Monday, March 20, 2017
More on privilege
I have written previously on white privilege and privilege generally. I pointed out recently that the "white privilege" concept is racist -- very similar to Hitler's thinking about Jews. In both cases we see hostility to people purely on the basis of their race and their success.
I also pointed out here that privilege is not random and is generally earned. As an example I offered an example of "Jewish privilege" being thoroughly earned. Apropos of that one might note the flyer below that was being circulated recently at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Privilege discourse has a continuing malevolent life.
But I think I need to say a little more about what might be called "unearned" privilege.
Some privilege is plainly inherited. If you have inherited wealth that is undoubtedly a great privilege. But is it really unearned privilege? Someone earned that wealth. And their choice to pass that wealth on to a descendant rather than give it to the stray dog's home was a choice they were entirely entitled to make.
One may deplore that privilege can be gained by inheritance rather than by personal exertion but that is a somewhat separate issue. In many places, swingeing inheritance taxes have been enacted to knock such privilege on the head but various destructive results of doing that have mostly led to the taxes concerned being withdrawn or greatly reduced. But whatever you think of it, earned privilege can be gained by inheritance
And there is such a thing as group privilege. If you belong to a certain group, some favourable or unfavourable expectations may be held towards you. There is, for instance, no doubt that a white car-driver pulled up by the police in America will be much more likely to survive the experience than a black driver would be.
But that too is earned. Why do blacks cop so much bad treatment? It is perfectly clear why. Blacks are hostile to the police so the cops are hostile to blacks. It's tit for tat. No doubt some people will argue that the cops started it and blacks are simply retaliating but I don't think that is so. It is very commonly reported that blacks resist arrest, sometimes very vigorously. Many blacks do not "go quietly". And that is a big problem to the police. It makes them nervous of blacks and resentful towards them.
Given their experience, cops are always going to be quite reasonably on hairtrigger alert when approaching a black -- and that trigger will sometimes be inappropriately pulled through no fault of either party. Making cops fearful and nervous of you is seldom going to end well even when neither party has ill intent.
So the behaviour of many blacks is going to rebound on all blacks to their disadvantage. They gain a negative privilege. But it is again earned. Others like you have earned it for you. It is easy to deplore that but deploring it is about all that you can realistically do. And deploring it will get you nowhere. To change anything, you have to go to the root cause of the privilege/anti-privilege. And that may be unalterable. Blacks are never going to become pacifists overnight.
Any idea that privilege is earned or deserved is however anathema to the Left. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
So railing against privilege is just another version of the old Leftist claim that all men are equal. If you believe that all men are equal, the obvious inequalities of real life are going to seem unfair or obnoxious in some way. Since there is obviously no basis to believe that all men are or have ever been equal, however, the perception of unfairness is based on a delusion. So a condemnation of white privilege or any other privilege will simply be a condemnation of deep-rooted inequalities in society. And attempts to erase inequalities have a history of ghastly outcomes. Check with "uncle Joe" Stalin or the "Great Helmsman" Mao Tse Tung -- JR
How odd that they placed her with a WHITE family!
A little girl whose biological parents were jailed for horrifically abusing her as a baby has now been adopted by a new family.
Faith Mason was dubbed Baby Faith back in 2013 when she was found in Southeast Texas with injuries so severe authorities had compared it to falling from a two-storey building.
Now three years on, Faith is still recovering but has a permanent home after being official adopted by her new family on March 10.
The little girl has been living with her adoptive parents and three teenage siblings for the past six months, according to the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services.
Faith is still recovering from her horrific abuse injuries, but authorities say she has already improved much more than anticipated.
During a court hearing last year, prosecutors said Faith was still being fed through a feeding tube and her left arm had still not healed properly in the three years since the abuse was uncovered.
Faith was taken to a hospital in Southwest Texas back in 2013 by her mother Christine Johnson.
An emergency room nurse who was on duty when Faith was brought in called the abuse the worst case she had ever seen, the Port Arthur News reported.
Doctors found she had suffered at least 40 broken bones and fractures, including two broken arms, two broken legs, a broken neck and dislocated shoulder.
They said many of the one-month-old's fractures were about three weeks old at the time she was examined.
The little girl had an IV drip placed in her neck as doctors tried to stabilize her. Her injuries were so extensive, a team of doctors from a children's hospital in Houston had to fly down to help treat her.
Her biological parents, Christine Johnson and Darrell Mason, were both charged with child abuse. Johnson was found guilty in 2015 and sentenced to 65 years in prison. Faith's father Darrell Mason reached a plea deal and was sentenced to 25 years in 2016 for failing to stop the abuse.
