You’ve Heard of Colorblind Racism, but What About Genderblind Sexism?

If you’ve been following the latest contradictory edicts of the “woke” crowd, then you’ve probably at least vaguely come across the term colorblind racism. For those unfamiliar, the idea is that while it seems anti-racist to say “I don’t see color”, it actually makes one blind to racial inequalities embedded in the system. According to this line of logic for an example, not acknowledging someone’s race (i.e. black) also makes one turn a blind eye to substantial inequalities they have to face specifically due to the exact racial identity you are “blind” to. To the Left, one is required to take race into consideration in treating others in order to not discriminate based on their race. (Yes, it’s quite the paradox!) 😉 In real life applications this ideology factors into affirmative action, “scaled” grading, adversity scoring, etc… You can take a guess at what my opinion on the matter is…

However, the concept brings up another idea the Left probably hasn’t thought of and certainly is doing: Genderblind sexism. Think of genderblind sexism the same way as colorblind racism only substitute gender for race. Sexism and misogyny are things the Left loves to accuse conservatives of. Conservative values oppress women, women are under a cis white male patriarchy, women are paid less for equal work, women are at the mercy of predatory men without any way to fight back, women and girls are more vulnerable to violence, being a stay at home mom is antiquated, marriage is patriarchal etc… Does sexism exist? Yes, and plenty of women face unfair circumstances in life including vulnerability to violence. However, is our country deeply entrenched in sexism against women on a systematic level? I’d argue no. Women today are more empowered than ever in this country to create their own lives and dreams. Just look at how they treat women in 3rd world countries. There are plenty of ways in which women are not the “damsels in distress” the Left loves to paint them as, needing saving from sexist microagressions!

That said, there are still ways women are not equal to men in life. Equality can come in many forms including equal opportunities and equal outcomes. Many inequalities are not socially designed or even human-made, such as physical and physiological differences between men and women. Homo sapiens is a sexually dimorphic species, which means males and females are physically and physiologically different from each other. For examples beyond “the obvious” down-below, men on average are taller, have more upper body strength, denser muscle mass and are overall stronger than women. They can run faster, farther and have more physical strength. Women on average are shorter, distribute fat differently on their bodies, don’t grow facial hair like men, have enlarged breasts for nursing offspring, a wider pelvis, and less muscle mass than men. Studies have shown women are usually more adept at subjects like reading and language comprehension from a younger age, have a higher pain tolerance in some cases (probably for enduring childbirth), better verbal fluency, and more fine motor skills. Men have been shown to do better on mathematical/scientific tasks, have greater spatial awareness, and working memory for a few examples.

Now some argue that some of these differences could be due to social influences on raising boys and girls to gravitate to certain gender roles, but it seems a stretch to imagine gender roles somehow popped out of thin air with no basis in innate characteristics. Noting these differences should not be a construed as a value judgement, or that any characteristic is more preferable. Acknowledging that men and women do have biological and physiological differences in their bodies and brains does not put one at an advantage over the other as a whole. Where one may be stronger in one area, they are weaker in another and vice versa. Nor does this mean a man or woman cannot achieve proficiency or be above average in an area usually attributed to the other sex. There are plenty of gifted male writers and gifted female scientists and mathematicians. Generally speaking though, it is foolish to deny the very real differences between men and women as a whole.

This brings us back to genderblind sexism: What happens when we choose to ignore those very real differences, such as disparities in physical strength between men and women? Many unjust inequalities that do exist between men and women are exacerbated by factors like that. Just think of the odds of the average woman fighting off the average man in a fight. What about a woman trying to get away from a male attacker? Or outrun a predator? What about a man pinning her down? Yes, weapons and self defense techniques help, but the man usually still comes with an automatic advantage from the get-go. Why are women disproportionately the victims of physical violence? The Left cites a toxic masculine patriarchal culture, but on the practical level what about the woman’s ability to fight back? Another man may easily fight back and get away whereas the average woman may literally not be able to.

