White People Need to Stop Blaming the Victim

I often wonder how most people even receive their Journalism degrees or how they even got a job working with people that are different from them. How did they even get past Grade 10 English because in my honest opinion they have no clue how to write anything without coming off as either condescending, idiotic, illogical and just plain ignorant. I have come to this conclusion from a writer named Naomi Lakritz in her latest piece from The Province called “First Nations Need to Quit Blaming the Past.” The title is already inflammatory at first appearance. It comes off with a hint of victim-blaming and racism with the right amount of denial.

Lakritz begins her piece with such precious sarcasm that I want to puke rainbows all over the person who thought it was a great idea to post this garbage.

It was edifying to learn that colonialism was responsible for the death of five-year-old Phoenix Sinclair of Fisher River, Man. I always thought that her mother, Samantha Kematch, and Kematch’s common-law husband, Karl McKay, were responsible. After all, they’re the ones serving life sentences for her murder. They’re the ones who chose to torture her to death.

It’s so interesting that she doesn’t seem to understand the concept of colonialism and how it causes negative effects on society especially the victims of a century long genocide that still continues to this day through forcing Indigenous children to be white and to put up with racist harassment from white people. It is terrible that this child died a horrible death and no child deserves to die but we need to be serious on what is mainly the cause of these acts which is male-patterned violence that can come in all forms such as colonialism, rape, war, child abuse, murder, genocide and injustice. She doesn’t even seem to care that a child died, she is using this child’s death to attack Indigenous people and their righteous anger at our patriarchal, capitalist, and colonialist system. Where Indigenous children were kidnapped (Using correct terminology here because let’s face it, they were kidnapped) by government officials and forced to adopt the ideology of their oppressors, suffering horrifying forms of abuse and continuing the cycle of abuse after they left these schools. It is not surprising that the actions of these people and the continuing oppression of Indigenous peoples is that it results in horrifying events such as these. Lakritz has the nerve to say that Residential schools and the people that ran them are not responsible for the results of these practices against previous generations of Indigenous people. Does she not realize that that abuse continues through new generations if there is no break in the cycle? She continues her piece by placing more blame on Indigenous people for colonialism and racism in the following quote:

According to Jay Funke, a lawyer for the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and the Southern Chiefs Organization, it was colonialism. Last week, he told an inquiry into the little girl’s death that “First Nation leaders believe that the tragedy suffered by Phoenix was, in large part, the result of centuries of colonial-based policies and practices which have been forced upon the First Nations people of Canada.”

That’s odd. All the colonials I know had the same reaction when they heard of the terrible abuse Kematch and McKay inflicted on this poor child, including beatings, shooting her with a BB gun, choking her until she was unconscious, forcing her to eat her own vomit and leaving her to die on a cold basement floor, eight years ago. That reaction was: “I wish I could have adopted her and loved her and saved her life.”

She doesn’t explain how giving an Indigenous child to white people would exactly solve the problem because we should know that white people are just fucking saints when it comes to Indigenous people! AM I RIGHT, LAKRITZ? No, there is no sexual abuse or murder with those white people who adopt Indigenous children. Nope. Never. Nor are these Indigenous children snatched out of their homes by government officials who think that an Indigenous woman is just prone to abusing drugs. I mean, it’s not like she can get help for her drug addiction while the child is in her care or in the care of her relatives, right?

Oh, these heartless colonials, eh? But First Nations leaders believe colonialism was responsible. Deflect, deflect, deflect. Excuses, excuses, excuses. Poor Kematch and McKay, they’re not to blame. They were just puppets of forces bigger than themselves. Apparently not endowed with the ability to make decisions, know right from wrong or take adult responsibility for their adult lives, they were victims of colonialism.

Can’t you just see it now? “Karl, our ancestors were misled and lied to by David Laird after he was made Indian commissioner responsible for Manitoba in 1898. So, shoot Phoenix some more with the BB gun. She isn’t crying hard enough.”

Odd, too, how colonialism could have such a huge effect on McKay, but leave his teenage son unaffected and perfectly able to distinguish right from wrong. The boy testified at his father’s trial that he noticed how “skinny” Phoenix had become in the spring of 2005, but that Kematch threatened him if he tried to give Phoenix food. He told the court he never saw the little girl eat and then, weeping, he testified that “I waited until those guys left and gave her food. They didn’t help her.”

Why yes, colonialism DOES have a huge effect on Indigenous people. McKay was not born to murder and torture an innocent child, much like any human being but for some reason Indigenous people get all the flack while society looks for any excuse in the book to take any blame away from a WHITE MAN that did the same crime. Notice a pattern here? An inconsistency, Lakritz? No? Does it ever occur to you that white men are highly favored above everyone else? Just a thought.

