“If someone succeeds in provoking you, realize that your mind is complicit in the provocation.” – Epictetus.
Firstly, I should address the acronym SJW, (“social justice warrior”). When I first heard this term, I thought it was positive. I even thought of myself as one and then I saw the types of people identifying as SJWs: mostly middle or upper-class, trust fund baby, neoliberal, keyboard “warrior”, establishment democrat, PC (politically “correct”) pacifists, not the kinds of people I had in mind at all. To me a true “social justice warrior” would be an indigenous or native person fighting for his or her land from exploitation by an oil or mining company by any means necessary, (who would probably never identify as an SJW) not some self-righteous, PC halfwit trying to censor words on their internet soap box. “Rage profiteers” is probably a better phrase for these prolific bloggers and Tumblers.
There is a horrible false dichotomy purported by SJWs wherein they claim if you disagree with them on anything then you’re a conservative who denies the existence of racism or sexism, which is absolutely absurd. Ironically, this “you’re either with us or against us” false dichotomy they present is analogous to the arguments of the Bush administration and other radical conservatives when they declared “you’re either with us or you’re for the terrorists.” Similarly, radical conservatives and SJWs are both ruled by emotional reasoning, emotional “weaponization,” and “thinking with their “guts.” Rather than basing reality on subjective facts and evidence, if something “feels wrong”, then it is wrong and the perpetrator must pay the price for their “transgression.” For example, if you frame police brutality as an issue that affects everyone, even while recognizing the disproportionate affects on minorities (who are much more likely to be victims of police terror, incarceration, police torture, assault, and murder) you may be branded as somehow “whitewashing.” The problem with that is that police brutality does affect everyone (aside from the super wealthy and powerful) and by presenting it as a “minority issue” only, self-identified “white people” get to distance themselves from it and really do nothing for fear they are “overstepping.” And SJWs get to claim the real problem is racism and “white privilege” or “white supremacy.” But it’s not. The root problem is the government that aspires for white supremacy and other equally horrific, Orwellian goals. The problem lies in giving such enormous power to incarcerate, terrorize, and kill to extremely flawed human beings. Who they decide to pick on the most is a secondary albeit important issue. Taking racists out of the government would be a half-measure and impossible anyway. Even if police brutality and terror was only a problem that affected minorities as Martin Luther King said “an injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” To be silent in the face of injustice or to encourage silence is to take the side of the oppressors. Police brutality is not solely the fault of “white people.” There are cops of all races, including black, Latino, Latina, Asian who have committed crimes against humanity. Yes, mostly white cops are to blame. But to blame white people as a whole for that is absurd.
This is similar to how SJWs paint criticism of cultures. They advocate a subtle separatism wherein they seek to censor or silence all criticism of any culture not their own and paint it as “cultural intolerance” or even xenophobia. But cultures are not “Holy” or “sacred.” A cultural practice like female genital mutilation (FGM) is part of the culture of Sierra Leone, Gambia, Burkina Faso and Mauritania as more than 70% of girls and women there have been subject to it.i That doesn’t mean it should be free from criticism. Quite the opposite is the case. On the flip side, SJWs often scream “oppression” or “cultural appropriation” when anyone makes any attempt to appreciate or celebrate any aspect of a foreign culture, which can ultimately make others refrain from taking examples of real racism and xenophobia seriously and prevent others from learning about or appreciating other cultures. For example, when a Boston Museum of Fine Arts exhibit encouraged visitors to try on a kimono, SJW protesters decried this as “cultural appropriation” and “racist,” despite the involvement of Japanese staff. This type of condemnation is the most common activity of SJWs. They compete over who can claim more things or people are racist, xenophobic, homophobic, transphobic, or generally not PC while doing absolutely nothing about it, save from whining on Tumbler about it.
