OMG, this so reminds me of a story that Christina Hoff Sommers tells about a feminist conference she attended in NYC, in the late 80s or early 90s. All the feminists were in one room, getting along very well listening to speakers & chatting between sessions, as one does at a conference. Late in the day, the women were asked to divide into identity groups. At first the groups were large, black, white, hispanic, Jewish, etc. But then the groups began to split into smaller groups. The one example I recall was Jewish women split into subgroups with and without allergies. The upshot was, by the end of the day, there were tons of tiny groups and tons of hostility arising from the process of groups splitting and splitting and splitting.
Someone - I forget who - once said (logically) that the end result of this splintering of victimhood groups will inevitably devolve to the level of the individual. Not a good outlook for Western society.
"Each one of us must think of ourselves as a minority."
A friend said that to me recently.
I asked: but not victims!!
No.. each one of us is a minority in itself... Individual..
Surely there is a place for us all to be individual, ourselves, without disrupting society... which is reinforced, for me, by Ayn Rand and maybe others?
I don't know how, right now, but surely we can all be individual and still live in societies or groups... somehow... !!!
There is a difference between having your individuality accepted and allowed in your private individual space, and having your individual desires inflicted on society and therefore upon other individuals. Not everyone collects stamps but you can be allowed to—without imposing philately upon everyone else —because it does no social harm.
When your activities—even your private activities—start to have a negative impact upon the rest of society—is when the rest of society has reason to (and arguably, should) get involved.
There will always be disagreement about what does harm to a society but while a healthy society will always change and morph over time, no healthy society has ever come from a disbelief in its own worth, or that of a major part of its population.
I'm not sure if what you mean by 'harm to society'.
I find that when 'rights' or 'individual' is spoken that people go into melt down.
The only pieces of work that I've read that impresses me is from Ayn Rand or Frédéric Bastiat or Ludwig von Mises and some others.
Everyone jumps into a Collective without proper protection for the individual and as Ayn Rand says: The right to life means that a man has the right to support his life by his own work (on any economic level, as high as his ability will carry him); it does not mean that others must provide him with the necessities of life.
I'm not saying it is perfect and as you say people 'disagree' but is the disagreement about Individual being themselves or how someone with a bigger stick can enforce people do what 'they want'...
Frédéric Bastiat: that the main purpose of any government is the protection of the lives, liberties, and property of its citizens.
Bastiat believed that all human beings possessed the God-given, natural rights of "individuality, liberty, property." "This is man," he wrote. These "three gifts from God precede all human legislation." But even in his time-writing in the late 1840s-Bastiat was alarmed over how the law had been "perverted" into an instrument of what he called legal plunder. Far from protecting individual rights, the law was increasingly used to deprive one group of citizens of those rights for the benefit of another group, and especially for the benefit of the state itself. He condemned the legal plunder of protectionist tariffs, government subsidies of all kinds, progressive taxation, public schools, government "jobs" programs, minimum wage laws, welfare, usury laws, and more.
Christina Hoff Sommers is both one of the most brilliant and trenchant critics of feminism (that book of hers dismantles every major feminist claim and nearly all the statistics so often used) and also someone who will not give up the idea that feminism was once necessary and good, in a largely mythical past.
She came out in favor of the #MeToo movement as well, with some caveats and warnings about its misuse (as if public accusations without due process could ever have been a good thing!). She said, in conversation with Tucker Carlson, that MeToo would "bring the workplace up to 21st century standards."
Every once in a while, she comes out with a ludicrously gynocentric and condescending statement about what men owe women.
Just the facts, ma'am. A fair summation of her career.
I remember Christina's book. 'The Myth of Male Power', published a year earlier (1993) was my preference, tho Sommers' work was outstanding also. I was just beginning my own advocacies for men in the years prior.
'Who Stole Feminism' was laudatory but I hated the title, due to its implications. Like putting a naked woman on the front of your Bible to, you know, bring in the crowds.
Also, wasn't big on the use of the Obligatory Three Names by Sommers. Kind of a tell as to her true intentions.
Yeah, 'Who Stole Feminism' is a misnomer of a title. It was never stolen nor perverted, it always was as it is, a hate cult. The fact Christina can't see this says a lot about her calibre as an academic. No wonder why universities are in decline because it is replete with these people.
That is exactly the problem. Feminism has never been about doing anything for anything/anyone but feminism and feminists. They got smart in the late 60s/early 70s and started calling themselves the "women's movement" and putting demands in the form of "Women need X" instead of the reality "Feminists *want* X." In the early 70s, when they started floating Ms. as an "option" for women, not one women or girl I knew was interested in being a Ms. Within a decade or so, everybody was Ms. Not because anybody asked us.
Even if there were a group that wanted to represent and take up causes that would improve things for women, that would not be for the best either, because the underlying mission would be pitting one group in society against others. Also, we are a pair-bonded species, so in reality, the best thing that could be done for women's situation is to encourage lifelong monogamous marriage within a stable society. Watch how feminists treat women who advocate for that, and you see how little feminists care about women's. goals and well-being.
Well done for saying that. Far too many people characterise feminism as a movement for the betterment of women. As women are slowly beginning to find out, it doesn't give a **** about them, it's just that its first prime target was men, followed by mothers, then children.
Thank you. Even during their "I am Woman" phase it was already obvious they had no respect for the women who were mothers and housewives, nor for the work such women do for the benefit of family and society.
The lack of respect for housewives puzzled me until I traced the Marxist roots of feminism back to Karl Marx and his co-author the baron Engels. Both were brought up in households with paid servants, and I suspect they just couldn't see that doing such work without being directly paid for it in cash was not abuse but was a matching contribution to the effort of the man who supported them.
When someone in my philosophy class asked the professor for a definition of "feminism," he--yes, it was a he--said: "It's a movement that seeks to make a better world." From that preposterously reductive (but notably expedient) point of view, his answer would apply to any movement at all. Even the Nazis said the same thing about their own movement. He offered no definition at all, in short, only an excuse for affirming one's own identity.
'Within a decade or so, everybody was Ms. Not because anybody asked us.'
Illustrating that feminism always has been a top-down, as opposed to grass roots, project. Elite-funded by the likes of the Rockefellers, and guided by U.S. intel, primarily the CIA.
Just wait until they ask your preferred pronouns. Then you can skewer them by saying 'Mrs Smith'. (The only time I have been asked for mine, I said 'Your Highness' but they refused to record it and I refused to give them anything else, having fun in being all hurt and upset!)
As regards 'racism' in the universities, recall that organizational feminism began in America with an alliance between privileged white women (mostly rogue Quakers) and blacks. Feminism and Abolitionism merged at the 1848 Seneca Falls Conference.
But the teenagers are all being manipulated and following along the path preset for them decades ago bu the founders of cultural Marxism (all of whom, so far as I know, were men but that's by-the-by). With the very powerful global feminist organisations (including UNWomen, paid for by our tax money) the global march towards Marxism approaches, seeming inexorably.
