Thursday, June 27, 2013

Victim blaming, femsplaining and entitlement

While free will may be a myth, it is surely difficult to predict people's reactions to certain items.

Not too long ago, a simple question was asked - is this social justice? 

The short version of the story - while all parties were travelling on a bus, a man directly labelled a woman (Sam) in his proximity using a racial slur. A friend of the woman (Ellen) physically hit the man.

The post asked the question, is this appropriate? What actually happened?

It was not directly shared with anyone involved, as doing as much as tweeting a link to someone is usually represented as harassment and obsession by 'feminist' thinkers. At the very least, it would be labelled "mansplaining" by people that eagerly assume gender.

It turns out that the parties present have found the post anyways:

Rewind a little bit - even before Ellen found the post, it was accused of 'victim blaming':
You use the same kind of language as rape apologists when shedding "doubt" on survivors stories. Your victim blaming might be what causes you to all but completly overlook the massive rasism in the described attack. Maybe pay some attention to what's actually going on?
Ellen then arrives:

Hi, this is Ellen, the one whose tweets you've published without asking and who was actually there with Sam when she was racially abused on the bus. Firstly- your blog has a horribly victim blaming tone to it. Is there any excuse for these men to have harrassed us, racially or otherwise? They interrupted because of entitlement. We were two lone women, whose time they decided was theirs to waste. We asked politely for them to leave us alone, they didn't. Why is this acceptable to you? Why must we justify our feelings about being spoken to when we wanted to chat alone together? Why do you assume I insulted him? I did insofar as telling him not to talk to me was an insult, and getting back to our own conversation. In fact, weirdly, this did not work. It's almost as if they had no respect for us or out autonomy to exist on a bus without unwanted attention from sniggering men. 
As for the bus full of people, they defended the actions of 2 men who were harassing women, before any racist remarks had been made. They yelled for us to sit down and shut up, baying at the women to stop making a fuss. When he called Sam a paki the bus cheered- have you any idea how fucked up that is?
My actions were what they were, a reaction of fear and anger and righteous indignation that this straight, white man felt it ok to harass us in a sexist, racist way. I don't think what I did was wrong, he deserved a slap.

User "sad kant" agrees:

sad kant
Er, no. Anyone who is racially abused and sexually harassed has a right to defend themselves and respond. It is not "more fucked up" to hit your aggressor than to racially abuse them. Kindly fuck off.

Then another (perhaps Ellen again?) adds:

Must not have black women standing up for themselves; up would become down, white people might actually be held accountable for their coercive powers all over the world. 
You menz make me laugh. Quaking in your boots as you are. You obviously have far too much time on your hands. Get a life. 
Who the fuck are you to say how racist abuse if felt and whether it is minor or not? I class that as a serious incident of abuse and for the record, don't know where you are in the world, but use of that word is illegal in the UK and a pre-emptive strike to defend oneself whether it be verbal or physical, is our right by law.
I have a feeling you're in the States where lynching of PoC is the norm and for you, that's when PoC can justify any defence. Well, it's commonly known that America actively encourages racial segregation so who knows, you might be right when it concerns the people in your own back yard. Here though, nah, for what it's worth we have an illusion of caring for our non-whites. 

Let's back up a bit.

Recall that reactions are often difficult to anticipate.

Sometimes, differences amount to problems of perspective or semantics.

And then occasionally, some things are so far out in left field that reconciliation might not happen.

Items of possible agreement

If you feel threatened, you may preemptively strike. You may have misjudged the situation, and overestimated the threat, but it doesn't change that you were right to strike. If you think you will be attacked or that things will escalate out of control if you don't intervene, you may use force.

Points of contention

Racist slurs are not worse than physical abuse. The law does not state and logic does not support the idea that hearing a racial slur is worse than being hit in the face. Generally, the only countries that think insults are worse than assault are the ones where blasphemy and apostasy are illegal.

Being offended is not a terribly good reason to slap someone. It boggles the mind that this needs be said.

Imagine for a moment that a wife labelled her husband with some insult of a sexual nature. "Impotent", "small penis", or perhaps it's a mixed race relationship and she drops the n-word. How many times could the husband strike his wife before both parties are equally wronged?

From the aforementioned discussion - "being called a paki isn't as [bad as] being walloped apparently."

Perhaps there is a word mix-up here - does "walloped" mean something else in the United Kingdom?

Under no legal system is it legal to use a preemptive strike to prevent verbal abuse.

This statement:
"use of that word is illegal in the UK and a pre-emptive strike to defend oneself whether it be verbal or physical, is our right by law."
Is simply nonsense.
The man on the bus may have committed a crime. Physical intervention to prevent crimes is sometimes warranted. Is someone pointing a gun at you? Do something.

However it does not follow that there would be a judge in the land that would agree that assaulting someone to protect your honor or frail sensibilities would be legal without question.

If it were, then if Ellen loved using the c-word in "real life" as much as she loves to use it on Twitter, then presumably she would spend most of her day dodging the fists of fellow noble Britons.

White people have no magical coercive powers by virtue of being white.

The quote, presumably from Ellen again:
Must not have black women standing up for themselves; up would become down, white people might actually be held accountable for their coercive powers all over the world.
It would seem that the biggest mistake Rosa Parks made was to immediately strike the bus driver in the face. He may have been a lowly bus driver, but acts like this would indeed be a fatal blow to white supremacists everywhere. 

If every black woman took it upon themselves to assault every bigoted white person they come across surely racism would soon be over.

