Tuesday, January 29, 2019
Sunday, January 27, 2019
Saturday, January 26, 2019
The Misogyny Subculture: Introduction (Part 1)
Sometimes you come across something that infuriates, disgusts and frustrates you, but it also fascinates you. That is what I have experienced with this "men's right movement" which is really just proto-misogyny.
Of course, misogyny is nothing new. It has been around since the beginning if time. It has been and is a staple of multiple political ideologies and religions.
Women have long been considered the "weaker" sex thus making them unequal to men. Women have been viewed as property by many and a step just above animals by some.
This attitude toward women has given men permission to degrade and demean them. It has been an allowance to misuse and abuse them.
Well, that's what men like to think anyway.
Some folks scoff and excoriate terms like patriarchy and male privilege. Now, while these terms are sometimes misused and overused, they most certainly exist. Multiple societies, including ours, wields patriarchy and privilege to keep an order-an order where men are on top and in control.
However, over the course of the last 50 years or so this has began to change. With the advent of the women's rights movement and feminism women have demanded and received (somewhat) equality.
They are now solidly in the workforce. Women are holding high political offices. They are in positions of power within Fortune 500 companies. Mostly women are recognized as contributing equal members of society. Of course, I should note that the battle for equality continues and women still face sexism and stigmatizing.
Now, this increased equality and feminism has brought with it a backlash. That backlash is resentment from some men, which has produced a "men's rights movement" and an anti-feminism/woman sentiment.
The idea of a men's rights movement seems silly to some I am sure. It seems silly to men. Men are not oppressed nor have their rights (in this country) ever been suppressed or stripped away. But, some dudes think their rights and their rightful position in society are being eroded.
By the way this belief or ideal is nothing new. I am about to date myself here, but remember Al Bundy? Yes, Married With Children's Al Bundy. In response to what he felt was women infiltrating men's spaces (his favorite bowling alley starting a "women's night") Al created the anti-feminism group, NO MA'AM (National Organization of Men Against Amazonian Masterhood).
Now, the entire concept was hilarious and ridiculous. It became a running bit on the show. Keep in mind though Al Bundy was a prelude to what we see now. Al's entire worldview was women are evil, money hungry, less intelligent and lazy. He and his buddies objectified women and were obsessed with their looks especially their breasts. And, the foundation of his ideology, as it were, was that men are the superior smarter sex and feminism was created to undermine men, their power and their "God given" rights (i.e. sex on demand, control of all money and wield all the authority and influence).
This is the genesis for today's misogyny subculture.
The subculture, like most subcultures of modern times, has been bolstered by the internet. Yet, another example of the internet being the best thing ever and the worst thing ever.
It is a complex culture, believe it or not. It is comprised of various subgroups which none of whom are a monolith.
Here is a list of the primary groups. I will go into significantly more detail on most of these groups individually in upcoming blogs. So, for now, I'll provide a quick synopsis of each one.
The first is the Men's Rights Movement. Basically, these dudes are a slightly more sophisticated NO MA'AM. They cloak their sexism and misogyny under the guise of simply wanting civil rights protection for men (primarily white men) as if their civil rights don't exist.
They believe all feminism is toxic and its core ideology is to hate and destroy men. They feel women (along with other groups) have become a protected class in society at the expense of heterosexual men (again primarily white men). They believe they are society's true alpha males. An excellent example of this group is the Proud Boys, self-described "Western Civilization chauvinists".
The next group is MGTOW (Men Who Go Their Own Way). These guys have essentially sworn off women. They, too, fervently believe feminism is the root of all evil. Some women are good in their minds, but generally women should not be trusted because they are lookist, materialistic, in capable of reasonable thought and just overall superficial. They have a huge presence on YouTube.
Next, we have the pickup artists. These fellas are exactly what the name implies. Their goal in life is to bed as many women as possible.
Now, some cloak this "hit it and quit it" approach as their way of weeding out the pretenders until they meet the "one". However, if you dig a little bit into these guys you'll realize they are just trying to dip their spoons into as many puddin pies as possible.
And, what makes this sect toxic is that they really don't have a redline when it comes to the emotional injury they may levy on women. Because, often a tactic of their "game" is to lead women into believing a serious relationship is possible. Also, some don't believe in taking "no" for an answer, so sexual assault and rape are always on the table for them.
Then, you have what I call the crypto-misogynists. These dudes possess a fraction of the traits of the previous groups mentioned. They still actively seek relationships with women. However, they harbor deep resentment toward women. They have very low opinions regarding women.
They like to play this game of they're the "good guys" who just can't catch a break because women have been brainwashed by feminism and the media, of course. They cloak their arguments as they love women, lament only the bad ones and they know there are plenty of good women around. But, oddly, they spend almost every waking moment demeaning women, being apologists for misogyny, and propagating the position sexism is a myth. They "love" women but never have anything good to say about them.
Lastly, there is the incel community. Incels are guys (mostly straight; mostly white) who are "involuntarily celibate". They claim they are essentially prevented from having relationships with women let alone having sex with them.
Their core ideology is that women don't want to date or sex them because they are genetically and financially inferior. They say the vast majority of women date above their level, which they call hypergamy or the 80/20 rule. The 80/20 rule states 80% of women only seek sex and relationships from the top 20% of men, which they refer to as "chads" or alpha males.
Incels sincerely believe women are intentionally denying them their God given right to pussy. Seriously. And, nothing they do will change this. Why? Because, almost all women are shallow, materialistic , looksist and only interested in men with big penises (again, I'm being serious).
Now, what is amusing about this is most of these dudes are shut-ins and introverts. Whether consciously or subconsciously they do things (or don't do things) to make themselves less attractive and available to women. They are nihilistic and fatalistic. They wallow in self-pity and resentment.
And, what do they blame for their predicament? All together now, kids...........FEMINISM! Yes, like the other groups, feminism is the root of all evil and most, if not all, women are willing conduits for feminism's goal. That goal is to destroy men and/or turn them into beta cucks. (In a future blog of this series I will focus on incels and their affinity for the words, "beta" and "cucks".)
This proto-misogyny is more pervasive than people realize or want to believe. It's subcultures are real or more populated than I am comfortable with and I hope you too.
The real danger with this nonsense is that in some respects it's littered with truths and has appeal. Of course, it's specious but if you are someone (especially young men) who has been frequently rejected or disregarded by the opposite sex this can have some appeal. I can't lie. When I was 16 or 17, while I don't think I would've ever went all in I would've been opened to listening. And, something I'll discuss in future blogs is incels and mgtows, in particular, target middle school and high school boys for recruitment.
Another aspect of this movement is that these groups seem to align with the Alt-Right. Political ideology isn't necessarily a driving force but their antipathy toward feminism and their draconian attitude regarding women appears to coincide with Alt-Right talking points. If you go into the online forums or follow these dudes on Twitter you'll quickly realize their misogyny is accompanied by racism, xenophobia, homophobia and transphobia. Timelines are filled with hateful and violent rhetoric (mainly toward women).
The violent rhetoric is something I will dive much deeper into in subsequent blogs. It is a common thread amongst these groups whether it is advocating it or sympathizing with it.
Ok. Let me wrap this up.
I am loathe to even mention this. So, I have held out until now. But, it will be necessary to mention it in upcoming blogs, so it must be done.
