Post 29 -- Preliminary cultural relativistic argument from social justice warriors

When I'm driving around doing errands (today's was acquiring more high-reflective gear for my biking), I have a habit of defragging my brain by speaking out random thoughts. Immediately prior to leaving, I had been listening to Mykeru's newest video regarding the Honey Badgers' expulsion from the Calgary Comic Expo. His violent and pointed wit sounded around Amanda Marcotte and the social justice mentality. It got me thinking: what is the process by which social justice warriors come to their state of abject human failures--oh, I mean, "moral superiority"?

Now, this wasn't as easy as some might make it look. Of course, those who have stared directly into the vapid sun that is social justice without going blind can do it well, such as the always excellent Jim, (jim81jim/Internet Aristocrat/Mister Metokur) can do an excellent job. I went to school at the liberal but respected University of British Columbia in the early to mid-2000s. The movement was already on to start "protecting" certain people's voices and ears for the views of others. There was a prevailing view on campus that the right was inherently bad, especially those war-mongering American Republicans. That was my first contact. Forensic psychology classes where a female classmate would stand up and proclaim rape only to be a problem for women and we ought to teach men to just not rape. The talking points reached far and wide.

Social justice, as a pairing of words, sounds inherently good. It is inherently good, actually, as long as the blade isn't directed at yourself. Things went astray when a group of people decided enlightenment values were white, male, and oppressive and were no longer valid in today's world, which was not yet 'Marxist equal'. Another group of people who believed race or gender were reasons for oppression came into the mix and the discussions began. Suddenly, talking about someone's race as a reason for their status in life was now allowed. Not only allowed, by entirely devoid of that syrupy irony that ought to go along with it. Social justice became not about advocating for change, but for speaking on behalf of the oppressed.

Why is that person oppressed? It's because they're black--a minority here! Why is that person oppressed? It's because she's a woman and this is the patriarchy! This narrative, so easily spun a Parkinsonian could accomplish it, scrubbed people of their individuality and turned them into coloured or gendered pieces on their own person political game board. When "oppression" of a race occurred, our valiant social justice warriors would saddle up in their own Audi SUVs and charge to the streets to speak for black community as a whole. When the black community attempted to speak, our SJW troop would condescendingly speak down to the community as the community was not educated enough to speak for itself in an impactful manner.

Let's recap that last bit. A community suffers an injustice. Social justice steps up to call attention to the injustice. Those who suffered the injustice are not allowed to share their stories, experiences, grievances, or solutions to the issue. So we have a group which has suffered an injustice only to have another group come rolling in with a savior complex to dole out a second injustice. As the injustice is perpetuated, our social justice heroes see there is even more oppression than originally thought, and work harder to speak for the community--all the while ignoring the whole community. Down and down the spiral we go. This is all made better by simple fact that criticism of the antics or tactics of the social justice idiots is viewed not as criticism of their ideas or approach but of the community which they claim to represent. 'Don't like that we keep this native community quiet and spout our own story and political views? It's because you hate natives!' Yet another injustice brought upon that community!

The pattern forms and is noted by two characteristics: silencing and exploiting. As the community which has suffered the injustice is prevented from speaking they are also being used as a shield against criticism of the social justice nut jobs. Rather than economic exploitation of a racial group as seen from the 1800s, we're seeing a political exploitation via coopting and silencing. Who wins here? Not the communities, but the fake heroes of social justice. Their status increases as they are exposed to media. Individuals like Suey Park, Anita Sarkeesian, and even Al Sharpton all fall into this category: people who stoke the fires of injustice with language from Invader Zim:

Commander: Zim, you made the fires worse!

Zim: Worse... or better?

It's an interesting act of sophistry to speak in racist tones in a manner that sounds as if you are fighting against racism. It is entirely lost on social justice warriors that saying "whites are oppressive by their nature" is actually as racist as the phrase "blacks love fried chicken".

Universities have willingly gone along with the development of social justice on their campuses since the mid-90s. Again, "social justice", at the time, did not sound as Orwellian as it has turned out to be. The culture which is being fostered on these campuses and in the classrooms of gender studies, sociology, psychology (which denounces evolutionary psychology), and communications is one which lends itself to develop safe spaces, censorship for "bad ideas", and outright banning of certain ideas. It has created a culture which feeds into itself. This is the crux of the cultural relativism which I wrote of earlier: when it becomes safe to racist in the name of social justice or sexist in the name of progress then that idea has diverged from sound humanist and moral reasoning.

As we've seen from religious justifications for heinous acts against humanity (e.g., circumcision in the name of a covenant with God), cultural relativism allows groups to act in ways antithetical to morality. Rather, these cultures create their own understanding of morality. In the case of social justice warriors, being racist against whites, sexist against men, or spiteful towards straight people is fine if it is done in the name of advancing the place of minorities (i.e., non-white individuals within Europe and North America), women, or LGBT rights. What is lost here is there is no progress being made--punching down one group merely lends the appearance that the "oppressed group" is closer to the "oppressive group". No progress has been made!