Xenophobes, racists, and SJWs generalize about minorities though in different ways. SJWs believe people of color, other minorities, and women can do no wrong whereas open bigots generally think they can do nothing right. Both sides completely lack any sense of nuance and lump them all together. Fundamentally, what PC SJWs seek is censorship of free speech and to separate cultures into neat, little boxes wherein “everything foreign is okay” but separate and unknowable in the “cesspool of plurality” (as Peter Gelderloos put it critically) and anything white or male is “white supremacy / patriarchy.” But that is discrimination all the same. Just because the majority of those in power are white males does not mean the average white male benefits from this. He is seen as a “dirty plebeian” or a slave by the 1% just like the rest of us. There are also many dictators who are of color in Africa (where black people are not a minority, of course) like Paul Kagame, Omar Al-Bashir, and Salva Kiir who get away with the genocide. But that doesn’t fit into the SJW narrative, so it isn’t discussed. Africa is said to be “too complex” for “us white people” to understand. Granted, the reason Africa has so many humanitarian crises is in large part due to Western imperialism but we are not our ancestors and the very idea of race is a social construct. To take a “hands off” or non-inteventionist attitude to everything foreign is to be complicit with the abuses that go on abroad.
Most racism towards white people comes from other white people with white guilt (mostly “SJWs”) as some think hating white people is somehow good for minorities or they somehow feel responsible for the acts of all “whites” everywhere in every historical time period, even if they have no direct ancestral link to the groups guilty of crimes in question, (which is irrelevant anyway as we have no control over what our ancestors did). Further, “white” and race in general is, as mentioned, a social construct. (The concept of “white people” was actually invented in the 1600s to discourage underclass unity and to make people think whites are “superior”. Previously, no one identified as “white” but identified by their national origin, i.e. if you were from Ireland you were Irish, etc.) The color is real but there are all kinds of shades of white, black, red, and brown and everything in between and people don’t always agree on who belongs to which race. For UKIP and Trump supporters, for example, “white people” generally refers to people of Anglo-Saxon, Catholic origin. They may not consider Irish, Scottish, or Australian people as white, despite their skin color. Additionally, North Africans and Middle Eastern people can qualify as “white” on federal documentation, despite having darker skin color. So these distinctions are really meaningless. Our histories are important but it is senseless to separate humanity into sectarian categories. People define race more by arbitrary government borders than by actual color. Talking about any ethnicity in general terms is senseless as races are not homogeneous. Putting aside other types of differences, there is even more genetic diversity within races than between them.
White, straight guys shouldn’t have to prove they’re not racist patriarchs or not sensitive to the plight of minorities or women. It is just as bad to make presumptions about any of them (who are not obviously racist or sexist) because of their gender or skin color than it is anyone else. It makes sense to have the best expectations of people and only think otherwise if given reason to. And just because oppression, homophobia, and racism are very real doesn’t mean it’s fair or sensible to have negative expectations of straight white guys or other “majorities” in general. These evils are perpetuated by more than just straight, white males and just because most financial and political rulers are white men doesn’t mean they consult common, middle or lower class white guys with no power about what to do. Rupert Murdoch doesn’t ask me or Joe Schmo what to do. It’s the whole 99% that’s seen as expendable, not one just one minority or another, despite the worse treatment of many minorities. Being an average human being is hard, not just being one or another minority. And unfortunately, there are plenty of minorities and women who perpetuate oppression, sexism, and racism as well as white men, but I am not sure as many people take notice of that.There is far more patriarchy, sexism and heteronormativity in the corporate media, government, religious institutions, and the upper echelons of other powerful structures than there is among average people in the West. Politicians are the ones who decide to ban abortion and gay marriage, but give parental rights to rapists. Matriarchy is also apparent in Western cultures and that is not a good substitute for patriarchy. The problem is hierarchy and rulers. Having female ones wouldn’t necessarily be any better than the male ones.
We are not guilty for the crimes of our ancestors or people with similar skin pigmentation. Self-identified “SJWs” (who mostly identify as white) think they are being more sensitive to the plight of minorities and victims of racism by condemning white people in general, but ironically they are just being racist. Some don’t even think one can be racist against white people. They change the meaning of terms and even the spelling as with the term women written “womyn” or “womban” to remove themselves from men. In their minds sexism can only mean discrimination against women and racism can only mean discrimination towards one ethnicity. So what do you call discrimination towards more common groups? That’s a question they’re not concerned with or they think such discrimination is nonexistent or if they do recognize it, they attempt to justify its existence once again because of the actions of other people with the same skin pigmentation or gender or whatever group is in question.
I am plenty ashamed of some white people and our ancestors who are or were racist and cruel, but there’s no reason to ever apologize for them or for your skin color, so long as you’re not perpetuating their racism or cruelty. It makes about as much sense as 2000 year-old Jesus “dying for our sins” of today. White people are not a homogeneous group, nor is any race. No reasonable person would blame the behaviors of some people belonging to a certain race and say everyone of that race is responsible for them, (that is racism, of course) and it makes just as little sense to take the blame for things fascists of your own race do and claim that is “progressive.” That kind apologist attitude makes people blind to actual character faults and the nuances of bigotry, racism, and prejudice.