They didn’t help her – not because of the historic wrongs done to aboriginal people, but because “those guys” were scum. They alone are responsible for her torture and murder, not history. This is about individuals and their character, not their ethnicity.

Funke also told the inquiry that a lot of aboriginal people see the seizing of native children as being like the residential school system. Who cares how they see it? If they are not going to take proper care of their children, then they have nobody to blame but themselves when their kids are seized. If Phoenix had been placed with foster parents, white or aboriginal, and not returned to the piece of garbage who is her mother, she would be alive today.

Just a few questions, Lakritz. How do you sleep at night? Does it bother you that you are blaming Indigenous people for their oppression and the State-sanctioned kidnapping and abuse of children? Does it even bother you that you are speaking in the same way that any white supremacist would say in a White Power conference? Do you know that children in foster care are often abused either by officials or their foster parents? I do not see how putting a child in another possibly dangerous environment just because some self-righteous white people thought that they can raise an Indigenous child better then that child’s parents! You are not proving your case with your victim-blaming and in-your-face racism. Foster care won’t make the child any better nor put her in a better place then she was before this whole thing happened and it is despicable that you think the state would solve the problems of abuse when it IS the state and the men that run it that are responsible for the abuse and for why it still continues!

There are no circumstances which prevent anyone from deciding that they are going to be the best parents they can be. Nothing prevents them from seeking help to achieve that goal, if needs be. No situation, whether it took place in history or is being lived right now in the present moment, is so bad that it makes individuals decide to shoot, choke, beat and otherwise torture a five year-old child. At the trial, McKay’s lawyer said that his client was just performing “fun choke holds” he’d seen on TV wrestling shows and was surprised that he had hurt Phoenix. Performing “fun choke holds” from wrestling shows? Colonialism no more makes you perform fun choke holds on your child until she blacks out than it makes you a fan of TV wrestling.

Funke told the inquiry that “the First Nations leaders of (Manitoba) are committed to ensuring that Phoenix did not die in vain.” Sadly, Phoenix did die in vain and nothing can change that. But those leaders can see to it that more children do not die in vain by dropping the victimization mantle because it is not doing aboriginal people any favours.

Are you sure that what has been done in the past doesn’t still happen in this century? Still using the death of a child to give “reasons” for your racist vomit? This society actually did influence a person to murder an innocent child, just like how our violent culture influenced men like Robert Pickton to murder Indigenous women that were being prostituted. This culture influences men to be violent to the most vulnerable people in that culture and we are surprised when they murder those innocent people? We make excuses for them, illegitimate excuses but we can’t seem to do the same without tying it to their race or use racist tropes. White people try to make themselves superior to them. You are doing that, Lakritz. You are making yourself superior to Indigenous people with your-nose-in-the-air attitude about colonialism and white privilege. Your “logic” fits nicely with people who blame women for being raped by their husbands or boyfriends. Such a callous attitude towards a group of people who suffer from racism, a system that they are not to blame for. You must be a fun person to hang out with.

There is not an ethnic group in the world that has not suffered terrible injustices at one time or another in its history. No one has escaped this. To name just a few, the Armenians suffered genocide in 1915, the Tutsis of Rwanda in 1994, the Jews and Roma suffered unspeakable horrors during the Holocaust, the Ukrainians were victims of Josef Stalin’s forced famine, with more than seven million starved to death in Stalin’s diabolical plot to destroy them for the “crime” of wanting independence from his reign.

None of these ethnic groups blames their own histories when a member of the group abuses, neglects, or tortures to death their own children, as Kematch and McKay tortured Phoenix to death. If First Nations leaders want to start somewhere, a good place would be with the concept of individual responsibility.

Do not bring other sufferers of genocides into this! I am very sure that they do not want to be used BY YOU to excuse your racism. How strange that you would say that Indigenous leaders should “take individual responsibility” with the racist attitudes and centuries of white supremacist conquest in both a social and legal context. Most of these people have yet to have their oppression recognized by society and yet you use them to excuse your oppressive attitude. Would you throw a tantrum if Jewish people said that the effects of the Holocaust and anti-semitism still effect them today? How dare you be so selfish in your white entitlement. How dare you ask Indigenous people to “take responsibility” when no one asks the same from white people or even white MEN for that matter. I most certainly do not want my Ukrainian ancestors to be used by you. I am certain that Indigenous people don’t want your help nor your advice. Some accountability from white people such as yourself, would be a start.

http://www.theprovince.com/life/First+Nations+need+quit+blaming+past/8729774/story.html

Advertisements

Todd Pettigrew’s Anti-Feminist Gymnastics

So, a male “journalist” by the name of Todd Pettigrew recently wrote an article for Macleans (puke) making in an (unfounded) claim that feminists are blaming children for women’s failure to succeed in the workplace. I apologize if you are all confused by the claim or how one can come to such a conclusion especially with no evidence to back up his claim. This man also does not seem to understand that not all women can juggle children, a career and a very demanding romantic partner all at once without mentally imploding or the fact that patriarchy enforces women to have children otherwise they are not “fulfilled.”  Let’s take a look at this beautiful pile of dung, shall we?

