Jeenyus At Werk: hate speech

Showing posts with label hate speech. Show all posts

4/28/2016

"Trans-Misogyny" Is A Misnomer And Bathroom Restrictions Unjustified

A lot of people seem to think the recent hatred and distrust of MTF transgender people is a new and unique thing. There's plenty of writings and speeches about how trans people are being uniquely singled out and persecuted regarding bathroom usage just for being trans.

What they don't seem to realize is that this is merely the extension of the same old chivalrous notion (as well as modern social justice rhetoric) that men are inherently a threat to women and women need to be protected from them.

There's the usual social justice scapegoating going around about how "misogyny" and "male homophobia" are the culprits, but at the same time we hear about how much more hostile people are toward somebody "not a real woman" trying to enter a "female space" than anybody (male, female, trans, straight, gay, etc.) trying to enter a "male space."

In fact, some people will plainly state that they have "never" experienced any significant issue in a men's bathroom as a homosexual and/or trans person, but are regularly treated in a very hostile manner and even threatened with violence by both men and women when attempting to use a women's bathroom.

If this were really "misogyny" and "male homophobia" one should expect to see the opposite - women, homosexuals and anybody else who was "not a real man" would be unwelcome in the men's bathroom, while women would be plenty welcoming within "their" space.

What we have here is not a fear, hatred and distrust of "not straight cis-male" people by men, but a fear, hatred and distrust of "not straight cis-female" people by and on behalf of women. That is why the problem presents the way it does. The women who balk at the idea of trans people using the women's bathrooms aren't displaying "misogyny and male homophobia" and the men who balk at the idea of trans people using the women's bathrooms while simultaneously not caring about a trans person, homosexual, or even genetic female using the men's bathroom aren't displaying "misogyny and male homophobia" either. What they are actually displaying is closer to "chivalrous misandry." They are displaying a fear, hatred, or distrust of "not female" people regarding their perceived "threat to women."

People need to wise up and start understanding that all prejudice is inherently interconnected and any promotion of hatred or distrust of any demographic will inherently impact all demographics negatively in one way or another. The same gender hatred the social justice warriors have been promoting all this time is now working against them. The fabricated "constant risk" of sexual assault and domestic violence, the fabricated "almost exclusively male perpetration" of sexual assault and domestic violence, and the rampant rationalization of the hate and distrust of all men as "inherently threatening to women" has created an environment where many people feel it is perfectly reasonable to bully, threaten, assault, or even legislate a "man in a dress" trying to enter a "female safe space."

This is not "trans-misogyny." If anything, it's closer to "trans-misandry."

Otherwise, you may as well label trans exclusionary radical feminists as "misogynists" - it's the same basic reasoning being used in both cases.

It turns out, though, that women perpetrate things like sexual assault and domestic violence at rates comparable to men. Specifically when it comes to arguments like "men are going to use the opportunity to prey on women" and "I don't want a man in the bathroom with little girls" they just don't hold water, because women also prey on women.

http://www.curvemag.com/Curve-Magazine/Web-Articles-2010/Lesbian-on-Lesbian-Rape/

Because many people define rape at penetration by a penis, woman-to-woman rape is not acknowledged or taken seriously. But in fact, it is estimated that one out of three lesbians have been sexually assaulted by another woman.

In April 2009, Melissa Huckaby, a Sunday-school teacher, was arraigned for the rape and murder of Sandra Cantu, an eight-year-old playmate of Huckaby’s own daughter in Tracy, Calif.

And many studies actually suggest that, statistically speaking, women are more commonly the perpetrators of sexual assault and abuse of children.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/svjfry09.pdf

Sexual Victimization In Juvenile Facilities Reported By Youth, 2008-2009 Approximately 95% of all youth reporting staff sexual misconduct said they had been victimized by female staff. In 2008, 42% of staff in state juvenile facilities were female.

http://archive.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm06/cm06.pdf

Child Maltreatment 2006 (Page 75)
For FFY 2006, 57.9 percent of the perpetrators were women and 42.1 percent were men.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/cm11.pdf

Child Maltreatment 2011 (Page 68)
More than one-half (53.6%) of perpetrators were women and 45.1 percent of perpetrators were men.

Now, it should go without saying, but I'm not suggesting there's no risk of anybody being victimized by a person of the opposite sex who took advantage of trans-inclusive bathrooms to facilitate predation. What I am suggesting is that whatever risk does exist, not only has it been wildly exaggerated, but people should be equally concerned with same-sex predation, so bathroom gender exclusivity is simply not a practical solution.

6/23/2014

Men vs Women Re: "Gendered" Crime

I've written about "gendered crime" before, but it occurs to me that there's another angle to consider here.

For a moment, let's forget about the statistics, the estimates, the convoluted gender theory. Let's pretend that the differences in figures that "gendered crime" proponents like to use can't be explained by simple reporting/measurement bias. Let's just consider some basic, necessary conditions for "gendered crime" to be a real thing.

The claims:

Women commit these crimes at a significantly lower rate than men do.

Men don't have to worry about being raped/assaulted by women the way women have to worry about being raped/assaulted by men.

The conditions:
#1. Women are inherently not as capable as men - that is, women cannot commit these crimes on an equal level to men, because they lack the ability to do so. Women are inferior to men.
-or-
#2. Women are inherently better people than men - that is, women have all the same ability to commit these crimes on the same level, but simply choose not to. Women are superior to men.

If there is a "significant difference" in risk and perpetration of "gendered crime" then one of those two conditions must be true. If they are both false, that inherently means there is no "significant difference" based on the popular "because gender" prejudice. (and suggests you should probably take a closer look at where those claims come from) So, if you're one of the "gendered crime" proponents, please tell me which of those two conditions you think is responsible for the "significant difference" in "gendered crime." In your mind, are women inferior to men, or are women superior to men?

1/03/2014

Why Derogatory "Feminist" or "MRA" References Make My Eyes Roll

It has nothing to do with any gender bias or quixotic interpretation of the term(s) on my part, but instead due to the over-generalizing, ad-hominem nature of the argument and the accompanying argument(s), and the nonsensical direction the debate takes from there.

