Category: Social Politics (Page 1 of 10)

Who’s next? #MeToo concerns women who care about the men in their lives

We, and many other women, are concerned about their neurodiverse loved ones being falsely accused.

With the recent magnitude of sexual harassment claims being thrown about from every corner of the media, and ruined careers piling up like carcasses, often from unproven accusations, every man must now be questioning their own past behavior, fearing it will be misconstrued into some harrowing sexual predation that would affect every aspect of their life without evidence, a trial, or a jury.

The suicide of Welsh MP Karl Sargeant four days after such nebulous accusations unnamed women has been shamefully swept under the carpet as the #MeToo frenzy continues. Calls for an internal enquiry into the clearly deficient process he went through, where he was suspended from his job without knowing the details of the complaint, have been dropped. We can only hope Mr Sargeant and his family get the answers and the justice they deserve via the official coroner’s inquest. The tragedy of Karl Sargeant is the most extreme example of the incredible injustice many men –not forgetting their families- are going though as a result of this appalling witch hunt and trial by media.

All of us know people in our life—family members and friends—who are otherwise smart, witty, empathetic, but socially awkward, either for cultural or neurological reasons like autism spectrum disorders (ASD) or just as part of their personality. They struggle to read body language, situations or atmospheres, let alone female mind games. Men, who walk a tightrope of social acceptance already, now stepping into a world where feminists want men deemed as second-class citizens, to be distrusted and their social interactions scrutinized at every second.

Read More

Keep Transgender mania out of schools and changing rooms

In this day and age where having an opposing opinion to liberals makes you an instant fascist, Nazi or Trump supporter, the art of debate is losing its lifeline and it feels society will shortly be pulling the plug. If only ever hearing one opinion is allowed, what happens if it’s the wrong opinion? This has become more apparent with the fiasco and utter ridiculousness with the transgender and gender fluid argument.

It started with which bathroom transgender people can use. Is it socially acceptable for a man who identifies as a woman, but still has a penis, to use the female toilets? Or if you look at it the other way, is it fair for a man who feels as though they were born a woman, to have to use the same toilets as men. (Or they could use the unisex disabled toilet; not implying in any way that they are disabled, but it’s a pretty easy solution, no?) If you had any form of evidence-based opinion that did not comport with what trans and 4th wave feminists were preaching, you would instantly be called “transphobic”.

I did not think I’d be looking back at those times of toilet squabble with fondness, as that such time was so much simpler and less frighteningly going a direction that I don’t we can go back from now.

Within a couple of days, two stories came to my attention via Twitter concerning this such direction I speak of. One, was when Topshop announced it was getting rid of women’s changing rooms, and making them all gender neutral, after one person, Travis Alabanza, felt they were the victim of “transphobia” after being refused entry to the women’s changing room. I have absolutely no problem with a person born as a male, still with a male body, wearing women’s clothing and self-identifying as a female. I do have a problem with letting men into female changing rooms where young teenagers get changed. The alarming hilarity and hypocrisy in this is most people championing this decision are also the ones crying out for “safe spaces”. How about a safe space for a bunch of 13-year-old girls to change and show each other their new outfits without the prying eyes of men who will obviously take advantage of this new goldmine peeping tom hangout? To make such a brash and harmful decision that affects the whole country is outrageous and an extremely troubling sign of where things are leading to. It will take one attack. 

Read More

Time’s Up for Feminist fads, it’s time for #NotMe

 

I gave myself a well-earned few days off, turned 30, and then decided to see how the world has changed on Twitter. To my dismay, within 5 minutes of Golden Globes, I realised, that the intersectional feminist movement had made me want to be more of a misogynist every second I scrolled.

 

The Golden Globes predictably fuelled a pretty pathetic fire and like moths to a flame, any narrow-minded female ‘feminist’ followed idiotically, without research, free thought, or caution. You play with fire, you get burnt. I shudder to think the endgame when this fad will soon tire out, innocent men will get accused, lives will be ruined and the reputation of strong women will once again be tarnished by misandrists and one track liberal lefties.

 

As “times up” sprawled on the red carpet, and celebrities draped in black to show their solidarity against sexual harassment (the dresses were the best thing about the whole night if I’m absolutely honest, the fashion designer in me leap out in joy seeing my favourite colour finally be worn, and my eyes were able to rest from horrendous pink fluff and green disasters they usually waltz around in) what’s not to love? Well, quite a lot actually. Let me elaborate.

Read More

James Damore plays race card, files “discrimination” suit

If there are two things Americans love, it’s filing lawsuits and claiming victim status.

Now ex-Google employee James Damore is doing both. Damore, who was fired in August for sending a memo that went viral, is suing Google claiming discrimination on the basis of his race, gender and politics (culturally conservative). Or, what is often referred to in conservative circles as playing the race card.

Look, here’s a Wall Street Journal writer accusing Barack Obama of playing the race card.

