But Not All Feminists, Apparently
When you enter a space – any space – as a man, you carry with yourself the threat of harm.
Melissa Fabello, the queen bee of Everyday Feminism, teams up with Aaminah Khan to once again remind any male readers that there’s something fundamentally wrong with them, and all men currently striding about the planet:
The socialisation of men is such that even a good man – a supportive man, a respectful man, a trusted man – has within him the potential for violence and harm because these behaviours are normalised through patriarchy.
For those who find the above less than compelling, Ms Fabello and Ms Khan obligingly link to an earlier Everyday Feminism article, in which a male contributor, Jamie Utt, a “diversity and inclusion consultant,” recounts slamming a table in exasperation and consequently being chastised by his female partner, before rending his garments and rushing to the conclusion that,
My actions exist in the context of patriarchy. And patriarchy is violent. Full stop.
This is followed by a series of equally adamant reiterations – “Cis-masculinity is fundamentally oppressive and violent” says he. Apparently, a single incident of exasperated table-slamming is damning evidence of patriarchal brainwashing, proof that the author has been “socialised to be abusive,” along with all other men. However, the gender-damning meaning of female table-slamming, or door-slamming, or general fits of irritation, or any number of aggressive and passive-aggressive displays indulged in by women, remains oddly unexplored. Instead, Mr Utt equates this apparently all-pervasive patriarchy with “related systems of oppression like white supremacy.” Adding, “It’s important that I situate myself within my positionality.”
This being Everyday Feminism, Ms Fabello and Ms Khan are no less bold in their statements:
We know that even the men that we love, never mind random men who we don’t know, have the potential to be dangerous.
Though Ms Fabello and Ms Khan don’t acknowledge it, it seems that ladies have made great strides on that front too, with some taking advantage of the customary reluctance among men to repay female aggression in kind.
But in a world divided into the oppressed and the oppressors, the former learn to fear the latter as a defence mechanism.
Ah, the subtleties of “social justice.”
What makes (yes) all men potentially unsafe – what makes (yes) all men suspect in the eyes of feminism – is the normalised violating behaviours that they’ve learned, which they then perform uncritically.
“All men,” then, are not only “suspect” and prone to “violating behaviours” – and by dint of existing, oppressors - we’re also nowhere near as insightful and self-aware as members of our more elevated feminist caste, whose self-knowledge and mental nimbleness are famed far and wide.
And so,
Make no mistake: When you use the phrase “not all men” – or otherwise buy into the myth of it – you’re giving yourself and others a pass to continue performing the socially sanctioned violence of “masculinity” without consequence, whether or not that’s your intention.
Well, I’m fairly confident that my interactions with women aren’t by default abusive or controlling, or steeped in “socially sanctioned violence,” and my confidence on this point certainly doesn’t imply any tacit affirmation of men who do behave abusively. To insist, as Ms Fabello and Ms Khan do, that, “all men are at least passively complicit in this patriarchal system that rewards male entitlement,” that their “maleness distorts the fabric of society,” and that “every time [men] ask for something, they’re going to get it,” is to air a conspiracy theory. And the insinuation that those of us who find feminism not entirely convincing are mere notches away from a man who “learns that if he commits rape, his friends will laugh it off,” might be insulting if it weren’t so bizarre.
And I can’t help wondering how Ms Fabello and Ms Khan might react if their assertions were reversed and they were told, quite emphatically, by a man, speaking as The Voice of All Men, that all women, being women, can have negligible insight into their own behaviour, their own minds, without repeated intervention by members of the other, more enlightened sex, “who can see things they can’t,” and to whom they should defer.
To a gender minority, there’s very little difference between the impact of inadvertent and intentional harm. A man who makes you feel unsafe by accident is as harmful to you as one who does it on purpose.
Women are apparently “a gender minority.” Please update your files accordingly.
Here’s the truth… attempting to fight that [male] entitlement is… a choice – one that has to be both conscious and ongoing. You’ve got to choose it every day, in every instance.
The struggle session never ends.
But how many well-meaning men are truly choosing that path, instead of just insisting that it’s “not all men” and that they’re “not like that?” Hint: You are “like that” – especially if you’re not actively fighting patriarchy.
In short, if you don’t wholeheartedly agree and hang your head accordingly, then you are, it seems, the enemy. Your only salvation as an accursed male person is vicarious shame, continual deference and round-the-clock anxiety about your own maleness.
Don’t all rush at once.
