Posts Tagged ‘blowback’

Using Identity Politics to Justify Being an Asshole Will Create Blowback

August 5, 2019 7 comments

Over the past decade, I have noticed a peculiar but unsustainable trend in western societies. In the past, certain sexual minority groups such as gays, lesbians etc were unfairly persecuted and socially marginalized. Over the past 2-3 decades, this has generally changed for the better with alternative sexual orientations being increasingly accepted to be within the range of normality by majority. For example, marriages between same-sex couples in many western countries is today seen as no less normal than those between heterosexual couples. Workplace discrimination due to alternate sexual orientation is far less common than even twenty years ago. All these changes have lead to a more equal society- at least, as far as sexual orientation is concerned.

However, as I mentioned at the beginning of this post, there are many signs that some of these changes have led to the rise of identity politics and “wokeism”. As some of you might remember, a few months ago, I wrote a post or two about how the ideology of transgenderism is likely to lose public support in near future. The main thread running through both posts was that trying to force acceptance through legal chicanery and identity politics would inevitably antagonize many far larger groups who would otherwise have not cared, one way or the other. Putting effort into creating enemies where none would be necessary, has always struck me as especially stupid way to go through life. Then again, inflated egos are usually the cause of most man-made disasters.

This problem is, however, bigger than most people want to believe. Over these years, I have also noticed another similar and potentially even more problematic trend. This comes in two major and non mutually-exclusive forms. The first involves celebrities, journalists and other public figures of alternate sexual orientation using it as a justification for being moral superior to the heterosexual majority. To be clear, I am nor referring to jokes about straight weddings being full of poorly dressed people or gay men being usually far better dressed than straight men- both of which are accurate observations. I am referring to repeated instances of said public figures invoking their sexual orientation to justify their assholish behavior, sense of entitlement and belief in their intrinsic moral superiority over all those ‘other people’.

To me, their attitudes and behaviors are eerily reminiscent of old-fashioned racism, where race has been replaced by sexual orientation. But why is it problematic? Well.. to put it very bluntly, successfully pulling of this shit for an extended length of time requires that group to be either a demographic majority or incredibly rich while also not being a small minority (less than 5% of population). Trying to pull this shit when you are not in the position to back up your swagger with anything beyond shaming language, some money and legal chicanery does not end well, as seen repeatedly in history. While I am deliberately not identifying the many historical parallels, many of you can read between the lines to identify them.. right?

The second, and overlapping trend, involves them trying to force deference from the heterosexual majority. While this trend is new, it is very easy to find examples of this on social media sites as well as real life. In my opinion, this trend is significantly more problematic than the first because it is possible for people to partially ignore people who act like self-entitled pricks- but ignoring idiots who want to use legal chicanery about their sexual orientation to browbeat others for things which have nothing to do with sexuality carries a serious risk of eventual backlash. Once again, to be clear, we are not talking about whether some bakery refuses to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple or something along those lines. Instead, this is about people using made-up outrages to get people fired from jobs, deplatformed from social media, etc.

As mentioned in a previous post, the successes of the LGB (yes, I deliberately omitted certain alphabets) movement in western countries has a lot to do with it occurring in an era of increasing prosperity and overall economic well-being. The period between 1970 to early 2000s was a pretty decent time to be an average person in western countries. While the drift towards neoliberalism had started in the 1980s, shit did not really hit the fan till middle of first decade of this century. It was this relatively stable and generally prosperous environment that allowed the sexual majority to start empathizing sexual minorities. People tend to be generous when times are good.

As readers will know, that period ended somewhere between 2005 and 2008. To make matters worse, “wokeness” and other related bullshit mentioned above started entering into the public sphere in a big way in around 2012, which (in my opinion) is also the time when most people in the west finally realized that their system in a terminal downward spiral. Smarter people would have resisted the urge to play little power games which offered no long-term gain, but quite a few of these people (especially in coastal cities) appear to have decided that this was the right moment to assert their self-proclaimed ‘moral superiority’ and flex the muscles of legal chicanery to show who is the boss. It did not help that many are public figures with high media visibility.

To summarize, it is very likely that such attitudes and behaviors will result in a backlash from the sexual majority. Also, sexual minorities unlike ethnic or racial minorities will always remain minorities. Indeed, some of this blowback is already visible and is one of the reasons why Trump was able to dominate the republican presidency and get elected in 2016. You do realize that many of loudest “woke” assholes who use their sexual orientation as an excuse for their pathetic attitudes and malicious behaviors go out of their way to identify themselves as loyal democrats.

What do you think? Comments?

Thoughts on the Scandal surrounding Asia Argento and Jimmy Bennett

August 22, 2018 6 comments

A few months ago, an article by Ronan Farrow in ‘The New Yorker’ exposed the famous and powerful film producer, Harvey Weinstein, as a serial sexual assaulter/ predator/ exhibitionist and well.. an overall shitty human being. This was followed by a series of article about repeated instances of serious sexual harassment, assault and rape by Harvey Weinstein and many other powerful, old (and mostly white) men in media. Since then, more than a few famous older men in the field of media and entertainment no longer have their previous jobs or careers, and many deserved that outcome because what they did (and later confessed) was beyond normal flirting.