The example where genderblind sexism would come in here would be in the debate on transgender access to women’s spaces where women are vulnerable such as changing rooms and restrooms. The need for separate spaces for women has been common sense up until recently. Now, a truly transgender “woman” who lives as a woman is not the main threat, but the cisgender man pretending to be a trans-woman to gain access to women’s private spaces is. If we allow anyone in who simply claims to be transgender access to women and girls in compromising circumstances like a state of undress there is a probability of some having nefarious intentions leading to potential assaults. If we ignore that unique vulnerability of women, because they are different than men, we also ignore a real threat to their safety, and their equal right to be free from danger and victimization.

For a lower-stakes but significant contributor to women’s inequality is the debate on transgender women in women’s sports. This blatantly ignores very real differences in physical strength and endurance between men and women. Male athletes outperform even the best women in many sports. A good example being a biological male up against a woman in a sprinting competition where fractions of a second mean you win or lose. Male runners outperform even the best female runners. What about women’s football and other contact sports? A biological male, even transitioning into a more female-like body after puberty still retains a higher muscle mass and physical strength. If he smashes at full speed into a woman, she’ll be the one in the hospital! The playing field with trans-women is NOT equal by any stretch of the imagination. Ignoring this reality for the sake of gender ideology ensures real women will be outcompeted by a man every time they get out and play.

Another dimension to genderblind sexism goes beyond just the physical, but also societal and cultural: The erasure of women’s unique “lived experiences” in the words of the Left. I went into this in much greater detail in my post “My Gender is Not Your Costume“, but in essence by erasing objective differences between the sexes, it erases the unique experiences of each sex/gender. A person who is male simply cannot truly know what it is like to live as a female. This is rooted in biology, but also societal experiences. There is a reason cultures have gender roles, even ones where they are less ridged. Name one human culture where men and women are treated exactly the same. Not merely in similar opportunities, or social acceptance to do what the other gender does, but a psychological blindness to men and women, boys and girls being in any way different in personalities, temperament and abilities. We learn much of our gender expression from society, but where did society learn it? It is silly to deny the nature part of the equation as well as the nurture.

I’m honestly surprised in a sense how the Left, who loves to cite all the experiences women face that men will never truly understand, like the fear of assault or violence for instance, or the pressures on women in society, say it’s okay for a man to basically appropriate the identity of a woman. Or, as some say, if gender is merely a social construct and can be dismantled, so can the voices and stories of countless women in their unique experiences as women. This cultural and societal erasure of women and their lived experience is also consequence of the newfangled gender ideology sweeping our society.

If it is sexist to deny women an equal chance at protection from violence,

If it is sexist to deny women an equal playing field in her sport,

If it is sexist to deny women their unique “lived experiences” as a valid identity rooted in biology and in our culture,

Then it is sexist to pretend gender simply a social construct and a man can choose to be a woman merely because he feels like it.

A final point to reflect on is the idea of equity vs, equality. The Left loves this one: Equality in opportunities does not always yield equality of outcome. The “equal” playfield for trans-women makes it inherently unequal to biological women because they carry physical advantages over women. However equity is giving what a person or group needs based on their actual needs, not just blindly without considering disparities in circumstance. Giving women a private space to undress away from men is equitable as women are more vulnerable to assault by men, even though it’s a form of gendered segregation. Having all gender bathrooms in the name of equality erases the very real fear women have of assault in those kinds of spaces.

Now, some may argue that since I reject the idea of colorblind racism, then why would I advocate for seeing genderblind sexism? My answer is that unlike race, where there are significantly less differences between races rooted in objective biological criteria, there is far more evidence to support the idea of innate differences between both sexes. Most importantly, unlike many racial disparities, many differences between the sexes on average, are biological and innate and cannot be changed by changing society, such as overall disparities in physical strength being my “strongest” example.

If sexism is defined as inequality and disadvantage for one sex, and privilege for the other, genderblind sexism is sexism arising due to one’s “blindness” to real disparities between genders. Contrary to popular opinion, acknowledging real differences between men and women leads to more, not less equality. Equal does not always mean identical. Seeing women as just as worthy of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” in this country as men also must mean understanding that what will make them be able to achieve that goal can and does differ from men. Women will not be equal to men in this country until gender ideologues realize the unique circumstances women face due to their gender, and not turn a blind eye to the biological and cultural differences that make it so.