Pettigrew starts the article off with a very unnecessary disclaimer. I call this a disclaimer because he believes that if he says that he is “progressive” then the mean evil feminists will not get on his case about his very misogynistic views on women. He claims that feminists have “lost sight” of what is “reasonable.” If the following does not just scream misogyny, I don’t know what does.

As a progressive man, I see the value in diversity in the academic workforce. I also understand that reasonable employers should take reasonable steps to accommodate the particular needs of those employees. And sometimes that means taking a person’s family situation into account. But more and more, women in academia have lost sight of what’s reasonable when it comes to those kinds of allowances.

Yes, because feminists are the ones that don’t understand what it means to be a woman in Patriarchy or that women make all sorts of sacrifices for their families while men can prance through the tulips with a care in the world. Yep, we are the ones with the problem. It’s  not men or Patriarchy that are holding women back from succeeding, it is obviously the feminists! It is the fault of feminists that women are raped! It is the fault of feminists that women are still poor and prostituted. It is the fault of feminists that femicide still occurs across the world. Might as well pack our bags and head home, ladies. We have been found out. Pettigrew goes on with his spiel by citing a report that has hurt his poor feelings for stating a simple truth: that family life is demanding and this can often hinder their careers. That women who are mothers have a hard time getting their careers back on track because of a baby.

A recent article in University Affairs, for instance, reports on a study by Shelley Adamo who argues that women are underrepresented as biologists because they tend to be seeking jobs when they “are in their late 20s and early 30s and more likely to have a partner and young children. ‘That sort of handicaps them,’” according to Dr. Adamo.

First, as a married man I resent the claim that a husband or other life partner inevitably “handicaps” the career of a female academic. If your special someone doesn’t think your career is important, then find someone who does. And what about the life partners who support their academic spouses by paying the bills while their partner is burning the midnight oil?

This section of the article deflates his claim of progressiveness when he takes offense by a study that had nothing to do with him personally. He is also missing the point. It has nothing to do with the women’s romantic partner or that one is working far harder than the other. It has plenty to do with how the workplace views women who are becoming mothers and are trying to juggle motherhood and their careers. Last time I checked, we live in a patriarchal society. Where women are subjected to unfair treatment for simply possessing a vagina and many of these men who are in the leadership position at these jobs will fire these women for unknown but incredibly sexist reasons. Pettigrew doesn’t seem to know the percentage of women that lose their jobs because the women become pregnant and will have to take maternity leave for a year. There are also cases of discrimination against pregnant women, shocking isn’t it? Not really. Any pregnant woman would be lucky that she would be keeping her job after taking a year off to look after the baby. If he is so resentful to the claim then he should learn to understand that men shut the door in women’s faces when it comes to success in the workplace. Don’t believe me? Live as a woman for a few years then we will talk. Pettigrew goes on to demonize feminists who say that women should not have to be forced into motherhood and that we should not blame children for “lack of academic success.” Which is a straw-man fallacy because we never said that children are to blame for women’s discrimination though we have said that enforced heterosexuality and the “nuclear family” mindset is the problem, not children.

As for children, there are, to some extent, biological realities that would put extra strain on any woman trying to get to the forefront of her field. Still, feminists have been hammering the point home for over a generation now: women control their own bodies and should be able to choose whether or not to have children. But if that’s the case, then women can’t blame children for lack of academic success. If it’s a choice, then women have the choice not to have children if they don’t like the implications for their careers.

For these reasons, I cannot agree with Melonie Fullick* who has made a similar claim to Adamo’s recently in The Globe and Mail about graduate studies more generally.

Fullick, arguing for a more flexible grad student system, writes:

there are plenty of ways a student can get derailed. Some get caught up in other commitments like politics or activism, a job that takes time away from research, or a supervisor’s project that doesn’t relate to the dissertation. Sometimes a supervisor “disappears” for long periods, or decides not to continue working with the student. Personal events can intervene, such as the birth of a child, or illness or a death in the family. Many students struggle with financial issues that compound other problems.

Hey, I see no issue with flexibility in the case of pregnant women. If we can make a compromise for the psychically disabled employee why can’t we do the same for pregnant women? Especially when that woman might have no support systems to help her look after her child when she wants to relax after a hard day of being a mother? What would be the point of hiring her if we are going to at least be considerate of the fact that she might become pregnant in the future? This point is usually never brought up but MEN are the ones impregnating these women and refusing to take responsibility for the child HE created. He can impregnate as many women as he wishes and not worry about losing his job. I cannot testify on being a mother since I have yet to experience it but I will not argue against the point that motherhood is hard and women have to make plenty of sacrifices when she is a mother and a career woman. I sympathize with those women and I can only lend my support to them in situations where they need it. Pettigrew then goes on by stating on of the most misogynistic statements even put down on paper and taking no responsibility for the fact that women suffer where men benefit.