Of course, as many of you also know there also been instances of famous men being accused of sexual assault in instances where the evidence suggests miscommunication rather than anything approaching assault. A good example of such an overblown accusation was Aziz Ansari being accused of sexual assault by a woman he hooked up, because he expressed a desire to have penetrative sex with her instead of just oral sex. Some of you might have also heard of instances where some semi-famous guy (like Joss Whedon) constantly pushing his feminist credentials turned out to be a serial adulterer. To put it another way, we have seen the good, bad and ugly of #MeToo accusations- and there have plenty of all three types.

And this brings us to the recent exposé of the “odd” sexual relationship between Asia Argento and Jimmy Bennett. The short version of this still unfolding story is as follows: Asia Argento and Jimmy Bennett first met when they worked in the 2004 film ‘The Heart Is Deceitful Above All Things‘ when she was 29 years old and he was 7. As a side note, I would recommend reading a summary of that movie’s plot, because the subject matter of that movie (which was also directed by her) gives an interesting insight into stuff that captures her imagination. Anyway.. she developed a close personal bond with him, which to outsiders appeared to be some form of surrogate mother-son type relationship. And that is what makes this story so.. peculiar.

Moving on.. she kept in touch with him as he was growing up and this somehow culminated with her seducing him and having sex with him, on or just after his 17th Birthday. Subsequently, he accused her of sexual assault (especially since he was technically a minor at that time) resulting in her paying him about 380,000 dollars to buy his silence. The reason why any of this is relevant to the ‘MeToo’ movement is that Asia Argento was one the first and most vocal accusers of Harvey Weinstein whose exposure was, for all practical purposes, the starting point of that movement. In others words, that movement has turned full circle.. if you can call it that.

I am sure we have not the last of the accusations and counter-accusations between these two. The latest update is that there are photos and texts which clearly show that they were sexually intimate on the day which he claimed. Also, she has not denied paying him that amount or money. It also appears that she justified this incident in her mind based on her own history- specifically dating a 33-year-old guy when she was 17. Whatever you might think about the appropriateness or inappropriateness of this relationship, it hard to ignore that she repeatedly treated him like a surrogate son before having sex with him- and that makes it well.. odd.

Here is one montage of relevant photos and screenshots from her Instagram account. Also the guy int the posed photo is not Jimmy, but someone with a similar body type and likely age group.

And here is another montage where she clearly refers to him as her surrogate son. Remember she allegedly had sex with a day or so after one of the Instagram photos in this second montage.

What do you think? Comments?

Blowback to ‘MeToo’ Movement in Entertainment Industry is Inevitable

June 18, 2018 28 comments

In the past few months, we have seen a number of famous and not-so-famous people in the entertainment industry (almost exclusively men) being accused of sexual harassment by often previously unknown accusers (almost exclusively women) resulting in the former losing their jobs or careers. More relevantly for the rest of this post, many of these accusations are based on accepting woman accuser’s word as the truth and lack of due process for accused. Even being a bit allegedly “mean” to women is now sufficient for femfists and their dickless ‘male allies’ to act like lynch mobs on social media platforms.

The list of men in the entertainment industry who have been accused of sexual harassment or just being too “mean” and “disrespectful” to women is long and ever-growing. Curiously, many of those accused were once big supporters of the same feminist bullshit which has now screwed them over. It is, therefore, hard to feel much sympathy for guys who once enthusiastic supported really bad ideas such as “women can do no wrong or lie” or “women are always morally superior to men”. Perhaps they thought that mouthing platitudes about, and expressing support for, feminism would somehow protect them from such accusations. Guess what.. it did not!

Moving on.. we have now reached the point where basically any women can accuse any male celebrity she interacted, or had repeated consensual sex, with anything from sexual harassment, emotional abuse, sexual assault or pretty much anything else even if she had zero proof that her allegations are true. The recent examples of some starfucker accusing Aziz Ansari of sexual assault and Chris Hardwick being accused of sexual assault and emotional cruelty by his ex-girlfriend (who is quite the headcase) are particularly instructive since they show that feminists are striving for a ‘brave new world’ where consent can be revoked after the fact.

So here is a somewhat unpleasant, but realistic, prediction of the type of blowback we might soon see in response to men losing their livelihoods and careers over accusations which could not have been successfully prosecuted in a court of law. Spoiler.. the term ‘blowback’ will assume a whole new meaning in this context. Faced with the destruction of their career and lack of due process, a small percentage of men accused in this manner might decide that killing their accuser is the most appropriate response to such accusations. To be clear, I neither condone, nor condemn such a response- just pointing out that sooner or later, something along these lines is inevitable.

And there are a couple of well-known precedents for this sort of reaction. Most of you must have heard or read about at least a few cases of men killing their ex-wives or ex-partners because of a perception that civil court system was very unfair to them during their divorce or child-custody hearings. Well.. what is the real difference between a guy who lost his house during a divorce which he did not initiate and an actor losing his career because of accusations which cannot be proven in a court of law? Not much, and the later example is potentially worse than the former.