Little known fact: UN Women receives only 1% of its funding from the UN General Assembly. The remaining 99% comes from outside groups with a feminist ax to grind.
It's that way for many UN bodies. They get enough for a basic funding that enables them to have the infrastructure to appeal direct to governments. UNWomen, with a budget of over half a billion dollars, gets near 2% of central budget and appeals to many countries. The source of funds varies as political will changes but in a recent year, some of the top contributors (though their taxpayers do not generally know it) were:
Sweden: $51.2 million ($4.92 per person)
Germany: $39.8 million
European Commission: $32.5 million
Finland: $32.0 million ($5.71 per person)
Norway: $30.9 million ($5.72 per person)
Switzerland: $23.3 million
USA has historically been a significant donor to UN-Women but lately has been more active funding directly controlled bodies that do the will of UNWomen, including some of USAid's activities.
I'm not sure of Canada's grant but I believe they have a long-term institutional support to UN-Women (i.e. they pay a committed amount for general expenses, not specific projects).
and I bet that those people know exactly where their money is going to.
and some people wonder why Trump has knocked out USAID... not even I as a gay man agree with some places the money goes to.. it should be assisting people in 'need' not those that have nothing better to do!!
Who knew that this Swiss NGO was getting $10 million ????
I certainly didn't. not that I pay that much attention.. but it seems money is flowing to places that non of us would even think about...
I read this and the comments and one I will post here.. I'm just saying.. I have no idea but surely people donating money should see where it is going 'exactly'...
Aid is tricky. Whose cause do we champion? More money for "poor" Israelis to attend jewish summer camps? Food to starving countries in Africa? LGBT lessons in muslim countries? Spreading "Pro-democracy" propaganda in ukraine/hong kong/south America? Supporting an educational program for farmers in Bosnia is vastly different than paying out for for pro religious programs.
So who gets the money and who decides who gets the money? The populace has no say whereas easily corrupted politicians happily put taxpayer funds into their own pet projects.
Who is running the aid organizations and how much goes to administrative costs versus on the ground aid? We pay out 10 million and half goes to the board of trustees/politicians/etc?
. Our schools and hospitals are overran...they need more funding. Citizens have absurd cost of living. Yet we can give away money to others and toss billions into American fighter jets? Would you accept a spouse that spent recklessly and endangered your own family in support of others?
I'm just letting people know.. it is an NGO jungle out there...as many of your realise...
Two articles in academic journals showing intersectional quarrels between feminists:
“White supremacy in heels: (white) feminism, white supremacy, and discursive violence"
Abstract: As a progressive intervention into patriarchy, feminism has traditionally centered (white) women's experience, yet when sex and gender are combined with race, feminism tends to lose its progressive edge. We argue that (white) feminism ideologically grounds itself in a gendered victimology that masks its participation and functionality in white supremacy. By erasing women of color, positioning women as victims of white male hegemony, and failing to hold white women accountable for the production and reproduction of white supremacy, (white) feminism manifests its allegiance to whiteness and in doing so commits “discursive violence”. We end with calling for ideological intersectionality as a possible corrective.
"Weaponizing white feminism on campus in responses to sexualized violence"
Abstract: In response to public and legislative pressure, Canadian post-secondary institutions (PSIs) have recently established new policies, protocols, and programming to respond to the issue of sexualized violence. This article offers an analysis of how White Feminist expertise is given a place at the tables of PSIs when creating sexualized violence response policies and practices. Based on qualitative interviews with over 40 feminist faculty across what is (colonially known) as Canada, we argue that White Feminist approaches, which are more palatable to university administrators, are prioritized while more transformative approaches to sexualized violence are excluded. By taking account of feminist faculty concerns with how some feminists have aligned themselves with institutional responses, our research calls attention to the harms of sexualized violence responses that dismiss intersectional, anti-carceral, and decolonial analyses of power.
One correction only: they aren't really quarrels in the sense of two groups or more disagreeing with each other. Everyone in academia agrees wholeheartedly that white feminists are complicit in white supremacy; everyone attacks 'white supremacy' as an urgent, material practice of domination. No one in academia would claim that those who attack white feminists are wrong, bigoted, or themselves 'supremacist.'
I had to look it up: “Turtle Island is a name for Earth or North America, used by some American Indigenous peoples, as well as by some Indigenous rights activists.”
I think I can answer this one! Probably there are better answers online, but I'll give my take off the top of my (just woke up) head
Generally, it is a form of language play with a political edge. I believe it started with Jacques Derrida and others of his--broadly, postmodern or deconstructionist--school back in the early 1970s when postmodernism came to America through Paul De Man and Geoffrey Hartman, in the field of literary studies. It is thought to be one, in this case fairly modest, way of disrupting a standard sentence to amplify meaning, often by suggesting two meanings at once or an alternative, more subversive or critical meaning embedded in the more conventional one.
Derrida did other, more radical things as well. For example, he used to put words "under erasure" (with a line drawn through the word) to show that although he acknowledged the necessity to use the word, the word's accepted meaning was no longer in operation, or was in question, because it had been "deconstructed."
A favorite tactic of the deconstructionists, or those influenced by them (there aren't many actual deconstructionists around anymore), was or is to use parentheses within a word so that the word can be read in two ways at the same time: re(dis)covery, for example.
At its best, I think it is a way of playing with language to give readers more options, and potentially to show the richness of language. At worst, it is merely an affectation to demonstrate that one belongs to a certain club.
I must admit that I use it myself (I hope for the good reason). While writing this answer, I was continually tempted to use parentheses!!!!
Thanks for this analysis, Janice. Do you have any recommendations for books or articles that detail the history of the deconstruction movement in literary studies?
I use parentheses more than most. I also do something similar to Derrida's "under erasure" trick but with something I picked up from the Australians. If I want to call attention to a word, as a word, I enclose it in inverted commas. Idiot-speak like 'white privelege', 'strong objectivity', etc. gets this treatment as well as words I refer to as nouns or objects, as in "the word 'woman' has been co-opted by feminists, who now control it's use even though they can't define it."
What's the deal with 'bell hooks', by the way? Is there a rational reason for using lower case or does she do it just to seem edgy?
I went ahead and looked it up. It was her grandmother's name but she made it all lower case to 'decenter' it in relation to her written work. I'm not sure why she thought drawing attention to it by radically breaking with naming convention would 'decenter' it, but then I don't much understand why she thought anything else, either.
The idea is that upper-case letters indicate hierarchy (as in upper class), which is allegedly both patriarchal and racist. There's no end to this nonsense. Musicologists in some universities (such as Oxford) oppose teaching Western musical notation, because it originated in Europe and is therefore racist or colonialist.
