The real reason the feminist censors hate THAT poster

Well I guess the feminist groups must be happy. A commercial for some kind of protein shake has been suspended by the ASA following complaints.

Its hard to say what is actually wrong with the poster, which features an attractive lady and the slogan: "Are you beach body ready?”. There’s no swearing, no abuse or hate of any kind and no nudity (unless you count a swimsuit as too revealing).

The one and only criticism from the censor brigade is that the poster promotes “poor body images”, or “body shaming”.  This is the kind of lexicon I first encountered in my communication with Endangered Bodies. It’s such a vacuum of logic that it’s hard to know where to start dealing with it. It’s as if I’m a lawyer trying to respond to the Chewbacca defence.

On the one hand, I’m inclined to go down the road of comedian Andrew Lawrence.

'Body confident', 'Plus size' ,'Big & beautiful'- however you choose to celebrate your obesity, you're still a greedy cunt. x

— andrew lawrence (@andrewlawrence) April 28, 2015

'We need to stop all the fat shaming.' You should be ashamed, you ate too much.

— andrew lawrence (@andrewlawrence) April 28, 2015

Time for a ban on public ads showing attractive women, it's making the rough ones feel bad about themselves. In fact, hijabs all round.

— andrew lawrence (@andrewlawrence) April 28, 2015

But to do so plays in to the hands of the zealots who desperately need to feel like they’re disliked and oppressed by prejudice. So from here on I'll at least try to match the logic of the banshees screaming down anything that makes them insecure.

Like most human beings I have my imperfections. In my case, my colleagues and friends will frequently remind me that I’m skinny and/or small. That’s my thing. Now, when I see billboard posters featuring body builders I totally get it. Big muscles (to a limit, maybe) are evolutionarily desirable. That doesn’t mean you have to be that way to look good, but it’s a look most blokes would like to have.

It’s the same thing with women and slim figures. Like it or not it’s human nature that most men generally find slimmer bodies more attractive and most women like to feel attractive. Yes of course there are numerous exceptions, yes of course any female can be beautiful, desirable, charming and inspiring without fitting the stereotype but that doesn’t change the general paradigm. Thats not sexist, prejudice or anything else except realistic. Deal with it.

So why then, could an advert for a body-toning supplement without any form of offence, prejudice or negativity have upset the angry feminist lobby? Simple: the advert achieved its aims. In fact, it achieved them too well.

Many commercials appeal to our insecurities. 'Zit' creams want teenagers to feel insecure about their face. Security products play on our healthy fear of crime. Dietary supplements want to touch our insecurity about our physique. These companies spend millions on market research: I’d be surprised if they ever concluded that focusing on falling rates of burglary,  or the happy, productive lives of overweight people would shift more of their products. Fear sells.

Is it immoral and wrong? Possibly. But as usual when dealing with lefties, we have to separate the professed reason for their behaviour from the truth. The truth here is not righteous indignation about the morality of commercials, as Spiked have pointed out. Their real motivation is actually to be found in Andrew Lawrence’s crude tweets. Because Protein World visibly reminded everyone what an attractive female looks like, the angry minority have – or perhaps are so paranoid they believe they have -  been reminded of their own dark opinion of their own bodies.

It’s equivalent to skinny folk like me saying photos of a body builders “shame wimpy people” or photos of Stephen Hawkins “shame those of us with lower IQs”.  Essentially, it's a system of forbidding anyone else to feel good about themselves. It’s a response so illogical and ridiculous that only those with serious self-esteem issues could do so without seeing how cringe-worthily transparent they are.

When our bodies don’t match the look we want we have two options. Firstly, change it through diet and exercise. Secondly, accept it and move on. A very small number who choose option one will go too far, which is sad. Most will not. The feminist mob will seize on and exploit the tragedy of that small minority as propaganda for their cause.

The idea of laying the blame for insecurities at the feet of a poster model is not only remarkably vicious and dumb, it’s also dangerous. Dangerous because like so much of the left-wing philosophy, it’s an attempt to defeat human nature. That's a battle that can never be won, but can cause untold damage in the process.

Archive 7 - How to justify any form of political violence

323/2015

It’s a natural part of growing up to rebel. I still cringe when I remember the way I tried to dress like a rapper in my teens (in the end I settled for rock, which is still the case now) and it’s inevitable that that stage of life involves supporting dumb ideas and telling the older generation just how wrong they are. It’s normal, it’s character-forming in the long term and to some extent, it’s healthy. What’s not healthy is the increasing psyche in western society that believes ideological dissent should not be engaged, debated or even reprimanded, but shouted down and, if necessary, forcefully removed.

