So, who defines what words are dangerous? Why are Men’s Rights Advocates being silenced? What we are saying is not particularly new. The threat is that more people are starting to listen. In part that’s because the evidence that we are right has been accumulating. The other part is that you can only abuse people for so long before they all start getting fed up.
Having a bigger audience has made us dangerous, and feminists don’t like competing for attention. Since the point of speaking is to be heard, it seems crass for feminists to use that as an excuse to silence us.
I believe words have power. History has shown us that they do. It’s precisely because words have power that we need to be free to use them. I suspect that feminists also realize words have power and that’s why they are so focused on censorship.
We are not trying to fool anyone here. I expect my audience to be perceptive, analytical and capable of separating fact from fiction. I’m not concerned about being called out on my facts because, frankly, I’m really fucking good at research.
Feminists and Social Justice Warriors, in their race to the bottom of victim culture, have proven that they have no regard for the purpose behind freedom of speech and, even worse, have shown intent to corrupt the legal system upon which our society rests. The people they want to silence most are academics and intellectuals, not backwoods bigots.
And they keep asking why we are so angry.
Feminists will claim to be offended or scared by just about everything because it serves an agenda. This is not a conspiracy theory. It has been well documented. Broadening legal definitions to include ambiguous terms is counter-intuitive to justice. People have the right to be clear on which actions are prohibited by law and emotion based descriptions make laws subjective.
It’s not enough for a person to “feel” like a victim – they have to actually, factually BE a victim of a crime to seek compensation or special status.
How easy is it for someone to “feel” like a victim?
In 2006, criminologist Dr. David Green wrote a report called, “We’re (Nearly) All Victims Now,” published by Civitas, The Institute for the Study of Civil Society. One of the topics he covers is how “victim groups” like feminists describe anything that challenges them as “hate speech” to silence opposing views. He also explains why they do it.
We can no longer avoid offending people because more than 7 out of 10 people are now officially considered “oppressed.” When you take feminist “intersectionality” into account, 109% of the population is categorized by government as oppressed. These oppressed people wish to be granted that status for the explicit purpose of having crimes against them given heavier penalties.
Sounds like privilege to me.
Among other things, Dr. Green noted that:
Groups who have been politically recognised as victims are starting to use their power to silence people who have had the cheek to criticise them.
He points out that
The word victim still retains its old meaning, and victims still inspire ordinary sympathy from kindly people. But today to be classified as a victim is to be given a special political status, which has no necessary connection with real hardship or actual oppression.
Any feminists frothing at the mouth yet? This guy has your number.
Victimhood as a political status is best understood as the outcome of a political strategy by some groups aimed at gaining preferential treatment.
Dr. Green’s report is not “hate speech.” It is a professional analysis of why this Oppression Olympics is not compatible with democracy. He highlights how these self-interest groups undermine moral and legal equality while seeking to use the state as an aggressor against perceived threats. He also points out how the leaders of so-called oppressed groups claim the disadvantages of group members from the past which they, themselves, do not actually suffer.
In feminist terms this has been an ongoing criticism from both outside the group and from within.
Middle class white women have gained a lot of advantage by speaking about the struggles of their poor Black sisters and Black women have consistently tried to tell them to stop. Women in poverty? Well they’re too busy working their asses off to have the time or money to read the books these narcissistic twits are writing.
Though fewer and fewer women are calling themselves feminists, most women are still quite content to collect the oppression group benefits they’ve been handed.
A woman doesn’t have to call herself a feminist to still be gynocentric.
Dr. Green outlines how political power and control is gained at the expense of equality and how the granting of this power to victim groups has led to a desire for people to be classed as “oppressed.” Victim groups not only get preferential treatment by government, in the UK – from which Dr. Green is writing – crimes against them carry double the minimum penalty for anyone convicted.
He covers the proclivity of these groups to demand censorship when he states:
Modern victim groups create entrenched social divisions by defining opponents as oppressors who not only must be defeated by the state, but silenced by the state. It weakens the toleration and give-and-take that have been central to our political culture, and even encourages aggression.
Dr. Green was not just concerned about the health of the legal system either. He gives examples and discusses how people benefit more from being asked to achieve and succeed instead of instructed to wallow in self-pity.
He laments that victim culture encourages people to focus on blame and compensation as if no one should have to struggle against adversity. Green’s concerns are reinforced by studies that show ruminating or excessively focusing on trauma impedes recovery by enhancing negative thoughts and eroding social support.
While disability used to be well-defined and indisputable (such as blindness, deafness, or being confined to a wheelchair) it now covers alcoholics and the obese. The rapid expansion of this definition caused the British government to explicitly exclude some potential abuses such as “a tendency to set fires”. Green counted one fifth of the British population as being classified disabled in 2006.
This is progress? Seriously?
Green notes that the prevalence of speech codes or political correctness is
…another opportunity [created] by taking offence at innocent remarks or valid criticisms that are redefined as insults.
He laughs at the speed with which these speech codes are changed by the groups themselves so that they even manage to catch their own members off guard.
That would be more of that infamous feminist infighting.
While this might be annoying and sometimes amusing, why does Green think it is detrimental to the legal system?
While middle class feminist women claim historical oppression they haven’t personally encountered, coerce the government into giving them special funding and legal entitlements based on no merit and no actual suffering, and shame anyone who criticises them for it, it creates cynicism that erodes the public trust.
As Green states:
Victim groups are not just political factions pressing for preferential treatment. They also undermine one of the fundamental building blocks of a free society, the equal legal status of its members.
Does this sound like hate speech to you? Sounds more like love of one’s country.
The suppression of legitimate discourse is easily recognizable. Telling someone they are not oppressed is not hate speech. Demanding that people be held equally accountable for their crimes is not hate speech.
Feminism is not a race or a gender, it is an ideology and as such – we have the right to tell them they are full of shit.
Let’s be really clear about this: We don’t criticize feminism because we’re bigots. Hell, I like being a woman. When we tell you that feminists are lying, hypocritical cunts, it’s because we have proof.
Dr. Green recognizes that many members of society will support victimhood because they have good intentions and don’t realize the negative impact their enablement has upon the illness of the oppression mongers. They wear ribbons in support or sympathy and their misguided compassion can even amount to a form of personal therapy.
Stop! Empowering victimhood just makes them sicker.
Of those leading the victimhood march, Green asks a pertinent question:
Is it not possible that they have failed to realise the consequences of their actions? Perhaps so, but if they persist in calling for the re-assertion of group identities and denying moral equality, and if they continue to undermine the legal equality of all, even after the consequences have been pointed out, we must credit them with knowing what they are doing.
Well, feminists. Dr. David Green, and others like him, have brought these matters to your attention for a long time now. That is why we must now assume that you are being intentional.
And THAT is why we are here to fuck your shit up.
Sources
Victim Culture 100% Oppression
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/victim-culture-means-seven-out-of-ten-feel-oppressed-7176112.html
Dr. David Green
http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/Victims.pdf
Civitas Website
Ruminating on victimhood is bad for mental health
http://pps.sagepub.com/content/3/5/400.short
FTSU Origins
http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/where-is-the-counter-argument/