Ann Coulter says that criticizing Republicans for racism is “playing the race card.”

Fox News commentator Andrew Napolitano attacks Al Sharpton for “playing the race card.”

Ben Carson says Jesse Jackson was playing the race card when he criticized the police shooting of a resident of Ferguson, Missouri.

Rep. Shelia Jackson Lee’s claims of racism were dismissed by the NY Post as “playing the race card.”

So now we see whenever anyone raises the issue of possible racism, even when it might have some merit, it is shot down as “playing the race card.”

How about James Damore? Does he seriously think white people face egregious discrimination in the tech industry, an industry whose owners, investors, managers, and employees they constitute the vast majority of? He says Google is putting extra effort into hiring women (in order to correct for perceived discrimination against and/or lack of women in tech). In fact, even in a natural state, there wouldn’t be 50-50 gender parity in most vocations or hobbies. Nonetheless, even if hiring an extra woman here or there makes results in one less qualified man being hired, is that policy that Google, a private company chose, an illegal infringement on men’s rights? It’s a drop in the bucket.

Damore wasn’t fired for his race or gender, anyway. He wasn’t even fired for his politics. We don’t know, from his memo, or much of his public statements, where he stands on political issues like taxes, welfare, healthcare, drug policy, gay marriage, or many others. He was fired for sending a long-winded memo opposing Google’s policy towards diversity.

One can argue against Google’s policy on gender diversity or its policy towards firing people simply for publicly disagreeing with its policy. It may very well have been stupid of Google. It may also have been stupid of Damore to send the memo. It was almost certainly an overreaction by social media hordes who don’t even work at Google spreading his memo along and acting offended. But doing “stupid” things is all well within our rights as individuals or companies.

Even if one were to be fired for holding a political position, political viewpoints are not a “protected class”, in the legal sense, afforded the same protections as people discriminated against for innate characteristics of their identity.

4 words that should be banned in 2018

This month, it was reported that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had decided to “ban” seven words like “fetus” and “transgender” for fear they might offend the fragile minds of conservatives, keeping the CDC in line with universities affraid that words will offend liberals and “vulnerable” people.

I would like to jump into this word-banning game as Editor and Publisher of Bombs + Dollars, and I have the power, too, at least on my small corner of the internet. The following are words (in some cases, “words”) that I will never allow to be published at B+D going forward. Tongue-in-cheek, of course; the real problem with the following words is not that they are offensive, but that they just don’t make for good and clear writing.

Bodies, when used in place of “people”

Read More

Latinx is bullshxt

Just want to call attention to this op-ed by Daniel Hernandez in the L.A. Times from December 17: Op-ed: The case against ‘Latinx’.

In particular:

Nor is “Latinx” an organic neologism. It did not emerge from L.A.’s bilingual FM stations. The term is used mostly by an educated minority, largely in the U.S. And although there is little to no research yet on its specific origins, “Latinx” is definitely not used by working-class immigrant adults, who probably have no idea that some of us brown folks are debating this at all.

I want to immigrate to America, and I think Trump is right

Trump has been called an “anti-immigrant” extremist, but I’m telling you, as a Korean aspiring to immigrate to the United States, that is simply not true. Trump wants to set a new way of immigration system by following both Canadian model and Australian model. Both Canada and Australia are far stricter than the United States when it comes to immigration. They do not have a lenient policy on illegal immigration. They do not try to attract people without a high English-speaking ability and high education level. And there’s no green card lottery in those countries. Rather, they give points to the immigrant applicants when they have accomplished each step of requirements such as official English exam scores (Either TOFEL or IELT), high educated diploma in the speaking-English countries, certified careers of occupations.

Trump and some of his allies in Congress are pushing to abolish the diversity lottery for green cards and increase security on the borders. He has put a halt to Obama’s DACA policy of giving temporary citizenship-level status to illegal immigrants who came to America as children. To be honest, many international students who come to America legally quite agree with suppressing the number of illegal immigrants because they might reduce the potential for legal immigration. At the least, it is extremely unfair to let illegal immigrants stay—or even become citizens, as some have proposed—while enforcing a harsh line on law-abiding students and foreign workers who have to jump through many hoops to try to get a job or student visa in the States.

Read More

The difference between hypocrisy and evil

When Republican senators Mark Foley and Larry Craig were forced to resign because of sex scandals just over a decade ago, Byron Williams accused them of harboring “the hypocrisy of the hypocrisy.” Articles about the right-wing’s biggest sex hypocrites flood out every time a Donald Trump is exposed as having sexually assaulted someone or a Roy Moore is found to be a child molester.

The primary problem with Foley, Craig, Trump, and Moore, however, isn’t hypocrisy but immorality. Foley abused his power to proposition a page for oral sex. In addition to sexual harassment and abuse of power, Trump and Craig also committed adultery.