It’s occurring with unnerving regularity. Tommy Robinson’s appearance at the Oxford Union was met in some quarters not by articulate objection, academic debate or frank dialogue on the rights or wrongs of it, but by a picket line that were determined to literally shout over Tommy during his engaging two hour talk. Nigel Farage was assaulted by a mob in a Kent pub this weekend as he enjoyed a meal with his family. His two children where terrorised by the mob – who lied that they were attending a  party on the premises – as members of the rabble jumped on their car to express their superior morality to the views of the children’s father. In Australia, students stopped a lecture on campus by entering the room and yelling down the speaker, before one protester shouted “anyone here is support Israel.” It’s a disturbing trend in Europe, Australasia and North America to engage in militant “anti-Israel” politics. As if Jewish people hadn’t suffered enough in recent generations, they are now under increasing hostility in the west.

These aren’t isolated incidents, nor are they headline-grabbing, shocking attacks on democracy that are quickly tackled by police. They are regular events committed by people who believe it’s justified. In the name of “anti-fascism” (a term almost always used by people who could never, ever give you a sensible, educated definition of “fascist”) these far-left and liberal groups commit some of the most ‘fascist’ acts that modern society can witness.

The justification works like this:

• 1) I’m an anti-facist or a left winger, pro-Palestine or feminist. What I believe is right.
• 2) Since I’m right and anti-fascist,anyone who disagrees must therefore be wrong, or anti-fascist, pro-Israel or hate women.
• 3) Fascism, or or being wrong, or hating women is bad.
• 4) Since the opposition is bad, it’s OK to silence or attack them.

..and that’s it. It really is that simple to find a reason to be unpleasant.

Of course, not everyone follows this twisted trail of logic, but those who do so do it with fervor, delighting in the cheap moral excuse to behave like violent thugs or nasty little dictators.It should be no surprise to notice how desperate for recognition and a false sense of power some of them strive for, but there’s a bigger risk at stake. The twisted way of thinking we just observed  leads us to look at our enemy as less than us. Essentially they become lower class of life and as Philip Zimbardo has shown, this road of thinking can lead to truly evil crimes against humanity.

But it’s  wrong. It’s wrong morally, logically and ethically. The rules governing free speech are established in common law and serve us well. As I’ve already discussed, there are sound academic and logical reasons for doing the exact opposite to our political rivals.

Are there ever any sound  reasons for rising up against another section of society? Of course the are,but here’s a hint – if your fight against “fascists” or any other group leads you to a place where you are jumping on a car with two terrified children inside, making up as many slurs as you can to justify an act of censorship or yelling at a class of students that they “support Israel” for attending a lecture, then you’ve probably lost your moral compass on your route to the high ground.

Archive 6 - Freedom of study

Should politics and ideology ever be allowed to stifle scientific investigation or academic studies?

Of course not.

One of the arguments against any form of national pride in Britain has been the common wisdom from liberals that the British and/or English are a “mongrel” bunch, mixed of Norman, Danish and Anglo-Saxon blood. I clearly remember my Religious Studies teacher telling my class this in Grade 8. With the left citing this “fact” as some kind of magic wand that makes any form of national pride irrelevant. Like most liberal arguments, it is a total non-sequitur. Firstly, pride in culture and history has nothing to do with race unless you are some kind of Nazi, or a liberal.

And secondly, we now know it’s not true.

The excellent study in the Daily Telegraph shows that even in the global age, Britain still has remarkable tribal make up, at least in rural areas (note carefully the conditions of the study). It’s a fascinating insight into our history and geography.

Even the researchers themselves admitted the findings surprised them greatly. If we had left “common wisdom” to decide for us, the research would never have taken place at all. This is why we question everything. This is why we should listen to common knowledge and consider it, but never take it as gospel (unless it actually is!).

And we should certainly never be censored or shouted down in academic buildings by associate professors or ignorant students. Question the motivation of those who do.

Archive 5 - Censorship and free speech in schools

Imagine you take two groups of students of equal aptitude. You take one group and tell them: “Find the best economic management system for your country. Consider every system, every philosopher, every study and every possibility.”

You tell the second group: “Find the best economic mode l you can but you will not think about the Keynesian model! You will not discuss it, question it or condone it. If you discuss the Keynesian model in any way you are a badstudent!”.

Which group do you think have a greater chance to produce a better model? Why?

Freedom of speech and freedom of thought are vital. High school economics students might be presented with a scenario similar to the one I just gave. Kindergarten classes might not be ready for classic economics just yet but the principle remains the same. As parents teach their kids right and wrong they have to be careful to also encourage inquisitively. A teacher also bears a responsibility to nurture that wonderful childhood characteristic. Always ask “Why?”.

