Reclaiming SJW

[Gorrath]

The presumption that I have not faced real racism because white people in the west simply don't face institutionalized racism. I've always wondered how many of the institutions have to be complicit or complacent before the racism becomes real institutionalized racism though.

As I understand it, it means that racism is a constant across the board, a problem in all areas of society, and something that can be escaped from anywhere in that society.

Rather than a matter of which and how many individual institutions are racist, that racism has become an institution in of itself. Again, this is only how I understand it, I can't claim to be an expert.

Nor am I, I've had it explained to me before that institutionalized racism is racism that goes beyond individuals and takes roots in institutions as well, such as government or education. Here's the definition offered by Wikipedia:

Institutional racism is any system of inequality based on race. It can occur in institutions such as public government bodies, private business corporations (such as media outlets), and universities (public and private). The term was introduced by Black Power activists Stokely Carmichael and Charles V. Hamilton in the late 1960s.[1] The definition given by William Macpherson within the report looking into the death of Stephen Lawrence was ?the collective failure of an organization to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture, or ethnic origin?.[2]

That's the one I was addressing with my story, that white people can and do experience a suspension of appropriate professional service in various organizations. It is rare as hell, I freely admit, as my experiences are hardly the norm. But I think any society dealing with issues of equality cannot turn a blind eye to it anywhere it exists. In the west, some have become so concerned with the racism people of color face that white people in similar circumstances are outright ignored, to the point where you basically get told that it is literally impossible by definition for a white person to experience racism. I think that's an awful sentiment and unworthy of a people who say, "Equality is good, racism, sexism, ect. are bad!" Some people who claim to be all about equality, seem to really not mind inequality that doesn't fit with their preconceived notions about race (or other) relations.

Sorry again for the length of this, and sorry if any of this long-winded story comes off as having a nasty tone. I am not as detached from these happenings as I would like to be.

There's no reason to apologise for that, people shouldn't be expected to be detached from their experiences.

Thanks for your understanding, I just don't want anyone I converse with to think I am being intentionally nasty towards them if I get a bit heated.

 

[dragonswarrior]

If you are on tumblr doing SJW shit and telling people they are privileged then I think its safe to assume (and correct me if im wrong) that you yourself are pretty damn privileged?

Being an SJW what have you actually done? Have you gone to africa to build schools, have you protested for gay rights in russia and faced attack dogs and water cannons, have you protect women from rape and having their clitoris removed in Uganda? The real social justice warriors are out their today doing something, not telling people on tumblr to check their privilege because they feel guilty themselves

Side note: don't forget that how no matter how much you yell about how 'privileged' some Americans are over other Americans, EVERY demographic has largely ignored problems today. One that sits in plain sight but that no one even sees, for example, is that men are far worse off in nearly every part of the court system, from male inmates reporting FAR more sexual assault than female inmates, and from how harsh sentences for males over females, and definitely in relation to custody/alimony.

Don't take this to mean that I only care about male issues; of course not. I make sure to point out ALL issues that are largely unknown, male or female, black or white. Instead of pointing out the victims that everyone already knows about, I point out the victims that have remained in the shadows, which is an added punishment on top of their normal victimization.

Eh, I see what you're saying, (and good on you for caring about all issues while pointing out less well known ones! Just be careful you don't drown out other peoples voices by accident.) but the point of calling someone out on their privilege is just that: Calling someone out on their privilege. In that situation. At that time. It isn't about (or it SHOULDN'T be about) saying "White cis-males have it easier than everyone else all the time and that's bad!!" it's saying "Hey, maybe you have this offensive viewpoint or are hurting these people unintentionally because you benefit from this type of privilege, and maybe you want to self examine that?"

As to the point about reclaiming terms... I know I KNOW!! I am aware it's almost certainly a doomed cause. But hey, that's why I'm making this point on one website rather than trying to organize a protest rally. *shrugs* I'm just trying to get a couple of folks to think hopefully ya know?