Is the sentence as written grammatically incorrect? Take out the parenthesized part and the sentence doesn't make sense. The parentheses should have been around 'what is colonially known as' or at least 'colonially known as'. So were the parentheses misused to draw particular attention to the sentence, like a deliberately misspelt word or (in speaking) a mispronounced or pointlessly stressed word? I doubt it in this case because the point made was an aside and to draw special focus on it would simply distract from the main thesis. More likely just academic inferiority.
Don’t insult the white supremicists by including toxic feminists in their ranks. I’d say the average white supremicist would not even support these Marxists
Yet the concept of supremacy on a scale does provoke a thought or two:
When asked if these white feminist could be acceptable in the supremacist movement a high scoring supremacist might answer, “Never. She has lain with the inferiors.”
Whereas a slightly below average supremacist might say, “ehhh, get enough beers in me she might be okay at closing time?”
They define white supremacist as anyone who supports our standard western, capitalist society because they see it as designed by white, heterosexual men to only benefit them at everyone else's expense. So, a black woman can be a white supremacist if she voted for Trump. It goes beyond race, too. A black woman could be a white supremacist if she objected to a gender-confused boy playing against her daughter in a sport. They think gender being binary was an idea invented by white men.
There really ought to be a term such as “oppression envy” to describe this phenomenon.
When you’ve created a social movement founded on the belief that nobody in history has ever been oppressed as much as you have, and then you find yourself outflanked by people whose history involves genocide and enslavement on an immense scale by people who look like you what is a poor, innocent White girl to do except wish that she could gain greater respect and moral authority by belonging to a category of people who can point out actual oppression. That white feminists end up saying “we haven’t been oppressed enough, we have to claim victimization in the horrible manner of slavery and genocide because otherwise our claims to be victims look rather hollow” is an ineluctable result of basing an identity on a claim of millennia of suffering under the male heel. When you’ve created realize that there are people who have a truly legitimate claim to have a history of actual oppression, and who can legitimately blame you for it, what else can you do except wish you had that moral weight to your claim.
Or put another way, when the finger is pointed at White women alongside White men all of a sudden those women find out what it means to confront the fact that they aren’t able to cast the blame for everything bad from war to pimples on White men because they have to share the blame they go nuts.
The problem with "actual oppression" in regard to claims of group respect or entitlement is that most people, including many whites, have ancestors who were oppressed. Slav, for example, denotes people who were enslaved by Islamic imperialists. [Interestingly, if one watches Hollywood movies today, one might conclude that Slavs are the most despicable group of people around.]
Moreover, the group in question is never homogeneous. Some of the "oppressed" group were likely oppressors themselves: for example, a wealthy Ashanti immigrant from Ghana, whose ancestors profited from the slave trade as slavers, is entitled to affirmative action and many special perks and privileges in Canada, despite the fact that he or she was not oppressed.
The entire question imagines that group membership rightfully determines who gets to cast blame, who gets to claim special rights, who to be exempted from moral responsibility for suffering, and who to apologize for privilege. Why should I be blamed for actions that may or may not have been committed by people who lived before I was born, and who may or may not have been related to me in some manner?
I want no part of such a system; I find it repulsive and incoherent.
I agree except where you say 'who can legitimately blame you for it'. I am white. One of my ancestors was made a slave by Africans somewhere in the Mediterranean, doubtless some of my ancestors were slaves of Vikings or Romans. I know of none who were slave owners but even if they were, that does not make ME guilty (and even they are not guilty by the standard that everyone remains innocent until proven guilty).
I am white. I am not guilty for what anyone (a minority at that) did hundreds of years ago. Being British, I admit I am happy to acknowledge that my forebears in a powerful empire were the people who ended the global slave trade and subsequently turned culture against slavery, almost worldwide (it does still exist).
It's fairly frequently referred to as the 'oppression olympics'. They all try to outdo each other in being lovers, but blame it all on someone else. The irony is that the biggest loser wins.
In the modern West, victim = power. Real power, in Clown Nation. Been that way a half-century already. So they all scramble to be Chief Victim. Makes sense.
'Oppression envy' is an excellent term. Crisp and precise.
I'd love to feel bad for Zavitz, but it's just too gratifying to see feminism lose its grip on victimhood, the currency that it adopted--spurred on by Simone de Beauvoir--to gain dominion throughout the Western world over the past fifty years. Just as traditional currencies have been forced to yield ground to newly emerging (crypto)currencies, it should have been foreseeable that feminism, too, would arrive at a point where it could no longer maintain absolute control over the cultural value of victimhood and the power that it confers. Perhaps feminists were too careless and too overconfident to see that intersectionality had the potential to radicalize the currency of victimhood and fundamentally change the game.
Toxic white privileged feminism is and has always been the problem. This small group of Woke Marxist pigs have gained power in our governments by infiltrating our children’s minds via Schools, Universities, Social Media, blatant lies, and ironically, continuously attacking the very people that give them their privileged existence. Western White males who ironically fought wars in previous generations on their behalf, only to be disrespected endlessly by this generation! WOW it’s incredible the utter contempt for their own race and enablers. The enabling of these pigs needs to stop!
I know I'm posting 2 in a row, but totally different topic. The women who would crush a white woman for expressing a desire to resemble their beauty have no problem with women in their community sewing locks of other women's hair to their heads (aka weaves). Weaves are often left in place for many weeks (even months, by some reports). The natural hair is braided tight to the scalp, and the bundles sewn on. Between the hair follicles rendered immobile for long timeframes, and the weight of the bundles, the natural hair is slowly destroyed over time. This is a choice many black women make, even though black men have been shouting for years about how much they hate weaves and wigs, and overwhelmingly prefer natural hair.
Black women constantly complain (falsely) that their natural hair is seen as unprofessional in the work place and holds them back so, instead, they come to work looking like street hookers or circus clowns. Check out this video of a woman who ran out of whatever glop she usually used and used Gorilla Glue instead.
I remember the Gorilla Glue saga. She ended up getting tens of thousands of dollars of free help from a sympathetic plastic surgeon. I'm surprised she didn't end up with permanent damage to her scalp. Then there were others who apparently didn't see her situation as the clear evidence that Gorilla Glue is not a hair product. smh.
I saw a video of Michelle Obama complaining that she had to restrain her hairstyle choices while first lady. The funny thing is, I see no change in her hairstyle choices, always either highly processed or some kind of wig or weave.
Image in any other era women of any other race turning up at work with garish-colored butt-length braids that look like they're made of knitting yard. That's not an exaggeration, I was picking up an order at a fast foo drive through, and that's how the cashier's hair was - and the braids were not even restrained, just flopping around. Last time I went to that drive thru.
I walk a lot and everywhere I go I see braids of weave lying on the ground. I guess it just finally rots and falls off. As roadside trash, it's about as common as bottles of urine and used condoms.