Of course, personal difficulties certainly can impede one’s progress in graduate school. But no one is immune from personal strife and everyone has to deal with illnesses and family problems. Such things would impact anyone in any endeavour. Indeed, the graduate student, with her flexible deadlines and independent work environment, is probably better able to deal with such things than most.

But what gets me is the way Fullick slips children into the mix of things that just happen to unsuspecting candidates: “Personal events can intervene, such as the birth of a child.” By the time a woman reaches graduate school, I expect that she understands the various mechanisms around pregnancy. Forgive me, then, but the birth of a child does not intervene.  If you choose to have a baby while a graduate student, that’s your choice. When I was a graduate student, my partner and I discussed it seriously and decided against it. No child intervened. And we didn’t get lucky. We decided.

Whoop-de-do! You and your partner decided not to have children, did you want a cookie or a gold star for your statement? Are you completely unaware of accidental pregnancies? And Fullick said “BIRTH OF A CHILD!” Not A CHILD but THE BIRTH OF THE CHILD! Are you that daft that you cannot comprehend the phrase “BIRTH of a child”? PREGNANCY can often be very psychically demanding and can also cause serious health problems for women. I am pretty sure that any women over the age of twenty knows how pregnancy works. She also has the right to talk about how it is unfair that women have to start from the bottom after taking a year off to look after a child while a man who has been away for a couple of weeks is in the same position at his job before he went to take a break. Good for you that you and your partner decided not to have a child but you have NO RIGHT to be a misogynistic asshole to women who face discrimination for various reasons, pregnancy being one of the major ones. Pettigrew ends his essay with a much louder misogynistic BANG! with these two paragraphs.

If you do want a child, and it makes your life more difficult—and from what I can tell, it will make your life a lot more difficult—well, that’s the deal. If you regret your choice, you have my sympathies. But don’t choose a difficult path and then rail about how the world has made things difficult for you.

In the end, I have a feeling that most of the women studied are not as upset about this as the writers mentioned. I suspect that they know that they have made their choices, and they are living with them. We should all respect that.

Trust me, I was speechless when he wrote that too. It’s like saying “oh, I am so sorry that you were diagnosed with a body-destroying illness but you shouldn’t complain about it.” or “Oh, I am sorry that you face discrimination for your skin color but you shouldn’t be complaining about racism.” Yeah, he’s one to talk about “difficult paths” when he never walked one in his whole damn life as a white, straight male. He has never had to deal with very claustrophobic social expectations based on sex or race. I guess if he ever meets a rape victim who was also impregnated that the logic would apply in that circumstance too? “You should have known better then to get raped”? He should feel bad about writing such sexist tripe especially since he has a female partner but he seems to have no shame for it and I am not surprised that Macleans has published this piece of trash since they also published and anti-feminist article a couple years ago along with an article about how “empty” the life of a teenage girl is.

I pity supposed “educated” men like Pettigrew. he thinks that since he makes no complaints about things that would never happen to him in a million years that women should not complain either. I am disgusted and I am done with this walking misogynistic black hole of emotionless trash.

P.S. In case he runs into this post: I would like him to read these articles before he decides to publish any more misogynistic crap! Here    Here Here Here and Here

Reacting to a Dumb Picture

I am not certain whether or not this is a troll or not but since I have nothing else to do today…….

288663_503750643003059_1298907715_o

I don’t need an excuse to sleep around. I just don’t do it.

Good for you. No one said that you needed to sleep around especially with men. That’s the beautiful thing about Feminism:  YOU DON’T HAVE TO DO IT IF YOU DON’T WANT TO! Of course, the main goal of feminism is to dismantle male-approved hierarchy. In simple terms: women, you can be single and won’t be judged for it! You will not be forced by society to marry a man! Isn’t that wonderful!?

I should have to earn my own way, not have it handed to me through AA

First off, what in the world is AA? Alcoholics Anonymous? Are you implying that feminists are alcoholics? If so, wow. Secondly, what in the world do you mean “earn my own way”? Are the feminists forcing you to hold their hands through a difficult task? Some many questions left unanswered.

I can DRIVE and I can be as successful as any man.

I had to correct your spelling mistake because otherwise I would be horribly confused and you do NOT want to confuse an autistic person! The “successful as any man” is liberal speak. It is impossible for women to be as successful as men because of some biological and social factors. Women are having a really hard time being as successful as men because of harassment and abuse from their bosses and fellow co-workers. This is the result of patriarchy.

