Category Archives: Political Correctness

Discrimination In the Fight Against Discrimination

The BBC has published an article to apologize for hiring people based on their skill instead of their sexual organs.

We’re in excellent company. Both inside and outside of the BBC, more journalists and editors are realising that, while the media didn’t invent gender bias, it has a key role in perpetuating it. The BBC’s director-general has announced a target of 50:50 across all of the BBC’s programmes and sites by April 2019. The challenge is also being piloted by media organisations in the US and Europe.

The article is like an encyclopedia for feminists. Here’s a gem from The Atlantic they quote:

“Women in science face a gauntlet of well-documented systemic biases. They face long-standing stereotypes about their intelligence and scientific acumen. They need better college grades to get the same prestige as equally skilled men, they receive less mentoring, they’re rated as less competent and less employable than equally qualified men, they’re less likely to be invited to give talks, they earn less than their male peers, and they have to deal with significant levels of harassment and abuse.”

As I wrote yesterday, the feminist angle is to ignore any of the interesting causes that might lie behind the effects they are seeing, and to instead assign a cause, namely sexism.

The author is careful to avoid mentioning the female-only scholarships, the female-oriented primary schools, the female advocacy articles (like this one) for cushy jobs. No women are demanding equal representation to work on oil rigs or fishing ships.

The only way the BBC can have equal representation of both sexes is to systematically hire on the basis of sex. They have quotas. If ten qualified people apply to the BBC for open positions, the BBC will first look at the sex of each of those people to determine whether they can be hired. This isn’t sexism or discrimination, apparently, because only men can be sexist, and only women can be targets. This is the very definition of an unequal measure and of unjust discrimination, but that’s a point that’s been safely ignored for decades.

We started to make gender-even sourcing a requirement in all our commissions, something requested of our writers along with a deadline and word count.

The BBC is admitting that the quality of a source is less important than the sex of the source. This is beyond virtue signalling and into clear social Marxism.

The try to counter this with nonsense:

To make it clear, we will continue to interview, and reference, the most qualified people. That hasn’t changed, and nothing about seeking out female voices undermines that.

“Yes, my job is to serve readers by finding the best sources for my stories, but why assume that the best source isn’t a woman?”

Notice the false framing. No one suggested that we ought to presume men are the best sources. We just don’t want to presume that the best sources are equally men and women. There’s no warrant for that whatsoever. The BBC knows this, but can’t admit it, so they hide behind a defense against an obviously flimsy argument that no one has made.

What’s astonishing here, even for me, is how little self-awareness the author of this article or any of the quoted sources are. For all the moaning about unequal percentages of the sexes in every single metric that can be conceived, the authors refuse to acknowledge that men and women might be different. They hold two* contradictory notions at the same time:

  1. Men and women are exactly the same.
  2. Men are oppressors and women are oppressed.

They are forced to affirm (1) out of reverence to their false god, Egalité. They are forced to affirm (2) out of their commitment to the cult of Feminism.

They’d rather hold a contradiction at the center of their worldview than admit that the differences we see between men and women on various metrics is a result of innate differences between men and women and not from some evil spirit of sexism that haunts and guides the world.

That the BBC is so bold as to publish an article like this reveals just how far into the cesspool we’ve fallen.

*Granted, there are other contradictions held as well (e.g. women are better than men, women are naturally good and men are naturally evil, etc).


How Blame Fails

A bookstore in London noticed something in the sales lists of the top 500 rare books sold at auction in 2018: no woman broke the top 20. In fact, they began to average 1 woman every 100 books. They call this grim:


Any set of data can be analyzed in limitless arbitrary ways. This same data, for example, would probably show that men of a certain age appear in the top 500 than men of other ages. Books probably come from some centuries more than others.

A more thoughtful person would probably not notice or care about any patterns. After all, this is a list of rare books sold at auction. The types of books that become rare and the demand for those books are contingent on innumerable causes. Maybe the third-place book made it so high because the author recently had a resurgence from a movie based on his work. Maybe copies of dozens of the books were recently discovered in an old library, allowing them to be sold. Maybe books written by women are produced in larger quantities than books written by men such that they never become rare. It’s all speculation. Professional investigations could be performed on each book and the buyers (if the data is available) and it might take years. It doesn’t seem to be a valuable use of time.

But what is a valuable use of time for the Perpetually Outraged is to quickly look down the official list of victims (from least to most victimized) to see if any are represented less than half the time. At the top of the list is women in general, followed by select racial minorities, etc. Lucky for this bookstore, they didn’t have to go very far down the list.

The bookstore doesn’t spend any time considering what the possible causes are for the results. Obviously, as men wrote more books in the past than women and older books are typically the ones that become rare, the obvious explanation is that we see exactly what we expect. There’s no systematic bias against women by people who collect rare books or people who auction them. There’s just fewer rare books written by women. Reflection is anathema to the Perpetually Outraged, so we fall instead to the default position of blame.

Feminists on Twitter soon took the data to say things it did not say:


Aside from some severe misunderstandings of scarcity (scarce books cannot be auctioned more frequently than less scarce books), the Twits also presume that sexism is to blame for the apparent discrepancy. Why do women have fewer rare books? Sexism. There can be no other explanation. Even though it would take a great deal of effort to determine if someone is a sexist (hating someone for their sex requires incredible knowledge of one’s inner thought life), the Twits have no problem applying the term to a bunch of strangers. Strangers whose names are not even known.

Where reflective, thoughtful people might, in extreme circumstances, wonder how best to improve their own writing, the feminist Twits blame sexism. It’s much easier that way.