Washington Post Criticized For Transphobic Mueller Report Cartoon | The  Daily Dot

The Life of Major Israel McCreight: A Case Study in The Cultural Appropriation Debate

I’ve written many times before on the controversy surrounding what the Left calls “cultural appropriation”. As a recap, cultural appropriation is this idea of “stealing” another culture’s material culture as well as customs and traditions as an outsider who has no claim or right to use any part of a certain culture. People accused of such are often alleged to be insulting and exploiting often deep and meaningful cultural customs and traditions and making them superficial and misrepresented. Accusations of colonialism also come up as this charge is mainly exclusive to white people, claiming white people who do this are also exerting their “white supremacy” and subjugating minorities.

These arguments seem okay on the surface, but looking deeper it’s not always so black and white. I’ve written about how many simply want to dress up for Halloween and have no intentions of insulting anyone. Or about how experiencing ways different from one’s own can foster empathy, not mockery or contempt for another’s way of life. Or those who truly do want to honor a culture on a deeper and meaningful level, and have true appreciation for the richness that culture brings to the world. To illustrate this point, I want to introduce you to this man:

Yes, this is a white man in Native American regalia. Complete with that sacred war bonnet (gasp!). He even is holding a peace pipe! Look at his picture carefully and without knowing anymore about who he is or what he did what comes to your mind? Do you think he has any right to wear these things? How do you think the Native Americans felt about him doing this? What do you think his motives are for wearing Native American clothing, and ceremonial regalia? What do you think the implications are of a white person like him doing this?

Now what if I told you in his house, he has a massive collection of sacred Native American objects? War bonnets, arrows, coup sticks, sacred clothing, pipes, etc… How do you think he obtained all these things? Does he have any right to own them? What if I told you he took on a Native American name in his later life and even signed documents with it? It seems like this man is really into Indians! But do you think all of this is okay for someone who is not a Native American?

After you answer these for yourself, and think what the Left would say about this man what comes to your mind? I’ll share what comes to mine: I believe that many who cry cultural appropriation would condemn that man for wearing Native American attire. Say he was exploiting their culture, and defiling their sacred objects. They would wonder why he has all those Native American objects in his house, and probably assume they were war trophies, or stolen even indirectly from Indians. He should give them all back! They’d say he was just another white man who played a role in subjugating Native Americans and then gloating over his victory using those cultural objects as war trophies in a sense. That by using that native name, he’s just “playing Indian”, while becoming a white man with all the privileges it endows whenever it suits him again.

Indeed, his page on Wikipedia was taken down not too long ago. There’s no solid proof to confirm it for sure, but considering the circumstances, I wouldn’t be surprised if someone took it down for those reasons. However, the page taken down and censored had the relevant information that answers all of our questions about this man and his motives.

The man’s name was Major Israel McCreight. He was born in 1865 and died in 1958. He grew up in Pennsylvania raised by pioneer parents and several other siblings. As a young man, at only 20 years old, he wanted to branch out and traveled all the way to Devil’s Lake in the Dakota Territory. This is where his lifelong adventure with Indians began. In fact, it was when he first arrived and stepped off the train platform he was greeted by a band of Sioux.

“They were a fine healthy lot; and as the travel-worn youth with his carpet-bag and lunch basket looked about for someone from whom he might ask directions, the Chief stepped up and with extended hand, said: “How cola!” Half in fright and with a puzzled hand-shake, the boy made his way toward what seemed to be the white man’s town… That kindly greeting by the old Sioux Chief quickly dispelled much of the prejudice that had filled his heart through childhood, and soon the youth began to think that Indians were not such terrible folks as Eastern people believed they were.” (McCreight, 1939)

During McCreight’s years there, he worked supplying food to the Indians, and also in an army garrison. He got along so well with various Indians that others called him “the Indian man”, and he fully earned this title when amazingly, he prevented a potential conflict between the settlers there and some Ojibwe Indians who has a grievance over white settlers not adhering to a treaty they made and hunting on their lands and stealing their timber. A band of them came early one morning to settle the score and McCreight managed to talk them down and persuade them to go back to their reservation and avoid bloodshed.

