Sanders, Trump, and the Cult of Victimization

The year is 2016.

When people act like cavemen, in ‘unevolved’ sorts of ways, it is inevitable that someone is always there to ask “What year are we living in?” meaning, there is something allegedly shocking to a person of reason about how slowly large groups of people evolve socially over time. As Donald Trump grows closer to securing the Republican nomination, he continues to indirectly but not so subtly pander to the racist, misogynistic (largely) uneducated white voters who are not above rising to violence who happen to think Trump’s presidency will ‘change things.’ The question is, what is it Trump supporters hope to change? It’s not like a whole lot of racist, misogynistic (largely) uneducated white voters haven’t benefited from the status quo for, well, pretty much all of American history.

And that’s just it; for Trump supporters, what they are hoping to change is the direction in

which the country is changing. Trump’s overwhelmingly white supporters see the writing on the wall; for example, they’re currently under attack spiritually as the number of diverse religions grow within U.S. borders. Heaven forbid a Christian from Bala’ama be forced to share the street with a non-Christian! (For the sake of brevity, now replace ‘Christian’ and ‘non-Christian’ with ‘white folk’ and ‘people of color,’ ‘men’ and ‘women,’ ‘the uncultured and illiterate’ and ‘a gay from New York,’ etc.) Of course, least we forget that the Mexicans are stealing jobs Americans don’t want to do. Somehow, Trump supporters feel victimized by the growing number of people who don’t think conservative white men should be allowed to keep victimizing people the way they have for over 200 years now. Oddly, if there is anything Trump supporters should be fighting, it’s the narrative of victimization that seems to be the driving force in the lives of U.S. citizens these days.

The middling success of Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign is indicative of this narrative. People of Color, gays, Millennials, left-of-left leaning liberals and people who don’t want another Clinton in the White House are flocking to a socialist who sounds like a Sweathog from Welcome Back Kotter. While blacks more than any other group of minorities have suffered from institutionalized racism (Native American aren’t around much to persecute anymore), it is hard to see why they think a frazzle-haired Jewish president would suddenly make them equal in the eyes of conservative white men, seeing how Obama’s presidency hasn’t helped much. Really, though, blacks and gays are the only groups of people who have truly been victimized throughout U.S. history, though it is arguable the LGBT community has had a great deal more success in being accepted. Meanwhile, Millennials and left-of-left leaning liberals feel victimized by being born into a culture that is largely a meritocracy. People who don’t want another Clinton in the White House feel victimized by the lack of Whole Foods supermarkets in their neighborhood (that are owned by a Republican by-the-way).

What both sides have in common is that they feel victimized by the status quo. The difference is slight at best; Trump supporters want to stop the status quo from ceasing to be the status quo while Sanders supporters think the status quo can’t change fast enough. In the meantime, both groups of supporters (read: fanatics) are being forced to live in a world that is utterly horrible, one that doesn’t kowtow to their respective beliefs. This is, however, merely indicative of a larger problem insofar as it has become every American’s prerogative to perceive any transgression – no matter how slight – into being victimized. Politically, both sets of supporters want to sell everyone on the idea that their candidate is for freedom when in fact both candidates are diametrically opposed to freedom – one is out to curtail freedoms for certain people while the other is out to curtail the freedom of certain ideas. The U.S.’s currently culture of victimization is born directly out of having too much freedom: The fact is that in almost no other country do the citizens have so much freedom to protest that their freedoms are under attack. Keep in mind that this is despite the media in the U.S. almost entirely being under the control of a mere five corporations.

Moderate independent, liberal and conservative voters alike have long mocked the ‘special snowflake’ narrative of left-of-left liberals and Millennials when it appears all groups suffer from this delusion that they are special and deserve special or preferential treatment. Chances are, unless you’re an overweight, militant, gay Native African-American who wears glasses, you haven’t been victimized by anything other than your own ego. While both Trump and Sanders supporters would like to get rid of a culture that is a meritocracy (in theory, anyway) it is perhaps best if we actually employed a culture of meritocracy. Special or preferential treatment should be earned regardless of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, political affiliation or nepotism. I say this because employing a true meritocracy is the best way to ensure everyone is treated fairly and no one can be victimized except by themselves.