White guilt also seems to make some people with it look past the faults of certain minorities. For example, a lot of people with “white guilt” completely look past all of the terrible things Obama has done like his drone wars expanded to 7 different countries that have killed hundreds of thousands of people, including women and children, with no trial, no jury, no arrest, nothing – just the suspicion of being involved or around terrorism. Not to mention his crony capitalist solutions to everything like Obamacare, which just mandated we must buy health insurance from the very health insurance companies responsible for the disasterous shape of the health-care system that do not guarantee health-care, as well as his bailout of GM and big banks. (The best part of Obamacare was eliminating their ability to deny people for preexisting conditions, but again coverage does not always equal care.) But Obama can do no wrong in their eyes, for one simple reason: he’s black. They will make excuses for him like “He’s inherited a hard situation,” as if that justifies blowing up children with bombs or drones.
If Obama was white, these white people who feel they have to apologize for their skin color would be much more critical of him. That’s likely the only reason a black President was elected. Because on the surface, it looks like progress, so he can get away with having very conservative policies and some people still think he’s progressive because of his skin color. Some people are blind to substance and character and just look at skin color, which is quite dangerous and truly racist, because racism and evil does not discriminate. It comes in all colors, races, religions, genders, and so on. And being a minority doesn’t necessarily mean your views are more progressive or you even have a better handle on race issues. This “white guilt syndrome” makes guilty white people feel like every minority is more qualified to talk about race relations just like some radfems think every woman is more qualified to give a lecture on gender relations. It’s just absurd. If you want to be sensitive to racism and social justice, you have to look first at what a person is saying and the content of their character, and consider their race, gender, and other boundaries secondarily.
Similarily, while I think issues that concern black people should be predominately handled by black people and women’s issues handled predominately by women, that doesn’t mean that no white person on Earth has anything useful to contribute to the dialogue on black issues or that no man on Earth has anything useful to add to the dialogue about women’s issues. (Of course, the opposite applies too. Women can contribute meaningfully to men’s issues and people of color can contribute to white issues.) It’s frankly absurd to think that everyone apart of a certain race, gender, or whatever is going to be necessarily more in touch with “their” group than anyone else or that they are more qualified to speak about them. No one is qualified to speak for entire races or genders. A person who lives almost exclusively with their own race and always has may not identify as that race. They may not believe their race is significant difference because they were never treated differently because of it. If you have never been directly exposed to racism or sexism, it doesn’t matter as much what your skin color or gender is. You will not be as qualified to speak about them as someone who has had years of direct exposure. These are mostly social constructs, so to really be in tune with them requires that exposure. People shouldn’t mistake race or gender as being a platform or a qualification for speaking about these issues. Let’s not forget the Herman Cains, Hillary Clintons, and Ayne Rands of the world. Certainly no sensible person would want them speaking for their race or gender.
A subset of this culture is LGBTQIGNC community (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, gender non-conforming), a group with a forever changing acronym. (Certainly not all of those with those orientations and identities feel they belong to this group, however.) In an effort to make everyone feel included they keep coming up with new categories. But why? Why is it so important for your “gender” and your orientation to be broadcast to the world? Do straight people act this way? For the most part, they don’t. Most people simply don’t care what your gender or orientation is and that’s the way it should be. It’s irrelevant. Your character and how you treat the world and others is what’s important. Many SJWs want to be in a minority these days. They glorify and fetishize minorities because they can claim to be oppressed if you haven’t heard of their ‘flavor of the month’ gender or orientation. Gender non-conforming is the newest, silliest one. What they fail to realize is that gender is biological. It is determined by sex chromosomes. There is no such thing as “gender non-conforming” by choice. Some people, however, are born intersex. According to the Intersex Society of North America, one in 1500 babies are born with ambiguous genitalia. The Children’s Boston Hospital estimates the rate may be closer to one in 4500. If you are not intersex, you may choose not to conform to the stereotypes of your gender and that’s fine. But that’s a rejection of social constructs and stereotypes, not of biological gender.
