Sociology Explains Nothing

A recent article posted on The Star takes issue with Stephen Harper’s tendency to dismiss sociological explanations for crimes. For example, in response to the murder of Tina Fontaine, Harper argued that her death was an isolated incident and that the murder was not part of a sociological phenomenon. Harper also made similar comments in response to the attempted bombing of a VIA train last year. The journalists at The Star take issue with this attitude because supposedly it is an “ideological attempt to prevent Canadian society from being able to identify and tackle its structural injustices.” While I can’t defend everything Harper has done or said, I feel his objective approach to this crime is commendable, especially since it doesn’t capitulate to the incessant whining of social justice warriors.

How does one distinguish between an isolated incident and a structural phenomenon? The Star article claims that structural injustices differ from individual crimes in that crimes by individuals can be traced back to a single person(s), whereas structural injustices are committed by society at large. If that is the case, I fail to see how Ms. Fontaine’s murder should be regarded as the latter rather than the former. Considering that we don’t even know who the murderer is yet, it doesn’t make sense to attribute his/her motivations to racism, as that is not likely the case. 

Most of what is deemed as structural injustices are no more than statistical disparities between one group and another. For instance, the article implies that the difference between the murder rate of aboriginal Canadian women and non-aboriginal women is indicative of structural racism. Leave it to the crazy SJW’s to automatically claim this to be the result of racism or sexism. However, differences in the murder rate between one group and another cannot by itself reveal structural discrimination. Tina Fontaine was a runaway teenager. Seeing as though the vast majority of child abductions happen to runaway children[1], I would venture to say that Ms. Fontaine’s status as a runaway put her at far greater risk of being murdered than being aboriginal.  There are often underlying differences between the groups (such as economics, cultural values, level of education, etc.) that lead to such statistical disparities. In Canada, men are far more likely to be the victims of aggravated assault and murder than women[2]; however, few SJW’s would suggest this statistical disparity to be the result of sexism or racism since it does not fit in with their preconceived narrative—namely that women and minorities are oppressed whereas white men never are. There is no simple, convenient explanation for why men are murdered far more often than women, or why aboriginal women are murdered more than white women, but to simply dismiss this as sexism or racism clearly ignores all the nuances and complexities of human interactions. However, when the statistical disparities do reflect the world view of the SJW’s, then they will be the first to cry racism or sexism.

I don’t have anything against the academic discipline of sociology per se, but we all know that when The Star talks about “structural injustices”, what they really mean is finding a way to blame everything on either sexism, racism, capitalism, or all the above—a practice that is far removed from anything resembling the scientific method. It should be remembered that Tina Fontaine wasn’t murdered by society, she was murdered by an individual person, whose motivations for doing so were solely his own. The reason why I believe the attitude conveyed by The Star is toxic is because it diverts the responsibility of Ms. Fontaine’s murder away from the individual who committed it and imposes it collectively on society. Since Ms. Fontaine’s murder was the result of structural racism according to these people, it is society that needs to atone for it. For Stephen Harper to acknowledge these “structural injustices” would mean effectively signing a blank check away to any social justice warrior or special-interest groups who claims to have the answers. It’s funny that the solution to rectifying so-called structural injustices typically involves the redistribution of wealth in some form or another.

When Margaret Thatcher said that “there is no such thing as society”, she meant that there is no entity called “society” that may speak, feel, think, or act on anyone’s behalf. Society is an abstract concept referring to the various relationships between individuals, and to speak of society apart from individuals is to remove all humanity from the discussion.  It may be tempting to blame society for a heinous crime like the murder of Tina Fontaine when there is no suspect to point the finger at yet. However, trying to impose the guilt of one individual upon an entire collective is an absurd accusation. Stephen Harper is demonstrating a level-headed approach to such a heinous crime instead of resorting to knee-jerk emotional reactions.

---

[1] http://www.freerangekids.com/crime-statistics/

[2] http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85f0033m/2010024/t001-eng.htm

Washington Redskins Should Not Change Their Name

             Social justice advocates have been making a lot of noise recently about the Washington Redskins. Many believe that the term “Redskins” is offensive to Native Americans and that it should be changed to something more politically correct. Despite all the outrage, the owner of the team, Dan Snyder, adamantly refused to give up the name, saying, “We will never change the name of the team. As a lifelong Redskins fan, I think that the Redskins fans understand the great tradition and what it’s all about and what it means”. Amidst growing outrage, the US Patent Office voted 2-1 to cancel the trademark last week, meaning that the Washington Redskins logo is now unprotected by unauthorized duplication. Even though Snyder plans to appeal the ruling, the social justice crowd is already calling this a landmark decision.