Trump and Sanders supporters will never admit they have anything in common which only further demonstrates their inability to recognize their own humanness and the flaws that accompany it. Both groups think their candidate can fix what ails the country, but it is highly unlikely that more poison is the cure. Common ground is the cure, not a sharp divide.

When Abuse is Not Abuse

More often than not, I find myself on the wrong side of a debate. That is to say “the wrong side” meaning the more logical and rational side of the debate, the side that includes ugly truths that those with opposing viewpoints don’t want to hear because changing their beliefs would be too difficult.

The 50 Shades of Grey trilogy and its associated movie is the most recent case in point. What with the film’s release a week ago, feminists are up in arms once again to remind us that the story is about an abusive relationship that, gosh darn it, is bad. (Well, at least when the one being abused is female; more on that in a bit.) My point in commenting on certain feminist articles, the salient point that rational feminists (ha ha, get it?) keep ignoring at their convenience is that in the trilogy – after one puts aside the juvenile penmanship, the unrelatable much less believable characters, the misrepresentation of BDSM, etc. – when the protagonist Anastasia (Ana) consents to the particulars of her relationship with Christian, it is not abusive. The overall implication then is that when anyone willingly enters into a relationship, particularly knowing full well what they’re getting into, that person can no longer cry foul when abusive behavior takes place. That is, when one consents to being abused, ‘abuse’ is no longer the operative word for what transpires between people.

This is not to say that abuse cannot take place. In 50 Shades of Grey, Ana signs a legal document that agrees to being Christian’s sexual slave as well as giving Christian control over several aspects of her life, such as her diet and exercise routine. So, when her binds, spank, whips her or tells her what to eat and when to exercise; this is not abuse. Certainly, Christian does abuse Ana when her rapes her in her apartment, buys out the company she works for and sells her car without permission, yet she continues her relationship with her abuser. Although she can opt-out of the relationship – Christian’s threating her not to do that being idle as she has a number of options to help deal with her situation – Ana does not. She continues the relationship with her ‘abuser.’ Feminists claim Ana is still being abused, only they must mean that it Ana who is abusing herself, because that’s the only viewpoint left now. In this way, Ana bears the brunt for what anyone else may call a toxic relationship. So while feminists claim the Western patriarchal society has been running roughshod over women for centuries, the kicker is that women bear at least some of the blame. Women have been letting men control them.

Women say they have long had no recourse of action as historically the Western patriarchal societies have made it difficult for them to leave whatever domineering situation they may have been in. To a certain extent, possibly even a large extent, I agree with this analysis. Problem is, this really isn’t true of the current age, not in Western societies. Women (or anyone for that matter), when felling abused in a relationship, can leave the offending party. Now, if it is the case that leaving is not an easily viable option such as when the offending party threatens violence or control’s the victim’s finances, etc. there are still options the victim of abuse can pursue in order to leave a relationship. So while a victim in such a situation may be being abused, the point is not to continue an abusive relationship beyond the time one has to. To do otherwise is consenting to abuse. Furthermore, if one refuses to see that they are being abused (from the perspective of an outsider) for whatever reason – “I love him or her / You don’t know them like I do / They have a lot of money” – they are not being abused; they’re not even a victim. For any of us to argue otherwise is to become another person trying to control the ‘victim’ in question. Last time I checked, two wrongs still didn’t make a right.

I can easily argue from experience. More than once I’ve dated women who would withhold sex or promise an intimate relationship if only I would adhere to certain rules and/or jump through hoops. Although in these relationships I was manipulated to the point of great psychological stress – such are the perils of love/lust – I would never go so far as to say I was abused by these women. After all, I consented to every action I thought was necessary to win their affections. Moreover, I spent more than enough time with these women that I should have realized sooner rather than later that the writing was on the wall. (Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.) If I could at all said to be victimized or abused by these women I dated, it is my own fault. If any of us have a responsibility to anyone, it is ourselves. Thus, I have to take responsibility for my situations. But we often do not see people take this attitude, much less in the feminist narrative.

