, which can cause irreparable damage?

Secondly, they mention the “scare tactics” through crisis pregnancy centres. These centres save lives day in and day out, not only by talking women out of abortions but by pointing them towards relevant resources which actually get them through the difficult times. They do not hide the fact that nothing is irreversible in this world except death. You can never bring back the dead, no matter how much you wish you could. Financial situations can be changed, studies can be paused and resumed. Relationships needn’t be terminated forever because of a disagreement over having or not having a child. And if they are, there are plenty more fish in the sea.

However, this is not the worst of it. The mask falls off completely in the following paragraphs.

4. Who Cares What the Number Is, Anyway?

Why is the number of women who are having abortions really the issue?

And is reducing or altogether stopping the rate of abortion something we really want? Abortions have been happening since the beginning of time, when women used herbs and other methods to self-induce abortions.

Abortions will never not happen – they always have, and they always will.

The difference we are fighting for is how they happen: in back alleys or in clinics? The difference we are fighting for is who can get them: wealthy women who can afford to get past the financial barriers put in place or everyone?

Women are not a statistic. We need to stop focusing on the number of abortions and the“making it rare” concept as if that really says anything.

Women (as well as trans men and genderqueer people) will continue to have abortions, and the number doesn’t matter. What matters is that those who need abortions can get them.

That was Margaret Sanger’s plan as well. Keep the masses in perpetual poverty and get them to kill their offspring, to stop polluting the gene pool with stupidity. That’s the whole idea behind your wonderful Planned Parenthood.

Why care about the numbers? Because there are enough people dying needlessly in this world, through war, starvation, violence and poverty. There is enough violence in this world to encourage people being ripped apart or burned to death in their mother’s bodies. Because there is enough trauma going around to encourage women to commit unchangeable acts, which they might later regret to no avail. Real trauma, that is – as opposed to reading “triggering” material in a classroom.

Because mass death is nothing to be celebrated or ignored.

TRAP laws, the laws that have been put in place to unfairly target and regulate abortion clinics to the point of causing many of them to close, was supposedly about “keeping people safe,”just as mandatory counseling and ultrasounds laws are supposedly about “keeping us informed.”

Stop with the paternalism already. These laws aren’t about protecting people. They’re about hurting them.

Right. Laws about information, sanitation and stopping body trafficking. Laws about protecting minors from being abused and exploited. Laws about not finishing off babies that are already born alive, as they were supposed to in the first place. The link the author provides only mentions rules which seek to ensure that the people performing abortions are certified doctors with a certain standing in the medical community – which would reduce back alley practices, as a human being with a functioning brain can quickly realise. The horror stories in the US are numerous. You can see many of them here, as well as success stories of babies who were saved from abortion  (the link is not showing properly, the letters are the same colour as the background for some reason, but if you click below you’ll find it, and if not the site is called Priests For Life. There must be a technical issue; I cannot get this link to be properly visible:

http://www.priestsforlife.org/

Although I am not a Christian anymore, I have full respect for what they have done and continue to do, as it genuinely saves lives. Father Pavone has done a really great job in revitalising the pro-life movement, through compelling argumentation and direct action towards saving people from being killed.

There are some Westboro-style characters out there, that’s true, picketing and rambling on about sin and the pit of fire in hell in front of abortion clinics. They are only bound to anger people and make them more determined in their thinking. Their only impact can be negative as they spread threats and condemnation instead of hope and alternatives.

But there are also very compassionate and dedicated folks who stand outside these clinics, provide ultrasounds in mobile vans, as well as heartfelt advice – and they deserve all the respect in the world. Because it takes strength of character for someone who realises what the taking of a life is to be in front of a place of such trauma and suffering (which is comparable to an execution wall, except worse), keep their composure and manage to reduce the number of those who suffer by convincing them to rethink. To anyone who is even slightly spiritual it seems unbearable to stand outside a place where you know people are being killed in real time. I personally don’t think I would have the strength to do that.

I don’t even care which God or force of this universe they are praying to – if they do so with the strong, sincere hope that lives will be saved. And if the power of their thought and energy, as well as their action, is enough to change the course of things, it truly is a miracle. With the risk of sounding tacky, it is a small victory for humanity – a victory nonetheless.

So the next time that you see someone at a pro-choice rally with a  “Keep Abortion Safe, Legal, and Rare” sign or hear someone say it, consider starting a dialogue with them.