Female humans usually have one pair of sex chromosomes called X chromosomes while men usually have one Y chromosome and one X chromosome. But men can also have two Xs and one Y. This is called the Klinefelter syndrome. Women can also have three X chromosomes. Men can also have one X and two Y chromosomes, and some people only have one X sex chromosome. There are many other variations, and these uncommon variations are actually “gender non-conforming” but this is not how the term is used. The way the term is used is unscientific, subjective, trendy, and silly. Similarly, “transgender” is another unscientific term because it has nothing to do with sex chromosomes. You can be tolerant of people making their own choices, including those who identify as trans, but it is unreasonable to expect the world to call you what you “identify” as, especially if it is not obvious and it can change simply on a whim. How are we supposed to know what people “identify” as when that’s the case? If I identify as magical unicorn, that doesn’t make it the case and it’s not “hateful” to refuse to recognize I am, in fact, a magical unicorn. But tell this to SJWs and they will scream“transphobia!” even though this has nothing to do with hate and everything to do with science and an interest in keeping the definitions of words consistent, so that words don’t lose all their meaning altogether. The objective pronoun “they” is plural. But SJWs want it to be both singular and plural because they truly believe trans people (sometimes called “two spirit people”) have two identities. Not everyone will identify with their biological gender and expectations of them, and again that’s fine, but I don’t believe we need surgery to meet those expectations. As Gloria Steinham said, “If the shoe doesn’t fit, must we change the foot?” Many more people also like being called by gendered pronouns than those who don’t. Is it reasonable to ask everyone else to change their behaviors for the few who don’t? The same applies to their insistence that people who aren’t trans be called “cis” gender and their protestations of anything displaying heterosexuality from plain view. (As a side note, complaints about the world being more geared to heterosexual people can be silly, because heterosexuality is more common. So to expect other sexualities to be treated as more common is like complaining about everyone in China speaking Chinese instead of your language. Embracing a minority doesn’t mean pretending they are more common or treating “majorities” worse than minorities. Prejudice is prejudice.)
SJWs constantly attempt to stifle free speech. They claim certain words and statements are “hate speech,” somehow “violent,” and distinct from free speech. But free speech includes all speech and there is, of course, no such thing as “violent speech” or speech that directly causes bodily harm. Even if someone experiences some kind of bodily harm from words, there is no way to objectively define that as “hate speech” when the entire body of evidence consists of a person’s subjective feelings. If some speech is designated as not allowed, then there is no free speech. If people’s rights to make even the most heinous, vile statements are not recognized, then freedom is nonexistent. That doesn’t mean you can’t fight against speech you find heinous or vile and respond with your own argument. It only means you can’t tell anyone what to say and not to say because that shuts down all conversation and dialogue and inhibits freedom. Different things are hurtful to different people. There is no way you could forever avoid offending anyone (unless you say and do nothing) and offending people can be positive if it makes them question irrational beliefs or sensitivities. People have a myriad of experiences and the most seemingly innocuous statements could remind someone of a traumatic past experience, so there is no way to avoid that. But by not restricting the conversation you learn more about people and get to challenge other beliefs and have your own beliefs challenged that may be unexamined or illogical. No one should expect “trigger warnings” on anything that might be deemed offensive, “triggering,” or upsetting. There are already ratings on movies, TV shows, and video games that prevent kids from watching certain material, which I believe is alone counterproductive. SJWs are creating a culture that is insular and exists in a bubble. They give themselves a free pass to ignore every injustice in the world because just looking at them could cause them “distress,” and as they deem themselves more important than the real victims of those injustices, they want “trigger warnings” to avoid any exposure to them. “Safe spaces” seem to serve the same purpose of stifling free speech. What a “safe speech” actually means is different according to every SJW but generally it means a space wherein no one will a voice an opinion that contradicts their own or voice any criticism whatsoever.“While all revolutions are prone to devouring their children, the SocJus movement may be especially vulnerable to self-immolation: Its creed of “intersectionality”—multiple overlapping oppressions—means that the oppressed are always one misstep away from becoming the oppressor. Your cool feminist T-shirt can become a racist atrocity in a mouse click. And since new “marginalized” identities can always emerge, no one can tell what currently acceptable words or ideas may be excommunicated tomorrow,” Young explains.
