Liberal Identity Politics, Transgenderism, & Disregarding the Safety of Hetero Cisgender Women
(This post has been edited a few times to add a few more thoughts or new links)
The “Arguments by Liberals” Section is located about one-fourth down this page; look for the sub-heading “Arguments by Liberals”
by E. Whelan
But the Obama administration and transgender activists have shown no interest in sensible compromises that give any weight to the privacy or safety interests of others.
Never mind that the transgender policy on restrooms and showers makes it much easier for any man or boy with nefarious or mischievous purposes to gain access to the girls’ facilities. // end quotes
I have a friend on Twitter who I sometimes have private conversations with via Direct Messaging on Twitter.
One very disturbing and annoying tendency among liberals has grabbed her attention and mine, that we’ve discussed privately:
Many Liberals not only build a hierarchy of which groups of people they believe are more worthy of protection, consideration, and respect than other groups (which I find odd and troubling), but they further go on to almost always place hetero, cisgender (and ones who happen to be caucasian) women at the very bottom of this hierarchy.
Women in general seem to go at the bottom of this liberal pyramid, regardless of ethnic group, skin color, or nationality – I guess it can depend on the specific context under consideration.
I have not been able to quite crack the liberal code on all this just yet: I’m not totally sure how their pyramid is organized, but after years of reading liberal thought online (in both professionally- written articles and comments on blogs by garden variety liberals), I think it may look something like this:
ORDER OF IMPORTANCE TO LIBERALS (as of May 2016):
- Muslims (especially male, -sometimes- females depending on context)
- Transgender Persons (male and female)
- Homosexuals / Lesbians
- Black People (male and female)
I would like to say that this list is based on my perception.
If you are not a liberal – say, if you’re a conservative or a right of center libertarian – in your view, you may think that Liberals tend to put, say, black people at number 3 on the list, and homosexuals at number 4 on the list. Maybe you’re right about that, I don’t know; again, this list is based on my perception, and at that, based on liberal sentiments I’ve seen in liberal discourse on blogs, news channels, etc., over the years.
EDIT, Addition to List:
My Twitter friend I spoke of in the opening thinks I should add Jewish people to the groups that liberals tend to “throw under the bus” – so at her request, you can factor in Jewish people, too.
I just normally see liberals bickering about groups 1 through 5 more often than any other groups of people in certain debates, which is why I suppose that list looks as it does in my mind and here on the blog.
As far as I have been able to deduce in my years of reading liberal- based news articles and liberal commentary by “average joe” liberals on the internet, it seems that Muslims can do no wrong, even when and if a Muslim hurts anyone else on this list, from point 2 on down to point 5 (or down to point 6, if factoring in Jewish people – though I’m not sure if my friend would rank Jewish people at point 6 on this list, or at point 5, or another step, if she were writing this list) or anyone else.
So, for example, if a Muslim murders a homosexual for being homosexual, or for engaging in homosexual sex acts, American liberals won’t say a critical word about it, or about that Muslim, or even about problems with Islam that might play a role in such violence against homosexuals.
If anything, if you point out that some Muslims are very intolerant and violent towards homosexuals, your average American liberal will accuse you of being an “Islamophobe.”
If you point out the horrors and violence girls and women face under Islam, such as honor killings for being raped, or FGM (female genital mutilation), American liberals don’t care, don’t seem to notice, and will say you are an “Islamophobe” for mentioning any of this.
So, it would appear to me that in the mind of most American liberals, being Muslim trumps or outweighs being homosexual and outweighs the safety and rights of girls and women. – Islam is greater than homosexuality or women, and must be protected ten times more so.
Until the topic of Transgenderism became trendy starting about two or three years ago, homosexuals seemed to be the American liberal second favored status.
With transgenderism taking on popularity in public discourse lately, the needs and complaints of homosexuals seem to have taken a back seat to Trans concerns.
In the left wing view, the needs, complaints, and concerns of black people seem to be worthy of more attention than the needs, complaints, and concerns of women.
