Refusing to be a Man: Essays on Social Justice
Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device.
You can download and read online Refusing to be a Man: Essays on Social Justice file PDF Book only if you are registered here.
And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Refusing to be a Man: Essays on Social Justice book.
Happy reading Refusing to be a Man: Essays on Social Justice Bookeveryone.
Download file Free Book PDF Refusing to be a Man: Essays on Social Justice at Complete PDF Library.
This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats.
Here is The CompletePDF Book Library.
It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Refusing to be a Man: Essays on Social Justice Pocket Guide.
Thus, campaigns aim to capture public attention and direct it to the conditions or experiences that specific groups of people are suffering. Negative equity would be one example of this route. Other examples include campaigns to draw attention to the widespread incidence of domestic violence, despite its relative public invisibility; to raise concern about the abuse or maltreatment of vulnerable people in institutional care; or to reveal the scale of, and suffering associated with, homelessness.
Such campaigns try to articulate the experience of a particular condition and demand public action to remedy it. This route is built around the argument that people have problems. The second route is different, in that it is built around the argument that some people are problems. There are some types of people who are seen as a problem for others or for society at large even if these people do not define themselves in the same way. For example, we might be able to identify groups of people who are seen to pose a threat or danger to society in some way: vandals, noisy neighbours, hooligans, prostitutes, the mentally ill, and so on.
Sometimes, of course, the same problem might be identified through both these routes. If we examine homelessness as a social problem, it is possible to see its being defined as a problem that some people have and as a problem that some people are. In the first case, the problem is perceived as the lack of access to a basic human need — adequate accommodation — which results in homeless people experiencing deprivation, misery and suffering.
The appeal is to a sense of social justice. The appeal is to a sense of social order. Both routes acknowledge the importance of social differentiation, but they do so in different ways. The first implies that steps need to be taken to reverse or compensate for the inequalities or unfairness that arises from particular social arrangements, while the second implies that those who do not conform to accepted and widely understood norms — or standards — of behaviour need to be taught or helped to do so.
Use the grid below to help you to do this. Try to fill in the second column, and then see if you can add two further examples. Social problems represent conditions that should not be allowed to continue because they are perceived to be problems for society, requiring society to react to them and find remedies. Where private troubles are matters for the individuals involved to resolve, public issues or social problems demand a public response.
The range of possible public responses is, of course, very wide. At one extreme we might point to interventions that are intended to suppress or control social problems: locking people up, inflicting physical punishments or deprivations on them, even — in the most severe form — killing them.
Such interventions are intended to stop social problems by means of controlling the people who are seen as problems juvenile delinquents, drug takers, thieves, terrorists. Those who seek the suppression and control of social problems are usually, but not always, associated with the view that social problems are a challenge or threat to social order.
The Institutionalization of Social Justice
However, other interventions are intended to remedy or improve the circumstances or social conditions that cause problems — bringing about greater social justice, enhancing social welfare, or providing a degree of social protection. Thus, the development of welfare states in most advanced industrial societies during the twentieth century was associated with attempts to remedy social problems or to provide citizens with some collective protection from dangers to their economic and social well-being. In the process, a whole range of issues moved from being private troubles to becoming matters of public concern and intervention.
Between the late nineteenth and the mid-twentieth centuries, these societies redefined the distinction between private and public matters. Sending children to school became a matter of public compulsion rather than the private parental choice that it had been until the middle of the nineteenth century. Health became a focus of public finance, provision and intervention rather than being left to private arrangements. For most of the nineteenth century unemployment was seen as something that people chose by refusing to take work , while for most of the twentieth century it has been seen as something against which collective action and defence by the state was necessary.
Unemployment was not a social problem in the UK for most of the nineteenth century, although the unemployed themselves were certainly seen as a threat to social order being beggars, thieves and a bad example to other workers. In the process, citizens in advanced industrial societies came to associate social problems with social interventions — often involving action by the state — that were intended to reform or ameliorate the conditions that created problems.
Social welfare, and the welfare state in particular, was intimately linked to social problems. The attempts to remedy social problems — combating illness, poverty or homelessness — drove the growth of the welfare state during the twentieth century. But the questions of whether these issues really are social problems and whether state welfare is the best remedy have reappeared towards the end of the twentieth century see, for example, Hughes and Lewis, Different private troubles become defined as social problems in particular societies and in specific periods through a complex process of social construction.
Social construction implies an active process of definition and redefinition in which some issues are widely understood to be social problems, while others are not. Just because unemployment was identified as a social problem — or public trouble — in the middle of the twentieth century, that does not mean that it will always be defined in this way. Even if unemployment remains defined as a social problem, it is not necessarily the case that the nature of the problem will always be understood in the same way.
A move from the notion that unemployed people have problems to the idea that unemployed people are problems has major implications for the direction of public policy. If unemployment is understood as a problem created by a wider economic failure, then an appropriate policy response might be both to attempt to revitalise the economy in order to create jobs and to provide financial support in the meantime.
