“Anti-male” activist faces court in UK

se02orqua5xz9v

bluewolf wrote: »

I've heard that nonsense redefinition of racism before all right

Metroboulot wrote: »

She might need to re-check her definition of racism.

She isn't the first person to promote this definition of racism.

Paul Mooney, a controversial stand up from the US, had a similar definition.

A black person can't be racist by definition, because we don't have any control over other people's lives. I can't tell you what neighbourhood to live in. I can't tell you what school to go to. I can't tell you you're a second-class citizen. I can't tell you that you can't vote. If I get on that corner for five years and I go, 'I'm gonna take me a knife and I'm gonna cut your throat and I'm gonna take a car and I'm gonna run you over, and I'm gonna take this hammer and beat you till you dead'. If I never kill anybody, am I a murderer? All we [black people] do is talk. White folks do.

Let's break that down.

A black person can't be racist by definition, because we don't have any control over other people's lives.

Neither does almost every white person.

I can't tell you what neighbourhood to live in.

Neither can almost every white person.

I can't tell you what school to go to.

Neither can almost every white person.

I can't tell you you're a second-class citizen.

Neither can almost every white person.

I can't tell you that you can't vote.

Neither can almost every white person.

If I get on that corner for five years and I go, 'I'm gonna take me a knife and I'm gonna cut your throat and I'm gonna take a car and I'm gonna run you over, and I'm gonna take this hammer and beat you till you dead'. If I never kill anybody, am I a murderer?

Um... no. But if you were saying 'I'm gonna take me a knife and I'm gonna cut a white person's throat', I'm pretty sure you're racist.

Tarzana2

SeanW wrote: »

This is false. We know what happens when the reverse occurs. It happened with Dr. Timothy Hunt. He gave a speech calling for more women and girls to go into science, but started it out with the infamous stupid jokes.

Timothy Hunt faced the courts and prison for his comments? News to me. And the correct content of his speech is now known and, honestly, I don't know what he was thinking.

We don't know that this woman's future career won't be affected by her actions. Employers do google searches of potential employees and this will be all over Google. Why do you think her future career won't be affected by her actions? I can imagine employers not wanting to go near her as she'd be a liability.

Rippington

Tarzana2 wrote: »

We don't know that this woman's future career won't be affected by her actions. Employers do google searches of potential employees and this will be all over Google.

Which makes you wonder why people put themselves out there like this ? ...is there an ulterior motive ?

Dimithy

Rippington wrote: »

Which makes you wonder why people put themselves out there like this ? ...is there an ulterior motive ?

Does stupidity count as an ulterior motive?

TheLastMohican

speedboatchase wrote: »

No, I believe she's Turkish. And of course, the Turks have never exercised their power and privilege over an oppressed minority.

Aside from the cheeky Armenian genocide of 1915...

And Kurds

DeadHand wrote: »

They weren't too gentle with the Greeks or Kurds either.

The Turks have a long history of violent expansion, imperialism, the suppression of minorities and ethnic cleansing.

Which makes her ravenous appetite for racial victimhood all the more ironic.

And innocent Cypriots caught up in their expansionism!

BlaasForRafa

Good analysis by Sargon of Akkad

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQ4Or0lAvfY

strelok

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Good article by Suzanne Moore in the guardian which draws neatly draws in militant student union institutions that "no-Platform" those they don't approve of (its good as she goes beyond her usual rants) note the post by the moderator at the bottom of the comments.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/07/a-hashtag-shouldnt-make-men-fear-lives-already-have-safe-space-manchester-university

didn't you know? disagreeing with feminists on the internet is harassment.
hopefully the UN can do something about this scourge, the sooner the better.

melissak

Rippington wrote: »

Which makes you wonder why people put themselves out there like this ? ...is there an ulterior motive ?

Media student, edgy, provocative project about something perhaps. Or compulsive attention seeking? Who knows?

Maguined

Tarzana2 wrote: »

What has that got to do with all the Goldsmiths grads who have nothing to do with the students union?