Update:
In the comments, Karen notes drily, “She’s not selling it very well, is she?” Well, no. Whether the “it” in question is the rickety argument poked at above, or feminism more generally, or the apparent belief that the world is “divided into the oppressed and the oppressors.”
But then, I don’t think Ms Fabello writes these things in order to persuade anyone who isn’t already very much onside. If she were interested in actual, open-ended debate, in finding out something new or testing her conceits, she wouldn’t insist on preconditions to discussion that are comically self-flattering and which entail a position of deference to her and indifference to reality. And if she were interested in such things, I doubt that our everyday feminist would retweet quite so many demands that men “stop talking,” under a banner boasting that she “never wants to hear a word any heterosexual white man has to say.”
To quote another commenter, Anna, “‘Social justice’ means feeling good about not listening to people based on their sex and race.”
Is it just me or are these “violating behaviors” to which I’m prone simply refusing to accept that Ms. Fabello is particularly intelligent merely because she can afford bandwidth?
All men.
All gay men.
All black men.
Oh wait.
I don’t think women realise that male behaviour is so often a passive or proactive response to male behaviour. Something to do with testosterone levels. IMO, the gradual ’emasculation’ of the western male by feminists ain’t going to work in their favour (‘progressive’ Sweden comes to mind). But, in the wake of what’s happening in Europe, for example, at least some men are starting to regrow their balls. And not a moment too soon.
once again remind any male readers that there’s something fundamentally wrong with them, and with all men currently striding about the planet
Doesn’t that cover almost every article in Everyday Feminism?
If this is feminism, no wonder sane people want none of it.
“But it’s about equality!”
Let’s play spot the contradiction:
Aaminah Khan: “25-year-old lawful evil social justice crusader and queer muslim feminist.”
NAWALT (not all women are like that)
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=NAWALT
Doesn’t that cover almost every article in Everyday Feminism?
It has been known to crop up occasionally, yes.
In between all the articles on witchcraft and self-harm, and on how we need “compassion for psychopaths, pathological liars, or narcissists” because having an antisocial personality disorder – the kind that results in your friends getting screwed over, manipulated and repeatedly abused – is, like, totes cool. Oh, and articles by the editor – one Melissa Fabello – joyously recounting how feminism had revealed to her that whatever had gone wrong in her life, whatever bad decisions she’d made, “it was never my fault.”
I don’t think the word “patriarchy” means what they think it means. Rule by fathers has worked pretty well historically. Mothers tend to be too busy being pregnant, nursing, or chasing after the offspring to do all the dirty, dangerous, backbreaking work of building and maintaining civilizations.
Rule by women without children…well, that’s going to be a short-lived society.
Of course rule by fathers only happens if men know that they *are* fathers, which is not a naturally obvious thing. We’d need some kind of social institution that restricted women’s sexual activities to just one man each if we wanted men to be confident of their own paternal status…
But in a world divided into the oppressed and the oppressors,
Let me stop you right there.
That should read “chaotic evil”?
These 4 Facts . . .
I see no facts. I see a series of sweeping assertions and questions begged.
I’d fail a student for making these kinds of claims in a developmental composition essay.
Does that make me an oppressor?
Does that make me an oppressor?
To which, Ms. Fabello would reply, “Yes. FYNQ.”
I don’t think the word “patriarchy” means what they think it means.
If there is such a “social construct” as “Patriarchy,” then, in a purely materialist, Darwinian universe, such a construct would have been necessary for the continued survival of the species. Natural Selection and all that. One cannot have it both ways. In the primeval past, a “Matriarchy,” if such existed, was weighed in the Darwinian balances and found wanting.
(BTW, this month’s meeting of the Patriarchy will be held next Wednesday in the basement of the Cut Bank, Montana Community Bible Church at 8:00 PM sharp, following the monthly deacons’ meeting. BYOB. Set-ups and various covered dishes to be provided by the Patriarchy Ladies’ Auxiliary.)
I see no facts. I see a series of sweeping assertions and questions begged.
Quite. I was also tickled by the use of “Here’s the truth,” “Full stop,” “We know that…” and “In a world divided into the oppressed and the oppressors…” It’s as if, for Ms Fabello and her peers, mere assertion is the measure of reality.
