Tag Archives: stereotypes

“Whitesplaining” – Face Palm!

In this evermore divisive progressive tsunami, which seems bent on pitting ordinary people against each other for no logical reason, a new term has emerged from the depths of the cognitive abyss: “whitesplaining”. This would refer to a white person discussing racism with a person of colour in order to find alternative explanations for an instance which the latter perceived as racist; apparently, they have no right under the sun to do so.

It’s not like as human beings we are all equal, should feel free to speak and exchange opinions on any matter. It’s not like a person can ever overreact when it comes to what others mean to say and might – just might – be wrong about a particular situation.

But while these well-meaning reasons for correcting me feel true, it’s also true that you can act on subconscious, implicit biases leading you to dismiss what I have to say because I’m Black.

In an age when it’s so popular to be an amateur psychoanalyst, we often see people dismissing others – all the while admitting their arguments make some sense – on the basis of suspecting a subconscious bias. Which is something anyone can engage in, as it requires no proof; it requires nothing but the absolute wish of the amateur psychoanalyst to impose their view at all cost.

For many people, it’s tempting to speak up when you encounter a fact you believe is wrong. Correcting someone seems pretty straight forward – so does it really relate to racism?

In certain cases, it does. And if you’re a white person talking with a person of color about racism, it’s best to keep this possibility in mind.

Because of white supremacy, many white people – especially white men, who are alsoinfluenced by patriarchy – have been conditioned to speak over other people and dominate spaces.

This is followed by a few more paragraphs which have nothing whatsoever to do with the heading, which is about facts and contradicting others when the facts they present are wrong (to one’s knowledge anyway). Facts are empirical, objective, obtained from trustworthy sources; stating them is in no way connected to the lengthy whine about how white people “think they are entitled to talk over others”.

Presenting a fact which contradicts the narrative of the person you’re speaking to has nothing to do with their race or any other characteristics.

There’s nothing wrong with clearing up information if you come across something you believe is incorrect. But approach the situation with some humility. Ask questions to figure out why there’s a difference between what I’m saying and what you believe is true.

You might find that your information is wrong, that I interpret it differently, or that we’re on the same page, but I use different language rooted in my experience. And you’ll probably learn something new.

“That I interpret it differently” is not an argument against any proven fact.

So it’s not up to you to decide what I should be offended by. Save your whitesplanation if you want to explain why I’m overreacting to a well-meaning compliment (which isn’t a complimentat all) by cringing at “you’re pretty for a Black girl.”

After I’ve dealt with microaggressions on a daily basis for so long, it’s just cruel to expect me to minimize my feelings about racism.

First of all, several paragraphs list this one imaginary “compliment”, you’re pretty for a Black girl, as an argument (and I’ve seen it elsewhere on the site). Please explain to me how this manner of approaching a person would even germinate in the mind of someone who doesn’t suffer from severe mental retardation.The only type of person likely to think that way (but not stupid enough to say it to a woman he’s attracted to) would be a genuine racist. And a genuine racist is not likely to approach you in the first place.Anyone with a brain can see that is not a compliment. Hence listing it as an example of dodgy compliments you receive and throwing the rest in with it is intellectually dishonest.

Like so many whitesplainers, you believe what you say is important because you have logic on your side. Objectivity is an understandable goal, but think about what it means to believe you’re the only one who can bring “reason” into the conversation.

The truth is that you’re just as biased as anyone else – your perspective is influenced by your own experiences and position of privilege. That also gives you a biased point of view on what “objectivity” means.

What position of privilege? Would you say the same to a homeless person or one that has lived in poverty all their life, just because of skin colour? How racist is that?

There is no possible bias regarding what objectivity means. Bias and objectivity are antithetical notions. Here’s a definition:

“judgment based on observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices”

For instance, have you ever felt the need to point out that a person of color was “generalizing” white people when they talked about racism?

Of course. Only when reading bullshit articles from bullshiters on bullshit websites; such an interaction has not presented itself in real life yet (perhaps because most people’s heads are not so full of bullshit). The logical reason one would raise the issue is that such a generalisation is indeed racist.