            While I can understand how Native Americans might find the name Redskins offensive, I do not believe it is the role of government to cancel patents solely on that basis. What someone finds offensive is entirely subjective. A term that has the potential to make some individuals wince in disgust might be completely innocuous to others. This entails that no objective standards of political correctness could reasonably be enforced since they cannot even be agreed upon. Thus, when the Patent Office cancels the trademark of an organization just because it is offensive to some people, this sets a disturbing precedent about the role of government. If any group of concerted individuals can whine and complain about anything they deem repugnant and get the Patent Office to comply with their demands, what good is the patent system to begin with? Ownership of property is an unalienable right in an open society. The name and trademark of the Washington Redskins are the property of Dan Snyder, and as such, he has sole authority to change, dispose, or keep the team name if he wants to. Regardless of whether the team name is offensive or not, it is immoral for a government to compel Washington to change it. In his HBO special, It’s Bad For Ya, George Carlin spoke some words of wisdom that certainly have relevancy here. He said, “Rights aren’t rights if someone can take them away. They’re privileges. That’s all we’ve ever had in this country is a bill of temporary privileges; and if you read the news, even badly, you know the list gets shorter, and shorter, and shorter.” The Cancellation of the Redskins patent only goes to show prospective social justice warriors that if an organization’s name offends their sensibilities, they can clamour to the government and get their patent revoked.

            Some people may argue that changing the team name is not that big of a deal, and any costs it does entail would be a small price to pay to ensure nobody is being offended. Anybody who makes such an argument is ignoring the value of many sports franchises. The name and logo of any sports team, especially one that has such a long and successful history as the Redskins, carries value. The Washington Redskins are a name that people recognize and if the team completely rebrands itself, then that recognition would be lost. Forbes has listed the Redskins as the eighth most valuable franchise in the league at 1.7 Billion dollars, and much of that value comes from the name itself. To many fans, their team names are important and symbolize the tradition and history of their achievements. Rebranding the team would not only affect the fanbase, but it would also incur a tremendous financial burden on the team’s owners. Changing the Redskins name means hiring patent and trademark attorneys, graphic designers, as well as purchasing new jerseys, merchandise, and equipment, which costs millions of dollars. It’s not as simple as changing a few light bulbs. Even political correctness comes at a price.

            Those who are most adamant about changing the team name should reconsider their priorities. If one’s goal is to impose political-correctness onto the world, they should begin by dismantling the thousands of actual hate groups throughout North America that actively work to promote racism, hate and discrimination instead of attacking the name of some innocuous sports team. Many other sports teams have names that are arguably more offensive than the Redskins, such as the Notre Dame Fighting Irish, The Cleveland Indians, and The Edmonton Eskimos. The fact that social justice warriors are up in arms about The Redskins, but haven’t uttered a peep about The Eskimos (a de facto racial slur) demonstrates the confirmation bias so often conveyed by these people. If one is intent on abolishing bigotry in major league sports logos, then they should be decrying all offensive logos, not Just the Washington Redskins. There’s no reason to just pick on Washington, considering Native Americans are not even unanimously offended by the team’s name. Several polls taken throughout the past decade have consistently shown that most Native Americans don’t find the name Redskins to be that odious. The poll taken in 2004 shows that only nine percent of Native Americans had an objection to the term and another poll taken as recently as 2013 shows that nearly eighty percent oppose the team name change. It appears to me that the noisiest voices against the Redskins are well-meaning, but ultimately misguided white folks who feel they are doing the world a favour by imposing their opinions on others. Everybody has different values, preferences, and beliefs, and thus anybody could conceivably be offended by anything. Just because you have the right to find a given book, television show, political party, or football logo offensive, does not entail you should censor or banish them. Otherwise, we would inhabit a world where everything was censored and everything was banned.