The article concludes by reminding us both that female authors are not taught as frequently in the UK as male authors* (for likely similar reasons as above), and also that entire bookstores dedicated to feminism exist without issue. This isn’t something the author of the article should be so excited to mention. If women are read less than men even without dedicated bookstores selling only books written by men all while women do have such bookstores, feminists have bigger problems to worry about. The conclusion isn’t that men are sexist, but something much simpler: people in general don’t like female authors and blame keeps the harshness of reality out of sight for feminists.

*Maybe the accidentally anti-feminist Transgender movement will helpsolve” this problem by having men produce books while claiming to be women. That way men still write all the books, but ideologically pure liberals will stop noticing.

Privilege and Character

Someone on CNN accused a conservative of white privilege yesterday. She was soon stunned into silence as he revealed that he was black.

The concept of privilege offers a glimpse into the minds of progressives. In it, we can see that envy is a guiding principle in Leftist philosophy. That’s because privilege is simply a way of casting good character in a negative light.

There’s a grain of truth in the leftist lie, as there is in many lies. The truth is that some people are more likely to succeed than others because of their pasts. A middle-aged man who has worked hard for two decades is privileged over a man who has never held a job and his lived on government welfare since he dropped out of high school. A child who has a married mother and father is more likely to succeed in school, marriage, and a career than the child of a single mother.

Historically, those who had strong character were admired. It was a good thing to make good, tough decisions that required sacrifice. It was good to work hard to privilege one’s children instead of squandering their inheritance. It was good to emulate men of honor and character.

Progressives have a different commitment, though. When someone is successful, progressives look on them with envy and suspicion. A man who succeeds must have done something wrong and crooked to get where he is. He must have stolen from someone or cheated someone or hurt someone.

The Left has classified the world in postmodern oppressor/oppressed categories, such that the more “oppressor” categories a person finds themselves in, the more suspicious we should be about any of their success. Where historically the important question was “how can we succeed?”, the Leftist asks “how can we tear someone down because of their skin color, sex, and beliefs?” The Left doesn’t build on the work of the past, but makes sure to destroy everything to preserve a flat wasteland of mediocrity and failure.

This is more insidious than presuming a man must have had his success by virtue of being white when he is actually black. The Leftist model actually encourages people they deem “oppressed” into behaviors which keep them poor, dependent, broken, and flailing. Instead of urging people in these groups to strive for the kind of character which leads to success, the Left encourages envy and hate. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy where the Left encourages the very behaviors that lead to the very situations they claim to champion against.

It also reveals some inherent racism on the Left. When a white man succeeds, its his “privilege” that does it. He comes naturally equipped for success. When a white man fails, it’s in spite of his “privilege”. The opposite is true of black men. They succeed in spite of their disadvantage of being black. And failure isn’t a big deal; it’s expected. After all, they are black. This explains why progressives are far, far more likely to talk down to minorities, even to the point of treating them like children.

I see this attitude even among lefty “conservative” women on subtly different topics. For example, I’ve made the strongly evidenced claim that women should marry before having children and stay married if they want the best possible outcome for their children. “Conservative” women were very quick to tell me how mean-spirited and cruel my suggestion was. Even though this is extremely good advice for young women, we can’t have it spoken aloud, lest the women who have already made mistakes feel bad. I have another post in mind for the topic of sympathy-as-hatred, but this example also fits here.

Calls to good character are condemned – by the Left as privilege and by some “conservatives” because it might make people feel bad. The real victims, though, are the people who could live much better lives by being encouraged to make good decisions who are instead told that the consequences of their actions are someone else’s fault.

The Insanity of Gender Theory

Think fast.

A person with short, combed hair, and no makeup walks up to you wearing a suit. What gender is this person.

The person’s sex cannot be in doubt. There are two sexes; it is in the nature of sexual reproduction to have two sexes. One is male, and the other is female.

No, my question is to which gender a person is. The answer is that it is impossible to tell, given the fact that the term, when not used in linguistics, is for all practical purposes the greatest example of intellectual fuzziness and ambiguity available.

The person could identify as a man and be a biological male. The person could identify as a female and be a biological male and wear male clothes and act like a male. In fact, a man could simply be living a normal and say “I identify as a woman” without changing in a single way, and it would fall within the category of transgendered.

One would suspect that it would be difficult to build a punitive framework around this concept for anyone who did not find purchase in it. After all, how can someone be penalized for not fully understanding something that, by its own nature, cannot be understood? But one would be wrong. Utterly wrong.

Not only are there penalties for those who do not adhere to a philosophy grounded on ambiguous nothingness, the penalties themselves are severe. Social ostracism, losing a job, and dealing with financial penalties are not uncommon. Simply not being enthusiastic enough about the anti-philosophy of Gender Theory is sufficient in many cases.

Large companies across the United States are, in order to cater to the sexual radicals that make up the bulk of the cultural elite, increasingly enforcing the proclamations of Gender Theorists on anyone and everyone. Within a year of the first efforts to allow biological men into the biological women’s restroom (and mind you, the restrooms are divided by biological sex and not gender, else there would be urinals in both or neither), there are now boycotts of entire states who do not comply with the newly enhanced Gender Theory proclamation that requires it be permitted.

The United States is treading some familiar territory to those who lived in the fascist pits of despair popularized in the 20th century. Freedom of speech and conscience are not only limited, but are limited precisely where they ought to be most free: in the expression of true statements. “Men are men and cannot conceivably feel like women” is anathema. Despite the fact that no human being can ever feel like another in total, because we are ourselves and not someone else, it is taken for granted that a man can know what a woman feels like so thoroughly that he himself becomes one. In a sane society, this might be seen as a severe mental illness, but in an insane society, it is normalized just as one would expect. In order for a civilization to go insane, it must normalize insanity and institutionalize sanity.