Firstly, in the months leading on from this, Goldsmiths might ring a bell to interviewers as where something happened in the students union. If I was an interviewer, I'd know that student union elections tend to have a very low turnout and that most of the student body doesn't really care about it and are just intent on getting their qualifications and living the student life.

Secondly, in the long term, this is not going to be remembered by interviewers. Goldsmiths grads needn't worry.

I would be worried about the education she received from that college to be honest. She got a masters in gender and media studies from Goldsmiths and she then used her employers official social media to racially insult someone and defended herself by saying due to her ethnicity and gender she cannot ever be racist or sexist. She is extremely lucky her employer happens to be the students union that no one really cares about as if she was in any other form of employment she would be immediately fired.

If she was employed by The Guardian newspaper and she used their official twitter page to call someone "white trash" I think the HR department might have some reservations before hiring another student who received a gender and media studies masters from Goldsmiths. Actually I am probably wrong, The Guardian would probably love her. :pac:

The Corinthian

Tarzana2 wrote: »

What has that got to do with all the Goldsmiths grads who have nothing to do with the students union?

Firstly, in the months leading on from this, Goldsmiths might ring a bell to interviewers as where something happened in the students union. If I was an interviewer, I'd know that student union elections tend to have a very low turnout and that most of the student body doesn't really care about it and are just intent on getting their qualifications and living the student life.

Secondly, in the long term, this is not going to be remembered by interviewers. Goldsmiths grads needn't worry.

Are you regularly part of the hiring process? I am.

It really comes down to how often such stories come out of a college. If it's a once off, you may well be right. But if a college student union is repeatedly in the news for this sort of radical idiocy, then the college ends up getting tarnished. And Goldsmiths Student Union is no stranger to controversy:

In October 2014, the union faced critical coverage in the student newspaper The Tab after voting down a proposal to commemorate Holocaust Memorial Day, with Education Officer Sarah El-alfy describing it as "Eurocentric" and "colonialist." According to the union, El-alfy offered to help put forward a redrafted version of the motion for the following Student Assembly meeting. The Union issued a statement claiming "Redrafting motions and re-entering them at a later date isn’t unusual in Students’ Unions and shouldn’t be misinterpreted as opposition."

In February 2015, feminist comedian Kate Smurthwaite's gig was cancelled after a minority of members from Goldsmith's Feminist society threatened to picket the event over disagreements with her views on decriminalising prostitution.

You can forget one controversy, but multiple controversies you can't so easily - they're called a reputation.

Anyone having done any kind of social science degree will be automatically assumed to be exposed to this radical ethos to begin with, and not all student union elections have low turnouts; these vary from year to year, college to college, so there's no guarantee of being able to hide behind the presumption of apathy.

Which leaves you looking at the CV of someone who's been educated in an environment that is less than attractive for a hiring firm. Probably they've not drunk the coolaid, but why take the risk? You've another thirty CV's for the same role anyway.

Even a subconscious feeling about someone from a particular college is enough to put you in the wrong pile. I assure you this happens and people's CV's get binned for far less. You might think this stupid or unfair, but this is often what happens regardless of what you think.

Now Ms Mustafa probably need not worry about anything because, like may other radical student activists, she'll probably end up with a job in a university or in some charity / think tank / social organization as it often the case.

Not ever case naturally; one of my best friends used to be Student Union welfare officer, and now she's a happily married barrister. Of course, she's probably the exception rather than the rule - most of the others I knew are all professional activists now.

DeadHand

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

She can't be fired because technically she is not an employee of Goldsmiths College. She's an employee of the Union which is a separate entity. There was a petition to have a vote of no confidence in her set up but it needed 3% of the students registered with the Student Union to sign for the hearing to take place. They got 1.9%

I think the university needs to rein in the student union and straighten it out because it's clearly destroying the reputation of the college as a whole.

Or maybe the faculty are just as foolish.

liam24

The law should keep its nose out of stuff like this. Let society look after her.

Donkey Oaty

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Good analysis by Sargon of Akkad

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQ4Or0lAvfY

Some very astute observations on that vid. Well worth watching.

zeffabelli

The universities can hardly complain. They created this mess by using banning in order to create a false consensus.