There is no “moral authority” that could deem what is officially appropriate and what is not. The concept is absurd, just as the concept of any “legitimate ruler” is absurd. If you don’t like certain speech, you don’t have to listen. The only time free speech limits another’s freedom is if it is simply harassment or accompanied by stalking. For example, the Westboro Baptist Church often protests funerals. They have every right to make their objectively horrible statements but doing that at a funeral is violation of the privacy of the victim’s family and I believe should qualify as harassment.
The words SJWs try to censor most are slurs but they define “slurs” incredibly broadly. According to Cathy Young, “A discussion on a social justice forum advocates expunging from one’s vocabulary such “ableist” terms as “crazy,” “dumb” and even “depressing”; at Smith College last year, the student newspaper’s report on a panel (ironically, one dedicated to free speech) rendered“wild and crazy” as “wild and [ableist slur].” Calling somebody one’s “spirit animal” is frowned upon because it’s an “appropriation” of a concept specific to some oppressed cultures. An academic list of “microaggressions” includes asking, “Where are you from?” or complimenting a foreign-born person’s English.” This is insane. Again, it advocates a subtle separatism. You can’t ask where anyone is from because their foreign culture is “unknowable” to us “gringos” and we shouldn’t want to know according to these SJWs.
How exactly is criticism supposed to be expressed if every word that is critical is off the table? Even speaking about the dangers of obesity can be labeled “hate speech” or “body shaming”. Most SJWs believe in “fat pride.” But there’s a fine line between body positivity and encouraging and glorifying unhealthy, gluttonous lifestyles and weight. Being well over-weight is not something to be proud of. It’s a health problem that increases your risk for an MI, arteriosclerosis, high blood pressure, depression, and on and on. In a world where over a billion people go to sleep hungry every night, it also incredibly insensitive to them and wasteful.
Cathy further explains, “SocJus speech- and thought-policing includes self-policing. “I rigorously manage my own thinking and purge myself of dangerous ‘unthinkable’ thoughts—‘mindkill’ myself—on a regular basis,” wrote columnist and former Jeopardy champion Arthur Chu in a 2014 Facebook discussion. “This is what you have to do to be a feminist anti-racist progressive, i.e. a social justice stormtrooper.” Thought-policing or obsessively trying to control your own thoughts is not only futile, (as the harder you try not to think about something, the more you will think about it) it is a symptom of a type of obsessive compulsive disorder called “pure O.” When entire lifestyles are wrought to avoid discomfort and the confrontation of fears, these are called “avoidance behaviors” in cognitive behavioral therapy, which are recognized by all therapists to be harmful and exacerbating of anxieties or underlying fears. In fact, CBT encourages intentional exposure to triggers in order to reduce the underlying fears or anxieties. SJWs insistence on avoiding exposure and and even thinking about anything upsetting or “wrong,” is also much akin to what orthodox, religious fundamentalists do as they try to clear their minds of any “impure,” “sinful,” or “unholy” thoughts that may upset their god.
When it comes to humor especially, nothing should be off the table. Anything can be made funny and adding levity to serious topics is a way to deal with them and bring them into the fore while avoiding becoming overwhelmed, depressed, or feeling defeated by them. Giving people an outlet to poke fun at our differences is quite healthy. Beyond humor, I would much rather a true bigot speak his or her mind so that I know that person’s beliefs, rather than forcing these prejudices to fester in the shadows where they will never be challenged and remain unknown to the public until perhaps they boil over.
When it comes to real slurs, SJWs also conflate absolutely heinous words like the n word with “whore” and“fag” as somehow equivalent but they are not. Africans were ripped from their homeland, enslaved, tortured, and humiliated for hundreds of years and feelings about that can surface when someone uses the n word. The same situation isn’t the case with women. It is wrong to equate women with minorities or racism with sexism because women are not a minority. They make up almost half the world population. In fact, in some countries there are more women than men. The US is one of those countries. In 2010, there were 157,244,385 females and 153,139,563 males. Further, in some regions women have distinct advantages over men, whereas in others they have distinct disadvantages. So the term “male privilege” used so widely to describe a condition SJWs believe all males have is ludicrous. Where is the male privilege of a boy kidnapped by a terrorist organization and forced to kill or be killed or that of a dirt poor, disabled homeless man or that of a Yemeni boy who lost his whole family to a drone strike?