This blog did not publish nor "leak" the details of this incident. It's strange to find people claim it's improper to link to tweets online.

Do people not understand that Twitter is public?

If you care to share that you assaulted a stranger on a bus on Facebook, by Twitter direct messages or by email, then you have some reasonable expectation of at least a little bit of privacy.

Someone that simply live-tweets everything that happens to them cannot have the same expectation of privacy. There is no walled garden of data that was circumvented here.

What we have is someone that announced to the world, putting no constraints on this information, that they had hit another individual.

It cannot be that speaking of this event is now an impolite invasion of privacy.

Describing one's feelings is not the same thing as describing facts about the event. 

Ellen goes to great lengths to generally describe how vile the man was, and how awfully offended both her and Sam were, but none of this actually adds any details about the incident.

In fact Ellen's comments clarify details that really makes one wonder just what was going on. Before the man said anything racist, which one assumes means before Ellen struck him, the bus "defended the actions" of the "interrupting" men. Why?

Is everyone in London a bunch of jerks?

Let's hit on what this story is really about.

This is a story about entitlement.

A criticism often leveled at males by 'feminists' is that the males are prone to 'mansplaining'.

Generally the accusation is given after the male has attempted to explain a situation that a person, man or woman, finds sexist.

'Mansplaining' is shorthand way to say that what the man is doing is attempting to selfishly defend his entitlement while making a completely unconvincing argument.

Similarly, let's assess the arguments made by 'feminists' in these 'incidents'.

In Ellen's bus incident, the victims were truly two "lone women" that were interrupted "because of entitlement".

There are other stories to be told here.

Such as the story about the "lone adulterer and his friend" that were sharing stories, that had their photo placed on Facebook because of 'feminist' entitlement.

And the story of the "two lone programmers" that shared a dongle joke with each other, that had their photo put on Twitter because of 'feminist' entitlement.

Finally, there is the story of a man who used a racist slur, out of rage or bigotry, against two young women on the bus. For that he was assaulted because of 'feminist' entitlement.

One more answer.
"I'd like to know if they are on Twitter."
@uberfeminist is indeed on Twitter.

Everyone need not worry - @uberfeminist was blocked long before assaulting people on buses was in fashion.


  1. Great post, probably far more even-handed than I'd have managed. I'd like to know exactly where these two pillocks plucked the notion that saying the word "paki" is illegal. Either in written law, or in precedent.

    Moreover, what side of the fence would they be on had this same incident happened with other people and reversed. If a Pakistani woman had gotten racial with a white man on a bus, and that white man had slapped her, would they have deemed those actions acceptable?

    Given the story these two present, I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn there was more to this story than white men simply butting in to their conversation and, eventually, escalating it to racial slurs. However, taking their word for it, the reprehensible WORDS (words being the important part, not actions) of any person, whatever their gender or race, does not warrant physical retaliation, unless those words make it clear that the speaker intends to get physical afterwards.

    It must be a horrible life, walking around in a constant search for situations in which you can be the victim.

    1. Knowing the attention seeking brat Ellen Yianni, she was probably antagonising the men anyway. One wonders about the events that led up to the naughty word and resultant physical assault. You are aware, aren't you, that her boyfriend has been in prison for something similar? Jonathan May-Bowles aka @JonnieMarbles infamously attacked a frail 80 year old man on tv with a 'custard pie'. He still stands by his actions because it was his right. These idiots are the ones who cause bad feeling because of their rancid negativity, their self entitlement and interpreting everything to make them personally the victim, even in someone else's fight.

      More Ellen Yianni attention seeking, please note the police were ignoring her, she was like an irritating child to them.

  2. It makes me wonder when I read about assholes like this that hide their hatred behind "feminism": Why do they care what you wrote? They read something balanced and they ALWAYS have to be the victim but why do they care what one person on a blog says? Did that Ellen idiot write such (as well as crowing on twitter) because...what? She just HAS to let you know she feels justified putting her hands on someone else? Deep down, she and her cronies know how they behaved is wrong but they try to justify it anyway? If they think people who criticise them are women haters, WHY.DO.THEY.CARE? These people just REEK of immaturity. I swear the best thing for everyone is if all feminists who think along these lines pool their money together, buy an island and live out their special snowflake lives so the rest of the adult world can go on in peace.

  3. So did you send their confession to local law enforcement? Seems the least you could do.

  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

  5. Did this retard actually claim "self-defense" as justification for physically assaulting someone who called her a mean word?

    This actually reminds me of many of the left leaning people that I've argued over gun control with on the internet. One of the justifications often aired for wanting to ban anyone and everyone from gun ownership is that *THEY* have no self control, and they project this lack of self-control onto everyone else. They assume everyone else has their same lack of mettle, and that they'd pull out their gun and start shooting people over any petty bullshit.

    Anyways, if this is how this retard think self-defense works, then I'm glad they're not allowed to own guns...

  6. That's middle class trustafarians for you, always trying to argue that nothing is ever their fault. I'm sure her very highly paid international lawyer father has pandered to her from the day she was born.

    Thankfully there are very few women like her. Her charming boyfriend is just as at home attacking women (including those with disabilities) and pensioners as she is brawling on a bus. They're both as revolting as each other. Maybe if they got jobs instead of dole-and-twitter-dwelling, they'd be feeling better about themselves and not trying to make even the smallest things into mountains to promote how wonderful they really are as human beings.

    I apologise on behalf of the rest of my sex for having her on our team (clearly by default). I personally think the man should have slapped her back. Where's Jeremy Kyle when you need him? Daddy must be proud...