Have you noticed the tactic the Social Justice Warriors are using? It’s diabolical, and — when we’ve let them get away with it — has been dangerously effective.
The same people always complaining about things being “appropriated” or that someone has been “disenfranchised”; the people complaining about abuses of patriarchy and privilege are doing the same and worse to others.
They are “disenfranchising” people from their own opinion. They are setting the rules for dealing with social issues, and tilting the playing field in their own favor. If you are talking about race, for example, the opinion of white people doesn’t matter. If you’re discussing the politicization of sex, anyone with traditional values can kindly sit down and shut up. And so on.
As an example: I recently wrote an article about the inherent risks of sketchy men having easy access to women’s washrooms. It didn’t even mention the transexual angle. One reader tagged me on Twitter along with some random transexual rights advocate. The SJW said I wasn’t qualified to have an opinion, then called me ignorant. (Winky-face emoticon.)
Apparently the winky-face is the “get-out-of-jail free card” for being an a$$hole to a stranger online.
This is the classic hands-over-the-ears “la-la-la I can’t hear you!” tactic of toddlers, but with a twist. It goes farther. It shames or bullies the other person into silence. This is exactly the kind of BS that gives rise to political leaders immune to this tactic. It’s what gives Trump a path to leadership.
When accompanied by the peer pressure of socialist activism in the traditional media, social media (even Facebook’s trending stories are activist-manipulated), academia, and Social Justice Warrior protesters at every turn, it is easy to project the idea that a relatively new belief holds the majority opinion in the public. Result? Anyone who doesn’t agree should just shut up and learn to like it.
“Shut up, they explained…”
Since last week was Mother’s Day, March for Life events are held in Canada this week. Abortion is yet another place where the playing field is tilted. If you don’t have a uterus, you don’t get to have an opinion.
If you want to see abortion activists given a solid beating and hoisted on their own petard, Mike Adams is your guy. That said, let’s take a look at the favorite shutupery argument of the activists: some version of “if you don’t have a uterus, shut up”. Or: keep your government out of my uterus.”
By the time we’re discussing abortion, the time for keeping what out of which uterus has already come and gone. Theirs is an unfortunate choice of words they might want to rethink.
But is the shut-up logic they use even valid? Especially in today’s gender-fluid world?
Could Caitlyn Jenner have an opinion on this? Is this only a cis-woman’s issue? What about Bruce? What about a woman who’s had a hysterectomy?
The baby which may or may not survive the womb is inside a woman, so only that woman’s opinion is valid? It only affects her? Do we really believe that? Where does child support come into this? If the baby actually survives until childbirth, is the father financially responsible? That’s a no-brainer, right?
Actually, no. By the abortionist’s logic, after conception, the man’s part is done. He has nothing further to contribute. He has no rights, and no input even concerning the life of his own child.
Does the Abortion activists want to be consistent? Are they the “strong independent women” who “need a man like a fish needs a bicycle”? If they were, the “get the government out of my uterus” would be quickly followed by “get your uterus out of his wallet”. In fact, some people already live this way. We slut-shame them as “deadbeat dads”.
Women make the choice to bear the child (or not)… alone, supposedly. That’s the picture the abortionists paint, anyway. And yet, they want men to pay up and shut up. It doesn’t work that way.
At what point did men commit to provide for the child? If you answered “conception”, you’re right! By consenting to the act that created life, he accepted the responsibilities that follow. (Which, incidentally, is one of the benefits of monogamous relationships — front-end acceptance of that responsibility.)
And yet, somehow, she wants to play by different rules than he does. Scientific discoveries are providing ever-stronger evidence of the “life begins at conception” argument. And as soon as we are discussing a person in utero, rather than an “it” most arguments for abortion are forfeit.
An employer (even a plantation owner) has moral obligations to his workers. A landlord (even a slumlord) has moral obligations to his tenants. A woman (even an abortionist) has moral obligations to her unborn child. The rationale exactly the same. It is not predicated on the rights, feelings, or preferences of the more powerful person, but the rights of the more vulnerable and dependent person. The slave, the tenant, the unborn child.
And even if many women refuse to speak up to prevent the rights of children being trampled, then at least the men can still have a voice to defend them.
And mine will not be silenced.