“It was all over before the town folks stirred about after their late Sunday morning breakfast; and over their own late breakfast, the doctor and the writer decided it best to say nothing, to avoid publicity, for it might interfere with business, and perhaps bring the wrath of General George Armstrong Custer‘s troops at the fort, against the suffering natives, and so the incident was closed and soon forgotten — forgotten except for the life-long humiliation at failure of the Bureau of Indian Affairs to intercede for and protect the rights of these abused natives.” (McCreight, 1943)

He also developed deep personal friendships with many Indians, including Chief Wa Ta Na who gave him his prized peace pipe, as a token of their deep friendship. This was the first object given to him in his vast collection. As McCreight went through life, he went back to DuBois in Pennsylvania and took up banking, and married his childhood sweetheart and raised 7 children and they had over 70 years of marriage. However, he retained his connections in the Dakotas, and became friends with the far more well known Buffalo Bill Cody and other famous Indians in the Wild West shows like Flying Hawk and Chief Iron Tail. When the Wild West shows would travel around the country, they would often stop at the McCreights to relax and catch up with friends. A special place McCreight had in his later life was a big house and estate called “The Wigwam”.

Wild Westers needed a place to relax, and The Wigwam was a warm and welcome home where Indians could be Indians, sleep in buffalo skins and tipis, walk in the woods, have a hearty breakfast, smoke their pipes and tell of their stories and deeds. On one occasion 150 Indians with Buffalo Bill’s Wild West camped in the forests of The Wigwam. (Wikipedia)

He also made “The Wigwam” a cultural heritage center for Native American culture and educated tourists and schoolchildren. His Indian friends gave him many gifts of prized objects as tokens of their friendship which McCreight treasured until he died. McCreight’s constant and enduring connections with many Native American communities and those from the old days of the Wild West eventually earned him what he considered his highest honor: His native name, Cante Tanke which means “great heart”.

McCreight was forever moved by the solemnity of the occasion, and carried the honor proudly and with distinction the rest of his life. McCreight later remarked that the title, honorary Chief of the Oglala Lakota, was a far greater tribute than could have been conferred by any president or military organization. McCreight celebrated and honored Oglala Lakota culture, signing correspondence Tchanta Tanka or Tchanti Tanka, the phonetic equivalence of “Chann-Tey-Tonk-A”, the Lakota pronouncement of his adopted name Cante Tanke.

And that’s certainly not all! He was supported by the Sioux people and others to be nominated for the position of U.S. Indian Commissioner in 1929. He unfortunately was not chosen by President Hoover, however the significance of support from Indians, when many bureaucrats were corrupt and did not have the Indian’s best interests at heart, was that they trusted McCreight. In his elder years he wrote many books highlighting not his voice, but those of his Indian friends to honor their stories and kept The Wigwam up as a cultural center until 1958, the year of his death. Perhaps the most touching expression of his devotion to the Indians, and their love for him was in this letter sent near the end of his life by a friend:

“Brother your message tells us that soon you will take the Sunset Trail where our ancient Fathers will welcome and greet you as one of themselves. It will make our hearts unhappy when you leave us. You will be remembered by the truths you have written in your many books and articles about the Indians and though your body may pass on your thoughts will continue to live, will speak for us. During your life on this Earth, you have done many good things and our hearts are with you. You are an Indian born again in a white body, sent here by our creator to tell the world today the true story of our people. When you leave Mother Mother Earth and the Ancient Ones will welcome you with outstretched arms. The prairies and forests will look golden and green to you and your moccasins will walk on smooth grasses. The sky will be blue and from the bark lodges you will see smoke rising into the sky. Your ears will hear the good music of singing and the tom toms and those you see will be smiling at you as you walk to greet them. Remember this, Brother, this is how it will be for you. Your brother, Aren Akweks.”

Now go back to that photo and answer for yourself those questions I posed to you again knowing what you know now of the man. In light of all he contributed to the betterment and advocacy for Native Americans, would you still think he has no right to what he did? Is this still “appropriation”?

