Wednesday, April 29, 2015

The Sin of Chivalry By Jim Goad.

A very common sexist stereotype is that women are absurdly hypersensitive. Funny enough, these days that stereotype persists mostly due to the absurdly hypersensitive real-life behavior of feminists. Supposedly it’s feminists’ job to defeat anti-female stereotypes rather than validate them, right? Perchance they changed the rules when I wasn't looking.
But we live in an age where nothing needs to make sense anymore. Feminism has morphed into an ideological form of nymphomania—despite every new conquest, they’re never satisfied. In their insatiable lust for power, they’ve hand-knitted an insane new world where everything is sexist.
When a black rapper  recently said he’d rather dress as a Nazi than as a woman, the women were outraged—not because he chose the Nazis, but because he chose them over them.
When Dan Aykroyd began sketching out his plans for yet another Ghostbusters sequel that stayed faithful to the original in the sense that the title characters are all males, the project was smeared as “sexist.”
If you’re a small woman who buys a large dog as a pet, gird your loins, adjust your codpiece, and get ready to be bombarded with sexist comments.
Even seemingly innocent items of clothing are sexist these days, although I’m sure you already knew that.
“Were you aware that merely being nice to women is sexist?”
But were you aware that merely being nice to women is sexist, too? Did you realize that it’s possibly the most insidious, dangerous, and possibly even reptilian form of sexism known to womankind?
According to a study released last month in the journal Sex Roles, the mere act of smiling at a woman while playing a board game with her is laced with poisonous patriarchal condescension and an ineffable yearning to oppress the fairer sex.
The study’s male coauthor, a Ph.D. student named Jin Goh—which sounds like my name if I were Chinese—said without blinking:
While many people are sensitive to sexist verbal offences, they may not readily associate sexism with warmth and friendliness….Unless sexism is understood as having both hostile and benevolent properties, the insidious nature of benevolent sexism will continue to be one of the driving forces behind gender inequality in our society.
Great. I’m sure you’re a real hit with the ladies, fella.
According to study coauthor Judith Hall:
Benevolent sexism is like a wolf in sheep’s clothing that perpetuates support for gender inequality among women at an interpersonal level….These supposed gestures of good faith may entice women to accept the status quo in society because sexism literally looks welcoming, appealing, and harmless.
Preach on, my prickly sister. There’s nothing more traumatizing on Earth than gestures that are warm, welcoming, appealing, and harmless.
This idiotic term—“benevolent sexism”—was allegedly coined in 1996 by a pair of sad sacks named Peter Glick and Susan Fiske:
We define benevolent sexism as a set of interrelated attitudes toward women that are sexist in terms of viewing women stereo typically and in restricted roles but that are subjectively positive in feeling tone (for the perceiver) and also tend to elicit behaviors typically categorized as prosocial (e.g., helping) or intimacy-seeking (e.g., self-disclosure) ….[Benevolent sexism is] a subjectively positive orientation of protection, idealization, and affection directed toward women that, like hostile sexism, serves to justify women’s subordinate status to men….
Are you following that, lads? There are two types of sexism. Both types are hateful toward women. One is openly hateful toward women. But the other is even more hateful because it hides behind smiles and affectionate gestures to mask its truly hateful intent. Even if nothing hateful ever happens as a result of it, trust us—it’s at least twice as hateful.
As if it has anything whatsoever to do with science, Scientific American published a 2013 piece about benevolent 
The warm, fuzzy feelings surrounding benevolent sexism come at a cost, and that cost is often actual, objective gender equality.
If pressed, I doubt whatever “scientist” wrote that would be able to remotely establish an “objective” definition of “gender equality.”
In a 2013 article for Pyschology of Women Quarterly—I always keep a stack of ’em in the bathroom—a pair of chicks named Julia C. Becker and Janet K. Swim encouraged women “to see the unseen”—in other words, to imagine they’re the targets of sexism and racism even when all the evidence points to the contrary.
In a hairy-vulva’d nutshell, what we’re looking at here is the feminist version of the racial ideas of “white privilege” and “institutional racism.” Once you’ve scared the living daylights out of everyone alive to the point where they’re terrified that even their own shadows will be deemed racist, you start imagining racial microaggression” popping up everywhere around you. Soon thereafter, your fevered brain begins conjuring racial nanoaggressions. They preach from a gospel claiming there’s a ubiquitous, culturally institutional fire-breathing epidemic of racial hatred that threatens to eat the nation’s soul alive. When this prophecy fails to deliver again and again, the true believer is forced to start making shit up.
Same goes for the idea of “benevolent sexism.” Are the ladies these days so utterly bonkers that they’re trying to argue that being nice to them is a way to suffocate them?
Fine, then. Let the ladies breathe. Do not, under any circumstances, be nice to them. Never compliment their looks, because everyone knows that women are not fundamentally vain creatures who if given a choice would rather you find them incurably ugly. Do not buy them gifts, because by doing so you are mocking their subordinate role in the economic food chain. Do not shovel the snow from their walkways nor rake the leaves from their yards, because you are implying that they’re too weak to do it themselves. And above all, if they want you to move the TV to another room, turn them down, because gender roles are socially constructed and there’s no natural reason she shouldn’t be able to lift a 140-pound television set over her head as easily as you can.
Basically, if you want to prove you’re not a sexist, you should avoid being nice to women as often as possible. Warmth and fuzziness begone!
Hmm. In hindsight, that doesn’t sound too bad. You know, this new wave of feminism is starting to grow on me.


 http://takimag.com/article/the_sin_of_chivalry_jim_goad/print#ixzz3YfH0EqQD

Wednesday, April 1, 2015

The most selfish suicide ever........ by Jim Goad.