If, however, unemployment is perceived to arise from either a failure of the unemployed to seek employment or the lack of necessary skills among unemployed people, then an appropriate policy response might be to discourage people from relying on state-provided income support for example by reducing levels of benefit and introducing stricter rules on entitlement and to encourage them to participate in relevant skills training.
Since the mids in the UK there has been a marked shift in emphasis from the first to the second approach. They are more than private troubles, perhaps through reasons of scale but certainly because they are able to connect with other public issues, values and concerns — for example, with contemporary concerns about social justice or social order. They are historically and culturally specific — that is, they belong to, or are visible in, particular societies at particular times. Finally, while they may be associated with changing social conditions a rise or fall in the numbers of people in a particular condition such as poverty or homelessness , their status as social problems depends upon how they are perceived.
A process of social construction determines both which issues are defined as social problems and the ways in which they are defined as such. This concern with social construction may seem troubling or even a distraction from the real business of studying social problems. However, it is built on one of the starting points of the social scientific approach, namely that in order to study society we must distance ourselves from what we already know about it.
Let us go back to the list of current social problems mentioned at the start of the course and look in more detail at the issue of poverty. We have seen or heard all of these statements. Each of them has been announced with the certainty of truth. Each statement constructs the problem of poverty in a different way and implies different types of causes. It is, however, not quite so easy. One reason for this is that defining poverty is itself a contested issue — should it mean an absolute lack of resources or should it be measured relative to the standards of the particular society?
Let us turn back to our list of statements about poverty and see if we can identify some of the key features of how poverty is socially constructed in the UK today. The first striking feature is that there are conflicting definitions about whether or not poverty is a current social problem. Those who view poverty as meaning an absolute lack of resources can see no problem: poverty simply does not exist in the UK although it may do in other parts of the world.
Such a view is contested by those who define poverty in relative terms and argue that poverty has, in fact, increased — for them it is a growing social problem. If we believe they are not, there is no social problem which requires attention or any social response. This is the first, and simplest, split in common-sense and political debate about poverty: is it a social problem or not?
This common sense about poverty is contradictory and contested. Therefore poverty is the result of poor people making bad choices in how they live, work, spend money, etc. Each of the statements above could be assessed in this way, exploring the assumptions about society, behaviour and poverty that underpin them. The same approach could be applied to statements about other social problems. What assumptions do you think underlie this statement? There is a group of people who are single mothers rather than different types of single mothers, for example widowed, divorced, separated, never married.
There used to be a moral order — a system of values, norms and ideas that prevented single motherhood. Something has changed to undermine that moral order explanations of this may vary — we have become less religious; people are more concerned with individual freedom; there has been a rise in permissiveness; welfare systems have provided benefits to lone parents, making it easier to choose to be a lone parent. A crisis exists, and all crises need something to be done about them in this case, some means of restoring traditional family values or morality.
One thing that a social science approach can do, by taking the perspective of the stranger, is to examine the content of common-sense statements about social problems and question the assumptions on which they are based. In the next section we will look further at the sorts of assumptions and explanations that are put to work in the different common-sense views of poverty.
However, we want now to note a few other features of such views we shall return to these later in this course. The statements about poverty that we started with are not just random or throwaway thoughts that people express on the spur of the moment. They are social claims, each one implying that we all share the assumptions contained within the statements even though the assumptions are profoundly different and even contradictory. A society's stock of common sense can therefore be seen as a repository or storeroom of bits of knowledge on which people can draw in discussing society and its problems.
One task for a social science approach is therefore to make an inventory of this repository — to catalogue the bits and pieces of knowledge that people can and do draw on. If, for example, we were to go back to the issue of lone parents, we would need to take stock of the other possible elements of common sense that are available when lone parents are discussed. In addition to moral crisis, we might need to catalogue views about the irresponsibility of men, the changing pressures on family life, the causes of changes in divorce and marriage, and whether the same sorts of explanations apply to widowed, separated and never married women — as well as to lone fathers.
If we pursue this idea of common sense as a repository a little further, we can see another task for a social science analysis. The stock of this repository has been built up over time, having been deposited by previous generations and added to over time. Such ideas, together with their assumptions about society and human behaviour, were not just dumped in a dark corner of the storeroom and left to accumulate dust, never to be seen again.
Finally, it is important to note that this approach to common sense is not merely an academic exercise, in the sense of being of no practical use or interest. Taking an inventory of common sense and examining the continuing traces of past ideas and the ways in which they are revived and used are an integral part of the study of social problems and social policies. There are three aspects which make an understanding of common sense an essential feature of studying social problems:.
Common-sense views are not just discussions or conversations that take place in idle moments. They are also connected to social and political action. Political parties address bits of common sense in their efforts to persuade people that they have the right answers and that their policies should be implemented. If we have taken an inventory of common sense, we are in a position to ask: which part of common sense is being addressed here, and what has happened to the other parts?