Just because a group of people may be more often deprived of certain rights doesn’t mean that different groups of people who have these rights are “privileged”. Basic rights are for everyone and they shouldn’t ever be considered privileges. Using such terminology makes it sound like they should be grateful for their basic rights. Gratitude is nice concept, but we shouldn’t thank our masters for their scraps. Rights should be considered the bare minimum requirements for a decent existence. Otherwise, what you’re really advocating is for those so-called “privileged” people to lose their rights too. That trendy, collegiate, SJW, radfem expression “check your privilege” is slave talk. No one truly benefits from inequality. Financially, some do. But they still have to live with that. Some couldn’t care less, but truly it is the 1% we need to focus on. It is them who try to separate us by our genders, races, religions, and so on. We are all the struggling masses in comparison to the 1%. White supremacy shouldn’t be seen as a privilege for anyone but the KKK and others happy to profit from the suffering of minorities. For anyone with a conscience, white supremacy is disgusting and vile, and any such advantages are rejected. I think the term white privilege is racist because it’s like saying “We’re so lucky to be white,” which is gross. Skin pigmentation is not a privilege. Rights are not privileges and just because minorities are generally deprived of more rights doesn’t make rights for whites less valid or “privileges.” It’s possible the term white privilege was invented by white separatists and those who believe in segregation. Certain people treat others differently based on race but if you avoid those people, the same concepts don’t apply. Skin color becomes irrelevant.
Females and males across the world can hardly be looked at as homogeneous groups. The plight of women in America couldn’t be more different than the plight of women in Saudi Arabia where we actually need feminism. The same is true of men, which is what makes the term “male privilege” used here absolutely absurd. In Saudi Arabia women cannot leave the house without a male. They cannot get a job without a man’s permission. They can’t drive and they only recently secured the right to vote. A 6-old-boy can have authority over an adult woman there. Female genital mutilation is common there as is stoning a woman for adultery. In one prominent case, a Saudi woman was whipped by the government 100 times more than her rapists. But this isn’t discussed by SJWs. Even talking about it could be branded as “cultural intolerance” and yet in America when a woman makes a mere accusation of rape against a man (even when completely untrue) this can destroy the man’s reputation and life. Call a woman beautiful and you might get called a creep, harasser, or ironically a “misogynist.” Show any sign of heterosexuality as a man and you might be labeled as dangerous. Catcalling is the “crusade” SJWs choose simply because of self-interest and to seem “sensitive” to women around them generally in an effort to get laid themselves. Men in America are essentially collectively punished for the crimes of a minority of men. Most guys would never rape anyone and expectations affect reality. Having bad expectations often induces bad behaviors, and by alienating and condemning common, white, heterosexual men and others as part of the “white supremacy / patriarchy”, they are shooting themselves in their collective foot and hurting the cause they purport to defend. We can’t change our skin color or genders but we can change our behaviors and if you want to create more tolerant people who defend others regardless of skin color, ethnicity, or gender you must not label anyone as the enemy based on the same criteria. This should be obvious.
In America there is still very repressive legislation over women’s bodies, restricting access to birth control and abortions in certain states and legislation that gives custody over children to rapists, which is disgusting, but many women also have advantages here. For one, women have longer average lifespans here. The average life span of American males in 2013-2014 was 76.71. For American women in the same period it was 81.48. According to 2015 data from the World Health Organization, Japanese females had a life expectancy of 86.8 (the highest in the world) while the average male life expectancy there was 80.5. In fact, in every country of the 183 surveyed in 2015 by the World Health Organization females lived longer on average than males. There are several reasons for this. Firstly, men are conscripted, not women. This is quite evident when you look at combat deaths, of which 97% are males according to the DoD. Men and boys are also kidnapped by terrorist organizations and governments like the IDF and Boko Haram and forced to fight. And being of “military age,” (which is defined as 18 years of age in the US but younger in many other countries) and male in a country that is at war is enough to be labeled a “militant” and “fair-game” for assassination, especially via drone strike. It’s often considered more evolved to be peaceful in your everyday life, but it’s easier to be nonviolent as a woman. Men are expected to fight. If they don’t they can face punishment as stated or they might be considered soft, and even if they do fight they might be considered brutes. Second, according to the Department of Justice, 77% of homicide victims in the US are males. Women and children also always get to go first in all emergency situations and suicide rates are also much higher among men. 80% of suicides in US are committed by males according to the Center for Disease Control.