Though I think the winner is Mr Utt’s
I mean, come on. That’s a keeper.
such a construct would have been necessary for the continued survival of the species
For the establishment and survival of *civilization* certainly, but given that fatherhood isn’t an obvious thing, people wouldn’t have known that it existed for most of human pre-history (pregnancy guarantees recognition of motherhood, but what’s the male equivalent?), yet the species survived just fine, albeit as bone-through-the-nose-ignorant hunter/gatherers. To get beyond that level, men really need an incentive to work more than is necessary for mere survival.
From what I’ve read in various sources, H/Gs have a lot of leisure time, especially the men. You don’t give that up for the day-in, day-out drudgery of agriculture unless the payoff is substantial. Bloodline immortality is a pretty powerful incentive, especially given that it’s the only kind of immortality to which we *know* we have access.
“It’s important that I situate myself within my positionality.”
I just knew there was something I had forgotten from my morning routine…
for most of human pre-history (pregnancy guarantees recognition of motherhood, but what’s the male equivalent?)
A man can guarantee recognition of which children are his sister’s under a pre-monogamous society, so, nephews and nieces.
The Semiotics of Race or, alternatively, Look at those patriarchy-smashing tits!
http://www.blackgirldangerous.org/2014/04/semiotics-race-walks-wild-side/
This patriarchy sounds great. As a man, why would I want to change it?
A man can guarantee recognition of which children are his sister’s under a pre-monogamous society, so, nephews and nieces.
True, but somehow that never seemed to produce quite the same incentive structure. Plus, how does one prioritize between the various nephews and nieces? That relationship would’ve been recognizable 40K years ago, yet it didn’t produce any civilizations of which I’m aware.
Granted, I don’t know when the fact of paternity was first recognized in humans. I *suspect* that it was that recognition which triggered the establishments of the first civilizations, but I don’t know how one would go about confirming that.
Since one’s “gender identity” is now considered entirely separate from one’s sex at birth, surely feminism is effectively obsolete as an ideology?
Jabrwok, I’m not disagreeing, but species survival is part and parcel of civilization. The point is, if human social structures evolve,then what exists must have some utility for survival. Feminists never deal with that issue.
@R. Sherman: I see your point, and I agree. Didn’t mean to come across as argumentative. This is one of my pet hypotheses, so I tend to get verbose about it when the opportunity presents itself:-).
It seems these days that the more someone claims to be at war with bigotry and oppression, the greater the oppressive bigot they are.
… I tend to get verbose about it when the opportunity presents itself:-).
Too late for apologies. I’m triggered and must repair to my safe space.
Bring me a blankie and several virgins!
Jamie Utt, a “diversity and inclusion consultant,” recounts slamming a table in exasperation and consequently being chastised by his female partner, before rending his garments and rushing to the conclusion that,
Has Jamie considered that, Patriarchy apart, he just might be a wanker?
Of course rule by fathers only happens if men know that they *are* fathers, which is not a naturally obvious thing.
I have read somewhere that new-born children tend to exhibit a greater resemblance to their father than to their mother, which might be Nature’s way of ensuring that the father “recognizes” his offspring and might thus have been a trait that was reinforced through natural selection. The kids that look like Grok the milkman being perhaps more likely to be exposed and never reaching the stage at which they would be able to propagate their genes.
Of course it’s not quite as foolproof as carrying the child for nine months and giving birth to it, so some sort of societal reinforcement would probably still come in useful.
Has Jamie considered that, Patriarchy apart, he just might be a wanker?
Well, it occurred to me that someone skimming through Everyday Feminism, or almost any feminist website, might come to assume that its female writers are really bad at choosing male company. Which, I’m told, is a not uncommon trait among women with borderline personality disorder, a subject often touched on in the pages of Everyday Feminism, along with other, often quite lurid, mental health issues.
I’m just speculating, of course.
It’s important that I situate myself within my positionality.
I mean, come on. That’s a keeper.
That would be something you might want to work into a cover letter or resume. If you are trying to stay on the dole and avoid being employed.
The Semiotics of Race or, alternatively, Look at those patriarchy-smashing tits!
A) Why is she posting on “Black Girl Dangerous” ? She is as “black” as well known US pretenders, Rachel “Ain’t Jemima” Dolezal, and Shaun “Talcum X” King.
B) Regarding her patriarchy-smashing bits, even if she were not an oxymoronic “queer muslim feminist”, I suspect she is so far round the bend that as the saying goes, not even with yours.
I have read somewhere that new-born children tend to exhibit a greater resemblance to their father than to their mother…
If true, given that all newborns look like Winston Churchill, he must really have gotten around a lot.