It's one thing to dispute the validity of an argument, or a specific claim, or a prevalent attitude or action, but to lump together and dispute the validity of an entire demographic, regardless of which demographic, isn't actually a defensible position, nor a useful strategy. When you debate a specific point, your debate is relevant to that point. You exchange information, logic, and rationality. When you argue against an entire demographic and/or ideology, your debate degrades into meaningless drivel and propaganda. You cease to be concerned with an issue and start arguing straw people and stereotypes instead.

I've seen plenty of claims like "feminists are misandrous bigots" and "women are selfish and don't care about men's issues." You know what that gets you? NAWALT/NAFALT. For example, the majority of participants in the local march for male genital integrity this past year were women, likely some feminists among them as well. I can even show you several examples of women as high profile MRAs.

I've also seen plenty of claims like "MRAs are misogynists" and "men are oppressive and don't care about women's issues." You know what that gets you? NAMALT/NAMRAALT. There's plenty of MRAs who have never said anything demonstrating hate of women. There's plenty of self-identifying and very active male feminists who seem to care about little else.

And that's the end of any legitimate debate. Every. Single. Time.
From there, it's nothing but each side trying to prove they are "less evil" somehow and the other is "more evil" somehow, because they think that will somehow provide them some sort of victory.

Get a clue.

Even if you were to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that "feminism" or "MRAs" were an evil group, it still not only allows the individual you're arguing with to deny personal association and involvement with that evilness, but it does nothing to address or refute any specific claims they've made, or convince them to change their mind about any issue, or raise awareness about anything. All it does is get 2+ people bitching at each other about which one of them belongs to the "more bigot" demographic. You think any normal, reasonable person is going to stick around and read 3 pages or listen to 15 minutes of that garbage before getting to the little nugget of useful information you've buried in there? You think the person you're arguing with is going to see that nugget and change their mind about anything? Think again.

So, what should you do when faced with a "feminist" or "MRA" then?
Focus on their arguments instead of their demographic.
Tell them how their claims are bullshit, and ignore their association.
Disprove their specific results instead of attacking their entire ideology.

If you can dispute their entire argument one piece at a time, independent of their ideology label, not only will they not be able to wiggle out of it with NAFALT/NAMRAALT, but they may actually not get so defensive that they throw up blinders and stick their fingers in their ears to avoid considering what you have to say.

In the end, what would be more valuable to your cause?

Normal people actually listening and being exposed to information, as well as opposing ideologues possibly changing their perspective...

...or just pissing off the person you disagree with as much as possible until one of you finally quits to go spout vitriol elsewhere?

That's why I roll my eyes every time somebody uses "feminist" or "MRA" as a derogatory label. It doesn't actually have anything to do with human rights, or exposing bigotry, or honest debate, or even raising awareness about any particular issue. It's about nothing more than animosity and an attempt at vengeance based on your own prejudice, not theirs.

11/23/2013

Is "Gendered" Crime Really Gendered?

You hear it repeated on the news, in public service announcements, in "social justice" slogans and literature, even from random friends and aquaintances in your daily life.

"Sexual assault and domestic violence are male crimes against women."

Some people will admit when pressed that there are "a few cases" where the reverse is true, "but those are rare" right?

http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf
Table 2.1 (Page 18)
12 month prevalence of Sexual Violence - Women:
Rape:                               1.1%        1,270,000 victims
Made to penetrate:         not listed
Unwanted Sexual Contact:         2.2%    2,600,000 victims

Table 2.2 (Page 19)
12 month prevalence of Sexual Violence - Men:
Rape:                                     not listed
Made to penetrate:        1.1%    1,267,000 victims
Unwanted Sexual Contact:         2.3%    2,565,000 victims

Table 4.1 (Page 38)
12 month prevalence of IPV Physical Violence - Women:
Physical Violence:                     4.0%    4,741,000 victims

Table 4.2 (Page 38)
12 month prevalence of IPV Physical Violence - Men:
Physical Violence:                     4.7%    5,365,000 victims

Table 4.5 (page 42)
12 month prevalence of IPV Sexual Violence - Women
Rape:                               0.6%    686,000 victims
Made to penetrate:        not listed
Unwanted Sexual Contact:    0.5%    645,000 victims

Table 4.6 (page 43)
12 month prevalence of IPV Sexual Violence - Men
Rape:                                     not listed
Made to penetrate:      0.5%    586,000 victims
Unwanted Sexual Contact:       0.9%    1,031,000 victims

Summary (Page 39)
More than 1 in 4 men in the United States (28.5%) has experienced rape, physical violence and/or stalking by an intimate partner at some point in their lifetime.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1022456626538
In Study 1, 25.1% of respondents reported at least one incident of nonconsensual sex with a woman and 23.9% reported attempts by women to make them engage in nonconsensual sexual activity. In Study 2, the overall prevalence rate for completed nonconsensual sexual interactions was 30.1%, and 23.5% of the men reported attempts at making them engage in nonconsensual sex.

Anderson (1998)
36.5% of respondents reported having gotten a man intoxicated to make him engage in sexual acts. Threat of force was reported by 27.8%, use of force by 20%, and threatening a man with a weapon by 8.9% of the female participants.
(sorry, I can't seem to find a convenient link for that one at the moment...anybody care to help out?)

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/svjfry09.pdf
Sexual Victimization In Juvenile Facilities Reported By Youth, 2008-2009
Approximately 95% of all youth reporting staff sexual misconduct said they had been victimized by female staff. In 2008, 42% of staff in state juvenile facilities were female.
10.8% of males and 4.7% of females reported sexual activity with facility staff.

http://www.curvemag.com/Curve-Magazine/Web-Articles-2010/Lesbian-on-Lesbian-Rape/
Because many people define rape at penetration by a penis, woman-to-woman rape is not acknowledged or taken seriously. But in fact, it is estimated that one out of three lesbians have been sexually assaulted by another woman.

http://archive.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm06/cm06.pdf
Child Maltreatment 2006 (Page 75)
For FFY 2006, 57.9 percent of the perpetrators were women and 42.1 percent were men.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/cm11.pdf
Child Maltreatment 2011 (Page 68)
More than one-half (53.6%) of perpetrators were women and 45.1 percent of perpetrators were men.

https://1in6.org/the-1-in-6-statistic/
Researchers have found that 1 in 6 men have experienced abusive sexual experiences before age 18. And this is probably a low estimate, since it doesn’t include noncontact experiences, which can also have lasting negative effects.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/110127/dq110127a-eng.htm
A similar proportion of men and women reported experiencing spousal violence during the five years prior to the survey. Among men, 6.0% or about 585,000, encountered spousal violence during this period, compared with 6.4% or 601,000 women.

http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
SUMMARY: This bibliography examines 286 scholarly investigations: 221 empirical studies and 65 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 371,600.