Further, according to the Prison Policy Initiative, which gathered data from the Bureau of Justice in 2010, 1352 of every 100,000 males in the US were in prison, whereas only 126 of every 100,000 US females were imprisoned and being less likely to be imprisoned is not only an advantage that grants women greater freedom, it also decreases their chances for assault and murder. 100,000 to 140,000 males are raped yearly in US prisons, far more than females according to the Human Rights Watch. 92% of those who have died doing their jobs are males according to the Labor Statistics. This is because men do most of the more dangerous, dirty jobs hence why men get paid more on average.
Many SJWs and radfems like to cite the dubious statistic that women make 72 cents for every dollar a man makes but fail to point out this is mostly due to the fact that women choose different lines of work. Men far more often choose dirty jobs (trash pick up, plumbing, etc.) and ones in which there is a possibility of getting killed (army, navy, marines, security guard, bouncer, body guard, etc.) and jobs that require greater physical strength, (construction, furniture moving, and so on). The biggest discrepancy in wages is among CEOs compared to their male and female workers. Most greedy, billionaire CEOs and plutocrats are heterosexual, “cis”, white males. But that does not affect average heterosexual, cis, white, male. The misanthropes in power can be any color, creed, religion, sex, etc. and still commit the same crimes against humanity. Their set of genitals, skin pigmentation, and so on is irrelevant. (Tell that to the voting American public obsessed with symbolism that would happily elect the first transgender, gay, paraplegic Inuit with AIDs, even if he/she hated everything and everyone.) And the solution to that economic disparity is not to have more greedy, billionaire CEO women, matriarchs, or minorities. (This is sometimes called corporate “feminism” but this really means equal opportunity to be oppressors. Hillary Clinton is case in point.) The solution is to destroy that position for males and females and all races and to destroy hierarchy more broadly. No one should be getting rich off of millions of other peoples’ labor. When looked at individually men and women who perform the same jobs with the same experience, education, qualifications, and so on usually get paid exactly the same. There are some jobs in which they get paid less, which is unfair and should change, but there are also jobs wherein women get paid more, which is also unfair like female models, female porn stars, female strippers, and so on. Some SJWs claim the world is more catered to white, heterosexual, cis males but it caters to them in horrible ways through military recruiting, harmful representations of masculinity, predatory advertising, and dated stereotypes. We are fed ridiculous machismo lies about “manhood” and told it is defined by our stature, wealth, status symbols, the number of women we’ve slept with, and that this attracts.
Any violence against a woman is also seen as “woman hating,” yet the media is saturated with violence against males and SJWs and radfems don’t bat an eye. That’s not considered “man-hating” or misandry. The man in any confrontation with a woman is always assumed to be at fault, even if he’s defending himself and some women take advantage of that fact. Some will push buttons and say things any guy would get his head knocked off for. Every woman in distress is immediately defended, whereas when men are in trouble generally no one cares. The suffering of men is often seen as funny. Rape of men in prison is used as a punchline. Rape of women, on the other hand, is a felony that will land you in jail where sexual abuse is common. This goes beyond violence as well. Women are more generally supported in American society when in emotional distress, whereas a crying male is seen as a “pussy,” weak, the butt of a joke, and is more often mocked than helped. Women are encouraged to emote while men are told to “man up.”
Attractive women also generally get treated better wherever they go than attractive men do. They get doors held for them, free drinks, favors, as so on. Simply marrying a rich man is a survival technique not all men have the luxury of having. Men are expected to pay for everything on dates from buying women free drinks at bars to supporting girlfriends and wives financially and if a divorce occurs for some reason the woman gets half of the man’s assets without a prenuptial agreement, even if the woman was not working. That is insane. Most women also don’t have to ask for a date. They just wait to be asked. They don’t have to deal with endless rejection like guys do. Instead, they dish it out. Attractive women are often hired over men and promoted over them as well.
Some men seem to be turning into servile creatures who never express their sexuality lest it be deemed as “inappropriate” meanwhile some radical self-proclaimed “feminists” in the West find more to complain about while the women in parts of the East really undergoing oppression and sexism almost never complain. If you identify as a feminist, you can’t make your crusade something like cat-calling. Go to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, or Sierra Leone where feminism is actually needed. But don’t pretend you’re helping women by sharing an article about “the evils of catcalling” or some other nonsense about how someone is sexist because he told you to “smile.”