Also, I check my privilege (and get my privilege checked) daily. It isn't fun. Additionally, there is a shit ton of social justice work that needs to happen at home, the whole "Bad things only happen in other places" is a dangerous and provably false viewpoint. Additionally additionally, a lot of the whole "Build schools and hospitals in other places" is like applying a band-aid to a sword cut. A necessary band aid sure, but it doesn't fix the colonialist system of exploitation and oppression that causes situations where schools and hospitals desperately need to be built in the first place.

 

[SecondPrize]

Wouldn't the ones who should be trying to reclaim the title be the ultra-Protestant theocratic movement which was directly responsible for the dark age of cinema, prohibition, and the dark age of comics? After all, they only created the title and held it for 60 years.

Conversely, the new social justice movement is at best 10 years old and only using the name because... I have no idea how they got it. I'm honestly surprised that a prominently left-wing movement uses the title of what had for decades been an extreme religious right-wing movement. And that far religious right is what I will think about when someone says they are trying to reclaim the title.

When are they ever political? Anything I've ever seen of this bunch, none of it has to do with politics or parties.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I just wanna say that this is a really odd statement. Of course male rape doesn't lessen the severity of female rape. It's mainly seen as a male-on-female crime, and that was his point. The fact that you're taking what is largely seen as a male-on-female crime and saying that male rape doesn't lessen the severity of female rape (even though it's the former that is more often trivialized) almost implies that you feel male rape is less severe than female rape. Now, reading your other posts, it's clear that that's not what you meant or how you feel, but taken completely on its own with no regard to the rest of your posts, it kinda implies that, so I just found the post to be pretty strange.

Well, in my experience, I almost never come across male rape in a conversation without it being used to try to dismiss female rape. There are very many people who care passionately about men being raped in prisons, but only during discussions of women being raped, who stop caring once the discussion ends. Admittedly, I expect that many people aren't intentionally doing this, they just find acknowledging female rape to be confronting, and so switch to a legitimate other concern they fail to maintain interest in.

On a separate note, I do agree that rape is a feminist issue, because, while they're both horrible, male rape and female rape both have their own issues that the other has to a lesser extent: female rape has much more victim blaming and more claims of false accusation (i.e. someone saying "you just regret having sex so you're crying that it's rape"), and male rape is more often trivialized (and even seen as comic) and victims are often seen as "less of a man" or have their masculinity come into question.

I'd agree with that, yeah.

That's the one I was addressing with my story, that white people can and do experience a suspension of appropriate professional service in various organizations. It is rare as hell, I freely admit, as my experiences are hardly the norm. But I think any society dealing with issues of equality cannot turn a blind eye to it anywhere it exists. In the west, some have become so concerned with the racism people of color face that white people in similar circumstances are outright ignored, to the point where you basically get told that it is literally impossible by definition for a white person to experience racism. I think that's an awful sentiment and unworthy of a people who say, "Equality is good, racism, sexism, ect. are bad!" Some people who claim to be all about equality, seem to really not mind inequality that doesn't fit with their preconceived notions about race (or other) relations.

Oh, certainly, everyone retains their own prejudices and biases, at least to an extent, and it will get the better of them every so often. It's much easier to point out someone else's privilege, much easier to spot false narratives when they clash with your own life.

In this particular case, though, I think it is also because it is fairly rare for white people to experience it, but so much not to claim to have (for one reason or another). Legitimate examples get lost in the false ones.

 

[dragonswarrior]

This is kind of the point of my post though. Why would you let a small group of vocal idiots stop you from identifying as a feminist? Why not just be like "I'm a feminist, judge me by what I say not the name". *shrugs* I guess it can go many ways there, but this is the path I choose.

If you don't want people to judge you based on the label, why use the label in the first place?

Because it isn't my job to change my labels based on other idiots views of them/use of them. Why would I let them win that game? I would like to think it's the responsibility of those around me to judge me based on the quality of my thoughts. And many do, which is why I feel okay with going into this. This thread is about getting people to think after all, and I think there has been a lot of reasonable discussion in addition to the haters.

