The media’s ridiculous double standard on the “Draw Muhammad” event in Texas
After the terror attack at the Draw Muhammad event in Texas, the media’s ridiculous double standard for religion and art has become blindingly bright.
On Monday, the media came out and defended the Texas Draw Muhammad event targeted by radical Muslims. The Chicago Tribune said the event “poke[s] wicked fun at [religion] … lampoons the ability of persons of faith to compartmentalize.” The New York Times praised the event for “scrupulously disassemb[ling]” and mocking Islam with “vignettes” that “float into the high altitudes of absurdity.” Variety called the event a “nonstop fusillade of obscenities.”
Oh, wait. Sorry, that was The Book of Mormon, the Mormonism-bashing Tony-award winning musical that actually carries a song with the lyrics “f*** you, God.” Nobody got shot for making that “brave musical.” The media worshipped it, nonetheless, as a blow for freedom.
But when two radical Muslims shoot up a Draw Muhammad event in Garland, Texas, the media jump to rip the event. The day after two alleged radicalized Muslims attacked a festival featuring drawings of Mohammad and ended up chalk outlines themselves, the left came out to attack Pamela Geller and the sponsors of the art contest.
Okay, this bothers me on a massive level. Here’s why.
This cartoon is criticizing those (white) people who are opposed to big government and the way that big government is a threat to our freedoms (ignoring for a moment that it’s hardly a homogenous group of people who believe that). Meanwhile, a black man is being beaten by the cops, saying “Yeah, okay, but I have bigger problems than that” with the implication that the white guy in the foreground is crazy, stupid, or simply blind.
Here’s the thing, though: that black man in the cartoon? He shouldn’t be saying “Speak for yourself!”, he should be saying “Preaching to the choir, buddy!”
Ignoring for the moment the Appeal to Worse Problems fallacy inherent in the whole shebang that could just as easily be used to shut down American black people’s complaints when compared to people living in North Korea or African child soldiers or the quintessential starving children example, police brutality is a big government problem. It’s literally government officials abusing their power. Big government gathers power, then abuses it. It looks at racial, cultural, and class tensions, chuckles to itself, then sticks a finger in and stirs. The more power you hand to your government, the more it will step on you, regard you as unnecessary or just a cog in the machine, and do whatever it can to keep you in the position where you felt you needed to give it power. Look at Freddie Grey, killed by cops who felt they were entitled to a little fun. Look at Eric Garner, killed by cops for not giving the government a cut of his sales. This is what big government looks like. The black man in this political cartoon is living the situation the white man fears, but the cartoon is making it out like it’s the opposite situation.
“By admitting that she was responding to the upsurge in the streets of Baltimore, Marilyn Mosby [the state prosecutor pursuing charges against the six officers who killed Freddie Gray] said what is normally left unsaid, and made perfectly clear what is supposed to remain hidden: that the only “credible threat” that matters to police and political elites is the threat posed when communities take to the streets.”
NBC calls Texas terror victims a “hate group,” says nothing bad about the ISIS-loyal attackers
You would think that after an ISIS-connected terror attack on US soil, the media would in a frenzy over the story, and they are, but not because ISIS committed an act of terror against American citizens. No, the media is “all wee weed up” because they want to make sure everybody knows that the victims of this terror attack are terrible people. Seriously…the media has had worse things to say about the intended targets of the Texas attack than the terrorists themselves.
Here’s a prime example from NBC News:
This is no different than blaming a rape victim for her assault because her skirt was too short!
Notice that NBC News didn’t bother telling you anything about the terrorists in that video. They just wanted you to know that Pamela Geller is “Islamophobic” and the group that sponsored the “Draw Muhammad” art contest is a “hate group.” Can you really call it “Islamophobia” if radical Islamic groups are actually trying to kill Pamela Geller?
politics, gender politics, social justice, equality, body positivity, a safe space, mental health, boy advice, girl advice, gender neutral advice, minority positive, trans* positive, sex education, q&as, tag videos, fun videos, informational and progressively driven videos. if you are interested please subscribe :) come join the conversation & just remember that I’m always here for you.