Except there’s actually a problem with rushing to say that “not all white people” are part of the problem of white supremacy.  If I focused on reassuring every white person that they’re not personally responsible, then nobody would get the chance to examine how they might contribute (..)

Therefore they are a problem, all down to the last one, and all just might contribute to a system of thought which is actually marginal in western societies. Not racist at all, huh?

OK; I’m done quoting as I just don’t have the patience or stomach for this stuff.

My two cents on this issue: when people empathise with others who have been subjected to real racism, it’s not because of the race of the latter; it’s because we’re all human an can all put ourselves in the shoes of someone who has suffered as a result of discrimination. Solidarity is meant to create unity, not more division. 

The reason people engage you in a debate is because they presume your intelligence; your rational capability; your ability to discern one situation from another – as opposed to presuming you would think or feel in a certain way because of your race.

The only thing this type of rhetoric achieves is turning potential racists into full-blown ones, as well as scaring off people who are inclined to feel insecure about relating to those of  a different ethnicity, race or background, for fear of stepping on a landmnine of oversensitivity. 

No good comes out of this. None whatsoever.

“Decolonial Love” – Politicising Your Hormones

If you’re one of those people who worry about discriminating against others by exhaling carbon dioxide, with the aid of intersectional feminism you can reach a whole new level of devotion: you can now fight oppression by politicising your romantic relationships.

All you have to do is rewire your brain in order to only experience attraction towards individuals in social categories classed as underprivileged. Sounds easy, right…? Forget the fact that this has no discernible purpose under the Sun – your only goal in life should be the application of feminist principles in every little thing you do, say or even experience internally (while reassuring yourself that feminism is not actually a cult).

If you need to alter your brain chemistry and subconscious mind in order to manipulate your attraction criteria, so be it. Your hormones are supremacist.

During his speech, Diaz introduced the concept of decolonial love with an “apocalyptic proclamation”: “We’re never gonna get anywhere as long as our economies of attraction continue to resemble more or less the economies of attraction of white supremacy.”

In other words, if we cannot change the thinking around who and how we love, as a society, we’ll stay stuck in the ideology of colonialism.

Making our love decolonial is a necessary step to a completely decolonial self, because if we don’t let go of our privileges and closely examine how the forces of oppression play out in our love lives, we are powering the existing injustices of the world.

And the existing forces of oppression for decolonial lovers to fight are numerous: patriarchy, heterosexism, skinny worship, classism, ableism, and what Diaz aptly calls “pigmentation politics.”

In other words, by feeling sexually, emotionally, intellectually attracted to people who are considered privileged – white, heterosexual, “cisgender” etc – we are contributing to the perpetuation of injustice against other categories. As if somehow the community – or the world at large – owned each one of  us down to the bone marrow, holding us accountable for decisions regarding our personal happiness, which have no impact on others. You can’t get more fanatically socialist than that.

These people must live and breath oppression theories every second of their day; they are so high on their own fumes they don’t realise how much these fantasies of micromanaging each individual are straying from human nature.

In former communist countries, each citizen was expected to be completely subjugated to the ideology of the party; to be immersed in it and energised by it. No intrinsic value was to be held in higher regard and no other loyalty was to be prioritised – not even to family members. As such, even small choices made daily were filtered through what the party wanted from an ideal citizen. The same mentality is shared by this so-called social justice crowd.

Your personal happiness means nothing in the grand scheme of things. Hail the matriarchy; everything for the cause! Your entire life should be a shining example of a devoted, practicing feminist – and nothing else.

Some people think it means reserving our love and respect only for people of color (POC) or queer (LGBTQIA+) folks — or especially queer folks of color. That is not the case, as only loving any group of people can fall into exotification or fethishization.

All throughout, the author remains concerned only with the object of the debate, namely those who are more worthy of love than others – never with those she is asking to rewire their hormonal drive in some weird bid to exclude the “privileged” from their desires, which is extremely racist, by the way. What is this supposed to achieve, again? Who would this help and how? The “especially” points out that there is a rank of desirability based on how many oppression badges someone can collect. And the warning follows closely – love them very much, but not too much, as too much would also be insulting.

