Saturday, October 11, 2014

Radical Feminists are attacking every aspect of white male culture

     Every week or so I see a new news article or blog, or something on the Internet, in which thoroughly pissed off women, claiming that they are feminists, are attacking something that white people, usually males, do. They are attacking a certain action because they view it to be "racist," or "misogynistic." They conclude that in order for white people to not be racist, they have to stop doing this certain action, or at least, do it differently.
     The problem is that these feminists or "social justice bloggers," (which basically means complaining and bitching about some mystical problem that white men make, and the bloggers write these posts while sipping a $6 coffee while in bed in their mansion, or in college, paid by someone else, usuallly *gasp* a male), have gone overboard. They've gone completely apeshit. They're now labeling dozens and dozens of cultural activities that white people, and everyone for that matter, do as racist or sexist. It seems they don't want white people doing anything except to be submissive and not challenge the feminists and people of color on anything that they do.
      White people don't deserve a voice, apparently. We don't deserve to have an opinion on things. We don't deserve to be able to create things of our imagination as we would like to, like books, movies, T.V. shows, etc.We can only do these things if the feminists and PoCs approve, and we can do them only how they say we can. Otherwise, we're racist and sexist.
      The social justice bloggers are not criticizing actions that are truly racist, like calling black people the N word, or seeing a woman in an office building and assuming she is the receptionist and not the CEO. Those actions should be condemned, and I'll be the first to stand with anyone else on calling people out on that.
     But instead, here are all of the actions that now are apparently racist and sexist, that us white people can't do anymore, or at least, we have to do differently to escape the wrath of feminists and social justice bloggers:



     1. Having any organization be majority white, and majority female. If you are a HR manager, you hire on the principle of hiring the best person for the job, regardless of sex, race, or religion, or by any other aspect other than how well a person can do this job. That is the rational, logical thing to do, because if you exclude people based on these aspects, you're potentially excluding the person who is best for the job.
     But the social justice bloggers are saying that's racist and/or sexist. If an organization is majority white or majority male, before they even can determine if the hiring decisions were done based on race or gender, they automatically and without question, condemn the organization as racist and/or sexist. For them, equal results is the answer, not an even playing field. They want it to be diverse, no matter of the qualification of any of the workers involved. I illustrated why this is a problem in my January 30th 2014 post: "People are obsessing over the wrong type of diversity": http://noholdsonfreedom.blogspot.com/2014/01/people-are-obsessing-over-wrong-type-of.html
     Here is the part:
     "Let's say 2 grocery stores wants to hire 6 cashiers. 10 people apply to it, and the business ranks them by how good cashiers they are. 1 being the best cashier out of the 10, and 10 being the worst. Next to each number is the race of the person. For the simplicity of the argument, out of the 10 people, all of them are either Black, White, or Hispanic.
     1. Black
     2. White
     3. Hispanic
     4. White
     5. White
     6. White
     7. Black
     8. White
     9. Hispanic
     10. White

      Grocery store #1 has been brainwashed by liberal media. They think having a diverse staff is more important than being a good cashier. So they hire 2 people of every race, being "fair." So they hire numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, and 9.
     Grocery store #2 respects all races, and doesn't give a flying shit what race you are. They want good cashiers, so they do the logical thing and hire numbers 1-6.
      Now compare the two stores. Grocery store #1 skipped persons 5 and 6, even though they were better cashiers than 7 and 9. They passed up better applicants to be more diverse. So they end up with a worse workforce vs grocery store #2.
     Worse workforce=less work=less products/services= crappier products/services=worse company."
     So this is what the social justice bullshitters want companies to do, and with Affirmative Action, they already are. They want companies to sacrifice getting the best employee in the name of diversity. But they only hold that white people do this. Every other race is exempt from having to have a diverse workforce. For example, there are many organizations and companies throughout the U.S., that, for various reasons, have a majority black or Hispanic workforce. Reasons could be because the organization has a cultural mission that pertains to a certain culture, or because of demographics. These organizations are not racist even though they have a majority workforce of one race, according to the feminists and social justice bloggers. But if an organization is majority white, then obviously it is racist, and must hire minorities to not be considered racist.