These connections — the dominance of some ideas over others, and the political articulation of some ideas — matter, because they lead to social action. Common sense about social problems such as poverty involves a process of social construction, drawing on a repository or storeroom of underlying theories and assumptions. Common sense has been built up over time, carrying with it traces of earlier understandings which are also brought into discussions of new issues and debates.
Common sense is itself divided, reflecting contested and conflicting claims about the nature of society and social problems. This has direct consequences for the development of social policy through political initiatives. The sceptical analysis of common sense is, therefore, of practical as well as academic importance.
If we can agree that poverty is a social problem, we are led to another question: what sort of social problem is it? For some, it is a social problem because people should not be poor: it involves social injustice. For others, poverty is a social problem because poor people behave badly or bring up children poorly : it involves social disorder. We therefore have another parting of the ways, with some believing that social justice requires poor people to become less poor, and others believing that poor people need to be made better people.
In part, this split between justice and order reflects different common-sense views of why poor people are poor. There is a construction of poverty that identifies it as a necessary feature of social life: some people will be better endowed, try harder or be more successful than others, and inequality will be an inevitable result see, for example, Herrnstein and Murray, , who argue that low levels of intelligence are the main determinants of poverty in the USA.
Interfering with this natural order of things is dangerous, particularly because it prevents poverty acting as a spur to try harder. The most serious fraud is committed not by the members of the welfare culture but by the creators of it, who conceal from the poor, both adults and children, the most fundamental realities of their lives: that to live well and escape poverty they will have to keep their families together at all costs and will have to work harder than the classes above them. In order to succeed the poor need most of all the spur of their poverty.
In this perspective, poverty is simultaneously natural and socially necessary. Inequalities are both the natural result of unequal performance in a competitive world and necessary to keep people trying to succeed. The second cluster of common-sense ideas about poverty centre around the theme that the character and behaviour of some types of people causes them to be poor. This might be their moral character they are lazy, shiftless, workshy ; it might be their abilities or capacities they cannot budget properly ; or it might be that they have not been properly socialised they have not learnt the value of hard work, thrift, etc.
Such problems — problems of morals, attitude, behaviour — are not susceptible to a quick fix by social policy … If incompetent shopping is the problem, larger hand-outs will not cure it. Higher subsidies will not reform bad budgeting. Whatever the behaviour cause, be it isolation, lack of parental example in domestic economy, illiteracy, poor motivation, depression, self-indulgent or incompetent expenditure by husband, those husbands selfishly not handing enough over to their wives, a failure to look beyond today, simply increasing social security expenditure will not solve it.
Two things are being argued here. One is that there is a range of behaviours and attitudes that create poverty from poor budgeting to selfish patterns of spending. The other is that these are counterposed to suggested solutions to poverty increased social security expenditure , which, the author suggests, fail to address the causes that he has identified. Particular definitions of problems often proceed by this dual approach — establishing their own line of argument and rejecting others.
Poverty — like other social problems — is caught up in multiple definitions and perspectives, each of which tries to claim for itself the status of truth. To return to this particular perspective, it identifies the causes of poverty in the behaviour, attitudes and morals of the poor.
The third and final cluster of ideas about poverty are those which imply causes that lie in the external world of the economy and politics. For example, an increase in the number of people working in low-paid jobs produces lower incomes and more people living in relative poverty, or changes in government policy on welfare benefits might reduce incomes or trap people in poverty because they lose benefits when they earn income.
Here is one such argument:. The poverty of low wages and poor working conditions is often still a hidden factor in the poverty debate. Recent government policies have specifically weakened employment rights … Alongside the deregulation of employment law, new patterns of employment have changed the profile of the workforce.
There has been a marked increase in self-employment and in part-time and low-paid work and a small increase in temporary work. Women are more likely to be in both part-time and temporary work. Many of these jobs are low paid with few employment and social security rights which not only creates poverty, but also stores it up for the future. Although this says things about the people living in poverty for example, that women are likely to be affected by low-paid and poorly protected employment , it does not treat poverty as being the result of the intrinsic characteristics of such groups but rather as the consequence of economic and political arrangements.
So far we have looked at three more developed discussions of some of the basic propositions about poverty that we considered in section 2. These three examples could be multiplied: there is a variety of explanations of poverty that we could have used. However, these three allow us to reflect a little on the relationship between social science discussions of social problems and common-sense understandings. It is worth starting with some of the differences. Even these brief extracts from books and articles indicate that social scientists take longer to say things than the rather pithy common-sense statements that we looked at earlier.
Cynics might say that this is simply evidence of social scientists being long-winded, but we believe that there is something else involved here. In each case, what is being presented is an argument , rather than an assertion. Put simply, the authors are trying to set out a series of connections which explain why one thing is connected to or causes another.