Since the LGBT community is mentioned, may I ask how a gay person only loving gay people is guilty of exotification or fetishisation? I imagine she would not demand that straight folks reserve their romantic interest for queer folks or vice-versa. So this fetishisation caper doesn’t make any sense between categories which do not interact on a romantic level.

It appears that a significant swathe of the addressees of this moralising piece must be the ones singled out as less lovable – white, heterosexual, “cis” people.

The concept of love as decolonial is not opposed to loving someone deemed desirable by society (in other words, an individual who is able-bodied, conventionally attractive, wealthy financially and socially, and/or comes from a first world country).

The issue is when we are only attracted to those kinds of people and not open to making a romantic or emotional connection with others.

Can I also ask why are anyone’s preferences an issue stretching farther than their private lives ? Whose business is it exactly? Where a person comes from matters for very logical reasons, in terms of the culture they were brought up in. There could be major discrepancies based on that.

I can’t believe I even have to say this, but people don’t actively choose whom they are attracted to. It’s an instinct. What they do with that is a whole different matter – yet that does not alter their initial drive and intrinsic selection criteria.

Just as no one actively chooses to be gay or straight. In fact, LGBT activism is based on the idea of following one’s natural inclinations in terms of attraction, while resisting societal pressures to live conventionally. Whether or not they see themselves as revolutionaries defying the status quo, these lefties are still trying to pressure others regarding a very personal matter. There are trying to set moral norms in an area which needs no intervention or regulation.

Anyhow, the disclaimer was a blatant lie, as you can read below.

The first step to addressing the colonial mindset is awareness. Awareness is key to retraining our reflexes and stopping habits in their tracks.

When I first came to the US, I had a crush on every blond-haired, blue-eyed boy in my class. In my way of thinking, those were the characteristics of a good person. Clearly, I had been exposed to some white supremacy in my early years in China. But when I realized what was at work that magnetized me — and many others — to whiteness, I was no longer so helplessly attracted to those traits.

While questioning what we take for granted can be hard work, it is made exponentially easier if we have practice.

Therefore, this whole movement is not concerned with the inclusion of certain categories but the explicit exclusion of others. Or rather, the exclusion of a specific one, I should say.

Due to this presentation, an individual who “likes Asian women” may think of that as a “preference,” when in reality, it’s a learned form of prejudice that’s based on fetishizing an entire group of people. The same can be said if you rule out an entire race as unattractive or unsuitable. In both cases,it is the stereotype that is deciding, not you.

Excuse me…? What was it you were saying about white people and making a conscious, successful effort to stop being attracted to them, because of colonialism? Isn’t that ruling out a race as unsuitable? Isn’t that letting the stereotype decide? Incredible double-think.

For example: If we are less emotionally invested in our partners, we may end up with the upper hand in the relationship while the other person feels powerless.

There are ways to de-escalate the commitment level without making the other person feel disrespected or powerless. If you communicate your level of commitment clearly, and the other person is still willing to engage in a relationship based on that knowledge, then neither person is taken advantage of.

Treating romantic relationships as pure power dynamics is par for the course with feminism, which rejects the idea of actual love. That’s why, even though “investing emotionally” was involved, the author shies away from the word “love” and uses less intense ones which make the situation seem less personal.

Even in equally committed relationships, it is good to check in about how empowered and respected you feel by your partner and vice versa.

Why not, check in regularly, to verify both parties are still satisfied with the arrangement. Fill out an “equal partner” satisfaction form every month and rate the empowerment you are experiencing.

Engage your decolonial muscles. Build them up. Because we want it to be a fair fight between the reflexes we have inherited and the ones we have chosen for ourselves.

Again – to what avail would this “fight” take place, if not the complete submission to SJW principles, against one’s own natural inclinations?

For the time being, it seems producing these grand ideas vigorously engages people’s decolonial muscles.

Obsessed With Race

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  1. Don’t focus only on her race

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No shit! I need a cigarette.

