Search Box

Wednesday, May 11, 2016

Those who scream "Sexism!" the loudest

"Sexism" has traditionally meant not allowing women to do certain things -- like vote, or hold certain jobs, or do certain sports -- just because they're women.

These days, it seems to mean whatever feminists want it to mean. And many of those things seem to be in conflict with each other.  

Sexism can mean not wanting women to be combat soldiers and be at risk of shrapnel shredding their flesh. Or, it can mean cracking a risqué joke in the presence of delicate females. 

Sexism can mean thinking women are less qualified to hoist someone over their shoulders and carry him to safety in the middle of a raging inferno. Or, it can mean thinking that any woman who's had even one drink is capable of consenting to sex. 

Sexism can mean thinking women should not walk around bare-chested like men ("Free the nipple!"). Or, it can mean ogling women ("Sexual harassment!").

Sometimes "sexism" refers to just being truthful about gender differences.

Of course, if women say that men tend to be more violent than women, they're merely stating a fact. If women say that virtually all wars have been started by men, they're simply stating a fact. Saying these things isn't considered controversial -- or "sexist."

And if someone points out that women are more at danger of rape from men than men are from women, well, the only response that would elicit is something along the lines of "Thank you, Captain Obvious."

However, if men point out that women are less well suited to being firemen, or combat soldiers, the truthfulness of that statement is no defense. Likewise, pointing out that once a month women get moody is considered out of bounds. Those statements are actually considered controversial -- and "sexist."

Today, to pass liberal muster, one must be willing to acknowledge only one set of truths.

But isn't real discrimination a matter of willingness to see the other gender as The Enemy? Of constantly rooting for one's team over the other team, and of applying a different set of standards to each team?

Men simply don't do this; I've never heard a man say, "You go, boy! You show those women who's boss!" That spirit is simply lacking.

It's the feminists who do this. They invariably root for women over men. They tend to harbor a constant, simmering resentment against all men. And they buy into all the mindless sayings like, "Everything a man can do, a woman can do better." Or, "Behind every great man is a great woman." And they actually believe that Republicans have declared a "war on women."

I know no men who spend any time thinking about how to help men vis-a-vis women, or about how to oppress woman, or trying to think of ways that women have declared a war on men.

I've known plenty of guys who spend a lot of time thinking about getting laid. But that is not the same as wanting to harm them -- except in the minds of feminists.

And most men will judge a conflict between another man and a woman on its merits. They don't automatically side with the man simply because he's male.

Yet when was the last time you heard Gloria Steinem, or Lena Dunham, or Naomi Wolf, take the side of men against women? They just don't do it. I've known women like this myself.

That is sexism.

Now, some would say that there are no such men because there don't need to be -- since men run the world. And they'd have a point. But there are injustices that go the other way, such as child custody laws, alimony laws, and the way colleges process rape claims. Yet there are no men's rallies to protest these injustices.

Despite what the left wing rabble rousers claim, Republicans have not declared a war on women. It's the feminists who have decided that men are the enemy. 

It's those who scream "Sexism!" the loudest who, almost by definition, are the biggest sexists. 


Anonymous said...

As people are becoming more PC desensitized, hopefully, people will start thinking for themselves and look into what the actual facts (truths) are concerning gender, race, etc. I've never been a feminist, having realized years ago that there are definite differences between men and women. These differences exist for good, sound reasons.

- Susan

Steven said...

Feminists claim to be committed to equality- they claim that is what feminism is about- but they are a women's interest group. They are not concerned about the areas where males are doing worse than females because their aim is to improve the lot of females. It is what it is.

In reality, there is male privilege but there is also female privilege as well. We have different kinds of privileges.

One of their big issues is the pay gap, yet they wont recognise that the pay gap exists because of women's choices, not because of sexism. Or that its not a problem because lots of women are fulfilled by motherhood or happily choose to work in certain areas that are less well paid. They don't recognise that men and women are different and can legitimately have different goals and interests.

That touches upon one of the defining traits of the liberal sjw movements: they deny the role that disadvantaged groups play in their disadvantage (whether culturally or just by their nature) and instead blame everything on oppression. Blaming others instead of taking responsibility is a feature of narcissism, which you have ascribed to social justice warriors.

oh btw yes men are definitely, without any doubt, more violent than women. But women have started wars:

John Craig said...