Now, I’m kind of fuzzy here on how liberal Americans categorize black women in their scheme of things, but seeing as how some black, American, liberal ladies (and Asian ladies online, some of whom go by the “POC” [Person of Color] label – another label some of them use: WOC [Women of Color]) complain out the ying yang that white lady feminists aren’t into “intersectional” feminism, I can only guess that they feel that black women are even lower on the liberal chart o’ concerns, such as:
ORDER OF IMPORTANCE TO LIBERALS, version 2:
- Transgender Persons
- Black People [black males only(?)]
- Women =
5A. White Women
5B. POC Women (from the liberal view, this would include black ladies, Asian ladies, Native American ladies, etc)
By the way, if you’ve never heard of Intersectional Feminism, here is an off-site link about it:
- Today’s feminist movement is said to be in danger of losing momentum unless it recognises that not every feminist is white, middle class, cis-gendered and able bodied.
A conservative editorial on the topic:
I am having to guess at that version 2 of the chart, and it’s based on the online fights I’ve read between left wing, white women feminists and their POC counterparts.
So, in reality, some liberals actually have this view, or some of them want American society to look like this:
ORDER OF IMPORTANCE TO LIBERALS, their wished-for reality, which makes it their reality:
- Transgender Persons
- Black People [black males only(?)]
5A. POC Women (would include black ladies, Asian ladies, Native American ladies, etc)
5B. White Women
TRANSGENDER PEOPLE, BATHROOMS, AND CISGENDER HETERO WOMEN
In the midst of the debates over bathroom bills and bathroom rules regarding Transgender persons, and which bathrooms they should be able to use, I have noticed that the safety and well-being of hetero, cisgender women always falls to second place.
(I pause here to say I’m not sure if liberals would be upset if a lesbian lady were raped by a man pretending to be trans in a woman’s public restroom.
It’s hard to say, due to how liberals have this habit of deeming some groups more important than others, but most definitely, so far, they have communicated that hetero, cis-gender women’s safety means nothing compared to the needs of Trans people.
Unless, when I or other people say the word “women” in these discussions, the liberals automatically are, in their minds, lumping lesbian (and bi-sexual) women in with hetero women too; I cannot say.)
Since I began tweeting links to my last blog post about Trans persons and public bathrooms, I’ve received many of the same arguments from pro-Trans people repeatedly.
Their points to date have been irrelevant, and some of them I already addressed in my last post on the subject.
—ARGUMENTS BY LEFT WINGERS—
STUPID, OBTUSE, OR IRRELEVANT ARGUMENTS OR COMMENTS I HAVE RECEIVED FROM PRO-TRANS PERSONS ON TWITTER
- Have you ever personally known a Trans person?
No, but this is irrelevant. This question assumes I must be opposed to bathroom bills because I hate Trans persons, or I assume all Trans persons are rapists and sexual harassers.
I have said countless times (and in my last post on the topic), my concern is not so much biological men who want to wear skirts or who feel they are a woman in a man’s body, but with Non-Trans persons (biological men) who pretend to be Trans so that they may have easier access to women’s bathrooms and locker rooms so that they can sexually harass or rape women and girls.
If a man wants to think he is a woman and/or wear dresses, I may not agree with it in principle or totally understand it – but it’s America, you’re an adult, more power to you, you go for it, by all means, go wear a dress if that makes you happy.
So no, my objection to biological males going into women’s restrooms is not motivated by hatred of, or fear of, Trans people.
I’ve watched several episode of Caitlyn Jenner’s show on cable. She seems nice enough. I don’t hate Caitlyn Jenner.
(Though I don’t think I’d agree with Jenner over the men- being- in- women’s bathroom topic. I would amicably agree to disagree with Jenner, and hopefully Jenner would not resort to demonizing me by slapping labels like “bigot” on me, or however else.)
2. Show me examples of Non-Trans pretending to be Trans to rape or sexually harass females in locker rooms and bathrooms
Yes, it has happened before, and will probably happen again. See (Link): my last post with examples taken from various news sources.