Gossip: Small Talk For Small Minds

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

gossips

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

Looks

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

Money

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

Marriage

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

Parenting

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

Socialising 

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

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

 

 

“Calling Out Misogynists” – Really Funny

 

Feminism-page-0

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

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

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

 

Anyway. Moving on to the perpetrators.

  1. “Manterruptors” 

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

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

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

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

This is logic doing the splits.

2. “Emotional labour dodgers”

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

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

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

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

3. The “manspreader”

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

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

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

4. “Manbabies” and accidental manipulators

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

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

5. Unauthorised advice givers

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

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

6. The “mansplainer”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. Racist sexualisers 

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

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

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

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

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

9. Cis-sexists

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

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

10. Fetishisers of non-consensual pain

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Um…. No, thanks.

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

The False “Bad-ass Woman” Hollywood Pushes

Over the years, to feminists’ masturbatory joy and impacting on young minds, we have witnessed an unrealistic ideal films promote among women. Hollywood heroines have the right temper, moves and strength to get themselves out of any situation, no matter how perilous.  As usual, I tend to disagree.

Fighting men

For a woman who is not highly trained or a body builder, let me just say that attempting to fight an actual man is not an option with a happy ending.

As motivating as those highly choreographed films are, of fit women “kicking ass” left right and centre, surely you realise those are just politically correct fantasies and  not rooted in reality. Men are naturally stronger; so much stronger that even trying is idiotic. It might seem plausible while high on speed, but real life is very different. You should never engage in a physical fight lacking some kind of prop (mace, a blunt object, you name it). And obviously, only when this is absolutely justified.

I can even give an anecdotal example. A few years ago, I ended up in a situation of trying to help out one man who was in a very unfair situation, being attacked by four other men simultaneously. Not very pleasant and adrenaline-rising indeed (by the way, I was not high on anything, just plain sober, whilst they were all drunk, which is supposed to make them weaker, apparently). My only pathetic attempt was trying to remove one of the three guys pinning him down on the ground- though I tried with all my strength, the guy didn’t move an inch; he didn’t even budge. In fact, I’m confident I never moved one hair on his body. And I’m also confident that if he had retorted, he would’ve put my lights out for the night. The only way they stopped was by hearing a blaring siren approaching.

That’s not to say that I’m not ordinarily strong; in fact I have handled quite a few situations where many women would request help in terms of lifting and the likes, and have often taken some measly pride in it. However, when it came down to an actual physical confrontation, I could not even make that guy flinch.

The female killer

Naturally, women are designed for giving, nurturing and assisting life, even against their better judgement.

The core of femininity is now being sabotaged by those wishing to normalise the profile of the ruthless woman taking lives without thought or remorse. Such women exist, obviously, and just as obviously, they are deranged.

We have female politicians nowadays who endorse war and justify the killing and maiming of civilians. They are clearly psychopathic.

There are also women who voluntarily join wars of liberation – and that is completely understandable in those circumstances.

But the false stereotype Hollywood has been pushing,  of the female version of a trigger-happy alpha male on steroids,  is completely unrealistic.

Most women should be able to see that and not be drawn by that mirage of so-called empowerment.

Women are being hit, just like men, with poisonous, damaging stereotypes many will end up internalising as they grow up.

Let’s hope nature prevails in the end.

Feminism, Monopolising Human Rights

A while ago, a debate took place between Sargon of Akkad and feminist Kristi Winters regarding feminism being (or not being) a force for good in this world. Whereas most of her arguments were typical, at one point she said something a bit disturbing – that anyone who studies gender issues is doing feminism by default, whether they want to be associated with it or not. Being forcefully associated with an ideology is as ridiculous as things can get.

“If you’re looking at the gender norms in society, you’re doing feminism”

When confronted about the absurdity of claiming this monopoly, she replied by saying “science works with theories” and by defining theories; she went on to say that data cannot be analysed without a “theoretical framework”. In other words, human beings with a functioning brain and the willingness to use it cannot possibly evaluate data without academia intermediating their thought processes by offering them a preset methodology. There can be no coherent thinking in order to reach valid conclusions, outside of this “theoretical framework”. The problem some academics seem to have is that they get so lost in the mire of this pretentious language they end up dismissing what is plain old common sense.