In American society if you advocate only for women’s rights as feminists do, this is seen as empowering or “social justice.” But if you advocate for men’s rights, you’re seen as a bigot or a misogynist. Another double standard is that if you have an opinion as a man, you’re just “mansplaning” But if you have an opinion as a woman, you’re “strong and courageous.” If you disagree with a woman as a man, you’re “not listening to women” (as if one speaks for all) or “invalidating her experience.” If you disagree with a man you’re “fighting patriarchy.” It is also seen as acceptable to generalize about white males but terrible to generalize about anyone else. When women are sexually aggressive or mean towards men or seek to humilate them this is often seen as “empowerment.” If men are aggressive sexually, they might end up in jail. When a man is in power, nothing is off limits in terms of what you can call him. When it’s a woman in power “we have to be sensitive.” Another double standard is that FGM is rightly acknowledged as a horrible practice in most democratic countries and yet male circumcision performed at infancy (obviously without the consent of infants) is seen as normal almost everywhere. The latest crusade of radfems and SJWs against “manspreading” is one of the most absurd that seeks to control the most minute behaviors of men that harm no one. It also fails to recognize the genital differences between men and women. Men have external genitalia while women have internal genitalia. This means they can comfortably close their legs while men can’t without crushing their testicles and scrotum. Men can also get “batwings” (when the scrotum sticks to the thighs) from having their legs too close together, a condition women obviously do not experience.Is that what they want? Maybe mandatory castration would be better or removing the “unsightly eyesore” of men from society altogether?
Rape does, in fact, affect women disproportionately outside of prison, but it is a much smaller problem in America than many organizations would have us believe. According to US Department of Justice document Criminal Victimization in the United States, there were overall 173,610 victims of rape or sexual assaults, representing 0.1% of the US population 12 or older in 2013. That is a far cry from what some organizations purport. Often you hear that rape in America is some kind of epidemic that affects 1 in every 3 women or some ridiculous made-up statistic. Rape in places like South Sudan, however, is an epidemic. But again talk about this and you might be labeled as “culturally intolerant.” Rape statistics are inflated by misandrist organizations that claim all intoxicated sex is rape, which is insane. According to these organizations, alcohol has different psychological effects on the female mind that makes them incapable of consenting while drunk men can. Men are more likely to be imprisoned as mentioned, and the male prison population is far higher, so there are far more rapes of men in prisons. However, outside of prisons in 2012 according to the FBI there were 67,354 female sex offense victims and 12,000 male sex offense victims. Males are disproportionately the offenders as well likely due to size differences but again this is no reason to look at average males any differently.
Men and women have important natural, biological differences, which ought to be embraced rather than ignored for the sake of some warped version of “equality.” We’re not the same and those differences must affect how we treat each other and the kinds of expectations we have. Pretending men and women are all exactly the same is not only wrong; it is potentially very dangerous. The differences between men and women are the reason we perform different jobs and generally have different roles in society. There will be exceptions to every standard but those standards exist for a reason. Women carry offspring, which makes them more attached to their children. They have higher levels of estrogens, which makes them more compassionate and suited for jobs that require compassion like nursing and hospice. Women are generally less physically strong, which makes them less suited for jobs that require enormous strength and force. There’s nothing wrong with defying gender norms but it is important to realize they exist for a reason and the reason is not patriarchy. It is the differences we are born with. I often hear “feminism includes men” from radfems. But humanism includes women too and it doesn’t prioritize one sex over the other. Female exceptionalism and misandry is also disguised as “feminism” in this country to the detriment of everyone. Ultimately, what makes SJW, soapbox, arm chair, faux outrage and “activism” so dangerous is that they are stifling important conversations and shifting energy away from real issues. Instead, of focusing on fighting police terror directly, for example, SJWs make their crusade against those who say “All lives matter.” Young explains “Dropping “crazy” from one’s vocabulary won’t improve health services or job opportunities for the mentally ill. Protesting a white singer’s “appropriation” of cornrows or rap music will have zero effect on the actual problems facing African-Americans.” But Because SJWs are too ineffectual, lazy, and cowardly to actually fight hierarchy and systems of oppression, they put all their energy into criticizing common people, especially white, “cis”, heterosexual males who use words they don’t like. They are – simply put – a disgrace to actual activists who put themselves in real danger for the benefit of others. So the next time Donald Trump or someone like that says something unbelievably stupid, please don’t blame me or “white people” or “men” in general.