I learned at a fairly young age that when it comes to somewhat controversial debates, people often get so emotionally wrapped up in whatever it is that they fail to see the forest for the trees. I’ve written articles that were more than 1,000 words and 8 of those words were something with which someone disagreed – and they solely focused their “rage” based on that one small part. Never mind the 99% of the article that they were in full agreement with. Oh, no. They focused on that one part and that’s how they formed their entire opinion over what it is that I wrote and they read.
I’ve written numerous articles defending women’s rights, gay rights, immigrant rights, minority rights and equality, and I’ve fiercely opposed racists, bigots and intolerance in general.
Yet I’ve been called a racist, bigot, sexist, homophobic woman-hater – all by liberals.
Why? Because while I’ve defended women, homosexuals, immigrants, minorities and the fight for true equality for all, once in a while I actually dare to call out the hypocrisy I’ve seen from the radical activists who seem unable to be even the slightest bit objective toward the causes about which they’re passionate.
Take for instance Michael Sam. After he came out publicly he held a press conference stating that from then on he only wanted to be known as a football player, not a gay football player. So, going by his own words, that’s exactly what I looked at him as. In fact, in my opinion, that’s real equality. Except once I heard he had agreed to do a documentary with Oprah (an agreement he hid from the NFL until after he was drafted) to document his quest to make it in the NFL as an openly gay man – I called him a hypocrite.
He was trying to profit off of the fact that he’s the NFL’s first gay football player after he told the world that going forward he didn’t want to be known as anything but “a football player.” He can’t say to people that he wants to be treated “just like everyone else,” while doing something that no other NFL player had ever done because he happens to be gay.
For simply expressing that opinion I got called a homophobe. Never mind that written inside that very same article I mention how I wish him well and stated that he represents a huge step for LGBT rights. Nope, ignore all of that. These radical activists, unable to see anything objectively, only seemed to process that I dared to call Michael Sam a hypocrite for contradicting his own words.
They want equality, I criticized Michael Sam as I would have done to any other player, and apparently because I treated him equally that makes me homophobic.
Then there’s the radical women’s rights people. Wow, I really ticked them off recently when I dared to criticize their over the top reactions to high school girls being sent home for violating school dress codes.
They claim that school dress codes unfairly target women by making them cover their bodies because males can’t control their urges – and somehow this all ties into the rape culture.
Are you freaking kidding me?
Asking girls to not wear shorts shorter than where their finger tips touch their thighs with their arms hanging at their sides isn’t “shaming women.” Because guess what, males have to follow that same dress code. Only problem is, most males don’t wear shorts that short. If they did, they’d be sent home as well. If these activists are looking to blame someone, blame women’s fashion.
Here’s a fun fact: If girls didn’t wear shorts that were inappropriately short for school, there wouldn’t be a need for a rule that seeks to limit just how short these shorts can be. Some “length limit” has to be set. Otherwise some females would come to school with their butt cheeks hanging out.
And let’s not pretend that rules requiring shorts to be at a length around mid-thigh are “unreasonable requests.” It’s school, not a club, the beach, the pool, a friend’s house or the mall. School is meant to foster a positive learning environment, and the fact of the matter is skimpy clothing isn’t conducive to a positive learning environment for adults, much less teenagers.
Then there was the issue of girls being sent home for wearing sleeveless shirts that happened to show their bra strap. This is the one where I criticized Think Progress for drastically over sensationalizing a story.
At that particular school no students were allowed to wear sleeveless shirts. Even in the story, Think Progress mentions how males had been sent home as well for wearing sleeveless shirts. Though they mentioned that in only once brief sentence. The rest of the article went on some overboard rant about how this rule unfairly targeted females because more females had been sent home than males.
Here’s another fun fact: Females wear sleeveless shirts much more often than males.
How is it an unfair rule if males aren’t allowed to wear tank tops either? It seems Think Progress only felt it was unfair because females tend to wear sleeveless shirts more often than males.
Again, that’s not “shaming women” – that’s just called style.
Now if the rules were as such where males could wear sleeveless shirts but females couldn’t, or males could wear super short shorts but females couldn’t, then that is unfair and sexist. But that’s not the case with these rules. They’re enforced equally, bottom line.
And can we stop pretending that women never wear skimpy clothes to attract the attention of males? Come on. Have we gotten that politically correct?
But I don’t believe it’s unfair at all to say to students that your shorts need to be at least around mid-thigh and you’re not allowed to wear sleeveless shirts. Again, they’re at school.
School is a place where students are supposed to conduct themselves in a slightly professional manner. It’s also meant to prepare them for the real world and in the real word there are dress codes. And most important of all, as I said before, it’s meant to foster a positive learning environment.
But because I supported these very uncontroversial and extremely common dress codes I got called a sexist, a woman-hater and someone who’s helping to perpetuate the rape culture.
Forget the numerous times I’ve written articles defending women’s rights, condemning those who’ve tried to downplay the horrific act of rape or that I’ve strongly voiced my belief that women should have control over their own bodies. None of that matters.
All because I believe that students shouldn’t be allowed to wear extremely short shorts or sleeveless shirts to school – that makes me a supporter of the “rape culture” and a “woman-hater.”
Here’s a word of advice for these radical women’s rights activists: You do your cause a disservice by trying to take something as horrifying as rape and lump it in with something as ridiculous as student dress codes that for all intents and purposes are extremely reasonable. It’s like the boy who cried wolf.
You can’t yell, “It’s part of the rape culture!” every single time some issue involving men and women is brought up.
Then there’s the “PC police” types. These are the people who essentially find almost everything offensive. Basically they want a society where everyone better watch what they say or do because you never know who you just might offend.
This kind of attitude is derived from those who probably support giving trophies to everyone, ribbons for participation and not keeping score during sports games. Because heaven forbid we ask that people overcome adversity once in a while or learn to fail and pick themselves back up.
They seem to think it’s probably better to just pad the world so nobody scrapes a knee, remove any words that might even remotely offend someone from the dictionary and label anything on the planet that might possibly result in a feeling of anxiety or depression in someone.
Have you seen the movie Demolition Man? If you haven’t it’s a futuristic movie where people no longer have sex (procreation is done in a lab), cussing is illegal, bad food is banned and pretty much anything that might be remotely offensive is prohibited. That’s exactly the type of society I think some of these people want.
Now I’m not saying I’m insensitive. I’m really not. But there’s a line we face in this country between being progressively sensitive toward the feelings of others and essentially sensitizing our society to such an extent that someone dropping a pan in the kitchen can trigger a panic attack.
Learning how to overcome adversity is good for a society. If you don’t learn to do that, life is going to destroy you. I didn’t have an easy life at all. I overcame a lot in life to be where I am now. Now I’m not saying everyone can overcome what I did, but I at least think we owe it to our society to give people the chance to try – not shield and protect them from every little thing they might face in this world.
Now I’m sure this article offended some. I’m sure some read it, acted emotionally to it, and pretty much proved my point. A few might have read it and agreed with some points but disagreed with others, and that’s fine too. Heck some might even have agreed with everything I said.
My point is that just because we are passionate about some things doesn’t mean we can’t be objective about those things. I’m a liberal, and even the liberals who sometimes drive me crazy I’ll stand up for, but some liberals really need to learn to pick their battles.
It’s getting to a point where some are going from passionate activists fighting for a good cause to over sensationalized complainers who just want to go around judging anyone and everyone for everything that they do.
Those who made it this far, be sure to check out the comments section either on the article itself, or whatever Facebook page or Twitter account you might have gotten it from, to see how many people seem eager to prove my point.