Another precedent for such reactions comes from looking at the profile of mass shooters in USA. With a few exceptions, mass shooters tend to chronically single or functionally incel men with poor job and career prospects for the future. The corporate media and every other discredited institutions can blame ‘mental health’ all they want, but the fact that some men who would rather go on rampage shootings or overdose themselves with opioids says far more about that society than the men. To summarize, we have seen violent blowback from men in similar situations and under similar constraints.

The psychological profile of those who work in entertainment industry tends towards higher levels of risk taking and emotional responses than average. I mean.. look at the incidence of addiction, overdosing, risky sexual behavior etc prevalent in that group versus the general population. It would therefore be not surprising if we started seeing a few men subject to such kangaroo court trials by social media decide to make their accuser pay for her accusations. While it hard to predict when such a trend will become public, everything we know about human behavior and responses makes it almost inevitable.

What do you think? Comments?

On Moves to Brand Masculinity of Men in West as ‘Toxic’: Nov 26, 2017

November 26, 2017 33 comments

Many readers of my blog might have noticed a recent rash of articles, in both traditional and online media, about how masculinity is somehow inherently ‘toxic’. In case you haven’t seen them, here is very short list of these hilarious opinion pieces: Funny Link 1, Funny Link 2 and Funny Link 3. I am sure that most have also seen links to other similar and equally hilarious write-ups on that topic in their FaceBook and Twitter newsfeeds. But poking fun at unintentionally comic articles is not the main focus of this post, though many are highly entertaining to read.

Let me, instead, begin by asking you a simple question: since when has masculinity been seen as ‘toxic’ in western countries? Most of you might select a time between say.. 1968 to sometime within the last few years. However, as I shall shortly demonstrate, those dates and the thinking behind selecting them is not based in reality. Masculinity, you see, has always been toxic in the ‘west’ as long as it was the masculinity of non-white men. In case you don’t believe it, have a look at the disproportionate number of black men lynched for alleged sexual ‘crimes’ against white women in the pre-WW2 USA. Or look at how the behavior (sexual and otherwise) of black men is viewed and treated in USA.

You could also look at how the sexuality of men from other non-white groups has been traditionally depicted in books, films, TV shows and other forms of popular entertainment. I mean.. can you think of even one semi-well known film or TV show that depicts east-Asian men as attractive or desirable? What about non-white Mexican men? Or what about men of Indian descent? I can reel of a list of characters within american popular media based around negative stereotypes of non-white men. Somehow, all of these negative stereotypes which border on dehumanization and demonization never caused anything more than a few polite disagreements… because, doing so was considered perfectly acceptable for the previous and now rapidly waning majority- especially white men.

But reality, you see, often displays a sense of bitter irony. Many of the same tropes used to dehumanize non-white men and demonize their sexuality have in recent years been turned at full blast towards white men. Then again, attempts to nurture proverbial poisonous snakes in the hopes that they will bite only ‘other’ people always ends the same way. This process is also generally similar to how western attempts to create civil and ethnic strife in other countries ultimately cause the same within their own borders. Or how the ‘War on Terror’ in other countries becomes the incarceration-surveillance state for those idiots who supported the former. Or how welfare, free trade and free-market “reforms” meant to hurt black people have now fucked over lots of white people too.

Some of you might say that what I written until now is too non-specific. I mean.. which tropes am I talking about? and how do they apply to the current situation?

So here it goes. Consider how ‘non-alpha’ white men (aka the majority) risk getting accused of sexual harassment, sexual assault and even rape if the women in question either does not find them attractive, thinks they are “creepy” or has regrets after the fact. That particular type of demonizing male sexuality in USA started with black men- for reasons that are too obvious to anyone with a passing knowledge of american history. As some of you know, talking and flirting with white women and having sex with them resulted in black men being accused of identical ‘crimes’- even if nothing non-consensual had occurred. The fact that most white men are now treated that way is both funny and richly deserved.

Or consider how mere accusations of sexual impropriety are now enough to destroy careers of white men. Or how white women are supposed to be always truthful when they make such accusations. Both tropes trace their origins to what occurred to black and other non-white men in previous eras. It is darkly funny to watch most white men get railroaded the same way as they once did to others. It is also hard to feel sympathy for those who cheered on and participated in such mob behavior under the mistaken belief that they would be never affected by such injustices. I mean.. if public trials based on one-sided accounts were ok when the accused were non-white men, what is wrong with continuing that ‘tradition’ when the accused are white men?

Then there is the issue of many white men now being seen as less than worthy for having sex with women. And once again, this is the extension of a trope which was previously applied to non-white men (especially east-Asian and Indian). Of course, almost everybody else in the ‘west’ was perfectly fine when the men not deemed worthy of having female sexual partners were non-white. As it turns out, that trope also spread far beyond the groups it was originally meant to marginalize. And that is why it is amusing to watch all those mediocre (white) men complaining about being treated as undesirable and less-than-human by white women. Then again, thinking beyond the short-term is rather uncommon in human beings- irrespective of race and ethnicity.

What do you think? Comments?