Even if there were no examples already present, it would still remain a possibility of happening in the future.
Why even take the risk? Unless, of course, you care more about the fee-fee’s of Trans persons than you do the safety of cis, hetero women.
3. So, you are all for being raped, just not by men who claim to be Trans?
What on earth stupid, muddled logic is that (yes, someone actually tweeted this question at me)?
Obviously, no, I have no desire to be raped by anyone, regardless of their sexual orientation, or whatever label they slap on to themselves.
However, before all this ‘Trans and Public Bathrooms’ nonsense became the Trend Du Jour with liberals who are obsessed with identity politics, if an obviously- hetero- / cisgender- looking man walked into a bathroom or women’s locker room, any women near-by could complain, and the man in question would – even if he claimed to be Trans – get removed by security or police.
Now, under these pro-Trans bills and bathroom rules, if a hetero CIS man pretends to be Trans, he can now easily waltz into a woman’s locker room or restroom (he wouldn’t even necessarily have to put on a dress, high heels or lipstick), and any women who suspect he may be a rapist or sexual harasser cannot get him removed.
All he has to do is claim to be a woman in a man’s body (even if he does not truly feel this way), and he will be allowed to remain.
The end result is that women such as me will probably have to avoid using public women’s restrooms in the future to ensure our safety – all to accommodate a mere (Link): 0.2 to 0.3 percent of the U.S. population and a form of political correctness run amok.
4. But a man does not have to pretend to be Trans to be a rapist – he can still go into a women’s bathroom or locker room and rape women there anyway.
Yeah, no kidding. I am aware of this. I don’t doubt that can happen and probably has in the past.
But, these days, if I, a woman, see an obviously- looking cisgender man in a woman’s restroom or locker room, I can’t do or say anything about it now, because he is allowed to be in there in the first place, thanks to some of these new pro-Trans rules, laws, societal norms, or bills.
It’s now easier for men who prey on women to do so. More hurdles have been removed for them.
5. But, trans people have been using public bathrooms all along. You’ve probably used a woman’s restroom with a Trans woman already and didn’t even realize it.
That argument is irrelevant to my concern.
This argument does not address the possibility and reality of cisgender, hetero (or bi-sexual) men who can now exploit these pro-Trans rules and bills to walk into women’s rooms now (for the express purpose of fondling, raping, or sexually harassing girls and women).
See my response to the point under number 4, above. My reply in 4 applies here, too.
At least some Trans people are more polite about this, or used to be. When I worked in a clothing store in my late teens, we had a Trans woman (or possibly male cross-dresser) come into our store (which sold only women’s clothing, and had a woman’s only dressing room).
This person asked my boss if she/he could use our store’s dressing room. This person at least had the courtesy to ask and didn’t just walk in to the dressing room and start changing.
6. a. But don’t you know it’s not Trans people raping hetero, cis women, it’s only men who are not pretending to be trans, as well as men who ARE pretending to be trans, who are attacking women?
6. b. If you remove CIS men from public women’s bathrooms and public locker rooms but allow Trans women in, problem solved!
Point 6a: Er, yes, this is the point I’ve been making the entire time. You’re making my argument for me.
(Yes, I really had one woman on Twitter tweet those thoughts at me. Edit: as of June 2016 I had an equally daff woman tweet point 6b at me.)
As to point 6b specifically, that is the very crux of my quibble with the laws and rules permitting biological men (trans women) into women’s restrooms and changing rooms: it allows cis men to simply claim to patrons and management that they “feel like women today” and are thus granted access.
Prior to these dangerous and moronic politically correct rules and laws allowing men into women’s restrooms or locker rooms, if a person who appeared to be a cis man (or who is in fact a cis man) attempted to enter a woman’s changing room, he could be jettisoned.
Those days are now long gone. It is now much EASIER for male cis rapists and voyeurs to enter into areas meant for women only.