Talk about how the logic behind that sentiment serves to hurt the abortion movement by further stigmatizing abortion and setting us up for even more aggressive and regulatory anti-abortion laws that make accessing abortion ever more difficult for everyone.

Right, because that’s what feminists seem to idolise.

More death.

Not education, not prevention, not responsible thinking. Just more death.

As far as I know, the western world is not some huge death-worshipping cult. Not consciously, anyway. But these feminists are continually pushing the idea that it should be embraced and promoted.

 

 

The Rich And Spoilt Suffering Over The Gender Binary

Welcome to the pit of gender confusion, where you can drift as far away from reality as your brain cells will allow you before they eventually disintegrate. Presumably, this happens because every atom in your body becomes disoriented, forgetting its natural purpose and refusing to function as it was designed to.

To start with, this is a list of all genders invented so far, which someone took the trouble (and I suspect the headache) to compile. What started as a slight nuancing of male and female stereotypes has morphed into a giant octopus with hundreds of tentacles. The letter A alone encompasses no less than 46 “gender identities”.

Here is a fragment selected at random:

  • Canisgender– A small, doglike gender.
  • Caprigender– A capricious, rapidly changing/untrackable gender.
  • Carmigender– A gender which is poetic and rhythmic in nature.
  • Cassflux– When your level of indifference towards your gender fluctuates.
  • Cassgender– Feeling as if the very concept of gender is unimportant to you.
  • Caveagender–  Having a “trapped” or “imprisoned” gender.
  • Cavusgender– For people with depression. You feel one gender when not depressed and another when depressed. The gender felt whilst depressed can be attached as a suffix (eg cavusboy, cavusgirl, cavusnonbinary, cavusace).
  • Chaosgender– When your gender does a lot of things that have no identifiable pattern or logic.
  • Cheiragender– A fluid gender that is always or often in opposition to its owner’s desires, or is manipulative towards its owner.

     

You might wonder what arguments anyone could bring in favour of this bad acid trip.

Well, there is a very interesting depiction here, in the form of a cartoon, seemingly aimed at pre-school children considering the level of intelligence the artist presumes any reader must have. The text itself is quite funny, in a … morbind sort of way. It’s called “The ultimate breakdown of the gender binary – why it hurts us all.” For an ultimate breakdown, in terms of depth, it reads like something scribbled down in a train station toilet stall.

Suppose we grew up “knowing” there were only two animals: dogs and cats. We’d have to sort completely diffrent animals into two camps! Silly, isn’t it?

On a side note, suppose we grew up “knowing” there were only two types of people: progressives, who possess the ultimate truth and morality (backed up by absolutely no empirical evidence), and the evil rest. We’d have to sort completely different individuals into two camps! Insane, isn’t it?

But that’s what we’ve done with gender!

Except we haven’t. Mother nature has, or whatever you want to call it. The differentiation between sex and gender is a new phenomenon, without which the human species has evolved and thrived since its earliest days. They used to be synonymous; what we have done is redefine the term “gender”. In other words, we turned a word recogising reality into one attempting to reinvent it. This attempt however cannot and will not change reality; not now, not ever. Nature doesn’t operate with abstractions; only humans do.

We do this for rather arbitrary reasons.

Yes; studying and documenting the human body, down to brain chemistry and the way both sexes are affected by it, has always been an arbitrary, futile practice. That’s how we ended up with this international cohort of  weirdoes called doctors, whose utility we only remember when convenient.

The most common argument is that our genitals correspond to our gender.

As mentioned earlier, gender and sex used to be synonymous. One’s genitals correspond to their sex (though they’re trying to demolish that as well now), hence, until recently, they implicitly corresponded to their gender.In this bastardised new understanding, gender is indeed a social construct (which, I repeat, cannot and will never alter reality). And I suppose it may have to be ditched from general use when/ if this madness ends.

We value the physical… over the abstract.

I hate to break it to you but that’s how living beings survive on this planet, at the very basic level. They tend to worry about preserving the physical first, so they would have the opportunity to delve into that fascinating world of ideas and thought systems. For instance by acknowledging their anatomy and the way their bodies work. An otherkin may well think they are an eagle, but would normally know that attempting to fly from a rooftop would be a poorly inspired idea. That is how some people who identify as trans still refuse to mutilate themselves through irreversible operations; it must be the survival instinct inside of them.