They make explicit what are implicit in the common-sense statements. In particular, they make explicit causal claims about why poverty occurs. On the other hand, these are still arguments. We have here three social scientists — and we could have had many more — with very different perspectives on the problem of poverty. While each of them would like to have their explanations seen as the truth, none of them can be certified as the truth merely by virtue of their being written by a social scientist.
As with common sense, social science is characterised by competing and contested perspectives. Social science approaches also raise the question of evidence. Although the brief extracts that we have used above do not present statistical data or other sorts of information, they nevertheless raise the possibility in different ways. We could probably all think of examples of such families. At the time of writing, parts of the British royal family are undergoing divorce and separation, and it seems unlikely that the children of these marriages will be thrust into poverty.
However, one-off examples are not necessarily the same as statistical trends, where lone parenthood appears to be associated with family poverty. Such evidence might vindicate Gilder's argument, but it may also be explained by other perspectives. In the rest of this course we want to distinguish between a social science approach and social science perspectives. There is a wide variety of different perspectives within the social sciences, providing different theories to explain social phenomena.
Some of these emphasise individual characteristics or choices, some stress familial patterns, while others draw attention to structural or societal conditions and processes. These are the competing perspectives or theories. But there is also an issue about how to approach the study of social problems.
Throughout this book the emphasis is on examining the diverse ways in which social problems are socially constructed — the ways in which they are defined, understood, made sense of within society. These social constructions may be in the form of common-sense knowledges, political ideologies, or social science perspectives, but they all contribute to the shaping of how social problems are constructed. A central issue for a social science approach, then, is the work of deconstructing them — making them strange rather than obvious, and examining their assumptions about society, people and problems.
Three explanations of poverty developed by social scientists have been considered. The first sees poverty as natural or inevitable, the second focuses on the behaviour of poor people, while the third analyses poverty as the result of economic or political processes. Considering these explanations makes it possible to draw some conclusions about the social science approach to social problems:.
Social scientists use evidence of various sorts to support and explore the arguments they develop; their conclusions can be judged against that evidence. In the previous section we looked at the issue of competing explanations of social problems. Here we want to take a rather different approach by starting from one of the major dividing lines between different types of explanation. These dividing lines are ones that recur in the definition, interpretation and explanation of a range of social issues: for example, patterns of inequality between men and women; crime and juvenile delinquency; the persistence of poverty, and so on.
Despite the fact that we have referred to these topics as social issues or social problems, the most basic dividing line between different social constructions is the distinction between the natural and the social. This might seem slightly confusing, given our focus here on social issues, but ideas about the natural basis of social arrangements or social problems are widespread.
Ideas about the natural basis of society or of social problems within society refer us to a set of claims about the universal laws of biology or evolution that determine how we might behave. They identify a range of attributes as the biological basis of human society and often insist that these are unchanging and unchangeable.
In claims about the natural, biological attributes are often brought forward as explanations of social patterns. Thus, biological differences between men and women are drawn upon to explain differences in social behaviour or patterns of social inequality. Classically, women's biological capacity to bear children whether they do so in practice or not has been held to account for a range of social patterns.
For example, for many years women's exclusion from education was justified on the grounds that they didn't need to know anything beyond being a wife and mother, because stimulation of the brain would drain energy that should be devoted to the tasks of reproduction. Equally, men's behaviour has been interpreted as the product of biological forces and drives. Women invest qualitatively the best chance for a small number of eggs , while men invest quantitatively scattering their seed.
Such distinctions between men and women have been held to account for a variety of social differences — in attitudes, behaviour, sexuality, patterns of employment, levels of income, involvement in politics, and so on Barash, ; Wilson, While there are many arguments about whether there is evidence to support this sort of explanation, our main concern with it here is as a distinctive type of social construction. It centres on the claim that our social world is formed and constrained by a variety of natural causes and conditions.
The emphasis on the natural in this form of social construction provides a strong claim to authority and truth, by referring to a world of natural laws that are seen as universal and immutable. As a consequence, many of the social constructions that refer to natural conditions or causes tend to warn against attempts to change or tamper with these natural laws.
An emphasis on the social character of social arrangements suggests that such patterns might be re-arranged. Thus, if some forms of undesirable behaviour — such as delinquent behaviour by young men — are defined as resulting from following bad examples, this construction implies that the provision of better role models would lead to improved behaviour.
- Demanding the Impossible?
- Stay Connected?
- The idea of Pakistan;
- Commercial Navigation in the Greek and Roman World (PhD University of Texas at Austin 2009)!
- Refusing to be a Man - John Stoltenberg - Bok () | Bokus?
- Social Justice Essay - Women & Child Rights Violations on Behance.
- Introduction to Dynamic Spin Chemistry: Magnetic Field Effects on Chemical and Biochemical Reactions.