So by creating a false consensus and killing dissenting voices, by killing argument, they now have reps not dissimilar to cults. And they produce morons.

In time you will see companies no longer requiring third level degrees. Ernst and Young have got the ball rolling already.

tritium

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Good article by Suzanne Moore in the guardian which draws neatly draws in militant student union institutions that "no-Platform" those they don't approve of (its good as she goes beyond her usual rants) note the post by the moderator at the bottom of the comments.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/07/a-hashtag-shouldnt-make-men-fear-lives-already-have-safe-space-manchester-university

From my reading of it it seems to be a whine that people she agrees with aren't being allowed to say hateful things (Julie bindel ) and that people she doesn't agree with are allowed talk. There's a certain hypocrisy in it that you usually only see in the true zealot as they assure you of their absolute truth....

c_man

Meh, racists of her ilk have been pushing for this clamp down on social media posts. They can't be surprised when it actually turns back on them.

ElvisChrist6

Maguined wrote: »

I would be worried about the education she received from that college to be honest. She got a masters in gender and media studies from Goldsmiths and she then used her employers official social media to racially insult someone and defended herself by saying due to her ethnicity and gender she cannot ever be racist or sexist. She is extremely lucky her employer happens to be the students union that no one really cares about as if she was in any other form of employment she would be immediately fired.

If she was employed by The Guardian newspaper and she used their official twitter page to call someone "white trash" I think the HR department might have some reservations before hiring another student who received a gender and media studies masters from Goldsmiths. Actually I am probably wrong, The Guardian would probably love her. :pac:

You're right, she's lucky in that way, but unlucky in that she won't have really learned anything from this other than that the system will oppress people like her after "standing up to them". The student body that is part of that union isn't quite so lucky either. Welfare officers are supposed to be approachable, moreso than anyone and to anyone, to help their students whether that be pointing them to university financial aids, food vouchers, helping them find and use the counsellors or even just talking to them to help mentally. I, being a white fella, could never be comfortable going to her and just wouldn't be able to. She's hardly going to be sympathetic, and the bloody mansion she grew up in tells me she might not be so understanding of financial struggles either.

Potatoeman

Fletcher Greasy Sieve wrote: »

And therefore women of colou[/I]r [again, huh?] and minority genders cannot be racist or sexist because we do not stand to benefit from such a system.”

"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize" Voltaire.

The Corinthian

Potatoeman wrote: »

"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize" Voltaire.

But he was a white male...

Maguined

ElvisChrist6 wrote: »

You're right, she's lucky in that way, but unlucky in that she won't have really learned anything from this other than that the system will oppress people like her after "standing up to them". The student body that is part of that union isn't quite so lucky either. Welfare officers are supposed to be approachable, moreso than anyone and to anyone, to help their students whether that be pointing them to university financial aids, food vouchers, helping them find and use the counsellors or even just talking to them to help mentally. I, being a white fella, could never be comfortable going to her and just wouldn't be able to. She's hardly going to be sympathetic, and the bloody mansion she grew up in tells me she might not be so understanding of financial struggles either.

This particular student union do not care. Students complained about all the horrible things she did while welfare and diversity officer and the students union had a meeting about it and decided not to remove her from her paid position and instead they cautioned her to not call students "white trash" using their official twitter accounts. They had the power to remove her from her position due to the complaints and they did not, they let her off with a warning. It was this inaction that led the students that complained to try a petition but this petition failed to get enough signatures to qualify for an SU meeting. It seems the young students of that university don't care if their welfare and diversity officer doesn't look after the welfare of disabled students and racially insults others.

Donkey Oaty

If she's fired, she could always get a job at the University of East Anglia Students' Union where she would fit in very well.

Although she might have to get rid of that thing in her nose.

Potatoeman

The Corinthian wrote: »

But he was a white male...

The point was that she thinks it's okay for minorities to be racist and women to be sexist. The fact she didn't lose her job already, and a white man saying the same thing about women would have, shows that she enjoys a position of privilage.