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/5/prweb10741752.htm
The most comprehensive review of the scholarly domestic violence research literature ever conducted concludes, among other things, that women perpetrate physical and emotional abuse, and engage in control behaviors, at comparable rates to men.

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/celebrity/news/emma-roberts-evan-peters-abuse
According to a study done in 2000, the statistics of domestic abuse in America were 1.3 million women versus 835,000 men. A more recent study from 2011 ups the percentage: One in four men have experienced "rape, physical violence and/or stalking" by a partner, and one in seven have experienced "severe physical violence," like beaten with a fist or a blunt object. And a 32-nation study by the University of New Hampshire claims that girlfriends initiate violence equally often as boyfriends do in relationships.

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2005.079020
Results. Almost 24% of all relationships had some violence, and half (49.7%) of those were reciprocally violent. In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases.

http://psychnews.psychiatryonline.org/newsarticle.aspx?articleid=111137
Regarding perpetration of violence, more women than men (25 percent versus 11 percent) were responsible. In fact, 71 percent of the instigators in nonreciprocal partner violence were women.

http://news.ufl.edu/archive/2006/07/women-more-likely-to-be-perpetrators-of-abuse-as-well-as-victims.html
In a survey of 2,500 students at UF and the University of South Carolina between August and December 2005, more than a quarter (29 percent) reported physically assaulting their dates and 22 percent reported being the victims of attacks during the past year. Thirty-two percent of women reported being the perpetrators of this violence, compared with 24 percent of men.

In a separate survey of 1,490 UF students, one quarter (25 percent) said they had been stalked during the past year and 7 percent reported engaging in stalking, of whom a majority (58 percent) were female.

The study also was among the first to look at psychological abuse. Examples included preventing partners from seeing family or friends, shouting at them and using threats to have sex. Fifty-four percent of respondents reported being psychologically abusive, and 52 percent said they were victims of this type of behavior. Women were more likely to be psychologically abusive, with 57 percent saying they were perpetrators versus 50 percent of males.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070625111433.htm
...it showed that nearly twice as many women as men said they perpetrated domestic violence in the past year including kicking, biting or punching their partner, threatening to hit or throw something at their partner, and pushing, grabbing or shoving their partner.

http://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2078&context=news
Men are More Likely Than Women to Be Victims in Dating Violence

...most incidents of partner violence involve violence by both the man and woman...
The second largest category was couples where the female partner was the only one to carry about physical attacks, not the male partner.

These results call into question the widely held belief that partner violence is primarily a male crime and that when women are violent it is self defense.

...overwhelming evidence that women assault their partners at about the same rate as men.
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ID41E2.pdf

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1553-2712.1999.tb01207.x/pdf
Of 866 male patients interviewed, 109 (12.6%) had been the victims of domestic violence committed by a female intimate partner within the preceding year.

...choking, kicking, biting, and punching (48.6%), or throwing an object at the victim (46.8%).

Thirty-seven percent of cases involved a weapon. Seven perent of victims described being forced to have sex.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10896-006-9052-0

http://time.com/37337/nearly-half-of-young-men-say-theyve-had-unwanted-sex/

Nearly Half of Young Men Say They’ve Had ‘Unwanted’ Sex

18% of surveyed guys say women used physical force to make them have sex against their will

43% of high school and college-aged men say they’ve had “unwanted sexual contact,” and 95% of those say a female acquaintance was the aggressor

"This is not to deny the gendered impact of sexual violence..."

Are we starting to see a pattern here?

See, the real reason you don't hear about men being raped or beaten, is not because these crimes are gendered, but because the interest in these crimes is gendered. When it's a woman being victimized by a man, people care. When it's the reverse, they don't.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/frequently-asked-questions/ucr_faqs
For UCR reporting purposes, can a male be raped?
No. The UCR Program defines forcible rape as “The carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will” (p. 19). In addition, “By definition, sexual attacks on males are excluded from the rape category and must be classified as assaults or other sex offenses depending on the nature of the crime and the extent of injury” (p. 20).
(in other words, man forcing sexual intercourse on a woman = "rape" while woman forcing sexual intercourse on a man = "assaults or other sex offenses")

That definition was updated in 2012:
http://blogs.justice.gov/main/archives/1801
The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.
(in other words, man forcing sexual intercourse on a woman = "rape" while woman forcing sexual intercourse on a man = "assaults or other sex offenses")

https://dl.dropbox.com/s/nfqxs9cxu524gk2/Koss%20-%2…
P. 206-207: Although consideration of male victims is within the scope of the legal statutes, it is important to restrict the term rape to instances where male victims were penetrated by offenders. It is inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who engages in unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman.
(in other words, man forcing sexual intercourse on a woman = "rape" while woman forcing sexual intercourse on a man = "not rape")

And going back to that CDC survey:
http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf
How NISVS Measured Sexual Violence
Five types of sexual violence were measured in NISVS. These include acts of rape (forced penetration), and types of sexual violence other than rape.

Rape is defined as any completed or attempted unwanted vaginal (for women), oral, or anal penetration through the use of physical force...or threats to physically harm...

Being made to penetrate someone else includes times when the victim was made to, or there was an attempt to make them, sexually penetratesomeone without the victim's consent because the victim was physically forced...or threatened with physical harm...

(in other words, man forcing sexual intercourse on a woman = "rape" while woman forcing sexual intercourse on a man = "other sexual violence")

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(13)70069-X/fulltext
Introduction
Rape, which is defined as physically forced or otherwise coerced penetration of the vulva or anus,1 violates victims' human rights and causes enduring health problems.1 Victims are often wives or girlfriends, but can also be men
(in other words, man forcing sexual intercourse on a woman = "rape" while woman forcing sexual intercourse on a man = "not rape" - of course, they didn't even bother to ask about female perpetration in that study, so maybe it's not as relevant?)