Being faithful is my choice. Not the “patriarchy” keeping me in line.

Holy Missing-the-point Batman! The concept of monogamy is a patriarchal concept if men expect women to be monogamous but the same standard does not apply to the husband! If you are forced into a polygamous marriage then there is a problem! However, being forced to be faithful to your husband when he is treating you like shit is a problem too! Men can abuse both of these constructs and women will get shit if they do the same things that their husbands are doing.

“Rape culture” is not a thing

Well, let’s see here: We live in a society that blasts pro-rape sentiments everywhere we look. I see coerced PIV on the TV, music, advertisements, and computer games. And when the woman is raped and she decides to report the rape to the authorities, she is laughed at and not believed by the authorities. Even when the case goes through, the victim is put under a microscope and the media makes all sorts of assumptions about the victims. All of the focus is lost on the perpetrator and the victim is blinded by all the hate she is receiving from people who didn’t take the time to get to know her. I say that rape culture exists and many other women would definitely say so too.

Having to pay for birth control does not make me marginalized

False, it does when the birth control has something to do with your health. I wish we can get a point in society where birth control will not be needed but since we live in patriarchy, we do need it. It is a matter of life and death for women who are forced to be pregnant because she cannot afford health care or the birth control that would have prevented the pregnancy. Birth control should be free to everyone or at least cheap so poor women can afford it. We would be completely missing the point if we left poor women out of the equation because let’s face it: poor women are more likely to be raped and- because it would be impossible to find a job- more likely to be forced into prostitution. So, yeah being forced to pay for something that could save your life does make you marginalized especially if you are already marginalized.

I have EARNED my privilege

Wow, so much insulting language in one sentence. You do not earn a social privilege, it is handed to you the minute you are born. Maybe, pay attention to how people socialize with women of color or indigenous women? Observe how white people react to women of color being pregnant and then compare to how they treat white women. You will be surprised by the helpfulness of actually observing social situations. I have white, able-bodied, middle class privilege but I am also a disabled woman. This means that I do oftentimes have difficulty moving about in society without being harassed or attacked by ableist and misogynistic tropes and ideas that are perpetuated in our society. That means that able-minded people will attempt to take advantage of me and think that I am not as intelligent as a neurotypical person this makes it worse since I am also a woman. And being a disabled woman in patriarchy makes me a walking target for predatory doctors and men! So, yeah, you may have white, able-bodied privilege but that matters fuck-all since men are more valued then women!

Hating men is just fucking stupid!

Women do have a right to hate ABUSIVE MEN especially when history shows that it was MEN who have used rape as a weapon of war to humiliate their enemy.  It was men that forced women to carry unwanted pregnancy to term. It was men that did not see women as human! It was MEN that raped and pillaged Indigenous people and forced the Indigenous women to marry them! To NOT hate them and also not demanding them to take responsibility for their actions id FUCKING STUPID! Heard of “Rape of the Sabine Women”? It’s horrifying shit! It’s also horribly bad when women are constantly told to trust every guy they run into and yet are told to not do anything that would get a rapist’s attention! THAT is stupid! THAT is an overpowering contradiction! “Trust every guy you meet but don’t do anything that would make him rape you or traffic you because it would be YOUR fault!” That is victim blaming! THAT is stupid! Believing that every guy is a sweet little that won’t do you harm? THAT is fucking stupid. Trust has to be earned! Not given away like a fucking gift! You are your own person? No feminist has ever said that you weren’t. It is men that are denying women their humanity!

Don’t Be Silent!

There seems to be a common practice of instilling silence on the oppressed in society. This tactic normally comes from the privileged classes and the privileged classes do not want to hear about oppression; they would rather live in their own fantasy world. Where people are happy, bullying never happens – if it does, well, to bad – and they get rewards without so much as lifting a finger. Life is easy for the privileged, sipping on lemonade. A nice life from what I have heard. But if those oppressed classes ever dare to speak up for themselves then everything is Hell for the privileged, the sky falls on their coiffed heads and other horrible disasters. That is what happened when Jennifer Livingston dared to fight back against her oppressor for his (assuming the letter writer is male) comments about her weight. Few days afterward, a privileged white dude decides that it is perfectly justifiable to bully an fat woman because HOW DARE SHE EXIST?!? Let us take a look at this dude’s ridiculous article.

First, he goes by suggesting that he PERSONALLY believes that an obese woman should never EVER speak up for herself when her person is attacked by a shallow viewer.

A television personality from Wisconsin is receiving acclaim from around the nation for allegedly standing up to a “bully” viewer who wrote an email mildly disparaging her weight and physical appearance, but is all of the praise warranted? I don’t think so.

Let’s have a read of this letter, shall we?