The Corinthian

Potatoeman wrote: »

The point was that she thinks it's okay for minorities to be racist and women to be sexist. The fact she didn't lose her job already, and a white man saying the same thing about women would have, shows that she enjoys a position of privilage.

TBH I was suggesting the kind of rebut you'd likely get to your quote, in keeping with the same logic as you're criticizing. Basically, she's just a product of the women's studies courses (they're not gender studies, no matter what they claim) that have proliferated in the last thirty or so years, that have applied deconstruction and double think to a level that would have George Orwell telling us 'I told you so'.

Maguined wrote: »

Students complained about all the horrible things she did while welfare and diversity officer and the students union had a meeting about it and decided not to remove her from her paid position and instead they cautioned her to not call students "white trash" using their official twitter accounts. They had the power to remove her from her position due to the complaints and they did not, they let her off with a warning. It was this inaction that led the students that complained to try a petition but this petition failed to get enough signatures to qualify for an SU meeting. It seems the young students of that university don't care if their welfare and diversity officer doesn't look after the welfare of disabled students and racially insults others.

As to what her role should be, that's irrelevant - such student union roles have had nothing to do with the welfare of students for a long time. If you want to know why, I suggest you take the time to find a list of your alma mater's past student union welfare or equivalent officers over the last 30 years and then look them up on LinkedIn and see where they ended up. Then you'll begin to understand what such roles are really about.

Potatoeman

The Corinthian wrote: »

TBH I was suggesting the kind of rebut you'd likely get to your quote, in keeping with the same logic as you're criticizing. Basically, she's just a product of the women's studies courses (they're not gender studies, no matter what they claim) that have proliferated in the last thirty or so years, that have applied deconstruction and double think to a level that would have George Orwell telling us 'I told you so'.

As to what her role should be, that's irrelevant - such student union roles have had nothing to do with the welfare of students for a long time. If you want to know why, I suggest you take the time to find a list of your alma mater's past student union welfare or equivalent officers over the last 30 years and then look them up on LinkedIn and see where they ended up. Then you'll begin to understand what such roles are really about.

I'd tell her to check her minority and female privilage as I identify as a mythical white cis unicorn.

strelok

Potatoeman wrote: »

I'd tell her to check her minority and female privilage as I identify as a mythical white cis unicorn.

you know nothing of a unicorns struggle

The Corinthian

strelok wrote: »

you know nothing of a unicorns struggle

Don't talk to me of unicorns and their phallic wielding indoctrination of Womyn children - check your privilege!

A_Sober_Paddy

People like that should be hung drawn and quartered imo

Maguined

The Corinthian wrote: »

As to what her role should be, that's irrelevant - such student union roles have had nothing to do with the welfare of students for a long time. If you want to know why, I suggest you take the time to find a list of your alma mater's past student union welfare or equivalent officers over the last 30 years and then look them up on LinkedIn and see where they ended up. Then you'll begin to understand what such roles are really about.

Yes in the real world it's just an excuse for the politically inclined to feel important about themselves and wield a shred of power but if they beleived in half the waffle they like to espouse she would of been removed by their own standards. The fact they did not remove her shows the complete veneer that is their morale convictions.

discus

strelok wrote: »

you know nothing of a unicorns struggle

How dare you, your indignance is cultural appropriation of unicornkin, who are historically struggling to be recognised as EVEN EXISTING

zeffabelli

Potatoeman wrote: »

I'd tell her to check her minority and female privilage as I identify as a mythical white cis unicorn.

Mine fell down the back of the couch.

Fukuyama

Links234 wrote: »

Sorry you're disappointed, but I don't believe for a second that she was seriously calling for all white men to be killed, and therefor shouldn't be charged with a crime for it. Do I think she's an idiot? Sure. But this isn't a serious threat, or a serious incitement to violence. It's a stupid ****ing hashtag and people shouldn't be arrested for stupid hashtags, no matter how stupid.

#KillACopDay was trending during the one year anniversary protest in Ferguson . Over twenty shots were fired at police. Everyone who tweets it has some degree of responsibility even if they never see a court room.