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Womens-groups-Cancel-law-charging-women-with-rape
Until now, the law has only defined rape as an act perpetrated against a woman. Although another paragraph of the Article on sex offenses appears to indicate that the offenses could be applied to women as well as men, it has not been used against women.
(in other words, man forcing sexual intercourse on a woman = "rape" while woman forcing sexual intercourse on a man = "not rape")

http://www.saveservices.org/pdf/SAVE-Predominant_Aggressor.pdf
Back-Door Approach to Gender Profiling
Over 250 scholarly studies reveal that men and women are equally likely to initiate severe partner aggression. In other words, about 50% of domestic violence perpetrators are female. In contrast, over three-quarters--77%--of domestic violence arrestees are male. The discrepancy between 50% and 77% is suggestive of bias in the enforcement of our nation's laws.

http://jezebel.com/294383/have-you-ever-beat-up-a-boyfriend-cause-uh-we-have
With Amy Winehouse busting open a can of whupass on her husband last week, we decided to conduct an informal survey of the Jezebels to see who's gotten violent with their men. After reviewing the answers, let's just say that it'd be wise to never ever fuck with us.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/11/men-women-prison-sentence-length-gender-gap_n_1874742.html
The study found that men receive sentences that are 63 percent higher, on average, than their female counterparts.
Starr also found that females arrested for a crime are also significantly more likely to avoid charges and convictions entirely, and twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted.

http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V74-gender-symmetry-with-gramham-Kevan-Method%208-.pdf

http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/2009/07/06/researcher-what-happens-when-abused-men-call-domestic-violence-hotlines-and-shelters/
Of the abused men who called domestic violence hotlines, 64% were told that they “only helped women.” In 32% of the cases, the abused men were referred to batterers’ programs. Another 25% were given a phone number to call that turned out to be a batterers’ program.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/jul/17/the-rape-of-men

End violence against...women? A battered child is...the perpetrator?

So, is "gendered" crime really gendered?

Nope.

The response to it sure is, though.

11/13/2013

Read/Listen To Things Before You Judge Them.

There's been a lot of kerfuffle lately about a lot of things having to do with "social justice" causes.

The protests of "boy's and men's issues" lectures at the University of Toronto, being a good example. There were plenty of people holding signs and screaming chants, but how many of the protesters have actually read anything written by the people speaking before branding them "misogynists"? How many of the protesters actually bothered to investigate the topics being presented or listen to what was being said before labelling it "hate speech"?

Or did they just hear somebody in their "women's studies" group say "misogynist" and "hate speech" and line up to oppose it?

When somebody tells you something, it doesn't mean they actually have a clue what they're talking about, or if they do, that they're being honest about it. You need to do your own research and form your own opinion about it, based on your own investigation and rumination on the subject.

Another good example:

URGENT: Take a stand against discrimination

We expect the House to soon take up a bill that would allow any healthcare-related institutions in the state to exempt themselves from discrimination laws that currently protect gay and transgender people.

CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVE NOW & TELL THEM TO OPPOSE SB 975!

Now, please feel free to inform me where this "danger to gay and transgender people" is outlined in the actual bill as passed by the senate, because all I see is a pretty reasonable-looking outline of legal protection for doctors and nurses who have a moral or religious objection to performing specific procedures, as long as it is not a significant part of the employer's business and under non-emergency conditions only. There's nothing about allowing anybody to discriminate against providing healthcare services to any people in there.

I'll say it again.

Read/Listen To Things Before You Judge Them.

10/02/2013

Re: Schrodinger's Rapist

A popular piece of rhetoric lately, "Schrodinger's Rapist" is the idea that every man should be assumed to be a sexual predator and treated as if they are a threat until proven otherwise, whether they do something to reasonably warrant such treatment, or not. Women should be wary of a man approaching them or of being alone with a man and people should be wary of a man interacting with their children, etc.

Well, let's look at this from another angle: Schrodinger's Rapist, meet Schrodinger's Mugger.

Even if we were to discount the plethora of evidence that sexual predation is not a gendered crime, is there really any question that this is simply a bigoted, hypocritical example of garbage rhetoric?

And how ironic is it that the hypothetical experiment it is based on, Schrodinger's Cat, is actually intended to demonstrate the failings of such an assumptive theoretical approach when applied to practical scenarios.

The experiment was designed to illustrate the flaws of the ‘Copenhagen interpretation’ of quantum mechanics, which states that a particle exists in all states at once until observed.

Isn't there a stereotype having something to do with "women" and "science"? Perhaps it goes something like "every woman should be assumed to be bad at science and people should be wary of any scientific work done by women." Doesn't seem so "enlightened" when the shoe is on the other foot, does it?

8/18/2013

Re: If You're A Dude On The Internet, You NEED To See This Video

http://www.upworthy.com/nailed-it-if-youre-a-dude-on-the-internet-you-need-to-see-this-video

I'm going to only criticize the video itself, because the video itself and the "ill doctrine" this guy spews out is the topic and not "feminism/MRM is/isn't..." or "men/women are/aren't" etc. Again, I'm going to be using the list of prejudices from the "What Is Prejudice?" reference page which can be found on the right up there.

Let's break this down from a non gender-fanatical perspective:

Page Title:

If You're A Dude On The Internet, You NEED To See This Video

Assuming "dude" is being used as the slang label for "male" (also supported by the context provided by the video) this is clearly separation of and targeting people by gender.

Blatant prejudice - Right in the title of the page.
UT-1,2

From the video:

Recently, she set up a kickstarter page for a new project looking at the representation of women in video games...

a whole bunch of gamer dudes decided, even though they haven't heard what her opinion is yet, that the mere idea of this woman presuming to form an opinion about them...

Well, which is it? Is this a judgement about the representation of women in video games, or a generalization about men who play video games? (which would be UPJ-1,2,3,4,5 and UGJ-1,3,4,5 by the way)

Those are two different subjects. A representation of a demographic and an actual demographic are not the same thing. One of them is a generalization - a stereotypical facade, while one is made up of actual living, breathing, individual people. One of them is frequently possible to judge as a whole, while one simply can not be without turning it into the other. So, is she attempting to judge the representation of women in video games, or make a generalization about male gamers? Apparently, the answer to this question is unclear at the moment.