Hi Jennifer,

It’s unusual that I see your morning show, but I did so for a very short time today. I was surprised indeed to witness that your physical condition hasn’t improved for many years. Surely you don’t consider yourself a suitable example for this community’s young people, girls in particular. Obesity is one of the worst choices a person can make and one of the most dangerous habits to maintain. I leave you this note hoping that you’ll reconsider your responsibility as a local public personality to present and promote a healthy lifestyle.

Well, I don’t think it takes a complicated math equation to comprehend that this is in fact bullying. This author of this letter does not seem to understand that in most cases obesity is not a choice at all and that fat women shouldn’t give two shits if they are considered unfuckable under patriarchy. Because it is by popular opinion that white dudes are always right! They know exactly how to handle all situations involving violence of multiple kinds, right? RIGHT? I enjoy how this dude puts bully in scare quotes as though the writer of letter wasn’t bullying anyone! I mean, it’s not like making comments like “your appearance is a bad example for our children” or “being fat is a dangerous choice” is not bullying or hurtful at all! The dude continues to share his lovely male wisdom:

I disagree with the general consensus in the media and among the left that this message is “bullying.” Terse, rude, arrogant, self-righteous? Absolutely, but the comments are not of a bullying nature. The word bullying is defined as:

Use superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to force him or her to do what one wants

The email is not attempting to intimidate Livingston. It makes no mention of forcing her to do anything. The viewer is merely offering a singular opinion, one of which that exists out of millions of opinions. There is not an attempt to use any form of “strength” to influence Livingston. In fact she gave her viewer’s opinion strength by elevating it.

My, this dude is SO intelligent! He must have been too busy doing dudely things to notice the VERY important details in the letter such as “I leave you this note hoping that you’ll reconsider your responsibility as a local public personality to present and promote a healthy lifestyle.” That is not “forcing somebody to do what one wants”? Oh and I love the Liberal tactic of “opinion” as if the unnecessary and cruel comments about her weight being the defining indicator of Livingston’s character were just “opinions.” I suppose if he had a daughter who had an eating disorder that he would use the same tactic on her? That those people who pushed her to diet excessively were just expressing their “opinion”? I would like to know how exactly fighting back against her oppressor somehow equals “strengthening the viewer’s opinion.” Did he honestly expect her to stay silent? Dude continues to spew:

During Livingston’s rant she claims to have “thick skin”, but that is clearly not true. If her skin was so thick she would have paid no attention to the comments and went about her day. I would be extremely surprised to find that this is the first comment made about Livingston’s weight, considering she has been on the air for a number of years. She also claims to “not care” about this message, but instead wants to talk to children who are actually bullied — and that is admirable.

However, bullying that happens at school is far more vicious and traumatizing, and in many instances fatal, than a viewer urging a public personality to lose weight. In fact the two scenarios are not even in the same galaxy in terms of offensiveness or impact. If the message jared Livingston so much, perhaps she is in the wrong profession.

I wonder what this dude’s theory is on street harassment and sexual assault? It’s only traumatizing when it happens to kids but not fully grown women? Does this dude even wonder for one second that he might be wrong? That men abuse women through raping them, starving them and intimidating them? Has that not crossed his mind at all? You cannot expect women to have “thick skin” in Patriarchy especially when their bodies are constantly under attack by men through various ways. If by “thick skin” he means taking abuse without complaint then he is the one in the wrong profession, not Livingston.

Overeall I found Livingston’s response on the air displeasing and unprofessional, but mostly uncalled for. This is America, where the freedom of speech is an ingrained right. She is in the public eye, and those who receive WKBT’s programming have opinions. And that is all this was, an opinion from a viewer that she did not appreciate, but the person who sent the email was well within his or her rights both legally and socially to do so.

I believe there is a danger in Livingston’s description of the incident because it may dwindle the urgency level when an actual case of bullying arises. People will hear about it and think…“what, did a professional, highly paid newscaster receive an unkind letter again?”

The premise that a person who is directly compensated for being in the public eye could make any claim of being bullied by a member of the public is absurd and shows just how thin Jennifer Livingston’s skin actually is.

Did we see any threats of lawsuits from Livingston? Did she raise her voice? Throw chairs around? Even those would be very reasonable responses to being attacked, she did not do any of those things. She was in a calm manner and explained why those comments about her body were out of line and hurtful. Again, I have to ask if that is how he views all women that stand for themselves? If so, that would be  typical white male behavior. To accuse her of “dwindling the urgency level of actual bullying” is victim blaming behavior. He pretty much degraded her by waving away her concerns! By dictating to her how she should react to being attacked by patriarchy and fat-hatred. He finds it displeasing because it broke his poor fragile male ego and you should know that male egos are more precious then women’s rights!

