Wednesday, December 23, 2009

Meanwhile, back in the delusional, self-absorbed land of British white heterosexual men's spheres of concern...

[image is from here]

Ponder this, pardner...

We have over the last many months here participated in engaged discussion about the crimes against humanity that white heterosexual men perpetrate with impunity, and worse, while being celebrated as heroes and freedom-fighters. Rapists are called liberators of women's sexuality by pornographers--and white men are more concerned about their access to those images of raped women that about organising against pornographers raping and exploiting women in various ways; girls and women are sold as sex slaves, and concerns among white heterosexual men are men's freedom to travel and make purchases of people-as-sexxxthings. Bizarrely, women of color are seen as more powerful than whites and men, by whites and men. And in an exercise of sheer insanity by the "haves", the poor are portrayed relentlessly as ripping off the rich--what with them taking those welfare dollars and all, while birthin' babies. No serious stigma exists against the rich for stealing from the poor, across the globe, for sucking up the Earth's resources, desperately needed by the poor around the world, to, um, survive. How remarkable, eh? Whites are being treated in a "racist" way by Blacks. Men are being "discriminated against" for being men, not women. Huh? Oh, right: it's the ludicrous land of white men's individualistic liberalism that can't ever see a forest for a tree, unless white heterosexual men are the "threatened" forest, that is.

You'd have to be able to pass through life not knowing anything at all about what women of color experience worldwide to come to such bizarrely out of touch conclusions. You'd have to think you, and you alone, Mr. White Man, are the center of everyone else's universe, and that the Earth and all its inhabitants exist "for you" so that when you exploit them all, you don't register that as exploitation, and when you kill them, you're only concern is about whether the few who survive might be pissed off and actually do something about it. Your whiteheteromale sky-god who only bore one child--surprise, it's a boy!!!, and a boy who, over time gets blue eyes and blond hair!, and a boy who is born of a virgin!! That's "maiden", actually, NOT virgin, but never mind issues of mistranslation--your whiteheteromale sky-god doesn't make mistakes. Mary was likely raped, and Joseph took the maiden in as his wife to keep her from being stoned to death for being raped, and then had her conceive more children--of his. And that little not-so-white-boy wasn't born anywhere near 25 Dec 0000 ECD, but those pagan rituals had to be kept in place, so your religion could absorb them and colonise them. Clever is what you've been with that tricky maneuver, you wily bandits, you.

Men who batter women are say "I love you" to them afterwards, whether or not the women are conscious, and colonisers tell the colonised "It's for your own good". "You need our capitalism, our christianity, our control over your lives and resources!" Hmmm. Lord have mercy on those that take without giving. Oh, wait: white men give: they bring not-so-great tidings of lethal disease and environmental disaster.

What's the pattern here in how white heterosexual men think and comprehend reality? (Infamous "rationalists" that they are!) Ah yes: totally delusional, unaware of the world of human suffering beyond their own psyches, and unwilling to venture out and FEEL that suffering. Instead, why not "adventure out" and kill everyone else, take their land, and call it "good"? Rape and genocide are considered good things from white heterosexual men's point of view. If they didn't feel this way, they'd have stopped the practice of each a long time ago.

At a blog called Banditry by John B, John B thankfully, clearly gets what's wrong with those self-assessments by ordinary white men! There are more comments, but they descend quickly and without surprise into misogynistic, anti-Semitic name-calling. And of course not even John B will call THAT out. Ah, non-Jewish hetero whiteboys... so keen on making sure no one in their gang is too uncomfortable...

15% of people inexplicably weird

Rather depressingly:
Fifty-six per cent of the public agree that “the greatest victims of discrimination in Britain these days are often ordinary white men”
Now, this is obviously false, and anyone who believes it is either deluded, moronic or both. If you’re a selfish white male, however, it’s at least rational to express the belief in the hope that if the myth becomes accepted, it’ll be easier for you to maintain your privileges.
However, only 41% of the population are white British males. So, even assuming that all white males are either selfish or idiots, 15% of the remaining population are so brainwashed that they actually believe this nonsense against their own best interests.
Which is pretty much as clear a demonstration as you’re going to get anywhere that The Patriarchy is still thoroughly in charge and thoroughly shaping political and news agendas.
Ah well. On the plus side, whilst it’d be nice to live in a fair and equal society where attempts to address injustice weren’t met with ridiculous whining from the privileged that conned a sizeable proportion of the oppressed, at least the current setup makes my life easier and more comfortable…
(via Liberal Conspiracy, which points out that at least Twitter users are less halfwitted and bigoted than average. Well, duh.)

  1. November 18th, 2009 at 15:34 | #1
    A couple of logical fallacies:
    1. The statement with which 56% agreed included the word “often”. Not “always” or “rarely” or “sometimes”. So if I’m discriminated against ten times a year and given favourable treatment ninety times a year, I’d still count those ten times as “often”.
    2. You don’t have to be a member of a group to recognise that it is treated ‘unfairly’. I am obviously not a young woman or a mother, but there is no dispute that they find it slightly harder to get a job and/or have to accept lower pay or less promotion. Ditto non-whites.

  2. November 18th, 2009 at 15:39 | #2
    1 – hmm, it wasn’t ‘are often discriminated against’, it was ‘are often the greatest victims of discrimination’. If you were discriminated against 10x per year and given favourable treatment 90x, I don’t think you could sensibly be classed as ‘often the greatest victim’.
    2 – no, of course not, that’s why I said ‘assuming’ all white males are selfish or idiots.

  3. F0ul
    November 18th, 2009 at 15:49 | #3
    Have you actually looked at the figures for discrimination?
    For instance – look at business support. White males over the age of 30 cannot access any of the other support streams available to others – purely because of them being white males over 30.
    Now look at the benefits system. Again – there is no additional support for males, who are white and over the age of 30.
    This is not really about discrimination though, but the fact that others have additional help. Maybe the way to create a level playing field is to remove all the other services – make it just as difficult to everyone as the white male over 30 is finding it.
    Personally – this is the route I would take. Nobody should get any additional help or support purely because of the way they look, behave or feel – especially if they were born like that!
    That is real discrimination.

  4. November 18th, 2009 at 16:02 | #4
    “White males over the age of 30 cannot access any of the other support streams available to others”
    I just checked here, and white males over the age of 30 have access to a wide range of state funding options for business, as well as finding it easier to get funding from commercial sources than under-30s, women and ethnic minorities.
    “Now look at the benefits system. Again – there is no additional support for males, who are white and over the age of 30.”
    More to the opint, there isn’t any additional support for femals, non-whites or under-30s. There is additional support for single parents of both sexes and all ethnicities, for disabled people of both sexes and all ethnicities, and for children of all sexes and all ethnicities.
    (well, would be all ethnicities except that most new immigrants come over on a non-recourse basis, and so aren’t eligible for benefits at all until they’ve gained permanent resident status…)

  5. November 18th, 2009 at 16:10 | #5
    F0ul, have you stopped to consider *why* the other groups have such support…? Is it, possibly, because white males have a built-in advantage by dint of simply being white and male? Those other services are attempting to level the playing field – by removing them you simply entrench the status quo, which is that white men have the advantage.


  1. WTF
    How did this happen?
    How can anyone in their right mind think that these fucking wankers are oppressed

  2. I wish they'd explain that--with legitimacy, but their explanation wouldn't make sense if they did.