            All that being said, I can empathize with any Native Americans who are truly offended by the team name. However, just because a name is offensive to some people, doesn’t mean it necessarily should be changed. If so, who is to determine what is objectively offensive and what isn’t?  The fact that the Patent Office cancelled the trademark solely for that reason clearly shows that the government feels it is the arbiter in this respect. If a group of people find an organization objectionable, the most productive and mature way of voicing their distaste is by voting with their wallets. Just like with any product or service that does not meet your standards, you have the right not to support it financially. If you don’t like the Redskins, don’t buy their merchandise, don’t go to the games, don’t follow the team, and don’t give them exposure. It’s that simple. When you have to go crying to Big Daddy Government about your fragile sensibilities, then maybe it’s not the world that should conform to your standards, but the other way around. 

Edmonton Woman Seeking to End Her Discrimination

A recent article from The National Post describes a woman who proposes to end workplace discrimination for individuals with body modifications. Kendra Behringer, resident of Edmonton, has twenty-two facial piercings and says she won’t tolerate discrimination from employers based on the way she looks. The article describes how Behringer was rejected from dozens of jobs and so she is seeking to change the Alberta Human Rights Act to make it illegal for employers to discriminate against persons with tattoos and piercings. The act already forbids discrimination based on race, gender, age, religious and political affiliation, but Behringer argues that body modifications should be added to the list as well.

It is clear from this article that people like Behringer want to have their cake and eat it too. In an open society, individuals should be allowed to modify their bodies however they like; piercings, tattoos, scarification, and lip-discs should all be allowed if one chooses. However, just because one is permitted to alter their body in such ways, does not entail they can escape the judgement of others. Any adult who makes the decision to get piercings or tattoos does so in recognition of the fact that others will judge them based on these decisions. As an adult living in the real world, one has to consider the potential consequences such modifications with incur. You can’t indulge in any sort of behaviour you want and then expect to not be held accountable for it. If Ms. Behringer was intent on working in a retail setting or at a business that upholds certain dress codes, she should have considered this before stamping a bunch of holes in her face.

When an employer refuses to hire someone because of their body modifications, it’s not discrimination—certainly not in the sense that racism, sexism, or anti-Semitism constitute discrimination. In recognition of the fact that all human beings have different attributes, an employer must accept the applicant with the optimal attributes for the position they are hiring for. For example, if an employer refuses to hire someone because they are black, then that employer would be a racist since being black should not automatically disqualify someone from any particular position. However, if an employer was hiring for a heavy-duty construction job that required heavy lifting, it would seem justifiable for them not to hire a sixteen year-old girl because she isn’t strong enough. I do not see this as discrimination, but rather competition. A sixteen year old could not possibly keep up with some muscular guy who is adequately built for such work. Likewise, the tough muscular guy would probably have a hard time getting a retail job at La Senza since he lacks the attributes to compete in that line of work. Competition is distinct from discrimination since in competition there is an economic rationale behind why an employer would not hire someone apart from just being a bigot.  Companies have to hire people who will best represent them, and if an employer believes that Behringer’s piercings will distract employees, shock customers, or harm sales, then they have every right not to hire her on that basis. People with extensive body modifications are less competitive in certain markets. Having twenty-two facial piercings might be great if your goal in life is the join The Cruxshadows, but if you want to work somewhere with a dress code, such things are unadvisable.

The fact that Ms. Behringer is seeking to make it illegal for employers not to hire her reflects the whiny sense of entitlement that is so prevalent in our culture today. Instead of cultivating one’s talents and adequately preparing for the line of work one hopes to pursue, people today just expect employers to cater to their needs. If you make the choice to get tattoos or piercings then you must accept responsibility for whatever consequences they entail.  

"I'm ready for my interview now."

Rape Culture Does Not Exist

One of the tenets of third-wave feminism that I find particularly objectionable is rape culture. Unless you are totally unacquainted with feminism’s current form (in which case I envy you) then you are likely familiar with it. The Women against Violence against Women website describes rape culture as “jokes, TV, music, advertising, legal jargon, laws, words and imagery that make violence against women and sexual coercion seem so normal that people believe that rape is inevitable.” Those who advocate the existence of rape culture believe that there is a concerted effort made by men to justify rape and violence against women. These feminists will have you believe that everything from the daily news to the nutritional information on the back of cereal boxes conveys implicit justifications for men to abuse women with impunity. I came across this article written by Zaron Burnett entitled A Gentleman’s Guide to Rape Culture. He makes some arguments about rape culture that I believe to be incorrect. In this post, I wish to address this article and explain why Burnett’s point of view is mistaken, as well as dispel the myth of rape culture in general.