For the vast majority of these dudes the incoherent ramblings of one Jordan Peterson is a guideline to their ideologies. I'm not saying this pseudoscience crypto-racist and misogynist grifter is the cause of this subculture. That would be unfair...I guess. But, what I am saying is this clown is well aware his nonsense comprises the framework of their bullshit and he does nothing to dissuade them even though he knows they are toxic people.
They look to Peterson as "daddy". That is what you need to keep in mind.
Whew. This was long. I am sorry. But, it's really difficult to wrangle all this fuckery and dumbassery into a few paragraphs.
Of course, misogyny is nothing new. It has been around since the beginning if time. It has been and is a staple of multiple political ideologies and religions.
Women have long been considered the "weaker" sex thus making them unequal to men. Women have been viewed as property by many and a step just above animals by some.
This attitude toward women has given men permission to degrade and demean them. It has been an allowance to misuse and abuse them.
Well, that's what men like to think anyway.
Some folks scoff and excoriate terms like patriarchy and male privilege. Now, while these terms are sometimes misused and overused, they most certainly exist. Multiple societies, including ours, wields patriarchy and privilege to keep an order-an order where men are on top and in control.
However, over the course of the last 50 years or so this has began to change. With the advent of the women's rights movement and feminism women have demanded and received (somewhat) equality.
They are now solidly in the workforce. Women are holding high political offices. They are in positions of power within Fortune 500 companies. Mostly women are recognized as contributing equal members of society. Of course, I should note that the battle for equality continues and women still face sexism and stigmatizing.
Now, this increased equality and feminism has brought with it a backlash. That backlash is resentment from some men, which has produced a "men's rights movement" and an anti-feminism/woman sentiment.
The idea of a men's rights movement seems silly to some I am sure. It seems silly to men. Men are not oppressed nor have their rights (in this country) ever been suppressed or stripped away. But, some dudes think their rights and their rightful position in society are being eroded.
By the way this belief or ideal is nothing new. I am about to date myself here, but remember Al Bundy? Yes, Married With Children's Al Bundy. In response to what he felt was women infiltrating men's spaces (his favorite bowling alley starting a "women's night") Al created the anti-feminism group, NO MA'AM (National Organization of Men Against Amazonian Masterhood).
Now, the entire concept was hilarious and ridiculous. It became a running bit on the show. Keep in mind though Al Bundy was a prelude to what we see now. Al's entire worldview was women are evil, money hungry, less intelligent and lazy. He and his buddies objectified women and were obsessed with their looks especially their breasts. And, the foundation of his ideology, as it were, was that men are the superior smarter sex and feminism was created to undermine men, their power and their "God given" rights (i.e. sex on demand, control of all money and wield all the authority and influence).
This is the genesis for today's misogyny subculture.
The subculture, like most subcultures of modern times, has been bolstered by the internet. Yet, another example of the internet being the best thing ever and the worst thing ever.
It is a complex culture, believe it or not. It is comprised of various subgroups which none of whom are a monolith.
Here is a list of the primary groups. I will go into significantly more detail on most of these groups individually in upcoming blogs. So, for now, I'll provide a quick synopsis of each one.
The first is the Men's Rights Movement. Basically, these dudes are a slightly more sophisticated NO MA'AM. They cloak their sexism and misogyny under the guise of simply wanting civil rights protection for men (primarily white men) as if their civil rights don't exist.
They believe all feminism is toxic and its core ideology is to hate and destroy men. They feel women (along with other groups) have become a protected class in society at the expense of heterosexual men (again primarily white men). They believe they are society's true alpha males. An excellent example of this group is the Proud Boys, self-described "Western Civilization chauvinists".
The next group is MGTOW (Men Who Go Their Own Way). These guys have essentially sworn off women. They, too, fervently believe feminism is the root of all evil. Some women are good in their minds, but generally women should not be trusted because they are lookist, materialistic, in capable of reasonable thought and just overall superficial. They have a huge presence on YouTube.
Next, we have the pickup artists. These fellas are exactly what the name implies. Their goal in life is to bed as many women as possible.
Now, some cloak this "hit it and quit it" approach as their way of weeding out the pretenders until they meet the "one". However, if you dig a little bit into these guys you'll realize they are just trying to dip their spoons into as many puddin pies as possible.
And, what makes this sect toxic is that they really don't have a redline when it comes to the emotional injury they may levy on women. Because, often a tactic of their "game" is to lead women into believing a serious relationship is possible. Also, some don't believe in taking "no" for an answer, so sexual assault and rape are always on the table for them.
Then, you have what I call the crypto-misogynists. These dudes possess a fraction of the traits of the previous groups mentioned. They still actively seek relationships with women. However, they harbor deep resentment toward women. They have very low opinions regarding women.
They like to play this game of they're the "good guys" who just can't catch a break because women have been brainwashed by feminism and the media, of course. They cloak their arguments as they love women, lament only the bad ones and they know there are plenty of good women around. But, oddly, they spend almost every waking moment demeaning women, being apologists for misogyny, and propagating the position sexism is a myth. They "love" women but never have anything good to say about them.
Lastly, there is the incel community. Incels are guys (mostly straight; mostly white) who are "involuntarily celibate". They claim they are essentially prevented from having relationships with women let alone having sex with them.
Their core ideology is that women don't want to date or sex them because they are genetically and financially inferior. They say the vast majority of women date above their level, which they call hypergamy or the 80/20 rule. The 80/20 rule states 80% of women only seek sex and relationships from the top 20% of men, which they refer to as "chads" or alpha males.
Incels sincerely believe women are intentionally denying them their God given right to pussy. Seriously. And, nothing they do will change this. Why? Because, almost all women are shallow, materialistic , looksist and only interested in men with big penises (again, I'm being serious).
Now, what is amusing about this is most of these dudes are shut-ins and introverts. Whether consciously or subconsciously they do things (or don't do things) to make themselves less attractive and available to women. They are nihilistic and fatalistic. They wallow in self-pity and resentment.
And, what do they blame for their predicament? All together now, kids...........FEMINISM! Yes, like the other groups, feminism is the root of all evil and most, if not all, women are willing conduits for feminism's goal. That goal is to destroy men and/or turn them into beta cucks. (In a future blog of this series I will focus on incels and their affinity for the words, "beta" and "cucks".)
This proto-misogyny is more pervasive than people realize or want to believe. It's subcultures are real or more populated than I am comfortable with and I hope you too.
The real danger with this nonsense is that in some respects it's littered with truths and has appeal. Of course, it's specious but if you are someone (especially young men) who has been frequently rejected or disregarded by the opposite sex this can have some appeal. I can't lie. When I was 16 or 17, while I don't think I would've ever went all in I would've been opened to listening. And, something I'll discuss in future blogs is incels and mgtows, in particular, target middle school and high school boys for recruitment.
Another aspect of this movement is that these groups seem to align with the Alt-Right. Political ideology isn't necessarily a driving force but their antipathy toward feminism and their draconian attitude regarding women appears to coincide with Alt-Right talking points. If you go into the online forums or follow these dudes on Twitter you'll quickly realize their misogyny is accompanied by racism, xenophobia, homophobia and transphobia. Timelines are filled with hateful and violent rhetoric (mainly toward women).
The violent rhetoric is something I will dive much deeper into in subsequent blogs. It is a common thread amongst these groups whether it is advocating it or sympathizing with it.
Ok. Let me wrap this up.
I am loathe to even mention this. So, I have held out until now. But, it will be necessary to mention it in upcoming blogs, so it must be done.
