Say what you will about social justice warriors – I know I do – but you have to admit that between their false rape accusations, race baiting and man hating, they’re capable of coming up with some of the most amazingly ridiculous concepts.
One of my absolute favorite self-victimizing tools that SJWs like to use is what’s known as a microaggression. What is a microaggression?
Let’s go to the all powerful and all knowing Wikipedia page, where we find the definition of the “Microaggression Theory.”
So it looks like microaggression is the act of discriminating on accident. It’s discrimination so subtle that you don’t even know you’re doing it. But uh-oh, it looks like the Wikipedia is giving us a big warning about how it’s starved for citations and unbiased information. “Multiple issues” is an apt description on so many levels here, so let’s go ahead and dig deeper into the mind of the SJW to see what it is exactly that they find so aggressive in a micro sort of way.
Let’s go down the rabbit hole by first examining the case of UCLA and Professor Rust. Professor Rust is professor emeritus of education at the University of California in Los Angeles…and apparently he’s an unknowing practicer of institutionalized racism. His actions caused a 25-student sit-in in protest of his racist actions, and caused a flurry of online outrage.
“A hostile campus climate has been the norm for Students of Color in this class throughout the quarter as our epistemological and methodological commitments have been repeatedly questioned by our classmates and our instructor,” wrote students in a group letter. So as you can see by the student’s reaction that Professor Rust must be guilty of some pretty heinous stuff. So what did he do?
He corrected grammar and spelling mistakes.
“I have attempted to be rather thorough on the papers and am particularly concerned that they do a good job with their bibliographies and citations, and these students apparently don’t feel that is appropriate,” said Rust in a letter to his colleagues.
Rust was guilty of doing his job as a professor by maintaining a certain level of propriety and standard educational expectations when writing dissertation papers, but apparently that’s crossing the line for “Students of Color” who are aggrieved by such things as the changing of the word “Indigenous” to “indigenous” with a lower case i, or having them write in Chicago Manual Style when the students wanted to write in the more social-science oriented American Psychological Association style.
Also at some point, Rust allowed a debate on oppression between a white female and a “Student of Color” to continue. We’re to understand debating a minority on social issues is somehow considered taboo?
Rusts unwillingness to concede to the students wishes to write however they wanted and stick to the rules was an act of microaggression. Rust didn’t do anything wrong…per se, but his standing on academic basics was deemed harmful and created a “hostile campus climate.” Between correcting grammar mistakes and allowing the free flow of ideas, Rust was accused of provoking racial offensiveness without even knowing he was doing it.
So here we have racial microaggression.
But let’s go through the looking glass by analyzing microaggression on different subjects. The third wave feminist movement is known for raising concerns of microaggression all the time. You’ve probably heard multiple tales of women becoming indignant and unpleasant when men hold doors open for them. The accusation of “benevolent sexism” has been thrown around to detail microaggressions by men trained by society on how to treat women. To any sane person, these “microaggressions” are worthy of an eye roll at best, but ‘sexist’ microaggressions don’t just stop at men treating women with a little bit of chivalry.
It can go beyond even interacting with women to something men do for themselves. One type of microaggression is found in the celebrated month of “No Shave November.” It’s a month where men allow their facial majesty to grow untamed and uninhibited, until it forms into a manly beard. Why? All in the name of prostate cancer awareness.
But lo! This month for men offends feminists! Behold! Ralph Haddad of McGill Daily has seen thy microaggressions and has lain thy sins naked for all to see!
In his article “Movember as microaggression,” Haddad points out that the very act of men growing out their facial hair is discriminatory and racist. “How?” you might reasonably ask because you’re sane.
Haddad lists reasons, but all of them inane. He wastes little time throwing around words like “privilege” and societal class talk. He doesn’t go into why, he just wants us to believe not shaving is somehow discriminatory against poorer folk. Does the lower class not shave? Either way, it’s a class microaggression.
He then slides right into gender talk, and rattles off that prostate cancer awareness is somehow discriminatory against trans people, as some trans men don’t have prostates and cancer awareness for a body part some folk don’t have – but would like to – is discriminatory. So now growing a beard and having a prostate is microaggressive against trans people. That’s right. Being a male with a male anatomy is microaggressive.
Then he paints it as racist because black men apparently get prostate cancer more often, and he accuses Movember of being a white guy thing. That’s three microaggressions for simply growing facial hair to raise awareness for cancer.
But Haddad hits full McIntosh when he goes into how Movember has a negative effect on women’s appearances, claiming that the movement demands women shave themselves as a rule, and lists a few tweets within the Movember hashtag as proof. Yes, women are more attractive shaven, at least to my generation. Those tweets have nothing to do with the overall goal of Movember. It’s just tweets from some guys who like hairless women. This is a hamfisted attempt to make Movember into a feminist issue using the flimsiest argument he could find.
Not shaving to raise awareness for prostate cancer has no social justice implications for people to claim they’ve been microaggressed. They had to add that context in order for there to be some to get upset about. Movember is about prostate cancer awareness by men growing facial hair, pure and simple. Are they suggesting we eliminate the practice of cancer awareness and support if it solely benefits one sex?
Some feminists claim that aside from its discrimination, that Movember doesn’t work. Blogger Ashley Ashbee wrote in 2011, “Does your moustache share information about the importance of screening, or where to get screened? Does it tell you how you can prevent prostate cancer (if you even can)? Does it tell you the symptoms? Does it tell you who’s affected?”
