Saturday, 13 June 2015

Overdoing the Cui Bono

That Marxism and Freudianism are systems of analysis (of society and psyche) which show off a certain subtlety in discarding obvious and overt motives for actions or for systems, while seeking "more convincing ones" by a systematic mistrust of the obvious, is fairly well known.

Also, it is fairly well known that the mistrust very generally takes the form of asking "who is to gain" or "cui bono", like coroners and detectives on a crime scene, sometimes not even asking their Freudian or Marxist selves whether the scene they are coming to is really criminal.

Now, here* is where this was very neatly OVER-done:

Several petition have been organised calling for her [Bahar Mustafa's] resignation, one gaining almost 13,000 signatures.

It reads: "Bahar Mustafa should be removed from Goldsmiths University with police interaction and degree revocation” on the grounds of “using hate speech based on race and gender.”

The ‘hate speech’ refers to her use of hashtags such as #killallwhitemen and #misandry, as well as publicly calling someone 'white trash' under the official Goldsmiths' Twitter account.

Not very pleasant, but is this really ‘hate speech’?

In a seven minute long video defending her actions, Ms Mustafa articulated a compelling philosophical argument for why she rejects all such accusations of sexism and racism.

This is impossible, she claims, because “racism and sexism describe structures of privilege based on race and gender and therefore women of colour and minority genders cannot be racist or sexist, since we do not stand to benefit from such a system."

"The current system would have to be one that enables only people of colour and women to benefit economically and socially on such a large scale and to the systematic exclusion of white people and men, who for the past 400 years would have to have been subjected to block colonisation. We do not live in such a system, we do not know of such a history, reverse racism and reverse sexism are not real."

Did you get it?

She is not just saying racism and sexism are criminal, because there is inegalitarian gain in them. She is saying they exist only where there is inegalitarian gain in them. Imagine murder being murder only when it enforces the class system. She is also saying that as there is no inegalitarian gain (?) in female and non-white privilege, because these don't exist (?), a female anti-male tirade and a non-white anti-white tirade cannot be racist or sexist, no matter how hateful.

She somehow missed on the fact that the legal definitions of "hate speech" do not take account of her no doubt Marxist, possibly also Freudian, analysis of what racism and sexism are.

It is very obvious she has committed hate speech. That the hate speech is not in support of an already present system of non-white privilege (if it is still a fact, e g in academia), that the hate speech is not in support of an already present system of female privilege (if it WERE a fact in certain publically financed circles depending on tax money) do not really change that.

In fact, they do not even change the fact that her hate speech was in an obvious way both racist and sexist.

Racist, because directed against whites. Sexist, because directed against males.

Now, the journalist, Jemima Thackray, has her reason for supporting Bahar Mustafa. Here it is:

This is a growing phenomenon for me personally; the current issue in my household is the ‘reverse sexism’ my husband perceives in children’s television programmes – the blundering idiocy of Postman Pat, the incompetence and egoism of Daddy Pig, the general absence of any positive male role models or father figures.

It is also a growing feature in the national debate, as male commentators express an increasing sense of uncertainty about how men ‘fit in’ in our evolving society.

For while I do agree that white men are sometimes belittled and portrayed negatively (occasionally seeming like the gender equivalent of Ukip as the target of all liberal scorn), this is not sexism.

It may not be very pleasant or constructive, but it cannot be put in the same category as the systematic and institutionalised prejudice experienced for hundreds of years by minority groups.

Jemima, being a minority group and experiencing racism for hundreds of years may be unpleasant, but the fact remains that the racism you experienced as a minority group (like the Irish) was not experienced hundreds of years at a single helping and was in fact experienced year after year. And each year then hurt as much as each year now.

And the fact remains, that when it was really unpleasant, it was not inflicted as much by "the majority" as by those in power with the support of the majority. Precisely as the white males at Goldsmith university are now experiencing something unpleasant from the people in power at the university, including but not limited to Bahar herself.

With the best will in the world, British men who talk about being treated with sexism (unless they are of a minority culture) have no understanding of the kind of default discrimination that is still woven into the fabric of almost every society around the world - the kind of subtle, even unconscious, attitudes which pre-judge another individual on the grounds of sex.

If sexism is for hundreds of years unconscious, how do you tell it is sexism?

By the way, in Islam you might find attitudes that are sexist in not so subtle and not so "unconscious" ways. You cannot compare obvious things like encouraging a suspicious man to let mistrust go from words to denial of bed and from denial of bed to hitting, even if he has no obvious reason to mistrust his wife, even if he never gets any proof, just because he doesn't find her act of asking for trust convincing enough, with the "sexism" that says males can be priests and not mothers and women can be mothers and not priests.

Unfortunately, you seem to have gotten yourself into the kind of position where you are systematically calling that "sexism":

And even in the church (my spiritual home and the institution I am dedicating myself to when I start training to be a vicar next year), I work alongside people who deny my ministry because I am not a man.

Ah, we are talking a priestess, here.

How come I am suddenly less surprised at your attitudes, Jemima?

Do not worry of me working alongside you, I left the Lutheran "Church" over the arrival of a priestess to my parish. Besides, I am not in for priesthood anyway.** I am Catholic and a layman.

But I am shocked of your writing alongside me and writing such bad analyses over the place.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Anacletus, Pope and Martyr

* The Telegraph : Accusing this ethnic minority woman of 'hate speech' is small-minded and hysterical
By Jemima Thackray / 8:00AM BST 21 May 2015

** How Ormulum prefutes you can be read here:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Ormulum vs. Priestesses

No comments:

Post a Comment