These women are so distressing to me. I do not want them in charge of anything. The lack of reason and gratitude. The inability to see a whole person and to constantly believe and walk in lies. And these are all “first world problems”. They literally make up issues as busybodies it seems to me. As I said, distressing.
I think all socialists are in that category. No working class people have ever decided to rise up and overthrow the upper class. A slightly different branch of the upper class always does the overthrowing in the name of the working class.
Okay, this is telling. They claim that "wanting" to be a Black woman is evidence of racism. If we accept that logic then wouldn't any person wanting to be the opposite sex be horribly sexist? Sorta puts the kibosh in the trans movement doesn't it?
Oh, those terrible people wanting to be the opposite sex! LOL
Yes. That is what TERFs claim: they talk about men parading around in 'womanface' (supposedly the equivalent of blackface). I have actually heard the argument by TERFs and their allies that transwomen hate women and want to replace them.
I have no sympathy for men who pretend to be women by putting on a dress like a magic cloak. Viola! Now I am a woman. I think some do hate women. I have read some accounts of what it is like living with a man who has a sexual fetish in this regard and the lack of support and help they get.
What the heck is going on in canada that such a broken white woman could run for political office and still get 9% of the vote... Most sane healthy adults would have the introspection to realize their thinking is self-hating and self-destructive and work to fix themselves..
Stories like this dont surprise me, from what ive heard whats going on in canada with the leftists is eerily similar to communist revolutions in the past. In previous communist revolutions, crucifixes were removed in public locations and churches, the same thing is happening in toronto right now.
Wow..... For as smart as professors claim to be, they really have zero understanding what the crucifix stands for and how significant it is... Its the most profound symbol of hope that has ever been given to humanity...
Kinda shows you just how stupid some "college educated" professors are, sucks you also have to pay a lot of cash for their "knowlege" as well.. I went to a catholic college 10 years ago in the U.S. and never saw what you had to deal with.. id say it was 60/40 for legit Christian professors.
What's even more horrific about the "Central Park Karen" incident is that it got Christian Cooper a TV series, further justifying the demonization of white people as a means of getting to the top. I'd say she 'threatened' to get him arrested by calling 911; if in a cloistered space with a man issuing threatening statements, the call might have deterred him.
This: "San Francisco even named a new law after her, the Caren Act, which allows the victims of racist allegations to sue their accusers" merely gives free license to black perpetrators to harass white women. What are they thinking? If I had called the police on the black man on the NYC subway who threatened to kill me for being white, spitting all over me -- yes -- this happened -- he could sue ME? Or how about the black student many years ago who threatened to slice my face over a grade? He could sue ME for reporting him?
On a lighter note, at the university in NYC where I teach, an email went out to anyone who "identifies as black" to join the People of Color group. Since I have 'worked harder than everyone' only to lose course assignments, I decided it must be because I'm black, so I joined the group. The first reading shared in the group by email is titled: "Fear of Black Consciousness." (The insane, obsessive, risible projection by the 'black community' the women in particular, who assign thoughts upon the white race that we don't have! As if we're really, truly, walking around fearing sentience in black people.)
What's worse is when white women promote this risible bullshit in order to elevate their moral status. I find it hilarious that this woman got in trouble for it. The Kafka trap is real.
About the Caren Act, that's exactly what I thought too. As far as I know, it passed without a peep by a single feminist, who might legitimately have noted that white women are at times harassed, stalked, bothered, and threatened by black men and should not fear being sued if they report him. It's another clear proof that feminism has nothing whatsoever to do with what it claims it has to do with.
As a white man, of course, YOU have no rights at all in that regard.
You're a braver man than I to read into "Fear of Black Consciousness." I certainly do fear black hatred.
You’re not the first person to refer to me as male! Perhaps I should identify as such! I’m female through and through though. I wonder what gives readers that idea?
I believe Janice was probably using what's referred to as 'the generic you'.. it's an informal replacement for the word 'one' which is used less and less in common speech.
Whoops! I missed that one. She called herself a man, as well.
Maybe she thinks your screen handle comes from that old cartoon? " Speed of lightning, power of thunder. Fighting all who rob or plunder. Underdog. Underdog."
OMG, this so reminds me of a story that Christina Hoff Sommers tells about a feminist conference she attended in NYC, in the late 80s or early 90s. All the feminists were in one room, getting along very well listening to speakers & chatting between sessions, as one does at a conference. Late in the day, the women were asked to divide into identity groups. At first the groups were large, black, white, hispanic, Jewish, etc. But then the groups began to split into smaller groups. The one example I recall was Jewish women split into subgroups with and without allergies. The upshot was, by the end of the day, there were tons of tiny groups and tons of hostility arising from the process of groups splitting and splitting and splitting.
Someone - I forget who - once said (logically) that the end result of this splintering of victimhood groups will inevitably devolve to the level of the individual. Not a good outlook for Western society.
I wish I could remember who said this but the smallest minority group is the individual.
Ayn Rand
“The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.”
"Each one of us must think of ourselves as a minority."
A friend said that to me recently.
I asked: but not victims!!
No.. each one of us is a minority in itself... Individual..
Surely there is a place for us all to be individual, ourselves, without disrupting society... which is reinforced, for me, by Ayn Rand and maybe others?
I don't know how, right now, but surely we can all be individual and still live in societies or groups... somehow... !!!
There is a difference between having your individuality accepted and allowed in your private individual space, and having your individual desires inflicted on society and therefore upon other individuals. Not everyone collects stamps but you can be allowed to—without imposing philately upon everyone else —because it does no social harm.
When your activities—even your private activities—start to have a negative impact upon the rest of society—is when the rest of society has reason to (and arguably, should) get involved.
There will always be disagreement about what does harm to a society but while a healthy society will always change and morph over time, no healthy society has ever come from a disbelief in its own worth, or that of a major part of its population.
I'm not sure if what you mean by 'harm to society'.
I find that when 'rights' or 'individual' is spoken that people go into melt down.
The only pieces of work that I've read that impresses me is from Ayn Rand or Frédéric Bastiat or Ludwig von Mises and some others.
Everyone jumps into a Collective without proper protection for the individual and as Ayn Rand says: The right to life means that a man has the right to support his life by his own work (on any economic level, as high as his ability will carry him); it does not mean that others must provide him with the necessities of life.
I'm not saying it is perfect and as you say people 'disagree' but is the disagreement about Individual being themselves or how someone with a bigger stick can enforce people do what 'they want'...
Frédéric Bastiat: that the main purpose of any government is the protection of the lives, liberties, and property of its citizens.
Bastiat believed that all human beings possessed the God-given, natural rights of "individuality, liberty, property." "This is man," he wrote. These "three gifts from God precede all human legislation." But even in his time-writing in the late 1840s-Bastiat was alarmed over how the law had been "perverted" into an instrument of what he called legal plunder. Far from protecting individual rights, the law was increasingly used to deprive one group of citizens of those rights for the benefit of another group, and especially for the benefit of the state itself. He condemned the legal plunder of protectionist tariffs, government subsidies of all kinds, progressive taxation, public schools, government "jobs" programs, minimum wage laws, welfare, usury laws, and more.