The reason I dove so deeply into one man’s biography was to present Major Israel McCreight as a case study in dismantling this notion that white people can’t possibly have a deep and lasting connection, one of advocacy for another race or culture and any absorption of another’s culture is an insult and oppressive. Maybe many SJW’s would dismiss him as a “white savior” and disregard all he did despite using his “privilege” to help those who didn’t have it. Obviously whoever deleted his wonderful page up on Wikipedia didn’t read his legacy. They didn’t read how he was embraced as one of their own by Indians, how his collection was not stolen but given to him by lifelong friends, how his native name was bestowed to him as his highest honor, how his war bonnet could symbolize how he was a warrior for the betterment of those people. And much much more. Nor did whoever took his page down appreciate the devotion and care the writer took to honor his life.

The implications of this censorship goes beyond this one man though, and the biggest one: There are more McCreights out there today, but they will never get the chances he did at truly embracing and advocating for a people with the Left’s restrictive “hands off and stay away” approach to connecting to others outside how they dictate whites must act. He saw the Native Americans he bonded with as his equals. But one can’t do that with another if you’re told to stay away and merely cave to every demand blindly due to some past history without having mutual understanding and respect. This isn’t merely about the censorship of the story of one great man, but the social censorship of the development of more great men and women who will go on to honor countless cultures to come…

Please take the time to read the censored article in its entirety as it covers so much more than I can in one post! I found the trick was to type the url into the WayBack site which can let you see deleted pages 😉 Major Israel McCreight

The Science Is In: Political Correctness Doesn’t Work!

Conservatives have known this intuitively for years: Political correctness doesn’t work! As described in great detail in my post Several Reasons Why We “Resist” Political Correctness, some major reasons for backlash against it has to do with the Left’s double standards and hypocrisy in applying it, the denial of safety issues, attacks on our identity and culture, and simply the fact that many people are fed up with the constant edicts and demands that never seem to stop! Now, scientific studies have given us yet another reason why we don’t respond to PC demands: They don’t appeal to our internal motivations to change.

Many on the Left emphasize actions they feel ought to be taken to create a less prejudiced society. Don’t say these words. Don’t say this as a compliment. Don’t ask that question. Don’t wear that outfit. Don’t listen to that music, watch that show, read that book. Shun anyone who thinks differently and declare them persona non grata. Put this sign on your yard. Vote for these candidates. Use this hashtag. Boycott this store, or that brand. Say these catchy slogans and buzzwords. Hold these ideologies and don’t deviate from their worldview. Think conservatives are backwards. You see this repeated in workplaces and schools through every class “dialogue” (which is really a Leftist monologue) sensitivity training, diversity orientation, safe space training, racism seminars promoting white guilt, among others.

Yet, does this even work? It certainly doesn’t for us conservatives! The Left declares you a racist, sexist, homophobe, etc. if you aren’t fully into their little teaching sessions as many have experienced. We’re not any of those things they accuse us of, yet we don’t embrace their narrow view of how “good” people should act. Sadly, to protect our careers, reputations and social connections, sometimes, we play along and parrot their edicts back to them while holding true to our own views privately. In essence, the Left’s indoctrination sessions in the classroom or the workplace merely foster social pressure to conform rather than internalized beliefs that they are correct, and morally superior.

This is where the science comes in. We all have intrinsic and extrinsic reasons for why we believe in and conform to certain things. Intrinsic motivators are our deeply held values. If we do something for intrinsic reasons, we want to do it. If we do something for an extrinsic reason, it is often because we want to conform out of social pressures or fear of some imposed consequence, or conversely, have an external reward to gain from it. Research shows what conservatives knew already: Appeals to extrinsic motivators to be more “woke” or PC such as intense social pressure and cancel culture does not work. Nor does giving out a laundry list of arbitrary rules make anyone more desiring to become less prejudiced.