This all made sense when I was a child. After all…

And here come some bullying remarks the child makes towards others for being disabled, fat, homeless and short. Therefore, this comparison associates the general acception of sex and gender with an underdeveloped intelect, lack of sufficient education and a lacking ability to empathise – you know, in most people across the planet, all aside from the illumined progressive bunch. Which would be quite insulting, if it could be taken seriously.

As a kid, I was proud to state all the things I knew were “true”… But as I aged, I realised my understanding had an impact on those around me!

The thing is, the weaknesses noticed by young bullies are usually objective observations that they use to their best advantage. What they lack is wisdom and kindness; however it does not mean they are unable to discern reality from fiction.

My values evolved! And yet, most people are still stuck on “gender”.We get ideas about gender. And somehow, they remain stagnant! “I’m a man cuz I can go pee standing up!”

This person’s values may have evolved in terms of feeling compassion and having a different attitude towards those he used to bully – however, values are not meant to distort someone’s perception until they start seeing what isn’t there as real (such as the ever-expanding gender list).

The general acception of what is and isn’t real (aside from spiritual beliefs, which are by default subjective) tends to only change when indisputable discoveries are made about the world. Therefore, there is no need to constantly question the fact that we use our eyes to see and our feet to walk – just as there is no need to re-evaluate male and female genitalia and associated traits.

“This has led to an entire planet… full of people suffering over outdated ideas.”

Perhaps I’m wrong but I doubt the Tumblr crowd ammounts to an entire planet. Across the world, people suffer for a multitude of reasons: war, famine, diseases, poverty, persecution, impairment, the loss of loved ones etc. If a primary cause of suffering was the  antiquated gender binary, that would make one rich, spoilt and secure world. Which it isn’t. This “suffering” is a whim of an immature segment of prosperous societies.

You can tell a lot about a person’s difficulties judging by their priorities. When your house has just burned down you don’t stress over missing a film on television later that night. The more shallow and capricious people are in their grievances, the more obvious it becomes that they don’t have serious problems to worry about.

We have boys who aren’t boyish enough, girls not girlish enough, boys who are too boyish, girls who are too girlish. And they all grow up with serious problems! They’re all victims!

That’s because no individual is spared bullying in this wonderful human tribe; many people seek to raise their self-esteem in the lowest way possible, by exploting the weaknesses of others and feeling better by comparison. Everyone has issues, unpleasant memories and a string of embarrasments throughout life. You cannot be good enough to avoid being taunted or rejected by one group or another. Someone, somewhere will take a dislike to you and express it; if you want to avoid that you might as well hide in a crypt somewhere. Social adversity is part of being human.

In this mindset, we would all, down to the last human being, be considered victims who victimise each other on a daily basis.

Meanwhile, us queer people catch hell just for being queer! If people aren’t going out of their way to harm us? Then we tend to harm ourselves. And it’s all because of this silly, antiquated, dangerous, shallow gender binary!

Hold on a second here. You can’t just include, under the “queer” umbrella, people who genuinely are homosexual or suffer from gender dysphoria and the adepts of made-up concepts such as the one below, randomly chosen from a list of hundreds:

Cendgender– When your gender changes between one gender and its polar opposite, OR a gender that can be summed up as an unidentifiable thing which manifests as hundreds of different genders or none at all at any given time, at the same time and/or separately, fluid, and ever changing.

Gay people were (and are) persecuted for religious reasons, not because of the gender binary, as left by nature and detailed by millennia of studying the human anatomy. As for the Tumblr snowflakes, you cannot talk about the persecution of categories which aren’t even valid; they were literally dreamt up yesterday by people with way too much time on their hands.

It’s time to try something new. Lets’ put the gender binary where it belongs (in the bin). Let’s express our gender as we please.

And in the process, force others to reconsider their idea of gender. Why not; let’s try something new; it sounds as easy as changing your brand of washing up liquid. Let’s just tear down our civilisation, rebuild it according to this new idea and see what happens. It’s not like it could just crumble to dust, like the Roman Empire. This trend is pushing  the gates wide open for those who want to centre their lives around whatever weirdness – and demand that you recognise them, lest you rot in prison.

Is maintaining the gender binary sustainable? Because I don’t think it is!