Me too
Thanks!
What a 🎪 circus feminism has become.
That was Jordan Peterson.
That I believe was written in "Who Stole Feminism."
A title which assumes that at some past point, feminism was a good thing. . . until somebody 'stole' and 'hijacked' it.
Feminism was always a hate-movement and a cult of death, with many predecessors in the past of humanity. There were no good 'waves'.
Christina Hoff Sommers is both one of the most brilliant and trenchant critics of feminism (that book of hers dismantles every major feminist claim and nearly all the statistics so often used) and also someone who will not give up the idea that feminism was once necessary and good, in a largely mythical past.
She came out in favor of the #MeToo movement as well, with some caveats and warnings about its misuse (as if public accusations without due process could ever have been a good thing!). She said, in conversation with Tucker Carlson, that MeToo would "bring the workplace up to 21st century standards."
Every once in a while, she comes out with a ludicrously gynocentric and condescending statement about what men owe women.
Just the facts, ma'am. A fair summation of her career.
I remember Christina's book. 'The Myth of Male Power', published a year earlier (1993) was my preference, tho Sommers' work was outstanding also. I was just beginning my own advocacies for men in the years prior.
'Who Stole Feminism' was laudatory but I hated the title, due to its implications. Like putting a naked woman on the front of your Bible to, you know, bring in the crowds.
Also, wasn't big on the use of the Obligatory Three Names by Sommers. Kind of a tell as to her true intentions.
Isn't 'Myth of Male Power' by Warren Farrell?
Yeah, 'Who Stole Feminism' is a misnomer of a title. It was never stolen nor perverted, it always was as it is, a hate cult. The fact Christina can't see this says a lot about her calibre as an academic. No wonder why universities are in decline because it is replete with these people.
Yes, Farrell. I think he's still around, somewhere.
Sadly, the unis are full of much worse than Christina and her Feminism Lite.
It brought the workplace *down* to 21st century standards.
That is exactly the problem. Feminism has never been about doing anything for anything/anyone but feminism and feminists. They got smart in the late 60s/early 70s and started calling themselves the "women's movement" and putting demands in the form of "Women need X" instead of the reality "Feminists *want* X." In the early 70s, when they started floating Ms. as an "option" for women, not one women or girl I knew was interested in being a Ms. Within a decade or so, everybody was Ms. Not because anybody asked us.
Even if there were a group that wanted to represent and take up causes that would improve things for women, that would not be for the best either, because the underlying mission would be pitting one group in society against others. Also, we are a pair-bonded species, so in reality, the best thing that could be done for women's situation is to encourage lifelong monogamous marriage within a stable society. Watch how feminists treat women who advocate for that, and you see how little feminists care about women's. goals and well-being.
Well done for saying that. Far too many people characterise feminism as a movement for the betterment of women. As women are slowly beginning to find out, it doesn't give a **** about them, it's just that its first prime target was men, followed by mothers, then children.
Thank you. Even during their "I am Woman" phase it was already obvious they had no respect for the women who were mothers and housewives, nor for the work such women do for the benefit of family and society.
The lack of respect for housewives puzzled me until I traced the Marxist roots of feminism back to Karl Marx and his co-author the baron Engels. Both were brought up in households with paid servants, and I suspect they just couldn't see that doing such work without being directly paid for it in cash was not abuse but was a matching contribution to the effort of the man who supported them.
In Betty Friedan's 1963 book The Feminine Mystiqeur, she referred to housewives as living in a "comfortable concentration camp."
When someone in my philosophy class asked the professor for a definition of "feminism," he--yes, it was a he--said: "It's a movement that seeks to make a better world." From that preposterously reductive (but notably expedient) point of view, his answer would apply to any movement at all. Even the Nazis said the same thing about their own movement. He offered no definition at all, in short, only an excuse for affirming one's own identity.
Insightful comments.
'Within a decade or so, everybody was Ms. Not because anybody asked us.'
Illustrating that feminism always has been a top-down, as opposed to grass roots, project. Elite-funded by the likes of the Rockefellers, and guided by U.S. intel, primarily the CIA.
I work at a Catholic University, so it hung onto Mrs. longer. Back in the early 2000s, though, they changed all women to Ms.
Killing the family and turning women into hard-charging careerists instead of mothers. Just as the fembots promised they'd do in the Sixties.
HR at my work have recorded my title as Ms. There isn't another option for women.
Just wait until they ask your preferred pronouns. Then you can skewer them by saying 'Mrs Smith'. (The only time I have been asked for mine, I said 'Your Highness' but they refused to record it and I refused to give them anything else, having fun in being all hurt and upset!)
As I work for a government agency, there already is pressure to include pronouns as part of your signature on emails which I never do.
I saw her mention it in a video on the AEI website.
One can't help feeling sometimes that one is in the playground of a teenage girls' school.
100% . My sentiments exactly. There's little of substance involved (or the "substance" is specious).
Women seem to be constantly finding new and adolescent ways to embarrass themselves. And I'm saying this as a woman!
That this often comes out of women who are so enthralled with their status as "educated" women is just beyond the pale.
Indeed, they are pretty much exactly the privileged class of women the suffragettes considered should be the sole beneficiaries of women's suffrage.
As regards 'racism' in the universities, recall that organizational feminism began in America with an alliance between privileged white women (mostly rogue Quakers) and blacks. Feminism and Abolitionism merged at the 1848 Seneca Falls Conference.
Thus was Karen birthed.
Which has always seemed odd to me given that a great many early feminists in the U.S. came from the huge Women's KKK.
Yes the privileged toxic white feminist pigs
Youch...
I've decided to stop calling myself 'privileged' as I do sometimes after reading this article and comments... stop gaslighting myself...
But the teenagers are all being manipulated and following along the path preset for them decades ago bu the founders of cultural Marxism (all of whom, so far as I know, were men but that's by-the-by). With the very powerful global feminist organisations (including UNWomen, paid for by our tax money) the global march towards Marxism approaches, seeming inexorably.
Little known fact: UN Women receives only 1% of its funding from the UN General Assembly. The remaining 99% comes from outside groups with a feminist ax to grind.
It's that way for many UN bodies. They get enough for a basic funding that enables them to have the infrastructure to appeal direct to governments. UNWomen, with a budget of over half a billion dollars, gets near 2% of central budget and appeals to many countries. The source of funds varies as political will changes but in a recent year, some of the top contributors (though their taxpayers do not generally know it) were:
Sweden: $51.2 million ($4.92 per person)
Germany: $39.8 million
European Commission: $32.5 million
Finland: $32.0 million ($5.71 per person)
Norway: $30.9 million ($5.72 per person)
Switzerland: $23.3 million
USA has historically been a significant donor to UN-Women but lately has been more active funding directly controlled bodies that do the will of UNWomen, including some of USAid's activities.