I'll go out on a limb and suggest that saying "X is a women's issue" when it affects men too (even if they are much less common for men, for instance: breast cancer, sexual assault, etc.) feels like being told "your gender doesn't matter/doesn't count in this area", and I think that's a pretty reasonable feeling.

I imagine that a little more up-front acknowledgement that these issues also affect men would go a long way to making the label of 'feminist' more acceptable to a lot of people, and eliminating the 'feminists only care about women' reactionary stance that some people take.

Ha!! A limb. Funny. Again, it's about the system. It's a patriarchal system that effects men and women, and effects women disproportionately. It also isn't anyone's job to go out and say "Hey, we are gonna talk about issues that effect women, but I just want to say that some of them effect men too." Rather, it has to be assumed that the folks you are talking to are aware of these things, and that if someone says something stupid then they will be corrected in that moment. Just like I wouldn't want a discussion about men being raped to begin with "We know rape effects women too." That's not what that discussion is about you know? But they are extremely closely linked, and stem from many of the same problems. It's not about trying to include men, it's about being like "These are PROBLEMS man, and if you're a decent person you will want them to end even if you don't actively fight them, whether you are a man or a woman."

That got a little ramble-y but I feel I ended with the best point. Which is, these are problems that effect people, in some cases horribly. If you see that then there is no reason for a problem to try and be inclusive. It's just a problem that needs to be fixed. It's ALREADY inclusive.

 

[dragonswarrior]

Also, I check my privilege (and get my privilege checked) daily. It isn't fun.

Don't beat yourself up about it - you didn't ask for a privileged background, and you're not exploiting it, so you shouldn't feel guilty about it. By all means try to make things better, that's a noble cause, but that's something you should feel good about doing, because it's a good thing to do.

Sure, it sucks that things aren't better, but look at how far we've come, with respect to race, gender and all sorts of other issues. That's something to be celebrated, even though there's still work to do.

*laughing* I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or sincere, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say "sincere". *grins*

You exploit a privileged background just by living it. It's an unfortunate fact of life. However, I've gotten REALLY good at checking myself (heh) and so you don't need to worry. *grins* When you've had as much practice as I've had you get to a point where after the initial "Dammit I fucked up again!" moment of shame you fix what you were doing and move on feeling better. It's actually quite liberating. I don't carry any residual guilt for my background, because that's not the point of privilege checking. The point is... Well, thinking about and checking your privilege. *laughs* Not feeling like you're a bad person because of how you were born. It's only when you refuse to acknowledge the advantages that you have due to freak accident of birth that I feel you actually have something to feel guilty about.

That still doesn't make checking or being checked fun. It's bloody uncomfortable, and it does feel bad. It's just that the aftereffects of the thought process feel quite good.

 

[Tactical Pause]

You know starting off a post with how you are a self described SJW is not really putting your best foot forward considering what that term brings to mind at present. Also saying to someone ''check your privilege'' is basically always going to get a hostile response because it is a hostile statement in itself really. You are attacking them based on something outside their control like gender/orientation/race/wealth.

That they have privilege is not their doing, yes. Whether they keep it in check or not, however, is.

My issue with the whole 'check your privilege' deal is that while self-proclaimed SJWs always claim it's not meant to be hostile (which is reasonable, because it shouldn't be), many are awfully quick to do a 180 on that and use it as a personal attack against people who disagree with them. Despite what it may have originally meant, too many use it as a way of calling someone's character into question and discrediting any arguments they may have.

And please, before you make a snap judgment about me, know that I used to 'check my privilege' before I even knew that phrase existed. Once I started seeing it though (or more accurately, seeing how it was most commonly used), my attitude... changed. I can no longer bring myself to acknowledge these sorts of things like I used to.

I get that it's unfathomably illogical to let teenage extremists alter how I think, but I just can't get past it. At least in my mind, they've turned an understandable plea for analysis of one's default position in life into a vicious attack meant to invoke shame and silence.

 

[LetalisK]

I'm sorry but how does one keep their privilege in check might I ask??

Mostly by recognising that other people aren't you, that you aren't an expert on their lives, and that things that are perfectly fine for you might not be for others.