What we do also see lately in relation to ‘abuse’ is lots of people deciding they are victims after the fact in order to excuse their own shortcomings and feel better about themselves by shifting blame, or, in order to make themselves feel special or part of a group. One young lady I recently came across said the reason why she has so many health issues is due to the psychic scarring she received from across time when matriarchal religions were wiped out in Europe in favor of Christianity. While this is an extreme case of fulfilling the victimhood narrative for oneself, it highlights the fact that people make excuses and shift blame in order to, say, not eat healthy or exercise or do anything that would actually be beneficial to one’s health, as I discovered in this case. When one says they were abused long after a relationship’s demise, not having recognized they were abused when the abuse was going on, was not abuse. In every instance one determines they were abused after the fact, the victim in question had to come by the knowledge of what constitutes abuse without realizing it is someone else who is doing the defining of ‘abuse.’ One woman I courted decided that she was raped long after the alleged rape happened, deciding that merely not wanting to have sex in a certain instance but having sex anyway to appease her boyfriend at the time made the ex-boyfriend abusive. Sorry, but appeasing someone despite your true desires does not make the one being appeased a victimizer. If there’s any victimization going on in such instances, it’s self-victimization. Yet this self-portrayal of herself as a victim found solace when surrounded by others who truly were victimized by someone else. This is a mentality I cannot abide by, not then, not now.

[*And, needless to say, the potential relationship went nowhere fast.]

While there is some abusive elements to the 50 Shades of Grey story for Ana, what is never mentioned is the abusive manner in which Ana treats Christian. What I mean is that Ana doesn’t accept Christian for who he is and from the perspective of a male reader, consciously sets out to change him. If one of the talking points of the current liberal narrative is anything, it’s that everyone should accept everyone else for who they are (though of course in reality that means accepting everyone for who they are so long as they qualify as liberals). So what if Christian is into BDSM? Ana doesn’t have to become his sub but she does so because she’s curious and because Christian is a handsome billionaire. Ana figures at some point she can get Christian to dispense with the kinky sex and have the rest of her cake and eat it, too. So, it’s not exactly as though Christian does the only manipulating in the story. In fact, if manipulation is a part of abuse, Ana certainly does abuse Christian. Naturally, feminists will completely ignore this analysis because, hey, I am a male after all and only women can make relevant points.

Just because someone makes a claim of abuse doesn’t mean abuse is actually taking place. Of course, change the definition of a word enough or broad enough and suddenly everything qualifies. Eventually history will get to be written by the losers.

For someone who is often called a sophist, I am in dubious company. 

The Flaw of Multiculturalism

Multiculturalism, in its normative understanding, can basically be defined as the belief that every culture is of inherently worth or value. I’ve heard it said that subscribing to this belief is basically what keeps a homogenous society stable and its citizens from killing one another, with those proposing such an idea often offering The United States of America as their prime example. Certainly the example is a faulty one if the need to distinguish between hate crimes and non-hate crimes is any indication. It is also a faulty example if one considers the proclivity of equal rights proponents – be they American or otherwise – to demand rights for or protections of certain populations within other countries or cultures. 

For example, as of this writing, crimes in India over the past year or so have brought recognition to India’s “culture of rape.” Of course, their “culture of rape” has always been there but only now is it recognized how widespread the problem is. Obviously, no inherent worth or value is afforded to this India sub-culture other than from the perpetrators within that culture. It is similarly hard to imagine that in the Western world either a social liberal or conservative is going to claim that any culture that suppresses women to the degree that some Islamic societies do has some inherent value. It is clearly not true that people, at least in the Western industrialized world, actually subscribe to the full onus of multiculturalism’s definition. Perhaps qualifications are in order. 

Qualifications always are in order when considering the idea of multiculturalism, implying that the culture that thought up the idea clearly thinks they are superior to every other culture by insisting other cultures accept the premise of multiculturalism. What I mean is that if multiculturalism is to be accepted, even by the people who thought of it, caveats are in order since the people who thought of it obviously do not condone the suppression of certain segments of a population or rape. To insist other cultures accept multiculturalism implies that the one culture insisting another culture be multicultural clearly thinks the ideas of their culture are superior to the ideas of the other culture. If a caveat is inserted here which amounts to multiculturalism’s defenders saying, “We accept the other culture’s right to exist as they have some inherent value, but that doesn’t mean we have to like their values,” such a caveat is so belittling that the opposing culture’s value is degraded to the point of nothingness. It also allows the saints to go marching in in an attempt to tweek the other culture’s values until the other culture’s values are worth something to the proponents of multiculturalism. Essentially, multiculturalists are saying it is fine for other cultures to be different – in fact, it’s encouraged! – so long as the other culture doesn’t differ in their values too wildly. 

