If I can attempt an analogy, consider how gays have been portrayed in popular media over the years.
Stage One treated them as targets for mockery; gays were silly, comic-relief characters to be made fun of.
In Stage Two, gays were recognized as a minority group being denied their rights and became saintly; portrayals of gays in the media were universally positive, with every gay character being a beacon of constructive, virtuous enlightenment without a blemish.
By Stage Three, gay characters become just like everybody else. They can be complex, flawed, and deeply misguided in their beliefs because they’re no better and no worse than any other type of character.
In my view, feminism is stuck in Stage Two: pretending that the ‘oppressed minority’ is perfect and reacting with outrage when anyone makes a Stage Three argument that maybe, just maybe, women might have flaws and failings of their own.
Feminists have recognized a problem and reacted in the predictably laudatory and over-protective way to the poor, benighted female demographic–by praising them to the skies and hotly attacking anyone who offers a more nuanced perspective. Egalitarians have moved beyond that primitive level of awareness. Egalitarian > feminist.69
I’ve told the kids in the ghettos that violence won’t solve their problems, but then they ask me, and rightly so; “Why does the government use massive doses of violence to bring about the change it wants in the world?” After this I knew that I could no longer speak against the violence in the ghettos without also speaking against the violence of my government—13933
Martin Luther King Jr. (via loveinfamine)
The Martin Luther King Jr. White people never quote
You’re suggesting that MLK is the kind of person we should agree with everything about? And also, I fail to see how pacifism solves things like the current crisis in Syria. The simple answer is that there is no simple answer. Violence is sometimes necessary and speaking out against it uniformly is naive. Even Jesus used violence against the money changers in the temple. It has its uses.
teachers who call on students who obviously don’t know the answer are the biggest dicks in the world because they’re flat out humiliating the kid in front of all their peers
No, they’re not. You’ve fundamentally misunderstood. Those teachers are trying to get the child to engage with the question when they are being lazy. A teacher won’t humiliate a child who just genuinely doesn’t understand.
i wish people would stop giving ‘social justice blogging’ such a negative connotation. sure, there are SJers who are unnecessarily rude assholes, but that goes for any group of people. stop confusing ‘rude’ with ‘making you uncomfortable because they called you out on your shit.’ thank you.
This, billions and billions of times.
It’s not that they are rude. It’s that many of them are actively looking for things that are wrong. As a result, they cover things which no one would have found offensive unless they were told to find it offensive. It’s like those incidents in Britain where local councils asked one of their office employees to remove their collection of little pig ornaments from their desk, for fear it would offend Muslims. Of course, Muslims who commented on this said they couldn’t care less if someone owned/displayed pig ornaments in the workplace, and that they found it offensive that someone else believed that Muslims were so fragile that they required everyone to obey the rules that they set for their own life. In other words, it becomes the person who seeks out to fight offence who is themselves more offensive. SJ bloggers are often so self righteous and so convinced of their superiority that they will actively go out of their way to ignore counter arguments to their positions, preferring instead to exist within echo chambers. If their kind of behaviour was put forward in the name of almost any other ideology, it would not be tolerated.
What people don’t understand is when we say “Teach men not to rape,” we’re not talking about telling them not to jump out of the bushes in a ski mask and grab the nearest female. We’re talking about the way we teach boys that masculinity is measured by power over others, and that they aren’t men unless they “get some.” We’re talking about teaching men (and women) that it’s not okay to laugh at jokes about rape and abuse. We’re talking about telling men that a lack of “No” doesn’t mean “Yes,” that if a woman is too drunk to consent they shouldn’t touch her, that dating someone - or even being married to someone - does not mean automatic consent. We’re talking about teaching boys to pay attention to the girl they’re with, and if she looks uncomfortable to stop and ask if she’s okay, because sometimes girls don’t know how to say stop in a situation like that. We’re talking about how women have the right to change their mind. Even if she’s been saying yes all night, if she says no, that’s it. It’s over. That’s what we mean when we say “Teach men not to rape.—35021
Now only if people actually said any of this, instead of ‘teach men not to rape’, there would be progress.
If there was a meme going around along the lines of ‘get consent and set boundaries before you get hot and heavy, drunk or high, because it’s healthy!’ there would be progress… but instead there’s ‘teach men not to rape’, and apparently (some of the) people who say ‘teach men not to rape’ want everyone else to assume they mean the best of all possible things, without actually making their position clear and/or cogent. without doing any work for themselves. People Should Just Understand Thier Real Position. What morons.
Of course, actual progress would end up revealing that women are as likely to violate consent as men:
But that would degrade claim of women being morally superior. Can’t have that.
What is it with people who make crappy arguments and then get called on it and say it’s everyone else’s fault for not understanding what they “really mean”?
Not to mention that even in the “expanded” argument, it still codes offenders as male and victims as female.