Groups that stifle freedom of speech and scream down anyone they disagree with are enemies of academia and mental development. The laws that regulate speech in the UK – and in the country where I live- are far from perfect. But they have been built up over many generations and are not subject to the political whims of the day. Nor should they be. That’s why, regardless of personal views, I was pleased that the video of Tommy Robinson speaking at Oxford Union was uploaded to youtube.

Archive 1 - Open Letter to Diana Denza and "Endangered Bodies"

Dear Diana,

I wanted to say a big personal “thank you” to you and your “Endangered Bodies” group for your erudite defence of the campaign to remove the “feeling fat” icon from Facebook status pages.

You see, at first I was mistaken. I thought it was a rather small-minded, petty act of censorship, based on personal insecurity and fear. But after reading your blog, I see how wrong I was.  Part of your opening paragraph was the most revealing:

“…..this morning, I was greeted by a flurry of hate speech, slurs, and vicious threats from men. Men of different ages. Men of different sizes. Single men. Men with young daughters”

And there it is in all its transparent splendor: the reason that anyone disagrees with you or your group is down to two simple things: hate and penises. Logic is not a factor. Scientific studies of self-esteem and small icons on Facebook are surplus. No discussion of freedom comes into the equation. If anyone sends you any message you dislike it’s because they’re hateful. Hateful men. And yes, I hold my hands up in guilt: I have a penis. I am therefore wrong and hateful towards you by default.

I read how you courageously “hid” Internet messages from “empowered women” (not empowered enough to brave the horror of disagreeable Internet messages by themselves?) I gasped as you revealed the reasons for”challenging the status quo” (is that a Facebook status option?). You are a “strong woman” with a “strong voice”.  So was Margaret Thatcher, the greatest British Prime Minister of my lifetime. So is my mother, who occasionally still teaches me right and wrong, even at my age. So is my wife, whom I will proudly tell to anyone who cares that she earns more than I do. In fact, I thought that those women in my life that I hold in such admiration and wonder would exclude me from being “scared” or “hateful” of truly strong women who campaign to remove a Facebook icon, but I guess I  was wrong. Forgive me, I’m a man.

I read on, past your impressive report of 16,000 people supporting the petition of your group (what is the female population of the world these days?) I read your clarification that “fat is a body type, not a feeling”. I was confused: so confused that I double-checked all the definitions of “feeling” in Merriam-Webster (“Appreciative or responsive awareness or recognition”)  and Oxford (“An attitude or opinion:”) dictionaries, both of which offered definitions that, to my hateful male mind, clearly allowed for fat to be covered.

I’m sorry to say Diana that this wasn’t the limit to my doubt. Moreover, I wondered: isn’t censoring and denying some feelings counter-productive to your ideals of high self-esteem? How can we define a “positive” without a negative? How can we feel good about ourselves unless we understand what it is to feel bad, too? If we take “bad” out of the equation, we only have “good” and “normal”. Then “normal” becomes “bad”. It’s human nature, surely we can’t hide from it?

But as this doubt permeated me, I remembered your golden rule, and it all became clear: those dictionary definitions probably came from men. And as for human nature? It must have been a masculine invention. I blame Adam.

You went on: “These attacks are not about disagreeing with a petition” you said, before you elucidated once again: “these attacks are personal”. Yet again, I wash awash with bemusement. How could these attacks possibly be personal? Did these people all know you? Did they make statements about your personality? Your choice of dress? Your favourite sports team? How could comments based purely upon a petition, without any other information even being available to criticise be personal? Shame on me. The answer by then should have been clear. I bet it’s clear to anyone reading this right now.

In closing, you reinforced the point that it was all “vile hate speech”, before drawing a parallel  with the gamergate  affair, by which you took the small number of moronic and truly nasty rape and death threats against another person in another scenario and clearly attempted to make those idiots analogous to anyone who criticized your group’s petition.

Finally, you made a mention that you use Facebook’s “hide” button very often now before declaring yet again that you are “strong” (I appreciate the reminder, it helps me not to forget or question the fact) before closing with the ominous promise: “we can’t stop now”.

On that Diana, as with everything else, I agreed. This was all about fear. thiswas all about 16,000 people out of the world’s population feeling fear of a body type they wish didn’t exist when they looked at a small, yellow, gender-neutral face on Facebook. Like you, I’m certain that this whole saga is about hate, fear, strong voices, body types, and men. Definitely men.

And most of all, I agree you can’t stop now. there are still people, sorry I mean there are still men out there, updating their Facebook status right now with icons that strike fear, repression and anti-women hatred into our hearts. Until every single one of those has been silenced and banished, you can’t stop.