You don’t give that up for the day-in, day-out drudgery of agriculture unless the payoff is substantial.
Payoff – like say, enough grain to make booze? 😉
Liberal women think all men are pigs because liberal women associate with liberal men, and liberal men are pigs.
Examples: Teddy Kennedy, Alec Baldwin, Bill Clinton etc..
If liberal women would associate with decent men instead their opinion of men would change.
Conservative women who associate with conservative men seem to think they are alright.
It’s important that I situate myself within my positionality.
Colloquially, know your place, peasant.
I am, even as I type, hacking-off my todger with a blunt pen-knife so I am never again required to ‘situate myself within my positionality’. It’s quite a relief, actually. Recommend it highly.
To be fair to the militant feminism lobby, however, they do have to put up with this sort of phallocentric filth on a daily basis: http://bit.ly/29t5QDD
it occurred to me that someone skimming through Everyday Feminism […] might come to assume that its female writers are really bad at choosing male company.
Jamie being indeed an example of the kind. A normal person, after an outburst, would just say, “Sorry. I’ve been a bit of an asshole.” But not Jamie, no. It’s not his fault, you see. It’s the patriarchy’s fault.
Sort of reminds me of the scene in Forrest Gump when the hippie slaps his girlfriend and then says, by way of an excuse, “It’s just that asshole Johnson and that damn war.”
If liberal women would associate with decent men…
But then they wouldn’t be liberal women anymore.
Aaminah Khan: “25-year-old lawful evil social justice crusader and queer muslim feminist.”
The basic flaw here is, assuming the “25-year” bit is true, that she is still an immature child. None of the other descriptors are important (though I’ll give a pass to a 25-year-old on “queer”, and half a pass on “muslim”).
They are merely indicators that she’s been brainwashed to use certain words and to claim to believe certain things.
This not a time when most 25-year-olds can be relied on to no longer be children, and to have well-formed beliefs.
But it is a time when anyone at all can speak to a world-wide audience. It’s a mistake anymore to think the size of the audience shows anything about the worth of the speech.
Granted, I don’t know when the fact of paternity was first recognized in humans. I *suspect* that it was that recognition which triggered the establishments of the first civilizations, but I don’t know how one would go about confirming that.
Farming.
When humans are just Hunter-Gatherers, it doesn’t really matter who the father of the dust-monkey is, so the women screw any man they fancy and the kids are raised by the whole tribe.
When you get to agriculture, that means land and a hut to live in, so paternity becomes important because who inherits that land and hut becomes important.
They are merely indicators that she’s been brainwashed to use certain words and to claim to believe certain things.
I quite frequently encounter women who have been brainwashed to believe certain things, which either makes them become damaged goods or prevents them rectifying the situation and getting their act together. It is absolutely tragic to watch young, sometimes attractive women destroy their lives because they’ve fallen in with a bunch of nasty, vicious women who want to claim another convert to the cause. I had a conversation a few weeks ago with an Englishwoman in her 30s who said she was “terrified she would not meet anybody”. Within an hour of chatting there was a veritable forest of red flags – sexual adventures with random older men in her late teens, years of living as an “anarchist”, a long-term relationship with an Algerian with serious drug problems (but he was a very sweet person), absent father, admissions that she’s had to work hard to “get her head straight”, wholesale adoption of feminist mantra, left-wing politics worthy of The Guardian – she was yelling at me to “stop judging her”.
Before I deleted her number I pointed out that anybody who is not either desperate will judge those who they are considering as a potential life partner as they would be insane not to, and she needed to get her act together and paint an attractive picture rather than bawl that men are setting standards. She told me she found the dating scene in Paris “depressing”. I wonder why.
I should add: I wasn’t myself looking for a life partner, I just engage people in conversation for an hour or two to get a grasp of how they’re thinking. It ain’t pretty.
…given that all newborns look like Winston Churchill…
Point of order: They look like Jimmy Hoffa.
OT but funny. https://youtu.be/sP9O2AJGWqQ
slamming a table in exasperation
So when I—a lone female—come home from work frustrated and slam cabinet doors, I’m demonstrating my solidarity with the patriarchy?
Sounds like these overgrown teenagers need a righteous beat-down by a half-dozen multi-racial women with dwarfism.
I know I’d pay to see that.