I'm not sure of Canada's grant but I believe they have a long-term institutional support to UN-Women (i.e. they pay a committed amount for general expenses, not specific projects).
and I bet that those people know exactly where their money is going to.
and some people wonder why Trump has knocked out USAID... not even I as a gay man agree with some places the money goes to.. it should be assisting people in 'need' not those that have nothing better to do!!
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/international-geneva/american-cup-terre-des-hommes-loses-10-million/88835381
Who knew that this Swiss NGO was getting $10 million ????
I certainly didn't. not that I pay that much attention.. but it seems money is flowing to places that non of us would even think about...
I read this and the comments and one I will post here.. I'm just saying.. I have no idea but surely people donating money should see where it is going 'exactly'...
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/foreign-affairs/should-nations-spend-more-on-foreign-aid-or-are-cutbacks-justified/88836729
One comment says:
Aid is tricky. Whose cause do we champion? More money for "poor" Israelis to attend jewish summer camps? Food to starving countries in Africa? LGBT lessons in muslim countries? Spreading "Pro-democracy" propaganda in ukraine/hong kong/south America? Supporting an educational program for farmers in Bosnia is vastly different than paying out for for pro religious programs.
So who gets the money and who decides who gets the money? The populace has no say whereas easily corrupted politicians happily put taxpayer funds into their own pet projects.
Who is running the aid organizations and how much goes to administrative costs versus on the ground aid? We pay out 10 million and half goes to the board of trustees/politicians/etc?
. Our schools and hospitals are overran...they need more funding. Citizens have absurd cost of living. Yet we can give away money to others and toss billions into American fighter jets? Would you accept a spouse that spent recklessly and endangered your own family in support of others?
I'm just letting people know.. it is an NGO jungle out there...as many of your realise...
That's amazing.
Because one is. Daddy raises princesses, and princesses expect to dwell as royalty. . . or else.
It is always junior high school, where females have great power, but no responsibility.
wish we had a 😂 to push, that meant 'I agree' not 'I'm laughing at you'
Two articles in academic journals showing intersectional quarrels between feminists:
“White supremacy in heels: (white) feminism, white supremacy, and discursive violence"
Abstract: As a progressive intervention into patriarchy, feminism has traditionally centered (white) women's experience, yet when sex and gender are combined with race, feminism tends to lose its progressive edge. We argue that (white) feminism ideologically grounds itself in a gendered victimology that masks its participation and functionality in white supremacy. By erasing women of color, positioning women as victims of white male hegemony, and failing to hold white women accountable for the production and reproduction of white supremacy, (white) feminism manifests its allegiance to whiteness and in doing so commits “discursive violence”. We end with calling for ideological intersectionality as a possible corrective.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14791420.2020.1770819
"Weaponizing white feminism on campus in responses to sexualized violence"
Abstract: In response to public and legislative pressure, Canadian post-secondary institutions (PSIs) have recently established new policies, protocols, and programming to respond to the issue of sexualized violence. This article offers an analysis of how White Feminist expertise is given a place at the tables of PSIs when creating sexualized violence response policies and practices. Based on qualitative interviews with over 40 feminist faculty across what is (colonially known) as Canada, we argue that White Feminist approaches, which are more palatable to university administrators, are prioritized while more transformative approaches to sexualized violence are excluded. By taking account of feminist faculty concerns with how some feminists have aligned themselves with institutional responses, our research calls attention to the harms of sexualized violence responses that dismiss intersectional, anti-carceral, and decolonial analyses of power.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09540253.2025.2458436
Wonderful examples, Jim--thank you!
One correction only: they aren't really quarrels in the sense of two groups or more disagreeing with each other. Everyone in academia agrees wholeheartedly that white feminists are complicit in white supremacy; everyone attacks 'white supremacy' as an urgent, material practice of domination. No one in academia would claim that those who attack white feminists are wrong, bigoted, or themselves 'supremacist.'
Well, that would explain your standing in academia. How sure are you that you exist?
Haha. I had to leave to be sure.
> across what is (colonially known) as Canada,
🤣🤣🤣
Yes, it's supposed to be 'Turtle Island,' no?
I had to look it up: “Turtle Island is a name for Earth or North America, used by some American Indigenous peoples, as well as by some Indigenous rights activists.”
All of a sudden Terry Pratchett's 'Discworld' doesn't seem so clever after all.
I like turtles!
$MeToo. Turtles make great soup.
These people are so predictable. Spare me...
Why do leftist academics use parentheses in weird ways like in the first article? I work in academia and see it all the time.
I think I can answer this one! Probably there are better answers online, but I'll give my take off the top of my (just woke up) head
Generally, it is a form of language play with a political edge. I believe it started with Jacques Derrida and others of his--broadly, postmodern or deconstructionist--school back in the early 1970s when postmodernism came to America through Paul De Man and Geoffrey Hartman, in the field of literary studies. It is thought to be one, in this case fairly modest, way of disrupting a standard sentence to amplify meaning, often by suggesting two meanings at once or an alternative, more subversive or critical meaning embedded in the more conventional one.
Derrida did other, more radical things as well. For example, he used to put words "under erasure" (with a line drawn through the word) to show that although he acknowledged the necessity to use the word, the word's accepted meaning was no longer in operation, or was in question, because it had been "deconstructed."
A favorite tactic of the deconstructionists, or those influenced by them (there aren't many actual deconstructionists around anymore), was or is to use parentheses within a word so that the word can be read in two ways at the same time: re(dis)covery, for example.
At its best, I think it is a way of playing with language to give readers more options, and potentially to show the richness of language. At worst, it is merely an affectation to demonstrate that one belongs to a certain club.
I must admit that I use it myself (I hope for the good reason). While writing this answer, I was continually tempted to use parentheses!!!!
That makes sense. I'm not against parentheses, but these are examples of parentheses I find confusing.
Indigenous(ly) Fat, Fat(ly) Indigenous
https://think.taylorandfrancis.com/special_issues/indigenously-fat-fatly-indigenous/
Fat Matter(s): The Art-Science(s) of Future Body-Making
https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/ufts20/9/3?nav=tocList
Haha, oh boy! the only one that works at all is Fat Matter(s).
I'm glad you added that last sentence (I would have a hard time even thinking without parentheses).
Thanks for this analysis, Janice. Do you have any recommendations for books or articles that detail the history of the deconstruction movement in literary studies?
It's a verbal form of sneering or smirking--or both.
I use parentheses more than most. I also do something similar to Derrida's "under erasure" trick but with something I picked up from the Australians. If I want to call attention to a word, as a word, I enclose it in inverted commas. Idiot-speak like 'white privelege', 'strong objectivity', etc. gets this treatment as well as words I refer to as nouns or objects, as in "the word 'woman' has been co-opted by feminists, who now control it's use even though they can't define it."