The convenience and preferences of Trans women are now considered more important than the safety and preferences of cis women.
7a. But women can be raped on city streets and in parking garages. (Point added June 2016, after some woman Tweeted this at me)
Yes, and? You’re arguing that rapists should now have more places from which to pick new rape victims or to attempt their crimes.
How is this better for cis women, or safer, or progressive? It’s not any of those things.
What you are really arguing is this:
- But women can be raped on city streets and in parking garages and therefore biological men should also be permitted to rape women in bathrooms and fitting rooms now, too
In addition to city streets and parking garages, rapists can now also choose women’s locker rooms and fitting rooms to attack girls and women. This is senseless, stupid, REGRESSIVE (not “progressive”), as well as sexist, as it puts cis women in more (and needless) danger.
The woman who made this point, or anyone who makes it, like the rest on the list, is acting as a rape apologist. You’re arguing in favor, basically, of allowing cis men to perpetrate crimes against cis girls and women much easier.
7b. But some Christian churches have rapists and child molesters, and/or churches handle such cases horribly!
That is somewhat of a non-sequitur in regards to allowing biological / cis men to enter women’s restrooms or fitting rooms.
Never the less, I know a lot of churches handle sexual abuse cases that happen in churches in a terrible fashion; I do not dispute that point.
I blogged about that in another post, please read it here:
- (Link): Conservatives, Christians, Transgenders, and Bathrooms – Addressing Libby Anne’s “Love, Joy, Feminism” Post About Transgenders
8. “…that’s exactly what people said about African Americans 70 years ago.”
What a strange argument. It’s an apples and oranges comparison.
I tweeted to this guy in response, before blocking him: “But I’m not afraid of being raped by an African American woman when I go into a [public women’s] bathroom.”
- (See also: (Link, off site): The obvious difference between bathroom bills and Jim Crow laws)
(This guy’s Twitter who Tweeted that at me is: @PhotonicFab
He was replying to my Tweet of: “Wanting to avoid being raped by men who pretend to be women is not “bigotry” – it’s being prudent. Good bye.”)
Which leads me this next point here:
9. Wanting to keep biological men out of women’s restrooms and locker rooms is bigoted!
No, me not wanting biological men to be permitted into dedicated women’s areas (such as bathrooms, locker rooms, or changing rooms) is prudent, wise, and erring on the side of caution.
You who argue this point are bigoted – you are bigoted against women who were born as women.
As has been noted in news reports, the suggestion that Trans people can use separate stand alone bathrooms that lock from the inside –
Rather than using restrooms designated “men’s” or “women’s” – which a perfectly fair and safe option for them – has regularly been turned down by many LGBT activists and progressives (I have links to such news articles either in this post or (Link): my other post on the topic).
Some LGBT activists or progressives are not interested in fairness and safety for all as it concerns this subject, but rather in forcing people who don’t care or agree with Transgenderism to care or agree, by shoving this rule down their throats.
THE BOTTOM LINE: LEFT WINGERS CLAIM TO BE FEMINISTS BUT THROW CISGENDER, (and sometimes HETERO / WHITE) WOMEN UNDER THE BUS EVERY TIME THE CONCERNS OF SUCH WOMEN CONFLICT WITH OTHER LIBERAL PET GROUPS
In all of this, you will notice that the political correctness of liberals, and the feelings of transgender persons, all out-weigh the physical safety or concerns of hetero, cis-gender women and girls.
When refugee, migrant Muslims began raping and fondling (mostly, from what I saw reported in the news) white, hetero, cis-gender women by the droves in Europe over the past year, I saw many liberals on the internet yelling and screaming that mentioning the religion of the migrants (which is Islam, in the majority of cases), is wrong and “Islamophobic.”
Some of the left wing political groups in Europe (and liberal individuals in the United States) were opposed to kicking those Muslim rapists out of the nation, or even punishing them much, if at all. They were also opposed to putting caps on anymore Muslim migrants coming into Europe or other nations.