It’s not like it’s been in place since humans started walking this planet. Suddenly, it’s no longer sustainable. For the feelings of special snowflakes that is. As our species seems to keep advancing, at least techologically, without any hindrance caused by the gender binary monster.

What we’re doing now sure isn’t working for me!

And that’s why the entire world needs to change. Totally reasonable.

Has it done YOU any favours?

This is so funny as an argument that I don’t think it needs any comments.

I’d also like to point out a friendly nudge from the editors of Everyday Feminism, which is very relevant.

How do you defy traditional gender norms?

In other words, from a simple individual preference, defying the gender norms has become some sort of political statement or even social obligation we should all partake in.

Nice try.

Celebrities’ Opinions – Why They Can Shove Them

p1aon5lm9l1j8nan1htags6go34

Right up their most marketable body part.

It is often said that opinions are like assholes – everybody’s got one. And they are more than entitled to it, as well as expressing it in every way they see fit. The problem arises when some people, from an arrogance brought on by their popularity, come to believe that their opinions – often derived from insufficient knowledge – are axioms and start proselytising to those who admire them.

In this post I’m not referring to those with actual expertise in their fields, whose conclusions are well studied and carry more weight than simple opinions thrown around in society.

I am referring specifically to shallow entertainers who use their platforms in the attempt to create social changes (sometimes radical ones), based on nothing more than their likeability.

It is no secret that political campaigns today (in fact, since the days of Edward Bernays) are nothing more than marketing and centre on how appealing, how likeable politicians can be made to appear. Their agendas and promises are intermingled with aspects of human interest such as their dancing, singing, praying or apparent moments of spontaneity (well rehearsed in advance, of course). If ever there was an informative Hollywood production, it’s definitely Wag The Dog.

In this exercise and through exposure by the media, among film stars and singers, politicians are (even subconsciously) regarded as entertainers – and the reverse is true as well: through the size of their platforms, entertainers have become social reformers, even when they show no depth or life experience.

I’m in no way saying that someone who becomes famous for a talent cannot be brilliant at discussing very important issues. But the reality today is that many celebrities are the mouthpieces of those who finance them and seem to form an ideological clique in order to remain favoured. The leftist, Marxist bias is plain to see in the film and music industry, which are tools of indoctrination.

And often, the victims of this indoctrination are young, regarding these people as  sources of knowledge and virtue (I know this is a platitude yet it’s reality, judging by the thousands/ hundreds of thousands/ millions of youngsters who follow them on social media, intoxicating themselves with their every word). They mobilise so many in pointless campaigns, petition signing and can even influence votes (which may or may not matter, but still, it’s a sad phenomenon to be persuaded by those who have such little contact with real life anymore).

They have replaced the priesthood of olden days, which used to mediate between heads of state and the populace, urging “commoners” to support whatever decision was made by the ruling class. Our society has replaced theism with celebrity worship, thinking one must know better if they pose in bikinis or kick a ball around for a living.

With the aid of social media, anything that comes out of a celebrity’s orifice can become international news within 15 minutes, as if it actually mattered. Some even have their own “cults”, so to speak, with fanclubs choosing nicknames for fans and “battling” each other in Facebook and Twitter wars. Barbz, Selenators, Lovatics… It’s like something out of Babylon 5.

Besides aiding politicians to appear more human through photo opportunities, they weigh in on the day’s hottest topics and shape debates by the sheer numbers they influence. The recent case of Harambe the gorilla, (which took the limelight away from much more important issues such as massacres abroad) was very unsettling in terms of watching these very rich, well protected individuals direct a witch hunt against those who were accidentally involved in the situation. They did so from their comfortable luxury homes, presumably surrounded by security, as their targets, a simple working family, had nowhere to hide from death threats and half a million hysterical people calling for their lynching. Which is, of course, disgusting.

While they engage in mental masturbation over their principles, tweeting beside a 300$ champagne bottle, they are able – and likely – to encourage, if not cause actual violence. Perhaps those who have the ability to incite hate mobs instantaneously might want to think twice before posting messages regarding who should be killed or jailed in certain situations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sexism Again. The Horror.

Trying to decide whether this is a good laugh or an insufferable migraine, one thing comes to mind: today’s feminists would rather date the horsemen of the Apocalypse before going near any normal, nature-driven man. In fact, they would probably date the horses instead.