Farming
Fathers will work farms to feed their kids, but which comes first, agriculture, or paternity? I don’t know how one would determine the order. I suspect that the first non-nomadic communities were centered around naturally abundant food sources (probably fish-rich streams or oases). Possibly early horticulture (with an eye to beer) plus domestication of some animals, or just close observation of prey, combined to raise awareness of paternity, thence leading to men taking a more active leadership role outside the hunt as they became more invested in the next generation.
Absent a time-machine though, I don’t know how one could go about confirming any of it. We may see some of the process in reverse though, as fatherhood becomes denigrated and matriarchal welfare societies become more common. From what I’ve read about such communities, Patriarchy is much to be preferred.
OT but funny.
So Lonely Protestor Guy wants Milo to know that he, Milo, doesn’t “represent” the – God help me – “LGBTQ community.” (Which, so far as I’m aware, is a claim that Milo doesn’t make.) Yet he, Lonely Protestor Guy, presumably does think that his own position – i.e., protesting against Milo – is a more ‘authentic’ one and in keeping with this “LGBTQ community.”
What’s the word? Oh yes, projection.
I know I’d pay to see that.
I wish to subscribe to your TV channel and all its wonders.
Well, I’m fairly confident that my interactions with women aren’t by default abusive or controlling,
Oh, come on, David. You love us and leave us by the dozens.
PER WEEK.
Oh, come on, David. You love us and leave us by the dozens.
Don’t make me flick the lights on and off.
You frisky mare.
Sam- what a poor, little, lonely protester. Looks like its hard to be a SJW at Bama. Now if Milo were a threat to the football team (instead of the leftists on campus) hundreds of thousands of crazed Gumps would be mobbing the place in solidarity.
For the establishment and survival of *civilization* certainly, but given that fatherhood isn’t an obvious thing, people wouldn’t have known that it existed for most of human pre-history (pregnancy guarantees recognition of motherhood, but what’s the male equivalent?)
In one of the tribes in the Indonesia/Malaysia area, they believe or “believe” that only the husband can sire children on his wife; other male seed has no effect, so that’s how paternity is established: tacit agreement, with or without the willful blindness necessary to keep the peace in such a setting.
I’m pretty sure that humans have made the connection between sex and pregnancy for millennia, and that they’ve worked out plenty of ways to establish paternity in the absence of DNA testing. Our own society used to deem all of a woman’s children to be her husband’s, even when everyone has reason to know better.
in a world divided into the oppressed and the oppressors,
Ha. She’s not selling it very well, is she? 🙂
OT but funny.
I wonder how long before they claim that Milo isn’t a real gay man?
Does anybody know how this Everday Feminism POS is funded?
Where do they get the cash to keep peddling their cockrot?
in a world divided into the oppressed and the oppressors,
Unfortunately, that black-and-white view sells extremely well among college students, who are just starting to see the world with adult-ish eyes and are highly susceptible to any narrative that makes the previous generation look bad.
Weeds always grow faster and more vigorously than the cultivated plants, alas.
That right there explains the state of our world.
She’s not selling it very well, is she?
I don’t think Ms Fabello writes these things in order to persuade anyone who isn’t already very much onside. If she were interested in actual, open-ended debate, in finding out something new or testing her conceits, she wouldn’t insist on preconditions to discussion that are comically self-flattering and entail a position of deference to her and of indifference to reality. And if she were interested, her Twitter banner probably wouldn’t boast that she “never wants to hear a word any heterosexual white man has to say.”
Dammit, I keep positioning myself within my situationality. I’ll never get this right!!
David, do you think the geniuses at Everyday Feminism know how much fodder for derision they provide this site?
Yes.
…and there oughta be a man tax, oh wait, never mind
“I wonder how long before they claim that Milo isn’t a real gay man?”
Maybe he isn’t gay-gay.
Hedgehog,
Jamie Utt, a “diversity and inclusion consultant,” recounts slamming a table in exasperation and consequently being chastised by his female partner, before rending his garments and rushing to the conclusion that,
“My actions exist in the context of patriarchy. And patriarchy is violent. Full stop.”
Has Jamie considered that, Patriarchy apart, he just might be a wanker?”
Either he has a great deal of work to do to achieve even “beta male” status, or this is a bit of clever “Godfrey Elfwick” style trolling.
“A man who makes you feel unsafe by accident is as harmful to you as one who does it on purpose.”
Which is to say, not harmful, except in the most vestigial and question-begging sense. Quite honestly, if my walking along the road were to occasion some frisson of alarm in Aaminah Khan, that would say much more about her than me. But that is true of the entire output of Everyday Feminism.