It is not “unprofessional” to fight back against your enemy. It is not “unprofessional” to stand up for yourself and refuse to take abuse from anyone. This author is reinforcing patriarchy and that is unacceptable. Silence is woman’s worst enemy and the only way to fight silence to speak and scream like you mean it!

Reverse Sexism, Child Safety: One is More Important (and Real) Than the Other

Females have to constantly plan their lives around avoiding attention from predatory males and how they can successfully avoid a confrontation without the harassment being escalated into an attack. Males often get very defensive when a woman speaks out against the abuse she experiences from males with the added bonus of being accused of being “sexist” and the little church mice who are within earshot either wag their fingers at the woman in question or they wag their finger at the male. Most often than not, it is the former that receives the finger wagging and not the latter. It is unfortunate that these males feel so entitled to co-opt feminist language and use it against females when criticism of male privilege and power ever occurs in a discussion among females.

Recently, a male named Johnny McGirr (very fitting, eh?) is claiming “sexism” and “discrimination” after a flight attendant for Virgin Australia told him to switch seats with a woman because of a policy that states that males are not allowed to be seated next minors and as bad luck would have it, he sat next to two young boys both aged eight and ten. The poor male felt that he was unjustly mistreated and “discriminated” against for simply being male and suspected of being a “potential pedophile.”  Now, I am not one for false accusations. But it seems that this man feels that he is being wrongfully convicted of a terrible crime that he never committed! Oh, for the love of all that is good! A simple request to move to another seat does not equal discrimination! If you are going to compare A MINOR SEAT CHANGE to discrimination (of which everyone except white, upper class, straight, able-bodied/minded males have experienced) than I seriously hope you have a very logical reason to call it “discrimination.”

Policies like this are there for a reason, to protect children from potential pedophiles who will take advantage of the child’s vulnerability in a crowded space. This male feels that this policy is unfair to him, that the airline should put his comfort before the safety of children. This man’s actions and words are the biggest examples of a selfish entitled male who feels that he can have what ever space he wants and no one should question his demand! As Meghan Murphy from Feminist Current states, sexism will not be dismantled under the guise of protecting privileged fragile egos:

If dudes like Johnny actually gave a shit about sexism and, like, actually wanted women and children to both feel and truly be safe in this world, then there are some things they are going to have to do: a) stop molesting/assaulting/raping/beating, b) stop standing by while  other men molest/assault/rape/beat, and c) stop covering up for and protecting creeps and abusers.

What’s next, you ‘re going to force me to sit next to you on the bus because otherwise I’m sexist? Shut up.

Sexism will not be eradicated by pretending it doesn’t exist. Women and children not being raped or exploited is more important than your comfort. I wish it wasn’t the case that taking the bus to work was a cause for stress. Every single day. But it is. And THAT is because of sexism. Get it? Men raping women and children is what inequality looks like. Being afraid that a man is going to harass or assault us is sexist, yes, but it is NOT SEXIST AGAINST MEN.

It is insulting to call his little moment of embarrassment “sexism” for simply asking him to put the concerns of children (who are travelling alone, by the way) before his selfish need for entitlement. It is insulting that males have to claim that any criticism against them is “sexist” because their precious feelings are hurt! Women and children are harassed, assaulted, raped and abused by males every day! You would think that someone who works in a life saving occupation would understand policies such as this but that doesn’t seem to be the case. Even people in life saving occupations feel entitled to another person’s space and they get angry when the slightest bit of discomfort is mentioned from the underprivileged party.

This man is wasting everyone’s time with his petty cries of “sexism” and “false judgement.” He is co-opting feminist language and using it to protect his entitlement and privilege. He is also disregarding the safety of children who are travelling alone because of a minor inconvenience! Such selfishness from anyone in any situation would be called “morally repugnant” but apparently that is not the case for white males.

Meghan Murphy’s very intelligent response Here

Yes, You ARE a Bigot!

I have received word from an autism awareness group on Facebook that a mother of an autistic child wrote a blog post about how her 10 year autistic son learned to write for the first time and telling autism to “suck it.” I find attitudes like that to be extremely offensive and dangerous to autistic people such as myself. It brings up the image that autism is some sort of disease or monster that needs to be eliminated. Of course, the author of the post makes it obvious that she is neurologically typical by the way she talks about her son and his identity as an autistic person.

She also said some extremely offensive and ableist things such as:

 I watched the light go out from his eyes at 12 months of age and I have fought tooth and nail since then to turn it back on, even when others told me there was little hope, even when I spent the first few years drinking myself numb, even when he didn’t even know I was in the room with him.

I absolutely HATE phrases like “I watched the light go out from his eyes….” because it implies that autistic people are lifeless of which they are not! Autistic people have as much life as non-autistic people and it is incredibly offensive to autistic people.