This is a lot harder, and more painful, than it sounds.

Does this sword cut both ways? When people make molehills out of mountains we tell them to check their privilege. When someone makes mountains out of molehills, do we tell them to check their...victim complex, I guess? Is there a better term for it?

 

[dragonswarrior]

Spoiler

In my youth I lived in a poor neighborhood made up mostly of black people. I went to a school that was about 90% black and who's staff had two white and one Latino teacher. Me and my siblings were the regular target of rather vicious attacks motivated by the fact that we were white. Many, many complaints to the school, the police and to anyone else who would listen went unanswered. Upon one of the more vicious beatings I received, where I was held down and beaten with an aluminum bat, I was able to free myself by kicking one of my assailants in the face, breaking his nose.

I ended up sitting in front of the principle, who was a black man, along with the boy I had "attacked". He and I were both suspended from school for fighting. I protested, bringing up the numerous attacks that had never led to any black student being suspended and was told to basically shut my mouth. I was sent to sit in the waiting area while my parents were contacted and got to overhear a conversation between the principal and one of the staff. He said that he wasn't going to let some white kid's complaints about bullying ruin some black kid's future. It seemed that me getting beaten was some kind of karmic justice for all the wrongs done to black people by white people.

Calls to the police did nothing of course, since police didn't care about the neighborhood. I've always been told that cops don't bother with poor neighborhoods because the people there are minorities, but it seemed my white privilege wasn't enough to overcome that barrier to action either. My parents, much to my disbelief, actually tried to contact the NAACP for help. Needless to say, we didn't get a call back and there really wasn't a white people's organization to help with that sort of thing. Afterall, white people's organization is the government and the government works for white people; well, the rich ones anyway.

We were able to move away eventually (my father was in the army) and I was so excited and relived I actually cried. Our next stop was Germany and we ended up settled on the border between a German dominated area which boasted two skin-head gangs who weren't keen on Americans and a Turkish dominated area who's youth weren't keen on white, blue-eyed kids with brown hair and a German last name. I won't spend another four paragraphs on that, but I will say it was bad, really, really bad and no one in any position of power gave a damn.

So I leave it up to you, was that real racism? My beatings were based on my race, so that seems to fit. People in the positions of power actively or passively encouraged what was going on. Every institution that mattered to me and my situation was either complacent or complicit. But I still get to hear people say with a straight face that, while really unfortunate, it wasn't real bonified racism, not like the racism the black kid or his gang who beat the ever living crap out of me daily had to deal with. Poor kid, maybe if I understood what real racism was like, I could have understood why the guy holding the bat was the real victim.

.

Actually that story is intense, hardly dull. I also second Thalu in saying that you never have to apologize for getting emotional or heated over such things.

I do wish to say that from you story it seems like a lot of the problems you encountered stemmed from institutionalized racism against Black Americans, and classism against lower income/lower class families. The whole lack of police presence, shitty schools, etc. I think the principal was way out of line, but that doesn't make it institutionalized racism against white people. When the system you found yourself in was created by an racist institution against PoC in the US, it becomes really murky territory towards trying to say there is institutionalized racism against whites.

I am NOT trying to say that this invalidates the horrible shitty situation you and your family were placed in or the fact that no one would do anything to help you, whatever skin color they were. I am REALLY not.

But I am saying that it was actually the fault of the white dominated racist institution, as opposed to a smaller PoC dominated institution that was racist towards whites. Think about it, if Children of Color were given access to decent schools and police forces, would any of that had happened to you?

Maybe, but I think it's a lot less likely.

I can't comment on the German situation at all.

P.S This gets really tricky. I'm not trying to invalidate your story or your experience. Just asking you to look at it a different way.

 

[Robert Marrs]

So as usual the common theme here is "do you agree with me or are you wrong"? Sorry to break it to you guys but feminism and social justice warriors do not have a monopoly on equality. Disagreeing with or being anti(insert ideology) does not mean you are against equality. This is one of the many reasons people distance themselves from labels like SJW or feminism. Taking what you feel is a moral high ground does not mean you are right and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. Tyranny under the moral busybody and what not.