In a paper published in 2011 called “Ironic Effects of Antiprejudice Messages: How Motivational Interventions Can Reduce (but Also Increase) Prejudice” by Lisa Legault, Jennifer Gutsell, and Michael Inzlicht, they studied the effects of more extrinsic, or “controlling” messages and more intrinsic, or “autonomy focused” messages on reducing prejudice. Controlling messages do just as expected, they are meant to control one’s actions. Autonomy focused messages also as expected, focus more on the person’s autonomy to make a choice not to be prejudiced as a personal moral value. The researchers hypothesized that autonomy focused messaging would have a greater effect at reducing prejudice than controlling messages.

To test this, Legault and her research partners designed two experiments. In the first experiment, participants read a brochure on the topic of prejudice. They assigned the participants to one of three conditions:

  1. Read an autonomy focused brochure.
  2. Read a controlling brochure.
  3. Read a neutral brochure to use as a control group.

Those assigned to read the autonomy-brochure read information emphasizing one’s choice to embrace values of non-prejudice. Those assigned to the controlling-brochure read the message that one needs to comply with social norms, (a.k.a political correctness) to fight prejudice. The control group only read about defining the concept of prejudice.

Afterward, the researchers used surveys to measure prejudice and screen for intrinsic or extrinsic motivations. Results showed those who read the autonomy-brochure had decreased prejudice, and those who read the controlling-brochure emphasizing social norms had increased prejudice. Even more shocking, those in the controlling-brochure condition had more prejudice than those in the control group!

Believe it or not, their second experiment had even more striking results! In the second experiment, they used surveys to measure participants’ agreement with statements about prejudice that were either more autonomy focused or controlling in nature. After, participants were asked to write a few sentences with prompts that emphasized an autonomy focused approach or a controlling approach depending on which condition they were assigned to. Results showed the same pattern as the first experiment, but even more dramatically, as there was a greater difference between the autonomy condition and the other two. Legault’s research clearly supports evidence that extrinsic motivators are not effective, and may actually decrease motivation to become less prejudice than having no motivation at all!

A second study published more recently in 2017 called “Training away bias: The differential effects of counter stereotype training and self-regulation on stereotype activation and application” by Mason D. Burns, Margo J. Monteith and Laura R.Parker reinforced Legault’s findings about intrinsic motivation being a stronger force for less prejudice. Burns and his team researched whether conscious means to retrain the mind to associate counter-stereotypical words with certain groups instead of associating them with negative words would reduce implicit bias. Counter stereotype training consists of learning to pair positive words such as “intelligent” or “competent”, with various races that are often negatively stereotyped with negative words such as “unintelligent” or “incompetent”. The goal is to eventually out compete the negative implicit associations by retraining one’s mind to associate new positive words with various racial groups. Burns hypothesized that counter stereotype training would reduce implicit bias more than having received no training.

The experiment was to have participants look at a computer screen with pictures of either white or black people and click on words that were counter stereotypical for them as fast as possible. Participants were assigned to three conditions:

  1. A group who read a list of counter stereotypes before doing the task.
  2. A group who was only warned to be aware of stereotypes but received no counter stereotype list.
  3. A control group who just did the online task with no further instructions.

Results showed that despite some positive effects of counter stereotype training, it was not effective overall contrary to Burns and colleagues’ initial hypothesis. Those who were given the warning not to think stereotypically but not trained had less biased responses than the counter stereotype condition. The researchers theorized this was because the warning was a prompt to activate participants’ intrinsic motivation not to be biased through increasing their awareness of how bias conflicts with their values. The implications of Burns’ research is that those mind-control training seminars at work or in the classroom the Left likes impose on us don’t work!

The findings of these two studies easily highlight yet another reason we resist political correctness and the Left’s agenda. In addition to being hypocritical, a threat to safety in some cases, an attack on our culture and values, and simply annoying, scientific evidence shows the Left has gone about it all wrong. If they truly wanted to make change, they would have more luck appealing to our values over dictating what we must do to appease the Left. Then again, what values do they really have? From what I’ve seen, it definitely is not about equality for all, just who they pick and choose.

This is just my own theory, but perhaps they don’t appeal to our values because we’d discover theirs and ours are not alike at all! The evidence the Left gives for their arbitrary pronouncements points to a different motive: Power and control.

So when do we decide it’s time to act on our internal values, and not their external pressures?

Editorial cartoons for Saturday, June 20 | HeraldNet.com