What's the deal with 'bell hooks', by the way? Is there a rational reason for using lower case or does she do it just to seem edgy?
bell hooks was a pseudonym, so perhaps she used the lower case to emphasize that, but I don't know for sure.
I went ahead and looked it up. It was her grandmother's name but she made it all lower case to 'decenter' it in relation to her written work. I'm not sure why she thought drawing attention to it by radically breaking with naming convention would 'decenter' it, but then I don't much understand why she thought anything else, either.
The idea is that upper-case letters indicate hierarchy (as in upper class), which is allegedly both patriarchal and racist. There's no end to this nonsense. Musicologists in some universities (such as Oxford) oppose teaching Western musical notation, because it originated in Europe and is therefore racist or colonialist.
Is the sentence as written grammatically incorrect? Take out the parenthesized part and the sentence doesn't make sense. The parentheses should have been around 'what is colonially known as' or at least 'colonially known as'. So were the parentheses misused to draw particular attention to the sentence, like a deliberately misspelt word or (in speaking) a mispronounced or pointlessly stressed word? I doubt it in this case because the point made was an aside and to draw special focus on it would simply distract from the main thesis. More likely just academic inferiority.
Oh, you're right, of course! It's a straight-up embarrassing mistake, as far as I can tell.
That sounds remarkably standard.
Don’t insult the white supremicists by including toxic feminists in their ranks. I’d say the average white supremicist would not even support these Marxists
“average white supremacist”?
Is that an oxymoron?
Testing the group eh? Sly devil.
Yet the concept of supremacy on a scale does provoke a thought or two:
When asked if these white feminist could be acceptable in the supremacist movement a high scoring supremacist might answer, “Never. She has lain with the inferiors.”
Whereas a slightly below average supremacist might say, “ehhh, get enough beers in me she might be okay at closing time?”
They define white supremacist as anyone who supports our standard western, capitalist society because they see it as designed by white, heterosexual men to only benefit them at everyone else's expense. So, a black woman can be a white supremacist if she voted for Trump. It goes beyond race, too. A black woman could be a white supremacist if she objected to a gender-confused boy playing against her daughter in a sport. They think gender being binary was an idea invented by white men.
There really ought to be a term such as “oppression envy” to describe this phenomenon.
When you’ve created a social movement founded on the belief that nobody in history has ever been oppressed as much as you have, and then you find yourself outflanked by people whose history involves genocide and enslavement on an immense scale by people who look like you what is a poor, innocent White girl to do except wish that she could gain greater respect and moral authority by belonging to a category of people who can point out actual oppression. That white feminists end up saying “we haven’t been oppressed enough, we have to claim victimization in the horrible manner of slavery and genocide because otherwise our claims to be victims look rather hollow” is an ineluctable result of basing an identity on a claim of millennia of suffering under the male heel. When you’ve created realize that there are people who have a truly legitimate claim to have a history of actual oppression, and who can legitimately blame you for it, what else can you do except wish you had that moral weight to your claim.
Or put another way, when the finger is pointed at White women alongside White men all of a sudden those women find out what it means to confront the fact that they aren’t able to cast the blame for everything bad from war to pimples on White men because they have to share the blame they go nuts.
The problem with "actual oppression" in regard to claims of group respect or entitlement is that most people, including many whites, have ancestors who were oppressed. Slav, for example, denotes people who were enslaved by Islamic imperialists. [Interestingly, if one watches Hollywood movies today, one might conclude that Slavs are the most despicable group of people around.]
Moreover, the group in question is never homogeneous. Some of the "oppressed" group were likely oppressors themselves: for example, a wealthy Ashanti immigrant from Ghana, whose ancestors profited from the slave trade as slavers, is entitled to affirmative action and many special perks and privileges in Canada, despite the fact that he or she was not oppressed.
The entire question imagines that group membership rightfully determines who gets to cast blame, who gets to claim special rights, who to be exempted from moral responsibility for suffering, and who to apologize for privilege. Why should I be blamed for actions that may or may not have been committed by people who lived before I was born, and who may or may not have been related to me in some manner?
I want no part of such a system; I find it repulsive and incoherent.
I agree except where you say 'who can legitimately blame you for it'. I am white. One of my ancestors was made a slave by Africans somewhere in the Mediterranean, doubtless some of my ancestors were slaves of Vikings or Romans. I know of none who were slave owners but even if they were, that does not make ME guilty (and even they are not guilty by the standard that everyone remains innocent until proven guilty).
I am white. I am not guilty for what anyone (a minority at that) did hundreds of years ago. Being British, I admit I am happy to acknowledge that my forebears in a powerful empire were the people who ended the global slave trade and subsequently turned culture against slavery, almost worldwide (it does still exist).
"One of my ancestors was made a slave by Africans somewhere in the Mediterranean"
Yeah, but they only did that because of white supremacy (in the future - why not?).
It's fairly frequently referred to as the 'oppression olympics'. They all try to outdo each other in being lovers, but blame it all on someone else. The irony is that the biggest loser wins.
Thus, Elizabeth Warren became an Injun. :O)
In the modern West, victim = power. Real power, in Clown Nation. Been that way a half-century already. So they all scramble to be Chief Victim. Makes sense.
'Oppression envy' is an excellent term. Crisp and precise.
I'd love to feel bad for Zavitz, but it's just too gratifying to see feminism lose its grip on victimhood, the currency that it adopted--spurred on by Simone de Beauvoir--to gain dominion throughout the Western world over the past fifty years. Just as traditional currencies have been forced to yield ground to newly emerging (crypto)currencies, it should have been foreseeable that feminism, too, would arrive at a point where it could no longer maintain absolute control over the cultural value of victimhood and the power that it confers. Perhaps feminists were too careless and too overconfident to see that intersectionality had the potential to radicalize the currency of victimhood and fundamentally change the game.
Toxic white privileged feminism is and has always been the problem. This small group of Woke Marxist pigs have gained power in our governments by infiltrating our children’s minds via Schools, Universities, Social Media, blatant lies, and ironically, continuously attacking the very people that give them their privileged existence. Western White males who ironically fought wars in previous generations on their behalf, only to be disrespected endlessly by this generation! WOW it’s incredible the utter contempt for their own race and enablers. The enabling of these pigs needs to stop!
I know I'm posting 2 in a row, but totally different topic. The women who would crush a white woman for expressing a desire to resemble their beauty have no problem with women in their community sewing locks of other women's hair to their heads (aka weaves). Weaves are often left in place for many weeks (even months, by some reports). The natural hair is braided tight to the scalp, and the bundles sewn on. Between the hair follicles rendered immobile for long timeframes, and the weight of the bundles, the natural hair is slowly destroyed over time. This is a choice many black women make, even though black men have been shouting for years about how much they hate weaves and wigs, and overwhelmingly prefer natural hair.