She has a history of this stuff and a positon of responsibility as a welfare officer. She also really seems to be determined to label herself a minority when she's very clearly white.

She is aware of her influence over a large number of online personalities and, worryingly, young undergraduates who are obviously dumb. It's inciting hatred. She obviously isn't being ironic or sarcastic.

If I tweeted #killalltrans or #killallblacks, particularly if I was an influential person, I'd expect a knock on the door from the guards.

Donkey Oaty

If Cecil the lion had been a unicorn, nobody would have cared.

Or in my case, continued not to care.

suicide_circus

The Corinthian wrote: »

Basically, she's just a product of the women's studies courses (they're not gender studies, no matter what they claim) that have proliferated in the last thirty or so years, that have applied deconstruction and double think to a level that would have George Orwell telling us 'I told you so'.

+1 this kind of protofascist bile is a predictable side effect of the likes of women's studies etc which operate under a thin veneer of buzz words like equality. Had this woman been around at the time she would have been burning books at the steps of the Statsoper. Beware the ideologues, beware the zealots.

Ulysses Gaze

This will not change her or her job prospects. The UK Public services are infested with people like her with these type of makey-uppy Job Titles. She'll end up in the public service or a Quango.

zeffabelli

suicide_circus wrote: »

+1 this kind of protofascist bile is a predictable side effect of the likes of women's studies etc which operate under a thin veneer of buzz words like equality. Had this woman been around at the time she would have been burning books at the steps of the Statsoper. Beware the ideologues, beware the zealots.

It's evangelicalism....

Tarzana2

The Corinthian wrote: »

Are you regularly part of the hiring process? I am.

I'm moist.

The Corinthian

Tarzana2 wrote: »

I'm moist.

Then use a towel rather than hot air.

AnonoBoy

Do Me Good wrote: »

Whites are now a minority in London anyway. Even though I was aware of this before going there, I kept on saying to myself, where are all the english people!

Because only white people are English?

Tarzana2

The Corinthian wrote: »

Then use a towel rather than hot air.

Why would I want to get rid the moistness? You're on a HIRING committee, it's so hawt!!! You need to tell more people that.

B.A._Baracus

I see that 'non-binary' crap is starting to get popular.
Didn't someone post a link to the Daily Mail (of all places) on here a few months ago and they also said it?

Whats wrong with established words or expressions? What next referring to someone who is asexual as "sexual neutrality"?
Hey i'm all for identifying for whatever you want to identify with. But why confuse people? Why create a new term when there is already a term that perfectly suits.

Is it to catch people off guard? To insinuate they are ignorant when they naturally ask 'what's that mean'?

The Corinthian

Tarzana2 wrote: »

Why would I want to get rid the moistness? You're on a HIRING committee, it's so hawt!!! You need to tell more people that.

I take it that this line of argument is your way of admitting you were spouting on something you have no clue about but wanted to share with the World? Still doesn't sound clever though.

Potatoeman

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

I see that 'non-binary' crap is starting to get popular.
Didn't someone post a link to the Daily Mail (of all places) on here a few months ago and they also said it?

Whats wrong with established words or expressions? What next referring to someone who is asexual as "sexual neutrality"?
Hey i'm all for identifying for whatever you want to identify with. But why confuse people? Why create a new term when there is already a term that perfectly suits.

Is it to catch people off guard? To insinuate they are ignorant when they naturally ask 'what's that mean'?

Because it's so uncool to be cis scum. Don't you know that they are special snowflakes that are fighting the most heinous forms of oppression their sheltered little minds can handle.

kstand

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

I see that 'non-binary' crap is starting to get popular.
Didn't someone post a link to the Daily Mail (of all places) on here a few months ago and they also said it?

Whats wrong with established words or expressions? What next referring to someone who is asexual as "sexual neutrality"?
Hey i'm all for identifying for whatever you want to identify with. But why confuse people? Why create a new term when there is already a term that perfectly suits.

Is it to catch people off guard? To insinuate they are ignorant when they naturally ask 'what's that mean'?