For the vast majority of these dudes the incoherent ramblings of one Jordan Peterson is a guideline to their ideologies. I'm not saying this pseudoscience crypto-racist and misogynist grifter is the cause of this subculture. That would be unfair...I guess. But, what I am saying is this clown is well aware his nonsense comprises the framework of their bullshit and he does nothing to dissuade them even though he knows they are toxic people.
They look to Peterson as "daddy". That is what you need to keep in mind.
Whew. This was long. I am sorry. But, it's really difficult to wrangle all this fuckery and dumbassery into a few paragraphs.
Friday, January 25, 2019
Wednesday, January 23, 2019
Sunday, January 20, 2019
The Snowflakery Over The Gillette Ad Tho...😒
Can someone...anyone tell me why people who claim to hate fake outrage and who are quick to point out triggered snowflakes are oozing fake outrage and being triggered snowflakes over a damn razor advertisement?
The reaction from some on the right over the new Gillette ad decrying toxic masculinity is astounding. They apparently are quite offended by toxic masculinity being repudiated.
Ben Shapiro damn near lost his mind on a segment of his show going on a long angry rant filled with non-sequiturs about Gillette attacking manhood.
Intellectual stalwarts such as Tomi Lahren and Meghan McCain accused the ad of virtue signaling while offering tepid thinly veiled defenses of toxic masculinity...I guess.
So, before I go into full rant let me back up here a little in case you have no earthly idea what I am talmbout.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koPmuEyP3a0
During the beginning of the week Gillette dropped an ad basically denouncing toxic masculinity. Well, at least that was the premise. It is certainly what some right-wingers and the #Incel community took from it.
The ad starts out with a young boy, probably 10 years old or so, being consoled by his mother because a group of boys were bullying him calling him a "freak" and a "sissy". The video then switches back and forth to various scenes depicting guys being overly aggressive toward women. One scene displayed a dude about to catcall a woman on the street until his friend intervened. Another scene was about a guy walking with his young son when they witnessed some teenagers apparently robbing someone. The father stopped the robbery.
What I suspect might have triggered right-wingers most was a scene, which was corny honestly, with a plethora of guys each standing in front of a grill saying, "Boys will be boys". Then the commercial cut to a boy bullying another boy at a barbecue instigating a fight, which the instigator's father broke up.
Oh, toward the beginning of the ad a clip of what appeared to be a sitcom showing a guy walking up behind a woman and grabbing her ass. I am going to guess that along with the catcalling scene triggered the shit out of incels.
Toward the end of the ad a group of different newscasts talking about sexual assault and harassment were shown. One of the last scene was a father standing in front of a mirror with his little girl telling her she is strong.
The tagline of the ad is: The best a man can be. It is a play on words from its traditional slogan, "The best a man can get."
Now, before I get to the ludicrousness and petulance of right-wingers response allow me to provide my critique of the ad. I thought overall it was a good ad. It was cheesy in spots. The ad certainly was guilty of virtue signaling. I don't believe one razor or can of shaving cream appeared in the video.
Quite obviously the advertisement was an ostensible standard corporate attempt to show they're "woke" by standing up for the #MeToo movement and against toxic masculinity, as if those are difficult stances to take. I'm sure Gillette somewhat cares about respect for women but I highly suspect their main motivation is to make money.
With all that being said the crux of the ad's message was to be a decent human being and not be an asscrumb. Honestly, it didn't even go after toxic masculinity like it could have. Again, the "virtue signal" it sent was be kind and respectful to others.
But, the right-wing literally lost their shit over this. They could have offered some legit nuanced criticisms of Gillette but instead they revealed themselves because they can't help it.
Ben Shapiro went on this mind numbing rant about the ad attacking men. It did not. He said it attacked masculinity. It did not.
He then proceeded on this diatribe about fatherless homes. He cited some statistics about since 1960 the number of single mother homes have steadily increased. He made sure to specifically mention the African-American community. You know Benjamin really cares about the Negros. Of course, Benjamin didn't bother providing any context regarding the increase in fatherless homes in African-American communities nor did he condemn the deadbeat fathers whom create many of those single mother situations across the board.
He also seemed to lament the barbecue and catcalling scenes. I am assuming he is okay with people bullying and instigating fights? I am not sure what his problem with railing against catcalling is. Well, in fairness, he says a minute few men do that. A'righty, Benny, if you say so.
It just wasn't Shapiro though. Other Conservatives seemed to have lost their mind. People on Twitter were calling for a boycott. Why?!
Are they defending toxic masculinity and boorish behavior? Why yes, yes they are. Lawd Jesus! These people always tip their hand.
I could understand the "outrage" if the ad went after the disgusting way alleged victims of sexual assault are treated and the ostensible coddling of rape culture in this country. I would see their point if gun culture was attacked. I would get it if certain figures were alluded to and derided. I could even understand if the concept of alpha males was pointedly attacked.
But, it wasn't. It should have been, but it was not.
Because the ad was seen as social justice warrior(ish) the right-wing and incels reflexive response was to bemoan the ad. They just railed against it to rail against it. It is why all of the arguments against the commercial are so laughably hacky when substantive legitimate criticisms against Gillette are readily available.
Also, they are seriously upset that boorish, douchebaggery, toxic behavior is being called out. "Real men" are aggressive and do whatever is necessary to obtain what they want. "Real men" are dominant and if oppressive behavior has to be employed to exert that perceived inherent dominance, so be it.
Nothing is wrong with simply telling a woman she's hot. You can say it is catcalling, but it is merely complimenting. Hey, what's the big deal if a dude grabs some ass or "accidentally" brushes up against a woman getting a free feel of the titties. It is all innocent. Besides, women say they don't like it, but they really do.
Why are we getting all bent out of shape over some boys picking on weaker kids. It is the way of the world. And, if some boy goes to school wearing pink clothing or makeup, what do they expect?
It is just boys being boys. A man is a man.
This is their literal defense of this shit. These asinine antiquated attitudes are the base of their defense. They cry and whine about virtue signaling and sjws but the subtext is, "Hey, toxic masculinity is awesome! It's not toxic masculinity anyway. It is just masculinity." And, before you come at me the previous quote is a direct quote I saw or heard from multiple people.
Before I go I must detail what an actual criticism of Gillette regarding this commercial looks like and what some on the left actually gave.
Gillette is well known to have factories overseas that have used child labor. Gillette propagating this concern over women seems to be a bit hollow since they literally double the prices for women's razors compared to men's. And, in the past Gillette has produced ads that it could be said buoyed toxic masculinity and objectification of women.
Of course Shapiro, Lauren, McCain, Twitter right-wingers and incels could have easily levied these critiques against Gillette, but they didn't. Why you might ask? Well, I have an idea or two.
Instead, they chose to babble incoherent hacky attacks against sjws and virtue signaling while providing vacuous craven defenses of toxic masculinity.
The commercial was a good commercial. It is hard to actually argue the message. But, the usual actors have.
What they just don't seem to grasp is by being triggered they are revealing what they're really about. When will they learn to keep it tucked in so their hacky vapid arguments aren't so easily unveiled to be hacky vapid arguments? Smh.
The reaction from some on the right over the new Gillette ad decrying toxic masculinity is astounding. They apparently are quite offended by toxic masculinity being repudiated.
Ben Shapiro damn near lost his mind on a segment of his show going on a long angry rant filled with non-sequiturs about Gillette attacking manhood.