Farnsworth,
Regarding her patriarchy-smashing bits, even if she were not an oxymoronic “queer muslim feminist”, I suspect she is so far round the bend that as the saying goes, not even with yours.
Well, since crazy wimmin are often more sexually adventurous (or as a wag on 4Chan termed, “comprehensive”), there could be a situation where the cardinal rule “never stick your dick in crazy” may be violated and the random anonymous shag might, might, be worth the risk, so long as the following criteria are met: a) you’re in a different town, b) she doesn’t know your real name, and c) you have no mutual acquaintances the aforementioned crazy person can use to track you down.
Ignoring those criteria on more than one occasion is why I don’t miss my 20s… 🙁
“In short, if you don’t wholeheartedly agree and hang your head accordingly, then you are, it seems, the enemy.”
Stalin forced his internal enemies to admit to ridiculous crimes as well. Right before he had them executed.
Jamie Utt, a “diversity and inclusion consultant,” recounts slamming a table in exasperation and consequently being chastised by his female partner
Ah, I missed the quoted bit before. So let’s look at his website, jamieutt.com.
The second thing I notice is the “Immediate Assistance” contact button (The first was that photo. The classic perpetual-student look.) Apparently there are emergencies in diversity and inclusion consulting biz. I suppose I should have guessed.
From his bio: “He earned his Bachelor’s of Arts in Peace and Global Studies from Earlham College where he dedicated his studies to conflict resolution and Middle Eastern Peace Studies.” So I guess that’s Yemen and Syria sorted, then.
He also has an MA in teaching, and is working on a PHD in education at U of Arizona. Looks like he’s been in this industry about a dozen years, making him roughly 30 years old, which matches his photo. (Love the earlobe inserts, by the way, but I thought soul-patches were deprecated these days.)
From his tab on sexual violence prevention, we have:
“Considering that more than 90% of survivors of sexual violence are women” followed immediately by:
“With 1 in 4 women and 1 in 6 men surviving sexual violence in their lifetime” which leads me to believe that math is not his strong suit.
But Jamie Utt, LLC knows how to up-sell: “The Ten Take Aways: Best paired with at least two of the workshops above, The Ten Take Aways leaves participants with a tool kit…”
Has Jamie considered that, Patriarchy apart, he just might be a wanker?
I note that Mr Utt’s Twitter bio tells us he is ‘working towards solidarity and praxis.’
I trust this answers your question.
Full stop.
Oh STFU. Any idiot using that for emphasis is an idiot. Or an idiot.
Where’s George Carlin when you need him.
Steve E: I love the last line of the article:
“The pharmacy has not explained whether it will tax transgender males under the new policy.”
Oh, what a tangled web we weave. When first we practise to behave like a clueless prat in public.
Trevor: “praxis”
Ah, yes, another key flag identifying the contemporary homo sapiens stultus publica
Frankly, unless one is writing about radiophysics for Isotopenpraxis one should probably just leave that word alone.
I wish I could just, you know, atone for my violence by grabbing that poor girl by the pussy and whispering in her fearful oppressed little ear, “Let’s make positionality great again”.
If this is feminism, no wonder sane people want none of it
Unfortunately the Director of Public Prosecutions wants more and more of it. And the head of the Boy Scouts. And some of our police. And most of the idiots in Westminster, apparently.
So we’ve got bit of a problem. And by we I mainly mean my sons, who are going to grow up in a country that is turning into a great big loony bin where unwanted sexual advances are perceived as a hate crime.
Unwanted by women that is.
These wymyns are so very tiresome…
Jamie Utt, a “diversity and inclusion consultant….
—————–
Let us assume ad argumentum that this is Mr. Utt’s main gig and the means by which he earns his daily bread. It is a testament to the immense wealth produced by Western civilization that such weapons-grade wankery as ‘diversity and inclusion consultancy’ actually acquires money rather than ear-splitting derision. In a less abundant (or more sane) society Mr. Utt would be digging ditches, or starving in the gutter.
Although I refrained on religious grounds,i have always been drawn to crazy chicks. Impulsive = excitement Good and, bad.
Yet as an adult I look back so very very grateful that I don’t have to wonder if a child of mine is trapped in psycho ladies home subject to abuse by her terrible taste in men.
In short don’t stick your dick in Crazy, your children deserve better.