It’s gotten to the point where every time that some crazed psycho deliberately crashes a plane into a mountain, some dimwitted enabler will rush to the smoldering crash site to explain that the poor guy who killed everyone was depressed. 
German and French investigators claim that last Tuesday, 27-year-old Andreas Lubitz purposely drove a Germanwings Airbus 320 smack-dab into a mountain in the French Alps, instantly killing himself  and 149 other passengers. If these investigators are correct, this was not only a suicide—it was a deliberate mass murder that killed far more people than any one-man shooting spree in history.
Several potential triggers were suggested for Lubitz’s fatal tantrum:
• The rumor that he was suffering from poor eyesight and would thus be gently squeezed out of his lifelong dream of becoming a full-time pilot with a major airline.
• Murmurings that he had chick problems with both a mistress who described him as volatile and a long-time girlfriend who also described him as volatile. The latter woman recently announced that she was pregnant with Lubitz’s child.
• The idea that Lubitz was a closeted homosexual who could no longer contain his secret and decided to kill a bunch of people, including himself, in a manner so theatrical that even Liberace would be jealous.
What is theorized so far is that Lubitz needed to take several conscious steps in order to ram that plane into that mountain and smash 150 human bodies into tomato paste:
“I never hear anyone excusing a mass murder because the perpetrator ‘suffered’ from anger.”
• He had to deliberately hide from his employers the fact that he’d received a sick note requiring him to stay home from work the day of the crash. German law requires employees to report such conditions to their employer, while it forbids employers to inquire. The sick note—which Lubitz had reportedly torn up—was for an “unspecified illness,” but several signs indicate he had been fighting depression and “burnout” for years. He had been prescribed antidepressants, as a police search of his apartment reportedly yielded “mountains of pills.” It’s unclear whether he’d been taking his medication prior to the crash.
• As the jet’s copilot, Lubitz had to wait until the main pilot excused himself from the cockpit to go to the bathroom. Then Lubitz had to deliberately flip a switch that locked the cockpit door.
• He then had to deliberately reset the plane’s altitude downward so that the aircraft was aimed like a missile at the mountains.
• He then had to deliberately ignore his pilot’s shouting and banging on the door. He had to do this for eight minutes. He sat there silently for eight minutes fully aware that he was about to kill 150 people.
To me, that sounds like Lubitz made a conscious series of choices, all of which were required for him to pull off this Cecil B. DeMille-sized production. If he’d avoided any single one of these choices, the plane could have landed safely and he would have been free to take his life without snatching the lives of 149 others. 
My connection and proximity to the suicide of a close family member is something I have never hid on this blog and my heart goes out to people suffering from depression. But your right to swing your metaphorically depressed fist ends at the bridge of my nose.
Some, though, insist he had no choice in the matter. They say he was “mentally ill”—specifically, that he was “suffering” from depression. And they claim that it was his “illness,” rather than his willfulness, that led to this gory death pyre in the mountains. “Would We Be Blaming Cancer for the death of Those people who perished in the Alp's?” blared an acutely stupid Huffington Post headline.
No, ya daffy bastard, “we” wouldn't be blaming cancer. That’s because cancer is a real disease. Depression, on the other hand, is a state of mind, one that is malleable depending on how one reacts to depressing circumstances in one’s life. What always gets lost in this endless quest to medicalize “depression” is not the mere fact that you’re depressed—it’s why you're depressed.
Depression is not an illness, it’s an emotion. Yet curiously, you never hear anyone describing anger—another emotion—as an illness. I never hear anyone excusing a mass murder because the perpetrator “suffered” from anger. If you’re depressed, though, you can’t help it. The Devil made you do it. But if you're angry, it’s all on you. It’s funny where people draw the line between biological determinism and free will.
Is it possible, though, that the psychoactive effects of antidepressants, rather than “depression,” played a part in Lubitz’s stony eight-minute plunge into that mountain? A depressingly high quotient of mass murderers  these days seem to gobble these little happy pills and then go on slaughtering sprees. So the pills may have played a role in Lubitz’s derangement.
Still, if the narrative that the investigators are currently peddling is true, he made plenty of choices, no matter how severely the pills may have doped him into inertia. That’s the problem when you blame the depression rather than the depressed person. The very idea that depression is a “disability” has the effect of disabling people from taking responsibility for their own choices. Convincing people that they have an “illness” rather than an emotional dilemma lessens their sense of control over the problem.
If a person wants to kill themselves, I suppose that’s their choice. Erasing oneself is probably the most self-indulgent thing someone can do. But when you drag other people into your suicide, it ceases to be so…libertarian? The children you financially strand and the loved ones you emotionally destroy have no choice in the matter. And on top of all that, deciding to drag 149 other people down with you into your sick miserable hole of self-loathing while you permanently scar thousands of other lives as a result? That’s a leap of selfishness as high as the French Alps.
It would be foolish to blame this incomprehensibly ghastly event on the inanimate phantom illness of “depression.” I think it makes more sense to blame it on the obvious culprit—one selfish depressed asshole who chose not only to act on his sadness, but to make it everyone else’s problem, too.


Please share this article by using the link below. When you cut and paste an article, Taki's Magazine misses out on traffic, and our writers don't get paid for their work. Email editors@takimag.com to buy additional rights.http://takimag.com/article/the_most_selfish_suicide_ever_jim_goad/print#ixzz3W5ukJJV6