Intellectual stalwarts such as Tomi Lahren and Meghan McCain accused the ad of virtue signaling while offering tepid thinly veiled defenses of toxic masculinity...I guess.
So, before I go into full rant let me back up here a little in case you have no earthly idea what I am talmbout.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koPmuEyP3a0
During the beginning of the week Gillette dropped an ad basically denouncing toxic masculinity. Well, at least that was the premise. It is certainly what some right-wingers and the #Incel community took from it.
The ad starts out with a young boy, probably 10 years old or so, being consoled by his mother because a group of boys were bullying him calling him a "freak" and a "sissy". The video then switches back and forth to various scenes depicting guys being overly aggressive toward women. One scene displayed a dude about to catcall a woman on the street until his friend intervened. Another scene was about a guy walking with his young son when they witnessed some teenagers apparently robbing someone. The father stopped the robbery.
What I suspect might have triggered right-wingers most was a scene, which was corny honestly, with a plethora of guys each standing in front of a grill saying, "Boys will be boys". Then the commercial cut to a boy bullying another boy at a barbecue instigating a fight, which the instigator's father broke up.
Oh, toward the beginning of the ad a clip of what appeared to be a sitcom showing a guy walking up behind a woman and grabbing her ass. I am going to guess that along with the catcalling scene triggered the shit out of incels.
Toward the end of the ad a group of different newscasts talking about sexual assault and harassment were shown. One of the last scene was a father standing in front of a mirror with his little girl telling her she is strong.
The tagline of the ad is: The best a man can be. It is a play on words from its traditional slogan, "The best a man can get."
Now, before I get to the ludicrousness and petulance of right-wingers response allow me to provide my critique of the ad. I thought overall it was a good ad. It was cheesy in spots. The ad certainly was guilty of virtue signaling. I don't believe one razor or can of shaving cream appeared in the video.
Quite obviously the advertisement was an ostensible standard corporate attempt to show they're "woke" by standing up for the #MeToo movement and against toxic masculinity, as if those are difficult stances to take. I'm sure Gillette somewhat cares about respect for women but I highly suspect their main motivation is to make money.
With all that being said the crux of the ad's message was to be a decent human being and not be an asscrumb. Honestly, it didn't even go after toxic masculinity like it could have. Again, the "virtue signal" it sent was be kind and respectful to others.
But, the right-wing literally lost their shit over this. They could have offered some legit nuanced criticisms of Gillette but instead they revealed themselves because they can't help it.
Ben Shapiro went on this mind numbing rant about the ad attacking men. It did not. He said it attacked masculinity. It did not.
He then proceeded on this diatribe about fatherless homes. He cited some statistics about since 1960 the number of single mother homes have steadily increased. He made sure to specifically mention the African-American community. You know Benjamin really cares about the Negros. Of course, Benjamin didn't bother providing any context regarding the increase in fatherless homes in African-American communities nor did he condemn the deadbeat fathers whom create many of those single mother situations across the board.
He also seemed to lament the barbecue and catcalling scenes. I am assuming he is okay with people bullying and instigating fights? I am not sure what his problem with railing against catcalling is. Well, in fairness, he says a minute few men do that. A'righty, Benny, if you say so.
It just wasn't Shapiro though. Other Conservatives seemed to have lost their mind. People on Twitter were calling for a boycott. Why?!
Are they defending toxic masculinity and boorish behavior? Why yes, yes they are. Lawd Jesus! These people always tip their hand.
I could understand the "outrage" if the ad went after the disgusting way alleged victims of sexual assault are treated and the ostensible coddling of rape culture in this country. I would see their point if gun culture was attacked. I would get it if certain figures were alluded to and derided. I could even understand if the concept of alpha males was pointedly attacked.
But, it wasn't. It should have been, but it was not.
Because the ad was seen as social justice warrior(ish) the right-wing and incels reflexive response was to bemoan the ad. They just railed against it to rail against it. It is why all of the arguments against the commercial are so laughably hacky when substantive legitimate criticisms against Gillette are readily available.
Also, they are seriously upset that boorish, douchebaggery, toxic behavior is being called out. "Real men" are aggressive and do whatever is necessary to obtain what they want. "Real men" are dominant and if oppressive behavior has to be employed to exert that perceived inherent dominance, so be it.
Nothing is wrong with simply telling a woman she's hot. You can say it is catcalling, but it is merely complimenting. Hey, what's the big deal if a dude grabs some ass or "accidentally" brushes up against a woman getting a free feel of the titties. It is all innocent. Besides, women say they don't like it, but they really do.
Why are we getting all bent out of shape over some boys picking on weaker kids. It is the way of the world. And, if some boy goes to school wearing pink clothing or makeup, what do they expect?
It is just boys being boys. A man is a man.
This is their literal defense of this shit. These asinine antiquated attitudes are the base of their defense. They cry and whine about virtue signaling and sjws but the subtext is, "Hey, toxic masculinity is awesome! It's not toxic masculinity anyway. It is just masculinity." And, before you come at me the previous quote is a direct quote I saw or heard from multiple people.
Before I go I must detail what an actual criticism of Gillette regarding this commercial looks like and what some on the left actually gave.
Gillette is well known to have factories overseas that have used child labor. Gillette propagating this concern over women seems to be a bit hollow since they literally double the prices for women's razors compared to men's. And, in the past Gillette has produced ads that it could be said buoyed toxic masculinity and objectification of women.
Of course Shapiro, Lauren, McCain, Twitter right-wingers and incels could have easily levied these critiques against Gillette, but they didn't. Why you might ask? Well, I have an idea or two.
Instead, they chose to babble incoherent hacky attacks against sjws and virtue signaling while providing vacuous craven defenses of toxic masculinity.
The commercial was a good commercial. It is hard to actually argue the message. But, the usual actors have.
What they just don't seem to grasp is by being triggered they are revealing what they're really about. When will they learn to keep it tucked in so their hacky vapid arguments aren't so easily unveiled to be hacky vapid arguments? Smh.
Saturday, January 19, 2019
Train Riders (The Bain Of People of Color's Existence)
Let's just get this out of the way from the start. I realize this topic and what I am about to say will trigger and upset some people. I certainly am not maliciously intending to piss off folks. But, if you are waiting for me to apologize (even a cursory half-hearted apology), in the words of Jay-Z "forever is a mighty long time".
So, if this is the point where you stop reading, so be it. However, I would implore you instead of being triggered give thought to what I am saying. If you still disagree with me, as I suspect many will, offer counterarguments to what I will say. If you feel I am factually incorrect or my narratives are off base, call me out. I will certainly listen to what you have to say. But, if you choose not to even read my point of view, I sure as hell am not going to beg you to continue reading.
So, anyway...
To those of you who might be wondering, "What is he talking about? What is wrong with riding a train? Did Amtrak do something offensive or wrong", allow me to explain. Train riders is my euphemism for what more polite society calls "uncle toms", "sellouts". Some people more crassly call it "cooning", which is construed as racist because the original usage of the word "coon" was/is meant to be a racial slur. But, many black folks utilize the word to drill the point home. Like the n-word it has become a colloquialism in the black community. It is not unusual at all to hear someone say, "They are on the coon train." So, I say train riders as my way of a happy medium while not watering down what the action truly is.