Non-binary, gender-fluid - this sort of crap really irritates me. Some fella gets kicks out of dressing up in a frock and a pair of high heels and they describe him as being gender-fluid and then he is hailed for his bravery!!! Bravery my ar$e. I spent several nights in Great Ormond St Hospital with my son after he had an operation to repair a cleft-lip and palatte, I saw kids inside there with truly terrible conditions, some that were never destined to leave that hospital, thats bravery for me. Not some attention-seeking overly hormonal clown who cant decide what he is or likes wearing a dress.

RWCNT

^^^

Yeah, that'll be because you're clearly a prejudiced and bigoted individual. I feel sorry for your son for having you as a father.

BA, why do you automatically jump to the assumption that people are trying to confuse you or catch you out? Is it not more plausible that at the early stages of this becoming known to the greater public there's likely to be quite a few names for it, many of which will more than likely fall out of usage once it's more established.

Old Jakey

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

I see that 'non-binary' crap is starting to get popular.
Didn't someone post a link to the Daily Mail (of all places) on here a few months ago and they also said it?

Whats wrong with established words or expressions? What next referring to someone who is asexual as "sexual neutrality"?
Hey i'm all for identifying for whatever you want to identify with. But why confuse people? Why create a new term when there is already a term that perfectly suits.

Is it to catch people off guard? To insinuate they are ignorant when they naturally ask 'what's that mean'?

Because every mentally-ill millennial needs to have their own made up term to make them feel like a special snowflake.

The Corinthian

RWCNT wrote: »

BA, why do you automatically jump to the assumption that people are trying to confuse you or catch you out? Is it not more plausible that at the early stages of this becoming known to the greater public there's likely to be quite a few names for it, many of which will more than likely fall out of usage once it's more established.

TBH, I would be far more open to much of this revised definition of everything, where so much of it not demonstrable bullshìt. For example let's look at Mustafa Bahar's defence of her actions:

"I, an ethnic minority woman, cannot be racist or sexist towards white men, because racism and sexism describes structures of privilege based on race and gender.

And therefore women of colour and minority genders cannot be racist or sexist because we do not stand to benefit from such a system."

To begin with, what does she mean by "minority genders"? According to all statistics, women outnumber men and thus cannot be a minority. Unless we have a completely new definition of what minority is now.

Then there is the redefinition of terms such as "racist" or "sexist". Wikipedia plainly states that racism and sexism are both fundimentally about prejudice or discrimination based on race or gender. Nowhere does it add the caveat "by a person of a privileged race or gender". Nowhere.

As an aside, it also begs the question, could Ms Bahar be accused of racism if she were living in Saudi Arabia, given that her Arab background would be privileged there? Or would there be some other caveat whereby she would remain immune from such a charge?

And finally one has to ask about what she means by "stand to benefit from such a system". Realistically, it appears, that she's actually benefited quite a bit, given she's studying in university, compared to a white male from an underprivileged background who may not have the same access as her and others of her family's economic background.

All that from only two short sentences.

And this is the problem, because it is this school of language, heavily influenced by deconstructionism, that has introduced an entirely new definition of reality which is easily and demonstrably false and then also has come up with other redefinitions, such as how gender (or race, according to Rachel Dolezal) are all not only analogue but even fluid (makes me wonder if I'll wake up and Asian woman tomorrow).

Basically, this ideology is so rife with complete bollocks that it means that even if there is value to some of it, it has been tainted by that bollocks and thus we are at the very least going to treat it cynically and with suspicion.

In short, why should we take anything that comes out of this school of thought seriously? We have ample reason not to, after all.

Peregrine

Stay on topic please.

Mod

kstand

RWCNT wrote: »

^^^

Yeah, that'll be because you're clearly a prejudiced and bigoted individual. I feel sorry for your son for having you as a father.

BA, why do you automatically jump to the assumption that people are trying to confuse you or catch you out? Is it not more plausible that at the early stages of this becoming known to the greater public there's likely to be quite a few names for it, many of which will more than likely fall out of usage once it's more established.