Burnett begins his article by stating that all men are part of rape culture and perpetuate it with their mere existence. It doesn’t matter if you actually are a rapist or not. He claims that men commit ninety-nine percent of rapes, and thus it is largely men who “are the primary agents and sustainers of rape culture.” He then argues that because men do so much raping, women see all men as potential rapists, so men should take extra precautions around women to make them feel safe and secure. In elevators, stairways, or parking lots, men have a duty, according to Burnett, to make their presence known and to show that they are not rapists. What a load of bollocks this is. This mentality only goes to show the double standards inherent to feminist ideology. If men have an obligation to show women that they are not rapists, then it lowers them to the standard of rapists by default. Demanding that men have to accommodate the needs and vulnerabilities of women in this respect only perpetuates the notion that men are rapists.

Consider if you were to make a similar argument regarding Muslims as suicide bombers. Given that Muslims commit the majority of suicide bombings, one could argue that Muslims have the obligation to show that they pose no threat when they associate with non-Muslims in public. The reasoning follows that if men have to go out of their way to use submissive behaviour to show that they do not intend on raping women, Muslims have to let others frisk them to prove they are not wearing vests of dynamite. If women feel vulnerable around strange men, some non-Muslims may feel unsafe around those of middle-eastern descent, but if anybody should argue that the Muslims have an obligation to make others feel safe in their presence, then such a person would a racist. Given that a minority of Muslims happen to be terrorists, this should not entail any guilt or obligation on the part of Muslim people. Even if Muslims committed 100 percent of suicide bombings and men committed 100 percent of rapes, it does entail that non-rapists and non-bombers should carry any of that guilt. Teaching men that they are threatening to women and that they should make efforts to avoid women in order to make them feel safe will only perpetuate the notion of men as rapists. Such thinking only encourages an irrational fear of men by women and the notion that men are inherently sinful in their own minds. It is insane to hold an entire demographic of people responsible for the crimes of a select few.

Another point in Burnett’s article that I find objectionable is that he reduces all the complexities and nuances of human relationships down to broad-sweeping generalizations about men supporting rape culture and women being victims. Burnett writes “If you think that sort of stereotyping is bullshit, how do you treat a snake you come across in the wild? You treat it like a snake right? That’s not stereotyping, that’s acknowledging an animal for what it’s capable of doing and the harm it can inflict.” Get a fucking grip, buddy. There are 3.5 billion men in the world—all with different backgrounds, measurements, temperaments, interests, and values. How can the burden of rape culture, assuming it exists at all, rest uniformly upon a twenty year-old white frat-boy and a celibate nonagenarian monk from Tibet? For Burnett to reduce the condition of every single man on the planet to the level of some reptile you find in the forest makes me wonder whether the feminists haven’t already tied him up in the basement and castrated him. 

You can still hear the screams.

Later in the article, Burnett offers a list of examples of rape culture. A few of these examples include “Sexually explicit jokes”, “Publicly scrutinizing a victim’s dress”, defining manhood as “dominant and sexually aggressive”, as well as gendered violence in movies and television. He also makes the grandiose claim that rape culture plays a central role in all the social dynamics of our time. Rape culture, according to Burnett is “part of all our social, societal, and environmental struggles.”

Human beings have been raping each other for a really long time. From the rape of Lucretia, which indirectly led to the formation of the Roman Republic in 509 BCE, to the rape of Rindr in Norse mythology, to Tamar from the Book of Samuel in the Hebrew Bible, history is abound with rapes both ancient and modern, real and fictional. Rape, just like any other crime like thievery, murder, or arson has existed since time immemorial and I suspect that rapists, for reasons known only to themselves, will carry on raping until the sun swallows up the earth. Well before the existence of violent music and television shows, filthy jokes, and slut-shaming, there has been rape. Feminists are hard-pressed to demonstrate a correlation between the emergence of violent movies and the frequency of rape. I hope nobody will dispute the fact that rape is a particularly horrific crime and I support any measures that attempt to mitigate its occurrence. If we wish to stop rape or sexual abuse then I believe scientific research is necessary to determine the real causes and motivations for rape. The theory of rape culture does not offer any satisfactory explanations in this respect and amounts to little more than an elaborate feminist conspiracy theory. To believe that rape is the result of certain kinds of entertainment, or dirty jokes demonstrates a very narrow understanding of human motivations. 

