Hardly anybody can squeeze a fart
into the wind these days without enraging the social justice advocates. They
have evolved like a cancerous growth to all corners of the internet. I am not
just referring to the Tumblr feminists, and the /r/ShitRedditSays crowd, but
the so-called Men’s Rights Movement
as well. All these ideologies fit nicely
into the category of social justice advocates. Both of these mindsets are
equally ridiculous because they do not take into account the inherent
biological differences between men and women. They make the mistake of viewing
mankind as existing in a vacuum that is beyond the realm of the natural order.
This must be given due consideration when discussing issues like sexism.
Feminists are always harping on
about the pervasive sexism in our culture. Many of them have an almost militant
fervour when discussing all the various ways women are being subjugated and
marginalized. They point to various discussions on Reddit.com. Look, People are making sexual remarks about
photos that girls upload of themselves. Sexism! Look, submissive males are complaining about being friendzoned. Sexism!
Look, somebody asked a girl out for coffee in an elevator. Sexism! This
naive interpretation of anything and everything as sexism is both hilarious and
imbecilic. The feminists congregate en
masse to forums and message boards where they pat themselves on the back
for being the only ones to see all this sexism. They are only one step removed
from tinfoil-hat conspiracy theorists. It is amusing to watch this menstrual
bukkake in action. It is equally amusing to watch how the feminists react to
those who dare criticize their ideology. When anybody tries to tell the
feminists that they are exaggerating, they retort by saying that the opinion of
the dissenter is null and void due to their inherent privilege.
Social justice is the privilege
game! Anybody can play. All you need is a list of things people make fun of you
for. The more reasons people have to dislike you (maybe you are a bi-polar
communist transvestite with a PCP addiction?), the less privilege you earn.
Whoever has the least amount of privilege at the end of the game is the winner!
Pretty shitty game, huh? The feminists and social justice clowns hold their
lack of privilege as the arbiter of intellectual worth. If you are a winner of
the privilege game and you claim no privilege whatsoever, then your opinion is
infallible compared to a lowly denizen with a ton of privilege. In reality,
basing the merit of one’s opinions on some arbitrary standard of privilege is
not the way to engage in a proper debate. Regardless of what social privileges
you have, it should be the logical consistency of your opinions that determines
their validity, not privilege. The geocentric theory is still wrong if it is
proposed by an obese transgender mulatto witch-doctor or a straight white athletic
male.
There is an eerie similarity between what the
neo-feminists call privilege and the
Catholic doctrine of original sin. Both privilege and original sin conjecture
that you are inherently immoral and you can never fully shed this immorality.
Instead of trying to improve yourself, the feminists claim you should “check”
your privilege and devote your life to perpetual servitude of their whims and
ideologies. The main comparison to original sin is that nobody can fully purge
themselves of their so-called privilege, but must continually redeem themselves
by subscribing to feminist doctrine and bowing before the might of their
vaginal supremacy. Of course, all this talk of privilege is bullshit. It is
nothing more than a circumstantial ad
hominem argument employed by the feminists in order to evade the burden of
having to reason their position. Why bother with logic and evidence when you
can just claim your opponents have privilege and therefore they will never
comprehend your argument? It’s a claim to infallibility. What if politicians
used this same argument when making policies? The world would be a fucking mess
by now. Feminists claim that one’s privilege prevents them from criticizing the
standard feminists drawl. Remember what Voltaire said?
To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to
criticize.
Back to the topic of sexism; does
it exist in our society? Yeah, of course it does. But I don’t think it is anything
to be too disgruntled about. If men asking girls out for coffee in elevators is
the worst manifestation of sexism, then I fair to say it’s not a matter of
earthy concern.
One of the biggest mistakes that
the social justice advocates make when they talk about sexism is their
ignorance of biological differences between men and women. Human beings are not
simply blank slates at birth. We all come with a wide range of inherent
biological functions and dispositions. Because the biological functions of
females (giving birth, nursing children) differ from the biological functions
of males (sperm dispensers, guardians), the inherent mental traits of women are
different than men. Look at the animal kingdom. Read this article about the
behavioural gender differences among animals.
The article explains how female
jumping spiders are more aggressive than the males and if the male is
unsuccessful in convincing her to have sex, he will likely be eaten. Therefore,
we can observe that the inherent difference between the female jumping spider
and the male is that the female is more aggressive. Next, watch this video
about the mating rituals of cheetahs.