Another instance of patenting what is not to be patented lies  in this article, entitled “How Men’s Rights Activists Hijacked The Circumcision Debate”. Apparently, to the people responsible for this in depth reflection, it does not make sense that men’s rights activists approach an issue which is directly related… well, to men’s rights.

On paper, intactivism is a legitimate human rights effort to end routine infant circumcision. But in fact, many branches of the movement have become sinister and downright ugly, because Men’s Rights Activists (MRA) have hijacked the cause as part of their mission. The MRA-fueled rhetoric is a bizarre amalgamation of sexist slurs paired with carefully calculated and co-opted feminist language surrounding body autonomy and consent.

In other words, any rhetoric defending body integrity as well as autonomy is by default appropriated from feminism, as – we deduce – men cannot have original thoughts related to their own bodies.

It seems these groups simply cannot be left alone and must be attacked even when they deal with a matter which is totally unrelated to feminism. What is entirely a men’s issue suddenly becomes these ladies’ problem. After listing the legitimate reasons why circumcision is not normally needed or moral (since it deprives men of  consent in an irreversible decision), she goes on to say this:

But it’s harder for people like me to argue for rethinking routine circumcision when the movement is full of anti-feminist hate.

Call me nuts, but your decision to argue for it probably shouldn’t be based on your ego, since the children affected have nothing to do with your acceptance into the movement by men, MRAs specifically. Even if the exclusion of all feminists is unfair, it should have no bearing on how they feel about the issue. Of course, provided that feminists actually are needed in this movement and are not trying to infect it as the do with everything else they touch.This article is proof of the fact that wherever they seek to join up, they bring the imposition of pro-feminist attitudes with them.

Like anti-abortion extremists, who frame their argument around the idea that abortion is murder, intactivist extremists contextualize circumcision as a sex crime to motivate a vigilante-style roundup of criminals.

Or maybe they just want to stop the violent, barbaric practices, in both situations, and employ shock tactics to a positive end – although some people, such as your ilk, would not even react to that, being far too dazzled by abstract concepts such as “choice” and “liberation”. In truth, your ilk is so triggered by  words and concepts but fails to be moved by brutally honest reality.

Oddly, while mirroring tactics of the extreme right, they simultaneously co-opt marginalized narratives for their own ends. Phrases like “gender equality begins at birth” and “his penis, his choice,” mimicking feminist slogans, can also be found sprinkled amongst intactivist protest signs.

“Marginalised narratives” – as if everything that has to do with women or feminism is doused in oppression, even after they’ve had their desired “equality” for decades. Again, reality ceases to matter; labels and concepts are all feminists can operate with. It is only fair for these slogans to be mirrored back to them.

Extremist demonstrators accost physicians at medical conferences and at hospitals and follow them around with cameras, screaming “PENIS BUTCHER!” They take video of this harassment and post it proudly on the Internet, Operation Rescue-Style. But doctors aren’t the only targets. You’ll also find intactivist extremists harassing mothers, both at public protests and online. And when they’re dealing with women, their vitriol gets even grosser. Mutilation Watch, an intactivist “watchdog” page, shares parents’ personal Facebook posts, often via the “share” button from the original post, and pictures of their infants to a public audience of thousands.

That is indeed disgusting and they sound like utter nutcases who should be stopped from targeting people for something they (most likely) don’t realise is cruel, since it is common practice and recommended by some doctors,.However, coming form a feminist, and a progressive in general, I can’t help but see the irony when discussing this type of vitriol.

When I posted an article, I had written detailing my experiences with the sexism in intactivism to my website’s Facebook page, the thread became filled with violent antifeminist rhetoric from the intactivist community: “Leave it to a feminazi to turn a men’s rights issue into a ‘feminist’ issue.”