Each provides a way into defining, interpreting and acting in the social world that we inhabit. Each also provides a framework within which events, actions and types of people become meaningful, and which allows us to position ourselves in relation to them. However, the distinction between natural and social orientations is a significant one because of their different explanations of social behaviour. Different policy conclusions will also be drawn. The distinction between the natural and the social is not the only significant one. Even the social orientation in constructions of social problems is complicated by different sorts of emphasis.
The growth of social science since the late nineteenth century has ensured that a variety of competing theories, disciplines and perspectives are available to us in our attempt to make sense of social problems. Such theories have made their way into the realm of everyday or common-sense constructions — we all know bits of economic theory, bits of psychology and even bits of sociology. For the purposes of this course, the most useful way of distinguishing the differences in this approach involves considering different levels of explanation. Others might focus on the family or kin group of the individual — how he or she is socialised, what behaviours, values, outlooks are learned or acquired in the family setting.
The third level would then be the locality — patterns of social networks, peer groups and other local influences. Beyond this, one might look to constructions that deal with the culture of a particular society — its values, orientations and how these are communicated the role of the mass media, education system, and so on. Finally, some explanations look to social structures for the causes and conditions of problems — how the society is arranged, how the resources and power are distributed, and how inequality is organised.
Different perspectives are likely to emphasise different levels of explanation. Let us take another social issue, unemployment. Using the grid below, write against each level of explanation the factors you think would be important in constructing social explanations of unemployment. We do not intend this to be an exhaustive survey of all the different types of social explanations of unemployment, but we hope it illustrates the range and the way in which different levels provide a focus for such social explanations. Do some people fail to respond to the sticks and carrots needed to make people work?
On the contrary I see SJRs as perceiving a world in which members of non-dominant identity groups are hyper-fragile. These people must be protected from the assaults of everyday life. The War for Social Justice is therefore a behavioural territorial war — a war over abstract territory. It is also a war on the unconscious minds of dominant group members. The unconsciousness is such a fantastic concept because it can be used to explain, or explain away, almost any behavior one wants it to. In the case of SJRs, it can explain any socio-economic imbalances as being the result of unconscious biases.
Dominants can protest all they like, but the SJR just knows that is the unconscious mind attempting to rationalize anti-social behavior, and conceal its non-dominant prejudices. Therefore, the War for Social Justice is also the latest incarnation of the psychological charlatanism that began with Sigmund Freud. Good points. Argue against the concept of white privilege? Well, I have superior knowledge that you just do that to protect your white privilege, you either are unconscious of your privilege or you are lying. Thanks James, I will have a look at the book.
Having said that I am slightly weary of books that reach conclusions by drawing parallels. At the moment is a bit too easy to dismiss positions using the slippery slope argument. Your point about white privilege is well taken. How is that entire departments can construe any criticism as evidence for their own theories, and continue to be funded and taken seriously? Were are the standards? Perhaps academic independence is not compatible with externally imposed standards, or is that just a convenient excuse for not having any?
Turchin and his colleagues at UConn have gathered data from many societies in many historical periods and found that when these conditions come together, it inevitably leads to crisis, chaos, and violence. The old divisions are no longer relevant; the elites include both GOP and Dems. We need a new paradigm and new approaches. Life expectancy for white males is going down in the US, suicide rates are up, opioid addiction is way up. The average person is doing worse than their parents, and everyone knows it except our elites.
They compare themselves to the humans around them, their families and communities. And by that comparison, they are doing worse. Where are the boundaries to hate speech? There seem to be none. Orwell wrote as a satire while Huxley wrote Brave New World as a warning.
Neither thought their respective novels would become manuals — yet they have. The Disenlightenment continues apace. Peterson also offers an example in which he claims that a female activist organized a movement against him and compared him to Nazis. What he is talking about is the social barriers to interaction between men and women that do not exist between two members of the same sex. Men can punch men when they have been wronged, but at no time can they punch a woman unless he is actually fearful for his life… like she has a gun. If the author is correct and the social justice is getting momentum as a groundswell increased and focused adoption of the need to restrict speech, any rational person should be very deeply concerned.
Free speech is the mechanism by which people resolve differences without having to resort the violence. As other commenters astutely noted, grabs for power and domination have been with us a long time and are not new by any stretch of the imagination. It is also very hard not to observe that the social justice movement is almost exclusively founded on coercion, rather than persuasion. The notion that the result would be a peaceful coexistence appears to me completely ridiculous.
Instead, those who are not yet brainwashed and avatars of this movement are engaged in staged acts of submission something a legislature very rarely does and only in the most extreme circumstances. The others are part of the problem in a culture war, where the attack on the foundations of the Western Civilization metastasized in Universities. Most students are coerced, rather that persuaded, at least those still capable of realizing this fact. Technology remains and always will be a tool. Irrespective of how powerful such technologies may become, our concern should always be to ensure that those inclined to achieve their ends through censorship do not end up controlling monopolies capable of silencing dissent.