Susan --
It's hard for people to start thinking of themselves when they're constantly bombarded with propaganda like the 77 cent myth.

And yes, the same liberals who deride creationists for ignoring evolution ignore or even deny science themselves when it comes to how evolution shaped the genders.

John Craig said...

Steven --
All of these "equality" movements seem to start off with legitimate, justifiable concerns, but then morph into special privileges interest groups.

I know of no one in the conservative side who doesn't believe in equal pay for equal work, or that women should not have to worry about rape, or that women shouldn't have the opportunity to become doctors etc. But feminism these days is all about men looking at women the wrong way, or women who've had a drink of alcohol being unable to willfully consent to sex, or denial of basic differences between the sexes.

Good point about some of the early queens. When I wrote that I wasn't thinking about Elizabeth I, etc.

Anonymous said...

How true. I had a woman C-suite executive at a Fortune 100 financial services company tell a group of 20 of us that she was putting a certain woman in charge of a project because "if you have a key project chose a woman Because they're motivated to get it done". If a man said that about men he would be fired. By the way, the woman chosen to run the project was highly competent and did a great job and well respected by all, so the gender comment wasn't needed.

John Craig said...

Anon --
You're absolutely right, a man would have been fired, or at least demoted, for that comment.

And with your btw comment, you just proved what I said above: that men will normally judge a situation (or person) independently of their gender, just on the merits.

Rona said...

Feminists also show special hatred for women who don't go along with the narrative. Republican women, traditional women in general, politicians like Margaret Thatcher etc. arouse a particular ire in feminists that cannot be matched by even the most woman hating rapist.

The mental pretzels they twist themselves into to explain these successful women are hilarious, like claiming that while Ms. Thatcher may have been female she was actually not a woman! One popular claim is that traditional women are mentally ill, that they have been imbibed with false consciousness and must not be listened to until they are cured and reeducated at which point they will apparently embrace the righteous path of feminism.

One theory on feminism holds that, for plently of them, it's a challenge to men to show strenght and put them in their place. Certainly, reading some of the descriptions of fake rapes claimed by feminists lends credibility to this explanation. Rapes are never by beta nerds, hipsters or nonwhites. It's always white frat guys and Republican blond alpha males, preferably upper-class. I wonder how many feminists fantasize about being Trumped.


John Craig said...

Rona --
You hit it on the head. The hatred for those who don't go along with their narrative is just like the black hatred for Clarence Thomas: what's wrong with you, get with the program!

Claiming that Thatcher was not a woman means that feminists are painting themselves into a strange corner. Any reasonable observer, after seeing enough of them, is forced to conclude that the feminists themselves tend to be less feminine. Which means that their definition of what it means to be a woman is to be slightly masculine, and shrill, and antagonistic.

Yes, the fake rape claims lay bare their political agenda. And the cases which get lots of publicity before they're proven to be fake are always the Duke lacrosse players, or the UVA frat boys, or other Anglo boys. Or, it's priests (who actually did commit rape). If a black athlete, or a rabbi commit rape it's never seen as worthy of front page coverage by the NY Times.

Steven said...

Unrelated but you might be interested in this...Piers Morgan interviews a few female killers in US prisons, including one who had her family killed at 16.

John Craig said...

Steven --
Listened to about twenty minutes of it. It didn't really grab me; none of the people involved in the Erin Gaffey case were evil masterminds. It sounds as if the boyfriend was probably a sociopath, albeit a dumb one, and the girlfriend whose family was killed was even dumber.

Steven said...

Surprised you could see it. I just watched it all. She seemed pretty emotionless and evaded every question so it wasn't that interesting. One of the investiators said she was the best liar he'd ever met and they felt she was more the mastermind. She had sex with her boyfriend right after he did it and she'd told a previous boyfriend she wanted to hire someone to kill her family.

John Craig said...

Steven --
As I said I only watched 20 minutes of it. Your interpretation could quite possibly be the right one. I hadn't heard that bit about her telling a previous boyfriend she wanted her family killed, that would certainly make her the mover behind it all. I did notice that she had those very thin lips, and her little girl persona didn't quite square with what she'd done. And you're right, being able to have sex (especially if she had an orgasm) would be quite a tell. Of course, her boyfriend was able to do that too, so that says something about him as well.