The issues with DEI - the Secret Service edition

DEI prioritizes diversity over competency- this is a well known problem with it. Or rather, this is a feature, since this is precisely what it is meant to do. Let's not talk about how unfair it is towards people who are not in the "protected characteristics" groups, and get left out despite being more competent than the people who get in. Let's forget about the competency crisis DEI causes. Let's talk about briefly what happens when a person, who is not an evil white cis heterosexual male (I hope I covered all here), fucks up. Because people do fuck up, even the competent ones. Well, the first reaction when Trump got shot was a gleeful laugh at the female Secret Service operatives and boss, because people assumed they fucked up because they were DEI hires. Yes, white cis heterosexual males would not have been lampooned like this, but since DEI is in place, it made those agents a free game. Who knows? Maybe they really were incompetent. Maybe they were not. But they sure as hell got a rough treatment because of DEI. (And not because they were women.) DEI puts the people it is supposed to help in a much worse situation than the white cis heterosexual male. Their sole presence will come with the assumption of being helped there instead of having worked to get there, and every time there is a fuckup, they will be under even more scrutiny. I am not sure who the winner is here.

Of bears and men

 So obviously men are problem. So much so, that 99.9% women who responded to the question rather have a chance encounter with a bear in a forest than with an unknown man. (Maybe they misunderstood and like hairy, thick, homosexual men?)

Which goes to show two things, really. People, who responded, are stupid. I mean really, fucking stupid. The education system completely failed. Second: it is incredible how polarized our world has become, where facts matter not, feelings trump everything. And if you are a man, and have an opinion, obviously you are dismissing women and their experiences, and should just shut up. Obviously. (Even though it kinda is about you, too. And really, real world evidence and "muh experience" are kind of different things.)

So the first thing.

Bear attacks are rare. True. But why are they rare you may ask. Well, let's see. Bears are rare, so encounters are rare, despite of people hiking and generally living where bears live. About 1% of chance encounters end up in an attack; which is not a lot, admittedly. (There is no actual statistics; I found a couple of estimates and used the lowest one.) But then again: how many men does a woman encounter on a regular basis and how many bears? If you really think you are safer with a bear than with a random man, even just looking at the numbers, you are -as we established already- fucking stupid. Not many people meet a 100 bears in their lifetime, so the chances of getting attacked by one is astronomically low. But if you regularly met hundreds of bears... well, the situation would change. Drastically. Women meet hundreds and thousands of men regularly, and if 1% of those meetings end up in an attack, well, we have an ongoing bloodbath; Khrone would be proud. Let me put this this way: cows kill hundreds of people every year, whereas lions hardly any. Does it mean cows are more dangerous than lions? Seriously? Well, do try to keep the same number of lions as we have cows, and we would see. Statistics without understanding the context means exactly jackshit.

So that's one issue out of the way.

The other thing is we ignored the fact that most violent acts are committed by a fraction of the population. Mostly men, yes, but women are violent, too, which is left out of the discussion interestingly. Also: men are significantly more likely to be victims of random violence than women. The level of fear and the actual threat may not be in balance here, but then again, it never usually is, considering how much people fear serial killers vs how much they fear cigarettes or ultraprocessed food. We are morons when it comes to things we fear. (Further example: fear of commercial flights vs fear of automobiles.) The issue here is more complex than these idiots would like to believe.

Another also important forgotten issue: if we focus on sexual attacks only, well, those are mostly committed by people close to the victim, so again, no cigar there. A random man will be a safer choice than your uncle, for example, just going by the statistics alone. I am sure your uncle is a nice person who would not rape anyone, but statistically he is more likely to rape you than that dude on the tram. Another interesting sidenote: many women would prefer to be dismembered by a bear than to be raped? Really? That is just... wow. I mean you can't be more stupid that this; which just shows how sheltered and privileged these people are. I guess there is nothing for me but to wish them their bear encounter they crave so much. After all, it is all fun and games until the grizzly starts eating you while you are still alive.

And then the second point I want to make.

The amount of glee, bitterness, outright hatred that stems from this victim menality s incredible. Women do seem to have adopted this hostile attitude against one half of humanity as not just something valid, but something to be embraced. Meanwhile, supposedly, they not all are angry lesbians (who, by the way, have the highest incidence of domestic violence) and have day-to-day encounters with their fathers, husbands, sons. I guess they do not count?  And let's not forget. These women are living the cosy, safe, sheltered life of the Western world, not the oppressive Patriarcy of Saudi Arabia, for example. Anyone spouting this idiocy, and stirring up hatred deserves her 1% chance meeting a bear. Young men already face challenges they get absolutely no support for, so this is not helping. The largest cause of death in men under 40 is suicide. They are more dangerous to themselves than to anyone, especially to those angry and misshapen women who dwell in their imaginary victimhood.