OP: You are going to have a hard time taking back a term that was assigned by other people in a negative way. The word warrior in this context is an insult, not something to be proud of. Instead of trying to reclaim SJW maybe you should examine the behavior that made people come up with that term in the first place. Maybe the problem is you and not other people. Once again, hard to imagine when you have assumed what you think is the moral high ground but a bit of introspection may be helpful here.

 

[dragonswarrior]

3. They lack any understanding of cultural, sociological, and political evolution. (seriously I can't stand the term "Cultural Appropriation)

So because you read a sociology/history textbook that invalidates another persons feelings? They should just shut up and stop being so offended all the time because "This is just how culture and society work"? I call bullshit.

... ... Can't really argue with the other four points though. I believe however, in my OP I agreed that many of them are stupid, but SOME OF THEM ARE NOT. I don't think it wise that one should ignore everything a group tries to say based on the crass barkings of it's lesser members. If that was true I'd never admit that male rape was a problem at all. And it is. It's just that so many MRA's are bloody stupid about it.

 

[Robert Marrs]

I'm sorry but how does one keep their privilege in check might I ask??

Mostly by recognising that other people aren't you, that you aren't an expert on their lives, and that things that are perfectly fine for you might not be for others.

This is a lot harder, and more painful, than it sounds.

Does this sword cut both ways? When people make molehills out of mountains we tell them to check their privilege. When someone makes mountains out of molehills, do we tell them to check their...victim complex, I guess? Is there a better term for it?

The sword cuts both ways for sure. Just people like to pretend it does not. I have known many people in my life who I would call "professional victims". My grandmother is an excellent example of this. She will constantly place herself in situations where she can be victimized even when she knows she will be victimized. Everything that happens to her is someone else's fault. Any opportunity to be seen as a victim she will instantly jump on. Being a victim means you get things. Sympathy, attention, general help etc. Some people realize this and they take advantage of it. Some people just have a victim complex drilled into their heads, either due to low self esteem, traumatic events, ideologies that teach them to be victims. The list goes on. Being a victim is a very lucrative thing if you want it to be and people that benefit from it will ALWAYS remain victims because of this.

 

[NemotheElvenPanda]

Whatever happened to the term "Human Rights' Advocate", or "Humanitarian"? It not only sounds official and stylish, it's also not as charged as "Social Justice Warrior" and can pretty much describe support for anything related to inequality. People are most responsive to criticism and debate when it doesn't sound like you're on some grand crusade against injustice.

 

[Vigormortis]

snip

But, it's a terrible term and acronym that inherently portrays a poor image. Even if you can somehow "reclaim it", it still comes with an inherent stigma because of the image it paints, regardless of it's back history. (claiming one's self as a "warrior" of anything paints a very specific image)

I advocate the adoption of a different term. My vote goes to SEA. Social Equality Advocate.

You can even allude to other meanings, like being a voice in a sea of voices, allusions to "people as islands", you name it.

Whatever happened to the term "Human Rights' Advocate", or "Humanitarian"? It not only sounds official and stylish, it's also not as charged as "Social Justice Warrior" and can pretty much describe support for anything related to inequality. People are most responsive to criticism and debate when it doesn't sound like you're on some grand crusade against injustice.

Or this. What exactly is wrong with claiming one's self as being a humanitarian? It seems much of religious and SJW culture have come to the conclusion that being a "humanist" is one of the worst moral and ethical stances anyone can take.

And that simply baffles me...

 

[william12123]

I'm probably gonna regret getting into this discussion, but here are some points I have observed. I still hold my deep-seated belief that most problems are caused by a-holes (regardless of philosophical afiliation) & misunderstandings. We (as humans) have a buttload of issues, and I mean the following responses in an analytical fashion. There is no intent of sarcasm, mockery, jubilance or any tone other than analytical. Since tone does not transmit over the internet, I feel the need to add that.