...the private army of sexist dudes...

Gendered cooperative sexism!
Yeah, I've heard the "conspiracy" claim before and I'm still not convinced that either gender is conspiring to keep the other down, regardless of how many times it's suggested. There is most likely some individuals from all genders involved in such things, but I have yet to see any actual evidence that there is a mass organizational effort behind any of it.
UPJ-1,2,4,5, UPR-1,2,4,5, UGJ-1,4,5 and UGR-1,3,4,5

...has only succeeded in proving her right...

Quoted again from previous:

...even though they haven't heard what her opinion is yet...

Wait - can they prove something right that hasn't been said yet, or is the ultimate conclusion this woman will reach predictable enough that they might have figured out what it will likely be, as you apparently have, and they are reacting to that?

You can't criticize others for making assumptions and then make the same assumptions yourself to criticize them again. The rules don't change depending on which side you argue for.
UT-1,2

...raises a whole bunch of questions about why this happens so often and why so many dudes think it's OK to persecute and harass and abuse women online.

I would assume, for the same reasons that so many men think it's OK to persecute and harass and abuse other men online so often, or for the same reasons that so many women think it's OK to persecute and harass and abuse men online so often, or for the same reasons that so many women think it's OK to persecute and harass and abuse other women online so often. Sexism doesn't exist in only one direction and bullying in general is a rainbow of different colors of hate. Even though this incident is possibly statistically gender-weighted in this regard, he is broadening the scope to include everything by referencing how often and online in general, so it's very sexist of him to suggest that "dudes" in general are the problem, instead of certain people.
UGJ-1,2,4,5 and UGR-1,2,3,5

A lot of these dudes...will tell you...that they don't really hate women - that they just think it's funny to treat women as if they hate them...first of all, you're lying to yourself...

I'm not familiar with his psychological credentials. Is he adequately qualified to make an assessment about the inner workings of the minds of internet bullies?
UPJ-1,2,4,5 and UGJ-1,2,4,5

Only somebody who hates women and sees them as less than human would think that's a meaningful distinction.

Again, I'm not familiar with his psychological credentials. Is he adequately qualified to make an assessment about the inner workings of the minds of internet bullies?
UPJ-1,2,4,5 and UGJ-1,2,4,5

Also, did he observe this reaction from people actually involved in this incident, or is he projecting this reaction on to them based on different experiences he has had and his own emotional reaction to this particular incident?
UPJ-1,2,4,5 and UGJ-2,4

And I don't know what I could say that would get through to someone that is so invested in detaching from their own humanity...

The person who is dehumanizing "dudes" with condescending labels and blatantly prejudicial accusations is also claiming that those people having the same type of view of women is actually them being "invested in detaching from their own humanity?"
UT-1 and UAS-4

...so I'm just going to think about that and come back to it.

Yeah...me too.

But for now I'm just going to say to everyone else and especially my fellow dudes that when you see something like that going on, you and by "you" I mean "we" have an obligation to speak out against it more often.

UPR-1,2, UGR-1,2,3, UT-1,2 and UAS-4

However, I agree that people should call out bullshit, which is why I make statements like this as well as this.

It's really not cool for us to just shrug our shoulders...

I agree. Apathy about prejudice is "really not cool." That includes the blatant prejudice this guy displays, which is why I'm "speaking out against it."

And it's really not OK for you to jump into somebody's discussion of this harassment and derail it with a bunch of comments about (mocking voice ->) "well sure, harassment is bad, but men are discriminated against too. Feminists are always makin' somethin' out of nothing and bababababa."

In the case of discussing a single instance of harassment without prejudicial themes, it would be very impolite to jump in and start discussing gender issues, yes. However, if the tone of the "harassment" discussion is as prejudiced and offensive as the accusations and mocking present in this video, you can not fault people for attempting to defend themselves against the dehumanizing and belittling intent behind it, because

...when you see something like that going on, you and by "you" I mean "we" have an obligation to speak out against it more often.

Right?

...if you need to show off your debating skills and make fetch happen with the misandry thing...

"The misandry thing?" You mean, like, suggesting men are ignorant about gender issues, as with the title of the page? Like, making negative generalizations about specifically male gamers, as the kickstarter project may or may not have been intended to do? Like, suggesting that when debating possible negative generalizations about themselves, men are not allowed to use the same reasoning as the people putting them down? Like, suggesting men are exclusively responsible for bullying? Like, suggesting men are conspiring with each other to keep women down? Like, suggesting that dehumanizing men with insults, prejudicial accusations and mocking is simply respecting women and that same prejudice against women is men actually dehumanizing themselves? Like, suggesting that especially men should be responsible for protecting specifically women from exclusively male bullies?

That "misandry thing?"

Fuck referencing each one individually, just read them all:
http://jeenyusatwerk.blogspot.com/2013/07/what-is-prejudice.html

...But none of that stuff is the issue right now. The issue right now is the bullying and abuse and harassment that she's facing...

That depends on what kind of history her statements have had so far, actually. If she's a reasonable person, who makes rational judgments of things instead of simply throwing blame at demographics, she certainly doesn't deserve such treatment. However, if she is as sexist as this guy, attempting to fault people for things based on what gender they are, I can totally understand why she might be harassed when asking for money to do presumably the same thing again.

...regardless of your political position on (funny face and mocking finger quotes ->) "misandry and men's rights and blablablablabla."

Condescending, much? Men have just as much right to have rights as any other demographic. You may not agree with some people about what those specific rights should or shouldn't be for each demographic, but the very issue of a human being having rights is not one worthy of mockery, regardless of what their genitals may look like.

This kind of abuse and harassment matters and when it happens in our corner of the internet we need to treat it like it matters.

I agree, even though you just contradicted your mocking stance on the subject of misandry. Misandry is the same kind of abuse as misogyny, in case you weren't aware.

We need to speak up and let them know we're not impressed by how edgy and fearless they are.