Basically, I believe train riders are any poc (people of color) who willingly disparage, demean, belittle and stereotype other poc for the purpose of currying favor with right-wing ideologues who are bigoted, if not crypto-racist. They are people who parrot white nationalist talking points regarding black and brown people. They are usually (but not always) people who have been fortunate enough to achieve a certain socioeconomic status which they want to maintain. In some cases they are people who have "sold-out" so they can achieve a certain socioeconomic status and don't even believe the things they are saying but are willing to say them for the payoff.
Back in slavery and Jim Crow days "uncle toms" would often snitch on other slaves. They would talk derogatively about other blacks to whites in an attempt to distinguish themselves from the "others". They believed by doing this the slave masters or whites in general would look out for them and give them special favors. If they made themselves appear more couth or "civil" then maybe white people would accept them. Of course, it didn't work out that way.
In current times, you still have people who buy into this philosophy. They literally believe if they regurgitate the talking points: racism doesn't exist (except for a minute few extreme examples) and black people play the victim card, it will endear them to whites who either feel those things are true or simply push that narrative knowing it is false.
The majority of blacks who propagate these narratives are Republicans or self-described Conservatives. The more prominent ones love to go on television or appear in YouTube videos for channels such as Prager U or write articles in right-wing publications pushing these ideals.
I already hear the pushback. "Just because you are a black Republican it doesn't mean you are a sellout." That is absolutely correct. I totally agree. Those two things are not mutually exclusive to one another.
That is why I always make the distinction between black Conservatives and black right-wingers because they are different. Black Conservatives such as Sen. Tim Scott, political pundit Tara Setmeyer and Condeleeza Rice are individuals who I have disagreements with politically but I know are principled people. Their convictions are based upon actual Conservative ideals.
Also, when they see instances of racism and unfair treatment they call it out. They certainly don't pretend racism doesn't exist nor is it some rare happening like a coherent moment from Charlie Sheen. And, they don't make a habit of perpetuating black stereotypes nor putting down other black folks.
On the other hand, black right-wingers such as Niger Innis, Trump campaign surrogate Katrina Pierson or Pastor Mark Burns perpetually go on television and spew white nationalist talking points. They act as if racism is a myth of black folks' minds. They say in essence the real racists are those calling these good white racists racist. They propagate racist stereotypes such as blacks are lazy, stupid (except for their ilk, of course), criminal minded and victim hustlers.
They criticize almost all black civics leader and civil rights advocates without offering any nuanced critiques or substantive policy prescriptions. They, themselves, do nothing positive for marginalized communities. Their answer for everything is, "Quit blaming the white man, stop relying on affirmative action and pull yourself up by your bootstraps like I have." Now, they are correct to say quit blaming everything on white people. However, their railing against affirmative action is disingenuous because often it has aided them in being able to achieve what they have. And, in some cases the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps is bullshit because they are people who were born into wealth or advantageous situations.
What is really infuriating to me though are the people who grew up in the hood or the innercity. They experienced firsthand the struggle, the unfairness and the racism. But, now that they made it they want to go on television and front like none of it happened and everyone else who hasn't been fortunate enough to make it is just lazy and lacks personal responsibility. It is such cursory bullshit.
Now, there is one type of train rider that sends my blood pressure through the roof more than any other. This is the grifter. The negroes that unquestionably know they're spreading bullshit but don't care because they are getting paid, getting influence or harnessing power and prestige.
They are truly sellouts because they are literally selling out other people of color, their morals, and their dignity for a payday. They are not the pathetic Uncle Ruckuses like Larry Elder. These are craven jackals who are willfully and knowingly fetishizing themselves for the perverted pleasure of bigots and racists.
The most obvious example of this is Candace Owens. Ray Lewis is not far behind. Something is fundamentally immoral to me about a person who will willingly appear on Fox News and YouTube propagating white nationalist false narratives about black people that they don't believe just to make a buck. This is what Candace Owens does.
I understand there is a lucrative niche for black folks who talk shit about other black folks. I don't have a doubt in my mind if I, as an African-American man, were to make videos spouting right-wing and white nationalist talking points about black and brown people my YouTube channel would have well over 5,000 views and 100 subscribers instead of the 160 views and four subscribers it currently has. It is true. I know it. You know it. However, I have a conscious and this silly hang-up about not saying things I do not mean and I know for a fact to be untrue.
Candace Owens is not the only grifter who does this. YouTube and Fox News are filled with them. And, I already know some Candace marks will disagree. That is fine. All I will say is two years ago she was conducting mock investigations into Donald Trump's penis size and now she is the Republicans Africa-American pinup centerfold. Also, she can't even articulate Conservative positions. She just regurgitates talking points which she does at a cursory level.
Candace does this because she is lazy not because she is stupid. She is not stupid at all. She just doesn't think she has to possess any policy depth because her combination of blackness and right-wing ideology is more than enough for those people who have fetishes for that toxic mixture. So far she is right in her calculation.
Candace Owens, like most right-wingers of color, is lying, Y'all. It is a grift!
The problem for the black community is how do we deal with this and train riders of all varieties? Sure, we can rescind their invitation to the barbecue. We can excoriate
and ostracize them. But, what does that really accomplish?
What is so mind-numbing to me is some of what these uncle toms and aunt tomasinas say is true on a cursory level. One of Candace Owens staples is to say the Democratic Party is a plantation. Speaking in a macro sense that statement is just idiotic. But, it would be intellectually dishonest for me to not to acknowledge the Democratic Party has failed the black community in many ways. However, the Republican Party has done nothing for the black community and doesn't show much initiative to do anything despite the what Candace Owens and others babble.
The truly infuriating and sad thing is I highly suspect what fuels many of these train riders is self-hate and being ashamed of what they are. (I am sure that will trigger somebody.) How else could one explain people who are so willing to bash and disparage their own. In many cases people who do this do everything they can to distance themselves from anything black. I am talking from their appearance to their musical tastes to the way they talk. If that isn't self-hate, tell me what it is?
Of course, that doesn't include the grifters like Candace Owens. I really don't know what to do with people like that other than call them out and expose every chance I can. It is one thing to hate what and who you are. While that type of mindset and feeling should be confronted and worked through it is decidedly different from simply doing whatever to make a buck.
As I stated, I find it immoral to say hurtful, untruthful and damaging things about any group of people but especially your own just to add a few zeroes to your bank account. Regardless it is usually unhealthy behavior to fetishize yourself for anyone's pleasure. No amount of money, prestige or platform makes it better.
See, my real issue with people like Candace Owens is not so much what she's doing to herself but the young people she is able to convince to join her movement. They are likely going to be coming from a place of sincerity whereas Candace is just milking the system. And, once the grift is up and/or they find a younger, prettier, more eloquent propagandist she'll be on her way and her followers will be left high and dry.
Allow me to also make clear I have predominantly been speaking about black people but this happens across the board in all communities of color. I have seen it firsthand with Hispanics and Native Americans. A train rider is a train rider.
And, I am sure I will hear the rebuttal of "So, anyone who criticizes people of color is a train rider?" *Sigh*. No. That is not what I am saying.
What I am saying is there is a difference between critique and demeaning. If I can close my eyes when your talking and think I'm listening to Richard Spencer, there is a problem. It is perfectly fine to offer legitimate criticisms but it is something else entirely to propagate stereotypes and stigmas you know to be factually incorrect. It is unconscionable to be a propagandist against marginalized communities for no other reasons than a financial windfall or garnering "respect" by fetishizing yourself for people who don't give a shit about you.
If people want to ride that train, ride it. But, actions and words have consequences.
