This is the segment where I scour my favorite forums around the internet
and find some particularly interesting articles about current affairs
told in the words from some of my favorite human beings.
In this edition we have a fellow blogger who shows us the dangers of putting words in other people's mouths. She's even been kind enough to put it into an open letter for us. Hooray.
_____________________________________________________________________________
https://asexblogofonesown.wordpress.com/2015/01/02/an-open-letter-to-kaley-cuoco-who-has-been-a-bit-of-a-bellend/
_____________________________________________________________________________
Oh that's right, we're not going to call out Kaley Cuoco by sourcing facts. No, in this article we're just going to be an ignorant asshole throughout the whole thing; and trust me, I know how to do that. Just look at that narrow-minded view that if you don't have the same opinions as me then they're obviously worthless. You have the audacity to call Cuoco a 'bellend' for not having the same ideology as you, yet in the same sentence you glorify individuality in terms of gender. The fact that you're condemning another person for being an individual, yet promoting another form of individuality because you agree with it is just the pinnacle of hypocrisy. I just don't understand why you can't be respectful of her perfectly valid opinion. I'm pretty sure I'm right in saying the majority of the world's population aren't feminists and so Cuoco's views aren't exactly anything radical. She's just choosing to exercise her right of free speech, which is something I wish you didn't have to abuse.
According to you I am also a bellend for simply not being a feminist. I too share similar concerns to Cuoco along with many others, and so your decision to simply mock those perfectly reasonable observations is both moronic and ignorant. By your own logic she is a female who deserves rights and so shouldn't be slagged off by misguided bloggers like yourself because you dictate that thought process to be inferior to your own. Is it really Cuoco that's the bellend? Surely it's the person that believes the world's problems can be solved by equality; something that has only ever existed in the school of philosophy and is essentially impossible to implement without the destruction of civilization itself. Yet instead of countering Cuoco's argument by being reasonable you're going to simply try and win over your biased audience by taking her words completely out of context and at the same time promoting the least sustainable solution it's possible to conjure. Just look at what she does to a seemingly mundane and harmless interview.
The generalisation and sheer arrogance here is despicable. A huge matter is just glossed over because of course the author is always correct with her superior views, and it's not as if she needs to justify those views to her gullible audience anyway. She's also not very good at defining feminism; there are many humans out there who would like gender equality but aren't feminists because it has always been defined as the promotion of women's rights. Gender equality is just one goal of a much broader philosophy, and so the only thing our blogger defines is egalitarianism. The manipulation here is that she makes it seem like her way is the superior view, when in fact it is based on a misconception. The reality is quite the contrary as a person can agree with the values of something yet disagree with their methods entirely. I find myself in that situation with conservation. I think that we should be funding programmes that help the welfare of animals, yet I simply refuse to give a single penny to PETA who claim to have the same views as me, despite the love of wasting money on advertising and supporting domestic terrorism. Does that make me hate animals? I don't think so, yet apparently this blogger just jumps to the conclusion that Cuoco is against gender equality for not supporting one group of people.
We then go onto just another unnecessary and undeserved attack. At no point during the interview did Cuoco ever promote the idea of inequality, and if anything was recognising the many inspirational people who made her life what it is today. She never pretends to have faced inequality and so I find this personal attack rather a disgusting tactic as it seems more out of spite than anything else. We then go onto fail at defining something else, again. This time it's dystopian literature, something which empathy has no role in creating. A dystopian society is caused by the abuse of power and social pressures affecting society, and so the fact that our blogger gets that mixed up with reality is a little concerning. Just because empathy was a key element in one juvenile novel doesn't mean it becomes a convention throughout the whole genre. I guess that's a pretty similar issue to your views on the broad subject of feminism, yet apparently it's Cuoco that's the uneducated one.
As far as I'm aware Cuoco makes an entirely relevant point here that because she has never experienced this issue she cannot relate to it. You put her in a catch 22 here as whatever her response is you're still going to attack her for being middle class, or at least you should do if you're being consistent. It's all very well caring about something, but then acting on that is something entirely different. I don't know if our blogger's goal is to convert Cuoco into some sort of fanatic, but my money would be on this article just being noble words to boost her own ego. Of course you would never get that attitude from someone who has the audacity to call someone "insufferably insular" yet exclaim earlier on that "if you refuse to call yourself a feminist, then you are being a bellend." Right, because that's not hypocritical at all. Insulting Cuoco when if anything you're even worse is just proof of what a deluded person you really are. At least Cuoco acknowledges other opinions and has the sense to see them from a relatively neutral perspective. You on the other hand can't help yourself from having a little pop at someone because their opinion is worthless compared to yours.
Now I don't have a problem with the first paragraph, if anything it raises a fair point, but the second I do. It seems to me that you're trying to dictate Cuoco's life and how she should see the world. I don't know if you remember banging on about dystopian literature earlier, but in case you didn't this is how they're created. So for you to dictate a woman's life based on that is, what's the word I'm looking for? Oh yes, insular. It's especially insular considering you're picking that up from a single word taken completely out of context. 'Serving' is a word with multiple connotations, and so you criticizing her for using it seems absurd when at no point does it read like she's being abused. An example of this would be how Christians believe they serve god. Does that mean they feel god physically abuses them? No of course it doesn't, 'pet'.
The final message is a plea for Cuoco to educate herself with a singular book; although if you can change a person's perspective on feminism through a single book then it doesn't suggest that the philosophy is very strong. But you see I'd like to think I have been educated, at least enough to know what a dystopia is. For that reason I would like to recommend our little blogger to read a singular book, because obviously that's how easily her mind can be influenced. Instead of your usual 'Hunger Games', which is essentially a children's book, I will implore you to read the epic 'Atlas Shrugged', and that's all 1168 pages of it. Now that's a book about equality, and well you never know, it might make you a less insular person. It might even stop you in future from jumping to conclusions and putting words in other people's mouths, especially when in the process you become the biggest hypocrite on the internet. As far as I'm concerned Cuoco is allowed to have her opinions, and they certainly shouldn't be slagged off by some patronising, misleading and parochial bellend such as yourself.
No comments:
Post a Comment