Twelve signs that your date is sexist (read misogynistic, as the article only covers men’s “crimes”). This seems to be the perfect recipe for women to remain alone for the rest of their lives, never thinking that when everything seems problematic, it might be them who have the actual problem.

Online dating has made this task a bit easier. OKCupid questions like, “Do you think women have the obligation to keep their legs shaved?” are designed to weed out misogynists.

You’re also going to weed out rational people, who avoid those who make a point out of drawing negative attntion by doing things which do not benefit them whatsoever (such as not shaving their legs). The sheer act of doing something pointless or detrimental just as a big middle finger to the world shows a hostile personality, in a perpetual need of defying everyone around them. If this defiance consisted of an intellectual endeavour, it would likely be praiseworthy; however, feminists do not see beyond the basest levels of human existence.

But sometimes, even if your profile screams out “I AM AN INTERSECTIONAL QUEER FEMINIST WHO ABHORS THE GENDER BINARY,” you may still find yourself on a date with someone whose actions don’t reflect this philosophy.

Not fucking likely. I trust not even those who are desperate for a one night stand would go near someone who has severe identity issues. They might just end up with a bunny boiler.

While this problem disproportionately affects women who date men, since more women than men are feminists, it’s definitely applicable to people of all genders and sexual orientations.

Can someone explain to me how a gay person could be sexist towards their date, when only dating people of their own sex?

If you notice any of these signs on a date, I would advise you to reconsider your next date with the person exhibiting them.

As you will see below, not only are most of these reasons ludicrous in terms of causing offence, but the thought that one should instantaneously give up on the other person if they come across any of them shows just how petty – and hopeless – feminists can be.

They act surprised when you defy stereotypes

A guy I was dating once asked me how I pictured my wedding when I was little. When I told him I had given literally no thought to tablecloths, centerpieces, or bridesmaid dresses, he responded, “Really? I thought girls dreamed about that stuff.” It became clear to me that he had a different idea of what being a girl meant than I did. (…) Assumptions of any sort prevent people from getting to know who you actually are.

Talk about a storm in a tea cup. Anyone who thinks such innocent remarks are enough to ring alarm bells can be sure to remain alone – until they quit that attitude, that is.

They praise women or insult men based on stereotypes

It may seem nice for a guy to say that he respects women because of their moral superiority, but as the Dalai Lama’s recent comments demonstrated, benevolent sexism (the kind behind claims like “the female biologically [has] more potential to show affection”) can be linked to less benevolent statements.

And if a man believes that men, on the other hand, are aggressive or unable to control their sexual urges, there’s a good chance he considers himself in that category and views that behavior as excusable.

In other words, if they utter the bullshit they imagine a feminist might like to hear, self-flagellating because they consider that to be the new norm (encouraged by our female-worshipping culture), not only they are insulting you but they are also likely to embody the negative characteristics feminists keep attributing to them. By condemning these behaviours in others, apparently, men are actually endorsing or even embracing them.

Most men are pieces of shit! says the feminist. Especially if they deny it! Wait a minute, here’s one who agrees in order to get on my right side. It must all be true then! He must be a piece of shit. Who knew that I was right all along!

Unbelievable.

Un-fucking-believable that this can be the product of a human mind capable of stringing two sentences together.

They compliment you by contrasting you with other women

Compliments like, “You’re not like most girls” or “You’re not the typical girl” aren’t really compliments. There’s a slight chance that it could just mean you’re a character and they’ve never met anyone like you. But if they view being unlike most girls as a compliment, they probably don’t have a high opinion of most girls.

Let’s recap: they insult you if they don’t appreciate the fact that you defy stereotypes. However, they also insult you if they specifically appreciate you for it. Which is it again?

How can it be anything other than a compliment for someone to say you’re on the same wavelength as them, more than anyone they’ve ever met? Isn’t this how couples are formed in the first place? Is he also dating the rest of the world’s female population at the same time, or is he dating you? Are you actually interested in the guy or in promoting feminism? From a subsequent point, it becomes very clear.

I once met a guy on OKCupid who went on a rant on our second date about how women on the site weren’t responding to his messages.

This was “unjust,” he said.

I was particularly shocked because I, too, get frustrated by a lack of responses to my OKCupid messages. But I had never even thought to turn that frustration back on the people who decided not to message me with their own free will. (…) Someone who feels it is “unjust” for women to say “no” to them may not respect when you say “no” to something they want.