People of color in today's world still have to fight stigmas and stereotypes. It would be really fucking awesome if we didn't have to also rebut those same stigmas and stereotypes from our own who know better and know the truth.
So, if this is the point where you stop reading, so be it. However, I would implore you instead of being triggered give thought to what I am saying. If you still disagree with me, as I suspect many will, offer counterarguments to what I will say. If you feel I am factually incorrect or my narratives are off base, call me out. I will certainly listen to what you have to say. But, if you choose not to even read my point of view, I sure as hell am not going to beg you to continue reading.
So, anyway...
To those of you who might be wondering, "What is he talking about? What is wrong with riding a train? Did Amtrak do something offensive or wrong", allow me to explain. Train riders is my euphemism for what more polite society calls "uncle toms", "sellouts". Some people more crassly call it "cooning", which is construed as racist because the original usage of the word "coon" was/is meant to be a racial slur. But, many black folks utilize the word to drill the point home. Like the n-word it has become a colloquialism in the black community. It is not unusual at all to hear someone say, "They are on the coon train." So, I say train riders as my way of a happy medium while not watering down what the action truly is.
Basically, I believe train riders are any poc (people of color) who willingly disparage, demean, belittle and stereotype other poc for the purpose of currying favor with right-wing ideologues who are bigoted, if not crypto-racist. They are people who parrot white nationalist talking points regarding black and brown people. They are usually (but not always) people who have been fortunate enough to achieve a certain socioeconomic status which they want to maintain. In some cases they are people who have "sold-out" so they can achieve a certain socioeconomic status and don't even believe the things they are saying but are willing to say them for the payoff.
Back in slavery and Jim Crow days "uncle toms" would often snitch on other slaves. They would talk derogatively about other blacks to whites in an attempt to distinguish themselves from the "others". They believed by doing this the slave masters or whites in general would look out for them and give them special favors. If they made themselves appear more couth or "civil" then maybe white people would accept them. Of course, it didn't work out that way.
In current times, you still have people who buy into this philosophy. They literally believe if they regurgitate the talking points: racism doesn't exist (except for a minute few extreme examples) and black people play the victim card, it will endear them to whites who either feel those things are true or simply push that narrative knowing it is false.
The majority of blacks who propagate these narratives are Republicans or self-described Conservatives. The more prominent ones love to go on television or appear in YouTube videos for channels such as Prager U or write articles in right-wing publications pushing these ideals.
I already hear the pushback. "Just because you are a black Republican it doesn't mean you are a sellout." That is absolutely correct. I totally agree. Those two things are not mutually exclusive to one another.
That is why I always make the distinction between black Conservatives and black right-wingers because they are different. Black Conservatives such as Sen. Tim Scott, political pundit Tara Setmeyer and Condeleeza Rice are individuals who I have disagreements with politically but I know are principled people. Their convictions are based upon actual Conservative ideals.
Also, when they see instances of racism and unfair treatment they call it out. They certainly don't pretend racism doesn't exist nor is it some rare happening like a coherent moment from Charlie Sheen. And, they don't make a habit of perpetuating black stereotypes nor putting down other black folks.
On the other hand, black right-wingers such as Niger Innis, Trump campaign surrogate Katrina Pierson or Pastor Mark Burns perpetually go on television and spew white nationalist talking points. They act as if racism is a myth of black folks' minds. They say in essence the real racists are those calling these good white racists racist. They propagate racist stereotypes such as blacks are lazy, stupid (except for their ilk, of course), criminal minded and victim hustlers.
They criticize almost all black civics leader and civil rights advocates without offering any nuanced critiques or substantive policy prescriptions. They, themselves, do nothing positive for marginalized communities. Their answer for everything is, "Quit blaming the white man, stop relying on affirmative action and pull yourself up by your bootstraps like I have." Now, they are correct to say quit blaming everything on white people. However, their railing against affirmative action is disingenuous because often it has aided them in being able to achieve what they have. And, in some cases the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps is bullshit because they are people who were born into wealth or advantageous situations.
What is really infuriating to me though are the people who grew up in the hood or the innercity. They experienced firsthand the struggle, the unfairness and the racism. But, now that they made it they want to go on television and front like none of it happened and everyone else who hasn't been fortunate enough to make it is just lazy and lacks personal responsibility. It is such cursory bullshit.
Now, there is one type of train rider that sends my blood pressure through the roof more than any other. This is the grifter. The negroes that unquestionably know they're spreading bullshit but don't care because they are getting paid, getting influence or harnessing power and prestige.
They are truly sellouts because they are literally selling out other people of color, their morals, and their dignity for a payday. They are not the pathetic Uncle Ruckuses like Larry Elder. These are craven jackals who are willfully and knowingly fetishizing themselves for the perverted pleasure of bigots and racists.
The most obvious example of this is Candace Owens. Ray Lewis is not far behind. Something is fundamentally immoral to me about a person who will willingly appear on Fox News and YouTube propagating white nationalist false narratives about black people that they don't believe just to make a buck. This is what Candace Owens does.
I understand there is a lucrative niche for black folks who talk shit about other black folks. I don't have a doubt in my mind if I, as an African-American man, were to make videos spouting right-wing and white nationalist talking points about black and brown people my YouTube channel would have well over 5,000 views and 100 subscribers instead of the 160 views and four subscribers it currently has. It is true. I know it. You know it. However, I have a conscious and this silly hang-up about not saying things I do not mean and I know for a fact to be untrue.
Candace Owens is not the only grifter who does this. YouTube and Fox News are filled with them. And, I already know some Candace marks will disagree. That is fine. All I will say is two years ago she was conducting mock investigations into Donald Trump's penis size and now she is the Republicans Africa-American pinup centerfold. Also, she can't even articulate Conservative positions. She just regurgitates talking points which she does at a cursory level.
Candace does this because she is lazy not because she is stupid. She is not stupid at all. She just doesn't think she has to possess any policy depth because her combination of blackness and right-wing ideology is more than enough for those people who have fetishes for that toxic mixture. So far she is right in her calculation.
Candace Owens, like most right-wingers of color, is lying, Y'all. It is a grift!
The problem for the black community is how do we deal with this and train riders of all varieties? Sure, we can rescind their invitation to the barbecue. We can excoriate
and ostracize them. But, what does that really accomplish?
What is so mind-numbing to me is some of what these uncle toms and aunt tomasinas say is true on a cursory level. One of Candace Owens staples is to say the Democratic Party is a plantation. Speaking in a macro sense that statement is just idiotic. But, it would be intellectually dishonest for me to not to acknowledge the Democratic Party has failed the black community in many ways. However, the Republican Party has done nothing for the black community and doesn't show much initiative to do anything despite the what Candace Owens and others babble.
The truly infuriating and sad thing is I highly suspect what fuels many of these train riders is self-hate and being ashamed of what they are. (I am sure that will trigger somebody.) How else could one explain people who are so willing to bash and disparage their own. In many cases people who do this do everything they can to distance themselves from anything black. I am talking from their appearance to their musical tastes to the way they talk. If that isn't self-hate, tell me what it is?
Of course, that doesn't include the grifters like Candace Owens. I really don't know what to do with people like that other than call them out and expose every chance I can. It is one thing to hate what and who you are. While that type of mindset and feeling should be confronted and worked through it is decidedly different from simply doing whatever to make a buck.