Another disgusting phrase:

This is NOT THE SAME as saying that people with autism suck. My son has autism. My son most definitely does not suck. In fact, he’s amazing, funny, loving, beautiful, inspiring. But he’s also being held hostage by a disorder that comes in many shapes and sizes, a disorder that in our house, is not a welcome guest but rather a selfish and thoughtless intruder. The fact that I do not embrace autism as something to be romanticized or adored does not mean I do not love the bejezus out of my son. I also realize that autism is a part of who he is, has shaped a portion of the person he has become and continues to be. But if someone handed me a guaranteed cure tomorrow, I wouldn’t hesitate one nanosecond before shoving it down his throat. I would risk losing a portion of the little boy I love so fiercely and unequivocally if it meant that he would have a chance at navigating this life without the bondage of autism.

Oh noes, my son has autism! He is being held hostage by who he is! I am gonna pretend that my autistic son does not understand how words like that is extremely offensive and hurtful TO HIM and other AUTISTIC PEOPLE because of my ableist/sanist/mentalist privilege! Of course, she is not gonna give a shit about her son’s feelings! It’s all about how the awesome neurotypical mother battled against her son’s autism in order for him to be “normal.”

There is nothing wrong with being proud of your autistic child for his/her accomplishments but if you are going to imply that accomplishment somehow defeated autism then you are displaying ableism! You are saying that autism is curable if you force a certain type of normalcy on them! If an autistic person tells you that certain phrase if offensive, don’t shrug it off! Listen to them! Do not dismiss them! They know more about living with autism then you do.  If you go around dismissing them for bullshit reasons then expect people to react and be angry at you.

Another quote which dismisses the people who point out her ableism:

I invite those of you who consider me an ableist for telling autism to SUCK IT to come into my home and spend a day with me and Andrew. I invite you to see the reality that my child lives with as he struggles against the silence that blankets him, falls apart when those around him don’t understand his needs, and begs for mercy when the sights and sounds of life come bearing down upon his ears and nervous system. I want you to see the drooling, hear the teeth grinding and the desperate wails, watch as he wills his body to keep up with his younger brother even though he doesn’t stand a chance.

I just love how external experiences with autism are somehow the same as internal experiences with autism from this woman’s perspective. I would invite this woman to walk in MY SHOES for a while and see how it is like to LIVE as an autistic person! Of course, she is unable to do this since her bigotry clouds her empathy. Funny how NTs claim that autistic people lack empathy/emotions and yet they display lack of empathy towards autistic people! I would imply that these curebies display symptoms of a sociopath but I’m too nice for that.

Low functioning autistic people such as Amanda Baggs  can speak her thoughts through a talking keyboard, when the keyboard is speaking her words, the words are incredibly eloquent and intelligent. Is she being held hostage by her autism? Is she lifeless? Of course not! She is perfectly happy with her identity as an autistic person. She doesn’t want to be cured and neither do I, a high functioning autistic.

Ashline wrote a response which is even more offensive than the last post:

So if that makes me a curebie, or a bigot or a child abuser or an ableist or whatever other fucking word du jour you come up with, so be it. You guys are just a bunch of bullies. You bully parents like me who want more for their kids and you do it all from the comfort of a life we would give anything to be able to promise our own children.

You took my message out of context and used it to make yourselves look like the victims, when the real victims here are the very children parents like me are trying to save; children who are easily overlooked, children who are in physical and emotional pain,  children who will someday be adults that society will have no idea what to do with so it’s OUR JOB TO FUCKING FIGURE IT OUT.

So pointing out your ableist privilege and stating that what you are saying about your son’s autism is extremely dangerous AND offensive to autistic people is bullying? That’s a laugh riot! Autistic children do not need to be saved from their autism! They need to be taught how to cope with the world, to teach them problem solving skills. Not to hate themselves for being autistic. That is what you are doing to your son! You are teaching him that him being autistic is BAD! No one just made up words like “ableist” just to “bully” you. Words like that have existed for as long as ableism has existed and you are dismissing these words even though you are raising a disabled child?

Autistic people are NOT suffering from their autism, they are suffering from discrimination, abuse, neglect, ignorance and self-hatred because of people like Ashline who force their domination on their autistic children. They expect autistic people such as myself to feel sorry for them when they dismiss us for pointing out their bigotry? Sorry ma’am but that is not how it works. You have to LISTEN to the autistic people and LEARN from them! If you don’t take in what the autistic community is trying to tell you then we will not waste our time with you.

Ashline needs to realize that autistic people like myself-and quite possibly her son-will fight against such bigotry and hatred against them because they deserve to be treated better! Ashline is not considering things from her son’s perspective, she is only looking at things through HER perspective which is not only ableist but dangerous for her son who in his current state of affairs is dependent on her mother’s approval and guidance! I would hate to see how he turns out if he adopts her way of thinking about neurologically diverse people.

Post I am responding to