There’s something about common courtesy feminists just don’t seem to get. The women were not saying “no”; they simply weren’t responding. Forget the stupidity of dating sites in general – it’s a matter of effortless politeness to let someone know exactly where they stand so they can stop wasting their time. How long does it take?

It’s the same with job applications from companies which don’t take the a minute to at least send an automated message to applicants that there is no chance of them getting the job. Someone can end up waiting for weeks on a response (which may not come at all).

They buy into pickup artistry

Secondly, they usually subscribe to stereotypes that men are sexually predatory and women are prey to be caught.

Though I fully agree that these men are shallow and full of themselves, it’s not necessarily a sexist attitude. It doesn’t mean they view  all women in such ways, but they do view certain types, which they try to take advantage of. If they approach you like that, they must think you are one of those types (generally stupid, too easy ot too drunk to care). However, if you’re over fifteen and not into Fifty Shades of Grey, you’re most likely not in danger of falling for bullshit which can be spotted from miles away.

They undercut your statements about sexism with rebuttals about how hard men have it

Men do have it hard in some ways, but that doesn’t undercut the fact that women are systematically viewed as inferior and the “other” in our society. There is room to talk about the challenges faced by each gender without making it a competition. Anyone who responds to your lived experiences of sexism without compassion lacks, well, compassion.

Speaking of competitions: these points could in all earnest compete for the title of the most contradictorily argumented idea. The runner up and the rest would only lose by a close margin.

The second phrase contradicts the first one. Therefore, women by default have it harder, yet the whole debate is not a competition of who is more oppressed nowadays. Regarding the lived experiences of sexism, if they are enything like what this article lists, compassion is the last response they would ever generate (more like perplexity).

They deny that sexism even exists

A lot of people still love to debate proven facts, like that one in three to five women are sexually assaulted in college and that women who work full-time make 77 percent of what men make.(…) If someone denies that women experience sexism or views conversations about sexism as intellectual challenges that present the opportunity to play the devil’s advocate, their ability to empathize (or, as the Dalai Lama would say, “potential to show affection”) is probably not great.

Empathy has nothing to do with discussing numbers. Systemic sexism can be proved or rebutted with cold hard facts.And demolished it has been by so many outspoken critics so far, in the clearest, most logical of manners. Calling a long disproven fact a “proven fact” makes feminists either wilfully ignorant or duplicitous.

Also, the next time you speak to the Dalai Lama, mind and ask him how he feels about feminists calling him sexist.

They complain about political correctness

Complaining about political correctness is putting your right to hurt someone’s feelings above their feelings. Someone who sees political correctness as an affront to their freedom of speech is likely to care more about their ability to make rape jokes than your comfort and unlikely to listen when you’re uncomfortable.

Perhaps the people doing so are not ignorant of history and the monstrous systems censorship produces, in the name of “righteousness” or more recently, “feelings”. If someone caring more about jokes than your feelings is immoral, those who care more about their feelings than other people’s livelihoods or physical freedom are certainly not capable of compassion. They are cruel, capricious and narcissistic, willing to ruin lives because they feel offended.

They say something racist, homophobic or otherwise bigoted

Someone who is not interested in examining their privilege and figuring out how they can be more sensitive to perspectives other than their own is not likely to be a champion for women’s rights.

Otherwise bigoted could mean anything the author / evaluator of the hopeless candidate wants it to mean. And not being interested in examining your priviege is not the same as gratuitously expressing disdain for one category or another based on inherent traits.

The more important question remains whether you’re looking for a romantic partner or a political ally to expand your echo chamber. If the latter is true, why not tell them from the very beginning, instead of playing detective with this person’s mind? Another issue is that the author simply assumes that every woman is looking for a male feminist.

The other points refer to men who are rude, obnoxious or pushy – I doubt however that if it’s in their nature to be so, they would only display that in the company of women.

The end is sublime though.

Sometimes you’ve got to kiss a few sexist frogs before you find a feminist prince, but they’re out there.

The feminist prince must encapsulate the following: he must be neutered, he should be on strong psychotropics which inhibit his ability to reason and must be very, very desperate (desperate enough to sit through hours of dreary conversations to get some action in bed). Otherwise, try someone with a fetish for taming impossible women. Other combinations are unlikely to ever work.