Bigoted? Are you stupid or something? Read over what I said - sick of reading crap about how Bruce Jenner is so brave and such rubbish. I couldnt care less what he wants to do with himself or herself, I have no problem with anyone, whether they are gay, straight, bi etc - just dont start telling me that they are brave. Thats not bravery - I outlined what I saw with my own eyes, terminally ill children trying to make the most of what they had in life which was little or nothing. Yet some fool like you comes on and says that I'm prejudiced or bigoted? Go on - wear a dress if you're a man or put on make up, I dont care - but dont come out and call it bravery afterwards. Sick of clowns going round shouting "bigot" when it suits them to try win an argument.

kstand

The Corinthian wrote: »

TBH, I would be far more open to much of this revised definition of everything, where so much of it not demonstrable bullshìt. For example let's look at Mustafa Bahar's defence of her actions:

"I, an ethnic minority woman, cannot be racist or sexist towards white men, because racism and sexism describes structures of privilege based on race and gender.

And therefore women of colour and minority genders cannot be racist or sexist because we do not stand to benefit from such a system."

To begin with, what does she mean by "minority genders"? According to all statistics, women outnumber men and thus cannot be a minority. Unless we have a completely new definition of what minority is now.

Then there is the redefinition of terms such as "racist" or "sexist". Wikipedia plainly states that racism and sexism are both fundimentally about prejudice or discrimination based on race or gender. Nowhere does it add the caveat "by a person of a privileged race or gender". Nowhere.

As an aside, it also begs the question, could Ms Bahar be accused of racism if she were living in Saudi Arabia, given that her Arab background would be privileged there? Or would there be some other caveat whereby she would remain immune from such a charge?

And finally one has to ask about what she means by "stand to benefit from such a system". Realistically, it appears, that she's actually benefited quite a bit, given she's studying in university, compared to a white male from an underprivileged background who may not have the same access as her and others of her family's economic background.

All that from only two short sentences.

And this is the problem, because it is this school of language, heavily influenced by deconstructionism, that has introduced an entirely new definition of reality which is easily and demonstrably false than also has come up with other redefinitions, such as how gender (or race, according to Rachel Dolezal) are all not only analogue but even fluid (makes me wonder if I'll wake up and Asian woman tomorrow).

Basically, this ideology is so rife with complete bollocks that it means that even if there is value to some of it, it has been tainted by that bollocks and thus we are at the very least going to treat it cynically and with suspicion.

In short, why should we take anything that comes out of this school of thought seriously? We have ample reason not to, after all.

"I, an ethnic minority woman, cannot be racist or sexist towards white men, because racism and sexism describes structures of privilege based on race and gender.

And therefore women of colour and minority genders cannot be racist or sexist because we do not stand to benefit from such a system."

So many things wrong with what she said - its astounding. As in you can only be racist if you are white and especially if you are a white male. Holy crap but is this what is slowly becoming acceptable? The levels if idiocy and hypocrisy alone are astounding - I cant believe that there is any debate at all let alone those who defend her.

RWCNT

kstand wrote: »

Bigoted? Are you stupid or something? Read over what I said - sick of reading crap about how Bruce Jenner is so brave and such rubbish. I couldnt care less what he wants to do with himself or herself, I have no problem with anyone, whether they are gay, straight, bi etc - just dont start telling me that they are brave. Thats not bravery - I outlined what I saw with my own eyes, terminally ill children trying to make the most of what they had in life which was little or nothing. Yet some fool like you comes on and says that I'm prejudiced or bigoted? Go on - wear a dress if you're a man or put on make up, I dont care - but dont come out and call it bravery afterwards. Sick of clowns going round shouting "bigot" when it suits them to try win an argument.

Your comments referring to people as "over hormonal, attention seeking clowns" and the like are what is clearly bigoted. If you don't want to be called a bigot then refrain from those comments, why you're making them in the first place is anyones guess as you claim to not have a problem with anyone. So bravery can only come in one form now? People coming out being described as brave hardly means that sick kids aren't. Bravery isnt some sort of competition. I forgot to say that I hope your son is all good following his treatment.