Perhaps reframing generally abominable behaviour in feminist terms and, as progressives like to put it, “appropriating” this issue, was not the brightest idea, particularly since feminists commonly engage in practices such as doxxing. Personally disagreeing with the tactics these men employ is one thing – but to frame it as an attack on feminism was bound to get the results it ended up getting. Granted that the vitriol is a sad phenomenon of our times and men being needlessly abusive is just as sickening as women doing it to them. And granted that the very existence of these organisations militating for men’s rights is a sad thing – the need for it is a consequence of the lack of natural balance in the west. But the fact remains feminism as a whole cannot claim moral superiority, considering the tactics it employs towards shaming those who think differently.

A good number just said, “thank you,” or “I, too, had to stop associating with intactivism because of this.”

That just shows the nature of many militant groups and what they degenerate into, unfortunately. Which also applies to feminism, of course.

The article goes on to the eternal debate of who can score more oppression points – men or women; feminists or MRAs. As a bystander, appalled by what both groups end up doing at times (though of course they are not homogeneous), I can only say that many of them deserve each other’s company.

Feminism is not a force for good by far. It is responsible for absurdities such as this women’s proliferation on how she doesn’t trust male gynecologists not to have ulterior motives for their career choice. By association, what would it say about proctologists or podologists (the latter would be foot fetishists maybe) or about vets? But no; the world revolves around vaginas; they are golden. I’ll have this sort of person know that women can be far cruder and nastier when making comments about female bodies in a hospital. I’ve seen it happen; it is a truly humiliating experience for those who are exposed to the highest possible degree and are judged by some frustrated, passive-aggressive nurse who seeks to give them “helpful advice” on how to stop looking shit after they’ve just given birth. If men judge in this circumstance, you can be sure they keep it to themselves. You can bet that it is preferable.

The Progressive Art Of Fucking Up Valid Points

Have you come across people who express a perfectly good point, to then ruin it with ludicrous arguments? For a while, this article gave me hope in terms of finding decent rationales on that (disturbingly absurd) platform. It is based on the concept of vegan campaigns being inconsiderate to the suffering of human beings, prioritising animals over them.

The article mentions a case of  police brutality against a man from an ethnic minority (in the US), who intended to perform a ritual involving a seal, in a public place. I’ll take their word for it as the video has been deleted, but unfortunately sounds very plausible. Apparently, there was nothing violent about it; however, hysterical onlookers called the police, afraid that harm would come to the animal, and the police, without reason, evidence or provocation, had beaten the man to the point of breaking some of his bones. As this was happening, the ones who had called – whose sole excuse would be mental illness – filmed the event, which had reduced one woman to sobs, not out of guilt regarding the severe abuse an innocent man had suffered because of her paranoia, but from the emotional “trauma” she had suffered by fearing that the seal would be hurt. This case is indeed disgusting and deserves all the public attention it can get, to exemplify how things have gone way too far for some animal lovers.

However, here’s where the approach screws up.

It’s not okay to use the protection of animals as a validation for the perpetuation of state violence on marginalized bodies or the continued colonization of cultural heritages we’re struggling to sustain.  

Being able to empathize and fear for a seal and not for the Native man being beaten, or the Black man being shot, is a symptom of white supremacy and colonization.  

This has nothing to do with minority status. It has everything to do with some people valuing animals more than humans – of any race, ethnicity, culture etc. If the unfortunate victim of communal hysteria, stupidity and baboon-like behaviour had been white, there would’ve been no difference at all in terms of the injustice. That person was innocent, wrongfully suspected, wrongfully accused and brutalised without provocation. These are the aspects which matter, ethnicity being the last on the list.

Those who take an extremist vegan stance, at times threatening or downright harming their fellow humans, are dangerous to everyone – not only to minorities and their traditions. Some would gladly put a gun to your head in order to force you to adopt veganism. Their fanaticism does not discriminate, if your brain is more evolved than that of a primate. You would not stop them if racism, classism & Co suddenly became history.