In the United States, concerning all the debates about public bathrooms, it does appear that liberals are far more concerned with Trans people – their feelings, their needs – being met, but at the expense of cisgender (and/or hetero/white cisgender) women.
As such, I don’t think liberals have much room to claim to be “feminist,” and they generally do claim to be feminist, when they consistently show that the concerns and safety of biological women and girls means nothing to them, especially not when they are in conflict with one of their other pet groups on the Hierarchy of Identity Groups.
I’m not sure why Transgender people cannot simply use public bathrooms that are designated as “Family Restrooms,” which are available in many stores or restaurants, and which men or women may use; or why gender neutral restrooms – that can lock from the inside – are not a workable solution, either. I don’t see that it’s necessary for biological men be given permission to enter women’s bathrooms in public spaces.
At any rate, I’ve noticed that everyone – from cisgender, white, hetero men, both liberal and conservative – to all these liberal groups or their pet groups (including but not limited to Muslims, black feminist ladies, Asian feminist ladies, homosexuals, and transgender persons) – all expect that white, cisgender, and/or hetero women should be on the very bottom rung of every culture in every situation.
Women in general, but it appears, especially hetero, biological and/or white (depending on the context, or specific situation) women in particular, are thrown under the bus by liberals about every single time, no matter the topic.
As for me, I’m part white. I’m also part Native American Indian. I suppose liberals who are into this insane amount of identity politics would expect me to hate the white part of my heritage?
I’m not happy with the right wing as much as I was, but I see the absurdity and hypocrisy of left wingers and some of their causes, and I don’t think I can ever became a liberal.
If a liberal politician rapes a woman, the liberals will give him a pass; should a right wing politician rape a woman, or sexually harass her, the liberals would be all over him like white on rice.
Liberals sure don’t care much about white, biological, straight (or conservative) women, unless maybe the issue of possibly outlawing abortion comes up? Other than that, no, they don’t really care about women, or women’s related concerns, from what I’ve witnessed through the years.
PRO- TRANS- IN- PUBLIC- WOMEN’S RESTROOMS LIBERALS ARE SUPPORTING RAPE CULTURE
If you think about it, the liberals (and the non- liberal, Trans- in- women’s- bathrooms- supporters) who are arguing that biological men should be allowed into women’s public restrooms are sort of engaging in a form of Rape Culture and Rape Apologetics.
Liberals who support men being in women’s bathrooms and locker rooms sure don’t take cisgender female physical safety and the possibility of their being raped very seriously.
I thought that left wingers, especially left wing feminists, were supposed to detest Rape Culture? Hunh, I guess they do not. They seem perfectly okay with a practice that would make girls and women even more vulnerable to being sexually harassed or assaulted.
End lesson: Muslims, transgenders, and other groups take precedence over cisgender (and possibly hetero) women and woman’s well-being and safety in Liberal Land.
—–Edit, May 12, 2016.—–
Excerpt (this is by a liberal writer):
When news broke earlier this week that North Carolina’s Rowan-Salisbury Board of Education had voted to allow students to carry pepper spray on campus—seemingly under the logic, as one board member intimated, that they might need it to protect themselves from trans people in bathrooms—it looked like the vigilante gender police state was arriving faster than I had feared.
…But Hughes [board member] later elaborated on his views to Buzzfeed, saying, “I was not thinking about the LGBT issue. Perverts and pedophiles taking advantage of this law in bathrooms was my major concern.” He went on:
“The LGBT issue has never been a problem to my knowledge,” Hughes said. “People have a different sexual identity, they go about their business. You don’t even know that a transgender is in your bathroom. They’re not there to create havoc. But perverts are.”
Hughes said he was not homophobic and that the LGBT community had rights to be protected. “They’re not the ones to look out for,” he said. “My statement was misinterpreted and when I hear other people talking about it, I can see how it was misinterpreted.”
While it’s impossible to know whether this clarification is genuine or a bit of crisis management, I’m willing to take Hughes at his word—not least because he has promised his own vote to revoke the pepper spray allowance.