Rehabilitation of the SJW term:
This seems very unlikely. This is compounded by several factors:
-We are dealing with a philosophical movement. Historically, philosophical movements are often remembered by their craziest members(short of MASSIVE propaganda/delusion, like founders of the US). It's why when people think "MRA", they think crazy rape threats and not legitimate concerns on mens issues. It's why when people think of christians these days, they tend to go towards pedophilia, westoboro baptist church & some nutty american evangelicals rather than community-minded deists that perform considerable charity. It's unfortunate, but human minds tend to work that way.
-The term started as an insult. Which makes rehabilitation THAT much harder, since the connotation will stay for a very long time

Rehabilitation of "check you privilege":
This is a problematic expression. I dont think it will ever be rehabilitated, because it has a lot of issues
-It is accusatory. Considering the current stigma attached with the various "isms", and the associations are not something nominally "good" people want to have. It also partially denies the value of meritocracy as others have brought up (which is a strong western value). Since this can easily attack one's core identity (both by attacking self-worth & one's sense of being a "good" person), it will be dismissed by most people (since nobody likes having their core identity attacked).
-It's vague. Telling someone "check your privilege" (or "your racist/sexist/etc.") does nothing to inform the individual of which behavior you find inappropriate. This is VERY important, since privilege is in part defined by the fact that it is INVISIBLE to those who have it.
-Side note: It is easily poorly used. If a person is exhibiting a specific behavior of "privilege", this can be appropriate. However, several examples used in previous posts seem to be very much "blanket" statements. This is very dismissive of people's individual experiences, as it assumes very similar lifestyles for a given group (which, as some have indicated, is not the case). In the end, it caricatures people if not used to point out specific behavior. So why not point out the behavior, rather than use a blanket statement? I will admit not understanding this.

In the end, I believe you have a positive intent OP, but that this might not be the best cause. There is also the issue of re-framing other people's experiences under your lens, which can seem dismissive even if you dont intend it to be so.
As a final question OP:

-In which context is "check your privilege" more appropriate than calling out specific unsatisfactory behavior? How does the expression (in your opinion) add value to an interaction more than calling out specific behavior?

 

[Michael Kirley]

3. They lack any understanding of cultural, sociological, and political evolution. (seriously I can't stand the term "Cultural Appropriation)

So because you read a sociology/history textbook that invalidates another persons feelings? They should just shut up and stop being so offended all the time because "This is just how culture and society work"? I call bullshit.

No, but they should stop screaming and start engaging in rational discourse. See, the thing about "check your privilege" or any other kind of cheeky SJW phrase is that they're all basically condescending phrases designed to halt the discussion and/or distract from actually getting down to the issue and debating it using logic. If someone who has no knowledge of sociological/historical theory starts making sociological and historical claims that I know to be false because of my knowledge in those fields, then I'm well within my rights to tell that person that they're wrong and/or disregard their argument. Feelings aren't a replacement for argument, and I think this is something that SJWs seemingly don't understand. You are, by all means, entitled to whatever emotional reactions you want, but you cannot convince me of the truth of a position by appealing to your feelings. And this what SJWs always do, except less directly.

They'll usually say something like "check your privilege" or "maybe you could just be a decent human being and consider the feelings of X" whenever they're faced with someone who questions the narrative they've been pushing. The presumption, of course, is that if you were a decent human being, you'd agree with them, and since you don't agree with them, you're not a decent human being. This is precisely why phrases like "check your privilege" are absolutely worthless (and will always be worthless) in any sort of discussion or academic environment. They don't encourage critical thinking; they are disguised ad hominems designed to shame you into agreeing with the other person for fear of being designated a bad person, even though the other person hasn't given any strong arguments to agree with them.

And while I don't deny that many people are offended for very good reasons, even the most cursory of glances at Tumblr shows that it's entirely possible for people to get offended at anything they want to get offended by. So yes, there's a great deal of attention seeking bullshit on there which establishes that being offended doesn't strengthen one's argument in the slightest.