Although, the feminist depiction of our world would suggest otherwise, few people in our culture today seriously advocate rape. Rape culture conjectures not only that things like sexual jokes and violent movies normalize rape, but that they were conceived by men for that very purpose. In this way, rape culture resembles a tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory. There is no substantial evidence to suggest that men are conspiring to create entertainment or are disseminating ideas for the purpose of raping women. I am a man. Based on my experiences with others throughout my life, I can say with honesty that we are not conspiring to rape women. Most men, including myself, believe that rape and domestic violence are terrible. Wife-beaters and rapists are cowards. Only a minority of extraordinarily twisted individuals believe that raping or abusing women is a good thing. Thankfully, few people lend these views sympathy when they are expressed in public.  The belief that men are all secretly perpetuating sexist norms for the sake of abusing women is absurd and stands testament to the paranoid and unscientific tendencies of feminist ideology.

I can already tell the feminists will be quick to counter my point by claiming that sexism is being conveyed to us implicitly through entertainment. Feminists like Anita Sarkeesian and Suey Park are always analyzing entertainment through a feminist perspective, revealing messages or “tropes” which they claim instil sexist attitudes into our minds. I have heard them claim that the shitty Robin Thicke song Blurred Lines justifies rape if you interpret the lyrics a certain way. I have heard them claim that the so-called Bechdel test reveals the poor representation of women in films. There are countless other examples of things feminists believe to be encouraging rape—from Twitter hashtags to photo memes. The problem with ascribing all these things to rape culture is that the attitudes which feminists find so offensive are the product of sexual dimorphism and not some patriarchal conspiracy. When a man portrays women as an object of his attraction and sexual desire, it is not because he was conditioned by some TV show he saw, but because of innate biological imperatives urging him to get laid. Men want to have sex with women. You don’t need some elaborate feminist doctrine to explain why men want to get their dicks wet. It’s just human nature. Sexually suggestive songs don’t explain why men objectify women any more than an advertisement for McDonalds explains why humans ingest food. I am afraid that if you actually believe Robin Thicke is a harbinger of unquenchable male lust, you may need to revise your calculations.

These women are clearly rape culture shills.

Then from whence cometh rape culture? If the tenets of rape culture do not stand up to serious analysis, then why do so many feminists and people like Zaron Burnett keep propagating it? As I have already argued in a previous post, many feminist doctrines such as privilege and rape culture are mechanisms by which to impose guilt on men. In this way, it is similar to the Catholic doctrine of original sin. If you can make someone feel guilty for something, you can bend that person to your whim if they believe it will absolve their guilt. You may or may not have actually eaten the forbidden fruit, but you still suffer the consequences of Adam and Eve. You may or may not actually be a rapist, but you should think of yourself as one. Just like receiving the Eucharist will keep you in the Pope’s good books, submitting oneself to the feminists will lessen one’s culpability in regards to rape. I can safely say that anyone who tries to make you feel guilty for something you have not done is not looking out for your best interests. Men like Zaron Burnett who willingly accept the guilt that feminists impose upon them are enlisting themselves for a perpetual and thankless servitude as sexually-emaciated peons. Rape culture is male guilt. Seeing as though feminists do not take kindly to men who dare question the existence of rape culture, this purpose should be clear. 

Rape culture is not a reliable framework for understanding or dealing with rape. Its premises are not corroborated by evidence apart from the narrow feminist worldview and it imposes guilt on all men for their sexual desires. Rape culture does not attempt to mitigate the occurrence of rape at all, since those individuals who commit most of the rapes are not likely to be persuaded by feminist theory. Sexual assaults should be investigated and prosecuted like any other crime, instead of attributing their occurrence to vague patriarchal power structures. To those women whose opinion of men has been warped by the notion of rape culture or by feminism in general has my sincere apologies. 

A Treatise on Feminism and Social Justice

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.

Bird is undergoing an existential crisis right now