Well, we already have an answer. Funniest about these academic leftists? It gives their fascism cover. Harris is consistently one of the more perspicacious contributors at Quillette and this article, in my humble opinion, does more to support that proposition than not. While reasonable people can disagree about the extent to which the institutionalization of social justice accurately approximates to a first-order threat to the cannibalization of Western society — e. And they are opinions — mere opinions at that. The short answer is, I do think this will manifest towards a totalitarian state.
Furthermore, I think the national disunity we see is only going to get worse in the long-run, much worse. As distasteful as that idea might be — and I do find it distasteful — we should awaken to the possibility that America may, in fact, be trending downward in all the wrong metrics and there may not be any recovering from this barren path, at least not within the constraints of our governing tenets. But, before you accuse me of exaggerating the novelty of this situation, here are a few things you should first consider:.
That is to say, very often, they are not; whether it be at the level of the individual are your friends values dissimilar from yours? But take it on a larger scale, look at a country like Somalia a lovely place to go on holiday, I understand , where just last year the ethical intuitions of Al Shabaab led to a mother of eight being stoned to death for… A-D-U-L-T-E-R-Y.
In what must have been a surprise to no one in the eager crowd in Raqqa, Muslim gays do not fly when thrown off the rooftop of a multi-story building. Lastly, group differences in cultural values between balkanized factions of a native population may be just as substantial, if not pernicious, as those of any other.
In the interest of brevity, I will assume that most reasonable people can adduce the derivation of these inequalities. If you have some understanding of the concept; then you should take seriously the potential consequences of an unremitting rise in SES inequality. What can be done to right this ship? Moreover, the notion that things can go on more or less the way they are, while waiting for a rehabilitation of American ideals to enact itself is not a strategy.
In either case, there seems to me little point in bandying rational arguments as an ad hoc remedy for Leftist doublethink , since what is at stake is an article of faith. If you want to know what God thinks of social justice, just look at the morally untethered charlatans he entrusted it to. The beliefs that catalyze their governing tenets are not unlike an emotional jihad, i. It should be said… It should be said. The problem is, the ideology has spread to the public schools, and humans tend to be conformist learners.
Great article. So, call them fascist. Leave your ego at the door and call a spade a spade. From what I can see it has two meanings, one of which is respectable and one of which is not. The more acceptable meaning is someone who is an extremist or zealot of a cause with whicch the speaker disagrees. The second and less acceptable meaning is someone who strongly asserts something with which the speaker disagrees.
Thus, people who lable Donald Trump a fascist are using this definition, because it is clear that Trump is neither a zealot nor an extremist. The fascist left blames all of the worlds problems on white people. Their ideology is indistinguishable from the fascist right except for who they hate and blame. You have to be thick as two planks, or wilfully blind, to their intentions. They never stop ranting about evil white. They have a rigid hierarchal demonology that has white people in the same position as Hitler placed Jews.
Trump is not a fascist. Liberals are not fascist. Technically, its wrong to associate them with the left, as that gives their hate legitimacy, as if they are one side of a genuine debate. But, for want of a better term, the fascist left is the most descriptive title out there. The same goes for the term Nazi and now, unfortunately, racist.
Words shift in meaning. It most definitely did not start with the election of Obama. There is an old British Comedy called the young ones in which one of the characters Rick is an immature naive student who is a wannabe leftist. It was first broadcast in I am sure there are examples way before this. Well said, R Henry. As long as the progressive left believes that people are only identified by their group membership, then true justice cannot prevail.
Great article—and lots of great comments. The author here is right that Foucault is useful because a version of Foucault—that everything can be reduced to power relations—justifies the takeover of educational institutions by social justice activists. Administrators are totally clueless about what most of this. They are willing to throw some meat to activists to keep them occupied and out of their hair.
Who really cares about what happens to the hearts and minds of students? People are starting to notice, but not much is being done. Too high a price to be paid if the social justice people target you. If everything is power, that means we are justified in putting all the SJWs in prison for being annoying little prats. There is no justification for their power, if they believe that there is no objectivity. Better to hoist them by their own petards by sending them into the fields to learn from the peasants, as comrade Mao would have done.
Tho, in this case perhaps they should be exported to Somalia to learn from the Somalis how wonderful multiculturalism is and how true it is that Islam is the religion of peace, and such an improvement over rotten old Christianity and how Afrocentrism is the key to future progress. Social justice, as used by the American Nazis in the 30s and through to the present day, has always been a utopian phrasing of nihilist ideals, propaganda designed to distract the weak-minded with promises of easy money and sex, to draw similar fraudsters into the oligarchy of control and to divest the liberty and property of the strong, who are unwilling to fight back.
Now they have a real fight on their hands, these Regressives. You maintain your civility. No oppression here. Although I fully support free speech and think that SJWs are generally misguided, I wish Quilletters would tone down the paranoid conspiracy thinking and apply the principle of charity to opposing views. Wrong, Winston.