As I stated, I find it immoral to say hurtful, untruthful and damaging things about any group of people but especially your own just to add a few zeroes to your bank account. Regardless it is usually unhealthy behavior to fetishize yourself for anyone's pleasure. No amount of money, prestige or platform makes it better.
See, my real issue with people like Candace Owens is not so much what she's doing to herself but the young people she is able to convince to join her movement. They are likely going to be coming from a place of sincerity whereas Candace is just milking the system. And, once the grift is up and/or they find a younger, prettier, more eloquent propagandist she'll be on her way and her followers will be left high and dry.
Allow me to also make clear I have predominantly been speaking about black people but this happens across the board in all communities of color. I have seen it firsthand with Hispanics and Native Americans. A train rider is a train rider.
And, I am sure I will hear the rebuttal of "So, anyone who criticizes people of color is a train rider?" *Sigh*. No. That is not what I am saying.
What I am saying is there is a difference between critique and demeaning. If I can close my eyes when your talking and think I'm listening to Richard Spencer, there is a problem. It is perfectly fine to offer legitimate criticisms but it is something else entirely to propagate stereotypes and stigmas you know to be factually incorrect. It is unconscionable to be a propagandist against marginalized communities for no other reasons than a financial windfall or garnering "respect" by fetishizing yourself for people who don't give a shit about you.
If people want to ride that train, ride it. But, actions and words have consequences.
People of color in today's world still have to fight stigmas and stereotypes. It would be really fucking awesome if we didn't have to also rebut those same stigmas and stereotypes from our own who know better and know the truth.
Tuesday, January 15, 2019
Sunday, January 13, 2019
Tucker Carlson Is Now Propagating Incel Porn
Since Donald Trump being elected President of the United States Tucker Carlson has slowly but steadily waded into the white nationalist propaganda waters.
Carlson has used his primetime Fox News slot to bludgeon immigration and diversity. He has pretended to care about free speech and feigned worry about the seemingly increasing inclination of college campuses and social media sites to de-platform those individuals seen as too divisive or controversial.
Also, Tucker has increasingly injected populism into his segments. He has often (especially lately) made sharp attacks against corporations such as Amazon and has low-key articulated critiques of the wealthy in this country. (I should note he levies these critiques while simultaneously praising the tax cuts which 83% of benefited the top 1% in the country.)
In addition to all this Carlson has frequently had guests on that at the very least are sympathetic to white nationalist ideals and initiatives. For example, Rep. Steve King of Iowa has been a periodic guest. And, Tucker himself has espoused talking points that has him flirting with the Alt-Right, if not in a casual relationship with them.
But, now Carlson has resorted to feeding the dregs of the Alt-Right what I call incel porn. Now, full disclosure, I didn't coin the term. I first heard Ana Kasparian of The Young Turks use it.
A week or so ago Carlson did a segment on his show claiming women making more money than men is bad for the country. He distorted the facts by citing the vanishing manufacturing segment of the workforce which left many areas with only hospitals and schools which are areas dominated by women. (Should be stated that those jobs in the past were viewed as "women's work". Some still do view it that way.) He implied (not so subtly) that increased attempts to bring more women into the workforce has even further decreased opportunities for men. He also hinted the effort of women to obtain equal pay has had an unintended consequence of stagnating wages...for men.
I would like to note that the decrease in manufacturing jobs has nothing to do with women or their fight for equal pay. Bad trade deals, outsourcing and greedy corporations have been the root cause of the manufacturing sector decreasing. Also, stagnant wages are due again to greedy corporations and politicians who coddle and cover for them. You know like giving them two trillion dollars in tax cuts so their CEOs can buyback stocks instead of investing into their companies by providing jobs and increased pay. But, I digress.
Tucker went on to say that this earning discrepancy has led to increased crime, incarceration, drug abuse, single parent homes and low marriage rates because women don't want to marry men who make less than them. He emphasized these things are particularly true in "large population areas" (ie: cities).
The last line is what I found interesting and honestly what separates Tucker Carlson from the other vapid troglodytes on Fox News. He is quite astute at low-key spewing propaganda while making it sound populist and logical. Everything he said here has a grain of truth but is largely specious.
I haven't seen or read anyone else mention this, so maybe I am off base, but when I heard him reference large population areas coupled with his other points I felt he was speaking to a broad audience but perhaps had a targeted subgroup in mind.
Follow me here for just a moment. You must understand how the current iteration of the Republican mind works. (Needless to say, I'm not saying all Republicans ,but let's not bullshit, most.)
When Carlson references large population areas it's fair to say he means large cities, right. Now, he mentioned high crime rates and drug abuse. Fact is when Conservatives think of crime and drug abuse they think of black and brown folks. I mean that is the crux of Trump's border wall argument. These brown folks are bringing crime and drugs because, you know, most criminals walk a 1,000 miles to steal a car and rape someone. But, again, I digress.
Crime leads to incarnation. Undoubtedly America's incarceration rate is inane. The United States has the vast majority of the world's prison population. And, unfortunately, the majority of the incarcerated are black and brown men.
Carlson also mentioned single parent homes. Although divorced families and single parent homes are a phenomenon across racial, socioeconomic and religious lines Conservatives like Carlson love to harp about so many African-American children growing up in fatherless homes. Of course, they never mention the mass incarceration of black men due to bullshit petty drug offenses and glaring disproportionate sentencing by the court system.
Oh, and, lest I not forget the low marriage rate. Again, people across the societal spectrum are getting married less or simply waiting until later in life.
When it comes to black men (especially young black men) not marrying several factors come into play. It's simplistic and intellectually dishonest to say it's primarily because women are making more money than men.
First, why are they making more money? It is somewhat difficult to be employed when you're incarcerated and then when you get out the system is designed to hold you down. Let's be real. How many employers are willing to give a brotha with a record employment with a better than decent wage? The numbers show white ex-cons receive twice the job offers as black ex-cons.
Forget being incarcerated let's talk about the black men without a record. Again, the stats show that black men have significantly more trouble obtaining an interview, let alone a second interview, than their white counterparts.
But, let me stop. I don't wanna get too off topic.
What Tucker Carlson is doing here is the oldest trick in the book, divide and conquer. He is obviously attempting to divide women and men by alleging women making more money is a root cause for society's ills and more specifically men's ills. He is also being more nuanced in making an effort to create a wedge between men of color and women of color when one already exists.
The reason Tucker's rant is incel porn is because the overlaying message he is purveying is feminism has ruined society and it's women's fault men's lives are so shitty. If they weren't making more money and in more positions of prominence than crime, incarceration and drug abuse would decrease. Men wouldn't participate in these activities if their women weren't trying to be the head of the household.
And, if women didn't make more money they wouldn't be so willing to do it all without men. If things reverted back to men making more money than women would want to marry them again.
Of course, this is pure silliness and some of it is just straight up fallacy. On the whole women don't make as much as men. This is a clear established fact. Women only earn somewhere in the area of $.76 to $.80 on the dollar what men earn.
While some women do not want to marry men who make less I would argue there are more men who have a problem with being with a woman who makes more. Even dudes who rail against the patriarchy and proclaim themselves male feminists have a serious hang-up about women making more money than them. (Another example of why many feminists are leery about self-proclaimed male feminists.)
Honestly, if you were to visit any incel forum or watch mgtow (men who go their own way [incel blog coming soon]) and proto-misogynist videos on YouTube you would hear this same inane vapid craven babble. The only difference is Tucker cloaks it in "concern for society" , fake populism and isn't as boorish and demeaning as the typical misogynistic tools on Twitter and YouTube are.