Sexual harassment and assault is a crime and an immoral violation of one’s rights no matter what one’s ideological or moral values system one follows. If a sexist man who believed that it was his right to grab women anytime, anywhere committed sexual assault, it would still be immoral despite the fact that that evil man wrongly believed it was his right.

To focus overwhelmingly on the “hypocrisy” aspect could have the unfortunate effect of downgrading immoral acts committed by immoral men. In effect, we are giving a free pass to the worst of the worst.

A common refrain from Trump supporters when Trump is caught lying, speaking like a 5th-grader, or having a temper tantrum at 5 am, is that, “We knew what we were getting with Trump.” Why, we did indeed know that he was guilty of multiple character flaws. He still is. Period.

If Osama bin Laden had been caught and brought in front of a judge, should he get off if he argued, “I have directed terrorist attacks for years. I openly talked about it and threatened it in propaganda statements. You already knew this”? Pathological dishonesty, incompetence, corruption and the like are in and of themselves.

When hypocrisy really matters

The Republicans just passed a tax bill that increases the deficit by $1 trillion and repeals the mandate that individuals purchase health insurance.

Read More

A solution to sexual assault

The epidemic* of men being fired for sexual harassment and assault has laid bare the scale of men abusing their power at the highest levels—and the depths to which their depravity extends.

Pundits, journalists, reformers and the public are talking about what can be done to solve the problem. For some men, solving the problem doesn’t so much mean decreasing the incidence of sexual assault as it does protecting themselves from getting fired for allegedly committing sexual assault.

Proposals have included refusing private meetings with women (i.e. students, coworkers, and partners in deals) and invoking US Vice President Mike Pence’s personal policy. If I don’t meet with women, I will never be accused of assault!, the thinking goes.

One obvious problem at the start is that men often have to meet with women to correct papers or discuss topics relating to their work. Shutting women out could deny women opportunities—simply because of improprieties committed by other men.

I would propose what might be a better idea: not sexually assaulting women. Reading the cases from Harvey Weinstein, Louie CK, and Matt Lauer to Roy Moore, Al Franken, and Donald Trump, it’s amazing how many of these controversies could have been avoided if only they didn’t sexually assault people in the first place.

Louie masturbated in front of women in his office. Lauer locked women in his office and attempted to seduce and/or coerce them. Weinstein allegedly raped a dozen women.

The Washington Times paraphrases Jay Richards of the Catholic University of America:

The entry of women into the workforce since World War II, followed by the sexual revolution and the erasure of well-established sexual mores, has left men and women with little guidance as to how to interact in the workplace, Mr. Richards said.

Don’t give women sex toys, like Lauer did, for starters. Don’t make passes at every woman in the office, particularly employees in low-level jobs, and use appurtances of power to pressure them. Don’t meet your subordinates in a hotel room, as Weinstein and Trump made a practice of doing.

Basically, not doing things against someone’s will is a pretty easy and universal rule.

Read More

Review: The Battle of Ideas 2017, London

Briskly walking through the huge entrance of the Barbican centre, the echo of my boots fills the gigantic hallways. A huge banner welcomed it guests to the conference; “Battle of Ideas” in huge bold letters, friendly staff standing under a banner which states where certain “battle grounds” are around the centre. Anyway, I finally found “The Pit”; where the first of three debates I would go to see had started, and I found myself in the debate, which essentially reflects my life lately, named “Women vs Feminism”.

I got to my seat to see the highlight of 5 willing women duking on the panel consisting of Hungarian political scientist Eszter Kovats; head of personal investing at Legal and General and founder of the 30 percent club Helen Morrissy; education editor of Spiked Online and author of “Women vs Feminism: Why We All Need Liberating From the Gender War”, Joanna Williams; author of the book “XX Factor: How the Rise of Working Women Has Created a Far Less Equal WorldAlison Wolf and was chaired by the co-founder of the Institute of Ideas Sally Millard. I looked around and absorbed comments from each side of the fence; a middle-aged male’s opinion on females within the engineering career sector, and why they’re declining, a young man’s view on what constitutes as a real feminist problem, with issues like ‘manspreading’ being deemed as a real problem, when in different countries, females are being subjected to child marriage and female genital mutilation and can there really be compared? (this comment I clapped a little harder, the sting signifying my solidarity with such an obvious, but overlooked comment); and a middle-aged woman who works for an abortion charity’s thoughts on how the new intersectional feminists are singling out men as the enemy when that clearly isn’t the case and what is this doing to our younger generation of males.

Sitting among such proficient people who share that same opinion comforted me, and reinforced my beliefs that the new wave feminism is ruining our chance for true equality, until of course, when a cocky oldie stood up with a typical “this is not a question, more of a comment”. There’s always one wan**r who makes you question the concept of egalitarianism. 

Read More

Page 1 of 10

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén

Get the most important and interesting articles right at your inbox. Sign up for B+D periodic emails.