Again, I agree. Which is why I post things like this. I know I'm likely to get harassed for it, but unless somebody can point out where I'm making prejudicial comments in response to your prejudicial comments, the haters can just fuck off.

If you are a dude on the internet and you see other dudes in your scene harassing women (or transgender people, or anyone else who's outside of our privileged little corner of the gender spectrum) we need to speak up!

Again, blatant sexism. Those poor women (and trans and blablablablabla) need our protection! They need to be able to say what they want without some mean ol' men being mean to them! Seriously, The level of benevolent misogyny this guy is displaying is as disgusting as the hostile misandry. And I hope I don't need to revisit the subject of gender privilege again for you.

We need to add some extra humanity into our scene to counteract their detachment from their humanity.

You mean, after dehumanizing other people in online discussions, you find the "humanity" coming from others to be lacking in online discussions? I'd never have guessed! /sarcasm

So really, if any of my commentary makes any prejudicial statements about any demographic, be it gender, gamer, etc. feel free to point it out. You have a whole list of offenses to choose from. Feel free to suggest improvements to that list there as well, as long as they're constructive and aren't simply petty attempts to be difficult, because you're pissed off, but lack the ability to argue intelligently.

However, I suspect that in order to be legitimately accused of prejudicial statements about a demographic, I would first have to make a statement about a demographic and since I believe I have debated this entire piece of crap video without making a single judgement about any person or group based on any demographic feature (including voluntary demographics, such as chosen ideology labels) this may simply prove that you can debate prejudice and piss people off plenty without also being a bigot like that guy.

Is this the type of "bullying" he's talking about, I wonder?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJeX6F-Q63I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGAvjwQPCHE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_O1R7Zq9EI

8/14/2013

MRM/Feminism - two sides of the same coin?

I'm sure you've noticed that there's no shortage of people involved in either the MHRM or Feminism camps willing to label the other as "a hate group." The truth is, both sides are guilty of derogatory, generalizing rhetoric.

Yes, the MHRM has been classified as "a hate group" by the SPLC, but it seems the integrity of the organization doing the classification and the circumstances surrounding such is controversial, at best. The MHRM have, on the other hand, done a good job of exposing many examples of feminist hatemongering, such as the deliberately misleading domestic violence and rape data and publicity, volumes of anti-male/female-superiority rhetoric and even what's called "The Agent Orange Files" which is a compilation of plots for anti-male eugenics and social engineering by feminists even in prominent public positions. However, they are not innocent of negative, generalizing, anti-female rhetoric, themselves.

One of their favorite lines when accused of misogyny seems to be "...but they can never give any examples!" so here's a few examples:

"Women, it is apparent now, lack an ethical sense. They are without the capacity for moral agency."

"This is why for at least several generations, a major fraction of adult females have operated with the singular self-interest and disregard for others of overgrown children."

"Men are, indeed, more intelligent and creative than women, on the whole."

"Men's Rights" and "Feminism" aren't inherently anything but a discriminatory focus, which isn't automatically a negative for anybody else. It is the specific rhetoric and opinions often voiced by members of both which make them negative. That's not to say that both sides don't have some good points as well, some of which I agree with, but negative generalizations about the "other" gender are why I consider both "ant-_____" instead of "pro-_____" groups.

So, are the MRM and Feminism two sides of the same coin? I'd say yes. One seems to be less extreme and more likely to provide references to factual data in their arguments, but both seem to have similar (albeit, polar opposite) gender ideology themes to their literature.

Re: Re: Superior?

If you think you can judge an entire demographic by statistical, emotional, "logical" or anecdotal evidence, you are superior to nobody, regardless of which demographic you happen to be in.

The person who created this, as well as those who perpetuate it, have never been forced to die in war.

The person who created this, as well as those who perpetuate it, lack the ambition and devotion to elevate their arguments above prejudicial attacks.

The person who created this, as well as those who perpetuate it, lack enough logical reasoning skills to understand that prejudice is still prejudice, even when it's on their side and will never actually solve anything.

The person who created this, as well as those who perpetuate it, have never ruled the world.

The person who created this, as well as those who perpetuate it, only feel the need for such hateful rhetoric due to a sense of inferiority imposed by the same types of arguments against them.

The person who created this, as well as those who perpetuate it, have not invented anything worth mentioning or that are used in daily life in the last thousand years.

The person who created this, as well as those who perpetuate it, did not create mathematics, philosophy, science, medicine, or any other important building blocks of society.

The person who created this, as well as those who perpetuate it, are only valuable as individual people, but since they seem to prefer to lump themselves into groups based on gender, etc. they make themselves essentially worthless and in the case of hatemongering, even of negative worth to humanity.

Now go reconsider whether you'd rather be thought of as a statistic or as a human being.

Re: Reproductive Rights

Really?

Let's look at birth control options available for both genders.

Women:
Abstinence
Condoms
Diaphram
Sponge
Cervical Cap
Pill
Morning After Pill
Patch
Ring
IUD
Implant
Shot
Sterilization
Abortion

Men:
Abstinence
Condoms
Sterilization

In addition to more birth control options, women also have more options after birth.

Women:
Parental Rights
Public Assistance Programs for "Mothers And Children"
"Safe Haven" Abandonment
Putting The Child Up For Adoption

Men:
?

Men (unmarried to the mother) have very little say in how or by whom a child is parented. Family courts have a demonstrated bias in favor of mothers regarding custody. In "Safe Haven" or adoption cases, men often do not have the option of reclaiming a child they wanted, but the mother gave away. Men are also often pursued by the state for financial support for a child they never wanted in the first place, but it is rare for child support to be extracted from a mother when the father is the sole caregiver.

The final note on this image:

The penis demonstrated is a circumcized penis, effectively labelling even the common lack of basic genital integrity and body self-ownership for men as "having a say."

8/12/2013

Activist Guidelines

It seems to be a popular tactic these days for "social justice" to focus on "who's to blame" and "whom to attack" and "whom we don't like" and such. If you ask me, an entirely offensive fight does more harm than good. It hurts people labelled as "offenders" without actually benefitting anybody. Harming people for no real purpose is not activism, just bullying. It's done for the same petty reasons as any other type of bullying; insecurity, jealousy, anger and hate.

