“Anti-male” activist faces court in UK

Donkey Oaty · 08-10-2015 3:02pm

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 · 08-10-2015 3:11pm

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 · 08-10-2015 3:24pm

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 · 08-10-2015 3:30pm

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 · 08-10-2015 3:31pm

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 · 08-10-2015 3:39pm

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 · 08-10-2015 3:42pm

People like that should be hung drawn and quartered imo

Maguined · 08-10-2015 3:45pm

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 · 08-10-2015 3:56pm

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 · 08-10-2015 4:08pm

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 · 08-10-2015 4:12pm

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 · 08-10-2015 4:58pm

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

Or in my case, continued not to care.

suicide_circus · 08-10-2015 5:18pm

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 · 08-10-2015 6:27pm

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 · 08-10-2015 6:39pm

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 · 09-10-2015 6:22am

The Corinthian wrote: »

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

I'm moist.

The Corinthian · 09-10-2015 8:31am

Tarzana2 wrote: »

I'm moist.

Then use a towel rather than hot air.

AnonoBoy · 09-10-2015 8:46am

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 · 09-10-2015 8:47am

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 · 09-10-2015 8:58am

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 · 09-10-2015 9:07am

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 · 09-10-2015 10:13am

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 · 09-10-2015 10:15am

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 · 09-10-2015 11:53am

^^^

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 · 09-10-2015 12:41pm

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 · 09-10-2015 12:47pm

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 · 09-10-2015 12:47pm

Stay on topic please.

Mod

kstand · 09-10-2015 12:48pm

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 · 09-10-2015 12:51pm

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 · 09-10-2015 2:54pm

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.

“Anti-male” activist faces court in UK

Comments