PETA disregards hurricane victims for being POC

Television hosts cry over Cecil the lion being shot, but no tears are shed for all of the Black and Brown folks being murdered and experiencing violence every day. PETA sends rescuers to save animals during Hurricane Katrina, but offers no assistance to the thousands of people (mostly people of color) who are stranded.

Whereas it is not mentioned specifically that this was their reason, the article insists on race, as if that made a difference where victims of a catastrophe are involved. Don’t get me wrong; PETA turns my stomach. Not only do they come up with vile, nightmarish adds which could safely be employed for the most gruesome horror films – they actually euthanise over 97% of the animals entrusted to them, whether they are ill or not. All evidence considered, I have no trouble calling some of them deeply deranged. If you follow the second link, there is an article regarding their mind-boggling attempts to resolve the situation between Israel and Palestine by… promoting veganism on a mural visible to both communities.

And, of course, the even more disturbing story of them rescuing animals and not people who needed assistance, besides spraying “animal killer” on the walls of homes where dead animals were found – because the owners had (perhaps) thought of the children and themselves first. For more details, you can read direct and detailed stories here.

PETA is one sick organisation. And not because of racism. They seem to hate the human race entirely.

The vegan lifestyle is classist

Although this is entirely true and vegans simply don’t realise that not everyone can afford their fancily manufactured foods, the following just had to be added:

This might be due to any combination of factors, ranging from food deserts to increased mainstream (read: White) use of foods like quinoa or soy, thus driving demand and therefore prices sky-high.

(I clicked on that link, there’s the material for another blog post – now I feel like a vulture, but this is just too good. Or too crazy; take your pick.)

I agree that vegans completely ignore those who can’t afford a diverse diet based on 100% non-animal products.Perhaps reiterating the fact that people of all skin colours and origins can be poor or extremely poor is redundant. Again, this has nothing to do with racism and the oppression of racial minorities.

Vegan campaigns against farming are “trans-exclusionary”

As the article puts it, attempting to draw feminists into veganism  by claiming that farming is based on the exploitation of the female reproductive system is in itself oppressive. To those women who were not born as such, that is. Because, it seems, including certain categories in discussions they have nothing to do with is mandatory nowadays. You might wonder what trans people have to do with egg-laying chickens and piglets. Or why – or if – they would want to be a part of that discussion at all.

Of course, the broader question would be what human females have to do with pigs and cows and hens, in general.

On the whole, this article is just one example of radical groups cannibalising each other.

Holiday Misery – A Presumed Red Flag Of Narcissism

There are dozens of articles and videos describing how narcissists are always miserable during holidays others fully enjoy and make a point out of ruining them for everyone else.

Never having met one, to my knowledge, I  can’t claim to be able to dismiss this criterion; however, if this is one important reason why you have labelled a person as such, please think twice – as there are many valid reasons for not sharing the holiday cheer.

  1. People don’t have a “happy” button they can push for social convenience. The more this is asked of them, the more miserable and antisocial they will become.

Whereas for some, a diversion from their usual existence is more than welcome, for others, this yearly ritual of let’s try to be happy (desperately, clinging to this magnificent day as if we were in danger of missing the boat to move overseas) is just as dry and robotic; difficult to understand, in a way. Here is  an article on the matter, describing a whole nation experiencing feelings of gratitude, being kinder, reacting emotionally to songs and symbols, as if these things suddenly occurred on cue at that time of the year.

For many in the United States, as the month of November approaches, their spirits begin to lift as they start to prepare and decorate for Thanksgiving and they reflect on the blessings that they are grateful for.In December, the holiday songs, decorations and white bearded guy in the red suit reminds everyone to spread goodwill and cheer to others.

Let’s forget about the location for a moment, as people around the world could make the same statement. The first issue I have with this is that feelings are private, not collective; one can’t simply tap into the communal cheer as many claim, and catch it from others. It’s not Ebola FFS.

A human being does not owe these feelings to anybody. It is absurd to claim that someone’s mood should be lifted simply by how other people feel; it is also absurd to claim that joy is a cultural thing, brought on by certain stimuli such as dates or decorations or costumes (much like bulls react in a predetermined way when they see red).