So, I think it's worth making a list of simple guidelines for anybody interested in doing something worthwhile, instead of just lashing out for the sake of being nasty. That way, people know the difference between participating in a cause and just being a bully.

First, do no harm.

Anybody who truly intends to help people isn't going to try to hurt people. The people not in your preferred group are still people and don't deserve any less, simply because you aren't focused on them, specifically. Trying to hurt them isn't going to help you, or the people you claim to be fighting for, or anybody else, for that matter. All generalizing about, projecting motive upon or dehumanizing others will do is piss off everybody. As an activist, your job is to elevate, not tear down - to advocate, not attack.

Focus on your cause.

If your focus is on "fighting the system" or "sticking it to the man" or anything of that sort, your focus is not on the people you claim to be fighting for. Focusing on trying to attack others or convince them that they are bad people is going to make them defensive, not receptive. Instead of slinging derogatory insults like "privileged" and "ignorant" focus on things like "disadvantage" and demonstration of the information you think they lack.

Don't be a hypocrite.

If your problem is stereotyping and/or dehumanization of a demographic, it's not going to serve your cause to stereotype or dehumanize other demographics. If you want sympathy and serious consideration for your cause, mocking the concerns of others isn't going to get it. If you claim to represent "truth" then ignoring or minimizing the importance of facts and sound logic presented by the other side isn't going to speak well of your integrity.

Don't hate.

This is one of the biggest pitfalls I regularly see. Regardless of a person's demographic, status, position, association, or power, they are no less human, nor less an individual as you. None of those things negate their experience, perspective, or potential input toward a discussion. Making judgements about or attempting to negate their personhood is not the same as making judgements about or contradicting their arguments. Personal/political attacks and/or dismissals are not a form of rational debate.

7/06/2013

White/Male Privilege™

The Knapsack Isn't Invisible, But Imaginary.

One of the most common "social justice" byproducts I see these days is the popularization and even glorification of the idea of a universal White/Male Privilege™ In fact, it's such a commonly promoted idea that it has even permeated the general culture. It seems any time anybody is discussing gender issues of any kind, either the entire phrase, or sometimes just the word "privilege" is flung at the person not being belligerent in favor of women. I would say "women and people of color" except that despite the fervent insistence about "equal rights for women and people of color, etc. etc." I don't see the popculture "social justice" narrative actually fighting for people of color (or any of the etc.) unless they're women who just happen to coincidentally be of color. Let's face it, "color" is a token demographic in the popculture "social justice" narrative, used to boost support and provide a convenient increase in "victimhood" for the cause, but ultimately ignored until it's time to trot them out and shame some "white male" into submission.

Of course, one could say, "well, white males as a demographic do tend to have things better than other demographics, don't they?" And my answer would be, yes - if you look at the statistics, whites and males do tend to be better off than other demographics in some ways. However, not only do the facts show the opposite of what this White/Male Privilege™ claim suggests in some cases, but even when the aggregate is truthfully represented in favor of whites or males, it is being applied not as a statistical concept, but as an absolute, even toward individuals.

Now, if somebody wants to argue statistics and such, they can go right ahead and argue with somebody else who's interested in doing so. I'm not much concerned with trying to quantify any demographic for petty reasons myself, since it will tell me nothing useful about any particular person within that demographic. Generally, I'm not going to bother addressing statistics other than to disprove ridiculous claims. The dog I do have in this fight is that people (of any type) deserve the dignity of basic personhood. "Social justice" advocates are simply trying to use generalizations, even sometimes blatantly false ones, to shame people who haven't necessarily done anything wrong and belittle people based on things which do not necessarily apply to them.

So let's examine this idea with some intellectual rigor, shall we?

I'm going to grab the checklists from an article I've often seen referenced as basically the definitive resource for explaining what this concept means and we'll take a real, honest look at some of the claims made, to determine whether they are valid "privileges" which can be applied universally, or are just claims made when trying to shame and silence a person or persons from certain demographics. I'm not going to bother with all of them, because, quite frankly, I'm just not that interested in wasting my time to that extent on debating things which somebody wrote to encourage the hatred of other people. If a sampling isn't enough to be convincing - if there's something in particular that I skip over and you really think is more valid and absolute than the rest and I should address specifically, feel free to leave a comment asking me to do so.

"How am I going to determine if the claims made are just prejudice" you may ask? Well, if you'll take a look over to the right side of this blog, you'll see a list of "reference pages" and on that list is a link to one called "What Is Prejudice?" That's what I will reference when determining the value (or bigotry) of these claims.

http://www.feministezine.com/feminist/modern/WhitePrivilege-MalePrivilege.html

Since the White Privilege™ and Male Privilege™ lists aren't exactly the same, I'm going to combine some of the like items and expand the focus of others. Some things are basically repeats and others could theoretically apply to both race and gender, but aren't present on both lists.

I can if I wish arrange to be in the company of people of my race (or gender) most of the time.

http://www.curves.com/about-curves/
http://www.blackpeoplemeet.com/

So, apparently, it would seem that if having spaces designated specifically for one's own demographic is in fact a White/Male Privilege™ it is not an exclusively "white" or "male" form of "privilege." Seeing as the complaints are about a particular demographic, when it seems other demographics which have these same types of "privilege" are not subjected to these same types of complaints, that suggests even if it is true, UT1 and UT2 from the prejudice reference list are being used against "whites" and "males."

However, there is evidence,

http://www.whitepeoplemeet.com/
http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/05/16/reverse-sexism-at-simon-fraser/

to suggest this can actually be a difficulty for average whites and/or males, to achieve in reality.

Therefore, I'm going to have to say it's a possible UPJ2,4, UGJ4 and UAS1,2,3 as well.

I can be pretty sure of having my voice heard in a group in which I am the only member of my race. (or gender)

I can be casual about whether or not to listen to another person's voice in a group in which they are the only member of their race. (or gender)

I can go home from most meetings of organizations I belong to feeling somewhat tied in, rather than isolated, out-of-place, outnumbered, unheard, held at a distance or feared.

If I declare there is a racial (or gender) issue at hand, or there isn't a racial (or gender) issue at hand, my race (or gender) will lend me more credibility for either position than a person of color (or a woman) will have.

