Two Friday’s ago, an idiot decided to get revenge on the world by grabbing a gun and shooting up UCSB, killing 7 people and then turning the gun on himself and taking his own life. In spite of the fact that the idiot in question killed four men and two women and was of mixed racial origin, the feminist lynch mob immediately turned this into an opportunity to rail against “white male entitlement,” “rape culture,” and “lax gun laws.” All of the best liberal claptrap talking points honed into one blunt club with which to bludgeon everyone that they’ve been bludgeoning for years.
How convenient, right? Somehow they managed to shoehorn this shooting into a few convenient categories that furthered their agenda. I won’t even get into the idiocy of that nor the idiocy that inspired the #yesallwomen thing on Twitter because I think that 90% of what was in that tag was simply paranoia masquerading as social justice and equality battling. I learned such pithy things from that tag that all women have been leered at, spoken to and objectified sexually, and other happy tropes that feminists repeat with so much regularity they don’t even question it. In much the same way that the anti-sexual assault PSA’s were received as brilliant and men were told to shut up when they dared imply that a more effective campaign would be to discuss the issue of domestic violence and rape as it applies to men and women, if you dared to question #yesallwomen, you were told to shut up and defer to women. Doesn’t that sound like a nice healthy dose of equality? You can be as equal as you want, just shut up.
No, I’m gonna leave that idiocy behind and talk about other idiocy: the bowl of M&M’s. How does a bowl of M&M’s equate to idiocy? Put it in the hand of a moron with enough white male guilt and a Twitter account and you now have a fantastic delivery vehicle for utter stupidity.
His argument is this; when men are annoyed at women generalizing men by saying “not all men” when they talk about men in general, they’re angering women by not acknowledging the inherent shittiness of men. In his words:
“You say not all men are monsters?
Imagine a bowl of M&Ms. 10% of them are poisoned.
Go ahead. Eat a handful.
Not all M&Ms are poison. “
That, my friends, is the brilliance of an internet comedian who calls himself Frogman who has hundreds of thousands of internet friends who think he’s just the bees knees. Oh sure he doesn’t leave the house, have a job, or anything else, and is just literally a person who lives in his parent’s basement due to Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, but you guys he’s really really empathetic. In spite of not actually supporting himself, living and functioning in the actual world, or even trying the responsibilities of holding down a job, you guys, he’s really upset about this whole shooting thing and thinks that men should just shut up about the generalizing going on and be angry with the internet feminists condemning all men.
In other words, shut up, you aren’t angry enough, and if you can’t be strong-armed into a pigeonhole, you’re a jerk.
His 10% argument is so ridiculous that it should make anyone with a brain chuckle, but apparently brains are lacking in the digital world because he received universal praise from the “don’t sexualize us while we identify ourselves as vagina owners” crowd and he is now considered a hero for being brave and bold, but let’s take his argument at face value and dissect it because that’s the only way we can understand how to combat such abject stupidity.
Frogman’s argument essentially says that women have a right to generalize men because when they don’t they run the risk of running into the 1 in 10 that are dangerous to them.
Can you imagine applying that to any other population? He specifically talks about “white male entitlement” so it’s clear that if your skin is white and you identify as male, and there are enough of you in a room, one of you is a sexual predator and women have a right to treat you all shitty because making the mistake about which one of you isn’t would be dangerous to her. How’s that for a summary?
Essentially what these folks have done is said that you are poisoned by the minority of your group, and if you protest being lumped in with them instead of doing what they perceive as “enough” to stop them, you are as much the problem as the shooters, rapists, etc. You should feel bad and you are responsible.
Let’s turn this one on its head and apply it to another population.
In New York City, the overwhelming majority of rape suspects are black and Hispanic. In fact, between those two populations, 86.4% of rapes are accounted for. In spite of the outrage about white male entitlement, it’s clear that at least in New York City, white male entitlement isn’t raping women: black and Hispanic men are. Go ahead, internet activists: argue to your social justice warrior friends that you don’t trust black or Hispanic men because they’re nearly 100% of the population in the largest city in the country that will rape you.
How far do you think you’d go before that assertion was labeled racist? I’d be willing to bet you’d barely get the words out of your mouth before some hairy-armpitted feminist would argue that you were being disrespectful to POC and you needed to check your privilege.
Or better yet; if you were to eliminate all black men and all Hispanic men from New York City, you would, basically, end all rape in New York City.
Put that one out there to your internet social justice warrior friends. See what they tell you.
Now clearly I’m not saying we should wipe black people or Hispanic people off the face of the earth to solve rape, but if the argument is that we need to solve rape by having “conversations” then we need to understand who we actually need to have the conversations with, don’t we? Many of the tweets surrounding the hashtag #yesallwomen were something like “I have to walk with my keys in my hand sticking out because I need a weapon at all times.” Well, yeah, but if you felt that fear based on someone’s skin color in New York City, your friends would argue that you’re invalidating the struggle of POC (People of Color for those of you not versed in new age bullshit) and you’re part of a racist, corrupt, and oppressive system.
When this M&M tale started circulating, it made me chuckle because for years the crowd spreading it (and the #yesallwomen tag) have exhaustively categorized every generalization made by anyone that isn’t them making generalizations as racist, bigoted, homophobic or misogynistic. Now they’re making the same generalizations with everyone breathlessly supporting them about a group of people and if those people dare to object to it, they’re told to sit down and shut up. One feminist on tumblr when asked how men could present themselves as an “ally” to feminists was told “Always defer to women.”
Does that sound like a relationship of equals like “feminists” claim they want, or does that sound to you like someone who thinks they carry a superiority complex?
Now before you get your knickers in a twist, I recognize that there are such thing as feminists who don’t think this way, and who do recognize the reality of the world more than these blinded fools who take to the web every time they have a chip on their shoulder and a bone to pick with a group they don’t like, but if I employed this new logic of the M&M bowl, I should hate all of you because some quantity of you hate me as a white male and because you’re not “doing enough” to silence the hateful members of your flock.
Sucks when it’s turned around on you, doesn’t it?
Blaming people for the bad parts of their population is bad form even when it’s white men. When people tried to justify the shooting of Trayvon Martin by pointing out that the reason he was considered suspicious was because the neighborhood had been robbed by young black men, they were called racist immediately even though that level of judgment is basically exactly what was happening here and that statement was actually based in fact.
It’s wrong and it’s crappy and you can’t be for it in one case and against it in another because that would mean you were full of crap, and we wouldn’t want that, would we?
Header image via Hisham Binsuwaif on Flickr