Another common way narcissists deflate holiday bubbles is to buy the worst gift imaginable or cry “poverty” to get out of having to purchase gifts at all. Many narcissists will even purchase something they purposely know won’t be liked, only to delight in the disappointed expression on faces as the gift is opened. (same source)

So that spiritual high is at least partially material, and if one cannot “pay their dues” to the communal happiness by buying gifts, they are somehow inferior?  Perhaps they are themselves fed up with this culture of customs become obligations and happiness derived from what lies underneath the wrapping paper. Giving gifts is wonderful when it actually comes from one’s heart. When the “joy of giving” becomes the stress of where to get money to rise up to everyone’s expectations… it is visibly just another chore on the year’s calendar. Nothing spiritual in the slightest – hence one cannot genuinely claim heartache from not receiving the kind of gift they wanted, for some reason. That is superficial and snobbish, sorry to say. (PS, think of the worst gifts you’ve ever received and then consider the following: a Chuckie doll, a box of toilet brushes, a ticket to see feminist theatre which would scar you for life.)

On the deeper level, Sam Vaknin describes the narcissist’s need of complete autonomy , which manifests by rejecting what society tries to impose – forced cheerfulness and celebration on certain occasions – corroborated with the need to control how others feel and to bring them down. Whereas the latter is indeed toxic, I can safely argue that the need to reject any imposition related to how they should feel is natural. They might just experience a visceral repulsion  towards anything that is artificial, without ever looking down on those who embrace it.

When a person deems a partner cruel and neglectful because of this rejection of conformity, they’re basically stating that they long to be like everyone else, to have and do what everyone has and does around them. In my view this is not a natural and personal need but a culturally imposed one and should not come between two people.

2. They might just be a nonbeliever among a group of believers ceaselessly attempting to drag them into the “holiday spirit”.

This year I had my first Easter as a non-Christian in a very religious country, where for 3 days (although I think it extends to 40) people greet each other with “Christ was resurrected” instead of hello. But during the three days of Easter, if you greet them with a simple hello, they give you some right funny looks. Some older people don’t even reply; they think you’re being dead rude. It’s the type of context of being constantly warned not to work or wash on a Sunday, in spite of repeating you have no fear of any higher power smiting you with lighting for turning the washing machine on. So I can totally sympathise with anyone in that context or any variation.

3. The nauseating commercial mania is enough to put some people off.

As we’ve all become accustomed to, Christmas tends to start in October now. If during the rest of the year major stores (at least) are conniving, annoying and relentless towards making people buy things they don’t need, during the holiday season it’s like they’re all on cocaine. Some folks, myself included, find that this intoxication drains the spirit right out of such occasions.

4. The personal turned impersonal

Nowadays, someone needn’t even write a few lines on a card for a loved one; they can pick from a variety of standard messages and just sign their name in a hurry. Let’s call these depersonalised cards. As to Valentine’s Day (when society assumes every couple enjoys a mandatory evening out and mandatory sex), aside from its blatantly commercial nature, the whole concept of something intimate being celebrated collectively is uncomfortable to say the least. If anything, it’s proof of the robotic nature of our existence, with a preset date for the best quality romanticism.

Slowly, our interest is being compartmentalised, with foreign groups somewhere deciding which days or months are to be dedicated to a particular matter. Not that certain matters weren’t important or worthy of more awareness, yet setting international standards for what people should focus on, on fixed occasions, is not natural.

5. People can also hate larger celebrations due to social anxiety, simply preferring to be alone or in a very small group.

If someone feels out of place in a room full of people they’re not close to, there’s probably nothing you can do to fix them – because they don’t need fixing. It’s just how they are and how they approach life. Some think they’re doing others a favour by forcing them to socialise or that others have a “duty” to attend an event with them, even if they feel out of place the whole time. It’s like putting a drop of oil in a glass of water – it will always end up isolated and taciturn, and will probably make others feel uncomfortable as well.

Perhaps this analysis is somewhat superficial, yet might raise useful points to anyone who places an emphasis on conforming to the norm to the degree that it causes trouble in their relationships with others.