I do find the idea of multiculturalism (such as I have laid it out which is to a large degree how it viewed on college campuses if nowhere else) offensive on grounds other than it’s backhandedness. When I consider a culture such as the Taliban, I do not believe all cultures have inherent worth. I do not condone a culture that bans self-expression, violently suppresses it’s women, and calls for the literal deaths of those outside their culture for simply being outside their culture, especially the ones an ocean away who are so different from they are. Can a defender of multiculturalism actually argue for the worth of the Taliban as a culture without laughing? If they can, can they defend a culture which practices cannibalism or practiced live human sacrifice without laughing? Perhaps they can having defended the mostly laughable idea of multiculturalism for so long. 

I say multiculturalism is “mostly laughable” because I will not go on the record as claiming one culture is superior to another, so I do believe some degree of respect for most other cultures is warranted. Most cultures have as many good and bad ideas as any other, though I suppose in the case of the Taliban I consider that particular culture mostly full of bad ideas as I am not within that culture or subscribe to similar beliefs. Multiculturalism does have the possible benefit of considering ideas or problems through differing cultural lenses (among other lens), so I cannot discount a necessity for multiculturalism entirely. I believe some value can be found in most cultures although sometimes we may have to go looking for that value. Usually, the best value can be found at a downtown ethnic food cart. 

Accepting multiculturalism has never been what keeps groups of people from killing each other. It’s just that people don’t kill each other when resources aren’t an issue (and to a lesser extent, unless a group’s ideology comes under attack). Cooperation among groups born out of evolutionary necessity probably plays a much greater role in cutting across cultural divides than the idea of multiculturalism itself. That said, I politely ask multiculturalists to stop pretending they came up with a great idea. It was never theirs to begin with.

Your Outrage Ain't Pretty

It’s been almost three weeks and a large (ahem) segment of the American population is still not over the business strategy of Abercrombie & Fitch’s CEO. What is Mike Jeffries’ crime? Jeffries is quoted as saying: “ ‘In every school there are the cool and popular kids, and then there are the not-so-cool kids. Candidly, we go after the cool kids. We go after the attractive all-American kid with a great attitude and a lot of friends. A lot of people don’t belong [in our clothes], and they can’t belong. Are we exclusionary? Absolutely. Those companies that are in trouble are trying to target everybody: young, old, fat, skinny. But then you become totally vanilla. You don’t alienate anybody, but you don’t excite anybody, either.’” (via Huffington Post) Jeffries’ crime is that he said something exclusionary. Neverminding the fact that 99.9% of the population acts exclusionary 99.9% of the time, Jeffries is being punished for actually saying the words.

Before upending the irrationality of Jeffries’ critics, let me be clear that I am also offended by Jeffries’ comments, but for a completely different reason. That is to say, clothes don’t make people cool. A&F clothing may be what beautiful, young, and popular kids are wearing but that doesn’t equal being cool. “Cool” is when someone wear what the fuck they want because they don’t give a fuck what other people think. Cool people don’t try and Jefferies is obviously trying. I am also somewhat puzzled that someone as unattractive as Jeffries would want to cater solely to beautiful people as if making money will conceal his physical unattractiveness. Maybe, but someone’s got issues and it’s not hard to imagine why. But, that amounts to an ad hominem attack which is neither here nor there. Forget I mentioned it.