“I wonder how long before they claim that Milo isn’t a real gay man?”
I think white gay men are pretty much part of the white/patriarchal axis of evil now.
In short, if you don’t wholeheartedly agree and hang your head accordingly, then you are, it seems, the enemy. Your only salvation as an accursed male person is vicarious shame, continual deference and round-the-clock anxiety about your own maleness.
There are four lights.
If she were interested in actual, open-ended debate, in finding out something new or testing her conceits, she wouldn’t insist on preconditions to discussion that are comically self-flattering and entail a position of deference to her and of indifference to reality. And if she were interested, her Twitter banner probably wouldn’t boast that she “never wants to hear a word any heterosexual white man has to say.”
That.
There are four lights.
Heh. Quite.
That.
I think it was Anna who said, “‘Social justice’ means feeling good about not listening to people based on their sex and race.” And of course it’s terribly fashionable at the moment. Among idiots, I mean. But still.
Off-topic, via Tim Blair: I think this will be right up our host’s alley.
Update: I take back that recommendation. 2-1 on this guy ends up shooting up a comedy club
I think this will be right up our host’s alley.
I don’t understand his hair.
But it’s nice that he’s found an outlet for that delightful personality.
But it’s nice that he’s found an outlet for that delightful personality.
Insult! Violence! Degeneracy!
The blood of the oppressor will wash out the stain of insensitivity!
Joking – is – war! Joking – is – war!
Hysteria is now a social virtue.
Cheers
Hysteria is now a social virtue.
It may help if you consider the possibility that the above isn’t actually about activism or “social justice” or whatever. Maybe that’s merely the pretext, the vehicle, for something else. In this case, it seems, a dysfunctional personality. Look at what our chap with the incomprehensible hair is doing. He’s choosing to spend his time, lots of it, being wound-up over something absurdly dogmatic and self-flattering, and is going out of his way to deliberately ruin other people’s evening by killing the atmosphere, boring the audience and ignoring their complaints, while screaming at them for what feels like an eternity.
He wants to scream at people that he deems ignorant and inferior. The rest is most likely peripheral, a rationalisation.
“Constrained by choice”…
https://twitter.com/RealPeerReview/status/785858556230762496
The Dalston Mercury has indeed become a rich source for sarcasm, and a wonderful antidote to the ravings of Abello et al.
https://dalstonmercury.wordpress.com/2016/05/09/dalston-university-fury-over-lack-of-oppression/
“It’s important that I situate myself within my positionality.”
It’s more important that you learn to speak English.
I assume he has a ridiculous beard.
I don’t understand his hair.
I believe he just leaned not to stick a fork into an electrical outlet.
When you enter a space – any space – as a man, you carry with yourself the threat of harm.
This is true. The wife dragged me to one of those church fetes – you know the type, aggressively jolly older women selling cupcakes and raffle tickets for charidee while bored snot-nosed sprogs run about.
Anyway, as a man I instantly became aware that I was floundering in a sea of Steradent and vaginas, so naturally I took advantage of my male privilege.
“YOU THERE, CRONE! FETCH ME A FLAGON OF TIZER!”, I ordered one of the females.
When she failed to instantly comply, I did karate on her.
“HAI KARATE!”, I screamed, as I flew through the air to deliver a snap kick to her sternum.
My karate is powerful, but it turns out she was the vicar, and there was some unpleasantness.
But when the police arrived I simply showed them my White Male Privilege Platinum card and they took my word for it that I acted in self defence.
We know that even the men that we love… have the potential to be dangerous.
If by ‘dangerous’ you mean ‘may hurt my feelings’.
But when the police arrived I simply showed them my White Male Privilege Platinum card and they took my word for it that I acted in self defence.
I had a similar experience once with female police officer. I was forced to deploy the “And BTW,you have nice tits” spell before things were resolved in my favor. Sometimes, the Privilege Card alone is not enough.
this case, it seems, a dysfunctional personality. Look at what our chap with the incomprehensible hair is doing. He’s choosing to spend his time, lots of it, being wound-up over something absurdly dogmatic and self-flattering, and is going out of his way to deliberately ruin other people’s evening by killing the atmosphere, boring the audience and ignoring their complaints, while screaming at them for what feels like an eternity.
With a little training he will make a fine academic, administrator, or even a psychologist. Wayne Gretzsky, when asked what made him a such a great hockey player responded something to the effect of he didn’t concern himself with where the puck was, he cared about where the puck will be.