What concerns me more is that, even for this a guy who seems to basically get that LGBTQ folks are not de facto “perverts,” the fear-mongering around bathrooms perpetrated by North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory and similar potty warriors has been effective.
I cannot believe that when and if people, including conservatives, express concern over how pro-Trans rules or laws can be exploited by Non-Trans rapey perverts, the first reaction of pro-Trans (usually liberals) is to scream and yell such people are “bigots.”
Me not wanting to be raped is not “bigotry,” it’s having healthy self-interest, thank you.
Liberals of the world, figure out some other way of Trans persons using bathrooms that does not involve putting me (and other women) at more risk of being raped by Non-Trans deviants and predators who will use Trans bathroom rules as a loophole.
Related Links, off-site:
May 20, 2016
“I was in the dressing room, when we heard a man’s voice,” Lisa Stickles described the incident at the Ross store in Mesquite, Texas, to CBSDFW.
After her complaint, the manager went inside the dressing room, “came right back out and called me to the side and told me… he was representing himself as a woman today,” Stickles said. “He was in no way dressed as a woman. He had on jeans, a t-shirt, 5 o’clock shadow, very deep voice. He was a man.”
A customer service representative with Ross said they do not discriminate against the transgender community.
“What about me? Or my feelings?” said Sickles. “(The manager) told me that if I felt uncomfortable in the dressing room with him there… I’d have to wait until he’s finished.”
by Leon H Wolf / June 13, 2016
However, since the [Orlando nightclub] shooter [Omar Mateen] is Muslim and by all accounts went on this rampage in the name of his religion, we are treated to a whole different spectacle [by left wingers], one that is as predictable and tiresome as the day is long: blame guns, excuse Islam, and warn that the real danger is not all the violent killing that is done in the name of Islam, but the (almost entirely) nonexistent danger of violent killings done in the name of Islamophobia.
…If I were a member of the LGBT community, I would be watching the left with an extremely jaundiced eye from this day forward. While Democrats are certainly willing to fundraise and pontificate off LGBT issues, what they are not willing to do is acknowledge that the Religion of Peace is by far the biggest cause of violence against the LGBT community worldwide, and is almost exclusively responsible for fatal violence against the LGBT community in the modern world.
From the honest LGBT perspective, whatever problems you think might need to be addressed in the Christian world, the problems in the Muslim world are at least ten times worse. And anyone who was truly on the side of the LGBT community would stand up and say that.
So take note: however much the left purports to be on your side, they’re scared of offending the Muslims even more.
(Link): Transgender Totalitarianism
For example, the trans-critical blog GenderTrender published the pre-transition name of Jonathan “Jessica” Yaniv, a Canadian man who now claims to be female, and has filed human rights claims against women’s salons who will not wax his testicles (he has not had bottom surgery) because the estheticians do not want to touch male genitalia.
GenderTrender published information related to the man’s social media activities related to underage girls, and used the name Jonathan Yaniv. As a result, WordPress kicked GenderTrender off, claiming that “deadnaming” (using a trans person’s pre-transition name) is a violation of terms of service. Gallus Mag of GenderTrender said in a statement:
Will this new policy be widely enforced? Of course not. I believe this change to the WordPress TOS was hastily conceived as a guise to censor lesbian and feminist authors who are critical of “gender identity” ideology, specifically those who investigate or critique the actors behind various political or judicial campaigns to limit the rights of women.
I believe this change is a direct result of GenderTrender’s exposure of Jonathan Yaniv, the figure behind 16 Canadian human rights complaints against women who declined to wax his balls, as an alleged sexual predator.
I believe this unannounced change to the TOS, applied retroactively without prior warning or notification, is a ruse to justify the specific targeted censorship of certain popular long running lesbian and feminist blogs who critique the ingrained (and sometimes criminal!) misogyny of the transgender movement.
