A rebuttal for Krantzstone:
Krantz Item 47:
Note the quote I posted actually includes “behavior”, and if you read the link associated with the quote, the article is in reference to the vilification of so-called “political correctness”, which I was referring to, not to media reputation. I highly recommend the entire article because it’s very good (not very long either), and as applicable now as it was back in 1992 when it was first written. The National Post isn’t always all bad, although it has a decidedly right wing lean (as does Maclean’s), but it has also had some major issues with, ahem, journalism ethics:
As mentioned in my response:
Bringing up this commentary on “political correctness” is irrelevant. But, since you keep harping on it, let’s end this nonsense once and for all.
It is not surprising that this trash opinion is written by a “gender studies” (aka “feminist”) professor. It begins by surreptitiously calling the label “political correctness” as a “straw man” argument (It isn’t, and for her to state that is actually a straw man argument… incredibly ironic). Modern Western Social politics (and really, that is what “politics” refer to in these discussions) leans heavily towards feminist issues. This is clear when we see the ubiquity of “fat acceptance”, “You only live once” solipsism, and, “Grrl power”. When we see people posting fallaciously based concepts that are usually defended by bullying, it is clear that there is such a thing as “thought policing”. It’s not about truth, it is always about “feelings” (and specifically the “feelings” of neo-feminists). THAT is why it is “thought” polcing.
She also suggests that those who are critical of leftist speech are “fearful” of losing power to it. This is also a misrepresentation. The term is not “fearful”. It is more “loathsome”. At any rate, neo-feminists project their elevated sensitivity to “feelings” onto those that really are against “political correctness” simply because in most cases, things that are “politically correct” are logically “incorrect”. This need to think that their opposition is being sensitive is just a rationalization to avoid cognitive dissonance. If one avoids logical inspection, they can assume that anything to be correct (especially if it “feels” good to “believe” it is correct). Seriously, Krantz, do you think everyone is a gullible as neo-feminist advocates?
Edelson moves quickly and expends many paragraphs to deflect from her faulty initial assertion. It’s a common literary tactic used by propaganda artists. The entire opinion piece you find so “applicable” [sic] is nothing but a red herring feast for those that “want” to believe the fairy tale. The inconvenient truth is that “political correctness” is synonymous with “intolerance” since it is all about appeasing the vocal (albeit often minority) special interest groups. If their ideas are so “correct”, why do few of them withstand even the most basic logical test? Was that “politically incorrect” enough for you?
Krantz Item 48:
RoK, however, is indefensible. And considering the kind of language and arguments being used by the OP which is indicative of the MRA/PUA mentality, referencing it was perfectly relevant to the discussion in terms of the intentions of the OP as well as their cognitive biases. Of course, it’s possible the OP goes on there to valiantly fight for the rights of women, but particularly for the right of women to be seen as equals so that they can fight in wars… but I somehow doubt it. ;P
As mentioned in the response here:
You won’t get support from the likes of SPLC about ROK being indefensible. Considering how they retracted their original allegation and retreated to a vague “opinion” means that SPLC cannot back up their “feelings”. This idea that those who oppose your narrative have MRA/PUA mentality is just more of the rationalization that neo-feminists use to fuel their intolerance. It would do you far more good to recognize that people correctly view neo-feminism as nothing more than a daycare center for people who just can’t seem to let go of their own hurt (usually during childhood.) Your opposition do not have similar but opposite malfunction. They are simply more mature and accept logical arguments.
This is perhaps the biggest lie that neo-feminists tell themselves (and shout at others) ad nauseam: that people are equal. Individual people are not “equal”, nor are men and women “equal”. Stop confusing “equality of opportunity” with “equality of individual” or “equality of outcome”. An egalitarian society recognizes not only the differences in people, but neither as a whole or in part are any two given people “equal”.
Equal opportunity recognizes that people have different vectors of abilities, and in the same vector, there can be definite different magnitudes. These magnitudes can be largely innate and affected by sex. Even when all vectors are added, any given pair of people are not “equal”. If this were the case, one would have to wonder why only Albert Einstein came up with the special theory of his. This weighs heavily in competitions like selecting combat troops. Based on requirements, it is doubtful that even a single women would occupy a position in the elite squads. There are just too many more capable men to choose from. You can lie to yourself that some secret panel of Patriarchs are conspiring to keep “a few good women” down, but it’s just a lie.
The bottom line is that people are not “equal”, and the sexes are definitely not “equal”. A just society advocates “equal opportunity”. Only those who can’t or won’t see the difference between that and “equally endowed” think it means “equal outcome”.
Krantz Item 49:
I also couldn’t login till just now (Disqus was buggy/broken) so I couldn’t see any replies anyway.
Being able to log into Disqus should be the least of your concerns, Krantz. What you should be concerned about is why you fly the flag of the intolerant movement called, “neo-feminism”. You can re-label with the cryptic of your choice (what about “string-theory quantum voodoo feminism”?) That way you can include all sorts of non-Newtonian physics as well as introduce some good old black magic too.