The thing below is the "loving" father of the little girl. With ancestry like that, she is bound to disappoint her adoptive family in her teenage years
Americans for Truth About Homosexuality: LGBT Push for ‘Equality’ is ‘Satanic’
Peter LaBarbera, founder of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, gave a talk on Saturday about the destructive agenda of the LGBT movement and how it manipulates language in particular to disguise its evil intentions and spin them in a positive light -- darkness to light -- which, he added, is truly "satanic."
LaBarbera presented his talk at the Wisconsin Christian News Ministry Expo and Conference in Wausau, Wisc., on March 10. In a discussion about how "Words Lose their Meaning" when adopted and manipulated by the LGBT movement, LaBarbera gave the example, "Come Out of the Closet."
"This is one people don’t think about," he said. "But think about it – come out of the closet. Come out of the dark closet of lies and self-hatred into the light of truth, right? You come out."
"But what is it really? said LaBarbera. "You come in, into darkness. You’re embracing spiritual darkness as a personal identity, as who you are. Then you’re selling it to everyone you know. You’re doing Satan’s work in the name of light.”
“We don’t think about these things anymore because we’ve been – because they’ve been pounded into us through this powerful sin movement," said Labarbera.
Another example is "marriage equality."
“Marriage equality – it’s not equal," he said. "It’s not marriage. It’s not marriage, it’s not equal. It’s really 'radical egalitarianism' pretending that things are equal that are not equal, which is cultural Marxism of a sort, right?"
“Radical egalitarianism," said LaBarbera. "Now, egalitarianism is at the root of a lot of evil. If you look back, communism, Pol Pot, got to make everybody equal. Pol Pot, do people know that story of Cambodia? He was against the intellectuals. He was a Marxist-Leninist revolutionary."
"He had the people who wore glasses [intellectuals], he marched them out the fields and they slaughtered them," sid LaBarbera. "That was done in the name of equality. Can’t have some people who are intellectuals, the bourgeoise – everybody’s got to be equal. So that word “equal” has probably been responsible for more murders in the world than anything else. Yet we’re rallying around ‘marriage equality’?
"And you notice now the left, and some of the elites in our culture, they don’t even say marriage equality anymore," he said. "It’s a code word now, they just say ‘equality.’ ‘I’m for equality.’ That’s supposed to symbolize this issue."
“For some reason, homosexuality has become the issue for the left,” said LaBarbera. “The issue. It’s satanic.”
Homosexuality is satanic because it is a complete rejection of nature -- the natural design, order of one's body, male or female -- and an attack on the natural world (biology) that was created by God to function in a specific way. The principal entity that rejected God and His creation from the start was Satan, Lucifer. As he said, "I will not serve."
Satan also was a big promoter of a false "equality." He promised Adam and Eve that if they rejected God the Father, they too would become as gods.
It’s Not Fake News: Predators Are Taking Advantage of Target’s Fitting Room Policy
In April 2016, retail giant Target waded into the raging national debate about whether bathrooms should be maintained as exclusively single-sex.
In a post on its blog titled “Continuing to Stand for Inclusivity,” the company announced, “we felt it was important to state our position” that in Target stores “team members and guests” are permitted “to use the restroom or fitting room facility that corresponds with their gender identity.”
No doubt the corporate executives behind the move were prepared for some blowback. But not quite at the decibel level that ensued. Target was in the headlines for weeks, its stock plunged by almost 10 percent the following month, and a boycott petition aimed at the retailer garnered over 1 million signatures.
Target insisted it was just stating a long-standing policy, and blamed everything but the boycott and the bad public relations. In one interview about declining sales, Target’s CEO actually blamed the weather.
‘An Inclusive Place to Shop’
Rather than address many customers’ apprehensions about its policy—specifically, how a company that boasts 1,800 stores would ensure that predators would not take advantage of a policy that permitted anyone to use the restroom of their choice—Target doubled down.
Its spokeswoman brushed off such concerns and reiterated that Target strives to be an “inclusive place to shop,” and that some Targets offer “single-stall, family restrooms for those who may be more comfortable with that option.”
When a Wall Street Journal story announcing Target’s move popped into my Facebook newsfeed, I had just returned from shopping there with my 4-year-old daughter. We were in the middle of the shoe aisle looking for sandals for her when she clutched my hand in panic with a familiar cry: “Mommy, potty! I have to go potty!”
We sprinted to the bathroom, making it without a moment to spare, not even a second to shut the stall door. My daughter relieved herself in plain view of about seven other women, all of whom smiled understandingly. After she went, I had to go, also with the door open, because my very mobile 18-month-old son was still in our cart, which would not fit in the stall. And there was no “single-stall, family [restroom] for those who may be more comfortable with that option.” I was grateful for our privacy.
