Dear feminist women.
You were historically domesticated by the patriarchy to become weak little baby machines.
You rose up, and you proved us wrong. The successes women enjoy today and the aggressiveness of the modern feminist movement heavily suggests that women are in fact not weak little pussies who do nothing but cry and be helpless.
If so, what is this sensitivity bullshit?
Women are supposed to be strong and empowered, yet they just can’t seem to withstand words. you do know that sticks and stones may hurt you, but words will never break your bones, right?
If they are called “fat” or “ugly”, it’s because social perceptions are wrong and that men are just shallow pigs who can’t appreciate a woman’s inner beauty, and that our subjective perception of beauty is engineered by sexualized culture and the lies of the fashion companies, and certainly it isn’t that those “unnatural” supermodels are actually engineered to cater to our very natural desires, I mean, the reason we no longer appreciate obesity certainly has nothing to do with the fact that our perception of health has become sophisticated beyond the realm of “more food = more healthy”.
If a woman can’t get a decent partner, it’s the man’s fault for being superficial and caring about their evolutionary instinct towards attractive qualities such as health and facial symmetry, and that men really should stop “objectifying” women and instead start treating them like “human beings” (which apparently involves abandoning your natural instinct to judging a person’s appearance). However, if a man can’t get a decent partner, it’s also the man’s fault for being pathetic and unattractive and expecting sex from women even when they lack the appeal.
Given the rampant amount of victim cards dealt in the game of gender politics, you have to wonder: do these people really expect to not be viewed as weak little cunts when they are playing that angle all the time? it’s hypocrisy. Either you’re a weak domesticated damsel in distress, or you’re a strong empowered woman who is able to take a bit of criticism, is able to defend herself, and is not emotionally scarred by any uses of free speech, including those that seem like harassment but constitute no actual threat to your personal safety.
Consider the issue of “trigger words” which apparently is a thing. In trying to restrict the use of “trigger words” such as rape, bitch, cunt, tits, cumbucket etc. feminists want to punish free speech for the crimes of rapists and abusers. But, requesting sensitivity training on part of society means the rapists have won because instead of scarring one person, the rapist has now scarred society and language as a whole. Instead, the victims should get therapy to become desensitized towards their trigger words and get rehabilitated and restored as normal functioning members of society that don’t freak out whenever they hear “slut shut the fuck up and take it like the whore you are” (although depending on the context you should probably call the police).
It’s like, sure we could clutter our structures with accessibility ramps and disabled-friendly toilets, but wouldn’t it be better if we just fixed all of their disabilities instead?
Sensitivity training is bullshit. I mean, certainly I would prefer cops to not be racist, but I don’t care if the racism is in his language as long as the racism isn’t reflected in his actions. Society has historically had a problem with language because it did not want to face the underlying causes. Language was often the first to blame whenever something was wrong. But as easily angered dictators throughout history have shown us, sensitivity is a very bad thing. Religious institutions were and in many countries around the world, still are sensitive towards language – say the wrong thing and get jailed or worse for blasphemy, because it hurt god’s feelings or some bullshit like that.
Chinese communists murdered millions of their fellow countrymen during the cultural revolution because they had expressed an opinion that was insensitive towards the powers in charge.
For there to be an open utopian society, people should not be afraid of speaking, for any reason. Sure, watching your language around a suicidal person is an option, but wouldn’t it be better if said person was cured of his suicidal tendencies? The human tendency to want to censor language exposes our illogical superficiality. Sometimes it seems that we don’t actually want to solve the underlying problem, we just don’t want to hear about it. The clergy hears that his religion is self-contradictory, instead of investigating the contradiction he silences the voice of criticism for blasphemy. The emperor does not admit that his new clothes are nonexistent, instead he jails the child for his use of vulgar language.
The truth hurts. The solution is not to censor the truth, but to censor the hurt and accept the truth. The tendency of many liberals and conservatives alike towards “sensitivity” is all but healthy, and it only exposes the weakness of the groups advocating it. And if something is not the truth, certainly people are able to judge the credibility of these claims as you have done so yourself. In all cases, censorship is not needed. Being afraid of language just goes to show that you’re still playing into your patriarchal conditioning, that you still are a weak, domesticated pussy incapable of handling language, and that you should in fact be treated the care, delicacy and condescension usually afforded to weak pathetic children.