G-BT03/029 R 雄視の解放者 バルブトルック Heroic Vision Liberator, Barbtruc “必殺の一撃。そして、それは何度でも。(The finishing blow will come. No matter how many times it takes.)” Grade 0 / Trigger Unit - Critical Trigger / United Sanctuary - Gold Paladin - Human Power 4000 Shield 10000 Critical 1 [Auto]: [Place this card at the bottom of your Deck] When this Unit appears in a [Rearguard Circle], you can pay the cost. If you do, look at the top 4 cards of your Deck, look up for to 1 card with “Bluish Flame” in its card name, show it to your opponent, add it to your hand, then shuffle that Deck.
G-BT03/027 R 寡言の解放者 ブレンニウス Taciturn Liberator, Brennius “青き炎は、確実に次代に継がれていく。(The bluish flames have been inherited by the next generation.)” Grade 2 / Normal Unit / United Sanctuary - Gold Paladin - Human Power 9000 Shield 5000 Critical 1 [Auto] [[Rearguard Circle]]: When one of your other Units appears in a [Rearguard Circle] from the Deck, if you have a Vanguard with “Liberator” in its card name, during that turn, this Unit gains [Power]+2000 and “[Auto] [[Rearguard Circle]]: When this Unit’s attack hits a Vanguard, you can choose 1 card in your Damage Zone, flip it face-up.”
“I Was Born a Baby Not a Boy”: Sex, Gender and Trans Liberation
The Severing of Sex from Gender
As transgender identities, social spaces and movements have developed
over the past 150 years there’s been a sharpening of the confrontation
between bourgeois ideological constructions of gender and how gender is
defined by ordinary people.
In its crudest form, dominant ideology claims that there is a fixed
and necessary connection between one’s biological body (sex) and one’s
social being (gender). According to this gender essentialist view women
are nurturing, sensitive, emotional, caring and apt mothers not because
social environments have created this dominant construction of
womanhood, but because of women’s biology.
The history of gender variance across the globe, as Leslie Feinberg documents in Transgender Warriors,
is enough to cast doubt on the essentialist view of gender. From
two-spirit people of the American First Nations, to cross-dressers such
as Thomas Ernest Boulton and Frederick William Park (also known as
Stella and Fanny; two cross-dressers who lived as women in Victorian
London’s theatrical scene) the practice of gender and how people
identify themselves has often diverged from essentialist ideology.
Despite this, essentialist ideology remains very resilient. It has
only been through social movements and challenges from below that gender
variant and non-binary gender identity has become more visible and
accepted. Even today your average person denies the fact that someone
with a penis could also be a woman because the link between one’s
biology and one’s gendered social expression is deemed fixed.
Historically, materialist feminists have fought vigorously to sever
the fixed link between sex (biology) and gender (social being). They
argue that one’s gender – that is, the way one behaves, dresses, talks,
views oneself, views the world and is seen by others – is a complex
result of social identity, relations, expectations and conditioning. In
short, it is a social construction. Women are caring, nurturing mothers
by social not biological impulse. Early proponents of these arguments
viewed sex (XX chromosomes, breasts, oestrogen, being able to reproduce)
as having a biological rootedness (though this, as will be explored
later, was a claim problematized by theorists such as Judith Butler).
This type of argument became known as the sex/gender distinction and it
is from this starting point that some materialist feminists developed
Simone de Beauvoir’s claim that “one is not born but rather becomes a
woman” from a discussion about ‘being’ vs. ‘becoming’ to one about
‘nature’ vs. ‘society’.
Out of the sex/gender distinction materialist feminism flourished and
theorists began viewing gender not as a natural category, but instead
as a category that is given the appearance of naturalness. Gender
essentialists argued that if women’s social being is fixed and women’s
oppression characterises that social being, then women’s oppression must