Do boobs do the same in regard to breast cancer awareness? Does the color pink? No. It starts a conversation that leads to awareness, that leads to support, that leads to research and hopefully a cure. Apparently what works for breasts should not be used for prostates because…reasons. Ashbee contradicts herself near the end of her post by writing: “I know that Movember has raised millions for Prostate Cancer and that’s great, but a huge opportunity for raising real awareness has been missed.” I beg to differ if millions have been raised, and the movement is only growing in popularity.
On a personal note, I find this to be one of the most disgusting attempts at SJWs to paint men as the bad guy. They do it a lot, but actually trying to generate disdain for a movement that wants to cure cancer, solely on the fact that it’s a cancer only men suffer from is just irresponsible and, might I say, evil.
Are you seeing a pattern by now between the two stories? As I said in the beginning, microaggression is the act of discriminating on accident. You don’t know when you’re doing it, you don’t know how, but you’re doing it. This means the judgment of whether or not you’re being microaggressive relies wholly on the person making the claim, i.e. anyone willing to take offense at any mundane occurrence.
This means if Jack carries Jill’s pail of water up a hill for her, Jill may perceive this as male Jack showing female Jill she is weaker and/or incapable of carrying the water up the hill herself. She can claim Jack is being intentionally sexist through microaggression. Jill is being ridiculous, and will likely blog something ridiculous about her experience with Jack on her blog.
Let’s take a different scenario. Stacey is white and comes from a poor background and worked hard to get where she is. Stacey is telling her story to a group, and this group contains Sarah who is black and comes from an upper middle class family. Sarah has had it pretty easy all her life, but Stacey is racially microaggressing Sarah because Sarah thinks Stacey’s skin color makes her ignorant of just how easy Stacey has it compared to Sarah. Sarah claims to have a much better grasp on hardship because of her skin color and feels the need to remind Stacey to check her privilege, even though Stacey has more experience with actual hardship than Sarah.
Notice the projection here? Jack is just being polite, but Jill accuses him of sexism. Stacey is proud of her hard work, but Sarah believes she’s not entitled to that pride because of her skin color.
The gist of it is people who complain about “microaggressions” are all too often the very thing they claim to be victims of. In the case of Rust, “students of color” were accusing him of adhering to what they perceive is a white system of rules invalidating their identity, thus racializing where there is no racialization. With Movember, SJWs were shouting sexism on the part of men, when SJWs are the ones throwing shade at a movement that fights a serious illness only men have, for perceived abuses that don’t even exist.
These people know you’re not being sexist, racist or what have you. They have to perceive it that way because they themselves need that hate to exist in a vacuum so that they can discriminate in good conscience.
But to top it all off, you can only be guilty of microaggression if you meet certain criteria.
Male. Straight. White. Bonus points if you’re Christian.
Almost every single blog I came across concerning microaggression, including this list of instances being documented on Reddit, has that common theme. Both examples I listed above keep to that pattern. If you’re any one of those four above, it’s open season. Any action you take can be judged as offensive no matter how kind, as Sally Kohn demonstrated with one hapless MTA officer.
Make no mistake. People throwing around accusations of microaggression against well meaning people are the real bigots – the sexists and the racists. The only reason reason microaggression can even be considered a tangible thing is because people are generally good and polite by nature, and don’t wish to be offensive. The very nature of feeling remotely bad that they offended someone makes the accuser feel validated. But in reality, it is the accuser that is the guilty party, not the accused.
So what is microaggression? It’s a made up word for made up offenses, for a people who need made up excuses, to deal with made up problems, to exacerbate a very real prejudice.
Hailing from Austin, Texas, Brandon Morse has been writing about politics and culture across many websites for the last six years, with a heavy emphasis on anti-authoritarianism. Aside from writing articles, he is also known for voice acting and authoring scripts. He is an avid gamer, dog person, and has a bad habit of making vague references to things no one has heard about or seen. Follow him at @TheBrandonMorse on Twitter.
Click through the gallery below to read more from Morse in his previous EveryJoe columns:
FreedomWe all want safety, but freedom isn't safe.
Photo by Roman Slavik/Getty Images
Cologne AttacksWhen it comes to the horrific attacks in Cologne, where are the feminists with their outrage?
Photo by Sascha Schuermann/Getty Images
College ProtestsShame these social justice obsessed students, shame their professors more.
Photo: “Bauer sanbernardino”. Licensed under CC BY-SA 2.5 via Wikipedia
Political LeaningsThe political spectrum is a line not a graph.
Photo by Pablographix / Getty Images
Free SpeechFree speech will win, whether you like it or not.
Photo by benjaminec/Getty Images
Gun ControlThere are many things that we can take away from this buried Harvard gun control study.
Photo by Bytmonas/Getty Images
Note to Internet FeministsThere’s always some third-waver going on about how she’s the victim of the worst kinds of behavior from the denizens of the world wild web. Take note -- the internet isn't always nice.
Photo by Volkan Analan / Getty Images
Don't Ignore ThemConservatives need to stop ignoring famous dumb people.
Photo by Jacob Wackerhausen / Getty Images
Feminine vs FeminismMany strong women are rejecting the weak ideas of today's feminists.
Photo by IPGGutenbergUKLtd/Getty Images
Hillary is Not Rand Paul’s Problem, Bernie IsTo get his campaign back on track, Rand Paul needs to put a message out to those libertarians who are currently being fooled by Bernie Sanders’ rhetoric.
Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images