I believe this is an organized, intentional initiative by WordPress.com to eliminate lesbian and feminist criticism and exposure of the epidemic harassment, predation, and sex-specific terrorism of male bodied people upon female bodied people, regardless of their personal “identity”.
Below, what GenderTrender was blogging about: Yaniv’s social media activity asking people for advice on how to approach 10 to 12 year old girls in public restrooms and talk about tampon use:
[snip screen shots of the pervert’s tweets about asking little girls about tampons]
WordPress’s policy protects creeps like Jonathan Yaniv.
- But the most fascinating argument comes from those who have no problem with Jenner changing genders, but have serious misgivings about the word “woman.”
- On a recent MSNBC panel celebrating the “Jenner Effect,” The Nation’s Michelle Goldberg (no relation), noted that many young feminists “no longer want to use the word ‘woman’ in relation to abortion because it excludes trans men.” There’s a lot of “conceptual murk to clear away,” she added with admirable understatement, “but among younger people that I’ve talked to, it almost seems amazing to them that anybody would question the need to have gender-neutral language.”
- In a fascinating piece for The New Yorker, Goldberg wrote about this growing schism.
- Rachel Ivey, a young feminist told Goldberg, “If I were to say in a typical women’s-studies class today, ‘Female people are oppressed on the basis of reproduction,’ I would get called out.”
- Some students, she explained, would ask, “What about women who are male?”
- On most days of the week, liberals are fond of claiming that Republicans are “anti-science” on everything from global warming to evolution. Well, last I checked, biology hadn’t been declared a branch of the humanities.
- Bruce Jenner was 65 years old when he decided to be a she, but that’s not why Caitlyn can’t have a baby. Figuratively speaking, removing the spigot won’t change the rest of the plumbing. That’s not patriarchal oppression talking. That’s science. And no matter how fluid gender may or may not be, the biological category of “female” isn’t going away anytime soon.
- I have sympathy for people who are convinced they were born the wrong sex. But feeling oppressed by a category doesn’t render that category illegitimate or unreal. (Short people may resent being short, but that doesn’t nullify the concept of height.)
(Link): WHY FEMINISM FAILED COLOGNE’S WOMEN by D. Greenfield
A feminism in thrall to the left is one of the biggest threats to women.
… Feminism is only another of the many manipulative masks that the left wears. Its acolytes cannot see rape as a personal crime, only as an ideological one.
To the left, rape, like racism, is a form of institutional oppression practiced by the stronger white male against everyone else.
Sexual assaults that don’t fit this structural template won’t be acknowledged and when they become so public that they must be acknowledged, it will be only to change the conversation.
That process is already underway in Germany as feminists insist that all the coverage of the Muslim rape mob attackers (a coverage that took place despite the best efforts of their left-wing colleagues to bury the politically incorrect story before anyone had even heard about it) is distracting attention from domestic sex crimes.
The obligatory feminist protests emphasized opposition to sexism and racism, but they did not mean the form of racism that led large numbers of asylum seekers to see native women as fair game to be abused, degraded and spit on, but the racism involved in calling them out for it.
(Link): The Bill Clinton Effect: Why Liberals Treat Women Worse by C. Lukas
It’s a phenomenon I call “the Bill Clinton effect.” President Clinton [Democrat] isn’t just another example of a prominent pol who habitually cheated on his wife with many women, including those on his staff.
Clinton showcased how those who normally police behavior and work to penalize men for mistreating women will excuse men aligned with them politically. In other words, Clinton revealed that liberals can expect to get away with a lot more in terms of abusing women than conservatives.
… Liberal women’s groups are supposed to frown on men who smear women and undermine the legal process of sexual harassment suits, and take accusations of sexual assault seriously. Yet President Clinton—a good Democrat who supported abortion rights and other feminist sacraments—was largely given a pass. Sure, some feminists murmured their disappointment with Clinton’s behavior and mouthed platitudes about Paula Jones…
(Link): Ditched by feminists: Throwing women under the bus by N S Riley
The truth is that although feminism makes all sorts of universalist claims about the rights of women, it is a deeply inconsistent philosophy. Just look at the way Monica Lewinsky was treated.