It is categorically idiotic to blame women making more money than men for the ills of our society. It is spurious and intellectually bankrupt.
But, this is what Tucker Carlson does five nights a week. He usually spews audio porn for white nationalists, xenophobes and crypto-racists. Apparently, now, he's decided to scrape the bottom of the barrel with the most pathetic, pitiful and misogynistic of the Alt-Right and give the incels and mgtows a little taste of audio porn too.
Carlson has used his primetime Fox News slot to bludgeon immigration and diversity. He has pretended to care about free speech and feigned worry about the seemingly increasing inclination of college campuses and social media sites to de-platform those individuals seen as too divisive or controversial.
Also, Tucker has increasingly injected populism into his segments. He has often (especially lately) made sharp attacks against corporations such as Amazon and has low-key articulated critiques of the wealthy in this country. (I should note he levies these critiques while simultaneously praising the tax cuts which 83% of benefited the top 1% in the country.)
In addition to all this Carlson has frequently had guests on that at the very least are sympathetic to white nationalist ideals and initiatives. For example, Rep. Steve King of Iowa has been a periodic guest. And, Tucker himself has espoused talking points that has him flirting with the Alt-Right, if not in a casual relationship with them.
But, now Carlson has resorted to feeding the dregs of the Alt-Right what I call incel porn. Now, full disclosure, I didn't coin the term. I first heard Ana Kasparian of The Young Turks use it.
A week or so ago Carlson did a segment on his show claiming women making more money than men is bad for the country. He distorted the facts by citing the vanishing manufacturing segment of the workforce which left many areas with only hospitals and schools which are areas dominated by women. (Should be stated that those jobs in the past were viewed as "women's work". Some still do view it that way.) He implied (not so subtly) that increased attempts to bring more women into the workforce has even further decreased opportunities for men. He also hinted the effort of women to obtain equal pay has had an unintended consequence of stagnating wages...for men.
I would like to note that the decrease in manufacturing jobs has nothing to do with women or their fight for equal pay. Bad trade deals, outsourcing and greedy corporations have been the root cause of the manufacturing sector decreasing. Also, stagnant wages are due again to greedy corporations and politicians who coddle and cover for them. You know like giving them two trillion dollars in tax cuts so their CEOs can buyback stocks instead of investing into their companies by providing jobs and increased pay. But, I digress.
Tucker went on to say that this earning discrepancy has led to increased crime, incarceration, drug abuse, single parent homes and low marriage rates because women don't want to marry men who make less than them. He emphasized these things are particularly true in "large population areas" (ie: cities).
The last line is what I found interesting and honestly what separates Tucker Carlson from the other vapid troglodytes on Fox News. He is quite astute at low-key spewing propaganda while making it sound populist and logical. Everything he said here has a grain of truth but is largely specious.
I haven't seen or read anyone else mention this, so maybe I am off base, but when I heard him reference large population areas coupled with his other points I felt he was speaking to a broad audience but perhaps had a targeted subgroup in mind.
Follow me here for just a moment. You must understand how the current iteration of the Republican mind works. (Needless to say, I'm not saying all Republicans ,but let's not bullshit, most.)
When Carlson references large population areas it's fair to say he means large cities, right. Now, he mentioned high crime rates and drug abuse. Fact is when Conservatives think of crime and drug abuse they think of black and brown folks. I mean that is the crux of Trump's border wall argument. These brown folks are bringing crime and drugs because, you know, most criminals walk a 1,000 miles to steal a car and rape someone. But, again, I digress.
Crime leads to incarnation. Undoubtedly America's incarceration rate is inane. The United States has the vast majority of the world's prison population. And, unfortunately, the majority of the incarcerated are black and brown men.
Carlson also mentioned single parent homes. Although divorced families and single parent homes are a phenomenon across racial, socioeconomic and religious lines Conservatives like Carlson love to harp about so many African-American children growing up in fatherless homes. Of course, they never mention the mass incarceration of black men due to bullshit petty drug offenses and glaring disproportionate sentencing by the court system.
Oh, and, lest I not forget the low marriage rate. Again, people across the societal spectrum are getting married less or simply waiting until later in life.
When it comes to black men (especially young black men) not marrying several factors come into play. It's simplistic and intellectually dishonest to say it's primarily because women are making more money than men.
First, why are they making more money? It is somewhat difficult to be employed when you're incarcerated and then when you get out the system is designed to hold you down. Let's be real. How many employers are willing to give a brotha with a record employment with a better than decent wage? The numbers show white ex-cons receive twice the job offers as black ex-cons.
Forget being incarcerated let's talk about the black men without a record. Again, the stats show that black men have significantly more trouble obtaining an interview, let alone a second interview, than their white counterparts.
But, let me stop. I don't wanna get too off topic.
What Tucker Carlson is doing here is the oldest trick in the book, divide and conquer. He is obviously attempting to divide women and men by alleging women making more money is a root cause for society's ills and more specifically men's ills. He is also being more nuanced in making an effort to create a wedge between men of color and women of color when one already exists.
The reason Tucker's rant is incel porn is because the overlaying message he is purveying is feminism has ruined society and it's women's fault men's lives are so shitty. If they weren't making more money and in more positions of prominence than crime, incarceration and drug abuse would decrease. Men wouldn't participate in these activities if their women weren't trying to be the head of the household.
And, if women didn't make more money they wouldn't be so willing to do it all without men. If things reverted back to men making more money than women would want to marry them again.
Of course, this is pure silliness and some of it is just straight up fallacy. On the whole women don't make as much as men. This is a clear established fact. Women only earn somewhere in the area of $.76 to $.80 on the dollar what men earn.
While some women do not want to marry men who make less I would argue there are more men who have a problem with being with a woman who makes more. Even dudes who rail against the patriarchy and proclaim themselves male feminists have a serious hang-up about women making more money than them. (Another example of why many feminists are leery about self-proclaimed male feminists.)
Honestly, if you were to visit any incel forum or watch mgtow (men who go their own way [incel blog coming soon]) and proto-misogynist videos on YouTube you would hear this same inane vapid craven babble. The only difference is Tucker cloaks it in "concern for society" , fake populism and isn't as boorish and demeaning as the typical misogynistic tools on Twitter and YouTube are.
It is categorically idiotic to blame women making more money than men for the ills of our society. It is spurious and intellectually bankrupt.
But, this is what Tucker Carlson does five nights a week. He usually spews audio porn for white nationalists, xenophobes and crypto-racists. Apparently, now, he's decided to scrape the bottom of the barrel with the most pathetic, pitiful and misogynistic of the Alt-Right and give the incels and mgtows a little taste of audio porn too.
Friday, January 11, 2019
Wednesday, January 9, 2019
Tuesday, January 8, 2019
Monday, January 7, 2019
Saturday, January 5, 2019
Friday, January 4, 2019
Thursday, January 3, 2019
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
This post will likely piss some people off. It could very likely cause some hate to come my way and some folks to unfriend me. *Dave Cha...
-
Right off the bat I know I'm going to piss off some folks. Whatevs. Your tears and saltiness I can use for a splendid margarita. Sorry....
-
Too much of the Democratic Party reminds me of the dude or chick who perceives themselves as a person of depth yet are always chasing peop...
-
Recently, someone I've known the majority of my life who I love and respect said something to me that challenged me to do some self-eval...