Social justice is not concerned with equality, just power, pure power. It intends to replace white privilege with non-white privilege, patriarchy with matriarchy, etc. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Mostly true. Please provide evidence that this is what social justice activists intend. In the absence of evidence, this is an unfounded conspiracy theory which says more about your psychology than that of SJWs.
The amount of paranoia and projection in these comments is mind-boggling. Then why did they redefined racism so it is pretty much impossible to be racist towards white, while it is perceived as racism when whites make tiniest of slip? Why they make it such that pretty much disagreeing with black person over anything can be immediately branded as racism, while people like Yusra Khogali can puke out their anti-white bullshit and there are snowflakes ready to defend them if anyone say a word?
Middlebury, Berkeley, Evergreen. Just follow the news. I can do that all alone. I am Human; Nothing Human is Alien to me….. Speak to the Nature of that which surrounds you; Know an Echo for what it is and always be a product of Roger Williams. What we find is Muted; Until we understand………………. Next up? Censorship and erasure potential is limitless. We will not only lose the pivotal works of Mankind; we will lose precious source materials from which any solid critical foundation could be built. No mirrors no lenses no windows or doors. Share this: Pocket. Sydney says. Or, even more succinctly but still factually, tongue depressors.
Innominata says. That, or we just keep screaming at one another to calm down. Der Gorghast says. Great reply. YAWN Too bad! EK says. D-Rex says. Sue says. Speaker To Animals says. A C Harper says. Of course, all lawyers in the anglo-sphere know that justice is a process, not a result. Probably theirs is a sophistic process. A process that serves lawyers…in the baffled consternation of all else.
Show us otherwise …. Der It follows from the presumption that the law itself is just and so justice is done when the process is followed. Alan D White says. Because trannies cannot pee where they want to? OR Trannies cannot defy the laws of biology? Evander says. Steve says. Michael Joseph says. I prefer to call it like a see it. DocB says. M says. MadKangaroo says. Nick Ender says. Lee Hickman says. Kevin Herman says. Ray Andrews says. And now Communist China does capitalism better than most democracies. If true, that is more a comment on the gullibility of American academics than anything else.
Nicolas says. JWatts says. Andrew Leonard says. Peter From Oz says. Andrew Leonard Are we reminded of the five years plans? Ray Andrews Excellent observation. Nearly Normal Frederick says. And who or what does exercise real control over the people altogether. Nick says.
TheSnark says. Dave B says. This Guy says. Frederick Why the extended tu quoque?
Where do you stand on free speech? Stephanie says. Pando says. The Tuskegee Airmen given Syphilis Ah, when the poorly informed combine two separate groups of two separate events, adds an action that never happened, a creates a new fictional reality. Thank you Uri for raising Awareness. Olson says.
Marshall Mason says. Olson Organizations everywhere are being called upon to pick a side. Cassandra says. It did not. MeanAsCustard says. Event Horizon says. Peter from Oz says. Well said, Event Horizon. Google is not a capitlaist organisation, but a corporatist one. Imogen88 says. Rose M. Alan N says. Alan N If a man gives birth, is he a mother or a father? Burlats de Montaigne says. Stuart says. Sue Thanks very much, that video is the equal of Dr.
Farris says. Stephanie And consider the analogy with spontaneous combustion: one oily rag by itself, no issue. Were the so-called Founding Fathers zealots? Radicals who used violence for personal gain? The fish does rot from the head. Marshall Mason Some believe that the only possible answer to this is in the decency and integrity and courage of individual people. Ron says. David of Kirkland The SJW types using their speech to express dissatisfaction with a speaker are themselves protected by the 1st Amendment, but when they use violence or intimidation, that is no longer protected.
Rosa M says. Ken A. Any advice appreciated! Ken I think social justice is an appealing idea on its face, because it seems reasonable to assume all groups should be proportionally represented in all things. Very perceptive post. Kevin says. Taxpayers have standing to make sure it gets wisely spent. The idea is to cut out the cancer before it spreads any further. What is your expectation when you ask a dogmatist to reconsider their dogma? Citoyen says. I liked the use of Foucault. Let them eat their own poison.
RA, Absolutely. Eric Blair says. Peter from Oz Exactly. Not PC, but often correct anyway says. James Lee says. True Wolff says. Minor fan says. Alex Posch says. Deborah Guy says. Constantin says. General Tsu says. Cooper says. But, before you accuse me of exaggerating the novelty of this situation, here are a few things you should first consider: 1 People who keep account of such things seem to agree that America is growing more diverse with every passing year.
DB You make many good points. What they are is fascist. Initiatives must be made to put forth a greater effort to change how women in general have been treated in our unforgettable past of pain and suffering. However the most damage is being done by the unethical values based on their religion which is overriding the laws put down to protect human rights even if they do exist. Even with the Geneva Conventions attempted to protect women and girls from gender specific violations, but the violations are still normal, and continue to be practiced. Even after the conflicts there is also the continuing abuse against women's rights with the trafficking of women and girls even after the conflicts.