With a little training he will make a fine academic, administrator, or even a psychologist.
I find it hard to believe that the disruption and protracted screaming is incidental or just a necessary labour for some higher purpose. It seems to me that being obnoxious is the whole point of the exercise, it’s the reward. It looks like a really inept attempt at social dominance. And I don’t think people embrace that kind of behaviour, and stick with it, and make it their ‘work’, their political persona, unless it appeals to them in ways they don’t care to admit.
Of course, I’m assuming the whole thing isn’t an elaborate spoof. It’s getting hard to tell.
“Of course, I’m assuming the whole thing isn’t an elaborate spoof. It’s getting hard to tell.
Like continually antagonizing someone and then claiming, “It was just a joke, sheesh!” when retaliation or the authotities arrive?
I can’t wait for VR to be perfected so a lot of these people can go live there and leave the rest of us alone.
Of course, I’m assuming the whole thing isn’t an elaborate spoof. It’s getting hard to tell.
“The cultural mechanism of disensitisation” wasn’t a tip-off?
And I don’t think people embrace that kind of behaviour, and stick with it, and make it their ‘work’, their political persona, unless it appeals to them in ways they don’t care to admit.
Oh, I agree. But as the standard career and general “happiness” advice goes: Do what you love, love what you do, and you’ll never work a day in your life.
After all, the market for such does exist. Though I understand it is rather competitive.
“A man who makes you feel unsafe by accident is as harmful to you as one who does it on purpose.”
I sometimes think that many of these womyn are actually wishing deep down that they were in a relationship with a man who makes them feel unsafe, not “by accident” or “on purpose,” but just by virtue of who he is. Unlike the sub-beta males that they have to put up with.
The strange predilection that some of these women have for adherents of Islam being Exhibit A in my thesis.
In a less abundant (or more sane) society Mr. Utt would be digging ditches, or starving in the gutter.
I think we are going back to this sort of society. I believe that the current political ructions in the US and Europe presage a trend toward de-globalization and economic nationalism that is likely to change the distribution of the economic spoils. There may be “dislocations” along the way.
We tend to forget that things don’t move in a straight line. The period before 1914 was arguably as global as the current period in history (adjusting for technology, of course – the fact that communications were by telephone and telegraph and travel was by railroad or steamship). An Englishman who had a client relationship with a bank and a letter of credit could pretty much expect to be received with open arms in any country in the world that had a correspondent bank, certainly with less bureaucratic hassle than you have to go through nowadays when crossing a border.
But then there was that little unpleasantness.
Of course, I’m assuming the whole thing isn’t an elaborate spoof. It’s getting hard to tell.
“The cultural mechanism of disensitisation” wasn’t a tip-off?
Having checked out the gentleman’s blog, if it’s all a joke then it’s a very elaborate one, dating back to 2012.
I think the political element of his ranting is a bit of a red herring: his behaviour seems to stem from some diagnosable personality disorder more than it does any political conviction. (Yes, yes, I know the two are oft entwined.) He’s an insane person using the language of social justice, and his grievance is personal.
It all started when he auditioned for an improv comedy troupe. It did not go well. (For those that don’t have the time to watch, he doesn’t react well to a joke about his “9/11 beard”.)
Bear in mind that he uploaded that video himself. God knows what he thought he was accomplishing. (And who, I wonder, is this friend who always appears to be filming him and egging him on? Is always the same person? Are they as mad as he is? Or do they just enjoy watching him humiliate himself?)
Naturally, after showing his sensitive spot to the world, the world aimed directly at it, and the next two years were apparently a dark time filled with elaborate mockery and <cathartic poetry.
But in such a crucible was forged a stronger man, and now he’s devoting himself to his “hashtag activism” against jokes. To that end, he’s produced the aforementioned blog, some hashtags, a lecture, some incredibly creepy “art”, and his latest wheeze, ruining an open mic night.
I think it’s safe to say it’s definitely not a spoof – but it’s not really political, either. It’s just fucking mental. I haven’t read or watched all of his stuff, but it’s clear that this guy is a shit art/social justice/barking mad goldmine.
Unfortunately it’s also quite easy to imagine his blog being read into evidence at his eventual trial, or clips from his videos being used in the future documentary “Inside the Mind of the Comedy Cellar Killer”. In which case I should feel terrible for having ever laughed at him, because of course ” jokes that deal with the death and suffering of individuals” are “[a]n obvious example of inherently offensive material”.