To be specific, I was grateful for a place where my daughter and I could use the bathroom in a rather public way but still with the privacy afforded by being exclusively among members of our own sex.
The members of Target’s higher echelons do not seem to understand this everyday reality.
Moms like myself were mocked to kingdom come for registering even the slightest concern about what such a sweeping policy means for our privacy and safety. A wave of articles rushed to point out how silly it is to worry about an assault in the bathroom, forgetting the glaringly obvious reality that since the dawn of civilization, relieving oneself has overwhelmingly been practiced only among members of one’s own sex.
Until recently, bathrooms were one of the remaining places in society where men were not permitted to be with women and vice versa. Because of that clear barrier, even the sight of a man pushing open the door to a women’s restroom would raise eyebrows—and deter any would-be assailant with half a brain.
But all that is changing, as rules designed to protect privacy between the sexes are upended. Shortly after Target made its big announcement, a man recorded himself walking into his local Target and asserting his new right to use the women’s restroom. He did not state that he identifies as a woman; he simply said he wanted to make sure he had the right to use the women’s restroom. In the video, a manager assures him that he does, and when asked what the store will do if any women are upset, the manager says he will “take care of it.”
Apparently it was not long before Target’s lawyers got wind of the viral video; it was taken down almost immediately.
But the video was not an isolated incident. The following month, The New York Times ran the headline “Men Are Posting Videos of Themselves Testing Target’s New Bathroom Policy.” The piece reported, “Multiple videos have popped up on YouTube showing men confronting store managers about the policy and asking what would stop them from entering the women’s bathroom inside the store. In the videos, the managers can be seen (or heard, since some of the video is poorly shot) patiently saying that nothing would stop the men from using the women’s room.” Nothing.
This Report Is Real
Two weeks after Target announced that its women’s bathrooms were open to anyone whose “gender identity” led him there, police in a town in Texas issued a warrant for what was unmistakably a man who was spotted by a girl in a Super Target fitting room recording her as she undressed. The warrant charged him with “invasive visual recording.” A month later, the same thing happened at a Target in New Hampshire: A man was charged with filming women in the fitting room.
The following month, it happened again. In July, an Idaho paper reported that a “man dressed as a woman” was caught filming a young woman removing her clothes in the dressing room of a local Target. The predator was booked as a male under the name Shaun Smith, and according to a New York Times article on the incident, “Both the victim and her mother described the voyeur as a white male wearing a dress and blond wig.”
Nevertheless, the Idaho Post Register referred to Smith as “she,” reporting that “Smith admitted to committing similar crimes in the past, saying she makes the videos for the ‘same reason men go online to look at pornography,’ court documents show. Smith [said] she finds the videos sexually gratifying.”
It was the third such episode since Target had announced its policy, once for every subsequent month.
The Idaho incident prompted an entry on the rumor-investigating website Snopes, because the story was easily confused with a fake story that had been published on a comedy site just two months before, mocking concern over the possibility that unisex bathrooms might result in … exactly what happened in Idaho.
In the fake news story, a man who self-identified as a woman was captured photographing minor females in the bathroom. The only difference between the fake story and the real one was the location: In the real story, the snooping took place in the fitting room.
As Snopes was forced to admit in a post about the fake story, “This fake news article was later confused with a somewhat similar real-life incident that subsequently transpired at a Target store.” On the post about the real story, Snopes had to clarify, “Unlike a fake news report from April 2016 involving a woman supposedly arrested for taking pictures of underage girls in a Target bathroom, this report is real.”
But Target should not have needed these incidents to know that voyeurism is a real problem, because it was an issue even before the retailer broadcasted a policy that makes it easier for male predators to access women’s restrooms and fitting rooms.
Just one month before Target announced its policy, a 14-year-old girl noticed a man photographing her under the door as she changed clothes in a Target fitting room in Florida. She said that when she saw the camera, “I didn’t know what to do about it. So my body just locked up and I started shaking. … I don’t feel safe in a dressing room anymore.” Target knew that even its family restrooms were vulnerable; in 2015, a California man was caught hiding a camera in one.
Just a couple of weeks after Target’s announcement, a woman who was being verbally harassed in the swimsuit section of a Target in Florida videotaped herself chasing her harasser out of the store and into the parking lot. The man, it turned out, had a history of bothering women in public places and a previous conviction for photographing women in dressing rooms.
Under Target’s policy, men exactly like him can now walk right into the women’s restroom or fitting room, and any startled woman is the problem to be handled—not the offending man.
Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.
American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.
For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and DISSECTING LEFTISM. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.