The male cheetah follows the female
cheetah for miles and miles until she finally submits to his advances and they
fuck. Which mechanisms of social oppression have led the female jumping spider
to eat her courters and the male cheetahs to stalk their females with such
persistence? Is it the media? Do cheetahs have magazines or television shows
like ours that give them oppressive delusions about sex? I don’t think so. Do
the female jumping spiders indulge in a rape
culture that justifies their devourment of the opposite sex? I’m pretty
sure they don’t. These specific behaviours are the result of evolution. They
are inherent to their respective natures.
It would be naive and ignorant to
claim that natural selection has failed to bestow these sexual differences
between males and females onto humans. It is demonstrated that males are
naturally more aggressive than females and that females are more nurturing than
males. This is not the product of social oppression or gender discrimination.
It is the product of natural selection and these respective behaviours serve a
very good purpose in human relations and reproduction. The aggressive sexual
nature of men in elevators and on the internet is simply a manifestation of
these inherent biological differences. It is not something that we could change
or should change. That would be like
trying to get rid of greed or laziness. It doesn’t work and would only end in
disaster. Instead, we should embrace our sexual differences instead of trying
to suppress our primordial nature and pretending it doesn’t exist. As the
German philosopher, Oswald Spengler once put it:
In man and woman, two kinds of history are fighting for power. In the
masculine being, there is a certain contradiction; he is this man, yet he is
something else besides, which woman neither understands nor admits, which she
feels as robbery and violence upon that which is holiest. This secret and
fundamental war of the sexes has gone on ever since there were sexes, and will
continue—silent, bitter, unforgiving, and pitiless.
The doctrine of feminism doesn’t
just state that sexism exists, but that it is perpetuated by a social order that
has the malicious intent of subjugating women for the benefit of men
(patriarchy). The MRAs (Men’s Rights Movement) claim the opposite—that men are
subjugated for the benefit of women. Both of these beliefs are equally
fallacious when you comprehend that men and women are entirely different
creatures with different tastes and biological dispositions. Just as with every animal species on the planet, the
social order is a product of these biological differences and not the product of some malicious design
on behalf of one sex or the other. Do these differences constitute sexism?
Sure. But as I have already said, this sexism is a manifestation of
evolutionary traits and nothing we can or should ever try to eliminate.
Another thing that must be
addressed about the social justice clowns is their tendency to victimize themselves. This self-victimization is
common between the feminists and the MRAs. They whine and moan about how they
are a victim of this or that social institution and they chastise anybody who
tells them otherwise (“check your privilege, shitlord!”). The thing about
self-victimization is that it is not only a self-fulfilling prophecy, but it creates
a cycle that is very difficult for the victim to break. The social justice
crowd loves the hand-holding and belly-rubbing that comes with sympathizing
with victims. They envy the attention and empathy bestowed upon real victims of
rape or domestic violence and so they seek this empathy for themselves. More
often than not, they don’t have any real problems that warrant such empathy so
they make some up. They point to the aforementioned sexual differences between
men and women and claim to be a victim of those. Help! Creepy men are making sexual passes at me on the internet! Woe is
me. Self-victimization is a self-fulfilling prophecy because when you go
through life acting like a victim, then people will tend to victimize you. When
you act weak and submissive, then people will take advantage of you.
Eventually, somebody will come along and abuse them in some actual way. The
social justice advocate thinks this abuse has thus validated their twisted
world-view and so the cycle continues ad
nauseam.
The self-victimization of the
social justice advocate is very similar to the mindset of a tinfoil hat
conspiracy theorist like David Icke or Alex Jones. They make up some sort of
batshit fallacious reasoning to justify their oppression by the evil government,
and then when people call them imbeciles, they reason that whoever is
criticizing them is part of the government conspiracy. It’s a self-fulfilling
prophecy. Both the conspiracy theorist and the social justice advocate are
impervious to criticism. They think that whoever is trying to argue with them
has obviously been blinded by social privilege or by government deceit,
depending on which brand of insanity the delusional victim has subscribed to.
I have tried to write as
comprehensive of a treatise as possible to convey my opinions regarding the
social justice crowd. People like them have existed long ago and will continue
to exist for centuries to come. You can’t argue with them using logic and
reason because that is not how those people function. The best way to deal with
them is to either ridicule them or ignore them. As the philosopher Karl Popper
would say; they adhere to an unfalsifiable
hypothesis. They have arranged their platform in such a way that they can
neither be disputed nor debated. All they seek is attention. Just like you
shouldn’t feed bears in the woods, you shouldn’t give the social justice crowd
their much desired validation by attempting to reason with them.