These girls are tricked and then sold into 'slavery': "Stripped of their passports, physically abused and warned that escape is impossible, trafficked women and girls can only hope that after several months of providing sexual services to clients, 'owners' will declare their debt paid and allow them to keep half of their earnings, as promised.
Maybe his father would slap him on the face twice, and that will be the end of it! The secret was broken when the rape resulted in a pregnancy. Then two of her brothers were sent to kill her, sensing danger and before she was nearly killed to death in the street she found an adoptive family for her child, and later after moving hospitals and with police protection, she was stabbed to death. There are deaths in every , live births" Yahoo News In Guinea, the girls are sent to host homes where they are treated horribly by those whom they are supposed to work for.
By detaining women who have transgressed socially-acceptable norms and rape victims whose families have abandoned them, the government is choosing to prioritize chastity, virginity, and a traditional concept of family 'honor' over human rights" Libya: A threat to Society? Women were subjected to sexual violence in their homes, as they sought refuge, after being found hiding in forests, after being stopped at military checkpoints, as they worked on their farms, and even in places of worship.
Sexual violence was often accompanied by other acts of physical violence such as beating, torture, killing, mutilation, or cannibalism. Numerous women and girls were abducted and subjected to sexual slavery in rebel camps, where they endured rapes over extended periods of time. Resistance was frequently met with punishment, even death" My Heart is Cut In China, thousands of women are forced by anonymous men into abortions of their female babies, and sterilized to further prevent their country's overpopulation. This is all done against their will, women as adults are not violated, but are as babies, children and young girls.
Hillary Clinton stated during her speech at the U. Conference on Women: "It is a violation of human rights when babies are denied food, drowned, suffocated, or their spines broken, simply because they are born girls. The child, the girl, 'cannot' be given up for adoption without fear that the child might be beaten or sold into prostitution, especially if given it up in a 3rd world country that turns a blind eye to the rights of females. Instead Kuzhipappa is chosen, which means 'child that was meant for the burial pit.
In Palestine, women and girls suffer a wide range or physical violence at home from their husbands and other family members. However, regardless of how horrific the abuse they often do not even report it to the proper authorities "Palestinian women rarely report violence to the authorities. This is true regardless of whether the crime is spousal abuse, child abuse, rape, incest, or 'honor' crimes.
The low rate at which women report such crimes is a symptom of the significant social and legal obstacles still in the way of meaningful gender-based violence prevention and response in the OPT. The customs by which they live oppresses and restricts these women so much that they can be hunted and killed by their relatives. A Palestinian woman's life is at risk if she is suspected of engaging in behavior her family or community considers taboo, such as talking with a man who is not her husband or a blood relative even in public place , refusing to tell a close male relative where she has been and with whom, or marrying someone without the approval of her family: in short for doing or being suspected to have done anything that is perceived to bring dishonor on herself and on her family.
Even after the Taliban left, they are still not allowed to attend movies, they are forced to wear a burka a robe that covers them from head to foot , and tortured in many forms for unjust reasons. It doesn't if they defend themselves against abuses like rape; if it is found out they are targeted by their own families, to be killed to 'cleanse the family honor'. Had they treated women with respect, taught their women to defend themselves or defended them, there would be no reason to kill them.
Instead the governing laws chose a different method which still allows women to be suppressed, even if it may save their life: "Rape, sexual violence, and abductions are felonies under Iraqi law, punishable by lengthy prison sentences. Yet victims of abduction and sexual violence still face important legal and social barriers to obtaining justice.
Some of theses barriers are the provisions in the Penal Code that allow a man to escape the punishment for abduction if he marries the victim.
Colleges need a language shift, but not the one you think (essay)
The penal code also allows perpetrations of rape, sodomy, sexual violence, or attempted sexual violence to receive reduced sentences if they marry their victims. A high ranking police official described the procedure positively to Human Rights Watch. If they really wanted to be together, all he would have to do is kidnap her, allow her to be raped, he would get charged and if they married his sentence would drop and she wouldn't be killed. However the fact still remains that the women is at fault in every situation and is the target when things go wrong. They don't treat women with any form of respect, let alone teach her rights and how defend herself better by using the law on her side or self-defense training.
Instead she always becomes the victim, she isn't allowed the same privileges as a man and when he wants something and takes it, she is to blame instead of the man responsible. In Mexico, a country whose religion is Roman Catholicism and whose ethic values demand the equality of every individual, including females is committing just as many atrocities against women as any 3rd world country. In the town of Ciudad Juarez near the U.
Suggested motives have included drug trafficking, trafficking organs, trafficking of women for sexual exploitation, domestic violence, sexual violence and the production of violent videotapes. The woman was working at a Drugstore, when the men in the back for receiving kept flirting with her. She kindly asked him to stop, when he continued she called the head office of the company to resolve the situation.