This idiocy perfectly shows the problem with victim mentality. Since you are the victim, you are justified to have absolutely no empathy -and outright hostility- towards the evil oppressors, and you are justified in your hatred. It also helps to foster an incredible level of narcisism. You can see this in all the comment sections whenever men's issues come up - women are so incredibly hostile, ready to belittle, to dismiss, it is incredible. You'd wonder how people who are claiming that empathy is important in uderstanding the struggle of others can so easily dismiss others' struggles.  That is until you realize that strong in-group empathy leads to the lack of it against anyone who is in the out-group. This is exactly how racists operate by the way.

And as a closing, I will present you an alternative version of this tik-tok question, which is much more supported by statistics than the fucking bear is. (Mind you this is for demonstrating the idiocy; I do not actually pushing for this.)

Would you be more willing to be alone in a forest with a white man or a black man? As we know, in the US, blacks are overwhelmingly responsible for violent crime, so this is a valid question, no? And if you do not think it is -based on some weird moral qualms about racism being bad and all-, why the fuck do you think the original question is acceptable, which is not even supported by statistics? Sexism is fine when it comes to men?

Somewhat unsettling cases of inequality

 

The Social Justice Warriors normally jump on any and all differences in outcome as a proof for oppression. Well, not any and all, because somehow the fact that working class white boys (and white boys in general) underperform in schools, or men are overreprensented in workplace deaths, suicides, homelessness, and all that jazz, is conveniently ignored, or are explained away by the absolutely moronic "the Patriarchy hurts everyone". (So why is it called patriarchy?)

There are two very interesting articles I ran across lately in this very topic. The first is a Swedish article demonstrating that men face discrimination in female-dominated workplaces. (And they were the only group shown to be discriminated against in this experiment.)

The second is a more serious one demonstrating that men do not get the appropriate help from mental health support services. The prevailing "wisdom" is that men are too macho (you know, Patriarchy) to ask for help. This paper demonstrates that they do ask for help, they just do not get it, hence the high number of suicides.

So there you have it. No Guardian op-eds, no US Senators bringing it up, no WHO reaction, no outrage. While SJWs keep saying that compassion is not a finite resource, and that it is not a zero sum game any time some moronic Republican senator brings up some hair-brained whataboutism about how white men are literally the only persecuted group (which is also an idiotic thing to do), they very much dispense with it selectively. Perhaps compassion is a finite resource.

The circles of identity politics - or whatever are we going to fight against next?

A relatively old case, but an interesting one which demonstrates how identity politics works. It is a simple one: a woman stabbed her boyfriend, and essentially got away with it with a slap on the wrist.

It is, I have to say, probably enraging a few people -after all, the judgement goes against any sense of justice, because the defendant is a woman. (See: women are wonderful effect -no wonder they get reduced sentences for comparable crimes, right?)

So I was holding my breath when I saw the Guardian headline complaining about injustice with the following headline from two years ago: The Lavinia Woodland case exposes equality before the law as a myth… could it be? The Woke of the Woke, the Flagship of Identity Politics actually stood up against a gross injustice, even if it is about a woman, you know, a person who is suppressed by the systemic forces of a Patriarchy? Maybe now we can have a level-headed discussion about sentencing policies that are so ridiculous it is hard to know where to start to describe them? That maybe the Guardian may point out that women are favoured which leads to miscarriages of justice (not in a legal sense, but in a moral one).

Well, fuck no. Of course not.

The Guardian found a different narrative.

Now it is not heroic, abused women in the yokes of the Patriarchy; after all, a woman is now a beneficiary of this Evil System.
Now it is the minority women against the evil white supremacy which puts them into prison.

There is a kernel of truth in this argument. It is undeniable that money and status played a role in this case. In fact, one can argue, it is the only factor that played any role in the judgement. A poor woman (white or non-white) would not have gotten away so easy. And yes, there is racism in the justice system.

However, deliberately staying blind to the larger injustice - the different sentencing standards for different genders- just because it does not fit into our narrative -well, this is the repugnant part of identity politics. A man would have gotten an even harsher sentence poor or not. And your narrative about the poor, abused women -well, very few criminals are criminals because they chose that life based on a school competency test. Your compassion is only reserved for one part of the population, and you do not see any reason why you should extend it to other human beings who are not in your in-group. If it is about men, your in-group is women, if it is about a white woman, your in-group is minority women. Since everything is relative, you can move the goal posts as much as you like -as long as you keep the victim/oppressor narrative. You are warping reality even when what you say is factually true. Because what you do not say matters, too. You can make fake news without uttering a falsehood, as it is demonstrated so well in this case.