Rational individuals must denounce this current breed of social justice. As a society, we must strive to enshrine enlightenment values to all humans. When second wave feminism was seeking equality, it was striving for universal rights because they are humans and not because they are women. Third/fourth wave feminism has deteriorated to demanding rights based on their sex when the moral approach calls for universal rights to be applied universally. After all, we're all humans before we're any other label. Let's fight to strip out pointless labels from laws and again fight from reasoned positions, advocating for universal rights.

This has been a (long) unedited rant. @nrokchi

Post 28 -- A question for feminists on Islam, part one

While returning from my daily workout, I noticed a woman in my housing complex wearing a burka. A burka is Islamic garb for women which covers the entirety of the body, leaving only a slit in the head covering for the eyes (which, in some cultures, is covered with lace). Being an atheist, my mind began to swirl with the many thoughts that go along with such a religious or cultural expression.

Does she want to wear that?

Is it right for a culture to demand such compliance from a person?

Is she made to wear the burka or does she choose to?

The last question stuck. Choice in such a matter is an interesting discussion. For most women who wear some form of Islamic garb while living in the west it is a choice by their own words. Not uncommonly, these niqab or hijab wearing women are with taunted about their subservient status within Islam culture, or derided for not standing up to their culture, or are pitied by people expressing "tolerance". Still, it is the point on choice which is the hang up for me. Is it really a choice?

If a cultural norm is to engage in a specific act, does one have a choice to not engage in that act? Surely they do, as we humans have some degree of free will and--whether it is used or not--the gift of skepticism. For example, driving culture in North America calls on all drivers and (most) passengers to wear their seat belts. These restraints are crucial safety devices which greatly limit the severity of injuries during a motor vehicle accident. There are people, however, who choose to not wear their seat belts. I was made aware that the State of New Jersey does not require backseat passengers to wear seat belts. Anyways, the cultural norm is to strap in while in a car and those who don't are not only going against that norm but also against well founded scientific justification and clearly spelled out laws. Even so, these people are expressing a choice, just at a risk to themselves.

The reason I am focusing on a (straw) feminist to explain why modern gender (third or fourth wave) feminism is because of its inclination to defend adherents of Islam from societal criticism. As mentioned above, there are Islamic women who defend their wearing of spiritual clothing, which includes the all encompassing burka. My question simply is: does she choose to wear it?

It might seem as if I already answered it with the quip about western Islamic women. There is some nuance to this question, though. Forgive the jump to another subject here, but it is important to contextualize the importance of choice. Choice is only done when the individual can make an decision free of coercion. If a individual says ,"Give me your wallet or I'll stab you!", are you really making the free choice to handing over your wallet? If, and for the sake of some of the more radical feminists, is a woman consenting (i.e., freeing choosing to engage in) to sex if a man has threatened her with physical, emotional, or mental harm? Surely the answer is an emphatic NO! As long as there is coercion there is no choice.

Back to the burka now and a secondary question to my original: what are the consequences for not wearing the burka? If there are no non-spiritual consequences for failing to wear the burka, then the woman is making a choice free of coercion. (Quick note: spiritual consequences are significant to some individuals and will shape their motives for certain choices. While that is an important point, it is complex and difficult to untangle here and is not required for me to make my argument.) As the burka is important to some Islamic culture, just as the yamaka is important to some Jewish cultures, surely we can imply there would be consequences within the community as a whole if a woman chooses to not wear the ascribed garments. This might range from diminished status to expulsion to violence against the woman. More specifically, within Islamic communities which demand for women to be completely veiled (i.e., to wear the burka), the father, husband, eldest brother, or eldest son is responsible for the most of the actions of said woman. If this woman does not wear the burka, it is up to this male guardian to address the situation. While this may not always start with violence, there is undoubtedly some form of coercion taking place to have the woman don the burka and remain within cultural bounds.

As stated above, free choice cannot exist if there is coercion. If a woman "consents" to sex after being threatened with a violent beating, then it is not actually consent, thus not a free choice. The same standard applies here: if a woman chooses to wear the burka only because of the consequences of not wearing the burka, then it isn't a choice made free of coercion. Here in lies the double think of these Islamic apologists: they will loudly claim these woman have a right to express themselves in a matter in accordance to their culture, willfully ignoring the presence of grave consequences if these woman wish to do otherwise. Yet, when it comes to sex, any act which might even slightly influence a woman's choice on whether to consent is immediately labeled as coercion and completely undermines consent. Why this double-think? It is logically inconsistent!

If the goal of feminists is to ensure woman have the same rights and privileges as men, as understood from enlightenment philosophy and reasoning, then their drive ought to be to shore up and maintain female agency. Apologist reasoning for protection women's lack of agency in Islam undermines the core doctrine of feminism--not just gender feminism! Women's choices must be made entirely free of coercion if they are to be free. Of course, choices will always have consequences, but that does not mean all choices are made in a coercive manner. Gender feminism's approach to Islamic women's garments is a glaring example of the hypocrisy of third/fourth wave feminists and entirely undermines their position as moral arbiters.

This has been an unedited rant. @nrokchi