     2. Make a movie or a T.V. show with majority white actors/actresses or characters. Social justice bloggers complained that the Disney movie Frozen was "racist" because all of the characters in the movie are white: http://www.reflector-online.com/opinion/article_b54cd090-a319-11e3-89e8-0017a43b2370.html
     That's right, a movie that is set in medieval Scandinavia is racist for having all white characters. No matter that medieval Scandinavia had little to no minorities in many places, and certainly not amongst the ruling classes. So what does Disney get for making this movie realistic in this regard? Oh, it's obviously racist. The social justice bloggers think they have the right to tell Disney directors what they can't and cannot do in their own creative productions. The main point of this is: Random people, who are not in the Disney company at all, have no right to tell Disney directors what they can or cannot do when creating a work of their own imagination.
     If I were a Disney director, here is how I would respond: "This is my money, my time, and my effort that I put into this movie. This movie is a product of my imagination and creativity, and I can make it however I want. It is a free country. I have the right to do this. I don't tell you what you cannot and can write about. I do not tell you how and how you cannot write. Leave me alone, and I'll continue to leave you alone."
     If you want to see a movie with the majority of characters being from minority races, then go ahead and make one yourself. Odds are, you can't do that, so you can support directors that make movies like that. You can exercise consumer choice, and go see movies that you support and like their aspects. But don't go around telling people how and how they can't make their own movies. That's fascist, that's being a tyrant, that's being a whiny sissy brat. So now, according to the social justice blogger Nazis, white people can only make movies if 1. The majority of their staff is non-white, and 2. If the majority of the characters in the movie are non-white.
     They don't hold this standard to any other ethnic group, only whites. Did any of them call Aladdin racist because every single character in that movie was Arab? No, of course not, because it makes sense to have Arabs in that movie, because it takes place in the Middle East in medieval times. But as soon as Disney does the same thing with another movie, they're racist.
      Do the social justice bloggers apply this ridiculous rule to movies coming from, let's say, Africa? Do they see a film out of Liberia, for example, and say "Oh this movie is racist because all of the actors/actresses are black?" Of course they fucking don't, because that would be fucking ridiculous.
     Not only does this apply to movies, but any other form of entertainment and creative productions, such as books or T.V. shows: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/04/25/minorities-in-movies-and-television. You wanna write a book with the majority of characters being white? Oh, you're racist. You wanna make a T.V. show with the majority of actors/actresses being white? Oh, you're racist. You wanna make a T.V. show that has majority black characters? Oh, you're not racist at all, you're a good white person, we don't have a problem with you!



     3. Stand up for people/issues that don't pertain to you. This only applies to white males. A white female social justice blogger can write all she wants about defending minorities and people of faiths that she is not a part of. She is commended for doing so, as she should be. Anyone, regardless of race or creed, when they stand up for someone else, should be commended. But the social justice bloggers don't want white males, particularly rich white males or male celebrities, to do so. Doing so would be exploiting their "privilege," and therefore, they should just sit down, shut up, and let the wonderful liberal female social justice bloggers and minorities do all the defending.
http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2014/oct/08/afflect-dicaprio-white-male-celebrity-activist
     This defies all logic. One would think that the social justice bloggers would love white males defending other people. After all, that means they aren't racist. But no. We aren't allowed to do that either. I guess that makes me a "privileged white male" because I've defended minorities on this blog before. But yet they still condemn us if we don't stand up for other people. So we're racist no matter what we do. It's like they're assuming all white males are racist and sexist no matter what we do to prove the contrary.  

     4. Make video games with majority male or majority female characters.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/video-games/11087308/Women-strike-back-in-the-video-games-sex-war.html#comment-1584308521
     That's right, the feminists and social justice fascists are even stooping down to the lowest of the low to attack white males in their leisure and art activities, (yes, video games are a work of art, at least...the good ones are). The rules of #2 also pertain to video games as well. So if a white person makes a video game with majority white characters, then he's racist. If he makes a video game with little to no female roles, then he's obviously sexist.
     If I was a game developer, I'd reply "It's my money and my time I've invested into making this game. This game is a product of my imagination and creativity, and I can make it however I want. I don't tell you what you can and cannot write about. I do not tell you how and how you can't write." If a feminist or social justice blogger doesn't agree with the morales and values a game puts out, don't buy it. Don't play it. If she wants a game where she can play as a female, then make a game like so, or at least support game developers that do so. But don't go around saying "Oh this video game is sexist because you can't play as a female." Half of gamers may be female but the majority of game developers, you know, the ones who actually make the games, are male, and are free to make them however they want to.