I don't think it wise that one should ignore everything a group tries to say based on the crass barkings of it's lesser members. If that was true I'd never admit that male rape was a problem at all. And it is. It's just that so many MRA's are bloody stupid about it.

Nobody actually ignores anything good that SJWs are trying to say (or any group, for that matter) because people cannot ignore solid, well-constructed arguments. Unfortunately, even though I've read literally hundreds of SJW articles and debates, I can recall very few that didn't degenerate into useless name-calling or emotional appeals by the end. Here are some things that I will always ignore (and which society rightfully continues to ignore, for the most part) when screamed about by SJWs:

1) Anything to do with cultural appropriation.

2) Anything to do with made up pronouns beyond he/she (and "they" for trans individuals). I will never use fae/faes/faeself as a pronoun. No.

3) Obviously made up sexual orientations/genders which pop up from week to week (I just read about 'enigender' today, for example).

4) Anyone who argues that PoCs hating white people for their whiteness is "just prejudice" and not racism. Anyone who retools the word "racism" to only ever mean "institutional racism" is intellectually dishonest and not worth my time.

5) Same as 4, except with sexism or any other sort of hateful prejudice.

6) The notion that rape allegations should be met with universal approval, and that the accused should be villified before the trial has even begun. Recently, Max Temkin, whom I actually rather dislike, was accused of rape. Not only did he deny it, and not only was there virtually no evidence, but surprisingly even neutrality about the situation was met with rampant hate on Tumblr. Frankly, I think that there's no good reason to believe that he's a rapist, based on the evidence I'm aware of. This doesn't make me a rape apologist, or whatever. I believe that crimes need to be evidenced, and that hasn't happened in this case.

7) The notion that 1 in 5 women is raped. This study, the authors of which asserted that it wasn't representative of the entire college landscape, is an abuse of statistics with extremely flawed methodology. People should stop throwing it all over the place as if it says anything particularly definitive about the incidence of rape.

8) The idea that rape jokes, sexually suggestive songs/books/movies etc. cause or contribute to rape. There is absolutely zero empirical evidence to support this hypothesis. I believe that something like "rape culture" exists, but this isn't what I take that term to mean.

9) The radfems who think that all penis-in-vagina sex is rape. No.

10) The desire to abolish the sexual binary as socially constructed. The sexual binary is not a social construct; it's a scientific one. The existence of intersex people no more invalidates this conclusion than does genetic variance invalidate the notion of species.

11) HAES. This is provably false and dangerous.

12) Self-diagnosis. Also, using words like "stupid" or "idiot" to refer to stupid and idiotic things is not something I consider to be bigoted or "ableist." When I call someone without a mental handicap an idiot, I'm not denigrating someone who happens to be born with such a defect; I'm juxtaposing the ostensibly functional brain of the person I'm talking to with the sheer absurdity of their argument. It's *as if* they have a defective brain, despite not having one. This, I think, is certainly worthy of ridicule.

13) "Differently abled" as a concept. I can understand certain cases in which it makes sense to characterize something as variance rather than an actual disability. But the fact is that in the vast majority of cases, what we call disability is actually worthy of the name. Someone who is an amputee is disabled. They aren't differently abled; they're restricted in what they're able to do; they are unable to do things as a result of their amputation(s). It's not an attack on their character. Someone who is severely autistic is disabled (you could possibly make an argument for people with Asperger's not being disabled, per se).

14) Otherkin. Absolutely crazy.

15) People opposed to so-called "truscum." As far as I'm concerned, if someone does not experience gender/sexual dysphoria, it's nonsensical to call them transgender. I like to ask people who disagree to concisely define what they understand gender to be, and to explain why their gender is non-dysphorically something that differs from what they understad to be the "typical" gender associated with their sexual makeup. No one has supplied anything remotely reasonable, so far.

I think this is enough for now. SJWs are not new to me. I am not exposed to some tiny minority of them. I have read tonnes of their stuff from tonnes of their websites. I am not an MRA. I would consider myself a feminist in the original sense of the term. I am a white cishet male from a middle-middle class family, and I feel absolutely no guilt about that fact.