Erroneous Idioms #1: “Whipped” as A Patriarchal Text?

Super super short post.

I noticed something a few weeks ago actually that I ended up writing down because I wanted to mention it on here. I’m pretty sure everyone is familiar with the term “whipped,” used to refer to a subservient male in a heterosexual relationship with a woman.

Anyway, I overheard someone use it in a conversation while in the cafeteria and I thought to myself, “funny how it doesn’t apply to women, and there is no female equivalent.”

Clearly written by a “whipped” male. Psh, so beta. Either that, or pretty much true. Probably true.

Before I could even begin to ask myself why it would be that there wasn’t a female equivalent, the answer was pretty obvious.

Society advocates subservient women, and has done so for a pretty long time, so of course subservient women won’t be mocked for being subservient.

On the other hand, it doesn’t really fit in with the patriarchal world model if men are subservient for women, so some patriarchal genius (read: “Asshole”) came up with the modern colloquial understanding of the word “whipped”. The idea of course was to steer men towards being dominant over women.

My advice for fixing this? (Because of course you want to hear it)

Make fun of subserivent women too. You can even just start using “whipped” to refer to deliberately (it wouldn’t be funny/appropriate to call abused/battered/subjugated women whipped) subservient women. Or, we could keep whipped as an exclusively male term, and use something else instead. How about “flogged”? Yeah, that’s good.

From now on, deliberately subservient women should be made fun of by referring to them as “flogged”. 

I have spoken.

Advertisements

Faith and Science: Why They Can’t Mesh

Religion and science have been doing battle since Copernicus, and probably before that but I’m too lazy to think of an example. Ironically, both have similar goals. As human beings, we seek to understand as much of the universe as we can. Science tries to do that through empirical testing, data, and evidence. Religion does it by appealing to a higher power, an untestable hypothesis.

That doesn’t sit so well with science.

Science reacts to “God did it”

Appealing to a higher power as a solution to explanation presents a fundamental problem: There’s no way to fact check. If I were to suggest to you, that my computer runs on undetectable alien power, you wouldn’t be able to prove me wrong. This is because the claim is, by definition, untestable. It’s therefore not much of an argument, but it’s also important to note that there really is no scientific way to disprove it.

Teleological argument at its finest. (Not really.)

Science relies entirely on the physical, detectable, and empirical. The world of the science lab is well inside a Naturalistic understanding. However, the scientist has no reason to be committed to the truth of Naturalism.

This is to say, that there is no scientific way to say that “There is nothing that science can’t explain.” Such a claim would be circular and contradictory. Science cannot dictate that there is no possibility of non-scientific (Religious?) explanation for a given phenomenon.

The two are therefore essentially mutually exclusive. Although religious (telelogical) explanation falls short of delivering anything convincingly, science can’t disprove any of it either.

Apologies for the jargon, hopefully you’re still with me and not saying this right now

There’s a bigger problem between the two though.

There’s two more big ones actually counting this one, but this is just too complicated to go into right now.

And that central problem is what “Faith” means. To the dictionary again…

Faith, noun, “Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.”

See what the problem is here? Like I explained before, there’s no way for science/proof/reason to touch “spiritual apprehension” because such a thing defies explanation. The central tenant of faith, and therefore most religions, requires that followers do just that, follow. Proof is not necessary for religious conversion.

Probably why no one has a problem with things like this.

Science on the other hand, by definition, asks for evidence and proof. The two, therefore, cannot coincide fully.

One demands proof, the other says proof is not necessary. So if you ask me, pick one or the other. If you pick science you don’t have to be committed to the truth of Naturalism, but there’s no reason for you to accept teleological explanation for everyday phenomenon (other than human actions, but again, let’s not go there).

Racism: Because Some People Apparently Don’t Get It

I’m seriously hoping this isn’t news to most people, but after “talking” (read: Listening to angry nonsensical ramblings) to a couple people, I found out that the dictionary definition of racism, isn’t ACTUALLY what racism means… Supposedly.

So here’s the dictionary definition. “The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.”

2. “Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on such a belief”

Makes sense, yes? Well apparently, little did we all know, that minority races ACTUALLY CAN’T BE RACIST… At least, that’s what I’m being told.

mfw

Let’s go back to the definition shall we? Did you see anything in there about racism being specific to a majority group, whites, males, or anything like that? I certainly didn’t. Lemme try getting another definition from another dictionary.

“a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race”

There’s Merriam Webster. I’m still not seeing anything here about racism being specific to anybody. If we were to say that “Only whites have the ability to be racist.” That DOES however seem to fit both definitions of racism, does it not?

Dat shit is a contradiction good sir.

Ignoring faulty logic and argumentation, let’s just think about this in simple common sense terms for a minute.

When a bunch of white males say “Blacks have to drink from separate water fountains, because we don’t like them,” what do we call that? Pretty easy, racism.

Let’s try a(n apparently) harder one. When a bunch of black men say “Whites are inferior to us, and we hate them because they’re white” what do we call this? Racism.

On the same lines, a group of black men say “We killed that white guy, because he was white.” What’s the name? Yup, racism. (More specifically a hate crime in this case). There’s nothing about minorities/power structure/ability to oppress in the definitions of racism. Racism is about bias and judgement based on race, hence the name. Sooo, it’s racism regardless of what color you are when you commit it. (Again, I seriously hope this isn’t news to anyone.)