My culture gives me little fear about ignoring the perspectives and powers of people of other races. (or genders)

I can arrange my activities so that I will never have to experience feelings of rejection owing to my race. (or gender)

I will feel welcomed and "normal" in the usual walks of public life, institutional and social.

I can speak in public to a large group without putting my sex (or race) on trial.

Now, I hope I don't have to actually point it out for anybody to pick up the irony, but the fact that this very White/Male Privilege™ accusation is so often and so casually used as a method to shame a person and discount their position, perspective, or value, negates itself in the case of exactly every single one of those claims.

UPJ4 and UGJ4

If I'm a teen or adult, and if I can stay out of prison, my odds of being raped are so low as to be negligible.

If I am heterosexual, it's incredibly unlikely that I'll ever be beaten up by a spouse or lover.

Oh really?

I can ask for legal protection from violence that happens mostly to men without being seen as a selfish special interest, since that kind of violence is called "crime" and is a general social concern. (Violence that happens mostly to women is usually called "domestic violence" or "acquaintance rape," and is seen as a special interest issue.)

For this one, I'll just refer to the Is "Gendered" Crime Really Gendered? post.

Mostly to women? UPJ4 and UGJ4
Special interest? You betcha.

I am not taught to fear walking alone after dark in average public spaces.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/cv08.txt
Characteristics of victims of violent crimes measured by the NCVS in 2008 were similar to previous years. Males, blacks, and persons age 24 or younger experienced violent victimizations at higher or somewhat higher rates than females, whites, and persons age 25 or older.
Male victims knew the offenders in half of all aggravated and simple assaults against them. Female victims knew the offenders in approximately 70% of assaults against them.
Violent crimes measured by the NCVS include rape, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/cv09.txt
Violence against males, blacks, and persons age 24 or younger occurred at higher or somewhat higher rates than the rates of violence against females, whites, and persons age 25 or older in 2009.
Females knew their offenders in almost 70% of violent crimes committed against them; males knew their offenders in 45% of violent crimes committed against them.
Violent crimes measured by the NCVS include rape, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/cv10.txt
Males (15.7 per 1,000) and females (14.2 per 1,000) had similar rates of violent victimization during 2010
Females knew their offenders in 64% of violent victimizations committed against them, and males knew their offenders in 40% of violent victimizations against them.
The NCVS measures the violent crimes of rape, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault.

Is the real problem that the less commonly victimized race/gender is taught to be cautious, or that the more commonly victimized race/gender isn't? If it's the former, all you need to do is tell whites, women and people 25 or older that they are on the less statistically likely side of an average 1.5% per year violent crime victimization rate. Incidentally, if encouraging paranoia about violent crime is a "discrimination" against the demographic less likely to experience it, then it is likely blacks which have the "privilege" in this case. (or, UPJ4 and UGJ4)

Chances are my elected representatives are mostly people of my own sex.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20231337
US election: Women are the new majority

UPJ4 and UGJ4

I can be somewhat sure that if I ask to see "the person in charge," I will face a person of my own sex.

Actually, in case you haven't heard, women are the majority of managers these days and women under 30 make more money than their male peers. If you don't believe me, ask Hanna Rosin. (the radical feminist)
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-end-of-men/308135/

UPJ4 and UGJ4

The more prestigious and powerful the elected position, the more likely this is to be true.

The higher-up in the organization the person is, the surer I can be.

These are also known as the "most CEOs are white men" claim and are intended to suggest that being the same race or gender as somebody in power automatically grants a person some form of, or access to that power, or that the power in question automatically serves that person's interests. If you need an example of why such a thing is not necessarily the case, Google "Sarah Palin abortion" or "Marsha Blackburn equal pay" or "Jodie Laubenberg rape kit."

UPJ1,2,3 and UGJ1,2,3

Tell ya what... How about we address the "wage gap" as well while we're in the neighborhood?

My odds of being hired for a job, when competing against female (or colored) applicants, are probably skewed in my favor. The more prestigious the job, the larger the odds are skewed.

and

I can be confident that my co-workers won't think I got my job because of my sex (or race) - even though that might be true.

Now, those are from the same list, in positions #1 and #2. Is it just me, or do those actually seem to contradict each other? I mean, in #1 the suggestion is "you probably got that job, just because you're male/white" (UPJ2,3 and UGJ3) and #2 is suggesting "people won't think you probably got that job, just because you're male/white." (UPJ4 and UGJ4)

And that's without even considering that there are programs which by design, provide incentives for employers to hire the non-white and/or non-male applicant if there are two people of different demographics competing for the same job.

As a child, I could choose from an almost infinite variety of children's media featuring positive, active, non-stereotyped heroes of my own sex.

http://comicsbeat.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/he-man.jpg
http://inadawords.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/wolverine.jpg
http://www.metropolisplus.com/superman/SupermanJLBColorWeb.jpg
http://media.dcentertainment.com/sites/default/files/AquamanSideburns.jpg

Almost infinite variety?
Non-stereotyped?
UPJ4 and UGJ4

Magazines, billboards, television, movies, pornography, and virtually all of media is filled with images of scantily-clad women intended to appeal to me sexually. Such images of men exist, but are much rarer.

"Ohhhhhhhh myyyyy goshhhh ~~-------------------~~ #Tatum #perfect"

"Yes please. EEK!"

"Hot damn... Woof"

"i would fuck them guyes brain out"

"woah baby i'd let channing tatum strip for me anytime and where"

"I saw this movie with my girls and gay guy friends and I must say we all needed a cold shower after this. Especially when the pony dance happened!"

(Those comments must all refer to the acting talent displayed, right?)

For Objectification's Sake:

If you actually managed to make it all the way here, I hope you're sick of reading by now, because I'm done writing for the moment. I will, however, leave you with the very last list item:

I have the privilege of being unaware of my (white) male privilege.

Which simply means, "disagreeing with me is all the proof I need."

The moral of this story? White/Male Privilege™ (or any other malicious generalization of people) is simple prejudice at best and dishonest, harmful, even blatant hate speech at worst. If you use such language in an attempt to shame and silence somebody, you are not fighting bigotry, you are perpetuating bigotry.

Looking forward to the hate mail...