Women don't do beauty routines for men. It's to look good/compete with other women.
Black women constantly complain (falsely) that their natural hair is seen as unprofessional in the work place and holds them back so, instead, they come to work looking like street hookers or circus clowns. Check out this video of a woman who ran out of whatever glop she usually used and used Gorilla Glue instead.
https://youtu.be/HLos7f1TNKw?si=iRXGK9WbCDfiVBI8
I remember the Gorilla Glue saga. She ended up getting tens of thousands of dollars of free help from a sympathetic plastic surgeon. I'm surprised she didn't end up with permanent damage to her scalp. Then there were others who apparently didn't see her situation as the clear evidence that Gorilla Glue is not a hair product. smh.
I saw a video of Michelle Obama complaining that she had to restrain her hairstyle choices while first lady. The funny thing is, I see no change in her hairstyle choices, always either highly processed or some kind of wig or weave.
Image in any other era women of any other race turning up at work with garish-colored butt-length braids that look like they're made of knitting yard. That's not an exaggeration, I was picking up an order at a fast foo drive through, and that's how the cashier's hair was - and the braids were not even restrained, just flopping around. Last time I went to that drive thru.
I walk a lot and everywhere I go I see braids of weave lying on the ground. I guess it just finally rots and falls off. As roadside trash, it's about as common as bottles of urine and used condoms.
These women are so distressing to me. I do not want them in charge of anything. The lack of reason and gratitude. The inability to see a whole person and to constantly believe and walk in lies. And these are all “first world problems”. They literally make up issues as busybodies it seems to me. As I said, distressing.
“the New Democratic Party—Canada’s Gucci socialists”
I love it when Janice Fiamengo hip checks the Canadian left.
I like this line too. Gucci socialists ~ we have them in Australia and they are just as toxic
I think all socialists are in that category. No working class people have ever decided to rise up and overthrow the upper class. A slightly different branch of the upper class always does the overthrowing in the name of the working class.
One set of elites replacing another in their own best financial interests
Great again Janice.
Okay, this is telling. They claim that "wanting" to be a Black woman is evidence of racism. If we accept that logic then wouldn't any person wanting to be the opposite sex be horribly sexist? Sorta puts the kibosh in the trans movement doesn't it?
Oh, those terrible people wanting to be the opposite sex! LOL
Yes. That is what TERFs claim: they talk about men parading around in 'womanface' (supposedly the equivalent of blackface). I have actually heard the argument by TERFs and their allies that transwomen hate women and want to replace them.
I have no sympathy for men who pretend to be women by putting on a dress like a magic cloak. Viola! Now I am a woman. I think some do hate women. I have read some accounts of what it is like living with a man who has a sexual fetish in this regard and the lack of support and help they get.
Nobody ever accused the activist class of consistency.
So, the left really does eat each other.....
What the heck is going on in canada that such a broken white woman could run for political office and still get 9% of the vote... Most sane healthy adults would have the introspection to realize their thinking is self-hating and self-destructive and work to fix themselves..
Stories like this dont surprise me, from what ive heard whats going on in canada with the leftists is eerily similar to communist revolutions in the past. In previous communist revolutions, crucifixes were removed in public locations and churches, the same thing is happening in toronto right now.
At my Catholic University in the US, faculty tried to remove crucifixes from classrooms. They said they were traumatizing to the students.
Wow..... For as smart as professors claim to be, they really have zero understanding what the crucifix stands for and how significant it is... Its the most profound symbol of hope that has ever been given to humanity...
Kinda shows you just how stupid some "college educated" professors are, sucks you also have to pay a lot of cash for their "knowlege" as well.. I went to a catholic college 10 years ago in the U.S. and never saw what you had to deal with.. id say it was 60/40 for legit Christian professors.
Female victimhood is just another commodity to be traded, bet on, bet against, driven up, driven down and so on...
Not really Ultimately it's about eradicating of whiteness through low birth rates and miscegenation
What's even more horrific about the "Central Park Karen" incident is that it got Christian Cooper a TV series, further justifying the demonization of white people as a means of getting to the top. I'd say she 'threatened' to get him arrested by calling 911; if in a cloistered space with a man issuing threatening statements, the call might have deterred him.
This: "San Francisco even named a new law after her, the Caren Act, which allows the victims of racist allegations to sue their accusers" merely gives free license to black perpetrators to harass white women. What are they thinking? If I had called the police on the black man on the NYC subway who threatened to kill me for being white, spitting all over me -- yes -- this happened -- he could sue ME? Or how about the black student many years ago who threatened to slice my face over a grade? He could sue ME for reporting him?
On a lighter note, at the university in NYC where I teach, an email went out to anyone who "identifies as black" to join the People of Color group. Since I have 'worked harder than everyone' only to lose course assignments, I decided it must be because I'm black, so I joined the group. The first reading shared in the group by email is titled: "Fear of Black Consciousness." (The insane, obsessive, risible projection by the 'black community' the women in particular, who assign thoughts upon the white race that we don't have! As if we're really, truly, walking around fearing sentience in black people.)
What's worse is when white women promote this risible bullshit in order to elevate their moral status. I find it hilarious that this woman got in trouble for it. The Kafka trap is real.
About the Caren Act, that's exactly what I thought too. As far as I know, it passed without a peep by a single feminist, who might legitimately have noted that white women are at times harassed, stalked, bothered, and threatened by black men and should not fear being sued if they report him. It's another clear proof that feminism has nothing whatsoever to do with what it claims it has to do with.
As a white man, of course, YOU have no rights at all in that regard.
You're a braver man than I to read into "Fear of Black Consciousness." I certainly do fear black hatred.
You’re not the first person to refer to me as male! Perhaps I should identify as such! I’m female through and through though. I wonder what gives readers that idea?
I believe Janice was probably using what's referred to as 'the generic you'.. it's an informal replacement for the word 'one' which is used less and less in common speech.
Yes, I know, but she did say this:
"You're a braver man than I to read into "Fear of Black Consciousness." I certainly do fear black hatred."
Either way, it's fine by me.
No, I committed the sin of assuming your gender! Covered in shame!
Whoops! I missed that one. She called herself a man, as well.
Maybe she thinks your screen handle comes from that old cartoon? " Speed of lightning, power of thunder. Fighting all who rob or plunder. Underdog. Underdog."
Yes my screen name references Underdog; I was also called’Dog’ in grade school.
All the feminists in this article need to be committed to a lunatic asylum, regardless of their skin colour.
But isn't the very lack of oppression itself a kind of oppression? - perhaps, even. the most oppressiony oppression of all?
Dayum. . . . . . you know, you're right.
Just like men's avoidance of women is a hate-crime. Brilliant!
Silence equals violence, after all.