As mentioned, Jeffries is being lambasted for speaking the words already made implicit by Abercrombie advertisements. Since when did human beings stop investing is symbology? For those offended by Jeffries’ words, they’ve somehow missed the inherent meaning of his company’s ads and it possible that said people are not as smart as they think they are. Oh, but I guess it’s different when one has proof of an Illuminati conspiracy to have beautiful people take over the world. Wait, is this what Jeffries’ critics are angry about, that he has the nerve to think some people aren’t beautiful? Remember how I was neverminding something earlier? Let me do some more neverminding that few people intentionally go looking for a mate that is unattractive to them, meaning, there are individuals who are unattractive. That being the case, I loathe this idea that everyone is beautiful, especially that everyone is beautiful on the outside. That is simply bullshit. 

The idea may be bullshit but that doesn’t mean we should exclude people under the law because of it. That said, Jeffries’ marketing strategy clearly isn’t illegal. However, his critics are acting like he is doing something illegal and I guess he is in the court of public opinion, a court by-the-way that has never had any credibility beyond holding a monkey trial. In the court of public opinion, I guess it’s illegal to exclude what is now the majority of the population from buying your product. Only, wait a second. Should I – as a 5’6” 140lbs man – call for the head of the head of Big & Tall men’s clothing store because they don’t make clothes in my size? Of course not, nor should a skinny woman get indignant about not being able to find clothes that fit in a plus-size woman’s store. What’s really going on here is this: Jeffries’ critics are trying to justify their lifestyle which, not surprisingly, consists of over-consuming calories and not exercising. With being overweight now normal for Americans, that segment of the population wishes to homogenize the overall population to the point that everyone is special until no one is special. I understand not wanting to be discriminated against, but with this attack on Jeffries, America is in actual danger of becoming vanilla, to borrow the man’s word. Nobody will be exciting anymore; we’re not allowed to be! With these attacks on individuality and capitalism, Ayn Rand is surely spinning in her grave. (Author’s note: This is not to say I think either individuality or capitalism are so great, but everyone else sure pays those two ideas some French-kissing lip-service. Or used to.)

If it’s okay to be overweight, if we’re supposed to agree to this notion that it is not okay to judge others, then why isn’t it okay for Jeffries to be a douche? What’s that, we’re still allowed to judge what’s on the inside? Right, right; it’s what’s on the inside that really counts especially when people are afraid to be judged on their outside. That’s why Jeffries is a douche. I completely understand now.

If there’s anything Jeffries is guilty of it is cutting costs for his company by not including larger sizes of clothing anymore and subsequently trying to promote his brand without gauging the weight of his words to an overly-sensitive audience. People are irrational though and Jeffries seemed never to consider that old axiom by the prophet George Carlin, “Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.” Liberal, conservative, doesn’t matter; stupidity and irrationality does not discriminate. 

Update 5/22/13

The fact that people are attacking me instead of my argument supporting Jeffries’ business practice confirms that both our critics are basing their distain purely upon emotion, no logic involved whatsoever. If what is wrong with Jeffries’ business practice cannot be expressed cogently with words, his critics have no credibility. If his critics are his critics based on some kind of gut-feeling, then the same people have no business being offended by anyone who discriminates based on a gut-feeling. For example, if someone is a homophobe based upon some gut-feeling that homosexuality is wrong, that person is a douche, right? Problem is, anyone who levels a criticism based solely upon emotion is still a douche. Sure, Jeffries may be a douche but his critics – who can’t logically explain why they are angry – are then douches as well. This is exactly why appeals to emotion do not trump rationality when examining at what Jeffries said about his business. If I lack sympathy for Jeffries critics’ point-of-view, it’s mostly because whatever bizarre logic they’ve based their anger on is inconsistent. If one is going to be indignant about the business practices of A&F, I demand of those people that there be outrage at other businesses who dare target a demographic. 

Now, if I’m wrong that Jeffries’ critics are just trying to justify their own lifestyle, then what point are they trying to make, that no one should ever discriminate? Well, I’ve already blown that assertion to smithereens and haven’t heard a remotely intelligent rebuttal, probably because there is none. Maybe it is the case that people feel as though this is really about bullying? I’m asking because I did see this comment made on one message board and I am baffled as to how Jeffries’ words can be construed as bullying. If it is a case of bullying, isn’t bullying A&F with protests and boycotts just as wrong? Oh well, you can’t tell people who react to the world emotionally that two wrong STILL don’t make a right.