Sure, she’s not the most sympathetic figure. Neither were Bill Clinton’s other mistresses.
But they were all thrown under the bus in the name of advancing the feminist agenda.
Even Juanita Broaddrick, the nursing home administrator who said Bill Clinton sexually assaulted her, was studiously ignored by the feminist establishment. In service to the greater cause of liberalism, feminists can even deny the benefit of the doubt to rape victims.
…If the idea of feminism is to make universal claims for women, it has failed miserably.
It sounds like women’s problems in United States are arguably minuscule compared to the literal violence women face in the Middle East. So where are the feminists in America when we need them to speak up on these issues? Where is the international community when vulnerable women need them most, and what will be done in the future?
I don’t agree with point 4 on this list, but most of the rest of it, yes:
Bruni misses a loophole in law against voyeurism. Opening women’s rooms to men who are transgendered opens the door to men who claim to be transgendered but really aren’t. And in that case, how are women supposed to confront these men, if the men claim immunity with the new laws? Target already has (Link): twenty cases of sexual assault in women’s restrooms.
However, no assault needs to be done or pictures taken; no harassing words need to be spoken. The sexual predators need only to take off their clothes and stand next to a woman in the showers and get an eyeful without seeming to leer. Maybe these men would like to choose the time when the female athletes are showering after practice. The women’s volleyball team, perhaps?
Women can feel violated in more ways than just physical or verbal.
The issue goes much deeper than the law; it’s a sign of culture rot. But as soon as sane people resist the rot, liberals easily and breezily dismiss their concerns as a “solution in search of a problem” or as “bigotry.”
June 13, 2016
by Daniel Payne
Homophobia is not a reasonable objection to the deficiencies of modern gay culture, but a profound and even homicidal desire to harm gays because of their sexual preferences.
Over the past few years, those of us who have opposed various efforts of gay activism—such as the endeavor to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples—have gotten used to being called “homophobic,” a word that denotes an irrational and prejudiced fear of homosexuals but has often been affixed to anybody who voices any objections to the gay activist agenda.
This strategy, needless to say, has coarsened and debased our public discourse, mostly because it is more a tactic of shame than a real argument: if you can label someone a bigot instead of actually engaging his position, it makes things much easier for you. It is quite likely that many people with objections to, say, gay marriage have remained silent, and understandably so, for fear of being labeled “homophobic.”
Yet conscientious moral opposition to the gay agenda does not by itself signify homophobia. If you wish to see realhomophobia—the genuine article, not the intellectually exhausted fashionable buzzword the Left trots out at every possible opportunity—look to yesterday’s mass shooting in Orlando, Florida, in which 50 individuals were murdered inside a gay nightclub.
The Orlando shooter’s father claims the shooter had recently seen two men kissing in downtown Miami, at which point the shooter “became very upset” and expressed disgust.
This allegation, if true, and coupled with the shooter’s pledge of allegiance to ISIS, indicates that the young man probably possessed deep-seated prejudices towards homosexuals, apparently so much so that he felt compelled to murder as many as he possibly could.
_____August 2016 update:
(Link): Target Adds Private Bathrooms to Quell Transgender Debate (August 2016)
(Link): Target adding single-stall bathrooms at all stores (Aug 2016)
Big-box retailer Target will add single-stall bathrooms at all of its stores where that option is not currently offered, reflecting a direct response to the debate that (Link): erupted earlier this year over its new transgender-bathroom policy.
Target Chief Financial Officer Cathy Smith told reporters Wednesday that the company would invest $20 million to add single-stall bathrooms.
The company already had single-stall bathrooms that anyone can use at about 1,400 of its 1,800 stores, Target spokesperson Katie Boylan said.
Related Posts (on this blog)
(Link): Some Muslims Don’t Know or Care about American Liberal Intersectionalism – Muslim parents say school should not be teaching “LGBT equality” to their kids