     5. Making any type of media, be it movie, show, or book, that has a minority as the villain. That's right, we're no longer allowed to show that there are good and bad people of every race, because that would be racist. We have to show minorities, and women, in a positive role 100% of the time. 
      http://www.nytimes.com/1986/03/01/arts/minority-villains-are-touchy-network-topics.html
     So if you want to be certain that your media is not labeled racist, better make a white guy the bad guy. After all, white men are the only bigoted group around here, (as so the social justice bloggers say). Now, if a piece of media had a minority as the villain, and the reason why he was the villain was because of his race, then THAT would be racist. But if there is a villain, who just so happens to be a minority, that is not racist. But the social justice bloggers are saying it is. http://www.racebending.com/v4/blog/olympus-fallen-white-nativism/
      The above blog link is so, so wrong. The movies "Olympus has Fallen" and "Red Dawn" is not saying that, because the villains are Asian, that makes them non-American. The movie does not say nor hint anything remotely at all. I have no idea where the blog writer is getting this idea from. Oh wait, yes I do, out of her own asshole. It's complete fucking bullshit. In "Olympus has Fallen," the reason why the villain is not American is not because he is Asian, but because the character, the villain, is a North Korean Spy. You can be Korean and be an American, but you can't be a Korean who only has North Korean citizenship and be a North Korean spy. That's not racist, it's just his character. Same thing with "Red Dawn." The villain's ethnicity is not what makes him non-American, it's the fact that his character does not have American citizenship: he is a North Korean military officer with North Korean citizenship only. Duh. Fucking duh.
     So villains can no longer be women or minorities, because that would be racist or sexist.

     6. (Updated 2/2/2015)
     Apparently there's something ELSE us racist white people can't do anymore. We can't nominate people for Academy Awards solely based on their talent and the movie they were in. No, now we got to give a certain amount of nominations to minorities, otherwise, we're racist.
     http://www.huffingtonpost.com/a-b-wilkinson/oscars-2015-so-hollywood-_b_6550568.html
     The author is bitching that no actor or actress in "Selma" got an Academy Award nomination. Not satisfied that the film itself got a nomination, no, that's not enough to satisfy the social justice bloggers who demand that every single damn thing in existence follow their specific rules in regards to race and sex. The author loved the actors and actresses in this movie, fine, that's her opinion. But she's so intolerant that she can't possibly comprehend how anyone could not love them as much as she does. If they don't like them enough to give it a nomination, then they must be racist!
      This is another example of an extremist racist liberal who wants everyone to have the exact same opinion on everything that she does. So now we have to take into account the ethnicity of people getting nominated for Academy Awards, making sure that every ethnicity is accounted for, otherwise, we're racist. No longer is the Academy Awards about the honest opinions that the people have for movies, no, now good actors and actresses will be ignored for others who may/may not be as good, but for their race.
     I don't even like the Academy Awards. I think they're a bunch of rich snobs giving awards to God awful movies while ignoring really good movies. But just because I disagree with them doesn't mean that I don't think they don't have the right to voice their opinion. See, that's the difference between me and the radical liberals. If someone says something I don't agree with, I say "Okay, I don't agree with that, but I do agree with your right to say it. As long as its not infringing on someone's human rights, then I don't care what you say." A radical liberal would say "Oh, you don't agree with me on mundane and unimportant issues, (as such the Academy Awards,)? Well, I'm just going to do everything in my legal power, use the media, etc, to make it impossible for everyone to have any other opinion other than my own!"

 

     In conclusion, these points may not seem as significant by themselves. One of these in isolation is not limiting one's creative practices or hiring practices that much. But combined together, they reveal the feminist and social justice blogger's world view: They don't want white males, particularly masculine white males, to do able to do anything. We can't hire employees how we see fit. We can't produce any work of culture, unless it meets their stringent rules that they feel that they are able to shove down on us. In essence, they want us to sit down, don't move, and shut up when it comes to doing things our way, which ironically, is the exact same thing they accuse masculine white males of doing to everyone else. I'm an author, yet to be published. I'll be damned if someone tells me I can't write my book the way I want to. My first book, the majority of the characters are Arab, and the main character is a woman: http://noholdsonfreedom.blogspot.com/2014/04/an-excerpt-from-my-book-battalions-of.html. But my second book, the book I'm writing right now, the main characters are white. Does that make me a racist for doing so?
     News flash, you stupid social justice blogger brats: People tend to produce works of art and culture about the culture they're a part of. It isn't racist or sexist to do so. Africans tend to write books and make movies about Africans. Asians tend to make T.V. shows about Asians. Are they racist for doing so? Of course not. White people are no different. Are there some racist white people? Of course, there's racist white people out there in the world. There are racists of every race out there in the world. We shouldn't have a set of standards for whites to follow, and then a set of standards that everyone else follows. Cuz you know why? Because that's racist and bigoted, the very crimes that social justice bloggers claim to be fighting, when in fact, they're perpetuating.  
   

No comments:

Post a Comment